Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After the shooting Fox News completely ignored the story. Sean Hannity and Bill O completely ignored the shootings. Megyn Kelly was the only host to mention the shooting. There really isnt any shortage of right wing inspired violence.
It's a very scary phenomenon to politicize everything without doing balance research and jumping to conclusions. Media Matters is just as bad as FOX News, the only difference is that Media Matters is a far-left organization and FOX is a far-right "news" channel.
First, you have no damn clue whether or not these guys were decent, honorable, Christians who only wanted to serve their communities. So please stop with the bull crap. They could have been control-freak scumbag sociopath bullies, just like most other police officers.
Bet the cops are the first people you call when your house is being robbed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Killing someone is wrong as long as it isn't being done in defense of yourself or others.
Agreed. So exactly who were these two cop killers defending themselves from? Shooting two people in a coffee shop who posed no threat to you or anyone else sounds a lot like murder to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I hate to sound like a jerk, but I am embarrassed to be breathing the same air as you two. I have no clue what in the hell you are even talking about. In no way is murder and revolution the same thing. To believe otherwise is to call George Washington a murderer. It is to call the minutemen at Lexington and Concord murderers.
This is a ridiculous position. Trying to compare these two cop killing psychopaths to the founding fathers is just silly. Give crazy a rest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
This is what revolution means.. "a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed."
The simple act of renouncing your government is considered by definition "revolution".
Now, I'm not trying to argue about the right to revolution, because there is no point in arguing about it. People have the right to revolution. Period. It isn't even up for debate. If you didn't have a right to revolution, then you would be a slave, with no right whatsoever to throw off your masters chains.
Furthermore, if it wasn't a right, then America wouldn't even exist. Because only through our natural right to revolution were we able to declare our independence from Britain to begin with.
Again, give crazy a rest. We are talking about two nut jobs cop killers. Not revolutionaries. Nobody is out in the streets demanding a revolution. Reason... wait for it... WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! YAY!!! We can vote for our political leaders. People who murder police officers aren't entitled to be held up as heroes, or revolutionaries, or anything other than just crazy murderers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The problem with government, is that all governments necessarily strip away some of your natural rights. Of course the idea is that, you are trading some of your "rights" so that the government will protect the rest of your rights.
Of course, then the question is, how much of your rights is the government allowed to take? And what recourse do you have if you disagree with how many rights they are taking away?
The basic justification for the legitimacy of government, is that it is by the "consent of the governed". But at what point in your life did you ever give your consent to be governed? And what if you don't give your consent?
The idea behind government is that people learned long ago that an organized society that allows for skills specialization and reallocation of resources benefits everyone. You really should spend some time in a place that doesn't have any central government before you declare the purpose of government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The real question here, is whether or not what these people did actually constitutes revolution or murder. Did they shoot them supposedly in the name of defending the natural rights of themselves and others(IE, the reason Americans fought the revolutionary War). Or did they shoot them only because they hated the police?
In my opinion, at best they were the equivalent of foreign militants who were waging war against the United States and lost. And at worst, they were crazy murderers.
Thus, I either find them to be somewhat similar to the Muslim guy who shot up Fort Hood in 2009. Or I find them to be somewhat similar to the Puerto Rican guy who shot up Fort Hood in 2014.
The first may have been evil, but at least he had a point and purpose. The other was just a crazy murderer.
Nope. Both of the Ft. Hood shooters were just crazy murderers. And so were these two nut jobs that killed these cops for no other reason other than the fact that they were crazy. You can't justify murdering innocent people simply because you have a particular political ideology. Especially not in America where all you have to do is VOTE to advance your agenda.
Bet the cops are the first people you call when your house is being robbed.
Would I call them? Yes. Would I want to call them? Probably not. I would rather just shoot the people breaking into my house and be done with it. It is highly unlikely that calling the police if my house was being robbed would have any real effect beyond them just writing a report.
You know, only like 10% of all property crimes are "solved". And of those 10%, most of the time, you already know who did it.
In reality, the police are rarely rarely rarely ever protectors. They are merely mediators.
Basically, without the police, there would be a lot more dead people. Because without courts and jails, most crimes would carry the death penalty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
Agreed. So exactly who were these two cop killers defending themselves from? Shooting two people in a coffee shop who posed no threat to you or anyone else sounds a lot like murder to me.
Honestly, I would probably classify it as a murder. But, I do at least understand what they were thinking when they shot them. And it is the same thing that Timothy McVeigh was thinking when he blew up the Murrah building.
He believed that the government was acting tyrannically. And that federal agents were basically the mercenaries of the government.
In the case of Timothy McVeigh, he was actually going to gun shows all around the country giving the home address to a federal sniper named "Lon Horiuchi". Because he had hoped someone angry about Ruby Ridge would kill him.
Timothy McVeigh basically felt like the government was at war with the people. And he felt like he was at war with the government. Thus in his mind, federal agents and police are nothing more than enemy combatants. In a sense, he didn't see killing federal agents any differently than Obama using drone strikes to kill Taliban militants.
Now, that doesn't mean I agree with what he did. I'm from Oklahoma City. I remember very clearly the day the Murrah building was bombed, watching it on TV. My mother even told me that she had planned to go to the Federal building that day(I can't remember what for).
I'm just saying, I can understand how he felt. And to some extent, he was right in his observations, but wrong in his actions. Did you know Timothy McVeigh originally intended to blow up the Murrah building at night when no one was in it?
I would say, the Millers were correct in their observations, but wrong in their actions. Which is probably why the people at Cliven Bundy's ranch kicked them out. They were crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
Nobody is out in the streets demanding a revolution. Reason... wait for it... WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY! YAY!!!
Well, we don't live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic. Secondly, there are plenty of people who are demanding a revolution if you look around. But I do acknowledge it is a tiny minority of the population.
The problem with a Democracy, is that it leaves minorities with no voice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spot
The idea behind government is that people learned long ago that an organized society that allows for skills specialization and reallocation of resources benefits everyone. You really should spend some time in a place that doesn't have any central government before you declare the purpose of government.
Look, governments existed long before there was labor specialization and free markets. The first governments were always centered around defense and justice. Basically, military and courts.
Secondly, I didn't make up those definitions for government. Those come from people like our founding fathers, John Locke, David Hume, and many other political philosophers. They argue the nature of government comes from the "Social contract".
You should read about the Social contract, consent of the governed, state of nature, natural rights, and many other enlightenment ideas. Then reread our declaration of independence. Read about the right of revolution. About Nozick's "Tale of the slave". Because I doubt if you read all those things you would continue to be so obtuse.
After the shooting Fox News completely ignored the story. Sean Hannity and Bill O completely ignored the shootings. Megyn Kelly was the only host to mention the shooting. There really isnt any shortage of right wing inspired violence.
It's a very scary phenomenon to politicize everything without doing balance research and jumping to conclusions. Media Matters is just as bad as FOX News, the only difference is that Media Matters is a far-left organization and FOX is a far-right "news" channel.
Fox News is far from FAR Right.
They are just a c hair off the center line.
If they were far right, Lindsey Graham and John McCain would get no air time and it would be the Ron Paul Ted Cruz show all day.
I don't think guns make society dangerous. I think society has made guns dangerous. All the kids taking behavior modifying drugs has resulted a lot of adolescent and young adult whackos. Kids who have been called ADD have been counseled, drugged, and otherwise maneuvered into semi-psychotic states where violent behavior is almost inevitable.
The whole drug/counseling/therapy regime should be replaced with firm discipline and corporal punishment. When we had these, children, adolescents and young adults were all much better adjusted.
That is just not true. Most people on medication for mental disorders are just fine. What are your credentials and stats to say otherwise. Oh yeah, let's have corporal punishment where we just beat them to conform. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
Here is the truth, no political position is any more "crazy" than any other political position. I have studied thoroughly practically every position on the political spectrum, they all make perfect sense in their own way.
There is a tendency by people to always look at anyone who is different than them as crazy or inferior. It reminds me of this saying "Patriotism is your conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it."
The reason why the far left and far right "appears" crazy. Is that they appear so drastically different from the "norm". Any large deviation from the norm is always assumed to be crazy, strange, or irrational. This is caused by the same bias which makes people believe that their country is superior to all others simply because they were born in it.
Now, the question then is, why is the "norm" the norm anyway? You might retort "because it makes the most sense to the most people". And that statement is basically true, but it doesn't explain why not only the "norm" has changed so drastically over time, but the norm is also so drastically different from one country to another.
For instance, your average conservative in this country would be considered a "far-right loon" in much of Europe.
The truth is, the norms in each country are established by the people who control information in those countries. The history you learned in school is drastically different than the history taught in every other country on Earth. Britain is one of our strongest allies, but what does Britain teach in their history classes about someone like George Washington? For that matter, Americans are taught to hate "King George", but the British basically loved him. I can't even imagine what kind of history is taught in classrooms in Africa, Asia, or the Middle-East.
The truth is, your opinion on what is normal or good is based entirely on the environment you have been raised in. Other people are neither good nor evil, nor crazy, they are just different. And until you grow up and try to understand why other people are the way they are, then you simply don't know anything.
The real problem is, most people are just like you, ignorant. Thus, people like myself are considered the crazy ones since my views diverge so strongly from the "mean". And you and your buddies can sit around in your ignorance, pointing your finger at everyone else, patting yourself on the back at how great you are and how inferior everyone else. It is really nothing new. It has been going on since the beginning of time.
Or you can take the great leap and begin to actually educate yourself and think for yourself. I advise reading everything you can find from every single political group. Read the communist manifesto, read about the anarchists, read about natural rights from people like John Locke, read Libertarian ideology from Friedman and Rothbard. Hell, you can even read Mein Kampf, or Mao's red book. You'll find a little bit of truth everywhere you look.
An educated person doesn't just call everyone who disagrees with them crazy.
I would rather call them ignorant, naive, or plain stupid. And I find those things to be far more fitting, as well as more dangerous than "crazy".
With that said, I would love for you to begin your education here. This is written by a man named Mikhail Bakunin. It is on a Marxist website, but he actually an "anarcho-socialist"(sort of like a communist without a leader). It was written in 1873, it has nothing to do with current politics.
This article is not a political propaganda piece. It does not try to tell you what to believe. All it does, is make observations about people, society, the workings of the state, and its inherent flaws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can vote for our political leaders. People who murder police officers aren't entitled to be held up as heroes, or revolutionaries, or anything other than just crazy murderers. 
Both of the Ft. Hood shooters were just crazy murderers. And so were these two nut jobs that killed these cops for no other reason other than the fact that they were crazy. You can't justify murdering innocent people simply because you have a particular political ideology. Especially not in America where all you have to do is VOTE to advance your agenda.