EPTIs the USA heading towards "Big Brother" Govt? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
| ||
|
Rah
United States973 Posts
On February 05 2013 20:02 HeatEXTEND wrote: I'm gonna go ahead and guess he's one of those guys that likes Starcraft and watches gomtv. Oh wow, I never realized before that you can judge everything about a person if you only know 2 details about their lives. Thanks for demonstrating this for us! | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:37 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Business Insider is a conspiracy nutjob website? The funny thing is, local police departments are having to do dry fire exercises due to ammo shortages. Meanwhile, a federal agency is sitting on over a billion rounds of ammunition. And the excuse is, they're buying in bulk to get a good deal? Again, read the article "all the firing in the above courses, and whatever else gets expended, requires about 15 million rounds of ammunition a year." That means their recent 750 million round order is enough for 50 years worth of training. Must have been one hell of a discount to buy 50 years worth of ammunition for training. No no, no, you must have missed the edit I deleted fairly quickly. I quickly googled "DHS and gun control," to find out who "they" could be. There were a lot of hits about how DHS is pro-gun control, but then I actually clicked on a few of them and found the wackos. I'm not disputing the article you posted. I'm asking you who "they" are. I'm not totally sure why DHS is buying so many bullets. Possibly they are required to because some congressman has a factory in his district and threw an amendment into some bill to make sure they had good business. (Yay, democracy!) Maybe some mid-level manager was given too much money and wants to spend it all so his budget doesn't get cut next year. (Yay, bureaucracy!) It is weird, but most weird things in life have a normal explanation. On February 06 2013 00:08 SpeaKEaSY wrote: And if there is a threat, then why are they so averse to allowing the public to be well armed? Now, who is the "they" that are opposed to an armed public you mentioned earlier? | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:38 Jibba wrote: Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead. Ugh, this can't be more wrong. First of all, the interest opportunity cost of buying 13 years worth of Iraqi war bullets for the department of homeland security will outweigh a price increase, even if it doubles or triples in price. Second of all, no agency, let alone the DHS can speculate and demand upfront money because they suspect a rise in prices. It simply doesn't work that way. | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
| ||
|
Loanshark
China3094 Posts
| ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~). But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie. ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ifxNU1cZNp8/UIf6hzbLanI/AAAAAAAAk0k/YHI8X5aCG4Q/s1600/bandeira-flag.jpg) Slavery is one of the most detestable things humans are capable of.. but that is not what this flag is about. . don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery. just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:38 Jibba wrote: Yes. If they're anticipating new laws that will drastically change the gun market, you lock up a huge supply before prices increase any further. Someone in the purchasing department is getting a promotion for thinking ahead. The new laws would change the gun market, not the ammunition market. Ammunition suppliers have already been ramping up production due to the numerous wars we're fighting, but even they were shocked by the sudden massive order from DHS that seemed to come out of nowhere. I mean come on, enough ammunition to train for 50 years, don't you think the market will have adjusted to provide for demand within that 50 year period? It costs money to store ammunition, so having over a billion rounds sit unused taking up space and requiring climate control may end up offsetting or even exceeding the savings. How many rounds would they have to buy before you felt it was excessive? 100 years? 200? On February 06 2013 01:46 TheFrankOne wrote: No no, no, you must have missed the edit I deleted fairly quickly. I quickly googled "DHS and gun control," to find out who "they" could be. There were a lot of hits about how DHS is pro-gun control, but then I actually clicked on a few of them and found the wackos. I'm not disputing the article you posted. I'm asking you who "they" are. I'm not totally sure why DHS is buying so many bullets. Possibly they are required to because some congressman has a factory in his district and threw an amendment into some bill to make sure they had good business. (Yay, democracy!) Maybe some mid-level manager was given too much money and wants to spend it all so his budget doesn't get cut next year. (Yay, bureaucracy!) It is weird, but most weird things in life have a normal explanation. Now, who is the "they" that are opposed to an armed public you mentioned earlier? Yeah my bad, I missed it initially, I reedited in response: [edit] The "they" I'm referring to are the politicians during that firearms hearing last week that kept asking "why do people NEED" a particular gun or a particular capacity of magazine. These guys are questioning why someone needs to hold more than 7 rounds of ammunition in their magazine, while a federal agency is buying over a billion rounds of ammunition... I don't even own/use a gun, so such disturbances in the ammo market have no direct effect on me, but I dislike the double standard that some people seem to have. When individuals stockpile ammunition (spending their own money), they are called tinfoil hatters and conspiracy theorists, but when a federal agency spends the people's money on enough ammo to last a decade in Iraq or half a century of firearms training, they are being prudent and you have some people saying promotions are in order. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
This means that the usa will look a bit more like europe, and that europe will become a bit more like the usa. They will probably meet somewhere in the middle. For the usa this means a bigger goverment and more goverment spending on social securitry, for europe this means a smaller goverment and less spending on social security. The way the markets work and operate will also converge, more regulation in the usa and less regulation in europe, to meet eachoter somewhere in the middle. This is a process wich is now taking place on a verry long timescale,you should think at least 25 years, possibly 50. There will be the natural fluctuations in this whole process, the usa will at times shrink there goverment and europe might at times expand it, the long term trend can not be counterd though and in the end, 50 years from now, the usa will have a bigger government then they have now. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:43 Velr wrote: If anything your on the path to an Oligarchy and not the classic form of boogieman totalitarian dictatorship. This. We're far more likely to be completely dominated by massive corporations due to the fucked up market regulations in this country than the government itself. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:48 sekritzzz wrote: Ugh, this can't be more wrong. First of all, the interest opportunity cost of buying 13 years worth of Iraqi war bullets for the department of homeland security will outweigh a price increase, even if it doubles or triples in price. Second of all, no agency, let alone the DHS can speculate and demand upfront money because they suspect a rise in prices. It simply doesn't work that way. What? Of course they do. They make purchasing decisions like any company, and in the case of military suppliers there's some contract established on some ppu. They 100% do forecasting on the price of goods and their future budgets. I don't understand if your argument simply boils down to reckless spending or because you think the US government is going to wage a war on its citizens (which we've just found out they don't need bullets for.) | ||
|
StateOfDelusion
18 Posts
Case in point: ' On February 06 2013 02:08 Stratos_speAr wrote: This. We're far more likely to be completely dominated by massive corporations due to the fucked up market regulations in this country than the government itself. The government gets corrupt and grants corporations unfair legal advantages and even direct subsidies from the public treasury. The solution? More government. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:54 QuanticHawk wrote: don't be obtuse. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war by any means, but it was absolutely a huge part of it and there's a damn good reason the the flag is associated with it. A major part of the south's anger over a big brother government was free states not wanting to respect a southerner's property—ie, his slaves—if he moved to a state that outlawed slavery. just because some naive 18 year old black kid doesn't know a bit of history doesnt mean change the flag's very intertwined history with slavery If you read the declarations of succession, "huge part" seems an understatement. Sure Georgia says something about tariffs but the overwhelming theme is the fugitive slave act and the bans on expanding slavery as we expanded to new territories in the West. Check the spoiler for their own words on the subject. + Show Spoiler + My personal favorite... Mississippi: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. Texas says: " She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association" South Carolina: "Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." Georgia: "Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice." http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina | ||
|
cLAN.Anax
United States2847 Posts
Consider entitlements too, such as Social Security, Medicare, and food stamps. In a sense, they may be considered bribes to the people. These handouts might be looked at as another form of control, as the government then knows very well how much one makes privately, which qualifies them for federal assistance, which in turn lets the government know how much they receive federally too. My final point may sound conspiratorial, but I suppose it is still a possibility. If the government increases regulation of privately-owned firearms, would one not imagine that the government would have a very accurate idea of which individuals and residences would pose the largest threat should the nation attempt to become a totalitarian regime? Would it not follow logically that the government would seek out those who could fight back against a tyrannical government first and render them incapable of defense? Basically, I agree that the government is attempting to acquire more control over its citizens through means of surveillance and the like, but I also suggest that it is acquiring additional power by appearing benevolent to the people: through withholding more income on certain individuals; through Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements; and through stricter gun control. And the latter worries me far more than the former. Now, what are some of the primary interests of government? To expand its power? To safeguard itself and its citizens? To control? What are the primary interests of citizens? To keep government power in check? To protect their rights and liberties? "Interests" aside, I believe it is the purpose of government to provide a general defense from perpetrators both foreign and domestic. Everything that that entails can be called into question, but everything that is not covered in the defense of the people should be criticized even more heavily before implementing. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:33 Barrin wrote: I know the South are unfortunately going to be the last states to legalize it (lots of religious communities down here)... Florida in particular, where I live (REPRESENT~). But you know what, the South had something to say about this "big brother" govt. and the more I learn about it the more I realize where my loyalties lie. + Show Spoiler + Slavery is one of the most detestable things humans are capable of.. but that is not what this flag is about. My favorite politician explains it as well as I could: + Show Spoiler + Let me be very clear: FUCK YOU Big Brother. Power and freedom to the states and the people. That's what I care about. Legalize it. What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from. The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone. Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin. | ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
 | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On February 06 2013 01:41 Barrin wrote: Some countries are going in that direction, and when that happens a lot of people really really want to deny it. Trust me, people who make these kinds of threads don't feel comfortable doing it, but mentioning so can hurt their credibility for those in denial (distinctly counter-productive). You're right, it's not totalitarian yet... so should we just shut up until it is? no offense but fuck what you just said You are just going so over the top. In fact this entire thread is full of people who are going over the top. Some stuff in the US is a bit draconic but a lot of it comes down to the Bush era and the reaction to the threat of global terrorism. Which is understandable...and you are not on a slope to a totalitarian government...you really aren't. I mean come on, England is so much more restrictive than your country...so so so much closer than your country to 'totalitarianism' in terms of the metrics you use. We are the leaders of CCTV everywhere. With the exception of the anti-terrorism laws, where the USA is insane (but we didn't have 9/11). But still, both our countries on the scale are like: Anarchy-------------------------USA---UK----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Totalitarian When the other end is occupied by countries that actually are close to or at totalitarianism (Cuba, China, Iran etc) | ||
|
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
On February 06 2013 02:31 Catch]22 wrote: Started reading it, then realized OP thought US was a totalitarian facist state because marijuana is illegal, hahahahaha. LMFAO I'm the OP and you made me laugh so hard with that comment xD xD Would be hilarious if that was true hahaha | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 06 2013 02:28 farvacola wrote: What a joke. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, especially when it comes to popular symbology and the actuality of this cultish love for state governments that Ron Paul neophytes seem to oh so enjoy. You may think that flag means something positive, but many, many people do not share that perspective. Just know who else waves that flag in pride. Furthermore, what have state governments done to impress you so? Is it the gobbling up of federal dollars only to cut their own education budgets, the general handling of money like children, or is it the publishing of state state history books that gloss over Andersonville? Is it the elimination of the teaching of evolution from science classrooms, the partisan seat swapping in the state senate and house in order to further cut public service budgets or the wonderful gerrymandering taking place around the country in predominantly Red states? I guess there's lots to pick from. The moment popular libertarianism realizes what makes Ron Paul a fucking idiot and Jon Huntsman a reasonable man is the moment that libertarianism actually stands a shot at having a positive impact on this country. In the meantime, go ahead and worship the pork barrel double dealer racist from the good city of Galveston, I'm sure that'll show big brother. If you can actually watch that piece of trash on covering up notions of racism with some Civil War romance novel, then you are already too far gone. Oh yeah, as a fan of marijuana legalization, I'd like to hereby declare that a vast majority of potheads like myself are not bigoted racists with a poor sense of history like Barrin. Some truth in this post. I don't get what's so great about state governments over federal government. If anything, states like Florida, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (oh fuck just throw the entire south in there) show us that state governments can be absolutely atrocious. If anything, the federal government would be far better at running those states than their own state legislatures, and Congress is practically useless at the moment. I mean really, let's take a second and look at some stats. 8 out of the 10 states with the lowest amount of high school graduates (percentage) are from the south. 8 out of the 10 unhealthiest states are from the south. ~8 out of the 10 states with the highest infant mortality rates are from the south. The south sees the overall highest crime rate in the country, with several of the most crime-ridden states and crime-ridden metro areas in the south. Southern states contribute far less to the federal budget, compared to what they take from the federal government. The first southern state to pop up on that list is Texas (9), Arkansas (12), North Carolina (15), and Georgia (18). That's 4 in the top 20 of contributors, and 1 in the top 10. The most well-off states? Almost all of them have more government spending in social services/education, almost all of them have higher taxes, and almost all of them have restrictions on firearms. And yet these southern states are the states that champion states' rights and libertarian values more than any other. State legislatures aren't magical figures that automatically do right by their residents. They are just as prone to being terrible organizations as the federal government, and several examples show us that some of them are. We need people to stop holding on to this ideal of states' rights as some kind of mystic, all-encompassing good, when plenty of states are managing themselves horribly. The federal government isn't some evil force that always does bad; some (many) things they do for the country are quite good. | ||
| ||
