4 ms·

[Honest question with absolutely zero bad intentions] I hate to bring this up again and again, but how long before the USG turns into Nazi Germany? Right now, t

by sigkill 13y ago

[Honest question with absolutely zero bad intentions] I hate to bring this up again and again, but how long before the USG turns into Nazi Germany? Right now, they're in the data collection phase, and are squashing dissidents. I don't live in the US but I casually told this news to a 'normal person' I met yesterday [my parents] and they weren't even flinching. Almost like it wasn't their problem. I wonder if the 'not living in the US' part has anything to do with this. The reason I'm worried about this is, now that USG has this tech, they won't hesitate to sell this to other countries. EDIT - To the person who downvoted me, I am not upset but can you tell me why my post does not contribute to the discussion? It is a known fact that any tech the US researches and implements is soon commercialized and sold to other countries, and as compared to weapons, surveillance tech sales is definitely a walk in the park.

hga 13y ago
The threshold I generally use is the use of extra-legal violence, e.g. open violence against those "dissidents" with the organs of the state ignoring it. Which won't work very well at all in such a well armed, and better armed every day country (for the last several years every month has had higher gun sales from licensed gun stores compared to the month a year ago, details can be found at http://www.nssf.org/ http://www.nssf.org/). Also makes a very big difference that policing is primarily under local control, and the central government can't stop state prosecutions without explicitly acknowledging the target is a government agent (see the squashing of the state prosecution of Lon Horiuchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charg...). Of course, also in light of Nazi Germany, any serious national effort at gun confiscation will instantly spark the civil war we seem to be sliding towards. On the likelihood of that (kudos to you for acknowledging the systematic "squashing" of dissidents), let me quote the recently woken up Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." She's using "shoot" in a metaphorical sense (tellingly, American English has a lot of shooting and gun metaphors).
- buerkle 13y ago
  Noonan hasn't woken up; it's her same trash as always. She conveniently ignores that these groups were going for non-profit status. They were not being prosecuted. They were trying to forgo taxes when quite possibly under the law they do not qualify for tax exempt status. Besides the IRS has given non-profit status to more than twice as many conservative groups as liberal groups recently. http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90 http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C73...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - hga 13y ago
    Keep on thinking that as we slide towards civil war, our side is not igorning the truth as acknowledged by various heads of the IRS and Obama; if they say something wrong was done, perhaps there was? To put this in perspective, here are two other 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations: the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, founded in the late '70s, and Organizing for Action, what Obama's campaign Organizing for America became. And ironically the latter's first effort was post-Newtown gun control. Besides ignoring all the other abuses, not all from the IRS, it sounds like you're confounding tax exempt with non-profit. E.g. donors to the political efforts of 501(c)(4) do not get to donate tax free. The organizations are allowed to be non-profits, they aren't established to make a monetary profit. Well, they were, this abuse hasn't stopped, you know, despite all the apologies from the IRS for "poor customer service".
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
flyinRyan 13y ago
Well, they've learned well from Germany and are getting a better infrastructure in place before they begin, and a stronger military.
- sigkill 13y ago
  The other commenter says that gun ownership among people is on the rise yet I'm worried that such statistics could be skewed by selected people owning multiple guns. You're right and this is what I'm actually scared of. Unlike the past, they don't need to cast a wide net and hope it catches someone. Today's tech allows for pinpoint accuracy with data and would allow them to act in such a way that all cases (i.e. abduction, kidnapping, arrests etc.) look like one-off cases to the public.
scott_karana 13y ago
Is "USG" a standard acronym?
superuser2 13y ago
>and are squashing dissidents They're squashing insiders who betrayed the government that trusted them with sensitive data. Sometimes that betrayal is the right and noble thing to do, but whistleblowers are ultimately people who were placed in a position of trust and violated that trust. If the US Government were pursuing nonviolent dissenters who aren't also government employees that'd be a different story.

by sigkill 13y ago

hga 13y ago

The threshold I generally use is the use of extra-legal violence, e.g. open violence against those "dissidents" with the organs of the state ignoring it. Which won't work very well at all in such a well armed, and better armed every day country (for the last several years every month has had higher gun sales from licensed gun stores compared to the month a year ago, details can be found at http://www.nssf.org/ http://www.nssf.org/). Also makes a very big difference that policing is primarily under local control, and the central government can't stop state prosecutions without explicitly acknowledging the target is a government agent (see the squashing of the state prosecution of Lon Horiuchi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi#Manslaughter_charg...). Of course, also in light of Nazi Germany, any serious national effort at gun confiscation will instantly spark the civil war we seem to be sliding towards. On the likelihood of that (kudos to you for acknowledging the systematic "squashing" of dissidents), let me quote the recently woken up Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights." She's using "shoot" in a metaphorical sense (tellingly, American English has a lot of shooting and gun metaphors).

buerkle 13y ago
Noonan hasn't woken up; it's her same trash as always. She conveniently ignores that these groups were going for non-profit status. They were not being prosecuted. They were trying to forgo taxes when quite possibly under the law they do not qualify for tax exempt status. Besides the IRS has given non-profit status to more than twice as many conservative groups as liberal groups recently. http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C735EAFA7A9085257B7B004C0D90 http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/D2A6C73...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- hga 13y ago
  Keep on thinking that as we slide towards civil war, our side is not igorning the truth as acknowledged by various heads of the IRS and Obama; if they say something wrong was done, perhaps there was? To put this in perspective, here are two other 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations: the NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, founded in the late '70s, and Organizing for Action, what Obama's campaign Organizing for America became. And ironically the latter's first effort was post-Newtown gun control. Besides ignoring all the other abuses, not all from the IRS, it sounds like you're confounding tax exempt with non-profit. E.g. donors to the political efforts of 501(c)(4) do not get to donate tax free. The organizations are allowed to be non-profits, they aren't established to make a monetary profit. Well, they were, this abuse hasn't stopped, you know, despite all the apologies from the IRS for "poor customer service".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

flyinRyan 13y ago

Well, they've learned well from Germany and are getting a better infrastructure in place before they begin, and a stronger military.

sigkill 13y ago
The other commenter says that gun ownership among people is on the rise yet I'm worried that such statistics could be skewed by selected people owning multiple guns. You're right and this is what I'm actually scared of. Unlike the past, they don't need to cast a wide net and hope it catches someone. Today's tech allows for pinpoint accuracy with data and would allow them to act in such a way that all cases (i.e. abduction, kidnapping, arrests etc.) look like one-off cases to the public.

scott_karana 13y ago

Is "USG" a standard acronym?

superuser2 13y ago

>and are squashing dissidents They're squashing insiders who betrayed the government that trusted them with sensitive data. Sometimes that betrayal is the right and noble thing to do, but whistleblowers are ultimately people who were placed in a position of trust and violated that trust. If the US Government were pursuing nonviolent dissenters who aren't also government employees that'd be a different story.