 ratilfar says: From the article: When you cheer on a Surveillance State, you have no grounds to complain when it turns its eyes on you. If you create a massive and wildly empowered domestic surveillance apparatus, it's going to monitor and investigate domestic political activity. That's its nature. I'd love to know how many of the participants in today's right-wing self-victim orgy uttered a peep of protest about any of this, from 2005: isn't this the kitty's moustache? how funny is this? oh....er uh.....we meant it's ok to spy on everybody that isn't us....how rich! Exactly! It is all about tribal loyalties. As long as it doesn't happen to them, it's otay! But wait, there is more: What was most remarkable about this allegedly "anti-government" movement was that -- with some isolated and principled exceptions -- it completely vanished upon the election of Republican George Bush, and it stayed invisible even as Bush presided over the most extreme and invasive expansion of federal government power in memory. Even as Bush seized and used all of the powers which that movement claimed in the 1990s to find so tyrannical and unconstitutional -- limitless, unchecked surveillance activities, detention powers with no oversight, expanding federal police powers, secret prison camps, even massively exploding and debt-financed domestic spending... Haha! Serves the evil bastards right having their own evil turned upon them. Don't cry when the past bites you in the ass. And if you call them out on it then your the "hypocrite" or some such. Hasn't domestic terrorism in the USA - of the kind which has killing people as its goal - usually been from the far right? Usually yes, although in the vein of intellectual honesty, not completely so. Still moan, bitch, complain through out the Clinton years, quite during the Bush years and then wham, back to bitching and moaning again. Not to mention the Atlanta Olympics bombing, Oklahoma City, the assassinations of abortion providers, and the bombings of women's clinics. I can't see why any reasonable conservative Christians would be hysterically outraged by extreme threats from those evil swine such as the KKK or the Westboro Baptists who merely blanket themselves under the phrase Christian/conservative/Christian conservative. It would be like a UK patriot getting hysterical at attacks on the evil fascist National Front because they use the Union Jack as their symbol. I am baffled by the outpourings of some on the Right in America, and truly hope they do not represent the majority of Republican voters. Well it feeds into their paranoia you see and their position as victims. Because (according to some here) there is NO such thing as a right wing terrorist group (although apparently ACLU/ACORN/Soros sponsored ones are all over the place). Therefore this means that Obama (personally I may add) is targeting them, the REAL Americans. Of course the irony is that by acting in such a way they are confirming what people with more than two functioning neurons have known all alone. That these people; the Malkins, the Rushbos, the Savages and the Becks are in fact inspiring hate and ignorance on a daily basis for ratings sake and hoping that some lunatic somewhere does this so they can then blame Obama for it. His Oiliness Dr. James Dobson said that "...there aren't any Timothy McVeighs out there..." He seems to forget that the first FBI reaction after the Oklahoma City bombing was to suspect it to be the work of foreign terrorists, probably the same group that had bombed the WTC in 1993, and that nobody suspected, until it was confirmed that McVeigh was the culprit, that it was `"one of our own". (Other suspects included drug cartels and religious extremists). McVeigh was completely under the radar until he was connected to the bombing. He was pulled over for driving without plates and arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. Had the state in which he had been arrested had a concealed carry... Lot of pops and a lot of people read it and quietly left, I mean went away. Sorry, I said that four letter word. Great clip. It would be normal to rebuild a failed organization, such as the Republican Party, from the roots up. Big ask? Move up one space "The Greens" who have policy and a structure, will get a lot of second preferences (do you have that system?), and just happen to be in the right (correct) place at the correct time. While the Republicans wander into the wilderness, looking for Armageddon. Well Jorjor, as we have heard time and time again, it only takes on crazed fanatic to kill a bunch of people. Talking of concealed weapons permits; what is the deterrent value of a concealed weapon? If the assailant doesn't know you have a gun, he/she won't be deterred by it and will probably open fire. If attacker already pulled out his gun, he already has the advantage while you fumble for your weapon. The only advantage that I see is that if the weapon is concealed then you won't be the first target of an attack. Which simply means some other person will be the victim. Although there is no guarantee of that either. Tabsey....you are right. But the problem with the Republicans is that they have gone to the radical well so many times that the have alienated everyone else. And to top it off they enjoy their status. It reinforces their "victim" mentality, Us vs. The World. If anything it just allows the Democrats more room to maneuver and greater ability to hold on to power. Lemme answer that question to the concealed carry permit from my perspective Rat. IMHO, most of the time people don't attack women with guns, usually knifes or bare hands (I hate to say it but a man could kill a woman with his bare hands) At least with a concealed carry I feel personally safer say if I jog (which I do) on rural isolated trails. Now, am I safer? I dunno, I mean I carry my cell too and that makes me feel safer, so who is to say what would save your life? But what I hate is the fact that I feel unsafe to begin with and that is due to life experience and the media. OK, I can see why you want to carry a firearm for personal safety. The treat is real enough. But my specific question goes to the deterrent capability of a concealed firearm. I'm arguing that you should have your weapon with you and the fact that you are seen carrying one should deter any knife wielding maniac (crazy doesn't necessarily equal stupid). But if the weapon is concealed, it has no deterrent effect, although it may help repelled the offender once the attack has begun. Just expressing myself on that narrow issue. Back in the day I made this two short films. I think I also clipped them, but It is easier to put the direct links here. Rise of the Empire The Show Must Go On at the GOP Convention Notice any recurring themes? It would do the US a lot of good if they were to just abandon the Republican party. They could let the Democrats be the right-wing party they really are, and the Greens could take over as the opposing party, giving the US an actual left-wing view for the first time in decades. Hi Rat, I think it could possibly have some deterrent effect that if the state you live in allows concealed carry then you have the element of surprise upon attack. I feel if you were carrying out in the open, then it would come down to who was the fastest draw and most accurate shot. Look at it this way; suppose you are a burglar breaking into someone's home, the house is dark and the first thing you hear is the sound of the a shotgun slide being pulled back. Most likely one would vacate, and if not, then that person had more motives than stealing. I see some value to that, but a relatively negligible advantage. The shot gun in the night becomes a deterrent the moment it is unmasked but not before. Good point. |
View the Top Clips from April 14, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
