Media Bias To The Extreme-"Dangerous Weapons Loophole"

[timcsaw]

I just had a thought about firearms as a deterrant to a tyrannical government. In theory it makes sense but realistically who out there that owns firearms would be willing to fight against the government?
On a local level I could see civillians taking on a tyrannical police department perhaps but if the US military were to come out and enforce some unconstitutional injustice who would resist with weapons? I think a group of even the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment would not stand a chance against a smaller but much better trained US military.
So is firearm ownership really an effective deterrant? Would you get enough support knowing that it probably would not be a single major loss of rights rather probably a few losses of lesser rights?

Lets say that some law ends up making a certain type of speech, lets say racist words, illegal. A person is convicted of it and an appeal to the SCOTUS says the conviction stands leaving no other legal methods to try and get the government to change their position. Do we then gather a bunch of guys with guns and go to congress, would that ever possibly end well?

"The Government" is made up of "the people"... Some... many? members of the police forces, and the military and "the government" at large would join the rest of the people if the circumstances were right.
ON EDIT: Oops, I see Codger beat me to it!

[lepto]

I didn't vote for him, I'm betting you did. Was it his experience that drew you to him?

He got my vote as soon as I heard he kept a copy of Rules For Radicals as bedside reading. Ooops! Did I say that out loud?

Record federal debt, record number on assistance, high fuel prices, so what does the "man for all seasons" do?
He gets right to the important work.....His NCAA bracket.

Are you referring to the record federal debt handed to him by the prior administration or the aggregate amount of the national debt after he was forced prop up the entire economy in an effort to stave of the next great depression (again, handed to him by the prior administration)? As to high fuel prices should he drill even more than the prior administration, build a second pipeline to Canada just so's they'll have a backup or try something as efficacious as walking around holding hands with the Saudis (like the ever-so-successful prior administration)? Since he's re-made the U.S. a net oil exporter (unlike the prior administration) perhaps if does away with all unions, safety regulations and environmental standards we can export even more oil and that would bring the price of gas down?

I just had a thought about firearms as a deterrant to a tyrannical government. In theory it makes sense but realistically who out there that owns firearms would be willing to fight against the government?
On a local level I could see civillians taking on a tyrannical police department perhaps but if the US military were to come out and enforce some unconstitutional injustice who would resist with weapons? I think a group of even the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment would not stand a chance against a smaller but much better trained US military.
So is firearm ownership really an effective deterrant? Would you get enough support knowing that it probably would not be a single major loss of rights rather probably a few losses of lesser rights?

Lets say that some law ends up making a certain type of speech, lets say racist words, illegal. A person is convicted of it and an appeal to the SCOTUS says the conviction stands leaving no other legal methods to try and get the government to change their position. Do we then gather a bunch of guys with guns and go to congress, would that ever possibly end well?

Better watch out...it's starting to sound like you don't support the 2nd amendment! Seriously, your point is well taken and points out the ridiculous nature of the "firearms as deterrent to tyrannical government" argument. IMO, the inability to see this inconvenient truth is nothing less than an inability to engage in abstract thought. Were things so easily identified as, for instance, the 10 "Orders We Will Not Obey" posted at Oathkeepers.org then firearms might have some real role in keeping us free. That simply is not the case, however. From ever expanding state & local police (used in the broadest sense) powers, i.e., surveillance, search and seizure, curtailments of public protest, dissenting speech and etc. to a national expansion of same we are losing our most precious rights one piece at a time. Why bother with taking away guns when the mindless, bottom-up engineering of tyranny is actually made easier by the proliferation of firearms with the deadly violence such proliferation brings? In the real world firearms may actually be fundamental to the creation of tyranny rather than its deterrent. Again, to see that requires looking beyond the physical. It is far easier to build your argument around, and put your faith in, a hunk of metal one can actually handle than it is to understand the subtleties of the growth of our security state.

Discretion is the better part of valor. That and remember that many of us civilians were also trained by the military. And WE are the National Guard and have keys to the armories just like those Tennessee boys did in 1946. Also, not every member of the active military would be willing to be used as a sword against civilians. Ask Mohmar Quidhaffi's surviving sons how it worked out for them. So it isn't as cut and dried as it appears on the surface.

If the attack on our freedom is direct, unequivocal and in a physical form that all can see I would completely agree. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be so cut and dried. By the time "they" come for our guns, for instance, not that I think "they" ever will, it will, almost certainly, be too late.

[lepto]

I apologize but I missed this response before I made my post a few minutes ago!

So it's your opinion that no one was intimidated in any way by the two armed Black Panthers standing at the door of the polling place and that you approved of them being there?

The investigation of the occurence doesn't indicate any voter intimidation and there was very high voter turnout. I can't rule out intimidation, and I don't support allowing armed citizens, unless it is the police, standing in or around any polling places, but it doesn't appear that was the case in this instance.

No, I was talking about thugs intimidating voters at a poll... you WANT to somehow connect donations to the discussion (and I won't bite the diversionary bait). Let me put some bait to you this way; Do you REALLY believe that voter intimidation (apples) and unlimited donations (oranges) are more damaging to our democratic political process than is the two-party system (walnuts) we have suffered for so long? If so, why? If not, why not. (There. Now we have a nice start on a Waldorf Salad... just add mayo (Congressional Earmarks). Pretty transparent huh?

It's not a diversion; that was my original question. You've drawn some equivalency between the two that I don't believe exists. I think the allowance of massive and unlimited campaign donations is much more corrosive to our democracy than this single instance of purported, but not factually supported, voter intimidation. I think biting this particular "apple" is what will continue our enslavement and keep us, ever, enslaved. I think you secretly agree but it goes too much against the grain to publicly agree with a liberal--and it's not nearly as much fun.

By the way, I have a solution to the "donations problem", but you (and many others) wouldn't like it... but it WOULD work... but that's a separate, unrelated point which has nothing to do with intimidating voters a the poll point I made.

So do I. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

[Codger_64]

...If the attack on our freedom is direct, unequivocal and in a physical form that all can see I would completely agree. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be so cut and dried. By the time "they" come for our guns, for instance, not that I think "they" ever will, it will, almost certainly, be too late.

We do have history as a guide. More than once our government has declared war on our citizens. Once it lasted for four long years before it ended, more from attrition than lack of will on one side or the other. Suppose the world had stood back from Libya as they did during our war of government aggression against it's citizens, would the government of Libya have won? I do note that that government also brought in mercinaries from other countries. They also initially controlled all arsenals and aircraft and heavy artillary and tanks. No, the current situation is not cut and dried. And neither was the situation here in 1858 or in Libya before the war began there.

(Cue Jackson Brown song, "Lives in the balance")

[lepto]

We do have history as a guide. More than once our government has declared war on our citizens. Once it lasted for four long years before it ended, more from attrition than lack of will on one side or the other. Suppose the world had stood back from Libya as they did during our war of government aggression against it's citizens, would the government of Libya have won? I do note that that government also brought in mercinaries from other countries. They also initially controlled all arsenals and aircraft and heavy artillary and tanks. No, the current situation is not cut and dried. And neither was the situation here in 1858 or in Libya before the war began there.

(Cue Jackson Brown song, "Lives in the balance")

I agree. However, this is not 1858 America or Qaddafi's (sp?) Libya. Both, I would argue, were less subtle, physical manifestations of disliked or outright tyrannical government. Even a Libyan goatherd could figure out he had no say in his government. Here, the tyranny is building from the ground up through a confluence of greed, fear, ideology and etc. I view it like water finding it's level around, over and through all objects. There's no one person orchestrating anything just a perfect storm of many different operators all moving towards the common-place goals of power, security and wealth (to name a few). What America is becoming is the reality of an Randian paradise; something I don't think most will find very paradisaical this side of the grave. They will almost certainly, however, have their guns.

[timcsaw]

The investigation of the occurence doesn't indicate any voter intimidation and there was very high voter turnout. I can't rule out intimidation, and I don't support allowing armed citizens, unless it is the police, standing in or around any polling places, but it doesn't appear that was the case in this instance.

Re. my bold, of course you can't rule out intimidation... because it was obviously intimidating. No less so than if it had been armed Skin heads with Swastika's in full SS garb in a Jewish neighborhood or armed KKK members in white sheets standing in the doorway. It's not a stretch to see the intimidation. My point is made. (and bonus points to me for staying in line with the OP
by at least mentioning "armed" individuals.)

It's not a diversion; that was my original question. You've drawn some equivalency between the two that I don't believe exists. I think the allowance of massive and unlimited campaign donations is much more corrosive to our democracy than this single instance of purported, but not factually supported, voter intimidation. I think biting this particular "apple" is what will continue our enslavement and keep us, ever, enslaved. I think you secretly agree but it goes too much against the grain to publicly agree with a liberal--and it's not nearly as much fun.

I tried to create some equivalency? I was talking about armed poll intimidation and you, out of the blue, raised the issue of comparing donations... but I'm trying to create some equivalency?

Do I think "unlimited" donations are a problem? Since they aren't supposed to be legally "unlimited", no. Are our laws sufficient to curtail the abuses of "donations"? Not hardly so THAT is a problem. But I find the donation's problem to be secondary to earmarks and, well... topsoil erosion. (again, one needs to differentiate between "symptoms" of a problem, and the actual problem itself). See? I didn't mind that at all (even liberals with a broken watch get the time right twice a day )

So do I. You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

In short; All campaign funds (private/personal/donations etc.) -- every penny -- goes into a common fund shared equally by all who seek a given political office, which can only be spent for certain uses/activities, and only within 3 to 6 mos. prior to elections.... and incumbent candidates canNOT campaign from their pulpit. Any money left after a candidate drops out of the race (or loses), goes directly to pay down the nations debt (or to me).

[timcsaw]

Record federal debt, record number on assistance, high fuel prices, so what does the "man for all seasons" do?
He gets right to the important work.....His NCAA bracket.

Attachment 267288

These are the ONLY March Madness brackets that Obama should be concerned with...

[quietmike]

Are you referring to the record federal debt handed to him by the prior administration or the aggregate amount of the national debt after he was forced prop up the entire economy in an effort to stave of the next great depression (again, handed to him by the prior administration)?

So, he should take no responsibility, since it's the other guy's fault? Are you on his campaign staff?

As to high fuel prices should he drill even more than the prior administration, build a second pipeline to Canada just so's they'll have a backup or try something as efficacious as walking around holding hands with the Saudis (like the ever-so-successful prior administration)? Since he's re-made the U.S. a net oil exporter (unlike the prior administration) perhaps if does away with all unions, safety regulations and environmental standards we can export even more oil and that would bring the price of gas down?

Nah. Pipe dreams like solar panel subsidies, firebombs disguised as electric cars, and suggestions of putting pond scum in our gas tanks have worked oh so well.

[ttoney83]

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time buying this. The MSM would be only too happy to shout about "irregularities" to the heavens in a Republican primary.

They have, in Main and Iowa, now some irregularities in Missouri. Rachael Maddow and Jon Stewart have mentioned it on several occasions, so some in the MSPM are gloating. At least those on the "Left" in the MSPM. So there you have it, not only the MSPM, but private citizens AT THE EVENTS filming them as they occur. I have more coming, but I'm thinking it will require a separate thread. You're gonna love it. Ron Paul supporters clearly being disenfranchised in favor of an Obamaesque Liberal posing as a Conservative and a potential Theocrat. I'm beginning to get the picture that our election process is more Bannana Republic than the worst of the Bannana Republics.

[ttoney83]

But I thought the The Koch brothers were on the good guys' side!

I consider them Fascists, not even traditional Capitalists. Of course, a true Capitalist, like Rockefeller, believes that competition is a sin.....You know, the more I consider the nature of Capitalists and "Capitalism" the more I consider it more Fascist than anything, especially considering the control Capitalists exercise over our Government and the legislative process.

[ttoney83]

I just had a thought about firearms as a deterrant to a tyrannical government. In theory it makes sense but realistically who out there that owns firearms would be willing to fight against the government?
On a local level I could see civillians taking on a tyrannical police department perhaps but if the US military were to come out and enforce some unconstitutional injustice who would resist with weapons? I think a group of even the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment would not stand a chance against a smaller but much better trained US military.
So is firearm ownership really an effective deterrant? Would you get enough support knowing that it probably would not be a single major loss of rights rather probably a few losses of lesser rights?

Lets say that some law ends up making a certain type of speech, lets say racist words, illegal. A person is convicted of it and an appeal to the SCOTUS says the conviction stands leaving no other legal methods to try and get the government to change their position. Do we then gather a bunch of guys with guns and go to congress, would that ever possibly end well?

I think you would be surprised. But, as the saying goes, if only 1% of the population resisted that would be all it takes. Taking only 1% of 1/4 of the population yeilds 750,000 potential resistance fighters. Ultimately, just like the beginning of the Revolution, the Citizen is a delay and a buffer. As time goes on resistance becomes more organized and more people, including Military and Law Enforcement join in the resistance. An armed Citizenry is an absolute deterrent, hence the reason all would be dictators disarm their Citizens.

Right now the government IS pushing the limits. Free speech is being further restricted, I forget the Bill number recently signed into Law. I don't know what it will take. I sincerely hope it does not go down violently but, as I see it, those that control our government are absolutely pushing to make SURE it gets violent. I wont get into the why, but that is what I see happening..

[ttoney83]

If the attack on our freedom is direct, unequivocal and in a physical form that all can see I would completely agree. Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be so cut and dried. By the time "they" come for our guns, for instance, not that I think "they" ever will, it will, almost certainly, be too late.

I think the "attack" will come by pitting Citizen against Citizen and using that as an excuse to declare Martial Law. There are a number of scenarios I've gone over in my mind and discussed with freinds which could be used as a sort of flanking attack on our liberties to make an indirect, but direct attack on the People, including another "terror attack" to be blamed on some Militia group.

[eyeeatingfish]

I think the "attack" will come by pitting Citizen against Citizen and using that as an excuse to declare Martial Law. There are a number of scenarios I've gone over in my mind and discussed with freinds which could be used as a sort of flanking attack on our liberties to make an indirect, but direct attack on the People, including another "terror attack" to be blamed on some Militia group.

That is an example of the type of thing I was thinking about. A gradual or even a misdirection attempt at taking away some right may happen in such a way that most would not support an armed uprising or protest.
For example lets say you were arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison because you said Obama was an idiot. Obviously a violation of the 1st amendment rights but do you think most gun rights advocates would support armed protest of this assuming all other avenues of appeal and protest did not work?

I don't fully understand how the draft and selective service can be constitutional but I don't think there were any armed protests of it. And in this case i think that the people who would more often be considered conservative were the ones more likely to attack someone for dodging the draft.


OK here is a good question for everyone here,
Would you have supported the decision by civil rights workers to protest government oppression by either threat of force or by actual show of force in terms of bearing weapons? Because it would seem that is exactly the logic behind the argument that firearms serve as a deterrant to an oppresive government. Problem is that in the civil rights scenario I cannot imagine it would have turned out well for MLK Jr. and his followers if they showed up with guns. I cannot imagine it would have turned out well for the students trying to get admitted in Little Rock if their parents came armed.
Afterall the government was being tyrannical in discriminating against people and denying rights, so why not armed protest as hinted at by the 2nd amendment?

[timcsaw]

I think the "attack" will come by pitting Citizen against Citizen and using that as an excuse to declare Martial Law. There are a number of scenarios I've gone over in my mind and discussed with freinds which could be used as a sort of flanking attack on our liberties to make an indirect, but direct attack on the People, including another "terror attack" to be blamed on some Militia group.

And/or... perhaps the government itself will arm drug dealers who kill Americans "just to show us" that we have an "arms" problem in order to gain the support of a large segment of the population... and/or perhaps our President will fuel THAT fire and another media storm where an armed, "white", vigilante shoots a poor "little black kid" without any justification whatsoever to gain the support of the people to outlaw arms in the hands of citizens.

[ttoney83]

Are you referring to the record federal debt handed to him by the prior administration or the aggregate amount of the national debt after he was forced prop up the entire economy in an effort to stave of the next great depression (again, handed to him by the prior administration)? As to high fuel prices should he drill even more than the prior administration, build a second pipeline to Canada just so's they'll have a backup or try something as efficacious as walking around holding hands with the Saudis (like the ever-so-successful prior administration)? Since he's re-made the U.S. a net oil exporter (unlike the prior administration) perhaps if does away with all unions, safety regulations and environmental standards we can export even more oil and that would bring the price of gas down?

By his actions, Obama has proven he is just another tool of the Financiers who control our government. That is why he was appointed to his position by them.

Better watch out...it's starting to sound like you don't support the 2nd amendment! Seriously, your point is well taken and points out the ridiculous nature of the "firearms as deterrent to tyrannical government" argument. IMO, the inability to see this inconvenient truth is nothing less than an inability to engage in abstract thought. Were things so easily identified as, for instance, the 10 "Orders We Will Not Obey" posted at Oathkeepers.org then firearms might have some real role in keeping us free. That simply is not the case, however. From ever expanding state & local police (used in the broadest sense) powers, i.e., surveillance, search and seizure, curtailments of public protest, dissenting speech and etc. to a national expansion of same we are losing our most precious rights one piece at a time. Why bother with taking away guns when the mindless, bottom-up engineering of tyranny is actually made easier by the proliferation of firearms with the deadly violence such proliferation brings? In the real world firearms may actually be fundamental to the creation of tyranny rather than its deterrent. Again, to see that requires looking beyond the physical. It is far easier to build your argument around, and put your faith in, a hunk of metal one can actually handle than it is to understand the subtleties of the growth of our security state.

In my opinion, we are very close to finding out who would resist the government. As I pointed out to eyeeatingfish in a post above, if only 1% of 1/4 of the total population in the U.S. chose to resist, that is potentially 750,000 resistance fighters, in other words, almost 19 TIMES the number of insurgents in Iraq at any given time. That is an impossible number for our Military to deal with in short order, possibly impossible to deal with period.....By the "rules of Counter insurgency", an occupying force generally requires an almost 10:1 superiority in numbers to be effective. Which means the occupying force must deploy 7.5 MILLion troops on the ground, or equivalent. The Globalists know this and that is why firearms are an effective deterrant.

However, you raise a valid point regarding the incremental subversion of the Constitution. If the theory on which I base my opinions is correct, and the more and more I see, the more and more I believe it is correct, the Globalists have observed the effects of their past attempts to "take over" in certain areas and the resistance met in these efforts, as well as their efforts to create their global Fascist Dictatorship. I believe that these observations have led to their concluding that the take down of the United States must be very slow and incremental. I believe that we are witnessing the "End Game" operations now and that installing Obama was critical to the potential success of these final operations. The chaotic conditions of the combined threats of global economic collapse, impending WW III and threatened Martial Law as well as the recent racial tensions introduced with the killing of Trayvon Martin, the population of the United States is likely sufficiently psychologically compromised as to largely accept Martial Law in exchange for a little percieved "security." So yes, I believe that the majority of Americans will go along to get along, just long enough to allow for an almost stealthy, but sudden disarmament of the People. I also believe that this will be carried out by Mercenaries loyal to the Financiers. I believe they learned THAT lesson back in 1934 when they attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead a 500,000 man Army of Vets into D.C. to overthrow FDR!

I believe that the vast majority of Americans exist literally in a sort of brainwashed stupor, having been sedated by the most powerful propaganda machine ever created. The People have become accustomed to recieving their "News" in "sound bytes" and they believe they are informed by these sound bytes and catch phrases. The result of this conditioning is that the majority of Americans can not think critically and instead, mindlessly Parrot what they've heard on their favorite "News" programs, IF they even bother with the "News." That is why I now call what others refer to as the MSM, as the MSPM (Main Stream Propaganda Machine) because that is what it literally is. This propaganda is so effective that victims actually do defend their victimizers as in the case of many of the 99% defending the actions of the Financiers who ran up 700 trillion in gambling losses and then dumped them on us.....

We are cursed....We live in "interesting times."

[lepto]

I tried to create some equivalency? I was talking about armed poll intimidation and you, out of the blue, raised the issue of comparing donations... but I'm trying to create some equivalency?

Sorry!! I went back and reread my posts and you is right! Of course you are wrong about donations being secondary to anything; they are the most immediate challenge to our democracy.

In short; All campaign funds (private/personal/donations etc.) -- every penny -- goes into a common fund shared equally by all who seek a given political office, which can only be spent for certain uses/activities, and only within 3 to 6 mos. prior to elections.... and incumbent candidates canNOT campaign from their pulpit. Any money left after a candidate drops out of the race (or loses), goes directly to pay down the nations debt (or to me).

I don't necessarily disagree with any of your suggestions. I do like Lawrence Lessig's work in this area and, if I can find the article of his I'm thinking about, I will post it.

So, he should take no responsibility, since it's the other guy's fault? Are you on his campaign staff?

Just giving the Devil his due...

Nah. Pipe dreams like solar panel subsidies, firebombs disguised as electric cars, and suggestions of putting pond scum in our gas tanks have worked oh so well.

Let's see. Drill more oil and natural gas while, at the same time, trying all reasonable avenues in an attempt to find something to replace oil and gas. That sounds like a reasonable policy to me. Would you rather he do nothing?

I think the "attack" will come by pitting Citizen against Citizen and using that as an excuse to declare Martial Law. There are a number of scenarios I've gone over in my mind and discussed with freinds which could be used as a sort of flanking attack on our liberties to make an indirect, but direct attack on the People, including another "terror attack" to be blamed on some Militia group.

I think we will be lucky if it is anything so direct and easy to identify.

OK here is a good question for everyone here,
Would you have supported the decision by civil rights workers to protest government oppression by either threat of force or by actual show of force in terms of bearing weapons? Because it would seem that is exactly the logic behind the argument that firearms serve as a deterrant to an oppresive government. Problem is that in the civil rights scenario I cannot imagine it would have turned out well for MLK Jr. and his followers if they showed up with guns. I cannot imagine it would have turned out well for the students trying to get admitted in Little Rock if their parents came armed.
Afterall the government was being tyrannical in discriminating against people and denying rights, so why not armed protest as hinted at by the 2nd amendment?

Excellent question! Of course we all know how the civil rights movement, in all probability, would have gone had MLK succumbed to the easy, non-answer of violence. It is the same for any major uprising now as it was then; violence will only loose the very tyranny it seeks to deny. All the guns in the world won't change this fact which is, of course, why no one seeks to take away guns but many seek to curtail the more fundamental liberties of speech/dissent, free association, the right to be free of illegal search & seizures, the right of habeus corpus and on and on.

And/or... perhaps the government itself will arm drug dealers who kill Americans "just to show us" that we have an "arms" problem in order to gain the support of a large segment of the population... and/or perhaps our President will fuel THAT fire and another media storm where an armed, "white", vigilante shoots a poor "little black kid" without any justification whatsoever to gain the support of the people to outlaw arms in the hands of citizens.

I don't think the government has to do anything to show we have an arms problem. Too many arms in the hands of too many idiots like George Zimmerman on top of a culture steeped in "violence as the answer to all problems" makes that abundantly clear.

By his actions, Obama has proven he is just another tool of the Financiers who control our government. That is why he was appointed to his position by them.

I don't disagree with your characterization.

In my opinion, we are very close to finding out who would resist the government. As I pointed out to eyeeatingfish in a post above, if only 1% of 1/4 of the total population in the U.S. chose to resist, that is potentially 750,000 resistance fighters, in other words, almost 19 TIMES the number of insurgents in Iraq at any given time. That is an impossible number for our Military to deal with in short order, possibly impossible to deal with period.....By the "rules of Counter insurgency", an occupying force generally requires an almost 10:1 superiority in numbers to be effective. Which means the occupying force must deploy 7.5 MILLion troops on the ground, or equivalent. The Globalists know this and that is why firearms are an effective deterrant.

However, you raise a valid point regarding the incremental subversion of the Constitution. If the theory on which I base my opinions is correct, and the more and more I see, the more and more I believe it is correct, the Globalists have observed the effects of their past attempts to "take over" in certain areas and the resistance met in these efforts, as well as their efforts to create their global Fascist Dictatorship. I believe that these observations have led to their concluding that the take down of the United States must be very slow and incremental. I believe that we are witnessing the "End Game" operations now and that installing Obama was critical to the potential success of these final operations. The chaotic conditions of the combined threats of global economic collapse, impending WW III and threatened Martial Law as well as the recent racial tensions introduced with the killing of Trayvon Martin, the population of the United States is likely sufficiently psychologically compromised as to largely accept Martial Law in exchange for a little percieved "security." So yes, I believe that the majority of Americans will go along to get along, just long enough to allow for an almost stealthy, but sudden disarmament of the People. I also believe that this will be carried out by Mercenaries loyal to the Financiers. I believe they learned THAT lesson back in 1934 when they attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead a 500,000 man Army of Vets into D.C. to overthrow FDR!

I believe that the vast majority of Americans exist literally in a sort of brainwashed stupor, having been sedated by the most powerful propaganda machine ever created. The People have become accustomed to recieving their "News" in "sound bytes" and they believe they are informed by these sound bytes and catch phrases. The result of this conditioning is that the majority of Americans can not think critically and instead, mindlessly Parrot what they've heard on their favorite "News" programs, IF they even bother with the "News." That is why I now call what others refer to as the MSM, as the MSPM (Main Stream Propaganda Machine) because that is what it literally is. This propaganda is so effective that victims actually do defend their victimizers as in the case of many of the 99% defending the actions of the Financiers who ran up 700 trillion in gambling losses and then dumped them on us.....

We are cursed....We live in "interesting times."

I disagree as to a coordinated global conspiracy and the importance of arms. I'm in substantial agreement as to our homegrown propaganda machine. One would be hard pressed to argue our general population is, to any significant degree, informed--unless you count entertainment as information. I'm not real conspiracy oriented. It appears to me we have many interests that all share one fundamental interest which is to make money. These interests all drift in the same general direction such that it appears, on the surface, that there is a conspiracy. In fact, it is just the natural evolution of capitalism suffusing our body politic here and throughout the world; if we don't control it, it will control us. As to the 2nd amendment, from my perspective arms are a known, known and of little consequence to the real fight against the money that would bind us with our own ignorance. Ask yourself why anyone, in their right mind, would punch such a hornet's nest as the 2nd amendment when owning a gun doesn't really mean a damned thing? I'll give you all the guns in the world if you allow me to have a large police apparatus, to spy on you, to detain you indefinitely, to execute you without charges or trial if I decide you're an enemy of the state, to decide what you can say and with whom you can associate, to prevent you from forming unions and to dictate where and how you will be employed. I won't even need you to allow me all of that at one time just a little bit at a time over a number of years. You (all of us), on the other hand, can have all the guns in the world right now. I bet those guns won't change a thing if you give me my incremental changes. I'll even double down and bet, at the same time you're armed to the teeth, that I can fool you into thinking you live in the best, most exceptional country in the world even while I'm depriving you of every right and social safeguard your government was formed to provide--and you will lap it up like pot liquor.

Interestingly familiar wouldn't you say?

[quietmike]

Let's see. Drill more oil and natural gas while, at the same time, trying all reasonable avenues in an attempt to find something to replace oil and gas. That sounds like a reasonable policy to me. Would you rather he do nothing?

More revisionist history?


http://bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03...dge-rules.html

As he said to the Russian president, he has an election to worry about now, so his opinion of the day reflects that concern.

[lepto]

More revisionist history?

Nope, just a fact. Sidestep aside, would you rather he do nothing?

http://bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03...dge-rules.html

As he said to the Russian president, he has an election to worry about now, so his opinion of the day reflects that concern.

What do you expect? He is a socialist after all.

[tvranesic]

Nope, just a fact. Sidestep aside, would you rather he do nothing?

I'd much prefer he do nothing and we'd be much better off today had he done so the past couple years.

[quietmike]

Nope, just a fact. Sidestep aside, would you rather he do nothing?

No sidestepping. Just pointing out that he did nothing (beneficial anyway), until it was politically expedient do to so. Even now he hasn't really done anything, he just takes the credit.

What do you expect? He is a socialist after all.

Well, yes, there is that.