Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes -- Is America Next?

17 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Did he enter the house or pose a threat? He stayed as he needed help as he was lost. Being drunk is not a crime. We could go on for ever but I know how Americans think on this, killing people is good justice, cowboy stuff fine that's your nation's culture but other far more violent cultures have worked out people carrying weapons causes more problems so have banned them. 

Rodent says we should move on,  and i agree.

But you make a good point.

So this will be my last reply on this subject:

Many people,  non-US citizens,  and even some US citizens do not understand the purpose behind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. 

(1)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves from GOVERNMENT.   The law was written at a time that the American Citizens had just had to defend themselves,  and fight for their freedom,  against their own government,  which had been the BRITISH.    The law was set in place just in case the NEW American government also went "bad" so to speak.   They were looking to the future.

(2)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against foreign invaders.

(3)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against a criminal of some sort.

(4)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to hunt for food.

It is as simple as that.

Some people get killed because they "do something" that places themselves on the wrong side of one of the above categories.

ie:   it is my understanding that far more people are killed in hunting accidents,  than are killed in "stand your ground / castle doctrine" incidents.   Hunting accidents are almost NEVER prosecuted.  The same with the others.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaycee said:

So killing someone is justfied even though they have not gained entry to your property and had posed not risk? As for the hiding bit there is something not right perhaps he was round the other side of the house looking to see if there was anyone in as the time to answer the door was so long who knows. Anyway shooting somebody twice for no reason when posing no threat is hard to understand, at least in the UK you have to actually enter the house and pose a threat before justifiable homicide/self defence can be plead and we dont have guns!

I have had the argument many times on American gun laws with Americans even an NRA member recently and know its pointless, Americans want to shot each other for no reason fine but understand the rest of the world are amazed at the logic that believes citizens killing citizens is a good thing and will lead to a peaceful society.

"I don't know whether the shooting was justified or not"

The very first words of my post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

"I don't know whether the shooting was justified or not"

The very first words of my post.

Fair point i have had this discussion so many times I just went forward.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Illurion said:

As i mentioned,  the videos show most of the people wearing masks.

BUT,  some of the more violent videos i heard  "audio" with the people yelling,  and it sounded like arabic,  definitely not French.

Sorry, I did not finish one of my sentences in my comment, but have now rectified it to include "and therefore wear masks".  Thanks for pointing out the omission. 

I cannot judge on the audio sounding like arabic speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, Rodent said:

as someone earlier pointed out, American gun laws vary by state. and also as someone had pointed out, how those laws are enforced vary even more state by state. 

on top of that, local nuances have a profound effect on which laws are enforced to the letter and which laws are bent. you may very well find someone out in Hicksville is prosecuted to a much lesser extent when protecting life in Liberty and property then someone in a big city. those in the big city do not understand what it means when someone comes to your door late at night. likewise, Hicksville residents are unlikely to comprehend what it means when someone comes knocking on your door in the middle of the night in the big city. When in Rome....

This is an important point for tourists or foreigners to understand. Regardless of what the state law says on the castle doctrine defense a jury very may well rule in favor of the person who was minding their business in their home and felt it necessary to use deadly force. This is especially true in red states. Moving on...

Edited by shadowkin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Illurion said:

Many people,  non-US citizens,  and even some US citizens do not understand the purpose behind the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. 

I think it is equally the other way around. You say ....

(1)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves from GOVERNMENT.   The law was written at a time that the American Citizens had just had to defend themselves,  and fight for their freedom,  against their own government,  which had been the BRITISH.    The law was set in place just in case the NEW American government also went "bad" so to speak.   They were looking to the future.

(2)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against foreign invaders.

(3)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves against a criminal of some sort.

(4)  the citizens are allowed to bear arms in order to hunt for food.

It is as simple as that.

Whereas what it actually says is very different: Its true purpose 

Some people get killed because they "do something" that places themselves on the wrong side of one of the above categories.

But only in America!

ie:   it is my understanding that far more people are killed in hunting accidents,  than are killed in "stand your ground / castle doctrine" incidents.   Hunting accidents are almost NEVER prosecuted.  The same with the others.

And only in America.

The poster's claims on stand your ground laws are equally deficient: Florida's statute on Justifiable use of Force.  Most laws of this nature are predicated on "reasonable" belief, and are then further "conditional".  A problem in America arises when its society in majority reasonably believes things which other western societies find anathema.

 

  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2018 at 10:01 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

this is a very complex matter that strectches far beyond carbon tax. In the words of Rex Tillerson

 

On 12/9/2018 at 11:33 AM, NatGasDude said:

I agree, Dan. It is actually a classic strategy by politicians to indicate that a problem is too complex to address directly, and simply put band aids or suggest that is being 'worked on' while the bleakness of a situation trends worse and worse.

Everything is "complex" - until people bother to understand it.  We achieve understanding by making ourselves present and observant.  We immerse ourselves in the problem at hand until we achieve clarity.  There's no magic to it; it's just time on task.  As a good professor and great man once told me, "When you've done a thousand proofs, you'll know how to do the thousand and first."

It's the same with people.  We take for granted that our family, friends, community, and countrymen are understandable - but when presented with politics, we suddenly declare people "complex".  Why?  Politicians need only go and see.  Do a genba walk.  Practice Management By Walking Around.  They can rebrand that idea and take credit for all I care - so long as they do it. 

In this case, crying complexity is particularly unforgivable because we've understood riots for centuries: people want to keep the fruits of their labor.  They want to earn respect.  They want a reasonably comfortable life.  They want to contribute to something meaningful - and watch that thing grow.  They want their children to live better lives.  This is not complex, arcane knowledge reserved for scholars and kings; it's hardwired into the DNA of every healthy, sane human being.  It's f***ing obvious.  The solution is also obvious. 

How, then, did the haute bourgeoisie screw this up?  It would require a willful ignorance for people so rich, so connected, so powerful, so intelligent, so educated and so old to not grasp what they were doing to half their citizens.  They're culpable.  Whether of neglect or malice doesn't matter.  They accepted positions of responsibility, failed egregiously, and are culpable. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

33 minutes ago, mthebold said:

How, then, did the haute bourgeoisie screw this up?  It would require a willful ignorance for people so rich, so connected, so powerful, so intelligent, so educated and so old to not grasp what they were doing to half their citizens.  They're culpable.  Whether of neglect or malice doesn't matter.  They accepted positions of responsibility, failed egregiously, and are culpable. 

That's just your opinion. 

Many countries continue to have much larger rallies of citizens disaffected by whatever they think can mobilise enough with similar views, and do so peacefully eg recent example.  Perhaps you should ponder why that is so?

Maybe we could, in this case, blame a cohort who participated with the express intention of enacting violence.  There is already mounting evidence this occurred.

Edited by Red
to add a link to a recent example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jan van Eck @shadowkin  Having been a police officer from Texas, myself, I can verify that what Jan and shadowkin have been posting are actually BOTH correct.  Wherever Shadowkin got his post from is irrelevant, because what he posted was the actual penal code, word-for-word from the State's code books.  In Texas, you can shoot someone to protect your property (assuming the given caveats apply).  However, Jan's interpretation of the legal system is also correct.  Simply because the law says you can shoot someone doesn't mean the judge will let you off the hook.  Some judges in some areas might, but not all judges in all areas.  This is because the reality in the US is pretty simple: obeying or breaking the law does not matter nearly as much as how well your lawyer knows the judge.  In some parts of Texas, it won't matter if you obey the law or not, the judge will imprison you for shooting anyone.  In fact, as a police officer, I was specifically instructed not to enforce certain laws.  Yes, as a police officer, I found people breaking certain laws, and I was not allowed to arrest those criminals or else I was the one who would have ended up in jail. 

Yes, you read that correctly.   

Judges can decide to rule however they want, and as long as the voters are ok with the judge's rulings, that is just how things will be.  I know certain lawyers who won't try certain cases before certain judges because it won't matter what the facts of the case are, those lawyers know they would lose.  Does this mean innocent people go to jail?  Yes.  Does this mean criminals sometimes get away with crime.  Yes.  Sound messed up?  Yes.  But that's what we get when the average voter is more interested in Netflix than in truth and justice.  

Yes, there are appellate courts, but appeals cost money.  And so do lawyers that 'know the judge well'.  All this means is that the US legal system is for rich people.  Everyone else [poor people] need to stay far away from it or they will get screwed by it.  In the US, not carrying a gun in certain areas is just as dangerous as carrying a gun, though for very different reasons.  

  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French Yellow Vest Protests Spread Through Europe To Belgium And The Netherlands

Editor’s Note: When I watch the Yellow Vest protests in France, and now in other parts of Europe, I can’t help but wonder if this is where we, too, are headed here in the United States. Between widespread political divisiveness and an economy that is truly suffering – despite what you see on the news – people here are also fed up. Is it only a matter of time before people in the US take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands and say, “Enough?” It’s truly essential to watch what’s going on in Europe to get a glimpse at our potential future – and to prepare for it. ~ Daisy

As protests continue to rage in France, discontent is festering elsewhere in Europe at the same time. What began as a routine protest deep in Paris has swelled to over a hundred thousand people and approximately five locations throughout the country. Anger over yet another eco-fascist “gas tax” seems to have been the straw that finally broke the camel’s back.

This, of course, was combined with other problems too: constant foreign military adventures, falling wages, rising costs of living, rising costs of healthcare, privatization of essential services, cultural disruption as a result of heavy migration, and growing unemployment as a result of Free Trade globalist policies. ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The totally unnecessaryadditional tax on hydrocarbon fuel was the final straw, that created the violent pushback from the ordinary people of France.

The End of France as We Know It?

Protests like this and even bigger ones like Catalonian independence are invariably betrayed by the European political establishment.  They become an excuse to move towards tighter control — more cops, more surveillance, crackdowns on free speech, etc. 

So, sometimes it’s hard to separate the manufactured reality show from the spontaneous uprising of human frustration.

But after the past two weekends of violent protests, after the French government backed down on the new diesel tax which was the inciting incident of this story, it’s safe to say this is real and there is real fear brewing among the political elite of Europe.

A return of national sovereignty across Europe is no longer coming.  I think it’s here.  This can no longer be stage-managed as a relief valve of the massive discontent at neoliberal policies rammed down Europeans’ throats as it has in the past.

Something far more significant is here.  They can’t cordon off this movement in France and use it to demonize the leadership and, by extension, the people.

It’s jumped borders.  It’s part of the zeitgeist now. ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting times.  Kindly take note of the bit I bolded below:

The Noose Tightens Around the EU’s Neck

Macron’s handling of these protests have been nothing short of abysmal. He began November the darling of the globalist set I like to call The Davos Crowd, excoriating any sense of national pride, likening it to terrorism.

He also called for the creation of a Grand Army of the EU and pushed hard for banking federalization to consolidate power under Brussels over the currency, the true Achilles’ heel of the EU itself.

Then a planned tax hike on diesel fuel, which was sold to the French as a way to combat global warming, as part of the EU’s unquenchable desire to tilt at climate windmills, erupted in a nation-wide peaceful protest.

At which point Macron called the protesters ‘thugs.’

And now, after two weekends of violence and having scrapped the diesel tax, Macron emerges from his bunker to reaffirm France’s commitment to cracking down on the violence. But at the same time, as reported by Zerohedge, he’s calling for significant tax cuts and welfare spending. ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Red said:

The poster's claims on stand your ground laws are equally deficient: Florida's statute on Justifiable use of Force.  Most laws of this nature are predicated on "reasonable" belief, and are then further "conditional".  A problem in America arises when its society in majority reasonably believes things which other western societies find anathema.

 

I thought Rodent explained all of this very well.

The law is the law.   People protect themselves,  and are protected by the law.

There is only one case in Florida,  recently in Tampa,  where there was a "Stand Your Ground" claim,  that is being denied.

Most claims are clear cut,  and routine.

Other than that,  there is nothing more to be said about this.

Rodent is right.  Move on.

This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes.

My thought is NO.

The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff,  and that will die out eventually when our police decide to actually do their job and stop it.

Edited by Illurion
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

15 minutes ago, Illurion said:

I thought Rodent explained all of this very well.

The law is the law.   People protect themselves,  and are protected by the law.

He explained that this was false - laws are for the "rich".

There is only one case in Florida,  recently in Tampa,  where there was a "Stand Your Ground" claim,  that is being denied.

Most claims are clear cut,  and routine.

Yes, there is no justice for the dead.

Other than that,  there is nothing more to be said about this.

Rodent is right.  Move on.

So read below why this is not sound thinking....

This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes.

My thought is NO.

The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff,  and that will die out eventually when our police decided to actually do their job and stop it.

LOL

Should a Paris style riot ever take place in the USA, and spread, US gun ownership laws represent a threat level that exists in few,  if any, other democracies.  

Regarding ANTIFA, it is not obvious to you, but to people who think about things it becomes apparent that if something causes another thing to exist, if the former never existed then the causal relationship ceases.  

Edited by Red
to remove a tautology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Illurion said:

This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes.

My thought is NO.

The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff,  and that will die out eventually when our police decide to actually do their job and stop it.

^ this.

111fecffa7908df717db451f16f857f4c3711d094b3afa9269cdb1fa3c24c4e4.jpeg.62c240371944a87c0a2580de8775ae49.jpeg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epic said:

@Jan van Eck @shadowkin  Having been a police officer from Texas, myself, I can verify that what Jan and shadowkin have been posting are actually BOTH correct.  Wherever Shadowkin got his post from is irrelevant, because what he posted was the actual penal code, word-for-word from the State's code books.  In Texas, you can shoot someone to protect your property (assuming the given caveats apply).  However, Jan's interpretation of the legal system is also correct.  Simply because the law says you can shoot someone doesn't mean the judge will let you off the hook. 

 

 

Chad, thank you for chiming in.  A dose of harsh realism. 

I would expand (and only to you, this is not for the gun crowd) that one cannot shoot to protect theft of property.  The reason is simple enough: let us revisit the case of the motorboat tied up at the dock, and someone has untied it and is about to go roaring off into the night with it.  the owner concludes it is being stolen, so (according to the gun posters) that means he is entitled to start shooting. Yet that boatman may be doing something entirely different. Posit that, out there way out on the waters, is yet another boat, that is sinking, and some family is facing drowning.  Our intrepid boatman dashes to that boat dock to effect a rescue mission.  At that point, legally he is not a "free agent," and is not committing any crime; the circumstances requiring immediate assistance grants him, as a matter of public policy, immunity from claims of theft.  Thus, you are categorically not allowed to start shooting.  [Just because the owner does not realize that there is a rescue operation in way, does not grant the license to start blasting up the countryside). 

Additionally, there is the issue of "intent."  Intent is a causation element of the commission of a crime; if there is no intent, the actor is harmless from prosecution. There are certain exceptions:  use of certain instruments that are inherently dangerous will not be excused on the grounds of lack of intent, simply because of the inherent dangerousness renders that use as legally reckless.  Thus, if you shoot a gun between the feet of your friend, as a little joke, and you blow his foot off by accident, you can and will be arrested and prosecuted for reckless endangerment, maiming, and a ton of lesser included charges.  That is also the case in driving while drunk, and running someone down in a pedestrian crossing.  I assure you that doing so will send you to jail for probably four years. You may not have intended to hurt anyone, but the predicate act was sufficiently inherently dangerous that the result becomes a crime. 

Property is way down on the list from life, and thus the restrictions on shooting over perceived property rights. You have some criminal or perceived criminal outside, you barricade yourself inside, call the police, and let them sort it out.  Not for the homeowner to go blasting away.  Americans do it anyway, and behind heart attacks and cancer, now the leading cause of death, far more than auto crash deaths (which used to be the big American sport). 

Getting back to France, which is where this whole thread started, I again remind readers that the rural French do possess shotguns and deer rifles, and if these confrontations with the government keeps up, do not be surprised when they finally come out of the closet. 

  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/9/2018 at 2:25 PM, Jan van Eck said:

One thing is now clear:  these violent Eastern males cannot be allowed to procreate.  Forcing these males to be involuntarily celibate, outside of internment camps, is going to be an unworkable solution.  So:  huge mess. 

 

On 12/9/2018 at 4:39 PM, Illurion said:

Despite what the Globalists say,  the "COUNTRY STATE" model is the most stable form of Government.

And most Countries have a single major religion on which their culture rests.

I do not want to offend you,  but as for the future alternatives that the French face,   i do feel that you have shown yourself to be "weak" in that you have shown a "reluctance to do what needs to be done."

As we discussed in the other discussion,   FRANCE IS A CHRISTIAN CULTURE.   THE MUSLIMS WILL NOT INTEGRATE OR ACCEPT THE CHRISTIAN FRENCH CULTURE.

Someone has to go.

The Muslims WILL NOT GO PEACEABLY.   They never have.

That is why,  for France to survive,  there must be a revolution in which the Muslims are kicked out force-ably.

It will be bloody,  and there will be deaths on both sides.

We are talking about a civil war.   Nothing less.

It is too late for a political solution in France.

That is the future of France.

 

On 12/9/2018 at 4:42 PM, shadowkin said:

Regarding internment camps I think this is a real possibility. See the movie 'Children of Men' for a visualization of what this might look like or pull up some footage of Israel operating in Gaza/West Bank. Not only these muslims will go in these camps but their Western sympathizers as well. I think you're a little too pessimistic about mass deportation. It can be done but the French certainly won't do it because, well, they're French. I think it will be the US who will do it for Europe with probably a big assist from UK/Germany and maybe Poland. It helps that we already have a large military presence all over Europe.

Huh.  I guess I don't have to say it this time. 

*Looks around, somewhat confused, in search of a new purpose.*

 

On 12/9/2018 at 4:39 PM, Illurion said:

Frankly,  i believe the native French will lose,  and France will become a Muslim country eventually,  as i do not believe the French people have the guts to do what is necessary.

The French may surprise you. 

For the most part, Europe is populated by kind, empathetic people.  They care deeply about their homes, their family, and the world they live in.  They sacrifice today so future generations may live better*.  Even in barbaric times, the Germanic & Celtic tribes were cultures of honor.  Family was valued above all else, travelers were offered food and shelter, and women were afforded an uncommon level of respect, protection, and rights.  The tribes of Europe always have and always will respect the sacred. 

That empathy comes with a caveat though: when offended, a person's outrage - and the intensity of violence they subsequently commit - is proportional to the initial empathy.  Empathy implies the ability to feel deeply.  The more deeply one feels, the greater the rage when attacked - and there's nothing Europeans feel more deeply about than home & family.  These are the most sacred. 

European rage in defense of the sacred is fascinating to observe.  When felt, it's practically a religious experience - which may explain Germanic theology.  This is a culture descended from the same stock that produced berzerkers and was known for blind rage in battle.  When provoked, even today's naive kids - raised on a warm, fuzzy diet of virtue signaling - drop into a cold, focused, murderous rage.  There's no hesitation, no fear, no debate.  All that remains is an unfettered, unwavering compulsion to kill.  This rage stems directly from empathy, kindness, and respect for the sacred - a bizarre dichotomy most Europeans don't know they possess.  Once provoked, however, they integrate this dark shadow to become warriors.  I think the resulting fusion of compassion, morality, and resolve was best exemplified by General Mattis:

"I come in peace.  I didn't bring artillery.  But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." 

By contrast, my average observation of Middle Eastern and North African culture is incessant, low-grade dickery: idiotic posturing, opportunistic extortion, abuse of women, and - when a sufficiently vulnerable victim can be found - violence.  This dickery is why their home countries are poor.  They've never built a thing of value and, thus, can't appreciate the resources their hosts provide.  They treat their women like chattel and, thus, fail to appreciate European views on disrespect, intimidation, and rape of women.  It's the sort of behavior you don't understand or believe until you see it.

So here we are, watching disrespectful incompetents abuse and provoke a culture hardwired for indignant rage, capable of incredible destruction, and compelled to defend that which is most sacred: home and family.  I think the immigrants should be praying to Allah they get sent home before the French rediscover their roots.  I also think the French are smart enough to know where this is going.  They'll handle it sensibly. 

But if things do boil over, count me in.  Deus Vult.

 

*  As a side note: while I vehemently disagree with @Rasmus Jorgensen's opinions on immigration, I have the utmost respect for he and his country's motivation.  They wish to improve the world, and the sacrifices they're making prove their sincerity.  The only reason I disagree with Rasmus - and then only grudgingly - is because I fear his country's kindness won't survive the violence & dickery today's immigrants bring with them. 

Edited by mthebold
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

^ this.

111fecffa7908df717db451f16f857f4c3711d094b3afa9269cdb1fa3c24c4e4.jpeg.62c240371944a87c0a2580de8775ae49.jpeg

Yep.   We have some real wacko's in this country as you can see from those logos..

The Democrat party is particularly affected,  as the above people associate themselves with that party.

There is a battle going on in the Republican party,  as the grass-root, socially conservative,  citizens are trying to take back the party from the establishment / entitled,  class that took control of the party after Reagan left in 1988.   The party used to be "socially" conservative,  but the establishment calls itself "business" conservative,  but most grass-roots do see them as conservative at all,  as they continually side with the Democrats.

Either way,  i believe this coming year of 2019 will see much of this resolved,  as one side or the other wins or loses.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red said:

I thought Rodent explained all of this very well.

The law is the law.   People protect themselves,  and are protected by the law.

He explained that this was false - laws are for the "rich".

There is only one case in Florida,  recently in Tampa,  where there was a "Stand Your Ground" claim,  that is being denied.

Most claims are clear cut,  and routine.

Yes, there is no justice for the dead.

Other than that,  there is nothing more to be said about this.

Rodent is right.  Move on.

So read below why this is not sound thinking....

This thread is about the possibility that America will have war in the streets over taxes.

My thought is NO.

The only street wars we have are ANTIFA stuff,  and that will die out eventually when our police decided to actually do their job and stop it.

LOL

..........

Should a Paris style riot ever take place in the USA, and spread, US gun ownership laws represent a threat level that exists in few,  if any, other democracies.  

Regarding ANTIFA, it is not obvious to you, but to people who think about things it becomes apparent that if something causes another thing to exist, if the former never existed then the causal relationship ceases.  

Red:

No,  if i recall,  Rodent did not say that the laws are false,  he said they vary per state.

No,  if i recall,  Rodent did not say that laws are for the rich.

Yes,  the families of the dead get Justice for their loved ones all the time.  Our prisons contain many killers as a consequence.

I do not know why you are saying that Rodent is not using "sound thinking" by advising everyone to move on.   Rodent seems to be a very sound thinker to me.

Red:   who are you to tell me what "is not obvious to me." ?

Antifa exists because the government allows it to exist by not crushing it.   That may soon change.

As for causal affects for Antifa,   it is rather "obvious" to me that the members are misguided,  and ignorant,  as countless video interviews of them have shown.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder, all members on this forum have the ability to "ignore" comments from any other specific members in their own feed.  All comments by the "ignored user" will then be normally hidden from view.  There is an option to view individual comments from anyone in your "Ignored Users" list, if desired.

Go to 

- Settings

-Account

- Ignored Users

Then add the name of the User you would like to ignore and which specific ignore options you would like to activate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Illurion said:

Red:

No,  if i recall,  Rodent did not say that the laws are false,  he said they vary per state.

He said, inter alia "local nuances have a profound effect on which laws are enforced to the letter and which laws are bent. you may very well find someone out in Hicksville is prosecuted to a much lesser extent when protecting life in Liberty and property then someone in a big city."   I did not say the "laws" were false, just the sense.  

No,  if i recall,  Rodent did not say that laws are for the rich.

True - I added another poster's view that laws were for the rich.

Yes,  the families of the dead get Justice for their loved ones all the time.  Our prisons contain many killers as a consequence.

That's not justice for the dead! 

I do not know why you are saying that Rodent is not using "sound thinking" by advising everyone to move on.   Rodent seems to be a very sound thinker to me. 

My reference was to relevance of this topic to the Paris riots.

Red:   who are you to tell me what "is not obvious to me." ?Antifa exists because the government allows it to exist by not crushing it.   That may soon change. As for causal affects for Antifa,   it is rather "obvious" to me that the members are misguided,  and ignorant,  as countless video interviews of them have shown.

Then please explain how a relationship could exist between entities if the causal nature were removed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Just a reminder, all members on this forum have the ability to "ignore" comments from any other specific members in their own feed.  All comments by the "ignored user" will then be normally hidden from view.  There is an option to view individual comments from anyone in your "Ignored Users" list, if desired.

 

Tom, the problem with "gun nuts" is that it becomes impossible to ignore them, as they will always continue to shrilly shout total rubbish.  That crowd never stops.  Here in Vermont, there are no gun laws, except three, two of which are very recent  (this last summer).  The one that has been around "forever" is that high schoolers have to keep their deer rifles in the principal's office during deer hunt season, not in their school lockers, so they can pick up the rifles and ammo and go right from school into the woods for the hunt.  That specific regulation was recently expanded to exclude guns from school buildings, so now you leave them in the trunk of the car. 

So then we had this nasty episode where a rural schooler wrote his girlfriend on social media that he was planning to shoot up his school, Columbine style.  Her mom called police and he was picked up, guns seized.  That unnerved the governor, and the Legislature was called in and passed two "gun laws," one that allowed police to seize guns in a house where domestic violence had erupted, and another that limited gun magazines to ten rounds.   As gun laws go, that is pretty mild stuff.  The gun nuts went totally nuts, off the wall, and started chasing around after the Governor to social events, to threaten and abuse him. 

Now the Governor, who I personally know and like, is a rather tough fellow; he grew up in the construction business and cut his teeth driving a bulldozer.  He drove this "dirt car" on a quarter-mile oval in competition, and for the last decade was the track year winner, so he is a bit of a wild man.  The gun nuts literally ran him out of the competition with their incessant jeering, shouting and booing, long after he signed the legislation.  That the nuts wrecked the competition for the thousands other spectators and competitors meant nothing to them; they were out to get back at the Governor for signing those laws. The gun nuts are still at it today.  

Gun nuts are not responsible gun owners, nor are they nuanced, reflective people, nor are they bright.  Their lives revolve around guns: wearing them, shooting them, fantasizing about killing their "enemies" with them.  The enemies list changes; sometimes blacks, now Hispanics, now Muslims, now teenagers, now people who have cats.  It is a disturbed psychiatric condition, and some, probably most, gun nuts are genuinely dangerous.  The society has not worked out a mechanism to keep guns out of the hands of the gun nuts, although that is a huge public-health issue.  The gun nuts have killed some  594,000 people since the World Trade Center got flattened on 9/11/2001;  the total dead from WWII combat, including the army on both war fronts, the navy, the marines, even the coast guard, was 407,000.  The gun nuts are total crazies, and a plague. 

And worst, they make life miserable for the responsible gun owners, which in Vermont includes everyone else.  My neighbor probably has more guns than the State has at the local police barracks; he is a totally responsible guy, you can (and I do) trust him with your life, plus he is my own personal one-man police department, watches out over me and my place out here in the country.  There are a hundred thousand others like him. Some do "open carry," others are concealed, but so what?  This is the most peaceful part of America, and crime is just about nowhere, outside of the drug addicts of course. So from that we see that gun ownership itself is neither corrosive nor inherently dangerous.  What it does point to is that the Gun Nuts are an element for which some other formula, and I personally favor involuntary hospitalization, has to be developed and paid for.  The nuts are seriously ill, and ill people cannot have access to guns. 

As far as Oilprice goes, the best approach to gun nuts, once they are identified, is to adopt the practice of the Amish: shun them. Cheers. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I am pro gun and have some sites that may be useful to those looking at the gun issue. My advice is pray to God that you never have to shoot anyone, but be trained and prepared to do so if they attack you or break into your home. If you are trained in martial arts or a great runner you might want to try those options first. At 73 I will not trust my body for either option. My wife and I have taken concealed carry classes and the biggest takeaway is that you do not want to shoot someone unless you absolutely have to. You will go through an ordeal from moderate to miserable. 

 
Edited by ronwagn
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/10/2018 at 2:08 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Are you questioning the checks and balances system in America? Seriously? 

A little background on this.  I believe you understand the "checks and balances" between our legislative, executive, and judicial branches.  The point of contention is judicial activism.  In theory, the supreme court interprets the law, and that's the end of it.  In practice, it's fairly obvious that some judges appointed by "the left" tend to favor leftist policies, and some judges appointed by "the right" tend to favor rightist policies.  I.e. a judge's opinions often correlate with the opinions of whoever did the appointing. 

Beyond judicial activism, there have been blatant attempts to politically skew the supreme court.  E.g. President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to introduce legislation allowing him to appoint more judges

As a final note, I once read an article claiming that the supreme court's opinions can be correlated to public opinion.  I.e. it is claimed that they may ignore a case or slightly alter their ruling to avoid public backlash.  If so, this would be contrary to their mandate to interpret the law and let congress do the legislating.  Unfortunately, that nuance seems to be lost on the general public, so it's hard to blame them for exercising some discretion. 

There are attempts to measure how "left" or "right" the supreme court is at any given time.  By those measures, it took a definite left turn in the early 20th century and stayed that way until Trump's presidency.  This has had a significant impact on American politics, and conservatives - myself included - have been unhappy with it. 

Given the historical record and the realities of politics, I think we can say that the checks and balances system is less than ideal, but mostly functional.  As far as governments go, that's not bad.

After reflecting on my conservative upbringing - and the distaste for "judicial activism" that instilled - I would challenge conservatives to propose a constructive change to the system.  I expect that, in the process of designing a better judiciary, they'll come to appreciate the nuances and difficulties.

 

On 12/10/2018 at 2:09 AM, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Are you seriously comparing modern day Germany and France to the former USSR?

This is another difference between the US and Europe.  Our founding fathers, constitution, and laws were built on individual rights, individual responsibility, and strictly limited federal government.  The idea was that a government powerful enough to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have.  Thus, to prevent abuses of power, we should accept the discomforts and difficulties of providing for ourselves.  Obviously, we veered away from that in the 20th century, implementing a variety of social programs.  US citizens are still fairly evenly split on whether that was a good move. 

My understanding is that Europe takes a different tack: have a capitalist market, but leave important social services to the government.  I believe Germany started their safety net in the 1800's.  I'm not sure when the rest of Europe followed, but the basic idea is that y'all are generally OK with government provided it functions correctly.

So roughly half of Americans have a deeply rooted distrust of all things government, and the other half views government about the same way Europeans do.  That brings us to the USSR.  The half of Americans who distrust government see any government spending as a step towards the former USSR.  The idea is that the government first makes you comfortable and then, when you've forgotten how to care for yourself and given up sufficient rights, subjugates you.  This process need not be intentional.  More likely, the enormous concentration of power and wealth in a centralized government attracts sociopaths, those sociopaths slowly crowd out decent folk, and eventually realize they can rig the system to their own advantage.  Totalitarianism results. 

There are some valid points to be made for skepticism of government as well as historical examples.  At the same time, there are valid points to be made for safety nets and social programs.  Personally, I lean towards smaller government unless there is strong evidence that the population can handle - and will continue to handle - more government.  A small country like Denmark with a fairly homogeneous, disciplined, culture where honor and shame play a role is a good candidate.  Japan is another good example.  The US... not so much.  We have too many people with too many differing opinions.  These people can be turned against each other to the sociopathic bureaucrats' gain.  That seems to be how we got involved with the whole world, spent trillions of dollars, and generally made a mess of things.  I'm not an expert though; that perspective is my preference to be left alone speaking. 

 

 

On 12/10/2018 at 9:03 PM, Red said:

I began studying climate in 1974, and my degree thesis was on the impact of changing rainfall patterns on the Murray Darling River system - over 40 years ago.  

Whereas your claims on climate science are utter nonsense.  Climate basics start at the EBM, and extend nowadays to the ESM.  I have never seen any science countering the EBM, so if you know of any, seeing you have strong claims, then please offer them. 

Promoting one fossil fuel ahead of another, when there alternatives to both, can only make sense to you, I suppose.  Furthermore, arguments on the CO2 benefit to plant growth growth are not particularly strong.  It's like saying I am not concerned about asbestos because it really is an excellent insulator.

I would be curious to know more about how you do EBM and ESM.  In particular, a high-level overview of what gets considered would be helpful in explaining this science to others. 

 

On 12/11/2018 at 6:10 PM, Jan van Eck said:

The problems in the Middle East all come back to Jewish, specifically Zionist, behavior.  Th Zionists steal the lands of the Palestinian Arabs, pure and simple. The Arabs get pushed out, to go live in some permanent refugee camp, in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, even Gaza.  OK, so the refugees are being used as pawns by the Arab societies, it still comes down to the theft of land. The Jews have made themselves the Prussians of the Middle East, the classic war machine (all heavily supported by the USA, incidentally, to the tune of about $3.5 billion in taxpayer dollars, before you even add it the "Jewish Bonds" sold in synagogues around the USA). 

You say:  "the land has belonged to Jews for 4 or 5 thousand years."  That is hogwash.  The original peoples there were the Canaanites, the ancestors of the Palestinians.  The Jews showed up out of Egypt's Nile River Delta area, where (contrary to legend) they were not slaves, rather an aggressive culture that the Pharaohs found useful to hire as mercenaries.  When it started to sink in that having armed mercenaries with no fealty to the Pharaoh, only to money, sitting on the border area, Pharaoh drove them out, and the Jews left en masse for what is today the West Bank.  There, the Jews simply slaughtered their way into power.  Read your Old Testament, it is all there. 

From there, the Jews migrated for a while in Baghdad  (time of Jeremiah) and then some portion back in Galilee, under an uneasy arrangement with the Romans, ultimately to go to the fringes of Roman Rule to get out from underneath the rough Roman control, starting that millennia-long migration through Russia and into Ukraine and Poland, then eventually into Germany and France.  After WWII, the question among the Allies was, What do we do with the Jews?  Resettlement inside Germany and Poland was unrealistic, The USA and Canada didn't want them  (remember the notorious voyage of the steamship St. Louis), and the British didn't want Jews in Palestine, fearing violence with the Arabs by the Jewish underground fighters from Yugoslavia.  They came anyway, as you can see in the movie "Exodus," and the fighters formed the Irgun, which promptly blew up the HQ of the British, inside the King David Hotel.  The British departed, and the Irgun started killing the native Palestinians, who fled to those refugee camps in Jordan.  And that sets the stage for today's problems. 

Jewish mythology requires the belief in "the Return" after 2,000 years, basically saying:  "Hey, some ancestor lived here 2,000 years ago, so that gives me the right to show up from Poland and kill you and go sit on your land."   

And that is where Netanyahu is coming from.  To no surprise, now the Palestinians adopt the same approach, and you have suicide-vest bombers, the Intifada, and a state of perpetual war.  Some very brave Jewish leaders tried (with the help of President Carter) to get out from underneath the cycle of violence, making peace with Egypt, only to be murdered by Irgun elements.  Netanyahu is the leader of the most violent of the Irgun outgrowth, the Likud. Is he mentally ill?  Probably.  Meanwhile, you have this state of perpetual war, and "settlements" in the West Bank that make any peace impossible.  It is a desolate history. 

My knowledge of Jewish history is limited to the Old Testament, which I realize could be biased.  Do you recommend another source?

 

On 12/11/2018 at 8:58 PM, Epic said:

Remember, jihadis stand their ground and die fighting.  Rogue agents flee to stage false-flags another day.  And this guy fought off armed security forces at multiple different locations, which, I'd say, is no small feat and requires substantive amounts of training in fire-and-maneuver tactics.  I also like how "the authorities" already know who the shooter is, but they just can't seem to be able find the guy.  Hmmmm. 

There were plenty of terrorists in Iraq who engaged in hit-and-run tactics.  Some are suicidal, but not all.

As for getting past the authorities, human beings are surprisingly incapable of deadly force.  I believe 20% of US frontline infantry were during WWII.  The US military used techniques of psychology to raise that, achieving 50% in Korea and 90+% in Vietnam.  This is one of those hidden details that make Western militaries abnormally effective.  Anyway, it would be interesting to know how these "security forces" were trained - and whether they had an incentive to risk their necks.  Collecting a paycheck and having a reason to fight are very different things. 

 

7 hours ago, Red said:

The poster's claims on stand your ground laws are equally deficient: Florida's statute on Justifiable use of Force.  Most laws of this nature are predicated on "reasonable" belief, and are then further "conditional".  A problem in America arises when its society in majority reasonably believes things which other western societies find anathema.

 

Why is it a problem if the US, a sovereign nation with its own laws and customs, differs from other nations? 

 

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

 

 

Huh.  I guess I don't have to say it this time. 

*Looks around, somewhat confused, in search of a new purpose.*

 

The French may surprise you. 

For the most part, Europe is populated by kind, empathetic people.  They care deeply about their homes, their family, and the world they live in.  They sacrifice today so future generations may live better*.  Even in barbaric times, the Germanic & Celtic tribes were cultures of honor.  Family was valued above all else, travelers were offered food and shelter, and women were afforded an uncommon level of respect, protection, and rights.  The tribes of Europe always have and always will respect the sacred. 

That empathy comes with a caveat though: when offended, a person's outrage - and the intensity of violence they subsequently commit - is proportional to the initial empathy.  Empathy implies the ability to feel deeply.  The more deeply one feels, the greater the rage when attacked - and there's nothing Europeans feel more deeply about than home & family.  These are the most sacred. 

European rage in defense of the sacred is fascinating to observe.  When felt, it's practically a religious experience - which may explain Germanic theology.  This is a culture descended from the same stock that produced berzerkers and was known for blind rage in battle.  When provoked, even today's naive kids - raised on a warm, fuzzy diet of virtue signaling - drop into a cold, focused, murderous rage.  There's no hesitation, no fear, no debate.  All that remains is an unfettered, unwavering compulsion to kill.  This rage stems directly from empathy, kindness, and respect for the sacred - a bizarre dichotomy most Europeans don't know they possess.  Once provoked, however, they integrate this dark shadow to become warriors.  I think the resulting fusion of compassion, morality, and resolve was best exemplified by General Mattis:

"I come in peace.  I didn't bring artillery.  But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." 

By contrast, my average observation of Middle Eastern and North African culture is incessant, low-grade dickery: idiotic posturing, opportunistic extortion, abuse of women, and - when a sufficiently vulnerable victim can be found - violence.  This dickery is why their home countries are poor.  They've never built a thing of value and, thus, can't appreciate the resources their hosts provide.  They treat their women like chattel and, thus, fail to appreciate European views on disrespect, intimidation, and rape of women.  It's the sort of behavior you don't understand or believe until you see it.

So here we are, watching disrespectful incompetents abuse and provoke a culture hardwired for indignant rage, capable of incredible destruction, and compelled to defend that which is most sacred: home and family.  I think the immigrants should be praying to Allah they get sent home before the French rediscover their roots.  I also think the French are smart enough to know where this is going.  They'll handle it sensibly. 

But if things do boil over, count me in.  Deus Vult.

 

*  As a side note: while I vehemently disagree with @Rasmus Jorgensen's opinions on immigration, I have the utmost respect for he and his country's motivation.  They wish to improve the world, and the sacrifices they're making prove their sincerity.  The only reason I disagree with Rasmus - and then only grudgingly - is because I fear his country's kindness won't survive the violence & dickery today's immigrants bring with them. 

@Red, I'd be curious to know what you disliked about this. 

 

2 hours ago, Illurion said:

Antifa exists because the government allows it to exist by not crushing it.   That may soon change.

Why does the government allow this?  I've seen some of the videos; they're not exactly peaceful. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

gun nuts

 

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

responsible gun owners

Some people who might be less familiar with guns do sometimes have a difficult time telling these two kinds of individuals apart.  So I thought I'd put together a few images to make the distinction clear.  That distinction?  Just watch where they put their trigger finger.  (first 6 images are the nutjobs; the rest are the responsible gun users).  

gunnut1.jpg

gunnut2.jpg

gunnut3.jpg

gunnut4.jpg

gunnut5.jpg

gunnut6.jpg

responsible1.jpg

responsible3.jpg

responsible4.jpg

responsible5.png

responsible6.jpg

Edited by Epic
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites