MIAMI (Reuters) – Right-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting fears about the economy and the election of the first black U.S. president, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.
The April 7 report, which Reuters and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in "recruitment and radicalization activity" by white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been "largely rhetorical."
But it warned that home foreclosures, unemployment and other consequences of the economic recession "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists."
"To the extent that these factors persist, right-wing extremism is likely to grow in strength," DHS said.
The report warned that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with combat skills could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding jobs or fitting back into civilian society.
The department "is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities," the report said.
DHS spokeswoman Sara Kuban said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at "a greater understanding of violent radicalization in the U.S."
A similar assessment of left-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time.
"These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual," Kuban said.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.
The report said domestic right-wing terrorist groups grew during the economic recession of the early 1990s but subsided as the economy improved.
Government scrutiny disrupted violent plots following the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh which killed 168 people.
LONE WOLVES
"Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years," the report said.
The Internet has made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on bombs and weapons, it said.
Extremist groups are preying on fears that President Barack Obama, the first African American U.S. president, would restrict gun ownership, boost immigration and expand social programs for minorities, the report said.
It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Semitic sentiment with accusations that "a cabal of Jewish financial elites" had conspired to collapse the economy.
"This trend is likely to accelerate if the economy is perceived to worsen," the report said.
Joe the Plumber saying that members of Congress should be shot:
As well as Sean Hannity and how on his forum where members discussed how they needed to stock up on weapons for the will of god was denied and the country sold to the mafia as well as a Poll on which revolution was the best form. http://levellers.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/sean-hannity-advocates-treason/
Of course this doesn't leave out Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage etc.
As was during the Presidential election where at McCain/Palin rallies members of the audience would shout death threats concerning Obama.
And un-American congress:
Sure the Democrats are not new to the whole mind boggling conspiracy theories etc but this is on a whole new level these people such as at the rallies are still out there etc. All this paranoia and fanaticism concerning Obama and the government. I figure if something happens to the President of the United States it won't be to hard to find out who helped fan the flames.
all the fox news stuff has been pretty insane lately. All of the hardcore conservatives and wackjobs werent as popular during the clinton years (aside from rush.....ugh) so this is the first we get to see of them when they dont agree with the government wholeheartedly.
I disagree with fiscal conservatives, but they are at least intelligent people and you can talk to them. These neo-cons are fucking nuts imo.
its almost like it has nothing to do with the country anymore and everything to do with if your guy is in office or not. Its pretty disgusting. While I understand if your ideology is not in office you will probably will initially disagree with some decisions.....but this is getting mind boggling.
Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
It's like the fear of communists during the cold war, but backwards.
It used to be how the anti-communists (Americans) were deeply suspicious of much of left-wing philosophy. They railed against them as being communist while still ironically erecting such plans as being "American."
Now, we have left-wingers in power, and we fear "racism" and "terrorists" and "extremists."
Really, regardless of partisanship, government seems to always want to shut the opposing side up. Right-wing shuts up left wing through Red Scares, Left-wing shuts up right-wing through Race Scares.
That being said, 95% of anybody that appears on Fox News is clinically insane/retarded.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
Except that these "nutjobs" are leaders of the right-wing movement in the country. They aren't extremists on the fringe, they are the core.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
There was a story on reddit 2 weeks ago about a former pro-Nazi German who was in the Nazi Youth back in the 1930s/40s, and he, while watching Fox News for the first time recently, said that it was exactly like Nazi propaganda back in its heyday. I thought it was hyperbole and a made up story until I saw Glenn Beck and his emotional outbursts. Anybody remember the news-host guy from V from Vendetta? Glenn Beck is practically his double, lol, with the emotional outbursts and cries of being patriotic and only wanting to defend the virtues of the Constitution, etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
Except that these "nutjobs" are leaders of the right-wing movement in the country. They aren't extremists on the fringe, they are the core.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
There was a story on reddit 2 weeks ago about a former pro-Nazi German who was in the Nazi Youth back in the 1930s/40s, and he, while watching Fox News for the first time recently, said that it was exactly like Nazi propaganda back in its heyday. I thought it was hyperbole and a made up story until I saw Glenn Beck and his emotional outbursts. Anybody remember the news-host guy from V from Vendetta? Glenn Beck is practically his double, lol, with the emotional outbursts and cries of being patriotic and only wanting to defend the virtues of the Constitution, etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
Lol, it's not "right-wing" that we are, it's libertarianism (whom aren't left or right wing, we're more "up"). We hated Bush as much (if not more) than you did, mostly because he and his neoconservatism policies hijacked the liberty movement and twisted the ideas of individual liberty and free markets into "hating us for our freedoms" and bailouts. If anything, Obama is continuing those very same policies, despite all his claims of "change." But what worries us about Obama is that while people despised Bush as he enacted these policies that a libertarian like me would STRONGLY disapprove of, Obama has a very high approval rating and is maintaining these very same policies. This worries us, as the "cult of personality" and the "honeymoon period" has allowed some very damaging legislation to be passed that could threaten one's livelihood.
meh...this thread seems uninteresting. You quote a bunch of non-politicians (aka, people who need to make news and get attention to make money...and we all know that controversy brings news) right after a political defeat and try to say that what we see is some sort of permanent radical shift of 1 half of the political spectrum.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Most of what you showed isn't really "right wing extremism", its nut jobs you could find anywhere. Secessionist movements (in general) aren't violent, and they certainly aren't threatening to anyone but those that enjoy a great deal of political power. Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
An article that espouses the views and reasonings for the current secessionist movements can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo170.html Unlike most of what you posted, the articles on lewrockwell.com are well thought out and articulate. Much of the "right-wing extremists" are intellectual in nature, and the views are based off a strict moral framework.
The report from the DHS really just demonstrates that government agencies are being utilized by the party in power to threaten those not in power. The same thing happened under Bush, and its really quite disgusting.
Except that these "nutjobs" are leaders of the right-wing movement in the country. They aren't extremists on the fringe, they are the core.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
There was a story on reddit 2 weeks ago about a former pro-Nazi German who was in the Nazi Youth back in the 1930s/40s, and he, while watching Fox News for the first time recently, said that it was exactly like Nazi propaganda back in its heyday. I thought it was hyperbole and a made up story until I saw Glenn Beck and his emotional outbursts. Anybody remember the news-host guy from V from Vendetta? Glenn Beck is practically his double, lol, with the emotional outbursts and cries of being patriotic and only wanting to defend the virtues of the Constitution, etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
Lol, it's not "right-wing" that we are, it's libertarianism (whom aren't left or right wing, we're more "up"). We hated Bush as much (if not more) than you did, mostly because he and his neoconservatism policies hijacked the liberty movement and twisted the ideas of individual liberty and free markets into "hating us for our freedoms" and bailouts. If anything, Obama is continuing those very same policies, despite all his claims of "change." But what worries us about Obama is that while people despised Bush as he enacted these policies that a libertarian like me would STRONGLY disapprove of, Obama has a very high approval rating and is maintaining these very same policies. This worries us, as the "cult of personality" and the "honeymoon period" has allowed some very damaging legislation to be passed that could threaten one's livelihood.
Obama never ran on any sort of Libertarian platform, so he doesn't really aim towards the Constitutional-strict interpretation crowd. He is letting abortion and marriage go to state, which is more then Bush did, and is more Constitutional then bush. What Obama is doing, for better or worse, is putting the Economy in strict Federal hands. I haven't decided how I feel about this, it'll strengthen the US, but weaken stronger state economies like NY's to compensate for Michigans and Ohio's downfall, but that is what the union was about I suppose.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
EDIT: He mistyped but corrected it after this post
I didn't watch all your videos but I did read the transcript of this + Show Spoiler +
I believe the federal government has become oppressive. It’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion in the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affaris of our state.
Texans need to ask themselves a question. Do they side with those in Washington who are pursuing this unprecendented expansion of power, or do they believe in individual rights and responsibilities laid down in our foundational documents.
Where’re you gonna’ stand? With an ever-growing Washington bureaucracy, or are you going to stand with the people of this state who understand the importance of state’s rights.
Texans need to stand up. They need to be heard, because the state of affairs that we find ourselves in cannot continue indefinitely…
…We think it’s time to draw the line in the sand and tell Washington that no longer are we going to accept their oppressive hand in the state of Texas. That’s what this press conference, that’s what these Texans are standing up for. There is a point in time where you stand up and say enough is enough, and I think Americans, and Texans especially have reached that point.
and the only take home message I got from it was the guy was saying that Texans should resist the expansion of the federal government. Thats sort of a "duh" moment. Every conservative politician/activist says that and has for years.
You try to make it sound like he wants to secede or something. Is this the kind of distortion I can expect if I watch all your other videos, or is it the exception?
Where the hell is this country going?!
Apparently towards misinterpreting other people's statements to make a political point.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Its funny you say that cause I was under the impression that the liberals were the movement based on protesting. Starting with the Vietnam war, it has become a tradition.
Feminists, animal rights activists, anti-war protesters, militant environmentalists, even attacks/threats on churches who supported proposition 8, etc, etc. During the Bush years we never saw ANY protests now did we?
Also, take a look at any conservative university in the US (there are only like 3 total) and see if they protest more than Berkeley.
Its just funny to me to hear liberals complaining that conservatives protest too often.
EDIT: granted, part of this effect is probably explained by the fact that conservatives tend to be older than liberals. Young college students are the most likely to protest ANYTHING so its not surprising that you see more liberal protesters than conservative. At least you don't see Glen Beck and Sean Hannity and the other conservative entertainers walking around naked with signs promoting their agenda (*cough* PETA *cough*).
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Its funny you say that cause I was under the impression that the liberals were the movement based on protesting. Starting with the Vietnam war, it has become a tradition.
Feminists, animal rights activists, anti-war protesters, militant environmentalists, even attacks/threats on churches who supported proposition 8, etc, etc. During the Bush years we never saw ANY protests now did we?
Also, take a look at any conservative university in the US (there are only like 3 total) and see if they protest more than Berkeley.
Its just funny to me to hear liberals complaining that conservatives protest too often.
Well, I'm neither a Liberal nor a Conservative if you're done applying some sort of judgment based on such hostile text. I'm saying merely protesting in and of itself is not an issue. Its a free right. Code Pink is one of the stupidest organizations I've ever seen as far as a political protest group has gone. But that now is one of the few times in the past years where we've had both a Democratic Congress and President, and the 'conservatives' are lashing out at pretty asinine "Tea Bag Terror: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations At Congressional Offices" by the http://taxdayteaparty.com/ group is really just a tad overboard. The ideal is fine, being against taxing, but sending unknown bags to Congress offices is pretty silly.
Also if you want to get into a fight over protest groups, I'm pretty sure WestBoro Baptist church takes the cake(I hate PETA and Code Pink so I have no sense saying they're right, but they get their just desserts), and they label themselves as Republicans, even though we both know they really don't hold those beliefs.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
I'd consider regulation and commerce having a hold on Taxation, but that again is the rise to interpretations of the Constitution.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
I am thinking VERY seriously of making your first sentence my new quote. That post was brutal and poignant.
EDIT: Sorry, I finally decided to go with Winston Churchill instead.
At some point the republicain party has to change. They are playing to their base way to much. All these crazy fucking religulous nuts are NEVER going to vote democratic anyway. All they did with all this gay marriage/ stem cell research/abortion crap is push people in the center towards the democratic party because they look slightly less insane. There really is no place in both partys for fiscal conservatives anymore. People who want smaller goverment and low taxes are pretty much assed out. They wont split with the republican party because then you just have two smaller weaker partys. However they clearly have to retake control of the party and the neo cons have to go on the back burner for a while.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
I am thinking VERY seriously of making your first sentence my new quote. That post was brutal and poignant.
EDIT: Sorry, I finally decided to go with Winston Churchill instead.
Mister Churchill wasn't a fan of anything pertaining to forms of government. He definitely favored ultimate victory and a mob rule.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
On April 15 2009 16:07 Tyrant wrote: I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
And you sound like somebody who isn't quite grasping what cz wrote. He's pointing out that the very people who were quick to accuse anybody critical of official policy as un-American are now critical of the new administration themselves. It's pretty apparent to anybody whose native language is English that the second paragraph isn't expressing his personal opinion, but rather of the people he is accusing of hypocrisy. His closing statement is pretty much also throwing the words of right-wingers back in their face.
But since you're from South Korea and English probably isn't your native language, I suppose you can be forgiven
Out of line prolly, but I noticed there was only one non-north american that posted in this whole thread. Funny, because it means this situation concerns only maybe a half continent, if not less.
On April 15 2009 16:36 InToTheWannaB wrote: At some point the republicain party has to change. They are playing to their base way to much. All these crazy fucking religulous nuts are NEVER going to vote democratic anyway. All they did with all this gay marriage/ stem cell research/abortion crap is push people in the center towards the democratic party because they look slightly less insane. There really is no place in both partys for fiscal conservatives anymore. People who want smaller goverment and low taxes are pretty much assed out. They wont split with the republican party because then you just have two smaller weaker partys. However they clearly have to retake control of the party and the neo cons have to go on the back burner for a while.
Actually at least on gay marriage, the Republican stance is the mainstream American stance (that is Americans generally oppose gay marriage). So why aren't you arguing that the gay rights are pushing their moderates toward the right since they took the stance further from the center.
Also, being pro-life is hardly fringe:
As for stem cells, I agree that the GOP should drop that (except it should still be illegal to sell fetuses or stem cells just like it is illegal to sell organs). There is nothing inherently wrong with stem cells. People just hear the word and think that for some reason they don't quite understand, they are supposed to oppose it.
As for neocons (I take that to be those who want aggressive foreign policy), I also hope that they diminish and lose power.
EDIT: Also, note that neoconservative (although not a fixed definition) primarily refers to foreign policy and NOT domestic religious/traditional views. Traditional conservatives are fiscally conservative, pro-traditional family values, and otherwise socially conservative. Neocons are not defined by that.
"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. It espouses an interventionist approach to defend national interests. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."
"Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state."
Mister Churchill wasn't a fan of anything pertaining to forms of government. He definitely favored ultimate victory and a mob rule.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
That's because the average voter is just that -- average. Average people are (very) stupid and below average people are downright dangerous if given any resemblance of power.
Unfortunately that quote lends itself to some harsh extrapolation and therefore is retarded and merely showcases how stupid people would prefer to hold their hand out to make a living rather than put some effort into something that might create purpose and a sense of belonging through responsibility. It's rather strange that those who would claim to be disenfranchised are among the laziest and pitiful people in the world.
The neo-conservative movement was created by socialists who, because of the percieved failures of state control, argued that a new method for achieving the "common good" must be adopted.
Note, the neo-conservatives agree with "the left" that "the good of society" is the proper and good goal of government. So the difference between neo-cons and socialists are, basically:
(1) the place of moral education in society. The neo-cons argue, in many respects like Marx, that the populace at large needs a moral education. Most on the "left" don't like this -- at least not when its not their ideology. ---Please note that this view of moral education translates directly into a view on foreign policy -- that is, invasion of foreign countries is argued for on the basis of "teaching about the good" or "bringing freedom and democracy"
(2) The path to "the common good" -- the neo-cons simply argue that human nature was not as flexible as marx thought and as a result the most basic objection to socialism -- the incentive problem -- had to be given more weight.
And you sound like somebody who isn't quite grasping what cz wrote. He's pointing out that the very people who were quick to accuse anybody critical of official policy as un-American are now critical of the new administration themselves. It's pretty apparent to anybody whose native language is English that the second paragraph isn't expressing his personal opinion, but rather of the people he is accusing of hypocrisy. His closing statement is pretty much also throwing the words of right-wingers back in their face.
But since you're from South Korea and English probably isn't your native language, I suppose you can be forgiven
Oh, trust me -- I fully grasp his steaming rhetoric.
You're making this too easy on me. You really think that I didn't fully understand what he was saying before I posted? I'm sorry, but I thought about every word I typed and none of it was off the hip.
1. cz claims XYZ is partisan. 2. cz makes partisan statements. 3. cz inserts the pipe and begins sucking hard like it's the last cherry Slurpee on the planet.
On April 15 2009 18:05 D10 wrote: I have nothing against money.
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
Can you imagine if Colbert became the president after obamas second term ?
It seems to me that stupidity is self-destructive, not capitalism. We could imagine an entirely private market that, for reasons beyond altruism, was interested in developing the lives of the least wealthy. It seems to me that there are two reasons it is smart (and self-interested) for wealthy investors to funnel money to the poor.
(1) Funneling large amounts of investment would squelch much of the persausive power of marxist rhetoric by demonstrating that capitalism does not lead to labor for base substinence. (2) Happy, culturally developed workers contribute to a market in many more ways than disgrunteled, mindless laborers.
You're worried about "right wing extremism" when both the presidency and congress are decidedly left wing? Are you a moron or something? The election was less than 6 months ago. People voted them in. Your concerns are no different than people during the late 80's who were still concerned that America might turn communist.
Uh, yeah, he IS worried that conservatives who feel that the government is dominated by an opposing ideology will feel as if they need to take radical measures outside of the current system due to the fact that the current system doesnt' represent them or cater to their wants or needs. Shocker that one, eh?
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Fox News has nothing to do with libertarians. 99% of republican senators love spending and government intervention as much as 99% of democratic senators love spending and government intervention, but they only like it when it's for their agenda. It's a partisan topic, but both parties share the same ideology. It's politically advantageous for Jindal to say he's resisting government influence, because he only accepts 3.7 billion out of 3.8 billion government dollars offered.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no coverage of libertarians who truly believe in conservatism (or liberalism, as it should be known.) It's mind boggling, because Ron Paul is extremely entertaining, even if he is wrong.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in.
And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
On April 15 2009 19:08 Mortality wrote: You're worried about "right wing extremism" when both the presidency and congress are decidedly left wing?
I think the OP is just worried about someone shooting the president. After going to a speech by a director in the Secret Service, I'm a bit worried too. o.O
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in.
And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them.
But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion.
this reminds me of a religious crisis actually, something along the lines of millenarianism which had its moments during times of perceived crises. there is the impending fundamental disaster, and the accompanying feeling of living on the edge of crisis, complete with an understanding that only the chosen few could comprehend the true situation.
besides being hilarious, this 'movement' is surprisingly well received. i have only two complaints, given the low baseline expectations implicit in talking about american politics. these people seem less funny than ron paul, and the powerlessness of the popular media in challenging popular misconceptions.
serious analysis of the social effects of the administrative state is not an ideological matter, but retarded people quaking because of "Socialism" makes me think that the serious look at the situation is wasted here.
i see lots of people are equating liberty with the lack of visible government activity, but this identity is not replicated among political philosophers to nearly the same extent. the most relevant and clarifying argument for this situation can be found in g.a. cohen's line of thought, in 'if you are an egalitarian, how come you are so rich.' etc.
one little note on the media then
So why aren't you arguing that the gay rights are pushing their moderates toward the right since they took the stance further from the center.
because that would be morally disgusting, at least to people with sensible humane educations. the media happens to be from the background. the journalist ideal does have a moral compass, albeit a socially restrained one. it happens that gay rights is becoming one of these implicit moral high grounds like race. to dissent from this is not seen as merely having a different take, but a moral transgression and/or being a freak. you know this too, this is why arguing against gay rights etc are preferably done in cabals of likeminded people.
On April 15 2009 16:36 InToTheWannaB wrote: At some point the republicain party has to change. They are playing to their base way to much. All these crazy fucking religulous nuts are NEVER going to vote democratic anyway. All they did with all this gay marriage/ stem cell research/abortion crap is push people in the center towards the democratic party because they look slightly less insane. There really is no place in both partys for fiscal conservatives anymore. People who want smaller goverment and low taxes are pretty much assed out. They wont split with the republican party because then you just have two smaller weaker partys. However they clearly have to retake control of the party and the neo cons have to go on the back burner for a while.
Actually at least on gay marriage, the Republican stance is the mainstream American stance (that is Americans generally oppose gay marriage). So why aren't you arguing that the gay rights are pushing their moderates toward the right since they took the stance further from the center.
Also, being pro-life is hardly fringe:
As for stem cells, I agree that the GOP should drop that (except it should still be illegal to sell fetuses or stem cells just like it is illegal to sell organs). There is nothing inherently wrong with stem cells. People just hear the word and think that for some reason they don't quite understand, they are supposed to oppose it.
As for neocons (I take that to be those who want aggressive foreign policy), I also hope that they diminish and lose power.
EDIT: Also, note that neoconservative (although not a fixed definition) primarily refers to foreign policy and NOT domestic religious/traditional views. Traditional conservatives are fiscally conservative, pro-traditional family values, and otherwise socially conservative. Neocons are not defined by that.
"Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States. It espouses an interventionist approach to defend national interests. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes."
"Believing that America should "export democracy", that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives take a more idealist stance on foreign policy; adhere less to social conservatism; have a weaker dedication to the policy of minimal government; and in the past, have been more supportive of the welfare state."
Yeah i guess i did not think that threw . I guess that would push the center to the right lol. See I always thought of neo cons more as the christian coalition part of the republican party. The people that get their religion and politics mixed up.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in.
And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them.
But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion.
I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced. I have respect for the vast majority of people, even if I get annoyed at times. That said, I think direct democracy is just a few short steps away from anarchy and I can't imagine a society of individuals who act collectively without coercion. I don't think you mean to say collectively, because I agree with true liberalism that collectivism is dangerous and inevitably does involve coercion.
Humanity will never be ready for self governance, until we destroy 99% of the population and are left with one village. It's not a matter of being smart or dumb, it's because for the most part humans are rational actors in Bentham's sense of utilitarianism, not Mill's, and in that game every party will lose. We don't act that way all the time and I don't think it's right, but I do think it's how most people operate.
The point of my post was really that government has a place in the world because markets are exploitable and slow, and there needs to be something to fund that governance. The reason we first implemented a regular income tax (not to fund war) was with the Revenue Act of 1894, because we were dropping tariffs and they needed to offset the costs.
This is just going to lead to a super derailed discussion, and I hope it doesn't. D:
i see lots of people are equating liberty with the lack of visible government activity, but this identity is not replicated among political philosophers to nearly the same extent.
Maybe it's just my schooling, but I equate liberty to negative liberty and I think most Americans do as well. Positive liberty is more like determinism.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
6 of the 48 states that were around did not ratify the amendment. On the contrary, all 36 states of the Union at the time did ratify the vote, even a significant number of the states were effectively forced into it.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom.
Outrage over High Speed Rail as it could possibly be used to create a "sin train" via a non-existent earmark (as really, to right-wing extremists, what else would liberal High Speed Rail be used for?):
Might add more if I get bored. :p There are also a few that I know of without videos - things like some of my friends in South Carolina in the education field are about to lose their jobs due to nutjobs like Governor Mark Sanford rejecting stimulus money to cover the state's cuts from a budget shortfall. Educational organizations can sure run on 1980s funding levels and surely those laid off will find employment elsewhere in a state with over 10% unemployment. Always glad I got out of that crappy state.
However, I must add, I do think part of the reaction we are seeing is due to these people being unable to influence the course of this country anymore. They are frustrated by that and have yet to accept the change in their influence - and I think that their shows / protests against a legally elected government will die down over time as it sinks in.
Glenn Beck is insane and always has been. Nothing has changed on his show. Hannity just happened to get his own show (Colmes left) around the same time as the change in power, so it's expected he'd go hard right. Joe the Plumber is just some random guy getting too much press, and the anti-Obama speech at rallies was exaggerated.
The recession is having little effect on their behavior. The anti-tax protests are being caused by Obama's insane spending, which in turn is caused by the recession, so you could say indirectly that that's one thing the recession caused.
What Washington DC is doing in terms of multi-trillion dollar bailouts is extreme. Objecting to the Washington DC based extremism is called extremism by DC. HA!
The phenomenon happened during the Bush years. It's happening again in the Obama administration. It's the pattern for government will label its opponents.
Liberals founded America and fueled the British Empire. Of course we're talking about the old economic and social liberalism in which people look out for themselves and their families and the government does its best to safeguard the free market and preserve law and order while not infereing in anything. It's quite shocking to see ignorant people thinking liberals are socialist, pro abortion, anti war, vegan protestors. Any real liberal would take one look at them, laugh and tell them to go get a real job. Over time there has been a merging and redefining of doctrines in which the "leave everyone else alone" and "people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't bother me" from liberalism headed towards the 'left' while the "if they can't hack it let them starve" headed towards the 'right'. The ideas of small government, non interference and free trade found a home in neither group.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in.
And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them.
But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion.
I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced. I have respect for the vast majority of people, even if I get annoyed at times. That said, I think direct democracy is just a few short steps away from anarchy and I can't imagine a society of individuals who act collectively without coercion. I don't think you mean to say collectively, because I agree with true liberalism that collectivism is dangerous and inevitably does involve coercion.
Great post Jibba. I have 2 brief (undeveloped) points here...
1) I do think there is another very important role to government other than organising what the collective group of people that is society wants/ doing what is best for society. That other role is putting talented and experienced people in a position of control where their personal objectives are much more aligned with the objectives of society than a position where their personal objectives are their only objectives. Government provides an opportunity for entrepeneurs, militarymen, great thinkers, knowledgeable and powerful leader-types to give something directly related to their expertise to the country, whilst also advancing their personal goals. It's an institution designed for that...just look back to the days when politicians weren't even paid. The reason this is so useful is it helps to counter-balance the large amounts of capable, experienced people who are just in it for their own good, making as much money as possible with no intentions of helping society out.
2) As much as we can accept that people are usually quite level headed and cooperative, and regardless of intelligence they usually have good intentions at heart; don't you agree that allowing the whole of society to vote in everything that happens would most likely be disastrously slow in any situation? From where I stand, government is a great way to organise people into groups where they are educated, experienced and democratic enough to make good decisions quickly. The spread of personalities (conservative v progressive) is probably the same in a select medical care committee as it is in a group of people in the street.
The way I see it is allowing the doctor to do his work. The family of an injured person shouldn't get to vote on the way the doctor treats a patient. They can vote on the people who get to delegate who gets to decide who is on a committee to decide which doctors are allowed to operate or not; but that's pretty much as close as I would like the family to have control of the treatment of their loved one. I would tend to equate the profession of doctor to any number of professions of the people in government (which generally revolves around experience and competence), I think we should apply the same system to the average joe public voting on what government does.
I think the best thing we can do is keep our politicians straight and honest, but we should keep them there and keep them relatively powerful.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom.
On April 16 2009 02:05 Kwark wrote: Liberals founded America and fueled the British Empire. Of course we're talking about the old economic and social liberalism in which people look out for themselves and their families and the government does its best to safeguard the free market and preserve law and order while not infereing in anything. It's quite shocking to see ignorant people thinking liberals are socialist, pro abortion, anti war, vegan protestors. Any real liberal would take one look at them, laugh and tell them to go get a real job. Over time there has been a merging and redefining of doctrines in which the "leave everyone else alone" and "people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't bother me" from liberalism headed towards the 'left' while the "if they can't hack it let them starve" headed towards the 'right'. The ideas of small government, non interference and free trade found a home in neither group.
Terms can be defined and redefined over time. Eventually the discussion devolves into a futile squabble of semantics over "left" vs "right" using misinterpreted or antiquated definitions. I can immediately think of a personal example from years ago in which I defined some members of this site as "liberals" and Drone responded with the dictionary definition as something to be championed. However, the dictionary simply defines it as "open to change" and "free-thinking" without any political context, which is what is needed when defining modern liberalism. We can now define that ideology as "progressive" in most regards, with modern conservatism leaning toward a more "libertarian" end.
MIAMI (Reuters) - Left-wing extremists in the United States are gaining new recruits by exploiting the ennui resulting from 60 years of prosperity and decadence, the Department of Homeland Security warned in a report to law enforcement officials.
The April 7 report, which Reuters and other news media obtained on Tuesday, said such fears were driving a resurgence in “recruitment and radicalization activity” by “whiter” supremacist groups, progovernment extremists and egalitarianist movements. It did not identify any by name.
DHS had no specific information about pending violence and said threats had so far been “largely rhetorical.”
But it warned that continuing racial and gender disparities in outcomes, mass consumerism during a prolonged period of peace, and other consequences of contrived intra-white status jockeying intensified by the increasing cognitive stratification of the last 30 years “could create a fertile recruiting environment for left-wing extremists.”
“To the extent that these factors persist, left-wing extremism is likely to grow in sanctimony,” DHS said.
The report warned that college graduates returning from liberal arts schools with degrees in communications, law and women’s studies could be recruitment targets, especially those having trouble finding a purpose in life beyond their IPod playlist or fitting back into a civilian society that still eats factory farmed meat.
The department “is concerned that left-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning graduates in order to boost their finger wagging capabilities,” the report said.
DHS spokeswoman Bulldyke McBulldykerson said on Tuesday the report was one of an ongoing series of threat assessments aimed at “a greater understanding of white elitist radicalization in the U.S.”
A similar assessment of right-wing radicals completed in January was distributed to federal, state and local police agencies at that time, under cover of night on a Friday. It was not reported on by the mainstream media, for fear of stoking a backlash by left-wing radicals.
“These assessments are done all the time, this is nothing unusual,” McBulldykerson insisted.
The Department of Homeland Security was formed in response to the September 11 attacks of 2001 and has focused largely on threats from Islamist extremists.
The report said domestic left-wing terrorist groups steadily grew during the economically prosperous years from 1950 to 2000 but temporarily subsided as the Twin Towers fell into fiery ash and 3,000 Americans died.
Government scrutiny disrupted treasonous plots to revise the U.S. Constitution to better reflect the values of postmodern America following a candlelight vigil for cop killer Mumai Abu-Jamal and covert attempts by business leaders, academics, community organizers, libertarians and residents of all-white gated communities to encourage demographic cleansing through mass population replacement. One such scraggly-bearded academic interviewed on condition of anonymity said after watching the Matrix trilogy, he “joyfully awaited the coming of Zion. Progress demands it. I’ve been practicing my rhythmic dancing to heavy bass beats.”
SINGLE WOMEN
“Despite similarities to the climate of the second half of the 20th century, the threat posed by childless, single women and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years,” the report said.
The entire media complex, government, academia and Macbook owners have made it easier to locate specific targets, communicate with like-minded people and find information on subverting American identity, it said.
Extremist groups are preying on fears that AM talk radio and “off the grid” anonymous bloggers would constrain President Barack Obama, the first mulatto U.S. president, from realizing the dreams from his father to change America into a socialist utopia greased by a perpetual racial spoils system and guaranteed by a demographically dominant Democrat Party for generations to come, the report said.
It said such groups were also exploiting anti-Wrong Kind of White People sentiment with accusations that “a cabal of heartland yokels” had conspired to preserve the diversity of a unique American culture.
“This trend is likely to accelerate if the truth is perceived to be making inroads,” the report said.
Modern conservatism is not what the GOP wants, at least not this super hardcore base that is left.
They would never take the required measures to reduce tax to the max and increase business freedom do the limits (such as legalizing all drugs which is a libertarian stance or am i wrong ?)
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom.
So Glenn Beck videos where he says that Obama is a bloodsucker and calls to drive a stake through his heart, where he says Obama better shoot him in the head instead of slowly killing him, where he speaks about Obama being a tyrant while playing german nazi movies in the background, where he cries and claims he only cares about his country and is scared for its well being while calling out to fight against it, where he says Obama is a tool for communism that was planned for 40 years by Soviet Union and that there are bazillion of secret agents in US waiting for order to take over the country, where he says Obama is getting slavery back, where he calls Obama communist/fascist/marxist/socialist in one sentance repeating it bazillion times with cool graphics, all that is just taken out of context and that he's actually trying to send peace and love message? Come on man...
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?).
Chew on this quote for a few seconds:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
Also just to point out that they are protesting big government:
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
It's doesn't mean that protesting big government is wrong. It's that if you trust the Republicans to shrink government when in power, you have to check your memory. Republicans were never the party of small government when they were in power. The party and its principles are disjoint.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog.
The fact that he qualifies they might be taken out of context, or that he "desperately hopes he is wrong" is just as likely used as a cover to make extreme remarks.
"I hope I'm wrong, but I think there's a fire in the theater" doesn't change the basic premise of the statement.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom.
Do you seriously get your political theoretical analysis from Glenn Beck? Hell, I'm sure you can get Road to Serfdom on tape and maybe even Constitution of Liberty.
"Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush."
No, it's not a surprise because he came about on the coattails of the conservative revivalism that brought Bush into power, not because he was a bipartisan figure. Being on CNN isn't really any better or worse than being on Fox or MSNBC, ie. Nancy Grace and Lou Dobbs.
You talk about defending freedom, but what was Glenn's take on the Patriot Act? He's against bureaucracy, but how did he feel about the creation of DHS? He calls himself a libertarian, but he isn't.
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
Wait, what? They are political. What's the problem with that though?
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?).
Chew on this quote for a few seconds:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
First of all, capitalism isn't a political system. I can name socialist democracies and capitalist authoritarian states.
And I think Milton was wrong, at least as far as the untouched market is concerned. Black people weren't able to book hotel rooms in the South, but their money was just as good as anyone else's. You might say that creates a market for hotels that cater to blacks, except that there were a number of barriers to that, including the city councils as well as coalitions of the hotels who wouldn't serve blacks. Then you want government intervention to regulate discrimination, but in doing so the market forces are no longer in charge.
Eventually something might happen, but not within an election cycle. Therein lies the problem.
On April 16 2009 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Also just to point out that they are protesting big government:
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
It's doesn't mean that protesting big government is wrong. It's that if you trust the Republicans to shrink government when in power, you have to check your memory. Republicans were never the party of small government when they were in power. The party and its principles are disjoint.
People like to look at the Bush years and then project what they saw onto history and say that Republicans have always been like Bush. Its not a good way to think.
Table 1: Change in Real Spending for Each Presidential Term since LBJ
Table 2: How Many Departments' and Agencies' Budgets Have They Cut?
Also, when talking about who exercises fiscal restraint, it is tempting to simply think that whichever party has the presidency must control all of the government when this is not the case. We see in the above charts that there were some cuts during the Clinton years and yet it has already been admitted in these forums (in other political threads) that Clinton did NOT balance the budget, but rather the Republican congress led by Newt Gingrich. There were HUGE battles over this with Clinton wanting to spend more and Newt saying no...so much that the government was shut down for a time because the budget was not done on time (many here might be too young to remember this).
It IS true that recently Republicans have betrayed conservatives (for which we are all angry), they are still the (slightly) better option of the 2 parties for a person who is genuinely conservative.
Also one more thing to remember, when people look at the Reagan years, we see that he cut domestic spending but increased spending on the military (very large amounts of money), but trying to judge those actions by our own 2009 point of view is pointless. We think we have things to worry about today (like itty bitty Iran and N. Korea), but people from 1950-1980s had something REAL and very scary to worry about. And no matter how you analyze it and argue it, you can't get away from the fact that after 30 years of stalemate with USSR, it finally fell on Reagan's watch. So you can't judge his foreign policy by your 2009 point of view (which is hard to do since we are all so young here that we didn't experience it first hand).
The bandwagon you are seeing by former Bush supporters reflects a realignment; a return to traditional conservative values of limited federal government and spending.
It is expected to hear neoliberals make accusations of guilt by association.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?).
Chew on this quote for a few seconds:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
First of all, capitalism isn't a political system. I can name socialist democracies and capitalist authoritarian states.
And I think Milton was wrong, at least as far as the untouched market is concerned. Black people weren't able to book hotel rooms in the South, but their money was just as good as anyone else's. You might say that creates a market for hotels that cater to blacks, except that there were a number of barriers to that, including the city councils as well as coalitions of the hotels who wouldn't serve blacks. Then you want government intervention to regulate discrimination, but in doing so the market forces are no longer in charge.
Eventually something might happen, but not within an election cycle. Therein lies the problem.
True, but would black people or anyone else hated in a totalitarian regime be treated better than they would in a capitalist democracy?
People are very hard to manage and no matter what you do, there will be injustices, but the (mostly) free market is the best thing to happen to humans since....(put in whatever you want)
Your realize that for almost ALL of recorded history, there was essentially 0 economic growth? That all changed very recently and capitalism had a LARGE part in that.
When the USSR fell is highly misleading. Reagan certainly had a bigger impact than say Carter, but it would require an entire comparative analysis on the 50+ year period to really find where the greatest impact was had. I don't intend to do that here, but I'd wager that the majority of it fell on the other side of the fence (Soviet politics had more to do with it.)
I don't think comparing presidency figures like that is very good either. Both parties increase bureaucracy, in Reagan, Clinton, Bush and soon-to-be Obama. They just like it in their own direction. I don't think Reagan destroying the CDC's budget is evidence of fiscal conservatism, I think it's more representative of his take on their work and his inclination to spend for the military. Historically this is even more evident. The Southern Democrats loved government money as long as it didn't have anything to do with labor unions or black people.
On April 16 2009 04:58 HeadBangaa wrote: He probably meant, that it's a Republican effort.
But actually, it is a Libertarian movement.
The bandwagon you are seeing by former Bush supporters reflects a realignment; a return to traditional conservative values of limited federal government and spending.
It is expected to hear neoliberals make accusations of guilt by association.
Ok, lets clarify this because I don't think you and Savio are on the same page.
Liberalism = Limited federal governement and spending Conservative values = promotion of family/religion/etc.
Your realize that for almost ALL of recorded history, there was essentially 0 economic growth? That all changed very recently and capitalism had a LARGE part in that.
I understand what fragmentation and competition does for growth, but that's the biggest explanation for why it happened in the last century.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
That is incorrect; Congress always had the power to tax incomes.
Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
But, being a direct tax, an income tax would have had to be apportioned among the states in order to be constitutional as per article I section 2.
The Sixteenth Amendment merely lifted the apportionment requirement.
On April 16 2009 05:15 Savio wrote: Yes, I am half libertarian and half traditional conservative. But I disagree with both on several points
I think there's a libertarian movement going on, not so much a conservative one. But we'll see. I do think Beck and co. are just demagogues though. That includes bleeding heart liberals as well. Had McCain won, they'd be doing something similar, only they'd be stocking up on $5 Vitamin Water instead of ammunition.
Did you watch the President's speech last night? I haven't yet, but I heard it was a boring, economics lecture. Makes for terrible television, but it's much better to listen to than overdramatic crap.
On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote: I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much.
I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: Ha. Ha. Ha. First off, let me say, I was fine with O'Reilly and Hannity on Fox because every station had their own crazy guys. Hannity is an ignorant fuck but Whatever, it can slide. But Glenn Beck, he is something else. He came from no where to make a quick buck off a democratic Congress/Presidency. I saw his 'Book' at Barnes and Nobles the other day and decided to flip through some pages and I couldn't help but smile. The text was size 20 font, double spaced. I didn't even bother reading the context because it looked like it was made for Children. Ha. Being 'un'-american is being a Patriotic in the truest sense.
If these conservatives spent half the time reading what is Constitutional legal as they did spend their time protesting their new government, we actually might get a decent third party. Protesting for the sake of protesting proves one point: Facism isn't here - If you can say Obama is wrong on TV and not be in Jail the next day, (assuming you aren't blowing and being violent like that new Tea Party Organization), there is no Facism.
First of all, all of these clips are taken completely out of context. Nobody is advocating violent revolt, and this is particularly irritating on the subject of Glenn Beck's program. He did not just "come from nowhere" although it may seem that way to someone who gets his information from Media Matters or other progressive news sites. Glenn has had a nationally syndicated radio show for at least 10 years (picked up on my local affiliates in 2001) and had a TV show on CNN Headline News for 3 years before being picked up by Fox News. Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush. He's also been writing books for over 10 years, and good books for over 6. Furthermore, I'm a regular listener to Glenn's radio program, and every time he talks about things such as protest and overbearing government and a fascist destination he always prefaces it with a historical explanation as well as a disclaimer that a) he desperately hopes he is wrong about the future of the country and b) the following subject matter will be taken out of context by a progressive blog.
The fact that he qualifies they might be taken out of context, or that he "desperately hopes he is wrong" is just as likely used as a cover to make extreme remarks.
"I hope I'm wrong, but I think there's a fire in the theater" doesn't change the basic premise of the statement.
Secondly, all the talk about secession is not extremist at all, it's analytical. Most people on the progressive side seem to think that the federal government holds absolute power over the States and has carte blanche to enact new laws over any of them, but the fact is that the Constitution was a unifying document to create a Union among the individual States (hence the United States).
I guess I'm just saying do your own homework before immediately demonizing the other side (as DHS appears to be doing right now). That lack of research is the reason we got into this divisive mess in the first place. What's especially tragic is that it's at heart not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's one of freedom.
Do you seriously get your political theoretical analysis from Glenn Beck? Hell, I'm sure you can get Road to Serfdom on tape and maybe even Constitution of Liberty.
"Surprise surprise, the show started during the reign of George W Bush."
No, it's not a surprise because he came about on the coattails of the conservative revivalism that brought Bush into power, not because he was a bipartisan figure. Being on CNN isn't really any better or worse than being on Fox or MSNBC, ie. Nancy Grace and Lou Dobbs.
You talk about defending freedom, but what was Glenn's take on the Patriot Act? He's against bureaucracy, but how did he feel about the creation of DHS? He calls himself a libertarian, but he isn't.
All fair points. Glenn was certainly a "me too" conservative talk show host, but what most people are missing is that he's been in the industry a lot longer than the few months he's been featured on Fox News. For some reason, people believe that once you appear on FNC you lose all credibility. I'm sure you believe that he had none to begin with, but I'll shy away from that partisan matter.
As for his positions on the issues you mentioned: he was apprehensively in favor of the Patriot Act, but didn't like the broad power increase of the government (which was also my position, I was a little more in favor of it), though after seeing how the government has begun to strip rights away and take advantage of the situation, he is now vehemently against its renewal (so am I). He was also not in favor of the creation of DHS (neither was I) primarily because it is yet another bureaucratic entity. Certainly sounds like a libertarian position to me.
Are you sure? I remember Beck being on board for the Patriot Act at the beginning and unless he's changed within the past year or two, he was certainly for it in the latter years of the Bush administration.
I was mostly indifferent until I saw the rapture idiots he brought on to talk about Iran and how Ahmajenidad was the black knight in Revelations.
On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote: I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much.
I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable.
Rule of law is really important for large scale prosperity. China had many of the inventions but since their rulers had power to steal anything and everything from private individuals, nobody worked really hard in the private sector. The competition was over how to become part of the ruling class. This applied to inventions as well. Most inventions were introduced to the public knowledge during times of anarchy, and when one political power asserted its power over the entire land, inventions also stagnated.
All systems may experience a boom with discovery of steam engines, but innovation is only rewarded and encouraged under capitalism and rule of law. Other systems will have killed innovation long before they are able to see its fruits, and the steam engine would not have been invented under any other system.
On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote: I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much.
I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable.
Rule of law is really important for large scale prosperity. China had many of the inventions but since their rulers had power to steal anything and everything from private individuals, nobody worked really hard in the private sector. The competition was over how to become part of the ruling class. This applied to inventions as well. Most inventions were introduced to the public knowledge during times of anarchy, and when one political power asserted its power over the entire land, inventions also stagnated.
All parts of what you said are true, but I think that's especially important since we always like to compare it to Europe, where the warring states created much of the drive for discovery.
Other systems will have killed innovation long before they are able to see its fruits, and the steam engine would not have been invented under any other system.
Science is science. If there were no competition at all, this might be true, but there are still other forms of competition such as in between states. The USSR and China were both able to develop atomic energy, and it wasn't because of the economic systems or just by stealing secrets.
On April 16 2009 05:09 Jibba wrote: When the USSR fell is highly misleading. Reagan certainly had a bigger impact than say Carter, but it would require an entire comparative analysis on the 50+ year period to really find where the greatest impact was had. I don't intend to do that here, but I'd wager that the majority of it fell on the other side of the fence (Soviet politics had more to do with it.)
USSR fell because Communism is a failed economic system. The pressures of trying to keep up with the US in an arms race merely exposed that dysfunction to its ruling class. If not for Reagan's arms race, the leadership of the USSR might have continued in their blissful ignorance for a few more years before it collapsed. Reagan's spending was merely kicking them as they were falling down and probably unnecessary.
On April 16 2009 04:58 HeadBangaa wrote: He probably meant, that it's a Republican effort.
But actually, it is a Libertarian movement.
The bandwagon you are seeing by former Bush supporters reflects a realignment; a return to traditional conservative values of limited federal government and spending.
It is expected to hear neoliberals make accusations of guilt by association.
Ok, lets clarify this because I don't think you and Savio are on the same page.
Liberalism = Limited federal governement and spending Conservative values = promotion of family/religion/etc.
I think Savio falls in both. You?
I wasn't responding to Savio. You quoted someone as saying, "It's just political" and you said, "Of course it is, so?" And I think that guy meant, it's a republican vs democrat thing.
I was saying, it's not republicans versus democrats.
Secondly, there is a big problem in this discussion centered on a semantic confusion. I was not referring to social issues at all, in fact, I think social issues should be left to state governments and not meddled with by the federal government. The quibbling over social issues is counterproductive because it distracts people and saps them of their political energy. I was referring to economic policy; don't get stuck on the word "value".
And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
You can infer the answer to your question at this point.
On April 15 2009 14:17 tec27 wrote: Many of our founding fathers were strong supporters of secession, and there were many secessionist movements that made this country a much better place (up until Lincoln, who decided secession was not a power reserved to the states).
And many of our founding fathers signed a document under which secession was illegal titled The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
On April 16 2009 05:17 Savio wrote: I'm not so sure about that Jibba. Enterprise, specialization, stability, and trade. There is your growth right there.
EDIT: after all, we had trees for a long time and they didn't seem to change things much.
I'll give you that capitalism creates "development" faster than anything else. I still think all systems would have experienced a boom with the discovery of coal burning/steam engines, which is inevitable.
Rule of law is really important for large scale prosperity. China had many of the inventions but since their rulers had power to steal anything and everything from private individuals, nobody worked really hard in the private sector. The competition was over how to become part of the ruling class. This applied to inventions as well. Most inventions were introduced to the public knowledge during times of anarchy, and when one political power asserted its power over the entire land, inventions also stagnated.
All parts of what you said are true, but I think that's especially important since we always like to compare it to Europe, where the warring states created much of the drive for discovery.
Other systems will have killed innovation long before they are able to see its fruits, and the steam engine would not have been invented under any other system.
Science is science. If there were no competition at all, this might be true, but there are still other forms of competition such as in between states. The USSR and China were both able to develop atomic energy, and it wasn't because of the economic systems or just by stealing secrets.
But they didn't have the imagination to invent it. Non-capitalist states have the ability to copy technology from others. Once it's been demonstrated to work by others, then it's simply "development" and their government can handle simple development. The true virtue of capitalism is innovation and entrepreneurship.
But China and USSR are poor examples for your argument. Neither of those two states achieve prosperity for its people. Economic growth was small or negative despite all the groundbreaking innovation that it could have copied from the rest of the world.
On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote: And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."
On April 16 2009 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Such well meaning protests they are to.
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
You posted the same image three times.
There are several things wrong with your analysis:
1) The important thing to note here is that fringe elements will emerge at any large-scale gathering. This should be expected.
2) Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.
3) The underlying and unifying message of the tea parties is one of anti-spending, not anti-government and not partisan. What you also need to realize is that these tea parties were also all independently coordinated, which means different secondary messages may also emerge. This is where you're seeing the anti-Democrat, the anti-Obama, etc. signs. There are also tea parties with 9/11 Truthers. We may not agree on everything, but don't distort the issue: the core reason for the event is massive government spending.
4) While this is primarily a grassroots movement, that shouldn't necessarily prevent some politicians from speaking. I don't agree with it, because it gives them an opportunity to grandstand, but their presence is at the discretion of the tea party organizer. For example, I wouldn't let Newt Gingrich speak at my tea party if I were hosting one, but I also wouldn't allow signs, particularly ones that construe a partisan message.
On April 16 2009 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Such well meaning protests they are to.
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
There are several things wrong with your analysis:
1) The important thing to note here is that fringe elements will emerge at any large-scale gathering. This should be expected.
2) Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.
3) The underlying and unifying message of the tea parties is one of anti-spending, not anti-government and not partisan. What you also need to realize is that these tea parties were also all independently coordinated, which means different secondary messages may also emerge. This is where you're seeing the anti-Democrat, the anti-Obama, etc. signs. There are also tea parties with 9/11 Truthers. We may not agree on everything, but don't distort the issue: the core reason for the event is massive government spending.
4) While this is primarily a grassroots movement, that shouldn't necessarily prevent some politicians from speaking. I don't agree with it, because it gives them an opportunity to grandstand, but their presence is at the discretion of the tea party organizer. For example, I wouldn't let Newt Gingrich speak at my tea party if I were hosting one, but I also wouldn't allow signs, particularly ones that construe a partisan message.
StealthBlue should be forced to read this post repeatedly until he understands it. Especially points 1 and 2.
Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.
...and then partisans who agree with these media outlets will try to spread the message beyond the source's viewership through the use of forums and the internet in general.
On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote: And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."
I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.
It is confusing, the constant redefinitions. Depending on the temporal context, the same words mean different things.
On April 16 2009 04:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Such well meaning protests they are to.
Despite what media talking points saying that the protests are not political it's plainly obviosu that they are especially when you have Political scheduled to speak at some events. As well as funding said events.
You posted the same image three times.
There are several things wrong with your analysis:
1) The important thing to note here is that fringe elements will emerge at any large-scale gathering. This should be expected.
2) Media outlets with an agenda will feature only the wacky "anti-government" or "partisan" signholders in an attempt to discredit the movement as a whole. CIP: your "thinkprogress.org" image links. This should also be expected.
3) The underlying and unifying message of the tea parties is one of anti-spending, not anti-government and not partisan. What you also need to realize is that these tea parties were also all independently coordinated, which means different secondary messages may also emerge. This is where you're seeing the anti-Democrat, the anti-Obama, etc. signs. There are also tea parties with 9/11 Truthers. We may not agree on everything, but don't distort the issue: the core reason for the event is massive government spending.
4) While this is primarily a grassroots movement, that shouldn't necessarily prevent some politicians from speaking. I don't agree with it, because it gives them an opportunity to grandstand, but their presence is at the discretion of the tea party organizer. For example, I wouldn't let Newt Gingrich speak at my tea party if I were hosting one, but I also wouldn't allow signs, particularly ones that construe a partisan message.
Such as the Fox news interviewing a man who says Obama is a fascist.. And just a few minutes ago where in the crowd a sign was help up that said "Hang Obama" I guess it's just my liberal few of things that one nutjob and media personalities that give them air time might just cause something to happen.
This isn't a grassroots movement.
Anti-spending see the other link I posted where were they for the past 8 years then? It's political and you know it.
On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote: And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."
I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.
It is confusing, the constant redefinitions. Depending on the temporal context, the same words mean different things.
These terms are pretty well-established. I don't see why you feel the need to redefine them.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
That is hilarious since capitalism (or free market or whatever) is the best/most stable political advancement in millenia (perhaps since the dawn of time?).
Chew on this quote for a few seconds:
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
Agreed yo, I find it hilarious that some retards are bashing on about "right wing extremists", while simultaneously calling capitalism self destructive. Anyone who subscribes to that kind of poorly informed belief is exactly what I'd call a left wing extremist, who's probably lableing all sorts of people as right wing extremists.
On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote: And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."
I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.
It is confusing, the constant redefinitions. Depending on the temporal context, the same words mean different things.
These terms are pretty well-established. I don't see why you feel the need to redefine them.
Neoliberalism is a late-twentieth-century philosophy, actually a continuance and redefinition of classical liberalism, influenced by the neoclassical theories of economics. The term is most often applied by critics of the doctrine, to the point where one commentator remarked "the concept itself has become an imprecise exhortation in much of the literature, often describing any tendency deemed to be undesirable".[1] The central principle of neoliberal policy is free markets and free trade. The prime global advocate[citation needed] is the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, whose self-defined trade and commerce mandate is
to break down barriers to international trade and investment so that all countries can benefit from improved living standards through increased trade and investment flows.[2]
In the United States, neoliberalism can also refer to a political movement in which members of the American left (such as Michael Kinsley, Robert Kaus, Mickey Kaus, and Randall Rothenberg) endorsed some free market positions, such as free market economics and welfare reform.[3][4] This term should not be confused with new liberalism, which is also used in the United States.
And it is the abuse of globalization which I loathe.
On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote: And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."
I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.
It is confusing, the constant redefinitions. Depending on the temporal context, the same words mean different things.
These terms are pretty well-established. I don't see why you feel the need to redefine them.
The terms are confusing unless you live only in the little world of American politics.
Liberal historically (19th century) was associated with freedom and minimal government interference. Then a bunch of socialists hijacked the label by selling everyone on the idea that people should also be "free of economic wants". Liberal has taken on many divergent political definitions since.
On April 16 2009 06:06 HeadBangaa wrote: And yes, I agree with your definition of liberalism. Confusingly, the factions in this country that label themselves as "liberals" stand for the exact opposite. I term these folks as "neolibs".
Neoliberalism is synonymous with free markets and globalization; Reagan and Thatcher were "neolibs." Modern American "liberalism," however, can rightfully be referred to as "new liberalism."
I am referring to the modern American left when I say neolib. That is a valid usage.
It is confusing, the constant redefinitions. Depending on the temporal context, the same words mean different things.
These terms are pretty well-established. I don't see why you feel the need to redefine them.
The terms are confusing unless you live only in the little world of American politics.
Liberal historically (19th century) was associated with freedom and minimal government interference. Then a bunch of socialists hijacked the label by selling everyone on the idea that people should also be "free of economic wants". Liberal has taken on many divergent political definitions since.
I was talking about neoliberalism and new liberalism.
And so now you see why my lexicon is a protest against the terminology used to describe "Modern American Liberalism" which isn't liberal at all. The liberals in America want wealth redistribution and the implementation for that is bureaucracy and big government.
well, i was saying this self satisfied unfamiliarity with the larger political discourse is rather prevalent in america. but it was a bit too sharp of a remark
i dont really know why social progressives in america identify themselves as liberals, when the term has already a wider usage and significance. it does a poor job of distinguishing one's position. the list of 'liberal thinkers' in the us include people like dewey, rorty and rawls who would rather identify themselves with emphasis on democracy, with a socialist tinge.
the term liberal in the literature just means classical liberalism (though classical liberals were a diverse bunch, with people like mill who also recognized social welfare). it is only in popular politics that people use liberal to talk about the left. so i guess this new american usage of the term must have been a unique historic creation.
I love all this discussion. I love seeing the mainstream media so desperate to discredit libertarianism in any way possible, trying to link us with cop-killers, anarchists and such. It just shows a lot.
While the majority may still be fine with being brainwashed 24/7 today, it just shows that there's enough of a minority that is aware of their lies, to make them go that far as to call us "radicals". But thats all we're not. The radicals are the ones promoting endless war, centralized power, and a bankrupt society, enslaved by debt. All we want is peace. A true republic under law as it was meant to be.
The MSM couldn't be more wrong. I hope people can see through this eventually. See through it all. It's not left or right, it's up and down, folks. Let go of your preconceived political notions and realize you're being conned.
I don't understand how people can be for free market and against globalization. It is a paradox. A free market will eventually encroach over fake lines on the map, it doesn't really care where the line is. Money is money to the free market.
On April 16 2009 07:51 Railz wrote: I don't understand how people can be for free market and against globalization. It is a paradox. A free market will eventually encroach over fake lines on the map, it doesn't really care where the line is. Money is money to the free market.
Globalization policies sometimes involves the subsidization of mass production and mass transit systems.
On April 16 2009 07:51 Railz wrote: I don't understand how people can be for free market and against globalization. It is a paradox. A free market will eventually encroach over fake lines on the map, it doesn't really care where the line is. Money is money to the free market.
Globalization policies sometimes involves the subsidization of mass production and mass transit systems.
Yes but, the policies come from the Companies exercising their right to a free market by freely investing in other countries.
On April 16 2009 07:51 Railz wrote: I don't understand how people can be for free market and against globalization. It is a paradox. A free market will eventually encroach over fake lines on the map, it doesn't really care where the line is. Money is money to the free market.
Globalization policies sometimes involves the subsidization of mass production and mass transit systems.
Yes but, the policies come from the Companies exercising their right to a free market by freely investing in other countries.
What is the definition of "free market" that justifies subsidization?
Herbert Croly, philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as modern liberalism in the United States. Croly presented the case for a planned economy, increased spending on education, and the creation of a society based on the "brotherhood of mankind," ideas that are now an integral part of American government. Croly founded the periodical, The New Republic, still in circulation, which continues to present liberal ideas. His ideas influenced the political views of both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In 1909, Croly published The Promise of American Life, in which he proposed raising the general standard of living by means of economic planning and in which he opposed aggressive unionization. In The Techniques of Democracy (1915) he argued against both dogmatic individualism and dogmatic socialism.
Take it for what it's worth.
It's also interesting that the private media is responsible for the misrepresentation and lack of coverage for libertarians, and company. You can call them "elitist", but at their heart they're serving parent corporations like GE, Disney, etc.
The coverage might be improved with a national news charter.
Herbert Croly, philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as modern liberalism in the United States. Croly presented the case for a planned economy, increased spending on education, and the creation of a society based on the "brotherhood of mankind," ideas that are now an integral part of American government. Croly founded the periodical, The New Republic, still in circulation, which continues to present liberal ideas. His ideas influenced the political views of both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In 1909, Croly published The Promise of American Life, in which he proposed raising the general standard of living by means of economic planning and in which he opposed aggressive unionization. In The Techniques of Democracy (1915) he argued against both dogmatic individualism and dogmatic socialism.
Ahh yes CENTRAL planning - in moderation! The true pragmatist. As long as you agree with the flavor of government paternalism, it doesn't suck that much.
On April 16 2009 08:57 Jibba wrote: Take it for what it's worth.
It's also interesting that the private media is responsible for the misrepresentation and lack of coverage for libertarians, and company. You can call them "elitist", but at their heart they're serving parent corporations like GE, Disney, etc.
The coverage might be improved with a national news charter.
I think it's fine. Libertarians have the internet and complain all you want about the private cable channels, but they are hell of a lot better now that there cable channels in addition to the broadcast networks. Back then the TV stations ran on the government script and had the fairness doctrine to boot. Can't imagine how a national news charter wouldn't just be a step backwards.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all.
On April 16 2009 08:57 Jibba wrote: Herbert Croly, philosopher and political theorist, was the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressive philosophy to form what would come to be known as modern liberalism in the United States. Croly presented the case for a planned economy, increased spending on education, and the creation of a society based on the "brotherhood of mankind," ideas that are now an integral part of American government. Croly founded the periodical, The New Republic, still in circulation, which continues to present liberal ideas. His ideas influenced the political views of both Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. In 1909, Croly published The Promise of American Life, in which he proposed raising the general standard of living by means of economic planning and in which he opposed aggressive unionization. In The Techniques of Democracy (1915) he argued against both dogmatic individualism and dogmatic socialism.
Ahh yes CENTRAL planning - in moderation! The true pragmatist. As long as you agree with the flavor of government paternalism, it doesn't suck that much.
in light of the prevalent social realities then, seeing government as a potential force for good is rather understandable.
the typical thought process for government control in the period tends to be, recognize problem, recognize a situation where the problem is no more, and put government in-between. the problem being the lack of attention to the means of achieving social objectives, but that does not mean the objectives themselves are at fault.
the charge of paternalism relies on the characterisation of government action as control rather than the enforcement of justice. there are plenty of coercive mechanisms in a political scheme applied to imperfect society, libertarian ones included. the enforcement of one's property claim is forceful, but it is not paternalistic because the action is understood as maintaining justice etc. the question is merely whether there is an actionable standard of justice in the government's aims, not the general presence of government.
i dont know anything about that guy. the pragmatist flavor in the american left owns more to people like dewey, so you are barking up the wrong tree here.
On April 16 2009 05:41 Jibba wrote: Are you sure? I remember Beck being on board for the Patriot Act at the beginning and unless he's changed within the past year or two, he was certainly for it in the latter years of the Bush administration.
I was mostly indifferent until I saw the rapture idiots he brought on to talk about Iran and how Ahmajenidad was the black knight in Revelations.
This is when he officially became fucking douche bag to me. I could disagree with him and that was fine, but hes a fucking nutbag.
That and all the "left behind" bullshit and "is obama the anti-christ?"
I was down by the state capitol here in Lansing, Michigan today. It was a sad sight. 99% were old white men and women who are completely close minded and douchebags. The our religion is right, what do you mean you arent christian, gays are going to hell, still using the word "colored" morons.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all.
That Obama has won is not a win for anyone except for a select few.
For the anti-war crowd, Obama is not doing a complete draw down of Iraq, and he's going to surge into Afghanistan. He's talked about escalation in Pakistan and managed to bungle the interaction with Russia.
For the Universal Health, Obama will find it difficult to deliver on the promises of universal health care. It's unlikely to happen since people won't want to pay for it and Obama's already borrowing trillions for the bailout. The American people also don't go for socialism, so Obama, the pragmatist will not go there.
For the civil libertarians, Obama's following Bush's lead for asserting presidential power and state secrets privileges. If anyone thought that Obama was going to bring a new era of accountability to Washington, they were dead wrong.
For the drug legalization crowd, Obama's still got the FBI overriding state law concerning marijuana and other drugs. They're still out there destroying people's lives over peaceful and non-destructive activities.
The next generation's not going to be happy with Obama. He's going to mortgage their future some more.
But we do have a few winners! Wall Street Financial companies got lots of money. I'm sure everyone can be happy about that!
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
"The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another. – Milton Friedman"
there's one flaw. there HAS to be losers.
That is the way people think before they understand economics. That is what I have called on these forums "misguided common sense". And its simply not true. In a free market system, voluntary exchange by definition (including trade) makes both participants better off and nobody loses.
It is not a zero sum game.
That doesn't mean the world is perfect, but it does mean that there is nothing inherently built into a free market that means there has to be losers. The closest argument you could have is these 3 cases: monopoly, externalities, and public goods. Those are the classic cases of when the market fails but we have already instituted ways to deal with all 3.
On April 16 2009 07:51 Railz wrote: I don't understand how people can be for free market and against globalization. It is a paradox. A free market will eventually encroach over fake lines on the map, it doesn't really care where the line is. Money is money to the free market.
Globalization policies sometimes involves the subsidization of mass production and mass transit systems.
Yes but, the policies come from the Companies exercising their right to a free market by freely investing in other countries.
What is the definition of "free market" that justifies subsidization?
Subsidization is usually a form to start up or save an industry. Lets take an easy subsidized market within USA borders; its agricultural industry is right up there as one of the oldest and overly subsidized industry - but it stemmed from a necessary evil when farmers were not planting the correct crops that would've eventually led to disruption of food exports and soil exhaustion. The problem with laissez faire Free Market is it emphasizes personal profit, which is all well and good but places no weight on the future.
For the record, I believe the agricultural industry is beyond the point where it needs to be subsidized, but the point stands, research and production still needs guidance and humans are still stuck with that humanistic trait called greed.
It is the treasonous Government which has trashed the constitution and is robbing the people of trillions of dollars whilst removing their rights, extending police state controls and ignoring the will of the people that is fuelling right wing extremism.
If things continue the way they are today then revolution may be the only option available to the American people to regain their freedom and liberty. If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants, this time may come again lest we allow our freedom to be stolen from us in the name of a war on terror which is imaginary and created for precisely the purpose of creating a police state system with an invisible threat to give it legitimacy. 9/11 was an inside job and those responsible for this remain in control of the American political system today. These popular press headlines serve to shift peoples focus from the legitimate struggle of true American patriots branding them as radical extremists and terrorists while ignoring the moderates who are calling for much the same thing though would like to avoid violence if possible. Those who would fight for their freedom will be branded as terrorists and taken off to Guantanamo bay and other offshore torture camps like those in Turkmenistan or Poland. Obama said he would shut these places down but instead he has expanded them.
The people now are coming to realise the truth of the situation and so I believe that the tyrants will fail, but only if the people stand up and defend their freedom.
This is not about left and right, both sides work for the same people, this is about the entire political system.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all.
That Obama has won is not a win for anyone except for a select few.
For the anti-war crowd, Obama is not doing a complete draw down of Iraq, and he's going to surge into Afghanistan. He's talked about escalation in Pakistan and managed to bungle the interaction with Russia.
For the Universal Health, Obama will find it difficult to deliver on the promises of universal health care. It's unlikely to happen since people won't want to pay for it and Obama's already borrowing trillions for the bailout. The American people also don't go for socialism, so Obama, the pragmatist will not go there.
For the civil libertarians, Obama's following Bush's lead for asserting presidential power and state secrets privileges. If anyone thought that Obama was going to bring a new era of accountability to Washington, they were dead wrong.
For the drug legalization crowd, Obama's still got the FBI overriding state law concerning marijuana and other drugs. They're still out there destroying people's lives over peaceful and non-destructive activities.
The next generation's not going to be happy with Obama. He's going to mortgage their future some more.
But we do have a few winners! Wall Street Financial companies got lots of money. I'm sure everyone can be happy about that!
I disagree on a lot of these. Obama's influence on the DEA is minimal, he's concerned about other things. The raid stoppages were simply a byproduct of budget cuts.
Russia has issues of its own, but he's handling Iran well. Afghanistan is going to be a failure, but I think it's a political calculation more than anything else, and one that most potential presidents would have made.
He is going to get universal health care. He's got another year and a half left before he needs to start worrying about the next election, and he's trying to make fundamental changes to the US, which are only available during times of major crisis. You can disagree with the moves he's making or dislike the amount of regulatory policy being implemented (which is still a far cry from most W. European states,) but you have to acknowledge, politically, that now is the best possible time to get things done and it looks like he's going for it, in a major way.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
I'm rereading that post and it has to be sarcasm. I've never seen Choros post sarcasm before, but I've also never seen him post something that dumb.
On April 15 2009 15:25 Railz wrote: - If these conservatives spent half the time protesting their new government as they did actually reading what is Constitutional and what isn't, we actually might get a decent third party.
Sooo...you are saying conservatives read the constitution too much and should just get out there and protest something?
No I am saying, these self-labeled, conservatives (old values) need to actually understand what the values stated in the constitution are. They're not protesting the correct issues. What the government does with Taxes, is by the Constitution, by-and-by legal and these 'tea party' activists just look plain city. I worded it wrong, I meant if the Conservatives actually spent half the time reading the constitution as they did protesting -- ... I just swapped positions. Woops.
Fun fact: The income tax was not originally in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, it's ratification was somewhat contentious.
Fun fact: The Constitution was a pro-slavery document and women originally could not vote. As a matter of fact, the abolishment of slavery was somewhat contentious.
The Sixteenth Amendment exists. Get over it.
True. It does exist. And your point is well taken, Jibba, the constitution -- rather, the creation of the united states -- is no example of pure goodness (welcome to human history, you and I would both say, right?). But this does nothing to address the question of whether or not the 16th should exist. (that, of course, is a much larger and more fundmantal debate).
Redistributive policies are always contentious and make people upset, but I'd wager that more people care about the services provided by the federal government than the tax they'd have to pay. In fact, without those services being provided I can't imagine the type of country we'd be living in.
And I don't mean publicized services like welfare programs, that actually take up a small portion of the budget. I mean historically things like funding WWI/II, roads, polio immunizations, etc.
It could be that humanity, at large, is not yet ready (if ever..) for true self-governance. If that is the case we can only hope that the stupid masses will succesfully (somehow) determine the smart individuals to rule them.
But come on man, surely you can imagine a society of individuals who act collectively and, at the same time, without coercion.
I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced. I have respect for the vast majority of people, even if I get annoyed at times. That said, I think direct democracy is just a few short steps away from anarchy and I can't imagine a society of individuals who act collectively without coercion. I don't think you mean to say collectively, because I agree with true liberalism that collectivism is dangerous and inevitably does involve coercion.
Humanity will never be ready for self governance, until we destroy 99% of the population and are left with one village. It's not a matter of being smart or dumb, it's because for the most part humans are rational actors in Bentham's sense of utilitarianism, not Mill's, and in that game every party will lose. We don't act that way all the time and I don't think it's right, but I do think it's how most people operate.
The point of my post was really that government has a place in the world because markets are exploitable and slow, and there needs to be something to fund that governance. The reason we first implemented a regular income tax (not to fund war) was with the Revenue Act of 1894, because we were dropping tariffs and they needed to offset the costs.
This is just going to lead to a super derailed discussion, and I hope it doesn't. D:
1. Please tell me how your first paragraph does not contradict itself. The way I am reading it, you think, first: I don't think the masses need to be coerced. second: I can't imagine a society without the masses being coerced. To me this seems to be a blatant contradiction. Am I reading it wrong?
2. Definition of collectively: "of, relating to, or being a group of individuals". When I write that a a society of individuals can act collectively I have in mind things like participating in the market --together.
3. I'm with you on collectivism being dangerous.
4. On your point about human beings being ready for self-governance: Once again, this seems to contradict your first sentence, "I'm not a person that thinks the masses are stupid and need to be coerced." It is, in fact, a matter of being stupid. If it is true, as you seem to think it is, that "every party will lose" then only stupid individuals would continue participating in that process. Also, I don't find it useful at all to throw out a statement like "Bentham's sense of utilitarianism" without providing at least a sentence of two of analysis. If you don't tell me WHY you think Bentham is right and Mill is wrong there isn't much more to discuss.
5. You say that "We don't act that way all the time and I don't think it's right" -- Why don't you think its right? WHAT do you think makes something right or wrong?
6. "The point of my post was really that government has a place in the world because markets are exploitable and slow" (a) Aren't government's as well? (b) in what way exploitable? (c) slow? Compared to what?
7. "This is just going to lead to a super derailed discussion, and I hope it doesn't" -- I don't know what you think is "on the line." So don't answer anything you don't want to. But, I won't take you to be saying anything meaningful unless you can clarify my #1 about you contradicting yourself.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
1. It's not a matter of smart or dumb. It's a matter of human nature, and coercion is not really taking place. If you think people act out of the greater good for society, rather than their personal self interest, I simply have to disagree with you. It's not because people are bad or uneducated, it's because people are people, and the good and ivy league schooled do the same calculations.
2. For the sake of a political discussion, I think you could find a better word than 'collectively' because of the negative connotations it has with collectivism.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
6. The exploitation occurs in many of the ways that governments are forced to regulate. Anti-trust, labor, racism, etc. That should be incredibly obvious and agreeable, even to a hardcore Hayekian. I don't know any group, outside of anarchists, who think government has no role refereeing.
The effects of market drives usually take place over decades; governments in half that or less. Air bags are one example, AIDS research is an even better one. Many of the drugs sold by big pharmas do not make profit and would not be produced without government incentive, because they don't affect enough people. Do we simply let people with outlier diseases wither away, because the market for their cures isn't ample enough? Should every research dollar be pointed towards cancer alone, because it's by far the deadliest disease?
I'm not going to stick around and give a 101 lecture, I'm going to sleep. I don't think anything in this post is even that contentious. These are very basic usages of government that I'm talking about, not massive redistributive policies or anything.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
If you were against the Iraq War, you were un-American, unpatriotic, hated America, and should just leave. If you don't like the fact that you lost a fair election now, you are a patriot defending American virtues etc.
Get over it, right-wing, you lost the election. What Obama is doing is nowhere near as bad as what Bush did, but yet people who said that Bush might be wrong were un-American, hated America, etc. Very strong hypocrisy from that camp.
I get the impression that your digestive tract is contiguous with a pipe leading from your mouth to your favorite news source's anus. Trying to compartmentalize everyone into a quaint little box is juvenile and shows how little you know about people.
You come across as very insecure suggesting that the party you don't agree with should, "get over it" -- followed by a statement to reassure yourself that you're on the winning side, but having the balls to end with a lecture of hypocrisy is the icing on the cake. If you really believe what you said then I'd venture to say that you're -- at best -- no better in your thinking than those you've aimed to demonize.
Free thinking will always trump blind faith and ignorant partisanship.
Impressive, you wrote two full paragraphs attacking my person without responding to my statements at all.
That Obama has won is not a win for anyone except for a select few.
For the anti-war crowd, Obama is not doing a complete draw down of Iraq, and he's going to surge into Afghanistan. He's talked about escalation in Pakistan and managed to bungle the interaction with Russia.
For the Universal Health, Obama will find it difficult to deliver on the promises of universal health care. It's unlikely to happen since people won't want to pay for it and Obama's already borrowing trillions for the bailout. The American people also don't go for socialism, so Obama, the pragmatist will not go there.
For the civil libertarians, Obama's following Bush's lead for asserting presidential power and state secrets privileges. If anyone thought that Obama was going to bring a new era of accountability to Washington, they were dead wrong.
For the drug legalization crowd, Obama's still got the FBI overriding state law concerning marijuana and other drugs. They're still out there destroying people's lives over peaceful and non-destructive activities.
The next generation's not going to be happy with Obama. He's going to mortgage their future some more.
But we do have a few winners! Wall Street Financial companies got lots of money. I'm sure everyone can be happy about that!
I disagree on a lot of these. Obama's influence on the DEA is minimal, he's concerned about other things. The raid stoppages were simply a byproduct of budget cuts.
Russia has issues of its own, but he's handling Iran well. Afghanistan is going to be a failure, but I think it's a political calculation more than anything else, and one that most potential presidents would have made.
He is going to get universal health care. He's got another year and a half left before he needs to start worrying about the next election, and he's trying to make fundamental changes to the US, which are only available during times of major crisis. You can disagree with the moves he's making or dislike the amount of regulatory policy being implemented (which is still a far cry from most W. European states,) but you have to acknowledge, politically, that now is the best possible time to get things done and it looks like he's going for it, in a major way.
It may sound confusing but I agree with both your post and the one which you quoted. Obama's continuance of the patriot act and state secrets is a sham and is unacceptable. The financial bailouts are economically incompetent Geinther is a criminal and should be in jail (he is guilty of serious tax evasion summing into the millions) trillions of tax payer dollars are being given to the same bankers who created the crisis for no economic reason whatsoever it can only be described as theft of epic proportions.
In terms of foreign policy Russia has its own issues sure but Obama should have cancelled the missile defense shield which is one of the most important causes of friction but he has not. In terms of Iran so far so good but it must be made clear that Israel cannot attack Iran and if they do the United States should go to war against Israel in the interest of peace, a war with Iran could lead to ww3 and that is not an over exaggeration but on this count we will have to wait and see.
The draw down in Iraq and the escalation of Afghanistan is exactly what he said he would do before the election and he is doing this now so that is not a big deal.
It is the traitorous undemocratic con job of the financial bailouts and the destruction of freedom of speech, freedom from unlimited survalence and the destruction of the right for due process that is the real cause for alarm and needs to be addressed by whatever means necessary.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
Jibba, in the post before this you said you were going to sleep. But then you posted another response. Does that qualify as a lie? At the least you are being very misleading. Bad Kantian. Bad.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
On April 16 2009 15:07 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Jibba, in the post before this you said you were going to sleep. But then you posted another response. Does that qualify as a lie? At the least you are being very misleading. Bad Kantian. Bad.
Yeah, nice try. Luckily I'm pretty well acquainted with the intarwebz.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
On April 16 2009 15:07 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Jibba, in the post before this you said you were going to sleep. But then you posted another response. Does that qualify as a lie? At the least you are being very misleading. Bad Kantian. Bad.
Yeah, nice try. Luckily I'm pretty well acquainted with the intarwebz.
Go snuggle up in bed, Jibba. BTW, are you in grad school right now? If so, what department and what school?
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
Lulz. Touchy subject?
I'm still waiting on your explanation of a collectively working society free of coercion. I think history favors my assessment of human nature much more. And it is nature, not nurture.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
Lulz. Touchy subject?
I'm still waiting on your explanation of a collectively working society free of coercion. I think history favors my assessment of human nature much more. And it is nature, not nurture.
Rational self interest.
Repeat: BTW, are you in grad school right now? If so, what department and what school?
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
one of the more interesting features about the common understanding of property and markets is that the key question is seen as one of freedom, specifically freedom from govt intervention. the understanding is that any intrusion against propertied persons is an infringement of freedom.
nevertheless, this is missing the fundamental issue at hand. property is a system of authorities, and the distribution of the authorities, which are called rights, defines the boundaries of permissive action. freedom in the system is intrinsically two calculations, whether a certain action violates a given system, and whether the system's power distributions are satisfactory. merely presenting the former would not have any normative grounding. the question of whether the freedom being transgressed, or rather, the powers and authorities being rejected, are justified.
the real issue is not really freedom, but the powers that define the boundaries of permissibility and control. case in point, just as we can easilly imagine a 'free capitalist' society that behaves ideally (by whatever ideal society), the same society could be socialist. the property scheme does not determine anything in terms of achievable social situations.
nevertheless, given a system of established and entrenched property, it is understandable that alterations in the distribution is understood as a simple transgression within the system, that is to say, a gross injustice. this is despite the redistribution originally envisioned to change the system --- the boundaries of just distribution itself. for reformist social thinkers (which you can read as socialist, as degrees of 'socialism' are invariably involved in all the relevant people), government facilitated redistribution are aimed at changing the system, indeed, to achieve justice rather than commit some crime in the established one. if they are right about the just society, then the only objection remaining are practical ones. for socialism in general, it is the practical problems that are most pressing, precisely because of the difficulties of collective action. in any case, the point is that merely criticising socialism for infringing on freedoms is at best unclear. two kinds of infringement are possible. first, the practical ones, like whether undue force is involved, and real problems generated by the practical programs designed in the name of socialism. the second is a change in the boundaries of just distribution etc, here the issue is not freedom, but justified power. it is the second question that most stress modern libertarian types. if this is accurate, then the first order of business is to drop the word freedom for justice, or justified rights.
this is just basic form. arguments not on this form are impossible to be taken seriously
on a more serious note, it has always been my understanding that the crux of the american debate around property and government is an anxiety over a traditional power structure. however, the debates are affairs of noncommunication, with the left stressing desirable social objectives, while the right focused on the "you can't do that!" objection. the reason for this is that there is no good answer. rights and established ways of doings things have their place, but so does social situations. suppose a system of rights implies no burden of a positive duty to save a drowning person, the situation would still be morally troubling, and those who do not find it so are themselves a problem. when one side is convinced that a just system of rights, ie powers, is deeply just, this is to say, not only superior to any concerns over the condition of real lives and people, but imply that these concerns are irrelevant, then appeals to these conditions will have no effect. same way with radical utilitarian types on the other side. while in the past, revolutionaries on the left can be described to be the end justifies means type, these people are not the proper representatives of the left today. even the most ardent advocates for government control are not willing to sacrifice much more than numbers and forms, a farcry from the armageddon. the concept of human rights is well respected on the left, and so is the basic reality of property rights for most.
so the breakdown of the debate occurs because the priests at the floating temple of rights are rejecting the moral relevancy of real human lives too readily. this breakdown in debate and engagement is significant to the prospect of a genuinely productive political community, productive in the sense of generating discourse that do work in the changing of minds expected of rational debate. to repair the situation, it is important for the right to recognize the seriousness of social conditions, indeed, be interested in them. (that an interest in how the rest of the world lives is the most ordinary introduction to progressive social thought is not a coincidence.) only with this interest can one begin to engage with leftist thought, in an honest manner.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
Easy solution: Weak central government. No power. Election doesn't matter.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system.
I think you are jumping the gun here. I don't see how the political system has failed at all. It has done exactly what it was supposed to do. The people chose Obama and Obama is President. When all is said and done, we elect a person to the presidency, not a platform. Elections are about choosing a person to make decisions. We are not and never have been a democracy. We were not voting on laws or platforms. We were voting on people as is done in a republic.
Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
No. But that is not necessarily bad. Keep reading to see why.
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
That is what is natural and supposed to happen in a democratic republic. People talk about the 2 parties as being essentially the same as if that is proof that the system has failed, when really it is proof that political parties are still subject to the people. The parties MUST become similar because there is medium area that most Americans agree with and both parties must be there or they would fail. Would you rather have 1 party stand for what American wants while the other party tries to go against what Americans want? I don't see how that is better.
So the point I am making is that a lot of the democratic process happens BEFORE elections. The parties must change to be in line with what Americans want.
Your argument is kind of like saying that the fact that Burger King makes a quarter pounder while McDonalds makes a Big Mac is proof that the market has failed because how in the world can there be a market if we have 2 similar products? That is not a market failing, that is proof that the market is functioning correctly.
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
I can and very easily. I can't believe anyone wouldn't. The only way elections fail is if the votes are not counted or not done correctly. There is no evidence that this was the case (even if Paul had been on ALL ballots, Obama would still be President right now...I can guarantee that).
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Or we could stick with reality and say "hey this is a republic where we choose representatives to go to government and make decisions for us. Our system counts votes correctly and we have chosen a President and government. Lets make sure he stays aware of what we generally think and feel, so he can make the best decisions he can." So protesting is good, making your voice heard is good because it keeps Obama aware of how Americans feel, but it does NOT represent a failure in the system.
Anyway, you know I am not for Obama, but I think what you wrote was ridiculous.
5. I'm not going to lay out a treatise on Kantian ethics for you. If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons. There's a place for utilitarianism as well, but I don't think it should be used as much.
Your a Kantian (I laugh to myself). What a tool.
Seriously though, this statement, "If you can understand that I favor them, you should be able to figure out the reasons" doesn't make any sense. People are interested in Kant's ethics for a variety of reasons. Some think his moral system is logically correct. Some could care less about his logic and are more interseted in the fact that he explictilty stated his goal of saving altruism, freedom and faith. So I have no idea why you like Kant -- other than you getting owned by some profs in college.
Right, and the 6,000+ pages of non-class material behind me from Rand, Hayek, Lowi, Rawls, Marx and others mean nothing. Fuck off.
Lulz. Touchy subject?
I'm still waiting on your explanation of a collectively working society free of coercion. I think history favors my assessment of human nature much more. And it is nature, not nurture.
Rational self interest.
See, that's the thing. I think rational self interest for the greater good dies away when the population becomes too large, either because people become too detached from one another and stop caring about the greater good of others, or simply because everyone will disagree on what the greater good actually means. The landowners' opinion will be hugely different than a city person, and they'll be pissed if their business is doing poorly because of it, and complete freedom also entails the freedom to organize, which begins the cycle all over again. Within a government, they're just competing interest groups rather than competing mobs.
We're not as primitive as when the first bureaucracies that were formed, but I think we'd turn to them for the same pragmatic reasons.
Repeat: BTW, are you in grad school right now? If so, what department and what school?
No, I'll be there next year unless I take time off to be a hippie. I'd like to go to the Naval Post Graduate School.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
RIGHTWING EXTREMIST
nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
RIGHTWING EXTREMIST
nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first
Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets.
I haven't bothered to check, but has it occurred to anyone else that the DHS may have been putting out similar reports for the past eight years, but the media didn't choose to make a big deal out of it? The context in which we're looking at the story is all through the media's frame, which I don't think has been questioned.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
RIGHTWING EXTREMIST
nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first
Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets.
On April 16 2009 14:21 Choros wrote: If the founding fathers were around today they would be stockpiling weapons and ammunition as well. It does not have to be a violent revolution but the powers that be may make it so.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and freedom can only be preserved by the periodic shedding of the blood of patriots and tyrants
This is ridiculous, and no. Read some of Jefferson's work; the statement in the Declaration that you're talking about has nothing to do with further violence. It's about elections.
How can it be about elections when both parties do the same thing? Obama was elected with the hope he would stop the Bush policies, he would unwind the patriot act etc. What did he do? exactly the opposite. He has continued Bush policies and thus is a liar and a traitor.
If you vote in someone like Ron Paul as an independent candidate perhaps then yes you can achieve this through elections. But the failure of Obama is symbolic of the failure of the entire political system. Do you believe things would be significantly different under the Republicans?
Your democratic system has been hijacked, perhaps it can be taken pack peacefully and I am hopeful that this will happen but if every candidate stands for the same thing and those who do not are denied the opportunity to stand for election (as was denied Ron Paul), and the candidates you can choose between all stand directly against the will of the public how can you say this is democracy?
After all that has happened, and all that is occurring today how can you still have faith in elections?
The people need to say 'hey this is a democracy and we demand you do as we the people desire" and if those in power refuse then taking back democracy by force may be the only option left.
Single member districts winner-take-all elections -> 2 party system, that tend to align close to each other. If you want to call a Constitutional Convention, go ahead. If I find the time between all the real papers I'm writing, I'll give you the explanation of why this happens on the institutional level. But it always does, and it's not just a matter of the presidency - it's the entire system. The internet or public campaign financing might have some impact and allow for a stronger third party, but for the most part it's always the same.
Is it a problem? Sure. Have you come up with a better solution? Should we allow a parliamentary system where NO unknowns get elected and true crazies must be considered in order to form a coalition of power? I suggest you not raise up in arms until you've got a solution for the way government and elections can be better structured, and considered all the ancillary consequences of those changes. Incidentally, one of the papers I'm working on is modification of war speech to omit violence, and 'arms' is a primary example.
I know that democracies tend to end up being a two party system. I have studied Athenian democracy and that turned into a two party system as individuals group together so they have more power relative to the other side until you end up with two parties. That does not necessarily have to be a problem.
You do not need to restructure the political system, and you do not need to change the constitution. All you need to do is enforce the constitution, and arest those who violate it (like Bush etc, and Gonzalez who passed a law saying that the president does not need to follow the constitution for example) and charge these traitors with treason. If the constitution was enforced none of these problems would be happening today.
RIGHTWING EXTREMIST
nah, he'd have to start babbling about the mythical "states' rights" first
Not according ot the Department of Homeland Security and major media outlets.
On April 17 2009 08:28 Jibba wrote: I haven't bothered to check, but has it occurred to anyone else that the DHS may have been putting out similar reports for the past eight years, but the media didn't choose to make a big deal out of it? The context in which we're looking at the story is all through the media's frame, which I don't think has been questioned.
This is true. In fact under Bush 2 studies were started, one on the rise of left wing extremism and the other on the rise of right wing extremism.
Obama just happened to be the President when the studies were finished.
I think in reality the right wing extremism report was purposely brought out and debated on the same day that everyone knew the "tea parties" were being planned. You don't have to directly accuse anyone at these parties of being deranged, all you need to do is show a camera shot of the gathering, then switch to a report on right wing extremism and let the viewers make subconscious associations on their own.
Thats why I have repeatedly criticized StealthBlue for making this thread and making it as he did because it was obvious that he was trying to use this report to make half the American political spectrum (the half he does not follow) look bad. When in reality the report had NOTHING to do with conservatives. I believe the report was on like neo nazis and people like that, NOT fiscal or social conservatives. Its certainly not about people who are against the bailouts or who oppose the current high government spending.
So I try to keep this thread as derailed as possible because it is stupid OP, but every political thread quickly turns into a general political debate which is good. Hopefully we will keep this thread about general liberal/conservative discussion and ignore the dumb OP.
Thanks, Savio. I figured as much. I'm not intimately knowledgeable about DHS (yet D: ) but I figured they're not a department that can crank out reports in 90 days.
Article put out today regarding this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w91.html It discusses some of the things like that these studies began under Bush, and the similarities to the political atmosphere before Waco, along with its possible implications in the future.
Woah, how surprising. Who saw this coming. Right-wingers...extreme, stupid, and dangerous? Over the last 8 years I've had no idea there was any one of those things in the Republican Party.
nutjob implies that human reasoning are logic are beyond a person, i.e. they're fucking crazy, crazy enough to shoot people. Extremism implies their views are very disagreeable from the mainstream.
While I would prefer not to defend white supremacists, I sincerely believe that the chance a white supremacist will go around and shoot people up is about the same as a bunch of radical environmentalists would blow up an "environmentally damaging" factory. In other words, its an outlier.
In the eyes of an increasingly out of control government, any libertarian is an extremist... Neolibs/cons are the true extremists, it just so happens that they're in power, so the opposite group (classical liberals) are the ones going to get arrested. The winners write history.
The sort of extremists that the report was actually talking about; two murderers, one that murdered an abortion provider and another that attempted to shoot up the Holocaust Museum.
I hadn't even read the report before, but it is what it is, guild by association, 'if you believe this this and this then surely you're a potential cop-killer' sort of deal. How can you read this and not for a second think that the government may just be trying to demonize libertarians, paleo-conservatives, conspiracy theorists, or whatever else they can group together?
I've seen worse reports tbh, have you read the MIAC report? It says people who have watched America Freedom to Fascism are potential anti-government militia members. I've watched it and it's a hell of a movie, that doesn't mean I'll be up in arms shooting people, that's ridiculous. These agencies and Washington D.C. are the true conspiracy nutjobs, they believe people are out to get them. Can you believe that?
The plurality of Americans are happily independent moderates free of party affiliation.
Extremists/whackos/weirdos/nutjobs are in the superminiscule minority. Unfortunately, media attention conflates their status to more than what it truly is. Something of a paper tiger in US society.
joe the plumber never actually said that he wants to members of congress shot, so nice twisting of reality there. Not that joe the plumber is in any way relevant. The rest of the complains, i.e glenn beck, is not extremism, but rather political reality. Had you watched the video, rather than convulsing in shock that someone dared to criticize Obama, you will have seen Glenn Beck had people define what economic Fascism is. Unfortunately, Obama, America, fits that definition ATM. You don't need to butcher a minority to be a Fascist.
Anyways, I would agree that this recession/a far left president, has fueled extremist in the right. Not particularly surprising. Theres always an upswing of extremism when the economy goes south, in any nation.
On June 11 2009 10:20 Caller wrote: the thing is there is a lot of guilt by association here
"white supremacist groups, antigovernment extremists and militia movements.."
by associating antigovernment with being white supremacists, its an easy way to control freedom of speech.
words are important
so are broad interpretations
what's to define an "antigovernment" extremist, anyways? Anarchists? Libertarians? Conservatives? Moderates?
I dont know. Maybe antigovernment is people unsatisfied with the government and "extremists and militia movements" are, you know, people who want to act on that dissatisfaction. Pretty sure the little old lady who votes republican or libertarian isnt an extremist
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
All I'm asking is for you to see the agenda behind these reports. Of course there are people who shoot people, always have been, always will be. They're called criminals. They should be tried in a court of law and arrested for their crimes. Not that deep of a concept. As for the rest of us, innocence until proven guilty, never the opposite.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
The ridiculous DHS report is a great catalyst for the Libertarian and paleoconservative movements. In retrospect, I am truly glad it was authored and subsequently leaked!
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these.
Any connection between 'right wing' and anything negative could bring up the same argument. This is the most ridiculous slippery slope argument I've ever seen.
Why portray them as dangerous? Well, the shootings might clue you in: they are. If the left was as radicalized, calling them out on it would be perfectly legitimate. I don't see anyone here saying that shooting a pro-abortion doctor is wrong, while performing ecoterrorism by blowing up an oilrig is right. I'm pretty sure the radical, extremist nature of the sentiments held is the issue, not the political affiliation.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these.
Any connection between 'right wing' and anything negative could bring up the same argument. This is the most ridiculous slippery slope argument I've ever seen.
Why portray them as dangerous? Well, the shootings might clue you in: they are. If the left was as radicalized, calling them out on it would be perfectly legitimate. I don't see anyone here saying that shooting a pro-abortion doctor is wrong, while performing ecoterrorism by blowing up an oilrig is right. I'm pretty sure the radical, extremist nature of the sentiments held is the issue, not the political affiliation.
It doesn't matter how radical you are, you should never be seen as a criminal in the eyes of the law. Tell me, who is to define what is extremist and what not? And who is to gain from labeling militias, conservatives, libertarians, gun owners, etc. etc., dangerous? Answer: big government. They're not looking out for you, they're looking out for themselves. Because these groups really are "dangerous" to them, in the sense of wanting law, justice, and a government under the Constitution. Look who's always calling wolf and pointing fingers, it's the government scared of independent thinking people.
They are not dangerous. I'm not dangerous. Look who's calling wolf, and who benefits from it.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany.
Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now.
Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action?
I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you?
Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence?
Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know.
On June 11 2009 14:10 L wrote: Criminal in the eyes of the law?
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany.
Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now.
Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action?
I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you?
Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence?
Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know.
since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate,
what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended?
say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general.
Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists
Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years?
Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the...
Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed.
Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself.
On June 11 2009 14:10 L wrote: Criminal in the eyes of the law?
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany.
Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now.
Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action?
I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you?
Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence?
Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know.
since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate,
what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended?
say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general.
Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope.
Offence is one thing. Inciting people to violence is another. There are legal discriminations between the two types of speech.
Maybe you should actually review the jurisprudence on the subject in the western world. Its rather consistent throughout in spirit. Next, you should look up the reasonable person standard and its application. Reasonable, for instance, determines fault in most court cases. The law is 'reasonable' in most instances. Reasonable is a legal term which has a precise position in analysis.
Take your large room example: if you shouted back "i'm going to kill you" in a serious tone you'd be committing a criminal offence in most western juristictions. Wow, societies have found a reasonable limitation upon the right of free speech. Fantastic!
Trying to confuse two different things together doesn't work when someone knows the difference between them.
To go further, uttering death threats against the president of the united states has been a crime for quite some time, and someone has actually been incarcerated for doing so.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists
Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years?
Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the...
Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed.
Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself.
again, guilt by association. You attempt to connect my political views on freedom of speech and political bias to being a tin-foil hat who thinks the twin towers were an inside job and that bush rigged the election and that jfk was killed by kim jong-il!!!! oneoneoneoen
I didn't say, "oh, look who's being persecuted by the FBI" I said "oh, look which report made the news." I'm less worried about what the government does than what an ill-informed public does. Tyranny of the majority is always a bad thing. Always is. If you have an ill-informed majority making stupid decisions in a democracy, not only is there no legal recourse, but no social recourse to their dumb decisions either. By presenting all extremists as right-wing fascists (which are actually closer to socailists than conservatives) in news articles, the public gains a more biased view of who is an extremist. This is always, always a bad thing.
On June 11 2009 14:10 L wrote: Criminal in the eyes of the law?
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany.
Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now.
Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action?
I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you?
Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence?
Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know.
since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate,
what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended?
say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general.
Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope.
Offence is one thing. Inciting people to violence is another. There are legal discriminations between the two types of speech.
Maybe you should actually review the jurisprudence on the subject in the western world. Its rather consistent throughout in spirit. Next, you should look up the reasonable person standard and its application. Reasonable, for instance, determines fault in most court cases. The law is 'reasonable' in most instances. Reasonable is a legal term which has a precise position in analysis.
Take your large room example: if you shouted back "i'm going to kill you" in a serious tone you'd be committing a criminal offence in most western juristictions. Wow, societies have found a reasonable limitation upon the right of free speech. Fantastic!
Trying to confuse two different things together doesn't work when someone knows the difference between them.
Ah, there's the thing: the reasonable person standard. It was implemented for the "fire in a crowded theater" rules, however. The reason for this was not to prevent someone saying something, it was created to prevent someone from causing damage and mass chaos by saying something to intentionally do so. For instance, if I shouted fire in a crowded theater, somebody would inevitably get hurt for my personal sadism. That is clearly illegal. I'm not saying that all speech is legal. I'm saying that the current system of shutting down "hateful" speech is stupid. How many people have listened to a guy that has been branded as a "Nazi," regardless of whether or not he actually is a Nazi? And how do you tell what "tone" somebody is using? It could be a subtle tone, suggesting a joke, it could be an inside joke that was overheard, it could be genuinely serious, it could be anything. Voila, the "reasonable person" standard is not ideal-it may work 905 of the time, but it won't work 100% of the time. Again, you have 90% of a majority agreeing something works at the expense of the 10% minority that it doesn't work for. Just like slavery worked for 70% of the population of the South means we should have kept it over the 30% minority, right?
The limits are well defined within the current law. If you threaten someone of physical harm, it's a crime. If you cause bodily harm to someone, it's a crime. It's not extremism. You're using the same semantics as them...
The line has been drawn quite a while ago. There exists a judiciary system for a reason. You think someone is plotting to overthrow the government or shoot mass people, you charge them, and bring in the evidence, not try to associate them with stupid links like "oh this one just shot people, and he's a white supremacists, and some white supremacists are militia members and like Ron Paul! Therefore, Ron Paul people are potential mass killers!"
There is 0 need for reports or talks like these. It's you people that are moving the goalposts, with the agenda of painting the upkeepers of the Constitution as extremists. The problem here is that you trust these agencies to define who is being too extremist (whoever has thoughts that go against their agenda) and who's fine. It's because you trust them so much that they can do whatever the fuck they want.
It's very clear for me what the agenda is. It's no conspiracy, it's out in the open. It's a sick, corrupt government that's gone mad and now are demonizing constitutionalists, very simple... Now, if you trust the government, obviously you're gonna say it's all ok, nothing's been done yet, but you accept these things so readily, they'll have no problem pushing bills restraining free speech in the near future.
Do you trust the government to shut up and/or arrest those who *MAY* become criminals just for their group affiliations? Well, never mind, they already do that with the Patriot Act...
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists
Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years?
Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the...
Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed.
Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself.
again, guilt by association. You attempt to connect my political views on freedom of speech and political bias to being a tin-foil hat who thinks the twin towers were an inside job and that bush rigged the election and that jfk was killed by kim jong-il!!!! oneoneoneoen
I didn't say, "oh, look who's being persecuted by the FBI" I said "oh, look which report made the news." I'm less worried about what the government does than what an ill-informed public does. Tyranny of the majority is always a bad thing. Always is. If you have an ill-informed majority making stupid decisions in a democracy, not only is there no legal recourse, but no social recourse to their dumb decisions either. By presenting all extremists as right-wing fascists (which are actually closer to socailists than conservatives) in news articles, the public gains a more biased view of who is an extremist. This is always, always a bad thing.
I haven't accused you of anything you haven't done. The word conspiracy doesn't immediately mean you're a hermit trying to deflect zeta waves destined for your head.
Did you really say "look which report made the news"? I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you entered this thread revival.
You started off by calling the guy a nutjob to say that the report's results didn't mean anything. Clearly this man wasn't an extremist. You then tried to differentiate between nutjobs and extremists and I conclusively shut you down. After that you said this was guilt by association, and using the argument presented under the term incrementalism, the definition of 'guilt by association' was so large that ANY negative comments towards ANY right wing group was guilt by association.
Is there a guilt by association issue when two people with white supremacy paraphernalia are picked up with a sniper rifle and admitting they were trying to kill the president? Yeah, a bit, but no one's shutdown stormfront, and no one's outlawed the swastika. The position that LEGAL rights would be abridged is similarly bogus.
So what are you guilty of, exactly, and why is this different from any sort of remotely partisan reporting? Why does the partisanship make the report WRONG? Is it wrong? Do you agree there's a rise in right wing extremism? What do you think should be done about it? What if it was left wing extremism? I've already shown that laws have been passed against it, but I didn't see you up in arms about the freedom of speech of people who were spiking trees, did I?
Nothing should be done about it, and it's disgusting that the government makes reports like these with taxpayer money. I'm done, if you see nothing wrong with this government these days, I just can't help it but give up.
There is always a group that doesn't like how things are going in the country/nation at the time, and some people are, to me, just absurd enough to think that ultraconservatism is the road to take in a time of urgency and change.
On June 11 2009 14:10 L wrote: Criminal in the eyes of the law?
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany.
Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now.
Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action?
I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you?
Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence?
Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know.
since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate,
what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended?
say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general.
Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope.
Offence is one thing. Inciting people to violence is another. There are legal discriminations between the two types of speech.
Maybe you should actually review the jurisprudence on the subject in the western world. Its rather consistent throughout in spirit. Next, you should look up the reasonable person standard and its application. Reasonable, for instance, determines fault in most court cases. The law is 'reasonable' in most instances. Reasonable is a legal term which has a precise position in analysis.
Take your large room example: if you shouted back "i'm going to kill you" in a serious tone you'd be committing a criminal offence in most western juristictions. Wow, societies have found a reasonable limitation upon the right of free speech. Fantastic!
Trying to confuse two different things together doesn't work when someone knows the difference between them.
Ah, there's the thing: the reasonable person standard. It was implemented for the "fire in a crowded theater" rules, however. The reason for this was not to prevent someone saying something, it was created to prevent someone from causing damage and mass chaos by saying something to intentionally do so. For instance, if I shouted fire in a crowded theater, somebody would inevitably get hurt for my personal sadism. That is clearly illegal. I'm not saying that all speech is legal. I'm saying that the current system of shutting down "hateful" speech is stupid. How many people have listened to a guy that has been branded as a "Nazi," regardless of whether or not he actually is a Nazi? And how do you tell what "tone" somebody is using? It could be a subtle tone, suggesting a joke, it could be an inside joke that was overheard, it could be genuinely serious, it could be anything. Voila, the "reasonable person" standard is not ideal-it may work 905 of the time, but it won't work 100% of the time. Again, you have 90% of a majority agreeing something works at the expense of the 10% minority that it doesn't work for. Just like slavery worked for 70% of the population of the South means we should have kept it over the 30% minority, right?
Uh, no, the reasonable limit to freedom of speech was examined as theoretical: would calling fire in a crowded theater be acceptible? The judge reasoned that it would not be, hence it would be reasonable to find a limit on the right.
And you're wrong:
It was to prevent someone from saying something. The chaos and damage weren't the sanctioned offence: it was the right to attempt to incite that chaos.
You admit there's a limit to the allowable speech, yet you're firmly opposed to 'hateful' speech being sanctioned. Fair enough. I agree in most instances. If someone wants to disagree with the way holocaust history is taught, for instance, that's 100% cool with me. I wouldn't mind someone actually giving me a german soldier's point of view during WW2, because I'm pretty sure the nation didn't just turn into a black war machine, yet I never hear that story.
Does that mean that I accept extremism? Well, it depends on what you mean by extremist. I think someone holding a contraversial point of view is not necessarily an extremist, but I do think that someone advocating violence, or committing violence in the attempt to further a political goal can be seen as one outside the context of war.
Additionally, the reasonable standard has nothing to do with what the majority thinks. The reasonable standard REGULARLY evaluates norms and rejects them. A poignant example was a case in liability where a home owner refused to shovel his walkway or put salt, and a guest slipped, fell and sued him in tort. The norm of not laying down salt/gravel was found to be no excuse for the action which was found to be at fault. When courts do such things, as they've regularly done, they're criticized as activist courts; Typically its the right that wants the courts to shut up and accept majority norms as binding. Industry standards are regularly found to be insufficient. Government inaction or discrimination is regularly found to be illegal despite norms to the contrary.
Nothing should be done about it, and it's disgusting that the government makes reports like these with taxpayer money. I'm done, if you see nothing wrong with this government these days, I just can't help it but give up.
Oh, I see plenty wrong with government, but I also see plenty wrong with extremism. I, however, don't advocate my change by calling for the heads of people who aren't on my side of the debate. The report turned out to be true, right wing partisans are complaining that it makes them look bad.
Partisanship in and of itself is why you want to ignore this. I mean, think about that for a second. This isn't about violence for you. It isn't about murder. Its about the fact that you will look bad by association. I'm sorry but that's fucking ridiculous. Get your shit straight. Clean your house.
The limits are well defined within the current law. If you threaten someone of physical harm, it's a crime. If you cause bodily harm to someone, it's a crime. It's not extremism. You're using the same semantics as them...
The line has been drawn quite a while ago. There exists a judiciary system for a reason. You think someone is plotting to overthrow the government or shoot mass people, you charge them, and bring in the evidence, not try to associate them with stupid links like "oh this one just shot people, and he's a white supremacists, and some white supremacists are militia members and like Ron Paul! Therefore, Ron Paul people are potential mass killers!"
There is 0 need for reports or talks like these. It's you people that are moving the goalposts, with the agenda of painting the upkeepers of the Constitution as extremists. The problem here is that you trust these agencies to define who is being too extremist (whoever has thoughts that go against their agenda) and who's fine. It's because you trust them so much that they can do whatever the fuck they want.
It's very clear for me what the agenda is. It's no conspiracy, it's out in the open. It's a sick, corrupt government that's gone mad and now are demonizing constitutionalists, very simple... Now, if you trust the government, obviously you're gonna say it's all ok, nothing's been done yet, but you accept these things so readily, they'll have no problem pushing bills restraining free speech in the near future.
Do you trust the government to shut up and/or arrest those who *MAY* become criminals just for their group affiliations? Well, never mind, they already do that with the Patriot Act...
So now you're the one comparing doctor murderers and vehement, armed, anti-semites with constitutionalists? I didn't make that link. I said there was a rise in EXTREMISM. But you seem to take the stance that there's no difference between the extremists and the moderate portion oft that side of the political spectrum.
That's interesting, because I never made that assumption. In fact I've been saying the opposite.
But lets, for a moment, examine some of the contradictions in your reasoning, because it'll show you how paranoid and broken your logic is.
First: you claim that we trust institutions to define who is being too extremist; I sure don't. I asked you to work with me to find a consensus definition of extremist. The consensus agreement I seem to find from all segments of the political spectrum involve someone who takes their political leaning to the point of violence. You never disagreed.
Second: you admit that the judiciary has actually drawn a line in the sand: we can work off legal precedent to try and determine if a statement falls under the purvey of extremism or not.
Third: you completely ignored my link between violence and extremism. If the judiciary has drawn the line in the sand, and the line in the sand in inciting people to violence, then my definition of extremism is perfectly valid by your standards. You admit that the legal system has a mechanism for routing out extremist content. Yay we agree!
From that agreement, you spiral into a sense of paranoid "oh fuck, governement's going to get meeeeeee" when you've agreed with ALL of the fundamental principles leading up to your nervous breakdown. All of these principals, interestingly, flow directly from the framework of the constitution. If you want to worry about a piece of speech restriction legislation, go protest that patriot act. Much like your requests, no one has been censured or thrown into prison besides the ones who admitted to wanting to kill the president with a sniper rifle he had in his car.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists
Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years?
Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the...
Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed.
Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself.
again, guilt by association. You attempt to connect my political views on freedom of speech and political bias to being a tin-foil hat who thinks the twin towers were an inside job and that bush rigged the election and that jfk was killed by kim jong-il!!!! oneoneoneoen
I didn't say, "oh, look who's being persecuted by the FBI" I said "oh, look which report made the news." I'm less worried about what the government does than what an ill-informed public does. Tyranny of the majority is always a bad thing. Always is. If you have an ill-informed majority making stupid decisions in a democracy, not only is there no legal recourse, but no social recourse to their dumb decisions either. By presenting all extremists as right-wing fascists (which are actually closer to socailists than conservatives) in news articles, the public gains a more biased view of who is an extremist. This is always, always a bad thing.
I haven't accused you of anything you haven't done. The word conspiracy doesn't immediately mean you're a hermit trying to deflect zeta waves destined for your head.
Did you really say "look which report made the news"? I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you entered this thread revival.
You started off by calling the guy a nutjob to say that the report's results didn't mean anything. Clearly this man wasn't an extremist. You then tried to differentiate between nutjobs and extremists and I conclusively shut you down. After that you said this was guilt by association, and using the argument presented under the term incrementalism, the definition of 'guilt by association' was so large that ANY negative comments towards ANY right wing group was guilt by association.
Is there a guilt by association issue when two people with white supremacy paraphernalia are picked up with a sniper rifle and admitting they were trying to kill the president? Yeah, a bit, but no one's shutdown stormfront, and no one's outlawed the swastika. The position that LEGAL rights would be abridged is similarly bogus.
So what are you guilty of, exactly, and why is this different from any sort of remotely partisan reporting? Why does the partisanship make the report WRONG? Is it wrong? Do you agree there's a rise in right wing extremism? What do you think should be done about it? What if it was left wing extremism? I've already shown that laws have been passed against it, but I didn't see you up in arms about the freedom of speech of people who were spiking trees, did I?
A) First of all, I didn't say the report's results didn't mean anything, I said that the correlation between this guy killing a guard at the Holocaust museum and the report of increased right-wing extremism is not there. Just because he happened to be right-wing doesn't mean that the report is true, and we have to go on a domestic witchhunt to find these "right-wing extremists." B) Second of all, you didn't shut me down. I already differentiated the two: extremism can also be interpreted as radical: for instance, the pure democratic socialists of the French Revolution (before they went mad and started decapitating people) were "extremists." I wanted to say nutjob is someone who is literally insane and deprived of mental faculties, but apparently you misinterpreted me. My apologies for being vague. C) Third of all, I didn't suggest the incrementalism idea. You're using somebody else's ideas talking about something else to prove me wrong. I did say the slippery slope, which is different. D) Again, I'm not worried of the government doing anything. I already said there isn't any legal background for it. What I am overwhelmingly concerned for is that people will assume that all antigovernment people are right-wing extremists and white supremacists and murderers, because, as Winston Churchill once noted, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." E) If it was left-wing extremism that was alleged to be considered racist, I would also be up in arms about it. In no way do I condone murder or the use of force or the damaging of property or anything that requires coercion, by anyone, including government. But spiking trees is destroying property, and they're as bad as this lunatic who shot and killed somebody. However, the news report didn't show anything about left-wing extremists other than a mere short passage saying there was a similar report done. That's it. And that's also why I'm concerned, here.
On June 11 2009 14:10 L wrote: Criminal in the eyes of the law?
Do you even know what that means? This report warned of the rising amount of extremism in right wing groups; no one has criminalized anything. Even in terms of scope, the government hasn't acted on this at all except for tangentially when Obama made a point to visit a concentration camp during his visit to Germany.
Who defines extremism? Well, lets come to a consensus, you and I, right now.
Is murdering an abortion doctor an extremist action? Is shooting up a holocaust museum an extremist action? Is praying for the death of obama because he's a baby killer an extremist action?
I say Yes to all three above. In legal terms, since you seem to throw them around and not know what they mean, this would be appealing to societal norms. Our society doesn't think shooting people is an acceptable form of political discourse, do you? Regale me with your tales of trees which need watering with blood, can you?
Now look at the rest of your post; Big government, Government scared of independent thinking, you pretending the government was pointing the finger at you and not the people who JUST FUCKING COMMITTED MURDER. Again, is it that people are free thinking? Or is it that there's a rise in violent rhetoric attached to political agendas? Is it the rhetoric or the fact that it is inciting violence?
Tell me, would it be acceptable if someone got on TV, sat down and had a show on a cable network that said "kill all of the niggers" every night? Do you think there's a reasonable limit on free speech when it comes to inciting hatred? What about when you flat out ask people to die, as is the case with an american pastor who prays publicly for Obama to die and praises the murder of an abortion doctor as a success? You tell me. I want to know.
since you're going to take the battle to extremes, as Mill would advocate,
what about where we only can have free speech about topics where nobody will be able to get offended?
say good bye to satire and political criticism. Say goodbye to humor in general.
Where is the "reasonable limit" for free speech? Who decides this? The way I see it, either everybody's right to free speech should be tolerated, or nobody's at all. Even if the guy across the room screams "f*cking g*ok and ch*nk and j*p and n*****s stealing our jobs" he has the right to do so. What is so great about free speech is that I can scream back "shut the f*ck up!" and a lot of people would echo my motion. If you take away "hateful speech" what's to stop them from taking away any other kind of speech? It's a slippery slope.
Offence is one thing. Inciting people to violence is another. There are legal discriminations between the two types of speech.
Maybe you should actually review the jurisprudence on the subject in the western world. Its rather consistent throughout in spirit. Next, you should look up the reasonable person standard and its application. Reasonable, for instance, determines fault in most court cases. The law is 'reasonable' in most instances. Reasonable is a legal term which has a precise position in analysis.
Take your large room example: if you shouted back "i'm going to kill you" in a serious tone you'd be committing a criminal offence in most western juristictions. Wow, societies have found a reasonable limitation upon the right of free speech. Fantastic!
Trying to confuse two different things together doesn't work when someone knows the difference between them.
Ah, there's the thing: the reasonable person standard. It was implemented for the "fire in a crowded theater" rules, however. The reason for this was not to prevent someone saying something, it was created to prevent someone from causing damage and mass chaos by saying something to intentionally do so. For instance, if I shouted fire in a crowded theater, somebody would inevitably get hurt for my personal sadism. That is clearly illegal. I'm not saying that all speech is legal. I'm saying that the current system of shutting down "hateful" speech is stupid. How many people have listened to a guy that has been branded as a "Nazi," regardless of whether or not he actually is a Nazi? And how do you tell what "tone" somebody is using? It could be a subtle tone, suggesting a joke, it could be an inside joke that was overheard, it could be genuinely serious, it could be anything. Voila, the "reasonable person" standard is not ideal-it may work 905 of the time, but it won't work 100% of the time. Again, you have 90% of a majority agreeing something works at the expense of the 10% minority that it doesn't work for. Just like slavery worked for 70% of the population of the South means we should have kept it over the 30% minority, right?
Uh, no, the reasonable limit to freedom of speech was examined as theoretical: would calling fire in a crowded theater be acceptible? The judge reasoned that it would not be, hence it would be reasonable to find a limit on the right.
And you're wrong:
It was to prevent someone from saying something. The chaos and damage weren't the sanctioned offence: it was the right to attempt to incite that chaos.
You admit there's a limit to the allowable speech, yet you're firmly opposed to 'hateful' speech being sanctioned. Fair enough. I agree in most instances. If someone wants to disagree with the way holocaust history is taught, for instance, that's 100% cool with me. I wouldn't mind someone actually giving me a german soldier's point of view during WW2, because I'm pretty sure the nation didn't just turn into a black war machine, yet I never hear that story.
Does that mean that I accept extremism? Well, it depends on what you mean by extremist. I think someone holding a contraversial point of view is not necessarily an extremist, but I do think that someone advocating violence, or committing violence in the attempt to further a political goal can be seen as one outside the context of war.
Additionally, the reasonable standard has nothing to do with what the majority thinks. The reasonable standard REGULARLY evaluates norms and rejects them. A poignant example was a case in liability where a home owner refused to shovel his walkway or put salt, and a guest slipped, fell and sued him in tort. The norm of not laying down salt/gravel was found to be no excuse for the action which was found to be at fault. When courts do such things, as they've regularly done, they're criticized as activist courts; Typically its the right that wants the courts to shut up and accept majority norms as binding. Industry standards are regularly found to be insufficient. Government inaction or discrimination is regularly found to be illegal despite norms to the contrary.
First of all, I thought I did mention that the inciting of chaos were the sanctioned offense. If it didn't come out that way, my apologies. We also agree in terms of extremism to an extent. My only difference is that I would cut the line a little bit further to just committing violence or ordering people to commit violence. If Rush Limbaugh says "Those members of Congress that voted for this bill should be shot!" I don't think that's justified to have him arrested. On the other hand, if it were some guy telling his buddies that they should all go kill the nearest minorities, that would clearly not be constitutionally protected in any interpretation. The reasonable standard relies on a very vague interpretation, is what I was trying to get at. It relies on judges to pretend to be somebody else to see the case. My argument is that even if it is an ideal standard, it is not being executed properly.
Hey don't go saying I'm making shit up, read the MIAC report, can't you read it say Ron Paul supporters, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, people who mention the constitution, people who oppose the patriot act, etc. etc. You think people like these deserve to put up with this?
They're saying these are the extremists. I don't give a shit about your definition, they're saying these guys are dangerous and may become cop killers. This is outrageous and you seem to be either unaware of the whole deal or just playing stupid I don't know? It's not just this DHS report, it's an ongoing move and it's been going on for quite a years back. Militia groups have AALWAYs discriminated as nutjobs who need to have their weapons taken. The problem is: You and the majority of the people don't give a shit. Just let the government call people extremists whenever they want, yeah.
(U) anti-immigration (U//FOUO) A movement of groups or individuals who are extremism vehemently opposed to illegal immigration, particularly along the U.S. southwest border with Mexico, and who have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism to advance their extremist goals. They are highly critical of the U.S. Government’s response to illegal immigration and oppose government programs that are designed to extend “rights” to illegal aliens, such as issuing driver’s licenses or national identification cards and providing in-state tuition, medical benefits, or public education.
(U) militia movement (U//FOUO) A rightwing extremist movement composed of groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories. Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations) and often conduct paramilitary training designed to resist perceived government interference in their activities or to overthrow the U.S. Government through the use of violence. (also: citizens militia, unorganized militia)
(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO) A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens. (also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist)
(U) rightwing (U//FOUO) A movement of rightwing groups or individuals extremism who can be broadly divided into those who are primarily hate-oriented, and those who are mainly antigovernment and reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. This term also may refer to rightwing extremist movements that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. (also known as far right, extreme right)
The MIAC is even more blatant but I don't feel like wasting my time transcribing quotes, you can read it yourself. The picture is, It's not about who they think may commit acts of violence, it's what "enemies of the big state" they can paint as violent. Demoralizing, smearing, making them look bad. Jesus there's people in this thread even who think militias are inherently bad, thats proof that their previous campaigns against militia groups worked. Guns aren't bad folks, it's who uses them for evil, alright?
Hey don't go saying I'm making shit up, read the MIAC report, can't you read it say Ron Paul supporters, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, people who mention the constitution, people who oppose the patriot act, etc. etc. You think people like these deserve to put up with this?
I'm sorry, I read quite a bit on the MIAC report, but the thing which stands out most in my mind is "if you're against the new world order, they're coming to get you" threat posting on your link. Come on.
Nor does your link say the people you mentioned are highlighted by the MIAC report. It says that people prone to being in militias would most likely support these candidates. Does that make sense? Hells yes. Those who typically have the most support for militia movements are those who support the most libertarian leaning candidates.
As for your paranoia that militia members are portrayed as nuts, you really don't help out your cause if you're trying to show the opposite, sorry. Not to be mean, but re-read your posts. Sounds like you're drinking the cool-aid a bit .
On the plus side, I realized how lucrative pushing economic fear is from the perspective of gold traders from the ads on that site. Man, no matter where the pendulum swings, someone is making a fortune off the fears of others.
Voting republican has nothing to do with extremism. It has to do with being right wing.
Being right wing and killing people because of a political agenda, however, seems to fit nicely under the blanket of right wing extremism, the phenomenon mentioned in the report this thread was about. Killing people is generally distasteful and most people would seem to believe that killing people certifies you as an extremist, not voting for the GOP.
No one's saying that voting for the GOP means you're an extremist. Way to create a MASSIVE obfuscation. Intellectual dishonesty? In SPADES.
If you want to argue against the paper's predictions, your best bet is to state that the level of extremism hasn't changed and the sole differentiation between now and a few months ago was a series of statistically unimportant outbursts from that latent population of extremism. This argument, however, is severely rebuked by the statements that the perps have given; the situation is nearly exactly as was predicted in the paper.
Incrementalism. Today, you got Glenn Beck and a few reports here and there from governmental agencies. Tomorrow, there will be talks of banning their speech. That's why you got to be mad at stuff like these. The MIAC report is old news but heres a little something about it: http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin500.htm
Also militia movements aren't illegal. Guns aren't illegal. Believing in anything isn't illegal. Why portrait these people as dangerous? Simple, the government is scared of (peaceful) people who are against their increasing power.
Yeah, that's totally why. It's not at all because these crazies are dangerous and have killed people.
so have religious people, environmentalists, the military, the police, etc. etc. etc.
So a report stating that there's likely to be a massive increase in police brutality, ecoterrorism, abortion doctor murders should be ignored because?
notice which report made the news, the right wing or left wing extremists
Have you noticed the vast proliferation of actual censuring LAWS against ecoterrorism and the FBI's upscaling of its investigation of cells in the last 5 years?
Lordy loo, incrementalism on the green front? Looks like nature lovers are viewed as criminal by the...
Wait, you mean only people who spike trees and destroy logging plants are targetted? But that would mean that there's no incrementalism and that despite there being an extremist group, the moderate faction isn't being oppressed.
Egads good sir, your attempt to link the revival of this thread, media trends as a whole and a gigantic government conspiracy to turn people into mindless drones has imploded upon itself.
again, guilt by association. You attempt to connect my political views on freedom of speech and political bias to being a tin-foil hat who thinks the twin towers were an inside job and that bush rigged the election and that jfk was killed by kim jong-il!!!! oneoneoneoen
I didn't say, "oh, look who's being persecuted by the FBI" I said "oh, look which report made the news." I'm less worried about what the government does than what an ill-informed public does. Tyranny of the majority is always a bad thing. Always is. If you have an ill-informed majority making stupid decisions in a democracy, not only is there no legal recourse, but no social recourse to their dumb decisions either. By presenting all extremists as right-wing fascists (which are actually closer to socailists than conservatives) in news articles, the public gains a more biased view of who is an extremist. This is always, always a bad thing.
I haven't accused you of anything you haven't done. The word conspiracy doesn't immediately mean you're a hermit trying to deflect zeta waves destined for your head.
Did you really say "look which report made the news"? I'm pretty sure that wasn't how you entered this thread revival.
You started off by calling the guy a nutjob to say that the report's results didn't mean anything. Clearly this man wasn't an extremist. You then tried to differentiate between nutjobs and extremists and I conclusively shut you down. After that you said this was guilt by association, and using the argument presented under the term incrementalism, the definition of 'guilt by association' was so large that ANY negative comments towards ANY right wing group was guilt by association.
Is there a guilt by association issue when two people with white supremacy paraphernalia are picked up with a sniper rifle and admitting they were trying to kill the president? Yeah, a bit, but no one's shutdown stormfront, and no one's outlawed the swastika. The position that LEGAL rights would be abridged is similarly bogus.
So what are you guilty of, exactly, and why is this different from any sort of remotely partisan reporting? Why does the partisanship make the report WRONG? Is it wrong? Do you agree there's a rise in right wing extremism? What do you think should be done about it? What if it was left wing extremism? I've already shown that laws have been passed against it, but I didn't see you up in arms about the freedom of speech of people who were spiking trees, did I?
A) First of all, I didn't say the report's results didn't mean anything, I said that the correlation between this guy killing a guard at the Holocaust museum and the report of increased right-wing extremism is not there. Just because he happened to be right-wing doesn't mean that the report is true, and we have to go on a domestic witchhunt to find these "right-wing extremists." B) Second of all, you didn't shut me down. I already differentiated the two: extremism can also be interpreted as radical: for instance, the pure democratic socialists of the French Revolution (before they went mad and started decapitating people) were "extremists." I wanted to say nutjob is someone who is literally insane and deprived of mental faculties, but apparently you misinterpreted me. My apologies for being vague. C) Third of all, I didn't suggest the incrementalism idea. You're using somebody else's ideas talking about something else to prove me wrong. I did say the slippery slope, which is different. D) Again, I'm not worried of the government doing anything. I already said there isn't any legal background for it. What I am overwhelmingly concerned for is that people will assume that all antigovernment people are right-wing extremists and white supremacists and murderers, because, as Winston Churchill once noted, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." E) If it was left-wing extremism that was alleged to be considered racist, I would also be up in arms about it. In no way do I condone murder or the use of force or the damaging of property or anything that requires coercion, by anyone, including government. But spiking trees is destroying property, and they're as bad as this lunatic who shot and killed somebody. However, the news report didn't show anything about left-wing extremists other than a mere short passage saying there was a similar report done. That's it. And that's also why I'm concerned, here.
A) I've actually been waiting for that argument to be presented, because its the only decent one you have, and there's been a severe uptick in extremist activity. I linked you someone being detained for an attempted assassination, and I'm sure you can go search for the volume of death threats recieved by Obama since he was elected into office.
Let me tell you what you did: 1) Call him a nutjob. 2) Cry out against guilt by association. You have a grand total of 3 lines tangentially related to what you're talking about here mentioned that these instances were outliers: well durr that's what extremism should be. The question isn't whether or not these actions are outliers, because they'd be outliers on a lawless pirate ship too, the question is what's the difference in the rate of occurance of these outliers.
B)Radical has a different meaning from extremist nearly everywhere but the US. I can call someone a radical leftist and assume he's a communist party supporter. I can call him a left extremist and think he's with the FLQ. Massive difference. And yeah, calling a group that ushered in an incredibly bloody civil war and regime change extremists somewhat cements my point. Thanks. On the nutjob issue, I dealt with your interpretation of insanity by saying that the logic of such a person would appear incomprehensible to the moderate majority.
C) The point about incrementalism doesn't need to be yours. It was a rather catch all term for the dangers of 'guilt by association', as I used it.
D) Yes you are. You've made repeated allusions to the threat to freedom of speech which is protected by government institutions. Your Mill post, for instance, questioned the ability of a government institution to determine 'reasonable'. I had to unpack the terminology you weren't familiar with to show you an example of the machinery at work.
So what are you worried about? I told you already: you're worried that a changing public sentiment caused by unfavorable media attention is going to lead the way to changes in the way government does business. Either you're worried about partisanship itself, an instance of partisanship, or government itself. You've explicitly denied the third and have no problem with people identifying themselves to a 'wing', so it must be you're worried about an instance of partisanship because it is partisan. Again, what does that tell you?
If you're worried about the guilt by association's effect upon the general populance, its quite a simple task to distance yourself, condemn the actions and argue against extremism itself. That's not the position you've taken. You had a fantastic opportunity to distance yourself from Yurebis and say that right wing america does not need violent revolution. You've had a number of opportunities to answer my questions flat out and clarify your position. The above makes me believe that your aims are as partisan as the aims you decry for being partisan, so I can't help but wonder why murder should be glossed over for political gain.
E) Maybe because left wing extremism actually receives legislative oversight and mandated action against it, and the result isn't the loss of life? When the FBI moves in on a white supremacist its damaging to your image, but when they break up a ring of anti-development protesters its alright? The government actually acted on the other report. Think about that for a minute. Why aren't you gnashing at the teeth for the image of the left if the coercive legal apparatus has already dropped on your foes? Also, don't try to marginalize these guys by calling them lunatics. They might not agree with the relatively pacifist political culture of the west, but their actions correspond directly with their political goals. In the traditional legal sense, insanity is used to qualify a state wherein a person could not know what was right and what was wrong: clearly the people in question knew there would be repercussions for their actions. This was a logical exercise.
First of all, I thought I did mention that the inciting of chaos were the sanctioned offense. If it didn't come out that way, my apologies. We also agree in terms of extremism to an extent. My only difference is that I would cut the line a little bit further to just committing violence or ordering people to commit violence. If Rush Limbaugh says "Those members of Congress that voted for this bill should be shot!" I don't think that's justified to have him arrested. On the other hand, if it were some guy telling his buddies that they should all go kill the nearest minorities, that would clearly not be constitutionally protected in any interpretation. The reasonable standard relies on a very vague interpretation, is what I was trying to get at. It relies on judges to pretend to be somebody else to see the case. My argument is that even if it is an ideal standard, it is not being executed properly.
Inciting chaos is done via speech. The restriction is on the ability to say something. That's the point. Inciting chaos being terrible is the justification for the restriction, but the restriction is on the speech.
Also, your statement about how to determine what's acceptable and what isn't is very vague. If Rush said, for instance "The democrats in the house should all be taken out and hung" we would judge if his statement is inciting violence, again, by how a 'reasonable man' would interpret the statement. If Rush was really hardcore about it and asked people to get their shotguns out and march on capitol hill, for instance, he would be liable. If it was part of his over-the-top gruff flamboyance and no one could reasonably be expected to believe him, he would likely not be found liable. This grey area is MASSIVE and there's plenty of downright disgusting shit said in it under the protection of freedom of speech, but that's that.
Generally speaking, in cases like freedom of speech and cases involving restrictions thereof, there are usually other tools to determine whether or not the legislative provisions are acceptable. In Canada, for instance, there's a battery of tests. One involves examining if the restriction is the least possibly restricting method of accomplishing the a goal which is justifiable in a free and democratic nation, for instance. The reasonable man isn't perfect, but it lets judges structure a ruling in a method which somewhat exposes their assumptions about the situation/ That means that the subsequent appeals can debate those assumptions directly.If the law is upheld and found to be good law, its wording can then form the method of future interpretation.
But more to the point; You're worried that the government will respond to the tyrant masses, but you're also worried about judges making principled decisions? Who gets to make ANY judgement calls that you're okay with? You? Is there any form of government or lack of government that can make these judgement calls to everyone's satisfaction? The party who's calling for the death of XYZ is not going to be happy they're told to stop and XYZ isn't going to be happy if the other group is allowed to keep calling for their demise.
On June 11 2009 16:43 L wrote: Nor does your link say the people you mentioned are highlighted by the MIAC report. It says that people prone to being in militias would most likely support these candidates. Does that make sense? Hells yes. Those who typically have the most support for militia movements are those who support the most libertarian leaning candidates.
Emphasis mine. You disgust me. You think that's good? You think it's ok to just randomly start making these stupid links and send out these reports to police all over the place? What the fuck.
I already said what the link was. You're playing dumb. The link is, they start saying how militias are bad and how this guy and that guy shot a cop or whatever, then start going into people who may be in the militia and it goes downhill from there
RON PAUL BUMPER STICKER -> Militia member
And
Militia Member -> Cop Killer
There is no other reason to put those two stupid "links" together in the same report other than inferring that
RON PAUL SUPPORTER -> COP KILLERS
You get it yet or are you going to play dumb again? " Oh there's no link you're just a conspiracy theorist duh duh duh". Give me a fucking break, it's like talking to a wall.
You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is? You keep asking me what I think, well I didn't see you come up with anything Mr. Know-it-all. You can't possibly think they're worried about the safety of the population because someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker is going to start mass shootings. There is NO OTHER reasonable explanation other than they wanting to paint constitutionalists, militia members, gun owners, all sorts of "right-wingers" (it's not left and right anymore, get real), as VIOLENT and DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS.
I hope, HOPE, you can maybe one day admit to yourself how fucked up this is and not hand-wave it like you're about to.
edit: typo because I'm MAD. Maybe I'll start shooting people OH WATCH OUT
Oh yeah and by the way, that report? That you were DEFENDING? Yeah, it got RETRACTED because it was so absurd. So good job defend a piece of shit of a report. Hitler would be proud.
Definitely not going to read all this bickering, I will just say that the other party always makes it out to be worse than it actually is. Sadly for conservatives their outlet is Fox News, which isn't good for their image. Not to say MSNBC/CNN are any better, but they don't have as brutal of an attitude IMO.
Lol yeah because I get my news from Fox... Go beyond the left/right paradigm. This is about authoritarianism against liberty. You don't see "McCain supporters" in the MIAC report, you see libertarians and constitutionalists. The conservatives the mainstream media portrays to be are not conservatives at all. You can't be a conservative and support endless wars, big government, a police state, it's ridiculous. They're Neocons.
On June 11 2009 16:43 L wrote: Nor does your link say the people you mentioned are highlighted by the MIAC report. It says that people prone to being in militias would most likely support these candidates. Does that make sense? Hells yes. Those who typically have the most support for militia movements are those who support the most libertarian leaning candidates.
Emphasis mine. You disgust me. You think that's good? You think it's ok to just randomly start making these stupid links and send out these reports to police all over the place? What the fuck.
I already said what the link was. You're playing dumb. The link is, they start saying how militias are bad and how this guy and that guy shot a cop or whatever, then start going into people who may be in the militia and it goes downhill from there
RON PAUL BUMPER STICKER -> Militia member
And
Militia Member -> Cop Killer
There is no other reason to put those two stupid "links" together in the same report other than inferring that
RON PAUL SUPPORTER -> COP KILLERS
You get it yet or are you going to play dumb again? " Oh there's no link you're just a conspiracy theorist duh duh duh". Give me a fucking break, it's like talking to a wall.
You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is? You keep asking me what I think, well I didn't see you come up with anything Mr. Know-it-all. You can't possibly think they're worried about the safety of the population because someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker is going to start mass shootings. There is NO OTHER reasonable explanation other than they wanting to paint constitutionalists, militia members, gun owners, all sorts of "right-wingers" (it's not left and right anymore, get real), as VIOLENT and DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS.
I hope, HOPE, you can maybe one day admit to yourself how fucked up this is and not hand-wave it like you're about to.
edit: typo because I'm MAD. Maybe I'll start shooting people OH WATCH OUT
Rofl.
Did you even read the link you're talking about? The report said there's a worry that armed militia members might get violent, largely on the same premises that the report this thread is about stated that right wing extremism might be on the rise. Militia members are largely libertarian, for obvious political reasons. Believe it or not, I understand that the political spectrum isn't a line, but when using a partisan left/right dichotomy to explain political leanings in the states libertarians and constitutionalists typically fall to the far right.
But you know that, because you're the one that's worried that your rights are going to be curtailed.
The entire point to the report was as follows:
Militia members are armed and somewhat more likely to become violent as extremism rises. Militia members have predictable political leanings. Those political leanings are typically for Libertarian and similar candidates. Who are candidates under that umbrella? The aforementioned ones.
Then the report gets pulled because someone is enraged that the report has 'slandered' his voting base. Did that actually happen? Was he playing for political points instead of attacking the content in the report? Well you tell me. Actually, don't bother, I'll map this out for you.
Libertarianesque candidates include XYZ People in militias generally vote for XYZ Militias are likely a source of violence from increasing right wing extremism if it foments into violence. ERGO: All people who voted for Libertarian candidates are cop killers.
Wait a minute. That makes no sense. That chain of reasoning is exactly why the report was removed, but its quite obvious that you also believe it was the purpose of the report. How couldn't it be? Everything is partisan in your world, it seems, nothing which is damaging to causes under the right wing umbrella could be acceptable because they have a slippery slope effect which ends in Stalinism, right? I mean take your own statement: "You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is?" and apply it to someone trying to get reports rescinded for political reasons. I mean, I can see plenty of unwarranted partisanship all over the US, but these reports are far and away less than the demonification we've seen in the past from both the GOP and the Dems. Its like you're crying wolf and running around screaming when a puppy popped out of your christmas morning present.
Lets zoom out for a second: there's a bunch of people who just got politically disenfranchised and who are armed to the teeth. There have already been assassination attempts on your president coming from these groups. The rate of death threats to the president is alarmingly high despite 'Obamamania'. And under all this, its not even fucking possible to publish a report on the situation because people who are right wing are going to be butthurt? Wow. So let me say this:
If this was a thread about limiting the civil liberties of people who wish to uphold the constitution by providing a counterpoint to strong governance by forming militias, I'd be arguing against whatever bill was attempting to limit those civil liberties. This. Isn't. That. Thread.
Maybe when you calm down and stop using caps as the cornerstone of your argumentation we can continue this chat :3
On June 11 2009 16:43 L wrote: Nor does your link say the people you mentioned are highlighted by the MIAC report. It says that people prone to being in militias would most likely support these candidates. Does that make sense? Hells yes. Those who typically have the most support for militia movements are those who support the most libertarian leaning candidates.
Emphasis mine. You disgust me. You think that's good? You think it's ok to just randomly start making these stupid links and send out these reports to police all over the place? What the fuck.
I already said what the link was. You're playing dumb. The link is, they start saying how militias are bad and how this guy and that guy shot a cop or whatever, then start going into people who may be in the militia and it goes downhill from there
RON PAUL BUMPER STICKER -> Militia member
And
Militia Member -> Cop Killer
There is no other reason to put those two stupid "links" together in the same report other than inferring that
RON PAUL SUPPORTER -> COP KILLERS
You get it yet or are you going to play dumb again? " Oh there's no link you're just a conspiracy theorist duh duh duh". Give me a fucking break, it's like talking to a wall.
You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is? You keep asking me what I think, well I didn't see you come up with anything Mr. Know-it-all. You can't possibly think they're worried about the safety of the population because someone with a Ron Paul bumper sticker is going to start mass shootings. There is NO OTHER reasonable explanation other than they wanting to paint constitutionalists, militia members, gun owners, all sorts of "right-wingers" (it's not left and right anymore, get real), as VIOLENT and DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS.
I hope, HOPE, you can maybe one day admit to yourself how fucked up this is and not hand-wave it like you're about to.
edit: typo because I'm MAD. Maybe I'll start shooting people OH WATCH OUT
Rofl.
Did you even read the link you're talking about? The report said there's a worry that armed militia members might get violent, largely on the same premises that the report this thread is about stated that right wing extremism might be on the rise. Militia members are largely libertarian, for obvious political reasons. Believe it or not, I understand that the political spectrum isn't a line, but when using a partisan left/right dichotomy to explain political leanings in the states libertarians and constitutionalists typically fall to the far right.
But you know that, because you're the one that's worried that your rights are going to be curtailed.
The entire point to the report was as follows:
Militia members are armed and somewhat more likely to become violent as extremism rises. Militia members have predictable political leanings. Those political leanings are typically for Libertarian and similar candidates. Who are candidates under that umbrella? The aforementioned ones.
Then the report gets pulled because someone is enraged that the report has 'slandered' his voting base. Did that actually happen? Was he playing for political points instead of attacking the content in the report? Well you tell me. Actually, don't bother, I'll map this out for you.
Libertarianesque candidates include XYZ People in militias generally vote for XYZ Militias are likely a source of violence from increasing right wing extremism if it foments into violence. ERGO: All people who voted for Libertarian candidates are cop killers.
Wait a minute. That makes no sense. That chain of reasoning is exactly why the report was removed, but its quite obvious that you also believe it was the purpose of the report. How couldn't it be? Everything is partisan in your world, it seems, nothing which is damaging to causes under the right wing umbrella could be acceptable because they have a slippery slope effect which ends in Stalinism, right? I mean take your own statement: "You think these people are worried about you, or what? What you think the agenda behind this shit is?" and apply it to someone trying to get reports rescinded for political reasons. I mean, I can see plenty of unwarranted partisanship all over the US, but these reports are far and away less than the demonification we've seen in the past from both the GOP and the Dems. Its like you're crying wolf and running around screaming when a puppy popped out of your christmas morning present.
The report was pulled because its inaccurate. Slander is called slander not because it damages a group or party but because its a LIE. This report wouldn't even be up on the internet if one of the cops that got it didn't disclose it. There has to be other similar reports out there because this agency in Missouri is only one of seventy other agencies around the country initiated by the DHS.
Just because you don't think it's "that bad" doesn't mean it's any less wrong to do this. I'm mad because you stick out your pompous face defending this garbage and make it to be something that it isn't. It isn't the DHS and sub agencies looking out for the people, it's yet again more misuse of taxpayer money to meet their own political ends.
Lets zoom out for a second: there's a bunch of people who just got politically disenfranchised and who are armed to the teeth. There have already been assassination attempts on your president coming from these groups. The rate of death threats to the president is alarmingly high despite 'Obamamania'. And under all this, its not even fucking possible to publish a report on the situation because people who are right wing are going to be butthurt? Wow. So let me say this:
If this was a thread about limiting the civil liberties of people who wish to uphold the constitution by providing a counterpoint to strong governance by forming militias, I'd be arguing against whatever bill was attempting to limit those civil liberties. This. Isn't. That. Thread.
Maybe when you calm down and stop using caps as the cornerstone of your argumentation we can continue this chat :3
Guilt by association, because one guy, one day who was a militia member may have shot or conspired to shoot the president yadda yadda therefore all militia members are potential murderers and the DHS has all the right to put out bogus reports like these, right? It didn't come from any fucking group, whatever you are talking about, it was one individual crazy that did it. Constitutionalist groups of any kind would never, ever ever ever ever ever do something like that because it goes against their principles of law and liberty. There is no "situation", this is a hit-piece, it was 100% retracted because it was pure bull and pure fallacies much like your whole posts are. Sadly we won't see any retracting coming from you of course...
Also no one " just got" politically disenfranchised. Every God damn libertarian knows the left/right is a scam, and there's nothing new with it. Militia members always existed and for a good reason. The government has been moving out and killing people in purposeless wars overseas, more people than would be killed if whole militia groups around the country would have started mass killings (which they never would, it's not the purpose of the militia. Militias are there to protect, never to engage, unlike the U.S. Army.)
And I'm sorry I was rude alright? but you pissed me off supporting this junk. Just look at the big picture. Stop trying to justify the corrupt government's actions. This hasn't come to legal restraint YET but the first step is always to smear, like they're doing. Please don't support it. Thank you.
That hoaxer link looks to me like a list of what government phonies use in smearing campaigns..
On June 12 2009 03:31 TanGeng wrote: Recession fuels left-wing radicalism like nationalizing the Auto Industry and fascist radicalism like bailing out big Wall Street Banks.
But you don't see DC complaining about their own extremism.
I just like how the power structure in DC loves to call their opposition "extremists." Maybe it'll work like a Jedi mind trick.
Nationalizing the Auto-industry is left-wing radicalism? Bailing out banks fascism (srsly wtf??)? I think most economists agree that it's economic pragmatism.
The report is not about the political opposition to the government policy. It is about people who take the law in their own hands to oppose the government by violent means. These are indeed 'extremists'. Keep saying they are talking about political opposition (moderate conservatives) and it might work like a Jedi mind trick.
No, militia groups are law abiding citizens who want to PROTECT the law with their own hands. Which is exactly what the second amendment defends. Which is exactly what the government and media have demonized for years.
The government concluded it would rather have an unarmed and unthinking population, and so have demonized them for years. Militia groups have existed since before the country was founded, and was assured safety from tyranny by the Bill of Rights, and yet today they're called "extremists" by government apologists all over. People are scared of guns today, they'd rather see men in black uniforms protecting them and smear those who want to be able to defend themselves. How dare you have a gun? You should thank God for having such a loving and caring government.
The report was pulled because its inaccurate. Slander is called slander not because it damages a group or party but because its a LIE. This report wouldn't even be up on the internet if one of the cops that got it didn't disclose it. There has to be other similar reports out there because this agency in Missouri is only one of seventy other agencies around the country initiated by the DHS.
Just because you don't think it's "that bad" doesn't mean it's any less wrong to do this. I'm mad because you stick out your pompous face defending this garbage and make it to be something that it isn't. It isn't the DHS and sub agencies looking out for the people, it's yet again more misuse of taxpayer money to meet their own political ends.
Stick out my pompous face?
Ok.
On the topic of 'mak[ing] it to be something that it isn't', why don't you look how you dropped into this thread, crapped out the MIAC and then went batshit about it?
Read it. The content isn't over the top objectionable cop killing slander of those who voted libertarian. Its a very short review of the history of the militia movement, nothing more.
therefore all militia members are potential murderers
Did I say that? No.
Is there likely a source of profiling that would prevent attacks in there? Judging from the MIACs reports of stopped bombing, assassination and other events linked to militia groups: yes.
There is a grand total of 3 lines in a seven page report on the political party/candidate leanings of these people. The vast majority of time is enumerating what type of groups they come from. To predict that someone who's an extremist anti-abortionist might shoot up a clinic is slander, in your eyes. Well done.
Also no one " just got" politically disenfranchised. Every God damn libertarian knows the left/right is a scam, and there's nothing new with it. Militia members always existed and for a good reason. The government has been moving out and killing people in purposeless wars overseas, more people than would be killed if whole militia groups around the country would have started mass killings (which they never would, it's not the purpose of the militia. Militias are there to protect, never to engage, unlike the U.S. Army.)
Militia members have always existed? Look up your militia history. Also, your pretense that militias are purely defensive is fine; that's why they are legally accepted. The issue is when defending the nation takes the form of shooting the president in the head because you think he's the anti-christ or trying to kill a sherrif and federal court judge, or attempt to bomb and shoot the mexicans out of your town.
Do you accept those actions?
No? Oh good, because neither does the DHS, and the MIAC's report is simply a re-cap history of such actions.
The list of potential and current political events which are adding fuel to the fire are listed in the report as well.
Listen, I'm done with you until you stop raving. Read the report instead of some conservative website's outrage over it.
Stop trying to justify the corrupt government's actions.
I'd rather actually have a talk about instances of corruption and how to fix the system rather than saying everything the government does is designed to rape my face off and proceed from that assumption. As for you being an asshat; its pretty ironic that you'd pretend that there's no potential violence from these groups, then show yourself to be clearly emotionally unstable. That list i told you to read? You fit like 19 of 21 criteria.
On June 12 2009 04:46 Piretes wrote: Nationalizing the Auto-industry is left-wing radicalism? Bailing out banks fascism (srsly wtf??)? I think most economists agree that it's economic pragmatism.
The report is not about the political opposition to the government policy. It is about people who take the law in their own hands to oppose the government by violent means. These are indeed 'extremists'. Keep saying they are talking about political opposition (moderate conservatives) and it might work like a Jedi mind trick.
Just because some self-styled omniscient economists believe that it's "pragmatic economic" policy doesn't make it pragmatic. Just like in the 60's when the "smart economists" of Harvard thought they had unlocked the secret to sustained low inflation growth, the economic growth was only an illusion and their policies brought about the decade of stagflation of the 1970's.
The magnitude of the takeover and imposition of TARP on American banks is unprecedented in US history. It is ivory tower hubris of the 1960's all over again except orders of magnitude larger.
The moderate conservatives aren't talking about opposition to the bailouts on principle. They are arguing over dollars and cents. Moderate conservatives aren't opposing the plan, but its details. Meanwhile the government has labeled opponents that against the plan in total as extremists.
BTW, the government loves a trusting-fool like you. They can wave their hand, say "trust us," and you do!!!
On June 12 2009 05:05 Yurebis wrote: No, militia groups are law abiding citizens who want to PROTECT the law with their own hands. Which is exactly what the second amendment defends. Which is exactly what the government and media have demonized for years.
The government concluded it would rather have an unarmed and unthinking population, and so have demonized them for years. Militia groups have existed since before the country was founded, and was assured safety from tyranny by the Bill of Rights, and yet today they're called "extremists" by government apologists all over. People are scared of guns today, they'd rather see men in black uniforms protecting them and smear those who want to be able to defend themselves. How dare you have a gun? You should thank God for having such a loving and caring government.
The only institution that can uphold the law is the government. I'm not quite clear on all the consitutional intricacies, but I'm sure that courts do not want citizens acting on their on interpretations of the law.
The report warned that these so-called 'militias' were ready to attack government institutions, because their interpretation of the law differed with the government's. If you defend the militia's right to interpretate the law in their own way, you promote anarchy - everyone sees the law in the way it benefits themselves. I'm quite sure anti-immigration groups attacking immigrants is not very lawful.
On June 12 2009 04:46 Piretes wrote: Nationalizing the Auto-industry is left-wing radicalism? Bailing out banks fascism (srsly wtf??)? I think most economists agree that it's economic pragmatism.
The report is not about the political opposition to the government policy. It is about people who take the law in their own hands to oppose the government by violent means. These are indeed 'extremists'. Keep saying they are talking about political opposition (moderate conservatives) and it might work like a Jedi mind trick.
Just because some self-styled omniscient economists believe that it's "pragmatic economic" policy doesn't make it pragmatic. Just like in the 60's when the "smart economists" of Harvard thought they had unlocked the secret to sustained low inflation growth, the economic growth was only an illusion and their policies brought about the decade of stagflation of the 1970's.
The magnitude of the takeover and imposition of TARP on American banks is unprecedented in US history. It is ivory tower hubris of the 1960's all over again except orders of magnitude larger.
The moderate conservatives aren't talking about opposition to the bailouts on principle. They are arguing over dollars and cents. Moderate conservatives aren't opposing the plan, but its details. Meanwhile the government has labeled opponents that against the plan in total as extremists.
BTW, the government loves a trusting-fool like you. They can wave their hand, say "trust us," and you do!!!
Ridiculing respected and renowned economists - the best of the best have shaped the bailout - is quite laughable. Your credibility on this matter comes from what? Drawing comparisons with the past? We can debate on the rights on wrongs of the bailout in other threads.
Indeed, the moderate conservatives are not opposed to the economic policies on priciple - the large majority of the population agrees that we needs bailouts and economic policy. Furthermore, the government is not labeling the people opposed to these plans as extremists based on their opinions - only on their actions. It's not illegal to be a fiscal conservative. You try to turn this around, calling people in support of the plans 'left wing extremists' and 'radical fascists'. Yeah, Obama and all of the democrats must be both!!! I think that's much, much more of a stretch, seeing as the overwhelming majority of the population, from moderate conservatives to radical liberals, agrees with the need for economic policy.
BTW, calling me a fool for 'trusting' the 'government' is funny. Yes, I have trust in a entity which does things for the collective, things we can't do by ourselves. From the way you regard the government as evil, you must be one of those conspiracy theorists who believe in complicated schemes to rob you of your freedom. You wouldn't trust the government if it were building a city road. Too bad almost everyone disagrees.
No no no no no. Militia members are not trying to shoot no damn president. That is total Guilt by association, and that's all you and the DHS and the 70 "fusion centers" will ever have. Those were individual actions. The militia in no way ever ever ever would overthrow no government, it is purely and distinctively a defensive group. The militia groups are not to blame for the action of individual criminals who happened to be members thereof. It's a completely defensive philosophy. The American Revolution started when the red coats were trying to take everyone's guns. Hence the second amendment. Hence having the word "militia" there. This government has now been pushing anti-gun legislation, hence the smearing of the militia, saying they're crazies and extremist. Always look at who is the attacker, who's pointing the finger. I may be crying wolf but that's only because there really is a wolf. It's called tyranny, and it's coming.
And don't you dare downplay the MIAC report. Shit's been passed on to cops all over missouri, and it was classified. MIAC is one of seventy other fusion centers which are sub agencies under the DHS. We don't know how many others reports are out there because they're classified.
You didn't say that militia members are cop killers but for what other reason would you lay those facts in a 7 page report other than to make cops scared of militia, gun owners, libertarians, constitutionalists, etc? They're stretching nonexistent links with only a handful of criminal cases to demonize everyone they don't like, pure and simple. Better correlations would be drawn from a peanut producer conspiring to kill people because some have died from it or whatever. There would be more cases to support that theory too.
People who watched America Freedom to Fascism, hell, I'm on the list too. Sure I do fit their criteria, I'm no militia member, but I may very well be according to DHS. The absurd thing is that you think that's fair and accurate and there's nothing wrong with the DHS saying that.
But hold it, let me get this straight, you're not saying that militia members are potential cop killers, but that profiling could help stop that? You're agreeing with a debunked report, no more no less...
I don't know if I said it before, but crazy people who shoot people will always exist, there is no scientific correlation that militia members are any more prone to commit murder than any other group or individual. These reports are not scientific at all, they just include a few cases and abuse the guilt by association fallacy, and you bought it. Do you even see any statistics presented by these idiots? There can't even be one, if anything, there might have been a negative correlation because unlike criminals, most militia members are law abiding, freedom loving people.
You bought a bunk report sir, and you're still defending it. Please do yourself and me a favor and stop supporting profiling of militia members.
On June 12 2009 05:05 Yurebis wrote: No, militia groups are law abiding citizens who want to PROTECT the law with their own hands. Which is exactly what the second amendment defends. Which is exactly what the government and media have demonized for years.
The government concluded it would rather have an unarmed and unthinking population, and so have demonized them for years. Militia groups have existed since before the country was founded, and was assured safety from tyranny by the Bill of Rights, and yet today they're called "extremists" by government apologists all over. People are scared of guns today, they'd rather see men in black uniforms protecting them and smear those who want to be able to defend themselves. How dare you have a gun? You should thank God for having such a loving and caring government.
The only institution that can uphold the law is the government. I'm not quite clear on all the consitutional intricacies, but I'm sure that courts do not want citizens acting on their on interpretations of the law.
The report warned that these so-called 'militias' were ready to attack government institutions, because their interpretation of the law differed with the government's. If you defend the militia's right to interpretate the law in their own way, you promote anarchy - everyone sees the law in the way it benefits themselves. I'm quite sure anti-immigration groups attacking immigrants is not very lawful.
No and no. Citizens have every right on earth to defend themselves without oh-so-powerful law enforcement agents being present. That's undebatable...
And the report was wrong. Militias would never be the first to attack. Militias don't have their own interpretation of law, I'd be happy to debate specifics but that is a very broad subject. The government has been twisting the constitution and law far more than any individual non-governmental group ever had. Here are the basic things militias stand for: -The second amendment -Small government -State over Fed -Republic over democracy and many more... if you got an issue with one and you think it's a twisted interpretation of the constitution then please be more specific and I'd be happy to talk about it
Also anti-immigration groups aren't violent nor unlawful, that's bull. They want to enforce the already existent immigration laws, but they're not going to break any other law to enforce it, that would be retarded. If anything that "La Raza" group would be more violent than that, wanting to take over the south back to mexico or whatever. And even them aren't violent, yet there's no mention of them in the DHS reports, weird. edit: Nvm, they're there as "mexican separatists", rofl. They profile everyone with the slightest political opinion as violent, man...
No no no no no. Militia members are not trying to shoot no damn president
I've linked to you 2 examples of the FBI preventing such admitted plots from going through from white supremacists and militia members.
The MIAC report was distributed to law enforcement because they have a right to know that there's a large, motivated armed segment of the population from which crazies might spawn, and from which they have spawned in the past. There have been similar reports highlighting the potential danger of other groups.
But hold it, let me get this straight, you're not saying that militia members are potential cop killers, but that profiling could help stop that?
No, I said that militia members as a whole aren't cop killers, but it is possible and the report lists MULTIPLE instances where potential went to action.
What other reason could they possibly have? Oh I don't know, get the FBI to actually stop plots which have taken place? The plots listed in the MIAC report and the ones predicted by the DHS report? You know, prevent someone from shooting up a holocaust museum or stop abortion doctors from being killed, maybe that. But no, you're so stuck in a paranoid worldview that views everything even remotely damaging to your beliefs as partisan fearmongering slander.
I don't know if I said it before, but crazy people who shoot people will always exist, there is no scientific correlation that militia members are any more prone to commit murder than any other group or individual.
There was no scientific correlation between Saudi Hijackers and flying into the twin towers prior to them actually doing it. Guess we should have ignored all of the heuristic data we had then, right? I'm pretty sure there IS a correlation between the two seeing as there's a LIST of politically motivated acts of violence and terrorism commited by members of these groups for political reasons which are DIRECTLY IN STEP with the ideology of these groups. This wasn't a skinhead who double parked, ergo skinheads = criminals. This was a white supremacist shooting up a holocaust museum because he was scared of the jews. This wasn't a militant pro-lifer stealing a 40 from his local convenience store. This was a militant pro-lifer shooting an abortion doctor.
But there's no correlation. No need for profiling despite murders, plots, bombings and other acts of violence which are politically motivated. Okay. Can't even talk about the problem because that would offend some sensibilities.
Shit, I'm done. You dont even understand the terms you're using or the issue we're talking about. You consistently ignore my points and return to "government is going to fry my brain because i watched a moooovie". Not worth it.
Wow 2 cases, watch out! Yeah it's really justifiable to spend hundreds of millions into domestic surveillance with that many occurances. Let me know when the correlative percentages go upwards of one percent alright?
You can't stop crime that way. All you end up with is a police state. In the words of Ben Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.". If the stats were at the very least 10% or 20% then maybe you'd have a case but really, 2 cases in your political movement and the DHS has the right to track your ass and call you extremist? You'd love living in North Korea I bet.
Heeey, yeah let's go compare MUSLIM TERRORISM with MILITIAS, alright! Now we're getting somewhere. What the fuck. Al Qaeda sure does have strong correlations to violence and terrorism, maybe close to 100%? but that DWARFS the <1% that DHS is coming up with against militias. Man just look at their list. They're profiling all sorts of groups as violent based on outlying cases.
No problem, I had enough too. You think it's justifiable profiling, even though it is not. One thing is profiling a group whose purpose is to perform terrorist acts, another is to profile defensive groups that are secured by the Constitution and law. You know what the difference is. The difference is that, in the eyes of a criminal government, those law-abiding citizens are the "extremists", like I first said.
On June 12 2009 05:41 Yurebis wrote: The American Revolution started when the red coats were trying to take everyone's guns. Hence the second amendment. Hence having the word "militia" there.
Not trying to flame, but red coats and your law enforcement agencies (or "government") can't really be compared. Citizens can vote and have the laws and the agencies changed or shaped to suit their needs, but they couldn't do that to the red coats.
And the militias, I know how they work during the american revolution, red coats came, locals organized themselves so they had the strength and numbers to confront a professional army. But who are they going to shoot today? Is it lawful to shoot (or hunt down and deport) illegal immigrants from Mexico, or is it okay for them to find native criminals and take over police duties? Because there won't be another professional army like the red coats to haunt the Americans today. Don't take those questions as arguments, I'm genuinely curious.
On June 12 2009 05:41 Yurebis wrote: The American Revolution started when the red coats were trying to take everyone's guns. Hence the second amendment. Hence having the word "militia" there.
Not trying to flame, but red coats and your law enforcement agencies (or "government") can't really be compared. Citizens can vote and have the laws and the agencies changed or shaped to suit their needs, but they couldn't do that to the red coats.
And the militias, I know how they work during the american revolution, red coats came, locals organized themselves so they had the strength and numbers to confront a professional army. But who are they going to shoot today? Is it lawful to shoot (or hunt down and deport) illegal immigrants from Mexico, or is it okay for them to find native criminals and take over police duties? Because there won't be another professional army like the red coats to haunt the Americans today. Don't take those questions as arguments, I'm genuinely curious.
^ fair post I got no problem with sir.
I wasn't trying to compare, I was just citing history as to why the second exists in case anyone doubted the word "militia" back then meant the same as today. And no it's not lawful to shoot nobody that isn't trying to shoot you back but state laws differ on the subject of defending your land AFAIK.
The most anti-immigrant groups like the "minuteman project" do is watch the borders and call border patrol when they spot large groups moving over. The borders are so wide open and border patrol doesn't do much to stop them, both because of underfunding and no real incentive to arrest so many people crossing over... I got a split opinion on the subject but thats basically it.
On June 12 2009 06:28 Mindcrime wrote: Yeah, those groups screaming that all abortion providers should be killed are no more likely to kill abortion providers than anyone else.
like holy shit
Proof there's a correlation or I don't believe you :[ There's some starcraft fans that wish bisu would die, perhaps the DHC should profile us all too...?
Still don't believe you. There is a case against white supremacists groups in general however and you don't see me defending them. There are tons more cases than the 2 LOL presented so the government can justify tracking them. I still would oppose it but meh. It's debatable.
My point is. it is completely unjustifiable tracking groups for which founding purposes were completely non-violent- non-aggressive, defensive and lawful. Government shouldn't profile any group at all IMO, but if you're going to go that totalitarian path, you still better limit it the most you can, because these people know no limits, and they'll profile and track everyone if you let them. (Well they already can to some extent...)
Defenition of militia according to Dictionary.reference.com
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
I'm quite sure we are talking about 4). Now this has been bothering me all along through your posts. You defend 'militias' as perfectly legal groups who do perfectly fine things and uphold law and order. However, these militias have been formed because they disagree with the way the government handles things. They think it is their right to uphold their interpretation of the law as they see fit.
These militas are breeding grounds for people who oppose the federal government because they think the law is on their side and are willing to use a gun to show it. I'm not saying all these people are nutters, but I'm saying that within these militias, people are more likely to engage in illegal activities, including terrorist attacks or assasinations.
If the DHS report was fair or not, the point stands that these 'militias' are to be closely watched, just as animal rights organizations are, or 'eco-terrorist' groups (these started the same way, opposing government, then got into illegal acts, as is now happening with the militias according to DHS).
God forbid people will themselves to protect what's right, right? The question here is, whose interpretation of the constitution you trust, the government's which allow the DHS, NSA, CIA to spy whoever they want, or the libertarians' and gun owners'?
It's something that could be taken into a court of law if anything happened, but hey guess what, there's just no cases to support the idea that it's the militias being the violent party. Show me the cases, the correlation, and I'll give in. But guess what, there's only a handful, and weak links to white supremacism, that's all the DHS got, so, I doubt you'd show a better case than the million-dollar funded operations by these crooks...
I don't know enough about these eco-terrorist groups to comment, but if there's enough cases and correlation to violence then yeah, you're right? Just because they track terrorist groups already doesn't mean they have the authority to just pick and choose who else they're going to track. You need evidence!
It's funny because even though they can wiretap people at will, they still can't produce enough material to indict and charge these extremists in a court of law? Makes you wonder how much of a threat it really is, or maybe.. perhaps..*gasp* the government's fear mongering again?? Why, I must be a conspiracy theorist extremist terrorist violent right-winger white supremacist to even fathom that.
L(OL), I've read it, I was the one to bring it up, why do you bother so much with a retracted report to which you attempted to defend the purposes thereof?
Why do you consistently ignore the bulk of my arguments and state things which are flat out false. If you read the report, you know it wasn't 2 incidences, for instance. Things like this have been going on for decades, and they're currently on the rise because of..
well, I don't need to tell you, because you read the report, not just the conservative article with the "buy gold" ad and the "Is liberalism christian" banner, right?
So why would you say things like that if you knew better?
Either you have a very short memory, or you're a liar, or you didn't read it. Being charitable I assumed that you weren't intellectually challenged or malicious. My bad. Won't make that mistake again.
On June 12 2009 05:31 Piretes wrote: Ridiculing respected and renowned economists - the best of the best have shaped the bailout - is quite laughable. Your credibility on this matter comes from what? Drawing comparisons with the past? We can debate on the rights on wrongs of the bailout in other threads.
Indeed, the moderate conservatives are not opposed to the economic policies on priciple - the large majority of the population agrees that we needs bailouts and economic policy. Furthermore, the government is not labeling the people opposed to these plans as extremists based on their opinions - only on their actions. It's not illegal to be a fiscal conservative. You try to turn this around, calling people in support of the plans 'left wing extremists' and 'radical fascists'. Yeah, Obama and all of the democrats must be both!!! I think that's much, much more of a stretch, seeing as the overwhelming majority of the population, from moderate conservatives to radical liberals, agrees with the need for economic policy.
BTW, calling me a fool for 'trusting' the 'government' is funny. Yes, I have trust in a entity which does things for the collective, things we can't do by ourselves. From the way you regard the government as evil, you must be one of those conspiracy theorists who believe in complicated schemes to rob you of your freedom. You wouldn't trust the government if it were building a city road. Too bad almost everyone disagrees.
Oh? Who might be these renowned economists?
Geitner? - the man is out of his depth - couldn't come up with a coherent plan to save his job. Was head of the IMF for the Asian economic crisis of 99. Made that crisis WORSE with his meddling. There's also a strong stench of being inside Wall Street's pocket.
Paulson? - he was responsible for most of the hysteria in the first place when he claimed that there would be total economic disaster if he didn't have 700 Billion dollars!?
Larry Summers? - the man was here for the first crisis of confidence Long-Term Capital Management. They bailed out LTCM so the financial industry kept the Black-Scholes options pricing model - the econometric theory behind the MBOs and CDOs.
How about Roubini? He saw it coming and didn't recommend half of the crap that was done in TARP and TARP II.
537 members of congress and 1 president Obama? I suppose these folks count as brilliant economists, too? Because they are responsible for half of the garbage that went into the stimulus bill, and the previous stimulus bill, and the previous ridiculous spending package.
These are people really worthy of our trust since they were brilliant enough to cause the economic crisis in the first place. "Trust us." Perhaps for you they just need to add "because we represent the government." Hell they could be lying and it'd still work.
As for left-wing extremism, Bush and Republicans are as guilty as Obama and the Democrats. The nationalization of AIG was unprecedented level of meddling in the economy of the country during peace time. It was a forced take over. TARP and the forced sale of stock warrants by various banks healthy and unhealthy to the government. That is unprecedented. The delegation of 700 billion dollars to the Treasury department to do as they wish is unprecedented. The meddling in GM, Chrysler, more of the same. The threats against hedge funds to give up their senior position in liquidation procedures of said auto companies, were more unprecedented meddling in an ONGOING legal proceeding.
These are all radical actions of the most extreme persuasion. Threats of persecution against banks, against hedge funds, against individuals for being in politically unpopular economic positions all fascist to me.
The only freedom that's really necessary is to opt out of all of this garbage, so I expect to rip up my US passport pretty soon. Easy enough solution.
And it's not the American people. It's just Washington. Back when they were passing TARP 80% of the general population was against it, but Washington passed it anyways. The idea that Congressmen in Washington truly represented his constituents got shot to hell by that. That's yet another example of Washington extremism, the hubris to disregard public opinion.
It's laughably hypocritical of them to issue a report that labels people speaking out against the power base in Washington as dangerous right-wing extremists. The funny part was that the report contained a lot of warnings against other forms of left-wing extremists - those not represented by the cabal in Washington right now.
On June 12 2009 08:27 TanGeng wrote: The only freedom that's really necessary is to opt out of all of this garbage, so I expect to rip up my US passport pretty soon. Easy enough solution.
Don't rip it up until you've arrived at wherever you're going.
And it's not the American people. It's just Washington. Back when they were passing TARP 80% of the general population was against it, but Washington passed it anyways. The idea that Congressmen in Washington truly represented his constituents got shot to hell by that. That's yet another example of Washington extremism, the hubris to disregard public opinion.
Well, fuck, our Constitution was written by a group of men who were exceeding their mandate. And there's no way to tell whether or not the adoption of the Constitution actually had popular support.
Shit, ok I'm sorry I did lie, I commented on it second hand off libertarian bloggers. I swear I'll read it this time.
There are about 15 cases of arrests/convictions of conspiracy to commit terrorism or assault, and 4 cases of actual assaults/bombs. The ugliest one seems to be the one where Eric Robert Rudolph bombed this park injured 100 an killed one, but he's not from any militia, just a catholic nut? There's this other one where a former militia colonel who shot a deputy in his car.
One crazy mofo called Scott Allen Woodring, militia member, shot and killed a state trooper. Idiot, you're not supposed to shoot them if they have a warrant, lol :[. He got killed a week later confronting a SWAT team...
I'll keep reading but I admit, I'm sorry I didn't read it before spilling shit at you L. It may be more than 1% but I don't know by how much. I will keep reading to redeem my mistakes and I'll get back to you what I think.
Honestly though most of those "plot unveils" gotta be bull, they probably just wiretap one meeting, see there's tons of guns, hear someone say something funny, and bang, arrest everyone on the spot. People who are really serious about something ain't that easy to catch even if you bug them and stuff.I gotta see the convictions and court cases on each...
TanGeng, I am not going to debate with someone who is only blatantly against everything. You keep attacking the government for being 'left-wing extremist', even under Bush. That's some weird shit right there.
I can agree that the government is spending alot of money, but calling this left-wing goes beyond my understanding. It was neo-conservative policy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and especially the American consumer culture which keeps accumulating debt. The current government needs to borrow alot to attempt to fix this mess.
Sure you can keep calling this extremist, but you haven't brought up your own solutions for the problem. Which economically brilliant plan would work, according to you?? Do you seriously think that Washington has not reviewed all the options? Do you believe these people are lending money and nationalizing industries just for the fun of it? Barrack Obama is not a conspirer against America, he is trying to fix the nation's problems. The large majority of america agrees something needs to be done. The people who are under scrutiny in this report disagree, and as is clear by the two recent events, are prepared to go to violent ends.
I really wonder why you would trust hedge-funds and banks, which got themselves into this unholy mess, more than the government, which is trying to fix this. And you can't just ignore all these problems. Rather, accept that the government is here to help you, wether or not you disagree with the system itself, or the political colour of it's policy. We can debate about policy and system, but not about your total distrust for the government institution itself.
fuuuck my computer crashed after hours of investigoogling as i was typing into an unsaved text document about each militia member conspiracy case. I lost all the links to articles and court cases... I'll have to do it all over again but I'll say this in the meanwhile
About 80% of those "plot to bomb federal buildings and murder officials" charges are all crap, the only testimony and evidence in most are from a single undercover (provocateur) agents, or a payed informant inside the group or friends with the group member.
Most go like this: Agent provocateur joins or contacts the militia group or key members thereof. Agent tries to stir up shit. Agent offers to provide illegal supplies, and if they accept it, bam, raided, charged. Court acquits involved members of conspiracy because its so retarded, but still convicts them of ~10 years for having the illegal shit, plus maybe some other illegal shit found in the raid.
Sometimes its like this. Agent provocateur contacts militia members saying they'd pay $$$ for bombs, illegal weapons, etc. posing as a rightist or terrorist group member Militia member gets the shit, sells him Arrest, indict. This one is a little bit more "fair" but it's weak evidence that they were going to do anything with the weapons/bombs. They made use of this strategy once some laws against terrorist aids were passed in 1994 or around that time. IMO the idiots were just playing around with them and got punk'd.
In some rare occasions it's just plain fraud, the feds go and implant sensitive evidence in their home and bust them with it. Theres this one guy who got imprisoned for having dug some pipe bombs in his front lawn, but the testifying FBI agent admitted in court the guy wasn't there to dig it at the time they were dug? I don't know, that case is weird but smells of straightforward fabrication.
The other 20%, yes, it's retards saying out loud their plans of 'insurgency' and stockpiling illegal stuff for it. Idiots think they're doing good planning to overthrow and kill officials. And then besides those indicted of conspiracy, there's a handful of militia members who really did shoot cops or bomb shit. These are despicable and I disdain them in every way. But like the greatest thinkers in history would say, "barking dogs don't bite" [citation needed] so even them I don't believe would do what they said they'd do. The FBI/BATF comes over and takes them away, they don't even resist the little wusses lol. Once out of prison, you don't hear a thing about them no more. I laughed out loud reading this: (from another website, can't find it now) http://www.adl.org/learn/news/kent_militia.asp ...dude couldn't even hit a single cop. but thats irrelevant. moving on.
The source I went through to find all militant crimes was the website below (SPLC.. lol, oh well.). I'm not counting racist group members, separatist group members, strictly religous group members or loners as militia members, unless they're like members of both groups at the same time, or if they're ex-members sometimes. Well basically any crazy dude who is really a militia member (duh). http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=903 I stopped at ~2001 when my computer crashed... and then proceeded to write this post. I had read through about 15 cases total, linking readily available news articles. There were only like 5 court indictments of conspiracy, to either kill or bomb buildings, and I'd say maybe only one or two would really be crazy enough to do it. So... the percentages above? yeah, thats not scientific in any way, it's just my perception, if you didn't figure that out yet. I need to recompile the list from the start to have "hard" data.
...well I wasn't going to go ahead with the statistics... but I'm gonna do it now anyways, just because it's still fresh in my head. Let us try some unscientific statistics. I need to know how many militia members are there, and how many violent crimes they commit per year, and I'll compare that with the violent crimes stats in some random year. I'll see.
I say there are 20,000 militia members in the US. Some crazy mofos say theres half a million and there might as well be, but that's too much of a stretch without any data. 20k is really a conservative number because the Michigan Militia alone says they got 10k, so if there's at the very least about 200 members in every other state, it adds up to 20k easily. Plus there's millions of gun owners out there so its not hard to say a tiny little fraction of those are militia members. It's hard to determine accurately how many militia members are there though, because the feds and media have been such hardcore faggots, so they have to "hide", to be left alone. IMO there has to be at least 100k these days but I'll go with 20k anyway, it won't matter at the end and you'll see why...
Now the crimes. From all the cases I've read, I will go with the figure of 40 criminals; I'll assume there were 40 members that were either indicted of aggravated assault/murder, or indicted of conspiracy to kill/bomb. Not just having illegal weapons, thats not necessarily violent. Not just charged of conspiracy, indicted, i.o.w. found beyond a reasonable doubt in court that they were planning on using violence with their hot stuff. There were 40 'crazy militant extremists' indicted, in a range of almost 20 years of time. So once every year in average, we have two crazy nutjobs going to prison for a violent offense.
The ratio I will be using is (criminals/year)/population: 40 / 20 / 20,000 = 0.0001 or .01%
.01% of militia members make the news with an indictment of a violent crime or conspiracy to commit one, per year.
Well thats kind of good news because compared to the national average, it's not that far off:
I'm gonna compare it to gun violence crimes. I know some of you may think mere gun crimes aren't as bad as plotting to bomb federal buildings or killing officials in government, but it's just not the case. Most of these guys only get about 5 years in prison for that, the ones sentenced for more are because they got like 500 pounds of illegal explosives and tons of illegal machine guns or whatever. They get more years for non-violent crimes (stockpiling illegal shit doesn't hurt anyone, does it? It's using it or intending to use that does) than for the actual conspiracy... So it's not that bad to plot to bomb shit or kill officials, it's really bad if you do it, but angry nutjobs who scream of killing politicians and bombing shit aren't that evil in the eyes of judges and courts out there.
Perhaps if I were to compare strictly murder cases, but I can't, there's not enough casualties. well, if they were, then I'd be in trouble as is lol, but nah. I don't know how many exactly are there, the only one I know for sure is that one militia guy that killed a state trooper, who had a warrant btw, and then died trying to shoot at a SWAT team... but thats it. A rule in statistics is that you can't do shit with only a handful of cases, you need at the very least like 20, 30, 40, 50... 50 is like the least ideal amount to do anything significantly...significant. It's bad enough as is but with a handful.. it gets worse. Well you can try doing it yourself... not hard. 1/20/20000=0.0000025=0.00025%
338,587/296,410,404 = 0.001142291 = .1142% 0.1142% of the U.S. population is indicted of gun crimes, per year. (10650/296410404=0.00003593= 0.003593% murderers..)
Also I'm assuming that for each crime case theres only one culprit, there could be more but I'm missing on that juicy data. I'm comparing militia members indicted of violence or conspiring violent plots, to gun violence cases. Like, I'm getting the highest rate for the militia, and the lowest for the control group... just trying to be fair since this whole thing is biased already.
So compared to the 0.01% from the militia, the American population is a much more dangerous group, with a 0.1142% rate to gun violence crimes. ( 0.003593% is also > 0.00025%)
So the American people are like ten times more likely to shoot others? uhh probably not... But I propose we wiretap everyone in the country to address this issue! You can't have that many criminals out there planning to commit armed burglary, assault and murder...
Hehe, you can skew this in so many ways... but one thing the results show is that you can't prove either way. At best it would show a negative correlation with the few cases that exist today, but thats still iffy. Yeah, I just spent an hour doing useless crap! So there is no statistical evidence that militia members are any more prone to gun violence than any other group, or as compared to the common folks. Point is, if you think that they should be profiled, you're deciding that on a purely moral or social standpoint
The DHS could probably do something like this though, or I don't know, maybe they already did, but didn't like the results so it wasn't published? Ohhh, conspiracy! ... Maybe it's just because, like I said, there's not enough militia members killing people and bombing shit to make a statistic out of (too much room for deviation)... but wouldn't that be evidence in itself that they're not a threat? I mean, if they can't be proven guilty, aren't they innocent?
I've said my point of view before but I'll just say it again if anyone cares. Militia groups are probably the most responsible group of gun owners there is. They know history very well, they know what guns meant to the founders of this country, and what firearms should be used for. They also know better than anyone that the true value of bearing arms is not even expressed by it's use, but by simply having them; if you have a gun, and the criminals, ill-intended people know that you do, they won't try to mess with you. A tyrannical government can be stopped just by having a well armed population, no blood must ever be shed. If you're well defended, then no attack is ever going to happen. The purpose of guns are to defend, never to attack, and most militia groups today stamp that idea in their mission statements, while getting rid of nutty members who may also be agent provocateurs or paid informants, stirring shit up and trying to smear the cause...
If anyone is dangerous here it's got to be corruption in government, because they alter the very fabric of law we rely on. Low level criminals and retarded provocateurs come and go but the crimes against the constitution are permanent and almost never reversed. Once the people give up their liberties in one area, they don't get it back 90% of the time in this Republic.
I'm against profiling period but, if you're going to support profiling, please don't mix militia groups with racist or separatist groups. I hate seeing that. It's such an overused fallacy and guilt by association. Some militia group members may be white supremacists or whatever, but that doesn't matter. Anyone really can join militia groups, no problem, as 90% are not strictly religious, but constitutionalists mainly. Look at the groups' founding intent, and their activities before you judge them.
As I attempted to demonstrate, there is no statistical evidence that militia groups are any more violent than the general population. If you got a problem with people swearing to defend the law and constitution with their guns, well, that's strictly your opinion, and it's completely debatable whether you think they should exist or not. Going beyond that dilemma, do you think they deserve to be tracked by federal intelligence agencies, called extremists, and being associated with "right-wing extremist" groups that have completely unrelated founding purposes? The militias are completely legal, unoffensive, and non-violent organizations. It's like boy scouts for adults, rofl.
And beyond militias, you think it's right for the government to assume libertarians, constitutionalists, gun owners, are militia or "right-wing extremism group" members? Think for yourself!
Resuming this whole post in one paragraph, I will compile a list to get better numbers, but overall there's no evidence that Militia members are violent. Yes there's been a handful of nuts that shot and maybe bombed stuff (idk exactly, I only went up to 2001 atm...), a couple dozen (at most imo) who were indicted of conspiracy to violence, but thats it. It's far from statistical evidence even if you consider all cases to be deadly serious. If I were to compare the militia groups with other "more" violent groups then maybe I could make a stronger case but for now this is what I got. More to come if anyone (L) shows interest. Holy crap, this post took like 3 hours to type.
Most go like this: Agent provocateur joins or contacts the militia group or key members thereof. Agent tries to stir up shit. Agent offers to provide illegal supplies, and if they accept it, bam, raided, charged. Court acquits involved members of conspiracy because its so retarded, but still convicts them of ~10 years for having the illegal shit, plus maybe some other illegal shit found in the raid.
Sometimes its like this. Agent provocateur contacts militia members saying they'd pay $$$ for bombs, illegal weapons, etc. posing as a rightist or terrorist group member Militia member gets the shit, sells him Arrest, indict. This one is a little bit more "fair" but it's weak evidence that they were going to do anything with the weapons/bombs. They made use of this strategy once some laws against terrorist aids were passed in 1994 or around that time. IMO the idiots were just playing around with them and got punk'd.
1) Agent joins a group and offers to buy illegal weapons and they accept. Group is liable for having accepted to buy illegal weaponry. The legal system can't charge them for anything else likely because of a lack of evidence, but common sense indicates that they bought them with the intention of using them; this type of presumption is used in a number of different offences and isn't recognized here because of legal protection in the states. The result in nearly every other western country would have been a far harsher sentence.
2) Militia members acting as fucking arms dealers to extremist groups within the country is a 'bit' more fair?
Wow, you need to brush up on your police work if you think this is extreme. This isn't even remotely close to entrapment, its standard shit.
Next: lets look at your numbers: First off, you ignore the 2001-2009 statistics, despite the fact that the report specifically points to the fact that after the initial flareup of the militia movement it has been quiet until their numbers surged recently. Basically there have been a number of periods of high militia activity, but you've decided to ignore the more relevant recent one who's timeline is actually outlined in the report, but include a large portion of the inter-period years. More accurate would be to pick the rate of offences during comparable years, or to index the militia crime rate to the actual size of the militias, and get accurate numbers for those, which you don't have.
Second; your research on the total number of incidents is woefully inaccurate. First off, there's the amount of incidents which don't get reported to courts for tallying, which is fairly high when it comes to rape and aggravated assault (not so much with murder). Violent crimes, because of this, are underreported in general. Rape and aggravated assault aren't really what the report was getting at, so drop those numbers and work with the population v murders ratio (but we'll actually need to work with the population v bomb plot ratio, as you'll see soon, but numbers on that are, it seems, nearly trivial for the population at large. That's not good for your position, as we'll see later). Second your ability to search is horrendous, as I will show below. Third, someone needs to actually present evidence that the killer was part of a militia and it has to be entered into the register for it to be recorded in the case, which rarely happens because people rarely admit shit like that when in the middle of a murder trial. I have very limited searching ability from my Canadian legal service providers, but just on a cursory examination of the incidence of militia activity in the last 4 years in court, I've found militia members blocking state legislature representatives from entering the legislature, multiple murders (8 but some are being appealed so i don't want to give a final number) including a daughter involved in the murder of her mother within the first 20 cases I looked at. By the fact that I don't have access to the state supreme cases when I find appeal cases, I know my provider really doesn't have a comprehensive list so the numbers are likely higher (and subject to change as appeals happen).
What's more, and I find this interesting, not all of the murder cases are solely murder cases, there's even a case involving militia members trying to get a fucking trooper killed by trading smuggled drugs for the hit.
I think the highlight of my search was finding a case in which Smith and Wesson was successfully sued in tort for nuisance because a small town had a ridiculous amount of handgun murders in the span of 2 years. I should probably go back and read the full decision later.
Additionally, you remove a number of militia sources from your search: Aryan nation militia numbers are excluded, constitutional militia members who are ferverently Christian are omitted from your numbers, you remove conspiracy and explosives charges from the numbers. Every successful averted attack doesn't count in your numbers because it never bothers getting there. You also didn't quite read the report well, because if you read the text in the paragraphs and not just the bullet points, you'd be able to pick up quite a bit more than 1 murder on law enforcement officials.
Let me break this down to you:
A bomb plot, of which you must have noted there have been many, is worth substantially 'more' than a single murder or an incidence of domestic abuse, seeing as the report alone lists 9 cases in which explosives linked with intent to use them, or bomb plots that's not an insignificant number. The report lists 18 interesting militia 'events', but also references a huge amount of other ones. Lets be charitable. Lets ignore the compound shootings. Lets ignore the 60 or so uncovered plots not mentioned. That's cool. Even if you use the 100k number that you made up, 1 in 10,000 people are planning.. wait, no, that was the number of plots.
Comparing people: Even if we drop out a number of people due to a strict interpretation of the term 'bomb', there are still THIRTY THREE people mentioned in this report alone. These are people who have been directly connected to militias during investigation; this is relevant as pointed out above.
Say you're still using that 100k number, we now have a bomb rate of .00033/11 years. (well, + the backround rate for militia members who turned out to bomb something for reasons unrelated to militia activity (ie, the nutjob rate). This would be the control, but I can't find any numbers on the rate of uncovered and successful bomb plots in the states, and the relative frequency of bombings and news about bombings is low enough that i'll assume its close to zero, so this will underestimate on that point, but that's okay)
Want to find out how many bomb plots there would be if all of america was that bomb happy?
9,000. For every 2 murders, someone would bomb something.
Ah, but I'm being charitable again. I included those years the report said weren't really hotbeds of militia activity and I obviously ignored the vast majority of plots: this is simply the 'go see list' version. Say I pick a hotspot mentioned by the report, the 1995-1996 area in which the oklahoma city and atlantic city bombings took place. 24 people there alone. That gives us a 0.288% rate. Oh. Shit.
Now here's the good part. Want to know how many people would be involved in these activities if the average populance was that bomb happy?
864 000.
A militia member during those two years was 27.7 times more likely to be involved in a bomb plot when compared with an average citizen's likelihood to have committed a murder. (Well, actually, not just an average citizen who doesn't fall into a high risk group. This includes all groups, which we'll see is another underestimation).
Say the average bomb plot has 4-5 people. That leaves you with 172,800 to 216,000 bomb plots per year.
Moreover, in a docket or case filing, unless there's a conspiracy which links the militia itself to the crime, which is unlikely for large public militias (as, again, is noted within the report you've now read), it will not be recorded as such. So even with this absurdly lucrative profiling ground, the actual numbers are actually HIGHER.
If you want to ignore all of the above, look at your analysis and remember that you're ignoring the backround .114% crime rate; you're assuming that a milita member who's involved in a domestic dispute and shoots his wife will be labeled as a militia member for the court proceedings. Note how all of the reported incidences use militia activity as evidence because its relevant. Shooting a police officer when you think the government's corrupt? 1+1=2. Shooting your wife when you think you're protecting the constitution? Err, that isn't evidence at all. You're also not factoring out other high risk groups and adjusting for social conditions. In my very preliminary analysis, I found that I can't even measure the amount of mafia or hard drug abuse related murders because the numbers are just too high to pull out docket and case numbers. Those are groups which are obviously watched, so you need to remove them and others to determine the true backround crime rate, then see if the militia has a significant variance above that. THEN you can adjust for socioeconomic backround. If you assume that the average person who is in a militia by socioeconomic backround (removing other high risk affiliations from the murder rate for that group) is 80% of the militia rate, you compare (your quoted .1% + .08% / .08%) which means militia members are more than 2 times as likely to kill when compared with an 'average joe'.
This is why science likes controls for experiments. But that above control is not 100% solid either. There's a LOT of statistics that's being avoided here, mostly because I just can't find the numbers.
So I'm all like "k, he doesn't understand statistics" and I hit:
And beyond militias, you think it's right for the government to assume libertarians, constitutionalists, gun owners, are militia or "right-wing extremism group" members? Think for yourself!
Which makes me believe you didn't read the fucking report again besides for the bullet points.
There's no problem with people trying to defend the law. Its when people bomb federal buildings because they think they ARE the law that people can agree this group should be looked at. I really don't need you to tell me how militias fit into the founding fathers vision of how america should work. I'm pretty sure everyone understands the rationale after twenty years of gun control debates.
My research does suck, I'd love to have better (other, lol) sources besides google, maybe you could give me some links?? via PM if you don't like to post them.. pleeease?
I had stopped at 2001 because my comp' crashed, I swear to God lol, I had tons of links unsaved too. Since you responded I'll go ahead and get them all again and show you why I think most of them are BS. I have no problem reading the same stuff twice, it's just frustrating but I'll do it. Would you count people who were acquitted of conspiracy charges as people who would use their illegal bombs for evil? Because really, think about it, they get 10 or less years, get back, they could still try to wreak havoc in other ways, but they don't, they don't because they weren't trying in the first place. The charges were acquitted, the jury judged he wasn't conspiring to bomb anything, and its like that on at the very least half the cases.
Sure they're still guilty of having the bombs and illegal weapons, and they're indicted for it, but just think, this stops being a real investigation, intervention whatever you wanna call it, when the COP is the one supplying the bombs! It's just ridiculous in my mind even though it's legal. They wouldn't have the bombs in the first place so all it's demonstrated by these stupid raids is that people are dumb enough to fall for it. It would never have happened without the provocateur, if it did, then there would be at least... one? real bombing by militia, because the feds can't possibly track them all and bust them all before it happens.
And you're absolutely right that militia members may be culprits in other crimes where their affiliation doesn't matter so it doesn't get mentioned, but we gotta work with what we have, I don't know where you got those 8 murders but certainly if thats true then I'd really want to see the source because I'd concede right away that it's not unjustifiable to profile militia members... (I'd still think it's wrong but hey, lots of things that are wrong are also legal in this gov't)
It's not fair to use the waco/ruby ridge/OK bombings (if that's what you're talking about the other cases in the MIAC?) IMO because they weren't militia members, maybe sympathizers, but they were on their own. if you include them then you may have to name it as a new control group, like... "people with guns & angry at the gov't", you'd certainly get positive correlations with that though. I'm defending militia here! Plus McVeigh was a nut and possibly provocateur'd but thats beyond the point!
Get a subscription to an online legal service. I can't give you more advice than that because if you aren't in academia you need to pay through your NOSE (lol 20$-260$ PER SEARCH? Lol guess that's why billable hours cost so much). That's why I can't get good numbers, because I simply don't have access to complete databases and I'm not willing to fork out hundreds of dollars to make searches in databases that I'm not even sure have the information. Google isn't a comprehensive research tool either; if it was, people wouldn't need to refer to these databases.
Barring having access to all dockets/cases or social science/juridical research on the rate of militia links to militia members in criminal trials you're pretty much dead in the water statistically (and such research would basically involve getting the names of a statistically relevant sample of militia members, then screening for their base rate of violent crime offences or some other comparable crime, then comparing that to the rate of identification of cases which bring militia in as evidence). The most official, and likely most accurate raw source you're going to get are the studies and numbers put up at the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/) and I looked, the have very little on the backround incidence of explosives charges or militia identification, so there goes that.
And for your absolutely ridiculous statements like :
Sure they're still guilty of having the bombs and illegal weapons, and they're indicted for it, but just think, this stops being a real investigation, intervention whatever you wanna call it, when the COP is the one supplying the bombs!
Do you think cops mosey around asking people if they want to buy illegal bombs? Do you think that's the way police operations work? No. The aim of the undercover work is to put people in jail BEFORE they bomb something, so their aim can't be to have the 'real investigation' when the fuse is lit because at the point where you have prima facie evidence of the guy trying to bomb a federal police building, the bomb is already ticking. (and lol, there have been multiple successful bombings, not one.)
I mean, if your idea of good police work is to follow a guy with a bomb and cuff him while the fuse is lit, that's somewhat ridiculous.
Additionally, I didn't even USE waco/ridge/McVeigh's bombings. Waco and Ridge were shootouts (and feel free to include the hundred people there in your gun offences numbers for cop killing. Oh shit. Bad news. But wait, you don't even consider them militia members despite the fact that they're a larged armed group of civilians who operated based defending their conception of the law. I guess if a militia is called "mountain boys" they would just be boys, not militia members right?), and i estimated that where numbers weren't given, only 3 members of the militia were involved, which is under the overall report average of 4-5 per. I fucking padded the stats in your favor at EVERY turn.
The simple point is that the proper numbers don't exist, but there's an OBVIOUS propensity towards bombing shit and getting into armed conflicts with the state. Look at your OWN statements here:
-"If anyone is dangerous here it's got to be corruption in government, because they alter the very fabric of law we rely on"
Government hijacked the law. I am the law. Fuck you policeman acting on corrupt government, I'm gonna shoot you.
-"God forbid people will themselves to protect what's right, right? The question here is, whose interpretation of the constitution you trust, the government's which allow the DHS, NSA, CIA to spy whoever they want, or the libertarians' and gun owners'?"
Can't trust government, must trust civilian gun owners.
Etc.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with the militia movement's aims, the entire purpose, even within the constitutional framework of the militia is to be directly opposed to the federal government. It is their DUTY to go and march on Washington D.C. or engage in armed revolution if tyranny takes over because that's the entire purpose of the militia as a check on the government. Obviously the vast majority of people in the militia movement would simply prefer a political in-system solution, but its obvious that events like planned bombings/plots on federal judges/etc will take place if the entire intellectual framework for these organizations is that they are a bulwark against the government.
Essentially you need to make the argument that neutering the police's ability to look into plots like this is a fair trade for not hurting the public image (oh wait, it wasn't a public report anyways, so until it was leaked and screamed about by libertarian bloggers it wouldn't have done that anyways) of militias. Seeing as police generally DO profile, you need a powerful arguement as to why. In the case of race based profiling, for instance, there was a very broad and overarching premise that profiling was part of a huge network of race based discrimination. In the case of profiling at airports by appearance after the 9/11 scare, intra-united states Islamic groups raised powerful arguments that they were being punished exclusively for the sins of those from abroad. What's the counter argument here, and why is it on the scale of religious and race based discrimination?
I just realized i was using indicted all this time when I meant convicted. kill me.
I'm not a lawyer, don't ever want to be one, not a legal enthusiast either, so I'm not that interested in paying for those... but this one looks good for federal cases http://law.justia.com/
It's not a bad method to go undercover and offer to sell/buy illegal weapons, I'm just saying it doesn't prove that militias are as much of a threat as if they really were bombing, real cases make better evidence than raids and dealings because you can't prove intent that easily.
Also militia men adhere by the law of the land even though they know the government tinkered with it. They don't do anything that would get them a guilty verdict in court, that wold be silly. They may not respect the feds but that doesn't mean they won't play by the rules. The vast majority (99%) do and the ones that don't mostly just went too far in their armaments but aren't violent.
I'm not saying you can't trust the government, you can trust whoever you like, trust in totalitarianism for all I care, I'm saying that it would be best if people didn't because that way they wouldn't be able to get away with so many lies. And you absolutely shouldn't blame the people who doubt them and arm themselves because it's completely legal and healthy to have a doubting population, there's better oversight and less corruption. Did I also say I'm going to bomb a fed building or kill cops? No I'm not retarded, I have my head screwed on straight, I'd never initiate violence towards anyone, and militia members are the same, they would never be the ones to shoot first.
I'm not going to get into that again but there's studies (of which I will say straight away I haven't read, and you can doubt if you like) that say towns and cities with well-armed people have less crimes because criminals are more afraid of busting peoples homes and such.
It's not an obvious inference to say militia members are violent, you need data to back it up... and so far I've seen none! I'll show you what I have so far but I'm still going:
July 28, 1995 Antigovernment extremist Charles Ray Polk is arrested after trying to purchase a machine gun from an undercover police officer, and is later indicted by a federal grand jury for plotting to blow up the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas. At the time of his arrest, Polk is trying to purchase plastic explosives to add to the already huge arsenal he's amassed. Polk is sentenced to almost 21 years in federal prison, with a projected release date in 2009. - not a militia member
October 9, 1995 Saboteurs derail an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Ariz., killing one person and injuring scores of others. An antigovernment message, signed by the "Sons of Gestapo," is left behind. The perpetrators remain at large. - since perpetrators are unknown, can't say they were militia?
December 18, 1995 An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee discovers a plastic drum packed with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a parking lot behind the IRS building in Reno, Nev. The device failed to explode a day earlier when a three-foot fuse went out prematurely. Ten days later, tax protester Joseph Martin Bailie is arrested. Bailie is eventually sentenced to 36 years in federal prison. - not a militia member
January 18, 1996 Peter Kevin Langan, the pseudonymous "Commander Pedro" who leads the underground Aryan Republican Army, is arrested after a shootout with the FBI in Ohio. Along with six other suspects arrested around the same time, Langan is charged in connection with a string of 22 bank robberies in seven Midwestern states between 1994 and 1996. After pleading guilty and agreeing to testify, conspirator Richard Guthrie commits suicide in his cell. Two others, Kevin McCarthy and Scott Stedeford, enter plea bargains and do testify against their co-conspirators. Eventually, Mark Thomas, a leading neo-Nazi in Pennsylvania, pleads guilty for his role in helping organize the robberies and agrees to testify against Langan and other gang members. Shawn Kenny, another suspect, becomes a federal informant. Langan is sentenced to a life term in one case, plus 55 years in another. Thomas is sentenced to eight years in prison, and is released in early 2004. - this is a racist militia, not a constitutional militia, different purposes, defending different things. he's "defending" his bloodline, I'm defeding the law and constitution. very different. so yeah sue me, this is out of my list.
April 11, 1996 Antigovernment activist Ray Hamblin is charged with illegal possession of explosives after authorities find 460 pounds of the high explosive Tovex, 746 pounds of ANFO blasting agent and 15 homemade hand grenades on his property in Hood River, Ore. Hamblin is sentenced to almost four years in federal prison, and is released in March 2000. - not a militia member
April 12, 1996 Apparently inspired by his reading of a neo-Nazi tract, Larry Wayne Shoemake kills one black man and wounds seven other people, including a reporter, during a racist shooting spree in a black neighborhood in Jackson, Miss. As police close in on the abandoned restaurant he is shooting from, Shoemake, who is white, sets the restaurant on fire and kills himself. A search of his home finds references to "Separation or Annihilation," an essay on race relations by National Alliance leader William Pierce, along with an arsenal of weapons that includes 17 long guns, 20,000 rounds of ammunition, several knives and countless military manuals. - damn... wiretap every single white man with a gun imo.
April 26, 1996 Two leaders of the Militia-at-Large of the Republic of Georgia, Robert Edward Starr iii and William James McCranie Jr., are charged with manufacturing shrapnel bombs for distribution to militia members. Later in the year, they are sentenced on explosives charges to terms of up to eight years. Another Militia-at-Large member, accused of training a team to assassinate politicians, is later convicted of conspiracy. Starr is released from prison in 2003, while McCranie gets out in 2001. The last member, Troy Allen Kayser (alias Troy Spain), draws six years in prison and is released in early 2002. - oh yeah this was the one with forged evidence. maybe. http://www.constitution.org/piml/96051003.txt http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia68.html http://www.injusticeline.com/gabomb.html Agent Stephen W. Gillis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also acknowledged that Starr's co-defendant, William James "Jimmy" McCranie, had said, "I don't want to know anything about it" and walked away when the government's informant was talking about building bombs. http://www.adl.org/mwd/oldnew3.asp
All the solid evidence from the raid were 10 burried pipe bombs and "bomb making materials" which were 2 bags of legally obtainable chemicals. They had one tape of Starr saying the day before on a radio show that the FBI was on his ass. testimony from secret informants + Gillis. that's all they got. They couldn't define a purpose for the bombs, couldn't define a conspiracy to bomb anything but their own lawns? So yeah.. make your own conclusions
Bottom line is they weren't convicted of conspiracy to kill/bomb/hurt no one. They were convicted for having the stupid bombs and conspiracy to make more based on the word of the stupid informants + Gillis
nonviolent verdict.
July 1, 1996 Twelve members of an Arizona militia group called the Viper Team are arrested on federal conspiracy, weapons and explosive charges after allegedly surveilling and videotaping government buildings as potential targets. All 12 plead guilty or are convicted of various charges, drawing sentences of up to nine years in prison. The plot participants are all released in coming years, with Gary Curds Baer, who drew the heaviest sentence, freed in May 2004. - http://www.copi.com/articles/viper.html damn provocateurs. no violent conspiracy indiction. funny that when it's a conspiracy to make illegal bombs, then don't say it, when it's conspiracy to blow shit up, they say it. why not include the damn exact charge in the blurb to make my job easier, lol... really as I was reading the indictments I was like "wow, awesome" lol it may be illegal and dangerous to make these weapons and bombs but it doesn't mean they're terrorists, they're just rednecks having fun. that doesn't mean they shouldn't be charged and tried, but it's not all you make it to be, ok?
nonviolent verdict
July 27, 1996 A nail-packed bomb goes off at the Atlanta Olympics, which is seen by many extremists as part of a Satanic "New World Order," killing one person and injuring more than 100 others. Investigators will later conclude the attack is linked to 1997-1998 bombings of an Atlanta-area abortion clinic, an Atlanta gay bar and a Birmingham, Ala., abortion facility. Suspect Eric Robert Rudolph — a reclusive North Carolina man tied to the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology — flees into the woods of his native state after he is identified in early 1998 as a suspect in the Birmingham attack, and is only captured five years later. Eventually, he pleads guilty to all of the attacks attributed to him in exchange for life without parole. - loner
July 29, 1996 Washington State Militia leader John Pitner and seven others are arrested on weapons and explosives charges in connection with a plot to build pipe bombs for a confrontation with the federal government. Pitner and four others are convicted on weapons charges, while conspiracy charges against all eight end in a mistrial. Pitner is later retried on that charge, convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. He is freed from prison in 2001. - http://www.constitution.org/abus/pitner.htm <-index with tons of broken links.. http://proliberty.com/observer/prt0298a.htm <-haha can't use that pocket constitution http://www.njmilitia.org/apr98.htm http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws35.htm <-nice http://www.publicgood.org/reports/indict.html this is too confusing. mistrials retrials asdasfdas http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/307/1178/521877/ does this mean: "Pitner's conviction of possession of a machine gun, resulting from his first trial, is affirmed. Pitner's conviction of conspiracy, resulting from his second trial, is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment." that his conviction of conspiracy got retracted? (after he already spent all those years in jail with no bail lol)
correct me if i'm wrong but i think this is another nonviolent, no conspiracy verdict
October 8, 1996 Three "Phineas Priests" — racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity terrorists who feel they've been called by God to undertake violent attacks — are charged in connection with two bank robberies and bombings at the two banks, a Spokane newspaper and a Planned Parenthood office. Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merrell are eventually convicted and sentenced to life terms. Brian Ratigan, a fourth member of the group arrested separately, draws a 55-year term. - damn.
October 11, 1996 Seven members of the Mountaineer Militia are arrested in a plot to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records center, where 1,000 people work, in West Virginia. In 1998, leader Floyd "Ray" Looker is sentenced to 18 years in prison. Two other defendants are sentenced on explosives charges and a third draws a year in prison for providing blueprints of the FBI facility to Looker, who then sold them to a government informant who was posing as a terrorist. - http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia70.html http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027661.U.pdf Looker is guilty of conspiring with terrorists.. fine, the FBI sure are the terrorists lol the other guys, not so much
1 "violent" verdict
I got 4 members guilty of conspiracy to bomb/kill so far. Tbh should be only 2 because Willie Ray Lampley was the main one who dragged along his wife and friend with him but w/e
They don't do anything that would get them a guilty verdict in court, that wold be silly
Besides have a higher incidence of buying bombs and planning to use them.
I'm pretty much done here. Lets examine the thread's revival:
1) Two right wing extremists' actions are high profile news. Someone says 'wow, about that DHS report, coincidence?'. Fox news, of all possible institutions, agrees.
2) You pop in saying this report is clearly an effort discredit militias; obviously no one would release a report about a possible threat without trying to also commit slander.
3) You defend this paranoid position by repeating, verbatim, a libertarian blog about a second report, saying that its proof that someone's trying to fuck with the militia movement and that the government is corrupt.
4) You're put into a corner and confess to not actually knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
5) I laugh in my head.
6) You put up a horrendous 'statistical' analysis which is the equivalent of you going "hey 6+6=18. The tops of the sixes form half of the one, and the bottoms form the circles for the 8. QED".
7) I demolish your statistical analysis.
8) You resort, again, to pretending a conviction on conspiracy charges doesn't matter because the FBI went undercover. You ignore the fact that people have been convicted of fucking bomb plots and pretend the offences aren't worthy of profiling and aren't violent. I can't prove you were going to use the pipe bombs, but I'm sure they were just to decorate your lawn; militia wouldn't be mean to anyone ^_^. I dont care if they're 'more religious crazy than anti govt crazy' either, because that wasn't a distinction the original DHS report or the MIAC report made. It was one YOU made.
Also, Justia does not have lists of superior/supreme state court case information. That's the information I'm missing; If the case went into arbitration or wasn't appealed its invisible to me. Ie. There's no way for me to compile accurate statistics without a statistically representative sample of militia member's names and a complete list of dockets/trials/appeals.
What no, that's not what I'm doing right now, I'm reading through all cases from that SPLC site and seeing which ones are really militia members (I'm including ex-members too) and which ones also got convicted for it. It's not these cases that don't matter, it's those that they were acquitted of conspiracy. The remark I made about the FBI/BATF techniques was just an observation for those who know how corrupt these guys can be. You absolutely won't believe anything that comes from my mouth anymore...
Having bombs don't mean you're going to blow up other people's property or public buildings, some folks like blowing stuff up for the fun of it you know, you can't infer that a guy was going to use it for evil just because he has it... need more evidence than that, and in many of these cases you'll see that the jury isn't that easily convinced (sometimes they are though...)
I had to stop for a while so I'm not done but so far... I got to about where I was before.
July 28, 1995 Antigovernment extremist Charles Ray Polk is arrested after trying to purchase a machine gun from an undercover police officer, and is later indicted by a federal grand jury for plotting to blow up the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas. At the time of his arrest, Polk is trying to purchase plastic explosives to add to the already huge arsenal he's amassed. Polk is sentenced to almost 21 years in federal prison, with a projected release date in 2009. - not a militia member
October 9, 1995 Saboteurs derail an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Ariz., killing one person and injuring scores of others. An antigovernment message, signed by the "Sons of Gestapo," is left behind. The perpetrators remain at large. - since perpetrators are unknown, can't say they were militia?
December 18, 1995 An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee discovers a plastic drum packed with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a parking lot behind the IRS building in Reno, Nev. The device failed to explode a day earlier when a three-foot fuse went out prematurely. Ten days later, tax protester Joseph Martin Bailie is arrested. Bailie is eventually sentenced to 36 years in federal prison. - not a militia member
January 18, 1996 Peter Kevin Langan, the pseudonymous "Commander Pedro" who leads the underground Aryan Republican Army, is arrested after a shootout with the FBI in Ohio. Along with six other suspects arrested around the same time, Langan is charged in connection with a string of 22 bank robberies in seven Midwestern states between 1994 and 1996. After pleading guilty and agreeing to testify, conspirator Richard Guthrie commits suicide in his cell. Two others, Kevin McCarthy and Scott Stedeford, enter plea bargains and do testify against their co-conspirators. Eventually, Mark Thomas, a leading neo-Nazi in Pennsylvania, pleads guilty for his role in helping organize the robberies and agrees to testify against Langan and other gang members. Shawn Kenny, another suspect, becomes a federal informant. Langan is sentenced to a life term in one case, plus 55 years in another. Thomas is sentenced to eight years in prison, and is released in early 2004. - this is a racist militia, not a constitutional militia, different purposes, defending different things. he's "defending" his bloodline, I'm defeding the law and constitution. very different. so yeah sue me, this is out of my list.
April 11, 1996 Antigovernment activist Ray Hamblin is charged with illegal possession of explosives after authorities find 460 pounds of the high explosive Tovex, 746 pounds of ANFO blasting agent and 15 homemade hand grenades on his property in Hood River, Ore. Hamblin is sentenced to almost four years in federal prison, and is released in March 2000. - not a militia member
April 12, 1996 Apparently inspired by his reading of a neo-Nazi tract, Larry Wayne Shoemake kills one black man and wounds seven other people, including a reporter, during a racist shooting spree in a black neighborhood in Jackson, Miss. As police close in on the abandoned restaurant he is shooting from, Shoemake, who is white, sets the restaurant on fire and kills himself. A search of his home finds references to "Separation or Annihilation," an essay on race relations by National Alliance leader William Pierce, along with an arsenal of weapons that includes 17 long guns, 20,000 rounds of ammunition, several knives and countless military manuals. - damn... wiretap every single white man with a gun IMO.
April 26, 1996 Two leaders of the Militia-at-Large of the Republic of Georgia, Robert Edward Starr iii and William James McCranie Jr., are charged with manufacturing shrapnel bombs for distribution to militia members. Later in the year, they are sentenced on explosives charges to terms of up to eight years. Another Militia-at-Large member, accused of training a team to assassinate politicians, is later convicted of conspiracy. Starr is released from prison in 2003, while McCranie gets out in 2001. The last member, Troy Allen Kayser (alias Troy Spain), draws six years in prison and is released in early 2002. - oh yeah this was the one with forged evidence. maybe. http://www.constitution.org/piml/96051003.txt http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia68.html http://www.injusticeline.com/gabomb.html Agent Stephen W. Gillis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also acknowledged that Starr's co-defendant, William James "Jimmy" McCranie, had said, "I don't want to know anything about it" and walked away when the government's informant was talking about building bombs. http://www.adl.org/mwd/oldnew3.asp
All the solid evidence from the raid were 10 buried pipe bombs and "bomb making materials" which were 2 bags of legally obtainable chemicals. They had one tape of Starr saying the day before on a radio show that the FBI was on his ass. testimony from secret informants + Gillis. that's all they got. They couldn't define a purpose for the bombs, couldn't define a conspiracy to bomb anything but their own lawns? So yeah.. make your own conclusions
Bottom line is they weren't convicted of conspiracy to kill/bomb/hurt no one. They were convicted for having the stupid bombs and conspiracy to make more based on the word of the stupid informants + Gillis
nonviolent verdict.
July 1, 1996 Twelve members of an Arizona militia group called the Viper Team are arrested on federal conspiracy, weapons and explosive charges after allegedly surveying and videotaping government buildings as potential targets. All 12 plead guilty or are convicted of various charges, drawing sentences of up to nine years in prison. The plot participants are all released in coming years, with Gary Curds Baer, who drew the heaviest sentence, freed in May 2004. - http://www.copi.com/articles/viper.html damn provocateurs. no violent conspiracy indictment. funny that when it's a conspiracy to make illegal bombs, then don't say it, when it's conspiracy to blow shit up, they say it. why not include the damn exact charge in the blurb to make my job easier, lol... really as I was reading the indictments I was like "wow, awesome" lol it may be illegal and dangerous to make these weapons and bombs but it doesn't mean they're terrorists, they're just rednecks having fun. that doesn't mean they shouldn't be charged and tried, but it's not all you make it to be, ok?
nonviolent verdict
July 27, 1996 A nail-packed bomb goes off at the Atlanta Olympics, which is seen by many extremists as part of a Satanic "New World Order," killing one person and injuring more than 100 others. Investigators will later conclude the attack is linked to 1997-1998 bombings of an Atlanta-area abortion clinic, an Atlanta gay bar and a Birmingham, Ala., abortion facility. Suspect Eric Robert Rudolph — a reclusive North Carolina man tied to the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology — flees into the woods of his native state after he is identified in early 1998 as a suspect in the Birmingham attack, and is only captured five years later. Eventually, he pleads guilty to all of the attacks attributed to him in exchange for life without parole. - loner
July 29, 1996 Washington State Militia leader John Pitner and seven others are arrested on weapons and explosives charges in connection with a plot to build pipe bombs for a confrontation with the federal government. Pitner and four others are convicted on weapons charges, while conspiracy charges against all eight end in a mistrial. Pitner is later retried on that charge, convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. He is freed from prison in 2001. - http://www.constitution.org/abus/pitner.htm <-index with tons of broken links.. http://proliberty.com/observer/prt0298a.htm <-haha can't use that pocket constitution http://www.njmilitia.org/apr98.htm http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws35.htm <-nice http://www.publicgood.org/reports/indict.html this is too confusing. mistrials retrials asdasfdas http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/307/1178/521877/ does this mean: "Pitner's conviction of possession of a machine gun, resulting from his first trial, is affirmed. Pitner's conviction of conspiracy, resulting from his second trial, is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment." that his conviction of conspiracy got retracted? (after he already spent all those years in jail with no bail lol)
correct me if i'm wrong but i think this is another nonviolent, no conspiracy verdict
October 8, 1996 Three "Phineas Priests" — racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity terrorists who feel they've been called by God to undertake violent attacks — are charged in connection with two bank robberies and bombings at the two banks, a Spokane newspaper and a Planned Parenthood office. Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merrell are eventually convicted and sentenced to life terms. Brian Ratigan, a fourth member of the group arrested separately, draws a 55-year term. - damn.
October 11, 1996 Seven members of the Mountaineer Militia are arrested in a plot to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records center, where 1,000 people work, in West Virginia. In 1998, leader Floyd "Ray" Looker is sentenced to 18 years in prison. Two other defendants are sentenced on explosives charges and a third draws a year in prison for providing blueprints of the FBI facility to Looker, who then sold them to a government informant who was posing as a terrorist. - http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia70.html http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027661.U.pdf
Looker is guilty of conspiring with terrorists.. fine, the FBI sure are the terrorists lol the other guys, not so much
1 "violent" verdict
January 16, 1997 Two anti-personnel bombs — the second clearly designed to kill arriving law enforcement and rescue workers — explode outside an abortion clinic in Sandy Springs, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta. Seven people are injured. Letters signed by the "Army of God" claim responsibility for this attack and another, a month later, at an Atlanta gay bar. Authorities later learn that these attacks, the 1998 bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., abortion clinic and the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, were all carried out by Eric Robert Rudolph, who is captured in 2003 after five years on the run. Rudolph avoids the death penalty by pleading guilty in exchange for a life sentence, but simultaneously releases a defiant statement defending his attacks. - loner, not a militia member even though the media loves to spin it
January 22, 1997 Authorities raid the Martinton, Ill., home of former Marine Ricky Salyers, an alleged Ku Klux Klan member, discovering 35,000 rounds of heavy ammunition, armor piercing shells, smoke and tear gas grenades, live shells for grenade launchers, artillery shells and other military gear. Salyers was discharged earlier from the Marines, where he taught demolitions and sniping, after tossing a live grenade (with the pin still in) at state police officers serving him with a search warrant in 1995. Following the 1997 raid, Salyers, an alleged member of the underground Black Dawn group of extremists in the military, is sentenced to serve three years for weapons violations. He is released from prison in 2000. - sad... but I won't count, sorry... that "black dawn" group within the military is a white supremacist group I believe, theres little info on them
March 26, 1997 Militia activist Brendon Blasz is arrested in Kalamazoo, Mich., and charged with making pipe bombs and other illegal explosives. Prosecutors say Blasz plotted to bomb the federal building in Battle Creek, the IRS building in Portage, a Kalamazoo television station and federal armories. But they recommend leniency on his explosives conviction after Blasz renounces his antigovernment beliefs and cooperates with them. In August, he is sentenced to more than three years in federal prison. Blasz is released in early 2000. - nonviolent verdict (wuss! lol)
April 22, 1997 Three Ku Klux Klan members are arrested in a plot to blow up a natural gas refinery outside Fort Worth, Texas, after local Klan leader Robert Spence gets cold feet and goes to the FBI. The three, along with a fourth arrested later, expected to kill a huge number of people with the blast — authorities later say as many as 30,000 might have died — which was to serve, incredibly, as a diversion for a simultaneous armored car robbery. Among the victims would have been children at a nearby school. All four plead guilty to conspiracy charges and are sentenced to terms of up to 20 years. Spence enters the Witness Protection Program. Carl Jay Waskom Jr. is released in June 2004. Shawn and Catherine Adams, a couple, are expected to be freed in 2006, and Edward Taylor Jr. in early 2007. - kkk
April 23, 1997 Florida police arrest Todd Vanbiber, a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance's Tampa unit and the shadowy League of the Silent Soldier, after he accidentally sets off pipe bombs he was building, blasting shrapnel into his own face. He is accused of plotting to use the bombs on the approach to Disney World to divert attention from a planned string of bank robberies. Vanbiber pleads guilty to weapons and explosives charges and is sentenced to more than six years in federal prison. He is released in 2002. Within two years, Vanbiber is posting messages on neo-Nazi Internet sites boasting that he has built over 300 bombs successfully and only made one error, and describing mass murderer Timothy McVeigh as a hero. - neo-nazi
April 27, 1997 After a cache of explosives stored in a tree blows up near Yuba City, Calif., police arrest Montana Freemen supporter William Robert Goehler. Investigators looking into the blast arrest two Goehler associates, one of them a militia leader, after finding 500 pounds of petrogel explosives — enough to level three city blocks — in a motor home parked outside their residence. Six others are arrested on related charges. Goehler, with previous convictions for rape, burglary and assault, is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. - omg he killed a tree!?! I can't find the verdicts on google bawwww I'm powerless http://articles.latimes.com/1997-05-02/news/mn-54740_1_explosives-charges http://www.sfgate.com/e/a/1999/05/23/METRO10000.dtl ok well it's obvious this guy is messed up, rapist, stabbed his lawyer, lol, but I'm not even sure if hes a real member, it says supporter everywhere does that mean membership? I absolutely can't find the other guys so I'll assume it was just more illegal explosive devices indictments http://www.adl.org/mwd/Calendar.asp ok well he isn't a member, sorry, I'd love to include a nut like this guy in, but he isn't.
May 3, 1997 Antigovernment extremists set fire to the IRS office in Colorado Springs, Colo., causing $2.5 million in damage and injuring a firefighter. Federal agents later arrest five men in connection with the arson, which is conceived as a protest against the tax system. Ringleader James Cleaver, former national director of the antigovernment Sons of Liberty group, is eventually sentenced to 33 years in prison, while accomplice Jack Dowell is sentenced in a separate trial to serve 30 years. Both are ordered to pay $2.2 million in restitution. Dowell's cousin is acquitted of all charges, while two other suspects, Ronald Sherman and Thomas Shafer, plead guilty to perjury charges in connection with the case. - Burn IRS, burn! j/k. http://www.adl.org/learn/news/IRS_Arson.asp this Sons of Liberty group is (was) no militia http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20020728/ai_n10007771/ "political action group" what an idiot... that's how you define action? burning down buildings? retard. these kinds of people are the worst, they completely ruin what others stand for while pretending to be good people.
July 4, 1997 Militiaman Bradley Playford Glover and another heavily armed antigovernment activist are arrested before dawn near Fort Hood, in central Texas, just hours before they planned to invade the Army base and slaughter foreign troops they mistakenly believed were housed there. In the next few days, five other people are arrested in several states for their alleged roles in the plot to invade a series of military bases where the group believes United Nations forces are massing for an assault on Americans. All seven are part of a splinter group of the Third Continental Congress, a kind of militia government-in-waiting. In the end, Glover is sentenced to two years on Kansas weapons charges, to be followed by a five-year federal term in connection with the Fort Hood plot. The others draw lesser terms. Glover is released in 2003, the last of the seven to get out. - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19981030&id=NEEKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bksDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4555,6227572 http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf two idiots two violent verdicts would be funny if UN troops were really there though, "omg, the batshit insane were right!"
2 violent verdicts
December 12, 1997 A federal grand jury in Arkansas indicts three men on racketeering charges for plotting to overthrow the government and create a whites-only Aryan People's Republic, which they intend to grow through polygamy. Chevie Kehoe, Daniel Lee and Faron Lovelace are accused of crimes in six states, including murder, kidnapping, robbery and conspiracy. Kehoe and Lee will also face state charges of murdering an Arkansas family, including an 8-year-old girl, in 1996. Kehoe ultimately receives a life sentence on that charge, while Lee is sentenced to death. Lovelace is sentenced to death for the murder of a suspected informant, although in early 2005 he will be up for resentencing because of court rulings. Kehoe's brother, Cheyne, is convicted of attempted murder during a February 1997 Ohio shootout with police and sentenced to 24 years in prison, despite his key role in helping authorities find his fugitive brother in Utah in June 1997 after the shootout. Cheyne went to the authorities after Chevie began talking about murdering their parents and showing sexual interest in Cheyne's wife. - damn
January 29, 1998 An off-duty police officer is killed and a nurse terribly maimed when a nail-packed, remote-control bomb explodes outside a Birmingham, Ala., abortion facility, the New Woman All Women clinic. Letters to media outlets and officials claim responsibility in the name of the "Army of God," the same entity that took credit for the bombings of a clinic and a gay bar in the Atlanta area. The attack also will be linked to the fatal 1996 bombing of the Atlanta Olympics. Eric Robert Rudolph, a loner from North Carolina, is first identified as a suspect when witnesses spot his pickup truck fleeing the Birmingham bombing. But he is not caught until 2003. He ultimately pleads guilty to all four attacks in exchange for a life sentence. - loner
February 23, 1998 Three men with links to a Ku Klux Klan group are arrested near East St. Louis, Ill., on weapons charges. The three, along with three other men arrested later, had formed a group called The New Order, patterned on a 1980s terror group called The Order (a.k.a. the Silent Brotherhood) that carried out assassinations and armored car heists. New Order members plotted to assassinate a federal judge and civil rights lawyer Morris Dees, blow up the Southern Poverty Law Center that Dees co-founded and other buildings, poison water supplies and rob banks. In the end, all six plead guilty or are convicted of weapons charges, drawing terms of up to seven years in federal prison. Wallace Weicherding, who came to a 1997 Dees speech with a concealed gun but turned back rather than pass through a metal detector, is freed in 2003. New Order leader Dennis McGiffen is released in July 2004, the last of the six to regain his freedom. - kkk
March 18, 1998 Three members of the North American Militia of Southwestern Michigan are arrested on firearms and other charges. Prosecutors say the men conspired to bomb federal buildings, a Kalamazoo television station and an interstate highway interchange, kill federal agents, assassinate politicians and attack aircraft at a National Guard base — attacks that were all to be funded by marijuana sales. The group's leader, Ken Carter, is a self-described member of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. Carter pleads guilty, testifies against his former comrades, and is sentenced to five years in prison. The others, Randy Graham and Bradford Metcalf, go to trial and are ultimately handed sentences of 40 and 55 years, respectively. Carter is released from prison in 2002. - looks ugly http://www.newcomm.org/content/view/1765/93/ http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia6.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia14.html http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/nov/11-19-98/news/news11.html all three guilty. not much to say.
unless... yes! nutty blogger for the rescue! http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/duffy104.html so carter was given a 5 year plea bargain with a bonus surgery for his "emphysema", and took it. he testified bullshit against his dear comrades! along with the fed's testimony, they can make up whatever they want and it would be strong cross-referenced evidence. Metcalf didn't want a lawyer so he's fucked. The overt act apparently was having illegal machine guns, which this guy claims weren't machine guns but the jury was made to think they were by the prosecutor. Fucking Carter died 6 months after getting out cuz of a lung disease anyway, couldn't he not have falsely testified? damnit man.
Well, not worth going there. I'll just pretend the verdicts and BATF and FBI are cool and honest folks with no agenda but the well-being of the population.
3 violent verdicts.
May 29, 1998 A day after stealing a water truck, three men shoot and kill a Cortez, Colo., police officer and wound two other officers as they try to stop the suspects during a road chase. After the gun battle, the three — Alan Monty Pilon, Robert Mason and Jason McVean — disappear into the canyons of the high desert. Mason will be found a week later, dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot. The skeletal remains of Pilon are found in October 1999 and show that he, too, died of a gunshot to the head, another apparent suicide. McVean is not found, but most authorities assume he died in the desert. Many officials believe the three men intended to use the water truck in some kind of terrorist attack, but the nature of their suspected plans is never learned. - intense.
July 30, 1998 South Carolina militia member Paul T. Chastain is charged with weapons, explosives and drug violations after allegedly trying to trade drugs for a machine gun and enough C-4 plastic explosive to demolish a five-room house. The next year, Chastain pleads guilty to an array of charges, including threatening to kill Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh. He is sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. - wtf. why not confess you threatened to kill the Pope too? http://www.chastaincentral.com/content/crime.html#Paul http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=426
1 violent retard, er, verdict
October 23, 1998 Dr. Barnett Slepian is assassinated by a sniper as he converses with his wife and children in the kitchen of their Amherst, N.Y., home. Identified as a suspect shortly after the murder, James Charles Kopp flees to Mexico, driven and disguised by friend Jennifer Rock, and goes on to hide out in Ireland and France. Two fellow anti-abortion extremists, Loretta Marra and Dennis Malvasi, make plans to help Kopp secretly return. Kopp, also suspected in the earlier sniper woundings of four other physicians in Canada and upstate New York, is arrested in France as he picks up money wired by Marra and Malvasi. He eventually admits the shooting to a newspaper reporter — claiming that he only intended to wound Slepian — and is sentenced to 25 years in prison. Marra and Malvasi go to prison for almost three years after pleading guilty to federal charges related to harboring a fugitive. - pro-life (lol...)
June 10, 1999 Officials arrest Alabama plumber Chris Scott Gilliam, a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, after he attempts to purchase 10 hand grenades from an undercover federal agent. Gilliam, who months earlier paraded in an extremist T-shirt in front of the Southern Poverty Law Center's offices in Montgomery, tells agents he planned to send mail bombs to targets in Washington, d.c. Agents searching his home find bomb-making manuals, white supremacist literature and an assault rifle. Gilliam pleads guilty to federal firearms charges and is sentenced to 10 years in prison. He is expected to be released in 2008. - neo-nazi
July 1, 1999 A gay couple, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, are shot to death in bed at their home near Redding, Calif. Days later, after tracking purchases made on Mowder's stolen credit card, police arrest brothers Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams. At least one of the pair, Matthew Williams (both use their middle names), is an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology. Police soon learn that the brothers two weeks earlier carried out three synagogue arsons in Sacramento, along with the arson of an abortion clinic there. Both brothers, whose mother at one point refers in a conversation to her sons' victims as "two homos," eventually admit their guilt — in Matthew's case, in a newspaper interview. But Matthew, who at one point badly injures a guard in a surprise attack, commits suicide in jail in late 2002. Tyler, who pleads guilty to an array of charges in the case, is not expected to be eligible for parole for some 50 years. - extreme pro-heterosexualism! and pro-non-judaism-anti-non-christian
July 2, 1999 Infuriated that neo-Nazi leader Matt Hale has just been denied his law license by Illinois officials, follower Benjamin Nathaniel Smith begins a three-day murder spree across Illinois and Indiana, shooting to death a black former college basketball coach and a Korean doctoral student and wounding nine other minorities. Smith kills himself as police close in during a car chase. Hale, leader of the World Church of the Creator, at first claims to barely know Smith. But it quickly emerges that Hale has recently given Smith his group's top award and, in fact, has spent some 16 hours on the phone with him in the two weeks before Smith's rampage. Conveniently, Hale receives a registered letter from Smith just days after his suicide, informing Hale that Smith is quitting the group because he now sees violence as the only answer. - wow.
August 10, 1999 Buford Furrow, a former member of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations who has been living with the widow of slain terrorist leader Bob Mathews, strides into a Jewish community center near Los Angeles and fires more than 70 bullets, wounding three boys, a teenage girl and a woman. He then drives into the San Fernando Valley and kills Filipino-American mailman Joseph Ileto. The next day, Furrow turns himself in, saying he intended to send "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews." Furrow, who has a history of mental illness, eventually pleads guilty and is sentenced to two life terms without parole, plus 110 years in prison. - Furrow is pro-führer
November 5, 1999 FBI agents arrest James Kenneth Gluck in Tampa, Fla., after he wrote a 10-page letter to judges in Jefferson County, Colo., threatening to "wage biological warfare" on a county justice center. While searching his home, police find the materials needed to make ricin, one of the deadliest poisons known. Gluck later threatens a judge, claiming that he could kill 10,000 people with the chemical. After serving time in federal prison, Gluck is released in early 2001. - loner...
December 5, 1999 Two California men, both members of the San Joaquin Militia, are charged with conspiracy in connection with a plot to blow up two 12-million-gallon propane tanks, a television tower and an electrical substation in hopes of provoking an insurrection. In 2001, the former militia leader, Donald Rudolph, pleads guilty to plotting to kill a federal judge and blow up the propane tanks, and testifies against his former comrades. Kevin Ray Patterson and Charles Dennis Kiles are ultimately convicted of several charges in connection with the conspiracy. They are expected to be released from federal prison in 2021 and 2018, respectively. - smells like something I've seen before. Rudolph, if you're another lying backstabber... I'll... I'll add you to the list! http://www.kcra.com/news/294699/detail.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia73.html http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004XIF apparently there weren't any crazy bloggers on this one. sob.
3 violent verdicts
December 8, 1999 Donald Beauregard, head of a militia coalition known as the Southeastern States Alliance, is charged with conspiracy, providing materials for a terrorist act and gun violations in connection with a plot to bomb energy facilities and cause power outages in Florida and Georgia. After pleading guilty to several charges, Beauregard, who once claimed to have discovered a secret map detailing a planned un takeover mistakenly printed on a box of Trix cereal, is sentenced to five years in federal prison. He is released in 2004, a year after accomplice James Troy Diver is freed following a similar conviction. - http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia26.html rofl the idiot thought the cop was a friend even though he said he was a cop... true story. guilty.
1 violent verdict
March 9, 2000 Federal agents arrest Mark Wayne McCool, the one-time leader of the Texas Militia and Combined Action Program, as he allegedly makes plans to attack the Houston federal building. McCool, who was arrested after buying powerful C-4 plastic explosives and an automatic weapon from an undercover FBI agent, earlier plotted to attack the federal building with a member of his own group and a member of the antigovernment Republic of Texas, but those two men eventually abandoned the plot. McCool, however, remained convinced the un had stored a cache of military materiel in the building. In the end, he pleads guilty to federal charges that bring him just six months in jail. - http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=905 not that many links to go around on google but I'll say yes, guilty, just because I don't like his name. Yea. McCool, who do you think you are? You're not cool man, not cool.
1 violent verdict
April 28, 2000 Immigration attorney Richard Baumhammers, himself the son of Latvian immigrants, goes on a rampage in the Pittsburgh area against non-whites, killing five people and critically wounding a sixth. Baumhammers had recently started a tiny white supremacist group, the Free Market Party, that demanded an end to non-white immigration into the United States. In the end, the unemployed attorney, who was living with parents at the time of his murder spree, is sentenced to death for targeting his victims because of their race. - racist
March 1, 2001 As part of an ongoing probe into a white supremacist group, federal and local law enforcement agents raid the Corbett, Ore., home of Fritz Springmeier, seizing equipment to grow marijuana and weapons and racist literature. They also find a binder notebook entitled "Army of God, Yahweh's Warriors" that contains what officials call a list of targets, including a local federal building and the FBI's Oregon offices. Springmeier, an associate of the anti-Semitic Christian Patriots Association, is eventually charged with setting off a diversionary bomb at an adult video store in Damascus, Ore., in 1997 as part of a bank robbery carried out by accomplice Forrest Bateman Jr. Another 2001 raid finds small amounts of bomb materials and marijuana in Bateman's home. Eventually, Bateman pleads guilty to bank robbery and Springmeier is convicted of the same charges, and both are sentenced to nine years. - religious
April 19, 2001 White supremacists Leo Felton and girlfriend Erica Chase are arrested following a foot chase that began when a police officer spotted them trying to pass counterfeit bills at a Boston donut shop. Investigators quickly learn Felton heads up a tiny group called Aryan Unit One, and that Chase and Felton, who had already obtained a timing device, planned to blow up black and Jewish landmarks and possibly assassinate black and Jewish leaders. They also learn another amazing fact: Felton, a self-described Aryan, is secretly biracial. Felton and Chase are eventually convicted of conspiracy, weapons violations and obstruction, and Felton is also convicted of bank robbery and other charges. Felton, who previously served 11 years for assaulting a black taxi driver, is sentenced to serve more than 21 years in federal prison, while his one-time sweetheart draws a lesser term. - racist
Oct. 14, 2001 A North Carolina sheriff's deputy pulls over Steve Anderson, a former "colonel" in the Kentucky Militia, on a routine traffic stop as he heads home to Kentucky from a white supremacist gathering in North Carolina. Anderson, who has issued violent threats against officials for months via an illegal pirate radio station and is an adherent of racist Christian Identity theology, pulls out a semi-automatic weapon and peppers the deputy's car with bullets before driving his truck into the woods and disappearing for 13 months. Officials later find six pipe bombs in Anderson's abandoned truck and 27 bombs and destructive devices in his home. In the end, Anderson apologizes for his actions and pleads guilty. He is sentenced on a variety of firearms charges to 15 years in federal prison. - classic
1 violent verdict
Dec. 5, 2001 Anti-abortion extremist Clayton Lee Wagner, who nine months earlier escaped from an Illinois jail while awaiting sentencing on weapons and carjacking charges, is arrested in Cincinnati, Ohio. Wagner's odyssey began in September 1999, when he was stopped driving a stolen camper in Illinois and told police he was headed to Seattle to murder an abortion provider. He escaped in February 2001 and, while on the lam, mailed more than 550 hoax anthrax letters to abortion clinics and posted an Internet threat warning abortion clinic workers that "if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you." Wagner is eventually sentenced to 30 years on the Illinois charges, including his escape. In Ohio, he is sentenced to almost 20 years more, to be served consecutively, on various weapons and car theft charges related to his time on the run. In late 2003, he also is found guilty of 51 federal terror charges, but his sentencing is deferred. - loner
Dec. 11, 2001 Jewish Defense League chairman Irving David Rubin and a follower, Earl Leslie Krugel, are arrested in California and charged with conspiring to bomb the offices of U.S. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) and the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City. Authorities say a confidential informant taped meetings with the two in which the bombings were discussed and Krugel said the jdl needed "to do something to one of their filthy mosques." Rubin later commits suicide in prison, officials say, just before he is to go on trial in late 2002. Krugel pleads guilty to conspiracy in both plots, and testifies that Rubin conspired with him. Krugel faces a mandatory 10-year sentence, and could receive up to life in federal prison. - racist.
16 convictions on conspiracy to bomb/kill no real conspiracies carried out just yet... strange, it seems almost as if the conspiracies only exist when the FBI and BATF got agents on the case... and their payed informants are almost always the sole testifiers, except for the cases where they persuade the suspect into a plea bargain... just makes you wonder, you know.
3 of them I'm almost sure were falsified testimony but you got to read through everything to get a feel of it
Really, I got no problem understanding why a racist or religious fanatic would want to kill and bomb, but militias are different because their purpose are different. And I'm going to keep saying that until people stop demonizing them, and these agencies keep trying to provocateur and track for no reason other than affirm their power, and fearmonger the public.
I feel you L, I wouldn't stand having to read my own posts if I were in your position because they are so bad and repetitive lol. But please do understand that I want the truth just as much as you, and if there is statistical evidence that militia members are dangerous I'd want to see it as well.
If you heard your girlfriend was cheating on you with one of your friends, wouldn't you want to know the truth? well I feel the same way even if I'm biased into believing it's bullshit. Uh, expanding on that analogy, your friend is a damn ugly midget, so you doubt your GF would ever replace you with him. Well, these intelligence agencies are very, very corrupt IMO, and ... ok bad analogy but I'm not going back, I never give up. (lol, horrible, horrible)
Completed the SPLC (shinhan bank proleague center? no!) 60 cases list: + Show Spoiler +
July 28, 1995 Antigovernment extremist Charles Ray Polk is arrested after trying to purchase a machine gun from an undercover police officer, and is later indicted by a federal grand jury for plotting to blow up the Internal Revenue Service building in Austin, Texas. At the time of his arrest, Polk is trying to purchase plastic explosives to add to the already huge arsenal he's amassed. Polk is sentenced to almost 21 years in federal prison, with a projected release date in 2009. - not a militia member
October 9, 1995 Saboteurs derail an Amtrak passenger train near Hyder, Ariz., killing one person and injuring scores of others. An antigovernment message, signed by the "Sons of Gestapo," is left behind. The perpetrators remain at large. - since perpetrators are unknown, can't say they were militia?
December 18, 1995 An Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee discovers a plastic drum packed with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil in a parking lot behind the IRS building in Reno, Nev. The device failed to explode a day earlier when a three-foot fuse went out prematurely. Ten days later, tax protester Joseph Martin Bailie is arrested. Bailie is eventually sentenced to 36 years in federal prison. - not a militia member
January 18, 1996 Peter Kevin Langan, the pseudonymous "Commander Pedro" who leads the underground Aryan Republican Army, is arrested after a shootout with the FBI in Ohio. Along with six other suspects arrested around the same time, Langan is charged in connection with a string of 22 bank robberies in seven Midwestern states between 1994 and 1996. After pleading guilty and agreeing to testify, conspirator Richard Guthrie commits suicide in his cell. Two others, Kevin McCarthy and Scott Stedeford, enter plea bargains and do testify against their co-conspirators. Eventually, Mark Thomas, a leading neo-Nazi in Pennsylvania, pleads guilty for his role in helping organize the robberies and agrees to testify against Langan and other gang members. Shawn Kenny, another suspect, becomes a federal informant. Langan is sentenced to a life term in one case, plus 55 years in another. Thomas is sentenced to eight years in prison, and is released in early 2004. - this is a racist militia, not a constitutional militia, different purposes, defending different things. he's "defending" his bloodline, I'm defeding the law and constitution. very different. so yeah sue me, this is out of my list.
April 11, 1996 Antigovernment activist Ray Hamblin is charged with illegal possession of explosives after authorities find 460 pounds of the high explosive Tovex, 746 pounds of ANFO blasting agent and 15 homemade hand grenades on his property in Hood River, Ore. Hamblin is sentenced to almost four years in federal prison, and is released in March 2000. - not a militia member
April 12, 1996 Apparently inspired by his reading of a neo-Nazi tract, Larry Wayne Shoemake kills one black man and wounds seven other people, including a reporter, during a racist shooting spree in a black neighborhood in Jackson, Miss. As police close in on the abandoned restaurant he is shooting from, Shoemake, who is white, sets the restaurant on fire and kills himself. A search of his home finds references to "Separation or Annihilation," an essay on race relations by National Alliance leader William Pierce, along with an arsenal of weapons that includes 17 long guns, 20,000 rounds of ammunition, several knives and countless military manuals. - damn... wiretap every single white man with a gun IMO.
April 26, 1996 Two leaders of the Militia-at-Large of the Republic of Georgia, Robert Edward Starr iii and William James McCranie Jr., are charged with manufacturing shrapnel bombs for distribution to militia members. Later in the year, they are sentenced on explosives charges to terms of up to eight years. Another Militia-at-Large member, accused of training a team to assassinate politicians, is later convicted of conspiracy. Starr is released from prison in 2003, while McCranie gets out in 2001. The last member, Troy Allen Kayser (alias Troy Spain), draws six years in prison and is released in early 2002. - oh yeah this was the one with forged evidence. maybe. http://www.constitution.org/piml/96051003.txt http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia68.html http://www.injusticeline.com/gabomb.html Agent Stephen W. Gillis of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms also acknowledged that Starr's co-defendant, William James "Jimmy" McCranie, had said, "I don't want to know anything about it" and walked away when the government's informant was talking about building bombs. http://www.adl.org/mwd/oldnew3.asp
All the solid evidence from the raid were 10 buried pipe bombs and "bomb making materials" which were 2 bags of legally obtainable chemicals. They had one tape of Starr saying the day before on a radio show that the FBI was on his ass. testimony from secret informants + Gillis. that's all they got. They couldn't define a purpose for the bombs, couldn't define a conspiracy to bomb anything but their own lawns? So yeah.. make your own conclusions
Bottom line is they weren't convicted of conspiracy to kill/bomb/hurt no one. They were convicted for having the stupid bombs and conspiracy to make more based on the word of the stupid informants + Gillis
nonviolent verdict. 2 acquitted of conspiracy to bomb/kill
July 1, 1996 Twelve members of an Arizona militia group called the Viper Team are arrested on federal conspiracy, weapons and explosive charges after allegedly surveying and videotaping government buildings as potential targets. All 12 plead guilty or are convicted of various charges, drawing sentences of up to nine years in prison. The plot participants are all released in coming years, with Gary Curds Baer, who drew the heaviest sentence, freed in May 2004. - http://www.copi.com/articles/viper.html damn provocateurs. no violent conspiracy indictment. funny that when it's a conspiracy to make illegal bombs, then don't say it, when it's conspiracy to blow shit up, they say it. why not include the damn exact charge in the blurb to make my job easier, lol... really as I was reading the indictments I was like "wow, awesome" lol it may be illegal and dangerous to make these weapons and bombs but it doesn't mean they're terrorists, they're just rednecks having fun. that doesn't mean they shouldn't be charged and tried, but it's not all you make it to be, ok?
nonviolent verdict 12 acquitted of conspiracy to bomb/kill
July 27, 1996 A nail-packed bomb goes off at the Atlanta Olympics, which is seen by many extremists as part of a Satanic "New World Order," killing one person and injuring more than 100 others. Investigators will later conclude the attack is linked to 1997-1998 bombings of an Atlanta-area abortion clinic, an Atlanta gay bar and a Birmingham, Ala., abortion facility. Suspect Eric Robert Rudolph — a reclusive North Carolina man tied to the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology — flees into the woods of his native state after he is identified in early 1998 as a suspect in the Birmingham attack, and is only captured five years later. Eventually, he pleads guilty to all of the attacks attributed to him in exchange for life without parole. - loner
July 29, 1996 Washington State Militia leader John Pitner and seven others are arrested on weapons and explosives charges in connection with a plot to build pipe bombs for a confrontation with the federal government. Pitner and four others are convicted on weapons charges, while conspiracy charges against all eight end in a mistrial. Pitner is later retried on that charge, convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. He is freed from prison in 2001. - http://www.constitution.org/abus/pitner.htm <-index with tons of broken links.. http://proliberty.com/observer/prt0298a.htm <-haha can't use that pocket constitution http://www.njmilitia.org/apr98.htm http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws35.htm <-nice http://www.publicgood.org/reports/indict.html this is too confusing. mistrials retrials asdasfdas http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/307/1178/521877/ does this mean: "Pitner's conviction of possession of a machine gun, resulting from his first trial, is affirmed. Pitner's conviction of conspiracy, resulting from his second trial, is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment." that his conviction of conspiracy got retracted? (after he already spent all those years in jail with no bail lol)
correct me if i'm wrong but i think this is another nonviolent, no conspiracy verdict 8 acquitted of conspiracy to bomb
October 8, 1996 Three "Phineas Priests" — racist and anti-Semitic Christian Identity terrorists who feel they've been called by God to undertake violent attacks — are charged in connection with two bank robberies and bombings at the two banks, a Spokane newspaper and a Planned Parenthood office. Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Jay Merrell are eventually convicted and sentenced to life terms. Brian Ratigan, a fourth member of the group arrested separately, draws a 55-year term. - damn.
October 11, 1996 Seven members of the Mountaineer Militia are arrested in a plot to blow up the FBI's national fingerprint records center, where 1,000 people work, in West Virginia. In 1998, leader Floyd "Ray" Looker is sentenced to 18 years in prison. Two other defendants are sentenced on explosives charges and a third draws a year in prison for providing blueprints of the FBI facility to Looker, who then sold them to a government informant who was posing as a terrorist. - http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia70.html http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/027661.U.pdf
Looker is guilty of conspiring with terrorists.. fine, the FBI sure are the terrorists lol the other guys, not so much
1 "violent" verdict 6 acquitted of conspiracy
January 16, 1997 Two anti-personnel bombs — the second clearly designed to kill arriving law enforcement and rescue workers — explode outside an abortion clinic in Sandy Springs, Ga., a suburb of Atlanta. Seven people are injured. Letters signed by the "Army of God" claim responsibility for this attack and another, a month later, at an Atlanta gay bar. Authorities later learn that these attacks, the 1998 bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., abortion clinic and the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, were all carried out by Eric Robert Rudolph, who is captured in 2003 after five years on the run. Rudolph avoids the death penalty by pleading guilty in exchange for a life sentence, but simultaneously releases a defiant statement defending his attacks. - loner, not a militia member even though the media loves to spin it
January 22, 1997 Authorities raid the Martinton, Ill., home of former Marine Ricky Salyers, an alleged Ku Klux Klan member, discovering 35,000 rounds of heavy ammunition, armor piercing shells, smoke and tear gas grenades, live shells for grenade launchers, artillery shells and other military gear. Salyers was discharged earlier from the Marines, where he taught demolitions and sniping, after tossing a live grenade (with the pin still in) at state police officers serving him with a search warrant in 1995. Following the 1997 raid, Salyers, an alleged member of the underground Black Dawn group of extremists in the military, is sentenced to serve three years for weapons violations. He is released from prison in 2000. - sad... but I won't count, sorry... that "black dawn" group within the military is a white supremacist group I believe, theres little info on them
March 26, 1997 Militia activist Brendon Blasz is arrested in Kalamazoo, Mich., and charged with making pipe bombs and other illegal explosives. Prosecutors say Blasz plotted to bomb the federal building in Battle Creek, the IRS building in Portage, a Kalamazoo television station and federal armories. But they recommend leniency on his explosives conviction after Blasz renounces his antigovernment beliefs and cooperates with them. In August, he is sentenced to more than three years in federal prison. Blasz is released in early 2000. - nonviolent verdict (wuss! lol) acquitted of con.
April 22, 1997 Three Ku Klux Klan members are arrested in a plot to blow up a natural gas refinery outside Fort Worth, Texas, after local Klan leader Robert Spence gets cold feet and goes to the FBI. The three, along with a fourth arrested later, expected to kill a huge number of people with the blast — authorities later say as many as 30,000 might have died — which was to serve, incredibly, as a diversion for a simultaneous armored car robbery. Among the victims would have been children at a nearby school. All four plead guilty to conspiracy charges and are sentenced to terms of up to 20 years. Spence enters the Witness Protection Program. Carl Jay Waskom Jr. is released in June 2004. Shawn and Catherine Adams, a couple, are expected to be freed in 2006, and Edward Taylor Jr. in early 2007. - kkk
April 23, 1997 Florida police arrest Todd Vanbiber, a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance's Tampa unit and the shadowy League of the Silent Soldier, after he accidentally sets off pipe bombs he was building, blasting shrapnel into his own face. He is accused of plotting to use the bombs on the approach to Disney World to divert attention from a planned string of bank robberies. Vanbiber pleads guilty to weapons and explosives charges and is sentenced to more than six years in federal prison. He is released in 2002. Within two years, Vanbiber is posting messages on neo-Nazi Internet sites boasting that he has built over 300 bombs successfully and only made one error, and describing mass murderer Timothy McVeigh as a hero. - neo-nazi
April 27, 1997 After a cache of explosives stored in a tree blows up near Yuba City, Calif., police arrest Montana Freemen supporter William Robert Goehler. Investigators looking into the blast arrest two Goehler associates, one of them a militia leader, after finding 500 pounds of petrogel explosives — enough to level three city blocks — in a motor home parked outside their residence. Six others are arrested on related charges. Goehler, with previous convictions for rape, burglary and assault, is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. - omg he killed a tree!?! I can't find the verdicts on google bawwww I'm powerless http://articles.latimes.com/1997-05-02/news/mn-54740_1_explosives-charges http://www.sfgate.com/e/a/1999/05/23/METRO10000.dtl ok well it's obvious this guy is messed up, rapist, stabbed his lawyer, lol, but I'm not even sure if hes a real member, it says supporter everywhere does that mean membership? I absolutely can't find the other guys so I'll assume it was just more illegal explosive devices indictments http://www.adl.org/mwd/Calendar.asp ok well he isn't a member, sorry, I'd love to include a nut like this guy in, but he isn't.
May 3, 1997 Antigovernment extremists set fire to the IRS office in Colorado Springs, Colo., causing $2.5 million in damage and injuring a firefighter. Federal agents later arrest five men in connection with the arson, which is conceived as a protest against the tax system. Ringleader James Cleaver, former national director of the antigovernment Sons of Liberty group, is eventually sentenced to 33 years in prison, while accomplice Jack Dowell is sentenced in a separate trial to serve 30 years. Both are ordered to pay $2.2 million in restitution. Dowell's cousin is acquitted of all charges, while two other suspects, Ronald Sherman and Thomas Shafer, plead guilty to perjury charges in connection with the case. - Burn IRS, burn! j/k. http://www.adl.org/learn/news/IRS_Arson.asp this Sons of Liberty group is (was) no militia http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20020728/ai_n10007771/ "political action group" what an idiot... that's how you define action? burning down buildings? retard. these kinds of people are the worst, they completely ruin what others stand for while pretending to be good people.
July 4, 1997 Militiaman Bradley Playford Glover and another heavily armed antigovernment activist are arrested before dawn near Fort Hood, in central Texas, just hours before they planned to invade the Army base and slaughter foreign troops they mistakenly believed were housed there. In the next few days, five other people are arrested in several states for their alleged roles in the plot to invade a series of military bases where the group believes United Nations forces are massing for an assault on Americans. All seven are part of a splinter group of the Third Continental Congress, a kind of militia government-in-waiting. In the end, Glover is sentenced to two years on Kansas weapons charges, to be followed by a five-year federal term in connection with the Fort Hood plot. The others draw lesser terms. Glover is released in 2003, the last of the seven to get out. - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19981030&id=NEEKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bksDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4555,6227572 http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf http://www.adl.org/mwd/glover.asp two idiots two violent verdicts would be funny if UN troops were really there though, "omg, the batshit insane were right!"
1 violent verdict, the accomplice, Dorsett, only was convicted of having an illegal gun... the others, I don't know I can't find anything but the anti-militia websites say they were convicted on "minor charges" so I'm gonna assume no felony, no conspiracy. 6 acquitted of conspiracy to blablabla
December 12, 1997 A federal grand jury in Arkansas indicts three men on racketeering charges for plotting to overthrow the government and create a whites-only Aryan People's Republic, which they intend to grow through polygamy. Chevie Kehoe, Daniel Lee and Faron Lovelace are accused of crimes in six states, including murder, kidnapping, robbery and conspiracy. Kehoe and Lee will also face state charges of murdering an Arkansas family, including an 8-year-old girl, in 1996. Kehoe ultimately receives a life sentence on that charge, while Lee is sentenced to death. Lovelace is sentenced to death for the murder of a suspected informant, although in early 2005 he will be up for resentencing because of court rulings. Kehoe's brother, Cheyne, is convicted of attempted murder during a February 1997 Ohio shootout with police and sentenced to 24 years in prison, despite his key role in helping authorities find his fugitive brother in Utah in June 1997 after the shootout. Cheyne went to the authorities after Chevie began talking about murdering their parents and showing sexual interest in Cheyne's wife. - damn
January 29, 1998 An off-duty police officer is killed and a nurse terribly maimed when a nail-packed, remote-control bomb explodes outside a Birmingham, Ala., abortion facility, the New Woman All Women clinic. Letters to media outlets and officials claim responsibility in the name of the "Army of God," the same entity that took credit for the bombings of a clinic and a gay bar in the Atlanta area. The attack also will be linked to the fatal 1996 bombing of the Atlanta Olympics. Eric Robert Rudolph, a loner from North Carolina, is first identified as a suspect when witnesses spot his pickup truck fleeing the Birmingham bombing. But he is not caught until 2003. He ultimately pleads guilty to all four attacks in exchange for a life sentence. - loner
February 23, 1998 Three men with links to a Ku Klux Klan group are arrested near East St. Louis, Ill., on weapons charges. The three, along with three other men arrested later, had formed a group called The New Order, patterned on a 1980s terror group called The Order (a.k.a. the Silent Brotherhood) that carried out assassinations and armored car heists. New Order members plotted to assassinate a federal judge and civil rights lawyer Morris Dees, blow up the Southern Poverty Law Center that Dees co-founded and other buildings, poison water supplies and rob banks. In the end, all six plead guilty or are convicted of weapons charges, drawing terms of up to seven years in federal prison. Wallace Weicherding, who came to a 1997 Dees speech with a concealed gun but turned back rather than pass through a metal detector, is freed in 2003. New Order leader Dennis McGiffen is released in July 2004, the last of the six to regain his freedom. - kkk
March 18, 1998 Three members of the North American Militia of Southwestern Michigan are arrested on firearms and other charges. Prosecutors say the men conspired to bomb federal buildings, a Kalamazoo television station and an interstate highway interchange, kill federal agents, assassinate politicians and attack aircraft at a National Guard base — attacks that were all to be funded by marijuana sales. The group's leader, Ken Carter, is a self-described member of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations. Carter pleads guilty, testifies against his former comrades, and is sentenced to five years in prison. The others, Randy Graham and Bradford Metcalf, go to trial and are ultimately handed sentences of 40 and 55 years, respectively. Carter is released from prison in 2002. - looks ugly http://www.newcomm.org/content/view/1765/93/ http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia6.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia14.html http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/nov/11-19-98/news/news11.html all three guilty. not much to say.
unless... yes! nutty blogger for the rescue! http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/duffy104.html so carter was given a 5 year plea bargain with a bonus surgery for his "emphysema", and took it. he testified bullshit against his dear comrades! along with the fed's testimony, they can make up whatever they want and it would be strong cross-referenced evidence. Metcalf didn't want a lawyer so he's fucked. The overt act apparently was having illegal machine guns, which this guy claims weren't machine guns but the jury was made to think they were by the prosecutor. Fucking Carter died 6 months after getting out cuz of a lung disease anyway, couldn't he not have falsely testified? damnit man.
Well, not worth going there. I'll just pretend the verdicts and BATF and FBI are cool and honest folks with no agenda but the well-being of the population.
3 violent verdicts.
May 29, 1998 A day after stealing a water truck, three men shoot and kill a Cortez, Colo., police officer and wound two other officers as they try to stop the suspects during a road chase. After the gun battle, the three — Alan Monty Pilon, Robert Mason and Jason McVean — disappear into the canyons of the high desert. Mason will be found a week later, dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot. The skeletal remains of Pilon are found in October 1999 and show that he, too, died of a gunshot to the head, another apparent suicide. McVean is not found, but most authorities assume he died in the desert. Many officials believe the three men intended to use the water truck in some kind of terrorist attack, but the nature of their suspected plans is never learned. - intense.
I say no, send any complaints to idontgiveafuck@rightwingextremist.com
July 30, 1998 South Carolina militia member Paul T. Chastain is charged with weapons, explosives and drug violations after allegedly trying to trade drugs for a machine gun and enough C-4 plastic explosive to demolish a five-room house. The next year, Chastain pleads guilty to an array of charges, including threatening to kill Attorney General Janet Reno and FBI Director Louis Freeh. He is sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. - wtf. why not confess you threatened to kill the Pope too? http://www.chastaincentral.com/content/crime.html#Paul http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=426
1 violent retard, er, verdict
October 23, 1998 Dr. Barnett Slepian is assassinated by a sniper as he converses with his wife and children in the kitchen of their Amherst, N.Y., home. Identified as a suspect shortly after the murder, James Charles Kopp flees to Mexico, driven and disguised by friend Jennifer Rock, and goes on to hide out in Ireland and France. Two fellow anti-abortion extremists, Loretta Marra and Dennis Malvasi, make plans to help Kopp secretly return. Kopp, also suspected in the earlier sniper woundings of four other physicians in Canada and upstate New York, is arrested in France as he picks up money wired by Marra and Malvasi. He eventually admits the shooting to a newspaper reporter — claiming that he only intended to wound Slepian — and is sentenced to 25 years in prison. Marra and Malvasi go to prison for almost three years after pleading guilty to federal charges related to harboring a fugitive. - pro-life (lol...)
June 10, 1999 Officials arrest Alabama plumber Chris Scott Gilliam, a member of the neo-Nazi National Alliance, after he attempts to purchase 10 hand grenades from an undercover federal agent. Gilliam, who months earlier paraded in an extremist T-shirt in front of the Southern Poverty Law Center's offices in Montgomery, tells agents he planned to send mail bombs to targets in Washington, d.c. Agents searching his home find bomb-making manuals, white supremacist literature and an assault rifle. Gilliam pleads guilty to federal firearms charges and is sentenced to 10 years in prison. He is expected to be released in 2008. - neo-nazi
July 1, 1999 A gay couple, Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, are shot to death in bed at their home near Redding, Calif. Days later, after tracking purchases made on Mowder's stolen credit card, police arrest brothers Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams. At least one of the pair, Matthew Williams (both use their middle names), is an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology. Police soon learn that the brothers two weeks earlier carried out three synagogue arsons in Sacramento, along with the arson of an abortion clinic there. Both brothers, whose mother at one point refers in a conversation to her sons' victims as "two homos," eventually admit their guilt — in Matthew's case, in a newspaper interview. But Matthew, who at one point badly injures a guard in a surprise attack, commits suicide in jail in late 2002. Tyler, who pleads guilty to an array of charges in the case, is not expected to be eligible for parole for some 50 years. - extreme pro-heterosexualism and pro-non-judaism-anti-non-christian
July 2, 1999 Infuriated that neo-Nazi leader Matt Hale has just been denied his law license by Illinois officials, follower Benjamin Nathaniel Smith begins a three-day murder spree across Illinois and Indiana, shooting to death a black former college basketball coach and a Korean doctoral student and wounding nine other minorities. Smith kills himself as police close in during a car chase. Hale, leader of the World Church of the Creator, at first claims to barely know Smith. But it quickly emerges that Hale has recently given Smith his group's top award and, in fact, has spent some 16 hours on the phone with him in the two weeks before Smith's rampage. Conveniently, Hale receives a registered letter from Smith just days after his suicide, informing Hale that Smith is quitting the group because he now sees violence as the only answer. - wow.
August 10, 1999 Buford Furrow, a former member of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations who has been living with the widow of slain terrorist leader Bob Mathews, strides into a Jewish community center near Los Angeles and fires more than 70 bullets, wounding three boys, a teenage girl and a woman. He then drives into the San Fernando Valley and kills Filipino-American mailman Joseph Ileto. The next day, Furrow turns himself in, saying he intended to send "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews." Furrow, who has a history of mental illness, eventually pleads guilty and is sentenced to two life terms without parole, plus 110 years in prison. - Furrow is pro-Führer
November 5, 1999 FBI agents arrest James Kenneth Gluck in Tampa, Fla., after he wrote a 10-page letter to judges in Jefferson County, Colo., threatening to "wage biological warfare" on a county justice center. While searching his home, police find the materials needed to make ricin, one of the deadliest poisons known. Gluck later threatens a judge, claiming that he could kill 10,000 people with the chemical. After serving time in federal prison, Gluck is released in early 2001. - loner...
December 5, 1999 Two California men, both members of the San Joaquin Militia, are charged with conspiracy in connection with a plot to blow up two 12-million-gallon propane tanks, a television tower and an electrical substation in hopes of provoking an insurrection. In 2001, the former militia leader, Donald Rudolph, pleads guilty to plotting to kill a federal judge and blow up the propane tanks, and testifies against his former comrades. Kevin Ray Patterson and Charles Dennis Kiles are ultimately convicted of several charges in connection with the conspiracy. They are expected to be released from federal prison in 2021 and 2018, respectively. - smells like something I've seen before. Rudolph, if you're another lying backstabber... I'll... I'll add you to the list! http://www.kcra.com/news/294699/detail.html http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia73.html http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004XIF apparently there weren't any crazy bloggers on this one. sob.
3 violent verdicts
December 8, 1999 Donald Beauregard, head of a militia coalition known as the Southeastern States Alliance, is charged with conspiracy, providing materials for a terrorist act and gun violations in connection with a plot to bomb energy facilities and cause power outages in Florida and Georgia. After pleading guilty to several charges, Beauregard, who once claimed to have discovered a secret map detailing a planned un takeover mistakenly printed on a box of Trix cereal, is sentenced to five years in federal prison. He is released in 2004, a year after accomplice James Troy Diver is freed following a similar conviction. - http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia26.html rofl the idiot thought the cop was a friend even though he said he was a cop... true story. guilty. 0 links on James Troy Diver, 0 chance I'm putting him in with such a general statement
1 violent verdict
March 9, 2000 Federal agents arrest Mark Wayne McCool, the one-time leader of the Texas Militia and Combined Action Program, as he allegedly makes plans to attack the Houston federal building. McCool, who was arrested after buying powerful C-4 plastic explosives and an automatic weapon from an undercover FBI agent, earlier plotted to attack the federal building with a member of his own group and a member of the antigovernment Republic of Texas, but those two men eventually abandoned the plot. McCool, however, remained convinced the un had stored a cache of military materiel in the building. In the end, he pleads guilty to federal charges that bring him just six months in jail. - http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=905 not that many links to go around on google but I'll say yes, guilty, just because I don't like his name. Yea. McCool, who do you think you are? You're not cool man, not cool.
1 violent verdict
April 28, 2000 Immigration attorney Richard Baumhammers, himself the son of Latvian immigrants, goes on a rampage in the Pittsburgh area against non-whites, killing five people and critically wounding a sixth. Baumhammers had recently started a tiny white supremacist group, the Free Market Party, that demanded an end to non-white immigration into the United States. In the end, the unemployed attorney, who was living with parents at the time of his murder spree, is sentenced to death for targeting his victims because of their race. - racist
March 1, 2001 As part of an ongoing probe into a white supremacist group, federal and local law enforcement agents raid the Corbett, Ore., home of Fritz Springmeier, seizing equipment to grow marijuana and weapons and racist literature. They also find a binder notebook entitled "Army of God, Yahweh's Warriors" that contains what officials call a list of targets, including a local federal building and the FBI's Oregon offices. Springmeier, an associate of the anti-Semitic Christian Patriots Association, is eventually charged with setting off a diversionary bomb at an adult video store in Damascus, Ore., in 1997 as part of a bank robbery carried out by accomplice Forrest Bateman Jr. Another 2001 raid finds small amounts of bomb materials and marijuana in Bateman's home. Eventually, Bateman pleads guilty to bank robbery and Springmeier is convicted of the same charges, and both are sentenced to nine years. - religious
April 19, 2001 White supremacists Leo Felton and girlfriend Erica Chase are arrested following a foot chase that began when a police officer spotted them trying to pass counterfeit bills at a Boston donut shop. Investigators quickly learn Felton heads up a tiny group called Aryan Unit One, and that Chase and Felton, who had already obtained a timing device, planned to blow up black and Jewish landmarks and possibly assassinate black and Jewish leaders. They also learn another amazing fact: Felton, a self-described Aryan, is secretly biracial. Felton and Chase are eventually convicted of conspiracy, weapons violations and obstruction, and Felton is also convicted of bank robbery and other charges. Felton, who previously served 11 years for assaulting a black taxi driver, is sentenced to serve more than 21 years in federal prison, while his one-time sweetheart draws a lesser term. - racist
Oct. 14, 2001 A North Carolina sheriff's deputy pulls over Steve Anderson, a former "colonel" in the Kentucky Militia, on a routine traffic stop as he heads home to Kentucky from a white supremacist gathering in North Carolina. Anderson, who has issued violent threats against officials for months via an illegal pirate radio station and is an adherent of racist Christian Identity theology, pulls out a semi-automatic weapon and peppers the deputy's car with bullets before driving his truck into the woods and disappearing for 13 months. Officials later find six pipe bombs in Anderson's abandoned truck and 27 bombs and destructive devices in his home. In the end, Anderson apologizes for his actions and pleads guilty. He is sentenced on a variety of firearms charges to 15 years in federal prison. - classic
1 real violent verdict
Dec. 5, 2001 Anti-abortion extremist Clayton Lee Wagner, who nine months earlier escaped from an Illinois jail while awaiting sentencing on weapons and carjacking charges, is arrested in Cincinnati, Ohio. Wagner's odyssey began in September 1999, when he was stopped driving a stolen camper in Illinois and told police he was headed to Seattle to murder an abortion provider. He escaped in February 2001 and, while on the lam, mailed more than 550 hoax anthrax letters to abortion clinics and posted an Internet threat warning abortion clinic workers that "if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you." Wagner is eventually sentenced to 30 years on the Illinois charges, including his escape. In Ohio, he is sentenced to almost 20 years more, to be served consecutively, on various weapons and car theft charges related to his time on the run. In late 2003, he also is found guilty of 51 federal terror charges, but his sentencing is deferred. - loner
Dec. 11, 2001 Jewish Defense League chairman Irving David Rubin and a follower, Earl Leslie Krugel, are arrested in California and charged with conspiring to bomb the offices of U.S. Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.) and the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City. Authorities say a confidential informant taped meetings with the two in which the bombings were discussed and Krugel said the jdl needed "to do something to one of their filthy mosques." Rubin later commits suicide in prison, officials say, just before he is to go on trial in late 2002. Krugel pleads guilty to conspiracy in both plots, and testifies that Rubin conspired with him. Krugel faces a mandatory 10-year sentence, and could receive up to life in federal prison. - racist.
Jan. 4, 2002 Neo-Nazi National Alliance member Michael Edward Smith is arrested after a car chase in Nashville, Tenn., that began when he was spotted sitting in a car with a semi-automatic rifle pointed at Sherith Israel Pre-School, run by a local synagogue. In Smith's car, home and storage unit, officials find an arsenal that includes a .50-caliber rifle, 10 hand grenades, 13 pipe bombs, binary explosives, semi-automatic pistols, ammunition and an array of military manuals. They also find teenage porn on Smith's computer and evidence that he carried out computer searches for Jewish schools and synagogues. In one of his e-mails, Smith wrote that Jews "perhaps" should be "stuffed head fIRSt into an oven." In the end, Smith is sentenced on weapons and explosives charges to more than 10 years in prison. - nazi.
Feb. 8, 2002 The leader of a militia-like group known as Project 7 and his girlfriend are arrested after an informant tells police the group is plotting to kill judges and law enforcement officers in order to kick off a revolution. David Burgert, who has a record for burglary and is already wanted for assaulting police officers, is found in the house of girlfriend Tracy Brockway along with an arsenal that includes pipe bombs and 25,000 rounds of ammunition. Also found are "intel sheets" with personal information about law enforcement officers, their spouses and children. Although officials are convinced the Project 7 plot was real, Burgert ultimately is convicted only of weapons charges and draws a seven-year sentence; six others are also convicted of or plead guilty to weapons charges. Brockway gets a suspended sentence for harboring a fugitive. - bawww the poor good ol' FBI couldn't get him convicted on conspiracy... what a sad day for mankind. http://groups.google.com/group/misc.activism.militia/browse_thread/thread/207a50ccdd2a9089 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/01/national/main502580.shtml http://cursor.org/stories/fascismxiv.php they weren't even charged of conspiracy? weird... all I know is:
1 non-violent verdict
July 19, 2002 Acting on a tip, federal and local law enforcement agents arrest North Carolina Klan leader Charles Robert Barefoot Jr. for his role in an alleged plot to blow up the Johnson County Sheriff's Office, the sheriff himself and the county jail. Officers find more than two dozen weapons in Barefoot's home. They also find bombs and bomb components in the home of Barefoot's son, Daniel Barefoot, who is charged that same day with the arson of a school bus and an empty barn. The elder Barefoot — who broke away from the National Knights of the KKK several months earlier to form his own harder-line group, the Nation's Knights of the KKK — is charged with weapons violations and later sentenced to more than two years. In 2003, Barefoot's wife and three men are charged with the murder of a former associate. Police say the murder may have been related to the alleged bombing plot. - kkk
Aug. 22, 2002 Tampa area podiatrist Robert J. Goldstein is arrested after police, called by Goldstein's wife after he allegedly threatened to kill her, find more than 15 explosive devices in their home, along with materials to make at least 30 more. Also found are homemade C-4 plastic explosives, grenades and mines, a .50-caliber rifle, semi-automatic weapons, and a list of 50 Islamic worship centers in the area. The most significant discovery is a three-page plan detailing plans to "kill all 'rags'" at the Islamic Society of Pinellas County. Eventually, two other local men are also charged in connection with the plot, and Goldstein's wife is arrested for possessing illegal destructive devices. In the end, Goldstein pleads guilty to plotting to blow up the Islamic Society and is sentenced to more than 12 years in federal prison. - loner
Oct. 3, 2002 Officials close in on long-time antigovernment extremist Larry Raugust at a rest stop in Idaho, arrest him and charge him with 16 counts of making and possessing destructive devices, including pipe bombs and pressure-detonated booby traps. He is accused of giving one explosive device to an undercover agent, and is also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot with colleagues in the Idaho Mountain Boys militia to murder a federal judge and a police officer, and to break a friend out of jail. A deadbeat dad, Raugust is also accused of helping plant land mines on property belonging to a friend whose land was seized by authorities over unpaid taxes. He eventually pleads guilty to 15 counts of making bombs and is sentenced to federal prison. Raugust is expected to be released in 2008. - loner
Jan. 8, 2003 Federal agents arrest Matt Hale, the national leader of the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator (WCOTC), as he reports to a Chicago courthouse in an ongoing copyright case over the name of his group. Hale is charged with soliciting the murder of the federal judge in the case, Joan Humphrey Lefkow, who he has publicly vilified as someone bent on the destruction of his group. (Although Lefkow originally ruled in wcotc's favor, an appeals court found that the complaint brought by an identically named church in Oregon was legally justified, and Lefkow reversed herself accordingly.) In guarded language captured on tape recordings, Hale is heard agreeing that his security chief, an FBI informant, should kill Lefkow. Hale is eventually found guilty and sentenced to serve 40 years in federal prison. - nazi
Jan. 18, 2003 James D. Brailey, a convicted felon who once was selected as "governor" of the state of Washington by the antigovernment Washington Jural Society, is arrested after a raid on his home turns up a machine gun, an assault rifle and several handguns. One informant tells the FBI that Brailey was plotting to assassinate Gov. Gary Locke, both because Locke was the state's real governor and because he was Chinese-American. A second informant says that Brailey actually went on a "dry run" to Olympia, carrying several guns into the state Capitol building to test security. Eventually, Brailey pleads guilty to weapons charges and is sentenced to serve 15 months in prison. He is released in February 2004. - http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/453/804/484789/ http://www.adl.org/learn/news/James_Brailey.asp
nonviolent conviction
Feb. 13, 2003 Federal agents in Pennsylvania arrest David Wayne Hull, imperial wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology, alleging that Hull has arranged to buy hand grenades to blow up abortion clinics. The FBI says Hull also illegally instructed followers on how to build pipe bombs. In addition, Hull published a newsletter in which he urged readers to write Oklahoma bomber Tim McVeigh "to tell this great man goodbye." Hull eventually is found guilty of weapons violations and sentenced to 12 years in federal prison. - kkk
April 3, 2003 Federal agents arrest antigovernment extremist David Roland Hinkson in Idaho and charge him with trying to hire an assassin on two occasions in 2002 and 2003 to murder a federal judge, a prosecutor and an IRS agent involved in a tax case against him. Hinkson, a businessman who earned millions of dollars from his Water Oz dietary supplement company but refused to pay almost $1 million in federal taxes, is convicted in 2004 of 26 counts related to the tax case. In early 2005, a federal jury finds him guilty in the assassination plot as well. - loner
April 10, 2003 The FBI raids the Noonday, Texas, home of William Krar and storage facilities he rented in the area, discovering an arsenal that includes more than 500,000 rounds of ammunition, 65 pipe bombs and remote-control briefcase bombs, and almost two pounds of deadly sodium cyanide. Also found are components to convert the cyanide into a bomb capable of killing thousands, along with white supremacist and antigovernment material. Investigators soon learn Krar was stopped earlier in 2003 by police in Tennessee, who found in his car several weapons and coded documents that seemed to detail a plot. Krar refuses to cooperate, and details of that alleged plan are never learned. Eventually, he pleads guilty to possession of a chemical weapon and is sentenced to more than 11 years in prison. - loner
June 4, 2003 Federal agents in California announce that former accountant John Noster, in prison since November 2002 for car theft, is under investigation for plotting a major terrorist attack. Noster was first arrested as part of a car theft ring investigation, but officials who found incendiary devices in his stolen camper continued to probe his activities. Eventually, they find in various storage facilities three pipe bombs, six barrels of jet fuel, five assault weapons, cannon fuse, a large amount of ammunition and $188,000 in cash. Law enforcement officials, who describe Noster as an "antigovernment extremist," allege at a press conference that he "was definitely planning" on an attack, but they do not elaborate. - loner
Oct. 10, 2003 Police arrest Norman Somerville after finding a huge weapons cache on his property in northern Michigan that includes six machine guns, a powerful anti-aircraft gun, thousands of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of pounds of gunpowder, and an underground bunker. They also find two vehicles Somerville calls his "war wagons," and on which prosecutors later say he planned to mount machine guns as part of a plan to stage an auto accident and then massacre arriving police. Officials describe Somerville as an antigovernment extremist enraged over the death of Scott Woodring, a Michigan Militia member killed by police a week after Woodring shot and killed a state trooper during a standoff. Somerville eventually pleads guilty to weapons charges and is sentenced to six years in prison. - nonviolent conviction
April 1, 2004 Neo-Nazi Skinhead Sean Gillespie videotapes himself as he firebombs Temple B'nai Israel, an Oklahoma City synagogue, as part of a film he is preparing to inspire other racists to violent revolution. In it, Gillespie boasts that instead of merely pronouncing the white-supremacist "14 Words" slogan ("We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children"), he will carry out 14 violent attacks. A former member of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations, Gillespie is found guilty of the attack and faces a minimum 35-year sentence without parole. - nazi
Oct. 13, 2004 Ivan Duane Braden, a former National Guardsman discharged from an Iraq-bound unit after superiors noted signs of instability, is arrested after checking into a mental health facility and telling counselors about plans to blow up a synagogue and a National Guard armory in Tennessee. The FBI reports that Braden told them he'd planned to go to a synagogue wearing a trench coat stuffed with explosives and get himself "as close to children and the rabbi as possible," a plan Braden also outlined in notes found in his home. In addition, he intended to take and kill hostages at the Lenoir City Armory, before blowing the armory up. Eventually, Braden, who also possessed neo-Nazi literature and reportedly hated blacks and Jews from an early age, pleads guilty to conspiring to blow up the armory. He faces a mandatory 10-year minimum prison sentence on two separate charges. - not fair at all.. the counselor, instead of helping the nut just tattle on him... hes a loner. all alone
Oct. 25, 2004 FBI agents in Tennessee arrest farmhand Demetrius "Van" Crocker after he allegedly tried to purchase ingredients for deadly sarin nerve gas and C-4 plastic explosives from an undercover agent. The FBI alleges that Crocker, who local officials say was involved in a white supremacist group in the 1980s, tells the agent that he admires Hitler and hates Jews and the government. He allegedly also says "it would be a good thing if somebody could detonate some sort of weapon of mass destruction on Washington, D.C." Crocker is charged with trying to get explosives to destroy a building and other charges, and faces more than 20 years in prison if convicted. - racist
May 20, 2005 Officials in New Jersey arrest two men they say asked a police informant to build them a bomb. Craig Orler, who has a history of burglary arrests, and Gabriel Garafa, said to be a leader of the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator and a member of a racist Skinhead group called The Hated, were charged with illegally selling 11 guns to police informants. Carafa allegedly gave one informant 60 pounds of urea to use in building him a bomb, but never said what the bomb was for. Police say they moved in before the alleged bombing plot developed further because they were concerned about the pair's activities. They taped Orler saying in a phone call that he was seeking people in Europe to help him go underground. - please god, make it stop
from this, 12 cases had at least one convicted violent militia member (violent defined as one who was deemed beyond a reasonable doubt in court to either conspiring to commit or having committed assault, bombing, all the good stuff), and 18 violent militia members total
7 cases were bunk, turning up no conspiracy at all (no violent militia members) 38 militia members indicted of conspiracy or violence were acquitted of it (may have been convicted of illegal weapons, bombs, minor charges, but no violence or conspiracy to violence even though they were charged with that)
What this means is that for every 1 militia member convicted of violence, theres 2 acquitted of violence. And well if you read through you'll see that most of those convicted are just sad, sad nutjobs who wouldn't have the guts to do what they say in a hundred years. Like I've read in a forum, when they say "you won't take me alive " they are actually saying "you won't take me with a full bladder"!
0 of those cases were like, uh, realized conspiracies. Miraculously when it comes to militias, the FBI and BATF were able to stop them just in time! Thank God we have the FBI, or we'd have one and more bombings per year coming from these dangerous militia nutjobs. Thats right, 19 cases where the FBI saved your ass, and 0 cases where the extremist militias won. Unbeliveable right? Well you better believe it, you're no conspiracy theorist are you? Only the government can blame people for conspiracies, not the opposite!
I'm still only aware of one cop murdered still. (barely mentioned on this list, they mention his friend who got federal weapon convictions, some sweet weaponry that dude had. No, I'm not promoting illegal weapons. but this murder is on the miac)
I'll move on to other lists but I will only post my thoughts and results if a poor soul (L?) shows interest.
1) having 10 pipe bombs buried in your lawn is not something people do for fun. neither is having a bunch of illegal explosives. These weren't firecrackers. 2) even if you explain away/ignore/blame law enforcement(lol) 80%+ of the conspiracies/explosives charges/shootings, you still end up with a far higher rate of violent crime for the militia. and a far FAR higher rate of attempting to bomb shit. 3) the intellectual foundations of the movement are 100% based on fucking the government up when you believe they've become tyrannical as a form of check to keep power vested in the people.
I went through all of the cases and read all of the appeals of the instances you've listed, and they aren't even remotely close to the only incidents, or examples of atypical court cases.
Basically there's nothing left to talk about; You're just ignoring the mountain of information in front of you about how mixing explosives and radical thought could possibly lead to a need to watch over these people. Why? Because despite reading through a list of cases in which there are clearly fucking dangerous people with dangerous equipment, you brush it off as the actions of a lawful and happy group. You'd have been better to say that the protections guaranteed in the second and fifth amendment don't allow for the revolutionary phoenix rebirth of the republic if the tyrant republic can shut it down easily, which they might be able to do if they've got tabs on the people who can bomb their military bases.
What's more, there's MORE shit being done, like people stockpiling browning 50 cal machine guns. I don't even need to dip into that pool of events because there's no point; the listed report events are more than enough to prove a threat worthy of profiling.
On April 15 2009 18:05 D10 wrote: I have nothing against money.
But I think capitalism is self destructive.
I hope we someday develop a sustentabilism or something, our core doctrine as a race cant be a character flaw(greed).
Can you imagine if Colbert became the president after obamas second term ?
It seems to me that stupidity is self-destructive, not capitalism. We could imagine an entirely private market that, for reasons beyond altruism, was interested in developing the lives of the least wealthy. It seems to me that there are two reasons it is smart (and self-interested) for wealthy investors to funnel money to the poor.
(1) Funneling large amounts of investment would squelch much of the persausive power of marxist rhetoric by demonstrating that capitalism does not lead to labor for base substinence. (2) Happy, culturally developed workers contribute to a market in many more ways than disgrunteled, mindless laborers.
You can imagine a Utopian capitalist system all you want, but it could never happen. Your reasoning is apparently completely based on gut feelings. Why wouldn't corporations already have started treating their employees well if these two reasons are enough incentive? What's stopping them? Government regulation?
Yea I may be brushing off 33% of the people but you're ignoring the underlying agenda. Both feds and media spinning the cases to make the militia look bad off 18 violence indicted members. The feds charge way more people than they can prove, the media doesn't look at the verdicts but only the charges, reinforcing that the feds are always right.
If it were that bad you'd certainly have one conspiracy really happening in these 14 years before the feds are able to prevent it? The two real assaults (one ex-member peppering a cops car, one member shooting a state trooper dead... that's the only thing the MIAC had that my list didn't) were not conspiracies but rather reactionary freaked out nuts with a gun, and sadly there will always be a small fraction of people in every movement that may do that.
How about instead of demonizing the whole movement, we stop being scared of guns and educate people to follow the law and teach them what firearms should be used for? Don't have to mention the constitution if you want, just tell them what's universally right. Don't kill, don't assault, use guns for defense only if strictly necessary, self-defense, etc. But you don't see that in the media. You see messages of anti-gun sentiment saying they're bad and people who have it are criminals or dangerous extremists, stay away from them, tattle on your neighbors who have guns even if they're legal, etc.
You got every right to be outraged at militia members who have illegal bombs and illegal weapons and I am too, but thats no reason to believe they intended do any harm, they're either hardcore gun enthusiasts or are stockpiling for what they believe its the end of the world, the feds and payed informants are the only ones to testify that they wanted to kill and bomb; it goes to court, and only 33% of them are indicted off the feds' claims.
Without the feds provocateurs, payed informants, and bargained pleas, I believe there would be no conspiracies period, realized or planned. They have a very good reason for wanting to demonize everyone, but that isn't the safety of the population and officials, it's assuring the public that their service is necessary, that expanding their operation and raising money for their agency and operations is crucial to stop this threat. Very much like the war on terror has been overblown, much like the war on drugs has been exaggerated, much like the war on education is absurd. Now what, war on carbon dioxide (we exhale it btw), public health, and "domestic terrorism"?
This one war against domestic terror may not be as big as the others but it's just more of the same, power-hungry feds fearmongering the public and sucking it dry with more taxes. It's the same method, problem reaction solution. And they're grouping defensive militias with aggressive and racist/religious groups to make the numbers bigger. All I'm asking is, please reconsider the aggressiveness of the militia, contrast their mission statements with those other groups, and understand why there's a witch hunt out for them.
On June 15 2009 02:47 Yurebis wrote: Yea I may be brushing off 33% of the people but you're ignoring the underlying agenda. Both feds and media spinning the cases to make the militia look bad off 18 violence indicted members. The feds charge way more people than they can prove, the media doesn't look at the verdicts but only the charges, reinforcing that the feds are always right.
If it were that bad you'd certainly have one conspiracy really happening in these 14 years before the feds are able to prevent it? The two real assaults (one ex-member peppering a cops car, one member shooting a state trooper dead... that's the only thing the MIAC had that my list didn't) were not conspiracies but rather reactionary freaked out nuts with a gun, and sadly there will always be a small fraction of people in every movement that may do that.
How about instead of demonizing the whole movement, we stop being scared of guns and educate people to follow the law and teach them what firearms should be used for? Don't have to mention the constitution if you want, just tell them what's universally right. Don't kill, don't assault, use guns for defense only if strictly necessary, self-defense, etc. But you don't see that in the media. You see messages of anti-gun sentiment saying they're bad and people who have it are criminals or dangerous extremists, stay away from them, tattle on your neighbors who have guns even if they're legal, etc.
You got every right to be outraged at militia members who have illegal bombs and illegal weapons and I am too, but thats no reason to believe they intended do any harm, they're either hardcore gun enthusiasts or are stockpiling for what they believe its the end of the world, the feds and payed informants are the only ones to testify that they wanted to kill and bomb; it goes to court, and only 33% of them are indicted off the feds' claims.
Without the feds provocateurs, payed informants, and bargained pleas, I believe there would be no conspiracies period, realized or planned. They have a very good reason for wanting to demonize everyone, but that isn't the safety of the population and officials, it's assuring the public that their service is necessary, that expanding their operation and raising money for their agency and operations is crucial to stop this threat. Very much like the war on terror has been overblown, much like the war on drugs has been exaggerated, much like the war on education is absurd. Now what, war on carbon dioxide (we exhale it btw), public health, and "domestic terrorism"?
This one war against domestic terror may not be as big as the others but it's just more of the same, power-hungry feds fearmongering the public and sucking it dry with more taxes. It's the same method, problem reaction solution. And they're grouping defensive militias with aggressive and racist/religious groups to make the numbers bigger. All I'm asking is, please reconsider the aggressiveness of the militia, contrast their mission statements with those other groups, and understand why there's a witch hunt out for them.
But I digress! I agree on disagreeing.
The underlying agenda of WHAT exactly? Propagating our current liberal democracy/capitalist system? NO. SHIT. If that underlying agenda wasn't there, who would care if you bombed a government building or national symbol? That would be precisely the viewpoint adopted during a transition period between one form of government/self organization to another. Who cares if you kill the Czar? Who cares if you're tearing down Batista controlled institutions? Etc.
Go look at your opening posts in this discussion, combined with what you actually knew at that point. What was YOUR agenda? Repeating talking points from a libertarian blog? You didn't even fucking read what you were bitching about and accusing me YOUR mistake. What was the blogger's agenda throwing out obviously false bullshit? Look at the majority of your posts: they're claiming that militias have no agenda and that they're perfect saints who wouldn't hurt a fly; obviously false. The two main libertarian figureheads in this discussion "you + bloggers" are also confirmed liars, so what does that tell me about your agenda? Look at my argumentation from earlier posts: your 'agenda' viewpoint basically makes ANY news/information/facts which are contrary to right wing groups in general or militia in particular irrelevant because you reason that they are biased.
That's what I called partisan for partisanship's sake.
to break down a few points:
You got every right to be outraged at militia members who have illegal bombs and illegal weapons and I am too, but thats no reason to believe they intended do any harm
Uh, you haven't been outraged in the least about militia members having guns that can shoot down low flying planes or having explosives. In the very same sentence you pretend having pipebombs in no way indicates that they intended to do any harm. Militia members getting caught with this stuff aren't to be expected of actually using them, so why get angry, right?
Well, then, what ELSE do you use pipebombs for? If they were trying to mine expensive ores or relandscape, why would they hide them in their lawn? Why would they use pipes to surround them? The signature shrapnel spray of the pipebomb isn't designed to redecorate your lawn or make a hole in the ground: its designed to be a cheap, timer controlled version of a fragmentation grenade that gets around the fact that you will kill yourself if you throw one in an open area.
You can make very good arguments for the use of guns in hunting or for self defence (especially in rural areas), but for a fucking BOMB?
All I'm asking is, please reconsider the aggressiveness of the militia, contrast their mission statements with those other groups
A mission statement like engage in a
war against domestic terror
Ok. What happens when your definition of domestic terror is a bit off? All of the above incidents?
Jews are causing domestic terror: shoot up a holocaust museum. Abortion doctors are causing domestic terror: shoot up a clinic. Federal judges are abetting domestic terror: shoot them in the head and bomb their buildings. Government is taxing us to death: bomb an IRS building.
Sure there are going to be plenty of people who are straight arrow about it, but at the end of the day that doesn't justify not keeping an eye out for plots coming from these groups. So, to come back to your original point; the outrage is justified? Then maybe you can accept that someone would publish a report about it.
Why do you keep tying it all together like they're all one and the same groups...
there has been 0 bombings by real militias (not racist or religious groups) 1 murder 1 police car peppered 18 militia members convicted of conspiracy to do bomb/kill 38 acquitted of conspiracy to bomb/kill
So no it's not justified, my opinion is the same as before because the bottom line is still the same, there is not even a handful (I thought at the beginning that there would be at least like three cases? nope) of cases where militia members were caught doing what the feds feared they'd do.
The agenda is not to protect the republic or the people, lol, it's to increase the size of federal government and their paychecks, they want to look like heroes, and they may very well have been in a few racist and loner cases, but it's still unjustified to tie those guys to an organized and defensive militia.
Why do you keep tying it all together like they're all one and the same groups...
Because the other groups form militias, operate under the same ideological framework, and the encompassing framework is right wing extremism, which includes all of these related groups. That would be what both reports were about, the reports this thread is about and the reports you are attempting to discredit.
Heads up: Race, Religion and Tax motivated militias are militias.
And again, those aren't the only instances, and most of the people acquitted of being in a bomb plot were still found having stockpiles of illegal bombs.
But yes, thanks for restating points I've knocked down and ignoring others that you can't.
I beg to differ, they're not the same, but if you want to group them all together then by all means go ahead, honest and informed people know how they're different and why they're different, and also why would the feds would want to group them all together.
And about the bombs, innocence until proven guilty, please. You can't prove those acquitted wanted to bomb, and the jury in those cases did not fall for the feds testimony, thats all. I don't know why some would have powerful and deadly bombs but I'm not going to sit here and judge them on it, there's people that love bombs of every sort, just like there's tons of guns enthusiasts, that doesn't make them killers, so no, having illegal bombs does not = dangerous extremist.
Okay then. If you don't see a potentially profile worthy link between a group with, in your words, a mission of "waging a war on domestic terror" having illegal bombs because you think they're just harmless collectors, then that's about as far as this can go.
I mean, might as well give them stealth bombers, entire military bases and let them have access to a nuclear silo because they're just enthusiasts who wouldn't hurt anyone :3.
That would be sweet! but no, they should be charged and sentenced for having those. I'm just saying that's as far as the law should go. There's no provision saying "if you ever break the law we can track and survey you and every group thats related to your ideology".
Actually, the Bureau of Justice allows fairly elaborate levels of offender profiling, so there goes that idea.
Entrapment, which you should look up, is a different topic completely. If people were caught on buying explosives charges from the fed and didn't get off on entrapment it meant the requirements for entrapment weren't met: ie they showed that they would have purchased the weaponry either way if given a chance.
As for the video, the host's a douchebag but most of the prescriptive qualities released in the report and confirmed there. Also: lol at the russians are coming.
A Long Island mother of three -- armed to the teeth with an assault rifle and shotgun -- was arrested for scouting out and taking pictures of an Air National Guard base in the Hamptons, authorities said.
Caracappa said Genovese was taking photographs of the perimeter of the base. A search of her car uncovered an arsenal -- an XM-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition.
...we the people. I just saw GlennBeck tell it like it is! Yes, he was firm and he is talking to congress, for all of us. ...we the people. I just saw Glenn Becks show, now on the 2 am show, missed it at 5 PM today.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Please do re post this video .
He is mad as hell and so are we. He is right and so are we. He says a copy of the letter he is speaking of, from a grandmother, is on his site
GlennBeck.com, if you want to add a comment or sign it.
A Long Island mother of three -- armed to the teeth with an assault rifle and shotgun -- was arrested for scouting out and taking pictures of an Air National Guard base in the Hamptons, authorities said.
Caracappa said Genovese was taking photographs of the perimeter of the base. A search of her car uncovered an arsenal -- an XM-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition.
...we the people. I just saw GlennBeck tell it like it is! Yes, he was firm and he is talking to congress, for all of us. ...we the people. I just saw Glenn Becks show, now on the 2 am show, missed it at 5 PM today.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Please do re post this video .
He is mad as hell and so are we. He is right and so are we. He says a copy of the letter he is speaking of, from a grandmother, is on his site
GlennBeck.com, if you want to add a comment or sign it.
Do these people not understand? You don't use violence. When the Government becomes such a Tyranny as to warrant its abolisment and reinstitution, the only option is Secession, not trying to be China or Iran and overthrow it from the inside. You especially don't go after military personnel, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the Government. Crazy people.
A Long Island mother of three -- armed to the teeth with an assault rifle and shotgun -- was arrested for scouting out and taking pictures of an Air National Guard base in the Hamptons, authorities said.
Caracappa said Genovese was taking photographs of the perimeter of the base. A search of her car uncovered an arsenal -- an XM-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition.
...we the people. I just saw GlennBeck tell it like it is! Yes, he was firm and he is talking to congress, for all of us. ...we the people. I just saw Glenn Becks show, now on the 2 am show, missed it at 5 PM today.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Please do re post this video .
He is mad as hell and so are we. He is right and so are we. He says a copy of the letter he is speaking of, from a grandmother, is on his site
GlennBeck.com, if you want to add a comment or sign it.
Do these people not understand? You don't use violence. When the Government becomes such a Tyranny as to warrant its abolisment and reinstitution, the only option is Secession, not trying to be China or Iran and overthrow it from the inside. You especially don't go after military personnel, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the Government. Crazy people.
Yes that is quite crazy, but the craziest part is that she believed a single word that Glenn Beck says.
A Long Island mother of three -- armed to the teeth with an assault rifle and shotgun -- was arrested for scouting out and taking pictures of an Air National Guard base in the Hamptons, authorities said.
Caracappa said Genovese was taking photographs of the perimeter of the base. A search of her car uncovered an arsenal -- an XM-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition.
...we the people. I just saw GlennBeck tell it like it is! Yes, he was firm and he is talking to congress, for all of us. ...we the people. I just saw Glenn Becks show, now on the 2 am show, missed it at 5 PM today.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Please do re post this video .
He is mad as hell and so are we. He is right and so are we. He says a copy of the letter he is speaking of, from a grandmother, is on his site
GlennBeck.com, if you want to add a comment or sign it.
Do these people not understand? You don't use violence. When the Government becomes such a Tyranny as to warrant its abolisment and reinstitution, the only option is Secession, not trying to be China or Iran and overthrow it from the inside. You especially don't go after military personnel, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the Government. Crazy people.
Yes that is quite crazy, but the craziest part is that she believed a single word that Glenn Beck says.
Even crazier is the part where you wouldnt believe a single word he says, have you watched his show or are you watching the fucking loons who try to make him out to be a loon. Tell me. Are you intelligent enough to come up with your own decisions or do you let others on the media do it for you?
A Long Island mother of three -- armed to the teeth with an assault rifle and shotgun -- was arrested for scouting out and taking pictures of an Air National Guard base in the Hamptons, authorities said.
Caracappa said Genovese was taking photographs of the perimeter of the base. A search of her car uncovered an arsenal -- an XM-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition.
...we the people. I just saw GlennBeck tell it like it is! Yes, he was firm and he is talking to congress, for all of us. ...we the people. I just saw Glenn Becks show, now on the 2 am show, missed it at 5 PM today.
United we stand, divided we fall.
Please do re post this video .
He is mad as hell and so are we. He is right and so are we. He says a copy of the letter he is speaking of, from a grandmother, is on his site
GlennBeck.com, if you want to add a comment or sign it.
Do these people not understand? You don't use violence. When the Government becomes such a Tyranny as to warrant its abolisment and reinstitution, the only option is Secession, not trying to be China or Iran and overthrow it from the inside. You especially don't go after military personnel, who have sworn an oath to the Constitution and NOT to the Government. Crazy people.
Yes that is quite crazy, but the craziest part is that she believed a single word that Glenn Beck says.
Even crazier is the part where you wouldnt believe a single word he says, have you watched his show or are you watching the fucking loons who try to make him out to be a loon. Tell me. Are you intelligent enough to come up with your own decisions or do you let others on the media do it for you?
On August 03 2009 09:21 starPride wrote: brazilian trying to tell me im insane. you dumb shits cant even fix ur own shit country. dont come here and tell us about ours .
LOL, Brazil is the world's 10th largest economy and very stable atm.
Also, Glenn Beck is terrible. He called Obama a racist because... why?
On August 03 2009 09:21 starPride wrote: brazilian trying to tell me im insane. you dumb shits cant even fix ur own shit country. dont come here and tell us about ours .
On August 03 2009 09:21 starPride wrote: brazilian trying to tell me im insane. you dumb shits cant even fix ur own shit country. dont come here and tell us about ours .
No wonder you got so defensive, you ARE Glenn Beck.
On August 03 2009 09:21 starPride wrote: brazilian trying to tell me im insane. you dumb shits cant even fix ur own shit country. dont come here and tell us about ours .
LOL, Brazil is the world's 10th largest economy and very stable atm.
Also, Glenn Beck is terrible. He called Obama a racist because... why?
On August 03 2009 09:21 starPride wrote: brazilian trying to tell me im insane. you dumb shits cant even fix ur own shit country. dont come here and tell us about ours .
LOL, Brazil is the world's 10th largest economy and very stable atm.
Also, Glenn Beck is terrible. He called Obama a racist because... why?
Did you not follow the Crowley case?
I am amazed that you and Glenn Beck are able to infer so much after Obama's extremely limited statements about that case.
stupid americans, STICK TO PBS , glen beck is a FKIN IDIOT.
edit: obviously didn't read much in this thread, but yea all these middle class people that have made new life in last 10-15 years and now their living standards are not as lovely, will have tendencies to go on the extremes imo directly related with their psychological mood, and obviously there is money to make when you can get a large number of pissed off people on your side for whatever the cause may be (political, economical etc.).
On August 03 2009 09:21 starPride wrote: brazilian trying to tell me im insane. you dumb shits cant even fix ur own shit country. dont come here and tell us about ours .
LOL, Brazil is the world's 10th largest economy and very stable atm.
Also, Glenn Beck is terrible. He called Obama a racist because... why?
Did you not follow the Crowley case?
I am amazed that you and Glenn Beck are able to infer so much after Obama's extremely limited statements about that case.
No, whats telling is the haste at which Obama slandered the white officer solely on the basis of hearing what color the officer was and what color the accused was. He even admitted he had no facts (Obama). Seriously, also if you sat for 20 years in a racist church, you wouldn't be called racist yourself?
Black Liberation Theology is as racist as it comes. Might as well be a NBPP member.
i dont think you guys understand how much america is changing. you just want to deny it or embrace progressive's. do you even know some of the viewpoints on the people in washington? There was one who wrote a book on how he believes in forced sterilization in some communities. There was also one who associated with the KKK. and there are many others and all these people were appointed by obama. But i guess. Glenn beck is just crazy and these people weren't actually hired. and that you keep wanting to listen to the bullshit spoon fed to you by our government. You can follow this train but please. dont insult glenn because you dont agree with some of the things he says. He brings to light on many subjects and is more of a commentator. He gives good reason by everything he says. Of course its easy in politics to bash someone for saying something. cause usually they just leave out the reasoning. He made many good points for why obama has an issue with white people. do you really not know what kind of church obama was attending for 20 years?
Right-wing extremism is a manufactured danger... propagated by FBI provocateurs and informants alike.
About Beck, I don't like him, not for the same reason as everyone else. It's just that he's limited hangout for a lot of things. He'll say some very truthful things and lie so hard on others. He'll badmouth the Fed in one segment which is great, then fearmonger his audience on rightwing extremism for example. I guess it's part of every TV character to say stupid stuff for better ratings.
Right-wing extremism is a manufactured danger... propagated by FBI provocateurs and informants alike.
About Beck, I don't like him, not for the same reason as everyone else. It's just that he's limited hangout for a lot of things. He'll say some very truthful things and lie so hard on others. He'll badmouth the Fed in one segment which is great, then fearmonger his audience on rightwing extremism for example. I guess it's part of every TV character to say stupid stuff for better ratings.
Atleast someone here doesnt like him for reasons that aren't anothers so for that, i am glad to see some intelligence. :Future reference, maybe political threads aren't good for game forums ;D ?
On April 15 2009 14:03 Sadist wrote: all the fox news stuff has been pretty insane lately. All of the hardcore conservatives and wackjobs werent as popular during the clinton years (aside from rush.....ugh) so this is the first we get to see of them when they dont agree with the government wholeheartedly.
I disagree with fiscal conservatives, but they are at least intelligent people and you can talk to them. These neo-cons are fucking nuts imo.
My gf's parents listen to Rush, especially when I go over there (in a feeble attempt to convert me). He spews bile. Freedom of speech has its consequences.
Right-wing extremism is a manufactured danger... propagated by FBI provocateurs and informants alike.
About Beck, I don't like him, not for the same reason as everyone else. It's just that he's limited hangout for a lot of things. He'll say some very truthful things and lie so hard on others. He'll badmouth the Fed in one segment which is great, then fearmonger his audience on rightwing extremism for example. I guess it's part of every TV character to say stupid stuff for better ratings.
Atleast someone here doesnt like him for reasons that aren't anothers so for that, i am glad to see some intelligence. :Future reference, maybe political threads aren't good for game forums ;D ?
Certainly they aren't, when you go "too far" here, the mods will close your thread for making them think too much. True story, happened to me.
so i guess this isnt the first time there was a heated political thread on TL? is there religion threads? i hate religion threads.. i try so hard not to get pissed --
On June 12 2009 05:05 Yurebis wrote: No, militia groups are law abiding citizens who want to PROTECT the law with their own hands. Which is exactly what the second amendment defends. Which is exactly what the government and media have demonized for years.
The government concluded it would rather have an unarmed and unthinking population, and so have demonized them for years. Militia groups have existed since before the country was founded, and was assured safety from tyranny by the Bill of Rights, and yet today they're called "extremists" by government apologists all over. People are scared of guns today, they'd rather see men in black uniforms protecting them and smear those who want to be able to defend themselves. How dare you have a gun? You should thank God for having such a loving and caring government.
Reading back on the post i think this is right on. couldn't agree more
Right-wing extremism is a manufactured danger... propagated by FBI provocateurs and informants alike.
About Beck, I don't like him, not for the same reason as everyone else. It's just that he's limited hangout for a lot of things. He'll say some very truthful things and lie so hard on others. He'll badmouth the Fed in one segment which is great, then fearmonger his audience on rightwing extremism for example. I guess it's part of every TV character to say stupid stuff for better ratings.
Atleast someone here doesnt like him for reasons that aren't anothers so for that, i am glad to see some intelligence. :Future reference, maybe political threads aren't good for game forums ;D ?
Certainly they aren't, when you go "too far" here, the mods will close your thread for making them think too much. True story, happened to me.
Look man. I hopped on the Obama train for competence. If you can show me evidence that one of his appointees has no relevant experience then maybe I'll start listening. But as for people being associated with the KKK, the "forced sterilization" thing, I honestly don't give a damn.
All I want is a well-run government. Is that too much to ask? It was for Bush. I think it would have been for McCain.
It isn't well run and won't be well run until you realize you can't have a sustainable government thats running on trillions of debt. Neither party will address how to handle a negative budget without spending more, so I guess we'll be trying to get out of this hole by digging more hole. Maybe we can get to China in a few decades, haha.
On August 03 2009 11:31 Yurebis wrote: It isn't well run and won't be well run until you realize you can't have a sustainable government thats running on trillions of debt. Neither party will address how to handle a negative budget without spending more, so I guess we'll be trying to get out of this hole by digging more hole. Maybe we can get to China in a few decades, haha.
Or we could raise taxes. It's gonna happen, dude. It's gonna happen.
On August 03 2009 11:21 starPride wrote: do you mean having an opinion?
You can have an opinion, but it's clear that neither you or Yurebis have any understanding of the context of the second amendment or what Jefferson's original words even were. I'm sure the Wikipedia article worked well for your 10th grade history paper, though.
Protect the law? Vigilantes? The law is interpreted, so how is their protection more valid than another group's? I can assure you the Montana Militia and Delaware Militia have opposing views on the law's intent, and the truth is that neither one of their opinions matter, unless a Supreme Court Justice happens to be a member of one of them.
The second amendment was written in a time when there was no federal army to reign tyranny upon the states. The role of militias, as they were used at the time, has since been replaced by the National Guard. That's why the creation of the NG is called the Militia Act.
Quite frankly, I don't mind the second amendment but it's a horribly written law so it's understandable that both sides feel the need to interpret it according to their own agenda.
The federal government hasn't demonized militias; they've remained largely agnostic. People in militias happen to be fucking weirdos. If you're one of them, then you're probably a weirdo. And yeah, the government really wants an uneducated and apathetic populace. That really works well in democracies.
Glenn Beck is an entertainer first and foremost, and to call him a leading conservative mind is an insult to the ghosts of Milton Friedmen, Fredrich Hayek or even Edmund Burke. I'm sure you've never heard of those men, but let me assure you that they were much more intelligent than Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, Keith Oberman, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs or any other jackass that's on TV/radio.
On August 03 2009 11:31 Yurebis wrote: It isn't well run and won't be well run until you realize you can't have a sustainable government thats running on trillions of debt. Neither party will address how to handle a negative budget without spending more, so I guess we'll be trying to get out of this hole by digging more hole. Maybe we can get to China in a few decades, haha.
Even counting the recent bailouts (and the fact that the true costs of Iraq + Afghanistan are reflected in the actual budget instead of "emergency funding"), the US debt to GDP ratio is consistent with other Western countries. When everyone borrows from everyone else at comparable rates, it all ends up a wash in the end.
On August 03 2009 11:21 starPride wrote: do you mean having an opinion?
You can have an opinion, but it's clear that neither you or Yurebis have any understanding of the context of the second amendment or what Jefferson's original words even were. I'm sure the Wikipedia article worked well for your 10th grade history paper, though.
Protect the law? Vigilantes? The law is interpreted, so how is their protection more valid than another group's? I can assure you the Montana Militia and Delaware Militia have opposing views on the law's intent, and the truth is that neither one of their opinions matter, unless a Supreme Court Justice happens to be a member of one of them.
The second amendment was written in a time when there was no federal army to reign tyranny upon the states. The role of militias, as they were used at the time, has since been replaced by the National Guard. That's why the creation of the NG is called the Militia Act.
The federal government hasn't demonized militias; they've remained largely agnostic. People in militias happen to be fucking weirdos. If you're one of them, then you're probably a weirdo. And yeah, the government really wants an uneducated and apathetic populace. That really works well in democracies.
Glenn Beck is an entertainer first and foremost, and to call him a leading conservative mind is an insult to the ghosts of Milton Friedmen, Fredrich Hayek or even Edmund Burke. I'm sure you've never heard of those men, but let me assure you that they were much more intelligent than Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Rielly, Keith Oberman, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs or any other jackass that's on TV/radio.
Amen. F.A. Hayek is one of my favorite Statesman and intellectual. Don't forget John Locke, Adam Smith, Mizes, Ayn Rand, Alexis De Tocqueville, and countless others. There is only one person that I would put up there with them in this day and age and thats Mark Levin. Won't find a better Constitutional Scholar and intellectual champion for limited government and the importance of our Founders and their original intent.
On August 03 2009 12:06 Jibba wrote: Quite frankly, I don't mind the second amendment but it's a horribly written law so it's understandable that both sides feel the need to interpret it according to their own agenda.
I must disagree perfusely with this assessment. The second amendment is crystal clear.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can't write a law any clearer. 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'
Road to Serfdom is the more important of the two as a general treatise for why collectivism is bad (plus it got him kicked out of the UK for basically calling the PM a Nazi) but Constitution is the best overall basis of conservatism, and it's theoretical enough to keep pop libertarians/NYTimes Best Seller fans away. Just like reading Communist Manifesto isn't enough to understand communism, I'd say the same applies for conservatism.
Road to Serfdom is the more important of the two as a general treatise for why collectivism is bad (plus it got him kicked out of the UK for basically calling the PM a Nazi) but Constitution is the best overall basis of conservatism, and it's theoretical enough to keep pop libertarians/NYTimes Best Seller fans away. Just like reading Communist Manifesto isn't enough to understand communism, I'd say the same applies for conservatism.
True. One thing people don't seem to understand in general about the tenants and philosophy of Conservatism, is that we have the intellectual prowess and minds on our side. Throughout history the greatest statesman, scholars, intellectuals have been conservative/classical liberals in nature. This is for a reason. There is no better arguement than looking at the great success of individualism, capitalism, and freedom and liberty. I just hope that we can reverse the current trend and return to what made America prosperous and great. Abandoning that is not only reckless, but foolish. We have seen the ramifications of collectivism, centralized government, economic planning, and everything associated with greater government control.
I'm also different than many of the current persons of today in that I see government as a philosophical entity not an essay and statistician number crunching where government is one large experiment throwing society out of flux and not cementing one generation to another bound by the same laws. There is no continuity and you can see the havoc it has been wrecking these past 60 years.
There's a distinction to be made between economic planning and heavy social programs. Road to Serfdom was written with the UK in mind and its government-led industries, not the type of socialism we see in Scandinavian countries. Hayek didn't agree with either, but you can't apply the book to all government programs, because the path doesn't fit.
Road to Serfdom is the more important of the two as a general treatise for why collectivism is bad (plus it got him kicked out of the UK for basically calling the PM a Nazi) but Constitution is the best overall basis of conservatism, and it's theoretical enough to keep pop libertarians/NYTimes Best Seller fans away. Just like reading Communist Manifesto isn't enough to understand communism, I'd say the same applies for conservatism.
True. One thing people don't seem to understand in general about the tenants and philosophy of Conservatism, is that we have the intellectual prowess and minds on our side. Throughout history the greatest statesman, scholars, intellectuals have been conservative/classical liberals in nature. This is for a reason. There is no better arguement than looking at the great success of individualism, capitalism, and freedom and liberty.
God I hate MSNBC. Apparatchik wing of the far-left in the Democratic Party. How's the tingle in the leg feeling lately?
Ok, so thats out of the way. The 14th amendment and the definition of Natural Born Citizen and the requirement to become President of the US is the issue for myself and should be the issue for everyone. If you don't uphold the supreme law of the land, then what the hell is the point of laws in the first place. If you don't enforce the laws, you move in a direction that gets closer and closer to Despotism.
Go back and read the father of the Constitutions own words on this issue. They put these safeguards into the Constitution for a reason. A placating media on both sides of the aisle, tilted far more to the left however (I've been to quite a few Tea Parties and we all have boo'ed the Good ol' Boys) is going to be the ruination of this country. You have to vet thoroughly those running for the highest office in the land. It's clear that Obama's father, by his own admission that he was a Citizen of Britain at the time. Therefore, Obama does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Constitution to be eligible to become President of the US.
To call those calling out eligibility requirements and the facts of the matter, and to not even let it go to the SCOTUS for a ruling (I'm quite confident it would be 5-4 anyways, empathy over rule of law), racist is particularly unsettling. Is this the America that looks beyond color? Ha! Why even have the damn requirements if you aren't going to enforce them.
The reason the SCOTUS won't rule on this issue (Not where Obama was born thats irrelevant), is because it would be a hugely damaging issue to America. If you thought the country was partisan now...wait until the rule of law was upheld in this case. I for one don't care about the ramifications, you HAVE to uphold the LAW. That is why we are a damn republic and not a BANANA REPUBLIC. Its not that hard to follow the supreme law of the land.
I dont understand, how can a country with a jurisprudence based judicial system complain about someone not upholding the rule of law ? The constitution should be interpreted, not followed by every single word, thats originalism and it doesnt work with a 200 year old document.
its like trying to follow the bible to the last word, ignoring the fact that it was written for a public with an education level so below our standards that its impossible to teach them anything without animal methaphores and absolutism.
On August 04 2009 11:35 Mindcrime wrote: It's hilarious how you act like the law is on your side.
The law has no sides. You either follow it, or you don't. If you don't might as well have no Constitution. It seems thats what we've been doing as a country for the past 70 years. Why the fuck do we even have it then? It's so salient that it can be rewritten (interpretation) at the behest of a few individuals and then these individuals for time innumerable (precedents) is the rule of law, when yet the original rule of law was not. It makes no sense.
The law is black and white. It doesn't favor one group over another. If it was the same case for a Republican I'd be just as upset and just as vocal.
On August 04 2009 11:35 D10 wrote: I dont understand, how can a country with a jurisprudence based judicial system complain about someone not upholding the rule of law ? The constitution should be interpreted, not followed by every single word, thats originalism and it doesnt work with a 200 year old document.
its like trying to follow the bible to the last word, ignoring the fact that it was written for a public with an education level so below our standards that its impossible to teach them anything without animal methaphores and absolutism.
Digest this for a moment.
...for he believes that much like a contract, the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from societal experimentation and government excess. There really is no other standard by which the Constitution can be interpreted without abandoning its underlying principles altogether.
If the Constitutions meaning can be erased or rewritten, and the Framer's intentions ignored, it ceases to be a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it.
As James Madison the "father" of the Constitution, explained:
I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiased Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption.
To say the Constitution is a "living and breathing document" is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism.
Thomas Jefferson, in an 1803 letter to Senator Wilson Cary Nicholas of Virginia respecting the Louisiana Purchase, explained:
Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution. If it has bounds, they can be no others than the definitions of the powers which that instrument gives. It specifies & delineates the operations permitted to the federal government, and gives all the powers necessary to carry these into execution. Whatever of these enumerated objects is proper for a law, Congress may make the law; whatever is proper to be executed by way of a treaty, the President & Senate may enter into the treaty; whatever is to be done by a judicial sentence, the judges may pass the sentence.
...seek to divine the Constitution's meaning from its words and their historical context, including a variety of original sources--records of public debates, diaries, correspondences, notes, etc. While reasonable people may in good faith, draw different conclusions from the application of this interpreative standard, it is the only standard that gives fidelity to the Constitution.
When asked by a law clerk to explain his judicial philosophy, the late Associate Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall responded, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."
Why should todays law bind future generations if yesterdays law does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not? Why should any judicial determination based on a judges notion of what is "right" or "just" bind the individual if the individual believes the notion is wrong and unjust? Does not lawlessness beget lawlessness?
And if judges determine for society what is right and just, and if their purpose is to spread democracy or liberty, how can it be said that the judiciary is coequal with the executive or legislative branch?
Callers who reached both the front desk and the communications department compared the union officials to Nazis, union aides say. On Twitter, organizers of the town hall protest urged people to take pictures and write down the license plate numbers of attending SEIU officials. More alarming than anything else, angry callers and protesters pledged to take up arms against the union.
"If ACORN/SEIU attends these meetings for disruptive purposes, and you have a license to carry....carry,"
"I suggest you tell your people to calm down, act like American citizens, and stop trying to repress people's First Amendment rights," one caller warned. "That, or you all are gonna come up against the Second Amendment."
The SEIU wasn't the only Obama ally receiving threats on Friday. An official of the AFL-CIO, which has pledged to counter conservative protests at these town hall events across the country, said that union received angry emails throughout the day as well -- mostly accusations that it was promoting communism and socialism.
Oh, I see the Birther craze has been raised in this thread. This has actually broken into the British press recently. British newspapers have kind of been ignoring it for a fair while but since it just continues to rumble on in the States they have run a few stories on it again. Most amusing.
Why should todays law bind future generations if yesterdays law does not bind this generation? Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not? Why should any judicial determination based on a judges notion of what is "right" or "just" bind the individual if the individual believes the notion is wrong and unjust? Does not lawlessness beget lawlessness?
Why should any law remain static forever? The entire success of the English legal tradition over other competing legal systems (including canon and civil law) was based on the fact that the system of precedent allowed it to be very flexible to adapt to new rules, and strike down old ones when they became antiquated.
There are a number of categories of situations in which precedents and foundational documents will be re-examined judicially. Pretending this doesn't happen legally or with legitimacy and that the occurrence of which is "lawlessness" is ridiculous.
I suggest you read a basic primer on how stare decisis works. You're taking a page out of Scalia's judicial philosophy which requires quite a bit more logical foundation than you're laying, especially for a philosophy which is basically 100% wrong at first glance.
Bumping this with a followup article, someone did a FOIA request to see the sources of the DHS report, turns out they didnt investigate shit on their own, they did some investigoogling and put out this crap like it was fact. Wow, gj government, you're as unbiased and accurate as always.
No statistical analysis, no independent investigation, just copy and paste... when I do that, I'm unprofessional and childish, but when they do that, it's accurate and trustworthy? I hope most people can see how fraudulent they are.
Lol can't wait for the 2nd amendment nuts to come out of the woodwork:p I heard Marco Rubio claiming the situation in Iran would be different "if they had a 2nd amendment like ours.". And that guy is pretty big in Republican Politics... which is pretty disturbing stuff...
Sorry man, but you don't understand the issue at all.
On August 04 2009 11:09 Aegraen wrote: You have to vet thoroughly those running for the highest office in the land. It's clear that Obama's father, by his own admission that he was a Citizen of Britain at the time. Therefore, Obama does not meet the requirements as set forth in the Constitution to be eligible to become President of the US. ... (Not where Obama was born thats irrelevant)
Wat?
So the president is required to be a natural born citizen. You grasp that, but fail at knowing what it means (which is excusable, it's a complicated mess).
One way you are a natural born citizen is if you are born in the US in which case citizenship of your parents does not matter, so why are you going on about his father being a UK citizen? I don't think anyone is claiming that his father was a US citizen. And why would you claim that where he is born is irrelevant?
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is pretty cut and dried -
The child of alien parents born in the United States] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The other way, if you are born out of the country, is based on the citizenship of your parents. There are of course disputes about whether citizen from birth thanks to Jus Sanguinis is the same thing as "natural born citizen", but there are plenty of Supreme Court rulings that divide citizens into two classes: born and naturalized, not three (born, natural born, and naturalized). See the case of McCain, who was born in Panama. Being born on a US military base was irrelevant (State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual states "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment"); his eligibility was based entirely on his parents' citizenship. Nevertheless, before 1986 both your parents had to be citizens so Obama would not be considered a citizen based solely on Jus Sanguinis, so it is irrelevant to a discussion on his eligibility.
Thus, the question of Obama being a natural born citizen hinges entirely on Jus Soli (where he was born). If he was born in Hawaii, that's that. And he appears to have been, which settles it, and which country his father may have been a citizen of is also irrelevant.
No statistical analysis, no independent investigation, just copy and paste... when I do that, I'm unprofessional and childish, but when they do that, it's accurate and trustworthy? I hope most people can see how fraudulent they are.
Did you even look at the websites they accessed?
It was a mix of news organizations, the southern poverty law center, and government websites. Trying to discredit information by stating that its false because it comes from the internet is fairly ridiculous. Might as well tell me that online nature hosted papers aren't real science while you're at it.
Google does that, L, when you put something in, it replies with a wide range of information websites. I'm saying thats NOT how it should be done to governmental assessments and reports, especially those distributed to cops throughout the nation demonizing every sort of group.
You yourself found my statistical analysis ridiculous, now we know that their own research is just as ridiculous, if not even more, because they didn't even try to build statistical data. Anyone can do the kind of shit they just did. It proves nothing, it should be the base for no argument. Why are you still against me, and not those crooks? They lie in your face and you're still defending them. God damnit.
Uh, it cited news reports which linked to the events which were brought up. If this was 20 years ago, you'd be given a list of newspaper archived microfilm to go to the library and check. Now you have ready access to the information and its somehow uncredible and demonizing.
There was no statistical data in the report itself other than a brief comment on the amount of cases reported. Nowhere in the report was there a 'these guys are 50% more likely to XYZ', just 'this group sometimes does things, as noted by this plethora of chronicled events'.
'Do the kind of shit they just did'? What shit do you mean? Publishing a report linking crimes to a group who committed those crimes? Wow. Big shocker. I don't care if its the mexican mob, the italian mob, a new age wiccan cult or a bunch of militia members; if they're committing crimes related to their group's aims, I'd want to know.
Then again, this looks like another case of you not looking at the information you posted and taking a partisan blog as the be-all and end-all of truth. We've been here before. Last I remember you made yourself look like quite the retard for doing pretty much exactly this last time.
20 Cases in 20 years is not enough L 60 cases even, counting all the racist provocateurs. There's more GROUPS cited in the report than people CONVICTED man, get real, they've got nothing, you got nothing, and it's all fluff, all scare tactics.
It is a lie that it's a national threat. It would be fraud to make these kinds of reports and send it to police nationwide if it wasn't a federal agency doing it. Because it's the DHS, people (like you) bought it, still buy it, still make a fuss about it, and when it comes out that it's bunk, it's just a stinking footnote in the news. Transparency in government? I don't think so.
You think the same people that try to scare you to hell are looking out for you?
I've done my research, there is nothing to warrant this witch hunt to "right wingers". If anything, we should be hunting the criminals and liars in government, scrap the DHS for all I care, because their interest is NOT homeland security but to increase their power manyfold whenever they can. The feds almost always create the problem, stage a reaction, and bring in their solution. This is the truth of politics today.
Oh, so now it isn't about the quality of the sources, but about the frequency of the events?
Then why post the link? We already had that discussion before.
Are you going to go back to pretending that bombing buildings, or buying explosives to do so isn't a violent crime? Are you going to go back to pretending that militia members don't get into any crimes and are outstanding people, so we should examine their likelihood to offend based strictly on the amount of people they shoot in militia related events? Are you, personally, going to go back to posting right wing blogs without actually reading the content of the information you're given?
Well, I can't say much for the others, but the last seems pretty concretely in 'yes sir!' territory.
On August 13 2009 09:04 Yurebis wrote: 20 Cases in 20 years is not enough L 60 cases even, counting all the racist provocateurs. There's more GROUPS cited in the report than people CONVICTED man, get real, they've got nothing, you got nothing, and it's all fluff, all scare tactics.
It is a lie that it's a national threat. It would be fraud to make these kinds of reports and send it to police nationwide if it wasn't a federal agency doing it. Because it's the DHS, people (like you) bought it, still buy it, still make a fuss about it, and when it comes out that it's bunk, it's just a stinking footnote in the news. Transparency in government? I don't think so.
You think the same people that try to scare you to hell are looking out for you?
I've done my research, there is nothing to warrant this witch hunt to "right wingers". If anything, we should be hunting the criminals and liars in government, scrap the DHS for all I care, because their interest is NOT homeland security but to increase their power manyfold whenever they can. The feds almost always create the problem, stage a reaction, and bring in their solution. This is the truth of politics today.
But be my guest and trust the DHS then...
Ease up there my red-neck friend. We've got a recession here, no doubt about it. I wouldn't be so arrogant to assume that the US government 'staged' a world wide recession if i were you.
I'm not pretending it's nothing, but it doesn't warrant big brother coming to save our butts.
I still think buying or making explosives is not a violent crime. The intent is only ever evidenced through FBI and ATF agents which have a bias to big government too.
My opinion on militia members stays the same, they are outstanding militia members, but I didn't get back in this thread to discuss that with you again, I came back to say the DHS report is useless and you're going at me again for not giving them props for doing an afternoon job on analising national threats on GOOGLE.
This is evidence on my side, not yours. The agents provocateurs, payed informants, and 60%+ (I don't even remember how many were there) dismissed federal indictions are evidence on my side, not yours. If you still trust the gangsters in charge I can't say much either man. What I can say is that I think the 1 million dead iraqis trumps all of the crazies casualities ez, even if you think they're all spontaneous and within the conservative ideology (no and no)
On August 13 2009 09:04 Yurebis wrote: 20 Cases in 20 years is not enough L 60 cases even, counting all the racist provocateurs. There's more GROUPS cited in the report than people CONVICTED man, get real, they've got nothing, you got nothing, and it's all fluff, all scare tactics.
It is a lie that it's a national threat. It would be fraud to make these kinds of reports and send it to police nationwide if it wasn't a federal agency doing it. Because it's the DHS, people (like you) bought it, still buy it, still make a fuss about it, and when it comes out that it's bunk, it's just a stinking footnote in the news. Transparency in government? I don't think so.
You think the same people that try to scare you to hell are looking out for you?
I've done my research, there is nothing to warrant this witch hunt to "right wingers". If anything, we should be hunting the criminals and liars in government, scrap the DHS for all I care, because their interest is NOT homeland security but to increase their power manyfold whenever they can. The feds almost always create the problem, stage a reaction, and bring in their solution. This is the truth of politics today.
But be my guest and trust the DHS then...
Ease up there my red-neck friend. We've got a recession here, no doubt about it. I wouldn't be so arrogant to assume that the US government 'staged' a world wide recession if i were you.
On August 13 2009 09:04 Yurebis wrote: 20 Cases in 20 years is not enough L 60 cases even, counting all the racist provocateurs. There's more GROUPS cited in the report than people CONVICTED man, get real, they've got nothing, you got nothing, and it's all fluff, all scare tactics.
It is a lie that it's a national threat. It would be fraud to make these kinds of reports and send it to police nationwide if it wasn't a federal agency doing it. Because it's the DHS, people (like you) bought it, still buy it, still make a fuss about it, and when it comes out that it's bunk, it's just a stinking footnote in the news. Transparency in government? I don't think so.
You think the same people that try to scare you to hell are looking out for you?
I've done my research, there is nothing to warrant this witch hunt to "right wingers". If anything, we should be hunting the criminals and liars in government, scrap the DHS for all I care, because their interest is NOT homeland security but to increase their power manyfold whenever they can. The feds almost always create the problem, stage a reaction, and bring in their solution. This is the truth of politics today.
But be my guest and trust the DHS then...
Ease up there my red-neck friend. We've got a recession here, no doubt about it. I wouldn't be so arrogant to assume that the US government 'staged' a world wide recession if i were you.
It's not just the economy anymore.
Ok. Ether you think the US government has total control over both the world's economy AND society, or you seriously don't understand the implications of what your suggesting. Ether way: no offence, but i have serious suspicions your a neo-con nut.
False dichotomy, and strawman, because I'm not saying the U.S. government has control over anything 100%, I'm saying the reports are bull, and provided evidence both in specific cases and in general rationale. If you look at the groups they claim to be radicals they've got nothing to do with the economy, except maybe the anti-tax ones; they're political and single-issue groups, sometimes racist, and it's very convenient for them to group it all together, so that the 60 or so cases over two decades (one crazy over here, another one over there...) can provide the least possible relevance. It's still garbage nonetheless. Of course there's crazies. All I'm saying is that they got no legal, moral, nor statistical precedent to profile conservatives.
I'm not a republican, if anything I'm leaning nonarchist today, but that shouldn't be an issue. Look at the evidence and judge it for yourself of what these agencies are worth.
So you support the crazy militias want to destroy goverment and destroy the very fabric of the best nation in the woooooooorld ? therefore ruining that the founding fathers worked to build and destroying america!
haha, the militias don't want to destroy the government, they want it minimized and under control. They (and I) see big government as an ever-increasing tyrannical force that if left unchecked and unchallenged will grow to a totalitarian state.
The only difference between anarcho-capitalists and libertarians or classical liberals is that libertarians defend that government is a necessary evil, while anarchists want to phase out the government completely. At the moment, the causes are the same as both disagree with the size of government. Anarchists would be happy with having a small government over a big one too, and libertarians would welcome a stateless society but they just think it's too unfeasible. Thing is, both ideologies understand that the use of force for anything is bad, and government is a monopoly of force. Necessary or not, it should be kept an eye on all the time. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
Government can't be more efficient than anything in the free market, there's a lot of reasons for that in every field except maybe of those where there's "natural monopolies", which is debatable. The bigger the government, the more overhead, and more room for corruption as well.
So no, if I could choose, I wouldn't choose the government to do anything for me, but taxes are mandatory, and some services are unavoidable if you want to live... virtually anywhere. Anywhere in the world you go but international waters you'll have a coercive group, government, claiming to own the law of the land and having the inherent right to monopolize courts, police force, the army, water, roads, etc. If they were good at it, certainly there would be no need to use force as people would peacefully accept their services and donate their taxes without the threat of arrest.
This is all debatable of course and goes beyond the topic at hand which is the joke that DHS is.
No, there is a way to have no government, even while keeping criminality low. There's been a few experiments here and there on how it would work, but the main thing is that there's no initiation of force involved. The wild west was one of those, and despite the bad reputation today things were pretty peaceful and orderly there, with only a few murders every five or ten years per city in average. The premise is that people are overall peaceful, and will want to establish order on their own. People can be their own moral agents without a coercive group with the monopoly of force to back them up.
Libertarians are the ones who say government is a necessary evil, and there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's just that I believe it might not be necessary at all.
The solution is exposing each and every lie until the truth can stand on its own.
Bush doubled the size of the federal government, and initiated two useless wars, so of course not. He's as conservative as Hitler would have been. The left/right paradigm is a farce, and both parties are just interested in perpetuating big gov't in their own way. Fascist against Socialist if you will. Not even real socialism tbh, I wouldn't call a $22 trillion banker bailout socialism, and that was/is a bipartisan effort.
I apologize if it makes no sense to you, but with time it shall, it's just not easy to admit certain things. We'd rather be more confortable knowing everythiing's being taken care of... it's part of the human psyche, which also makes it easier for evil to.. do evil.
On August 13 2009 12:27 imabossdude wrote: Why is protesting the government bad (if you don't agree with it)? What happened to free speech?
If you think people protesting are extremists in general, then I guess that makes everyone from AFL-CIO, ACORN, and SEIU extremists as well.
I consider myself independent and fiscally conservative. I disagree with what the government is doing. I must be a crazy extremist.
Let the bashing begin.
Once you allow government to profile people based on ideology, be certain that eventually everyone but the extremely.. lobotomized, will be in their radical blacklists. Anyone who disagrees with the status quo in any way has a greater chance to bomb federal buildings, ergo, they all need to be profiled
Where to draw the line? That is a question you should not leave to the government to decide...
If you payed the ammount of taxes we pay here in Brazil you would already have started shooting people.
And in exchange for those taxes we dont have a decent public health system (it works but lines are just tooooooo fucking big) everyone who can buys the private option
Our public schools are a joke (altho public colleges are not, only people who studied in private schools get in without some kind of affirmative action) everyone who can buys the private option
All our major roads are getting privatized
our police protects only its own interests (again, those who can buy the private option)
Brazil is the one country I know where theres a public and private option for everything, and everyone who is able tries to get the private one.
Ironically, the massive amount of taxes left our coffers filled with cash, made all busines who thrive here extremelly resilient, and left us almost immune to the financial crisis now Brazil is experiencing a boom is almost every sector, petrobras is giving the government so much money its investing in everything, opportunity is in every corner, its the beginning of a Brazilian golden age, and altho you could argue otherwise, we got here because of carefull government planning.
I agree, Brazil is poised to pop, along with China and India. Each country is now getting proper infrastructure needed for growth, and has a huge labor supply to support it.
The U.S. on the other hand, has illegal aliens sucking us dry for healthcare and public schools, and half of them don't pay income taxes. We already have a large part of the populace with their hand out waiting for the nanny government to take care of them. Makes me sick.
Can we like... not lump all conservatives together? Pleeeease?
Fuck man, these people scare ME, and I consider myself further right than your average conservative ticket voter. I may not agree with Obama's choices and policies, but these people trying to recruit radicals... fuck they're insane.
On August 13 2009 11:20 D10 wrote: The question is, wether small or big, do you want a government that is efficient in what it proposes to do or not ?
Its not big or small govt., its limited govt. or expansive govt. Efficiency is irrelevant. The only job of the US govt is to secure the rights of the people. There wasn't even an income tax until 1914 and we were perfectly fine up to that point. We won every war we fought and was the bastion of individual freedom and liberty in the world and throughout history no society was ever freer. Every market is better off in the hands of private citizens. Now what do we have with this expansive nanny state. Every market heavily influenced by govt intervention costs vastly more than a purely privatized market with the govt only making sure that the market is fair and contracts upheld and you can see the effects easily (housing, healthcare, energy, etc.) The point is an expansive govt no matter if it was 100 percent efficient means reduced liberties and freedoms. There is nothing in this world more important than freedom and liberty therefore as a libertarian we seek to limit govt as much as humanely possible to sustain a lawful functioning civil society. This means going back to the size of the federal govt as it was in the mid to late 1800s with the 16th being repeled and replaced with a fair tax.
On August 13 2009 14:38 imabossdude wrote: I agree, Brazil is poised to pop, along with China and India. Each country is now getting proper infrastructure needed for growth, and has a huge labor supply to support it.
The U.S. on the other hand, has illegal aliens sucking us dry for healthcare and public schools, and half of them don't pay income taxes. We already have a large part of the populace with their hand out waiting for the nanny government to take care of them. Makes me sick.
The post you're agreeing with was mainly about the success of high taxes and a big government with a two tier system in everything from education to healthcare. You go on to disagree with everything in his post other than the success of Brazil, which you agree with and contrast to the decline in the US, blaming factors similar to the ones you've already endorsed. It's confusing me to even try and follow the logic behind your post.
Unlike natural sciences, you can't readily point to a single factor for the success of anything in economy or politics without debate, because there's no certain, verifiable way to isolate that variable and test it.
In this case I believe the "success" of Brazil would has come thanks to it's private initiatives and people, that is, despite government intervention and not due to it. China's private sectors thrive today despite of its collective government.
Politicians and statists will of course claim success in part of government everywhere they can, but personally I can't find myself agreeing with them anywhere. Capitalism can grown on it's own, without bureaucrats. It's part of the "you keep what you worked for" ideology that drives people to work more, not, "you pay 60% of your labor in taxes to services you won't be using because they're so misused and corrupt".
Economies can still grow despite the cancerous mafia that is big government, as long as people are motivated. How do you motivate people? You could engage in psychological manipulations with the mass, while taxing the hell out of them and planning the whole economy with inefficient overhead, or you could just let people do their own work the way they want it.
Every societal change in history could have been accomplished by society itself, without the use of coercion or force... but that's just a crazie's opinion.
It confuses me more trying to justify the need of big government when people admittedly don't like it's services in any area
On August 13 2009 14:38 imabossdude wrote: I agree, Brazil is poised to pop, along with China and India. Each country is now getting proper infrastructure needed for growth, and has a huge labor supply to support it.
The U.S. on the other hand, has illegal aliens sucking us dry for healthcare and public schools, and half of them don't pay income taxes. We already have a large part of the populace with their hand out waiting for the nanny government to take care of them. Makes me sick.
give them some education, and voila! you have people able to do actual work.
On August 13 2009 14:38 imabossdude wrote: I agree, Brazil is poised to pop, along with China and India. Each country is now getting proper infrastructure needed for growth, and has a huge labor supply to support it.
The U.S. on the other hand, has illegal aliens sucking us dry for healthcare and public schools, and half of them don't pay income taxes. We already have a large part of the populace with their hand out waiting for the nanny government to take care of them. Makes me sick.
The post you're agreeing with was mainly about the success of high taxes and a big government with a two tier system in everything from education to healthcare. You go on to disagree with everything in his post other than the success of Brazil, which you agree with and contrast to the decline in the US, blaming factors similar to the ones you've already endorsed. It's confusing me to even try and follow the logic behind your post.
I'm saying that illegal aliens are leeching off of our country and don't have to pay for hardly any of it. Another portion feels entitled and seeks handouts. I know you probably agree to GB's expansion of government, and look how thats worked out for you guys...
I don't endorse free healthcare to illegal aliens or skipping out on paying taxes that everyone else has to pay. So basically, what I'm trying to say is...
What the hell are you talking about?
I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. If you don't want to work hard and get education, that's fine, its a free country. But don't expect everyone else to pay for it.
What 'evidence'. The fact that the source is the internet? When I brought up the issue of source as issue you have with the information you completely changed the topic in your rebuttal.
Do you have an issue with someone finding information on the internet? Do you have an issue with our news organizations? Do you have an issue with the Southern Poverty Law Center? I mean, that's where the information is coming from, so if you've got an issue there; fine. start bitching about Fox and MSNBC and the SPLC.
What 'evidence'. The fact that the source is the internet? When I brought up the issue of source as issue you have with the information you completely changed the topic in your rebuttal.
Do you have an issue with someone finding information on the internet? Do you have an issue with our news organizations? Do you have an issue with the Southern Poverty Law Center? I mean, that's where the information is coming from, so if you've got an issue there; fine. start bitching about Fox and MSNBC and the SPLC.
I do have a problem when a supposedly respectable federal agencies puts out a paper to cops all over the country badmouthing all sorts of groups turns out to be an afternoon google job. Your eternal handwaving is showing your statist bias. You had a problem with me doing half assed research, why do you not have a problem with the DHS doing it and publishing it?
More government is less Liberty. And we should never give up our Liberty.
I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. If you don't want to work hard and get education, that's fine, its a free country. But don't expect everyone else to pay for it.
On August 13 2009 14:04 D10 wrote: Imho you guys complain for no reason.
If you payed the ammount of taxes we pay here in Brazil you would already have started shooting people.
And in exchange for those taxes we dont have a decent public health system (it works but lines are just tooooooo fucking big) everyone who can buys the private option
Our public schools are a joke (altho public colleges are not, only people who studied in private schools get in without some kind of affirmative action) everyone who can buys the private option
All our major roads are getting privatized
our police protects only its own interests (again, those who can buy the private option)
Brazil is the one country I know where theres a public and private option for everything, and everyone who is able tries to get the private one.
Ironically, the massive amount of taxes left our coffers filled with cash, made all busines who thrive here extremelly resilient, and left us almost immune to the financial crisis now Brazil is experiencing a boom is almost every sector, petrobras is giving the government so much money its investing in everything, opportunity is in every corner, its the beginning of a Brazilian golden age, and altho you could argue otherwise, we got here because of carefull government planning.
In other words, your Government is hampering the development and growth of your Economy. The Government is actually limiting growth, not encouraging it. One wonders why the duplicity of Brazil's economic situation would be emulated by any country; it's highly wasteful, bloated, and inefficient.
Take for example, the USPS or Amtrak. Why would anyone advocate for more Government run agencies, businesses, etc. USPS loses 7 Billion a year (Amtrak MUCH more than that and have never turned a profit) with no incentive to profitize, running an inferior service to DHL and FedEx and the only reason they aren't out of business despite its horrid inefficiencies and bad business practices is because of apparatchiks who like to choke more tax money out of the populace for this crap and to siphon its funds off for other uses. In other words, Government run business are there solely for the conglomeration of power and increased tax burdens, not to run a profitable, incentivized market based company who offers comparable or superior products.
Why would you argue in favor of more of this? Baffling.
On August 13 2009 14:38 imabossdude wrote: I agree, Brazil is poised to pop, along with China and India. Each country is now getting proper infrastructure needed for growth, and has a huge labor supply to support it.
The U.S. on the other hand, has illegal aliens sucking us dry for healthcare and public schools, and half of them don't pay income taxes. We already have a large part of the populace with their hand out waiting for the nanny government to take care of them. Makes me sick.
give them some education, and voila! you have people able to do actual work.
Or you deport them because they broke US codified law and sovereignty. Every other single country on this Earth does this, but when people in the US advocate this, we are racist, bigots, and other pejoratives. Really? Because we like to uphold law and our sovereignty, well guess what, go MinuteMen!!
Secondly, we have the educated populace of AMERICAN CITIZENS, who will work these jobs, but because there is currently limited to no job creation/growth they are out of work. How does, subsidizing the illegal help our Economy in any way? Fact: It doesn't.
Take California. It is estimated that half (This is grossly conservative and most estimates run upwards of 50+ billion) of the current 25-30$ Billion deficit comes from supporting criminals (Illegal Aliens).
This is 1994 folks. This has been an on-going problem for a long time. Neither party will do anything about it. It's damn time to kick out every incumbent (or damn near all), and replace them with politicians who will actually do something. Guess, what, anyone can run and there are a lot of people who normally would never think about running, that are because they see the dire straits this country is in.
So you are either going to uphold the law, or you aren't. Pick a side.
What 'evidence'. The fact that the source is the internet? When I brought up the issue of source as issue you have with the information you completely changed the topic in your rebuttal.
Do you have an issue with someone finding information on the internet? Do you have an issue with our news organizations? Do you have an issue with the Southern Poverty Law Center? I mean, that's where the information is coming from, so if you've got an issue there; fine. start bitching about Fox and MSNBC and the SPLC.
Everyone in the Intelligence field knows that you don't just take Open Source Information and not cross reference the information and use other sources in conjunction. It's clear the sources for this document are suspect at least, and at most the way the Government handled the situation (That is, the method used to produce the report) shows how inept our Government truely is. If anyone, or any company (Yes, companies do have their own intelligence analysts/collectors) put together such a shoddy and ill-conceived report they would be fired immediately, yet because it is the Government you automatically give them creedence? I don't understand this line of logic and thinking.
Step back and out of your partisan shoes. Just because the Government put something together doesn't mean it's accurate, or the methodology used wasn't flawed. The facts of the case point to both being the case; inaccurate and poor methodology to say the least.
When you compare it to the report about Left-wing radicalism, in that report you clearly see specific groups, organizations, and other entities; where as in the Right-wing report you only see broad generalistic overtones and no specifics. I wonder why this is? Of course, it isn't to paint 45% of the country (Yes, 40-45% of the country see themselves as Conservative), as radicals in the face of the impending massive expansion of Government. No never.
On August 14 2009 15:14 LuckyOne wrote: you know people turn to crime if they cant get money any other way, whats the price of that?
Did you read the link I provided? It seems you haven't.
Let me propose this to all you open-border types. The prospect of a country with no borders or sovereignty.
Every person around the globe who sees America as a place to pillage freely. I guarantee you that if this Congress passes Amnesty and allows for massive unimpeded immigration, our debt will quadruple, unemployment will be permanently 8%+, taxes will have to be 60%+ (for everyone who works), just to pay a quarter of the unfunded liabilities and obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, add in every other Entitlement program including educational pell-grants, free services, etc.
You will see America double in population in 50 years. You will not be able to recognize America because these people have no incentive to assimilate, instead of becoming American they will instead be [insert country of origin] and have no loyalty.
Immigration needs to be handled as it was for most of America. Quota system with the best and brightest getting admittance. That is the only sensible immigration policy. You break the law, doesn't matter whatever your excuse is, you reap the consequences (That is, you don't get paid and subsidized to break the law just so you can be a permenant vote for [insert your politician here])
On August 14 2009 15:14 LuckyOne wrote: you know people turn to crime if they cant get money any other way, whats the price of that?
Did you read the link I provided? It seems you haven't.
Let me propose this to all you open-border types. The prospect of a country with no borders or sovereignty.
Every person around the globe who sees America as a place to pillage freely. I guarantee you that if this Congress passes Amnesty and allows for massive unimpeded immigration, our debt will quadruple, unemployment will be permanently 8%+, taxes will have to be 60%+ (for everyone who works), just to pay a quarter of the unfunded liabilities and obligations of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, SCHIP, add in every other Entitlement program including educational pell-grants, free services, etc.
You will see America double in population in 50 years. You will not be able to recognize America because these people have no incentive to assimilate, instead of becoming American they will instead be [insert country of origin] and have no loyalty.
Immigration needs to be handled as it was for most of America. Quota system with the best and brightest getting admittance. That is the only sensible immigration policy. You break the law, doesn't matter whatever your excuse is, you reap the consequences (That is, you don't get paid and subsidized to break the law just so you can be a permenant vote for [insert your politician here])
If above happens, maybe a few states will secede and we can have the civil war all over again. JK about that, but seriously, its a screwed up scenario if you think about it.
Everyone in the Intelligence field knows that you don't just take Open Source Information and not cross reference the information and use other sources in conjunction. It's clear the sources for this document are suspect at least, and at most the way the Government handled the situation (That is, the method used to produce the report) shows how inept our Government truely is.
Did you actually LOOK at the sources? Feel free to follow the links. The report's bullet points are news articles online from MSNBC and Fox. For some of your other 'issues', you state that 'specific organizations are named'. Well, they are here too. Go read the MIAC report. The majority of the substantive content is garnered from multiple sources, the main one being the SPLC.
The SPLC is one of the only organizations actually documenting and commenting on the issue because they're interested in the welfare of poorer minorities.
Now, here's what I find interesting: Despite no one mentioning any direct immigration issues here, you refer to use as 'open border' types. The SPLC pre-emptively noted this link, stating:
A key difference this time is that the federal government — the entity that almost the entire radical right views as its primary enemy — is headed by a black man. That, coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, has helped to racialize the Patriot movement, which in the past was not primarily motivated by race hate. One result has been a remarkable rash of domestic terror incidents since the presidential campaign, most of them related to anger over the election of Barack Obama. At the same time, ostensibly mainstream politicians and media pundits have helped to spread Patriot and related propaganda, from conspiracy theories about a secret network of U.S. concentration camps to wholly unsubstantiated claims about the president's country of birth.
This isn't about immigration reform or people patrolling the border. That's a completely separate issue. It would be about the transition that's made ideologically from defending the country from foreign threats to attacking government institutions themselves. The report isn't about people patrolling the border. Its about militia and other right wing extremists attacking government officials and bombing buildings.
Also present at the Cochise County muster were members of Minuteman American Defense (MAD), the Everett, Wash.-based group led by Shawna Forde, who was arrested less than a month later in the May 30 double murder in Arivaca, Ariz. Also arrested were MAD Operations Director Jason Bush and a third MAD member. According to law enforcement authorities, the three believed the man they killed was a narcotics trafficker who kept large sums of money in his trailer.
Forde's half-brother, Merill Metzger, told the Arizona Daily Star that shortly before the murders Forde started talking about forming an "underground militia" that would be funded by robbing drug dealers. "She was talking about starting a revolution against the United States government," he said.
These aren't 'crazies'. These are senior members of militias actively trying to fund and foster revolution against the government. I have no issue with militias who don't ostensibly aim to overthrow their own government, but to claim that they don't exist when they've been proven to is hogwash. I have no issue with you taking a political stance on any of the issues you recurrently bring up; that's fine. What I have an issue with is people trying to shoot their way through those issues. So here's the question:
Do you agree with the use of violence against the united states government given the current political climate? If no, then the admission of an equivalent left-wing report somewhat destroys the argument that this was an attempt at partisan demonization.
Sorry Aegraen, we whites have had our run. We colonized the world and brought hi-tech stuff to undeveloped countries in exchange for their natural resources. Fueled by wealth and greed we created stupidly expensive status symbols for people to chase, all the while giving our careers the priority and neglecting our family life. As the white population aged slowly races with higher birth rates came in. Whites have had their run. Soon we will be the minority. Sound familiar? Think Indians.
Lets not fight and just enjoy the time we have left
AGERSTOWN, Md. — The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
Lazich said deputies detained the unidentified, 51-year-old man near the entrance to Hagerstown Community College about 1 p.m. Wednesday after getting calls from a number of people attending the meeting held by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Obama was not at the meeting.
The sheriff's office turned the man over to the Secret Service, Lazich said.
Barbara Golden, special agent in charge of the agency's Baltimore field office, said Thursday that an investigation is ongoing but declined further comment. A spokesman at the agency's Washington headquarters also declined to discuss the investigation.
Police said there were no other arrests among the nearly 1,000 people, some carrying protest signs, who came to the college for the meeting or demonstrated off-campus.
Cardin's national communications director, Sue Walitsky, called the incident "unfortunate." She said she was unaware of it until Thursday morning.
It's funny how a few pictures of crackpots holding signs wishing death to President Obama can be used to sway public opinion into thinking that there is a dangerous massive right-wing conspiracy going on.
What about all the people who wished for the death of President Bush? If you comb these forums alone, I'd be surprised if there weren't more than a hundred people expressing the desire to see President Bush assassinated.
...So does that mean that 8 years ago there was a massive left-wing conspiracy going on?
The reality is that there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum and even though the average person realizes they are crackpots they don't see it that way.
Take this hypotehtical consideration: suppose 1% of America is fanatically right-wing extremist ("death to Obama") and suppose that 1% of America is fanatically left-win extremist ("death to Bush"). That means that roughly 6 million Americans are fanatically extremist in their thinking. That's a lot. Now suppose that in a given year, even just 1 in a thousand of those people does something serious during a given year. Serious as in starting a "death to Obama" chant or as in attaining high powered assault weapons and a map of Camp David and keeping track of President Bush's schedule (You may recognize these events as having actually happened... and for the record, most of the media sources I watched tried to make the kid stockpiling assault weapons out to be an "innocent youth"... just a mild difference in opinion...). Given our numbers here, that's as many as 6000 "serious" incidents a year. Plenty for the media to cover regardless of who is in office. Should the media choose to cover it, that is.
On August 15 2009 02:58 bN` wrote: Sorry Aegraen, we whites have had our run. We colonized the world and brought hi-tech stuff to undeveloped countries in exchange for their natural resources. Fueled by wealth and greed we created stupidly expensive status symbols for people to chase, all the while giving our careers the priority and neglecting our family life. As the white population aged slowly races with higher birth rates came in. Whites have had their run. Soon we will be the minority. Sound familiar? Think Indians.
Lets not fight and just enjoy the time we have left
I don't know about you, but I want to be treated fairly. I don't care if the President is black, white or Martian. I really don't. I just want to be given my fair shot. So let's not talk about "having our run" or anything like that because in this day and age that kind of thinking should be made obsolete.
On August 15 2009 04:02 Mortality wrote: It's funny how a few pictures of crackpots holding signs wishing death to President Obama can be used to sway public opinion into thinking that there is a dangerous massive right-wing conspiracy going on.
What about all the people who wished for the death of President Bush? If you comb these forums alone, I'd be surprised if there weren't more than a hundred people expressing the desire to see President Bush assassinated.
...So does that mean that 8 years ago there was a massive left-wing conspiracy going on?
The reality is that there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum and even though the average person realizes they are crackpots they don't see it that way.
Take this hypotehtical consideration: suppose 1% of America is fanatically right-wing extremist ("death to Obama") and suppose that 1% of America is fanatically left-win extremist ("death to Bush"). That means that roughly 6 million Americans are fanatically extremist in their thinking. That's a lot. Now suppose that in a given year, even just 1 in a thousand of those people does something serious during a given year. Serious as in starting a "death to Obama" chant or as in attaining high powered assault weapons and a map of Camp David and keeping track of President Bush's schedule (You may recognize these events as having actually happened... and for the record, most of the media sources I watched tried to make the kid stockpiling assault weapons out to be an "innocent youth"... just a mild difference in opinion...). Given our numbers here, that's as many as 6000 "serious" incidents a year. Plenty for the media to cover regardless of who is in office. Should the media choose to cover it, that is.
While I agree with your points, I just wanted to say that there's a huge difference (IMO) between some stupid kid talking shit online and a 50 year old guy holding up a sign in real life. Even though the 50 yr old is unlikely to do anything serious, he's much more likely than anyone talking smack on a Broodwar site.
Even the age is an important difference IMO. A 50 yr old generally has much stronger convictions and will do more for them, especially considering his life is more than half over. A kid stockpiling weapons is probably just as concerned with how manly he'll look to his friends/girlfriend as he is about his political convictions, or even more so.
Of course this is all opinion, but it doesn't really matter. Secret service would own the shit outta either of them.
The reality is that there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum and even though the average person realizes they are crackpots they don't see it that way.
Well, that's the entire point. There were reports on crazies on each end of the spectrum. The fact that some political figures were mentioned in the right wing extremism report had it repealed despite the fact that the content isn't invalid.
That said, if you're on the 'end' of either spectrum, it looks very much like the center itself is the perpetuator of a conspiracy to enforce a maladjusted status quo. That's why its so difficult for people of any stripe to accept new information in hyper-labeled/spectrumed/categorized issues.
The reality is that there are extremists on both ends of the political spectrum and even though the average person realizes they are crackpots they don't see it that way.
Well, that's the entire point. There were reports on crazies on each end of the spectrum. The fact that some political figures were mentioned in the right wing extremism report had it repealed despite the fact that the content isn't invalid.
That said, if you're on the 'end' of either spectrum, it looks very much like the center itself is the perpetuator of a conspiracy to enforce a maladjusted status quo. That's why its so difficult for people of any stripe to accept new information in hyper-labeled/spectrumed/categorized issues.
From the media I've seen, I would argue that there is, on average, a considerably greater left-wing bias.
The media these days seems to be highly polarized in general. Very few people report objectively. When John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are about as close to objective as you're liabel to get, you've got problems. Of course there are good journalists, people like Thomas Friedman, who I greatly respect, but sorting through all of the garbage is a mind-numbing business. In general, the only bigtime conservative reporters tend to be tools like Bill O'Reilly and most of them were raised in religious right households. People like me (socially moderate: don't have strong leanings on issues like "gay rights" or abortion, big fan of intellectual freedom in general, but also an advocate of sufficient defense, but not an advocate of invading Iran, cough, cough; fiscally conservative: generally view globalization favorably, want what's best for a competitive market -- which is not always what Wall Street asks for, cough, cough) are generally disenfranchised. The right wing seems to be getting hung up on religion and the left win seems to be hung up on socialism making trillion dollar deficits without forseeable end.
But looking at the overall balance, other than crackpots like O'Reilly, there really aren't enough people engaging in critical discussion of Obama's policies and his flops. Where has been the critical analysis of this massive deficit spending? That was one of the reasons why the public didn't want to see a Republican take office after Bush and yet there's surprisingly little criticism of this spending (and virtually no reporting of it prior to the election despite the implications that it would occur that anyone with the least bit of brains could deduce just by listening to Obama's speeches). Where was the coverage of the gift faux pas Obama made with the British Prime Minister? I originally read about it in the back pages of the Washington Post. Here, I found this coverage of it online in a 5 second search:
...Worse, no one is 100% sure that Obama was smart enough to know that DVDs made in America don't play on European DVD players. American DVDs are created in the "Region One" format while those in Europe play in "Region Two" format. A U.S. DVD just won't play on a machine made for the English market....
...All of this is on top of the snub of the Brits that Obama tossed off immediately upon entering office. One of his first official acts was to summarily return to the Brits the generous gift of the most famous bust of Winston Churchill that has sat in the Oval Office since the attacks on 9/11....
(I have no idea what the leanings of that website are and I don't care -- I read about this in the Washington Post, which is definitely not a conservative paper.)
And here, again, found in the same Google search:
Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh - apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.
It is believed the Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she is said to have bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew...
I hadn't even heard about this one at all. It was not covered by the American media.
I find all of this disgusting. How many major news commentators hailed him as a genius at foreign policy? And yet he doesn't even know how to give a gift? For crying out loud, even I could do better and I'm a fucking nerd!
The problem with accepting information is how badly it gets tampered with. Speeches get parsed so badly by reporters that the public doesn't even know the gist of the original argument. When data is used it is more often misused or taken out of context. Aegraen was right when he said that you cannot even trust government sources (in fact, having worked for the government, I know exactly how untrustworthy it really is...) since few people are honorable enough to give an unbiased report when the money is coming from someone with an agenda. In recent years, this trend has even pervaded into science. Despite the mistakes he made in his argument about global warming in State of Fear Crichton was spot on when he said that environmentalism has become a big industry that manipulates results (there really are a lot of scientific papers out there that start off by talking about global warming and then provide data for an unrelated phenomenon or data that even seems contradictory to popular theories on global warming -- that is not to say that global warming is "wrong" or anything like that, but that even science is not immune to this disease known as "politics"). I have not read the particular article you were talking about in your posts.
However, in my mind, all of this leads to only one inevitable conclusion: the end of the United States of America as we know it. I said earlier in this thread that we shouldn't talk about "the end of the run" for an ethnic group, but talking about it for a country is different, and given our incompetent media and incompetent political leaders and our moral degredation, I cannot help but see us as done.
What I wish is that at least some of the media would have the balls to talk seriously about serious issues. I don't give a piece of crap where Obama eats pizza. I want people to question him. If the media cannot do that, then I cannot take them seriously. Nor can I take seriously their claims of "right-wing extremism" if they aren't going to be critical of the man in charge. The public went heavily liberal last election. I think that says more than anything else. So I'd like to cut the bullcrap and move on.
And I need to go to bed because I'm rambling really badly now.
What I wish is that at least some of the media would have the balls to talk seriously about serious issues. I don't give a piece of crap where Obama eats pizza. I want people to question him. If the media cannot do that, then I cannot take them seriously. Nor can I take seriously their claims of "right-wing extremism" if they aren't going to be critical of the man in charge. The public went heavily liberal last election. I think that says more than anything else. So I'd like to cut the bullcrap and move on.
Find better media. Everything on TV is garbage and most blogs have a terrible slant. Nothing is truly in the center, but you can find somewhat right/left newspapers like WSJ and Washington Post. CS Monitor and Financial Times put out excellent articles as well.
On August 13 2009 14:38 imabossdude wrote: I agree, Brazil is poised to pop, along with China and India. Each country is now getting proper infrastructure needed for growth, and has a huge labor supply to support it.
The U.S. on the other hand, has illegal aliens sucking us dry for healthcare and public schools, and half of them don't pay income taxes. We already have a large part of the populace with their hand out waiting for the nanny government to take care of them. Makes me sick.
The post you're agreeing with was mainly about the success of high taxes and a big government with a two tier system in everything from education to healthcare. You go on to disagree with everything in his post other than the success of Brazil, which you agree with and contrast to the decline in the US, blaming factors similar to the ones you've already endorsed. It's confusing me to even try and follow the logic behind your post.
I'm saying that illegal aliens are leeching off of our country and don't have to pay for hardly any of it. Another portion feels entitled and seeks handouts. I know you probably agree to GB's expansion of government, and look how thats worked out for you guys...
I don't endorse free healthcare to illegal aliens or skipping out on paying taxes that everyone else has to pay. So basically, what I'm trying to say is...
What the hell are you talking about?
I don't believe in the redistribution of wealth. If you don't want to work hard and get education, that's fine, its a free country. But don't expect everyone else to pay for it.
Canada's free healthcare program does not give healthcare to those that aren't citizens or permanent residences. University students receive healthcare too, but that's arguably paid out from our tuition as much as taxes. Even if the US begins free healthcare, (which it should, being that it's the only developed nation without it, which is pretty embarrassing for a nation that still considers itself the only world power) there is very little to suggest that illegal aliens will be able to benefit from the free healthcare.
Also, redistribution of wealth is required as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What good will come out of a class struggle? Poverty has much more to do than some simple bullshit about how the poor should stop complaining and get an education or find work. It's not like every single individual that lives in poverty is poor because they're lazy and uneducated. Anyone who looks at the poor with such ignorant stupidity needs to have their property seized and thrown into a life of poverty until they really understand it.
Some people believe anyone who wants to create social programs to help the struggling have no understanding of the complex fabric of the world and will make evereyone poor.
It's only a matter of time before something happens:
PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
AGERSTOWN, Md. — The Secret Service is investigating a man who authorities said held a sign reading "Death to Obama" outside a town hall meeting on health-care reform in western Maryland.
The sign also read, "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids," referring to the first name of President Barack Obama's wife, said Washington County Sheriff's Capt. Peter Lazich.
Lazich said deputies detained the unidentified, 51-year-old man near the entrance to Hagerstown Community College about 1 p.m. Wednesday after getting calls from a number of people attending the meeting held by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Obama was not at the meeting.
The sheriff's office turned the man over to the Secret Service, Lazich said.
Barbara Golden, special agent in charge of the agency's Baltimore field office, said Thursday that an investigation is ongoing but declined further comment. A spokesman at the agency's Washington headquarters also declined to discuss the investigation.
Police said there were no other arrests among the nearly 1,000 people, some carrying protest signs, who came to the college for the meeting or demonstrated off-campus.
Cardin's national communications director, Sue Walitsky, called the incident "unfortunate." She said she was unaware of it until Thursday morning.
I'm sure that MUST be the first time someone has EVER protested against a president with signs about his death or calling him a nazi or other crazy stuff like that.
Oh, but wait, maybe this news you are sharing with us is amazing because it is the first time anyone has actually advocating KILLING a president with a sign during a protest. That must be it.
Wow, that one guy with a sign is some really incredible news isn't it? But I guess it was against Obama and we should hold anti-Obama protesters to a higher standard than anti-Bush protesters because....well because its OBAMA right?
EDIT: also, lol at his dinky little sign sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs.
On August 15 2009 04:02 Mortality wrote: It's funny how a few pictures of crackpots holding signs wishing death to President Obama can be used to sway public opinion into thinking that there is a dangerous massive right-wing conspiracy going on.
That is the whole point of this thread and that is why I find Stealthblue's posts so annoying because they all have that purpose.
I loathe the fact that the mainstream tries to paint the picture that the Government is infallible. One of our most important rights is the redress of grievances to our representatives. Many of whom do not care what we have to say and dismiss their constituents. Look at the August recess. Many members are refusing to meet with constituents and are deliberately avoiding them. How is this representation? Still others are using intimidation tactics by holding meetings in Union halls, and other such hostile areas for those who oppose the current legislation. How is this allowable? When will enough be enough? Do we need a Coxey Army or Whiskey Rebellion? Hell, yes! We the people have the power, we consent to being governed not the other way around.
When the Government starts to impede on our natural rights, as they have done and continue to do it that prudence indeed dictates: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You can label the opposition as Extremists and try to paint them un-American all you will, but the fact of the matter is at the heart of being an American is our founding. To abandon those principles is to abandon being an American. So, you can call us extremists all you like. We will continue to fight for our freedoms and liberties both economic and politically. We will fight such acts akin to the Alien and Sedition Acts, Patriot Act, Fairness doctrine, and other castigating legislation.
So, go ahead call me an extremist, but in doing so you call our countries founding as extremist and dangerous, so just think a little bit about that.
Do not misinterpret this as a notion to murder, rather to transpose and evict those currently in office by marching and forcefully throwing out of power those who seek to destroy our natural rights. To alter Government, is in the best interest of the people and well within our rights. Do we sit idly by and let our freedoms and liberties erode, or will you fight for them and your convictions. Choose a side.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of [b]candidates[\b] is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Secondly, the Democrat party propensity for egregious civil liberty violations as seen on campus' nationwide stopping free speech as seen with Tancredo and others is never given media exposure even though it is as much or more "flashy" than anything on the GOP side. It is clear favoritism especially when you have people opining about tingles up their leg and Obama's pectorals, secret fantasies wanting to fuck him, etc.
The only time GOP get coverage on any of the major networks is when something atrocious occurs, a scandal. However, when looking at the opposite the Democrats never get mentioned or if they do are on the back pages whenever a scandal sacks them. How much have you heard about John Conyers, mayorial politicians in downtown cities like Detroit and Baltimore, or the recent Chris Dodd scandal, not to mention the tons of scandals featuring politicians like Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank.
There have been written many books by ex personnel within these companies about the extreme bias. When you have GE owning NBC and being a subsidary for the US Government which goes hand in hand with Democrats, you actually believe they will retain any semblance of objectivity?
Now look at college campuses. Many recent studies and books have shown that on average Liberals are 9:1 on most majory campuses. Not only is the Education system indoctrinated with a one party ideology which is destructive in such a society as ours, but it shows how prevalent the media and other Government institutions are stacked in the favor of one ideology. To always increase Government power, because Government power and the Democrats are one and the same; so are the Republicans by the way, but not to extent as Democrats.
So, no your thesis is false and has been proven with evidence. In any event, I am not opposed to the Press being this way, I am only worried when the Press colludes with the Government and that is exactly what has been happening for years upon years. The free-market will dictate which ideas will propagate as seen in the Talk Radio medium where Air America and liberal talk radio massively failed and where Conservative and Libertarian ideology is successful. That is what the consumers want.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue.
And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue.
And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
I guess you don't understand the point I was addressing is that your "frightening" comment is based out of irrational fear which evidence proves is just that, bound by no truths. It in fact, is not frightening and is actually safer, than the alternative. I can't believe you can't see that when I've said it in two of the posts and was clearly implied in my first.
So no, this is not "frightening", whatever you are trying to imply by that statement.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue.
And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
I guess you don't understand the point I was addressing is that your "frightening" comment is based out of irrational fear which evidence proves is just that, bound by no truths. It in fact, is not frightening and is actually safer, than the alternative. I can't believe you can't see that when I've said it in two of the posts and was clearly implied in my first.
So no, this is not "frightening", whatever you are trying to imply by that statement.
And finally there is a shaft of light cutting through the clouds which appear to have enveloped your brain. You have finally started to realise that you have been droning on in a non-existent debate because you placed your own erroneous interpretation on that very first post of mine.
I think many people here who watch that video will understand my response to it. You didn't.
Luckily frightening is not a justification to abridge another persons rights. If you want frightening the cities and states with the most stringent Gun Laws ironically have the highest gun crime rates.
I fail to see the relevance to my post of your response.
It has all relevancy. It is no more frightening than driving down an interstate. You say it is frightening because you create this fallacy in your mind that a weapon makes a law abiding citizen suddenly a craving mad man who seeks to commit crime. In fact, it is the exact opposite where law abiding citizens carrying arms lowers crime because they are not a susceptible target. This is taught in every Intelligence school, hard targets and soft targets. The criminals never target the hard targets because of the risk. This is why you see higher gun crimes and crime in general in places that have strict gun policies and laws. It is incongruent with evidence and logic to assume every human being is at heart a criminal and by providing easy means in which to kill they turn into the aforementioned. This is false.
So, go ahead be frightened by a law abiding citizen, in which you are actually safer next to him and around him than you would be walking down a street in downtown DC which had outlawed firearms (Against the Constitution; ruling overturned by 5-4. Just goes to show you how SCOTUS doesn't actually really stand up for the Constitution, rather it institutionalizes its doctrines and empathies.).
I think you are living in a little world of your own in which anyone who says anything you don't like is placed in a little compartment and then subjected to one of your many prefabricated rants. Have I said anything about firearms or firearms legislation in this thread?
And will you please, please stop going on about the US Constitution. It has no magical hold over me.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you know the difference between hard and soft targets and causative factors of why criminals prefer soft targets? No, but I'm sure you have come to your conclusion based on emotion alone. Guns are bad therefore having Guns increases crime. What a fallacy.
You really are astounding. You actually seem to think we are engaged in some kind of debate over firearms and firearms legislation. We are not. Do you not even read what people write in response to your posts? I have made no comment whatsoever in any post in this thread, or indeed in any thread for a very, very long time, with regard to firearms or firearms legislation. And yet here you are, third post in a row, prattling on about the subject as if you and I are involved in some kind of dialogue.
And you have the damn cheek to start your post with "/sigh".
He is, isn't he. Constitution, Founding Fathers, Austrian Economics, Jefferson, War of Independence, SCOTUS, Liberty, Tyranny, Communism, Fascism. He picks one at random and rants.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
On August 20 2009 05:24 ShaperofDreams wrote: I tried to count how many times Aegrean has mentioned the constitution in this thread alone.
I got to 40 before I lost count...
I fail to see why that's a problem, given that this is a thread concerning the Department of Homeland Security, a US government office. I actually was just re-reading the Constitution this morning and it continues to be a pretty inspiring document.
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists:
* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.
Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988),
And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked.
EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists:
* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.
Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988),
And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked.
EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
Wtf? I would never have anything to do with PETA, or Greenpeace. They are activist groups, and generally I (along with quite a lot of people) detest their hypocritical methods. They endanger others to get their point across. If they were 'Democratic' then surely they would understand the importance of Gandhi and peaceful protest. You don't need to look far to see what is more effective: Malcom X or Martin Luther King?
Edit: i think this highlights an important distinction. While Republicans rally around all who criticize ONE of their masses, Democrats are quite a bit more hesitant before rising up and defending some radical. For example, those images you put up before, I don't think very many Democrats would support those (only pointing out perhaps that meant he was unpopular.. which he was...). From over here i heard no support for any of those images of Bush you had up.
In fact, contrary to what most think, I didn't mind Bush: he had a very 'traditional' view of what Presidency should be. Like all the formal meetings, and formal discussions; I think he took the Job very seriously indeed. The problem is, that i got the impression most of the information he got was rather one sided. Like he got Big Business to tell him how to stimulate the economy by lowering wages and increasing productivity. The rest of the world took little surprise in the fact the average income dropped... but to the advocates of private industry, they just couldn't understand it.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists:
* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.
Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988),
And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked.
EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
You're actually surprised a lot of the media are liberals? Being able to read and write does tend to act as a barrier for some people.
The fact that the majority of conservatives believe that Obama wasn't born in the US, or aren't sure if he was and believes in creationism is really all you need to know about them.
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists:
* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.
Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988),
And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked.
EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
Wtf? I would never have anything to do with PETA, or Greenpeace. They are activist groups, and generally I (along with quite a lot of people) detest their hypocritical methods. They endanger others to get their point across. If they were 'Democratic' then surely they would understand the importance of Gandhi and peaceful protest. You don't need to look far to see what is more effective: Malcom X or Martin Luther King?
Edit: i think this highlights an important distinction. While Republicans rally around all who criticize ONE of their masses, Democrats are quite a bit more hesitant before rising up and defending some radical. For example, those images you put up before, I don't think very many Democrats would support those (only pointing out perhaps that meant he was unpopular.. which he was...). From over here i heard no support for any of those images of Bush you had up.
In fact, contrary to what most think, I didn't mind Bush: he had a very 'traditional' view of what Presidency should be. Like all the formal meetings, and formal discussions; I think he took the Job very seriously indeed. The problem is, that i got the impression most of the information he got was rather one sided. Like he got Big Business to tell him how to stimulate the economy by lowering wages and increasing productivity. The rest of the world took little surprise in the fact the average income dropped... but to the advocates of private industry, they just couldn't understand it.
Dude, all I said in my post was that you can't say without any evidence that there are more radicals on the Right than the Left, then I gave examples of radical Leftists. I never said you agreed with the radical Left just like you never said I agreed with the radical Right. We both think that both extremes are retarded. I was just pointing out that there is plenty of stupidity in the extremes of both sides.
Also most conservatives are not trying to "rally around" that one old man and his sign (there may be 1-2 on this site that are but I am talking overall). They are rallying against Obama's plan. Also, in my posts I never supported that man's sign, I just pointed out that the Left has done MUCH worse than he did without it ever making much news.
Its good from time to time to remind ourselves of the double standard in the media regarding what was considered acceptable behavior regarding Bush and what is acceptable regarding Obama. Obama is the golden child so 1 old man with a barely readable sign is big news.
The majority of the rage against Bush came from the anti-war movement. It's not like this crowd has been particularly friendly to any President responsible for a war.
ex. "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
I think you are failing to separate the percentage of coverage with what they are covering.
Did you ever think that why the reason The Republican Party gets more criticism is because of the Republicans? There is no doubt the Republican Party has more Gun-nuts and Christian radicals than The Democrat party. I think you'll find that percentage of positive and negative coverage of candidates is relativity even. It is only when some other crazy shit happens that coverage gets skewed.
Does your...conjecture....that the GOP has more nuts then the Left (therefore explaining the liberal bias) explain this as well: + Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2008 03:04 Savio wrote: Also according to LA Times survey of journalists:
* Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal.
* 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control.
* Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools.
Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988),
And according to the ASNE report of 1996,
You should read the thread before thinking you came up with some unique and new criticism because chances are (and it was true in this case), someone already tried it and was debunked.
EDIT: also assuming that the Right has more nuts than the Left is pretty daring considering that its the left that protests nude (PETA), tries to ram/sabottage fishing boats (we just had a thread on this), throws blood or paint on people's jackets, believes 911 was planned and carried out by Bush, carries sign advocating soldiers killing their own officers (see my earlier post), chains themselves to trees, makes medical students watch gay porn (lol, read the thread on Bible required curriculum), claims SC is sexist (see the thread), etc, etc.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
You're actually surprised a lot of the media are liberals? Being able to read and write does tend to act as a barrier for some people.
If you had any data showing a significant difference in IQ between the parties, that would be postable, but what you wrote may just be the way you imagine the world because it makes you feel good to think that.
Come back with something more substantial than your imagination.
I could give you a ton of reasons I think journalists tend to be more liberal (don't like doing real work, replace god-based religion with politics-based religion, etc) but those are also conjecture without data.
The only think we know for SURE is that the news media is liberally biased. That should be kept in our mind as we analyze the news and make our decisions based on it.
On August 20 2009 09:30 EndlessRain wrote: The fact that the majority of conservatives believe that Obama wasn't born in the US, or aren't sure if he was and believes in creationism is really all you need to know about them.
Well, a majority of liberals believe government can improve efficiency. Which of those it dumber?
EDIT:
This seems to be a good response to your accusation:
Certain MSNBC hosts have been fixated over using the “birthers” to discredit conservatives, highlighting a poll commissioned by the far-left Daily Kos site which found a majority of Republicans (58 percent) either believe Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S. (28 percent) or are not sure he was (30 percent). Chris Matthews led Friday's Hardball with the beliefs of the GOP's “lunatic fringe” and “wack jobs,” but where was MSNBC two years ago ranting about the Democratic Party's “lunatic fringe” and “wack jobs” when a survey discovered a bigger majority of Democrats (61 percent) think or are not sure if President George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Washington Examiner columnist/blogger David Freddoso pointed out a couple of hours earlier, during another MSNBC segment devoted to the Daily Kos poll (his post about his appearance), what Rasmussen Reports found. That poll released on May 4, 2007 determined:
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
So, more than a third of Democrats believe the President of the United States knew of a terrorist attack which would murder thousands of Americans and did nothing to stop it. That's quite an indictment of how a significant portion of that party thinks the absolute worst of their nation.
Sadly, even some Republicans accept that lunacy. More from Rasmussen's summary:
Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.
Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance....
(A majority of democrats think that Bush planned or knew about 9/11 before it happened.)
Surprise surprise...people are stupid. Also people tend to say things in polls with the intent of communicating their overall feelings about the person rather than their knowledge on the actual subject.
But the fact that so many ppl talk about the "birthers" by itself is probably more a result of liberal media bias since we don't hear so much about how democrats supposedly think Bush planned or knew about 9/11 before it happened.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
Are you seriously making a point by comparing the size of signs? It is nearly impossible to engage is such conversation.
while these signs were largely ignored basically because one was against Bush while the other (God save us!) was against Obama.
I mean look at the difference in the signs and the number of people! I can't believe their was an uproar because one old man had a hand written, hardly readable sign compared to the huge "Kill Bush" signs. But the Left likes to try to make the Right look loonie...and they have the tools since as I showed above, they have larger control over media.
And BTW, those charts of journalists leanings INCLUDE Foxnews in their analysis.
Are you seriously making a point by comparing the size of signs? It is nearly impossible to engage is such conversation.
The amazing thing was the media response to the 2. That is the main point.
On August 20 2009 10:04 Mindcrime wrote: The majority of the rage against Bush came from the anti-war movement. It's not like this crowd has been particularly friendly to any President responsible for a war.
ex. "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
so THAT explains why it is ok to call for Bush's death and not Obama's. Thanks for clearing it up. For some weird reason I think that it might have had something to do with the people reporting the news on both events.
On August 20 2009 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: Calling for someone's death for wanting to discuss an issue gets more attention than calling for someone's death for starting a war.
go figure
Both a war and health policy are political stances.
EDIT: But I guess if you figure that statistically speaking a lot of media reporters probably think he knew about or planned 9/11 it would make sense that they would treat the 2 circumstances differently.
EDIT2: In case you can't tell, that first edit is humor
On August 20 2009 10:04 Mindcrime wrote: The majority of the rage against Bush came from the anti-war movement. It's not like this crowd has been particularly friendly to any President responsible for a war.
ex. "Hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
so THAT explains why it is ok to call for Bush's death and not Obama's. Thanks for clearing it up. For some weird reason I think that it might have had something to do with the people reporting the news on both events.
On August 20 2009 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: Calling for someone's death for wanting to discuss an issue gets more attention than calling for someone's death for starting a war.
go figure
Both a war and health policy are political stances.
EDIT: But I guess if you figure that statistically speaking a lot of media reporters probably think he knew about or planned 9/11 it would make sense that they would treat the 2 circumstances differently.
EDIT2: In case you can't tell, that first edit is humor
The american media isn't liberal biased, since the american "liberal" is pretty much center of the line (maybe even a bit right-leaning), the media is neutral as well. It's just that your republicans are so crazy it makes the other party look left-leaning.
Oh yeah, well liberals are the devil because look at these crazy guys.
Oh yeah, well conservatives are the devil because look at these crazy guys.
Too much of this in this thread. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that being conservative does not mean watching Nascar and hating the poor and that being liberal does not mean forcing gay marriage and raising taxes.
There's also the point that conservative and liberal are not enough to define a political spectrum on their own. Politics is a very broad subject over which a myriad of different opinions can be had, not even necessarily in opposition.
Can we stop hating on each other for stupid reasons (I'm sure we can find good reasons)? Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree. It's ok for people to have differing opinions. If one person thinks that it's a wise investment to give lots of money to the poor to increase their standard of living (and therefore increase the middle class), that's a perfectly valid opinion. Another opinion might address the problem from the opposite direction - give lots of benefits to those with a great deal of money. That way, more wealthy people will want to be there and will invest in the economic infrastructure and bring lots of money into the area. Both of these are valid solutions to a problem (improving the economy in the long-term). Both of these have problems with their implementation and execution. They are almost completely mutually exclusive as well.
-----
The original post was talking about something that everyone should be concerned with - economic problems fueling irrational behavior. It's not even the 'left' or the 'center' that should be concerned with this, it's the 'right'. People with abrasive personalities and people that make ridiculous statements are dangerous and unhelpful to any cause that they champion. As MANY have pointed out in this thread, left-wing extremism exists as well, and it's JUST as ridiculous.
How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
The quaint notion of the orthodox view of right and left in politics today is inherently deceiving and a false representation.
The more apt and truistic political spectrum is indeed from the right to the left, however on the right in the beginning of the spectrum is Anarchism, while on the far Left is Totalitarian.
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
So for example the accurate approach is something that looks like this:
Totalitarian - Corporate Statist, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, etc.
Centrists are more in line with Republicanism, with a clear form of Government that sets to intervene to preserve Liberty and Freedoms. Neither lean too much towards Totalitarian state Economically or Politically, but a more middle approach, I see the Centrist as a more indifferent political base.
Libertarian - While you have different views within the sect, they all advocate extremely limited to no Government. Advocating purely Economic Freedom with no Government economic interference, and a limited political to no political Government intervention (Government, Police, Military, etc.). Advocates of Anarcho-Capitalism fall within this realm.
On this line here is our current geopolitical US position along with the world view.
[||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||] ----|-------|-----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------| World--Dem--GOP-----------------Independants---------------------Constitutionalist----Libertarian P.
Within each of the sects is a clear Economic approach. You cannot seperate Economic Freedom from Political Freedom, they are one and the same and both lead down the Totalitarian path.
That is the only accurate way to approach. So, on this view you can see the world and the US is overwhelming Leftist because they both seek to deny you rights through the Government. You are less free when both the GOP and DEM are in control you only have the facade of choice. America is a one party political system as I suspect most the world is.
Edit: GRRRR, let me see if I can fix the stupid posts so to align the | where they need to be. Any suggestions?
I prefer the historically accurate definitions of left and right that were used by Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess... you know, the guy that wrote your sig for Goldwater.
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
You basically tell us there's a problem with a one variable system, then provide us with another one variable system which you then arbitrarily put yourself at the middle in.
On August 20 2009 10:28 psion0011 wrote: The american media isn't liberal biased, since the american "liberal" is pretty much center of the line (maybe even a bit right-leaning), the media is neutral as well. It's just that your republicans are so crazy it makes the other party look left-leaning.
Or it could be that the rest of the world in general is just more liberal. This would then make America seem like crazy conservatives when it might actually be that the majority are just crazy liberals, and America actually is in the center.
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
You basically tell us there's a problem with a one variable system, then provide us with another one variable system which you then arbitrarily put yourself at the middle in.
Uh. That's not how it works.
I'm not at the middle. I'm a Libertarian. I'm about as far right as you can get.
It's basically the only accurate spectrum for the Liberties and Freedoms of people, which is afterall the only nascent view of politics. One party wants to take your Economic liberty away and silence the opposite party, thereby coercing and forcing others. The other party wants to stop people from exercising their civil liberties and creates a permanent Corporate State. I am not a party to neither, nor am I a centrist/independant.
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
You basically tell us there's a problem with a one variable system, then provide us with another one variable system which you then arbitrarily put yourself at the middle in.
Uh. That's not how it works.
I'm not at the middle. I'm a Libertarian. I'm about as far right as you can get.
It's basically the only accurate spectrum for the Liberties and Freedoms of people, which is afterall the only nascent view of politics. One party wants to take your Economic liberty away and silence the opposite party, thereby coercing and forcing others. The other party wants to stop people from exercising their civil liberties and creates a permanent Corporate State. I am not a party to neither, nor am I a centrist/independant.
I'm a staunch non-interventionist libertarian.
some of your opinions would go against your paultardness
while i respect Ron Paul and agree with things he says, the Paultards are as almost as bad as the Socialists and Communists.
On August 20 2009 12:07 Mindcrime wrote: Aegraen, where are anarcho-communists and libertarian socialists?
It's both Anarchy, therefore it is where the slider indicates "Anarchy" is. Both Lib. Socialists and Anarcho-Communits do not advocate the use or coercion of power and authority to force an individual into any arrangement. Therefore, in a philosophical sense, individual liberty, freedom, etc.is maximized and no intrusive forces are involved.
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
You basically tell us there's a problem with a one variable system, then provide us with another one variable system which you then arbitrarily put yourself at the middle in.
Uh. That's not how it works.
I'm not at the middle. I'm a Libertarian. I'm about as far right as you can get.
It's basically the only accurate spectrum for the Liberties and Freedoms of people, which is afterall the only nascent view of politics. One party wants to take your Economic liberty away and silence the opposite party, thereby coercing and forcing others. The other party wants to stop people from exercising their civil liberties and creates a permanent Corporate State. I am not a party to neither, nor am I a centrist/independant.
I'm a staunch non-interventionist libertarian.
some of your opinions would go against your paultardness
while i respect Ron Paul and agree with things he says, the Paultards are as almost as bad as the Socialists and Communists.
libertarian monarchy ftw
What the fuck are you talking about Libertarian Monarchy? I don't think you understand the different views of Libertarianism. There's the anarchistic side, which I fully lean to in the Economic realm (Anarcho-Capitalism;Laissez-Faire - Murry Rothbard), and the fusion with the political realm of Libertarianism where the Government has specific limited enumerated roles.
In every case Libertarianism seeks to expand and maximize personal freedom and liberty. I'm quite curious what makes you think that we actually need this bloated government? That we actually need the various bureaucrats, the various departments, and the other thousands and thousands of regulations, rules, and other such institutions. When the US was founded and up through most of the 1800s, there were little to no regulations, extremely limited government where we didn't have EPA, Dpt of Education, etc. and America was a superpower. There is no documented case where the expansion of Government power was of any benefit at all.
If you do not care about your liberty and freedom then sure, go ahead and call all of us Libertarians idiots and retards while surrendering, or forcing upon others the surrender of their rights.
I also don't follow in lockstep with Ron Paul, but as he is a fellow Austrian Economics advocate, I am in special agreement with him on certain issues such as monetary and foreign policy. It's quite funny, that many of the Libertarian stances were actually old Republican stances and further back, the stance of Democrat-Republicans under Jefferson.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
You basically tell us there's a problem with a one variable system, then provide us with another one variable system which you then arbitrarily put yourself at the middle in.
Uh. That's not how it works.
I'm not at the middle. I'm a Libertarian. I'm about as far right as you can get.
It's basically the only accurate spectrum for the Liberties and Freedoms of people, which is afterall the only nascent view of politics. One party wants to take your Economic liberty away and silence the opposite party, thereby coercing and forcing others. The other party wants to stop people from exercising their civil liberties and creates a permanent Corporate State. I am not a party to neither, nor am I a centrist/independant.
I'm a staunch non-interventionist libertarian.
some of your opinions would go against your paultardness
while i respect Ron Paul and agree with things he says, the Paultards are as almost as bad as the Socialists and Communists.
libertarian monarchy ftw
What the fuck are you talking about Libertarian Monarchy? I don't think you understand the different views of Libertarianism. There's the anarchistic side, which I fully lean to in the Economic realm (Anarcho-Capitalism;Laissez-Faire - Murry Rothbard), and the fusion with the political realm of Libertarianism where the Government has specific limited enumerated roles.
In every case Libertarianism seeks to expand and maximize personal freedom and liberty. I'm quite curious what makes you think that we actually need this bloated government? That we actually need the various bureaucrats, the various departments, and the other thousands and thousands of regulations, rules, and other such institutions. When the US was founded and up through most of the 1800s, there were little to no regulations, extremely limited government where we didn't have EPA, Dpt of Education, etc. and America was a superpower. There is no documented case where the expansion of Government power was of any benefit at all.
If you do not care about your liberty and freedom then sure, go ahead and call all of us Libertarians idiots and retards while surrendering, or forcing upon others the surrender of their rights.
I also don't follow in lockstep with Ron Paul, but as he is a fellow Austrian Economics advocate, I am in special agreement with him on certain issues such as monetary and foreign policy. It's quite funny, that many of the Libertarian stances were actually old Republican stances and further back, the stance of Democrat-Republicans under Jefferson.
you misunderstand what a libertarian monarchy is:
A libertarian monarchy is essentially a monarchy that has its power restricted to being a figurehead and controlling the military for defense purposes only. It is fairly close to anarchism, although not quite anarcho-capitalist.
You may have read the book Democracy: The God that Failed. The author makes good points about how monarchy, despite its flaws, is still a better alternative than democracy in a libertarian government. But I believe that people will not be able to appreciate anarchy, as it is too ingrained in human beings to obey authority. The "King" or whatever title it may be would act as the figurehead,the head of state, and the person little children remember as the leader of whichever country. Eventually, it would be possible to transition to anarchism: however, until then, I view libertarian monarchy as the best option.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
i'm pretty sure I've seen a spectrum that is actually a square, with libertarians at the top, conservatives at the right, liberals at the left, and populist/totalitarians at the bottom.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
i'm pretty sure I've seen a spectrum that is actually a square, with libertarians at the top, conservatives at the right, liberals at the left, and populist/totalitarians at the bottom.
That doesn't take into account Economic policy. American "liberals" Economic policy is extremely Fascistic, and GOP Economic policy is extremely State Corporatist, both maximally reducing freedom and liberty. What would you call that then? That square does not take into effect any Economic factors whatsoever, and I would argue that Economic Freedom is the most important part of any political ideology.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
Again, I generally agree with the view of left and right expressed by Karl Hess:
My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes....
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.
On August 20 2009 12:42 Mindcrime wrote: And they both staunchly oppose concentrations of power. So yeah, it is pretty simple; they belong on the far left.
So you are telling me liberals oppose concentrations of power? Are you saying this with a straight face?
modern liberals? no
At best, they have left wing goals and right wing methods.
I'm curious then, where would you place Libertarians such as Ayn Rand (Objectivism is a part of Libertarianism), Milton Friedman, and Murry Rothbard on the traditional view of Right/Left politics? They don't fit in anywhere in there because they are an amalgamation of both right and left. Therefore, you can't use the traditional spectrum. That is why the only spectrum which places all political views in their proper place is the one I showed.
Please, do try and fit the Libertarians aforementioned into your Right/Left view. I want to hear this.
Again, I generally agree with the view of left and right expressed by Karl Hess:
My own notion of politics is that it follows a straight line rather than a circle. The straight line stretches from the far right where (historically) we find monarchy, absolute dictatorships, and other forms of absolutely authoritarian rule. On the far right, law and order means the law of the ruler and the order that serves the interest of that ruler, usually the orderliness of drone workers, submissive students, elders either totally cowed into loyalty or totally indoctrinated and trained into that loyalty. Both Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler operated right-wing regimes, politically, despite the trappings of socialism with which both adorned their regimes....
The far left, as far as you can get away from the right, would logically represent the opposite tendency and, in fact, has done just that throughout history. The left has been the side of politics and economics that opposes the concentration of power and wealth and, instead, advocates and works toward the distribution of power into the maximum number of hands.
He basically reversed my right and left. My right is his left, and his right is my left. It is pretty much the same.
I'm definitely interested in the Rothbard piece so I'll read it and report back. Let me just preface, I'm no Anarcho-Capitalist. There is a Government role, and that is to be decided by local, representative democracy (Anti-Federalism), with a head of state for Foreign policy and CIC. The only role I believe the Federal Government should have is in regard to the establishment of Foreign Policy, Ensuring Free Trade, and keeping a standing military, or militia. Preferrably I would have each State have their own militias and when called upon in times of war transferred to the control of the Federal Government, much like early America. This also serves as a bulwark to any attempt at tyranny because the citizens of the country would be heavily armed. Local Government or State Government role would be adjudicating dispute, ensuring contractual obligations, and a few other various powers. We would be precisely a free Laissez-Faire Economy with decentralized banking and competing currencies all backed by the Gold Standard.
Not sure why I said the above, but perhaps for people to get a better view of my ideology. (Not like thats needed anyways I suppose lol)
Basically an Anti-Federalist Constitutional Representative Laissez-Faire Republic. A mouthful, eh?
On August 20 2009 14:06 D10 wrote: Aegraen what do you think of the New World Order proposed by the illuminati?
I don't believe in that. Why do people think Libertarians = Conspiracists? If it makes you feel any better by purposefully ignoring history about how the banking institutionists cemented permanent authority and control over America, by dismissing it because of some stupid New World Order bull crap, well I suppose you reap what you sow. Indifference and belittlement is a virtue leading down the path of destruction. Choose wisely.
On August 20 2009 10:15 Mindcrime wrote: Calling for someone's death for wanting to discuss an issue gets more attention than calling for someone's death for starting a war.
go figure
Both a war and health policy are political stances.
EDIT: But I guess if you figure that statistically speaking a lot of media reporters probably think he knew about or planned 9/11 it would make sense that they would treat the 2 circumstances differently.
EDIT2: In case you can't tell, that first edit is humor
how did 9/11 come into the conversation?
What i think you need to remember is the complex nature of the interconnected events in question. In the late 1800's, there the Carp of London's Thames river decided they had had enough of the English shitting all over their society, and so they moved to America. It was here, that they found out how to create gold tablets from swimming in a certain pattern just over the base of the river beds. This, in fact, was how the Mormon tablets were created.
Despite all this, there was ONE thing they despised more than pompous English shit, it was crappy imported American Tea; and so one fateful day, when tons and tons of tea was dumped into their lives, they got pissed. They vowed revenge. And so they planed an intricate plan to create a political party to oppose whoever did it. They called this party The Democrats. However this was not enough, and some Carp were more hot blooded than others, and decided to hijack a planes and fly them into buildings at random. This, gentlemen, is what you know as 9/11.
However this did not stop the stupid Americans from dumping tea! They had to do something! And so they decided they would take over government and abolish it! To do this, they used all the shit they had accumulated from the British, and formed it into a human being, who they called Obama. Then, they wrote that into the gold tablets too; this, however, was mistaken for Rick Astley, who subsequently became uber famous.
Thwarted once again; the Carp knew they had to do something! The only other way they knew of how to get Obama elected, would be to over take the media! And so, chipping away bit by bit, they overtook the media, and corrupted enough peoples minds to get him elected!
I suppose if I point out the simple fact that most anarchists and libertarians throughout history have been broadly socialist some people here are going to burst a blood vessel.
I am pretty sure Bakunin would fall over laughing if he ever saw that diagram showing anarchism on the extreme right of the political spectrum.
It's funny, because in most European countries 'Liberals' are actually liberal, in contrast to what Americans see as 'Liberals'.
Aegrean's spectrum is unapplicable, because there's at least 2 measures you can judge a political viewpoint by: socially Conservative vs Liberal, and economically Left-wing vs Right-wing.
In America, you lump the liberals all in one bunch, on the left-wing economical spectrum. In Europe liberals are generally socially Liberal and economically Right-Wing. Socialists are socially conservative and economically left-wing. Left-Liberal parties as known in Europe are generally environment-friendly and socially very liberal.
Please stop using the word liberal when you mean Socialist or Communist, because it's not correct at all.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The quaint notion of the orthodox view of right and left in politics today is inherently deceiving and a false representation.
The more apt and truistic political spectrum is indeed from the right to the left, however on the right in the beginning of the spectrum is Anarchism, while on the far Left is Totalitarian.
Aegrean, your political spectrum is hugely skewed. You group the left on the Totalitarian side as if it consists of simply one ideology, while you spread your right wing ideas all over. Ever considered that not all left-wing ideologies are far-left? That there might be left-wing idelogies that are totally against totalitarianism? Learn more about these kind of things before making your own political spectrums.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
There are more left-wing anarchist ideologies than right-wing. Being left-wing economically does not make an ideology totalitarian. This is a big fault in your reasoning.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: So for example the accurate approach is something that looks like this:
Totalitarian - Corporate Statist, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, etc.
This approach will get you nowhere. Your definition of Totalitarian clearly encompasses alot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism This kind of proves you wrong, am I right? You can't line up all ideologies and say it is so.
If you replace Libertarian with Anarchy and you might have a decent measure of how a state functions, but you can't use it to describe ideologies.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: On this line here is our current geopolitical US position along with the world view.
----|-------|-----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------| World--Dem--GOP-----------------Independants---------------------Constitutionalist----Libertarian P.
Holy shit. You really think the rest of the world has totalitarian ideologies? I'll tell you something. You can pull alot more shit in Europe then you can in the US. Europe does not check every single person who flies into the country. Europe did not imprison people without trial because they had a beard and were called Muhammad.
Looking at this shit again, it looks as if you call 'World' a political party or ideology. I don't think you should try to act like you know anything about geopolitical positions.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: Within each of the sects is a clear Economic approach. You cannot seperate Economic Freedom from Political Freedom, they are one and the same and both lead down the Totalitarian path.
That is the only accurate way to approach. So, on this view you can see the world and the US is overwhelming Leftist because they both seek to deny you rights through the Government. You are less free when both the GOP and DEM are in control you only have the facade of choice. America is a one party political system as I suspect most the world is.
I agree that Economic freedom and Political freedom are related. I don't agree that all left-wing policies deny Economic or Political freedom. Leftist policy does not mean it is totalitarian communist policy. Read up on this, a very common political ideology in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism . You could call me a supporter of this.
I agree that there is little to no choice between the GOP and Democrats, but not because they are both too left-wing. Most democrats would be considered right-wing in Europe. The two parties look alike because of the huge influence of the neoliberal, conservative/corporate system in America, which denys people rights and favors big corporations. I'll give you this, Aegrean - Big government right wing scares me more than your liberal right wing ideologies.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The quaint notion of the orthodox view of right and left in politics today is inherently deceiving and a false representation.
The more apt and truistic political spectrum is indeed from the right to the left, however on the right in the beginning of the spectrum is Anarchism, while on the far Left is Totalitarian.
Aegrean, your political spectrum is hugely skewed. You group the left on the Totalitarian side as if it consists of simply one ideology, while you spread your right wing ideas all over. Ever considered that not all left-wing ideologies are far-left? That there might be left-wing idelogies that are totally against totalitarianism? Learn more about these kind of things before making your own political spectrums.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: The orthodox view makes it stupid because you can't have a notion of right or left or center for Anarchists like Anarcho-Capitalists, or people who advocate Anarcho-Capitalistic approach however with an extremely limited form of Government, which most Libertarians are. It also doesn't take into account the Economic side of the delimma. Economics and Politics go hand in hand.
There are more left-wing anarchist ideologies than right-wing. Being left-wing economically does not make an ideology totalitarian. This is a big fault in your reasoning.
Totalitarian - Corporate Statist, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, etc.
This approach will get you nowhere. Your definition of Totalitarian clearly encompasses alot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism This kind of proves you wrong, am I right? You can't line up all ideologies and say it is so.
If you replace Libertarian with Anarchy and you might have a decent measure of how a state functions, but you can't use it to describe ideologies.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: On this line here is our current geopolitical US position along with the world view.
----|-------|-----|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------| World--Dem--GOP-----------------Independants---------------------Constitutionalist----Libertarian P.
Holy shit. You really think the rest of the world has totalitarian ideologies? I'll tell you something. You can pull alot more shit in Europe then you can in the US. Europe does not check every single person who flies into the country. Europe did not imprison people without trial because they had a beard and were called Muhammad.
Looking at this shit again, it looks as if you call 'World' a political party or ideology. I don't think you should try to act like you know anything about geopolitical positions.
On August 20 2009 11:55 Aegraen wrote: Within each of the sects is a clear Economic approach. You cannot seperate Economic Freedom from Political Freedom, they are one and the same and both lead down the Totalitarian path.
That is the only accurate way to approach. So, on this view you can see the world and the US is overwhelming Leftist because they both seek to deny you rights through the Government. You are less free when both the GOP and DEM are in control you only have the facade of choice. America is a one party political system as I suspect most the world is.
I agree that Economic freedom and Political freedom are related. I don't agree that all left-wing policies deny Economic or Political freedom. Leftist policy does not mean it is totalitarian communist policy. Read up on this, a very common political ideology in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism . You could call me a supporter of this.
I agree that there is little to no choice between the GOP and Democrats, but not because they are both too left-wing. Most democrats would be considered right-wing in Europe. The two parties look alike because of the huge influence of the neoliberal, conservative/corporate system in America, which denys people rights and favors big corporations. I'll give you this, Aegrean - Big government right wing scares me more than your liberal right wing ideologies.
EDIT: 'spectrums' screwing around
Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
On August 20 2009 19:26 Aegraen wrote: Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
Aegrean you absolutely ignored most of the points I made. Instead you ranted on about taxes being stealing. I'm not going into serious debate with you anymore, because you clearly cannot agree with 99% of educated mankind that taxation is a necessity. Letting everyone go their own goddamn way might work if we didn't need other people around us for happiness, wellbeing and health. Your ultimate goal of a taxless, absent-government society isn't going to work, ever. People can do alot of good things if you give them the opportunity. By making a society that is based on people only looking out for themselves you put us back a few thousand years in human social evolution.
Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Law and Order (No, not your shotgun). Standard of living. Freedom.
Your post is full of so much bullsh*t. You say other kinds of liberalism don't count because they were there later and don't adhere to Classical Liberalism. Guess what, Anarcho-Capitalism was there later than classical Anarchy, so should I give a sh*t? Of course, I don't discredit your ideas because they aren't 'classical'.
Homogenous governments of Western Europe? Do you even know which parties govern in each country? I bet you don't. Look it up. There's right wing, left wing. Just because they both support taxation doesn't mean they're homogenous. Get out.
Tremendous economic growth in Eastern Europe? That's in part because they have cheaper labor and European subsidies. Sure laissez-faire helps, but I don't see the standard of living in Eastern Europe close to European/American levels. Laissez-faire economic policy helps up till a certain level, after that improving the standard of living is achieved with better health, education and government programs.
Left-liberals promote economic freedom, and by that I mean freedom to invest, spend, and trade. I read an article in the Economist that said that Denmark had better economic freedom than the US, Hong Kong and other countries with much less taxation. Taxation isn't the biggest barrier to enterprise. Government intervention, trade barriers and a badly educated workforce (with guns to boot!!) are much more detrimental. This is what Left-liberals focus on.
I don't understand your definitions of corporatism and corporate statism and what they have to do with an ideology that promotes economic and personal freedom. Once again; taxation =/= robbing people of freedom. If you really think that mutual voluntary contracts are the only way to do buisness, you really need to look at the many successful government/buisness cooperations in Europe, especially in Green energy and Healthcare.
I am not chasing an utopia. I'm trying to find real solutions to problems, instead of your batshit insane Corporate anarchism. If there ever was a fallacious idea, it would be that. This idea of yours is never going to happen. People will not stand for a dog eat dog society, even if the people who want it carry guns because its their right (wacked idea, why is the murder rate so high in America? huh?).
Once again, Left-liberalism promotes economic freedom and self-help. It helps people do this, instead of leaving them to themselves. If you can't get a job, you can pursue education or get state employment. You will get tools to save yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism, who helps you? Better hope you got a rich daddy. Europe's growth rates mean nothing to me. Economic growth is moot when it is uneven. The middle class keeps getting poorer and has been accumulating a shitload of debt in America. There's runaway capitalism for you. Now ask yourself, do you want runaway anarchist capitalism?
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
On August 20 2009 19:26 Aegraen wrote: Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
Aegrean you absolutely ignored most of the points I made. Instead you ranted on about taxes being stealing. I'm not going into serious debate with you anymore, because you clearly cannot agree with 99% of educated mankind that taxation is a necessity. Letting everyone go their own goddamn way might work if we didn't need other people around us for happiness, wellbeing and health. Your ultimate goal of a taxless, absent-government society isn't going to work, ever. People can do alot of good things if you give them the opportunity. By making a society that is based on people only looking out for themselves you put us back a few thousand years in human social evolution.
Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Law and Order (No, not your shotgun). Standard of living. Freedom.
Your post is full of so much bullsh*t. You say other kinds of liberalism don't count because they were there later and don't adhere to Classical Liberalism. Guess what, Anarcho-Capitalism was there later than classical Anarchy, so should I give a sh*t? Of course, I don't discredit your ideas because they aren't 'classical'.
Homogenous governments of Western Europe? Do you even know which parties govern in each country? I bet you don't. Look it up. There's right wing, left wing. Just because they both support taxation doesn't mean they're homogenous. Get out.
Tremendous economic growth in Eastern Europe? That's in part because they have cheaper labor and European subsidies. Sure laissez-faire helps, but I don't see the standard of living in Eastern Europe close to European/American levels. Laissez-faire economic policy helps up till a certain level, after that improving the standard of living is achieved with better health, education and government programs.
Left-liberals promote economic freedom, and by that I mean freedom to invest, spend, and trade. I read an article in the Economist that said that Denmark had better economic freedom than the US, Hong Kong and other countries with much less taxation. Taxation isn't the biggest barrier to enterprise. Government intervention, trade barriers and a badly educated workforce (with guns to boot!!) are much more detrimental. This is what Left-liberals focus on.
I don't understand your definitions of corporatism and corporate statism and what they have to do with an ideology that promotes economic and personal freedom. Once again; taxation =/= robbing people of freedom. If you really think that mutual voluntary contracts are the only way to do buisness, you really need to look at the many successful government/buisness cooperations in Europe, especially in Green energy and Healthcare.
I am not chasing an utopia. I'm trying to find real solutions to problems, instead of your batshit insane Corporate anarchism. If there ever was a fallacious idea, it would be that. This idea of yours is never going to happen. People will not stand for a dog eat dog society, even if the people who want it carry guns because its their right (wacked idea, why is the murder rate so high in America? huh?).
Once again, Left-liberalism promotes economic freedom and self-help. It helps people do this, instead of leaving them to themselves. If you can't get a job, you can pursue education or get state employment. You will get tools to save yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism, who helps you? Better hope you got a rich daddy. Europe's growth rates mean nothing to me. Economic growth is moot when it is uneven. The middle class keeps getting poorer and has been accumulating a shitload of debt in America. There's runaway capitalism for you. Now ask yourself, do you want runaway anarchist capitalism?
One America is really a Corporate Statist country. It is not capitalistic in any sense in the Laissez-Faire approach. Government basically runs the private sector by rules, regulations, monopoly, etc. You want an example? How about Richard Nixon in early 70's creating a price and wage freeze for 90 days and then extending that for months on end in various sectors. How is that capitalism? When Government basically controls the means of production not by actually owning, but by setting the rules and governance how is that capitalism? Seems to remind me awfully lot of Corporate Statism/Socialism.
How about JFK sending FBI agents out in the middle of the night to steel executives and forcing them to raise prices of their goods because of Government monetary policy, aka FED.
So, we basically have a quasi-government agency in the FED that can create money out of thin air, a Government in which it subsidizes its favored and lobbied Corporate entities to cut out competition and create Government sanctioned monopolies, and then we have price and wage controls. If that is capitalism to you, then that is a bastardization in which only in your mind you call it Capitalism.
Lastly, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I understand there has to be some modicum of Government. How many times do I have to say this? Five? Ten? Look at the last few posts in this thread and others of mine and you will see where I think Government should be involved and its specific enumerated powers.
Taxation is theft. What else is it if it is not theft? I'm also not a proponent of a virtual voluntary system, because that implies Anarcho-Capitalism. You have to have a tax if you are going to have any Government. My proposal has been this, fixed national sales tax of 4% only on end production goods. This means basically the finality of a good (Not raw material) at the end of its production. Ipod, Computer, House, not food, steel, plastic, etc. Abolish 16th amendment, abolish all property taxation (The state can only tax it if it is the lord. If you truly had private property then no one could tell you what to do with it, unless you created an externality with which you had to compensate those you have effected)
Left-Liberals do not promote economic freedom. How the hell can you call 40%+ taxes, and all other sorts of taxes, etc. freedom?! What a juxtaposition of ideas that is.
Despite recent marginal decreases, government spending is 51.5 percent of GDP.
Liberalism is about small government, limited government. How you claim this I do not know. I will commend Denmark on the easiness of starting a business (Why you need a license is a mystery, oh no its not, its to stifle competition.). Employee cost is pretty low, and firing an employee is relatively easy, so I give credit where it is due.
I'm also not sure that you understand that hand outs do not create an incentive to improve. The truism of the fish analogy is prescient.
In France Aegraen would be a liberal and Savio too ( but more liberal conservative ). The perception of the "liberal" word is mostly economic ( and it is used for people who dislike government intervention, taxes etc ... ).
But there are almost no real liberal conservatives.
The right of the socialist party is actually way more liberal ( economic ) than the conservatives of the right lol ( protectionists )
On August 20 2009 20:49 Boblion wrote: In France Aegraen would be a liberal and Savio too ( but more liberal conservative ). The perception of the "liberal" word is mostly economic ( and it is used for people who dislike government intervention, taxes etc ... ).
So you call Libertarians liberals in Europe? I suppose this isn't too much a far cry as Libertarianism is heavily influenced by Classical Liberalism. However, Libertarianism in America has as its Economic philosophy Austrian Economics. Do liberals in Europe have any affinity towards Austrian Economics?
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
On August 20 2009 20:49 Boblion wrote: In France Aegraen would be a liberal and Savio too ( but more liberal conservative ). The perception of the "liberal" word is mostly economic ( and it is used for people who dislike government intervention, taxes etc ... ).
So you call Libertarians liberals in Europe?
In France at least yes.
On August 20 2009 20:51 Aegraen wrote: I suppose this isn't too much a far cry as Libertarianism is heavily influenced by Classical Liberalism. However, Libertarianism in America has as its Economic philosophy Austrian Economics. Do liberals in Europe have any affinity towards Austrian Economics?
Well real libertarians ( what we call ultraliberals ) are almost inexistent ( 1% maybe ? ) although there are some micro parties like Alternative Libérale.
However the two biggest parties ( socialist party and the UMP of Sarkozy ) and even "the green party" have their own liberal ( economic ) wings ( but they are 1000x softer than Alternative Libérale and libertarians.
Also the word liberal has a somewhat bad connotation because of relocations and things like that. :p
Edit: the word liberal isn't used as much for "manners", people will use "progressist" or something like that.
On August 20 2009 19:26 Aegraen wrote: Libertarianism draws more on Classical Liberalism than anything else. So, in essence the transient meaning of the word which you have replaced within "Social Liberalism" is actually not, liberalism, just like in America liberalism has replaced what it originally meant, so has it in Europe. Western Europe especially is the haven of the aggrandizing big government politicians. The borgeouis political elite there to dileneate whats best to the proleteriat like it has been for many years. The only country in Western Europe that really has a Classical Liberal history, Ireland has all but abandoned its traditions. It has thrown in pretty much with the homogenous governments of Western Europe. Eastern Europe however, went another way. They are vastly more Lassiez-Faire while not being wholly, they are vastly more Lassiez-Faire than pretty much everywhere else save for Hong Kong and Singapore.
You wonder why the countries who promote less Government intervention, free-market Laissez-Faire approach have tremendous Economic growth while countries who favor the opposite have stagnation and inflationary problems? This even goes further than merely Government intervention, but the fact that most of the world has adopted Keynesian Economics as the orthodox view, which has been crashing tremendously lately as was prophesied, by the Austrian School.
What I am trying to say is that using Government to steal from one sect of people to give to another is not liberalism. It is totalitarianism and expressly why I put that thought of Economics (Keynesian) on that side of the spectrum. It is essentially, Corporate Statism.
I'm curious, do you have anyone in Europe or any parties that resemble the American Libertarian Party? Do you ever wonder why the Austrian School left Europe? Do you have any Bobb Barr's, Ron Pauls, etc.? Do you have anyone like the Old Right, Robert Taft, Barry Goldwaters, etc. in Europe? Anarcho-Capitalism has very little to nothing in common with pretty much every other sect of Anarchy. It is pretty much the only individualistic-capitalist anarchy or derivation thereof. Why? Because it holds the individual as the sovereign authority.
I'm curious. In what way can you rationalize taking someones money to give to another yet at the same time be against corporatism; that is subsidies, corporate welfare, etc. which is expressly the form of taking anothers money and giving to another. They are one and the same! Yet, you espouse one and denounce the other. It makes no sense. I guess in your notion of "empathy" you rationalize its perfectly ok to steal from another. If thats not abridgement of rights I don't know what is. Mutual voluntary contracts is the only form known to man to benefit both sides. Due to scarcity of resources it is impossible under any economic or political system for there to ever be no poor, no uneducated, etc. You are chasing a fallacious utopia that does not exist.
Instead you should be supporting letting people choose where to trade, who to trade with, what services to produce, which goods to produce, letting those who make bad decisions fail, letting entreprenuers create business unfettered. It is a weird dichotomy in Europe that people seek to help the poor by subsidary, yet don't realize (That is the general populace), that you are creating a class of state slaves. How is that help? Essentially you are doing this; handing the poor a fish, instead of a fishing rod. You are not teaching them how to produce, incentivizing to work, to create wealth and goods and services to voluntarily exchange their production with others for Economic growth. This is why Europe does not grow, at least Western Europe.
Hopefully everyone looks a little deeper into their ideologies. The reasoning, logic, theories, etc. Trust me, it took me down a winding road to end up where I am today. I think if the American population ever educated themselves we would see a Revolution to return to our founding and even beyond that to a more Anti-Federalist true Laissez-Faire approach because we have history to teach us the failures of the past.
Aegrean you absolutely ignored most of the points I made. Instead you ranted on about taxes being stealing. I'm not going into serious debate with you anymore, because you clearly cannot agree with 99% of educated mankind that taxation is a necessity. Letting everyone go their own goddamn way might work if we didn't need other people around us for happiness, wellbeing and health. Your ultimate goal of a taxless, absent-government society isn't going to work, ever. People can do alot of good things if you give them the opportunity. By making a society that is based on people only looking out for themselves you put us back a few thousand years in human social evolution.
Education. Infrastructure. Healthcare. Law and Order (No, not your shotgun). Standard of living. Freedom.
Your post is full of so much bullsh*t. You say other kinds of liberalism don't count because they were there later and don't adhere to Classical Liberalism. Guess what, Anarcho-Capitalism was there later than classical Anarchy, so should I give a sh*t? Of course, I don't discredit your ideas because they aren't 'classical'.
Homogenous governments of Western Europe? Do you even know which parties govern in each country? I bet you don't. Look it up. There's right wing, left wing. Just because they both support taxation doesn't mean they're homogenous. Get out.
Tremendous economic growth in Eastern Europe? That's in part because they have cheaper labor and European subsidies. Sure laissez-faire helps, but I don't see the standard of living in Eastern Europe close to European/American levels. Laissez-faire economic policy helps up till a certain level, after that improving the standard of living is achieved with better health, education and government programs.
Left-liberals promote economic freedom, and by that I mean freedom to invest, spend, and trade. I read an article in the Economist that said that Denmark had better economic freedom than the US, Hong Kong and other countries with much less taxation. Taxation isn't the biggest barrier to enterprise. Government intervention, trade barriers and a badly educated workforce (with guns to boot!!) are much more detrimental. This is what Left-liberals focus on.
I don't understand your definitions of corporatism and corporate statism and what they have to do with an ideology that promotes economic and personal freedom. Once again; taxation =/= robbing people of freedom. If you really think that mutual voluntary contracts are the only way to do buisness, you really need to look at the many successful government/buisness cooperations in Europe, especially in Green energy and Healthcare.
I am not chasing an utopia. I'm trying to find real solutions to problems, instead of your batshit insane Corporate anarchism. If there ever was a fallacious idea, it would be that. This idea of yours is never going to happen. People will not stand for a dog eat dog society, even if the people who want it carry guns because its their right (wacked idea, why is the murder rate so high in America? huh?).
Once again, Left-liberalism promotes economic freedom and self-help. It helps people do this, instead of leaving them to themselves. If you can't get a job, you can pursue education or get state employment. You will get tools to save yourself. Anarcho-Capitalism, who helps you? Better hope you got a rich daddy. Europe's growth rates mean nothing to me. Economic growth is moot when it is uneven. The middle class keeps getting poorer and has been accumulating a shitload of debt in America. There's runaway capitalism for you. Now ask yourself, do you want runaway anarchist capitalism?
One America is really a Corporate Statist country. It is not capitalistic in any sense in the Laissez-Faire approach. Government basically runs the private sector by rules, regulations, monopoly, etc. You want an example? How about Richard Nixon in early 70's creating a price and wage freeze for 90 days and then extending that for months on end in various sectors. How is that capitalism? When Government basically controls the means of production not by actually owning, but by setting the rules and governance how is that capitalism? Seems to remind me awfully lot of Corporate Statism/Socialism.
How about JFK sending FBI agents out in the middle of the night to steel executives and forcing them to raise prices of their goods because of Government monetary policy, aka FED.
So, we basically have a quasi-government agency in the FED that can create money out of thin air, a Government in which it subsidizes its favored and lobbied Corporate entities to cut out competition and create Government sanctioned monopolies, and then we have price and wage controls. If that is capitalism to you, then that is a bastardization in which only in your mind you call it Capitalism.
Lastly, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist. I understand there has to be some modicum of Government. How many times do I have to say this? Five? Ten? Look at the last few posts in this thread and others of mine and you will see where I think Government should be involved and its specific enumerated powers.
Taxation is theft. What else is it if it is not theft? I'm also not a proponent of a virtual voluntary system, because that implies Anarcho-Capitalism. You have to have a tax if you are going to have any Government. My proposal has been this, fixed national sales tax of 4% only on end production goods. This means basically the finality of a good (Not raw material) at the end of its production. Ipod, Computer, House, not food, steel, plastic, etc. Abolish 16th amendment, abolish all property taxation (The state can only tax it if it is the lord. If you truly had private property then no one could tell you what to do with it, unless you created an externality with which you had to compensate those you have effected)
Left-Liberals do not promote economic freedom. How the hell can you call 40%+ taxes, and all other sorts of taxes, etc. freedom?! What a juxtaposition of ideas that is.
Despite recent marginal decreases, government spending is 51.5 percent of GDP.
Liberalism is about small government, limited government. How you claim this I do not know. I will commend Denmark on the easiness of starting a business (Why you need a license is a mystery, oh no its not, its to stifle competition.). Employee cost is pretty low, and firing an employee is relatively easy, so I give credit where it is due.
I'm also not sure that you understand that hand outs do not create an incentive to improve. The truism of the fish analogy is prescient.
Why do I get the impression you've not thought this through in the slightest. Now bear with me for a while here, because (for some) there might be some logical leaps for you. A Laissez-faire model would mean ZERO government intervention in business. Now lets think for a while; who makes up a business... Oh, by golly, its people!?
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Edit: I would like to see your sources for your 'wild west' claims. Ever find out how many people died from 'accidents' from rail road companies? These are the unrestricted corperations and environment you would... like?
On August 19 2009 16:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: [quote]
It would be funny if it were not so frightening.
Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
On August 19 2009 20:46 Eniram wrote: [quote] Does that really scare you? I mean honestly.
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
Aegrean, taxation is by no means 'theft'. We live in democratic societies. If people really thought it was theft, we would have parties for abolishing taxes wouldn't we? (Maybe not in the anglosaxon 2 party model, but you get the idea)
Guess what? An overwhelming majority of people accept taxation. Most people care about other people's basic welfare more than a new car. In Holland, we have a good example to explain this. It is in the people's intrest to see dykes built. Now if someone doesn't help pay, but still enjoys the protection of the dyke, would this be fair? No. Taxation is a necessity. We can disagree about what needs to be paid for, but it is certainly not theft.
You not understanding my definition of economic freedom says alot about your blind spot for other people's arguments.
On August 19 2009 20:52 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: [quote]
Well perhaps I am exaggerating a little. I am not sitting at my keyboard literally quaking at the thought of such people wandering around in a nation several thousands of miles away but I thought that was kind of obvious.
No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Also, it has been demonstrated in economic studies that gun control does not reduce crime significantly: nor does a lack of gun control reduce crime nor increase crime either. In such a situation, where something has little bearing, it is better to let people have it than not.
And laissez-faire government idea exists and works quite well in other parts of the world, especially Asia.
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
First of all, your ideas of laissez-faire economics is that outdated fantasy of the gilded ages where rich evil robber barons crushed the poor hard working families of America. This is simply not true-this would never have been made possible had the United States government not backed the rich factory owners and support what they did against striking workers.
So let's see the first one: subsidized education. Undoubtedly there will be new private institutions as well as non-profit ones. Private institutions, as well as new charter schools and the like, have demonstrated in studies that essentially, students that transfer to charter schools do about as well in the charter school, mostly because they have the drive and motivation to want to succeed that they end up doing so anyways. Even with a public education system like it is in America, thousands of people drop out or don't attend classes and die poor anyways. What would be your solution, then?
Then Healthcare. I've already gone over this in the other thread, that the overreliance on HMOs is lethal. To make a long story short, doctor's have no incentive to compete or keep prices low, as there isn't a market atmosphere, due to the overreliance on insurance. People used to be able to get healthcare without insurance at affordable rates. Now, people without insurance often have to pay as much as 100x more than the insurance companies would for the same procedure. This needs to be fixed-but that's a topic for another day.
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
Minimum wage? Are you kidding me? Let's play 10th grade economics. You have your supply and demand curves for workers. There is a price for labor at a certain rate. In a laissez-faire economy, jobs that are worth $3.00 an hour are there, as are jobs that are worth $10.00 and $100 an hour, and so forth. By raising the minimum wage to say $5.00 an hour, you don't force the price of the $3.00 job up to $5.00 an hour. Suppose the job is emptying trash cans, which is worth $4.00. The owner of the cans gains $1.00 and the worker gains $3.00 per hour, which actually makes sense when you consider that the worker doesn't own the cans and didn't put any of his financial value into it prior to his work. So when you raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour, it is no longer profitable to have this worker, so he would likely be laid off and jobs would be lost. I will also go on to bring in the idea of skilled workers. In the case of skilled workers, job firms have to compete for skilled workers, otherwise their products would be inferior. Why would they want lower wages for skilled workers? Now you go on to complain about the resulting rich-poor gap. I respond by saying that there is only so much money you can spend on yourself before you end up giving large swaths of it to charity, ex. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,pretty much every multibillionaire is giving away large parts of their fortunes to charities, which benefit the poor, and could provide all the services you complain will be gone above.
And your statement on the land tax, wtf are you talking about? I've never heard of a property tax being the only reason businesses don't sell land and houses., Besides, as it is, people can buy and sell your mortgage, which is virtually the same thing.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
Now that interests me. What do you mean by "fill this void" in that sentence?
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
Now that interests me. What do you mean by "fill this void" in that sentence?
The meaning seems to have been lost in transit. I was responding to D10 who said that it's right wingers that use the worst examples of a group to represent that group. I was just saying that left wingers do this too using such people as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Most conservatives are not like either of those people.
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Circumstance.
Low Gini co-efficient and very high GDP.
Precisely. This is something we should be striving for, rather than just banning guns so only criminals will have them. We need to maximize GDP and help separate the concentration of wealth in an elite (which more often than not is politically involved). The best method, of course, is laissez faire capitalism which allows for smaller companies to be on an equal competitive footing with larger companies. Hence I urge for the easing of regulations that penalize smaller companies much more severely than larger ones.
On August 20 2009 10:44 DefMatrixUltra wrote: How about we all stop using the worst examples of a group to represent that group? What if we all pointed our fingers at Muslims and said "They're like Osama Bin Laden, we should kill them all." Or what if we pointed at all Americans and said "They're like Jeffery Dahmer, they're all perverted and disgusting." That's how ridiculous this shit is. Instead maybe we could focus on the good things that each group brings to the table and leave disagreements as differences of opinion.
Thats what the most extreme right wingers do.
Extreme left-wingers do this too. That was the point of my post. People like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter exist to fill this void.
Yes, of course. In fact this whole thread is the result of an attempt to that by StealthBlue. Try to find a few crazies on the right, then do your darndest to proclaim it everywhere as much as you can and lead people to associate the "crazies" with one side of the spectrum more than the others.
That's why I initially posted to show how ridiculous this whole thread is. Hence the comparison of signs and the treatment of Obama and Bush.
There are crazies on both sides. But when the media is largely liberal biased, it makes you wonder if the crazies on both sides are being talked about equally.
I went through that post like 9 times in my head, and besides for the very last one (and maybe the precisely), every phrase is patently false or misleading. Not even partisan false. Just plain false.
Try to find a few crazies on the right, then do your darndest to proclaim it everywhere as much as you can and lead people to associate the "crazies" with one side of the spectrum more than the others.
I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to say that republicans or people on the right in general are crazy beyond the people on the right who feel they're being stereotyped.
The thread noted that there's an increase in the level of extremism on the right. When even Bill O is calling people who show up for town halls with assault rifles "yahoos"... I mean, that's a pretty clear indication that your cause is lost.
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Circumstance.
Low Gini co-efficient and very high GDP.
Precisely. This is something we should be striving for, rather than just banning guns so only criminals will have them. We need to maximize GDP and help separate the concentration of wealth in an elite (which more often than not is politically involved). The best method, of course, is laissez faire capitalism which allows for smaller companies to be on an equal competitive footing with larger companies. Hence I urge for the easing of regulations that penalize smaller companies much more severely than larger ones.
Fuck yeah, let's abandon regulations! If the guy behind the counter says the milk is fresh, you better believe him, cause there isn't any control whatsoever!! Lead in your kids toys? No one cares, it's a free world, we use whatever is cheapest! Weekend off? No way, it's much more advantageous to keep your employees working!
Enjoy your ideal world full of sweatshops, food poisoning and rampant pollution.
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Circumstance.
Low Gini co-efficient and very high GDP.
Precisely. This is something we should be striving for, rather than just banning guns so only criminals will have them. We need to maximize GDP and help separate the concentration of wealth in an elite (which more often than not is politically involved). The best method, of course, is laissez faire capitalism which allows for smaller companies to be on an equal competitive footing with larger companies. Hence I urge for the easing of regulations that penalize smaller companies much more severely than larger ones.
Fuck yeah, let's abandon regulations! If the guy behind the counter says the milk is fresh, you better believe him, cause there isn't any control whatsoever!! Lead in your kids toys? No one cares, it's a free world, we use whatever is cheapest! Weekend off? No way, it's much more advantageous to keep your employees working!
Enjoy your ideal world full of sweatshops, food poisoning and rampant pollution.
heyheyhey
no need to get so hostile on me I didn't say abandon regulations, if you actually read the post instead of building a straw man, I said ease off some of the regulations that hurt smaller companies more than larger companies.
Consider, for instance, how pharmaceutical companies need to hire an inspector to inspect their plant. It costs, say, 50,000$ US for an inspection. A company that has 5 plants and is worth 1 billion can absorb that cost much easier than a company that has 1 plant and is worth 10 million. Is it no surprise that the larger company was the one that pushed for the new requirement?
Even with all the regulations, we still have cases of all of the above. Just because there are regulations that say there shouldn't be any crap on my lettuce doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly trust that the lettuce must therefore be 100% ok. The consumer has to be at least somewhat intelligent to figure out what's going on to make sure that they won't get screwed over.
And it's all about consumer choice. If a company started polluting, there would probably be a boycott relatively quickly until the company stops. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez spilled, there were massive boycotts of Exxon. If a company was discovered to be using sweatshops and terrible conditions, there would be mass boycotts. And when Jack in the Box had it's breakout of E.Coli, lots of families, myself included, avoided Jack in the Box and still avoid Jack in the box. Companies have incentives to not put lead in the toys just because it's cheaper-and it doesn't have to be a boycott, either. We have lawsuits for that, and those 10 cents you shave off your 100,000 toys isn't going to be much against that multi-million dollar lawsuit that is going to shaft you in the ass. That's called incentives.
You're not seriously claiming that we don't have companies in our regulated world that use sweatshops, result in food poisoning, and pollute, do you? You're not seriously claiming that you blindly trust regulators that your product is 100% fine, do you? You're not seriously claiming that companies would force their workers into extra hours, therefore resulting in boycotts from the outside and getting rid of their skilled and best workers to competitors, are you? You're not seriously demonstrating your lack of economic and business principles, are you? You're not seriously revealing that your understanding of economics dates from a middle school education on the Gilded Age, are you?
I was mostly talking about Aegren's ideas about Anarcho-capitalism. Might of come off a bit too agressive.
Anyways, free markets will always consolidate. Advantages of scale will create huge enterprises. New innovations have a huge potential to be controlled by one company, for example look at Microsoft in the computer buisness. Laissez-faire capitalism will only give this companies more leverage to extort their suppliers, and edge their competitors out of the market. There will always be a need for a unbiased transparent organization with the power to force certain regulations on buisness. Consumer activism will only go so far.
Nike didn't see it's shoe sales go down much when it became public that they had sweatshops abusing children. Exxon is the biggest oil company even though they fought clean-up cases all the way in court.
Blind trust in regulators isn't the way to go, but relying more on consumer intelligence isn't really a good idea. The average joe knows nothing about computers, so companies like Microsoft can keep selling shit like Vista while shoving other competitors out of the market while creating even more dependence on their operating systems. What scares me isn't free enterprise, but big untransparent corporate monoliths controlling certain sectors, while holding great influence on goverment and press. Your ideas about semi-fascist economically liberal governments to support growth will lead us to this.
I'm going to ignore the last part of your post, because it's pretty much what I did in my own post, and you rightly accused me of strawman for that.
And it's all about consumer choice. If a company started polluting, there would probably be a boycott relatively quickly until the company stops. For instance, when the Exxon Valdez spilled, there were massive boycotts of Exxon.
All those boycotts against Montana leach pile extraction sure worked. It sure wasn't the state government that shut down the method because they kept having to deal with messes left by mining companies who declared bankruptcy after gutting a mine and paying off directors and investors, right? Sometimes consumer pressure doesn't work because consumers have no method of applying pressure. Do you know if any of the copper in your house comes from poorly run copper mines? Can you trace any of it? Can you identify the point of origin in new products? I'm going to guess No, No, and No.
Good luck starting a movement.
We have lawsuits for that
No, actually, the primary aim of actions in tort is restoring the victim to his state pre-victimization. Tort law and actions in the field have failed on a consistent basis to provide compensation, which means that the risk/benefit analysis for a company almost always lets them take an inordinate amount of risk for any benefit. When the risk involves groups that are less likely to litigate, the ratio gets even higher; the poor, minorities, victims who are ashamed, etc are all consistently under represented. There's quite a bit of literature on this.
What's more, you rely on the legal system to provide a deterrent, yet hold this position:
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
So now if you cant afford legal aid, its acceptable for a company to disregard your rights, because the risk that an action is used against them drops. While tort is generally a bad system for what you want it to do, your position here makes it even worse.
On August 20 2009 08:58 Eniram wrote: [quote] No I don't mean scare you like the immediate danger kind. I mean scare you like you think to yourself "thats not good."
Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Also, it has been demonstrated in economic studies that gun control does not reduce crime significantly: nor does a lack of gun control reduce crime nor increase crime either. In such a situation, where something has little bearing, it is better to let people have it than not.
And laissez-faire government idea exists and works quite well in other parts of the world, especially Asia.
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
First of all, your ideas of laissez-faire economics is that outdated fantasy of the gilded ages where rich evil robber barons crushed the poor hard working families of America. This is simply not true-this would never have been made possible had the United States government not backed the rich factory owners and support what they did against striking workers.
So let's see the first one: subsidized education. Undoubtedly there will be new private institutions as well as non-profit ones. Private institutions, as well as new charter schools and the like, have demonstrated in studies that essentially, students that transfer to charter schools do about as well in the charter school, mostly because they have the drive and motivation to want to succeed that they end up doing so anyways. Even with a public education system like it is in America, thousands of people drop out or don't attend classes and die poor anyways. What would be your solution, then?
Then Healthcare. I've already gone over this in the other thread, that the overreliance on HMOs is lethal. To make a long story short, doctor's have no incentive to compete or keep prices low, as there isn't a market atmosphere, due to the overreliance on insurance. People used to be able to get healthcare without insurance at affordable rates. Now, people without insurance often have to pay as much as 100x more than the insurance companies would for the same procedure. This needs to be fixed-but that's a topic for another day.
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
Minimum wage? Are you kidding me? Let's play 10th grade economics. You have your supply and demand curves for workers. There is a price for labor at a certain rate. In a laissez-faire economy, jobs that are worth $3.00 an hour are there, as are jobs that are worth $10.00 and $100 an hour, and so forth. By raising the minimum wage to say $5.00 an hour, you don't force the price of the $3.00 job up to $5.00 an hour. Suppose the job is emptying trash cans, which is worth $4.00. The owner of the cans gains $1.00 and the worker gains $3.00 per hour, which actually makes sense when you consider that the worker doesn't own the cans and didn't put any of his financial value into it prior to his work. So when you raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour, it is no longer profitable to have this worker, so he would likely be laid off and jobs would be lost. I will also go on to bring in the idea of skilled workers. In the case of skilled workers, job firms have to compete for skilled workers, otherwise their products would be inferior. Why would they want lower wages for skilled workers? Now you go on to complain about the resulting rich-poor gap. I respond by saying that there is only so much money you can spend on yourself before you end up giving large swaths of it to charity, ex. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,pretty much every multibillionaire is giving away large parts of their fortunes to charities, which benefit the poor, and could provide all the services you complain will be gone above.
And your statement on the land tax, wtf are you talking about? I've never heard of a property tax being the only reason businesses don't sell land and houses., Besides, as it is, people can buy and sell your mortgage, which is virtually the same thing.
more later.
To deal with your 'education solution'. Charter schools cost REAL big bucks. Scholarships wont even amount to 10%; so 10% poor, the rest rich. Non-profit schools are actually supported ALOT by the Government. Education costs real money, if it costs billions for the federal government, what makes you think philanthropists are going to pick up the slack? There isn't one billion dollars of church or philanthropist money 'just floating around' for non-for-profit schools to 'just use'.
Legal aid is TOTALLY the point. If a company skrews you over, then its not YOU in the defenders seat getting the free aid, thats for sure! Unless you make it a class action law suit, there is NO way you can take on a massive corporation with millions of dollars to throw at a protracted legal case. They have so much money, they can pretty much keep yo' poor ass in Court for the rest of yo' poor ass life.
Politics: This has EVERYTHING to do with it; as it stands, marketing = elected. Marketing costs real big $$, and typically the way you get the real big $$ is with real big donations. Lobbying by corporations pretty much keeps most political parties as rich as they currently are.
To address the minimum wage: Here you are grand-standing about how you 'pay more for better workers'; I am not going to argue with you on this point. But more, doesn't mean wages go UP. It just means theirs don't go down as fast... And YES, I HAVE done economics papers at university; don't worry, i know perfectly well how this all works. You see; there is this thing called 'inflation', and every year money devalues. It might not be legally possible (or there might be an outrage) to make wages go DOWN, but with no government intervention they sure as hell an't going UP. Why would a company put its wages UP, when there is no reason too? To give their works a 'pat on the back'? Companies are in the game for profit. End of story. Productivity is the amount it costs per unit. Wages are part of costs. Wages go down, productivity goes up. Thats how it works.
To address your ignorance on land tax; land tax is a MAJOR reason people don't keep switching homes and buying and selling properties. Each time you do it, it costs you money. In Australia you have your 'Family home' which isn't taxed when you move home; but if your doing it for profit, then it costs. It is land tax that keeps the housing market under control. If it wasn't there, then people who are in rental properties would speculate on where housing prices would go up the most, and sell and move there. This pushes house prices WAY up.
I think it's laughable that this forum seemed to lend more credence to the argument that our last President was involved in a plot to line two skyscrapers with explosives and demolish them with thousands of innocent people inside than the argument that our current President wasn't born in this country.
Why does it matter so much to the americans where a person is born anyway (except that's the rules for presidency are in the constitution or whatever)~~; Isn't america the promised land for everyone? I wouldn't mind a bit if Sweden was led by a prime minister with a foreign background.
On August 20 2009 09:05 Tyraz wrote: [quote] Dude... Why wouldn't you be. If there were people like that in Australia or New Zealand they'd call the armed defenders squad on their ass... I'm not sure if you read the my post beforehand, but that kind of attitude is just self perpetuating; all the way up to arming the entire country. THEN who's your 'soft target'?
See, from my point of view you sound hysterical. People like him are doing a great service to this country by arming themselves. He's part of an extremely important niche and without people like him I hate the think of how the government would operate.
How we have come from everyone being armed (Which is what won us our Independance), to where people hate guns and see them as evil and we are now called a "niche"? It is a weird justification to be against armed civilians and also be a supporter of America. If you do not support how we came into existence, then how can you support the country at all?
Not saying you are, you are a proponent of the 2nd, unabridged, shall not be infringed upon, but of the others here in this post and abroad in the country. To give an analogy and historical evidence; I suppose people really haven't read into the actualities of the Wild West. The Wild West wasn't actually wild at all, it was pretty much peaceful and relatively crime less. You had elected sherriffs by the people to protect them however you also had each individual armed so crime was relatively low because of that. The west was really peaceful overall. There are quite a few books about this. What is the motivation of the criminal to try and steal goods and money if he ends up dead in the process? With an armed populace it basically creates a scenario of detente. When you take away the ability for the individual to defend himself you allow criminality to flourish because they have no to very little risk associated.
As to piretes. It had everything to do with your post moreso on the latter where you described your political ideology so I thought I'd like to have a cheerful debate with you about that.
I generally frown upon this: but for you, I'll make an exception.
Since you didn't read my post last time as to why your idea of 'soft targets' is totally flawed:
Oh I see. Care to elaborate on why the US has the highest gun ownership, and surprisingly enough the highest gun crime rate? I've heard this argument before, and you can (and probably do) apply the same logic on a national scale. You have a big army, you aren't a 'soft target'. Of course the irony of the situation is; that now you aren't the victims, your the aggressors.
Its this kind of attitude that becomes self perpetuating. - First one kid arms himself with a knife to protect himself. - Then everyone arms themselves with knives, knives become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with a gun, to protect himself - Then everyone arms themselves with guns, guns become no longer enough - Then one kid arms himself with an antomatic rifle - Then an everybody arms themselves with automatic rifles, they become no longer enough
So, my question is this: When does it stop? When will everybody become a 'hard target'. If your going to arm a nation, at least have the forethought to think through the implications.
Edit: thats why cops in New Zealand and the UK don't carry guns. Obviously you don't see the self perpetuating nature of what your suggesting.
It is not flawed whatsoever. What would be the motivation for one individual to try and rob another individual of his production (That is, money and or goods in his possession), when the risk is that you run the high probability of becoming killed in the act? Does that not create a scenario in which the incentive to rob is diminished? Why do you think the criminal and specifically violent crimes are much higher in places where civilians are not armed? Do you think you can have a cop besides you at all times, or that you can rely on cops to prevent a crime? By becoming armed you do this.
Now, you say since everyone is armed they have some weird motivation to start shooting each other? What makes you believe this happens? Did this happen in the west in the 1800s? No. Exactly the opposite happened.
Want a prescient analogy, one that is still very fresh?
Cold War. Both countries essentially stockpiled weapons, both knowing of the doctrine of M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. This created what is known as Detente. Neither side had any incentive whatsoever to be the aggressor, because both knew that it would lead to death. Now, imagine now that one side had access to weapons and arms and stockpiles and the other did not. What would have been the scenario in that case?
Your analogy is flawed. When you pull the trigger, you don't die. You sneek in at night, shoot the dude, people hear gun shots, you run out and since everyone is armed, and so are you, you blend right in. Killing one person doesn't destroy the world as we know it. This is a warped analogy and you know it.
Your assumption is that the robber knows all the circumstances before he proceeds. This is not true. How do you propose the robber knows that there is only one person living there? That they do not have an alarm system? That he doesn't keep a gun near him? That he won't wake up when you break in? That the neighbors won't wake up when they hear gun shots and seeing a person running from the property with a variety of goods in his possession?
I'm not saying it could never happen. Of course it will, there will always be robbers and criminals in every society no matter what. However, do you actually believe an armed civilian populace, increases the occurence of criminal activity? You honestly believe that otherwise law abiding people suddenly turn into murderous criminals just because they own a gun? Is that your position? I suppose you didn't read further into the implications that I addressed.
Incorrect: The vast majority of crimes are committed out of circumstance/opportunity. If you don't believe me, talk to ANY criminologist... EVER. And so, if you arm everyone, then everyone has an increased opportunity to steal/murder, because you are the aggressor, you can choose your time to strike (hence the opportunity, because if someone 'looks' venerable then they will do it). Now in this environment, simply having a gun does not make you 'invulnerable'. Having a gun aimed at who your about to be shot at is. If you by yourself, and have your gun in your holster, then you are a 'soft target', because there is no way in the world you can draw it fast enough before he's simply squeezed the trigger.
Also; If you'd bother to read my other post as to why your laissez faire government idea is totally flawed. It's like going back to the 18th century all over again....
tell me, then, why haven't people in Switzerland been killing each other with rocket launchers, seeing as how there is an assault rifle in every home?
Also, it has been demonstrated in economic studies that gun control does not reduce crime significantly: nor does a lack of gun control reduce crime nor increase crime either. In such a situation, where something has little bearing, it is better to let people have it than not.
And laissez-faire government idea exists and works quite well in other parts of the world, especially Asia.
So, if you are born into a poor family; then your on your own kiddo.
- Subsidized education Forget it (can't afford to upskill yourself, well i guess you'll have to work in the factory huh?)
- Healthcare? Forget it (born poor, die poor: unhealthy people are less capable for work)
- Free legal aid? Forget it (do something rich folks don't like... you pay for it... They make all the rules. They hold all the keys. They control what little there is of a government (because marketing doesn't pay for itself you know))
- Minimum wage? Forget it (this is the private industry paradise. In the battle to cut costs and increase productivity, minimum wages plummet (this might not be apparent, as interest rates go up and money devalues... but they sure as hell don't raise them so the effect is the same))
- Land Tax? Forget it (businesses can buy and sell property any time they choose, put the price at anything they like, and sell your house from right under your feet)
First of all, your ideas of laissez-faire economics is that outdated fantasy of the gilded ages where rich evil robber barons crushed the poor hard working families of America. This is simply not true-this would never have been made possible had the United States government not backed the rich factory owners and support what they did against striking workers.
So let's see the first one: subsidized education. Undoubtedly there will be new private institutions as well as non-profit ones. Private institutions, as well as new charter schools and the like, have demonstrated in studies that essentially, students that transfer to charter schools do about as well in the charter school, mostly because they have the drive and motivation to want to succeed that they end up doing so anyways. Even with a public education system like it is in America, thousands of people drop out or don't attend classes and die poor anyways. What would be your solution, then?
Then Healthcare. I've already gone over this in the other thread, that the overreliance on HMOs is lethal. To make a long story short, doctor's have no incentive to compete or keep prices low, as there isn't a market atmosphere, due to the overreliance on insurance. People used to be able to get healthcare without insurance at affordable rates. Now, people without insurance often have to pay as much as 100x more than the insurance companies would for the same procedure. This needs to be fixed-but that's a topic for another day.
Free legal aid is your next claim. What the hell are you talking about? Lawyers don't work for nothing. They sometimes do pro bono cases, or maybe ambulance chasers and lawyers that work for part of the possible reward. And nobody said anything about abolishing the public defender's office. You're putting a straw man in here, confusing economic freedom with civil tyranny.
Minimum wage? Are you kidding me? Let's play 10th grade economics. You have your supply and demand curves for workers. There is a price for labor at a certain rate. In a laissez-faire economy, jobs that are worth $3.00 an hour are there, as are jobs that are worth $10.00 and $100 an hour, and so forth. By raising the minimum wage to say $5.00 an hour, you don't force the price of the $3.00 job up to $5.00 an hour. Suppose the job is emptying trash cans, which is worth $4.00. The owner of the cans gains $1.00 and the worker gains $3.00 per hour, which actually makes sense when you consider that the worker doesn't own the cans and didn't put any of his financial value into it prior to his work. So when you raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour, it is no longer profitable to have this worker, so he would likely be laid off and jobs would be lost. I will also go on to bring in the idea of skilled workers. In the case of skilled workers, job firms have to compete for skilled workers, otherwise their products would be inferior. Why would they want lower wages for skilled workers? Now you go on to complain about the resulting rich-poor gap. I respond by saying that there is only so much money you can spend on yourself before you end up giving large swaths of it to charity, ex. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,pretty much every multibillionaire is giving away large parts of their fortunes to charities, which benefit the poor, and could provide all the services you complain will be gone above.
And your statement on the land tax, wtf are you talking about? I've never heard of a property tax being the only reason businesses don't sell land and houses., Besides, as it is, people can buy and sell your mortgage, which is virtually the same thing.
more later.
To deal with your 'education solution'. Charter schools cost REAL big bucks. Scholarships wont even amount to 10%; so 10% poor, the rest rich. Non-profit schools are actually supported ALOT by the Government. Education costs real money, if it costs billions for the federal government, what makes you think philanthropists are going to pick up the slack? There isn't one billion dollars of church or philanthropist money 'just floating around' for non-for-profit schools to 'just use'.
Legal aid is TOTALLY the point. If a company skrews you over, then its not YOU in the defenders seat getting the free aid, thats for sure! Unless you make it a class action law suit, there is NO way you can take on a massive corporation with millions of dollars to throw at a protracted legal case. They have so much money, they can pretty much keep yo' poor ass in Court for the rest of yo' poor ass life.
Politics: This has EVERYTHING to do with it; as it stands, marketing = elected. Marketing costs real big $$, and typically the way you get the real big $$ is with real big donations. Lobbying by corporations pretty much keeps most political parties as rich as they currently are.
To address the minimum wage: Here you are grand-standing about how you 'pay more for better workers'; I am not going to argue with you on this point. But more, doesn't mean wages go UP. It just means theirs don't go down as fast... And YES, I HAVE done economics papers at university; don't worry, i know perfectly well how this all works. You see; there is this thing called 'inflation', and every year money devalues. It might not be legally possible (or there might be an outrage) to make wages go DOWN, but with no government intervention they sure as hell an't going UP. Why would a company put its wages UP, when there is no reason too? To give their works a 'pat on the back'? Companies are in the game for profit. End of story. Productivity is the amount it costs per unit. Wages are part of costs. Wages go down, productivity goes up. Thats how it works.
To address your ignorance on land tax; land tax is a MAJOR reason people don't keep switching homes and buying and selling properties. Each time you do it, it costs you money. In Australia you have your 'Family home' which isn't taxed when you move home; but if your doing it for profit, then it costs. It is land tax that keeps the housing market under control. If it wasn't there, then people who are in rental properties would speculate on where housing prices would go up the most, and sell and move there. This pushes house prices WAY up.
Firstly: you keep talking about non-for-profit schools. What about schools like Philips Exeter and Andover, as well as schools that are less reknowned? Those are decidedly not funded by the government at all, and yet not only are there lots of kids who attend these private schools, these kids tend to have higher than usual rates of admission to institutions of higher learning. And if the public education system is so high and mighty, then please tell me why American students have an advantage in math and science until 8th grade, upon which they fall far behind European and Asian systems? Here's a hint: it's not that its different between public and private, otherwise the difference wouldn't be because of grade. It's also not because all the "rich, elite, capitalist kids" transferred to other schools-those schools were accounted for. The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
Second of all, you have done absolutely nothing but to create a straw man here to relate to my argument of pro bono and public defenders. All you have done is the "evil corporations against the poor individual" tactic which tends to be overplayed.
Politics: I agree with you here. However, not only did I never talk about this, but you created my own argument for me. That's nice. Also, our solutions differ: while you propose to try and kill all the bacteria in the gangrened foot constantly to prevent reinfection, I propose just to cut off the foot and prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body.
Okay, let me try this again. Instead of using the good old "corporations are out for profit, therefore they will cut workers wages down to pennies a day so they can make more money" argument that has been around since the 1860's, let's take a look at the backing behind "some of the economics papers that I've done in University." First of all, what actually happens during inflation? Prices rise as a whole, not wages go down. Stop getting the two mixed up. Secondly: when prices rise, and workers salaries stay the same, workers clearly aren't happy. If you aren't familiar with the concept of cost-push inflation, in which the inflation not only causes increased wages, but increased wages causes further inflation, then please consult your economics papers. I'm not saying that inflation doesn't hurt the consumer's ability to consume, and lower the standards of living, but if there were some miracle cure for inflation then people would be using it by now. And I will say that the solution is not to make inflation worse. And no, productivity does not work like that. You naturally assume that a loss of wages therefore increases profitability. But again, you assume that labor has no choice in its work, is unorganized, and unskilled. If any of those three conditions does not happen, which I'm pretty sure happens the overwhelming majority of the time, then your preconditions are ruined and so goes your entire argument. I won't go into labor markets here but suffice to say that having read Marx, he would consider your arguments to be highly flawed.
And here you go off with your land tax again. First of all, you can't sell a rental property. Second of all, people do that anyways. Third of all, you seem to misunderstand what a land tax does. A land tax purpose isn't to deter people from buying and selling properties: otherwise people wouldn't move. The purpose of a land tax is to prevent people from speculating on land, and as a result by holding onto it, not letting other people have it to develop for further capital. This only works because the property market is inelastic. The land tax's job isn't that of a price control, although that may appear to be its direct effect.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
Firstly: you keep talking about non-for-profit schools. What about schools like Philips Exeter and Andover, as well as schools that are less reknowned? Those are decidedly not funded by the government at all, and yet not only are there lots of kids who attend these private schools, these kids tend to have higher than usual rates of admission to institutions of higher learning. And if the public education system is so high and mighty, then please tell me why American students have an advantage in math and science until 8th grade, upon which they fall far behind European and Asian systems? Here's a hint: it's not that its different between public and private, otherwise the difference wouldn't be because of grade. It's also not because all the "rich, elite, capitalist kids" transferred to other schools-those schools were accounted for. The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
You were suggesting that private and charter schools pick up the slack. This is simply not feasible. Billions of dollars don't come out of no-where you know.
Second of all, you have done absolutely nothing but to create a straw man here to relate to my argument of pro bono and public defenders. All you have done is the "evil corporations against the poor individual" tactic which tends to be overplayed.
That was no strawman. It is my point, and i have no intention to burn it at any later date. You can quote me and i shall stand by it. It is only 'overplayed' because corporations keep doing it.
Politics: I agree with you here. However, not only did I never talk about this, but you created my own argument for me. That's nice. Also, our solutions differ: while you propose to try and kill all the bacteria in the gangrened foot constantly to prevent reinfection, I propose just to cut off the foot and prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body.
apologies for adding other points you didn't mention... other people did, and i couldn't be bothered quoting heeps of people.
Okay, let me try this again. Instead of using the good old "corporations are out for profit, therefore they will cut workers wages down to pennies a day so they can make more money" argument that has been around since the 1860's, let's take a look at the backing behind "some of the economics papers that I've done in University." First of all, what actually happens during inflation? Prices rise as a whole, not wages go down. Stop getting the two mixed up. Secondly: when prices rise, and workers salaries stay the same, workers clearly aren't happy. If you aren't familiar with the concept of cost-push inflation, in which the inflation not only causes increased wages, but increased wages causes further inflation, then please consult your economics papers. I'm not saying that inflation doesn't hurt the consumer's ability to consume, and lower the standards of living, but if there were some miracle cure for inflation then people would be using it by now. And I will say that the solution is not to make inflation worse. And no, productivity does not work like that. You naturally assume that a loss of wages therefore increases profitability. But again, you assume that labor has no choice in its work, is unorganized, and unskilled. If any of those three conditions does not happen, which I'm pretty sure happens the overwhelming majority of the time, then your preconditions are ruined and so goes your entire argument. I won't go into labor markets here but suffice to say that having read Marx, he would consider your arguments to be highly flawed.
At no point did i say that wages and inflation were the same. Real income goes down when inflation goes up and your wage stays the same; your money is worth less. Companies only give a shit about you being unhappy if they risk loosing you. That is, if there are alot of workers that are qualified in your position, then you are expendable. If it really worked the way you are suggesting, then illegal immigrants would not be working for under the minimum wage as it wouldn't be worth it If there was no government intervention, then there would be no minimum wage. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that wages would plummet.
And here you go off with your land tax again. First of all, you can't sell a rental property. Second of all, people do that anyways. Third of all, you seem to misunderstand what a land tax does. A land tax purpose isn't to deter people from buying and selling properties: otherwise people wouldn't move. The purpose of a land tax is to prevent people from speculating on land, and as a result by holding onto it, not letting other people have it to develop for further capital. This only works because the property market is inelastic. The land tax's job isn't that of a price control, although that may appear to be its direct effect.
That is also the indirect effect of Land Tax. If there were no costs involved then people would speculate; they could become liquid assets.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority.
Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops.
I think it's completely dumb btw.
On August 31 2009 19:04 BlackJack wrote: I think it's laughable that this forum seemed to lend more credence to the argument that our last President was involved in a plot to line two skyscrapers with explosives and demolish them with thousands of innocent people inside than the argument that our current President wasn't born in this country.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority.
Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops.
Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it.
In the media you find "liberals" and "conservative" grouped togheter, respectively, and then assumptions are made about the whole group based on some anecdotal evidence.
I find it ironic that Orly whatever is the "leader" of the birther movement. Its almost as though someone in power plopped her in to muck everything in, because anything even remotely legitimate about it all is smeared heavily by some asshole that can't even speak without an accent i.e. she's not even a natural born citizen herself.
BoB123 Why does it matter so much to the americans where a person is born anyway (except that's the rules for presidency are in the constitution or whatever)~~; Isn't america the promised land for everyone? I wouldn't mind a bit if Sweden was led by a prime minister with a foreign background.
Oh, and she's an idiot. Why even listen to her?
Go McArthurism!
Yes its a big deal in America or at least its supposed to be. Its not the promised land, its just a place to be a fuck up or go somewhere in. Up to how you play your cards. I personally believe(backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we don't want some foreigner being eligible for our highest office.
On September 01 2009 05:55 Alizee- wrote: I personally believe(backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we don't want some foreigner being eligible for our highest office.
I personally believe (backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we should, at least, tacitly permit slavery and then give the voting individuals of slave-holding states more power than their free state counterparts by allowing them to utilize 3/5 of their slave population when it comes time to apportion Representatives and Electors.
On September 01 2009 05:55 Alizee- wrote: I personally believe(backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we don't want some foreigner being eligible for our highest office.
I personally believe (backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we should, at least, tacitly permit slavery and then give the voting individuals of slave-holding states more power than their free state counterparts by allowing them to utilize 3/5 of their slave population when it comes time to apportion Representatives and Electors.
Pretty terrible comparison of two completely unrelated things. Very distasteful I might add.
On September 01 2009 05:55 Alizee- wrote: I personally believe(backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we don't want some foreigner being eligible for our highest office.
I personally believe (backed up by the fact that they had a reason it was written in our Constitution) we should, at least, tacitly permit slavery and then give the voting individuals of slave-holding states more power than their free state counterparts by allowing them to utilize 3/5 of their slave population when it comes time to apportion Representatives and Electors.
Pretty terrible comparison of two completely unrelated things. Very distasteful I might add.
The point is that something is not automatically "correct" just because it was written into the Constitution and that your justification for the birth requirement of the office of the President needs work.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority.
Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops.
Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it.
He provides no evidence, other than a what is maybe a bit of anecdotal evidence, that conservatives do this more than liberals. Also I have anecdotal evidence that both sides do this.
Finally his comments about death panels are really unfair. there are some conservatives that think Obama plans to kill people using evil death panels because he's an evil person, and other conservatives who are worried that seniors attending voluntary end of life counseling will be pressured into making certain decisions by government workers. Sarah Palin is surprisingly among the later, although to be fair she does egg on the former. The reasons they believe this is because there is good empirical evidence of veterans being pressured into making certain decisions through pamphlets, and there is also a logical reason to think that the government might desire people to make such decisions for the purpose of cutting costs.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority.
Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops.
Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it.
He provides no evidence, other than a what is maybe a bit of anecdotal evidence, that conservatives do this more than liberals. Also I have anecdotal evidence that both sides do this.
Finally his comments about death panels are really unfair. there are some conservatives that think Obama plans to kill people using evil death panels because he's an evil person, and other conservatives who are worried that seniors attending voluntary end of life counseling will be pressured into making certain decisions by government workers. Sarah Palin is surprisingly among the later, although to be fair she does egg on the former. The reasons they believe this is because there is good empirical evidence of veterans being pressured into making certain decisions through pamphlets, and there is also a logical reason to think that the government might desire people to make such decisions for the purpose of cutting costs.
She's simply attacking Obama in any way she can. Don't try to make anything she says sound reasonable or well thought out, because she's so obviously, painfully ignorant, you will only make yourself look stupid in the process.
On August 31 2009 19:49 Caller wrote: The reason is because the American public education system concerns itself more with petty things like large gymnasiums and high teacher salaries than actually providing incentives for teachers to work and study on their on time, and because while schools cry for more money to spend on existing teachers, it never occurs to them to hire new teachers that actually have a degree in the field that they are teaching.
American teachers actually get paid quite poorly for what they do. All the money's in teaching at the college level, so that's where all the good teachers end up. The end result is not too many people can get there in the first place.
Bullshit. My mom is making excelent money as a public school teacher in the Bronx. Starting sallery is lower, but due to the teacher's union, the sallery gets quite high as you accumulate seniority.
Same thing with a lot of public sector jobs with unions, such as cops. They get paid nothing starting out, but it goes up by a bunch for the experianced cops.
Another really interesting video, nothing new, but I want to see our conservative posters response to it.
He provides no evidence, other than a what is maybe a bit of anecdotal evidence, that conservatives do this more than liberals. Also I have anecdotal evidence that both sides do this.
Finally his comments about death panels are really unfair. there are some conservatives that think Obama plans to kill people using evil death panels because he's an evil person, and other conservatives who are worried that seniors attending voluntary end of life counseling will be pressured into making certain decisions by government workers. Sarah Palin is surprisingly among the later, although to be fair she does egg on the former. The reasons they believe this is because there is good empirical evidence of veterans being pressured into making certain decisions through pamphlets, and there is also a logical reason to think that the government might desire people to make such decisions for the purpose of cutting costs.
She's simply attacking Obama in any way she can. Don't try to make anything she says sound reasonable or well thought out, because she's so obviously, painfully ignorant, you will only make yourself look stupid in the process.
Yeah it's pretty obvious she's trying to make herself look like the ideal opposition presidential candidate for the next term. I'm pretty sure if Palin ever wins a presidential election she'll be the dumbest president the US ever had/will have. She would seriously have the power to fuck up the world.
Speaking of Obama: "All presidents fall from their honeymoon highs, but in the history of polling, no newly elected American president has fallen this far this fast."
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=100659 (the main point is that considering the 2 VERY different circumstances in which they were elected it really is incredible that Obama is less popular already than Bush was. It also sparks a debate about the causes)
Overall, some seriously bad news for Obama. He needs to redirect his presidency, stop letting Nancy Pelosi do all the leading and start leading himself as a moderate like he campaigned.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.
That represents the lowest level of support for Democrats in recent years, while Republicans have tied their highest level of support for the third straight week.
I laugh anytime people think American politics is actually some two way dynamic between parties. Both parties are pretty much a mirror of each other with minor differences. Seriously, when has the Government even shrank? Oh yea, the GOP are really for limited Government....where is all the legislation to follow their principles? No where. Instead they act like Democrats. WAKE UP.
If we had McCain we would have had a huge gigantic new mortgage entitlement program and would be in Iran by now.
Do any GOP actually push for Fair tax besides a handful? Do any GOP follow the Constitution to its core? A handful. When was the last time the GOP actually tried to reduce the size of Government? Axing any Departments? Reducing GDP spending?
Foreign policy the parties are the exact same. Both interventionist.
Anyways, continue to play partisan politics, I'll sit here and campaign for true limited Government candidates while you vote for one party America. I won't bother to respond to any posts in regards to mine, because the admins don't want me to get into arguements with other forumers.
I'm just urging everyone to actually look at the legislation from both parties when in power....you can just as easily swap and it would look the same, albeit one party goes much faster than the other, they both are heading in the same direction.
Actually, I agree with Aegraen for the most part. However, being that that is true, there are then 2 options:
1. Vote for the more conservative candidate even if he is still quite liberal but who has a decent chance of winning and therefore the opportunity to affect policy. 2. Vote for some nobody who is has no chance of winning but who is a "true believer"
The 2nd is quite tempting and I may take that route someday, but for now I have chosen to vote for the party that at least has as a significant part of its constituency a group that wants smaller government and at least talks about it and brings it up (and actually has elected officials).
It appears Aegraen, that many people feel the same way:
"Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republican voters say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 18% of GOP voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.
Most Republican voters (55%) say that the average Republican in Congress is more liberal than the average Republican voter. "
EDIT: I also believe that this liberal behavior especially during the Bush years in part is responsible for the GOP losing control of government. And the fact is they deserved it.
On September 04 2009 09:34 Savio wrote: Actually, I agree with Aegraen for the most part. However, being that that is true, there are then 2 options:
1. Vote for the more conservative candidate even if he is still quite liberal but who has a decent chance of winning and therefore the opportunity to affect policy. 2. Vote for some nobody who is has no chance of winning but who is a "true believer"
The 2nd is quite tempting and I may take that route someday, but for now I have chosen to vote for the party that at least has as a significant part of its constituency a group that wants smaller government and at least talks about it and brings it up (and actually has elected officials).
It appears Aegraen, that many people feel the same way:
"Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republican voters say their party’s representatives in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the past several years. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 18% of GOP voters believe their elected officials have done a good job representing the base.
Most Republican voters (55%) say that the average Republican in Congress is more liberal than the average Republican voter. "
EDIT: I also believe that this liberal behavior especially during the Bush years in part is responsible for the GOP losing control of government. And the fact is they deserved it.
Who cares if they get elected when all they are doing is the exact opposite of their rhetoric? You're essentially voting for the McCains and Grahams of the world who you can easily put a D infront of their name and they would fit right in. Vote on your values not on the denomination.
I've voted for Constitutionalists, Libertarians, etc. even when I knew they had little chance. If more people voted their values these candidates would have a much greater chance of winning. People are surely, but slowly waking up at least at the grassroots level. I can't wait for 2010 and 2012. This type of outcry and outrage hasn't been seen since the Civil Rights movement. Back in the 70's Libertarianism had a huge upswing and was growing rapidly, until Reagan came in, but now that the actions and rhetoric aren't correlative, we can again have a massive upswing and just in my little apartment complex in Wisconsin there are 3 Ron Paul stickers. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils that hasn't worked, now has it?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr050512iii.gif)
![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/5631008.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&Expires=1239824293&Signature=bGbqzByGnAQP0gyVrdFqKLunIKE%3D)
![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/teashirts456.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/img_2442-1024x768.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_chart_derugy_20040610a.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.nationalreview.com/images/pic_chart_derugy_20040610b.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.mii.org/Minerals/Minpics1/CoalBituminous.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://49ers.ipbhost.com/style_emoticons/default/NolanFacepalm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/picard-facepalm.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1829/wtfnjt.jpg)
. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Nolan-chart.svg/275px-Nolan-chart.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.nypost.com/seven/08012009/photos/nancy_genovese.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://anaferro.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/insane_big.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/Death_Sign2_82322.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://londonist.com/attachments/London_Lindsey/randydandy-PROTEST.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img.wonkette.com/images/thumbs/cd6a881d86730419d2ca3fa9c0067613.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://journalperu.com/pics/potd/bush_protest_latam.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.fightbacknews.org/2004/rnc/mnbanner.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/143-4350_IMG.JPG)
![[image loading]](http://thepeoplescube.com/images/KillBush_Kids_180.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/rallies/Bush_is_the_disease_punks_3531.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/images/kill-bush-posted-on-a-myspace-site.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/vile5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://maaadddog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/kill_bush_sights.jpg?w=300&h=276)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/WWWHPCON/hz_lqerfyeoro9eziccvuw.jpg)
