OT: Democide and the 2nd Amendment

Submitted by zk on January 4, 2013 - 2:40pm.

A video that would only appeal to the angriest, most paranoid among us. Ridiculously biased (Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren't complaining when Bush was killing innocent people). Appealing to emotion. Paranoid (they think 9/11 was democide). Etcetera. Lame.

Really, anyone that thinks our government was involved in 9/11 just cannot be taken seriously.

Submitted by enron_by_the_sea on January 4, 2013 - 3:28pm.

zk wrote:
A video that would only appeal to the angriest, most paranoid among us. Ridiculously biased (Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren't complaining when Bush was killing innocent people). Appealing to emotion. Paranoid (they think 9/11 was democide). Etcetera. Lame.

Really, anyone that thinks our government was involved in 9/11 just cannot be taken seriously.

Please don't discourage. Sometimes it is helpful to know which side is full of lunatics.

Submitted by paramount on January 4, 2013 - 8:19pm.

zk wrote:
(Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren't complaining when Bush was killing innocent people).

"Compare Mr. Obama's use of drone strikes with that of his predecessor. During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike there every four days.[46]"

—Peter Bergen, April 2012, CNN National Security Analyst

Submitted by zk on January 4, 2013 - 10:00pm.

paramount wrote:
zk wrote:
(Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren't complaining when Bush was killing innocent people).

"Compare Mr. Obama's use of drone strikes with that of his predecessor. During the Bush administration, there was an American drone attack in Pakistan every 43 days; during the first two years of the Obama administration, there was a drone strike there every four days.[46]"

—Peter Bergen, April 2012, CNN National Security Analyst

It's not the method that counts. To conclude from the fact that Obama used drones more often than Bush that Obama was engaging in Democide more than Bush was is ludicrous.

Submitted by paramount on January 5, 2013 - 12:34am.

zk wrote:

It's not the method that counts. To conclude from the fact that Obama used drones more often than Bush that Obama was engaging in Democide more than Bush was is ludicrous.

I don't think it would be ludicrous, but the video doesn't attempt to make that comparison nor do I.

The main point of the video is IMO: Gov't's have killed over 290 million (excluding war) in roughly the last 100 years.

Submitted by CA renter on January 5, 2013 - 3:10am.

zk wrote:
A video that would only appeal to the angriest, most paranoid among us. Ridiculously biased (Obama and drone attacks? Please. They weren't complaining when Bush was killing innocent people). Appealing to emotion. Paranoid (they think 9/11 was democide). Etcetera. Lame.

Really, anyone that thinks our government was involved in 9/11 just cannot be taken seriously.

Playing devil's advocate here...what proof do you have that the govt wasn't involved in 9/11? Do you believe that the U.S. government is altruistic, and that they are "defending liberty and freedom" when declaring wars on other people or when they claim the right to spy on U.S. citizens and/or detain them indefinitely (here or overseas) without a trial? Do you think the U.S. government has never killed American citizens who might have posed a threat to certain powerful people (both within and outside of the govt)?

Do you really think that all of the people who believe there was something strange about that whole incident are crazy "conspiracy theorists"?

How about these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_...

Do you believe that the 30,000 drones scheduled to fly over U.S. airspace within the next decade are there "for our own good"?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-09...

Do you believe that this data center -- capable of storing every bit of multiple years' worth of electronic communications -- is being built "for our own good"?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03...

Do you think the TSA's screening of all manner of Americans -- elderly women and children, included -- is being done "for out own good," or might they be getting us accustomed to being regularly physically violated and "screened" by government officials?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tsa-3...

Anyone who thinks that our government isn't willing or capable of violating our rights or doing any harm to us is frighteningly naive.

And while it's difficult to fight a well-armed force with hand weapons, it's not impossible. Look to Iraq or Afghanistan to see how much trouble a poorly-armed, but fairly large, population is able to cause a major fighting force when they feel they are fighting for a just cause.

Submitted by zk on January 5, 2013 - 8:37am.

paramount wrote:
zk wrote:

It's not the method that counts. To conclude from the fact that Obama used drones more often than Bush that Obama was engaging in Democide more than Bush was is ludicrous.

I don't think it would be ludicrous, but the video doesn't attempt to make that comparison nor do I.

The main point of the video is IMO: Gov't's have killed over 290 million (excluding war) in roughly the last 100 years.

The video doesn't directly make that point, you're correct. My point was the video is biased, partly based on its complaining about Obama while not about Bush. Although, really, that it's biased isn't important. I think the complaining about Obama and not Bush is just a sales tactic. Right wingers have been brainwashed into hating Obama since before he took office. Throw a jab at him in your video, and they're more likely to pump their fists, drink the koolaid, and sing along.

So governments have killed a lot of people. And you extend that to mean that you can never trust any government? People have killed a lot of people. Do you do the same with people? Do you not trust any people?

Submitted by blahblahblah on January 5, 2013 - 9:11am.

zk wrote:

The video doesn't directly make that point, you're correct. My point was the video is biased, partly based on its complaining about Obama while not about Bush. Although, really, that it's biased isn't important. I think the complaining about Obama and not Bush is just a sales tactic. Right wingers have been brainwashed into hating Obama since before he took office. Throw a jab at him in your video, and they're more likely to pump their fists, drink the koolaid, and sing along.

You have no idea who produced this video, do you? During the last administration they were called "left-wing loonies" as they were 100% against all of the Bush wars. And before that they were "right wing crazies" again because they were against Clinton's air wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Disagree with them all you want, call 'em crazy or label them tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists or fearmongers, but to call them "right-wing" is simply wrong.

Rolling Stone did a piece on these guys in 2011, it's a pretty good read.

Submitted by zk on January 5, 2013 - 9:33am.

CONCHO wrote:

You have no idea who produced this video, do you? During the last administration they were called "left-wing loonies" as they were 100% against all of the Bush wars. And before that they were "right wing crazies" again because they were against Clinton's air wars in Iraq and Yugoslavia. Disagree with them all you want, call 'em crazy or label them tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists or fearmongers, but to call them "right-wing" is simply wrong.

Rolling Stone did a piece on these guys in 2011, it's a pretty good read.

You're correct, I don't know who produced this video. I'll take your word for it. In any case, my point, as I said, wasn't that its bias was important, but that the "Obama kills innocent people with drones" part of the video was meant to sell it to right wingers. Regardless of who produced it.

Submitted by zk on January 5, 2013 - 9:43am.

CA renter wrote:

Playing devil's advocate here...what proof do you have that the govt wasn't involved in 9/11? Do you believe that the U.S. government is altruistic, and that they are "defending liberty and freedom" when declaring wars on other people or when they claim the right to spy on U.S. citizens and/or detain them indefinitely (here or overseas) without a trial? Do you think the U.S. government has never killed American citizens who might have posed a threat to certain powerful people (both within and outside of the govt)?

Proof that they weren’t involved? The same proof that there are no aliens controlling your mind. Are there aliens controlling your mind? No? What proof do you have?
CA renter wrote:

Do you really think that all of the people who believe there was something strange about that whole incident are crazy "conspiracy theorists"?

How about these people?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth


Yes, I believe they’re conspiracy theorists and can’t be taken seriously. Just because you’re an engineer or an architect doesn’t mean you’re not susceptible to paranoia.
CA renter wrote:

Do you believe that the 30,000 drones scheduled to fly over U.S. airspace within the next decade are there "for our own good"?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-09/uncle-sam-prepares-unleash-30000-drones-over-america-public-safety


I think that they’re intended to be used for homeland security. Do you think the original intent is homeland security and you’re afraid they’ll eventually be used for something else? Or do you think that, right now, the intent is to somehow take away your liberty? These are not rhetorical questions; I think your answers are important to this discussion.

CA renter wrote:

Do you believe that this data center -- capable of storing every bit of multiple years' worth of electronic communications -- is being built "for our own good"?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/


Same answer (and questions) as with the drones.
CA renter wrote:

Do you think the TSA's screening of all manner of Americans -- elderly women and children, included -- is being done "for out own good," or might they be getting us accustomed to being regularly physically violated and "screened" by government officials?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tsa-335352-agent-rights.html


Getting us “used to being …violated and screened?” I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone in that field is thinking that far ahead. And I think it’s paranoid to see the TSA screen people in a way that you don’t like and think that they’re “preparing” us for worse.
CA renter wrote:

Anyone who thinks that our government isn't willing or capable of violating our rights or doing any harm to us is frighteningly naive.

Sure, a person thinks our government isn’t willing or capable of violating our rights at all or doing any harm is naïve. Sure, the government is capable of violating our rights and doing harm. But I’d say it’s usually in small and isolated cases. I think anyone who thinks that there are vast conspiracies perpetrated by the U.S. government against the U.S. people is paranoid.
CA renter wrote:

And while it's difficult to fight a well-armed force with hand weapons, it's not impossible. Look to Iraq or Afghanistan to see how much trouble a poorly-armed, but fairly large, population is able to cause a major fighting force when they feel they are fighting for a just cause.

If fighting against government tyranny is really why we’re allowing people to have guns, the whole debate changes. It’s a completely different thing from “we should be allowed to have guns so we can hunt and shoot target practice and defend our homes against intruders.” Gun advocates use a scattershot method and attack on all fronts. But, really, defending against government tyranny and those other uses are completely different subjects. If we’re defending against government tyranny, do we need a .38 under our pillow? No. We need organized, secure, large collections of automatic weapons and assault rifles. If you think that sort of thing would work. Which I don’t, but which is at least debatable. Key word there is secure.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 5, 2013 - 9:49am.

It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn't that in the curriculum?

Submitted by zk on January 5, 2013 - 10:36am.

squat300 wrote:
It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn't that in the curriculum?

You snark. But I wouldn't doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.

Submitted by paramount on January 5, 2013 - 3:03pm.

zk wrote:

Just because you’re an engineer or an architect doesn’t mean you’re not susceptible to paranoia.

Or even president...

Submitted by paramount on January 5, 2013 - 5:15pm.

zk wrote:

I think that they’re intended to be used for homeland security. Do you think the original intent is homeland security and you’re afraid they’ll eventually be used for something else? Or do you think that, right now, the intent is to somehow take away your liberty? These are not rhetorical questions; I think your answers are important to this discussion.

Considering the current eroded state of our "rights", using drones under the broad terms/guise of "homeland/national security" would/could certainly go a long way in further eroding whatever rights we do have left.

Submitted by CA renter on January 5, 2013 - 6:20pm.

zk wrote:
squat300 wrote:
It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn't that in the curriculum?

You snark. But I wouldn't doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.

The vast, vast, vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled. The fact that somebody doesn't follow fads or do everything that they're told without question doesn't make them criminals. You do know that, right?

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 5, 2013 - 7:03pm.

We homeschooled but didn't cover practical insurrection..

Still the point remains. If we actually believe that the People should be prepared to overthrow the government, we should be preparing for battle at the boy scouts , at churches, everywhere good moral people privately gather. Just owning a gun isn't enough for a well regulated militia. There is battle training involved.

Submitted by CA renter on January 5, 2013 - 7:35pm.

squat300 wrote:
We homeschooled but didn't cover practical insurrection..

Still the point remains. If we actually believe that the People should be prepared to overthrow the government, we should be preparing for battle at the boy scouts , at churches, everywhere good moral people privately gather. Just owning a gun isn't enough for a well regulated militia. There is battle training involved.

What makes you think people aren't training for battle? Of course, you and I both know it has nothing to do with homeschooling.

Submitted by ucodegen on January 5, 2013 - 8:52pm.

paramount wrote:
Considering the current eroded state of our "rights", using drones under the broad terms/guise of "homeland/national security" would/could certainly go a long way in further eroding whatever rights we do have left.
Speaking hypothetically(can't say more).. this may already be in the works. It becomes a question of 4th amendment incursion.. what if these same drones have the ability to fire weapons?

Submitted by ucodegen on January 5, 2013 - 9:49pm.

zk wrote:
Getting us “used to being …violated and screened?” I think it’s highly unlikely that anyone in that field is thinking that far ahead. And I think it’s paranoid to see the TSA screen people in a way that you don’t like and think that they’re “preparing” us for worse.
Actually they do think that far ahead. The real question is whether this is the real intent. Consider that it really doesn't make us all that safer.. particularly in light of the Shoe Bomber, laser printer cartridge issue and others. Everything ignores the fact that the one Aircraft that did not make it to the target on 9/11, was because its passengers decided to be something other than sheep. Unfortunately most schooling seems to enforce the do-not-question, follow-like-sheep mentality.

Considering that the CIA/FBI had reports from agents in the field, of Arabs taking flying lessons in the United States and that these individuals didn't seem to be that interested in 'landing'; it brings up a question of a potential variant to a 'False Flag'. True "False Flags" involve our own forces attacking the public. The variant would be allowing a preventable occurrence to occur, with the intent of using it to justifying further incursions to civil rights or other actions as you would with a true "False Flag". True "False Flags" are quite damaging when they blow up in your face or get discovered. The variant isn't, and could even be 'spun' as an 'oops' or 'mea culpa'. Intent could be hard to prove on discovery.

NOTE: It is very easy to transport a Sidewinder or its equivalent. Range is about 3 miles... cost is only #38k. It works as a fire-forget. TSA is unable to do anything about these.

Submitted by CA renter on January 5, 2013 - 10:21pm.

Not to mention the fact that passengers on private planes (most often the "elite") are not subjected to TSA inspections. The one time (at least that I'm aware of) when a U.S. citizen flew a plane into a building, it was a private plane.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/19c...

And I've never heard of a white U.S. citizen taking over a commercial airliner in order to commit a terrorist act, yet they are the majority of people who are subjected to TSA screenings.

But, hey, it's "for our own good," right? Don't question authority!

Submitted by CA renter on January 5, 2013 - 10:25pm.

And, no doubt, this is "for our own good," too.

"The rules now allow the little-known National Counterterrorism Center to examine the government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. That is a departure from past practice, which barred the agency from storing information about ordinary Americans unless a person was a terror suspect or related to an investigation.

Now, NCTC can copy entire government databases—flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and many others. The agency has new authority to keep data about innocent U.S. citizens for up to five years, and to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior. Previously, both were prohibited. Data about Americans "reasonably believed to constitute terrorism information" may be permanently retained."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Submitted by CA renter on January 5, 2013 - 10:49pm.

Be sure not to do anything that might label you as a "domestic terrorist."

"If Obama does one thing for the remainder of his presidency let it be a veto of the National Defense Authorization Act – a law recently passed by the Senate which would place domestic terror investigations and interrogations into the hands of the military and which would open the door for trial-free, indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, so long as the government calls them terrorists.

So much for innocent until proven guilty. So much for limited government. What Americans are now facing is quite literally the end of the line. We will either uphold the freedoms baked into our Constitutional Republic, or we will scrap the entire project in the name of security as we wage, endlessly, this futile, costly, and ultimately self-defeating War on Terror."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/201...

zk,

If you don't see all of this (including the calls for gun control) as a frightening confluence of events and activities on the part of our government, I just don't know what else to tell you. This isn't about "conspiracy nut jobs." This is real.

Submitted by paramount on January 6, 2013 - 12:54am.

"Government has moved from friendly personal service to disrespect, to collection oriented thuggery, to corruption, to outright criminal conspiracy. We even see logical discourse being persecuted. The law is now whatever a cop says at any moment. Yesterday’s school play-ground bully now wears a black uniform, shaves his head, has a badge, a tazer and a gun.




Nothing kills liberty quicker then a brutal all-powerful, militarize­d police force."


Submitted by CA renter on January 6, 2013 - 4:26am.

zk wrote:

So governments have killed a lot of people. And you extend that to mean that you can never trust any government? People have killed a lot of people. Do you do the same with people? Do you not trust any people?

You should never trust any government or entity that wants to disarm and weaken the populace to such an extent that its power can never be challenged.

Submitted by zk on January 6, 2013 - 11:59am.

CA renter wrote:
zk wrote:
squat300 wrote:
It might be best to start teaching schoolkids now how to create IEDs to disable govt vehicles approaching their homes per the 2nd amendment. why isn't that in the curriculum?

You snark. But I wouldn't doubt that it is in some home-school curricula.

The vast, vast, vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled. The fact that somebody doesn't follow fads or do everything that they're told without question doesn't make them criminals. You do know that, right?

Wow. Have you ever got that all wrong.

First of all, I was not disparaging all home schoolers. There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn't be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children. Squat said, snarkily and rhetorically, that it should be in the curriculum. I pointed out that, while it obviously won’t be in a traditional-school curriculum, there is a possibility that it could be in some home-school curricula.

You show a glaring weakness in your logic skills, yet again, with your “vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled” comment. If 98% of people are traditionally schooled, then the vast majority of criminals will almost certainly be traditionally schooled, whether home schooling produces criminals or not (which I have no reason to believe it does).

Finally, to imply that I think that ”somebody [who] doesn't follow fads or do everything that they're told without question” is a criminal is completely ridiculous and has no basis whatsoever. You’ve twisted the fact that I don’t share your paranoia about our government into something completely unrelated.

CA renter wrote:

But, hey, it's "for our own good," right? Don't question authority!

My philosophy, which I believe has been manifest in all my posts, has been “be realistic, don’t be paranoid.” You've twisted this into “don’t question authority.” Two completely different things.

Some people are born to question authority. And everybody who’s known me for very long knows that I’m one of them. Although it might be less obvious now, and I certainly get into trouble because of it a lot less than I did before I learned to question authority without pissing people off. I learned to do that because I realized that you have a better chance of truly challenging authority and changing the status quo (if necessary and desired) if you don’t come off as angry and condescending. I believe that coming off as paranoid, unrealistic, and weak in logic also decrease your chances of effectively challenging authority.

Submitted by paramount on January 6, 2013 - 2:57pm.

zk wrote:
There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn't be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children.

Wow. You really are a conspiracy theorist.

Submitted by zk on January 6, 2013 - 4:31pm.

paramount wrote:
zk wrote:
There is a subset of home schoolers who home school because they believe the government is trying to brainwash us and oppress us and is working toward becoming a tyranny. And it wouldn't be surprising if a few in that subset of home schoolers teach insurrection techniques, including ied production, to their children.

Wow. You really are a conspiracy theorist.

If you think a few wackos teaching their kids wacko things is a conspiracy, then you don't know what a conspiracy is. At least not in the context we're talking about them in.

Submitted by ucodegen on January 6, 2013 - 4:52pm.

zk wrote:
You show a glaring weakness in your logic skills, yet again, with your “vast majority of criminals were traditionally schooled” comment. If 98% of people are traditionally schooled, then the vast majority of criminals will almost certainly be traditionally schooled, whether home schooling produces criminals or not (which I have no reason to believe it does).
Actually your logic skills seem broken. It is proven that home schoolers on average score 37 percentile points higher than those that went to public schools. They also have a better success rate after high school. -- just one of many links I can put up..

http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/20...
http://www.home-school.com/news/homescho...

Are you saying that as a percentage, those that have a better future are more likely to resort to crime?.. Most criminals are those that don't have a future or have decided to abandon a future. Many homeschoolers are much more independent than kids that have gone through public schools... which unfortunately enforce multiple forms of conformity

  • Don't disagree with the teacher even when he/she is wrong.
  • Don't argue with the big kid.. if he wants your lunch money, give it to him.
  • Don't report abuse,attack etc by big kids.. otherwise you get labelled as a tattle-tale(almost equiv to saying 'abuse is legal provided you are bigger than the other guy)
  • Don't speak up with new ideas, because they will just make fun of you.
  • Don't dress different, act different than the conformity established by school and/or big kids.. otherwise you will be ostracized, and picked on relentlessly.
  • -Conform, obey, don't think for yourself, just regurgitate..
    These are just a few. I suspect that many of the mass killings by those under about 25 years of age, are caused by kids that have been forced to conformity through the above means.. and have just ended up striking out just to establish themselves as an individual. Unfortunately it is a last gasp method of striking out which is 'terminal' in its own method.

    Submitted by zk on January 6, 2013 - 7:54pm.

    ucodegen wrote:
    Actually your logic skills seem broken. It is proven that home schoolers on average score 37 percentile points higher than those that went to public schools. They also have a better success rate after high school. -- just one of many links I can put up..

    Are you saying that as a percentage, those that have a better future are more likely to resort to crime?.

    You think that my logic skills are broken because you've somehow (probably due to poor logic skills) mistakenly come to the conclusion that I've linked home schooling and crime rates. Read what I wrote again and see if you find anywhere that I've linked the two. I even stated that I don't have any reason to believe that home schooling produces criminals. Not sure how you could miss that. You even quoted it.

    I'm not even against home schooling, which you also seem to imply, again without any basis. Just because I think that some home schoolers might have a wacky curriculum does not mean that I am against home schooling. I might be against that particular wacky curriculum, but I'm not against home schooling. Just like I'm against people who are terrorists but not all people. The logic is pretty simple. Not sure how you're missing it.

    Submitted by dumbrenter on January 6, 2013 - 7:54pm.

    CA renter wrote:
    And I've never heard of a white U.S. citizen taking over a commercial airliner in order to commit a terrorist act, yet they are the majority of people who are subjected to TSA screenings.

    But, hey, it's "for our own good," right? Don't question authority!

    While I don't really disagree with what you have to say, you might want to get educated a little about "white"ness of the terrorists who belong to the moslem faith (generally considered to be terrorists). There are millions of them who are racially white and have been moslem for generations. Additionally many of those from the Levant will easily pass for white. I wonder how you will be able to screen them out.

    They might even be your neighbors!! I think you should start on a procedure for "white"ness test and you might even save us some taxpayer money.
    That way you can have TSA grope all blacks (or is it still ni*&ers for you?), yellow people, slit eyes and all but leave your "white US citizen" alone.

    You are correct about passengers on private flights not being subject to same level of inspection. You had my sympathy till you came up with this!

    My apologies to other readers for this hijack.

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.