| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Comments(26473):
#27683
-
N. Korean citizen (04/22/2013) [-]
Rosie O'Donnel spread open her vagina and released...THE GIANT SAND WORM!
#27663
-
icaruslives ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] Call to talk about politics, im a very extreme soocialist and hate america, do you agree?:)
(six one nine) six one six - one five five one
ask for freddy llamas
(six one nine) six one six - one five five one
ask for freddy llamas
#27659
-
teoberry (04/22/2013) [-] Discuss. Is England going to shit? Should they stop immigration? I for one say yes. Look at what happened. People bitching about dogs. Homeowners attempting to protect themselves get in trouble. We need to nut up as a society. If some shitskin (no offence) is kicking a puppy that doesn't belong to them and hasn't done anything, they need to be hauled off to jail. It's weird, because the immigrant we get here are respectful.
#27674 to #27659
-
oxan ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] >Excusing people on religious grounds
>Apologising or amending your behaviour to appease religious groups
>Not being permitted to defend personal property
And the last part is really the result of other actions, like appeasing religious groups, for example.
>Apologising or amending your behaviour to appease religious groups
>Not being permitted to defend personal property
And the last part is really the result of other actions, like appeasing religious groups, for example.
#27705 to #27696
-
N. Korean citizen (04/22/2013) [-]
The term "private property" in the context communists and socialists use means ownership in the means of production, not private possessions. They want to abolish the private ownership of things like factories and mines. Your home, your food, your clothing, your household electronics, etc. fall under personal property, which they DO NOT seek to abolish.
Very few go so far as to believe in the abolishment of personal property. I'm certain even most communists would disagree with that extreme of a measure.
Very few go so far as to believe in the abolishment of personal property. I'm certain even most communists would disagree with that extreme of a measure.
#27783 to #27779
-
techketzer (04/24/2013) [-] "Constitutional points, legislation"
So you insist we should trust the government to uphold its self-imposed limitations that, seeing as it is the responsible authority, it could undermine, modify or just take back whenever it pleased?
Na, man. Not doing that.
So you insist we should trust the government to uphold its self-imposed limitations that, seeing as it is the responsible authority, it could undermine, modify or just take back whenever it pleased?
Na, man. Not doing that.
#27800 to #27787
-
oxan ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-] What would the government not even bother doing? You're not clear here.
The USSR operated pretty well. The Communist Party was supported by the majority of the union, and, like I said, over 70% of people voted to retain the Union prior to its collapse.
On the other hand, even with the Second Amendment, America is allowing itself to become a police state. Even with the (exaggerated) authoritarian measures of Stalin-era USSR, at least generous social spending existed.
The USSR operated pretty well. The Communist Party was supported by the majority of the union, and, like I said, over 70% of people voted to retain the Union prior to its collapse.
On the other hand, even with the Second Amendment, America is allowing itself to become a police state. Even with the (exaggerated) authoritarian measures of Stalin-era USSR, at least generous social spending existed.
#27814 to #27800
-
techketzer (04/24/2013) [-] You wrote one single line and now you ask me what I was referring to?
Fine.
"Independent judiciary, constitution changed only through direct referendum. There's plenty of measures we can implement."
That. Why would the government bother with these limitation instead of corrupt them or just run 'em over them with tanks?
"The Communist Party was supported by the majority of the union, and, like I said, over 70% of people voted to retain the Union prior to its collapse. "
I bet my ass you'd get similar figures from the US for their current system as well.
That's idiocy of the masses combined with propaganda for you.
"Even with the (exaggerated) authoritarian measures of Stalin-era USSR, at least generous social spending existed."
You gotta be fucking kidding.
"Sure they purged an awful shitload of people, but they also built roads and public kindergartens."
What world do you live in where that sounds like something to say in a debate?
Fine.
"Independent judiciary, constitution changed only through direct referendum. There's plenty of measures we can implement."
That. Why would the government bother with these limitation instead of corrupt them or just run 'em over them with tanks?
"The Communist Party was supported by the majority of the union, and, like I said, over 70% of people voted to retain the Union prior to its collapse. "
I bet my ass you'd get similar figures from the US for their current system as well.
That's idiocy of the masses combined with propaganda for you.
"Even with the (exaggerated) authoritarian measures of Stalin-era USSR, at least generous social spending existed."
You gotta be fucking kidding.
"Sure they purged an awful shitload of people, but they also built roads and public kindergartens."
What world do you live in where that sounds like something to say in a debate?
#27815 to #27814
-
oxan ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-] Such a ridiculous notion required clarification.
What keeps governments from running over existing judiciaries with tanks? Probably the same factor.
If I recall correctly, communism in the United States has higher (or recently had) approval ratings than the US Congress. But as for the Union, I'm not sure. A significant portion of the US appears to be at least a little bit anti-federalist.
Most individuals purged were simply expelled from the Communist Party. They were really about finding out what members of the party were communists, and who were simply opportunists. The numbers of people killed are debatable, and I acknowledged that Stalin was authoritarian anyway. His rapid industralisation which saved the USSR probably prevented more deaths than his purges. But it's not like I have a portrait of him on my wall; I criticise him when it's necessary, and acknowledge the good he did. He's not the demon you'd like to think he is.
What keeps governments from running over existing judiciaries with tanks? Probably the same factor.
If I recall correctly, communism in the United States has higher (or recently had) approval ratings than the US Congress. But as for the Union, I'm not sure. A significant portion of the US appears to be at least a little bit anti-federalist.
Most individuals purged were simply expelled from the Communist Party. They were really about finding out what members of the party were communists, and who were simply opportunists. The numbers of people killed are debatable, and I acknowledged that Stalin was authoritarian anyway. His rapid industralisation which saved the USSR probably prevented more deaths than his purges. But it's not like I have a portrait of him on my wall; I criticise him when it's necessary, and acknowledge the good he did. He's not the demon you'd like to think he is.
#27710 to #27709
-
commiejewnazi (04/23/2013) [-] I'm not an expert on this, but I guess I can try:
Personal property means things like your PC, guitar, house, car, etc.;
Private property means things like factories, buildings, hospitals, etc. (considering these things are privatized, of course).
Personal property means things like your PC, guitar, house, car, etc.;
Private property means things like factories, buildings, hospitals, etc. (considering these things are privatized, of course).
#27750 to #27710
-
oxan ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] Without much thought, perhaps defining private property as 'property that could be manipulated by an individual to make profits by the exploitation of others' might suffice. I guess it would then be important to explain exploitation as the capitalist exploitation, in order to distinguish between something like using a computer - personal property- for internet scams (although that should definitely be a crime).
#27711 to #27710
-
techketzer (04/23/2013) [-] Exactly my point. No one ever produces a working definition of these terms and just hobbles around on the crutches of examples.
Not good enough for a matter of such huge and universal implications; you need to be able to look at a general rule and empirically decide whether a thing is private or personal property.
If I only had a nickel everytime...
Also, the concept in itself is flawed as even "means of production" has no clear demarcation line.
Take the PC for example. One moment I just browse FJ and waste my time, the next I write a poem, a novel or a program code; products, in other words, things of value.
The PC seamlessly goes from non-MoP into MoP and back as soon as I am distracted or call it a day.
Now who does the PC belong to?
Not good enough for a matter of such huge and universal implications; you need to be able to look at a general rule and empirically decide whether a thing is private or personal property.
If I only had a nickel everytime...
Also, the concept in itself is flawed as even "means of production" has no clear demarcation line.
Take the PC for example. One moment I just browse FJ and waste my time, the next I write a poem, a novel or a program code; products, in other words, things of value.
The PC seamlessly goes from non-MoP into MoP and back as soon as I am distracted or call it a day.
Now who does the PC belong to?
#27731 to #27711
-
oxan ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] It's important to remember that when Marx wrote of personal, private and productive property a long time ago. The reason developing a single definition of personal and private property is difficult is because things have changed.
The example of the PC... I would say personal property, because the poem was produced by you, not by other individuals, who you pay a small fraction of what their labour earns you.
The example of the PC... I would say personal property, because the poem was produced by you, not by other individuals, who you pay a small fraction of what their labour earns you.
#27734 to #27731
-
techketzer (04/23/2013) [-] Developing a definition? Are you fucking kidding me?
Do you mean to imply that to this date, socialists decide what is private and personal property via arbitrary checklists one a piece-by-piece basis at best?
You mean to tell me there is no clearly defined line where to stop robbing people of their property?
"The reason developing a single definition of personal and private property is difficult is because things have changed."
That's not the reason it's difficult, that's the reason why it's absolutely essential to start out with definitions in place and not make it up as you go along.
Jesus Crust.
Do you mean to imply that to this date, socialists decide what is private and personal property via arbitrary checklists one a piece-by-piece basis at best?
You mean to tell me there is no clearly defined line where to stop robbing people of their property?
"The reason developing a single definition of personal and private property is difficult is because things have changed."
That's not the reason it's difficult, that's the reason why it's absolutely essential to start out with definitions in place and not make it up as you go along.
Jesus Crust.
#27737 to #27734
-
oxan ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] Developing a single definition. I'm sure there's some socialists who are more radical in their definition of private property, and some that are less so. Developing something that all socialists agree on is what's difficult. Developing something a specific variation of socialism can agree on isn't.
Where we stop 'robbing' people of their property is actually quite clear. 'The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.'
But there's variations amongst socialists, just as there's variations of ideology between capitalists, or anarchists.
Where we stop 'robbing' people of their property is actually quite clear. 'The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.'
But there's variations amongst socialists, just as there's variations of ideology between capitalists, or anarchists.
#27741 to #27740
-
oxan ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] 'The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.'
Seems like a reasonable explanation of private property. Public would be almost everything else. And I say almost in order to account for any specific institutions that I've forgotten.
Seems like a reasonable explanation of private property. Public would be almost everything else. And I say almost in order to account for any specific institutions that I've forgotten.
#27784 to #27780
-
techketzer (04/24/2013) [-] Ha. You are one sarcastic son of a mother.
Adapting a backwards nation to modern standards?
Even I could do that, and without killing tens of millions in the process and having it all collapse on me in an epic meltdown in the end, too.
So no, USSR was more a worst case scenario than "pretty well".
Adapting a backwards nation to modern standards?
Even I could do that, and without killing tens of millions in the process and having it all collapse on me in an epic meltdown in the end, too.
So no, USSR was more a worst case scenario than "pretty well".
#27788 to #27784
-
oxan ONLINE (04/24/2013) [-] Adapting a a backwards nation to the world's second leading industrial power, complete with free, comprehensive and superb education, 100% employment, housing, extensive and comprehensive welfare systems, after even Winston Churchill described the Western half of the country - where its industry was located - as a wasteland, and where 70% of people voted to retain the Union despite it's supposedly epic meltdown is a one helluva an achievement, that you probably wouldn't be able to do.
As for killing tens of millions, I'd love to see your proof.
As for killing tens of millions, I'd love to see your proof.
#27727 to #27726
-
oxan ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] For arguments sake, property like factories. But the definition of private property is for another thread, and what I'm asking is that when you ask what's stopping the government from seizing property, I ask if you include private dwellings.
Do you refer to private dwellings when you speak of government seizing property?
Do you refer to private dwellings when you speak of government seizing property?
#27719 to #27718
-
commiejewnazi (04/23/2013) [-] The legitimacy of 'socialist' dictatorships as actually socialist is questionable at best, I think Yugoslavia was the only one that actually had a socialist economy for a significant amount of time. It was still government ownership of many factories theoretically, but the government had very little to no influence over them, and the profits went directly to the workers, as opposed to the government, which then would attribute wages at the workers, like in state capitalism.
#27765 to #27762
-
commiejewnazi (04/23/2013) [-] Besides, socialism is (or at least used to be) about how the emancipation of the workers is awesome and totally the shit. If the factories are owned by the state, its workers don't really have complete emancipation.
I deleted the other comment because of a typo.
I deleted the other comment because of a typo.
#27776 to #27771
-
commiejewnazi (04/23/2013) [-] I'm more of a parliamentary socialist than a non-reformist one, but I think the factories are to be seized by the workers themselves, and not by a state, as it happened in Russia and the other countries that followed its model. Some of the measures of this model contradict socialism/communism/marxism in many aspects (the revolution was supposed to start in a country where capitalism was already well developed, Russia was still feudal; vanguard party, which in my opinion was what paved the path for totalitarianism; socialism from above [as opposed to socialism from below], one of the consequences of the vanguard party thingy; etc.)
In parliamentary socialism, there's probably nothing to stop them, but if the population doesn't like what they're doing, the elected party might lose their vote in the next elections.
In parliamentary socialism, there's probably nothing to stop them, but if the population doesn't like what they're doing, the elected party might lose their vote in the next elections.
#27778 to #27777
-
commiejewnazi (04/23/2013) [-] It doesn't need much power, it just needs plenty of money to buy them, which is why I think it's something that should happen slowly and a state capitalism stage between neoliberal capitalism and socialism might be needed. If that socialist economy is achieved, the things that are to still be owned by the state, are public services that are supposed to be free, like hospitals, schools, etc. and a few of the biggest factories that significant to the economy and profitable to fund the free public services, so these factories would still be run in a similar way as in state capitalism.
#27729 to #27728
-
techketzer (04/23/2013) [-] "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and DJ 4DM1Nistration of the means of production and distribution of goods"
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
It is very correct.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
It is very correct.
#27650
-
N. Korean citizen (04/21/2013) [-]
I bet Alex jones is masturbaiting to this board right now.
#27647
-
eight (04/21/2013) [-] "Now, just stop and think for a second. If you had just bombed the marathon, and needed to hijack a car and plan to let the driver live, why would you announce you were the bombers and that you had killed a cop, knowing that the driver would them immediately report that to police?" - Michael Rivero
#27680 to #27679
-
kingnarnode ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] The police force isn't retarded though, if some asshats hijacked a car after a bombing they would be suspects, maybe not top suspects but they would look into it. And so what if they told the man they were the bombers, what does that imply? They either made a mistake or they wanted to get caught? If they wanted to get caught there would be a variety of different ways to do so with being more discrete about it. And besides, they would be foolish if they had the mentality that they wold walk away from that bombing without getting caught, they probably didn't give a fuck at that point.
#27682 to #27680
-
eight (04/22/2013) [-] It wasn't right after the bombing. It was days after. I wonder how many other car jackings occurred within that period. This needs to be researched.
" And so what if they told the man they were the bombers, what does that imply?"
Exactly. It serves no purpose for the brothers. It serves every purpose for the media and police to sell their story to the American public who don't have the spine or sense to research the events themselves.
"They either made a mistake or they wanted to get caught?"
They clearly didn't want to get caught, they ran. They could have made a mistake, but they made quite a few of them and they are/were smart boys. And this mistake is quite odd. You are forgetting option three...the one where they didn't do it and all of these odd happenings, actions and coincidences are fictional.
"And besides, they would be foolish if they had the mentality that they wold walk away from that bombing without getting caught, they probably didn't give a fuck at that point. "
It would be foolish. And yet these smart boys continued living live for days after as if nothing happened. Then they see their faces on the news and decide to skip town which any sensible person would do regardless if the accusations were true or not.
" And so what if they told the man they were the bombers, what does that imply?"
Exactly. It serves no purpose for the brothers. It serves every purpose for the media and police to sell their story to the American public who don't have the spine or sense to research the events themselves.
"They either made a mistake or they wanted to get caught?"
They clearly didn't want to get caught, they ran. They could have made a mistake, but they made quite a few of them and they are/were smart boys. And this mistake is quite odd. You are forgetting option three...the one where they didn't do it and all of these odd happenings, actions and coincidences are fictional.
"And besides, they would be foolish if they had the mentality that they wold walk away from that bombing without getting caught, they probably didn't give a fuck at that point. "
It would be foolish. And yet these smart boys continued living live for days after as if nothing happened. Then they see their faces on the news and decide to skip town which any sensible person would do regardless if the accusations were true or not.
#27684 to #27682
-
kingnarnode ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] " I wonder how many other car jackings occurred within that period."
Didn't the city go under lock down or something? I'm sure hijacking a car and skipping town would be suspicious, and even if it wasn't suspicious there would be someone looking into it. The police wouldn't take any chances. These boys were obviously acting out of desperation, they new they would get caught, the problem is no one can say for certain how someone is going to act out of desperation.
But your bit on the third option, I don't think it's fictional, sure maybe not all of it is true. For instance, they guy who got carjacked could have very well lied about them admitting to the bombings, but things people saying like there being bomb squads and a drill at the event as justification for their conspiracy theories I don't get. If this was done by the government, then I can guarantee you that those bomb squad dudes and everyone in uniform had nothing to do with it, it would have been discrete. Like really, what's so suspicious about a a big event like that having high security, especially after sandy hook.
Didn't the city go under lock down or something? I'm sure hijacking a car and skipping town would be suspicious, and even if it wasn't suspicious there would be someone looking into it. The police wouldn't take any chances. These boys were obviously acting out of desperation, they new they would get caught, the problem is no one can say for certain how someone is going to act out of desperation.
But your bit on the third option, I don't think it's fictional, sure maybe not all of it is true. For instance, they guy who got carjacked could have very well lied about them admitting to the bombings, but things people saying like there being bomb squads and a drill at the event as justification for their conspiracy theories I don't get. If this was done by the government, then I can guarantee you that those bomb squad dudes and everyone in uniform had nothing to do with it, it would have been discrete. Like really, what's so suspicious about a a big event like that having high security, especially after sandy hook.
#27691 to #27684
-
eight (04/22/2013) [-] "there being bomb squads and a drill at the event as justification for their conspiracy theories I don't get."
It isn't justification. For instance, we know there were drills going on and bomb sniffing dogs on scene. And yet bombs somehow made there way into the crowd to blow up people. Those dogs should be fired.
" it would have been discrete"
Well it has to be, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy.
"Like really, what's so suspicious about a a big event like that having high security, especially after sandy hook. "
You should really investigate this, it is much more complicated than the presence of security. And for all that security, they really failed at their job.
It isn't justification. For instance, we know there were drills going on and bomb sniffing dogs on scene. And yet bombs somehow made there way into the crowd to blow up people. Those dogs should be fired.
" it would have been discrete"
Well it has to be, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy.
"Like really, what's so suspicious about a a big event like that having high security, especially after sandy hook. "
You should really investigate this, it is much more complicated than the presence of security. And for all that security, they really failed at their job.
#27692 to #27691
-
kingnarnode ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] I don't have the time nor the interest to look into it any further, security breaches happen all the time. Firefighters are meant to save lives but sometimes they fail, should they be fired? Security is meant to protect the people, should they be fired because they failed? You can't possibly expect them to be able to stop everything, especially since you Americans complain and bitch about how the government is taking away your freedoms by doing something as simple as searching your backpack. And then when this happens, people turn around and point fingers at the government. Americans need to understand that stricter security laws aren't and infringement on their freedom. Do you honestly think that a few dogs, wandering around and sniffing a bag here and there is going to stop a threat? Just wait, I can already see the government trying to propose stricter security laws and then the ignorant citizens shooting it down because it infringes on their freedoms. And then they wonder why shit like this happens.
#27697 to #27693
-
kingnarnode ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] Well I said that because I have looked into it somewhat, and I think wasting my time digging for more information is a waste of time at this point because more information will be released in the future.
On a side note, you keep saying that people flip out and call you crazy when you say the c word, but I find this to be opposite from personal experiences. Most people I have talked to when the subject arises follow conspiracy theories. And not just like 9/11 ones, like the crazy alien ones. Honestly I'm scared to know that these people vote. I find this to be especially true in the younger generation.
On a side note, you keep saying that people flip out and call you crazy when you say the c word, but I find this to be opposite from personal experiences. Most people I have talked to when the subject arises follow conspiracy theories. And not just like 9/11 ones, like the crazy alien ones. Honestly I'm scared to know that these people vote. I find this to be especially true in the younger generation.
#27700 to #27697
-
eight (04/22/2013) [-] My personal experience tells me that people flip out when you mention conspiracies as if all conspiracies are fake, crazy, shams by people with tin foil hats. Even the media portrays theorists as such.
They do the same thing to the prepper community. They do the same thing to Muslims. It is a stereotype that people mistake for fact.
They do the same thing to the prepper community. They do the same thing to Muslims. It is a stereotype that people mistake for fact.
#27701 to #27700
-
kingnarnode ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] That's because the only ones who get attention are guys like this www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2w2TRxSLxw
#27702 to #27701
-
eight (04/22/2013) [-] Exactly. People like Alex Jones help the public discredit actual theorists and actual conspiracies allowing them to never be taken seriously.
I once heard Alex Jones refuse to believe some conspiracy theorist who called into his show claiming something. And Alex was like "Yeah dude I'm not going to accept that without any evidence."
I started laughing my ass off.
I once heard Alex Jones refuse to believe some conspiracy theorist who called into his show claiming something. And Alex was like "Yeah dude I'm not going to accept that without any evidence."
I started laughing my ass off.
#27657 to #27654
-
teoberry (04/21/2013) [-] Yes, but this instills it more so. Some people would still fight back. Knowing that this particular person caused all this damage, did all this shit, would scare the shit out of anyone. Getting carjacked by a wanted terrorist is different than getting carjacked by a hood looking for quick cash.
#27658 to #27657
-
eight (04/22/2013) [-] Perhaps. Although
A)If that driver knew someone who was killed or hurt in the bombings, I'd imagine their instinct would be to hurt those two boys as retaliation.
B) I think anyone would try and stop a terrorist if able, especially if they just killed and hurt a bunch of people.
If I had did those things, the last thing I would want to do is boast about being the perpetrator, I would have more than the cops and military to fear.
A)If that driver knew someone who was killed or hurt in the bombings, I'd imagine their instinct would be to hurt those two boys as retaliation.
B) I think anyone would try and stop a terrorist if able, especially if they just killed and hurt a bunch of people.
If I had did those things, the last thing I would want to do is boast about being the perpetrator, I would have more than the cops and military to fear.
#27666 to #27658
-
teoberry (04/22/2013) [-] Yes, but if they used common sense (which I understand isn't common in these situations), they'd realize they couldn't do much. One was probably riding shotgun, and one in the back. If he tries to do anything to one, the other would cap him. And I think they'd have enough sense not to drive off a bridge or anything, nor would they crash it.
#27649 to #27647
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
Well maybe they didnt plan to let the driver live,and just didnt kill him out of fear or doubt?Or maybe they were just so disturbed by the events happening,they started saying things out of paranoia?Or maybe they were trying to confide in the driver because they needed someone to trust?
#27656 to #27649
-
eight (04/21/2013) [-] That is a stretch. These were smart boys.
If they did what the police are saying they did, I hardly doubt they wouldn't be able to compose themselves as calm, and organized.
If anything, that situation would have been easy compared to being at the marathon, holding and placing a bomb surrounded by thousands of people, with bomb sniffing dogs on scene, as well as military and police who were holding drills previous to and through this event.
They don't even wear anything to conceal their identities. They know there are cameras everywhere, they know they are being filmed, they don't conceal their identities and after that day they don't seem to worry about getting caught (and they clearly didn't want to get caught because they ran). So either these boys who are supposed to be smart are actually so incompetent that they rival Mr. Bean or we are being lied to in some shape or form for what could be hundreds of reasons.
Judging by their escape attempts, they would have been a mess at the marathon too. But no, after that day they went home and went about their daily lives just like anyone else. And then the media starts putting their faces up on the news, they panic.
I don't know about any of you, but imagine turning on your TV in the morning to see your face plastered on the screen and you are being labeled a terror suspect in a recent bombing which killed people and injured hundreds. And you didn't do any of what they were saying.
I myself would be a Canadian, or Mexican, because to stay put would likely mean no trial, or I'll be killed or shipped off to GITMO.
If they did what the police are saying they did, I hardly doubt they wouldn't be able to compose themselves as calm, and organized.
If anything, that situation would have been easy compared to being at the marathon, holding and placing a bomb surrounded by thousands of people, with bomb sniffing dogs on scene, as well as military and police who were holding drills previous to and through this event.
They don't even wear anything to conceal their identities. They know there are cameras everywhere, they know they are being filmed, they don't conceal their identities and after that day they don't seem to worry about getting caught (and they clearly didn't want to get caught because they ran). So either these boys who are supposed to be smart are actually so incompetent that they rival Mr. Bean or we are being lied to in some shape or form for what could be hundreds of reasons.
Judging by their escape attempts, they would have been a mess at the marathon too. But no, after that day they went home and went about their daily lives just like anyone else. And then the media starts putting their faces up on the news, they panic.
I don't know about any of you, but imagine turning on your TV in the morning to see your face plastered on the screen and you are being labeled a terror suspect in a recent bombing which killed people and injured hundreds. And you didn't do any of what they were saying.
I myself would be a Canadian, or Mexican, because to stay put would likely mean no trial, or I'll be killed or shipped off to GITMO.
#27638
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
Proposal for new city-state.
As the various governments of the world in their attempts to control the individual have laid claim to virtually all of the land based territories,a few idealists have begun the initial steps to create a floating city in international waters,not unlike a US navy super cruiser which can hold thousands of people along with the capabilities to be self sufficient in the worst case scenario.
www.seasteading.org/
Now the founders of these floating islands are from a libertarian mindset(as am I),but that does not prevent a wealthy "communist" or socialist(and they do exist,even though the various leftist movements refuse to acknowledge that fact) from starting their own city states.
But here is my idea for an island.The executive branch will be made up of a chairman,who's only duty is to protect the individual rights of all citizens,and to defend the island from outside threats such as pirates or foreign governments.The first chairman will be placed there by a vote amongst the islands financiers,after that the chairman will in good faith appoint the citizenry who are most qualified in the nations ideals to judicial appointments,and upon his death or resignation,the appointees will vote for a new chairman .Each individual is his or her own person,with no duty to the government(besides a utilities tax to cover security and a few other essentials needed to preserving the island that private industry could not provide) and no duty to their fellow man.We will not be a democracy,there will be no votes to change the laws,nor will there be any need to change the law as the law would be basic.All of the usual crimes
(murder,robbery,ect) will be outlawed,there will be no victimless laws,and the individuals right is supreme.If you are not happy with this,then you are free to leave,but any attempt to institute a tyranny of the majority like government will be met as a hostile action.
As the various governments of the world in their attempts to control the individual have laid claim to virtually all of the land based territories,a few idealists have begun the initial steps to create a floating city in international waters,not unlike a US navy super cruiser which can hold thousands of people along with the capabilities to be self sufficient in the worst case scenario.
www.seasteading.org/
Now the founders of these floating islands are from a libertarian mindset(as am I),but that does not prevent a wealthy "communist" or socialist(and they do exist,even though the various leftist movements refuse to acknowledge that fact) from starting their own city states.
But here is my idea for an island.The executive branch will be made up of a chairman,who's only duty is to protect the individual rights of all citizens,and to defend the island from outside threats such as pirates or foreign governments.The first chairman will be placed there by a vote amongst the islands financiers,after that the chairman will in good faith appoint the citizenry who are most qualified in the nations ideals to judicial appointments,and upon his death or resignation,the appointees will vote for a new chairman .Each individual is his or her own person,with no duty to the government(besides a utilities tax to cover security and a few other essentials needed to preserving the island that private industry could not provide) and no duty to their fellow man.We will not be a democracy,there will be no votes to change the laws,nor will there be any need to change the law as the law would be basic.All of the usual crimes
(murder,robbery,ect) will be outlawed,there will be no victimless laws,and the individuals right is supreme.If you are not happy with this,then you are free to leave,but any attempt to institute a tyranny of the majority like government will be met as a hostile action.
#27645 to #27643
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
I thought about this,and although i disagree will autocracy,it is better that one educated man or woman,firm in his ideas of individual liberty and peace,have control than a swarm of people less educated and less moral deciding the laws.Better a just tyranny,that allows freedom to exist,then a chaotic tyranny by the majority.
#27642 to #27638
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
We will allow immigration,but only if they pass a screening check by a board of the most trusted citizens to make sure that no collectivist movement attempts to muck things up as they so often do.The justice system will be simple.The individual will be represented by a public appointee (lower appointees decided by higher appointees) if they cannot afford a private lawyer.The lawyers of both sides will argue before a judge(there will be no jury to be swayed by chewbacca arguments) and if he is found guilty,he will be allowed to appeal his ruling all the way to the chairman if it is deemed allowable by the court of appeals.There will be a death penalty that will be executed no more than 1 month after appeals have bee exhausted.It will be a quick death,but also cheap.Any person found guilty of a crime who was not an original citizen of the city state(a founder or someone born there) will be deported once their sentence is up.The chairmans office will be weak in some ways,but strong in others.He will have no veto power,no pardon power,and no power to declare war.The only power that he has is to defend the island(pre emptive strikes will be considered but only with the approval of the appointees),appoint justices,and secure each persons individual rights.Corporatism will also be discouraged,no businesses will be allowed to give money in any way shape of form to the government.We will have a non or non-interventionism foreign policy,that is both fair and unbiased.
#27648 to #27642
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
Also,when I say there will be no democracy.I mean in terms of changing laws.The chairman will appoint justices,but only the people can vote out these justices with a 2/3rds majority.That means that although the law is absolute,how it is interpreted is able to be discussed.It also means that appointee does not have to do the bidding of the chairman,as the chairman does not have the power to fire him.The police and military will not swear an oath to the chairman or the appointees or even the people.They will serve the law of the land based around the individual.Any attempt of the chairman or the appointees to intimidate the police or armed forces with pay or benefits cuts will be illegal.Public officials pay will be set for 5 years and is only subject to a 10% increase based on the individual public servants performance.
#27646 to #27644
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
North korea is more of an absolute monarchy than anything else.Kim only has power because of his daddy,and is free to do whatever he wants,regardless of the individual or the ideals of the nations founding.The chairman would have to be moral,and an idealist.He would have to hold onto his convictions,an be able to effectively interpret what the nation is really about.
#27637
-
fullretard (04/21/2013) [-] buying pony bones
75 rits ea
buying books of rape, eternal damnation, human sacrifice, and endless nightmare
25 RITs each
buying corrupt souls
20 RITs
buying pony hooves
15 RITs
selling everything
75 rits ea
buying books of rape, eternal damnation, human sacrifice, and endless nightmare
25 RITs each
buying corrupt souls
20 RITs
buying pony hooves
15 RITs
selling everything
#27622
-
eight (04/21/2013) [-] Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was in a Boston hospital seriously wounded and unable to speak after he was captured late Friday at the end of a manhunt that shut down Boston. Dzhokhar, a student at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, was shot in the throat and could not speak because of injuries to his tongue, said a source close to the investigation. It was unclear when he would be able to talk.
"He could mouth the words and anyone who teaches lip-reading to the deaf can understand him. So I suspect this story about a throat injury is intended to discourage the media (and outside investigators) from wanting to talk to him. Indeed the only reason he is still alive may be the fact that so many Americans are not buying the official story, concern that the death of the second brother may trigger riots across the globe similar to those that followed the botched false-flag in Banghazi and destabilize Chechnya." - Michael Rivero
"He could mouth the words and anyone who teaches lip-reading to the deaf can understand him. So I suspect this story about a throat injury is intended to discourage the media (and outside investigators) from wanting to talk to him. Indeed the only reason he is still alive may be the fact that so many Americans are not buying the official story, concern that the death of the second brother may trigger riots across the globe similar to those that followed the botched false-flag in Banghazi and destabilize Chechnya." - Michael Rivero
#27598
-
infamoustrapper (04/21/2013) [-] So...are we just done with the boston marathon??? We still don't know why THE FUCK he would rob A FUCKING CONVENIENCE STORE after bombing a marathon! What the hell!
#27602 to #27598
-
oxan ONLINE (04/21/2013) [-] /shrug. False flag seems increasingly likely, to be honest.
Brings back memories of when they had an airliner flying over New York with a fighter jet next to it. People became hysterical, and they claimed they were just taking photos of the airline. Testing to see how afraid the people still were, I say.
And now, testing to see how people react when they're told that it's for their own safety, and that a dangerous terrorist is on the loose.
Thousands of police officers, National Guard deployed, complete lockdown of the city, for what? One wounded nineteen year old. Absolute rubbish.
Brings back memories of when they had an airliner flying over New York with a fighter jet next to it. People became hysterical, and they claimed they were just taking photos of the airline. Testing to see how afraid the people still were, I say.
And now, testing to see how people react when they're told that it's for their own safety, and that a dangerous terrorist is on the loose.
Thousands of police officers, National Guard deployed, complete lockdown of the city, for what? One wounded nineteen year old. Absolute rubbish.
#27606 to #27605
-
oxan ONLINE (04/21/2013) [-] But he was a nineteen year old kid with no training whatsoever. Dorner had military training and a veteran police officer.
Even if he's using bombs - which a significant portion of evidence suggests he wasn't, and that he didn't place the bombs at all - it still does not justify deploying the National Guard and kicking in people's doors.
Even if he's using bombs - which a significant portion of evidence suggests he wasn't, and that he didn't place the bombs at all - it still does not justify deploying the National Guard and kicking in people's doors.
#27610 to #27609
-
oxan ONLINE (04/21/2013) [-] /shrug. It's late. I've payed attention to parts.
And I'm by no means standing by your constitution. I just find it amusing that Americans fiercely fight for some amendments, and ignore others.
This section from an article sums up my thoughts pretty well:
'Notwithstanding the horrific character of the crimes involved in the Boston bombings, these implications are very real. The staggering police-military mobilization was clearly the result of years of planning and coordination between various military, intelligence and police agencies that have been relentlessly built up in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. It is now clear that, based purely on their say-so, a major American city can be placed under what would have been called, in a Latin American military dictatorship, a state of siege.
The events in Boston have lifted the veil on the degree to which, behind an eroding veneer of democracy, American society has been thoroughly militarized.'
And I'm by no means standing by your constitution. I just find it amusing that Americans fiercely fight for some amendments, and ignore others.
This section from an article sums up my thoughts pretty well:
'Notwithstanding the horrific character of the crimes involved in the Boston bombings, these implications are very real. The staggering police-military mobilization was clearly the result of years of planning and coordination between various military, intelligence and police agencies that have been relentlessly built up in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. It is now clear that, based purely on their say-so, a major American city can be placed under what would have been called, in a Latin American military dictatorship, a state of siege.
The events in Boston have lifted the veil on the degree to which, behind an eroding veneer of democracy, American society has been thoroughly militarized.'
#27611 to #27610
-
infamoustrapper (04/21/2013) [-] Well I have no comment on the bottom part. It's just funny that you are arguing we aren't following our constitution even though you know nothing about it. Searching of peoples' homes is unconsitutional EXCEPT with a warrant with a justifiable cause. I consider this a justifiable cause
#27615 to #27614
-
infamoustrapper (04/21/2013) [-] "WBZ-TV reported late Monday that law enforcement officers were searching an apartment in the Boston suburb of Revere. Massachusetts State Police confirmed that a search warrant related to the investigation into the explosions was served Monday night in Revere"
Why are you just making stuff up with no evidence whatsoever?
Why are you just making stuff up with no evidence whatsoever?
#27597
-
oxan ONLINE (04/21/2013) [-] www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8
'Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes.'
'Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes.'
#27586
-
N. Korean citizen (04/21/2013) [-]
[Comment deleted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation]
#27578
-
CapnInterwebz ONLINE (04/20/2013) [-] What do you guys think about the statement "Your rights end when they infringe another's?"
#27585 to #27578
-
Ruspanic (04/21/2013) [-] Oh, and I guess the statement can be interpreted another way.
I took it to mean that your rights are limited by the rights of others (e.g. my right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins), but it could also means that you forfeit your own rights when you violate the rights of others.
Which is an idea that I'm partial to in theory, though its practical applications to the justice system are rather troublesome.
In theory, a murderer has no right to life, but in practice executing all murderers is objectionable because of the prospect of killing innocent people, and because of the danger of a government that can legally kill its citizens.
I took it to mean that your rights are limited by the rights of others (e.g. my right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins), but it could also means that you forfeit your own rights when you violate the rights of others.
Which is an idea that I'm partial to in theory, though its practical applications to the justice system are rather troublesome.
In theory, a murderer has no right to life, but in practice executing all murderers is objectionable because of the prospect of killing innocent people, and because of the danger of a government that can legally kill its citizens.
#27583 to #27578
-
Ruspanic (04/21/2013) [-] This is a definition of negative rights, rights that exist by default (either from birth or at a given moment) and cannot be violated: the right to life, free expression, free belief, free assembly and mutual agreement, and, broadly stated, natural autonomy.
For instance, the right to life means that others cannot take your life, not that you are entitled to be kept alive through the efforts of others.
Property rights are also negative rights: you can keep and utilize whatever property you own, but you are not entitled to receive property if you do not have it.
For instance, the right to life means that others cannot take your life, not that you are entitled to be kept alive through the efforts of others.
Property rights are also negative rights: you can keep and utilize whatever property you own, but you are not entitled to receive property if you do not have it.
#27579 to #27578
-
thechurchchurch (04/21/2013) [-]
In the sense that if you kill somebody you get life imprisonment or the possibly of the death penalty?Yes.
In the sense that a person who earned his money is supposed to bend to the will of the needy or be threatened with force,or a gun owner is supposed to bend to the will of somebody who is afraid of guns?No.
In the sense that a person who earned his money is supposed to bend to the will of the needy or be threatened with force,or a gun owner is supposed to bend to the will of somebody who is afraid of guns?No.
