Political Ocean's 11

[Amentep]

All your politcs, in one place.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Buzzfeed of all places had a decent article on the origins of our alternative-friends

[redneckdevil]

Slow clap for being able to find a decent article on that site. Sadly, it's news that everyone has already accepted in our political propaganda "news". Breithart and Fox thriving and pushing crap and spinning it to fit their perspective, and just like CNN and MSNBC with reporters faking news with the refugees to push their perspective.

The news is such a huge ****ing mess and one thing confuses the hell outta me. No one wants to restrict or force news to get rid of one-sided news and fake news because "first amendment" but have no problem whatsoever restricting it getting rid of our second amendment.

Guns are tools just like media is tools. We restrict and even get rid of guns in alot of aspects of our lives bc of the danger and harm that can come from it, but the news is just as powerful if not much more and can do more harm and danger but no one wants to restrict it at all.

Ce la vi

[Malcador]

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

[Ben No.3]

C'est la vie.

 

 

Smartass that i am

[ShadySands]

I thought this was interesting

 

Only about 1 in 10 Americans have a lot of friends of the opposing political party

[Leferd]

Buzzfeed of all places had a decent article on the origins of our alternative-friends

That's really good.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Buzzfeed of all places had a decent article on the origins of our alternative-friends

That's really good.

I know, I'm shocked it came from buzzfeed and assume he'll move on somewhere else because he's too good to work there.

[ShadySands]

I think the most shocking thing is the title

 

I would have for sure thought the editors would have named it something like 13 Things You Didn't Know About The Alt-Right, Number 11 Will Shock You!

[injurai]

Buzzfeed wants to be a legitimate news organization, so they have been shifting their model to more research intensive pieces. Sometimes out-vetting the competition.

[213374U]

Buzzfeed of all places had a decent article on the origins of our alternative-friends

 

Interesting read. Makes the alt-right look much less unified and homogeneous a movement than it's usually portrayed as, with mostly Breitbart working as the glue that keeps it -somewhat- together and gives it focus.

 

Not really surprised at Milo outed as a complete diva and 88 edgelord ("kristallnacht" as your password? Really?), but the careful calculations by his handlers that led to him being shot down when going too far for even BB sensibilities are pretty revealing.

 

Still, the fact that he managed to attract ostensibly reasonable, literate and otherwise well-adjusted people (even though they may later disavow him) who resent the current climate of PC is deeply troubling.

[Guard Dog]

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

 

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

[Hurlshort]

 

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

 

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

 

 

There are a number of countries that have way harsher gun restrictions and still manage to have free speech and all the trappings of a modern democratic society. I support the 2nd Amendment, I think it is an important part of our culture, but I think it is a false sense of security against a real government attack on our freedom. I'd say our best protection against that is the fact that our military is unlikely to cooperate with a fascist regime that targets American civilians.

[Malcador]

 

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

Well I doubt the second is preventing the loss of any of them, Gadsen flag fantasies aside. Depends on how it is removed, but curtailing speech is a lot worse than doing the same with the kinds of weapons you can own.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

 

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

 

 

There are a number of countries that have way harsher gun restrictions and still manage to have free speech and all the trappings of a modern democratic society. I support the 2nd Amendment, I think it is an important part of our culture, but I think it is a false sense of security against a real government attack on our freedom. I'd say our best protection against that is the fact that our military is unlikely to cooperate with a fascist regime that targets American civilians.

 

 

Forget some fascist takeover. Yes, many, many, and more countries have freedom in some measure without a citizenry armed to the teeth. How many of those have an absolute guarantee it will stay that way? Not one. We do. Armed people will not be willingly rounded up and herded into camps. Armed people will not willing have their homes or freedoms illegally seized or their rights abrogated.

 

A citizenry without the means to defend their rights and liberty with weapons enjoys them only at the sufferance of the people who do have them. The must live every day in the hope those people don't change their minds. Think it can't happen here in the US? It already has. Ask Gromnir. Ask them:

 

 

Or them:

 

 

Not recent enough? How about them:

 

 

or them

 

Edited October 6, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

Sadly I don't see how the 2nd Amendment prevented any of those situations from happening.

[Guard Dog]

Sadly I don't see how the 2nd Amendment prevented any of those situations from happening.

It didn't. None of them were armed, or had been disarmed. Small examples of how a government, even one as relatively enlightened and benevolent as ours, treats people who can't fight back. When all the guns are banned, all the words censored, all the history erased those who even remember how it once was will realize why the right to bear arms was 2nd on the list. 

 

Look at what happened in Nevada a few years ago. Bundy didn't pay his grazing fees. Did the government take him to court? Give him his due process? No, BLM & FBI showed up in body armor, automatic weapons, sniper rifles and armored vehicles. They pointed guns in the faces of unarmed people, tasered them, beat the living hell out of some and started seizing private property (the cows). When 10k armed people showed up the backed down, took it to court, and won there. 

 

The government is not our f-----g friend. It's an armed bully that sometimes forgets who it really is supposed to serve. Every time I hear a congressman say citizens don't need guns I order another 500 rounds. 

[ShadySands]

I have my doubts as well simply because a certain group of people will mostly likely always back what is being done. The fascists or whoever else won't rise to power in a vacuum.

[Guard Dog]

I have my doubts as well simply because a certain group of people will mostly likely always back what is being done. The fascists or whoever else won't rise to power in a vacuum.

 

No doubt it will be done to thunderous applause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/the-campus-anti-free-speech-movement-black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-aclu-speaker-at-william-mary/?utm_term=.92681c96e2bc

[Malcador]

 

I have my doubts as well simply because a certain group of people will mostly likely always back what is being done. The fascists or whoever else won't rise to power in a vacuum.

No doubt it will be done to thunderous applause. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/10/05/the-campus-anti-free-speech-movement-black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-aclu-speaker-at-william-mary/?utm_term=.92681c96e2bc

Not sure BLM is all that powerful.

[Guard Dog]

I must admit I am always amused by a notion most gun control advocates entertain. That it's ok for the government to take away our right to bear arms because we don't really need to worry about the government taking our rights. 

[Ben No.3]

You can own guns in Russia. Great freedom over there.

 

Guns don't protect you from fascism. They only mean the police will bring bigger guns; essentially resulting in more deaths and damage and nothing else. If you want to stand up against the government; you might as well build a bomb. But guns on their own only make the death toll go up

Edited October 6, 2017 by Ben No.3

[redneckdevil]

 

 

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

Well I doubt the second is preventing the loss of any of them, Gadsen flag fantasies aside. Depends on how it is removed, but curtailing speech is a lot worse than doing the same with the kinds of weapons you can own.

What's more dangerous? A bullet or a single misinformation shared and accepted at a global level?

Edited October 6, 2017 by redneckdevil

[Malcador]

Well people can live freely without a gun, hard to do it when there's a hard mechanism to decide what's the right news you need to hear.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

An amendment to block one sided news is rather ridiculous to think of. And the first is more important than the second, it seems, so people hold that more dearly.

Without the second how long do you expect the first, or fourth, or any of them to last? A generation? Less?

Well I doubt the second is preventing the loss of any of them, Gadsen flag fantasies aside. Depends on how it is removed, but curtailing speech is a lot worse than doing the same with the kinds of weapons you can own.

What's more dangerous? A bullet or a single misinformation shared and accepted at a global level?

A bullet.