Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Angle]

Again, the idea that you'd have a single unified resistance is laughable, we'd splinter into a thousand different factions, each with their ow agenda and then spend the next century fighting each other trying to settle the issue.

[Loud Whispers]

Again, the idea that you'd have a single unified resistance is laughable, we'd splinter into a thousand different factions, each with their ow agenda and then spend the next century fighting each other trying to settle the issue.

I didn't say there'd be a single unified resistance, I'm counting on countless different cells all across America

[Frumple]

Honestly, I really hope things don't get anywhere near that bad. We're only a little ways away from turning into Afghanistan if that happens.

Well yeah, the chances of it actually reaching that point are incredibly damn slim, almost to the point of impossibility. There's very little profit to be had in that sort of situation, and considerably more to be had in nice and comfortable bread and circus that keeps insurrection safely marginalized.

As to LW, the line of argument isn't to volunteer yourself into definite powerlessness, it's to leverage the actual power you have (social, cultural, economic) instead of a supposed power you couldn't leverage worth a damn even if it was your last resort.

I didn't say there'd be a single unified resistance, I'm counting on countless different cells all across America

Which is a hell scenario in its own right. Most of them working at cross purposes, many of them slaughtering and/or abusing civilians, the entire situation breaking the country into a festering shithole... sounds like a good way to convince the general populace to accept the jackboot instead of live through that.

... though I guess considering you're from Europe, that would fit into some kind of long term plan to reacquire the colonies. Suddenly your words make more sense.

[Dutchling]

Dibs on New Amsterdam.

[Morrigi]

If you expect much of 1 to be able to happen in the US, and even more, for it to make a difference, I have many bridges to sell you. It takes a hell of a lot more than just having firearms to pull off asymmetric warfare, and a junkload beyond that to actually get anything done with it.

Points on 2 and 3, though. I figure we'd be able to OD en masse about as as easily for the suicide option, though. Possibly even cost less.

Firearms, IEDs, and "liberated" anti-tank weapons. What more do you need?

[Frumple]

Training to use all of those, something to use them on that's going to actually do something, an end-goal, substantial public support, infrastructure to keep you supplied with all of that, somewhere to hide, the list goes on. Asymmetric warfare is a hell of a lot more than getting Billy and some bombs (never mind not getting yourself killed making those IEDs or "liberating" those anti-tank weapons) and going out and trying to kill people.

That kind of question is one of the reasons I would expect a US grown guerrilla movement to die before it lived

[Loud Whispers]

As to LW, the line of argument isn't to volunteer yourself into definite powerlessness, it's to leverage the actual power you have (social, cultural, economic) instead of a supposed power you couldn't leverage worth a damn even if it was your last resort.

It is power you have though, if you don't live in a city a gun makes all the difference. If you live in a shit city a gun makes even more difference.

Which is a hell scenario in its own right. Most of them working at cross purposes, many of them slaughtering and/or abusing civilians, the entire situation breaking the country into a festering shithole... sounds like a good way to convince the general populace to accept the jackboot instead of live through that.

Right, because the only options are everyone commits war crimes or you just let the government do what they want because doing something will turn you into the taliban or convince everyone that living under an authoritarian shithole is fun.

... though I guess considering you're from Europe, that would fit into some kind of long term plan to reacquire the colonies. Suddenly your words make more sense.

Not necessarily, an invasion of a US in such a state would be very hard to find profitable. I could see an invasion to make sure a warlord doesn't use its nukes but that's about it. Besides, Canada and Mexico would annex you first before any of us got there.
Also forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most gun owners come from the same demographics and political alignments in America?

Training to use all of those, something to use them on that's going to actually do something, an end-goal, substantial public support, infrastructure to keep you supplied with all of that, somewhere to hide, the list goes on. Asymmetric warfare is a hell of a lot more than getting Billy and some bombs (never mind not getting yourself killed making those IEDs or "liberating" those anti-tank weapons) and going out and trying to kill people.
That kind of question is one of the reasons I would expect a US grown guerrilla movement to die before it lived

The only reason I would expect a US guerilla movement to die before it lived would be because of heart failure and McDonalds

[Sergarr]

As to LW, the line of argument isn't to volunteer yourself into definite powerlessness, it's to leverage the actual power you have (social, cultural, economic) instead of a supposed power you couldn't leverage worth a damn even if it was your last resort.

It is power you have though, if you don't live in a city a gun makes all the difference. If you live in a shit city a gun makes even more difference.

Which is a hell scenario in its own right. Most of them working at cross purposes, many of them slaughtering and/or abusing civilians, the entire situation breaking the country into a festering shithole... sounds like a good way to convince the general populace to accept the jackboot instead of live through that.

Right, because the only options are everyone commits war crimes or you just let the government do what they want because doing something will turn you into the taliban or convince everyone that living under an authoritarian shithole is fun.

... though I guess considering you're from Europe, that would fit into some kind of long term plan to reacquire the colonies. Suddenly your words make more sense.

Not necessarily, an invasion of a US in such a state would be very hard to find profitable. I could see an invasion to make sure a warlord doesn't use its nukes but that's about it. Besides, Canada and Mexico would annex you first before any of us got there.
Also forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most gun owners come from the same demographics and political alignments in America?

Training to use all of those, something to use them on that's going to actually do something, an end-goal, substantial public support, infrastructure to keep you supplied with all of that, somewhere to hide, the list goes on. Asymmetric warfare is a hell of a lot more than getting Billy and some bombs (never mind not getting yourself killed making those IEDs or "liberating" those anti-tank weapons) and going out and trying to kill people.
That kind of question is one of the reasons I would expect a US grown guerrilla movement to die before it lived

The only reason I would expect a US guerilla movement to die before it lived would be because of heart failure and McDonalds

McDonalds is the true face of evil.

How many people have died from heart attacks? Millions. And what is the most often cause for heart attacks? Too much fat food.

We must form a united Anti-McDonalds resistance movement. We must stop the evil fat murder before it consumes Africa and Asia in a dark wave of yellow clownishness!

[Reelya]

Actually the "fat and heart attacks" thing has been pretty much debunked. Sugar is the culprit. And many "low fat" health foods developed since 1970 are high in sugar and artificial substances.

They're now saying saturated fats in natural butter which transfat-based margarines were meant to save us from turn out to be way healthier. It's the shit in the bun and the sauce, etc that kills you, not the animal fat in the meat of a McDonalds burger.

Fat is fine if they haven't done weird chemical stuff to it.

Here's just the first two links i dregged up by googling "heart attacks and fat". Literally the first links:

"Study Questions Fat and Heart Disease Link"
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/study-questions-fat-and-heart-disease-link/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
"Eating more fat may ‘lower risk of heart disease’"
http://www.todayonline.com/world/eating-more-fat-may-lower-risk-heart-disease

Yeah, so the old science: complete bullshit according to all the new research: google "heart attacks and fat" yourself without the quotes. There's just pages and pages of links saying it's bullshit. In fact, the anti-saturated fat stuff started around 1970. And which direction has heart disease gone since then? Up or down?

[GavJ]

http://www.eventbrite.com/e/drink-for-pink-brew-appetit-tickets-12223026401

"Hey, let's advertise our 'support' of the fight against cancer using labeling on our alcoholic product whose main, active ingredient causes cancer"

If you were unconvinced about Budweiser being a terrible company already, add "slimy, hypocritical bastards trying to earn an extra buck off of mocking cancer patients" to the list.

[Frumple]

It is power you have though, if you don't live in a city a gun makes all the difference. If you live in a shit city a gun makes even more difference.

Can you point to this actually happening? I can't personally recall a situation, especially in recent times and in a modern country, where having a gun made any substantial difference at all when it comes to effecting societal change. Closest is maybe that rancher a bit back, but most of the other stuff I can recall just ended up with the gun toter dead or behind bars. Shit, the largest movement I can recall that might fit the criteria I'm interpreting you as talking about would probably be the IRA. Which. Yeah.

If you're talking a more personal level, last I checked pulling a gun in response to most cases of criminal violence is one of the faster ways to get yourself killed, by the numbers. Doesn't have a very good track record insofar as self-defense goes. Actually getting a straight answer regarding that is incredibly difficult, though.

Right, because the only options are everyone commits war crimes or you just let the government do what they want because doing something will turn you into the taliban or convince everyone that living under an authoritarian shithole is fun.

Do remember LW, a non-negliable amount of those cells you're talking about are people who would happily jump at the chance to turn into the taliban. In a case like what you're describing, unless there was some serious ideological shifts in the militia movement and whatnot, you would very specifically be having a very much non-negligible amount of people using the event as an excuse to commit atrocities. So no, that's not the only options, but in the event of a massive multi-cell insurrection, like what you're talking about, you're going to have many of those cells giving incredibly bad PR.

Also forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most gun owners come from the same demographics and political alignments in America?

Depends on what you mean by "most". Have some numbers, from three different years. Big thing I'm noticing (beyond the numbers kinda' looking sketchy in a lot of ways and swerving all over the place, anyway ) is that there isn't a majority leaning anything. Closest thing to it is a gender disparity between ownership and maybe region (but even with region, at most half is in southern states, with the rest being elsewhere -- and only one of them has that much in the south, with the other two having the midwest leading) -- even the political leaning disparity breaks down if you include independents. There's not really a substantial majority of any demographic, insofar as gun ownership in the states goes (unless you start buggering with the numbers, like that third one does re: "leaning" towards a particular party). You can say stuff like "whites own more guns than any particular group of non-whites", but whites would still be an overall minority by most of those statistics if you added all the non-white groups together... most of it's like that. Does trend a bit toward the conservative side of things, but not enough I'd be saying there's a genuinely substantial demographic/ideological lock on gun ownership in the states. Y'gotta' remember that the states love their guns, and even a lot of the people who are calling for tighter control are gun owners.

[Angle]

Remember the Cliven Bundy nonsense? Yeah, there's a lot of that waiting in the wings. And once they start, other people are going to have to respond, and it's only going to snowball from there. Frankly, worst case scenario is that it gets all tangled up with the shit coming out of South America and the whole place turns into a giant warzone.

And yeah, that's the worst case scenario - But I think it's worth worrying about.

[Reelya]

I wouldn't say "south America" has a "warzone" problem. Other than Mexico, Colombia and a few of the small Central American nations, South America has been pretty peaceful for decades. The places with war problems all have one thing in common - far right wing governments which have strong US backing. And those are a small minority now, with most of South America being led by social democratic parties.

Actually, South America now have their shit together to the point they've formed a union based on the EU. Isn't it weird how the American media haven't been telling you all about that? Doesn't play into US interests maybe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations

^ Founded in 2008. Basically South America has a unified parliament, central bank and a rotating presidency now, a formal 12-nation military alliance and are talking about forming a single currency. Population of this bloc is ~400 million, GDP ~$5 trillion

"barely worth mentioning" apparently, according to the US press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States

^ founded in 2010. 33 nation alliance, all the way from Argentina to Mexico. Population of this bloc is ~600 million, GDP ~$6 trillion

Apparently your media bosses have also decided America doesn't "need to know" this is going on.

While this stuff was starting up - via diplomacy and a lot of it started by Hugo Chavez - the American media bombarded everyone with the idea that Venezuela has been heavily militarizing for the last decade (pure fiction if you look at the CIA's own country data) and all his neighboring countries trembled in fear of Chavez's "wrath". They need you to stay stupid and believe South America is on the brink of collapse when in fact they're reaching out and joining hands. That justifies future American military interventions.

In fact, America's best friend in South America, Colombia, has been the ONLY country pissing on all their neighbors, bombing, threatening cross-border raids etc. This suits America fine. Everyone down there is getting way too chummy with each other and working together, so let's fund a fascist government (Colombia) $1 billion per year worth of weapons and back then whenever they threaten their neighbors. Then, America can have the basketcase South America back with it's divisions and paranoia that the USA loves.

What in fact happened (2008) was that Colombia, who have grown their army massively since Bush came to power (Venezuela actually reduced per GDP military spending), bombed Ecuador, and started spewing paranoid shit around that Ecuador and Venezuela were out to get them. Colombia far outnumbers both those countries for armed forces, and they have US air support / US bomber bases backing them up. America was egging this fight on, but what actually happened was that UNASUR convened and EVERYONE threatened war with Colombia if they pulled this shit - Not just the threatened countries, but Brazil, Argentina, Chile and the rest would ALL be at war with Colombia. After that Colombia totally backed down. See? America wanted the war and was egging it on, Brazil were the guys who knocked heads together and said "settle this peacefully!"

The US government / media during the Bush years had tried to label Venezuela and Ecuador as rogue states, whilst funding a militaristic expansionist government in Colombia who threatened to attack both those countries (in 2008). This was clear "divide and conquer" tactics. But it failed due to the newly-formed UNASUR military alliance.

So, the US and it's client states are the only "warzone" fostering assholes down there right now.

[RedKing]

But for all that, most of the Central and South American countries (incuding ones without active political conflicts) have much higher murder rates than even the US.

As in, Costa Rica has an annual murder rate per capita (8.5 per 100,000) almost double that of the US (4.7), and it's the shining star of Central America. Honduras has a rate of 90.4. 
In South America, only Chile (3.1) is safer than the United States.


That may be what was meant by "warzone". It's kinda scary that even with the Mexican Drug War, Honduras has quadruple the murder rate of Mexico.
(And yet some people still wonder why parents are desperately sending their kids to the US to get away from that shit...)

[Reelya]

Ironically, the high crime rate in Venezuela seems to be because Chavez dismantled the brutal police state that existed before him (I've seen docos from years ago saying that many gangs are ex-police there). Plus, a lot of the Colombian death squad guys crossed over the border from Colombia after the USA ordered the government there to crack down back in 2003. A lot of violence happens in the border states with Colombia. Here is a travel advisory map of Venezuela:

You can see, anywhere near the border with Colombia is heavily advised against going. Hence, you can guess who is causing the trouble - Colombia paras. And the paras are aligned with the right-wing political forces in Colombia who are strongly anti-Venezuela.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela

Human rights groups suggest that the government's policing efforts are too "timid".

It's hard to reconcile the idea that Chavez was a power-mad fascist when human rights groups slam you for not being enough of a police-state.