Fact check for Piers Morgan

[troubador]

I will have to respectfully disagree. Our military is made up mostly of people from middle class and lower. All those people drive the tanks and planes and are in the infantry.

Yep, this prediction that an insurgency would be comprised totally of civilians and that all military members would remain with the federal government is pretty unrealistic. Where do people think all those officers in the civil war came from?

 

[Dale Mabry]

So you seriously think it would be in the federal government's best interest to start nuking its own soil? All the infrastructure and resources they destroy are losses to them too. This total annihilation scenario sounds less likely to me than a successful revolt.

Also, I believe an armed populace will less likely have a reason to revolt.

Ok, so they won't nuke, do you think your pop guns will take down a tank?

I will have to respectfully disagree. Our military is made up mostly of people from middle class and lower. All those people drive the tanks and planes and are in the infantry.

I agree, it's made up of middle class people with dreams of becoming upper class. A dream that could be realized for the right price. I don't even think it's that high of a price to be honest.

 

[Dale Mabry]

Yep, this prediction that an insurgency would be comprised totally of civilians and that all military members would remain with the federal government is pretty unrealistic. Where do people think all those officers in the civil war came from?

Once people get to where they are going they tend to ignore or forget where they came from. Look at people like Michelle Bachmann...People who use the system to climb the ladder and then try to dismantle it so no one can follow them up. She took farm subsidies, her husband's clinic takes medicare, and her house was bought with a loan from Fannie Mae. I would love nothing more than a revolution, but do you really expect the knuckle-draggers who vote republican and the pussies who vote democrat to come together on anything? Even if they did, your power could get shut off, the internet could get shut down, the phone company could be taken over, etc...

 

[Zaphod]

Ok, so they won't nuke, do you think your pop guns will take down a tank?




I agree, it's made up of middle class people with dreams of becoming upper class. A dream that could be realized for the right price. I don't even think it's that high of a price to be honest.

The rich won't allow such a swelling of their ranks by paying the military to kill civilians.

 

[Zaphod]

Once people get to where they are going they tend to ignore or forget where they came from. Look at people like Michelle Bachmann...People who use the system to climb the ladder and then try to dismantle it so no one can follow them up. She took farm subsidies, her husband's clinic takes medicare, and her house was bought with a loan from Fannie Mae. I would love nothing more than a revolution, but do you really expect the knuckle-draggers who vote republican and the pussies who vote democrat to come together on anything? Even if they did, your power could get shut off, the internet could get shut down, the phone company could be taken over, etc...

I don't need power, internet or phone. I can live, quite nicely at that, without those things.

 

[LAM]

The technical answer would be whether or not we are still under British rule.

obviously not because the Brit's don't own the Fed Res System, 8 of the wealthiest families in the world does.

the Brits only gained control of their own central bank back in 1996 after several hundred years of being under control of the international money lenders, going back to the late 1600's. it is no longer privately owned anymore. no doubt some form of "payment" for handing the US over to them on a silver platter with the debt incurred by the country by the revolutionary and civil wars which were both banking wars, as they almost all are. both of those wars started by bankers in England.

 

[oufinny]

obviously not because the Brit's don't own the Fed Res System, 8 of the wealthiest families in the world does.

the Brits only gained control of their own central bank back in 1996 after several hundred years of being under control of the international money lenders, going back to the late 1600's. it is no longer privately owned anymore. no doubt some form of "payment" for handing the US over to them on a silver platter with the debt incurred by the country by the revolutionary and civil wars which were both banking wars, as they almost all are. both of those wars started by bankers in England.

Provide evidence of your claims the wars were banking wars.

 

[troubador]

Once people get to where they are going they tend to ignore or forget where they came from. Look at people like Michelle Bachmann...

Your whole conclusion that an armed revolt has no chance is just speculation. The only other time it happened on a meaningful scale, it had a good chance of succeeding; so I'm not buying the idea that it can't happen again based on your behavioral analysis of Michelle Bachmann and the entire nation.

 

[LAM]

Provide evidence of your claims the wars were banking wars.

you can do your own research. i've spent thousands of hours over many, many years researching these topics.

but to make things simple you can check the history books and every-time the charter of a privately owned central bank in the US was not renewed a war soon followed. but you would just chalk this up as "another coincidence" and surely not a pattern of cause and effect.

it is exactly how all of Europe got into debt due to the costs of WWII. and exactly why the US is in the middle east trying to start another war there. it is the only region in the world not in debt to the international money lenders. just another coincidence.

LOL at wars being fought for "freedom and democracy"...people will believe just about anything if you repeat it to them enough times.

 

[oufinny]

Yep, this prediction that an insurgency would be comprised totally of civilians and that all military members would remain with the federal government is pretty unrealistic. Where do people think all those officers in the civil war came from?

Agree completely. If you ask a guy to gun down his fellow countrymen for a cause he/she may not support at all, chances are it won't happen or at least some will desert and refuse to fight. Only the hard liners are elitists would fall in line with the tyranny that would drive such a situation.

 

[Dale Mabry]

I don't need power, internet or phone. I can live, quite nicely at that, without those things.

I agree, and me too, I think we'd be much better off with fewer conveniences. However, it's pretty hard to start a revolution without:

A)A simple, effective form of communication
B)An even playing field wrt power/electricity

For example, you may have access to a gas station whose owner may be friendly to the revolution, but without power you're not pumping any gas.

 

[LAM]

I agree, and me too, I think we'd be much better off with fewer conveniences. However, it's pretty hard to start a revolution without:

A)A simple, effective form of communication
B)An even playing field wrt power/electricity

For example, you may have access to a gas station whose owner may be friendly to the revolution, but without power you're not pumping any gas.

power and supply-chains are the first things to go in a military strike. electronic warfare systems would disable all broadband, 2-wire and all over the air communications channels in the civilian bands. water service would be disabled and heavily guarded at the municipal or city level, etc. anybody without a fresh water well would pretty much be fubar rather quickly.

those that think all you need are a lot of guns to fight a battle no nothing about military strategy or tactics.

 

[Zaphod]

obviously not because the Brit's don't own the Fed Res System, 8 of the wealthiest families in the world does.

the Brits only gained control of their own central bank back in 1996 after several hundred years of being under control of the international money lenders, going back to the late 1600's. it is no longer privately owned anymore. no doubt some form of "payment" for handing the US over to them on a silver platter with the debt incurred by the country by the revolutionary and civil wars which were both banking wars, as they almost all are. both of those wars started by bankers in England.

So the Revolutionary War was indeed the US gaining independence from Britain.

 

[Zaphod]

I agree, and me too, I think we'd be much better off with fewer conveniences. However, it's pretty hard to start a revolution without:

A)A simple, effective form of communication
B)An even playing field wrt power/electricity

For example, you may have access to a gas station whose owner may be friendly to the revolution, but without power you're not pumping any gas.

Hand pumps. Dirt cheap at Harbor Freight.

 

[jagbender]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5xqvL3-IwU

 

[LAM]

So the Revolutionary War was indeed the US gaining independence from Britain.

the US was already independent when it was coining it's own metal money and printing it's own paper currency. British bankers had no control over the USA at that point, hence the wars and the standard debt trap. the Brits simply did what the Bank of England instructed then to do, start a war with the US. it has nothing at all to do with "taxation with out representation" that the BS sold to American's in US revisionist history. the lying of the US Fed gov to the US public started at the inception of the nation.

 

[Zaphod]

So we're looking at what is basically a multi-century plan to bankrupt us?

 

[LAM]

So we're looking at what is basically a multi-century plan to bankrupt us?

the US has been in debt since the Revolutionary War.
http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/debt-and-gdp-main6.png?w=1024&h=603

with the exception of China, Cuba, N. Vietnam and the worlds remaining communist nations and the oil producing arab states in the middle east every single country in the world is in debt to the international money lenders, even Monaco.

it's painfully obvious what all the waring the past half century across the globe has been about and what is hasn't, and that's "democracy & freedom". because in the real world democracy=capitalism=debt to the international money lenders.

you can call it whatever you like. there's nothing special about the US or any other country, there is no escaping causality.

 

[bio-chem]

the US was already independent when it was coining it's own metal money and printing it's own paper currency. British bankers had no control over the USA at that point, hence the wars and the standard debt trap. the Brits simply did what the Bank of England instructed then to do, start a war with the US. it has nothing at all to do with "taxation with out representation" that the BS sold to American's in US revisionist history. the lying of the US Fed gov to the US public started at the inception of the nation.

Are you God damn retarded? Read the Declaration of Independence. It categorically lists the ways the King of England was controlling to the colonies. Read Common Sense. That isn't "revisionist history" as it pre-dates the Revolutionary War. Impressing US sailors into the Royal Navy isn't freedom for the colonies, and that's a single example of what the states where rebelling against. Anyone with half a brain, and even some of those who don't can understand the ability to tax a people is control. An attempt to disarm them is a form of control, all of which the King of England was using. To boil it down to the US colonies were free when they started coining their own money is so ridiculously simplistic as to be below you, and rational debate.

Early American currency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Early American currency went through several stages of development in the colonial and post-Revolutionary history of the United States. Because few coins were minted in the thirteen colonies that became the United States in 1776, foreign coins like the Spanish dollar were widely circulated. Colonial governments sometimes issued paper money to facilitate economic activity. The British Parliament passed Currency Acts in 1751, 1764, and 1773 that regulated colonial paper money.

Your argument looses all credibility when you see British Parliament passing currency acts regulating colonial currency.

 

[bio-chem]

Agree completely. If you ask a guy to gun down his fellow countrymen for a cause he/she may not support at all, chances are it won't happen or at least some will desert and refuse to fight. Only the hard liners are elitists would fall in line with the tyranny that would drive such a situation.

The annals of history are full of instances where soldiers killed their fellow countrymen. I'm of the belief , and hope that US soldiers would think twice if it came to that, but military indoctrination is pretty impressive in the US. our soldiers are of necessity bulldogs.

 

[Zaphod]

the US has been in debt since the Revolutionary War.
http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/debt-and-gdp-main6.png?w=1024&h=603

with the exception of China, Cuba, N. Vietnam and the worlds remaining communist nations and the oil producing arab states in the middle east every single country in the world is in debt to the international money lenders, even Monaco.

it's painfully obvious what all the waring the past half century across the globe has been about and what is hasn't, and that's "democracy & freedom". because in the real world democracy=capitalism=debt to the international money lenders.

you can call it whatever you like. there's nothing special about the US or any other country, there is no escaping causality.

I like you and respect your opinions, but it was a yes or no question.

 

[LAM]

Are you God damn retarded? Read the Declaration of Independence. It categorically lists the ways the King of England was controlling to the colonies. Read Common Sense. That isn't "revisionist history" as it pre-dates the Revolutionary War. Impressing US sailors into the Royal Navy isn't freedom for the colonies, and that's a single example of what the states where rebelling against. Anyone with half a brain, and even some of those who don't can understand the ability to tax a people is control. An attempt to disarm them is a form of control, all of which the King of England was using. To boil it down to the US colonies were free when they started coining their own money is so ridiculously simplistic as to be below you, and rational debate.

Early American currency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Early American currency went through several stages of development in the colonial and post-Revolutionary history of the United States. Because few coins were minted in the thirteen colonies that became the United States in 1776, foreign coins like the Spanish dollar were widely circulated. Colonial governments sometimes issued paper money to facilitate economic activity. The British Parliament passed Currency Acts in 1751, 1764, and 1773 that regulated colonial paper money.

Your argument looses all credibility when you see British Parliament passing currency acts regulating colonial currency.

apparently your the one that's retarded...the next time you go to England try to find one single text that mentions "taxation with out representation" in regards to the US and Great Britain. In over 25 years of going there I've never found a mention of this in anything at Oxford or Cambridge or any other country, only in US "history".

you never seek info outside of US sources, which is one of the many reasons why you suck at analyzing data...

did you even read what those Acts where about? and how they were circumvented?

take for example the 1751 currency Act, it prohibited the issue of new bills in new england. and you think that stopped the US from minting it's own coins? or using coins that were backdated? because of a law passed in England!

yea...I'm the retard

 

[LAM]

LOL @ anybody that thinks laws written on paper stop people from doing anything, morality is was makes certain people adhere to laws.

 

[DOMS]

apparently your the one that's retarded...the next time you go to England try to find one single text that mentions "taxation with out representation" in regards to the US and Great Britain. In over 25 years of going there I've never found a mention of this in anything at Oxford or Cambridge or any other country, only in US "history".

you never seek info outside of US sources, which is one of the many reasons why you suck at analyzing data...

did you even read what those Acts where about? and how they were circumvented?

take for example the 1751 currency Act, it prohibited the issue of new bills in new england. and you think that stopped the US from minting it's own coins? or using coins that were backdated? because of a law passed in England!

yea...I'm the retard

Let's be clear on this, are you saying that the American colonies had taxation with representation?

Do you know what "taxation without representation" even means?

 

[bio-chem]

apparently your the one that's retarded...the next time you go to England try to find one single text that mentions "taxation with out representation" in regards to the US and Great Britain. In over 25 years of going there I've never found a mention of this in anything at Oxford or Cambridge or any other country, only in US "history".

you never seek info outside of US sources, which is one of the many reasons why you suck at analyzing data...

did you even read what those Acts where about? and how they were circumvented?

take for example the 1751 currency Act, it prohibited the issue of new bills in new england. and you think that stopped the US from minting it's own coins? or using coins that were backdated? because of a law passed in England!

yea...I'm the retard

yeah, you pretty much are. The US colonies didn't mint their own coins on any appreciable scale to facilitate the economy. That's why they had paper money, which isn't as useful when not backed by a central government. which the colonies didn't have. Why do you think the colonies had minted coins from OTHER countries being circulated? It's the only coins they had available.

You are hopelessly lost LAM.

The reasons for the US colonies to declare independence are too well documented yet you still argue these points? Thomas Jefferson listed them in calligraphy for God's sake.

 

[oufinny]

you can do your own research. i've spent thousands of hours over many, many years researching these topics.

but to make things simple you can check the history books and every-time the charter of a privately owned central bank in the US was not renewed a war soon followed. but you would just chalk this up as "another coincidence" and surely not a pattern of cause and effect.

it is exactly how all of Europe got into debt due to the costs of WWII. and exactly why the US is in the middle east trying to start another war there. it is the only region in the world not in debt to the international money lenders. just another coincidence.

LOL at wars being fought for "freedom and democracy"...people will believe just about anything if you repeat it to them enough times.

If you could actually not be an arrogant prick just one time, people would take you seriously. You're that guy at the back of the room that thinks he knows the answer to everything but when he is called on, goes into a child like tirade only to look like an idiot no one will listen to. Yes, you act like a child and are butt hurt no one follows your every word. That sir, is why people don't agree with you regardless of it you are right or wrong. You won't listen to anything anyone says on in regards to my previous statement but I'll say it anyways. Go back to reading your studies and write a "Real History of America" book, see how many publishers take it seriously. It's not like you couldn't do it since you apparently have endless time, endless sources and all your information is from the real world which doesn't exist within our borders.

 

[DOMS]

That isn't "revisionist history" as...

Revisionist history is the abode of pathetic people.

 

[bio-chem]

Piers Morgan keep throwing out the "gun murders" number as being higher in the USA than the UK. This is true.
However, apparently Morgan only cares if people are killed by guns...he has no problem with more "benign killings" such as with clubs, or beating the victim to death, or hammers, or throwing the victim off a building.

Here are some facts re: crime statistics in the USA versus UK and some other countries, that may come handy the next time we meet our favourite low-information guy or gal.

Consider this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

Below is an excerpt from the article above:
" A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 ? a 67 per cent increase in the past decade ? at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.
"

Another useful link is here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

The table in the article, shown here (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...77_468x636.jpg) indicates the US has lower violent crime rates than all the countries in the table.

In terms of HOMICIDES per capita, there are many factors that affect the rate. These factors include the percentage of youth in the population, the overall cultural heterogeneity (diversity) of the population, what is defined as a homicide, how accurate the government numbers are, etc. This is why, for example, Japan, with an ageing population and very homogeneous culture has very low homicide rates. Switzerland, with an older population and homogeneous culture also has a very low murder rate.
Japan has draconian gun laws, Switzerland has a heavily armed civilian populace with a select fire rifle in many households.

For example check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

By my estimate, USA murder rate is about 4.5 per 100,000 and UK is about 2. If we cater for all other factors that may influence the murder rate and take them out of the estimation, we end up with very similar homicide rates in the USA and other developed countries. The USA has a very diverse culture and population, which is relatively youthful.

It is true, that GUN murders are more in the USA, but that is only because guns are available. If guns were removed from the USA, the overall murder rate would not go down...rather it would go up...though the GUN MURDER rate would go down.

I don't think the victims care HOW they were killed.
Though some folks may say they'd rather be shot to death than beaten to death.
Bottom line:
UK is 5 times more violent than USA (where violent means crimes like rapes and beatings that can put you in hospital and change your life).
Gun murder rate in USA is much higher than UK.
Murder rate in USA is about the same as UK, once other factors have been accounted for.

Hope this helps.

 

[bio-chem]

LOL @ anybody that thinks laws written on paper stop people from doing anything, morality is was makes certain people adhere to laws.

NO jack ass. Laws written on paper enforced by soldiers forcibly quartered in your home is what was keeping the colonists from doing something, and what the colonists were rebelling from. Hence the 3rd amendment. Sometimes there really is a deeper story, and it should always be looked for. What you are doing though by rejecting the obvious is showing yourself to be unworthy and incapable of a real debate.

Do you realize that on the one subject I think we both agree on (I think you are against gun control. I'm still not sure, your posts make little sense, and you are rarely on topic) that you have still managed to pick a fight? it's funny that you feel the need to prove your intelligence. People that know they have it, don't need to prove it. it's evident. your overwhelming need to prove something you don't have shows you are compensating for something. I recommend therapy. lots of therapy. I'm sure if you are paying someone they will listen to you and give you all the validation you need

 

[Zaphod]

I don't think the victims care HOW they were killed.

That's probably the best conclusion right here.