Obama

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
1,659
Best answers
0
Sub said:
I appreciate being called an idiot.

The reason I am against gun control is because guns empower the people. I personally don't care whether guns are used to stop crime, they empower people to fight back against a tyrannical government. The entire reason America exists is because people back then had guns and were able to revolt against a system that they viewed as corrupt.
fat lot of good that did during the bush regime...

you want to be able to revolt? fine, but next time, ****ing do it.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
Not that I believe Iran should have them, but I believe they should be responsible for their own choices.
Letting people be responsible for their own choices is ok up to the point where their choices can destroy entire countries. If I was convinced that iran only wanted to build nukes to join the whole 'hey, no more attacking us we can obliterate your freaking country', i'd be ok with that. But if there's any chance they'll actually use them then there's no way we should let them have WMD's.

Jesus said:
fat lot of good that did during the bush regime...

you want to be able to revolt? fine, but next time, ****ing do it.
I don't know a single person who was oppressed or had their life ruined nearly enough to start a civil war were thousand if not millions of their friends and family killed in a battle. And i do know people who are poor, and I do know people who lost friends/family in Iraq. A lot of bad stuff happened during his presidency, but nothing worthy of revolt.
 

guest

G
Guest
Jesus said:
fat lot of good that did during the bush regime...
you want to be able to revolt? fine, but next time, ****ing do it.
Wait, you think the Obama administration will be different? That's gold.

tolore said:
I don't know a single person who was oppressed or had their life ruined nearly enough to start a civil war were thousand if not millions of their friends and family killed in a battle. And i do know people who are poor, and I do know people who lost friends/family in Iraq. A lot of bad stuff happened during his presidency, but nothing worthy of revolt.
That's the problem. You haven't been to Iraq or Vietnam, haven't seen the people struggling to feed their homeless children in Harlem or the Agent Orange sufferers that will be mutated for generations to come. And neither have I. I don't believe revolution will ever happen until the majority of the people are deprived of their basic needs of survival or comfort- food and water.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been a need, though. Plenty of police brutality killings in America the past few years, Athens rioted over less. There should've been riots for the blatant corruption in trying to sell out Obama's seats. Vietnam and the entire Nixon administration was enough for revolution, and came damn close to it, but here we are still. Western people are far too pacified, they don't even realise their own strength, and refuse to even consider such drastic measures.
And heck, I'm sure I don't need to go into the amount of ridiculously stupid things Bush achieved, said or did. The very fact that imbecile had his finger on the button, was reason for revolution. But again, the people are desensetised to violence, view wars as statistics and are force-fed apathy by the general confusion surrounding politics and philosophy. We should be fighting, but we are not Human enough to do so.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
That doesn't mean there hasn't been a need, though. Plenty of police brutality killings in America the past few years, Athens rioted over less.
the only police killings i've heard about recently DID lead to riots, there's been a few. And just because some areas have bad cops(or even just one bad cop that does something stupid) doesn't mean we need to have a civil war.

There should've been riots for the blatant corruption in trying to sell out Obama's seats.
so instead of doing the SANE thing and impeaching him through law, we should go wreck up a bunch of stuff and probably get people killed, over basically nothing. Everything you are talking about are isolated incidents that should be dealt with by the communities involved, and if other people get involved it should be to help them not cause MORE pain.

I seriously hope there are very few people who share your ideals in my country, I don't want a civil war or riot every time someone does something stupid. In fact as someone who DOES support the right to own guns for the reason of overthrowing the government, your ideals terrify me. violence and revolution should be a last resort, planned by people who can handle the aftermath, not a knee jerk reaction.

I don't believe revolution will ever happen until the majority of the people are deprived of their basic needs of survival or comfort- food and water.
That's how it should be, as long as a good number of people are in good standings they can help the less fortunate in other ways. I'm not rich myself, my mom is a single teacher, I've got to take loans out for college just like everyone else.
 

guest

G
Guest
And the current state of things is acceptable then? I believe there should be far more civil unrest because of the America's existence as a plutocracy, because of its imperialistic and brutal nature, and because of it's blatant war crimes. I am only searching for what will be the spark, hence why the items I listed were events rather than problems, effects rather than causes. But because of the pacified nature of the American people, I do not believe this will happen until something that drastically threatens them, rather than any other nations or races.

It's worth drawing a comparison with Guido Fawkes, he revolted against the Catholics because of their treatment of Spain- yes he was a Protestant and wanted Protestant rule, but he only went to such extreme measures to assist the Spanish that the Catholics had abandoned. If he had only cared about the way his own people were treated, well we may never have had Guy Fawkes Night.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Things could be a hell lot worse. I agree to an extent that Americans have become complacent. What do I want to do? Go to college, get better a animation, make a career out of it, make a nice family, and own nice stuff. Of course I could delve deeper so it would not seem so empty, but yeah, I do not feel like fighting. Many other countries are always rebelling, fighting, and forming coups, and they are never stable.

And if we were to revolt, then what? How do we know the next installment would not be corrupt? The governor of Illinois has been voted out of office, and justice has been served, without the need of mass protesting and rioting.

Now, as for all the crimes the Bush administration committed, it infuriates me that he GOT AWAY with it, while Clinton gets caught for getting his **** sucked. But what could we have done to call for his arrest?
 
New Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
692
Best answers
0
@fortnox
With constraints I don't mean a totalitarian oppressive regime, I meant some ground rules to make your society function (don't steal, kill, etc) and some punishment for those who don't follow them. Although they take away some freedom such rules will move a group forward, a group will function better than one that doesn't have them, since its members don't waste time stealing from each other or killing each other. You don't need to try everything to get intelligent, gaining intelligence requires imagination and trying only what's needed.

As for your revolutions, those were all 50 years or longer ago, the recent revolution in Russia required some tanks :) But if you're just up for causing damage I guess household materials and the internet will help you build powerful explosives.

I don't think having some gun control to prevent lunatics shooting up people, gun accidents or guns being used in break-ins (on either side) is such a bad idea, or makes my government oppressive. Far more essential freedoms such as the freedom of speech and privacy are at stake through anti-terrorism or anti-child porn law making.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
And the current state of things is acceptable then?
there's a difference between acceptable and the only answer being 'hey guys lets go wreck up the place and install a government as an afterthought that will be 10X worse than the current one'.

believe there should be far more civil unrest because of the America's existence as a plutocracy,
Care to throw out some numbers that support our government being a plutocracy, I certainly don't feel like it is, and like I said early my families only source of income is ONE teacher(I don't know about the UK, but in America teachers get payed like crap). One of my best friends also has a father who can't work and his mother works at places like cosco or mcDOnalds. He's got plenty of ways to raise his/his families lot in life(he's not doing them right now, but he could), and I'm in a college with high placement and starting jobs around 40-70k a year.

I am only searching for what will be the spark, hence why the items I listed were events rather than problems,
But almost none of what you are talking about are indicative of problems(or are so old it doesn't matter anymore, like agent orange). A couple stupid cops doesn't mean we suddenly need to throw off the chains of oppression, it means there's at worst a couple cities that need to oust their police force(preferably through court of law or peaceful protest).

It's worth drawing a comparison with Guido Fawkes, he revolted against the Catholics because of their treatment of Spain- yes he was a Protestant and wanted Protestant rule, but he only went to such extreme measures to assist the Spanish that the Catholics had abandoned. If he had only cared about the way his own people were treated, well we may never have had Guy Fawkes Night.
He accomplished basically nothing as far as I know, but even if he had, what do you think would have happened? From what I've heard about the whole thing they basically had no plan for what would happen afterwords. So go ahead and praise a man who probably would have sent your country into a downward spiral as people killed and fought over who would be the new leader who would probably be less able to handle the country and more likely to be corrupt. I could be wrong about this last part, i haven't learned a great amount about guy fawkes night, so maybe they did have a plan, but I've heard they did not.
 

guest

G
Guest
tolore said:
Care to throw out some numbers that support our government being a plutocracy, I certainly don't feel like it is, and like I said early my families only source of income is ONE teacher(I don't know about the UK, but in America teachers get payed like crap). One of my best friends also has a father who can't work and his mother works at places like cosco or mcDOnalds. He's got plenty of ways to raise his/his families lot in life(he's not doing them right now, but he could), and I'm in a college with high placement and starting jobs around 40-70k a year.
I can't name the study, but it has been found that the middle class of America can pass for the upper class in most of the rest of the world. That aside, the evidence of plutocracy is obvious in the history of your presidents and their blood lines; Bush, Obama, Clinton and Cheney are all related for starters, and all of these people are- at the time they run for election, in Obama's case- upper class. It would be unimaginable for anyone working or even middle class to reach for the white house. In other words, the rich rule the poor. Textbook plutocracy.

tolore said:
But almost none of what you are talking about are indicative of problems(or are so old it doesn't matter anymore, like agent orange). A couple stupid cops doesn't mean we suddenly need to throw off the chains of oppression, it means there's at worst a couple cities that need to oust their police force(preferably through court of law or peaceful protest).
There is a massive police brutality problem in America, and it isn't going to be fixed over night. The decision to protest peacefully or violently can be described as the decision of whether to change or secede the state. Is it worth fixing, or does it need to be removed? We've been trying for 70 odd years now to fix it. There was a time when the punk/Anarchist movement thought they could remove it, too. But for the most part we've been screwing around, dancing in the streets while the people that matter ignore us and make their own decisions.

tolore said:
So go ahead and praise a man who probably would have sent your country into a downward spiral as people killed and fought over who would be the new leader
Of course, I do not necessarily believe we would be in a better world, nor do I have the clairvoyance to know whether or not we would be; I was merely using his intentions as an explanation of what I believe is a failure of the American people to uphold their constitutional responsibility of dissent.

Chakra-X said:
Now, as for all the crimes the Bush administration committed, it infuriates me that he GOT AWAY with it, while Clinton gets caught for getting his **** sucked. But what could we have done to call for his arrest?
For what it's worth, we tried. Ron Paul spearheaded the attempt to impeach Bush and got surprisingly far, but no Judges were ballsy enough to go forward with it.

Chakra-X said:
And if we were to revolt, then what? How do we know the next installment would not be corrupt? The governor of Illinois has been voted out of office, and justice has been served, without the need of mass protesting and rioting.
The governer of Illinois was only popular because he was caught, and he was only caught because he was lazy. I'm sure if it was anything new, he would've been more careful. He didn't expect to get caught because no-one ever gets caught, see what I'm saying here? His issue highlights a much larger problem with the system.
As for if we revolt, the question is kinda irrelevant, it would be something we'd have to decide upon after achieving Anarchy. We would need to re-establish everyone's social roles, who the breadwinners are and who is going to defend us, and from there we can form a new government. It is irrelevant to ask "what if we are just as bad", because of course we will try our best to be nothing like the previous system, and if we end up that way it is out of our control. You might as well ask "What if I trip up and smack my face on the pavement on my way to work tomorrow?"

@Harsens
I understand you now then, the only thing I believe we disagree on is that I would put gun control up there with the most heinous crimes of government, perhaps even on the same level as racial segregation.. At a stretch.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
I can't name the study, but it has been found that the middle class of America can pass for the upper class in most of the rest of the world.
That's a global thing though, in my opinion the plutocracy argument can only be made within the same country that is being ruled. The rest of your evidence is fine, but incomplete as i'll mention next.

That aside, the evidence of plutocracy is obvious in the history of your presidents and their blood lines; Bush, Obama, Clinton and Cheney are all related for starters, and all of these people are- at the time they run for election, in Obama's case- upper class. It would be unimaginable for anyone working or even middle class to reach for the white house. In other words, the rich rule the poor. Textbook plutocracy.
Part of the definition of a plutocracy is low social movement, IE poor people stay poor. In america I believe it is fully possible to grow up in a poor family and still end up rich, or at the very least middle class. There are lots of public schools(some places have poor public school and this IS a problem), and more importantly a robust system to help under privileged people pay for college.

There is a massive police brutality problem in America, and it isn't going to be fixed over night.
You always say in America, I personally think that it is much more isolated problem. There are certainly area's that have problems with corrupt police, and those people SHOULD be doing something about it. The thing is why/how should I do something about, say for example the recent police shooting in BART. I don't live anywhere near that, there's probably hundreds of police jurisdictions between us and them that have none or very little problems with police corruption. The people in the BART area should be outraged, and it's a sad thing to hear about for the whole country, but in the grand scheme of things it's a local problem not a national one.

Of course, I do not necessarily believe we would be in a better world, nor do I have the clairvoyance to know whether or not we would be; I was merely using his intentions as an explanation of what I believe is a failure of the American people to uphold their constitutional responsibility of dissent.
I agree his cause was most likely noble(it sounds like it from what I've read on him), but I think the plan was a terrible one. In my opinion in any sort of plan like the THE number one most important thing is the follow through. The original act is nothing more than petty terrorism if the end result is not good for the country(terrorism is subjective i know). Good intentions are(almost) meaningless next to the result of the actions, he may look like a hero because he had good intentions, but if he had succeeded and the country went to hell because of it he'd be viewed as a monster.

The governer of Illinois was only popular because he was caught, and he was only caught because he was lazy. I'm sure if it was anything new, he would've been more careful. He didn't expect to get caught because no-one ever gets caught, see what I'm saying here?
corruption is actually a known problem in Illinois and people have been getting caught for it, heck the LAST governor of Illinois(before this one) was also caught for corruption.

it would be something we'd have to decide upon after achieving Anarchy.
no no no no no! The reason America survived after it pulled away from the british is because they had plans for the after math. This way of thinking leads to Africa, where governments change almost monthly and the bloodshed is terrible. I fully believe in planning for the worst and hoping for the best, so without a very well followup plan the answer to "what if we are just as bad" is always going to be no, you will be MUCH worse.

On top of all this most of the stuff you complain about are problems isolated to certain states, sometimes even cities. you have to remember that the situation in all states is completely different, laws, politicians, even cultures can change drastically from state to state(again even from city to city). There are some national problems, but none nearly bad enough to warrant a rebellion against the government.
 

guest

G
Guest
tolore said:
Part of the definition of a plutocracy is low social movement, IE poor people stay poor. In america I believe it is fully possible to grow up in a poor family and still end up rich, or at the very least middle class. There are lots of public schools(some places have poor public school and this IS a problem), and more importantly a robust system to help under privileged people pay for college.
If only that were the case. However, the robust systems you mention enforce dependancy on government and weak individual strengths, the schools you mention are run-down, under staffed and let's be honest; built to "educate", not to teach. Personally, I'll never let my education get in the way of my learning.
However, the poverty trap today is far more powerful than it has been for a long time. The amount of people in the poverty trap is growing and won't slow down. The insurance, loan and other bank-controlled industries exploiting the poverty trap are bigger than ever. Dependency on welfare is not healthy and will not keep you out of poverty, as the "cut off point" of income after which point you're no longer entitled to welfare often means that getting a job would in fact mean less income, because you would loose welfare. Poverty is not going away, it's just out of the media, like class warfare. Remember that? Yeah, it's still there.

tolore said:
You always say in America, I personally think that it is much more isolated problem. There are certainly area's that have problems with corrupt police, and those people SHOULD be doing something about it. The thing is why/how should I do something about, say for example the recent police shooting in BART. I don't live anywhere near that, there's probably hundreds of police jurisdictions between us and them that have none or very little problems with police corruption. The people in the BART area should be outraged, and it's a sad thing to hear about for the whole country, but in the grand scheme of things it's a local problem not a national one.
Fair point, there certainly are areas with better cops. You know where those are? Rich suburban neighbourhoods. Where are the stupid, egotistical and corrupt cops? The poverty-stricken ghettos.

tolore said:
I agree his cause was most likely noble(it sounds like it from what I've read on him), but I think the plan was a terrible one. In my opinion in any sort of plan like the THE number one most important thing is the follow through. The original act is nothing more than petty terrorism if the end result is not good for the country(terrorism is subjective i know). Good intentions are(almost) meaningless next to the result of the actions, he may look like a hero because he had good intentions, but if he had succeeded and the country went to hell because of it he'd be viewed as a monster.
Fair point again, any revolutionary action in the modern age would need a follow through plan. But we learned this from the Weathermen, we learned this from Cuba and all the underground leftist revolutionaries of the 60s. Look to the future but make note of the past, and we won't live it again.

tolore said:
no no no no no! The reason America survived after it pulled away from the british is because they had plans for the after math. This way of thinking leads to Africa, where governments change almost monthly and the bloodshed is terrible. I fully believe in planning for the worst and hoping for the best, so without a very well followup plan the answer to "what if we are just as bad" is always going to be no, you will be MUCH worse.
I've got no problem with that, it's really a technicality as opposed to the greater question of whether violent protest is necessary.

tolore said:
On top of all this most of the stuff you complain about are problems isolated to certain states, sometimes even cities. you have to remember that the situation in all states is completely different, laws, politicians, even cultures can change drastically from state to state(again even from city to city). There are some national problems, but none nearly bad enough to warrant a rebellion against the government.
Some national problems? We've had Nixon, Bush and Bush Sr as presidents and you think this government can be saved? Will you think we can be saved when Palin runs in 2012/2016? Or when it starts taxing carbon emissions and drafting teenagers into compulsory community service? How about when internet access becomes restricted?
Sorry this has been kinda half-assed I've got work to do and people to harass, it's a snow day and all. First snow day in years.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
221
Best answers
0
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVZi1-kUvM[/ame]

I just had to do this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top