2018 Mid-Term Elections

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

They would have gone after Elohim City, but McVeigh wanted credit, and wouldn't flip.

For those diehard conspiracy theorists who will refuse to believe this, I turn the tables and say: show me where I needed anyone else. Financing? Logistics? Specialised tech skills? Brainpower? Strategy? Show me where I needed a dark, mysterious 'Mr X'!

[Speaker to Animals]

I am curious about from where he got the money to carry it out.

[Kath]

"Both parties"

This is where you are wrong. There are people in those parties working against your interests. The two parties are a political battlefield upon which you must fight them. You are surrendering the battlefield to your enemy because you confuse the battlefield with the enemy.

That is the Dan Carlin Fallacy in a nutshell.

Pro tip - both parties actively are working against my interests. I want as close to a split government as possible. Wall Street loves a split government. If all I can get from government is a stable stock market, I'm happy.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am curious about from where he got the money to carry it out.

I think the idea is that it was ARA money.

Still, it isn't that the state didn't make the case against McVeigh. They just didn't make the case that it was just McVeigh and Nichols. But, if they couldn't make a strong case against the ARA or Elohim without either of them flipping, what were they supposed to do?

For me, this is evidence that we do have a system that has to PROVE guilt, but, somehow, the interviewee tries to twist that into a failure of the state.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am curious about from where he got the money to carry it out.

I think the idea is that it was ARA money.

Still, it isn't that the state didn't make the case against McVeigh. They just didn't make the case that it was just McVeigh and Nichols. But, if they couldn't make a strong case against the ARA or Elohim without either of them flipping, what were they supposed to do?

For me, this is evidence that we do have a system that has to PROVE guilt, but, somehow, the interviewee tries to twist that into a failure of the state.

Well if a group of people financed or provided any support for a terror attack that killed a lot of other people (targeted a day care center, really), and the state failed to make a case against them, then that would be a failure.

I mean.. I am already long over the illusion of having any justice in this country. If somebody did that to my child, I am going Punisher on them if the state doesn't do anything.

[Speaker to Animals]

"Both parties"

This is where you are wrong. There are people in those parties working against your interests. The two parties are a political battlefield upon which you must fight them. You are surrendering the battlefield to your enemy because you confuse the battlefield with the enemy.

That is the Dan Carlin Fallacy in a nutshell.

Pro tip - both parties actively are working against my interests. I want as close to a split government as possible. Wall Street loves a split government. If all I can get from government is a stable stock market, I'm happy.

You still are not processing what I am telling you.

The parties aren't doing anything. The parties are just battlegrounds you have to fight over in order to then fight over control of the government. The primary and general elections are both fields of battle, not individuals. You are acting as if the parties are individual people. They are not. You allow people who oppose your interests to control both parties because you vote for stupid shit like "Migrant Caravan" instead of actually fighting for those interests.

Really, why should any politicians of any party take your ideas seriously when you do this?

[nmoore63]

The idea that the only option is to fight for control of the institution is false.

You absolutely have the power to weaken the institution as a whole, or support alternative institutions.

The Catholic Church and my local farmer's market both exist independent of the Federal Government.

There exists no viable path to "weakening the institution of the federal government" without taking control of it first.

"Supporting alternative solutions" is virtue signaling.

Dan Carlin Fallacy is a huge waste of your time. It's time to put this thing to rest. It's been ten years, guys. I mean.. come on. LOL

The federal government is less effective every day.
Its going to spend the next 2 years doing nothing but yell at itself.
In that time, I will continue to work to strengthen my local community.

The conditions that caused the US to be have largely passed.

You love to virtue signal about whiteness and masculinity, but the reality is, there is no common bond between a white male in San Fransisco and a one in Ephrata, WA.

Stop pretending our two visions are reconcilable within the current frame work of United States Federal government.

Its a huge waste of time. Its time to put this thing to rest. I mean... come on. LOL

[Speaker to Animals]

The idea that the only option is to fight for control of the institution is false.

You absolutely have the power to weaken the institution as a whole, or support alternative institutions.

The Catholic Church and my local farmer's market both exist independent of the Federal Government.

There exists no viable path to "weakening the institution of the federal government" without taking control of it first.

"Supporting alternative solutions" is virtue signaling.

Dan Carlin Fallacy is a huge waste of your time. It's time to put this thing to rest. It's been ten years, guys. I mean.. come on. LOL

The federal government is less effective every day.
Its going to spend the next 2 years doing nothing but yell at itself.
In that time, I will continue to work to strengthen my local community.

The conditions that caused the US to be have largely passed.

You love to virtue signal about whiteness and masculinity, but the reality is, there is no common bond between a white male in San Fransisco and a one in Ephrata, WA.

Stop pretending our two visions are reconcilable within the current frame work of United States Federal government.

Its a huge waste of time. Its time to put this thing to rest. I mean... come on. LOL

Kitchen sink argument.

You are not responding to the point at all. Just attacking me personally and being a douche.

The fact is, it is self-evident that you cannot change anything without control of the federal government. If your plan is just to wait for collapse, then good luck, I guess. I'd like to avert it if possible.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I am curious about from where he got the money to carry it out.

I think the idea is that it was ARA money.

Still, it isn't that the state didn't make the case against McVeigh. They just didn't make the case that it was just McVeigh and Nichols. But, if they couldn't make a strong case against the ARA or Elohim without either of them flipping, what were they supposed to do?

For me, this is evidence that we do have a system that has to PROVE guilt, but, somehow, the interviewee tries to twist that into a failure of the state.

Well if a group of people financed or provided any support for a terror attack that killed a lot of other people (targeted a day care center, really), and the state failed to make a case against them, then that would be a failure.

I mean.. I am already long over the illusion of having any justice in this country. If somebody did that to my child, I am going Punisher on them if the state doesn't do anything.

A failure to make a case, but not a failure to protect the presumption of innocence.

Arrows will often pass the guilty by to slay the innocent. Take it up with God.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think the idea is that it was ARA money.

Still, it isn't that the state didn't make the case against McVeigh. They just didn't make the case that it was just McVeigh and Nichols. But, if they couldn't make a strong case against the ARA or Elohim without either of them flipping, what were they supposed to do?

For me, this is evidence that we do have a system that has to PROVE guilt, but, somehow, the interviewee tries to twist that into a failure of the state.

Well if a group of people financed or provided any support for a terror attack that killed a lot of other people (targeted a day care center, really), and the state failed to make a case against them, then that would be a failure.

I mean.. I am already long over the illusion of having any justice in this country. If somebody did that to my child, I am going Punisher on them if the state doesn't do anything.

A failure to make a case, but not a failure to protect the presumption of innocence.

Arrows will often pass the guilty by to slay the innocent. Take it up with God.

It's still a failure. I am not sure why you would object to that characterization. The state failing to prosecute a terrorist and murderer failed at its job. The presumption of innocence implies that we make the state's job very difficult, not excuse failure. If they failed at something that big, I would like to know why.