Redsgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
If I were one of those commie Reds, I'd use y2k as a chance to wave a flag and start a marxist revolution. No more CIA! Yeah! No more fbi! yeah! no more cdc, dea, fdi, fema, abcdefg!!! we can kill all the capitalists and do our Cuban thing with the cigars!! yeah!!!
there any precautions against this kinda thing happening? commie insurgency is probly bigger threat than any y2k crap, ???????
this important for the security fo me and my family, don't wanna go to one of those gulags if reds take over. this is real important, anyone know anything??????
-- Jerry (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 05, 1998
jerry: get an AR-15 and 2000 rounds. I guarantee that you won't go one of those gulags. uh, alive, anyway...
-- a (email@example.com), December 05, 1998.
I can in no way equate abolition of the FBI, CIA, etc. with establishment of Communism. Both Communism AND our current statist government, maintained in power by the FBI, CIA, etc. are anti-freedom.
Gee everybody's in love with the .223. That's a military round, designed to wound, not kill. By wartime rules, armies care for their wounded, thus wounding ties up more enemy soldiers/personnel than killing. Not necessarily what you want in your Road Warrior scenario. Go with .308 (762)
-- Runway Cat (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 05, 1998.
One of the Lifeflight Docs here works with the guys in uniform training for counter terror activities and he made just that distinction. In military, the goal is to wound a few, tie up the medics, and medevac them out and slow down the advance. In terror events the goal is death to all. Very different. We would rather not leave them alive so they can still shoot.
-- Chuck a night driver (email@example.com), December 05, 1998.
why are you so concerned about communism? don't you know that it was always a sham? marx was a stooge? the russian revolution was created and financed by the big banking houses in london and new york (pretty much the same people who later financed Hitler). no, you'd be better off worrying about CAPITALISM. the corporate state is about to take control of your life (if it hasn't already) the fbi, cia, fema, batf, etc. make any "communist" agencies look like kids playing with cap guns. the american gulag is the largest in history. we put away a larger percentage of our citizens than any country in the world . lot nice young black kids in there on "drug charges." (can you say Mena?)
as far as - "commie insurgency is probly bigger threat than any y2k crap, ??????? " - is concerned, it's all interrelated. and i would probably enjoy a cuban cigar right about now...
-- pshannon (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 05, 1998.
What is the matter with some peoples' kids in the last couple days? What is the mental unravelling? If the preparers are coming out with the kind of stuff we can see at Yourdon's today, then I'm much more prone to accept a doomsday scenario down the road..... Dang,...get some valium and chill out, oh red-baiters and racists! With Robert Heinlein I'm shaking my head and mumbling, "IF THIS GOES ON..."
Get a grip!
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), December 05, 1998.
You tell 'em girl!
I'll pass out the valium and prozac.
-- Chris (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 05, 1998.
The more powerless people feel, the harder they look for somebody else to blame. Story of mankind. Disaster Rules
1. Move away from gunfire.
2. Travel light and quiet.
3.. Don't attract attention.
4.. Don't argue.
There must be more....
-- Tom Carey (email@example.com), December 05, 1998.
Stop assumingthat everyone you meet is an enemy.
-- Donna Barthuley (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 05, 1998.
Donna, it's their FEAR talking. Snap out of it guys!
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), December 05, 1998.
Donna and Diane--
Are you really saying that:
If you heard gunfire ahead, you would move toward it?
When walking through strange country, you would choose to carry heavy loads and make a lot of noise?
In a dangerous mob situation, you would try to attract attention to yourself?
In that same situation, you would argue with persons of unknown intent?
Xeena, Warrior Princess, is a role model, I know, but she lives in some other country. She's also more agile than most of us.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 06, 1998.
Tom: 6. In a crowd situation, never assume intelligence. (sorry Diane)
-- JDClark (email@example.com), December 06, 1998.
7. Never assume any individual or group you meet in an emergency (lifeboat) situation is content to "live and let live"
-- fullhouse (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 07, 1998.
You're worried about "Reds"? [ Maybe I missed the :=) ] What could they do that the IRS, INS, FBI, CIA, FTB, BATF, FEMA, Federal Reserve... hasn't already done, or is on their agendas?
-- wideawake (email@example.com), December 07, 1998.
we put away a larger percentage of our citizens than any country in the world . lot nice young black kids in there on "drug charges." (can you say Mena?)
Are you saying that these people accused of illegal durg abuse or trafficking have been wrongly imprisoned, if so where is your evidence. Why don't you show it to the police. Surely in the US you have the biggest drug problem in the world, the UK is catching up.
-- Richard Dale (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 07, 1998.
We have a "red" govt over here in the UK, though that "S" word is never used. Please come and deal with them. They would like to free the drug dealers, they've already freed the murderers (both Catholic and Protestant) in Ireland.
-- Richard Dale (email@example.com), December 07, 1998.
I'm saying that 1) laws against soft drug use (marijuana) are stupid. It should not be illegal. Actually, hard drugs should probably not be illegal either, but I would never advocate their use. I believe the illegality of these substances causes more problems than the substances themselves. And that's the point because:
2) I also believe that there is a lot of anti-brown sentiment in this country, and due to a number of factors those populations have been marginalized and have a higher tendency to get involved in "drug trafficking" (on the local level. the CIA, big banks and your Queen, among others, are responsible for it globally) and then "get into trouble with the law."
So...there are going to be people who make the decision to destroy their minds with drugs (like jerry, who started this thread), whether or not they are "legal." There will be others who will enjoy them responsibly (why is alcohol "legal"?) I personally believe it's largely a scam to get as many marginalized people as possible into the Gulag (it's a big business, ya know, and popular with the voters), and sell lots of nifty hardware to law enforcement agencies. So, I'm not saying those people who are in prison didn't break the laws, I'm saying (IMHO) the laws are stupid...
-- pshannon (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 07, 1998.
pshannon, I have to agree with you to some extent. I know people who virtually breathe hemp, and who are heavily active on the rave scene (where, basically, you go to a big dance party with 1500 other people in an abandoned warehouse that the organisers have hired..they have speakers that you measure in metres, music that will someday cause a manufacturer of hearing aids to be VERY grateful, and the idea is that everyone gets high on speed/ecstasy and dances to techno for 12 hours.) One of these guys is a typical deadhead. The others are studying advanced science degrees at Australia's most important science college, and are VERY intelligent.
I don't personally take drugs. Don't want to. Don't have anything against them, though, EXCEPT..
Except heroin/crack. I once went into the suburb of Cabramatta, where you used to be able to get heroin for <$5 a hit (the police have since cracked down and caused prices to go up). Wandered around for about an hour. Was threatened (by syringe-armed junkies) six times. (Thankfully, they were junkies. I was able to run.) I was offered drugs THIRTY-ONE different times. Accosted about ten times. Saw some really nasty shit; a man lying on his back, covered in vomit and wearing rags. He was struggling and crying for help, but nobody -this was a busy railway station, crowded street- gave a shit. No, I didn't do anything..perhaps I should have. Saw other equally nasty things.
Anyway, since then I've been violently opposed to hard drugs. If they have to, they should A-bomb Colombia or the Golden Triangle in order to destroy the opium supply. After what I saw in Cabramatta, heroin is BAD. *BAD*. I don't advocate killing ANYONE in cold blood unless they've directly and brutally murdered people, but bombing the hell out of any opium production facilities would be in hot blood and IMO *VERY* fair given the hell that the Sydney suburb of Cabramatta was.
-- Leo (email@example.com), December 08, 1998.
Sorry pshannon, think that drugs are the downfall of society, you can see it in microcosm. We all know the effect of them including cannabis. Lets get rid of them once and for all.
-- Richard Dale (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 08, 1998.
I agree with Pshannon. Drugs are the bane of society, but making them illegal in the long run makes the problem worse. It encourages crime, guns and killing, and government and police corruption. Legalizing drugs shouldn't mean selling them at your convenience store like cigarettes and let a drug market flourish. But it should mean to stop wasting taxe payers money on futile drug wars and filling up prison with dope addicts. This money should be better spent on educating kids, so they don't start on drugs to begin with. And I don't just mean a school anti-drug program, but an entire overhaul of the education system, and support systems for inner city kids like decent playgrounds and sport programs. Junkies will be junkies, drug dealers will be drug dealers. They'd be outcasts and I can't see the rest of non-drug users rushing to shoot themselves with heroine because they could now get away with it. There's something very wrong with a society that wants to waste itself with drugs, perhaps that money would be better spent figure it out why then try to remedy to it?
The flaw in my arguement is, perhaps more corporate A-types WOULD rush to snort coke more just because they can get away with it. Ah well, what difference would it matter. They aren't any more responsible now.
-- Chris (email@example.com), December 08, 1998.
I do not understand why, in the ultimate capitalistic society that we are, and with supply and demand being the prime rule for pricing all products, we continue refusing to accept the results that would occur if we eliminated the profit motive for drug dealers.
Forget fighting those people who make buggy whips. If no one buys their whips, they will disappear.
Do not legalize hard drugs but don't waste time and money fighting the manufacturers of drugs either. If a person is a certified addict, *give* him what he needs. That eliminates the related a.i.d.s, menningitis(sp?), malnutrition and other problems. Not to mention that the addict does not have to take your money to support his habbit.
Addicts can carry on a more normal life if they have the drugs their systems need. If they are given these drugs, they can continue to work jobs, support families, etc. The dealers do not get their money. When dealers stop making a profit, they will not be in the school yards, trying to hook new customers with cheap or free drugs. Why would they bother, knowing that these new people will simply go elsewhere when it came to paying real money for the stuff. You can also throw some money in here for "education" for what its worth but, when there are no dealers and no new certifiable addicts, there wouldn't be any need for education.
It may not work well for awhile. Addicts would be leary of the new system and others would try and sell the free stuff, but as more and more of them needed a fix bad, and it was made very easy for them to get the stuff for free, they would not go back to the dealers again. The dealers would go away just like the buggy whip people did.
Free drugs not available to non addicts. Free drugs are available to confirmed addicts. No profit motive keeps new addicts from being created. Confirmed addicts live better life and then die off. End of story.
Of course, no one in our current system of fighting the drug trade would then make any money either. Nor would they have their stated reason for clamping down on legal gun owners. Which came first; the chicken or the egg?
That's just what I think. Maybe I'm wrong.
-- Floyd Baker (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 08, 1998.
We somehow floated off the topic of Marxists, but that's ok by me. Legalisation of drugs is a very good idea iff the well-being of the people is your concern, a bad idea iff the well-being of the global economy is your concern. Organised crime is pulling in half a trillion bucks each year because the drug laws drastically inflate the prices of drugs. Legalisation would not be without it's problems but would overall be sensible, except that the black-market would collapse, which would result in lots less investment/laundering of this cash through the "normal" economy..(as if it weren't too run by pirates.) Maybe all that $$$ spent on drugs would be spent on other things, with the drugs being real cheap.? Also, a free market would increase the chances of relatively benign, most-bang-for-the-least-damage substances coming to the fore, with the supply-driven predilectations for smack and coke waning. I know of one such substance which fits the bill perfectly,.. not inclined to mention those particular three letters on a forum which would understandibly gain much attention from TPTB.
-- HUMPTYDUMPTY (x@X.COM), December 10, 1998.