Coolest Lockdown Ever.Follow

Today during school, we had a lockdown drill. Fot those of y'all who didn't live in the age of school shootings and angry divorced parents trying to steal thier kids back, a lockdown is basically where they lock all the classroom doors, put blinds on the windows, and have everyone sit under thier desks or in a corner.

Well, today, we had a lockdown drill. Everyone was quietly sitting under their desks, a few whipsering when all of a sudden there is this huge BANG at our classroom door. Like 4 girls scream and there is a lot of noise as the handle on the door jiggles. The door opens and by this time I'm freaking out wondering who the hell is opening the door.

Well it turns out to be a cop, who busts into the room, picks this kid out of the front row from under his desk, throws him on the ground and handcuffs him. All while this kid is struggling to get free with this big guy on top of him. The cop picks the kid up and leads him out of the room.

So people start to stand up and everyone has this absolutley dumbfounded look on thier face. We all sit back down at our tables, and I lean over to the guy next to me and say "What the hell was that all about?" he shakes his head and I look around, but everyone else is just kind of in a daze.

About 10 minutes pass and the teacher goes on with the lesson before the intercom beeps and a voice says:

"Thank you for cooperating in our drill. Some of you may have experienced a real lockdown. The students taken away voulenteered to take part in this, they are returning to class right now. Enjoy the rest of your day."

I found out later that about 10 classes had cops bust in and take a kid away.

All I can say is that was the coolest day of high school I've ever been to.

                                     ↓His opinion is ****.↓

Why did that that post remind me of Nuclear Air Raid drills back in the 60s and 70s?



Man, I love that song.

In Peru we used to have those to
a) prepare us for the change-of season earthquakes
and
b) prepare us for random Shining Path attacks.


/reminisce

Hehe. So traumatizing the kids is somehow helping them prepare for life?

Dunno. Just personally think that's taking it a bit too far.

Boy that's awesome. Did you get a Bush Jugend merit badge after displaying your ability to docilely accept whatever an authority figure tells you, or does that require dropping bombs on innocent people at some point?

Remeber fear is important. Frightened people will do almost anything you tell them to feel safer.

Been many shoointgs or kidnappings at your school lately?

Christ people are such suckers it's sickening.

I live on a military base and on 9/11, the entire base went on lockdown. I work off base and I get a phone call that the base is being sealed off and I need to be on the base before that happens. The schools on the base were closing down and the kids were being sent home. All buildings on the base were being cleared and sealed and all non-essential personnel were being told to leave.

And for security reasons, we were asked to stay inside at all times, if possible, so that the military security force didn't have to deal with non-emergency and non-security issues. So for the days the base schools stayed closed because of this, no kids were out on the playgrounds or playing outside. What a way to get out of school.

And every car was searched with the dogs and you were watched by security with loaded weapons during the search.

Holy crap, you mean those places actually exist?

I thought that was just something I saw in a movie once.

Afghanistan and Iraq are different. I don't think anyone has called from troop withdrawal in Afghanistan. In fact, I am not sure how others feel on this, but I always thought that there weren't enough troops in Afghanistan.

And I do hope you are joking about liberals wanting soldiers on every corner, heh.

yeah, after Braveheart my definition of mace had to revert back to the good ol' medievil days

Yeah. It might have been a bit weak. But it just galls me when Smash talks like it's the Bush Whitehouse that's playing on the public's fear of terror in order to enforce changes at home.

Fact is that *both* sides certainly use that fear to push their agenda. The difference is that the Conservative agenda is to focus most of our efforts outside the country, and the Liberal agenda is to focus most of our efforts *inside* the country.

Really. Which would you rather have? Soldiers make poor guards and police. That's a simple fact. That's why we have rules limiting their ability to act domestically. That's also why we've seen things like Abu Ghraib (which should just highlight the issue). But remember what the Dems were pushing for all along? They wanted us to expend federal resources to "make us safer" at home. Think. What do you *think* that means? More to the point, if you're using that as a counter to having our troops say in Iraq, then who do you think will be doing the "make us safer" bits?


While I was being a bit overdramatic, the point is a valid one. The argument that having our troops in Iraq isn't making us safer at home (which has been made many times by Liberal Democrats) implies that if those troops weren't in Iraq, they could be somewhere else "making us safer". While they don't ever say this, what that really means is spending federal resources to spy on people living in the US. To actively look for terrorists in the US. To apply greater search and seisure powers to federal forces acting in the US. To detain and question potential terrorists in the US.


That's the implied alternative. If you think the Patriot Act is bad under President Bush (who's mostly focused anti-terrorism work abroad), how much worse would it have been (and possibly other laws) under Kerry if he'd won and focused us domestically on terror protection? Heck. All the "F"s in that recent 9/11 commission report? Read specifically what recommendations they gave which weren't followed? Most of them are *not* federal level things. They are local security issues. Does your police and fire/resue departments use a combined frequency range and dispatch system? Do you have local anti-terrorist groups formed? How secure are local ports of entry? Many of these things are not controlled federally. To blame a federal level (White House) for those "F"s implies that we *should* do them at a federal level. Which means federal troops managing your local law enforcement. And federal troops guarding your city's port of entry. And federal fast response forces operating in every city in the place of local SWAT type teams.

That's what we call a police state. But that's what would be required to get all "A"s on the homeland security front. Think about that...

Yeah. It might have been a bit weak. But it just galls me when Smash talks like it's the Bush Whitehouse that's playing on the public's fear of terror in order to enforce changes at home.


Yeah that would be silly of me. Nothing like that is happening.


Fact is that *both* sides certainly use that fear to push their agenda. The difference is that the Conservative agenda is to focus most of our efforts outside the country, and the Liberal agenda is to focus most of our efforts *inside* the country.


Wow, that's a wonderfull statement. Patently false by an objective measure, but just charming. That the party who's *stated goals* are to lessen civil liberties is the party least likely to actually act on that goal. Charming.

If you get any better at denial of reality you may be able to run for Dog Catcher down there or something.


Really. Which would you rather have? Soldiers make poor guards and police. That's a simple fact. That's why we have rules limiting their ability to act domestically.


Guess that's why the Justice Department looked into suspending Passe Comitatus. Because they believe in acting abroad instead of domestically, right? Guess that explains their attack on Miranda, and the Patriot Act.


That's also why we've seen things like Abu Ghraib (which should just highlight the issue). But remember what the Dems were pushing for all along? They wanted us to expend federal resources to "make us safer" at home. Think. What do you *think* that means? More to the point, if you're using that as a counter to having our troops say in Iraq, then who do you think will be doing the "make us safer" bits?


Are you on crack? Is that it? Arbitrarily making sh[/b]it up really isn't a verry effective rhetorical technique, you know. I realize it's all you have, but still. Cut and paste something from TownHall or something at least, like you ussually do. Oh, I mean rephrase it so that you completely butcher and subvert the meaning of the propaganda in question like allways, because it's great schadenfrunde for the rest of us to se you fu[b]ck up the party line, but at least you'd have some sort of vague factual basis for your pathetic efforts here.

You know instead of "what do you think". Boy, compelling.


While I was being a bit overdramatic, the point is a valid one.


Um, no. Not close.


The argument that having our troops in Iraq isn't making us safer at home (which has been made many times by Liberal Democrats) implies that if those troops weren't in Iraq, they could be somewhere else "making us safer".


Sure it does. About as much as "we shouldn't lynch black people" implies that we should lynch white ones.

Again, very compelling...to a labotomy patient.

While they don't ever say this, what that really means is spending federal resources to spy on people living in the US. To actively look for terrorists in the US. To apply greater search and seisure powers to federal forces acting in the US. To detain and question potential terrorists in the US.


While Republicans don't ever say that they want to rape your children and the cut them up into bloody chunks and then smear the blon on their gentials and run around the White House singing "Zipitty Do Da", that's what 'war on terror' really means.

It's clearly implied. "War". on "Terror". Think about it, man. What else could it possibly mean?


That's the implied alternative. If you think the Patriot Act is bad under President Bush (who's mostly focused anti-terrorism work abroad), how much worse would it have been (and possibly other laws) under Kerry if he'd won and focused us domestically on terror protection? Heck. All the "F"s in that recent 9/11 commission report? Read specifically what recommendations they gave which weren't followed? Most of them are *not* federal level things. They are local security issues. Does your police and fire/resue departments use a combined frequency range and dispatch system? Do you have local anti-terrorist groups formed? How secure are local ports of entry? Many of these things are not controlled federally. To blame a federal level (White House) for those "F"s implies that we *should* do them at a federal level. Which means federal troops managing your local law enforcement. And federal troops guarding your city's port of entry. And federal fast response forces operating in every city in the place of local SWAT type teams.


You're really losing it I see. I can imagine it's the stress of everything you advocate for being proven a failure countless times, but really, man. You're getting into milita-man/aryian nations territory now. Next you'll be telling us it's all the Jews fault.


That's what we call a police state. But that's what would be required to get all "A"s on the homeland security front. Think about that...


So GOP failure makes us more free? Damn, I just don't know what to do with all this freedom then. Because, let me tell you, there sure is a LOT of it.

You're pathetic as allways. I can't believe I'm even posting this, but your arguments used to have a better logical foundation. I realize that's like saying getting punched in the balls is better than stabbed in the eye, but nevertheless. Why don't you compose yourself and google your way to somewhat better attempt.

Thanks.

Ahh I missed you two.

-Nagafen

Wow, that's really sad. When I was in high school in the early 80's, the scariest thing we had to deal with was a tornado. People didn't even bring knives to school for christsake.