| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
Comments(31295):
#27774
-
pebar ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] Should domestic terrorists be tried for treason?
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
#27767
-
N. Korean citizen (04/23/2013) [-]
Don't be stupid, be a smartie!
Come and join the Nazi party!
Come and join the Nazi party!
#27758
-
tredbear (04/23/2013) [-] this time I found a nice Soviet made music piece, hope you enjoy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMQEN8v49A&list=PLnYY9qf0dhv8ivyMmenLEXVPCHREuGbDW
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdMQEN8v49A&list=PLnYY9qf0dhv8ivyMmenLEXVPCHREuGbDW
#27797 to #27794
-
commiejewnazi **User deleted account** (04/24/2013) [-] It might be hard for the first times, and it requires a little more patience, as it's slower-paced, more realistic and more tactical than many other fps games, but once you get the hang of it, you'll probably start enjoying it like I do.
#27757
-
oxan ONLINE (04/23/2013) [-] 'Residents filled the parking lot with bags and baskets hoping to get some of the baby food, canned goods, noodles and other non-perishables. But a local church never came to pick up the food, as the storeowner prior to the eviction said they had arranged. By the time the people showed up for the food, what was left inside the premises—as with any eviction—came into the ownership of the property holder, SunTrust Bank.
The bank ordered the food to be loaded into dumpsters and hauled to a landfill instead of distributed. The people that gathered had to be restrained by police as they saw perfectly good food destroyed. Local Sheriff Richard Roundtree told the news “a potential for a riot was extremely high.”'
climateandcapitalism.com/2013/04/22/cops-hold-back-hungry-people-as-food-dumped/
The bank ordered the food to be loaded into dumpsters and hauled to a landfill instead of distributed. The people that gathered had to be restrained by police as they saw perfectly good food destroyed. Local Sheriff Richard Roundtree told the news “a potential for a riot was extremely high.”'
climateandcapitalism.com/2013/04/22/cops-hold-back-hungry-people-as-food-dumped/
#27720
-
N. Korean citizen (04/23/2013) [-]
"The hospitalized Boston Marathon bombing suspect charged Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction has told investigators that he and his brother were motivated by religion but were not in contact with overseas terrorists or groups, officials said.
Several officials familiar with the initial interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev described his behavior during questioning as cooperative.
A senior government official said Tsarnaev has told investigators — by writing some answers down, and by nodding yes or shaking his head no to others — that he and his brother were not in touch with any overseas terrorists or groups.
Tsarnaev, who has injuries to his tongue preventing him from speaking properly, also indicated that he and his brother conceived the bombing attack on their own, and were motivated by religious fervor."
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/17860373-officials-hospitalized-bombing-suspect-says-he-and-brother-acted-alone-motivated-by-religion?lite
Several officials familiar with the initial interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev described his behavior during questioning as cooperative.
A senior government official said Tsarnaev has told investigators — by writing some answers down, and by nodding yes or shaking his head no to others — that he and his brother were not in touch with any overseas terrorists or groups.
Tsarnaev, who has injuries to his tongue preventing him from speaking properly, also indicated that he and his brother conceived the bombing attack on their own, and were motivated by religious fervor."
usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/17860373-officials-hospitalized-bombing-suspect-says-he-and-brother-acted-alone-motivated-by-religion?lite
#27708
-
teoberry ONLINE (04/22/2013) [-] www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/04/22/suspects_in_toronto_terror_plot_arrested_sources.html
Terrorist plot thwarted in good ol' swaggot-town. Do you conspiracy folks out there think it was a gov't plot to make Harper look good? From what I hear (don't follow Cdn. politics), Trudeau could give Stevie H a run for his money, maybe this was a way to increase confidence in voters. I think it was a legit plot tho.
Terrorist plot thwarted in good ol' swaggot-town. Do you conspiracy folks out there think it was a gov't plot to make Harper look good? From what I hear (don't follow Cdn. politics), Trudeau could give Stevie H a run for his money, maybe this was a way to increase confidence in voters. I think it was a legit plot tho.
#27751 to #27749
-
arisaka (04/23/2013) [-] I wouldn't really blame it on specific groups - I just think Toronto is the prime target for things like this due to it being the economic centre of Canada. In Canada, All roads lead to Toronto (I could say that we've only got on road so all roads lead to everywhere but uhhhh whatever).
There is just a high level of exploited immigrants in Toronto which causes problems, just like most other cities. But the Canadian population is including more and more of these exploited people (which I think is a good thing, I like diversity, but conflict sucks).
In Montreal we deal with linguistic issues and the mafia, but not terrorism.
There is just a high level of exploited immigrants in Toronto which causes problems, just like most other cities. But the Canadian population is including more and more of these exploited people (which I think is a good thing, I like diversity, but conflict sucks).
In Montreal we deal with linguistic issues and the mafia, but not terrorism.
#27753 to #27752
-
arisaka (04/23/2013) [-] Yeah! We're good like that, I think. I'm a unilingual anglophone so life in Quebec is weird. I'm stuck between my cultural ties and my political ones - both of which aren't really represented to begin with. People give Quebec a bad rep but despite all the shit I deal with I still love it and I still call it home.
Every now and then you deal with the angry franco supremacist but it's really not comparable to how awesome the city is.
Every now and then you deal with the angry franco supremacist but it's really not comparable to how awesome the city is.
#27755 to #27754
-
arisaka (04/23/2013) [-] It's just the extremists who want everyone to speak only french and shit. I can understand where they are coming from because of how hard they were exploited, historically. It's a really sensitive topic here because of how culturally different Quebec is and how we were 'betrayed' in the past, with the constitution, the Meech Lake Accord, Night of Long Knives, etc.
As far as separatism goes, it would be possible, just not under the PQ model. I wouldn't want it because then Canada loses a great part of itself. Instead, I think the provinces should just try and integrate better - take the best parts of each and work together. The federal government has really failed to do that. Quebec is a great province and others could learn from it - just as Quebec could learn from other provinces.
As far as separatism goes, it would be possible, just not under the PQ model. I wouldn't want it because then Canada loses a great part of itself. Instead, I think the provinces should just try and integrate better - take the best parts of each and work together. The federal government has really failed to do that. Quebec is a great province and others could learn from it - just as Quebec could learn from other provinces.
#27686
-
paranoidwzy (04/22/2013) [-] www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10010352/Angela-Merkel-Europe-has-t he-last-word-in-certain-areas.html
Behold! Ze fourth Reich!
Behold! Ze fourth Reich!
#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 ONLINE (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 **User deleted account** (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 **User deleted account** (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 **User deleted account** (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 **User deleted account** (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 **User deleted account** (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 ONLINE (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 ONLINE (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
