Gas Attack in Syria

[fistofdoom]

Most of the psychological damage features from terrorism is shared by those who lose sometimes entire families to car accidents and constant hype and reasons to panic given by the media when covering a terrorist attack as if it's the first time people have died or like it matters that they're killed by someone for political reasons rather than economic reasons in a car accident featuring a car that for reasons of profits refuses to make some safety equipment standard. Death's death and there's just no argument that terrorism is anywhere near as likely to kill you as a car accident or other primary cause of death for Americans.

Sooo... what about progeria? should we stop research for that since so few people experience it when cancer is more prevalent?

[Vicente Martinez]

Most of the psychological damage features from terrorism is shared by those who lose sometimes entire families to car accidents and constant hype and reasons to panic given by the media when covering a terrorist attack as if it's the first time people have died or like it matters that they're killed by someone for political reasons rather than economic reasons in a car accident featuring a car that for reasons of profits refuses to make some safety equipment standard. Death's death and there's just no argument that terrorism is anywhere near as likely to kill you as a car accident or other primary cause of death for Americans.

No.There's plenty of other effects terrorism has on a populace and a country,not to mention the attacks would grow more prevalent/deadlier if all anti terrorism prevention is taken away.ffs a government can sign legislation to improve the safety of the vehicles at almost no costs and leave it up to the designers of the vehicle.You can't just shut the media up because it's literally their job to report these things.You're not going to see a car crash on the international news ffs but it is still paid attention to.The government does all sorts of things to prevent car crashes but it cannot stop them from happening due to simple human error.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

Sooo... what about progeria? should we stop research for that since so few people experience it when cancer is more prevalent?

No. It's more fringe so it'll likely not have quite the funding bolus that major killers would have, but studying primarily the major causes of death in the United States deserves the most immediate and largest funding.

 

No.There's plenty of other effects terrorism has on a populace and a country,not to mention the attacks would grow more prevalent/deadlier if all anti terrorism prevention is taken away.ffs a government can sign legislation to improve the safety of the vehicles at almost no costs and leave it up to the designers of the vehicle.You can't just shut the media up because it's literally their job to report these things.You're not going to see a car crash on the international news ffs but it is still paid attention to.The government does all sorts of things to prevent car crashes but it cannot stop them from happening due to simple human error.

Where has terrorism ever increased due to lack of the attacks causing terror in the target population without the media to hype it? We don't need to shut them up, we can just stop participating in their work. Massive improvements in car safety, heart disease and cancer could all be improved drastically with more funding and actually save lives outside of the pittance of people dying for political reasons. It can do a lot more to prevent car accidents than it can presently due to funding limitations.

[Vicente Martinez]

Because anti terrorism measures have foiled so many plots that without anti terrorism measures these attacks would happen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11

 

I've already explained that car safety costs go to the vehicular manufacturer because they are the ones making the vehicle.The government can sign legislation to do these things at zero costs and leave it up to the manufacturers and the designers to do such things.The government is already doing it's fair share of prevention and you cannot stop car crashes because they are simply a result of common human error.

 

So the government stops trying to prevent mass murder but it tries to prevent natural causes of death.Terrorism is murder and I see no reason to prevent murders with criminal motivations but not try to prevent others with political motivations.

 

Do a lot more you say?You can't prevent human error but please do explain one thing that pertaining to accident prevention that needs billions of dollars (16 billion in fact).

 

Ummm,you really can't prevent heart disease as this is a matter of human choice.The health of the heart is influenced by human choices and it is up to the individual.You could say improve treatment however the government is spending at least a trillion dollars on healthcare compared to 16 billion.

 

Stopping government officials from informing the public won't do shit to stop the media from reporting these things.The media will still report mass murder as this is their job-to inform the public.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

Because anti terrorism measures have foiled so many plots that without anti terrorism measures these attacks would happen.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11  The ones the FBI usually helps advance a little so they're more impressive?

 

I've already explained that car safety costs go to the vehicular manufacturer because they are the ones making the vehicle. Yes, currently. Doesn't mean they'll work on these things (because if they did we'd have them). You can reduce car crashes immensely and the vehicle manufacturers can't be trusted for safety anymore than honestly about emissions. The government can sign legislation to do these things at zero costs and leave it up to the manufacturers and the designers to do such things.The government is already doing it's fair share of prevention and you cannot stop car crashes because they are simply a result of common human error. You can, actually.

 

So the government stops trying to prevent mass murder but it tries to prevent natural causes of death.Terrorism is murder and I see no reason to prevent murders with criminal motivations but not try to prevent others with political motivations. This doesn't make sense, but I'd imagine 'no' is the correct response

 

Do a lot more you say?You can't prevent human error but please do explain one thing that pertaining to accident prevention that needs billions of dollars (16 billion in fact).As an automobile engineer (oh wait, i'm not that) i'd leave that to the automobile engineers to do with massive funding increases under government supervision.

 

Ummm,you really can't prevent heart disease as this is a matter of human choice.The health of the heart is influenced by human tchoices and it is up to the individual.You could say improve treatment however the government is spending at least a trillion dollars on healthcare compared to 16 billion. You can certainly reduce heart attacks. Claiming otherwise is just stupid. People probably said the same thing when the AED was invented and somehow it's helping treat heart disease much more effectively than we could before. It's almost like with funding you can do exactly what you claim we can't. Medical research costs are massive. Those sixteen billion dollars would fund a lot of things to try to prevent deaths.

 

Stopping government officials from informing the public won't do shit to stop the media from reporting these things.The media will still report mass murder as this is their job-to inform the public. Based on what, exactly? The government's never done this before so I'm curious what your psychic powers are foretelling about the likelihood of it working.

[Vicente Martinez]

No.The ones that are foiled by the authorities.

 

So you have a plan on fixing human error or something?

 

Saying it doesn't make it true.Terrorism classifies as murder and as such we would try to prevent it.

 

Absolutely pathetic.You spout this nonsense yet you can't be bothered to give a single instance where funding would go?You don't need to be an engineer as there is something called Google.

 

 

No.You don't just defund a vital service in exchange for funding another one.Deaths from terrorism,while sad are the least of our worries,there's also economic damage,panic,increased restrictions,fear,etc

 

No Milton.I'm not going to play by your rules of communism or whatever.A government can do these things at zero costs and the costs would fall upon the car company

 

Now this is just stupid.I don't even need physic powers.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the media will still be able to report on these things even when you shut government officials up.

[ComradeMilton]

No.The ones that are foiled by the authorities. Yeah, you must not read about them very much. The FBI often has an undercover presence and sets up arrests over things the person they would likely never do without that to make themselves and our antiterror laws look better.

 

So you have a plan on fixing human error or something? So far we have park assist, automatic braking, airbags, seatbelts, lane departure warnings, and fully autonomous cars, so yes, reducing or fixing human error is not only possible, but already being completed.

 

Saying it doesn't make it true.Terrorism classifies as murder and as such we would try to prevent it.  We don't appear to do that, no.

 

Absolutely pathetic.You spout this nonsense yet you can't be bothered to give a single instance where funding would go?You don't need to be an engineer as there is something called Google.  It's nonsense to disagree with you? lol. If you're aware of Google I'm quite confident even you could find what you're looking for without me doing it for you. You're a big boy.

 

 

No.You don't just defund a vital service in exchange for funding another one.Deaths from terrorism,while sad are the least of our worries,there's also economic damage,panic,increased restrictions,fear,etc Sure you do. We do it all the time. Terrorism kills maybe a hundred a year, car accidents are hundreds of thousands. One sounds vital, the other sounds like your incorrect opinion.

 

No Milton.I'm not going to play by your rules of communism or whatever.A government can do these things at zero costs and the costs would fall upon the car company. They already don't act according to the law in developing their cars, why would they start now? No, far better for the government to do it; we'll know it's being done and won't have a surprise five or ten ears down the road when we find out that the manufacturer developed things that appear to be helpful, but whose purpose is just to look like what we want done.

Now this is just stupid.I don't even need physic powers.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the media will still be able to report on these things even when you shut government officials up. Who said removing government participation would silence the media? I sure didn't. It's just a handy penalty to hand to them. As I said this has never been tried so you really can't actually say if it'd work or not.

Edited April 24, 2017 by ComradeMilton

[Vicente Martinez]

Still doesn't change the fact they have been foiled by the authorities.Are you seriously implying that all of the arrests were on false charges?If there are no antiterrorism measures then terrorism will increase.

 

Yeah,even with those you still can't stop drivers from being distracted (#1 cause of accidents).If it's already being completed then why are car accidents still happening?All these things are being installed in most cars and car accidents still happen.And no Milton human error cannot be "fixed"

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11722196

 

Not even gonna answer that.

 

Yes Milton.Trying to prevent death is obviously an incorrect thing to do.Also opinions cannot be incorrect nor can they be correct.

 

Nope,not really,but it seems having another opinion is incorrect so k.

 

Again,a government can sign legislation to improve car design at almost no cost as the US is a capitalist state.All these costs would fall to the vehicular manufacturer and I'm not going make it so the US is somehow communist.

 

If you can't stop the people from knowing then you allow the terrorists to reach their number 1 goal.Fear.And how would you know that terrorism wouldn't spike if anti terrorism measures were removed?I have more than enough common sense to know that the media doesn't even need government officials to participate in discussions in order to get the word out.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

Still doesn't change the fact they have been foiled by the authorities.Are you seriously implying that all of the arrests were on false charges?If there are no antiterrorism measures then terrorism will increase. Most of them, yes. Do you not read the stories when they're foiled? They usually admit FBI involvement at the early stages all the way through to what the people theyre involving themselves with commit the act and they don't appear to mostly be people willing to cause terror at the beginning of their stories.

a

Yeah,even with those you still can't stop drivers from being distracted (#1 cause of accidents).If it's already being completed then why are car accidents still happening? Reduction isn't elimination. It's been  happening less frequently than before their introductions. You just said we couldn't do it and I provided like eight or nine examples that we already have.

 

Not even gonna answer that. It wasn't a question

 

Yes Milton.Preventing death is obviously an incorrect thing to do.Also opinions cannot be incorrect nor can they be correct.You apparently didn't pick up on that for all the super classes you've apparently have.I'm sure you'll just say that this isn't true but go nuts You certainly seem to be against saving more common causes of death. I guess you must get a warm feeling when you hear about a car accident. Opinion can definitely be incorrect too, btw/

 see

Nope,not really,but it seems having another opinion is incorrect so k.

 

Still not going to play by your arbitrary rules. Like how trusting auto manufacturers to perform legitimate safety improvements only to be caught installing cheating emissions attachments and massive problem with even airbag QC? I'm not surprised as it undermines your entire argument.

 

If you can't stop the people from knowing then you allow the terrorists to reach their number 1 goal.Fear.And how would you know that terrorism wouldn't spike if anti terrorism measures were removed?I have more than enough common sense to know that the media doesn't even need government officials to participate in discussions in order to get the word out.The main difference between terrorism and murder is political. Maybe keeping more Americans alive rather than trying to score points for your argument would be a better usage of your time.Sinking that much money into something that's almost certainly never going to affect you rather than trying to save actual people who die seems like what you're desperately trying to justify. Media definitely requires government leaks or no, you wouldn't hear about them.

[Vicente Martinez]

You have a noble goal however your means of achieving that goal are not even close to normal.There are countless other ways to gain your funding and more without defuning antiterrorism efforts.

 

"Media definitely requires government leaks or no, you wouldn't hear about them."

 

What?I don't need the President to tell me that a plane has crashed into a tower,or that 9 people were murdered in an shooting.Terrorism is so public that it's easy to spot.You even see the media reporting on these things minutes after they happen or even during the attack.

 

*stuff*

 

These are lies.I don't disagree with trying to save lives however I do disagree with defunding a vital service.And no if I say a cat looks pretty then I am not incorrect nor correct.There is nothing "incorrect" about trying to save lives.

 

"Most of them, yes. Do you not read the stories when they're foiled? They usually admit FBI involvement at the early stages all the way through to what the people theyre involving themselves with commit the act and they don't appear to mostly be people willing to cause terror at the beginning of their stories."

 

You should probably look even deeper."He was a gud buoy" is not a good defense for the heaps of evidence that get found whenever these raids get carried out.However this is simply speculation without evidence so oh well.

 

"Reduction isn't elimination. It's been happening less frequently than before their introductions. You just said we couldn't do it and I provided like eight or nine examples that we already have."

 

Lie.I never said we couldn't reduce car accidents,I said we can't fix them.

 

"Sinking that much money into something that's almost certainly never going to affect you rather than trying to save actual people who die seems like what you're desperately trying to justify."

 

No.I am trying to justify paying attention to murder.

 

"Like how trusting auto manufacturers to perform legitimate safety improvements only to be caught installing cheating emissions attachments and massive problem with even airbag QC? I'm not surprised as it undermines your entire argument."

 

It doesn't undermine my argument.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

You have a noble goal however your means of achieving that goal are not even close to normal.There are countless other ways to gain your funding and more without defuning antiterrorism efforts. Antiterrorism is where we're wasting money so it makes the most sense to cut there.

 

"Media definitely requires government leaks or no, you wouldn't hear about them."

 

What?I don't need the President to tell me that a plane has crashed into a tower,or that 9 people were murdered in an shooting.Terrorism is so public that it's easy to spot.You even see the media reporting on these things minutes after they happen or even during the attack. So the media knows what the police/FBI/DHS are doing at all times and don't need press conferences to announce that or keep them updated? Impressive.

 

*stuff*

 

These are lies.I don't disagree with trying to save lives however I do disagree with defunding a vital service.And no if I say a cat looks pretty then I am not incorrect nor correct.There is nothing "incorrect" about trying to save lives. You seem passionately against it. It's a waste of money that could be used to save many more people.

 

"Most of them, yes. Do you not read the stories when they're foiled? They usually admit FBI involvement at the early stages all the way through to what the people theyre involving themselves with commit the act and they don't appear to mostly be people willing to cause terror at the beginning of their stories." No, they don't. They'll write some random thing on a message board and if the FBI thinks they can score an arrest out of it they're not above giving the person (fake) explosives to accomplish it or helping them plan

 

You should probably look even deeper."He was a gud buoy" is not a good defense for the heaps of evidence that get found whenever these raids get carried out.However this is simply speculation without evidence so oh well. It's all in court filings you can read. The FBI admits its role in a lot of these supposed plots as part of the following trial.

 

"Reduction isn't elimination. It's been happening less frequently than before their introductions. You just said we couldn't do it and I provided like eight or nine examples that we already have."

 

Lie.I never said we couldn't reduce car accidents,I said we can't fix them. You said we can't fix human error. Clearly we not only can, but are.

"Sinking that much money into something that's almost certainly never going to affect you rather than trying to save actual people who die seems like what you're desperately trying to justify."

 

No.I am trying to justify paying attention to murder. The police already handle that. Why the need for extra funding depending on the reason for the murder?

 

"Like how trusting auto manufacturers to perform legitimate safety improvements only to be caught installing cheating emissions attachments and massive problem with even airbag QC? I'm not surprised as it undermines your entire argument."

 

It doesn't undermine my argument. That the auto industry can be trusted to develop these on its own? Yeah, it really does. What they've produced is ways to cheat legal requirements, not something that actually reduces deaths from car accidents.

[Vicente Martinez]

O.O

Edited April 25, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[Vicente Martinez]

"Antiterrorism is where we're wasting money so it makes the most sense to cut there."

 

Meanwhile you're wasting much,much,much more money on the military?Why not cut there?

 

"So the media knows what the police/FBI/DHS are doing at all times and don't need press conferences to announce that or keep them updated? Impressive."

 

WTF?I said that you don't need a government official to know that a terror attack has happened which is true.Btw it's kinda silly to prevent government officials from informing the public when these things happen.

 

"No, they don't. They'll write some random thing on a message board and if the FBI thinks they can score an arrest out of it they're not above giving the person (fake) explosives to accomplish it or helping them plan"

Okay,this was your own quote but ok.Again,this is your speculation which you are free to make,however it doesn't have evidence to prove it.Also keep in mind that the FBI foils only a fraction of these terror incidents.

 

"You seem passionately against it. It's a waste of money that could be used to save many more people."

 

I am not against it ffs.

 

"That the auto industry can be trusted to develop these on its own? Yeah, it really does. What they've produced is ways to cheat legal requirements, not something that actually reduces deaths from car accidents."

 

Nope,it doesn't undermine my argument that a government can sign legislation to solve these things at zero costs.Even if you try to address vehicular design there's still an entire host of reasons why car accidents happen.

 

"You said we can't fix human error. Clearly we not only can, but are"

 

Common sense Milton,if you were fixing simple human error then we wouldn't have many car accidents in the first place.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

"Antiterrorism is where we're wasting money so it makes the most sense to cut there."

 

Meanwhile you're wasting much,much,much more money on the military?Why not cut there? No political support.

 

"So the media knows what the police/FBI/DHS are doing at all times and don't need press conferences to announce that or keep them updated? Impressive."

 

WTF?I said that you don't need a government official to know that a terror attack has happened which is true.Btw it's kinda silly to prevent government officials from informing the public when these things happen. Silly or not, if the government sources stop talking to them or holding press conferences they're not really going to be able to do anything.

 

"No, they don't. They'll write some random thing on a message board and if the FBI thinks they can score an arrest out of it they're not above giving the person (fake) explosives to accomplish it or helping them plan"

Okay,this was your own quote but ok.Again,this is your speculation which you are free to make,however it doesn't have evidence to prove it.Also keep in mind that the FBI foils only a fraction of these terror incidents. It's not speculation. It happens a lot and is often in the news.

 

"You seem passionately against it. It's a waste of money that could be used to save many more people."

 

I am not against it ffs. So you're for it now?

 

"That the auto industry can be trusted to develop these on its own? Yeah, it really does. What they've produced is ways to cheat legal requirements, not something that actually reduces deaths from car accidents."

 

Nope,it doesn't undermine my argument that a government can sign legislation to solve these things at zero costs.Even if you try to address vehicular design there's still an entire host of reasons why car accidents happen. And since the manufacturers have already proven they're not trustworthy it falls to the government to do it.

 

"You said we can't fix human error. Clearly we not only can, but are"

 

Common sense Milton,if you were fixing simple human error then we wouldn't have many car accidents in the first place. Common sense is stupid and varies by person. You were wrong and I showed you why you were wrong.

[Vicente Martinez]

Ummm,I'm pretty sure that removing counterterrorism funding won't have the support of anyone at all.I am against defunding terror not only because of the deaths but also the other results it brings.

 

Yeah,let's stop government officials from informing the public after a literal massacre (their duty),that'll do literally nothing something to prevent panic.Also lol,it's a government's responsibility to inform and address the public after a major disaster.

 

You have no evidence to prove this at all.Pretty sure whenever a foiled attack is in the news they don't say the FBI faked it.In some of the failed plots the FBI has been found to source fake equipment and then give it to the terrorists however the terrorists are caught right in the act.Heck,most of the terrorists have been proven to be radicalized and many are in terrorist groups.

 

"And since the manufacturers have already proven they're not trustworthy it falls to the government to do it."

 

This is your opinion however it doesn't change the fact that the costs would fall upon the manufacturers.

 

"Common sense is stupid and varies by person. You were wrong and I showed you why you were wrong."

 

You mentioned vehicular safeties.If you could fix human error then there wouldn't be much car accidents in the first place.

 

"Common sense is stupid"

 

Edited April 25, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

Ummm,I'm pretty sure that removing counterterrorism funding won't have the support of anyone at all.I am against defunding terror not only because of the deaths but also the other results it brings. It doesn't really require popular support. That's quite an argument against it, though, in its complete lack of useful argument.

 

Yeah,let's stop government officials from informing the public after a literal massacre (their duty),that'll do literally nothing something to prevent panic.Also lol,it's a government's responsibility to inform and address the public after a major disaster. You said earlier that it was fine and the media could still do its job without governmental involvement. Changing your opinion?

 

You have no evidence to prove this at all.Pretty sure whenever a foiled attack is in the news they don't say the FBI faked it.In some of the failed plots the FBI has been found to source fake equipment and then give it to the terrorists however the terrorists are caught right in the act.Heck,most of the terrorists have been proven to be radicalized and many are in terrorist groups. Oh boy, do I!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article135871988.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/mcclatchys-america/article135983268.html

http://cjonline.com/news/local/crime-courts/2017-03-05/fbi-undercover-stings-foil-terrorist-plots-often-plots-agency-s

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/fbi-isis-terrorism-stings.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/fbi-agent-goaded-garland-shooter-to-tear-up-texas-raising-new-alarms-about-bureaus-methods/

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/fbi-terrorism-stings_n_5606468.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/only_1_percent_of_terrorists_caught_by_fbi_are_real_partner/

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/fbi-sting-operationscounterterrorismadeldaoud.html

https://news.vice.com/article/isis-fake-bomb-terrorist-fbi-sting-miami-synagogue

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-is-manufacturing-terrorism-cases-2016-6

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/15/details-on-fbi-sting-operations-since-2001-terror-attacks.html

https://www.newstalkkzrg.com/2017/02/21/jefferson-city-man-arrested-in-undercover-fbi-investigation/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-pushed-muslims-plot-terrorist-attacks-rights-report-160325158.html

 

Is that enough or would you prefer more?

 

"And since the manufacturers have already proven they're not trustworthy it falls to the government to do it."

 

This is your opinion however it doesn't change the fact that the costs would fall upon the manufacturers. It needn't. You thinking there's no alternative to the government actually developing safety devices to further limit human error in car accidents is pretty hilariously stupid.

 

"Common sense is stupid and varies by person. You were wrong and I showed you why you were wrong."

 

You mentioned vehicular safeties.If you could fix human error then there wouldn't be much car accidents in the first place. Right and the list of things to inhibit human error was quite thorough in showing that you were very much wrong.

 

"Common sense is stupid" It is. I've never seen anyone who isn't a complete moron trying to dodge something they're wrong about by invoking common sense as if it's a universal that everyone shares. (it's not).

[Vicente Martinez]

"It doesn't really require popular support. That's quite an argument against it, though, in its complete lack of useful argument."

 

It needs the support of the Legislature.Good luck getting them to support this.Sure it does,if the government carries actions that do not have the public's support then they risk winning an election,one action is enough to screw over your party.

 

"You thinking there's no alternative to the government actually developing safety devices to further limit human error in car accidents is pretty hilariously stupid."

 

Lol.This isn't even my opinion,kinda funny how you accuse persons in this very thread of assigning random shit to you.The US is a capitalist state and if it made a law requiring these things then the responsibility would fall upon the car manufacturers.If you think that car manufacturers can't be trusted then you're welcomed to make a thread about it.Btw I do not believe in capitalism.

 

"

You said earlier that it was fine and the media could still do its job without governmental involvement. Changing your opinion?

"

Dear god man.I said that without government involvement the media can still report about terror attacks.

 

" It is. I've never seen anyone who isn't a complete moron trying to dodge something they're wrong about by invoking common sense as if it's a universal that everyone shares. (it's not)."

 

How lovely for you.

 

*links and words*

 

Fine.While I do admit that the FBI's methods nowadays are rather..disturbing some of the most dangerous ones (like blowing up NYSE) have particularly damming evidence against them,for instance the man behind the NYSE plot was revealed to be working with Al Qaeda while the shoe bomb plot was foiled largely by air marshals.

 

"Right and the list of things to inhibit human error was quite thorough in showing that "

 

Good for you.

[ComradeMilton]

"It doesn't really require popular support. That's quite an argument against it, though, in its complete lack of useful argument."

 

It needs the support of the Legislature.Good luck getting them to support this.Sure it does,if the government carries actions that do not have the public's support then they risk winning an election,one action is enough to screw over your party. Congress passes plenty of shit that's unpopular. It doesn't generally affect electability.

 

"You thinking there's no alternative to the government actually developing safety devices to further limit human error in car accidents is pretty hilariously stupid."

 

Lol.This isn't even my opinion,kinda funny how you accuse persons in this very thread of assigning random shit to you.The US is a capitalist state and if it made a law requiring these things then the responsibility would fall upon the car manufacturers.If you think that car manufacturers can't be trusted then you're welcomed to make a thread about it.Btw I do not believe in capitalism. If the government requires itself to start developing car safety devices the government will be the ones developing them.

 

"

You said earlier that it was fine and the media could still do its job without governmental involvement. Changing your opinion?

"

Dear god man.I said that without government involvement the media can still report about terror attacks. So I guess it actually DOES matter if the government stops acting as a source for the media then?

 

" It is. I've never seen anyone who isn't a complete moron trying to dodge something they're wrong about by invoking common sense as if it's a universal that everyone shares. (it's not)."

 

How lovely for you. It's not really me, it's just a terrible argument often invoked when a good reason can't be found.

 

*links and words*

 

Fine.While I do admit that the FBI's methods nowadays are rather..disturbing some of the most dangerous ones (like blowing up NYSE) have particularly damming evidence against them,for instance the man behind the NYSE plot was revealed to be working with Al Qaeda while the shoe bomb plot was foiled largely by air marshals. Richard Reid was captured well before we started ramping up terrorist spending or the FBI began in earnest recruiting people for plots and supplying them with the materials (fake or not) and then arresting them as a result. That was a few years after.

 

"Right and the list of things to inhibit human error was quite thorough in showing that "

 

Good for you. Sorry you didn't know about this before.

[Rozalia]

Common sense is stupid - ComradeMilton 2017

[Vicente Martinez]

"if the government requires itself to start developing car safety devices the government will be the ones developing them.

"

I only needed that.Right now the costs fall upon the car manufacturers.

 

" It's not really me, it's just a terrible argument often invoked when a good reason can't be found."

Much wow.

 

"Congress passes plenty of shit that's unpopular. It doesn't generally affect electability"

 

As I said,good luck getting the Legislature to approve this.It does lol,look at HW Bush and Yeltsin

 

"Sorry you didn't know about this before"

K.

 

"Richard Reid was captured well before we started ramping up terrorist spending or the FBI began in earnest recruiting people for plots and supplying them with the materials (fake or not) and then arresting them as a result. That was a few years after."

 

And he was stopped with that unramped funding.The NYSE plot was still foiled by the authorities (as a result of funding).Also if you want examples of terrorism increasing without antiterrorism measures then just say the word.

 

"So I guess it actually DOES matter if the government stops acting as a source for the media then?"

 

It matters if the media wants to get the exact specifics and information on the government's response.Also please be reminded that it's the government's responsibility to inform and address the public after a disaster.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[Rozalia]

Terrorist attacks aren't the problem. People reporting on and talking about terrorism is the problem - ComradeMilton 2017

[ComradeMilton]

Common sense is stupid - ComradeMilton 2017 Not what I said, but welcome back for more misquoting adventures.

 

 

"if the government requires itself to start developing car safety devices the government will be the ones developing them.

"

I only needed that.Right now the costs fall upon the car manufacturers. And given their proven inability to be trusted we'll have the government take care of it.

 

" It's not really me, it's just a terrible argument often invoked when a good reason can't be found."

Much wow. It varies so completely from person-to-person that it's absolutely useless.

 

"Congress passes plenty of shit that's unpopular. It doesn't generally affect electability"

 

As I said,good luck getting the Legislature to approve this.It does lol,look at HW Bush and Yeltsin FIrst: both aren't legislators. Bush lost because Clinton was a better candidate,not because he'd done some unpopular things. Yeltsin resigned; he wasn't voted out.

 

"Sorry you didn't know about this before"

K.

 

"Richard Reid was captured well before we started ramping up terrorist spending or the FBI began in earnest recruiting people for plots and supplying them with the materials (fake or not) and then arresting them as a result. That was a few years after."

 

And he was stopped with that unramped funding. He was stopped because he !@#$ed up lighting the fuses and the other passengers took care of it until they could land. The NYSE plot was still foiled by the authorities (as a result of funding).Also if you want examples of terrorism increasing without antiterrorism measures then just say the word. I don't care about terrorism when it's not a major danger. That's the whole reason for changing this: to actually address far greater killers of Americans.

 

"So I guess it actually DOES matter if the government stops acting as a source for the media then?"

 

It matters if the media wants to get the exact specifics and information on the government's response.Also please be reminded that it's the government's responsibility to inform and address the public after a disaster. It's not required at all, actually.

 

 

Terrorist attacks aren't the problem. People reporting on and talking about terrorism is the problem - ComradeMilton 2017 Rozalia returns just like that with another incorrect quotation. Surprising, really.

[Vicente Martinez]

"Bush lost because Clinton was a better candidate,not because he'd done some unpopular things. Yeltsin resigned; he wasn't voted out."

 

Lol no.Bush lost because he betrayed the Republicans and raised taxes (going back on his promise),alienating him from most voters,especially republicans.Yeltsin resigned yes but because he was very unpopular with the people.In any government the support or acceptance of the people is required

 

"And given their proven inability to be trusted we'll have the government take care of it."

 

Good luck with that because the US is literally the beacon of capitalism.

 

" It's not required at all, actually."

It is.Once a major disaster happens then the government officials are required to say something.Besides what the hell is this going to do?

 

"I don't care about terrorism when it's not a major danger. "

 

It's not a major danger because you only look at one result and ignore the rest.Not everyone has nerves of steel as you apparently do.Literally just letting terrorists blow shit up.smfh

 

"Not what I said,"

 

You.Just.Said.That.

 

Hmm,what happened to the guy who was saying terrorism isn't a big deal and that government officials shouldn't be able to address and inform the public about terror?

Edited April 26, 2017 by Vincent de Beer

[ComradeMilton]

"Bush lost because Clinton was a better candidate,not because he'd done some unpopular things. Yeltsin resigned; he wasn't voted out."

 

Lol no.Bush lost because he betrayed the Republicans and raised taxes (going back on his promise),alienating him from most voters,especially republicans.Yeltsin resigned yes but because he was very unpopular with the people.In any government the support or acceptance of the people is required That's certainly one possibility, but he's a Republican and would had plenty of support; Clinton just had more. If people were really angry that he figured out he needed more taxes that's how it works.

 

"And given their proven inability to be trusted we'll have the government take care of it."

 

Good luck with that because the US is literally the beacon of capitalism. Not really. Lots of socialism is already functioning as we speak.

 

" It's not required at all, actually."

It is.Once a major disaster happens then the government officials are required to say something.Besides what the hell is this going to do? Not do it. They're not required to do it.

 

"I don't care about terrorism when it's not a major danger. "

 

It's not a major danger because you only look at one result and ignore the rest.Not everyone has nerves of steel as you apparently do.Literally just letting terrorists blow shit up.smfh It has nothing to do with bravery, it's an issue of being so unbelievable small chance of someone ever being involved. No one said they're going to be free to do that. I said the chances of it happening are so remote as to barely warrant consideration. The other causes of death are the leading in the US and kill more people than 9/11 per day. You really think the few attacked by terror need more funding than the thousands more who are dying preventable deaths every day?

 

"Not what I said,"

 

You.Just.Said.That. Not really sure what you're referring to here as you're using a pretty inconvenient format of reply.

 

Hmm,what happened to the guy who was saying terrorism isn't a big deal and that government officials shouldn't be able to address and inform the public about terror? Me. I still do.

[Rozalia]