So we plan to use the cause of the problem to fix the result of the first cause? Come now, you all have to be smarter than this. The problems with the Oceans are due to pollution and over fishing. Pollution has been the single biggest factor. Is it really logical that our solution to the problems caused by our polluting, is to dump metric assloads more shit in to the ocean..
I agree with a trial, but there is a problem. We can't try this in small scale, it impacts massive amounts of Ocean to try this. We won't wait out the correct amount of time for the trial (per our modus operandi). We have a horrible history with this stuff, and you know it as well as I do.. you are just ignoring that fact or refusing to admit it.
Sorry for ranting a bit, but the first thing we need to address how we got to be in the position we are. Start cleaning ourselves up, mature in our fishing practices, fish farming, conservation of endangered species, etc..
We fucked it up by doing things wrong, we know this.. we did so because it's the most profitable method, and we knew damn well we were fucking it all up. Why would anyone trust the "easy" and "cheap" method of fixing something, especially while we are still doing those same things!
You are using a very irrational method of justifying the use of the software in my opinion. The concern is obviously not with just people in Law enforcement, and tracking someone is not very similar to a Cop following you for a mile or two down the road. I have no problems personally with a Cop following me, it's their job to look for criminals. Again, this is not an issue of a Cop following you down the street.
Because you either avoid or have not thought about the issue let me give you a hypothetical. CompanyA can currently just pay someone to find out where your vehicles are (license plate scanners). Your wife decides to make a Youtube video post because CompanyA did something she did not like, lets say they shipped her broken goods and told her to "Piss Off!" when she complained. She did so anonymously since she found the response letter a bit disturbing. The video shows her, showing the defective product and the return letter from the company.
With Face recognition CompanyA can easily find out who she is, and with other tracking software (license plate scanning) they can find out where your vehicles are. Tracking her down is much easier of course if you register vehicles separately. CompanyA can send people to harass her, vandalize _your_ property, or much worse things...
Of course this hypothetical is the extreme but lets not ignore the fact that currently people are being tracked, and people are being watched simply due to the fact that license plate scanning data is completely unregulated. It is relatively new and still expensive to get more real time data but that won't last for long. Of course you don't hear about stalkers using the data. Does that mean that the extremes don't exist and that stalkers are not using the data? Or is it more likely that you are not hearing about those cases since there are certainly financial benefits, at a minimum, for keeping the train on the tracks running full speed? What happens as the price for that data drops?
It's not about disbanding technology, it's about a right to have privacy and requesting Regulation of the Data. Everyone is quick to say "technophobe" until it's them, or someone they care about getting fucked by said technology.
Don't get me wrong, I would still take issue with being tracked 24/7 by Law Enforcement unless I have done something which caused a judge to issue a court order. This is my constitutional right.
Claiming people don't care when they are intentionally being left in the dark is a horrible way of backing your statement. The majority don't know that they are being tracked constantly, and not just big brother but private companies collecting and selling your tracking data.
I think most people take no issues with something like OnStar, where the system can track you when you wish to be tracked. Most people would definitely take issue if they knew that nearly anyone could pay to not only find out where they work, but what stores they shop at, and when they most often shop, and where they have been.
It is quite possible that you see no difference between being tracked 24/7 and having the ability to send a signal to send help which includes a GPS coordinate. If that is a case, you are very ignorant.
Save the straw man "you hate technology" since that is not even close to the topic. The topic is about a right to privacy, and an intentionally uninformed public.
It's easy to form a party and get the message out. It's hard to do so and instantly gain the support of a third of the country, especially when you consider that the incumbents can most likely outspend you by orders of magnitude and have the bonus of voters who always vote for the same party without thinking.
I find this statement to be a blatant lie, this has not been true for a very long time. The Ross Perot campaign should be enough to persuade you that this has been false for at least 20 years. The Ross Perot campaign also triggered many changes making it much harder for a 3rd party candidate.
How about you go look at what is required to be put on a ballot. Go ahead, I'll wait.. er no I won't. Long ago, I'd agree with you since all that was needed was a petition campaign. I'd suggest you read the whole article by the way.
You also neglect who controls the Media and who gets air time. I'm not talking about Commercials since those can be purchased by anyone with money (another road block in getting a 3rd party candidate mind you), but the video clips and mentions on the corporate owned media we still call "News". Simply look at how much air time Ron Paul received, and what he received air time for.
Now I know that many people immediately fall back to the Ron Paul attack, but lets not play that particular fallacy game. Replace Ron Paul with anyone that has a platform different than the current status quot. Virtually no air time was given, and what was given was often things like reporters asking him if he would endorse Herman Cain, or they would show his 'smart talking' while showing video of a lost looking Perry to diminish the statements. Do you see the slight of hand trick? Third party candidates, when they meet all of the criteria are moved out of the picture.. and you probably don't realize it.
If you believe that the issues are merely financial you are not paying attention to what has been happening.
Go read the definitions of the word "Close" in a dictionary. The word was intentionally used, and due to population (as well as other less obvious concerns) I believe the definitions not related to physical distance are much more viable today compared to when that was written.
You are now a liar. Inactive Reserve is a classification for a person still under Military Contract, not a Veteran as you define the term "Inactive Reserve". Before you present such blatant lies about easily provable facts, try and remember that there are a lot of Veterans how here that can easily correct you.
I misunderstood what you were implying in your first statement, this post more clearly spells out your position. I agree with your position, as should be obvious with my posts.
i never understood the idea of state's rights. states can get things just as wrong, if not more wrong, than the feds. it's not freedom from the feds, it's just another form that can screw up and hurt the individual
and the constitution has been screwed up (prohibition, and reversed). which is my point of the living breathing document. so what's the argument? you agree with me
From your own words you need to do some research and find out why instead of stating what you did, which roughly translates as: 'it's hurts my head, make it go away!'
People that take the time to educate themselves have no such issues with the Constitution. If you do the research and take the time to understand (which I am doubtful you will do since it's much easier to believe what you are told) your opinion on the matter would probably change. I believe a pertinent side question should be "Why the hell are we not learning this in public school?"
You point to my current dilemma, which is why the best action I believe we can take now is word of mouth education of people. It's like picking away at a large stone in most cases, but you have to keep trying until you find the weak spot and pray that it finally cracks.
As I look back at some of the things I have seen and heard, I realize I'm not the first to wake up (obviously). People have been trying to wake others for a much longer time than I have. This is why I don't discount things like infowars.com which may be a bit over the top to people awake, but to someone sleeping it's a way of trying to jolt them awake.
My point, though I lost it due to failure in using > was this: It is a fallacy to claim any post containing the word "Nazi" or "Hitler" is a fallacy due to Godwin's law. The proper term would be "argument from fallacy" when people do this, and it is an often used method of debate.
You do realize that there are numerous types of fallacies correct? Most of these predate Godwin's law by a a couple thousand years. If you are mature enough in your rhetoric I'm sure you can see the difference.
There are enough similarities between the current state of affairs of the US Government and Nazi Germany for people to be concerned.
Numerous statistics show how it has been an absolute failure on countries like Australia. Criminals have no need to fear John Q Public (no pun or reference intended with your Slashdot name) so other violent crimes have increased drastically. I'm to lazy at the moment to dig for the statistics, just figured I'd point you in that direction in case you were interested.
Those same statistics have shown to be true with other countries that have restricted guns to civilians, and the opposite has been true when Countries have opened up gun laws.
People, like the person you responded to, neglect facts and flaunt fallacy. Such as, an extremely high percentage of shooting deaths in the US are due to illegal guns, not guns purchased legally. One would assume based on easy logic that if guns are legal nearly all shooting deaths should be from legal guns, but the opposite is true.
Lets make a hypothetical scenario. If you are at work, and lets just say that you work in Maine. A Cop comes and arrested you at your desk, for driving a car a minute from now in the city of LA doing 35MPH over the speed limit. Would you believe that the Cop was a rational and sane person?
This is exactly what you are doing! You are blaming a shit economy on people that are not in office, hold no power, have never voted for any of the laws impacting the economy, and never written the laws which are doing damage. In fact those same people not doing an of those things are yelling "Stop, you are breaking the economy!". Because they are saying "STOP DOING THAT!" you are blaming them for the problem.
I appreciate your point, and quite honestly believe that both sides have been giving this considerable amounts of thought of late. Why do you think there is so much bickering currently regarding censorship of the internet and the mandatory back doors being placed into devices. It may not be the headline mind you, but one should not deny the byline in the issues.
That should not imply that I have answers, but agree that organization is a problem.
You read my statement very literally, which is my fault for not being clear enough in my haste to initiate discussion. Let me rephrase a bit and see if this is more agreeable.
1. Activists have been jailed and detained, which includes but is not limited to members of OWS.
2. The Tea Party was hijacked long ago by people that are clearly pro-current-corruption, and the movement is no longer the Tea Party.
3. Ron Paul supporters have been placed on watch lists, detained for assembling, harassed by police, etc...
4. All of the above have been the victims of massive amounts of marketing smear campaigns presented to the masses by corporate owned media.
I believe that 1,2, 3, and 4 are a bit more clearly defined.
Would this be more of an agreeable set of statements?
I have to clarify something. Citizens did not support NAFTA, it was never a matter of public vote. If it had been up for public vote, it would have failed. Just like Business Process Patents it was something shoved through against people's will. SOPA would have done the same thing, except for the fact that people now have the Internet and were talking about recalling Politicians and impeaching them weeks before the vote.
Arguing which policy is more harmful is at this point moot. There are at least thousands of bad policies, bad and illegal executive orders, and illegal acts that have been passed. The real point is that for someone to claim "I want to fix it!" then take no action or extend what is broken shows how broken our system currently is.
Because we neglect things like Tiananmen square when making such statements? I realize that this is a bit of question begging, but would China still be a Communist regime if people could own guns? History show us what happens when Governments take away people's right to defend themselves. It also shows us what happens when the people have the ability to fight back against oppression.
your verbiage has nothing to do with defense. it is offensive gun grabbing lunacy that would be agreed with by the likes of those who shot up giffords in tucson, not anyone prudent or rational
That is a nightmarish amount of fallacy for a single statement. Look, I'm sure you believe that the statement "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" is false. People that argue against that statement use the same exact rhetoric as you do, and it's all logical fallacy. Create a false dilemma to justify the cause of gun control. Most people in America see through the fallacy, though few today would be able to tell you exactly why they do.
Pointing me to a Slashdot article with your opinion regarding Ron Paul as the reason you base your opinion on him is almost laughable. In that article, you point to another Ron Paul Slashdot article as your reference, which has absolutely no tangible connection with reality or what I stated (Read his opinion from him, or watch his opinion unedited from him and not what someone told you about him). In short, I believe that you are living in a very delusional place. I'm not going to be convinced very easily that you even notice a problem with the redundant fallacy of using your opinion as the basis for your opinion.
Since you seem to lack the capacity to discuss the issue without injecting tremendous amounts of fallacy I won't reply any further.
You are presenting a false dilemma. You are using fabrication and/or massive amounts of assumption to make your claim regarding my position. I never ever stated we need to be violent, I stated that we need to maintain our ability to protect ourselves. The difference is very drastic. Since you use words like espouse and phrases like "false dichotomy" I will assume that you have some knowledge of rhetoric. A false dilemma often works in arguments, but that does not make it a logical truth.
Wait a minute, you claim that Ron Paul is delusional yet you state something like "constitutional fundamentalism is not the answer. the constitution has changed on many things, and should change on many things. slavery, for example and women's suffrage"
Do you not understand the difference between a constitutional amendment and an executive order or illegal act? Seriously? Never did I state "remove the amendments". You are arguing something that never happened and does not exist.
Personally I don't know Ron Paul to know if he is preaching something he would not implement or try to take action on. I'm going to guess that you don't either. I will state that I have pretty extensive knowledge of his position, which you seem to lack. A novel concept would be to not just listen to what people have told you regarding his position, but go read his speeches. In fact you can watch many speeches on Youtube if you are too lazy to read, but make sure you get the full speeches instead of the ones edited by people to make him appear to be crazy.
Lastly, I'm going to question your rational thought process. You state something which should cause cognitive dissonance and make ones head explode. Your last paragraph is a completely irrational. " "defending yourself" is the words that are used by many trigger happy confused people. of course you have every right to defend yourself" . Do you even know what your own opinion is?
The easiest story for showing something occurring is a TV show with Ventura and Jones. A young lady in the story was placed on a terrorist watch list for being a Paul supporter and could not get her name taken off the list.
Of course this is just one very simple example, but given this information perhaps you can start to investigate and find more using key words used in the show. The same show also showed and tried to find out what the detentions centers owned by FEMA are for, and filmed one pretty heavily that looks to be pretty much like a prison.
I don't know if the TV show ever aired, it was called "Conspiracy" and has many very interesting episodes. Of course many will claim "Well duh, it's a reality TV show" and dismiss it without doing any further investigation.
Look, I have no issue with some people wanting to be a pacifist. All causes need martyrs. What I take exception to is someone telling everyone to be pacifist. Historically large populations that believe this is their only option end up being the victims of genocide. Just ask the 80 million or so Chinese pacifists that were murdered by Mao, or the 30 million Jews that were murdered by Hitler, or the 60 million or so that were murdered by Stalin and Lenin.. Oh wait, you can't because they were all murdered.
No where do I state that a gun is your only option, what I state is that people need to protect that right.. just in case there are no peaceful alternatives.
Lets remember something which you neglected to point out. MLK was assassinated right? As was JFK, as was Bobby Kennedy, as were at least hundreds of other people that spoke out publicly regarding Political Corruption, Equality/Human Rights, the dismantling of our Education system, and the MIC.
This is long but there is a point. Keep this in context as you read.
Would you care to really test your level of reality? How about you review some of the music figures that were assassinated relatively recently and find out their political affiliations and who they were being investigated by? Of course, it's just "those crazy gangsta rappers" right? Keep your hat on your head, I'm not claiming that all of the rumors and stories are true. I'm claiming that it's interesting that certain people were being investigated by certain agencies and ended up dead by assassination. Coincidences with the JFK assassination are interesting, such as police being removed from areas just prior to the assassins starting to shoot, and the same Police showing up at locations over and over and having no reports or reports that were completely fabricated, security video tapes vanish, evidence being destroyed, etc... If you investigate you will start to think, and thinking is pretty scary right? How many times can something be coincidence before it becomes a plot? Interestingly, there were specials on the news regarding the East/West Rap Wars that had no mention of Government agencies investigating and tailing these guys for years, the evidence tampering, etc... we only heard about those "Violent and Crazy N-words". Have you been manipulated in to believing in a reality that does not exist? Since I have been investigating, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that I have been presented a manipulated reality regarding many of those people. I am not convinced yet, but the best argument for the media presented reality is "The alternative is so far fetched it can't be true" which I hope you see as the self protecting fallacy it is.
The point of that last paragraph is really this: All of those people were publicly asking for peaceful and progressive changes to the Government for the betterment of society. They were pacifists for the most part as well. Who won, the dead guy or the corrupt? I think you know the answer to that question. (The use of the term "corrupt" there is very intentional since I have invested a lot of time investigating many of these assassinations. That is my opinion of "who" and may not match your opinion of "who".)
Now you are probably going to cry "Begging the Question" when you get done reading those two paragraphs but keep the fallacy card in your pocket. That would only be true if I stated that it was all factual, and I was very clear that I was not sure of all the facts. I stated that it was interesting, and worth investigation. Once you start to realize that your reality is being manipulated, I hope it pisses you off and you start to dig in to the truth in more areas.
Slashdot Mirror
So we plan to use the cause of the problem to fix the result of the first cause? Come now, you all have to be smarter than this. The problems with the Oceans are due to pollution and over fishing. Pollution has been the single biggest factor. Is it really logical that our solution to the problems caused by our polluting, is to dump metric assloads more shit in to the ocean..
I agree with a trial, but there is a problem. We can't try this in small scale, it impacts massive amounts of Ocean to try this. We won't wait out the correct amount of time for the trial (per our modus operandi). We have a horrible history with this stuff, and you know it as well as I do.. you are just ignoring that fact or refusing to admit it.
Sorry for ranting a bit, but the first thing we need to address how we got to be in the position we are. Start cleaning ourselves up, mature in our fishing practices, fish farming, conservation of endangered species, etc..
We fucked it up by doing things wrong, we know this.. we did so because it's the most profitable method, and we knew damn well we were fucking it all up. Why would anyone trust the "easy" and "cheap" method of fixing something, especially while we are still doing those same things!
Root Cause Analysis, you have to know that term!
So what happens when your phone gets taken by a Cop, and a friend texts you..
Friend "WHATS UP!?!".
Cop "Not much, in bad staights. Have anything I can take?"
Friend "No, odd that you ask, but I may know someone."
Cop "Cool, thanks man, an oz of grass should do."
Friend "Ok due, I think I can hook you up.. just not like you"
Cop "Thanks, where can we meet?"
Friend "Starbux, cya at 3"
Cop "thx"
3PM at Starbux "I'm officer Jim, you are under arrest for distributing drugs.
Yeah, seems perfectly and logically reasonable for a Cop to be able to impersonate you on your phone.. Fucking morons.. We are doomed!
You are using a very irrational method of justifying the use of the software in my opinion. The concern is obviously not with just people in Law enforcement, and tracking someone is not very similar to a Cop following you for a mile or two down the road. I have no problems personally with a Cop following me, it's their job to look for criminals. Again, this is not an issue of a Cop following you down the street.
Because you either avoid or have not thought about the issue let me give you a hypothetical. CompanyA can currently just pay someone to find out where your vehicles are (license plate scanners). Your wife decides to make a Youtube video post because CompanyA did something she did not like, lets say they shipped her broken goods and told her to "Piss Off!" when she complained. She did so anonymously since she found the response letter a bit disturbing. The video shows her, showing the defective product and the return letter from the company.
With Face recognition CompanyA can easily find out who she is, and with other tracking software (license plate scanning) they can find out where your vehicles are. Tracking her down is much easier of course if you register vehicles separately. CompanyA can send people to harass her, vandalize _your_ property, or much worse things...
Of course this hypothetical is the extreme but lets not ignore the fact that currently people are being tracked, and people are being watched simply due to the fact that license plate scanning data is completely unregulated. It is relatively new and still expensive to get more real time data but that won't last for long. Of course you don't hear about stalkers using the data. Does that mean that the extremes don't exist and that stalkers are not using the data? Or is it more likely that you are not hearing about those cases since there are certainly financial benefits, at a minimum, for keeping the train on the tracks running full speed? What happens as the price for that data drops?
It's not about disbanding technology, it's about a right to have privacy and requesting Regulation of the Data. Everyone is quick to say "technophobe" until it's them, or someone they care about getting fucked by said technology.
Don't get me wrong, I would still take issue with being tracked 24/7 by Law Enforcement unless I have done something which caused a judge to issue a court order. This is my constitutional right.
Claiming people don't care when they are intentionally being left in the dark is a horrible way of backing your statement. The majority don't know that they are being tracked constantly, and not just big brother but private companies collecting and selling your tracking data.
I think most people take no issues with something like OnStar, where the system can track you when you wish to be tracked. Most people would definitely take issue if they knew that nearly anyone could pay to not only find out where they work, but what stores they shop at, and when they most often shop, and where they have been.
It is quite possible that you see no difference between being tracked 24/7 and having the ability to send a signal to send help which includes a GPS coordinate. If that is a case, you are very ignorant.
Save the straw man "you hate technology" since that is not even close to the topic. The topic is about a right to privacy, and an intentionally uninformed public.
It's easy to form a party and get the message out. It's hard to do so and instantly gain the support of a third of the country, especially when you consider that the incumbents can most likely outspend you by orders of magnitude and have the bonus of voters who always vote for the same party without thinking.
I find this statement to be a blatant lie, this has not been true for a very long time. The Ross Perot campaign should be enough to persuade you that this has been false for at least 20 years. The Ross Perot campaign also triggered many changes making it much harder for a 3rd party candidate.
How about you go look at what is required to be put on a ballot. Go ahead, I'll wait.. er no I won't. Long ago, I'd agree with you since all that was needed was a petition campaign. I'd suggest you read the whole article by the way.
You also neglect who controls the Media and who gets air time. I'm not talking about Commercials since those can be purchased by anyone with money (another road block in getting a 3rd party candidate mind you), but the video clips and mentions on the corporate owned media we still call "News". Simply look at how much air time Ron Paul received, and what he received air time for.
Now I know that many people immediately fall back to the Ron Paul attack, but lets not play that particular fallacy game. Replace Ron Paul with anyone that has a platform different than the current status quot. Virtually no air time was given, and what was given was often things like reporters asking him if he would endorse Herman Cain, or they would show his 'smart talking' while showing video of a lost looking Perry to diminish the statements. Do you see the slight of hand trick? Third party candidates, when they meet all of the criteria are moved out of the picture.. and you probably don't realize it.
If you believe that the issues are merely financial you are not paying attention to what has been happening.
Go read the definitions of the word "Close" in a dictionary. The word was intentionally used, and due to population (as well as other less obvious concerns) I believe the definitions not related to physical distance are much more viable today compared to when that was written.
You are now a liar. Inactive Reserve is a classification for a person still under Military Contract, not a Veteran as you define the term "Inactive Reserve". Before you present such blatant lies about easily provable facts, try and remember that there are a lot of Veterans how here that can easily correct you.
I misunderstood what you were implying in your first statement, this post more clearly spells out your position. I agree with your position, as should be obvious with my posts.
i never understood the idea of state's rights. states can get things just as wrong, if not more wrong, than the feds. it's not freedom from the feds, it's just another form that can screw up and hurt the individual
and the constitution has been screwed up (prohibition, and reversed). which is my point of the living breathing document. so what's the argument? you agree with me
From your own words you need to do some research and find out why instead of stating what you did, which roughly translates as: 'it's hurts my head, make it go away!'
People that take the time to educate themselves have no such issues with the Constitution. If you do the research and take the time to understand (which I am doubtful you will do since it's much easier to believe what you are told) your opinion on the matter would probably change. I believe a pertinent side question should be "Why the hell are we not learning this in public school?"
You point to my current dilemma, which is why the best action I believe we can take now is word of mouth education of people. It's like picking away at a large stone in most cases, but you have to keep trying until you find the weak spot and pray that it finally cracks.
As I look back at some of the things I have seen and heard, I realize I'm not the first to wake up (obviously). People have been trying to wake others for a much longer time than I have. This is why I don't discount things like infowars.com which may be a bit over the top to people awake, but to someone sleeping it's a way of trying to jolt them awake.
My point, though I lost it due to failure in using > was this: It is a fallacy to claim any post containing the word "Nazi" or "Hitler" is a fallacy due to Godwin's law. The proper term would be "argument from fallacy" when people do this, and it is an often used method of debate.
You do realize that there are numerous types of fallacies correct? Most of these predate Godwin's law by a a couple thousand years. If you are mature enough in your rhetoric I'm sure you can see the difference.
There are enough similarities between the current state of affairs of the US Government and Nazi Germany for people to be concerned.
Numerous statistics show how it has been an absolute failure on countries like Australia. Criminals have no need to fear John Q Public (no pun or reference intended with your Slashdot name) so other violent crimes have increased drastically. I'm to lazy at the moment to dig for the statistics, just figured I'd point you in that direction in case you were interested.
Those same statistics have shown to be true with other countries that have restricted guns to civilians, and the opposite has been true when Countries have opened up gun laws.
People, like the person you responded to, neglect facts and flaunt fallacy. Such as, an extremely high percentage of shooting deaths in the US are due to illegal guns, not guns purchased legally. One would assume based on easy logic that if guns are legal nearly all shooting deaths should be from legal guns, but the opposite is true.
Lets make a hypothetical scenario. If you are at work, and lets just say that you work in Maine. A Cop comes and arrested you at your desk, for driving a car a minute from now in the city of LA doing 35MPH over the speed limit. Would you believe that the Cop was a rational and sane person?
This is exactly what you are doing! You are blaming a shit economy on people that are not in office, hold no power, have never voted for any of the laws impacting the economy, and never written the laws which are doing damage. In fact those same people not doing an of those things are yelling "Stop, you are breaking the economy!". Because they are saying "STOP DOING THAT!" you are blaming them for the problem.
This is a level of delusion which is frightening.
I appreciate your point, and quite honestly believe that both sides have been giving this considerable amounts of thought of late. Why do you think there is so much bickering currently regarding censorship of the internet and the mandatory back doors being placed into devices. It may not be the headline mind you, but one should not deny the byline in the issues.
That should not imply that I have answers, but agree that organization is a problem.
You read my statement very literally, which is my fault for not being clear enough in my haste to initiate discussion. Let me rephrase a bit and see if this is more agreeable.
1. Activists have been jailed and detained, which includes but is not limited to members of OWS.
2. The Tea Party was hijacked long ago by people that are clearly pro-current-corruption, and the movement is no longer the Tea Party.
3. Ron Paul supporters have been placed on watch lists, detained for assembling, harassed by police, etc...
4. All of the above have been the victims of massive amounts of marketing smear campaigns presented to the masses by corporate owned media.
I believe that 1,2, 3, and 4 are a bit more clearly defined.
Would this be more of an agreeable set of statements?
I have to clarify something. Citizens did not support NAFTA, it was never a matter of public vote. If it had been up for public vote, it would have failed. Just like Business Process Patents it was something shoved through against people's will. SOPA would have done the same thing, except for the fact that people now have the Internet and were talking about recalling Politicians and impeaching them weeks before the vote.
Arguing which policy is more harmful is at this point moot. There are at least thousands of bad policies, bad and illegal executive orders, and illegal acts that have been passed. The real point is that for someone to claim "I want to fix it!" then take no action or extend what is broken shows how broken our system currently is.
Because we neglect things like Tiananmen square when making such statements? I realize that this is a bit of question begging, but would China still be a Communist regime if people could own guns? History show us what happens when Governments take away people's right to defend themselves. It also shows us what happens when the people have the ability to fight back against oppression.
Great argument, and yes I'm biased since your opinion seems to back mine.. but still I like your statement :D
your verbiage has nothing to do with defense. it is offensive gun grabbing lunacy that would be agreed with by the likes of those who shot up giffords in tucson, not anyone prudent or rational
That is a nightmarish amount of fallacy for a single statement. Look, I'm sure you believe that the statement "Guns don't kill people, People kill people" is false. People that argue against that statement use the same exact rhetoric as you do, and it's all logical fallacy. Create a false dilemma to justify the cause of gun control. Most people in America see through the fallacy, though few today would be able to tell you exactly why they do.
Pointing me to a Slashdot article with your opinion regarding Ron Paul as the reason you base your opinion on him is almost laughable. In that article, you point to another Ron Paul Slashdot article as your reference, which has absolutely no tangible connection with reality or what I stated (Read his opinion from him, or watch his opinion unedited from him and not what someone told you about him). In short, I believe that you are living in a very delusional place. I'm not going to be convinced very easily that you even notice a problem with the redundant fallacy of using your opinion as the basis for your opinion.
Since you seem to lack the capacity to discuss the issue without injecting tremendous amounts of fallacy I won't reply any further.
You are presenting a false dilemma. You are using fabrication and/or massive amounts of assumption to make your claim regarding my position. I never ever stated we need to be violent, I stated that we need to maintain our ability to protect ourselves. The difference is very drastic. Since you use words like espouse and phrases like "false dichotomy" I will assume that you have some knowledge of rhetoric. A false dilemma often works in arguments, but that does not make it a logical truth.
Wait a minute, you claim that Ron Paul is delusional yet you state something like "constitutional fundamentalism is not the answer. the constitution has changed on many things, and should change on many things. slavery, for example and women's suffrage"
Do you not understand the difference between a constitutional amendment and an executive order or illegal act? Seriously? Never did I state "remove the amendments". You are arguing something that never happened and does not exist.
Personally I don't know Ron Paul to know if he is preaching something he would not implement or try to take action on. I'm going to guess that you don't either. I will state that I have pretty extensive knowledge of his position, which you seem to lack. A novel concept would be to not just listen to what people have told you regarding his position, but go read his speeches. In fact you can watch many speeches on Youtube if you are too lazy to read, but make sure you get the full speeches instead of the ones edited by people to make him appear to be crazy.
Lastly, I'm going to question your rational thought process. You state something which should cause cognitive dissonance and make ones head explode. Your last paragraph is a completely irrational. " "defending yourself" is the words that are used by many trigger happy confused people. of course you have every right to defend yourself" . Do you even know what your own opinion is?
The easiest story for showing something occurring is a TV show with Ventura and Jones. A young lady in the story was placed on a terrorist watch list for being a Paul supporter and could not get her name taken off the list.
Of course this is just one very simple example, but given this information perhaps you can start to investigate and find more using key words used in the show. The same show also showed and tried to find out what the detentions centers owned by FEMA are for, and filmed one pretty heavily that looks to be pretty much like a prison.
I don't know if the TV show ever aired, it was called "Conspiracy" and has many very interesting episodes. Of course many will claim "Well duh, it's a reality TV show" and dismiss it without doing any further investigation.
Look, I have no issue with some people wanting to be a pacifist. All causes need martyrs. What I take exception to is someone telling everyone to be pacifist. Historically large populations that believe this is their only option end up being the victims of genocide. Just ask the 80 million or so Chinese pacifists that were murdered by Mao, or the 30 million Jews that were murdered by Hitler, or the 60 million or so that were murdered by Stalin and Lenin.. Oh wait, you can't because they were all murdered.
No where do I state that a gun is your only option, what I state is that people need to protect that right.. just in case there are no peaceful alternatives.
Lets remember something which you neglected to point out. MLK was assassinated right? As was JFK, as was Bobby Kennedy, as were at least hundreds of other people that spoke out publicly regarding Political Corruption, Equality/Human Rights, the dismantling of our Education system, and the MIC.
This is long but there is a point. Keep this in context as you read.
Would you care to really test your level of reality? How about you review some of the music figures that were assassinated relatively recently and find out their political affiliations and who they were being investigated by? Of course, it's just "those crazy gangsta rappers" right? Keep your hat on your head, I'm not claiming that all of the rumors and stories are true. I'm claiming that it's interesting that certain people were being investigated by certain agencies and ended up dead by assassination. Coincidences with the JFK assassination are interesting, such as police being removed from areas just prior to the assassins starting to shoot, and the same Police showing up at locations over and over and having no reports or reports that were completely fabricated, security video tapes vanish, evidence being destroyed, etc... If you investigate you will start to think, and thinking is pretty scary right? How many times can something be coincidence before it becomes a plot? Interestingly, there were specials on the news regarding the East/West Rap Wars that had no mention of Government agencies investigating and tailing these guys for years, the evidence tampering, etc... we only heard about those "Violent and Crazy N-words". Have you been manipulated in to believing in a reality that does not exist? Since I have been investigating, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that I have been presented a manipulated reality regarding many of those people. I am not convinced yet, but the best argument for the media presented reality is "The alternative is so far fetched it can't be true" which I hope you see as the self protecting fallacy it is.
The point of that last paragraph is really this: All of those people were publicly asking for peaceful and progressive changes to the Government for the betterment of society. They were pacifists for the most part as well. Who won, the dead guy or the corrupt? I think you know the answer to that question. (The use of the term "corrupt" there is very intentional since I have invested a lot of time investigating many of these assassinations. That is my opinion of "who" and may not match your opinion of "who".)
Now you are probably going to cry "Begging the Question" when you get done reading those two paragraphs but keep the fallacy card in your pocket. That would only be true if I stated that it was all factual, and I was very clear that I was not sure of all the facts. I stated that it was interesting, and worth investigation. Once you start to realize that your reality is being manipulated, I hope it pisses you off and you start to dig in to the truth in more areas.