Jump to content

American Swindle

banned
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

Posts posted by American Swindle

  1. 11 hours ago, Dertyberd said:

    The thing is, it wasn't bipartisan.  The funding increase came from the extra 700 billion in the defense budget from the fiscal year the R's put in when they exploded (pun intended) the deficit and gave a bunch of money to the uber rich and defense contractors.  They just had to spend it by the end of June.  The true Republican "contract with America" if you will.   

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/06/20/house-and-senate-democrats-vote-68-percent-and-85-percent-for-massive-military-spending/#574c6ba5101d

    Quote

    Last year, congressional Democrats did what might seem like a surprise, given public posturing, and voted overwhelmingly for the massive defense authorization: 60% in the House and 89% in the Senate.

    What about this is not bipartisan?  

  2. 32 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

    CSB.  I have a good friend who is a civilian procurement specialist for the Pentagon, more specifically bombs and missles. He was shitting himself all summer because they were given so much money above their request last year that he couldn't figure out a way to spend it.  He had to come up with complete bullshit and waste just to stay employed.  The Colonel that he'd worked for the last several years was asked to leave because he refused to go along on ethical grounds.  Everything is jacked throughout this administration. 

     

    All of Congress usually votes to increase spending, it's a bipartisan deal.  Trump sucks because he signs the spending bills that lead to rampant waste of our tax dollars.  I'm sure a lot of those 15K hammers will be put on order shortly lulz

  3. On 9/6/2019 at 8:31 PM, Grade of D as in David said:

    Serious question. If the people of Hong Kong had access to the same weaponry, body armor, etc that American citizens have it would almost certainly escalate the Chinese response. Do you honestly think those people could defeat the Chinese military? Don't think the Chinese wouldn't do it either. They squashed a guy with a tank only 30 years ago.

    The answer may be no, but it boils down to the right to defend's one self against a tyrannical government.  Do they have the right to or not?  It's really simple.  Also, an armed population of informed citizens is a lot harder to control than an unarmed population.  

    If we set the precedent in the US now, then what happens when a tyrant in the White House makes law abiding citizens criminals overnight with the stroke of a pen?  Then, let's say this tyrant is colluding with a foreign nation to do so.   Sounds crazy, but a lot on this board consider the current sitting president a treasonous Russian sympathizer that colluded to overthrow our election. So again, incrementally allowing the government to restrict what types of firearms law abiding citizens can own allows for a slippery slope toward total disarmament.  

    And in the end, how does any of this address the crux of the issue:  factors that contribute to the mental health of humans that decide to go on these mass shooting sprees.  

    Also, research shows that the deaths associated with these shootings goes exponentially down when the shooters are met with violent force in the shortest amount of time possible.  Thus, it would only benefit society to have more armed, law abiding citizens to quickly react with violent force rather than waiting 3-12 minutes for police to respond.  

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 3
  4. On 9/5/2019 at 2:45 PM, longhornmatt said:

    Are you saying that the federal government is a threat to subjugate the American people, but that they will only use the weapons at their disposal which could be defeated by a dude carrying an AR-15?   You’re the one arguing people need assault rifles to defend against government tyranny, but then you’re trying to write the rules to where the tyrannical government will just use slingshots and bayonets or sternly worded emails or something.  

    People who think the federal government is such a threat to terrorize the populace probably should re-evaluate whether we want the military to be so heavily armed, though.  I agree it is strange how there are so many people who are over the top in glorifying the military and in favor of massive defense spending, and yet they simultaneously say they need guns to defend themselves against the coming attack on their families by said government  which could come at anytime. It doesn’t make much sense.  It’s almost like they just latch on to whatever argument they think will get them the result they want.

     

    No no no, not writing rules.  We have a rule, it's the 2nd fucking Amendment. 

    All I'm saying is that if we allow the State (local, state or federal) to restrict what types of firearms law-abiding citizens can possess, then it will increase the likelihood toward a path of total disarmament.  

    Hitler did this to the Jews.  That did not turn out so well.  

     

    • Fuck You 9
  5. 20 hours ago, DixonHur said:

    What?  Nothing in your post makes any sense...which I suppose shouldn't have surprised me as much as it did.

    Just because you call yourself a militia does not mean you are a militia.  Did you know Dr. J isn't actually a doctor?

    Militias are state run military organizations, not a bunch of ranchers with guns.

    You don't recall the Feds "wiping them out" because that wasn't the goal.  If the Feds wanted them dead, they would have been dead.  Period.

    I have zero idea what point you are trying to make with the third "sentence".  Is that even English?

    The point is they ended up thwarting federal encroachments and were well armed and fought for what they believed to be constitutionally protected rights. 

    Here's a definition.  I can concede that perhaps the Bundy Ranchers were not technically a militia.  Do we really need to argue wheter or not the Bundy Standoff was between the Feds and a group of armed civilians that were, in their minds, fighting against federal tyranny? 

    Quote

    A militia (/ m ɪ ˈ l ɪ ʃ ə /) is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class

     

    And here's a thought for consideration: if the Federal government is to have such morally bankrupt military personnel that are willing to drone bomb ("Follow orders") armed law-abiding citizens(as Hawndoh mentioned) for standing up for the Constitution , then why does it seem like many are so willing to let them grow in size, scope and power and regulate our right to defend ourselves?  The irony in this is that the folks "following orders" swear an oath to the Constitution and yet, they incrementally encroach upon it year after year.  

     

     

     

  6. 2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

    It's like the GOP gun nuts think Red Dawn was a documentary.  You, and your hunting buddy Lee Roy's AR-15s are not going to stop the US government if they want to impose martial law.

    What you'd need is some sort of well regulated militia to have a chance.  Too bad the Founding Fathers didn't think about that when crafting the 2nd amendment.  

     

    Like the Bundy Ranch Militia?  I don't recall the feds wiping them out....

    If a militia has the moral high ground against government tyranny, you think that every military man and woman are just gonna "follow orders?"  

     

  7. 18 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

    NOTE:

    Reading through the comments it appears that Justine (the person who posted this on Twitter) added the caption herself or if there was a caption it's been deleted.

    **A question/Trigger warning**

     

    A lot of folks think the CIA/Govt was responsible for MLK Jr.'s assassination.  If this is true, which I think it is likely, then would they be more fearful and less deterred by an armed civilian population or a disarmed one?

     

  8. 44 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

    Probably go about like this

     

     

    These open carry LARPers are the biggest dorks in the country.  Just huge fucking choads.  Get a fucking life G.I. Jackass.

    If an active shooter starts going ape shit, then i'll be nestled behind the choad you're referring to no homo.

    • Fuck You 1
  9. 5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

    I couldn't care less who comedians make fun of but I want them to be funny. I think Dave Chappelle is hilarious, but the first ten minutes or so of this special were meh so I stopped watching. It sounds like it gets better, so I'll check it out again later. 

    **Trigger warning**

    You may get triggered.  

    • Haha 1
  10. Dave went for it and I think it paid off for him and comedians in general.  

    What really hit for me given the current hysteria was his bit on gun control, especially the line that went something like this, "black people need to all become legal concealed carriers of firearms......that'll get guns banned real quick!" 

    Also, him dunking on government programs to train kids what to do during mass shootings had me in stitches.  "Where do we go when the shooting starts?/shooter takes notes"

     

  11. Anyone ever get the feeling all this perpetual fan flaming of division is all by design?  

    22 trillion in debt, Constitutional Rights eroding, civil asset forfeiture, Constant Failures in government with little or no accountability, perpetual war and collateral damage (your tax dollars go to drones that kill innocent people,) support of regimes such as SA that kill dissidents, a never ending, all expansive government that is stealing everyone's future from them, a Federal apparatus that enables an environment to allow one of the most evil pedophiles to commit suicide and an immoral monetary system that is holding the house of cards together and stealing your life. 

    And yet, we are conditioned to think this same inept federal apparatus that is fucking everyone is to be the savior for the very ills they create.  Why is that?

    Also, why is it that all we hear about nowadays is all white men are racists? Over and over and over again.  America was founded on racism. Over and over again.  Let's revisit 1619 and make sure everyone knows this is when slavery was started in America. 

    If you don't agree with someone? You're a racist. Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism!

    (I control v'd those ;O)

    Our overlords are laughing all the way to the bank.  

    As sunshine pumping as it may sound, I'm hoping we can rally on the common ground of the ideas that motivate the folks in Hong Kong protest their regime: Liberty, the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and self-government.  The way I see it, secession seems like the best route to go.

    Anyway, I don't post much, because it's just the same ole "your team did this, my team did this and we are better because of this blah fucking blah," but I really truly believe we have to remember the ideas of the Founders and why even Frederick Douglas (an abolitionist) commended those principles even though slavery still existed at the time and was counter to what the Bill of Rights stood for.  

    That's it. 

    Now continue your pissing matches on shit meant to distract you from the invisible dick of the government.  

  12. 39 minutes ago, Zavala said:

    How many conservative politicians has he had on?

    Democrap presidential canidates:

    -Tusli Gabbard

    -Yang

    -Bernie

    Left leaning people he's had on and talked politics, too many to count. Had all the Young Turks on, Abby Martian ect... 

    He's had a few conservatives: ex-military, hunters, and Dan Carlin. He did have Stephen Crowder and Gavin Mcginnes. I guess Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are somehow right-wing too even though they are atheists and liberals.

    Anyway, Joe doing political shows is hilarious. Dude WEED! 

    I suppose not many conservative politicians, but definitely numerous conservatives...

  13. On 8/7/2019 at 1:07 PM, Zavala said:

    Rogan is giving the last push for the Bernouts right now

    He'll talk to anyone from any political ideology.  The refreshing thing is he'll press where he is informed and throw out the disclaimer that he's not informed on a particular subject a guess is touching on and encourage them to expand on it to learn more about their positions. 

    The moment he asked Bari Weiss to clarify her the statement referring to Tulsi Gabbard as an "Assad Toady" is a perfect example of him pressing for clarification.  

     

     

     

  14. 24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    So, what does that mean?  What does "neither shall be infringed upon" mean?  Do tell us, Constitutional scholar.

     

    infringe definition is - to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. How to use infringe in a sentence:

    The government shall make no law that infringes upon the 1st or 2nd amendment.  

  15. 9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    Yes, I've spent time in Western Europe lately, which has stricter gun laws.  A real hell hole.  I barely escaped being imprisoned in a re-education camp.

    What fucking bullshit.  If your argument is "we need to be equally armed as the state," that ship fucking sailed.  The Apache with Hellfire missiles out front shoulda told ya.  The superior command and control structure of a military unit that, if they decided to assault my house, would wipe my fucking ass out no matter how many mags I have for my AR shoulda told ya.

    It is possible to have a functioning, non-totalitarian government AND reasonable gun control.  A crapload of countries have just that, right now, providing clear evidence that it can be done.

    You still can't deny history or the slippery slope example of the abridgment of 1A rights in the UK from the example I gave after they implemented strict gun control.  

    And your Apache Helicopter example can arguably used as the same reason people should be armed.  It's literally why the 2nd amendment was so important to the founders.  I'm still against any infringement on the 2A and can acknowledge you aren't.  And guess what? It's ok.     

  16. 4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Which do you think are regulated more in this country, First Amendment rights or Second Amendment rights?

    I'm coming from a Constitutionally grounded position which is simply neither the 1A nor 2A shall be infringed upon so my opinion on whether one is more or less regulated vs the other matters not.  

    Just cut to the chase and get to the gotcha moment!

  17. 42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


    Extrapolate that. If the right to protect property is absolute, then I should be able to rig claymores to take out intruders, right?
    And of course....the REASON the cops needed overkill was because the killer had...a weapon and magazine that we shouldn’t have allowed in the first place.
    If we start letting people walk tigers on a leash, then you’ll make the argument that we all need tigers to protect ourselves from the other tigers.

    I would argue Claymore mines do not have human discretion when it comes to the intent of the intruder on the property they are rigged on.  From an anarchists' lens, I think it could be argued that notifying intruders with signage of Claymore mines would be allowed.  Radical? Yes, but I think the argument could be made.  

    If we boil down the argument, it sounds like many don't want civilians having a certain magazine capacity but simultaneously want to allow humans in the police force to use guns with the same capacity they want to ban to protect us.  Are we ready to go down that slippery slope of trusting the State NOT to further infringe on the 2A?  

    As it's been said, "Once they take the 2nd, then it's only a matter of time they take away the 1st."  You see it in the UK now, people are literally going to jail over abusive tweets.  And history has already shown that once a country is disarmed, civil liberties and life are subsequently eroded.  

     

     

     

  18.  I know it's difficult for many to look at things this way shortly after the wake of such atrocities, but I think Massie makes a great point here.  In the end, one inherently has the right to protect themselves and their property from the threat of violence and force.

     

     

  19. 1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

    That dude seems super butt-hurt he cant get a real job in journalism. Now go donate money to my bank account, I accept Bitcoin. 

    Meh..Tim Pool actually has a lot of credibility in my opinion.  So much, he was invited on Rogan to Question Jack and his Lawyer representing Twitter regarding censorship.  But then again, I like Rogan and sure the olds on the board do not think Rogan is a credible medium for information or news (which I disagree with.) 

  20. 2 minutes ago, elguapo said:

    I would prefer that, yes.

    If you're looking for some kind of gotcha here I'm not sure you'll get what you want. I wasn't a big fan of Obama either, but at least he isn't a morally bankrupt moron.

    Ok, cool.

    I leave the gotchas to DD.  

     

×
×
  • Create New...