Can an unarmed population prevent a tyranny? If you think so, tell me how.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
(...continued)

 

You said: "I think my worldview is rather more frightening"
And you said: "TPTB are imagined to be so overwhelmingly powerful that fighting them is pointless."
I said: "Are you dreaming? Where did I say this? Or do you have insider knowledge?"
You said: "I didn't say you did say it. I said it's a common feature of conspiracy theories."

Are you writing to have a dialog with me - or are you writing a monologue about "conspiracy theories"? Address my arguments not some "common feature of theories" that we both disagree with. This is a techniques of spreading DISINFORMATION.

According to the hardcore conspiracists they want no guns, a one world order, total enslavement. Oddly enough they don't seem able to get what they want.

Are you writing to have a dialog with me - or are you writing a monologue about "conspiracy theories"? Another "common feature"? Or again spreading DISINFORMATION?

Take guns. We are told constantly by the gun guys that Obama is desperate to take away ALL arms. This is demonstrably nonsense. And if it is what he wants then he's very bad at getting it.

I don't know what you are talking about. But go ahead and "demonstrate" whatever is the nonsense. So far you have not demonstrated anything. You are STILL refusing to say what people are able to do.

In a more realistic world, I think there are lots of things Obama would like that he can't get.

Again, you claim to "think" but you demonstrate nothing. Again, you claim to be able to read people's mind - what Obama would "like" - without offering any evidence. If, EVEN Obama cannot "get lots of things", then how are PEOPLE supposed to be able to get what THEY like? Again, you are STILL refusing to say what people are able to do. Or, what your evidence is. Or, what is "nebulous" about Choice.

So what is your startegy beyond a slogan?

If you are really worried about the direction things are taking - and if you're in the US you should be - I would advocate political involvement. Choice is an admirable goal but it will only become a reality when people make it so by involving themselves in government locally and by agitating for change. Sitting back and hoping someone else does it because the bad guys are too powerful is not going to alter anything. (emphasis added)

There you go again: "too powerful" is YOUR cigar-smoked worldview, not mine. "change" is a slogan we already voted for. "worried about the direction"? "Political involvement (how did the Media react to the Tea-Party?)?" Any more meaningless slogans up your sleeve? Again DISINFORMATION.

I'm aware that this is not a detailed response, but then a thread like this is not the place for that. I'd be happy to expand in more detail elsewhere though.

You are just refusing to say what people are able to do about the fatalistic and frightening situation you describe. Maybe you do not have a clue, but there is plenty of room for detail here. If you prefer to expand on it elsewhere, direct me to your own thread. Since you are not doing that, I must conclude that all you are trying to do, here, is to misrepresent what I say and to spread DISINFORMATION.

Originally posted by iforget
Here is what I would ask, If you are willing to die for your beliefs could you also be willing to not kill?

This statement implies that beliefs are rigid and unchanging. If this were true, if beliefs couldn't change from one situation to the next, we would die out as a species. I would kill if/when government completely lost its focus on our freedoms. I would never kill without something becoming a last straw or a last ditch effort to fix what has become broken.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


I'm sorry, I can only understand about 20 per cent of what you write and I think most of what I'm saying is going over your head. Certainly your assertion that I'm "refusing" to give you answers or ideas of what to do is simply nonsense - look at what I wrote above offering to supply just that.

I don't agree with you about Bush being in league with Kerry and I don't think there is a conspiracy in the sense you believe. I further think that your desire for 'choice' is rather idealistic and ill-defined.

But get over it. People differ in their worldview. I haven't tried to force mine on you, merely written gently and politely about what I think. You on the other hand seem hell-bent on some kind of confrontation, so here I'll leave it.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

I don't agree with you about Bush being in league with Kerry and I don't think there is a conspiracy in the sense you believe. I further think that your desire for 'choice' is rather idealistic and ill-defined.

But get over it. People differ in their worldview. I haven't tried to force mine on you, merely written gently and politely about what I think. You on the other hand seem hell-bent on some kind of confrontation, so here I'll leave it.

Well, that sounds very gentleman-like. You are certainly entitled to have a different world-view. But anybody who chooses to go back to read the replies can read what it is based on. I am not so much interested in convincing you of anything, just in showing to all readers the arguments on both sides, and for what reason I believe yours are deceiving.

For example, you have never said one iota about why your "worldview" tells you Bush and Kerry should be trustworthy when they refuse to say what their motivation is for being in that "Skull and Bones" Society.