Who knew the US Dept of Ed had their own SWAT team

[Squisher]

I don't think it's appropriate, hence the reason I knew there had to be more to the story. Making boomerang hilariously wrong yet again.

I guess I'm just not as smart as I used to be. People were saying that in the original story with the charge given it would have been an inappropriate use of force. You berated them for it, saying the story would change. The story did change, yet even with the change you agree with original posters that you berated that it was inappropriate. Now you stand vindicated, laughing at boomerang? Sounds like you find humor easily. :thumbsup:

 

[NoStateofMind]

I still fail to see how it required breaking down his door and holding the guy at gunpoint.

Fucking hell, the bankers that have shafted the US out of tens and hundreds of billions of dollars haven't gotten that kind of treatment.

No fucking shit. But you know what? Nothing will happen either. Too much money, too well connected and the people are too apathetic. So pathetic.

 

[First]

I guess I'm just not as smart as I used to be. People were saying that in the original story with the charge given it would have been an inappropriate use of force. You berated them for it, saying the story would change. The story did change, yet even with the change you agree with original posters that you berated that it was inappropriate. Now you stand vindicated, laughing at boomerang? Sounds like you find humor easily. :thumbsup:

You haven't read this story or people's posts in this thread very carefully, including mine.

 

[First]

Not mad at all. The evidence to back up your statement was out there when you made your post. The station that did the original reporting had already issued the results of their additional investigation.

Instead of doing the progressive name calling shtick, a simple Google search would have proved your assertion to be true. I question why you can't present your thoughts without calling people retards.

If a simple Google search would have revealed this clarifying information please explain your posts prior to my first one in this thread, where you took the original article at face value. When you fail to explain your posts adequately, you'll understand why I use the term tard (actually, I should have used the term partisan hack).

 

[woolfe9999]

Not mad at all. The evidence to back up your statement was out there when you made your post. The station that did the original reporting had already issued the results of their additional investigation.

Instead of doing the progressive name calling shtick, a simple Google search would have proved your assertion to be true. I question why you can't present your thoughts without calling people retards.

Fair enough. You shouldn't have been called retarded. The trouble I had in this thread is that I'm pretty sure just about every educated person knows that we don't have debtor's prisons in this country. Even the English got rid of theirs in the early 19th century. Yet people were crediting what was obviously a speculation on the part of the ex-husband (clearly the sole source for the article) as to the purpose of the raid, even though the article states that the DoE, the only party who knows the actual purpose of the raid, refused to comment because the investigation was ongoing.

All too often on this board people are ready to credit obvious nonsense when it suits them.

 

[drebo]

Why does the Federal government need this office with its own SWAT team to execute only 35-40 warrants per year? Seriously, couldn't we like make 2 Marshals responsible for that? I'm sure they'd have the time to execute at least one warrant every 10 days. Do we really need an entire fucking department for 40 warrants?

And, of course the guy's going to say it's not about the loans, even if it were. They've already lost enough face on this. This'll be swept under the rug and a gag order will be placed on any additional media coverage. We'll never hear about it again, regardless of what the real warrant was for. I mean, seriously, the guy's wife hadn't lived there for some time...did anyone even bother to "investigate" before they went in guns blazing?

This right here is the very fucking definition of a police state. It is NOT the federal government's place to provide armed domestic law enforcement. That's what local PDs are for. The federal government's job is to make sure local PDs do their job and to make sure that FOREIGN threats are contained.

 

[Perknose]

This right here is the very fucking definition of a police state. It is NOT the federal government's place to provide armed domestic law enforcement. That's what local PDs are for. The federal government's job is to make sure local PDs do their job and to make sure that FOREIGN threats are contained.

So you would immediately abolish the FBI?

What about the US Marshals Service? Abolish them, too?

And the Secret Service? They're armed, have broad police enforcement powers, and do far, far more than just protect the President. Do they go, to?

Have you ever tried to go to your local PD with an internet fraud complaint? How'd that work out for you?

 

[woolfe9999]

So you would immediately abolish the FBI?

What about the US Marshals Service? Abolish them, too?

And the Secret Service? They're armed, have broad police enforcement powers, and do far, far more than just protect the President. Do they go, to?

Have you ever tried to go to your local PD with an internet fraud complaint? How'd that work out for you?

He apparently either believes that there should be no federal criminal statutes, including those involving criminal activities across state or national borders, or he believes that state and local police should enforce federal criminal laws. I don't really understand why it's less of a police state if the Stockton police execute a warrant instead of the DoE but that's the best I can make of his argument.

There seems to be a possibly legit point here about the use of excessive resources for a search of this nature but it's getting clouded by the usual hyterical nonsense.

 

[Kadarin]

Sounds like it was a damned good thing he didn't have a gun in hand to defend himself, or they would have shot him with 50 or 60 rounds.

 

[boomerang]

Fair enough. You shouldn't have been called retarded. The trouble I had in this thread is that I'm pretty sure just about every educated person knows that we don't have debtor's prisons in this country. Even the English got rid of theirs in the early 19th century. Yet people were crediting what was obviously a speculation on the part of the ex-husband (clearly the sole source for the article) as to the purpose of the raid, even though the article states that the DoE, the only party who knows the actual purpose of the raid, refused to comment because the investigation was ongoing.

All too often on this board people are ready to credit obvious nonsense when it suits them.

Most people take what transpires here far too seriously. For the record, I never felt I personally was being called retarded and the truth is that I truly don't care what anyone does calls me. I just don't see the need for the name-calling. I don't see what it accomplishes. IMO, it just diminishes the argument an individual is making.

 

[boomerang]

If a simple Google search would have revealed this clarifying information please explain your posts prior to my first one in this thread, where you took the original article at face value. When you fail to explain your posts adequately, you'll understand why I use the term tard (actually, I should have used the term partisan hack).

Here's your explanation.

Post #3

Golly, this Obama administration is getting to be more and more like a Police state. I wonder if they'll be breaking down doors if you don't pay the fine, er, fee, er, tax for not subcribing to Obamacare?

This was a dig, a poke at the faithful. It worked evidently, but it should have just been ignored as there was no real substance to attack. When I started out with the word 'golly', that should have been a tip off. If I feel I have something to actually say, my posts are typically longer and they don't start out with 'golly'. BTW, I got the impression that RedChief 'got it' based on his comment in Post #4.
--------------------
Post #8

LOL!

A reply to Theb. I bolded the part of his post that I was responding to. This should have tipped people off that I wasn't concerned or torqued up about this situation. This was me having fun, having a laugh.
---------------------
Post #9

I know...he's a bad, bad man.

More fun. I've stated a number of times that I don't take this sub forum seriously. I don't find discussions over politics rewarding in a public forum. They certainly aren't fruitful and the anonymity certainly doesn't help. Few, if any minds are changed here. What we discuss here doesn't change policy in any way shape or form. Why so serious?
----------------------
Post#12

I see link is dead in the OP. Here's a vid.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/...d=982309687001

Self explanatory I would hope. To be taken at face value. Notice no additional commentary. There would have been more if this was an issue I was truly concerned about.

After typing this out I'm now wondering why I even bothered. Might as well post it. Here goes...

 

[Thump553]

Why does the Federal government need this office with its own SWAT team to execute only 35-40 warrants per year? Seriously, couldn't we like make 2 Marshals responsible for that? I'm sure they'd have the time to execute at least one warrant every 10 days. Do we really need an entire fucking department for 40 warrants?

And, of course the guy's going to say it's not about the loans, even if it were. They've already lost enough face on this. This'll be swept under the rug and a gag order will be placed on any additional media coverage. We'll never hear about it again, regardless of what the real warrant was for. I mean, seriously, the guy's wife hadn't lived there for some time...did anyone even bother to "investigate" before they went in guns blazing?

This right here is the very fucking definition of a police state. It is NOT the federal government's place to provide armed domestic law enforcement. That's what local PDs are for. The federal government's job is to make sure local PDs do their job and to make sure that FOREIGN threats are contained.

Are you claiming that the federal government has no authority to designate matters as federal crimes and/or that the federal government has no authority to take law enforcement action on federal crimes?

Under your rationale we would still have a segregated South with lynchings and an active KKK. That nightmare was broken by the enforcement of federal law when local authorities were adamantly resistant. Remember Governor George Wallace actually barring the school doors to black students? Nicely asking George Wallace and the rest of them to actually enforce the law would work only in an anarchist420 world.

Anyone who has much day to day contact with law enforcement will tell you the feds are generally at the top of the ladder as far as evenhandedness and professionalism goes.

 

[Corn]

Technically if Hubby was married to his ex-wife at the time she took out the student loan, ole Hubby may be wholly or partially liable for the debt.

Technically, you are a moron. Unless Hubby co-signed for these student loans, he has no liability at all regardless of his marriage status when they were taken.

 

[woolfe9999]

Technically, you are a moron. Unless Hubby co-signed for these student loans, he has no liability at all regardless of his marriage status when they were taken.

He'd have no liability to the creditor, correct, though in theory he had to account for half the loan in his part of marital assets when they divorced. CA being a community property state means he owns half the debt if it was taken out during the marriage, but his liability is to the spouse in a dissolution process, not to the creditor. I think that is what LL meant, but it isn't relevant here.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I know when I see a police car on my street the first thing I assume is that the government is out to get me.

 

[First]

Here's your explanation.

Post #3

This was a dig, a poke at the faithful. It worked evidently, but it should have just been ignored as there was no real substance to attack. When I started out with the word 'golly', that should have been a tip off. If I feel I have something to actually say, my posts are typically longer and they don't start out with 'golly'. BTW, I got the impression that RedChief 'got it' based on his comment in Post #4.
--------------------
Post #8

A reply to Theb. I bolded the part of his post that I was responding to. This should have tipped people off that I wasn't concerned or torqued up about this situation. This was me having fun, having a laugh.
---------------------
Post #9

More fun. I've stated a number of times that I don't take this sub forum seriously. I don't find discussions over politics rewarding in a public forum. They certainly aren't fruitful and the anonymity certainly doesn't help. Few, if any minds are changed here. What we discuss here doesn't change policy in any way shape or form. Why so serious?
----------------------
Post#12

Self explanatory I would hope. To be taken at face value. Notice no additional commentary. There would have been more if this was an issue I was truly concerned about.

After typing this out I'm now wondering why I even bothered. Might as well post it. Here goes...

I never responded to your posts until you started quoting mine, so you thinking this is being taken all that seriously doesn't hold much water. Of course, it's easier to pretend you were joking when, well, all your posts are pretty much the same so you potentially have "joking" as a trump card in any post. Transparent and sad (also funny). This is the Internet, "Golly" isn't much of an argument for being serious or not one way or the other.

 

[Doppel]

This is why people ought to think more before responding to hysterical news articles. Although SWAT sounds overkill on this to be sure yesterday the bloggers were going on about how don't pay your student loans the SWAT will kick down your door, when in fact it appears due to fraudulent activity, a rather important factor, hey?

 

[airdata]

pay your student loans people serious business.

If you haven't seen this, you should take 5 minutes and look at it. Basically, Sallie Mae loans out money, if you default, the government pays Sallie Mae the money.. so they get all their money. At that point, you owe the money to the government w\ no sort of statute of limitations on the loans.

And by this incident they're apparently willing to bust your door down, detain you, and search your house if you haven't paid the loans.


http://studentloancrisis.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/student-loan-scam-the-fast-road-to-debt-slavery/

 

[blackangst1]

pay your student loans people serious business.

If you haven't seen this, you should take 5 minutes and look at it. Basically, Sallie Mae loans out money, if you default, the government pays Sallie Mae the money.. so they get all their money. At that point, you owe the money to the government w\ no sort of statute of limitations on the loans.

And by this incident they're apparently willing to bust your door down, detain you, and search your house if you haven't paid the loans.


http://studentloancrisis.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/student-loan-scam-the-fast-road-to-debt-slavery/

You're still going with the original story?

the student load was NOT the reason for the police visit!

Wright said he later went to Stockton Mayor Ann Johnston and Stockton Police Department, but learned the city of Stockton had nothing to do with the search warrant.

U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. Hamilton would not say specifically why the raid took place except that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Hamilton said the search was not related to student loans in default as reported in the local media.