Jump to content

angelofdeath

Member
  • Posts

    3,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by angelofdeath

  1. Not true whatsoever. In my experience, (and most of the people I have talked to in Cities where Occupy has really taken off) it has taken a largely anti-authoritarian narrative. No one, besides retarded liberals, are begging for more government.

     

    I mean come on, consensus? Direct Democracy? No political party endorsement despite a huge co-opt attempt by moveon.org and other libtards, bureaucratic labor leaders, etc.. They even got rid of a lot of the crypto-fascist Ron Paulites.

     

    Social Democratic Liberals (like Michael Moore), Marxist-Leninists and Maoists have definitely been a problem for some cities (see the bureaucratic bullshit of Chicago) for bringing a pro-state, reformist "tax the rich" agenda, but look to Oakland, Olympia, Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis, etc... Plenty of anarchists- whether they self-identify or not- have been able to push this shit into an anti-authoritarian, anti-state, anti-capitalist direction. Instead of using more government to "tax the rich", we say, change the economic/political structures that produce economic inequality: SMASH CAPITALISM AND THE STATE THAT PROTECTS IT.

     

    Anyone who thinks they have the right to make the decisions that affect other peoples lives (whether that be a politician or a boss) has no fucking basis for making these decisions. FOR A WORLD WITHOUT BOSSES.

     

    FOR A WORLD OF ANARCHIES, brotha!

     

    i guess all these videos of adam kokesh, peter schiff, etc interviewing and interacting with the various occupation movements arent representative of the actual movement then, cause all im hearing is a bunch of marxist statist rhetoric. more taxes, more government, more regulation, more 'fairness,' etc.

     

    you know, i thought it would be cool to have an alliance with some commie anarchist types, but the only problem for me is you guys hate capitalism more than you hate the state. another issue would be if the state was actually abolished, i'd have to violently defend my life and property from you and your friends when you seek to rob it from me to put it into the hands of 'the workers.' this might be a problem.

     

    just sayin

  2. im totally with you on the 'fetishism' most people seem to have with 'authority' or public 'servants' in general. however to me there is something extremely ironic with the police brutality against the protesters.

    the overall message of these protests is that we need more government because capitalism has failed. so in the process of demanding more government, the protesters seem to be literally, as mencken said, 'getting exactly what they want, good and hard.'

  3. damn! im in CA and i just went to the SF gun show a few weeks back, .223/.556 rounds were 260$ for 1000 RELOADS.... you got a screamin deal!

     

     

    what state are you in?!?

     

    lets not forget he got wolf ammo

  4. Whats the deal with gun shows? guns for cheap riight?

    Easier to get, no?

     

    it usually depends on your state.

    in highly restrictive gun law states or states that outlaw or severely restrict private sales (without ffl transfer) you probably arent going to find any thing cheap. its basically a bunch of dealers. now, if you like to socialize, you'll love a gun show.

    it is a way of getting a bunch of dealers together in one place so you dont have to ride around to every gun shop in the area trying to find a certain gun.

     

    however if you live in a more free state, private sales are pretty common. lots of trading, selling, buying, all without FFL transfers. much easier, much less hassle and much cheaper.

     

    all this aside, you'll have to wade through tables of beef jerky, dream catchers and a bunch of other weird shit. but to me its still worth going...you'll eventually find a deal on something

  5. Don't look too hard at GDP for economic growth. GDP measures a lot of things but not how people are doing or if things are actually are selling. Among random things like estimated housing prices (which im not sure but could be severely inflated) It sums up the prices of things manufactured, as opposed to things sold.

     

    And I'm not sure where you got your unemployment numbers but they're wrong. Reported unemployment is above 8.5% which doesn't include people who've given up entirely on looking for work.

     

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/12/01/143016866/unemployment-falls-to-8-6-percent

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/12/02/143042965/unemployment-drops-to-8-6-percent-120-000-jobs-added

     

    Everything else you said is about right. Blue collar work has been dying for the last 40 years. If you live in a blue collar town that once thrived from mining or factory work, you're going to need to have at least an AA from a city college to even get a job. That a huge leap in requirements from once not needing even a highschool education, social skills, anger management, or a 4th grade level of literacy.

     

    Think about that: Twenty years ago you could own a house, a boat, a car, plenty of beer money, get into bar fights every night and not even know how to read. Now you need to know how to use a computer or understand CNC machines.

     

    That's why occupy protests lack the command of language and a firm grasp of the situation, because they're the progeny of a dying breed.

     

     

    honestly some of the stuff in here about gdp i agree with.

     

    on another angle, the gdp is also bs as it includes government spending in it.

     

    also, shadow stats is saying unemployment, using the way unemployment USED to be calculated, before they manipulated it to reflect more favorable numbers for the government, its upwards of 19-23%.

    that isnt growth, that is just redistributed income. governments dont spend, they waste. their projects are all economic black holes.

    so if government is consuming 40% of the gdp, and it consumes 50% the next year, there is no growth, just waste. govt spending, borrowing and printing just means that private sector is shrinking.

  6. AOD, you went there. You took a neat little discussion about the pros and cons of lobbying/corporate personhood and went all crossfire on crossfire. I get what you're trying to say "if we didnt have a government then there would be no congressmen to lobby to." But think for a second how abstract and hard that argument is to win compared to just weighing the pros and cons of lobbying. Think damnit, think!

     

    Should we start a libertarian thread? Or is that what ron paul thread is? I feel like this is getting away from Occupy Wallstreet.

     

     

    Frank I hope you see the irony in posting, "cool story bro" in response to me saying you're all about making posts that lack substance. God you're dumb.

     

     

    i have thought about it and that is why i have come to the conclusion that even if the federal government were reduced to constitutional boundaries, (not your characterization of having no govt) there is nothing to lobby.

    thinking that a few more laws can eliminate any influence on the biggest most powerful coercive organization on earth that has the power to do anything is naive at best. if the corporations have all this power and control the government, how can you control the corporations with government?

     

    sure i went crossfire on crossfire.

    if we have people presenting opposing views in the ron paul thread, you are going to get opposing views in the OWS thread. if RP people are defending positions in that thread, you should be prepared to defend OWS type positions in this thread.

    just sayin

  7. So what you're saying is there shouln't be lobbying.... which means you agree with fist.

     

    /endAODderailment

     

    in an abstract way there shouldnt be lobbying in the sense you are talking about.

    however my preferred method of achieving this is much different. i say the government shouldnt have the power to dole out. and you dont trample peoples rights to say....make movies about statist political candidates before an election. you guys say the government should be able to do anything it wants and its powers be unlimited, just a corporation cant lobby for it, but unions, welfare queens, and liberal groups or whatever can get their share of the pie. i say get rid of the pie. and that the regulations that, for centuries, havent effectively created your economic utopia (because of the unintended consequences and market distortions) will effectively be able to limit a corporation from lobbying government. the only way these laws can create the effects you want is if you take them to the logical conclusion and just make government own everything. lets face it, the soviets were very good on regulation, there wasnt any. they owned everything, people didnt.

    this is a fundamental difference in the leftist critique of lobbying and mine.

     

    lets not forget that the first amendment guarantees the right to petition ones government for a redress of grievances. in effect 'lobbying.' there is nothing wrong with telling the government (or lobbying if you will) to leave people alone. this is essentially 'constitutional.' the problem comes when you lobby government to do things it doesnt have the power constitutionally to do. despite the flawed constitution, but as it was written, it did effectively limit the lobbying power of X groups until the 20th century because it had very little favors to hand out if any. because you can flap all you want about getting some privilege from government, but if they dont have the power, they cant give it to you. although the internal improvement debates started when the ink was still wet. big government types wanted govt to pay for internal improvements. small government constitutionalists didnt. this was effectively the first acts of both corporate welfare and extra constitutional powers being used by the government.

     

    the very act of being able to speak freely and say ask your government to do something is actually the mark of a free society. the difference being in the ideal case, government doesnt have the power to dole out said favors. for instance a free society allows people to advocate for socialism and they can even set up voluntary socialist arrangements, they just cant force others into their arrangement. a socialist society doesnt allow one to advocate or engage in capitalism.

  8. What cracks me up about libertarians is that milton friedman was a libertarian economist if ever there was one, but unlike his political counterparts he was intelligent enough to repeatedly say not to compare idealism with reality—Something Ron Paul and his followers entertainingly do all the time. On that point, so do 95% of all politicians but hey moving on.

     

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/06/144737864/forget-stocks-or-bonds-invest-in-a-lobbyist

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/12/20/144028899/the-tuesday-podcast-jack-abramoff-on-lobbying

    Now AOD, you tell me: Is THAT a free market at work?

     

    your post simply displays that you lack any comprehension of what a free market is.

    your problem is you think the current economy in america is a free market.

     

    basically ideological leftist concludes that anything that a corporation does through government or any government power given (think extra rights) to a certain group is 'the free market.'

    america is not a free market. america has had mixed economy for well over a century if not longer. the current system is economic fascism with a good dose of ideological socialism thrown in to round things out.

     

    government even having the power to grant extra rights, privileges, immunities and limited liability to various groups of people (rights that they do not even possess in a free society) is all that is needed to show that the examples you tout are not examples of a free market economy. they are examples of a corporatist economy. in a free market there are no bail outs, no favorable regulation, no favors, no privileges and THERE IS NOTHING TO LOBBY.

    if you are really against lobbying government you should favor a free society with bare bones to no government at all. then all the problems you hate, that have been created by government do not exist.

  9. what about the corporations that fund money into african warzones to enable them to get access to minerals they use in high end electronics?

     

    to me this is on the same level of discussion as 'what if we have murderers?' or 'what if some rich guy buys up all the food and starves the entire world?

     

    no system creates utopia nor is there any way possible for the worlds population to all agree on an issue or have every single person on the planet live the same way as ________ wants us to. its absolutely impossible.

     

    i dont know the specifics of this 'funneling money into african war zones to access to minerals' but on its face it seems no different than if someone pays you 1 million dollars to enter the ground under your property to get minerals.

     

    I do understand what AOD is saying I just disagree with him (as he knows!) I dont believe the government regulation on the financial markets was strong enough. The banks are taking some of the best minds to create these complex financial mechanisms and products that no one understands (even the regulator).

     

     

    im supposed to believe that over 100 regulatory agencies that couldnt correct market fascism are going to be able to if we just pass a few more laws? its the same mantra that has been going on for centuries. 'we need just one more law...' and hear we are centuries later with the same mantra. the reason? every law creates unintended consequences which then requires 10 more laws to fix. which then for each of those 10 laws, requires 10 more laws. its a self licking ice cream cone.

     

    the leftist argument fails. why? for this simple fact. why wasnt there a housing bubble before the 2000-2008/09 bubble? there was less regulations. why not a housing bubble in 1900 when there was hardly any financial regulations? the only theory that successfully explains this is the ATBC. nothing else explains the cluster of errors.

     

    the reason derivatives came about was because of the federal reserve credit which made money cheap and the government regulatory apparatus which implicitly if not encouraged banks to make risky loans.

    imagine if you had someone telling you that you could make trillions but you would have absolutely no risk at all, would you act on this? i'd venture to say most people would.

    without government, a derivative as we experienced in the housing boom could not exist.

     

    The government failure is they didn't understand the markets and their products, the regulation should be stronger to stop this type of business. It doesn't help that all the huge corporations have their fingers in government to manipulate it to their reequirements.

     

    government set the stage to create 'the products.' without it, they wouldnt exist. if a free market simply would result in this, i'll beat the dead horse again, why did it take the greedy capitalists this long to figure out how to create derivatives? whey didnt they do it back when they had hardly any regulations to deal with?

     

    the lefts answer is always just a 'few more sensible stronger' regulations. i say its all a self licking ice cream.

    market regulations are much stricter. no free market would allow banks to make such loans as they did. no free market would bail out investment banks that made bad bets. no free market would prop up failed businesses. no free market would guarantee solvency of institutions no matter how they behaved. the market would of let wall street collapse for acting in this matter. but more to the point, without the federal reserve, there would of been no cheap inflation to coercively pour the alcohol for the drinking binge. hence, without government, you had a sound free market that never could create the fed induced credit bubble.

    • Like 1
  10. if this stuff is going down, i'd love to see all the dead bodies, raped women and stolen loot.

     

     

    the root of the entire issue isnt corporations controlling government, its governments having the power in the first place to do bad things. think about it. a corporation isnt lobbying angelofdeath. why? because i have no legal power to do things im otherwise restricted in doing like the government does. they lobby the government because it grants them extra legal powers, privileges, immunities, handouts, etc. if you are serious about getting rid of a government that is accountable to special interests, you must then join me in saying that if we are to have a government, it must do one thing, protect rights. NOTHING ELSE. you must also support getting rid of the welfare queens, israeli lobby, and whatever other lobbying organizations are demanding more special favors.

     

    if you concede government has the power to grant powers to people and groups that individuals dont possess, dont get mad when a group that you dont like, uses it.

    thats the root of the problem.

  11. christ.

     

    what does legality have to do with it if the legality/illegality of something is simply ignored?

     

    in the flavor of this thread: wall street--who has spent a single day in jail or paid a fine or been penalized for the inarguable lying, cheating, and stealing that took place over the last 15-20 years on wall st that resulted in the 07 crash?

     

    why would these companies act in any different capacity with fewer/no regulations?

     

    what does legality have to do with someone if it is ignored?

    if someone steals from me, i have a right to get my stuff back. one way or the other. if someone hasnt stolen from me, i dont have a right to go after the same guy because he hasnt committed aggression against me.

     

    if you think that a law of some sort isnt effective, and that corporations are not held accountable if they murder someone, why do you think more regulations can create an economically socialist utopia?

     

    if there was indeed fraud on wall street over the past years it is because of two things. government granted this power to them. or government is impossible of preventing it and/or has chosen not to prosecute it. in fact, govt implicitly guaranteed EVERYTHING that happened on wall street. it is because of government that it could of even happened.

     

    but i'd venture out on a limb and say that most people who believe that 'wall street' 'caused' the housing crash and that government had nothing to do with it, do not understand what exactly fraud is and what it isnt.

     

    in 1950, there was DRASTICALLY fewer housing regulations. why didnt the crash happen then? why werent there no doc loans? when my great grandfather bought his land with a mortgage in the 1940, i am told the entire process was done in 1 week. including settlement. fast forward, in 1980, no one could get a loan. it took my parents 6 months to get a loan. with perfect credit. your ilk said no one could get a loan because capitalists were against the poor and wouldnt loan money. your belief set on these issues makes no logical sense. first they were to stingy, then in 2000 they are too loose.

     

    the only thing that caused the housing collapse was artificial manipulation of money and credit and the federal regulatory apparatus that created moral hazard which ultimately privatized profits and socialized risks. this is not capitalism, this is economic fascism.

  12. i think yall are grasping at straws here.

     

    if a corporation (a group of people) murders, kills, rapes or commits fraud, they are liable and accountable, just like any other person in a free society. if they do get away with 'dirty deeds' in todays age, it is because of govt privileges. if a government exists, it is supposed to protect rights. which means, if your rights are infringed upon, they are supposed to make sure the offenders are held accountable.

     

    liberals have this fantasy that the current system of corporatism in the US is a free market.

     

    logical implication of fists' original analogy was that corporations some how today are raping, murdering and stealing and that in todays society or a freer society, they are allowed to do this. that is why the analogy is wrong. if someone tries to murder or steal from me, first they have to deal with my own defenses. they that fails, they will then have to deal with the authorities that are supposed to protect my rights and prosecute such infringements.

     

    if you think because it is humanely possible that someone acting under corporate authority can murder someone, that we should abolish corporations, you must also seek to abolish every person on the earth

  13. what does legality have to do with it? are you serious? mala in se law is the only just law.

     

    fine, i'll reword.

     

    corporations, unless acting under govt auspices CANNOT lie, cheat, steal, murder or rape.

    no one is allowed to do this.

    unless of course you are the government or a person or entity hired under said government 'authority'

     

    maybe im missing something, but i dont see walmart and apple computer running predator drones over top of people, bombing countries, and being given the authority to throw citizens in jail without trial forever.

  14. haha, that is plain distortion.

    corporations, unless acting under govt auspices cannot legally lie, cheat, steal, murder or rape.

    complete false line of thought on your part.

    but nice try

  15. thats what i like about the glock also...

    ralphy if yr a big boy take on the 45mm.

    ammo is expensive, 40 a box in comparison to 20 a box for 9mm but it will fit your hand better...

     

    fist has a point... 100 winchester white box .40's are 31$ at walmart currently.

    you can get decent surplus .45 for pretty cheap. not as cheap as 9mm, but......

     

    anyway you look at it, you are going to be spending lots of money on ammo, unless you are shooting .22's

  16. i think the different permit requirements are hilarious.

     

    alot of the differences between may issue and shall issue states is govt ultimately decides who can have the permit on their whim in the may issue states. in the shall issue states, as long as you pass the background checks and jump through their hoops, they have to give you a permit.

     

    my dad had a permit in a may issue state. after the finger printing, the interviews, the references, the paper work, the 3 trips to the passport photo takers because the state police required an odd ball size picture and the extortion fees, he got a permit. he had to prove that he dealt in X amount of cash bank deposits per day. and after all the BS, the permit was restricted to 'normal business hours' essentially voiding it because he never worked 'normal hours.'

    the funny thing was the draconian gun laws of this state required no training for the permit. where they made up for the no training requirement is the fact that no one could get a permit unless you had credible threats against your life and/or you dealt in large sums of cash and were a business owner. in another words, virtually no one in proportion to the population at large. its funny, the areas with these requirements are the exact areas where people need to be armed to defend themselves.

     

    another thing about 'permits' is something that alot of people dont think about it. for instance in NC to buy a handgun you have to go to the sheriffs office and apply for a 5$ 'purchase' permit. you must then present this permit to the FFL or to the private party when purchasing a handgun to purchase it legally. never mind the fact that the dealer already does the same background check on you that the sheriffs office does. where did this permit come from? the jim crow legacy. the sheriff still retains the right to deny a permit for a pistol purchase for whatever reason he wants. used to be sheriffs never signed off on permits for blacks. alot of the whole 'permit' thing has its roots in state racism. marriage licenses are another example.

  17. well, thats because most people who hit people with cars dont do it on purpose. difference between murder and manslaughter is mens rea.

     

    but all this is a tangent.

    fact is you can murder or kill someone with a car or a gun. both are equally as deadly.

  18. dont most insurance policies for cars have Legal liability for death or injury to any other person

     

    just read this in an insurance policy here

     

    We will insure you for all amounts which you

    may have to pay as a result of you being legally

    liable for:

    (a) Another person’s death or injury.

    (b) Damage to another person’s property up to

    a maximum amount of £20,000,000

    (excluding that person’s costs and expenses

    and any other cost and expenses) and up to

    £5,000,000 for that person’s costs and

    expenses and any other costs and expenses

    incurred with our written consent in relation

    to damage to that person’s property as a

    result of an accident caused by:

     

    to an extent.

    they'll cover property damage, and injury to the specified limit. however, if you murder someone, its not covered. an insurance contract cant limit the liability of a murderer. if this was the case, all one would have to do is use their insured car to run people over they want to kill.

  19. drivers licenses absolutely promote safeR driving. without them i am very confident the number of deaths would be much, much higher.

     

    i think that an 8 hour course is better than no course at all. WA doesn't require any sort of class or weapons familiarization. and i would feel better if some women i've seen buy guns had even an hour familiarization, NDs kill.

     

    i don't think a CCL/CCW makes anyone a safer or better gun owner: i agree, its absolutely about personal responsibility, and i think most citizens are wholly irresponsible. but so are politicians, police, and just about everybody else. i don't know that there is a good solution.

     

    im with you on most of this.

    id go a step further and say if roads were sold to private industry, they would have an incentive to decrease death rates to increase their profits. govts have no incentive to please customers. because people are 1. forced to fund them. 2. forced to use them. imagine if any other private company had this power? but we are not given a choice, we are given a socialist road system and have to deal with that. because government administers them, there is no way to properly allocate resources, which is why socialism fails.

     

    if you think a drivers license lowers the death count, i dont know what to tell you on that one. if a 90 year old woman with no reaction time, half blind and upper body articulation can drive on the roads, with a legally held license, the license essentially means nothing. it means you can answer a few questions mostly about dui's and penalties and driving laws that dont really pertain to safety and can parallel park. thats about it. it doesnt mean you really know anything about the actual mechanics of driving on the roads.

     

    i've long had a theory. the best way to handle things like speeding and reckless driving is not to levy fines, but to allow insurance agencies to levy market based fees to your premiums. they are only marginally allowed to do this at present.

     

    thats just it. in a free society, you have some people who might seem 'scary.' however, there is no right to not be 'scared.' most feel that the fact that someone can own a gun in america that their rights are being infringed on because they feel scared. i'd submit you can only enact something to infringe on ones liberty if they commit actual mala in se against someone else. otherwise, they should be free to do as they wish.

     

    lets also remember politicians and police are just people. if people are irresponsible, then so are these people acting under state authority, as i think you know.

     

    i'd urge all gun owners to at least train every week and/or attend as many classes as possible. this is in their best interest as it limits their chance screwing up.

×
×
  • Create New...