BREAKING: Gunman opens fire on GOP congressional baseball team practice session

[Anti Federalist]

Are you advocating for violence?

What does that mean?

Does it mean "using violence as a means to achieve a political goal"?

That's terrorism...and the Pentagon.

If a man tries to mug me for my wallet, and I stick a gun in his face and tell him to $#@! off, am I "advocating" violence?

[osan]

It's the same then with the "Ron Paul" movement.

In some cases, I am sure it is. It is the nature of things where humans are concerned. People communicate like absolute crap these days, on average. Honestly, I am surprised they are able to order a pizza and manage not to have a low-yield nuke delivered. While we display manifold flaws, it is possible to train people to manifest fewer of them and in less egregious degree than commonly found. But that takes work, determination, smarts, self-control, courage, etc.: all qualities that act in opposition to the entropy that is our basic nature. Most people simply do not want to live their lives that way. Why bother when it is so much easier to be a slacker - to feed all the worst qualities in oneself, rather than oppose them in favor of those the better?

That is one of the two greatest movements I've seen in my lifetime (the other was the peace movement in the 60's).

Ugh... really? The "peace" movement was absolute nonsense; a gloablist contrivance pursuant to Theire goal of one-world government. How does one approach the objective of global dominion in a world where sovereignty is so very popular? War. Incite, invoke, and finance war on all sides such that all are threatened by it; all are drained by the losses personal, national, and financial. These things were all laid out in black and white by men like Nathan Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, and so forth. They have been exposed time after time over the past 200+ years. Theire dialectic is pure Hegel and what we see today meshes to it without flaw. I strongly suspect the "peace movement" was part of this lunacy. If it wasn't, then its rise, especially given the timing, constitutes one of the most impossible coincidences in all human history. Wear people down with enough war, so the theory goes, and they will submit to any tyranny that promises with a straight face peace and safety and no more dead children. What has transpired in the United States these past 50 years is textbook bolshevism at work. It could not fit the blueprint any more perfectly. If anyone wants to believe it is coincidental, then by all means go ahead, but I doubt it would be the right move.

The Ron Paul Liberty movement has been transformed in the most part to the MAGA Trump, Trump, Trump movement.

What leads you to believe this? What is the evidence? I am sure you are correct in some cases, but methinks you cast a bit too broad a net here, but perhaps I am mistaken.

...the peace movement... was based on "peace" and "questioning authority" and it morphed into Marxism.

Which bolsters my very point. That said, I would take some care in how you formulate your expression. I would ask what authority did it recommend be questioned. I was alive in those days and actually paid attention to all that rot. The authority to be questioned was anything that was not collectivist-authoritarian, which was never to be questioned at any time, by any person, for any reason, regardless of purpose or purport. The assumptions, tacit or otherwise, of that movement were NEVER to be questioned because they represented the absolute and irrefutable truth. I remember all this very clearly; it was all very cleverly contrived and couched such that anyone questioning "peace, love, and dope" was not of the body and had to be excised and forever distrusted. Remember "never trust anyone over thirty"? That crap was forwarded by that flaming, suppurating anus Abby Hoffman, was it not? Either way, it was formulaic use of the mind where such thinking was wholly and dangerously inappropriate.

Those stupid bastards thought sitting around, half-naked and stoned out of their minds while singing insipid, idiotic songs was going to change the world for the better. Well, they were half-right anyhow.

I'm not going to bad mouth the movement started by Ron

Kind of difficult to define it as a monobloc. Doing so take on the "they all look the same to me" quality. The same can be said for the "peace" movement, to a point. However, the root origin of the latter stands in glaring question as to its authenticity, whereas I have little to no doubt about the sincerity, intentions, and aptitude of Dr. Paul. He was a single-point source, whereas the hippy-$#@! cannot be identified as having issued from a readily and specifically identifiable spring.

I'm not going to bad mouth the movement of peace.

Not to worry my friend, you don't have to. I will save you the responsibility by doing so myself. On the whole, it was complete shyte, most likely contrived by agents of those whose malevolence may be trusted implicitly and with absolute confidence.

People are responsible for taking a good thing and distorting it.

Completely agree. But your assumption that the "peace movement" was at its roots a good thing is eminently questionable. And were it to prove so, it would nonetheless fail to pass the smell-test for rationality/validity as structured. It was typical product of bunnies, light, and unicorn-poo thinking by (at best) hopelessly naive and doltish people who'd had their heads filled full of air by a cadre of malevolent bastards such that those kids ended up wanting and expecting the world to bend to the satisfaction of their wills. Now take that kind of brattish, spoiled-child, self-absorbed nitwittery and apply it in today's context of, for example, Muslim's seeking to saw off your head, rape your children unto their deaths, and corn-hole your cat. All of a sudden what seemed perhaps "noble" or somehow otherwise appealing takes on the appearance, flavor, and odor of the most rankly insane stupidity imaginable, given what we know about the boys of ISIS, and so forth.

Well guess what: it was no different then. The world was full of people who want to hurt us even then, meaning the blind eye approach to solving the problems to which such threats give rise is wholly invalid. That is not to say there was nothing valid in the movement, but only that such points were comparatively few and far between. Therefore, the position that asserted "peace at any cost", which was precisely what the hippies called for, was and remains invalid. When your neighbor is fixing to make war upon you, the solution is not to offer him hugs and a blowjob. At the very least, you do your best to convince him you will seriously degrade the quality of his day if he tries anything cute.

[osan]

Are you advocating for violence?

You read like a textbook communist here.

I will not speak for him, but my read is that he is advocating for self defense, most likely against an implacable foe for whom the only response is to wipe them out because nothing less will remove the threat.

[osan]

What does that mean?

Does it mean "using violence as a means to achieve a political goal"?

That's terrorism...and the Pentagon.

If a man tries to mug me for my wallet, and I stick a gun in his face and tell him to $#@! off, am I "advocating" violence?

Nicely done. Have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.

Good God, that didn't quite come out sounding right. Some idiot is now going to think we're set to get married... perhaps in NY state.

Ugh.

[Origanalist]

Nicely done. Have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.

Good God, that didn't quite come out sounding right. Some idiot is now going to think we're set to get married... perhaps in NY state.

Ugh.

[Origanalist]

In some cases, I am sure it is. It is the nature of things where humans are concerned. People communicate like absolute crap these days, on average. Honestly, I am surprised they are able to order a pizza and manage not to have a low-yield nuke delivered. While we display manifold flaws, it is possible to train people to manifest fewer of them and in less egregious degree than commonly found. But that takes work, determination, smarts, self-control, courage, etc.: all qualities that act in opposition to the entropy that is our basic nature. Most people simply do not want to live their lives that way. Why bother when it is so much easier to be a slacker - to feed all the worst qualities in oneself, rather than oppose them in favor of those the better?



Ugh... really? The "peace" movement was absolute nonsense; a gloablist contrivance pursuant to Theire goal of one-world government. How does one approach the objective of global dominion in a world where sovereignty is so very popular? War. Incite, invoke, and finance war on all sides such that all are threatened by it; all are drained by the losses personal, national, and financial. These things were all laid out in black and white by men like Nathan Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, and so forth. They have been exposed time after time over the past 200+ years. Theire dialectic is pure Hegel and what we see today meshes to it without flaw. I strongly suspect the "peace movement" was part of this lunacy. If it wasn't, then its rise, especially given the timing, constitutes one of the most impossible coincidences in all human history. Wear people down with enough war, so the theory goes, and they will submit to any tyranny that promises with a straight face peace and safety and no more dead children. What has transpired in the United States these past 50 years is textbook bolshevism at work. It could not fit the blueprint any more perfectly. If anyone wants to believe it is coincidental, then by all means go ahead, but I doubt it would be the right move.



What leads you to believe this? What is the evidence? I am sure you are correct in some cases, but methinks you cast a bit too broad a net here, but perhaps I am mistaken.



Which bolsters my very point. That said, I would take some care in how you formulate your expression. I would ask what authority did it recommend be questioned. I was alive in those days and actually paid attention to all that rot. The authority to be questioned was anything that was not collectivist-authoritarian, which was never to be questioned at any time, by any person, for any reason, regardless of purpose or purport. The assumptions, tacit or otherwise, of that movement were NEVER to be questioned because they represented the absolute and irrefutable truth. I remember all this very clearly; it was all very cleverly contrived and couched such that anyone questioning "peace, love, and dope" was not of the body and had to be excised and forever distrusted. Remember "never trust anyone over thirty"? That crap was forwarded by that flaming, suppurating anus Abby Hoffman, was it not? Either way, it was formulaic use of the mind where such thinking was wholly and dangerously inappropriate.

Those stupid bastards thought sitting around, half-naked and stoned out of their minds while singing insipid, idiotic songs was going to change the world for the better. Well, they were half-right anyhow.




Kind of difficult to define it as a monobloc. Doing so take on the "they all look the same to me" quality. The same can be said for the "peace" movement, to a point. However, the root origin of the latter stands in glaring question as to its authenticity, whereas I have little to no doubt about the sincerity, intentions, and aptitude of Dr. Paul. He was a single-point source, whereas the hippy-$#@! cannot be identified as having issued from a readily and specifically identifiable spring.



Not to worry my friend, you don't have to. I will save you the responsibility by doing so myself. On the whole, it was complete shyte, most likely contrived by agents of those whose malevolence may be trusted implicitly and with absolute confidence.



Completely agree. But your assumption that the "peace movement" was at its roots a good thing is eminently questionable. And were it to prove so, it would nonetheless fail to pass the smell-test for rationality/validity as structured. It was typical product of bunnies, light, and unicorn-poo thinking by (at best) hopelessly naive and doltish people who'd had their heads filled full of air by a cadre of malevolent bastards such that those kids ended up wanting and expecting the world to bend to the satisfaction of their wills. Now take that kind of brattish, spoiled-child, self-absorbed nitwittery and apply it in today's context of, for example, Muslim's seeking to saw off your head, rape your children unto their deaths, and corn-hole your cat. All of a sudden what seemed perhaps "noble" or somehow otherwise appealing takes on the appearance, flavor, and odor of the most rankly insane stupidity imaginable, given what we know about the boys of ISIS, and so forth.

Well guess what: it was no different then. The world was full of people who want to hurt us even then, meaning the blind eye approach to solving the problems to which such threats give rise is wholly invalid. That is not to say there was nothing valid in the movement, but only that such points were comparatively few and far between. Therefore, the position that asserted "peace at any cost", which was precisely what the hippies called for, was and remains invalid. When your neighbor is fixing to make war upon you, the solution is not to offer him hugs and a blowjob. At the very least, you do your best to convince him you will seriously degrade the quality of his day if he tries anything cute.

The people that brought us that peace 'movement' are the same ones that are now pushing the LGBTQRSTXYZ rights, BLM, safe spaces and 'wokeness'.

[CPUd]

What does that mean?

Does it mean "using violence as a means to achieve a political goal"?

That's terrorism...and the Pentagon.

If a man tries to mug me for my wallet, and I stick a gun in his face and tell him to $#@! off, am I "advocating" violence?

Except the dude is not being robbed. He thinks he could be robbed, and is trying to get other people to "exterminate" the ones who he believes are planning to rob him. Do you support precrime actions?

[Anti Federalist]

Nicely done. Have to spread it around before I can give it to you again.

Good God, that didn't quite come out sounding right. Some idiot is now going to think we're set to get married... perhaps in NY state.

Ugh.

I'll invite @Danke along...

[CPUd]

You read like a textbook communist here.

I will not speak for him, but my read is that he is advocating for self defense, most likely against an implacable foe for whom the only response is to wipe them out because nothing less will remove the threat.

No, he has made it clear that he no longer believes in a peaceful solution for his perceived problems, he is recruiting for his extermination force.

[Anti Federalist]

Except the dude is not being robbed. He thinks he could be robbed, and is trying to get other people to "exterminate" the ones who he believes are planning to rob him. Do you support precrime actions?

I'm not looking to exterminate anybody.

But I think that it has gone beyond "pre-crime".

I happen to think we are being robbed.

I would very much like to separate, peacefully.

[CPUd]

I'm not looking to exterminate anybody.

But I think that it has gone beyond "pre-crime".

I happen to think we are being robbed.

I would very much like to separate, peacefully.

I believe the search for peaceful solutions should be the default position, all the way up to the point where someone directly threatens my life.

[Anti Federalist]

I believe the search for peaceful solutions should be the default position, all the way up to the point where someone directly threatens my life.

And the "progressive left" has done just that...the more vocal ones have stated in no uncertain terms they want me, individually, and me as a demographic group, dead.

Now, granted, it's all just talk for the most part...but so is the masked mugger telling me "your money or your life".

Since I'm not a cop, just a mere Mundane, I'm not justified in shooting.

Yet.

But I am drawing...literally and figuratively.

An operative of the progressive left opened fire, in a targeted assassination attempt, on the son of the man I most respect in politics today and a sitting US Senator. (And to be clear, I have a great deal of respect for Rand as well.)

That alone is enough for me to say, war has been declared.

Now, I'm a nobody, a Mundane, and as such I don't rate 24/7 government bodyguards.

So, that leaves it up to me... as unlikely as it would be, being a nobody, if I see an unhinged leftist lunatic gunning for me or my family, I'm neutralizing the $#@!er or die trying.

If that's "advocating violence", well, so be it.

[CPUd]

And the "progressive left" has done just that...the more vocal ones have stated in no uncertain terms they want me, individually, and me as a demographic group, dead.

Now, granted, it's all just talk for the most part...but so is the masked mugger telling me "your money or your life".

Since I'm not a cop, just a mere Mundane, I'm not justified in shooting.

Yet.

But I am drawing...literally and figuratively.

An operative of the progressive left opened fire, in a targeted assassination attempt, on the son of the man I most respect in politics today and a sitting US Senator.

That alone is enough for me to say, war has been declared.

Now, I'm a nobody, a Mundane, and as such I don't rate 24/7 government bodyguards.

So, that leaves it up to me... as unlikely as it would be, being a nobody, if I see an unhinged leftist lunatic gunning for me or my family, I'm neutralizing the $#@!er or die trying.

If that's "advocating violence", well, so be it.

He believed he was being robbed, too.

[Swordsmyth]

He believed he was being robbed, too.

No he believed his agents were not robbing us enough.

[nikcers]

And the "progressive left" has done just that...the more vocal ones have stated in no uncertain terms they want me, individually, and me as a demographic group, dead..

Their elected officials say it all the time. What do you think the term "domestic terrorist" really means?

[ChristianAnarchist]

The people that brought us that peace 'movement' are the same ones that are now pushing the LGBTQRSTXYZ rights, BLM, safe spaces and 'wokeness'.

And where's your proof of that?? I'm part of the peace movement. Are you saying that describes me? Osan and I certainly have different views of what happened in the 60's. Perhaps you guys were Nixon types which would explain your hatred. I really don't know. This generalization of the movement is extremely narrow for a movement that included millions of people with no single motivator. As I stated before, Leary was perhaps the most likely "representative" of the movement and he clearly taught that you should "question authority - even mine". That means he questions the authority of the Marxists as well as the establishment...

[Anti Federalist]

He believed he was being robbed, too.

Yeah, well, he was wrong.

He wasn't being robbed...he was pissed that the armed government proxies were not robbing enough from me.

[Anti Federalist]

No he believed his agents were not robbing us enough.

Yeah, what he said.

[Origanalist]

And where's your proof of that?? I'm part of the peace movement. Are you saying that describes me? Osan and I certainly have different views of what happened in the 60's. Perhaps you guys were Nixon types which would explain your hatred. I really don't know. This generalization of the movement is extremely narrow for a movement that included millions of people with no single motivator. As I stated before, Leary was perhaps the most likely "representative" of the movement and he clearly taught that you should "question authority - even mine". That means he questions the authority of the Marxists as well as the establishment...

What peace movement, today's? It only matters anymore if it's your guy bombing or theirs, as long as it's the right side it's all good. (I know you don't fall in that characterization, just speaking about the general population)

None of these groups gave a $#@! about war when Obama was in office.

I'm referring to the 60's. I wasn't a Nixon type, I was a starry eyed youngster caught up in the 'movement'. Where do you think it gained it's momentum? By being pushed in the schools by progressives just like they are doing today. Please provide any example of Timothy Leary questioning the authority of the Marxists directly.

[osan]

The people that brought us that peace 'movement' are the same ones that are now pushing the LGBTQRSTXYZ rights, BLM, safe spaces and 'wokeness'.

Agreed. We may call them "globalists".

[ChristianAnarchist]

What peace movement, today's? It only matters anymore if it's your guy bombing or theirs, as long as it's the right side it's all good. (I know you don't fall in that characterization, just speaking about the general population)

None of these groups gave a $#@! about war when Obama was in office.

I'm referring to the 60's. I wasn't a Nixon type, I was a starry eyed youngster caught up in the 'movement'. Where do you think it gained it's momentum? By being pushed in the schools by progressives just like they are doing today. Please provide any example of Timothy Leary questioning the authority of the Marxists directly.

Don't know if such exists and is really not necessary. Look at what he taught. Look at the fact that he supported Ron Paul...

[AuH20]

The progressive left will wilt and die without their shadowy handlers who both finance and lead them by the nose. They aren't smart enough to chart their own course. I don't really loathe the average leftist since I view them as useful imbeciles, but I absolutely have no regard for the lives of the D.C./Davos/Deep State crowd. The world would be much better with them dead. They have forcefully injected themselves into the lives of billions and for that monumental crime, no one should shed tears for them.

[CPUd]

The progressive left will wilt and die without their shadowy handlers who both finance and lead them by the nose. They aren't smart enough to chart their own course. I don't really loathe the average leftist since I view them as useful imbeciles, but I absolutely have no regard for the lives of the D.C./Davos/Deep State crowd. The world would be much better with them dead. They have forcefully injected themselves into the lives of billions and for that monumental crime, no one should shed tears for them.

Then you are no better than the people you claim to hate.

[AuH20]

Then you are no better than the people you claim to hate.

I haven't murdered countless millions through various cruel endeavors. That's for certain. These people have charted their own course and willfully chose the path of self-adulation and exploitation. They pose a continued threat to the entire species. We have an entire class of cold blooded killers that rarely do their own dirty work.

[CPUd]

I haven't murdered countless millions through various cruel endeavors. That's for certain. These people have charted their own course and willfully chose the path of self-adulation and exploitation. They pose a continued threat to the entire species. We have an entire class of cold blooded killers that rarely do their own dirty work.

You don't do your own dirty work either, you promote violence in the hopes that others will do it for you.

[osan]

You don't do your own dirty work either, you promote violence in the hopes that others will do it for you.

Are you for real? AuH2O gave a very clear account of his points and all you have done is respond as if instead of "apples", he'd written "oranges".

What brand of trollery is this? If he writes 'A', respond to 'A' instead of 'Z', which has no connection to 'A'.

[osan]

And where's your proof of that?? I'm part of the peace movement. Are you saying that describes me?

Speaking only for myself, I am saying it describes the mean of the movement. It was the result. What difference does it make that you may have been off on one of the tails of the distribution? It means NOTHING. Why? Because it is the MEAN that defines what that movement is. The MEAN dictates the quality and character of the gestalt, which in turn leads to whatever outcomes are to be realized. Fliers like you are irrelevant, unless the Gaussian is so narrow that your qualities closely reflect those of the average man's. From what you have written, I deeply doubt that it was the case. I was there and I watched closely. Those people were simplistic thinkers, wholly incapable of squeezing out an original thought of their own, even if it was that they had to go take a crap. As for the smart(er) members of that movement, all I can say is that they both had no palpable effect on outcomes because the cows were running the slaughterhouse.

Osan and I certainly have different views of what happened in the 60's.

So it appears. You seem to think great things happened. I am of a very different mind on that point. About the best thing to come out of that era was the music. No sane and decent man can argue against Jimi, and if they do, I will beat them with an iron bar.

Perhaps you guys were Nixon types which would explain your hatred.

Interesting choice of words. Firstly, Nixon was a neurotic and a crook so no, I was not a fan.

Hatred? It is amusing how casually people throw that word around. In my world, if I hate you it means I want to kill you. Short of that, hatred is not in evidence. I despise the peace movement because it was a load of crap, on average.

This generalization of the movement is extremely narrow for a movement that included millions of people with no single motivator.

The generalization speaks to the mean, and as such it is dead-on accurate. The outliers mean nothing.

As I stated before, Leary was perhaps the most likely "representative" of the movement and he clearly taught that you should "question authority - even mine". That means he questions the authority of the Marxists as well as the establishment...

No he wasn't. He was an outlier at least three sigmas off the mean. It's the dumbass smack in the middle of the distribution that defines the "movement", and he is a royal nitwit; a perfect example of the "useful idiot".

[ChristianAnarchist]

Speaking only for myself, I am saying it describes the mean of the movement. It was the result. What difference does it make that you may have been off on one of the tails of the distribution? It means NOTHING. Why? Because it is the MEAN that defines what that movement is. The MEAN dictates the quality and character of the gestalt, which in turn leads to whatever outcomes are to be realized. Fliers like you are irrelevant, unless the Gaussian is so narrow that your qualities closely reflect those of the average man's. From what you have written, I deeply doubt that it was the case. I was there and I watched closely. Those people were simplistic thinkers, wholly incapable of squeezing out an original thought of their own, even if it was that they had to go take a crap. As for the smart(er) members of that movement, all I can say is that they both had no palpable effect on outcomes because the cows were running the slaughterhouse.



So it appears. You seem to think great things happened. I am of a very different mind on that point. About the best thing to come out of that era was the music. No sane and decent man can argue against Jimi, and if they do, I will beat them with an iron bar.



Interesting choice of words. Firstly, Nixon was a neurotic and a crook so no, I was not a fan.

Hatred? It is amusing how casually people throw that word around. In my world, if I hate you it means I want to kill you. Short of that, hatred is not in evidence. I despise the peace movement because it was a load of crap, on average.



The generalization speaks to the mean, and as such it is dead-on accurate. The outliers mean nothing.




No he wasn't. He was an outlier at least three sigmas off the mean. It's the dumbass smack in the middle of the distribution that defines the "movement", and he is a royal nitwit; a perfect example of the "useful idiot".

Wow! You're so smart with your scientific jargon... I guess that means you won and I'm totally off base... Thanks for being the genius we need to set us straight!

[osan]

Wow! You're so smart with your scientific jargon... I guess that means you won and I'm totally off base... Thanks for being the genius we need to set us straight!

As for the jargon, I use it precisely because it describes the truth with accuracy and precision. Looking at the world and describing it in statistical terms, where appropriate, is the way one sees the truth of things and separates it from the noise. It is so very easy to be confused by noise, which is why I have dedicated some nontrivial portion of my life to discovering my methods of noiseless analysis. Confusion by noise can be demonstrated in countless billions of exchanges between human beings daily precisely because it is so common and the method of using statistical eyes can be so powerful when used properly. The statistical view doesn't apply to all situations, but those where large populations of people are in question, it oftentimes does and that is why I use it.

My purpose in engaging in these conversations is not to show how smart I am - I am not terribly smart in fact - but because I like getting to the truth of matters I think important to the quality of our lives. I like giving examples of how to see through the bull$#@! that flies all around us - bull$#@! that obscures truth and keeps the vast and overwhelming majority of the people of this world impotently chasing their tails. I choose my methods because they work and I want to share them with everyone. Just as I have been able to see what others here have done in terms of their apparent analytic methods and add them to my own, everything I do here I offer for the world to make its own, for whatever they may be worth.

Don't take anything I write here personally, because I don't offer it in the spirit of being mean.

You think the peace movement was a wonderful thing. The idea of it is - on that you and I agree as I assume we do on the value of peaceable relations between all men. We depart where the notion ends and the subsurface realities underpinning the real-world events begin.

This isn't about winning - at least not for me. It's about better understanding the world around us.

[Anti Federalist]

You don't do your own dirty work either, you promote violence in the hopes that others will do it for you.

And if he, or someone else did, and cleared out a particularly nasty and violent nest of street Bolsheviks, would you be here supporting that?