lmfao

I am quite sure you are taking what is tweets said out of context dumbass. Ever occur to you he is making a point about how stupid the tea party nuts sound? Now maybe you persnally value the rights of dems to own guns too, but most of the gun nutters would be scared shitless if liberals wanted their own revolution. But if you want to argue what the better outcome would be if liberals vs tea party nuts had one, if the tea party won the first thing they would do is disarm liberals. Alot like Hitler relaxed gun ownership to party loyalists and took guns away from everyone else.

Moore  was making the point that if you are going to argue the 2nd Amdendmet blacks would have more of a case than the Koch Brother dick you suck.

And disarm the government? NO SHIT ASSHOLE the police in Japan don't have guns. SO I AGREE. But that will not work if idiots like you protect a flooded market, how would you expect police to protect themselves, water pistles? You know why the Japanese don't have a violence problem? BECAUSE NEITHER THE GOVERNMENT OR THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED YOU FUCKWAD! They don't have to fear their government because they don't masturbate over guns like it's pornography.

Never occurs to fuckwads like you that this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with MONEY! The makers love the fear between society and cops and they love poverty wages because that breeds fear and crime, then they can keep and expand their market and pit cops against society and have society fear cops. EXELENT SCAM, just like daffy plays the beagle against Foghorn. 

No one wants a fascist state dipshit, but you cant fake being for them after all the blaming the riotors protect guns like they are porn and pretend the rich never do anything bad. Australia had a mass shooting, they put their foot down, and guess what? They still have guns, they simply don't have a flooded market and their society doesn't have to fear police like we do. 

 

 

 

                                                                                                          Weird, hunh ?  

blah blah blah blah blah. I'm too tired to rip Brians bs appart line by line right now. Lets just call it for what it is shall we?

Lies, hypocrisy, false accusations, strawmen, red herrings, false equivalencies, false dichotomies, special pleading, and slippery slope arguments. I'm 99% certain each and every one of those will stick to at least something Brian has said in this topic. If not yet, it will soon.

Lest we forget, Brians martyr complex.

Maybe, maybe not. But I can also be quite confident that you are too lazy to bother looking up the context and providing any evidence that this quote is out of context. I'm not on Moore's twitter, I'm relying on the liberal news media to tell me what he said, so it probably is wrong. 

 

Do you have any evidence to support that at all? Didn't think so. But I agree, the NRA is way too supportive of gun control.

 

Blacks have a great case for 2nd Amendment rights. Half the reason the left supports gun control is because they want to make sure that the black population remains needy and has to rely on big government to take care of them. 

 

I don't expect the police to protect themselves at all. 

 

Do you know the first thing about the Japanese justice system? Do you know the first thing about the crime trends in Japan? Do you have an explanation for why non-gun crimes are also much lower in Japan? No of course you don't. What is there to know about all those idiots on the other side of the world right? 

 

They love low wages? Then why the fuck do gun manufacturers pay such high wages? 

 

You do. You have advocated precisely for fascist economics many times. The whole point of fascist economics was a "middle ground" of government working with corporations, with neither one have a MONOPOLY! It was created as the middle ground between communism and capitalism. Which is PRECISELY what you have advocated as the answer to our problems. The extreme nationalism and bigotry became a tool used to prevent the "race to the bottom" that you always whine about. The system worked quite well as long as the system remained closed and the private companies were tightly controlled by the government. It led Germany to go from being impoverished after WWI to becoming one of the largest powers in the world. 

A program like Bamacare can most accurately be described as fascist. The idea of government partnering up with private capital in the insurance industry and mandating that all citizens purchase from them, without fully taking government ownership of it was the very goal of the fascists. Will the hate, anger and extreme nationalism that developed in Nazi Germany come as a result? Who knows. Historians and economists argue over whether those features were an inevitable result of the economic system or if there were other factors at play. I tend to believe towards the latter. It is an interesting discussion to have, unfortunately, you are too fucking stupid to discuss the pros and cons of fascist economics seriously. You just support fascist economic laws and don't even know it because you associate fascism with the holocaust and don't have a fucking clue what the fascist movement believed outside of that.  

Although, if you want to increase wages in the US without having higher unemployment, keeping Mexicans out of our country would be an essential step. And stirring up anger, hate and racism against a group of people has proven effective in the past at keeping them out at least for the short term. 

Regardless, is was the fascists who pioneered the ideas of heavily progressive income taxation, requiring government licenses to start even the most basic businesses, price controls and wage controls. Nominally private corporations that were heavily controlled by government appointed boards through "partnerships" were one of the major features. Companies not at all unlike Fannie Mae, the Federal Reserve, GM, energy companies or really health insurance companies. Fascism was marked by large public works projects designed to keep employment rates high and paid for by fiat money creation.  

Some economists criticize considering fascism as an economic philosophy, because the leaders of the movement made decisions out of practical expediency and had little intelluctual theory or philosophy behind their decisions. Which is true to an extent. They were anti-communist and they were anti-capitalist. They (Mussolini, Hitler and other leaders of the movement) had disdain for economic theories. Kind of reminds me of a certain asshole on here who loves to attack economic theories as "all making the same mistake". Mussolini would agree whole heartedly. 

 

that's absolutely correct.





with enormous debt. hitler didn't just go to war for ideological reasons. by the end of the '30s, the nazi social programs had put the state so far in the red, the bottom could have dropped out at any time. hitler needed more land, resources, and cash, and he needed them yesterday. for him, czechoslovakia and poland were the most convenient options. for us, it's the middle east.





scholars are pretty divided as to what degree national socialiam even comes under the umbrella of fascism, or whether it oughtn't to be classified as its own thing altogether.

Difference being that the Arab's haven't had a break in fighting since the crusades started. The American people haven't seen a war first hand since the 1800's.

Yes and no. Germany had enormous foreign debt when Hitler came into power, most of that burden was due to reparations imposed after WWI. Most of the debt used to finance public works came from Reichsbank through Mefo bills. While it was arguably falling into a long term trap, its immediate monetary monetary situation was far more secure than most modern governments today. For at least the next several decades, there is no reason the government couldn't just keep creating Mefo bills and keep borrowing from Reichsbank. (Many keynesian economists seem to think such borrowing can go on indefinitely, I guess the US is going to find out one way or the other some day).

The immediate crises was that German imports were low. The use of a national currency that wasn't recognized outside of Germany, combined with the governments tight control over imports/exports created deficits in physical commodities. These shortages caused increasingly strict rationing and was having a negative impact on the quality of life, Germany started heading for widespread domestic discontent- especially since Germany wasn't self sufficient in agriculture.  

i don't think it's strange. i don't think the US even wants to defeat them. more than ten years after the end of the cold war, the american hawks finally found their new boogeyman, and they damn sure want to keep him around.


also, i think what keeps america in check in the middle east has more to do with not upsetting the other nuclear powers like china and russia. to really unseat the insurgents would require an absolutely merciless, devastating military action that would obliterate damn near every person in the middle east, perhaps even requiring the use of nuclear weapons, which would put the other nuclear powers on a hair trigger, not to mention the political catastrophe it would cause at home and abroad.


what keeps the insurgents alive is world opinion, not islamist military strength. but it's a moot point anyway, because i firmly believe the US wants the insurgents alive.

 

Seems doubtful when one considers that American politicians ( at the height of the Cold War, no less ) didn't seem too concerned about not upsetting those two nuclear super powers when the US war machine was stomping around in South East Asia in order to kill communists.  Nor did there seem to be any threat of actual military pay back from the Soviet Union ( the absolute epitome of a Nuke Super Power ) when America began supplying copious amounts of military aid to the Mujahideen so that they could kill Russian soldiers.   Can't get much more provocative than that. 

 

   Besides, China has had Most Favored Nation status with the US since 1979 ( tarif rates of roughly 6% versus 44% for non MFN status ).  Why would they want to screw that up ?   And there is no "Evil Empire" anymore since "democracy" came to the Mother Land.  We're all friends, now.

 

 

    The US is the only nuke super power to have actually engaged in nuclear warfare.  Only America has actually killed people ( civilians ) with nukes.  There was little if any political catastrophe for those actions.   I do agree that a risky domino effect is possible in today's world, but if that were to occur bad publicity would be the least of anyone's concerns.

 

 

 

     Who among the world's leading nations is applauding what ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Harim, etc are doing ?   Somalia, Malaysia ?   Besides, when has there ever been unanimity among world opinion regarding any violent faction ?  One nation's terrorist is another nation's freedom fighter. 

 

 

          Maybe, but to what end ?   Who benefits ?

 

the average american at that time hardly saw a japanese as a "person." we were exhausted by years of active warfare which had directly affected most american families. the american propaganda machine had been operating overtime since before we had even gone to war, and people were much more willing to believe it back then. people in general were less cynical about the government and had much fewer sources of alternative information. while of course everybody knew the atom bomb had caused untold devastation, it's not like they could download thousands of high-res pictures of it on a whim, so it was easier to justify it and detach onesself from it (as my grandfather always did).