Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Inside the Michigan Militia" video.

  1. +ranerk inasa And they claimed responsibility for it in an official statement? Because if one guy at Lufthansa crashed a plane and killed a bunch of people doesn't make Lufthansa a terrorist organization unless they actively supported the actions.
    4
  2. Damion jackson People who customize their cars, people who learn how to cover songs in their guitar, etc aren't benefiting society in any way either. People don't have a moral obligation to choose ways to spend their time that benefit society, and the vast majority of times they won't. You must be severely mistaken about American history. They had just fought a government. Why would they want the militia to answer to the government when they were the rebels and King George III was the government? And what do corporations do? They control the government. Corporations cannot do anything, it's the the government that writes and enforces the legislation they want. What do you want, an armed assault into Monsanto's offices? Surely even you can notice the problem of directing violence against other private citizens rather than the actual tyrants.
    4
  3. Quin Skew >"Author Kevin Kruse asserts that the underlying movement behind inserting "under God" into the pledge was an effort by corporate America, despite being initiated by a private religious fraternity and references to God existing in previous versions of the pledge, to instill in the minds of the people that capitalism and free enterprise were heavenly blessed. Kruse acknowledges the insertion of the phrase was influenced by the push-back against atheistic communism during the Cold War, but argues the longer arc of history shows the conflation of Christianity and capitalism as a challenge to the New Deal played the larger role." One person has claimed it, whether you believe it is up to you. Personally, I don't, but it sure as hell would have helped to indoctrinate people with religion to stop a political movement that would prefer less of it.
    2
  4. +TextbookGerm exactly, I came to know Vice from friends who loved Hunter S. Thompson. It's been a few years and Vice really went downhill since then, but their journalism style was always like that. +Nathaniel Bixby in many cases those places which had civil wars/revolutions didn't even have widespread gun ownership. Meanwhile, in a lot of "stable" Western countries gun ownership rates typically go as high as 30 to 40 guns per 100 citizens.
    2
  5. +E. Lectricity well Switzerland is also successful because they have a huge chunk of all the laundered/tax evaded money in the world. If you want to be like them, emulate their banking practices first. It's not just chocolate and watches.
    2
  6. ranerk inasa Good thing I didn't implicate Bin Laden either. And by the way, before he died his page on the FBI Most Wanted didn't actually claim he was to be captured due to his involvement in the 2001 attacks, even after the post-death revision, He was wanted for connections with US embassy attacks. He was part of the militia. Okay, so if a guy who works at Staples bombs a government building, that makes Staples a terrorist organization? It was politically charged, alright. Why does that justify "guilt by association"? And making the militia responsible for something they didn't do is going to bring back the dead? Come on!
    2
  7. +se7en the bag of dildos wasn't "classic", it's just a fucking dumb joke that is old as balls on the internet and some people decided to make activism out of it. The photoshopping dildos into guns or "open carrying dildos" is the dumbest fucking thing because it clearly shows it's not the gun owners who are compensating for something, it's the people who can't create a political statement more coherent than "dildos!". We fucking started this thing among the new generation of gun owners. Double ended dildos mounted on scope rings, dildo bayonets, etc are all jokes within the gun culture of people who grew up with the internet and 4chan. You people stole our joke and spread it to the gun owners that don't get it. That's not classic, the same way that Carlos Mencia isn't a classic comedian.
    2
  8. +Struggle Gaming So when two asshole kids with "Natural Selection" on a shirt shot up their highschool, that was the militia's fault? They had no political gain, so their use of violence wasn't used to further a political agenda. When some disgruntled guy decides to shoot up his workplace that's the militia as well? What political gain did he get from that act of intimidation?
    2
  9. Bob cares And the "obvious" is sometimes too superficial to make an accurate judgement. It's obvious to any observer that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and yet it's the opposite.
    2
  10. The problem is that the M1 Abrams is equipped with tank-killing rounds for the most part, which are ineffective against people. And since the Abrams has a blazing hot exhaust, it's actually more vulnerable to infantry than diesel tanks. You do realize that not everyone makes a lifelong career out of military service, right? So you know few people who would drop of out the military to join a militia, good for you! Most of those people completed their service, they did not trade the military for the militia, they joined after they completed their duties.
    2
  11. Regulated back then was still a close derivative of the word "regular". Either way, it's the right of the people to keep and bears arms, anyone should have the right to bear arms even if they're not the militia. Why would people who rebelled against the government want that the militias had to have permission from the government? That would defeat the point of the militia since they'd have to be loyal to tyrants. Who gives a shit about Chomsky? He's right in some things but he's completely insufferable on others.
    2
  12. +justletmeuseit not really, just blend into the crowd. Whatever technology can do, it can't tell you who's an insurgent when they're in plain civilian mode.
    2
  13. justletmeuseit "Blending in" isn't espionage. "Blending in" is living a normal life, at least as normal as one could live under occupation, striking only when convenient and then changing back into an everyday civilian before anyone can fight back. It's guerrilla, asymmetric warfare, etc but it's not espionage. You're not infiltrating the community, you are the community. >"these guys are just up in the hills" For training purposes. Normally it's illegal to discharge firearms in residential areas unless you have a shooting range.
    2
  14. +Torgo >"countless studies" >doesn't mention a single one lel
    1
  15. +Sean Garner and did they do something bad after pledging? Thanks for proving the point.
    1
  16. +Kevin Haynes that is an absolutely incorrect assessment of fair journalism. Fair journalism would be reporting war crimes from both sides, for example, and not praising one side. That's called bias, which is the thing you're defending. Journalism also has fuck all to do with justice. Justice is for the justice system. Trial by media is one of the most abhorrent practices of modern journalism. Journalism isn't supposed to reflect values or make judgement between right or wrong.
    1
  17. +Colonel Kill by the way, they're doing Gonzo style journalism which isn't supposed to be unbiased. That's actually the justification in this case.
    1
  18. +Loopsrainforest normal journalism isn't supposed to offer you a perspective. Gonzo journalism is based on the journalists' perspectives but that's the exception, Vice pieces are really more aligned with the documentary style than actual investigative journalism. If you need perspective, don't ask a journalist, or at least in a perfect world you wouldn't.
    1
  19. >"The government is made up of people like your neighbors." I don't know where you live but my neighbours don't get to ride around in brand new Mercedes paid for with money they extorted from the taxpayer.
    1
  20. E. Lectricity Okay, let me rephrase it. Switzerland is successful because they have money coming in from abroad, it just so happens to be there that people send their offshore money. If you want your country to be successful, accept more offshore money.
    1
  21. "draft dodgers" you think the draft is still in place?
    1
  22. The Huey P Newton gun club also stood, armed, in front of government buildings. What seems to be the problem?
    1
  23. +Mya Elbows Did a lot of shit against the Soviets in Afghanistan... and then against America. Palestinians got killed because some people launched rockets off their back yards and used civilians as their human shields. Those people are in power and Palestinians support them, not Israel which is the aggressor.
    1
  24. Mya Elbows The point is that you can't assume people from a state will not see federal overreach as something "foreign". If the federal government kills civilians of a state to submit a militia - and they will, because against insurgent forces the US military causes collateral damage up the wazoo, people won't be happy. So yes, you will have a situation in which the locals are "Afghan" and the invaders are "Soviets".
    1
  25. Mya Elbows I'm only talking about the military feasibility of a rebellion, not the "philosophical aspects". I don't know who gets killed for what evidence.
    1
  26. Mya Elbows Neglect and sabotage (seriously, it's almost like they realized what they were doing and made it worse on purpose because nobody could be that incompetent) from their government aren't reasons for rebellion? There have been revolutions for less than that.
    1
  27. Mya Elbows They contaminated it through neglect and became aware of it, after that point it became almost an act of sabotage. It's clear that the government did not care for the health of it's people and tacitly allowed it to continue by telling them it was fine. Sorry, that is more than enough to revolt. And by the way, there's no reason to be paranoid? We know that guys in their 20's working for the NSA share the nudes they find on the computers and phones they snoop into, as described by Snowden I believe. I've heard the "if you got nothing to hide" and "are you afraid they'll find your porn history?" excuses ever since I remembered, and turns out they not only spy on their own people but they actually do the ridiculous things only "paranoid" people should be afraid of? Have you been living under a rock for the past decade? NDAA, PATRIOT Act, civil asset forfeiture? Every week there are news coming out about all the ways the government is out to fuck you, far too many to accept it as just the "infallible" nature of government. There's a saying that goes: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence and the third time it's enemy action. I've seen evidence of hundreds of these situations and I can name at least 20 from the top of my head. That's way above three.
    1
  28. Mya Elbows >"So your answer to negligence is not to enact better screening but to revolt with firearms?" "Better screening" the catch-all solution for severe issues. You know damned well that's not going to do anything. "Negligence" is a euphemism, the government was buying clean water for themselves. They claimed the water was safe to drink! That's not just "negligence".. >"I find it hard to believe you think an armed revolt against the government would solve anything" If it wasn't for one, I would be living in a fascist dictatorship. I have a lot to thank to armed revolts. >"All that would happen, as I stated earlier, is those people would die, and the government would go about their business." Not really, if those people died then for every one of them another 49 innocent civilians would die. That's the problem of fighting an insurrection, people don't like when they're the eggs that have to be cracked to make the omelette. >"this specific example is what i'm talking about" So you limit the scope of the argument to suppress the evidence that the government is working against you, and make it just about the Flint water crisis so you can cry strawman. Yours is a grand doctrine. I show you there's more than enough cumulative evidence to prove that the government is spiraling into tyranny, and you simply shrug it off as "off topic". Wow. >"with legislation" You mean the same legislation that allowed severe breaches of the constitution to happen? The same legislation that despite of the right to not self-incriminate, will put people in jail indefinitely if they do not de-encrypt their storage for the authorities?
    1
  29. Mya Elbows What do you even mean by screening? >"Also you said the government was buying and drinking clean water during that crisis, you'd have to get a link because I'm not finding that source material." Documents obtained through FOIA show that they were buying water for government buildings. https://www.scribd.com/doc/297005752/DTMB-Facility-Notification >"And even if they were, as you said, we aren't living in a fascist dictatorship." What? I was talking about me, an European citizen, whose family lived under a fascist dictatorship before armed revolt brought down the regime. How you took my personal experience and made it about America I don't know. >"now you're saying we should grab our firearms and start marching with the MM" I never said that, but okay. >"white males" Ohhhh boy. Michigan is like 80% white according to their census. Get the racial narrative outta here.
    1
  30. Mya Elbows >"I was talking about the District of Columbia contamination when i asked for source material." Literally what? >"Screening is regarding background checks, and like I said if that doesn't work then stiffen the punishment for negligence. Tell me, in western Europe, what happens when an elected official is negligent?" The past isn't a predictor of the future, typically people need to achieve power before becoming corrupt. Screening people before they enter office is ridiculous. We make them prime ministers or something. Why the hell do you think governmental corruption bothers me as much? It certainly isn't because I live in a place where we deal with it swiftly. >"How was I supposed to know you were European?" The point is that you mistook me for an American. I mean, country with a former fascist dictatorship? Most of them are either in Europe or South America. US => not in South America. >"If you're not for an armed revolt" I never said that either. >"They're white, middle class Americans, aka they have it pretty great." So you're ignorant of the levels of poverty white people have in your own country. Being born white is not necessarily an indicator of comfort. >"We're privileged, revolting now would be taking that for granted." ?????? .... ?????
    1
  31. +Zedek Oh, look, it's another "leftist vs conservative" false dichotomy. As a non-conservative, your political views are just as bullshit. For example, I'm all for abortion but people on your side repeatedly call fetuses a parasite despite of the scientific fact that parasites must be of a different species than the host. I'm all for the environment, but your side pushed these bullshit energy saving light bulbs that almost everyone loathes and now the MIT has developed a way to make the incandescent bulbs more efficient - government action stiffed scientific progress. You can't point at me for having anti-gay opinions or anti-evolution opinions thus your argument falls flat. The "lefist bias" that reality supposedly has doesn't actually exist because if anything the more leftist we become the more contradictions begin to pop up - for instance, never seen anyone ask for a gay wedding cake at a Muslim-owned bakery because it would offend them to show their intolerance. Oh that's right, I've actually seen it being done, on a right-wing youtube channel. Conservatives will play the gay card if it embarrasses Muslims and leftists will ignore gay rights to defend Muslim communities. You're all hypocritical trash.
    1
  32. Zedek Good thing I didn't imply you said something about all conservatives. My point was that your "reality has a liberal bias" point is complete bullshit. And my point was that many of the opposing viewpoints are ideological as well. Wait, what? You're the one who uses deflection as the main argument, you're the one whose defense is attacking the other side. I am comparable to a child, then what does that make you? You know, when someone claims "I've never seen" as opposed to "it never happened and that's a fact" it usually means that person is open to it happening, except it never reached enough notoriety to become mainstream. It's not fucking confirmation bias when I say that I've never seen it being done, it's just that the regressive left has nothing to gain from pointing out that ultra-religious people with no tolerance exist, unless they're Christians. It's also not a strawman. So I'm spewing irrelevant BS, but bringing up anti-gay beliefs in a thread where it wasn't the topic is somehow more relevant? The problem is that you doubled-down on the "joke" and made it real. I had no real reason to reply but your last reply was visible on the comments section.
    1
  33. Zedek >"and that this somehow causes my argument to fall flat" Your retort to criticism is pointing out bad things about conservatives. A tu quoque argument doesn't work when someone else attacks your beliefs. You maintain that the comment wasn't meant to be taken literally, while behaving like the comment suited you to a T. Your defense of liberal beliefs was attacking conservative beliefs. Again, the shoe fits, it might have been a joke but you doubled down on it. I wasn't replying to the joke.
    1
  34. connor vinas 1) The consent of the governed is implied. You are born into the social contract, which you can't opt out from, and revoking your citizenship would bring many hardships for the average person. It's like being victim of a shotgun wedding to an abuser, please use your political theory to explain how that is justified. 2) I was talking about wars, I am sure most people in foreign countries didn't consent to the US's monopoly on force.
    1
  35. Andrew Gooding So does that mean that the US is a terrorist state or not? According to your definition it is. I just want to hread you call the US "terrorist" or backpedal. I am satisfied with either answer.
    1
  36. Gavlick Apthesycerski >"no its their actions are what makes them terrorists" No, it was making people scared. Because according to your definition, the militia didn't have to do shit as long as people were afraid, that was very beneficial to you. >"I mean who is actually afraid of gay, they may hate them but they aren't scared of them" Always heard hate was a manifestation of fear, turns out it isn't when it's politically suitable. >"And only stupid bigots are afraid of Mexicans" I thought you'd agree that half of Americans are bigots, apparently America is the best country in the world as long as you have to backpedal from previous statements. >"A bunch or anti federalist people in a "militia" that consisted of Timothy McVeigh at one point" You're really making him to be some sort of honorary member. I'm pretty sure it consisted on more than one person, and no I didn't "get what you mean" because when you claim that the militia consisted of Timothy McVeigh you're pretty much saying he was running the show. Again, if a Staples employee blows up a government building, is Staples a terrorist organization?
    1
  37. HumanRights4Everyone So you read my critique of the social contract and misread the part where I compared it to a shotgun wedding to an abuser?
    1
  38. +omar nasser I'm going to have to stop you right there because an extremely high percentage of terrorists in the middle east show signs of personality disturbances or mental illness that is not found on terrorist leaders. Terrorist leaders are often profiteers or people who seek political power, who take advantage of young men who are desperate and have nothing to live for. I'm not going to address Islamophobia because you know better than me how it is an issue in the US, but the vast majority of terrorists are not fighting for themselves or fighting for their country. Most times they're actually harming their own country or other Islamic countries, for the benefit of countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who fund religious extremists and these profiteers to advance their goals.
    1
  39. Bob cares And there lies the problem of a two-dimensional political spectrum. Fascism is categorized as far-right due to it's anti-communism stance and it's social conservatism. However, and you can read up on all of this, in other areas fascism was completely schizophrenic and included anti-capitalist rhetoric. For example, in Germany the fascists accused the Jews of trying to spread communism, but also of being profiteers who exploited the country. They turned against Jewish businesses and banking. Industries were nationalized rather than privatized. Economically, the fascists put the "Socialism" in "National Socialism".
    1
  40. Anon Reaper Except the fact that modern imperialism directly contradicts fascist expansionism. In fascism war and conquest is a method of economical gains that benefits the country. In modern imperialism the country is sunk into debt to serve interests, be it corporations or other countries (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc). I also resent the implication that fiscal conservatives have to be social conservatives, but if you ask me the racist conservatives have socialism in them - only it's limited to their own ethnic background. The rest get rugged individualism, that is if they don't get deported.
    1
  41. Bob cares That doesn't even make any sense.
    1
  42. emoninjamonke >"That sled trick won't save them from predator drones or apache longbows" The same predator drones that for every 50 victims they make, only get one insurgent? Great. Kill as many civilians as you'd like, because their families will join the rebellion. >"Also, I would like to see more than 100 american citizens who own a weapon that could kill any tank currently used by any miliatry around the globe" No need to kill tanks. But what kind of kill do you want? Because a mobility kill is achievable without any kind of weapon and just by using common items most adult American citizens can buy. >"If a black man tried to open carry in the same area, I guarantee you he would face charges or at least get taken to the station" Ever heard of the Huey P Newton gun club? They open carry guns all the time. And by the way, white gun owners had several protests over the arrest of a black open carrier in Michigan and the shooting of John Crawford III.
    1
  43. +Jasraj Singh good list but "great media", really? You mean like MTV, E!, MSNBC, Fox News, Huffington Post, etc? Fox News is actually one of the least unbiased media outlets in America.
    1
  44. ***** Oh. Most of it is shit as well. I certainly wouldn't prefer to watch German or Turkish media or something oddly specific like that, but in American media there's clearly a trade-off. The good stuff is completely outnumbered by the trash. Let's just say, even the shitty American stuff has good production values. Even the "best" stuff from other countries looks cheap and that sort of makes it unwatchable.
    1
  45. +detroitshadowlands >"the militia is a bunch of racist right-wingers!" >"wow they're not even enough of a racist right-winger group to engage in mass murder, ahaha such pussies!" 2016 political discourse.
    1
  46. +CrossHarry dude have you seen America's landscape?
    1
  47. tootsie|troll® videogames or it's just the reality of what's been happening in the last decade?
    1
  48. justletmeuseit But then you're using the term espionage incorrectly. >"_Espionage (colloquially, spying) is the obtaining of information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information._" The way you talked about it at first it sounded like infiltrating the occupying force or bribing inside men into giving up secrets. Because that's what the word espionage implies.
    1
  49. justletmeuseit lmao, you gave up because you were wrong. Spying is collecting secret information. Civilians attacking conventional forces isn't spying. You'll be wrong until the end of days but your ego won't allow you to admit it.
    1
  50. CrossHarry You do realize that the US has several ammunition companies which pump out billions of rounds a year, right?
    1
  51. +Ph4nt0m5u6 That's ridiculous. Many countries with professional armies have a National Guard. In the United States the National Guard was developed from the militia. For example, in the US there are constitutional limits on using federal troops against American citizens. That's why during civil unrest they typically call the National Guard.
    1
  52. Ph4nt0m5u6 Look, without trying to generalize, those people are pretty much anti-gun. I'm an anarchist, and I have debated many people on the anarcho-communism/libertarian socialism side who have literally admitted that they'd need guns for revolution but they'd be seized afterwards. There would be no government and no gun laws, but people would have the guns taken away by someone, somehow. I actually have a friend who's on that side of anarchism and despite being a gun-nut and a supporter of all liberation movements from Ireland to Palestine, he doesn't believe in gun rights. They expect to take up arms despite not having any, and knowing how to use them despite never having touched one. I know that common people have acquired arms and rebelled, but that was "back when men were men" and the women and children were also "men", if you know what I mean. You look at the faces of the Kurdish freedom fighters and you know they're tough in ways that 17 year old boys complaining about capitalism in their iPads can't be.
    1
  53. +Pela G >"powerful" You mean 5.56 weapons, the same caliber that the US Army complained couldn't even stop malnourished Somalis? They're not powerful at all. Hunting weapons are typically more powerful.
    1
  54. +heroesandcons09 as an anarchist, you're trash. Socialists always end up creating another state to subjugate the people, and if anarchy is meant to be wielded violently it must be against a violent state, not against people. No matter how much you disagree with these people, they're not taxing/stealing from people, they're not deporting people at the rate that Obama's administration has been, they're not bombing other countries overseas.
    1
  55. +MV M >"They held out due to geographical advantage, the government knows every single crevice of this land." So with satellites over freaking desert the US armed forces were blind, but in a country that also has rocky formations that suited guerrilla operations in Afghanistan so well and forests (tough to see through tree tops) and is also many times larger, the US armed forces would simply know everything? Or worse, the insurgency wouldn't be able to just blend in with the crowd? I'm pretty sure it would.
    1
  56. ***** >"we have every single square mile of the us mapped, and mapped more than once" The map doesn't tell you where people are. Good job, here's a mountain, here's a river, here's some trees. >"we have military bases literally everywhere" Probably not good places to settle down an insurgency. Noted. >"satellite imagery in Afghanistan and other countries were not effective simply because of huge latency and very little practical knowledge of the geography and people" It didn't work there because reasons, but it would work in America because reasons. How the hell does geography and the locals mean that the satellite imagery can't be used to wipe out Middle Eastern insurgents, but it would most definitely bring and end to an American rebellion in 0.1 seconds? Because that's the implication, American militias have the technology disadvantage, but it doesn't matter that the US spent a decade in a war of attrition with insurgents who had about the same technology gap. >"nor does the average american and the world for that matter want or need a domestic conflict" What the average American wants is hardly a barometer for what is going to happen. Most people don't have a say in what happens and have actually developed chronic apathy. There's so much manufactured outrage over everything, most people don't actually act on their outrage. A civil war could be going on out there and they'd be watching the Kardashians.
    1
  57. +SquadPoop You know that Christopher Dorner was against gun ownership and applauded Piers Morgan, right? Didn't stop him from killing a few people.
    1
  58. SquadPoop You said people for gun control don't shoot people with guns. Christopher Dorner killed 4 and wounded 3 despite his beliefs.
    1