Plan 9 from Outer Space, of course! Technically fulfills moth criterion, but what the hey:
White zombie, the first zombie film ever made, is on Google Video. Made in 1932, so copyrights have long since expired. This means it is completely legal to stream off the internet.
Flight of the Living Dead is AWESOME. They got it when they made this film. They play by the rules; headshots kill, the zombies are nonsentient fleshdevouring abominations, and the black dude is a badass.
Also, if you haven't already, the Evil Dead series. Watch them in order, if possible.
Ya'know? I respect her. She goes out every day and tricks people out of their money. That's awesome. To a certain point, you can only deal with the overcharging doctors, the telemarketers, and the insurance salesmen for so long. It is a nice change of pace to see someone making their cash with some good, strait dishonesty, but then I have always been a sucker for moral absolutes.
Also, that broadcast was complete crap. I know several currently and formerly homeless people, and they are sincerely in need. Exercise judgement in this matter, as a lot of homeless will support drug problems with donations, but do not harden your hearts to those who need your generosity just because some hack reporter piled together some anecdotal evidence that serves to slander the overwhelming majority of the needy indigent.
This test is flawed in a number of ways, The most obvious of which is hand association. By binding one hand to white, and the other to black, there will be a startling upset in the results based upon hand-preference. For instance, I was faster to shoot whites than blacks, when I know I have at least some racist preference towards whites. This is because I am left-handed, skewing the results. There is a better test at:
This test switches hands, so as to mitigate the effects of hand preference, and uses more reasonable gauging methods; they test the speed of associations between blacks and whites and good and bad words. Honestly, now that I think about it, this test deserves to be posted.
There is also an extensive battery of other tests for those of you inclined to investigate.
I got 90%. I know next to nothing about torture, and I am unsure if I have ever been inside a B,B&B. The quiz only tests how good you are at taking tests.
Maybe it was a rigged election. Maybe somebody actually holds the controls to the voting machines. Maybe the primary is a better time to fake an election, since fewer people will look at it. The polls are never wrong, (cliche phone polling example aside) Obama won.
I have changed my mind about the second amendment. I used to believe the rhetoric behind the actual writing of the right, and to a certain extent still do. I still believe that an armed populace is necessary for the maintenance of a free state, but I don't believe that an armed populace can be functionally achieved in the face of modern weaponry, when moderation has restricted the purchase of military-grade weapons such as automatics and RPGs. In light of the increasing social cost of guns on society, and in the face of the mounting ineffectiveness of these weapons to combat tyranny, I can't in good conscience condone the purchase and possession of firearms.
In the satirical comedy Hebrew Hammer, most scenes depicting reindeer were animatronic, however, in a few cases, live animals were used. As in most films that depict animals, the producers attempted to follow the film with an assurance that "No animals were harmed in the making of this film." The film was sued, however, during post-production to have the disclaimer removed, because one reindeer was injured in between shots, when it wandered into a ladder holding a cameraman, who fell and dropped the camera on the reindeer, breaking its clavicle, and destroying the 5,600 dollar camera. The cameraman was not injured.
Oh, yes, also, The Navy and air Force are most effective in a drawn out conflict. Without shipping, how do you feed your soldiers? With the grain that is still being subsidized by a government on the other side of a conflict? And how will you produce guns for soldiers with your factories being bombed day and night? It is a losing battle.
Ben: While you display that the military of the united states could not stand up to the entirety of the citizenry, and pointed out many of the shortcomings of the armed forces in the face of 300 million combatants, the situation stands that 300 million combatants cannot be drawn out of the population of the United States. Because the proportion willing to fight in combat (and I am not being sexist here, this is probably cultural thing) leans heavily towards men, and not all men are willing OR ABLE to fight, you can put the recruitable population at below 50%. Take, as an appreciable estimate, that the US military never topped 2 million. That is roughly 3% of the male population. 300 million soldier are not going to stand up and fight the US Army. Consider also that the 200:1 ratio is not 200 Iraqis for every front line combatant. It is 200 Iraqis for every soldier, so each front line soldier will probably have a much more impressive kill ratio.
Wow. I really didn't realize that was so long when I was writing it. Anywho, it does have enough interesting points to justify reading. Sorry about that, guys.
I was particularly interested in comment #39, which responded to my comment #14. It refuted my original statement of how poorly the private ownership of firearms would fare against an army by arguing that guerrilla wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan have been successful.
I must begin by positing that this is not true. A simple look at the statistics of the situation will reveal this. The US army casualties number somewhere in the 3000s, if I remember correctly, and the Iraqi casualties number somewhere in the range of 600,000. (lowest estimate I could find, excepting one which was "documented civilian deaths," [which showed roughly one tenth that figure] obviously not encompassing the majority of the casualties) For the less mathematically inclined among you, that comes out to a ratio of roughly 200 to one. This is not a flattering statistic, when suggesting a military strategy, to say the least.
The other argument is that the entirety of the US military would not see fit to fire upon its fellow citizens. It must be considered that in the event of a situation in which a popular uprising has occurred, and a full-scale military solution has been implemented, (So no small town uprising; people are arming themselves and taking government installations across the country; not only are the police ineffective, but the national guard is as well.) the entirety of the populace would not be one one side. Let's say that 70% of the citizenry sides with the revolutionaries. This implies that 30% remains loyal to the government. Thirty percent can easily be propagandized into 50 percent. Suddenly, the troops aren't fighting against their brothers and sisters, but for them, to protect them from militant radicalism that is sweeping this country. It is not difficult to convince soldiers to commit atrocities, and anyone who doesn't believe that should read up on the Milgram shock experiments. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)
Now that we have played through our theoretical campaign, which (I hope) illustrates the ability of military leaders to utilize their forces against their own populace. That being said, I think it is important to address why this will not occur. It will not occur because the US military is prohibited from non-defensive action inside the US borders. Read that again. The US military is prohibited from military action inside the US. Now immediately after reading this, I know a number of you will cite examples as to when this has been broken, (Bonus Army, Civil War[was technically not the US anymore, because they declared independence; but Lincoln maintained they never could, so it was illegal; blah, complicated and off subject, back to it]) but for the large part this has been abided by. What's more is that this has gone to the heads of the generals. The US military does not want power, and the non-politicality of the military is a major symbol of pride among military big-wigs and Constitutional theorists alike.
Now, one might wonder if this is simply a Red-Herring, but I assure you it is not. The moral of the story is that the United States is not at risk of military oppression, just political, and a prevalence of rifles is not going to assist in the maintenance of a free state, because either the military will remain uninvolved, and the rifles will be unnecessary, or the military will become involved, and they will become useless. Either way, their POSSIBLE utility in a THEORETICAL revolution does not outweigh the all too real mounting stack of bodies which continue to accrue as a result of the ubiquity of firearms.
Finally, to address the claims that the illegalization of firearms will result in a disproportion of armed criminals to armed citizens. In the immediate future, I believe this will be true. However the number of guns on the street will drop quickly. Why is this? Because guns are produced in the US. 118,000 (according to some quick googling) firearms are produced and sold in the US every year. These guns are the ones that can be bought off the street. These guns are the ones that are used in armed crimes every day. Guns are not smuggled over the boarder in large enough quantities to matter on a civil scale, because to do so is one of the most serious crimes one can be tried for, and one of the ones that is enforced. And how frequently would people carry guns, if to do so was a jailable (or even fineable) crime?
The right to bear arms can only amount to suffering. No good will come of it.
I used to be on the armed side of this debate, for exactly the reason the second amendment was put into effect; That an armed populace is necessary for a democratic state. This opinion has never changed. An armed populace, however, is something we do not have. In the 18th century, men with rifles was a force to be reckoned with. But this is not the 18th century, it is the 21st century, and even modern rifles, with the power of a primitive cannon, do not amount to a well-armed populace. The reality is that we face tanks. We face planes. We face Battleships. These things cannot be fought with rifles. Modern tanks can hit you accurately over the horizon using a satellite image of your location. A "well regulated militia" is no longer any insurance against an oppressive government. That being the case, guns hurt our society. If weapons cannot insure against tyranny, then they can only serve to hurt ourselves. People die and are injured by guns every day, because we legalize firearms on the pretense of civil security. Make no mistake, guns are not permitted for home security, nor for hunting. These are literally just fringe benefits. And the potential gain from these benefits simply do not outweigh the potential damage. The largely psychological effect of having guns for home security, and the entertainment derived from hunting do not stand up to the staggering pile of corpses that accrue every year as a direct result of an armed citizenry.
White zombie, the first zombie film ever made, is on Google Video. Made in 1932, so copyrights have long since expired. This means it is completely legal to stream off the internet.
Flight of the Living Dead is AWESOME. They got it when they made this film. They play by the rules; headshots kill, the zombies are nonsentient fleshdevouring abominations, and the black dude is a badass.
Also, if you haven't already, the Evil Dead series. Watch them in order, if possible.
Also, that broadcast was complete crap. I know several currently and formerly homeless people, and they are sincerely in need. Exercise judgement in this matter, as a lot of homeless will support drug problems with donations, but do not harden your hearts to those who need your generosity just because some hack reporter piled together some anecdotal evidence that serves to slander the overwhelming majority of the needy indigent.
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html
This test switches hands, so as to mitigate the effects of hand preference, and uses more reasonable gauging methods; they test the speed of associations between blacks and whites and good and bad words. Honestly, now that I think about it, this test deserves to be posted.
There is also an extensive battery of other tests for those of you inclined to investigate.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tF2ZPRmocs4
I must begin by positing that this is not true. A simple look at the statistics of the situation will reveal this. The US army casualties number somewhere in the 3000s, if I remember correctly, and the Iraqi casualties number somewhere in the range of 600,000. (lowest estimate I could find, excepting one which was "documented civilian deaths," [which showed roughly one tenth that figure] obviously not encompassing the majority of the casualties) For the less mathematically inclined among you, that comes out to a ratio of roughly 200 to one. This is not a flattering statistic, when suggesting a military strategy, to say the least.
The other argument is that the entirety of the US military would not see fit to fire upon its fellow citizens. It must be considered that in the event of a situation in which a popular uprising has occurred, and a full-scale military solution has been implemented, (So no small town uprising; people are arming themselves and taking government installations across the country; not only are the police ineffective, but the national guard is as well.) the entirety of the populace would not be one one side. Let's say that 70% of the citizenry sides with the revolutionaries. This implies that 30% remains loyal to the government. Thirty percent can easily be propagandized into 50 percent. Suddenly, the troops aren't fighting against their brothers and sisters, but for them, to protect them from militant radicalism that is sweeping this country. It is not difficult to convince soldiers to commit atrocities, and anyone who doesn't believe that should read up on the Milgram shock experiments. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)
Now that we have played through our theoretical campaign, which (I hope) illustrates the ability of military leaders to utilize their forces against their own populace. That being said, I think it is important to address why this will not occur. It will not occur because the US military is prohibited from non-defensive action inside the US borders. Read that again. The US military is prohibited from military action inside the US. Now immediately after reading this, I know a number of you will cite examples as to when this has been broken, (Bonus Army, Civil War[was technically not the US anymore, because they declared independence; but Lincoln maintained they never could, so it was illegal; blah, complicated and off subject, back to it]) but for the large part this has been abided by. What's more is that this has gone to the heads of the generals. The US military does not want power, and the non-politicality of the military is a major symbol of pride among military big-wigs and Constitutional theorists alike.
Now, one might wonder if this is simply a Red-Herring, but I assure you it is not. The moral of the story is that the United States is not at risk of military oppression, just political, and a prevalence of rifles is not going to assist in the maintenance of a free state, because either the military will remain uninvolved, and the rifles will be unnecessary, or the military will become involved, and they will become useless. Either way, their POSSIBLE utility in a THEORETICAL revolution does not outweigh the all too real mounting stack of bodies which continue to accrue as a result of the ubiquity of firearms.
Finally, to address the claims that the illegalization of firearms will result in a disproportion of armed criminals to armed citizens. In the immediate future, I believe this will be true. However the number of guns on the street will drop quickly. Why is this? Because guns are produced in the US. 118,000 (according to some quick googling) firearms are produced and sold in the US every year. These guns are the ones that can be bought off the street. These guns are the ones that are used in armed crimes every day. Guns are not smuggled over the boarder in large enough quantities to matter on a civil scale, because to do so is one of the most serious crimes one can be tried for, and one of the ones that is enforced. And how frequently would people carry guns, if to do so was a jailable (or even fineable) crime?
The right to bear arms can only amount to suffering. No good will come of it.
That being the case, guns hurt our society. If weapons cannot insure against tyranny, then they can only serve to hurt ourselves. People die and are injured by guns every day, because we legalize firearms on the pretense of civil security. Make no mistake, guns are not permitted for home security, nor for hunting. These are literally just fringe benefits. And the potential gain from these benefits simply do not outweigh the potential damage. The largely psychological effect of having guns for home security, and the entertainment derived from hunting do not stand up to the staggering pile of corpses that accrue every year as a direct result of an armed citizenry.