44% of Republicans Believe "Armed Revolution is Necessary"

oh nos! they ignored the fact that he was black. forgot that you guys love your token blacks


rocky-zombie-industries-1.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']what in the world is going on in here?[/QUOTE]

Breitbart is now a legitimate news source and less biased than Fox and MSNBC. Have a nice day.:lol:
 
[quote name='usickenme']oh nos! they ignored the fact that he was black. forgot that you guys love your token blacks


rocky-zombie-industries-1.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Uhhhh, you did watch the whole video, right? They relate the incident to racism and very probable assassination attempts on Obama. You don't see this as poor news casting?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Breitbart is now a legitimate news source and less biased than Fox and MSNBC. Have a nice day.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Amazing how right-wing assholes still cite this this KNOWN fraud Breitbart and O'Kweefe when everyone knows that ACORN video was revealed as fraudulent in court. This wasn't just a shoddy edit job, it was staged. Same crap as Shirley Sherrod fake "controversy."

Andrew Breitbart and James O'Keefe Ruined Him, and Now He Gets $100,000
 
[quote name='dohdough']Breitbart is now a legitimate news source and less biased than Fox and MSNBC. Have a nice day.:lol:[/QUOTE]


"Both sides do it too robble robble!" HAhahahahahahahahahaa.....Are you guys saying that MSNBC didn't air these clips like this? Both FOX and MSNBC have been caught doctoring clips to match their bias. It just seems like MSNBC has been getting caught more often.;) Please post a link to info disproving these awful bias based editing jobs. Thanks.
 
[quote name='egofed']"Both sides do it too robble robble!" HAhahahahahahahahahaa.....Are you guys saying that MSNBC didn't air these clips like this? Both FOX and MSNBC have been caught doctoring clips to match their bias. It just seems like MSNBC has been getting caught more often.;) Please post a link to info disproving these awful bias based editing jobs. Thanks.[/QUOTE]

WHY would you source breitbart? That's not a "source" one would brag about or claim to use. Do you know about all the outright fraud he's committed?
 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-forced-to-apologize-after-misleading-edit-of-biden-gun-speech/

MSNBC Forced To Apologize After Misleading Edit Of Biden Benghazi Speech

by Josh Feldman | 11:48 pm, May 3rd, 2013 videos » 216 comments






MSNBCBiden-300x199.jpg
MSNBC’s saga of high-profile video editing blunders continues, as earlier Friday host Thomas Roberts aired a clip of Vice President Joe Biden at a memorial service and plaque dedication for Americans who died in the attack last September in Benghazi. Thomas aired a portion of the clip in which Biden mentioned children pre-deceasing their parents, but Roberts claimed this was in the midst of remarks Biden made about gun control. The error forced an apology from MSNBC host Touré later in the day.

During his speech at the State Department, Biden made the following remarks.
“No child should predecease their parents. I wish I could tell you we aren’t going to add any more names with this wall. I wish I could say that with certainty, but the truth of the matter is, there will be more. There will be more.”
​
Immediately after airing that, Roberts commented, “That was Vice President Biden just a short time ago talking about children as the victims of gun violence.” The remarks were part of a speech remembering those Americans who died in Benghazi last year, as highlighted by The National Review.
Watch the edited video that aired on MSNBC, followed by the CSPAN version of the video, with more context added:
Later in the day, during The Cycle, Touré issued a formal apology on behalf of the network, saying the oversight was a “producer error.”


Did breitbart kidnap Toure and force him to make this apology.... or maybe they have a look alike on payroll? Hehehehehheheheheeheheheeeeeeeeeeee....
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']WHY would you source breitbart? That's not a "source" one would brag about or claim to use. Do you know about all the outright fraud he's committed?[/QUOTE]

So I guess you guys will never use MSNBC as a source again? Right? Saying you will never read another news agency who has lied is kind of like being Rain Man when it comes to airlines....
 
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Always remember that an Angry White Man's liberty is more important than the lives of your children, your parents, your siblings, your brothers and sisters from another mother, and you. I'm not surprised by that this article exists anyway, though I wonder if the samplers are disappointed that the 36% of those who want an armed revolution (ie treason) isn't big enough.[/QUOTE]

That's precisely how you market yourself in the talk radio market in an attempt to go from being a 2 bit local radio program in Minnesota starring a no-name and a failed Governor candidate to national syndication. See also: Jason Lewis
 
[quote name='egofed']So I guess you guys will never use MSNBC as a source again? Right? Saying you will never read another news agency who has lied is kind of like being Rain Man when it comes to airlines....[/QUOTE]

Ummm... I didn't cite MSNBC. I don't think anyone here has. So, you are the only guilty one here, citing Breitbart. So, how do you answer to the charges of citing a fraud? GUILTY!
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Ummm... I didn't cite MSNBC. I don't think anyone here has. So, you are the only guilty one here, citing Breitbart. So, how do you answer to the charges of citing a fraud? GUILTY![/QUOTE]

Citing a fraud who was right on the money in this story. ;) Settle down, Francis.
 
[quote name='egofed']Citing a fraud who was right on the money in this story. ;) Settle down, Francis.[/QUOTE]

What you're talking about is an ERROR. Not some big malevolent conspiracy. That would be Breitbart and O'Keefe.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']What you're talking about is an ERROR. Not some big malevolent conspiracy. That would be Breitbart and O'Keefe.[/QUOTE]

So they took information and edited it to look like something else intentionally....hmmmm, sounds a lot like what Breitbart and O'Keefe did. I also see you cited www.splcenter.org in a different thread. You sure they never posted fraudulent info? You might want to look it up. Maybe this forum could be about sharing found information, and if another poster knows it to be false or misleading, they could educate the original poster. Friendly like. I like to know when I've been lied to. It's a growth experience. And if a convicted felon comes to tell me that my house is on fire, I'm going to investigate, NOT just assess that "Oh, your a convicted felon! No good info can ever be obtained from you again." In this case MSNBC got caught red handed. Toure even apologized(kudos for manning up, even if in a weak sort of way). Breitbart had the video clips so I cited them. On the other hand, no one should really care about their "rep" here. Look at how we talk to each other. Very civilized.:roll: And do you think some bombshell you post is going to change the mind of the other side? No, those who agree with you will chime in, but those who think differently will just question the source(but even after its proven!?!:roll:) The only difference I really see is that guys like knoell, bob, and myself will agree with the other side when a "stay classy Republicans" post is truly stupid. (inter vaginal probes from the small gov't????). The Liberals either tend to stay silent or find some off the wall defense when a truly stupid move by a Democrat is posted. You guys sure have solidarity.:roll:
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Or trying to limit free speech - always one of my favorites.[/QUOTE]


Both parties definitely seem to have an interest in limiting free speech. Not even worth my time finding articles because it's so prevalent amongst Democrats and Republicans (see: just about every politician it seems).

And drifting back towards the item at hand, I cheer for equality/gay marriage, think the Affordable Care Act is a good idea, support the legalization and subsequent taxation of marijuana, and blah blah blah.

However-

The survival of the second amendment is more about our ability to protect ourselves from a perpetually corrupt government/authority than the ability to hunt deer or shoot tin cans. (Thanks a lot, vocal rednecks.)

If the government wants to stop senseless killings, they should start by removing lethal weapons from cops. They should lead by example for once. Let's see what happens when cops are subject to dehumanizing treatment and the abuse of power.
 
With all due respect , the ability to do that with guns is a pipe dream. The second amendment only provides one narrow range of (antiquated) tools with which to do so.

I simply don't buy that the way to keep authority in check is weapons. If that's the case, it ain't working
 
You would wonder with all the weapons in america, that we would be the free-est country in the world..

Instead we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, injustice is rampant, and we get Patriot Act(S) ....

If those gun lovers really cherish freedom, they sure have a funny way of fighting for it....

You can own all the guns in the world, and the gov't can still kill you without even knocking at your door..
 
[quote name='Chase']Both parties definitely seem to have an interest in limiting free speech. Not even worth my time finding articles because it's so prevalent amongst Democrats and Republicans[/QUOTE]
Their primaries are good examples.
 
[quote name='usickenme']With all due respect , the ability to do that with guns is a pipe dream. The second amendment only provides one narrow range of (antiquated) tools with which to do so.

I simply don't buy that the way to keep authority in check is weapons. If that's the case, it ain't working[/QUOTE]
guncollector1-web.jpg


See that pic there? That's a guy with a shitload of guns. Enough to arm a small group of people. He isn't the only one, there are others out there with comparable collections. You know how well he and the rest of those people could defend themselves against the government? Well lets see, they have collections like the above, and the government has...

Tomahawk-Missile-308907.jpeg


F16fighterjetwallpaper1.jpg


M1A1_abrams_front.jpg


just to name a few. The day when we could reasonably physically stand up to our government came and went a long time ago. Some people just refuse to accept it because it exposes their ideology as being completely ridiculous.
 
Someone remind me how many people the Foot Hood shooter took down before the US Government pulled out all those awesome weapons? I mean, he was on a military base and everything.
 
Now, I'm no expert, but I think it's fair to assume that local law enforcement doesn't have tanks, missiles, and nukes at their disposal. Just a guess, tho. I mean, I could be wrong.

[quote name='UncleBob']"You can't do anything, therefore just roll over and die."[/QUOTE]


Everyone is so quick to hand over their freedom if fighting for it breaks their daily routines.

"Well, I want some Burger King. I guess I can let the government monitor my calls, texts, and Internet use if it means I get my order a few minutes quicker."

'Murrca.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Someone remind me how many people the Foot Hood shooter took down before the US Government pulled out all those awesome weapons? I mean, he was on a military base and everything.[/QUOTE]

remind me how the Ft. Hood shooter standing up to the tyranny of the federal gov't.

We're talking armed conflict vs. a crime spree. Get real with your "examples"
 
[quote name='Chase']Now, I'm no expert, but I think it's fair to assume that local law enforcement doesn't have tanks, missiles, and nukes at their disposal. Just a guess, tho. I mean, I could be wrong.

.[/QUOTE]


yeah cause firing an shit ton of rounds at local cops because they pull you over for a stop sign is really sticking it to "the man". Fight the power.

'Murrca indeed.


(as to your point. Larger cities have some pretty military style weapons.)
 
[quote name='usickenme']remind me how the Ft. Hood shooter standing up to the tyranny of the federal gov't.[/QUOTE]

...so a terrorist/disgruntled employee is going to be able to storm a military base and do more damage than a terrorist/anti-government individual?

This conclusion is based off of, what, exactly?

Before you answer, remember, we're talking about the *ability* to "stand up" to the government. Not the reason behind doing so.
 
[quote name='usickenme']yeah cause firing an shit ton of rounds at local cops because they pull you over for a stop sign is really sticking it to "the man". Fight the power.

'Murrca indeed.


(as to your point. Larger cities have some pretty military style weapons.)[/QUOTE]


Never said that nor did I suggest such a heinous act of violence. Just getting that out there. I encourage you to resist suggesting that your words and thoughts are my own. Thank ya kindly.

What I did detail is how I am sick of police abuse, corruption within our gee-golly-fantastic government, and the "slacktivism"/lack of enthusiasm about real issues shown by the majority of citizens in the U.S. Most people cannot even find it within themselves to vote. Disgusting, selfish people.
 
[quote name='Chase']Never said that nor did I suggest such a heinous act of violence. Just getting that out there. I encourage you to resist suggesting that your words and thoughts are my own. Thank ya kindly.

What I did detail is how I am sick of police abuse, corruption within our gee-golly-fantastic government, and the "slacktivism"/lack of enthusiasm about real issues shown by the majority of citizens in the U.S. Most people cannot even find it within themselves to vote. Disgusting, selfish people.[/QUOTE]

Unless you're a crazy person, never assigned those words to anyone

Totally agree but my worry really isn't the gov't it's a distraction so the big corporate boys can get away with shit. ( and yes I realize they are currently enlisting the govts help)
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Who knew the guy we voted for turned out to be the same guy that had to leave...

People in farking Afghanistan live alot free-er then us[/QUOTE]

Thats the truth, This government is taking away our rights day by day
 
It really is, little by little and day by day for the good of the people.

I am sorry but I would rather take my own chances and deal with the consequences than be told what is good for me and be forced to comply. Educate me sure, but do not treat me like I am incapable of making such decisions. Will there be some that go down the wrong path? Sure. This is why the government shouldn't have such a vested interest in consequences of the peoples decisions. Because it will only result in tyranny when you try to protect your citizens from themselves.
 
[quote name='Knoell']
I am sorry but I would rather take my own chances and deal with the consequences than be told what is good for me and be forced to comply.[/QUOTE]

7025017369_5bceb4c2a6_z.jpg
 
So now we've got from needing guns to protect against the tyranny of the federal government, to local cops. Keep moving the goal posts fellas.
 
Is that like taking away certain types of guns because of mass shootings where the guns aren't used, to taking them away because you don't really need them?

Also, herp-derp, Somalia.
 
[quote name='Clak']So now we've got from needing guns to protect against the tyranny of the federal government, to local cops. Keep moving the goal posts fellas.[/QUOTE]

"Is that like taking away certain types of guns because of mass shootings where the guns aren't used, to taking them away because you don't really need them?

Also, herp-derp, Somalia. Today 07:16 PM"

Good point, Bob. I would also add that any form of gov't, federal, state, local, etc., could become tyrannical under the right circumstances. In today's world, weapons equal power most of the time. I don't want all the power in only one group's hands, especially if they make the rules and are corruptible. I don't understand how the left feels that people are not to be trusted with guns, but that the gov't, which is made up of people, is perfectly trustworthy.:roll:
 
And we're right back to where we started which is to say, the government already has all the power. You think handguns, shotguns, hell even assault rifles would do absolutely anything if the government ended up going the way of tyranny? The government has access to tanks, fighter jets, bunker busting bombs, so on and so forth. Believe me, if the government went the way of tyranny, guns or no guns in the hands of citizens, the government would win.
 
[quote name='egofed']"Is that like taking away certain types of guns because of mass shootings where the guns aren't used, to taking them away because you don't really need them?

Also, herp-derp, Somalia. Today 07:16 PM"

Good point, Bob. I would also add that any form of gov't, federal, state, local, etc., could become tyrannical under the right circumstances. In today's world, weapons equal power most of the time. I don't want all the power in only one group's hands, especially if they make the rules and are corruptible. I don't understand how the left feels that people are not to be trusted with guns, but that the gov't, which is made up of people, is perfectly trustworthy.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Citation needed.
 
Funny... didn't we have all those cool weapons for the past fifteen years?

What kind of weapons did Al Qaeda have when fighting off our government? Hell, it took us ten years to take out a single, solitary individual - what kind of weapons did he have that entire time?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']And we're right back to where we started which is to say, the government already has all the power. You think handguns, shotguns, hell even assault rifles would do absolutely anything if the government ended up going the way of tyranny? The government has access to tanks, fighter jets, bunker busting bombs, so on and so forth. Believe me, if the government went the way of tyranny, guns or no guns in the hands of citizens, the government would win.[/QUOTE]

Nevermind, I figured it out

600px-SPRMiller1911A1.JPG
 
[quote name='Knoell'] Educate me sure, but do not treat me like I am incapable of making such decisions. [/QUOTE]


You are. that's the problem very few people, if any, have all the necessary information to make good decisions..(despite their claims) and that includes you.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']And we're right back to where we started which is to say, the government already has all the power. You think handguns, shotguns, hell even assault rifles would do absolutely anything if the government ended up going the way of tyranny? The government has access to tanks, fighter jets, bunker busting bombs, so on and so forth. Believe me, if the government went the way of tyranny, guns or no guns in the hands of citizens, the government would win.[/QUOTE]

That's one of the things I find interesting about the 2nd Amendment. At the time of the founding of our country, the playing field was pretty level. The same type of weaponry the government had was available to the citizenry, so if the citizenry ever felt the need to form a militia to overthrow the government, the playing field was level. I don't think the Founding Fathers could ever anticipate how advanced weaponry would become or even how unattainable the most advanced weapons would be available to the average citizen.

Opponents of gun control laws cite the need to be able to be able to defend themselves from the government as one of the reasons to be against more stringent laws, but it seems like that point came and went decades ago when you consider what the government has in their arsenal compared to what's available to the average citizen. I think we like to give the Founding Fathers a lot of credit in how they developed our country, but there was obviously a pretty solid limitation to their perspective.
 
Name me one case in modern history where a gun loving 2nd amendment defender have ever used or came out in force to defend the oppression of another?
If blacks had guns, slavery and fight for civil rights would of never even been needed
If women had guns, the suffrage movement would of never needed to occur
If gays had guns, we would not be debating if they deserve any equal protection
If drug users had guns our prison would actually be filled with REAL criminals not a junkie

If guns were used to defend against a corrupt gov't or gov't forces, this would be a very good start? However I have not seen any 2nd Amendment defender come to the aid of these people ( the following cases in the link below would be where the 2nd amendment be ABSOLUTELY applied )
https://www.google.com/search?q=cop...82,d.dmQ&fp=abb8cdc10af62ec8&biw=1366&bih=679
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']Name me one case in modern history where a gun loving 2nd amendment defender have ever used or came out in force to defend the oppression of another?
If blacks had guns, slavery and fight for civil rights would of never even been needed
If women had guns, the suffrage movement would of never needed to occur
If gays had guns, we would not be debating if they deserve any equal protection
If drug users had guns our prison would actually be filled with REAL criminals not a junkie

If guns were used to defend a corrupt gov't or gov't forces, this would be a very good start? However I have not seen any 2nd Amendment defender come to the aid of these people ( the following cases in the link below would be where the 2nd amendment be ABSOLUTELY applied )
https://www.google.com/search?q=cop...82,d.dmQ&fp=abb8cdc10af62ec8&biw=1366&bih=679[/QUOTE]

You already know the answer to this question: The only rights these people care about protecting are those of white heterosexual Christian males (i.e. themselves). Those time they actually wanna take up arms against what they view as a corrupt government is when the status quo is threatened.
 
It is very difficult for those who have never truely experienced tyranny to imagine why opposing it would ever be possible, necessary, or productive, which is why this giant circle jerk that just took place "seems" to make sense on the surface.

It is very disappointing to see such a "why bother" mentality, but that is the new "comfortable" age I guess.

And then some of the arguments are just flat out ridiculous, and racist.

[quote name='usickenme']You are. that's the problem very few people, if any, have all the necessary information to make good decisions..(despite their claims) and that includes you.[/QUOTE]

Education is the key though not compulsion. Which is what I believe you are saying.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Is that like taking away certain types of guns because of mass shootings where the guns aren't used, to taking them away because you don't really need them?[/QUOTE]

I thought it was more similar to saying cops are a form of the enemy...until we want to arm them and put them in schools to prevent shootings.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It is very difficult for those who have never truely experienced tyranny to imagine why opposing it would ever be possible, necessary, or productive, which is why this giant circle jerk that just took place "seems" to make sense on the surface.

It is very disappointing to see such a "why bother" mentality, but that is the new "comfortable" age I guess.

And then some of the arguments are just flat out ridiculous, and racist.



Education is the key though not compulsion. Which is what I believe you are saying.[/QUOTE]

It's more than education, it's also who controls the information and what people want to do with it.

Lets say I don't want pesticides in my food but I don't want regulation. So I have to rely on farms, food companies, grocers to give me that information and not lie. I also have to research every possible pesticide to figure out if any are okay. Then I have to hope that research is honest. It's not as simple as "gimme the informational and let me decide"

If I'm like most Americans ill just say fuck it, let me eat the poison as long as my tomatoes are bright red. Which would be fine if I was the only person affected.

The irony is that for a completely libertarian society to actually work we'd have to think more like collectivists
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I thought it was more similar to saying cops are a form of the enemy...until we want to arm them and put them in schools to prevent shootings.[/QUOTE]

That falls under the idea that "all cops are the same". They're not. Besides, didn't they want to arm teachers? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top