Violent political rhetoric fuels violent attitudes

I think the violent rhetoric and the "war on [insert abstraction on which you can't rationally declare war]" is coming from a single ideological platform (and, in the US, political party).

I still maintain that we see a lot of violent rhetoric coming mostly from one side of the spectrum, though

Glenn Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head".
mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101220005

But of course, leftists are permitted to get as violent as they choose.

Glenn Beck: "You're Going To Have To Shoot Them In The Head".
mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101220005

Wow, frajo, you really thrashed me there.

You managed to find one out of context metaphorical quote from a right winger, a TV pundit, talking about the those on the left calling for violent revolution and what that may come to.

I gave you a whole slew of violent metaphorical examples from the sitting President of the United State, but apparently they're just fine with you:
- "punish your enemies"
- "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"
- "hand to hand combat"
- "get in their faces"
- "hit back twice as hard"
- etc, ad nauseum

Who has more power to incite here, Beck or Barack?

"Government ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have precipitated the world?" -- Thomas Paine.

Maybe the US Constitution would work if it were followed.

Professor Piven calls for riots to bring down the system, and she's being defended by the left. This is apparently fine with you.

here's the wake-up call guys, it's not the 1950s anymore

Shift the costs of their parasitism onto the general populace in the form of exhorbitant taxes, reduced services depressed wages, and loss of individual rights.

Since Glen Beck is on television and radio daily(minus most weekends) then the answer is Obviously Glen Beck. Are you one of his most ardent supporters?

When are people going to wake up to where the real violence is, and where it is coming from?

This president has been omnipresent on TV since before he was elected. He has the bully pulpit with the loudest megaphone. [...] to PETA burning down labs, to SEIU/ACORN thugs, to profs like Piven advocating rioting, and on and on.

Who does Beck have? Little old ladies, ordinary citizens who read the constitution and think the government is too powerful, and Tea Partiers, who you and the leg-tingled media lie about and call racists for no reason except that they disagree with you.

And no, I don't watch Beck, don't care for his style. But he's waking up a lot of of people.

Socialism is dead (oops, violent metaphor, my bad).

Did Palin's idiotic crosshairs over Gifford

How many people here can name all the horrible things that Saddam Hussein did?

all the horrible things that Saddam Hussein did...can you name them? No.

That is the way the human mind works

Oh, the Saddam Hussein that we (or the CIA) put into power in a coup?

the US government... unbelievable violence

Our occupation of iraq and afghanistan were strategic in response to developments across the region and the threat of an emergent arab empire.

Japan was our enemy, now our friend. russia was our friend, then our enemy, now our friend etc etc. Vietnam is our best buddy. Whats your point?

Yes, the development was that the Afghani's were preventing an oil pipeline from being routed through their country. And Iraq was in a nice strategic location, in addition to being on an oil field.

We deliberately provoked Japan into attacking us, and staged the Pearl Harbor attack to look as if it were a surprise.

with friends like the US Govt., who needs enemies!

Oh, and in addition, when Pres. Kennedy tried to stop the Cold War he was assassinated

You may think oil = greed but the threat to ALL middle eastern supplies is very real, and we cannot let a radical new empire destroy the west now can we?

The allies have neatly compartmentalized the region by occupying afghanistan and iraq. Islamism is contained- for now.

just because there is some advantage to be gained,

Go back to your PlaySkool game and leave the adults be, Callie.

That is the way the human mind works, you hear these things and you form an opinion over time even if you can't remember the specific reasons

If you have no problem with invading and occupying countries just because there is some advantage to be gained

We should be ashamed of this.

attack the Vatican

Depends upon the advantage. If that advantage is national security, it is not a bad idea.

YOU should be ashamed of this.

It is a matter of SURVIVAL and the prevention of economic collapse and the DEATHS of millions, caused by people who want only to do these things to us so they can force their religion upon us. You would roll over and die rather than fight to protect your family and countrymen.

This is the same logic the ancient Romans used to expand their empire. They were always being "threatened" by their neighbors. And of course, once they conquered their threatening neighbors, they had new ones who they felt were threatening. And once they had a conquered territory under their control, they sent Romans to "govern", which was really a euphamism for squeezing the wealth of the area dry and sending it back to Rome.

I am. Every patriotic American should be. We slaughter millions and don't even notice.

Before we started attacking them and killing them in the millions, there was no threat from the Muslims. I am old enough to remember a time when the Muslims were regarded in friendly terms and lived in peace with the rest of the world.

The idea that the political situation in the Mideast is due to their desire to force their religion on us is so ridiculous it is hard to come up with a strong enough term to ridicule it.

They want to CONQUER you, take what you have, and FORCE you to convert or die. ... No. you do not want to fight at all.

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."

Now millions of people on the earth are 30 minutes away from being incinerated.

So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.

Who is "we"?

6 months later Germany invades Czechoslovakia.

So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.

I wonder how the weakness of the USA contributed to the current situation in Tunisia and Egypt and ....?

Carter inspired ... Iran's attack on the US Embassy.

"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government."

But, as attested to by many sources, it is a primary principle of our new enemy. The constitution provides for the common defense. 'Attack is the best defense.' -some German. And sometimes it is the ONLY OPTION.

The US did nothing about the Japaneses or the rise of the NAZIs or the rise of the Soviets.

The lesson learned from WWII is the US must be engaged in the world or the next war will be unacceptable.

BTW, Jefferson ordered the attack on the Barbary Pirates

Now millions of people on the earth are 30 minutes away from being incinerated.

So yes, we had better act as if we are under attack if we don't want to BE attacked.

Those who do not want to invite attack.

Who is "we"?

frajo, are you saying the Chinese are inviting attack?

frajo, are you saying the Chinese are inviting attack?

No, I think he's saying you're a paranoid imperialist.

And I think he's correct.

How is the USA taking over the world?
Maybe SH and frajo prefer the socialist style of China.

So how is the USA imposing its power on the world? I see the USA trying to help people shake off tyrannical govts, except now as BHO embraces socialism. As SH likes govt, I'm not surprised he can't see that.

Claudius would blame this on the US and say we should just shoot ourselves in the head.

I can remember what life used to be like here, and I don't like what has been done to my country during my life, especially in the last 10 years.

There is no difference in economic opinion that outweighs what you can see occuring today.

I visited the Soviet Union in 1984 and can say that there was more freedom of movement there at that time than there is here in this country.

Only someone with blinders on could maintain that the U.S. represents a force for good in the world anymore.

Only someone with blinders on could maintain that the U.S. represents a force for good in the world anymore. There are already checkpoints at our airports and soon to be at train stations, sporting events, shopping malls, on the highways.

The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.

Now the talk is all about how freedom of speech needs to be curtailed.

Citizens are being urged to spy on one another and a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors. It is worse than East Germany used to be.

We no longer have the protection of the Bill of Rights.

No right to privacy exists

and our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored.

The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.

a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors.

And why is that?
During the Clinton administration,...

Worse than E. Germany? I watched the 'Lives of Other People'. Its not worse than that.

Incidently I'm wondering what is the difference between attacking 'pirates' in their own ocean to end 'tribute', and attacking enemies in their homeland for attacking us in ours? Or strangling our vital oil supply? (answer- no difference) We were in THEIR ocean, not ours.

And only someone ideologically tone-deaf would make this ridiculous statement. The Soviet Union was worried about insurgency from within, not without. Our freedom and tolerance and civil rights are exactly what makes us vulnerable to fundamentalist Islam.

And you're saying we're not a force for good anymore because religious whackjobs want to attack us? Great logic.

Worse than E. Germany? I watched the 'Lives of Other People'. Its not worse than that.

I've been in the Soviet Union, and know better than to trust what is shown on the TV.

Citizens are being urged to spy on one another and a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors. It is worse than East Germany used to be.

Cite please? Who is doing this "urging"? Do you mean that "moderate" Muslims are being asked to inform on violent radicals before they can blow something up? Gosh, how terrible.

Nothing excuses the dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

No right to privacy exists

Yes it does- its in the constitution.

and our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored.

No theyre not.

The government can order the execution ...

No it cant. I think you think youre living in iran or saudi arabia.

a bill is being introduced to protect those who rat on their neighbors.

This is NOT 1984, either the book or that quaint time period you seem to be living in. The good old days.

The US should follow BHOs advice, bring a gun to a knife fight. So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.

The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.

Oh, you mean that traitorous al-Awlaki? He can forestall all that by simply turning himself over the the US for trial. Can you name all those other Americans the US has ordered killed without DP?

Look up Infraguard.

Then why is all the security in this new regime aimed at U.S. citizens.

No right to privacy exists

Yes it does- its in the constitution.

No right to privacy exists

Yes it does- its in the constitution.

Sorry, Otto, but it's not. The SCOTUS found it in the streamers and auras and mists emanating from the penumbras of certain selected words and phrases that actually ARE in the constitution, so that they could find the right to kill those precancerous lumps of whatever whenever it was convenient, and void the laws of most of the states in the country to please Betty Friedan and Bella Abzug.

The government can order the execution of any American it regards as a possible threat without due process of law.

Are you talking about alternative medicine or what -?

-Translation without Salon spin: "The president, by LAW, can order the capture or killing of any operative, foreign or domestic, who is actively engaged in plotting or carrying out terrorist acts which threaten the lives of US citizens." -There. That should make more sense to you, or at least someone who actually cares about the safety of their fellow citizens, not to mention themselves.

Are you serious?

I apologize but I thought everyone was aware that the "right to privacy" is not in the constitution...

So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.

So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.

Should China have declared war on the US and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia (and killing several people)?
Or is somebody here demonstrating his skills in using double standards?

But then again, you probably do think that Bush and Cheney personally set up all those "thermate" charges in the Towers so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq for their oil buddies.

But then again, you probably do think that Bush and Cheney personally set up all those "thermate" charges in the Towers so they could have an excuse to invade Iraq for their oil buddies.

Don't tell me you actually bought the official story. It is to laugh.

the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

Say some law enforcement officer uncovers this information but cannot obtain a warrant to search or arrest or even wiretap this group.

Say some law enforcement officer uncovers this information but cannot obtain a warrant to search or arrest or even wiretap this group.

I can't think of a reason why a police officer could not get a warrant if he has probable cause, in a short period of time. Judges are available 24 hours of the day, I know, my dad was one, and was not infrequently getting awakened at odd hours to sign warrants.

And if probable cause does not exist, there isn't sufficient reason to act. Certainly not to murder.

As soon as we begin taking legal shortcuts, we start down the path to tyranny. Why do you think they wrote the Bill of Rights, after all? To prevent just this sort of abuse.

So they are arrested and since the evidence was illegally obtained, they must all be released.
BTW, law enforcement agents are not obligated to protect citizens according to SCOTUS.

So for example, the US should have declare war on Iran and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the US embassy.

Should China have declared war on the US and attacked until they surrendered for attacking the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia (and killing several people)?
Or is somebody here demonstrating his skills in using double standards?

Was the attack intentional?

Did the Iranians intend to attack the US Embassy?

entered into agreement with an international consortium of foreign companies which ran the Iranian oil facilities for the next 25 years spitting profits fifty-fifty with Iran but not allowing Iran to audit their accounts or have members on board.

The Taliban in Afghanistan aided and abetted the attack on WTC.

On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?

On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?

They claimed responsibility.

An uncoerced confession is a rather strong piece of evidence in court.

Beyond that you discount Bin Laden himself claiming direct responsibility on several Al Jazeera broadcasts after the event. You're looking for a grassy knoll shooter when there isn't one.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- al qaeida
"March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed�- as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing in Guantanamo Bay�- confessed to masterminding the September 11 attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks." -and he personally beheaded Daniel pearl.

As I said, this will end up being another Kennedy stlye curiosity for those who want to follow a conspiracy theory to the day they expire.

They even tortured his children. For shame.

They even tortured his children. For shame.

Claudius is the kind of patriotic American who would believe enemy propaganda...

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed- al qaeida
"March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention and alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

You do know, don't you, that we have captured al-Qaeda instruction manuals that teach their operatives to scream "torture" as soon as they are captured?

Do patriots idly sit by when their government goes rogue? That is not my definition.

]No, apparently they side with enemies in denouncing their own govt, according to your definition. You've done nothing but seek to demean and degrade the govt with phony evidence that's proven to be false.

defending the Constitution and the liberty of the people of the United States.

How do you propose to defend that liberty from foreign enemies?

This is a non-sequitur,

but I would answer in a manner prescribed by the Constitution.

Did Jefferson violate the Constitution by attacking the Barbary Pirates?

BTW, FDR WAS a fascist regime.

In my mind, Eisenhower's warning was not heeded, Kennedy was assassinated and a Junta has been in charge ever since.

And Kennedy was a Communist. I suppose that makes it ok to overthrow the government of the U.S. and give the conspirators a free pass?

On what evidence do you say that the Taliban in any way aided and abetted the WTC attack?

They claimed responsibility.

An uncoerced confession is a rather strong piece of evidence in court.

Claude: When a president like FDR violates the Constitution and attempts to add more Supreme Court judges who would follow his bidding, what are the people to do?
FDR praised Mussolini's Fascism so who were the fascists?

Only Congress can declare war, not the president. Congress did not declare war on the Barbary states yet Jefferson ordered the attack.

The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

The Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the U.S. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

Radical Islam has declared war on the USA. Acting in defense seems within the President's authority.

In what universe's history did JFK try to end the cold war? JFK did support defending South Vietnam from communists.

Iraq and Afghanistan did not declare war on the U.S.

Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion,

Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion,

Who will decide fact from opinion? A govt agent? How will you ensure the judge/judges are objective?
How will you get around the fist amendment and penalize free speech?
BTW, there are laws call libel and slander to help sort this out.

The key issue is that Factual news reporting/journalism should be legally differentiated from mere opinion, and suitable disclaimers imposed and enforced in the mediasphere, with harsh penalties for deliberate lying.

our telephone and internet communications are routinely monitored

...monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants." Wired News 7 April 2006

and see with your own eyes how great it is to live in a time like this, despite our challenges.

Also, Claudius, your singular example of a double gun shot suicide is ridiculous, and clearly show the depths of your paranoia. A semi-auto gun and the first shot triggering a finger reflex is all that is needed to explain a suicide like that, no matter the rarity.

That's fine - for you, for me, for a lot of people.
However, this statement is not generally true, not even for the subset of non-evil people.

You are all too willing to deduce and distrust ALL authority, but you conveniently forget to be skeptical of the cases, not patterns, that mildly support your grand claims.

Webb was shot by a .38 revolver.

Let me understand this; are you saying that you believe most people are evil? Or that people are either evil or non-evil all the time?

Except that instead of being misarchistic you tend to be more universally misanthropic.

For instance your inability to accept why it is sometimes necessary to attack or pursue criminals where they live indicates a certain detachment from the real world and a preference for criminality over the forces which keep it in check. And criminals can be considered evil. Yes?

Are you speaking to me or Claudius here? If me, I may have failed miserably to communicate my worldview.

I think Frajo just means that some "non-evil" people live in conditions of suffering. In a way, we all do.

I understand the goal of the Caliphate, but I don't agree that it is the same level threat you seem to see.

so far 20 of 20 people I know very well, that have the exact same opinions as Claudius have a very hard time enjoying life because of their paranoid worldview.

I've known at least three types of Muslims, and none would agree enough to form a nation of that scope. The question is, how much oppression and poverty is enough to get them to put aside their differences?

Ever see 'Triumph of the Will'?
http
://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6939681968898938770#docid=721544746508320698

'Ein Volk, ein Feuhrer, ein Reich'
-At about 34:00 one Labor Service worker asks 'Kamerade, where do you come from?' And a number of others answer with their particular regions in turn; the message being that the reich is united. Only a few gens before, bavaria and prussia were at war, and before that, catholics were being slaughtered by protestants.

German nationalism was based on a myth- that the various tribes which settled europe were somehow all part of one thing. All it took to sell it was incessant propaganda, some great-looking uniforms, and a charismatic leader. And of course a common foe who was going to destroy them. A nation becomes an army.

Yeah, they could succeed and then have even more ambitious goals

but I'd rather fight WWIII against a Caliphate than fight for 1,000 years and 100 Vietnam-type wars.

but I'd rather fight WWIII against a Caliphate than fight for 1,000 years and 100 Vietnam-type wars.

Atomic weapons ended WWII.

Atomic weapons ended WWII.

Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

It gets to the point that one feels he is in debate with a group of concentration camp commanders.

No, those were different. They did not like discussions; they liked to obey "higher orders" to avoid being held responsible.

Many time in this discussion I have gotten hints that certain persons here support the use of torture, support the idea of wars of aggression, ... blah blah blah

However, I stop short of assuming vast conspiracies supported by circumstantial evidence.

If they could plan multiple acts of false-flag terrorism against Americans then, to assume they don't still make such plans is just willfully short-sighted.

That's their job

No, those were different. They did not like discussions; they liked to obey "higher orders" to avoid being held responsible.

I chose commanders instead of guards because I assume the commanders were doing more than just following orders.

Many of these commanders escaped via the "Ratlines" set up by the Vatican and used by U.S. Intelligence to help Nazis escape to other countries, so did not have to use a "higher orders" defense as they never faced justice.

I think we have appropriate checks. You don't. We disagree. I hope your life is successful and satisfying. I know mine will be.

And congratulations to your clairvoyance.

I was not talking about the legal, but the moral defence of mass murderers.

We disagree. I hope your life is successful and satisfying. I know mine will be.

on the surface it was a much nicer place. When I was young I was a very gung-ho... It wasn't until later that I discovered how wrong I was.

In other words maybe youre going senile?

In other words maybe youre going senile?

The only way to increase personal freedom is to fight those who cause us to have to restrict {it}.

I only know tar baby as a racial slur.

we have a system of govt which thrives on giving its people as much freedom as conditions will allow.

Not restricting their ability to operate in your country is the same as moving the pacific fleet to pearl and then engineering its destruction.

Atomic weapons ended WWII.

Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

Atomic weapons ended WWII.

Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

Total Casualties: Hiroshima: 135,000 Nagasaki: 64,000
"the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city."
Japanese civilians were innocent?

Of course I don't understand frajo as it is complete nonsense.
How were people working in the WTC supporting the war effort on Al Queda?
Hiroshima and Nagasaski did produce war materials and a Japanese physician said the atomic bombs SAVED millions of Japanese and American lives.

War crimes ... the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity. -Wikipedia

A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. - Stalin

We do not get our freedom from the government.

Definitely not a racial slur. Just means it isn't worth arguing with you

Many more people recognize it as the slur it is, which is why you used it.

A single idiot

Atomic weapons ended WWII.

Seems you are proud of killing hundred thousands of innocent humans.

Total Casualties: Hiroshima: 135,000 Nagasaki: 64,000
"the Japanese Imperial Army marched into China's capital city of Nanking and proceeded to murder 300,000 out of 600,000 civilians and soldiers in the city."
Japanese civilians were innocent?

He just questioned the innocence of the WTC victims.
(No, marjon, you won't understand this.)

Founded... Inalienable... Overthrow... Another sloganeer in love with words. He recites from the constitution as he proceeds to trash it.

Not restricting their ability to operate in your country is the same as moving the pacific fleet to pearl and then engineering its destruction.

Exactly what happened.

You don't look for any deeper causes, any more important Reasons for keeping things secret,

Our govt is composed of people who were put there because they know far more about governing than most citizens.

a country which was supposed to tell you exactly why you were sacrificing and suffering, and it didn't, and you're pissed about that arent you?

The bomb saved both US and Japanese lives by making invasion unnecessary

And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

What war effort?

Now that a CNN reporter has been attacked by the mob, the press may take a less civil tone to the revolution?

And the WTC produced money for the war effort.

What war effort?

Now that a CNN reporter has been attacked by the mob, the press may take a less civil tone to the revolution?

Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.

Ike was in Europe

Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.

I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.

Maybe if the teargas canisters didn't say Made in the USA they wouldn't be attacking Americans on the streets.

I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.

If only they were, Marjon, if only they were.

Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.

makes up the rules as it goes along, whether Constitutional or not...those we elect in trust who routinely violate that trust on a daily basis...treason...

No, the real purpose of the atomic bomb attacks on Japan was to demonstrate what the bombs could do.

to justify involving the U.S. in the war in Europe. In order to do this, he followed a plan to force the Japanese to attack the U.S.

I bet they don't mind seeing sacks of flour with 'Made in USA' on them.

If only they were, Marjon, if only they were.

They receive 1.5 billion in aid every year. I'm sure not all of it is flower...

Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.

BS!

At that time, that didn't have the same impact on me that it would have today. I've since learned that when it got to Hanoi -- to the harbor of Haiphong -- it was turned over to the representatives of Ho Chi Minh."
- Col. Fletcher Prouty

This happened on the day of the Japanese surrender. The rest went to Korea.

Which turns out was engineered by the Roosevelt administration.

BS!

BS! is not a refutation. So here are the points again:

1) Roosevelt ran for office on an anti-war platform.

2)The McCollum memo, dated 7 Oct 1940, outlined a plan to provoke Japan into an attack. "throughout 1941, it seems, provoking Japan into an overt act of war was the principal policy that guided FDR's actions against Japan" - Wikipedia

3)"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944

4) "At no time, at no time has the military shown any genuine interest in finding the truth. Instead, you have perpetuated the largest cover-up in U.S. history. Not only did you keep critical information from the Hawaiian commanders in 1941, but for 54 years you have never told the truth about it." Congressional hearing 27 Apr 1995 Statement by Manning Kimmel, grandson of Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel

BS?

Yes, BS.

Last I checked they purchased plenty of tanks and tear gas with that money, not much in the way of food though.

Yes, BS.

Explain why it is BS.

Last I checked they purchased plenty of tanks and tear gas with that money, not much in the way of food though.

Who did you check with? How many tanks did they buy? How many crates of tear gas? You have a list somewhere? If not then shut the fuck up.

It's BS because no sane CiC would intentionally sacrifice top of the line battle ships.

It's BS because no sane CiC would intentionally sacrifice top of the line battle ships.

Translation: It's BS because I can't refute the evidence, but I don't think it could happen.

MUBARAK SUPPORTERS that have been attacking US nationals/journalists

The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.

The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.

This remark shows your stance against democracy.

The US is throwing Mubarak under the bus just as Carter did with the Shah.

This remark shows your stance against democracy.

Where is the democracy in Iran?

Democracies want to fight each other?

No, there is no evidence. Only speculation.

For the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you didn't show any signs of sympathy.

You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.

How did anyone know where the fleet was?

You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.

authe Japanese task force never broke radio silence until the strike was in the air, and that neither Churchill nor Roosevelt could have known of the attack plan.

Except for the well-guarded secret communications sent periodically to let the west know exactly where they were, which only a very few were ever privy to.

Regarding "conspiracy," the key word in the definition is "criminal" but I am sure you know that. We aren't talking about legal operations by the government, but illegal ones.

Unfortunately, the distinction is entirely moot, if the conspiracy goes undetected. In purely operational terms, there is no difference.

But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.

For the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you didn't show any signs of sympathy.

How much sympathy was shown to the people of Nanking or the thousands enslaved by the Japanese during the war?

You were talking about shah Reza Pahlevi and about Mubarak. You showed signs of sympathy for these dictators.

Who was worse for the Iranian people, the Shah or the Ayatollah?

But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.

But you have faith they have the intelligence and discipline to engineer massive conspiracies?

Obviously you don't see the implications of your ethics for your innocent compatriots on this globe.

The Japanese military committed more war crimes than the Germans. Why were there not war crime trials of Japanese like the Nuremberg trials?

But government is full of stinkers, and I for one no longer have faith in any of them.

I guess it is my job to play Devil's advocate and ask where that information came from, if for no other reason than to be able to reference it in the future.

So ... Lusitania, Maine, Titanic. I thought you hated conspiracy "theorists."

Otto sometimes is sarcastic for people familiar with his Theories.

Regarding "conspiracy," the key word in the definition is "criminal" but I am sure you know that. We aren't talking about legal operations by the government, but illegal ones.

Otto sometimes is sarcastic for people familiar with his Theories.

A Tribe of Leaders emerged, pledged to defend its store of Knowledge from the species that had flooded the world.

So we now live in a country in which “citizens” have very little voice in the running of the government.

In 2012, the voice of the people will be heard again

These immigrants established a secret elite society whose purpose was to infiltrate the various power centers of our country, economic and political.

Deduction. Its not the kind of thing you would ever have direct evidence for...

In 2012, the voice of the people will be heard again

Well, let's assume Operation Mockingbird is still operational, and we have what the Rand Corp. referred to in the 1960s as "effective opinion control." Who is in control of public opinion? If public opinion is being effectively controlled, in what way are the people really being heard?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

Even if it did, in a very real way, we are all immigrants

Right now the public is in control of its opinion. ABCCBSNBCPBS have lost control.

Look how fast the AGWites have lost control.

A Tribe of Leaders emerged, pledged to defend its store of Knowledge from the species that had flooded the world.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

I am thinking about Skull & Bones here.

Look how fast the AGWites have lost control.

Have they? They may be discredited but that hasn't stopped the political agenda. Look at the problems Texas is having now with power because Obama has pledged to "bankrupt" any new coal power plants.

Well, SOME of the public is awake. The other 90% are still watching football, eating popcorn, and drinking beer. Probably a lot happier not knowing what is going on in the world, too. And they are going to vote in 2012.

The dream of individual, inalienable liberty was a false one, and we must accept some form of tyranny since anything else is doomed to failure.

Cool story, bro. Plausible, but I don't see how it's any more likely than the popular theory of history.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just require some evidence. If it's just a hypothesis, then everything from there breaks down.

The obvious answer would be a world government,

staffed and operated by those of a diligent nature simultaneously least inclined and most competent.

Freedom to do what exactly?

The obvious answer would be a world government, staffed and operated by those of a diligent nature simultaneously least inclined and most competent.

The question, 'Do you think the future will be secure for your children?' -is the one which causes us the most anxiety.

If it was only about freedom to stay warm and eat enough to survive; slaves have that freedom.

History has shown that putting security at the top of your priority list always leads to despotism. Do you really want another Tiberius or Caligula to run things for you?

If it was only about freedom to stay warm and eat enough to survive; slaves have that freedom.

Viktor Frankl believed liberty requires responsibility and promoted a Statue of Responsibility in San Francisco.

Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

-And where would franklins essential liberty be if the govt which guaranteed it collapsed? Where would his fortune be if the authority which gave it value, collapsed?

'Liberty' for you might mean the ability to go somewhere or say something I suppose, but for most it means the ability to stay at home and make babies.

Liberties WILL be restricted as a result, in order to prevent collapse.

Viktor Frankl believed liberty requires responsibility and promoted a Statue of Responsibility in San Francisco.

I read his book "Man's Search for Meaning" quite a few years ago. Very good account of how he survived by finding a personal meaning of life. Not very helpful for an existential nihilist, though.

Liberty does not require personal responsibility, I would argue. It is Citizenship that requires that. Liberty, liberation from oppressive government, should never be conditional.

This 'liberty' will inevitably give way to a shortage of resources, rising unemployment and hunger, and increasing unrest.

Look at the throngs in Cairo. This is what a FLOOD of unemployed, hungry, homeless young men looks like

-And would Frankl be musing about 'freedom' if he was occupied in fleeing an invading arm

Liberty has nothing to do with your ability to go places or eat.

It has to do with protection from tyrannical practices by the government.

Read my previous post on this.

You have yet to understand just how FRAGILE and tenuous your way of life is. Consider living in the midst of drug gangs in northern mexico, or in Sri Lanka.

Look at the throngs in Cairo. This is what a FLOOD of unemployed, hungry, homeless young men looks like

This is what a flood of unemployed, hungry, homeless men look like after living under a tyranny for decades. And we are getting ready to install another tyrant for them to enjoy.

Why is the U.S. so in love with tyrants? We are constantly propping them up.

You dont understand. Youre totally ignoring the enormous impact of population growth. Europe went from relative peace and security to total war within a generation.

Liberation from unwarranted searches, unjustified detention, cruel and unusual punishment, suppression of political speech, etc, etc.

He was a good leader who despite this found it necessary to begin restricting freedom AS the population grew and exceeded the threshold of instability. As any ruler would.

This 'liberty' will inevitably give way to a shortage of resources, rising unemployment and hunger, and increasing unrest.

Europe went from relative peace and security to total war within a generation.

A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies,

A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies, and have the wherewithal to detect and prosecute them when they infringe upon the liberty of others for their own profit.

Liberty, despite its fragility, is worth preserving. If it is done right, it will "...insure domestic Tranquility ...

Of course it is. Consider also whether life in Mexico is the result of a government that protects the liberty of its citizens.

Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

A government that protects liberty must be able to resist these powerful private agencies, and have the wherewithal to detect and prosecute them when they infringe upon the liberty of others for their own profit.

And if, instead, the government is ruled by lobbyists from big international corporations, what then?

He was a good leader who despite this found it necessary to begin restricting freedom AS the population grew and exceeded the threshold of instability. As any ruler would.

As any "ruler" would. An elected representative wouldn't.

Liberty requires citizens to be responsible.
The authors of the US Constitution declared this as an axiom.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams.

You wanted to say - in an obscure manner - that the US Constitution is wholly inadequate for the current US population as they are not "moral and religious"?
And you would like to conclude that the powers you would like to rule the US therefore need not heed the US Constitution?

Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations.

Nature restricts populations through competition, deprivation, and hardship. People who wish to assume the Role of nature must also do this.

Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations.

No, it is the other way around. It was a mistake to define a corporation as a "person." Corporations, especially international ones, are not Citizens, and should not have the right to lobby. This step would probably be enough to put the U.S. back on the right track.

Why does this occur now? Because the govt is taking power it should not have to control these corporations.

No, it is the other way around. It was a mistake to define a corporation as a "person." Corporations, especially international ones, are not Citizens, and should not have the right to lobby. This step would probably be enough to put the U.S. back on the right track.

Consumers are more efficient and ruthless than any govt at controlling corporations.

SC Johnson is a private corporation and could be owned by one person. You would ban him from trying to keep the govt from controlling his business that employs thousands of people

corporations are fundamentally un-democratic in nature,

Should we become brutal savages in order to solve our problems? Aren't we better than that?

But as it is possible to Engineer them, their course and extent can be Controlled so that civilization will survive.

Civilization is a curse. The whole problem has always been to find a way to keep some kind of civilization but at the same time to get rid of despots and tyrants and have some kind of self-rule.

They have a board of directors and millions of shareholders that can vote AND customers that VOTE with their money every day. Very democratic.

These things are Inevitable. Despots are often needed to ensure that these things occur at the proper Time. Sad but true. As you say, civilization is a curse.

Will we see some kind of utopia come about?

Will these people, who in one way or another have murdered 93% of the human race suddenly become humane?

Will we see some kind of utopia come about?

Yes. Technology is giving us the means to moderate pop growth and keep it below the threshold of instability. This could not have developed or have a hope of being implemented without the world having been Managed to allow for it.

Even if that sacrifice could save a civilization?

Say youre a commander who needs to take a hill occupied by the enemy. He knows the only way to do this is to sacrifice a squad in a frontal assault so another can attack the flank unobserved. He asks for volunteers who also understand that their chances in the assault are slim.

Submit to a dictator and hope for the best? Or apply our minds to the problem and try to find a better answer?

Americans have no concept of these symptoms. We have never lived with collapse, total war, widespread starvation. We can afford to muse.

So the definition of utopia is world with a controlled population? Can a race of mass murderers ever be the seeds for a utopia, with or without technology? I don't think the inheritors of such a thing could live with themselves.
There were too many natives in the Americas to suit the European "settlers" and look what happened.

The Decisions were made millenia ago. The Solution is in place and its Function is optimal. 'We' have absolutely no choice in the matter. We can choose to conform or not; either way empire benefits, for it gives us the only alternatives we can choose.

Fahne hoch!

Wars over. We won.

Wars over. We won.

That's what I heard. So the ratlines worked. Most people still think the U.S. won WWII. Little do they know.

Otto sometimes is sarcastic for people familiar with his Theories.

What? Germans saved fully half their country from soviet communism, which was their stated goal.

Not the only goal. Wasn't world conquest up there too? Depopulating the world of

Ironically, Hitler's rise to power was financed to a great extent by Wall Street.

So was Soviet communism. So who's saving who from what?

Tell that to the workers. Do they have a vote?

When did hitler say he wanted to conquer the world?

And you still have trouble accepting that the Rulers of these states could all be on the same side?

Everybody shared everything. The best way to swap info and keep all sides apprised of things is through intelligence networks. That's their job. The heads of abwehr, mi5, OSS and others actually sat down to discuss the course of the war in 1943, Corsica I think it was.

Every spy that was landed on Brit soil was captured and either turned or killed. Brits were supplying Germans with materiel through a compromised Nazi network in Norway. All in all a very well-coordinated affair.

THIS is the hand of Empire. ONE BILLION abortions

BTW, since you are claiming to be one of "them," did Hitler escape to Spain

BTW, since you are claiming to be one of "them," did Hitler escape to Spain and end his days there as some evidence suggests? Does he have descendants?

Imagine saving Western Civilization by killing billions of unborn and born people. Something to be proud of?

definitely not "one of them" as his German is error-ridden

Tell that to the workers. Do they have a vote?

They have many opportunities to 'vote'. They can quit. Many companies use shares to fund 401k plans. Employees can under perform or sabotage the company or work really hard to make the company successful.

Either way, corporations are psychopathic dictatorships and shouldn't be allowed to participate in government.

Either way, corporations are psychopathic dictatorships..

That's your opinion not supported by data.
Like other statists here you revert to 'there ought to be a law'...

That's your opinion not supported by data.

Are you looking for a scientific study on whether corporations are people or not?

Are you looking for a scientific study on whether corporations are people or not?

No. You opinion corporation are dictatorships.

Who was worse for the Iranian people, the Shah or the Ayatollah?

What's so bad about it? You are sympathizing with dictators like Mubarak or shah Reza Pahlevi:

No. You opinion corporation are dictatorships.

Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?

You are sympathizing with dictators like Mubarak or shah Reza Pahlevi

Will Egypt swap one dictator for another? The Iranians did. Are they better for it?

Just tell us whether a dictator would be better for your country.

Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?

Yes, yes, yes.

Can the workers vote? Do the workers have any rights? Do they have any say as to the conditions of the workplace?

Yes, yes, yes.

Well, from my personal experience with multiple corporations, the answer has always been: no, no, no.

You don't have to decide on that.

As the result affects the security of the USA, Europe and the ME, people should be concerned about the outcome.

You don't have to decide what's better for another country.

"why should a large group of demonstrators be able to control the electoral process when they are a tiny fraction of the population?"
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."

"why should a large group of demonstrators be able to control the electoral process when they are a tiny fraction of the population?"
"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population. The results were catastrophic."

Only 3% of the US revolted against the UK.

Perhaps you should either take a hard stance or stfu when it comes to politics. Maybe then you wouldn't look like such a jerkoff.

What we can conclude is that the American Revolution was a great republican inspired people's war for Independence

but that the revolutionary coalition was divided across a spectrum from those pressing a rising mercantile empire on the one hand

You don't have to decide what's better for another country.

It does if if affects my country.

"The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 with a tiny sliver of the urban population.

The results were catastrophic."

"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.

This is a bit more than 3%.

Unlike the Egyptian mob

"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.

...

This is a bit more than 3%.

Adult white males only? Marjon seems to promote sexism, racism, and slavery.

"Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.

...

This is a bit more than 3%.

Adult white males only? Marjon seems to promote sexism, racism, and slavery.

I think the best piece there is the lack of source, and the fact he confuses loyalist (as in loyal to the crown) with revolutionary.

Compared to the suffering of the Russian population under the ruling aristocratic class any catastrophe was an improvement for the population.

A well deserved one for dissocial (cruel, merciless, unjust, greedy, robbing, killing, torturing, enslaving, disparaging, uneducated, and stupid) people like them.
They got what they sowed.

What is the source of 3%? Sources I have seen suggest anywhere from 20-40% supported independence.

What is the source of 3%? Sources I have seen suggest anywhere from 20-40% supported independence.

Go ahead and give us one.

The US Revolution has no hard statistics on the matter, the Neutralists were the largest estimated percentage, and the average of that figure from multiple contemporary sources, including Paine and Adams, (thought you read the founding fathers), was 50% of free men. Half the country didn't care if the Torries or Whigs ruled the roost, they just wanted to be left alone. Most estimates put the Loyalists at approx 40%, Adams is one of the lower estimates at one third. The Continental militia never fielded more than 20,000 men and if you really want to get technical, we'll double that and assume they were all married (which there weren't) resulting in a total of 40k out of 2 million people (estimated).

40,000/2,000,000= 0.02, or 2%. My bad, off by one. better than confusing Torrie for Patriot by far.