The controlling group of men who made the decisions on Vietnam thru to Iraq, with all the bombing, drug running, kidnapping, sponsoring of death squads, torture and mass slaughter of civilians (not to mention spraying toxins on poor ghettos at home, shooting student protestors etc etc.) are in the same league. Start with the 'terror bombing' of Hiroshima and Nagasaki if you like (Curtis LeMay's words not mine). The Bush family were in from the start.

If you take this as a 'Regime', then the numbers are right up there and, as stated, operating from a dramatically more comfortable position. The historical villains mentioned all had backgrounds that any psychiatrist would ring alarm bells about and their societies were in tatters when they came to power.
But Dubya for example? Privileged draft dodging frat boy living in the most comfortable place and time in all of human history.. how many did he kill in a deceptive money grab? Oh yeah, they 'don't count dead babies'. Even the hawks are conceding its in the millions now, and that's just the last 10 years of near 70..

Get you back, I couldn't care less if you agree with me in nihilist mode.

1. That white pretentious fuck doesn't give a crap about dead black people.

2. I don't give a crap about dead humans, in less than 100 years humanity won't exist. Can't keep dodging complete nuclear annihilation.

Nice strawman, I never said you had to justify your reasons. I could care less about your reasons. But you do have to back up any claims or accusations you make, which you're still dodging by the way Lastly, you haven't MADE any credible argument, so all I can do is call you out on your repeated attempts to distract

That's pretty funny that you want to talk like an adult. I'm not the one who has been banned from the sift for doing very un-adult like things You're the one with a demonstrable history of not being very adult. So I hope you'll forgive me if I disregard your hypocritical attempt to claim the high road when you have none.

Try again genius.

High-time to get out and dodge some REAL cars then...

You apparently have a problem with reading comprehension.

re-read my challenge and try again.

Here's a hint, I already pointed out how Stossel confronted Napolitano with this and Napolitano dodged.

I'm sorry but you just don't really have a case. If Americans truly had a problem with being surveilled. They wouldn't have let corporations do it, much less the gov't. If you've got a cell phone or use the internet and you're mad about this, then you're a hypocrite, pure and simple.

Privacy as you apparently think of it, is an outdated concept. People by and large obviously do not have a problem with this. = implied consent.

Snowden is just a convenient excuse to rage and for internet blowhards to pretend to be righteous.

Daily modern life as we know it is consent to surveillance in some form or another. to feign outrage about it now is just absurdly disingenuous

yeah If I got a problem with surveillance, I can vote it out. I can't vote out a terrorist attack. I can't vote out a CEO

demonstrate to me that they're using this surveillance to harass civilians or using it for some other demonstrably oppressive way then I might be on board.

Till then, you're just mad that they merely have the info, which is hypocritical because the corporations collected the data in the first place, but people only got mad when gov't had it = hypocrisy.

turn off your cell phone and your computer and go live in the mountains if you want to prove you're not a hypocrite.

Gov't is not force, yes you do have a choice, you can leave the country, you can contact your congressperson.

Gov't is you

And yes, I too have anger fatigue.

That was a nice dodge he did when confronted with the argument that the gov't hasn't abused the information. He just pivoted it away.

I am sick and tired of the double standard between public and private sectors

And yes, it does creep me out that I'm agreeing with Stossel.

So they're sayin' that in the Philippines, politicians have to dodge bullets.....cool !

(isn't this viddy here in the sift already??) *edit ..guess it never sifted, looked for it-

Cover is for suckers. Real men just dodge all the incoming fire.

I am so badly jaded by this point that i consider almost everything with power in the western world to be corrupt.

I used to say that those who were intelligent and caring enough to lead and forge a better world for all of us are least suited to get there, but i have since changed my opinion to a worse one; those who are most suited to getting into a position of power are those without empathy for others, who can and will abuse anyone and anything to further themselves - they are known as professional psychopaths, and i think we are led by them.

In our country right now, on average, the richest pay less tax than the poor, and the extremely rich can afford to pay no tax. Our MP's cheat expenses (which are already outrageous) and have second houses paid for them, they set up laws to help them dodge tax and make changes to our social systems so that they can sell them off to their friends. They recently even wanted a further pay hike because apparently all of those things followed by a guaranteed golden handshake/pension is not enough. Meanwhile, and this is not hyperbole, there are elderly people dying because they can't afford to heat their homes during the winter, and food banks have risen meteorically because others can't afford to feed their families.

This feels like some sort of medieval nightmare, where the kings and lords are living a life of plenty, stuffing their faces with roast pigs whilst the commoners starve and eat grass outside the castle walls.

I am genuinely concerned for the world, and i am bewildered by the fact that none of my friends seem to care as much as i do. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - apathy is how this world will burn.

You keep avoiding answering the question. What are you so afraid of

You still keep making the leap of gun control = less freedom, yet you still have yet to demonstrate how anyone is less free because of periodic safety/competency testing for firearms when we already accept these sorts of requirements for other freedoms and rights.

We already accept that you have to have a permit to buy a weapon and there are minimum age restrictions to purchasing a weapon. Is this less freedom too? I have asked you to explain this but you appear to be unwilling.

That's some interesting math you have there. You keep using the words Freedom and rights interchangeably and I'm not sure that you can. Even if I were to accept that, Making the leap from "freedom goes hand and hand with responsibility" to making them equal to each other, thus lowering one lowers the other doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Just because you can demonstrate a relationship between freedom and responsibility doesn't make them equal. That is some pretty big false equivalencies there.

Equating registration to merely existing?...yeah...you're going to have to show your work on the math there too.

Gun control is actually a requirement to owning a gun currently. As I already said. We already accept SOME gun control in the form of permits and age restrictions so that seems to destroy that argument too.

And again, you're making the same gun control = less freedom claim without actually backing it up and ignoring that we already accept certain requirements for other freedoms and rights and you have yet to demonstrate why firearms are exempt from this precedent.

Once again, this notion more rules = less freedom is rather fallacious. If that were the case, we should be living in an anarchy. Sorry, but that's kindof the basic price you pay for living in a civilized nation. We all agree not to kill each other or take each other's stuff We all agree to pay taxes so that we can have infrastructure and other services. Just because some people ignore those rules doesn't mean we throw out the rulebook. You can wrap your ideas in the flag of freedom all you want, but by living in ANY nation, you do accept certain rules and consequences in order to enjoy the perks. So in the end, it just really boils down to the argument that freedom is an abstract, not an absolute and you're using it to evoke emotion in a manipulative fashion.

If you're just going to make the same claims over and over without backing them up and dodging my questions, then I think it's safe to say this conversation is at an end.

"but won't people be less inclined to be responsible if they have less freedom?"

You're making a claim that people will be less responsible. *you* need to prove that. I don't need to disprove it, however I have given plenty examples of how existing requirements on existing freedoms don't seem to lead to increased irresponsibility. Burden is on you.

"With gun control, you want to take people's freedom away to stop them from screwing up in the first place."

Again, I asked how people are less free by requiring something prior to exercising that freedom. You failed to answer that.

"How is making it harder to acquire or own a gun going to make people more responsible using them? That's all I was asking."

No, you're changing your argument. But I'll go ahead and pretend that you weren't attempting to dodge and answer it anyway. There is never any guarantee that anyone will be magically safer by taking a magic class or spending time with an instructor. It's a strawman argument to say that it would. There has never been any guarantee that any law will make anyone safer. We do it anyway because the public demands it. Will of the people and all that. Over 50 percent of the nation were in favor of SOME form of increased gun control post-sandy hook.

You're right, not all of those things I mentioned are necessarily rights, or at the very least, could be argued. But I also noticed you conveniently ignored the part about voting...which is a right. And even if an ID is never required to vote. You still have to register in order to vote.

There is no guarantee that requiring a test makes someone a safer driver. There is no guarantee that I'm going to survive the day if I get out of bed.
We don't legalize murder because some people ignore laws. We make it illegal anyway and incarcerate/execute those that break those laws and hope it provides an example of why not to do it. It's kind of what civilization is based on. If you've got a better answer, then you should publish some papers and get recognized as someone who revolutionizes sociology and criminal justice.

I'm going to play the odds and guess that you won't though.

Had a 64 Dodge Dart with a simple old-tech Kenwood cassette-only player, no vol controls, etc., via external amp, came with the car. It began to drag and stall in cold weather but I could spray butane into it and ignite it and that was enough to free-up the capstan and cause it to play until it dragged again in about an hour.

....carried butane in the car to refill the Colibri-

It seems kind of ridiculous that you can refuse the test for a 1 year suspension. The blood tests are of course extreme, but I dont like the idea of drunk drivers dodging prosecution either.

Inheritance Tax-The reward to the dying of the knowledge that the living will toil endlessly as they themselves did, dodging robbers all the while on their push to the grave and beyond

I have my own suspicions as to who Michelle Obama's "tax dodging" lunch guest was.......but I'll keep it to myself

Edit:- Some quick googling told me I was wrong.