How his this political?

Although their comments were fucking stupid as fuck, and I do have a bone to pick with the armed forces, a storm IS a storm.

Your comment was kind of silly too. I mean sure, that's a fine way to go about it, but it basically translates to this: "Shit, I destroyed a part of the environment. Let's replace what's damaged with UNNATURAL stuff."

Facebook people are the worst, man. It's not even worth my effort anymore.

It's not uncommon to use old ships as artificial reefs, they do work.

I suppose your right.

But it'd take a lot of time for that to happen (well, for it to look all spooky and cool and whatnot.) It doesn't fly like that anymore now because of how much we already do away with coral reefs. If it were back when those ships sunk - back when the environment was even more of the worlds trash can than it is now - then that would be an acceptable solution.

People hate on America because they are on the internet. They see the internet as a shield.

What has the quote of Paul Broun to do with evolution? It has to be climate.

I am an idiot, and didn't post the link, sorry about that. petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/start-dialogue-congress-over-scientifically-illiterate-members-congressional-science-committee/kTYHvbZj

Yes we get it. Obama´s A.dministration won´t help shit, banning guns is a shit idea.

Everyone
Here
Gets
It

Can we PLEASE move on and talk about someone that isn´t about guns?

Well I tried having a mature dialogue about refrigerators, but now you can just go fuck yourself.

When will the USA grow up like everyone else and just ban fridges, fridge violence is basically null in Australia.

What you dont seem to realize is that although fridge related violence has gone down,violent frozen food death has gone UP in Australia.

Fridges:1
Australia:0

Here's what you conspiracy theorist types don't get:

Staging a tragedy in which people die is a completely ass-backwards idea from a political standpoint. To a governmental body, common folk represent three simple things: votes, taxes, and labor. If the government kills people, they lose a voter, a taxpayer, and a worker. If everything that has been called a false flag operation was (pretty much anything that happens where people are kill) then the government has deliberately taken out an outrageous amount of labor and potential revenue from the economy. Plus, they just killed their fuckin' voters.

Sorry but if 10 million random people were wiped off the face of the U.S, the government would not miss them, nor would they need them. There will still be 290 million other voters, taxpayers ect...Taxes also don't mean much when you can print money with the snap of a finger. From a political standpoint, it is the single most effective form of brainwashing that a government could perform. It is quick and relatively easy. Most people will have no reason to expect anything sinister because, after all, why would the government EVER want to hurt the people? False flags have been common throughout WORLD history, not just with the U.S. Do you really believe that the U.S government is any better than other governments of the world?

You do raise a point, that it doesn't really matter on a national economy level if about a dozen people die, and moreover, my statement really only applied to broad scale conspiracies (aliens, Hurricanes caused by chem trails, and 9/11). Thank you for showing me that error. But there's three more holes in conspiracy logic that I'd like addressed while we're on the topic.

-First, the big one, most conspiracy theories about shootings and shit usually revolve around the presumption that it's some scheme for the government to take us over. I have a question about this. Without any accompanying tale of soldier brainwashing or a secret private army of the government, why do theorists so often assume that soldiers are willingly going to attack the people they've sworn to protect? They're the ones who can fly the planes, drop the bombs, shoot the guns, etc. and what's going to stop them from saying no to something that's clearly perceived to be unethical?

-Second, another big hunk of conspiracies can only reasonably serve the agenda of one political party / state / socioeconomic group / etc. Some examples include taking away Americans' guns (which both the Republican party and the NRA would oppose), and creating an artificial hurricane to cause chaos in Red States (which is only of benefit to Obama). If there actually was shady shit going on, why doesn't the political opponent of the conspirator do anything about it, or at least tell the public about it?

-Lastly, speaking of tattletales, WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE WHISTLEBLOWERS? In real life, most of the time when shady shit's gone down, someone connected to the shady shit has a crisis of conscience and tries to get the message out. Watergate and the attacks on Iraqi and Afghan civilians are such instances. So why doesn't anyone who had any significant connection to 9/11 come out and say it was an inside job?

One - Regarding gun confiscation and supposed staged shootings...Nobody is saying it is going to happen tomorrow or next week. Nearly ever genocide committed in the 20th century alone had pre implemented gun control of some sort to disarm the public (170 million people killed at the hand of their "trusted" governments in the 20th century.) History since the beginning of time shows us that Governments go bad, they become too greedy, too selfish and corrupt. They usually try to take complete control, which never works out well for the people.
We have to acknowledge this fact and accept that it can happen to anyone. Why make it easier for the government and more dangerous for the people?
As for soldiers willing to kill their own people. Interviews for many years have been conducted. Some soldiers would refuse, many would not. It depends on the soldier. I am sure a quick google search could bring up thousands of these interviews.

Two - Well, lets use this as an example. Subject A is responsible for 9/11. He is President. Subject B, his opponent has no SOLID evidence, but only an opinion. Subject B is very vocal with a huge following. He has the potential to draw attention to Subject A if he gets enough people on his side. Subject A fears Subject B, so much so that he publicly mocks B. Subject B doesn't let go of his public accusations. Subject A gets frustrated and being in a powerful position, makes threats to Subject B and his family. Subject B then shuts the fuck up because at the end of the day, his own wealth and power don't mean shit if he or his family is dead. Subject A's problem is solved.
Sometimes stuff gets out and the evidence is irrefutable, but more often than not, all those shady dealings are silenced quickly.

Three - There many whistleblowers out there. Some are forced to flee the country, some suddenly fall off the grid, some gain national attention and some end up dead by either an accident or suicide. There was one quite recently even.

Sandy hit NJ and NY, which were states that were voting for Obama anyway.
Like most other conspiracy theories this is just rubbish.

Oh god, just because an elected official happens to benefit politically from a weather event (or a shooting, or a terrorist attack for that matter) doesn't mean the event was intentionally orchestrated for that purpose. Shit happens, you know.

Aren't those just harmless jet streams in the sky? I mean...really? Chemical trails? I know there is such a thing as cloud seeding, but i don't think every aeroplane is equipped to poison the atmosphere or whatever they think they are doing.

I think this is one of the more advanced explanations,www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4P7Kr17RX8 but it's tedious to try to listen to everything.
There are other vids like this too of jet streams www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHn6jiEoFf0

Still sounds a bit outlandish. There have got to be more productive/profitable ways to use storm manipulating technology.

The phenomenon of altering and strengthening the weather is real enough that the nations of the world have agreed to ban it from being manipulated in war. The question is, how much can they actually influence it? How they do it is something I am not familiar with.

Faith In Humanity: Restored

danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/here-are-95-examples-of-barack-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption-and-cronyism/

Not a Democrat, but at least half of this stuff is bullshit.
"Projecting weakness" is unconstitutional? What the fuck?

i don't see that as one of the points.

It's the second one, under "undermining the nation's armed forces". Apparently that's unconstitutional, under the article that makes the President Commander-in-Chief.

ehh
maybe not unconstitutional, but certainly not desirable.

While "undermining the armed forces" may not be desirable, the assertion that Obama has done so is purely the author's opinion, and one I disagree with. The author provides no evidence or even reasoning to support his claim, besides Obama's "homosexualizing the military", which is frankly stupid.

well, it's just an opinion piece.
take what you will from it.

Pretty much nothing outside of what already exist under current law. And some expensive PR shit that will make people feel good but in effect will do nothing.

i posted it down a little further
www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/list-of-obamas-23-executive-orders-on-gun-control/
i assume you mean the exec orders?

i actually don't disagree with any of those things on there, if they use it properly

most is filler
so it looks like he's doing something.
i'm ok with that.
the only one i don't like is about doctors asking about gun ownership.

i definitely agree with reviewing storage/locking of guns, the last few mass shootings were all done with guns taken from family members who legally had them

i certainly don't agree with anyone coming into my home to check if i'm "storing them properly"

true, but they should make it more known that they should be locked when not in use, not necessarily something that can't be undone quickly without a key, but you shouldn't just keep it in a corner without any sort of lock on it

why not?
my 12ga is loaded behind my bed.
no time for gun locks during home invasion.

however,
i don't have children.

that's a good point. but the one problem with that could be the fact that if you can't make it to behind your bed before somebody else does, you're screwed

2 story house
alarm system
i'm ok.
there's also the 9mm strapped under my bed.

anyway, if i did have children, the gun safe would be fuller.

ah, alarm system. that's a bit better

i'm wondering about the mental health thing, how do they determine if you're sane enough to properly use a gun?

there is no real way.
i don't think you can buy if you have been institutionalized even before this.

the sandy hill shooter used his mom's guns after killing her.
so it wouldn't help anyway.

exactly

that, and i was wondering if he banned guns that looked like m16's or not

I remain apolitical because people still think "Marxism" is an ideology.

i'm capitalist.
whatever furthers that.

>American conservatives
>fascists

Didn't you get the news? Everything is Fascist if you disagree with it.

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account

That is all fine and good, but you can't accurately judge an entire theory by a generalization. And both sides have them.

Check out that two hour video I posted later. That is someone who tries to debunk both the conspiracy theorists (Like "Loose Change") and the official 9/11 report, while also looking for the truth through facts that can be researched, media reports, ect...

I'm not. There is no basis for the 9/11 conspiracy except these generalizations. I was simply addressing one of their many,

"There is no basis..."
Yeah there is...If you haven't been convinced otherwise, it is because you haven't looked, or at least not in the right places. Films like Loose Change is just bullshit propaganda that is not accurate.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSifMddGf8&feature=player_detailpage#t=0s

This is rather long, but if you are a seeker of the truth, give it a look, it is all important. If you aren't looking for the truth by challenging your beliefs, you are living a lie.

I definitely believe that there are many things with 9/11 we still haven't been told. I will lean to whichever side has more logic.

Speaking of untold information...I found out a few months ago that on 9/11 along with the towers going down, a truckload of explosives were found in a van on the George Washington Bridge and that the suspects with the van were taken into Federal custody. Most of the news networks reported this and then retracted the story hours later.
From what I have always understood, usually, in any event, the first reports of anything are the most honest and truthful because it is a basic outline of what they know rather than what they know and speculate which comes after the event is over. Took 12 years for me to even hear about this!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=06VX8ijYihU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VeJuiJv6Rs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTkYOhiefRs

do you by chance, listen to alex jones?

No, I don't care for Alex Jones. He is too extreme for me, and too often relies upon hearsay as evidence. He makes some valid points, but in my opinion he is a sell out, banking off of peoples ignorance and gullibility. He is quite entertaining though.

good good
just checking.

There is always a chance for civil war, a revolution, world war 3 or any number of other scenarios out there. Is it going to happen? Yes. When? Who knows...maybe in 2 days, or 100 years.
Fact is...it doesn't take much to push any society to its edge and breaking point. Considering this nation has been at peace with itself for 150 years is a great achievement. And that the last global war was 70 years ago, that is another achievement. But don't expect that peace to last long. Word War III is right around the corner, all it takes is for the pieces to line up just right.

i would like to relocate all of them to a special reservation.

Why is most of Washington not included?

i think this was made just before all the votes were in.

Ohio was last and it was counted on this map.

no clue.

That map...so much Soviet Union

its every county that went for romney.

the blue or red?

the red.
since i think the 90s red has been the republican party.

interesting isn't it? that it's mostly red.

As in virtually every country, most of our land mass is sparsely-populated rural land. Rural citizens tend to be more conservative, especially on social issues. Nothing groundbreaking here.

this is why the electoral college is so fucked up. if 51% of a state votes democrat, it gives all of the points for the state to the democrat party

romney still lost the popular vote.
if you notice the blue there is urban areas
with the most concentration of welfare recipients and such.
high population/low intelligence areas.

i thought he won by popular vote, but lost by electoral

no he still lost both.
51% of this country are...
well i can't say anything nice.

51%of this country is either illegal immigrants, on welfare, or just have sticks up their ass

Fun fact: disagreeing with you politically is not necessarily indicative of dependency on government, illegal immigration, or character flaws. Many liberals, like many conservatives, are actually reasonably intelligent and decent people.

i wasn't saying they were less intelligent. if you're on welfare, than you would be more likely to vote democratically because democrats tend to give more welfare to people on it.

Yes, but the reverse does not follow. Most welfare recipients vote Democrat, but most Democrats are not on welfare.

For me, it isn't that they won't revolt, it's that their revolt won't do shit. I've heard plenty of gun nuts say that they need an AR-15 and such to defend themselves from the government when they come to take their guns. The have this fantasy of being a super badass, when in reality, if you shot at any authorities trying to take your guns, you'd be dead.

when the shit hits the fan, we will. imagine the people are like a firecracker. the government already has us in their fist, all they need to do is light it. if they're smart, they let go before we explode. if they continue with all of the crap that they're doing, than they're losing a hand

Well dang. And here I was saving up for when monarchy is established and you all inevitably don't do shit.


I may watch too much Code Geass though, so take that as you will.

most soldiers are supporters of the 2nd

but it's difficult to know what would happen if they were ordered to fight our own.

an all out gun ban would result in many shoot outs with batf agents/police and gun owners and would require tyrannical enforcement.

of course the line of action is to chip away at it until there's nothing
like they did in the UK

the one thing that is clear is the intention of the 2nd
it being designed to keep the people free.

> Implying U.S. soldiers will shoot citizens.

Americans are way too much patriotic to revolutionize against their own government.
I think that the patriotism which is inherent in many Americans is not extended by a love of the government, rather the country in general.

Americans do not love Obama, for example, they just love America and the principles it was founded on.

Like slavery?

I hate the constitution and it's rigidness. I wish Canada didn't codify it's constitution. It makes change impossible.

They just disagree vehemently about what those principles are.

like it or not, Obama is the commander in chief of the USAF. He's the man making the final decisions of the army. Citizens of the United States will never go to war against their own soldiers. Then, the US population will never go to war against their own government.