I meant not to be particularly argumentative, only contradictory. However, I feel that I have been forced into the position to return fire with fire, as it seems you lack the capability and or willingness to discuss something without attacking me, spewing meaningless information, circumventing reason, and drawing up arse about face codswallap for your conclusions.(Look mommy, I can curse to!!!!!!!)

Firstly, I should like to address your attacks against me...

Fox bubble? My god, were I to force myself to absorb and process information from such a low level of news broadcasting, I would reel in shock from the incursion into my sanity. Luckily, however, I live in the UK, and had to research Fox on Google to even understand the reference.

Now, to business.

The investigation.... a Red Herring?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3299310/Benghazi-probe-Hillary-Clinton-facing-months-FBI-investigation-emails.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/10/27/How-FBI-Could-Derail-Hillary-Clinton-s-Presidential-Run

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/22/fbi-director-im-following-very-closely-the-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-emails-video/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275919/Investigation-Hillary-s-email-server-focuses-Espionage-Act-10-years-jail-FBI-agent-says-prosecuted-jus
t-failing-tell-Obama.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-probe-of-clinton-e-mail-expands-to-second-data-company/2015/10/06/3d94ba46-6c48-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_sto
ry.html

Research, see? Useful. For finding stuff like....INFORMATION.

Socialism:

http://fee.org/freeman/why-socialism-failed/

https://mises.org/library/greece-illustrates-150-years-socialist-failure-europe

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/01/greek-disaster-is-all-about-socialism.html

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086/page/full

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-socialism-collapsed-eastern-europe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Bit of light reading, don't worry, I am getting to a point...


"Mischaracterization of Obama's record" ??????

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/06/25/six-problems-with-the-aca-that-arent-going-away/

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/07/problems-with-obamacare-that-could-prove-difficult.aspx

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/09/so-long-as-you-ignore-the-problems-obamacare-is-perfect/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/obamacare-problems/

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-poll-disapprove-isis/2015/08/21/id/671190/

http://theweek.com/articles/589272/obamas-isis-failure

http://www.martinoauthor.com/list-obama-failures/

https://www.gop.com/obamas-biggest-failures/

Next, get a First Class Honours Masters Degree in Psychology from the University of Cambridge, and then spent five years of your life convincing rich people to give your bank their money(My job, by the way), carefully analyze anything Obama says about anything important, then come tell me my observations are "ridiculous" and "beyond contradicting".

As for Trump? Sure, all political candidates are devils in disguise. However, why don't you try to turn a mere million into a multi billion dollar empire and say you cant do anything for the economy?

You know how you get rid of 11 million people?

1. Dont let anymore in...

2. Ship the rest out with the Federal resources you already have...

3. Smile, because you just saved your bloody country:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/14/americas-heroin-epidemic-fueled-by-flood-of-illegal-immigrants/

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/04/isis-camp-a-few-miles-from-texas-mexican-authorities-confirm/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/20678-report-with-cartel-help-isis-crossing-border-from-mexico

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/mexican-cartel-sicarios-crossed-texas-kidnapped-u-s-citizen/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414969/mexican-drug-cartels-caused-border-crisis

http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=379605&CategoryId=10718

How do you make Mexico build a wall?

1. Stop official trade with Mexico until they give up and build it.

Wow... That was easy...

As for making China ignore our debt... Basically impossible, but that's who's fault?

Obama got you blinkered people into $18 Trillion dollars of debt with his hysterically shoddy plans, I can't believe no-one is smart enough to realize that simple and plain a truth.

No way on Earth his plans would even be tried? He is the Republican frontrunner... By popular poll.

You tried Obama's plans, and his bloody approval rating is (http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx). Its about time you Americans experienced some success in the world, don't you think?

Sod it all, I am tired, I could say more, but I await your response. May I request that you refrain from using vulgar language in response to an amicable post? As you can see by the content of my article here, I can be a ripe-mouthed cur, but is it truly necessary?

They're doing business with mexican drug cartels and tyrannical dictators. What did you expect? Morals? Ethics?
Not only can they themselves apply a ridiculous amount of financial leverage on international and local politics, their customers are rich (and therefore politically powerful) and sometimes politicians themselves (serving their own financial interests).
Given the United States' position as a international trade power of considerable magnitude and the complete corruption of the government by sponsoring election campaigns like race teams or top athletes, you will never see the power of the banks diminish. Just count how many millionaires are sitting in the senate or congress and ask yourself why they should risk loosing money over protecting your interests. You're only worth something to them as long as they can get your vote. They wouldn't dare to fuck with the people that count their money for you.
We used to have kings, now we have bankers and CEOs. At least you could behead royalty till none were left but these peoplecorporations just grow new heads. They're Hydras.

and you've already heard of the company most responsible
for the price-fixing conspiracy he mentions.

*DeBeers *DeBunked

that cartel makes the mexican drug cartel look like amateurs.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Super fucking rad hook up.
In reply to this comment by shagen454:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpIyaIHsJbc&feature=player_embedded

What happened to Anonymous going after the Mexican drug cartels?

How in the fuck did the Mexican Drug Cartels find out who was in Anon? And how did they Kidnap him!? That's what bothers me more than anything.

Anonymous advised its members to protect their online identities, and not to wear the traditional Anonymous mask in public, or even purchase them online, as a core group decides if it should take on a Mexican drug cartel that is said to have kidnapped a member of the group.

The hacker group had earlier threatened to expose the identity of members and supporters of a Mexican drug cartel by Nov. 5, in retaliation for the kidnapping of a group member, and hacked the web site of a former state official, alleging that he has associations with the dreaded Zetas cartel.

But there are fissures showing among the leaders as fear of handling the drug cartel builds up, with some expressing concern that new, inexperienced members could get quickly exposed and compromised.

The action has been cancelled, Sm0k34n0n wrote in a Twitter message in Spanish on Monday. High-profile colleague anonymouSabu described sm0k34n0n as one of the campaign's promoters in another Twitter message. But other groups from Latin America are said to be considering a core action group, and warning other members to stay away. AnonymouSabu was all for the action late Sunday.

A video in Spanish posted on YouTube on October 6 by a person calling himself "MrAnonymousguyfawkes", threatened that Anonymous will publish the names, photos, and addresses of police officials, journalists, and taxi drivers that collaborate with the drug cartel, hoping the government will arrest them.

"You made a huge mistake by taking one of us. Release him. And if anything happens to him, you (expletive) will always remember this upcoming November 5th," said a masked person in the video, according to a translation provided by another user of YouTube.

November 5 is known in the U.K. as Guy Fawkes day after his November 5, 1605, conspiracy to attempt to blow up the British Parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask, popularized by the movie V for Vendetta, has been adopted by Anonymous.

Anonymous claimed on Sunday to have defaced the website of a former official in the Mexican state of Tabasco. On Monday, the website bore a message in Spanish by Anonymous Mexico stating that he was a part of Zetas.

"We all know who they are and where they are," said the speaker in the video. Anonymous did not however claim that its hacking skills gave it special access to information on the cartel. Nor are its traditional tactics such as DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks on websites likely to be of use against armed gangs, according to various analysts.

The drug cartel has killed people who have criticized them on blogs and other social media, according to reports. The Committee to Protect Journalists in New York reported in September the murder of a journalist in direct retaliation for information posted on social media.

As newspapers are censored by fear, Mexican citizens, and many journalists, are turning to social media and online forums to share news and inform each other, said Sara Rafsky, a research associate in CPJ's Americas program. "So it should be no shock that drug cartels are turning their attention to the Internet."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242845/anonymous_threatens_to_expose_mexican_drug_cartel.html

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Mexican-Drug-Cartel-Uses-Self-Made-Armoured-Trucks-as-APCs

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by MarineGunrock. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^zombieater:

I wonder how many mpg that sucker gets...


more like gpm

When the Zombie apocalypse comes, I want to be on the Mexican drug cartels' side. They will survive.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^MaxWilder:
^ The proper course to take is full LEGALIZATION.
Regulated, but fully legal sale and possession of all drugs is the only way to break the back of these cartels. It will also solve the prison overcrowding issue and provide a nice tax income for local governments who are currently being squeezed to death.
Anybody who is still against the legalization of recreational drugs is simply ignorant or idiotic.

Hear hear, but I do have an issue with saying that anyone against legalization is ignorant or idiotic. Although this rhetoric is very common these days, it simply kills conversation that might occur with people who are open to discussing different sides of this issue.
Of the people that I feel may change their mind or at least be truly open, I have most often run into an emotional argument against full legalization. This emotional argument is usually based on personally knowing someone brought low by drugs or fear of what would happen. For someone having a loved one/associate/etc who was hurt by drugs, you can sympathize with them and bring up the point that legalization will open the doors for support services and remove some social stigma from seeking help before they hit bottom or kill themselves (accident or purposefully.) The general fears can be talked out and likened to other things in life which are fearful... because really this is the fear of the unknown. The Netherlands has lower adult and teen marijuana use despite its lax laws on it, and if I remember correctly, one of officials made the comment about this stat, "We have succeeded in making marijuana boring." It's a standard of desire, things forbidden are simply tantalizing.


That's pretty much what I mean by ignorant. It's not meant as an insult, just a lack of knowledge. They don't know the truth about how people react to substances being legal or illegal. Legalization will allow addicts to more easily admit they have a problem and seek help. Legalization will make substances less attractive to people who are turned on by flaunting the law.

Of course there are also idiots who have heard all of this and still think drugs should be illegal because "they are dangerous." For them it is fully intended to be an insult.

>> ^MaxWilder:

^ The proper course to take is full LEGALIZATION.
Regulated, but fully legal sale and possession of all drugs is the only way to break the back of these cartels. It will also solve the prison overcrowding issue and provide a nice tax income for local governments who are currently being squeezed to death.
Anybody who is still against the legalization of recreational drugs is simply ignorant or idiotic.


Hear hear, but I do have an issue with saying that anyone against legalization is ignorant or idiotic. Although this rhetoric is very common these days, it simply kills conversation that might occur with people who are open to discussing different sides of this issue.

Of the people that I feel may change their mind or at least be truly open, I have most often run into an emotional argument against full legalization. This emotional argument is usually based on personally knowing someone brought low by drugs or fear of what would happen. For someone having a loved one/associate/etc who was hurt by drugs, you can sympathize with them and bring up the point that legalization will open the doors for support services and remove some social stigma from seeking help before they hit bottom or kill themselves (accident or purposefully.) The general fears can be talked out and likened to other things in life which are fearful... because really this is the fear of the unknown. The Netherlands has lower adult and teen marijuana use despite its lax laws on it, and if I remember correctly, one of officials made the comment about this stat, "We have succeeded in making marijuana boring." It's a standard of desire, things forbidden are simply tantalizing.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.