The fact that a man with a rifle would likely not survive a head-to-head engagement with a Blackhawk helicopter does not mean that the rifle is useless in fighting against a military that has Blackhawk helicopters in its arsenal.
You morons who suggest that rifles are useless against an advanced military know little of history, know nothing of military tactics and lack imagination.
More than 40 million people on food stamps. Millions more on fixed incomes. Food prices increasing as Ben Bernanke does his "Quantitative Easing" thing to finance federal deficits.
What happens if/when food and energy prices become so high that a SS check or monthly food stamp allotment can't get people through a month?
One doesn't need to be suffering from "angry white male syndrome" to consider the possibility that we could see food riots or widespread civil unrest.
The power itself is a corrupting influence. The idea of "power corrupts" isn't just an adage, it's a well known psychological phenomenon. Exercising power is basically "fun" and psychologically reenforcing. When we're talking about government power, it's particularly dangerous. It can lead to terrible abuses because government exercises its power under a veil of legitimacy. Even if some individuals are able to resist the corrupting influence of power, it's very existence is an invitation for abuse. Even if government isn't inherently "corrupt" it's inherently vulnerable to corruption. That's why the State itself should be kept on a leash or in a cage.
"y i.r.id10t" said it, but it deserves saying again.
In Afghanistan, a bunch of guys with rifles (the weaponry the gun-rights advocates are trying to protect) and improvised explosives have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate for more than 12 years. That's a country of 30M people and about 650K sq km. The contiguous 48 states in the USA are 12X the land area of Afghanistan with 10X the population. What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?
How about. The Right to be secure in my person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches?
The government freely admitted that they were intercepting and searching huge amounts of data with no warrants. They then granted themselves and the telecom companies retroactive immunity for their illegal activity.
In case you didn't read the 2012 NDAA, the government is now legally authorized to kidnap you, hold you in prison indefinitely with no right to confront the evidence against you, no right to legal counsel and no right to a fair trial. The administration has also claimed that the president has the power to maintain a secret kill list and assassinate U.S. citizens, also without charge or trial.
Read the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution for a detailed description of what freedoms we've lost.
Just because YOU haven't been individually subjected to abuse doesn't mean you haven't LOST your freedom. The laws destroying our freedom are in place and could be used anytime against anyone.
How many times are the American people going to fall for this same BS? Government and the media spreading a constant message of fear in order to consolidate power.
I'm "afraid" that in the age of mass media, the government can afford to relentlessly bombard us with the message "Be AFRAID! Now, give more money and more power to government and sacrifice your civil liberties so that we can protect you!"
Some day we're going to wake up and discover that we're in a nice "safe" police state. Sadly, most of us deserve it.
"I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country,"
It's not a question of who is more "deserving" of a job. The government of this country should be implementing public policy that is in the best interests of the citizens of this country.
In my opinion, government policy which expands the size of the labor force through immigration is bad policy when the country is experiencing a period of persistently high unemployment.
I'm a billionaire... well, in Zimbabwe dollars. Is that what you meant?
Maybe if everyone was a billionaire entrepreneur, there would be so many gadgets and levels of automation that no human would ever have to engage in physical or mental labor?
Otherwise, there is always labor to be performed, and there will always be a relative value placed on that labor. I have great respect for people who do hard jobs, but let's face it, there are jobs which aren't fun. If the wait staff at a restaurant consisted of billionaire entrepreneurs, a night out with dinner and drinks would cost millions. There will always be scarcity of commodities as well, and those commodities will go to the highest bidder. If everyone was a billionaire, food, fuel and other material goods would never sell at today's prices.
Only in the most ridiculously convoluted sense could pirated content and counterfeit merchandise have any relationship whatsoever with "Homeland Security".
Over my Thanksgiving break, I rented a few DVDs and the catchy new screen warning you that "Piracy is not a victimless crime" has a picture of a bronze badge labeled "Homeland Security". I could only roll my eyes and wonder what idiot authorized Hollywood to use it.
We've got these budget talks going on right now. If DHS has spare personnel and resources to get involved in operations completely unrelated to their mission, it would be a great place to cut.
No, but when you have all of the information and see the complete video (as opposed to an excerpt), it puts the incident in an entirely different context than that which was portrayed in the news media.
It's even worse than that. Private bankers create the money out of thin air and then the government borrows that money and pays interest on it. It's called "Quantitative Easing".
"Those T-Bills owned by the SSA are regularly traded on the open market..."
Wrong. The federal government took the surplus SS funds and left a non-negotiable IOU in their place. The SSA cannot sell these IOUs on the open market.
This is how the Clinton-era "surplus" was made possible. The government borrowed funds from SS and did not count them as debt.
"we didn't really become a "world power in every sense of the word" until a couple of decades after the Great Depression"
Nonsense. The USA became a military and industrial super power during the 19th century, and especially during the late 19th century. It was during the bad old days of the gilded age that U.S. GDP per capita overtook and surpassed that of all the European nations. This was also a period of amazing growth in industrial and agricultural output. All with a government that was about 5% of GDP.
The economic growth of the 1950s was only possible because the industrial infrastructure of Europe and Asia had been obliterated by the war. It's easy to have a prosperous economy after you've destroyed the competition.
Considering the fact that the Palestinian rockets have the level of sophistication of technology typically found in an average machine shop, it's good that a multi-billion dollar defense system is actually able to defend against them.
I agree that this "two sides" perspective is idiotic, but in my experience, there are large numbers of Democrats who are simply in denial about their party and their president being just as bad as the other "team" and the previous president when it comes to civil liberties.
After four years of watching President Obama perpetuating and expanding the imperial presidency of George W. Bush and either signing or re-authorizing legislation that is every bit as damaging as the laws passed under the previous administration, I am sick and tired of listening to the Obama apologists.
"The parties aren't conspiring to erode our privacy or liberties."
I share your disappointment with the voting public, but I disagree on this point. It's obvious that the Patriot Act had been written long before 9-11-2001 and TPTB were just waiting for an excuse to implement it. That's solid proof of a "conspiracy".
Do you think that the Patriot Act would be re-authorized if it was put up for national referendum? How about the bill being discussed in the article? IMO, the people that "support" these measures do so passively, while the people that oppose them are passionate in their opposition. For that reason, I think the opposition would win.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with the false dichotomy of the 2 party system and most of the 'R's and 'D's agree that The People should have fewer civil liberties. This issue just isn't important enough for most people to compel them to vote for a 3rd party. That's tacit support for the policies, but it's not a matter of politicians bending to popular opinion.
Exactly. I think the bankers are engineering a global currency collapse as the trigger for establishment of authoritarian government. This will translate into a vast decline in the living standards for the vast majority of the population in both North America and Europe.
If I'm paranoid, someone tell me the end game of the current trend of perpetual debt accumulation coupled with steady erosion of individual liberties. A "managed" collapse is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
When the banking elite reduce the vast majority of the world's population to the level of serfs who receive strictly limited food and energy rations, the climate change problem will be solved.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that a man with a rifle would likely not survive a head-to-head engagement with a Blackhawk helicopter does not mean that the rifle is useless in fighting against a military that has Blackhawk helicopters in its arsenal.
You morons who suggest that rifles are useless against an advanced military know little of history, know nothing of military tactics and lack imagination.
More than 40 million people on food stamps. Millions more on fixed incomes. Food prices increasing as Ben Bernanke does his "Quantitative Easing" thing to finance federal deficits.
What happens if/when food and energy prices become so high that a SS check or monthly food stamp allotment can't get people through a month?
One doesn't need to be suffering from "angry white male syndrome" to consider the possibility that we could see food riots or widespread civil unrest.
The power itself is a corrupting influence. The idea of "power corrupts" isn't just an adage, it's a well known psychological phenomenon. Exercising power is basically "fun" and psychologically reenforcing. When we're talking about government power, it's particularly dangerous. It can lead to terrible abuses because government exercises its power under a veil of legitimacy. Even if some individuals are able to resist the corrupting influence of power, it's very existence is an invitation for abuse.
Even if government isn't inherently "corrupt" it's inherently vulnerable to corruption. That's why the State itself should be kept on a leash or in a cage.
"y i.r.id10t" said it, but it deserves saying again.
In Afghanistan, a bunch of guys with rifles (the weaponry the gun-rights advocates are trying to protect) and improvised explosives have fought the U.S. military to a stalemate for more than 12 years. That's a country of 30M people and about 650K sq km. The contiguous 48 states in the USA are 12X the land area of Afghanistan with 10X the population. What makes you think the military would be any more successful fighting a guerrilla war here?
"What freedom have you lost? Be specific"
How about. The Right to be secure in my person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches?
The government freely admitted that they were intercepting and searching huge amounts of data with no warrants. They then granted themselves and the telecom companies retroactive immunity for their illegal activity.
In case you didn't read the 2012 NDAA, the government is now legally authorized to kidnap you, hold you in prison indefinitely with no right to confront the evidence against you, no right to legal counsel and no right to a fair trial. The administration has also claimed that the president has the power to maintain a secret kill list and assassinate U.S. citizens, also without charge or trial.
Read the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution for a detailed description of what freedoms we've lost.
Just because YOU haven't been individually subjected to abuse doesn't mean you haven't LOST your freedom. The laws destroying our freedom are in place and could be used anytime against anyone.
How many times are the American people going to fall for this same BS? Government and the media spreading a constant message of fear in order to consolidate power.
I'm "afraid" that in the age of mass media, the government can afford to relentlessly bombard us with the message "Be AFRAID! Now, give more money and more power to government and sacrifice your civil liberties so that we can protect you!"
Some day we're going to wake up and discover that we're in a nice "safe" police state. Sadly, most of us deserve it.
"I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country,"
It's not a question of who is more "deserving" of a job. The government of this country should be implementing public policy that is in the best interests of the citizens of this country.
In my opinion, government policy which expands the size of the labor force through immigration is bad policy when the country is experiencing a period of persistently high unemployment.
This smog blocks sunlight from reaching the earth, thereby reducing the amount of 'global warming' that is taking place.
I'm a billionaire ... well, in Zimbabwe dollars. Is that what you meant?
Maybe if everyone was a billionaire entrepreneur, there would be so many gadgets and levels of automation that no human would ever have to engage in physical or mental labor?
Otherwise, there is always labor to be performed, and there will always be a relative value placed on that labor. I have great respect for people who do hard jobs, but let's face it, there are jobs which aren't fun. If the wait staff at a restaurant consisted of billionaire entrepreneurs, a night out with dinner and drinks would cost millions. There will always be scarcity of commodities as well, and those commodities will go to the highest bidder. If everyone was a billionaire, food, fuel and other material goods would never sell at today's prices.
Does my board need to be suspended in a vacuum chamber with a free floating gas substrate so that I can connect this to the rest of the parts?
Only in the most ridiculously convoluted sense could pirated content and counterfeit merchandise have any relationship whatsoever with "Homeland Security".
Over my Thanksgiving break, I rented a few DVDs and the catchy new screen warning you that "Piracy is not a victimless crime" has a picture of a bronze badge labeled "Homeland Security". I could only roll my eyes and wonder what idiot authorized Hollywood to use it.
We've got these budget talks going on right now. If DHS has spare personnel and resources to get involved in operations completely unrelated to their mission, it would be a great place to cut.
"So the beating was justified then?"
No, but when you have all of the information and see the complete video (as opposed to an excerpt), it puts the incident in an entirely different context than that which was portrayed in the news media.
"government creates money out of thin air, "
It's even worse than that. Private bankers create the money out of thin air and then the government borrows that money and pays interest on it. It's called "Quantitative Easing".
Yes, there were many poor and sick people in the USA.
Then we had a "New Deal" and a "Great Society" and a "War on Poverty" and Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, food stamps, EITC, etc. etc.
Now that government has successfully eliminated sickness and poverty, we should be able to cut back.
"Those T-Bills owned by the SSA are regularly traded on the open market..."
Wrong. The federal government took the surplus SS funds and left a non-negotiable IOU in their place. The SSA cannot sell these IOUs on the open market.
This is how the Clinton-era "surplus" was made possible. The government borrowed funds from SS and did not count them as debt.
"we didn't really become a "world power in every sense of the word" until a couple of decades after the Great Depression"
Nonsense. The USA became a military and industrial super power during the 19th century, and especially during the late 19th century. It was during the bad old days of the gilded age that U.S. GDP per capita overtook and surpassed that of all the European nations. This was also a period of amazing growth in industrial and agricultural output. All with a government that was about 5% of GDP.
The economic growth of the 1950s was only possible because the industrial infrastructure of Europe and Asia had been obliterated by the war. It's easy to have a prosperous economy after you've destroyed the competition.
"...what movie did I miss?"
Looper
Killer Joe
Safety Not Guaranteed
Savages
The Thing
Come on come on, lovin' for the money
Come on, come on, listen to the money talk
Considering the fact that the Palestinian rockets have the level of sophistication of technology typically found in an average machine shop, it's good that a multi-billion dollar defense system is actually able to defend against them.
I agree that this "two sides" perspective is idiotic, but in my experience, there are large numbers of Democrats who are simply in denial about their party and their president being just as bad as the other "team" and the previous president when it comes to civil liberties.
After four years of watching President Obama perpetuating and expanding the imperial presidency of George W. Bush and either signing or re-authorizing legislation that is every bit as damaging as the laws passed under the previous administration, I am sick and tired of listening to the Obama apologists.
"The parties aren't conspiring to erode our privacy or liberties."
I share your disappointment with the voting public, but I disagree on this point. It's obvious that the Patriot Act had been written long before 9-11-2001 and TPTB were just waiting for an excuse to implement it. That's solid proof of a "conspiracy".
Do you think that the Patriot Act would be re-authorized if it was put up for national referendum? How about the bill being discussed in the article? IMO, the people that "support" these measures do so passively, while the people that oppose them are passionate in their opposition. For that reason, I think the opposition would win.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with the false dichotomy of the 2 party system and most of the 'R's and 'D's agree that The People should have fewer civil liberties. This issue just isn't important enough for most people to compel them to vote for a 3rd party. That's tacit support for the policies, but it's not a matter of politicians bending to popular opinion.
We already have a new national anthem. It goes like this:
"AMERICA! .... F*** Yeah! "
Exactly. I think the bankers are engineering a global currency collapse as the trigger for establishment of authoritarian government. This will translate into a vast decline in the living standards for the vast majority of the population in both North America and Europe.
If I'm paranoid, someone tell me the end game of the current trend of perpetual debt accumulation coupled with steady erosion of individual liberties. A "managed" collapse is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
When the banking elite reduce the vast majority of the world's population to the level of serfs who receive strictly limited food and energy rations, the climate change problem will be solved.
I joke with my Canadian friends about how they should militarize their Southern border.
But I'm only half joking.
Won't do any good. They use the Celsius scale.