or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 16

post #601 of 1058
I have history and evidence on my side, MJ and jazzy.

Deaths by firearms in Hong Kong (pop: 8m) in the last three years; 0

"Oh but Chinese people are nicer than the average American so that doesn't count."
post #602 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

People don't die en masse from libel or slander.

People don't die en masse from guns. Unless they are first disarmed, of course.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #603 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

People don't die en masse from libel or slander.

People don't die en masse from guns. Unless they are first disarmed, of course.
People die accidentally from guns. En masse.

Let me put this in perspective. How many Americabs have died from terrorism in the last 20 years (that includes 9/11)? How many people have died from accidental gun deaths in the same period?

Yet we spend BILLIONS every year to try (uselessly) to prevent terrorism... How asinine is that?
Edited by tonton - 1/27/13 at 9:17pm
post #604 of 1058

That remark saying Chinese people are nicer than Americans is not right. They are a lot of good and kind Americans in the states today. I met Chinese people who were quite belligerent and nasty also.Hong Kong is an okay place not the greatest like you think.
 

post #605 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

People die accidentally from guns. En masse.

Let me put this in perspective. How many Americabs have died from terrorism in the last 20 years (that includes 9/11)? How many people have died from accidental gun deaths in the same period?

Yet we spend BILLIONS every year to try (uselessly) to prevent terrorism... How asinine is that?

The need for a so-called "War on Terror" has been contrived, just like the need for so-called "gun control laws".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #606 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

That remark saying Chinese people are nicer than Americans is not right. They are a lot of good and kind Americans in the states today. I met Chinese people who were quite belligerent and nasty also.Hong Kong is an okay place not the greatest like you think.

 
You missed my sarcasm there, Marv.
post #607 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

People die accidentally from guns. En masse.

Let me put this in perspective. How many Americabs have died from terrorism in the last 20 years (that includes 9/11)? How many people have died from accidental gun deaths in the same period?

Yet we spend BILLIONS every year to try (uselessly) to prevent terrorism... How asinine is that?

The need for a so-called "War on Terror" has been contrived, just like the need for so-called "gun control laws".
Except that we can see gun control working in every nation that has combined it with strict enforcement. And Americans just keep getting killed.
post #608 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Except that we can see gun control working in every nation that has combined it with strict enforcement. And Americans just keep getting killed.

 

More people die in the U.S. from falling than from being shot by a gun.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #609 of 1058

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #610 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Except that we can see gun control working in every nation that has combined it with strict enforcement. And Americans just keep getting killed.

More people die in the U.S. from falling than from being shot by a gun.
Lets stop people from falling then. Oh, wait, we can't. But we can do something about gun violence. So let's do it.
post #611 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


Now make that first map per capita. As it stands, it doesn't highlight areas of relative gun violence. It highlights areas of poverty and high population density. Try again.
post #612 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Lets stop people from falling then. Oh, wait, we can't. But we can do something about gun violence. So let's do it.

 

At the cost of being able to do absolutely nothing about government violence? That's too high a price.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #613 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Lets stop people from falling then. Oh, wait, we can't. But we can do something about gun violence. So let's do it.

At the cost of being able to do absolutely nothing about government violence? That's too high a price.
Those Waco guys sure did a lot with all their guns to protect themselves from government violence. Yessir!
post #614 of 1058
We have two excellent weapons against government violence, better than any other nation in the world. Firearms ain't one of them, nor will they ever be. Maybe in 1776... but things change, or haven't you noticed?
post #615 of 1058

So how many lefties on this board think it's appropriate for a government official to target certain banks, trying to stop them from lending money to their customers simply because the government does not approve of the industry?

 

Would this be acceptable if it was a Christian GOP governor using their office to target alcohol, cigarette and pornography companies?

Or casinos and strip clubs?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #616 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

So how many lefties on this board think it's appropriate for a government official to target certain banks, trying to stop them from lending money to their customers simply because the government does not approve of the industry?

Would this be acceptable if it was a Christian GOP governor using their office to target alcohol, cigarette and pornography companies?
Or casinos and strip clubs?
Are you claiming they don't? Try Planned Parenthood for something even more obvious. And who on earth are you kidding? Christian GOP governors may not like pornography, but they absolutely love alcohol and cigarette companies.
post #617 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

We have two excellent weapons against government violence, better than any other nation in the world. Firearms ain't one of them, nor will they ever be. Maybe in 1776... but things change, or haven't you noticed?

 

Oh yes, we'll just take a vote and put up some signs. Surely that will prevent our democratic form of government from devolving into tyranny.

 

What's that? Hitler was elected? Oh, crap...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #618 of 1058

I just love the irony of the Waco example.

 

Leave it to a hardcore leftist to use an example of the US government murdering people (including women and children) who were actually responding peacefully (and defensively) to the US government's violent aggression as further justification for the US government to take away the rights of people to defend themselves.

 

That's just priceless.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #619 of 1058
You fail to see the point because you're in denial of it. Waco proves that no matter how many guns you hoard, you can't protect yourself from the law. The two weapons I was naming were the vote and the constitution. Yes the constitution. You may laugh at that and think it's ironic for predictable (though incorrect) reasons, but that's the very thing that keeps someone like Hitler from going from being elected to being a fascist dictator.
post #620 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


Are you claiming they don't? Try Planned Parenthood for something even more obvious. And who on earth are you kidding? Christian GOP governors may not like pornography, but they absolutely love alcohol and cigarette companies.

 

So you can show an example of a GOP governor, using his elected office to intimidate a bank into not lending money to Planned Parenthood?

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #621 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Are you claiming they don't? Try Planned Parenthood for something even more obvious. And who on earth are you kidding? Christian GOP governors may not like pornography, but they absolutely love alcohol and cigarette companies.

So you can show an example of a GOP governor, using his elected office to intimidate a bank into not lending money to Planned Parenthood?
Nope.
post #622 of 1058

I guess I missed a lot of things now when you start to get older and your mind is not that sharp any longer.
 

post #623 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You fail to see the point because you're in denial of it. Waco proves that no matter how many guns you hoard, you can't protect yourself from the law.

 

No. I saw your point. I simply found it ridiculous and your use of that example particularly ironic. Basically: They have too much power and they'll murder you anyway, so just give up your guns. Of the many ironies of that example is the fact that that's what they were doing...coming for the guns...and that's what they do...they murder to get them.

 

No, I get that your reasoning is the moral equivalent of telling a woman who might be over-powered and raped that she shouldn't bother fighting back.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The two weapons I was naming were the vote and the constitution. Yes the constitution. You may laugh at that and think it's ironic for predictable (though incorrect) reasons, but that's the very thing that keeps someone like Hitler from going from being elected to being a fascist dictator.

 

Your naïveté would be charming and cute if it weren't so dangerous.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #624 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Now make that first map per capita. As it stands, it doesn't highlight areas of relative gun violence. It highlights areas of poverty and high population density. Try again.

 

Actually it highlights all three and it shows causality. Gun violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by high population density, poverty and fatherlessness. All three of these are created by blue state Democratic policies.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #625 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The two weapons I was naming were the vote and the constitution. Yes the constitution. You may laugh at that and think it's ironic for predictable (though incorrect) reasons, but that's the very thing that keeps someone like Hitler from going from being elected to being a fascist dictator.

 

I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the real history of Germany from 1933 to 1945 - not the version of it that has been rewritten and presented to you by the victors of WWII.

 

A good place to start is a fantastic book called "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45" by Milton Mayer.

 

Here is a small, but eye-opening excerpt:

 

Quote:
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
 
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.
 
"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.
 
"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
 
"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"
 
"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?
 
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
 
"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.
 
"Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all, he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing. And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did something—but then it was too late."
 
"Yes," I said.
 
"You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.
 
"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’
 
"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.
 
"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.
 
"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
 
"And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.
 
"You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.
 
"Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.
 
"What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know."
 
I said nothing. I thought of nothing to say.
 
"I can tell you," my colleague went on, "of a man in Leipzig, a judge. He was not a Nazi, except nominally, but he certainly wasn’t an anti-Nazi. He was just—a judge. In ’42 or ’43, early ’43, I think it was, a Jew was tried before him in a case involving, but only incidentally, relations with an ‘Aryan’ woman. This was ‘race injury,’ something the Party was especially anxious to punish. In the case at bar, however, the judge had the power to convict the man of a ‘nonracial’ offense and send him to an ordinary prison for a very long term, thus saving him from Party ‘processing’ which would have meant concentration camp or, more probably, deportation and death. But the man was innocent of the ‘nonracial’ charge, in the judge’s opinion, and so, as an honorable judge, he acquitted him. Of course, the Party seized the Jew as soon as he left the courtroom."
 
"And the judge?"
 
"Yes, the judge. He could not get the case off his conscience—a case, mind you, in which he had acquitted an innocent man. He thought that he should have convicted him and saved him from the Party, but how could he have convicted an innocent man? The thing preyed on him more and more, and he had to talk about it, first to his family, then to his friends, and then to acquaintances. (That’s how I heard about it.) After the ’44 Putsch they arrested him. After that, I don’t know."
 
I said nothing.
 
"Once the war began," my colleague continued, "resistance, protest, criticism, complaint, all carried with them a multiplied likelihood of the greatest punishment. Mere lack of enthusiasm, or failure to show it in public, was ‘defeatism.’ You assumed that there were lists of those who would be ‘dealt with’ later, after the victory. Goebbels was very clever here, too. He continually promised a ‘victory orgy’ to ‘take care of’ those who thought that their ‘treasonable attitude’ had escaped notice. And he meant it; that was not just propaganda. And that was enough to put an end to all uncertainty.
 
"Once the war began, the government could do anything ‘necessary’ to win it; so it was with the ‘final solution of the Jewish problem,’ which the Nazis always talked about but never dared undertake, not even the Nazis, until war and its ‘necessities’ gave them the knowledge that they could get away with it. The people abroad who thought that war against Hitler would help the Jews were wrong. And the people in Germany who, once the war had begun, still thought of complaining, protesting, resisting, were betting on Germany’s losing the war. It was a long bet. Not many made it."

 

I own this book. I have read it. It makes one thing very clear:

 

For the vast majority of Germans during this time, Nazism provided: a job that kept food on their family's table, pride in country, something to be a part of, a sense of purpose. Most were ignorant (some willfully, but most truly ignorant) of the atrocities - foreign and domestic - being committed by their government until it was too late to be able to do anything about it.

 

You may think it could never happen in the US. The Germans thought the same thing in 1933.

 

You may think our democratic form of government and voting and laws will prevent something like that from happening in the US. The Germans thought the same thing in 1933.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #626 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


Now make that first map per capita. As it stands, it doesn't highlight areas of relative gun violence. It highlights areas of poverty and high population density. Try again.

Actually it highlights all three and it shows causality. Gun violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by high population density, poverty and fatherlessness. All three of these are created by blue state Democratic policies.
It doesn't even come close to causality. Not even close. Gun violence per capita is probably about equal around the country, and I would be surprised if its not more prevalent in high density areas in less regulated states. California and New York have among the lowest rate of gun violence per capita in the country. How do you explain that? Perhaps the fact is that guns are harder for local people to get, criminals who use guns go to prison for longer periods (and they know they will).

And blue state policies don't cause poverty, they address it where it can be found.
post #627 of 1058
Jazzguru, that was an excellent excerpt, but it fails to prove your point, and it fails to refute mine. Yes, I believe that the system in the US is stronger and better laid out than the system was in 1930s Germany. Yes, I think we have a much more diverse voter pool, a much stronger system of checks and balances, and we are much less racist and nationalist (except a large faction of the right wing).

And think about it. We both rightfully criticize Obama's lack of transparency in government, both domestically and especially internationally, but it's always been the right wingers who say, "Bush had more information about Iraq than you!" And it's the right wingers who are nationalist and racist. Like the quote in the passage, "first they went for the..."

Well, the right wing is going for the Muslims. The right wing is going for the Atheists. The right wing is going for the Mexicans. The right wing is going for the women.

And because of our diversity, and because of our system, we stopped them.

Proving our system is better than 1930s Germany.
post #628 of 1058
The root of the problem in 1930s Germany was Nationalism, racism and religion.
post #629 of 1058

The popular 19th century idea of 'Master Races' actually came from someplace else.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #630 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jazzguru, that was an excellent excerpt, but it fails to prove your point, and it fails to refute mine. Yes, I believe that the system in the US is stronger and better laid out than the system was in 1930s Germany. Yes, I think we have a much more diverse voter pool, a much stronger system of checks and balances, and we are much less racist and nationalist (except a large faction of the right wing).

And think about it. We both rightfully criticize Obama's lack of transparency in government, both domestically and especially internationally, but it's always been the right wingers who say, "Bush had more information about Iraq than you!" And it's the right wingers who are nationalist and racist. Like the quote in the passage, "first they went for the..."

Well, the right wing is going for the Muslims. The right wing is going for the Atheists. The right wing is going for the Mexicans. The right wing is going for the women.

And because of our diversity, and because of our system, we stopped them.

Proving our system is better than 1930s Germany.

 

I'm sorry, but I think you missed the point entirely.

 

It's not about "right" vs "left". It never has been. That's one of the distractions alluded to in the following excerpt:

 

 

Quote:
"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
 
"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"
 
"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?"

 

From your perspective, the so-called "right wing" are "national enemies". They are portrayed as such by media, pundits, and politicians you trust. This is all very carefully orchestrated so that, no matter what, while "left wingers" are so focused on eliminating the "right wing threat" and "right wingers" are so focused on eliminating the "left wing threat", the people they support and vote into office are slowly and silently infringing upon the rights of all.

 

It's not about "right" vs "left". It's not about "conservative" vs "liberal". It's about liberty vs tyranny. Freedom vs slavery. The government vs YOU.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #631 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The root of the problem in 1930s Germany was Nationalism, racism and religion.

 

More revisionist history. I sometimes wonder if you and I live on the same planet.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #632 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I'm sorry, but I think you missed the point entirely.

 

It certainly appears that way. My wife read that book a while ago. I can't count the number of times I caught her shaking her head and sighing and relating how frightening is was to read that book and to see the astonishing parallels to what we see today.

 

While tonton claims that the constitution (which seems to be systematically ignored and circumvented today) and the vote (which has clearly become meaningless when selecting between two candidates who essentially implement the same policies or ram or sneak through whatever policies they want) are the "weapons" against tyranny, this seems naive at best and delusional at worst.

 

While not gods or saints, I suspect the founding fathers of this country are rolling over in their graves if they see what this country has become and, worse, the overall complacent, compliant and apologetic nature of the majority of the people.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #633 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The root of the problem in 1930s Germany was Nationalism, racism and religion.

More revisionist history. I sometimes wonder if you and I live on the same planet.
This is not revisionist history. We don't live on the same planet. You live on the planet where you dismiss and ignore historical fact that doesn't support your world view.
post #634 of 1058
Check the source of that article. Check the validity of the quotes attributed to Luther. SDW would call you antisemitic for denying it, if he had any consistency in his name calling.
post #635 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Now make that first map per capita. As it stands, it doesn't highlight areas of relative gun violence. It highlights areas of poverty and high population density. Try again.

Actually it highlights all three and it shows causality. Gun violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by high population density, poverty and fatherlessness. All three of these are created by blue state Democratic policies.
It doesn't even come close to causality. Not even close. Gun violence per capita is probably about equal around the country, and I would be surprised if its not more prevalent in high density areas in less regulated states. California and New York have among the lowest rate of gun violence per capita in the country. How do you explain that? Perhaps the fact is that guns are harder for local people to get, criminals who use guns go to prison for longer periods (and they know they will).

And blue state policies don't cause poverty, they address it where it can be found.

 

Tonton, you are just talking out your butt now. You're just making stuff up. Gun violence per capita is no where near equal around the country. That is the point of the map. Gun violence goes up dramatically in areas where there is a population center with more than 250,000 people. There happen to be the same areas that are blue because they densely populated aka urban. The number of guns in no form or fashion has contributed to more gun violence or more gun homicides. Homicides in the last twenty years in fact have fallen by half total, not even per capita, total while the number of guns in the U.S. has nearly tripled.

 

If blue state policies have addressed poverty, then you would expect much less of it there. Instead we have increasing dependence and poverty in these areas along with family breakdown.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #636 of 1058
Let's play a game...

Who said the following, Martin Luther, or Adolf Hitler?:
Quote:
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews… Let they stay at home.
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping… Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting…”
*****
“But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews' synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God's name? They will still keep doing it in secret...
“I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow…
“If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.

Luther or Hitler?:
Quote:
"Even if they were punished in the most gruesome manner that the streets ran with their blood, that their dead would be counted, not in the hundred thousands, but in the millions… they are the devil's children, damned to Hell...

Of course both passages are from Martin Luther.

I dare you to read that all and defend him.

Now you'll tell me that Luther was not relevant to Germany in the 20th Century. Right.

Or maybe it's time you revise your knowledge of history. If you're intellectually honest enough to do so.
Edited by tonton - 1/29/13 at 7:54pm
post #637 of 1058

I someone's trying to put a penny on the track.

 

How utterly lame.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #638 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually it highlights all three and it shows causality. Gun violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by high population density, poverty and fatherlessness. All three of these are created by blue state Democratic policies.

 

So why are red states typically poorer and have higher divorce rates than the blue east coast strongholds?  Why do red states suck down more federal dollars than they pay in?  Other than Texas and Alaska that produce oil.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0312/High-divorce-rates-and-teen-pregnancy-are-worse-in-conservative-states-than-liberal-states


Edited by nht - 1/29/13 at 7:57pm
post #639 of 1058
Trumptman, prove it. Show me the map with gun deaths per capita.
post #640 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I someone's trying to put a penny on the track.

How utterly lame.
Yeah, yeah. Anything that refutes your simplistic and sheltered world view is utterly lame. I get it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut