Random Political Thoughts

[albrecht]

C2C guest and insidious whacko Douglas Dietrich has talked about something similar.  According to him he was there, attempted to intervene
to save the girls but got wiped out.  This lead to his dishonorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps.  He discusses it somewhere
in this Fetzer interview:

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-doug%20dietrich.mp3

Edit: I think it is at about  the 1 hour and 15 minute mark where he goes into it.

Dietrich is fun to listen too sometimes but he is batshit crazy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm
In 2002 there was a fire at the Mecca Intermediate School #3 and some girls weren't allowed to leave and/or firefighters weren't initially allowed to rescue being blocked by the "religious police" (هيئة الأمر بالمعروف و النهي عن المنكر) who said that they're not not modestly dressed. A rare circumstance in which the local media criticized the government and that branch. There were some, small reforms afterwards (now the oversight of girls' school falls under the Dept of Education and not a separate department overseeing only girls' education- for what that is worth there.)
These are our "allies" in the region!

[Walks_At_Night]

Dietrich is fun to listen too sometimes but he is batshit crazy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1874471.stm
In 2002 there was a fire at the Mecca Intermediate School #3 and some girls weren't allowed to leave and/or firefighters weren't initially allowed to rescue being blocked by the "religious police" (هيئة الأمر بالمعروف و النهي عن المنكر) who said that they're not not modestly dressed. A rare circumstance in which the local media criticized the government and that branch. There were some, small reforms afterwards (now the oversight of girls' school falls under the Dept of Education and not a separate department overseeing only girls' education- for what that is worth there.)
These are our "allies" in the region!

Well 2002 doesn't jive with Dietrich's story - if he was there for Desert Shield/Desert Storm that would have been like 1990 or 1991.  So either this type of thing has happened more than once or something is amiss with his story.   I'm not pretending to know anything about dishonorable discharges but I would imagine that is a pretty ugly deal and they probably aren't issued very often.    Who knows.   

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Did I just see the President of the United States crying like a bitch on TV?

[albrecht]

Did I just see the President of the United States crying like a bitch on TV?

Yes, yes you did. But those were crocodile tears, or maybe even tears of laughter, at being able to dupe, or should I say bully, the American Congress, and people, into going along with all of his very undemocratic dictates. In this case more gun rules as, to him, the real threat is Americans; not cartels (that he armed) or radical Islamists (that he funds and supports emigrating here) or gangs and hoodlums (because BLM)  or even other countries- but American citizens are the biggest threat. In particular older people, who remember what America once was, veterans, who he mistreated in the VA and hates because they voted overwhelmingly against him and always has held in contempt for their service, and those in rural areas, particularly Christians, and other "typical white people" in "fly-over country," as he likely calls it, who "cling" to guns and/or their Bible.

[albrecht]

Well 2002 doesn't jive with Dietrich's story - if he was there for Desert Shield/Desert Storm that would have been like 1990 or 1991.  So either this type of thing has happened more than once or something is amiss with his story.   I'm not pretending to know anything about dishonorable discharges but I would imagine that is a pretty ugly deal and they probably aren't issued very often.    Who knows.

I haven't heard this particular Dietrich story but I would not be surprised if a similar incident didn't occur at other times, many countries over there, in particular SA, is pretty backward with regard to females. I think a dishonorable discharge is a pretty serious thing and unlike others that are more adminstrative/pro-form for a DD you face an actual court martial. No idea how many are done but that would mean (I think) that Dietrich could no longer vote in Federal elections, own a gun, get any Federal funds/assistance, and it is also hard to get a job in many cases.
Frankly, with Dietrich I could see him getting discharged on one of those 'mental' case types of deal. Though I could also see trying to 'fight' it and so the Army just saying fine; let's go to trial and kick you out without any benefits and a stigma!

[Walks_At_Night]

Did I just see the President of the United States crying like a bitch on TV?

The tears wash away the flies:

[West of the Rockies]

Huh, I saw an authentic show of emotion.  Any of you slobs mock your own John Boehner when he cried repeatedly?  Hell, maybe you did because tears are girlish and weak, am I correct?  As for washing away the flies, oh, that's a good one!  Fuck yeah, flies on that dirty African boy, yeah, no dog whistle racism here.

This place -- with the exception of the kind and bright people who know who they are -- has become a cesspool of all that is dreadful in human beings. 

Well... Bye.  *mic drop

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Huh, I saw an authentic show of emotion.  Any of you slobs mock your own John Boehner when he cried repeatedly?  Hell, maybe you did because tears are girlish and weak, am I correct?  As for washing away the flies, oh, that's a good one!  Fuck yeah, flies on that dirty African boy, yeah, no dog whistle racism here.

This place -- with the exception of the kind and bright people who know who they are -- has become a cesspool of all that is dreadful in human beings. 

Well... Bye.  *mic drop

I find it funny when liberals are challenged by reality, they automatically default to their warped world view of stereotypes that they assume everyone fits into and then run away screaming about bigotry or whatever patriarchy or whatever fucking buzzword helps them to prevent thinking.

John Boehner? The fuck? Also you are aware there's a famous clip of a fly landing on Obama's face? Or do you just want to shriek and runaway because we're not joyously joining hands and singing Obama's praises?

[MV/Liberace!]

I find it funny when liberals are challenged by reality, they automatically default to their warped world view of stereotypes that they assume everyone fits into...

no shit... i mean, boehner? 

[GuerrillaUnReal]

How does it automatically make me a conservative to think it's pathetic the President of the United States is crying like a bitch on television? With how prepared, rehearsed and set-up his speeches are, his spontaneously breaking into tears makes me question if this man has a grip on his emotions or if the tears are part of his act of selling his gun control power grab.

I'm not necessarily against his proposed gun control but I am against the President of the United States looking like a bitch on television. Especially when it comes across like an act with what he picks and chooses to address.

[Philosopher]

How does it automatically make me a conservative to think it's pathetic the President of the United States is crying like a bitch on television? With how prepared, rehearsed and set-up his speeches are, his spontaneously breaking into tears makes me question if this man has a grip on his emotions or if the tears are part of his act of selling his gun control power grab.

I'm not necessarily against his proposed gun control but I am against the President of the United States looking like a bitch on television. Especially when it comes across like an act with what he picks and chooses to address.

I agree inasmuch as 90% of the world population interprets a crying man to be weak and a beta male.  This takes on a whole other level of seriousness when the crying man is the president of a major country.  Most cultures don't care about the context of his crying, only that he is crying publicly. 

Obama never gets it. 

He really thinks that the world thinks like he does - an educated western man with western, egalitarian values.  He doesn't understand how much of an anomaly he is in the world, nor the negative response it provokes from the hordes.

[VtaGeezer]

"Crying like a bitch"??  I saw two tears wiped away. He saw the Newtown crime scene photos.  Yeah, what a pussy. 

[GravitySucks]

"Crying like a bitch"??  I saw two tears wiped away. He saw the Newtown crime scene photos.  Yeah, what a pussy.

Why does he giggle when he watched drone footage?

[onan]

Why does he giggle when he watched drone footage?

My guess, feathers in his private parts.

[VtaGeezer]

Why does he giggle when he watched drone footage?

So you tear up when the bad guys get blowed up?

[CornyCrow]

Huh, I saw an authentic show of emotion.  Any of you slobs mock your own John Boehner when he cried repeatedly?  Hell, maybe you did because tears are girlish and weak, am I correct?  As for washing away the flies, oh, that's a good one!  Fuck yeah, flies on that dirty African boy, yeah, no dog whistle racism here.

This place -- with the exception of the kind and bright people who know who they are -- has become a cesspool of all that is dreadful in human beings. 

Well... Bye.  *mic drop

I agree with what I know of the President's proposal.  I would like ALL guns in the country to be fingerprint guns, if possible.

I don't like the guy crying.  I'm a female and if I cry, I do so in private.  On the job, women had been told to cry in private and I think that's good advice.  If it applies to us, it certainly does for the Pres.   

[Walks_At_Night]

It's escalating; flights have been cut between both countries.

Latest move:

https://www.rt.com/news/328156-iran-saudis-embassy-airstrike

[Jackstar]

Latest move:

https://www.rt.com/news/328156-iran-saudis-embassy-airstrike

https://youtu.be/3npr0RKBucc

"Born to fly."

https://youtu.be/R8euEkNiFo0

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Iron Eagle was definitely my favorite movie as a kid.

Ah, I miss the 80s. Virtually every movie then was a coke fueled murder spree of generic middle eastern or street trash types with no one batting an eye.

[Walks_At_Night]

C2C guest and insidious whacko Douglas Dietrich has talked about something similar.  According to him he was there, attempted to intervene
to save the girls but got wiped out.  This lead to his dishonorable discharge from the United States Marine Corps.  He discusses it somewhere
in this Fetzer interview:

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-doug%20dietrich.mp3

Edit: I think it is at about  the 1 hour and 15 minute mark where he goes into it.

Just listened to this hot mess again - I had forgotten how weird it was.

[Yorkshire pud]

How does it automatically make me a conservative to think it's pathetic the President of the United States is crying like a bitch on television?

These bitches you refer to? Do you mean women? You see, although being IV'd with testosterone and ingesting too many Y chromosomes might be a favoured diet for some; more of a man it does not make. Being a man involves much more than not crying because you're presiding over a country with a national congress most in the back pocket of the NRA that seemingly believes 30000 gun deaths a year every year is a price worth paying for that great buzz word 'liberdy'.

Oh, and Trumps response?

"Meanwhile, US Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump said he would eliminate gun-free zones in schools on his first day in office, if elected."  Because arming schools is a priority it seems..


Only a truly perverse person would find anything wrong with closing the loophole whereby some gun sellers can offload firearms to someone else with just the question; "Have you committed felonies that should prevent you owning a gun?" Because let's face it, the would be buyer won't lie eh? And just what is wrong with having more thorough mental health background checks? I just wonder how many on this forum who if they had kids involved in school massacres or similar (Currently running at almost one a day) would reassess how they felt about much more thorough checks? It's easy when you're not the one burying your child.

The proposals; where does it say he's gonna grab yer guns? (As Alex Jones would say..

These involve
Background checks for all gun sellers, overturning current exemptions to some online and gun show sellers

States providing information on people disqualified from buying guns due to mental illness or domestic violence

Increased workforce for the FBI to process background checks, hiring more than 230 new examiners

Congress being asked to invest $500m (£339m) to improve access to mental healthcare in the US

The departments of defence, justice and homeland security exploring "smart gun technology" to improve gun safety

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35259578

[analog kid]

Iron Eagle was definitely my favorite movie as a kid.

Ah, I miss the 80s. Virtually every movie then was a coke fueled murder spree of generic middle eastern or street trash types with no one batting an eye.

I like it because the soundtrack had Dio in it.

[The King of Kings]

These bitches you refer to? Do you mean women? You see, although being IV'd with testosterone and ingesting too many Y chromosomes might be a favoured diet for some; more of a man it does not make. Being a man involves much more than not crying because you're presiding over a country with a national congress most in the back pocket of the NRA that seemingly believes 30000 gun deaths a year every year is a price worth paying for that great buzz word 'liberdy'.

Well, it is in the Bill of Rights.  The second amendment, which I believe was the second most important right that the founding fathers agreed upon.

I would also like to deconstruct your 30000 gun deaths.

60% of gun deaths are suicides. 
Yes, some may be saved if guns are removed simply because guns are easy to end your own life with, however a strong argument would be that are going to kill themselves some how.

Of the remaining 13000 gun deaths, the vast majority are inner-city deaths caused by black men in gangs killing other black men in gangs.
You will never get hard working, law abiding white American citizens to give up their 2nd Amendment rights to protect themselves,  by using the argument that they need their rights taken away and the ability to protect themselves and their families because violent black men are killing other violent black men.

There was a story the other day of a teenager defending himself and his toddler sister against violent criminal black men using a firearm.  You really want to remove the option to protect themselves?  If you had your way, and all firearms were illegal a few months ago, this teenager and his sister probably would have been raped or killed by these criminals.

Women everyday protect themselves from murder, from rape, from violence with firearms.  You really want to remove the option for women to protect themselves?

Also, if you really gave two shits about "deaths", then why haven't you started a thread or a campaign to remove alcohol from society?  Alcohol kills close to 90,000 people a year.  You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you are a gun.  Yet, we allow alcohol to be sold on every corner, every bar, every restaurant, hell even in grocery stores now, and you can soon get alcohol at the movie theaters in most parts of the country, which all add up to 90,000 deaths a year.  Not a fucking peep out of you.

Yet, a second amendment right, the corner stone of allowing people to protect themselves from violence, you jump at the chance to try to take away.

It's frightening how illogical you are.

Full disclosure,  I don't own any firearms.  Still not afraid of anyone around me who has guns.  Driving around, yes I am quite afraid to be killed by a drunk driver.

[The King of Kings]

And just what is wrong with having more thorough mental health background checks? I just wonder how many on this forum who if they had kids involved in school massacres or similar (Currently running at almost one a day) would reassess how they felt about much more thorough checks? It's easy when you're not the one burying your child.

I am not going to search for it, but I am positive there was a study showing that every mass shooting, it was done by someone who passed background checks, both criminal and mental.

Secondly, what additional or more thorough mental health checks you think the state should have the power to give?

If we are going to give the state all this power to control our lives and make sure we are protected, why not just go all out?  Have the state ban Soda, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Unhealthy chain restaurants, and driving after dark since most car accidents and deaths from driving are after dark.

We can all wear a comfortable two piece gray uniform, have our heads shaved, and live in perfectly square domiciles, while the smiling face of the state is shown on every two way television, we watch the programming of the state imploring us to be safe and they watch us to make sure we are safe.

The real issue, and this might be too high level for some of you is, human beings have an insatiable desire to believe that their thoughts make them unique, so they latch on to whatever simplistic narrative they can in order to feel special.  They do this against the higher order or established belief system of society.  You see this phenomenon over and over again in religion.  Every religious person feels their religion is the right one, that they themselves belong to a special group of people who know the right answers, and that makes them feel special and safe against the tide of darkness that is human existence.  Hell, you see it in the devotees of paranormal personalities.  That inner circle echo chamber of emotional investment.

"Ban guns".  Simple narrative.  I admit.  Easy to understand by most people.  Most people are however fucking stupid.  Hence the reason we have so many checks and balances, and systems to remove emotion and mob mentality from our society.

"Ban guns", is a simple mob mentality emotional narrative that refuses to take the time to see the multi-layer reasons of why gun ownership and having the second amendment is a net gain for every law abiding citizen.

[Yorkshire pud]

Well, it is in the Bill of Rights.  The second amendment, which I believe was the second most important right that the founding fathers agreed upon.

I would also like to deconstruct your 30000 gun deaths.

60% of gun deaths are suicides. 
Yes, some may be saved if guns are removed simply because guns are easy to end your own life with, however a strong argument would be that are going to kill themselves some how.

Of the remaining 13000 gun deaths, the vast majority are inner-city deaths caused by black men in gangs killing other black men in gangs.
You will never get hard working, law abiding white American citizens to give up their 2nd Amendment rights to protect themselves,  by using the argument that they need their rights taken away and the ability to protect themselves and their families because violent black men are killing other violent black men.

There was a story the other day of a teenager defending himself and his toddler sister against violent criminal black men using a firearm.  You really want to remove the option to protect themselves?  If you had your way, and all firearms were illegal a few months ago, this teenager and his sister probably would have been raped or killed by these criminals.

Women everyday protect themselves from murder, from rape, from violence with firearms.  You really want to remove the option for women to protect themselves?

Also, if you really gave two shits about "deaths", then why haven't you started a thread or a campaign to remove alcohol from society?  Alcohol kills close to 90,000 people a year.  You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you are a gun.  Yet, we allow alcohol to be sold on every corner, every bar, every restaurant, hell even in grocery stores now, and you can soon get alcohol at the movie theaters in most parts of the country, which all add up to 90,000 deaths a year.  Not a fucking peep out of you.

Yet, a second amendment right, the corner stone of allowing people to protect themselves from violence, you jump at the chance to try to take away.

It's frightening how illogical you are.

Full disclosure,  I don't own any firearms.  Still not afraid of anyone around me who has guns.  Driving around, yes I am quite afraid to be killed by a drunk driver.

I'm illogical? Riiiigghghht. By your logic if everyone was armed, there'd be next to no gun deaths? What do you think to the Trump proposal?

And that ol founding fathers stuff...250 years ago; none of them would even imagine what a car was, or a telephone, or electricity, or 99% of what we now take for granted, so to equate their defence of the people from the government of the day with the reality of a modern today is ludicrous. The UK has the Magna Carta; written and amended since the 13th century it's believed up to 45 times and in fact influenced the US Constitution. It was edited down to 42 clauses and by 1969 it was down to three. Because time and the reality (and alterations in statutes) of the present day make it almost useless.

[Yorkshire pud]

I am not going to search for it, but I am positive there was a study showing that every mass shooting, it was done by someone who passed background checks, both criminal and mental.

Secondly, what additional or more thorough mental health checks you think the state should have the power to give?

If we are going to give the state all this power to control our lives and make sure we are protected, why not just go all out?  Have the state ban Soda, Alcohol, Cigarettes, Unhealthy chain restaurants, and driving after dark since most car accidents and deaths from driving are after dark.

We can all wear a comfortable two piece gray uniform, have our heads shaved, and live in perfectly square domiciles, while the smiling face of the state is shown on every two way television, we watch the programming of the state imploring us to be safe and they watch us to make sure we are safe.

The real issue, and this might be too high level for some of you is, human beings have an insatiable desire to believe that their thoughts make them unique, so they latch on to whatever simplistic narrative they can in order to feel special.  They do this against the higher order or established belief system of society.  You see this phenomenon over and over again in religion.  Every religious person feels their religion is the right one, that they themselves belong to a special group of people who know the right answers, and that makes them feel special and safe against the tide of darkness that is human existence.  Hell, you see it in the devotees of paranormal personalities.  That inner circle echo chamber of emotional investment.

"Ban guns".  Simple narrative.  I admit.  Easy to understand by most people.  Most people are however fucking stupid.  Hence the reason we have so many checks and balances, and systems to remove emotion and mob mentality from our society.

"Ban guns", is a simple mob mentality emotional narrative that refuses to take the time to see the multi-layer reasons of why gun ownership and having the second amendment is a net gain for every law abiding citizen.

Where did I say ban guns? Where has Obama said ban guns? But as long as you accept it could be your or yours next time, then fair enough. Just don't come bleating on here that 'something must be done' if it transpires your loved one was killed by someone who was 'law abiding'.

[The King of Kings]

I'm illogical? Riiiigghghht. By your logic if everyone was armed, there'd be next to no gun deaths? What do you think to the Trump proposal?

And that ol founding fathers stuff...250 years ago; none of them would even imagine what a car was, or a telephone, or electricity, or 99% of what we now take for granted, so to equate their defence of the people from the government of the day with the reality of a modern today is ludicrous. The UK has the Magna Carta; written and amended since the 13th century it's believed up to 45 times and in fact influenced the US Constitution. It was edited down to 42 clauses and by 1969 it was down to three. Because time and the reality (and alterations in statutes) of the present day make it almost useless.

Where exactly do I promote that everyone should be armed?

If you are referring to ending the no-gun policy at schools, um, what do believe was happening at these schools before these no gun policies were in place?  Show us where these no guns at school policies stopped mass shootings.

The no guns at school is a simplistic knee-jerk reaction.  Who is going to say no to that?  I challenge you to show me how that has stopped any shootings at schools though.

And here we come to the same tired argument of the anti-gun crowd, wanting to believe the founding fathers couldn't have foresaw improvements in technology.  This argument is almost so banal, tired and fucking stupid it's not even worth arguing over, but I will.

You really think that the educated, cultural elite, who were able to create a new country, a new system of laws, a constitution that all subsequent constitutions were used as the basis of, wouldn't have the foresight to understand that there would be changes in the technological, cultural, and political systems, including weaponry and firearms?

I honestly don't believe you believe that.

They created a Bill of Rights that is timeless, that could be passed down decades and centuries, and should remain unchanged regardless of the political landscape.

The most damning counter argument is, when they were creating the Bill of Rights, private citizens owned huge masses of firearms and assorted weaponry such as cannons.  Hell, they even had prototype multifiring "machine guns".  Private citizens actually owned the equivalent of modern day battleships, fully armed.

What I am saying is, the citizens back then comparatively were vastly more well armed than the citizens of today.  Even in that environment, of armed citizenry the Founding Fathers put the right to bear arms as the second most important amendment right after the freedom of speech and religion.

Lastly, have you been to the UK?  The state literally punishes the home owner if a home invader/robber is injured during his crime.  You can't buy spoons until you are 18 years old.  They have laws about the length of pencils and if they are longer than what the state deems safe they are considered weapons.  The state arrests and prosecutes people who call other people bad names on the internet.  A 14 year old girl was arrested by police because she was put into a group of students who didn't speak English, and she asked to be re-assigned to a group who spoke English.

It's a nightmare living in UK under such a repressive state.

Seriously, at what point do you believe the first amendment be rescinded, because the Founding Fathers, fuck they didn't know that cars were going to be made.

[The King of Kings]

Where did I say ban guns? Where has Obama said ban guns? But as long as you accept it could be your or yours next time, then fair enough. Just don't come bleating on here that 'something must be done' if it transpires your loved one was killed by someone who was 'law abiding'.

that seemingly believes 30000 gun deaths a year every year is a price worth paying for that great buzz word 'liberdy'.

If you don't want to ban guns, yet you make it point that there 30000 gun deaths a year, and then mock people who think that is a great price to pay for "liberdy", what exactly is your gun stance?

Seriously, give us your clear stance on guns, and gun ownership if you don't believe guns should be outright banned.  I am almost sure you won't, given that most of the restrictions people have proposed wouldn't have changed the course of crimes already committed.

I have already asked you what additional mental health screenings you think the state should have the power to perform, and you refused to answer, so I am not confident you will respond with answers, which is generally the tactic anti-gun nuts take when called on their ideas.

[onan]

Look, it is really simple. Lots of people want to own guns, the only reason that matters is it is constitutionally legal to do so.

It is also really simple that lots of people are concerned about gun deaths. Especially when a gun is the only element, that if removed, would have changed the outcome.

If the rhetoric continues to be people are stupid, it will eventually be the downfall of gun ownership, not tomorrow, but eventually.

The NRA has to, if not change their position, augment that position to demonstrate that gun owners are not unstable. The other side is making that argument. And it is hard to deny that at least ~30,000/year gun users are unstable. Other language being used to denigrate gun owners is the concept that many live in a fantasy land. And honestly that position does have some validity. 

[The King of Kings]

~30,000/year gun users are unstable.

So what are you saying is, all those people who used firearms to protect themselves from being killed or assaulted, all those women who used firearms to prevent their own rape or murder, they are unstable.

That my friends is literally the actual belief of leftist cultural marxists.

Make no mistake, these liberal leftists actually believe using a firearm to prevent your own rape or your own murder or the rape or murder of a loved one, makes you yourself, the gun owner, unstable.