PDA

View Full Version : Top 10 Signs of an Impending Police State


stefan segal
02-26-2007, 10:14 AM
http://www.friendsofliberty.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2934

Top 10 Signs of an Impending Police State



By Allan Uthman
May 26, 2006,
http://www.alternet.org/story/36553/


Is the U.S. becoming a police state? Here are the top 10 signs that it may well be the case.


1. The Internet Clampdown

One saving grace of alternative media in this age of unfettered corporate conglomeration has been the internet. While the masses are spoon-fed predigested news on TV and in mainstream print publications, the truth-seeking individual still has access to a broad array of investigative reporting and political opinion via the world-wide web. Of course, it was only a matter of time before the government moved to patch up this crack in the sky.


Attempts to regulate and filter internet content are intensifying lately, coming both from telecommunications corporations (who are gearing up to pass legislation transferring ownership and regulation of the internet to themselves), and the Pentagon (which issued an "Information Operations Roadmap" in 2003, signed by Donald Rumsfeld, which outlines tactics such as network attacks and acknowledges, without suggesting a remedy, that US propaganda planted in other countries has easily found its way to Americans via the internet). One obvious tactic clearing the way for stifling regulation of internet content is the growing media frenzy over child pornography and "internet predators," which will surely lead to legislation that by far exceeds in its purview what is needed to fight such threats.


2. "The Long War"
This little piece of clumsy marketing died off quickly, but it gave away what many already suspected: the War on Terror will never end, nor is it meant to end. It is designed to be perpetual. As with the War on Drugs, it outlines a goal that can never be fully attained -- as long as there are pissed off people and explosives. The Long War will eternally justify what are ostensibly temporary measures: suspension of civil liberties, military expansion, domestic spying, massive deficit spending and the like. This short-lived moniker told us all, "get used to it. Things aren't going to change any time soon."


3. The USA PATRIOT Act
Did anyone really think this was going to be temporary? Yes, this disgusting power grab gives the government the right to sneak into your house, look through all your stuff and not tell you about it for weeks on a rubber stamp warrant. Yes, they can look at your medical records and library selections. Yes, they can pass along any information they find without probable cause for purposes of prosecution. No, they're not going to take it back, ever.


4. Prison Camps
This last January the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million to build detention centers in the United States, for the purpose of unspecified "new programs." Of course, the obvious first guess would be that these new programs might involve rounding up Muslims or political dissenters -- I mean, obviously detention facilities are there to hold somebody. I wish I had more to tell you about this, but it's, you know... secret.


5. Touchscreen Voting Machines
Despite clear, copious evidence that these nefarious contraptions are built to be tampered with, they continue to spread and dominate the voting landscape, thanks to Bush's "Help America Vote Act," the exploitation of corrupt elections officials, and the general public's enduring cluelessness.
In Utah, Emery County Elections Director Bruce Funk witnessed security testing by an outside firm on Diebold voting machines which showed them to be a security risk. But his warnings fell on deaf ears. Instead Diebold attorneys were flown to Emery County on the governor's airplane to squelch the story. Funk was fired. In Florida, Leon County Supervisor of Elections Ion Sancho discovered an alarming security flaw in their Diebold system at the end of last year. Rather than fix the flaw, Diebold refused to fulfill its contract. Both of the other two touchscreen voting machine vendors, Sequoia and ES&S, now refuse to do business with Sancho, who is required by HAVA to implement a touchscreen system and will be sued by his own state if he doesn't. Diebold is said to be pressuring for Sancho's ouster before it will resume servicing the county.
Stories like these and much worse abound, and yet TV news outlets have done less coverage of the new era of elections fraud than even 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is possibly the most important story of this century, but nobody seems to give a damn. As long as this issue is ignored, real American democracy will remain an illusion. The midterm elections will be an interesting test of the public's continuing gullibility about voting integrity, especially if the Democrats don't win substantial gains, as they almost surely will if everything is kosher.


Bush just suggested that his brother Jeb would make a good president. We really need to fix this problem soon.


6. Signing Statements
Bush has famously never vetoed a bill. This is because he prefers to simply nullify laws he doesn't like with "signing statements." Bush has issued over 700 such statements, twice as many as all previous presidents combined. A few examples of recently passed laws and their corresponding dismissals, courtesy of the Boston Globe:
--Dec. 30, 2005: US interrogators cannot torture prisoners or otherwise subject them to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
--Dec. 30, 2005: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.
--Dec. 23, 2004: Forbids US troops in Colombia from participating in any combat against rebels, except in cases of self-defense. Caps the number of US troops allowed in Colombia at 800.
Bush's signing statement: Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law ''as advisory in nature."
Essentially, this administration is bypassing the judiciary and deciding for itself whether laws are constitutional or not. Somehow, I don't see the new Supreme Court lineup having much of a problem with that, though. So no matter what laws congress passes, Bush will simply choose to ignore the ones he doesn't care for. It's much quieter than a veto, and can't be overridden by a two-thirds majority. It's also totally absurd.


7. Warrantless Wiretapping
Amazingly, the GOP sees this issue as a plus for them. How can this be? What are you, stupid? You find out the government is listening to the phone calls of US citizens, without even the weakest of judicial oversight and you think that's okay? Come on -- if you know anything about history, you know that no government can be trusted to handle something like this responsibly. One day they're listening for Osama, and the next they're listening in on Howard Dean.


Think about it: this administration hates unauthorized leaks. With no judicial oversight, why on earth wouldn't they eavesdrop on, say, Seymour Hersh, to figure out who's spilling the beans? It's a no-brainer. Speaking of which, it bears repeating: terrorists already knew we would try to spy on them. They don't care if we have a warrant or not. But you should.


8. Free Speech Zones
I know it's old news, but... come on, are they fucking serious?


9. High-ranking Whistleblowers
Army Generals. Top-level CIA officials. NSA operatives. White House cabinet members. These are the kind of people that Republicans fantasize about being, and whose judgment they usually respect. But for some reason, when these people resign in protest and criticize the Bush administration en masse, they are cast as traitorous, anti-American publicity hounds. Ridiculous. The fact is, when people who kill, spy and deceive for a living tell you that the White House has gone too far, you had damn well better pay attention. We all know most of these people are staunch Republicans. If the entire military except for the two guys the Pentagon put in front of the press wants Rumsfeld out, why on earth wouldn't you listen?


10. The CIA Shakeup
Was Porter Goss fired because he was resisting the efforts of Rumsfeld or Negroponte? No. These appointments all come from the same guys, and they wouldn't be nominated if they weren't on board all the way. Goss was probably canned so abruptly due to a scandal involving a crooked defense contractor, his hand-picked third-in-command, the Watergate hotel and some hookers.


If Bush's nominee for CIA chief, Air Force General Michael Hayden, is confirmed, that will put every spy program in Washington under military control. Hayden, who oversaw the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and is clearly down with the program. That program? To weaken and dismantle or at least neuter the CIA. Despite its best efforts to blame the CIA for "intelligence errors" leading to the Iraq war, the picture has clearly emerged -- through extensive CIA leaks -- that the White House's analysis of Saddam's destructive capacity was not shared by the Agency. This has proved to be a real pain in the ass for Bush and the gang.


Who'd have thought that career spooks would have moral qualms about deceiving the American people? And what is a president to do about it? Simple: make the critical agents leave, and fill their slots with Bush/Cheney loyalists. Then again, why not simply replace the entire organization? That is essentially what both Rumsfeld at the DoD and newly minted Director of National Intelligence John are doing -- they want to move intelligence analysis into the hands of people that they can control, so the next time they lie about an "imminent threat" nobody's going to tell. And the press is applauding the move as a "necessary reform."

kres24GT
02-26-2007, 10:30 AM
The police state is definitely on its way, its just a matter of whose idea of the perfect society is forced upon us through government might.

exarmyranger
02-26-2007, 06:26 PM
The police state is definitely on its way, its just a matter of whose idea of the perfect society is forced upon us through government might.:readpaper: Rosenberg's book supplied Adolf Hitler with the spurious philosophical,and scientific basis for the Nazi doctrines.In the early days Hitler made use of Brownshirts,commanded by one Ernst Roehm,as Bodyguards,and soon used them to break-up rival political meeting's.A short time later they(Brownshirts)were absorbed into the SS.Find any compairisims?:doh:

kres24GT
02-26-2007, 06:35 PM
We have already dismissed the Constitution as a hindrance to governing, instead of a guide. Our politicians have decided to legislate as they see fit, whether they have the authority to or not and then use the police power of government to enforce them.

Europe has already started with the speech police, and we have local government concsidering speech police as well. It won't be long before these become national issues. Consider how any political speech today is classified as either "treasonous" or "hateful" in an attempt to to say that all speech should not be allowed. Depending on who is in power, we will eventually start censoring more and more speech.

We are already told by government what we can eat, what we can drink, and what medicines we can take. If we refuse to comply with these restrictions we can be arrested.


The police state is coming, one could argue it's already here. Meanwhile the sheep sit back and ignore it.

Caskey_91
02-26-2007, 07:52 PM
We have already dismissed the Constitution as a hindrance to governing, instead of a guide. Our politicians have decided to legislate as they see fit, whether they have the authority to or not and then use the police power of government to enforce them.

Europe has already started with the speech police, and we have local government concsidering speech police as well. It won't be long before these become national issues. Consider how any political speech today is classified as either "treasonous" or "hateful" in an attempt to to say that all speech should not be allowed. Depending on who is in power, we will eventually start censoring more and more speech.

We are already told by government what we can eat, what we can drink, and what medicines we can take. If we refuse to comply with these restrictions we can be arrested.


The police state is coming, one could argue it's already here. Meanwhile the sheep sit back and ignore it.

Show me where the government tells us what we can eat, what medicines we take, and what we can drink. Please i'd like to know. (Note the sarcasm).

I do agree though that our government is taking way to much power and is turning into a police state under Mr. Bush. It's a shame that it is happening and hopefully one day someone will wake up and stop it.

exarmyranger
02-26-2007, 08:05 PM
Yep kres,the spineless,err...sheep will lay with the lions...but the meek are'nt going to have much of a world (if any)to inheirit,if the sheep just lay around do nothing and wait to see how long it takes untill the lions get hungry enough to eat muttin...ex.

kres24GT
02-27-2007, 09:23 AM
Show me where the government tells us what we can eat, what medicines we take, and what we can drink. Please i'd like to know. (Note the sarcasm).

I do agree though that our government is taking way to much power and is turning into a police state under Mr. Bush. It's a shame that it is happening and hopefully one day someone will wake up and stop it.


Here's a start...

www.fda.gov


We will replace Bush with another big government, anti-freedom politician. America will not vote for anyone but.

stefan segal
02-27-2007, 11:33 AM
Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State

By Mike Whitney


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17190.htm

Operation Falcon: Blueprint for removing dissidents and political rivals

The Bush administration has carried out three massive sweeps in the last two years, rolling up more than 30,000 minor crooks and criminals, without as much as a whimper of protest from the public.

Operation Falcon is the clearest indication yet that the Bush administration is fine-tuning its shock-troops so it can roll up tens of thousands of people at a moment’s notice and toss them into the newly-built Halliburton detention centers. This should be a red flag for anyone who cares at all about human rights, civil liberties, or simply saving his own skin.

Operation Falcon was allegedly the brainchild of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his counterpart in the US Marshal's office, (Director) Ben Reyna. But its roots go much deeper into the nexus of right-wing Washington think tanks where fantasies of autocratic government have a long history. The name, Falcon, is an acronym for “Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally.” It relates to the more than 960 state, local and federal agencies which are directly involved in the administration’s expansive criminal dragnets.

Typically, law enforcement agencies are protective of their own turf and wary of outside intervention. The Falcon program overrides these concerns by streamlining the information-sharing processes and setting up a chain-of-command structure that radiates from the Justice Department. This removes many of the traditional obstacles to agency interface. It also relocates the levers of power in Washington where thy can be manned by members of the Bush administration.

Dictatorships require strong centralized authority and the Falcon program is a logical corollary of that ambition. It creates new inroads for Bush to assume greater control over the nationwide police-state apparatus. That alone should be sufficient reason for alarm.

The first Operation Falcon took place during the week of April 4 to April 10, 2005. According to the US Marshal’s official website, “The emphasis centered on gang related crimes, homicides, crimes involving use of a weapon, crimes against children and the elderly, crimes involving sexual assaults, organized crime and drug related fugitives, and other crimes of violence.” More than 10,000 criminal suspects were arrested in a matter of days. It was the largest criminal sweep in the nation’s history and, according to U.S. Marshall chief Ben Reyna, “produced the largest number of arrests ever recorded during a single initiative.” The Washington Times noted, “The sweep was a virtual clearinghouse for warrants on drug, gang, gun and sex-offender suspects nationwide.”

The emphasis was clearly on quantity not quality.

kres24GT
02-27-2007, 12:28 PM
So stefan, are you insinuating Bush won't step down in less than 2 years?
Are you worried about him doing what Clinton did?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28066


Seriously though, I understand that you hate Bush, but the police state isn't just a Bush thing. Most all of our politicians are looking to have government control of everything and supreme power. I could see us having a dictator in the next 20 years or so, but I doubt it will be Bush.

stefan segal
02-27-2007, 01:04 PM
kres...you can't be serious !!!!!

Stefan

kres24GT
02-27-2007, 01:12 PM
kres...you can't be serious !!!!!

Stefan


About which part?

Caskey_91
02-28-2007, 02:31 AM
Here's a start...

www.fda.gov


We will replace Bush with another big government, anti-freedom politician. America will not vote for anyone but.

HAHA ver funny. I know that you will shoot this down like therese no tommorow, but the FDA doesn't dictate what we can and can't eat. Yes it does dictate what can be sold on the market due to health reasons. That's a bit of an extreme your going by there.

Caskey_91
02-28-2007, 02:34 AM
Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State

By Mike Whitney


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17190.htm

Operation Falcon: Blueprint for removing dissidents and political rivals

The Bush administration has carried out three massive sweeps in the last two years, rolling up more than 30,000 minor crooks and criminals, without as much as a whimper of protest from the public.

Operation Falcon is the clearest indication yet that the Bush administration is fine-tuning its shock-troops so it can roll up tens of thousands of people at a moment’s notice and toss them into the newly-built Halliburton detention centers. This should be a red flag for anyone who cares at all about human rights, civil liberties, or simply saving his own skin.

Operation Falcon was allegedly the brainchild of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his counterpart in the US Marshal's office, (Director) Ben Reyna. But its roots go much deeper into the nexus of right-wing Washington think tanks where fantasies of autocratic government have a long history. The name, Falcon, is an acronym for “Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally.” It relates to the more than 960 state, local and federal agencies which are directly involved in the administration’s expansive criminal dragnets.

Typically, law enforcement agencies are protective of their own turf and wary of outside intervention. The Falcon program overrides these concerns by streamlining the information-sharing processes and setting up a chain-of-command structure that radiates from the Justice Department. This removes many of the traditional obstacles to agency interface. It also relocates the levers of power in Washington where thy can be manned by members of the Bush administration.

Dictatorships require strong centralized authority and the Falcon program is a logical corollary of that ambition. It creates new inroads for Bush to assume greater control over the nationwide police-state apparatus. That alone should be sufficient reason for alarm.

The first Operation Falcon took place during the week of April 4 to April 10, 2005. According to the US Marshal’s official website, “The emphasis centered on gang related crimes, homicides, crimes involving use of a weapon, crimes against children and the elderly, crimes involving sexual assaults, organized crime and drug related fugitives, and other crimes of violence.” More than 10,000 criminal suspects were arrested in a matter of days. It was the largest criminal sweep in the nation’s history and, according to U.S. Marshall chief Ben Reyna, “produced the largest number of arrests ever recorded during a single initiative.” The Washington Times noted, “The sweep was a virtual clearinghouse for warrants on drug, gang, gun and sex-offender suspects nationwide.”

The emphasis was clearly on quantity not quality.

God damn and next thing ya know they'll sit their and knock on your door and take ya, due to bein a "suspected terrorist or something along those lines.

This is sad.

kres24GT
02-28-2007, 09:21 AM
HAHA ver funny. I know that you will shoot this down like therese no tommorow, but the FDA doesn't dictate what we can and can't eat. Yes it does dictate what can be sold on the market due to health reasons. That's a bit of an extreme your going by there.


I don't think so. It's regulating what we can eat. Drugs are another thing where government tells me what I can and cannot put into my body.

Caskey_91
03-01-2007, 07:33 AM
I don't think so. It's regulating what we can eat. Drugs are another thing where government tells me what I can and cannot put into my body.

So what your saying is that we should be able to put whatever we want in our body no matter what harmful effects that happen. The FDA keeps drug companies honest.

kres24GT
03-01-2007, 09:33 AM
So what your saying is that we should be able to put whatever we want in our body no matter what harmful effects that happen. The FDA keeps drug companies honest.

Of course we should be able to.

The FDA is nothing more than more unnecessary government dependence used to keep the masses stupid, lazy, and dependent on politicians. You really want a monopoly to be in charge of inspecting food and drugs?

exarmyranger
03-01-2007, 03:02 PM
Of course we should be able to.

The FDA is nothing more than more unnecessary government dependence used to keep the masses stupid, lazy, and dependent on politicians. You really want a monopoly to be in charge of inspecting food and drugs?
Want?:dunno: Why? You know somebody who want's to apply for the job? :lmao2: EX.

Caskey_91
03-01-2007, 04:36 PM
Of course we should be able to.

The FDA is nothing more than more unnecessary government dependence used to keep the masses stupid, lazy, and dependent on politicians. You really want a monopoly to be in charge of inspecting food and drugs?


Personally I find it nessecary. Due to the fact that during the pre-FDA times many new products where defunctunt or dangerous to health. Same thing along the food inspection area too. Get rid of these codes and such the meat packing industry would probobly fall back into what it once was in chicago, horrendous. Good thing your not in control.

kres24GT
03-01-2007, 05:50 PM
Personally I find it nessecary. Due to the fact that during the pre-FDA times many new products where defunctunt or dangerous to health. Same thing along the food inspection area too. Get rid of these codes and such the meat packing industry would probobly fall back into what it once was in chicago, horrendous. Good thing your not in control.


Only a complete moron would buy something that hasn't been inspected. The very fact you think we need government to tell us not to buy food that hasn't been properly inspected by a third party is scary, really shows the government dependence we have.

Which would you rather have inspect food, government who has no consequences because they have a monopoly on inspecting food, or a private company who would go out of business if they passed unsafe food items??? An obvious answer for me. When it comes down to it , always give me the one who has something to lose.

exarmyranger
03-01-2007, 07:38 PM
Personally I find it nessecary. Due to the fact that during the pre-FDA times many new products where defunctunt or dangerous to health. Same thing along the food inspection area too. Get rid of these codes and such the meat packing industry would probobly fall back into what it once was in chicago, horrendous. Good thing your not in control.
Uhuh,let me see...,you get that from a History book?The FDA approved a few stinker's,mostly (no perscription) medication's,and dietary supplement's...Similac,a soy based milk substitute for lactose intolerant baby's.The (original formula) Similac stayed on the shelves,for 18 months,after doctors,began to see infants born healthy,and normal,with the exception of being unable to absorb the nutrients,in milk.Whether mom's,or from milk formula.Not un-common,in babys up to 1yr...Infant lac.intol.duration; 3mo.to 6mo. Back in the dark ages(pre-FDA)people did'nt need a doctor to tell them thier baby was'nt able to handle milk products,they could tell thier kid did'nt get enough nutrients.Either by the fact that,less than a few minutes after feeding,WHEW...HONEY The baby needs changing...and the child is not gaining weight.my 1st born was L.I.The Doc.when I asked well,What can we feed her?she needs a Soy... Milk substitute.Ok doc. What do you recommend?"Similac"I bought a can read the label,and called my grandma,simil what?Boy get some Clear Kayro syrup Put a glob in the bottle pour hot water in with a couple drops a peanut oil.and give her that.WE Did worked fine.by the time she was 8mo.the news broke Similac test results reveal subnormal brain growth,due to soy milk formula!:banghead: ex

Caskey_91
03-01-2007, 09:16 PM
Uhuh,let me see...,you get that from a History book?The FDA approved a few stinker's,mostly (no perscription) medication's,and dietary supplement's...Similac,a soy based milk substitute for lactose intolerant baby's.The (original formula) Similac stayed on the shelves,for 18 months,after doctors,began to see infants born healthy,and normal,with the exception of being unable to absorb the nutrients,in milk.Whether mom's,or from milk formula.Not un-common,in babys up to 1yr...Infant lac.intol.duration; 3mo.to 6mo. Back in the dark ages(pre-FDA)people did'nt need a doctor to tell them thier baby was'nt able to handle milk products,they could tell thier kid did'nt get enough nutrients.Either by the fact that,less than a few minutes after feeding,WHEW...HONEY The baby needs changing...and the child is not gaining weight.my 1st born was L.I.The Doc.when I asked well,What can we feed her?she needs a Soy... Milk substitute.Ok doc. What do you recommend?"Similac"I bought a can read the label,and called my grandma,simil what?Boy get some Clear Kayro syrup Put a glob in the bottle pour hot water in with a couple drops a peanut oil.and give her that.WE Did worked fine.by the time she was 8mo.the news broke Similac test results reveal subnormal brain growth,due to soy milk formula!:banghead: ex

Now I do understand that the FDA's made many folly's in the past. But no one's perfect shit happens.

Caskey_91
03-01-2007, 09:21 PM
Only a complete moron would buy something that hasn't been inspected. The very fact you think we need government to tell us not to buy food that hasn't been properly inspected by a third party is scary, really shows the government dependence we have.

Which would you rather have inspect food, government who has no consequences because they have a monopoly on inspecting food, or a private company who would go out of business if they passed unsafe food items??? An obvious answer for me. When it comes down to it , always give me the one who has something to lose.

Why would a third company even want to do this? Hmmmm...lemme think. Okay got it:

The reason why would be say they make one small honest mistake suddenly their out of business via lawsuit, their thousands of employees are out of work . It would be catastrophic, and would really hurt some reputations. I cannot think of any company that would want to take on that burden so wa la the government takes care of it (FDA).

Kinky Jones
03-02-2007, 12:44 PM
1. The Internet Clampdown

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6163679.html

the clampdown just keeps getting worse :(

A second purpose of the meeting in Washington, D.C., according to the sources, was to ask Internet service providers how much it would cost to record details on their subscribers for two years. At the very least, the companies would be required to keep logs for police of which customer is assigned a specific Internet address.


Often invoking terrorism and child pornography as justifications, the administration has argued that Internet providers must install backdoors for surveillance and has called for routers to be redesigned for easier eavesdropping.

kres24GT
03-02-2007, 12:58 PM
Why would a third company even want to do this? Hmmmm...lemme think. Okay got it:

The reason why would be say they make one small honest mistake suddenly their out of business via lawsuit, their thousands of employees are out of work . It would be catastrophic, and would really hurt some reputations. I cannot think of any company that would want to take on that burden so wa la the government takes care of it (FDA).


Third party private industry inspectors already exist.

juggernaut
03-05-2007, 05:22 AM
Personally I find it nessecary. Due to the fact that during the pre-FDA times many new products where defunctunt or dangerous to health. Same thing along the food inspection area too. Get rid of these codes and such the meat packing industry would probobly fall back into what it once was in chicago, horrendous. Good thing your not in control.
Can't agree more. The FDA was created because people were selling just about everything with "coke" in it, claiming it fixed everthing. Which was causing a major drug dependant problem (much like today). The problem was, political leaders were going home and finding their wives wacked up on, coke. The drug problem was ok as long as it stayed in the lower class. Once it got into the upper and middle class it had to be stopped. There were no laws that could be enforced back then pertaining to food and drugs. If you wanted to make a quick buck, just put coke in something and you had an instant best seller. If it killed off a few 100 people, no one would hear about it. If they did most likely your company was long gone with the bag of money anyway. There has to be a locked door on things that the public consumes. Placing the key in the hands of a 3rd party company is not a smart idea. To many problems with corruption and the government would eventually take over the operation anyway.
Not everyone is a farmer. In todays world people of all nations just want to walk into a store an buy their food without thinking it could kill or harm them. There are mistakes that cause people to die or become ill but without the government regulating it those mistakes would go on and on for months. Once a problems is found and proven the item is removed from the stores as fast as possible. People seem to forget most of the time that it's your average guy working for the government. Your neighbor, friend or family. They are not going to work in the morning looking to harm the people of this country. People seem to look at the government as a whole and place everyone who works for them in this circle of mistrust. You think someone goes to work for the government and then gets taken into a secert room to be told they have now joined the "darkside" the 1st day of work? Most of the time when it comes to problems caused by food and drugs, they are innocent mistakes made by and average guy. The people managing those people do their job by placing trust in their workers. If I'm running a huge company and my employee tells me all is well. I have to trust them on that. If it blows up in my face, then that's one risk of management.
Hands down there is no other way to regulate this on anything less then a government level. Everyone would end up lossing their day jobs cause they have to spend to much time tending the garden and corral for next weeks meal and that would truly destroy this country. Every medium to large business would no longer be around and the economy would fall in the trash.
I for one love to eat fruits that are 20 days old. If not for those great chemicals I would only be able to eat them 3 or 4 days after they came off the vine and then I would have to spend more money to get more fruit. I think eating those chemicals will let me live longer. :)

kres24GT
03-05-2007, 09:22 AM
Can't agree more. The FDA was created because people were selling just about everything with "coke" in it, claiming it fixed everthing. Which was causing a major drug dependant problem (much like today). The problem was, political leaders were going home and finding their wives wacked up on, coke. The drug problem was ok as long as it stayed in the lower class. Once it got into the upper and middle class it had to be stopped. There were no laws that could be enforced back then pertaining to food and drugs. If you wanted to make a quick buck, just put coke in something and you had an instant best seller. If it killed off a few 100 people, no one would hear about it. If they did most likely your company was long gone with the bag of money anyway. There has to be a locked door on things that the public consumes. Placing the key in the hands of a 3rd party company is not a smart idea. To many problems with corruption and the government would eventually take over the operation anyway.
Not everyone is a farmer. In todays world people of all nations just want to walk into a store an buy their food without thinking it could kill or harm them. There are mistakes that cause people to die or become ill but without the government regulating it those mistakes would go on and on for months. Once a problems is found and proven the item is removed from the stores as fast as possible. People seem to forget most of the time that it's your average guy working for the government. Your neighbor, friend or family. They are not going to work in the morning looking to harm the people of this country. People seem to look at the government as a whole and place everyone who works for them in this circle of mistrust. You think someone goes to work for the government and then gets taken into a secert room to be told they have now joined the "darkside" the 1st day of work? Most of the time when it comes to problems caused by food and drugs, they are innocent mistakes made by and average guy. The people managing those people do their job by placing trust in their workers. If I'm running a huge company and my employee tells me all is well. I have to trust them on that. If it blows up in my face, then that's one risk of management.
Hands down there is no other way to regulate this on anything less then a government level. Everyone would end up lossing their day jobs cause they have to spend to much time tending the garden and corral for next weeks meal and that would truly destroy this country. Every medium to large business would no longer be around and the economy would fall in the trash.
I for one love to eat fruits that are 20 days old. If not for those great chemicals I would only be able to eat them 3 or 4 days after they came off the vine and then I would have to spend more money to get more fruit. I think eating those chemicals will let me live longer. :)


Nothing like corrupt, inefficient monopolistic government with no competition and no consequences, not to mention immune to lawsuits to inspect our food.


Jesus Christ.

juggernaut
03-05-2007, 11:13 AM
Nothing like corrupt, inefficient monopolistic government with no competition and no consequences, not to mention immune to lawsuits to inspect our food.


Jesus Christ.
And your idea is who does it? Name me 1 company that you honestly think has the resouces to get something like this done without being corruped ove time? It would have to be one that is not in bed with the government already. Your going to be hard challenged to find one. Cause all the little guy company will think after they get the contract is $$. Overtime those signs will get bigger.

Caskey_91
03-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Third party private industry inspectors already exist.

Okay name them plz because I certainly haven't heard of any.