Guns and Nazi Teabaggers

It's not extreme! Obama really hasn't done anything good! His words sound good, but after four years, he has been inactive.. In fact, he has counter-active in the way of Human Rights and fixing the deficit. He's even creating more enemies of America with his drones meddling in the Middle East.

 

I wasn't talking about Obama.
I was commenting on: "I support Bush, but I don't support the Iraq war."
War isn't the same as 'Obamacare,' for e.g, or a food security initiative, is it?
War is a massive deal breaker.
I don't know any people who voted for Bush (the second time) but opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.
Your setting up a duality that I've never heard expressed by anybody.
I guess it's not totally impossible if you were fully briefed on the majority of his policies, and are fair minded, and open to facts
And I guess it's also determined by your reasoning for not supporting the Iraq war.

 

I just don't agree.

I supported obama against romney. That doesn't mean I like obama.

Many people support obama because he's the better choice of many bad choices. He's still a bad choice, and we still readily acknowledge that. You don't seem to see that there are many reasons beyond simply being some sort of strait-ticket, party-line Democrat, that someone could support some things obama has done, or that someone could support him in his last election.

The world is NOT black and white, and I will "support" the best candidate that I see, it doesn't mean I stand behind everything he does, or even most things he does, but it means that I understand that the next candidate down was even worse.

I know a lot of people of my political persuasion, and Democrats, and whoever else, who felt ripped off by obama. I felt ripped off within a few months of his first election, because I HAD supported him..... and even then, he was oodles better that mccain and palin, but yeah, he didn't follow through. But even though we all get together and bitch about obama, and how the left is creeping right, we are not suggesting that romney would have been a better, more responsible or reasonable president.

At moment, the most obvious way forward out of this mess is not a radical president of EITHER political wing, it would be a middle of the road, clinton-like president. Let's go for another clinton, somebody with no chip on his shoulder and nothing to prove, who wants to scale back governmental insanity slowly and surely, not rock the boat but also pull things back into check. Someone calm, who can get the nation out of our paranoid, nearly soviet obsession with terrorism, which has taken up the position of trotsky or goldstein..... just anything that the government disagrees with, is terrorist... anything that they want to keep tabs on, is terrorist... we need someone who can bring some calm sanity to things.

And yeah, I know clinton did a few things that where not so nice.... but on the whole, he's the least war-mongering president we've elected since about forever.

 

Obama started in with Libya, because Gadaffi was starting a currency based on gold, which would contest the dollar! Not six months earlier they met for tea!!!

The idea that Obama was better than Romney, was mere illusion. You think Obama was the "lesser of the two evils," meanwhile, in reality, the candidates were virtually the same, with different skin colors.

As I've said, Obamacare has a "glitch" in it, that will literally bankrupt some middle class families out of existance! Not to mention that Obamacare was written by the "evil" Mitt Romney, and sponsored by rich insurance companies... And we all know THEY care about the poor

As far as I'm concerned, Romney has never drone striked an American citizen, so that in itself, gives him a slight edge on Obama as to who's "less evil!"

Obama has done nothing good in 4 years. He's even raised to deficit more in these 4 years, than Bush did in 8!!

Please look around Roorshack, with an open mind. All you will see is propaganda about how the republicans are so bad and evil, like people haven't gotten over blaming Bush. But Obama is the SAME exact thing Bush/Mc Cain/Romney would've been.

He's definitly not some calm non radical clinton like president who doesn't obsess over terrorism" But rather, a president who thinks "terrorism" gives him a license to drone strike ANY country he'd like without a declaration of war!

I do believe that once upon a time Obama knew the government was fucked! (in college,) but since then, he's decided to cash out on the corruption, rather than fighting it..

There is no "lesser of two evils."

The reason why I say this is black and white is because of this

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."~Thomas Jefferson

Keeping and fighting for the Constitution, is a strong matter of principle.

 

Insurance companies like obamacare as it now is, you're right.

Singlepayer is what's needed. Right now it's a huge gift to them, they can whine about it while getting rich off of it.

Thanks, republicans.

Anyways, I totally agree with you over how he's NOT calm and rational, I'm saying that's what we need to push, because that's what has a chance, and if we don't have a candidate like that next time, it will be another fake middle of the road warmonger who steals civil rights.

As for obama, his opinions on some things, like LGBT stuff, and the fact that it's not just poor people's fault that they're poor, are much better than romney. Given the choice between two people who will do mostly the same thing, but at least one has reasonable rhetoric on some issues, well I'll pick him....

Since we can't do anything about obama at the moment, where's the movement to pick someone to clean up the mess? The best thing that could happen is for such a calm, reasonable candidate, who would restore things without rocking the boat, to be found and groomed as soon as possible.

And if they're all the same, why do you focus on obama? isn't he just a scapegoat, then? We know that the problem is the republican AND democrat political culture, so why don't we find someone to change it next time, instead of complaining about the current manifestation of that culture. I mean it's great to speak out about stuff like NDAA, but not the the point of going blue in the face and still not accomplishing anything.

 

Have you got any video clips of Gaddafi talking about this (with subtitles).
There must be some evidence of him starting this 'new' currency.
The only thing I can find is a 3:11 news segment on RT.
All it says is:

Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.


“It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.”

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.

A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.

“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.


“So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”

And it has happened before.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.

“The US have denied self-determination to Africans inside the US, so we are not surprised by anything the US would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former US Congresswoman.

The UK’s gold is kept in a secure vault somewhere in the depths of the Bank of England. As in most developed countries, there is not enough to go around.

But that is not the case in countries like Libya and many of the Gulf States.
A gold dinar would have given oil-rich African and Middle Eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy-hungry customers and say: “Sorry, the price has gone up, and we want gold.”

Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.

 

During the third 2012 presidential debate, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney praised President Barack Obama for his use of unmanned aerial drones to fight terrorism.

“I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world,” the former Massachusetts governor said. “And it’s widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.”

“But let me also note that as I said earlier, we’re going to have to do more than just going after leaders and — and killing bad guys, important as that is,” he added. “We’re also going to have to have a farm more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism. We haven’t done that yet.”

Edit: Oh, you're not bothered about other (not connected to US citizens) drone strikes, right - sorry.

 

Getting back to the second amendment, take a look at the 2012 remake of Red Dawn. I realize it's a fictional film, but it gives you an idea of what would happen during a militarized fascist occupation of the United States. The citizens in my city alone are armed to the teeth and they are proud Americans. The argument that small arms are useless against military force is a tired one - if that's the case, why is the middle east still unstable? And those people aren't half as brazen as we would be against active tyranny. As far as I'm concerned, anyone advocating gun control is a traitor.

 

You are a liar.

Why?

Because there has been a fascist war on the freedom of THOUGHT: the war or drugs, for decades. Your "brazen" town has not risen up, your own police officers, with guns they probably own themselves, wage this civil war. You don't shoot them.

There's no fascist occupation, it's a matter of indigenous fascists. There's always plenty, and it's plenty bad, and you're flapping about traitors here on the internet, but, if we take what you say about resisting tyrrany seriously, you are very nearly a traitor, and surely a coward.

I mean, I don't think that armed insurrection is the way. But if you do, you are a coward and a traitor to that imaginary movement, as you don't resist the great tyranny inflicted by the hand of your local pigs.




:daisy:

 

Where in the middle east is a fair comparison to a situation that might be played out in the US, or where small arms are being used against a larger superior military force with exceptional fighting machinery (planes etc)?
And have you any e.g's of a situation not to dissimilar to the film? I don't think you should take the films outcome seriously.
Personally, I think if the Chinese Army decided to invade Littleville USA - Littleville would be well and truly _____ed.
I might be wrong, but I thought the fighting in the Middle east was primarily involving similar sides.
The only real comparison might be The Taliban Insurgency, but aren't they just picking at a scab?

 

And once again you are wrong. I've done everything from outright civil disobedience, to forming chapters of politically charged drug reform groups at my university, to writing politicians and doing my best to change those things through peaceful democratic means.

But my post was not about the war on drugs, you idiot. It was about military force (whether foreign or domestic), coming in and taking control of our lives, rounding us up, what have you. Go smoke another one you stupid fucking hippie.

 

I'd also like to add that you just described resisting armed occupation traitorous, then you turn around and advocate taking up arms against the police for enforcing an 80 year old law. I don't agree with it at all, but taking up arms is not the way to legalize drugs. You really need to get your head out of your ass, and quite frankly I'm glad you don't appear to be a gun owner.

 

Well I guess the taliban, although I hate to use that as a comparison. But for the most part they have small arms and homemade bombs, and have been resisting military force for over a decade now. And they are pussies who can't fight, plus they don't have the geographical advantages we have here.

And you might be right about the Chinese army. However, I would die filling as many of those bastards with lead as I could. Reason enough to keep my guns.

 

If it was a systematic round up of a population, or a systematic annihilation of a population then you wouldn't stand a chance.
Imho, the reason the Taliban have lasted this long is because it isn't about that. It's needles in haystacks most of the time.
Plus, don't they take a holiday in the winter and pretty much blend back into the general population?

Well, if it ends up just boiling down to going down in a blaze of glory, or/and filling the enemy full of lead - then I'm not quite sure why you asked the question in the first place : /

Almost instant death: I'm keepin' my guns.
No chance: I'm keepin' my guns.
Small hope: I'm keepin' my guns.
Possibility of victory: I'm keepin' my guns.

 

Domestic militarized force:

Militarized police departments with tanks and shit that YOU can not legally own, using a war on plants an a pretext for raping the bill of rights.

Again: I thought you where ready to rut out there, guns blazing. Guess not. Because there is a domestic (para)military taking your civil rights.

But now, with peaceful democratic reform, you sound rather like me.... but obviously, you can't be, because I'm just a stupid fucking hippie. So, if you're not like me, yes, you are in fact a fucking pussy, who's all talk and then uses semantics games to avoid stepping up to what he said. Their shirts don't say "US ARMY", but they have the same guns and they're here for your civil liberties....

*edit* ho ho ha ha.... is there meant to be some sort of sarcasm behind the stupid, when you say that the taliban don't have the same geographical advantages that you would in the US? Or that they fight like pussies? Because I have yet to see videos of YOUR kid cutting off an infidel's head. And living in the stone age is a major advantage, when people are trying to bomb you back to the stone age. Of the few places in the US with geographical features like that, NOBODY lives there....

 

Hahaha. Touche touche.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GuqZfaj34nc

 

You're preaching to the choir dude. But the fact is, I grew up and have bigger concerns than marijuana legalization. I've also been smoking it for over half of my life and haven't had paramilitary troops with tanks busting down my door. Most smokers are too paranoid or lazy to go about the most basic means of lobbying for change, I did my part more than enough. The problem is millions of weed smokers don't speak up.

My guns are for defensive use. To assert that I'm all talk or hypocritical because I don't go into the ghetto and intercept a SWAT operation on a fucking crack house is just asinine.

And by geographical advantage I meant different types of terrain that locals are familiar with. From swamps to wilderness to sprawling urban and suburban metro areas.

You just like to argue, which is cool. Except you suck at it.

 

I don't think that is much to base anything on...

 

Well I trust RT more than CNN, Fox or, BBC. I guess that is in the eye of the beholder. But I know the government feeds Liberal and Conservative propaganda through these television stations.