|
Sanya12364 Posts
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 05:18 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +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.
edit: This post was directed @ L (OL)
|
On June 12 2009 05:20 Piretes wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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
|
On June 12 2009 06:23 GoodWill wrote:Show nested quote +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...?
edit: pasted wrong quote
|
How many people who are okay with abortion have killed abortion providers for being abortion providers?
|
Yeah, and I'm sure a non-racist is just as likely to shoot up the Holocaust Museum as a vocal white supremacist.
|
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).
|
Have you even read the report? ffs, the DHS shouldn't even exist but there is nothing wrong with that report
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
