Mmmhmm… Now I see… One of the fucking anarcho-loser types…Unbelievable. I hope my followers see this because I am very much not an anarchist at all. I am not opposed to the existence of government or police. You are trying to stereotype me and it’s not working out well for you. Your arguments are so off topic, I wonder what the point is for you anymore.
Yeah, that shit will go real far. For the record, yes, I DO have to sign up again… Why? Because I can’t justify taking 6 years of work and pissing it all away to walk away with nothing more than unappreciative little pricks like you giving me a big “fuck you” for swearing to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic, all because you care more about some little fucking kid in a third world country than you do about your own people.Wow, that’s a mouthful. I will try to address your fallacies one by one.
First, nothing in your response illustrated that you are FORCED to stay doing what you’re doing now. You’re only saying you don’t WANT to. And if that’s your sole reasoning, then it is quite clear that you do NOT have to. I was right.
Second, many of us are unappreciative because you are not using your brain. You are not defending The People and the constitution. No one is trying to attack the United States. The US Military, not only has been handed over to NATO and the UN, but the vast majority of conflicts the United States has been in over its short little existence have been unnecessary and unconstitutional wars that didn’t respect the process of requiring a deceleration of war. The United States government is bought and owned by financial institutions and corporations. You are working for them. You are doing NOTHING but helping drown this nation in debt. You have been brainwashed into believing that you are actually doing good when you really are doing harm.
So perhaps you should do your fucking homework if you’re going to claim to defend the Constitution. What about the enemies right here that are asking you to kill people in other countries who are of no real threat to this country? How about we invest all this money into defending our own ass, rather than war mongering, nation building and stealing resources around the world? If you haven’t figured out that you’re working for a criminal enterprise by now, you’re hopeless. And you deserve the symbolic “FUCK YOU” that you have received.
If you care about the fucking people so much, shut your fucking mouth and listen to what they’re saying. What good are you if you’re not sticking up for them?
You know why I believe the way I do?The question should be: Do I care?
It’s not for world peace, it’s not for the people in other countries, it’s in spite of them. I believe in non-intervention because the rest of the world has the same mentality people like you doYou believe in non-interventionism but you work for the US military? HAHAHAHAHA. That’s like being a Jainist and blowing yourself up in a shopping mall.
… They’re unappreciative little bastards and don’t deserve any fucking help.Then stop helping them. PLEASE. :)
I would flatten an entire Iraqi town if it meant bringing my guys back home, but you, someone who has likely never been in a warzone, would never understand what that’s like…Actually, no, I wouldn’t kill an entire city of innocent people to save my friend or one of my family members because my morals are consistent. I don’t believe two wrongs make a right. I would do whatever I could to save them, but beyond that, I couldn’t be expected to hurt innocent people because of it. You’re like one of those roided out hooorah, die hard militarists who put their units above all other principal. The flaw here is obvious to most people. I wonder why you can’t grasp the concept. You should really think critically about that question.
“I have never asked another person, police officer or not, to agree with my morals. I only ask that he agree with his own.” Yeah, and say that a given police officer finds it moral to procecute drug users… Then what?
I’ve already answered that. He should continue with what his morals say is right. It will eventually catch up with him. Him and his family will have to carry the burden of blame and social rejection. And depending on how far it all went, he should be held to criminal prosecution for violating his oath. The federal government has no legal right to criminalize the personal consumption of drugs. So if you’re a federal prosecutor, and you’re exercising power under the federal government that the US Constitution doesn’t afford, you should be prepared for the possibility that one day, your own version of the Nuremburg Trials will be at your door.
The police officers understand what’s legal and illegal and accept that as moral.
Which is why they’re stupid. Obviously, law is regardless of morality. How many examples would you like?
People like you just want something to complain about.
My mother used to tell me, “If you can’t find something wrong with the government, you’re not trying hard enough.”
She was right. And so it goes that perfection and prosperity with proper balance will never be had if we don’t dig into the details and work out the kinks of our society. You’re still advocating that people stop complaining and just be happy with the shit society they live in run by plutocratic banks. Fuck that. That kind of mentality is for the weak.
… If he’s prosecuting because he has to, “Oh, that’s wrong!” If he’s prosecuting because he believes in the law, then it’s, “Cops are fucking assholes!” Get real…
I am very real. And I didn’t say those quotes up there. You’re misrepresenting my argument. Apparently, my argument is solid enough that it is only through misrepresentation that you’re able to ridicule it.
Police enforce the laws as they stand because cops are human, they have different sets of morals.
No, police enforce the laws because they’re being paid to and many of them get off on strutting around on a power trip. Cops and robbers is a childhood game that some people never fully got over.
Laws are written so that there’s one standard for everyone to follow, not having some that will prosecute against some things, but not others, all entirely dependent upon that cop’s morals.
What’s wrong with that? Let’s say I’m a prosecutor and I do my job to the best of my ability, and some case hits my desk and after careful investigation, I recognize that the person I’m going after is innocent. I should have the ability to say “no… I won’t do this. I didn’t sign up for this. I won’t prosecute the innocent.” And if your job entails that sort of thing on a regular basis and it bothers you, you shouldn’t do it. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If one prosecutor won’t do it, the state will find another one who will. But the blood will not be on your hands. In order to work for many branches of the government, you have to be willing to separate your morals from yourself, else you have to be completely ignorant. I cannot do that, nor could I ever respect anyone who could. Hint hint.
There’s a difference between complaining to people in town and complaining online.
Not at all.
Complaining in a place like Tumblr will never get anywhere.
And that’s where you’re wrong again. It’s actually more beneficial to complain online that it is to complain to your little neighborhood.
You know what I do when I have issues?
Kill a family of brown people?
I take it public.
How is “taking it public” different from “taking it to the internet”?
Taking it public will get people around town talking about it. Taking it to just tumblr will get a few people talking about it… But it’s never in a halfway mature way.
That’s not true at all. There is strength in numbers on the internet. Shit can get done on a national level. Just look what we all accomplished with SOPA? Yeah… that totally refutes what you just said.
It’s “All cops are fascist pigs!” and “Fuck statist neocons!” There’s almost never any logic behind half the bitching, and when arguments ARE made, they’re weak and present so radical a change that most people, especially the politicians, will dismiss it as teenage stupidity.
All cops are bastards. There is no such thing as a good cop. The reason is because cops are not individuals acting on their own morals, but rather a group of functionaries who have, as per the terms of their jobs, agreed to set aside their morals and act as obedient agents of the state.
As for the anarchist rhetoric on Tumblr, I agree it’s annoying. But those people are entitled to their opinion and I often find myself arguing with them on my other blog.
My position is wrong?
No, your position is unconstitutional, and thus “wrong” legally and ethically. Now, since you said that you would level an entire city of innocent people, then I would also say that you are wrong morally as well.
To you, it may be… Then again… If I used what I would assess would be your logic, I would just say to do away with the police, fire department, and any government service… That wouldn’t last but a week.
I have never advocated for that. I am not your common police brutality blog. I am reasonable. I think any civilized society needs someone to do the guarding. I certainly champion fire departments and other government services as being completely necessary. So stop trying to box me into these little black flag sterotypes that you use to try an ad-hom your way out of an argument that you lost an hour ago.
If there’s no one to enforce laws, why would anyone follow them? There’s no need for a police state, but at the same time, there is a need to have police. Besides, who are you to tell me that my views are wrong? Just because my views conflict with yours doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
I already explained this above. You keep rehashing the same old shit. Make your point, be done with it, so I don’t have to repeat myself.
I don’t like your take on the police, but I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you’re wrong…
Clearly you don’t even know my position on the police as you’ve demonstrated clearly here. Anyone following my blog for long enough will tell you that I am NOT against the existence of police.
You should hop off your high horse and get real… Not everyone will agree with you and that doesn’t make them wrong, regardless of what you think…
No, you’re wrong because you voluntarily participate in a criminal enterprise. This makes you a liar and a trader to your country. You’re ignorant cannon fodder. That’s all you are.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
NRA Member Proposes Federal Implementation Of Strict NJ Gun Control Laws
Jurriaan Maessen
Infowars.com
January 16, 2013“The Borough of Madison” urges federal adaptation of strict New Jersey gun control reform legislation.
Last Monday New Jersey’s Madison borough council passed a resolution titled “Resolution of the Borough of Madison in Support of Federal Legislation Adopting New Jersey’s Strict Gun Laws”. The resolution proposes that one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US are implemented at the federal level. The council will be “(…) urging federal legislators to adopt federal gun laws that are similar to those in New Jersey, which is considered to have among the strictest gun laws in the U.S.”, the MadisonPatch reported today.
During the council meeting, police-officers gave a demonstration of different types of guns, intended to get the get the resolution passed:
“(…) discussion on the topic was accompanied by a presentation by Madison police officers about various types of guns.”
On January 5 2012, the MadisonPatchreported that it was an NRA-member who also happens to be the councilman who intended to introduce the resolution:
“(…) Borough Councilman Robert Catalanello, a member of the National Rifle Association, plans to introduce a resolution at the governing body’s next meeting urging Congress to use New Jersey’s gun laws as the laws for the entire U.S.”
Madison’s mayor Robert Conley immediately put his signature underneath the pledge, adding that councilman Catalanello “will be quick to point out that he’s a member of the NRA while I’m a member of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”
“We are working together on this because enough is enough”, Conley said.
The resolution in question was unanimously passed on January 14 by Madison borough council members.
“The resolution says more than 48,000 Americans will be murdered with guns during the next four years and Madison’s elected officials are outraged at the statistics and support common sense reform.”
If these strict gun laws were to be implemented federally, the following regulations would rain down on the entire United States:
“(…) prohibiting the possession of ‘assault firearms,’ and of magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition, and that possession of automatic firearms is prohibited without a state license.”
“the Borough of Madison supports gun control reform legislation at the Federal level to mirror that of the gun restrictions in New Jersey” and “urges swift passage of these laws at the Federal level.”
Jurriaan Maessen’s website is Explosivereports.com.
(via seattle-gadgets)
There is no knowledge of the firearms he wants banned here. “Assault weapons” is a make-believe term; military standard already banned.
Dana Loesch (via thegayrepublican)
Well, strictly regulated by the Feds since 1934.
(via nomosshere)
(via nomosshere)
The persecution of Aaron Swartz: Why the US government hounded a free-information activist to his death
January 15, 2013On Friday, January 11, 2013, 26-year-old visionary technologist and social activist Aaron Swartz hanged himself in New York City. A passionate advocate for making access to online information as widespread as possible, Swartz was grappling with the fallout from his efforts to do just that.
Two years before Swartz ended his life, he was arrested by police from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the City of Cambridge, Mass., police for breaking and entering into an MIT storage closet. In the closet, Swartz had stashed an ACER laptop he had programmed to download in bulk millions of scholarly articles from JSTOR, a non-profit database that provides access to the articles for academic libraries. At the time, articles on JSTOR were locked behind a paywall for non-academics who wished to access them through their own computers. Swartz aimed to make them available, free of charge, to anyone who wanted to read them.
At the time of his arrest, an investigation of Swartz’s MIT/JSTOR action was already underway, and two days earlier, the Secret Service’s online crime division assumed control of the probe. The Secret Service routinely conducts complex computer crime investigations; its involvement signaled the treatment of this as a major crime, not a caper. Six months later, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz charged Swartz with a four-count indictment.
To those who knew Swartz’ ethic, that indictment already seemed like overkill, essentially labeling an effort to share information as wire and computer fraud. But then last year, Ortiz multiplied each of the main charges, turning the same underlying actions into a 13-count indictment that threatened Swartz with a 35-year sentence.
Swartz had long struggled with depression that may have contributed to his suicide. But his family and associates have also blamed the government’s conduct in prosecuting Swartz. A statement issued by the family the day after Swartz’s suicide charges that “the U.S. Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims.”
And therein lies the almost incomprehensible legal background to this tragedy. Both before and after his arrest, Swartz had dedicated much of his life to using the internet to making information freely accessible. His goal here — the government claims he intended to publish the journals online, but made no claim he wanted to profit off of them — would have put academic research, much of it funded by federal grants, in the hands of the people who paid for it.
The Free Exchange of Ideas
Academic inquiry is founded on the free exchange of ideas. And most of the journals’ authors do not get paid for the articles they wrote. Swartz’s “crime” here would have served to foster intellectual exchange, the entire point of publishing scholarly journals. In fact, since Swartz’s indictment, JSTOR has opened up access to its journals for individuals who register. To some extent, then, Swartz’ goal has been implemented by his alleged victim.
Moreover, as Alex Stamos, an expert witness who would have testified in Swartz’s defense, points out, both the alleged victims of this crime had built their systems to foster openness. MIT deliberately allows visitors to access their system. At the time of the alleged crimes, JSTOR permitted users at MIT an unlimited number of downloads. Both networks lacked very basic safeguards to prevent abuse.
And both alleged victims have expressed regret at what has happened. Before the federal government charged Swartz, JSTOR settled its complaint against him, though MIT did not. In response to his death, JSTOR reiterated that it “regretted being drawn into from the outset, since JSTOR’s mission is to foster widespread access to the world’s body of scholarly knowledge.” And in addition to also expressing sorrow, MIT President Rafael Reif promised an investigation into MIT’s role in his prosecution, raising questions about what alternatives MIT had to cooperating in Swartz’s prosecution.
While MIT’s remorse may be tragically belated, both the alleged victims in this case seem to recognize that the prosecution violated the ethics of openness that JSTOR and MIT claim to uphold.
In spite of all this, the government portrayed Swartz’s action as theft, painting him as a common criminal. “Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away,” said Ortiz at a press conference announcing the charges.
(via willbraham)
The Coming Food Police (by LibertyNewsNetwork1)
Tom Eddlem reports on the outlook of the future, investigating government regulated dieting. Will the United States Government soon be force feeding you and your children on what you are and aren’t allowed to eat?
Fuck Alex Jones and infowars
i figured this bit of commentary i wrote from that video deserves its own post…
FUCK ALEX JONES. he has kicked back and got rich off providing information to people looking for answers. he has become nothing less evil then the so called elite he bashes and talks shit about all the time, SAME SHIT DIFFERENT ASSHOLE. maybe even worse. I have seen him associating with hollywood elites…
i remember being at an immortal techinque show and outside were some of alex jones disciples preaching 9/11 was an inside job, i told them, if they wanted evidence for martial law, and the American government not giving a shit about its people then why not preach and teach about hurricane katrina. there was no conspiracy there just cold hard facts. the government abandoned its citizens and used the disaster as an opportunity to test martial law. that is no conspiracy, its the well documented truth. the only difference is the victims were primarily poor black folks. i told them to stop drinking his fucking kool aid and think for themselves. people need to stop blindly following false prophets,so to speak. stop fucking drinking kool aid for fucks sake.
if this offends anyone following me that are alex jones fans oh well, you need to find a new fucking source of the truth, because he is just as bad, if not worse, then the likes of a preacher of a megachurch who drives a Bentley and makes a killing off manipulating the minds of the weak. fuck that motherfucker. he IS the elite. he IS rich. and he is making money off you. poor people looking for truth and answers. where do you hear about him making donations to any human rights organizations or charities, if he has please show me. besides that to me he is a self serving asshole. Pimping those in search of answers.
/endrant
No, you can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your “religious freedom.” If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs. - Barack Obama
oh, BO. You understand me.
Boom.
I really do love this man.
Again, I ask, “Did someone outlaw contraception?” Or do rights mean, “Gimme stuff for free!” There’s no pretending it’s about religious freedom. We actually get that from the Constitution. “Right” to birth control? Not so much. Want to change it? Make an amendment.
Also its the fact he is telling groups what they can and can not do. They are private. They can do as they wish. As long as they don’t brake the constitutional laws.
U.S. Government and Council on Foreign Relations Complicity in Foreign Conflicts (by TheJohnBirchSociety)
In this weekly news update for January 30 - February 5, 2012, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how the US Government and Council on Foreign Relations are using similar tactics as were used in the past in dealing with conflicts across the world.
Foreign Data Unsafe From US Patriot Act, Says American Law Firm
From Slashdot:
natecochrane writes “A prestigious law firm warns non-U.S. businesses their data is unsafe from costly and invasive raids by American law enforcement even if they host their data in their own countries. The wide interpretation of the USA Patriot Act ensures U.S. cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist. The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim ‘Dotcom’ on alleged copyright violations in the U.S.”
