Jump to content

I would like to thank everyone who was able to make a donation for the purpose of obtaining new features for the forum. The donation goal was met rather quickly and we here at Kung Fu Fandom can not thank you enough for the support. The plan is once the new site is up and running, the focus will then turn to the forum on updating and adding these new features and we will continue to strive to make your time spent here on the forum as enjoyable as possible. _/|\_

Sign in to follow this  
Kwok Choi

.....AND OBAMA WON..............

Recommended Posts

Guest Markgway
Oh...BTW...There are no weapon "priviledges." The 2nd amendment says it's a RIGHT. Read up on it...

The right to bear arms is the right for a country to defend itself in time of war not the right for every yahoo to own a small arsenal in case the commies come knockin' at the door. Never has an ammendement been so bastardized to appease fascist mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
not the right for every yahoo to own a small arsenal in case the commies come knockin' at the door.

;):P;):P;):P

Damn, I almost choked...

Hmmm..."dim witted moose hunting psycho." Sounds like what the biased liberal democratic (i.e. socialist) American "mainstream" press says about every conservative candidate that comes along. Well, I'm glad that I'm one of the people who can see through it...I try to think for myself.

Mark, Socialist is the proper term now, it's not commies or reds anymore.

Funny, how you believe you can think for yourself, yet, you spit out term socialist for everything remotely "center", just like your right wing leader. Funny that all right wing american suporters mostly:

- Believe in God

- Love their guns

- Perceive all other countries/nationalities as inferior and thus, the US of A as the supreme commanding power in the world, to wich civilisation ows a debt.

- See every socially helping measures as evil socialism

But of course, everyone else is brainwashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't make any sense... Freedom of what? ?hoot someone if the face. It's circular logic... If people where resonsible with guns, there wouldn't be crimes. But if there weren't crime, why would you need a gun to protect yourself?

Of course, crime is the root of the problems, and if there were no inequities in the social classes, there probably would not be any crimes, or at least a lot less.

But you're right, there shouldn't be any "nanny" laws, people should be responsible enough to live free in anarchy... But that is not the case. Humanity is not mature (or is held back for being mature) enough right now... Anyway, guns should not exist in the first place as they serve no purpose except encouraging violence, death, crime and opression...

I believe you answered your own question in the last paragraph. Back when society was orderly, mature and moral, guns were seen as the great equalizer since a petite woman could defend herself against a freak twice her size with one. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said "An armed society is a polite society." and back in his day, it was.

However, people are not mature or moral nowadays. Thus, guns are now viewed as demons that possess anyone within 15 feet of them and drive that person to go on killing sprees since there is the widespread belief that only the government can handle them. Even with social equity, crime would still go on since there are no morals or maturity. Also, the more crime means the more political control. A good book that sums the maturity issue and how it is affecting freedom here in the USA is The Death of the Grown Up by Diana West.

It is mainly the breakdown of morals and in particular Christianity that is destroying this once thriving republic. In fact, the USA is following the path of ancient Rome, the only other republic that is comparable.

As long as the manners of the Romans were regulated by this first great principle of religion, they were free and invincible. But the atheistical doctrine of Epicurus, which insinuated itself at Rome … undermined and destroyed this ruling principle.... [This principle of religion] controlled manners, and checked the progress of luxury in proportion to its influence. But when the introduction of Atheism had destroyed this principle, the great bar to corruption was removed, and the passions at once let loose to run their full career, without check or control. – Edward Montagu , Rise and Fall of Ancient Republics

"How few were left who had seen the republic. The state had been revolutionized, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality." – Tacitus

And if you wonder what religion, which instills virtue and morality in people, can do in helping a nation, especially a democratic republic like the USA, remain free.....

"Religion is the basis of civil society, and the source of all good and of all comfort.

But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.

Men, are qualified for civil liberties in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites.... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -Edmund Burke

--------------------------------

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison

--------------------------------

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are instruments of investigation in courts of justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles. - George Washington

--------------------------------

"“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national decline.” - Douglas MacArthur

--------------------------------

There are many more examples of how important religion is to freedom. I felt these ones related the most to the current situation. Now on to other things.

Only in America is race and sex still a deciding factor as to who gets what advantages.

Not at all, another example is the Bumiputra system in Malaysia, which has caused many Chinese to take flight from there.

As for your pondering of why we pledge to a republic but call it a democracy is because we are descending into a mass democracy. This is totalitarian in nature as it centralizes power and takes away freedom in many different ways.

Yi-Long, as for the classification that Jesus was a socialist, he is the ultimate example that whatever government can do in terms fulfilling social needs, religion, private charity and the private sector can do better.

As for the words socialist and socialism, they are the correct words as communism and fascism are vestiges of it. In fact, there is a book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg which chronicles the history of the two words, their interchangability, and how socialist governments used them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama isn't "black"; he's mixed race, but why even point out his skin colour? We all have the same skin colour, just different amounts of pigment underneath. It absolutely has no significance. Obama is not a "black president". He's just a human being whose taken the top office position in the country. I can't believe everyone is labelling Obama based on his skin colour... USA has a new president, sure, but leave out the skin colour part; PLEASE........... zzzzzzzzzzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Obama isn't "black"; he's mixed race, but why even point out his skin colour? We all have the same skin colour, just different amounts of pigment underneath. It absolutely has no significance. Obama is not a "black president". He's just a human being whose taken the top office position in the country. I can't believe everyone is labelling Obama based on his skin colour... USA has a new president, sure, but leave out the skin colour part; PLEASE........... zzzzzzzzzzzz"

Well said falkor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Yi-Long

Personally, I couldnt care less about the color of someone's skin, but the sad truth is that to many (too many) people, it DOES still matter, either consciously or subconsciously. And in some cases it will even influence the way they will vote.

Obama is a black guy. If he'd been a bum on the street, people would label him as a BLACK bum on the street. If he would have been an athlete, people would label him as a BLACK athlete. But now that he has worked so hard and managed to work himself all the way up to the most important position in the world, 'Ow.... he's half-white you know!?!?'

All his life he has lived as a black man. People see him in the street and see a black man.

Nothing wrong with being a black man. There's something wrong with so many people now coming out saying 'ow... he's not REALLY black, is he!?' Yes he is black. And he's the best man for the job he is now elected to do! And I'm sure he'll do a good job at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the words socialist and socialism, they are the correct words as communism and fascism are vestiges of it.

Not at all!!! Commusnism and Socialism, may be relatively close ideological cousins, but to associate it with Fascism, your way out!!!

In sum, communism prones the abolition of private property, thus everything belongs to the community (and not the state). In fact, Marx saw nationalim as ideological enemy.

Socialism, is a system in wich the general interest of the people prime over the interest of inviduals. (Free public healthcare for everyone, instead of enriching insurance companies.) Sweden is a socialist country and is very far from being fascist. In Quebec we have some socialist policies and don't live under fascism.

Fascism is a term that appeared under Mussolini's regime in Italy. It's a totalitarian nationalism, that opposes both Socialism, Liberalism and Communism. It's a bit harder to define, but it's a roughly a military state, in wich coroporations belong to the nation, but the good of a nation as an entity, is not necessarly the good of the people. For exemple, a strong economic country does not necessarly give it's people a decent life standard (i.e. China). Plus, fascism prones that a nation as entity should expand it's territory as a natural process of living.

If communism prones the abolition of social classes to resolve class conflict, fascism calls for their collaboration inside the nation, wich in itself, is already a Major difference. Another difference is that private propertyunder fascism, although regulated , is still permited.

The conception of communism in general is a bit biaised because of a combination of the doctrine never been used correctly, with the anti-communist propaganda that existed over the years. In fact it was thought by Marx as an innevitable consequence to Capitalism, wich enrich a few over a majority. According to Marx, sooner or later the majority would stand up and liberate themselves from their wadge slavery, gaining back their means of productions from the hands of private interests.

So to sum things up...

Socialism: The good of the society (people) over individual interests (i.e. taking care of the people instead of letting some individuals getting rich)

Communism: No nations, no social classes, no private properties (wich doesn't mean that you can't have anything, it's just to prevent wadge slavery)

Fascism: Totalitarism, militarism, nationalism.

They maybe the same in capitalist propaganda, but in reality they are very different.

P.S. By the way, I'm not trying to defend countries like ex-USSR, China or Cuba, because they all have miss-used communism... In fact, those regime had nothing to do with what it's supposed to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all!!! Commusnism and Socialism, may be relatively close ideological cousins, but to associate it with Fascism, your way out!!!

As mentioned earlier, you should check out Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". While you can point out some theoretical economic differences between the two, in practice they certainly shared most of the salient points on how a society should function and what role the state should have. It wasn't a misnomer that Hitler referred to his ideology as National Socialism.

"Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist."

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385511841

and

"To understand fascism in its full expression requires putting aside Stalin's misrepresentation of the term and also look beyond the Holocaust, and instead return to the period Goldberg terms the "fascist moment," roughly 1910-35. A statist ideology, fascism uses politics as the tool to transform society from atomized individuals into an organic whole. It does so by exalting the state over the individual, expert knowledge over democracy, enforced consensus over debate, and socialism over capitalism. It is totalitarian in Mussolini's original meaning of the term, of "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." Fascism's message boils down to "Enough talk, more action!" Its lasting appeal is getting things done.

In contrast, conservatism calls for limited government, individualism, democratic debate, and capitalism. Its appeal is liberty and leaving citizens alone.

Goldberg's triumph is to establish the kinship between communism, fascism, and liberalism. All derive from the same tradition that goes back to the Jacobins of the French Revolution. His revised political spectrum would focus on the role of the state and go from libertarianism to conservatism to fascism in its many guises – American, Italian, German, Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and so on.

As this listing suggests, fascism is flexible; different iterations differ in specifics but they share "emotional or instinctual impulses." Mussolini tweaked the socialist agenda to emphasize the state; Lenin made workers the vanguard party; Hitler added race. If the German version was militaristic, the American one (which Goldberg calls liberal fascism) is nearly pacifist."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5355

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTF? Are you high on something!* We may not have the best healthcare, but at least we have it for "free".* Yes, we have some evil socialist policies up north. Why the fuck would I go south to pay 20 000$ when I can stay here for free!* Ever heard of american cheating their way to get treated for free up here! Do some research.* Look how low your country is ranked in health care... Health care is a buisiness in the states, and a buisiness exists only to make money. Damn, if I fell sick or had an accident in the USA, I'd pay a private plane to come back and be treated home.
Let's see how long you have it for "free" (i.e. you pay plenty tax for it and think it's free because you don't pay directly). Last I heard your system is under stress. Actually where in the hell do you live? Probably not in Ontario. I live in Michigan...a chick friend of mine works in a local hospital...she told me bales of stories of how Canadians are streaming over the border to have procedures done here CONSTANTLY...this doesn't even include the other horror stories I've read about. I hear of Americans trying to get medicine from Canada because it's a lot cheaper but, I've heard just as much about Canadians coming down here for operations and such. Yes, healthcare is a business down here...the same business that produces the most advanced healthcare products and medicines around...go to your Canadian hospital and marvel at how many GENERAL ELECTRIC MRI machines there probably are. How many of our pharmaceuticals are up there? Yeah, if you had an accident down here you'd pay for an American made plane to take your mind numbed socialist azz back up to Canada where you'd get treated with American developed equipment and medicine by probably an american trained doctor. Please...But, that's not the point...the powers that be have taken over health care decades before we were born...Neither of our Nations has the cure for cancer that Ray Rife developed before WWII. The powers that control both our countries had it suppressed years ago...the problem with healthcare is not that it's a business...the problem is that the business has been manipulated. Don't be so naive...
You are the one who is brainwashed... You have been thought chauvinism, thought that socialism is the worst regime under wich to live when in fact, you don't even know what it is.* You live in a little ivory tour, you think that everything emerging from your country is great, that everything your country do is for the good of liberty and democracy.* That is brainwashing...
And how do you know what I know about socialism? I never said everything out of my country was great...you said that out of a need for an argument because you obviously can't dispute my points. Canada is a colony of Britain...Britain is the poster child of socialism, which has destroyed much of it's past preiminance in industry and trade...Canada is also socialist...and so is the US...but, the US constitution has slowed the spread of that satanic system here unlike in other places. You should become educated on what you say before you open your mouth...
Yes it is cool to hate Bush or Palin and it is well diserved. She's bright? she doesn't know shit about anything in the rest of the world, except that Russia is not far from Alaska. The only reason she was picked is because McCain was not extreme enough so they brought her to appeal to the right wing rednecks.* But it doesn't matter because they're f'n puppets.* Stop shining your gun and wake the fuck up.
And about 60 years ago NaZi's said it was "cool" to hate Churchill and Jewish people...you sound just like them....become the very think you claim to be against. If you want to hate Bush then fine...BUT DO SO FOR REAL REASONS AND NOT BECAUSE OF A FAD. And how do you know what Palin knows? Oh...you saw the Saturday Night Live imitation of her saying she can see Russia from home and now you figure you know all about her. No...you just don't like her because she was not in the party you like...and there you go with more of your brainwash buzz words..."right wing rednecks?" After WWII ended plenty of NaZis woke up from their brainwashing...now it's your turn. Wipe the blue foam off of your mouth and start thinking for yourself. I used to be Democrat when I was a kid...then I stopped and reflected for a while...now I'm an independent.**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see how long you have it for "free" (i.e. you pay plenty tax for it and think it's free because you don't pay directly).

True, that's why I said "free".

Actually where in the hell do you live?

Québec

Yeah, if you had an accident down here you'd pay for an American made plane

We make damn good planes up here...

your mind numbed socialist azz back up to Canada where you'd get treated with American developed equipment and medicine by probably an american trained doctor.

American trained doctor??? Our doctors go to work in the states... We have many doctors from other countries but not many americans as far as I know.

the problem with healthcare is not that it's a business...the problem is that the business has been manipulated.

Fair enough. But why would a buisiness care about you?

And how do you know what I know about socialism?

With comments like :

that satanic system
, you obviously don't know much...

Canada is a colony of Britain

Wow that's rich... But anyway, I don't give a fuck about Canada...

And about 60 years ago NaZi's said it was "cool" to hate Churchill and Jewish people...you sound just like them....become the very think you claim to be against.

That is some pretty cheap form of argumentation.

Since we live on extremely diffent planet I'll stop the argument before it steps in the form of : " your brainwashed, no you are, no you're the one who's brainwashed." I'll go back numbing my brain with satanic wrightings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jingangchan, saying ALL black folks voted for Obama simply because he is black is idiotic. Do you think that ALL white folk who didn't vote Obama did not because he is black? That works both ways, and here in America just being black has never been a selling point or good enough. While the voting issue determined by race did play a part i this election, it was definatley not the determining factor. I read there were almost 15 million more voters in this election than last, don't know how true this is, but there are only 30 million blacks in America; are you suggesting that all those new voters where black as well. Don't anyone answer that question, it is rhetorical. People wanted change, simply put. And, there would not have been change keeping with this same establishment/system.

Well, since I said Blacks were for Obama MAINLY because he is black what you said above doesn't apply to me. A large number of new voters were black...and no...people didn't want change...people wanted CHANGE BACK TO THE WAYS OF BEFORE. True change is something new. When I voted for Ron Paul I truly wanted change. Going back and forth between Democrat and Republican is not change...it's just the SAME old vascillating. When one parent doesn't give you what you want you go to the other one. You see...now days when people vote they vote largely on what they WANT. People want to be given stuff now. "Free" health care...welfare...entitlements..."Gimme gimme gimme!!!" What ever happened to JFK's statement, "Ask not what your country can do for you but, what can you do for your country!"? People want to be taken care of...to be wards of the state...they want to be able to get away with committing crimes...they don't want to work...not everyone is like this but, it is becoming more and more the case as time goes on. People are being brainwashed into being better socialists. Socialism is the corporate dream...the monopolist's dream. The Democrats are more socialist than the Republicans so the media bias goes for the Democrats usually. We have the same system with Obama or Bush...or anyone else. The President is mostly a figure head...

You also touched on his experience, have you ever checked Bush's? He had virtually no expirience. Where was the expirience outcry for him? Mccain didn't have a lot of expirience, either. More than Obama, but less than any other president over at least the past 30 years. Now, while Bush does SOMETIMES get unfairly accused for some of Clintons flubs, lets not make Bush out to be innocent. Such as a certain person accidently leaking information to a certain newspaper, but at least he didn't deny it..

I never said Bush was perfect...he sucks in most areas...another socialist overall...Bush did have experience being governor of texas though as well as in the business world. Being governor is a lot closer to being president than Senator. McCain has years of experience in both the military and Congress.

As far as intelligence is concern, what does that intell? Bush jr. is a smart man, a little self absorbed at times, but I like him. Palin on the other had gets called an idiot because when confroted with one question she'll answer the question that she has asked herself in her head. Palin was not a good choice for Mccain, Tim Pawlenty or Gen. Colin Powell would have been far better choices. Palin was a terrible choice for a running mate, especially when you look at the picks Mccain had to choose from.

No...Palin was clever...she knew how the biased socialist press works...they ask a question-usually a loaded question-and when they get the answer they twist it around to make the conservative look bad. By not answering their loaded questions she took that ammo away from them...so they got frustrated and were forced to just make crap up about her (which they are really good at doing). Palin really energized the party and made everyone forget about Biden...and remember...has anyone ever thought of the fact that out of the two VP candidates, Palin represented change and Biden didn't? If Obama is so much for change, then why did he pick a guy who's been in Congress since the '70s? People say they want change and then when the McCain campaign gives it to them in the form of Palin then they complain? No...McCain beat Obama at his own game and picked a real "change" candidate. The biased media realized this, tried not to panic and set out to smear her before she picked up too much momentum. It worked in the end.

That has more to do with it than probably anything else, this country is divided. Race issues, economic issues, social. With JFK people felt inspired and connected. A president needs to be able to do these two things, among others. People want a president who cares. You need a President who can unite, because most of the free world looks to America..

There will never be true unity...and true unity is more than a speech. As long as the constitution is violated there will be problems. Yes, if a president inspires then that is good but, it's got to be more than that in the end.

As far as guns go, I don't have a problem with them, just the idiots who mis-use them. It's because of these idiots that there does need to be some law in place. I have a friend who hunts, sometimes for sport, sometimes for food. I don't have a problem with that. I know an elderly gentleman who has a gun in his house because he doesn't feel safe without it. That I have a problem with. I know enough to know that the people who own guns wouldn't need them for safety if people weren't using guns to commit murder. It's like the saying if it weren't fore lawyers, you wouldn't need lawyers...

That's ridiculous. You over simplify things like many who misunderstand firearms. If that old guy you mentioned had no gun...if NOBODY had guns...let's say some thug breaks into his home one night and attacks him with a knife. Okay, 250 lb criminal who just got out of jail after 10 years of weight lifting and being turned into an animal vs. 120 lb 80 year old with osteoperosis. Hmmm. I wonder who would win? Lol. I guess you expect the old guy to pick up a knife and teach the 250 lb thug a lesson? Oh...maybe he should lock himself in his room, call the cops and wait 'till help arrives like on TV? No. We all know the thug kicks down the door and kills the old guy IRL-and that's if the old guy wakes up in time to even lock the door. What I have described here is what the lawyers call a "disparity of force." There is NOTHING WRONG with a senior citizen wanting to protect himself, and I'm at a loss as to explain why you have an issue with that. As long as the old guy is not shooting at you then that's his business. The only person who should have a problem with the old guy having personal protection in a firearm is the thug that wants to mug him.

Each person should be FREE to decide his or her own need for personal protection. That is what freedom is all about. There are plenty of personal protection scenarios that don't involve being attacked by a guy with a gun. I've noticed that most people I've encountered who criticize gun ownership have rarely if ever handled firearms themselves.

Oh, and only in America do the schools systems not recieve tax money equally across the board.

Only in America are we tell our children we live in a democracy, and send them to schools that have them pledge allegience to a Republic.

Only in America is race and sex still a deciding factor as to who gets what advantages.

America is the greatest country for me. But, she is far from perfect, and someone needs to change the way things are run. Histoically, any man who gets on a public stage and calls for change here is always going to be slammed for not knowing what he is talking about.

The American public school system has been ruined by socialist meddling such as the department of Education and teachers' unions.

Sex and race is a determining factor everywhere. Yes, America needs "change." The problem is that people simple change back and forth between the same crap nowdays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't make any sense... Freedom of what? ?hoot someone if the face.* It's circular logic...* If people where resonsible with guns, there wouldn't be crimes.* But if there weren't crime, why would you need a gun to protect yourself?.
Talk about simplistic thinking! So why don't you extend the same "logic" to cars? If there were no cars, no one could drive drunk and kill people! Let's ban cars and save lives! Oops...you probably have a car...so suddenly lives don't mean as much when you have to give up something yourself. Okay, let's ban steak knives as we all know how many domestic disputes end with someone dead with a steak knife in his chest! Oh...wait...you don't want to give up that handsome set you received for Christmas do you? Lol! Let's be realistic here...crimes existed thousands of years before gun powder was ever invented-let alone guns. This equating gun bans with eliminating crime has been an old socialist ploy for years...and it's surprising how many people are gullible enough to fall for it hook line and sinker.
Of course, crime is the root of the problems, and if there were no inequities in the social classes, there probably would not be any crimes, or at least a lot less.
I think you might want to get a clue...social class has little to do with it. Criminals are BAD PEOPLE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF CRIMINALS THAT ARE/WERE RICH. Most poor people ar honest. Most people in general are basically good. There will always be some scumbags and riff raff...that is why there will always be guns...and Kung Fu...
But you're right, there shouldn't be any "nanny" laws, people should be responsible enough to live free in anarchy... But that is not the case. Humanity is not mature (or is held back for being mature) enough right now... Anyway, guns should not exist in the first place as they serve no purpose except encouraging violence, death, crime and opression...
Tell that to the millions of people who defended themselves against crimes. Tell that to the millions of women who defended themselves against rapists...to the millions of fathers who saved their kids from kidnappers/pedophiles...tell that to the senior citizen who sent a would-be robber/murderer running in the middle of the night...tell that to the farmer who saved his dog from a wild animal...you have obviously been programmed with a lot of this gun control rhetoric for a long time. Most people are responsible with their firearms...just like cars shouldn't be banned for the irresponsibility of a minority of drunk drivers, all people shouldn't be penalized for the negative behavior of a minority of gun abusers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes - because that's obviously the same thing.

A movie or a lethal weapon. Ideological twins, surely?

No...just the same line of "thinking." ;)

I should've said only a Republican would consider healthcare and gun control socialist. Not fair of me to tarnish all Americans. Even though 56% of white males voted McCain. Oops!

Well, since gun control is a stated tenet of socialism then I guess the Republicans should thank you for basically saying they are the only educated ones. Oh...and I think Republicans consider GOVERNMENT controlled health care socialist (i.e. socialized medicine).

And those brave soldiers have my utmost respect.
Well, since they fought for your "freedom," try to respect theirs too. Where they come from gun ownership is gauranteed in their constitution.

An unfortunate side-effect of our lack of desire to shoot each other.

Which in turn is an unfortunate "side-effect" of going around the world shooting everyone else in the establishment of the British empire. Establishing the world's first concentration camp in South Afrika during the Boer war...stringing China out on Opium...stealing Arab oil...killing Indians...murdering civilians in Dresden...I'm sure the Brits had little time to shoot each other (unless you're Irish...;)

...and the Americans go to Cuba. lol

No...just Mike Moore...

Probably because The Republicans have a knack of picking peaches. Obama's the first good presidential candidate you've had since Clinton. But then we've gone from Tony Blair to Gordon Brown so feel free to take the piss out of us.

Yeah...Clinton...a drug using/running, filandering, justice obstructing, child murdering (Waco), lying under oath, bribe taking, drug money laundering, rapist. Sure...I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from now...;)

Don't we all... Did I mention I can see Denmark from my house? :P
You might want to keep your eyes on the German north coastal area. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The right to bear arms is the right for a country to defend itself in time of war not the right for every yahoo to own a small arsenal in case the commies come knockin' at the door. Never has an ammendement been so bastardized to appease fascist mentality.
Never has such ignorance and brainwashing been so extreme. This is the biggest socialist lie that's been told to people for years. Let's see why...

1. THE VERY FRAMERS OF THE US CONSTITUTION SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THEIR ESSAYS AND WRITINGS THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION IS INTENDED AS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. IT'S NOT A COLLECTIVE RIGHT.

2. WHY WOULD THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDE ONE COLLECTIVE RIGHT WITH 9 OTHER INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS? THEY DIDN'T. THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS. GOTTA THINK ON YOUR OWN...

Yes...the amendment IS intended for any "yahoo" to own weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;):P;):P;):P

Damn, I almost choked...

Mark, Socialist is the proper term now, it's not commies or reds anymore.

Funny, how you believe you can think for yourself, yet, you spit out term socialist for everything remotely "center", just like your right wing leader. Funny that all right wing american suporters mostly:

- Believe in God

- Love their guns

- Perceive all other countries/nationalities as inferior and thus, the US of A as the supreme commanding power in the world, to wich civilisation ows a debt.

- See every socially helping measures as evil socialism

But of course, everyone else is brainwashed.

"Center" or "moderate" are recent terms-buzzwords-designed to trick people that something that is socialist isn't. What does something have to be in order to be socialist to you-communist? Actually gun control has experienced a drop in "popularity" here in the past 15 to 20 years. Even Democrats are wary of it...and oh those "evil right wing" Republican Americans! Because they believed in God and country they raced over to save England from Hitlerite rule! "Damn those Yankees!" Lol!

As far as socially helping...look at what socialism and its sister communism brought to the world. Socialism has eroded England's industrial base and trade...socialist welfare has condemned several generations of minorities in America to doing nothing more than living on a government check...education in America has been the worst ever...the US debt is higher than ever...communism in the old com bloc has left more environmental pollution than one can imagine...and what's scary is that so many people still consider this "socially benefitting" or "progress." Lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I couldnt care less about the color of someone's skin, but the sad truth is that to many (too many) people, it DOES still matter, either consciously or subconsciously. And in some cases it will even influence the way they will vote.

Obama is a black guy. If he'd been a bum on the street, people would label him as a BLACK bum on the street. If he would have been an athlete, people would label him as a BLACK athlete. But now that he has worked so hard and managed to work himself all the way up to the most important position in the world, 'Ow.... he's half-white you know!?!?'

All his life he has lived as a black man. People see him in the street and see a black man.

Nothing wrong with being a black man. There's something wrong with so many people now coming out saying 'ow... he's not REALLY black, is he!?' Yes he is black. And he's the best man for the job he is now elected to do! And I'm sure he'll do a good job at it.

Great post...save for the fact that Ron Paul is the best guy...:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When ever the dems have the office moral issues seem to go out the window. I just hope the dems don't reduce funding for more important issues like the war on drugs and protecting the borders. The Porn and Illegal Drug industry really took off when Clinton was in office.

I don't hear much of big crack down on marijuana up in the NE Dem land. Canada is a big supplier of the leaf and most of it comes through Clinton country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I can't stop...

I have simplistic thinking!!! Fuck!

From your point of view, we should be allowed to put anti-personal mines in our gardens to prevent anyone coming on our grass.

Tell that to the millions of people who defended themselves against crimes. Tell that to the millions of women who defended themselves against rapists...to the millions of fathers who saved their kids from kidnappers/pedophiles...tell that to the senior citizen who sent a would-be robber/murderer running in the middle of the night...tell that to the farmer who saved his dog from a wild animal...you have obviously been programmed with a lot of this gun control rhetoric for a long time. Most people are responsible with their firearms...just like cars shouldn't be banned for the irresponsibility of a minority of drunk drivers, all people shouldn't be penalized for the negative behavior of a minority of gun abusers...

I have simplistic thinking!!! Where do you get those informations from??? Millions!?! Shit I'm more scared of peole like you then any robbers... You'd probably shoot me in the face for stepping on your lawn... You say everyone is cool but you seem so much scare of the outside world.

think you might want to get a clue...social class has little to do with it. Criminals are BAD PEOPLE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF CRIMINALS THAT ARE/WERE RICH. Most poor people ar honest. Most people in general are basically good. There will always be some scumbags and riff raff...that is why there will always be guns...and Kung Fu...

Simplistic thinking? Where did I ever say that crimes were only comited by poor people. That's your problem, you understand what you want and spin it in your head. Power corrupts as much as proverty renders desperate. I said social class conlict, not pauverty. A conflict involves two or more parties. So for you crime is genetic!?! They have the evil gene??? Where are you from the 18th century? A person is a result of his environement, education and historical context.

You honestly are trying to sell to me, that guns saved more life then it destroyed... Please tell me it's not so...

That's ridiculous. You over simplify things like many who misunderstand firearms. If that old guy you mentioned had no gun...if NOBODY had guns...let's say some thug breaks into his home one night and attacks him with a knife. Okay, 250 lb criminal who just got out of jail after 10 years of weight lifting and being turned into an animal vs. 120 lb 80 year old with osteoperosis. Hmmm. I wonder who would win? Lol. I guess you expect the old guy to pick up a knife and teach the 250 lb thug a lesson?

Give me a fucking break... Life is so dangerous in your head... You see criminals everywhere. So much evil everywhere... How can you sleep? Oh that's right, you have your trusty gun. Man, those NRA meeting really got to your head didn't they...

People want to be taken care of...to be wards of the state...they want to be able to get away with committing crimes...they don't want to work...not everyone is like this but, it is becoming more and more the case as time goes on. People are being brainwashed into being better socialists. Socialism is the corporate dream...the monopolist's dream

Do you read what you wright??? Why would being taken care by the state would be the corporate dream... the monoplolist's dream... That's their dream, people not working, comiting crimes and getting away with it. But I'm simplistic. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. To you everyone is brainwashed but you spit out crap that you have been thought like everyone else. You have been thought that social thinking is evil, so you spit it out.

Please, prove me wrong, explain to me what socialism AND communism are. Tell me why they are evil. What system do you believe in? Capitalism? If yes, explain to me how it does not enrich a small class of people, over a majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As mentioned earlier, you should check out Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". While you can point out some theoretical economic differences between the two, in practice they certainly shared most of the salient points on how a society should function and what role the state should have. It wasn't a misnomer that Hitler referred to his ideology as National Socialism.

"Contrary to what most people think, the Nazis were ardent socialists (hence the term “National socialism”). They believed in free health care and guaranteed jobs. They confiscated inherited wealth and spent vast sums on public education. They purged the church from public policy, promoted a new form of pagan spirituality, and inserted the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life. The Nazis declared war on smoking, supported abortion, euthanasia, and gun control. They loathed the free market, provided generous pensions for the elderly, and maintained a strict racial quota system in their universities—where campus speech codes were all the rage. The Nazis led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine. Hitler was a strict vegetarian, and Himmler was an animal rights activist."

Great stuff...I don't think that the posters here that advocate socialist/liberal Democrat concepts like gun control realize they are in agreeance with the likes of Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

As many people are aware, the theoretical definitions of many things are often significantly different from practical application. Theoretically one can say a difference between socialism and communism is that socialism advocates each to his own need where communism advocates everyone share equally regardless of need. Another description is that socialism is just a step to communism...communism is just the final result of socialism. Okay...but, here are some realistic descriptions:

Socialist: A smarter communist

Communist: A more honest socialist

Funny how it's been said here how socialism is meant to help people and then we see the above post from KyFi reminding how the NaZis were largely socialist. In the beginning a lot of gullible people thought NaZism was going to help people too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... So because a system has been batardised by a few dictators, it is not viable. Like you said yourself, there is a difference between practice and theory.

Socialism and communism are derived from Marx and Engels thinking, and have never been apply the way the were meant to. With the way you think, the present economic situation in the US, and the rest of the world, is proof that Capitalism doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes! Reading some of the posts under KyFi's post almost fried my brain, it's so insane.

Canada is a colony of Britain...Britain is the poster child of socialism, which has destroyed much of it's past preiminance in industry and trade...Canada is also socialist...and so is the US...but, the US constitution has slowed the spread of that satanic system here unlike in other places. You should become educated on what you say before you open your mouth...

WTF?!? Canada hasn't been a colony of Britain since like 1867 and is a commonwealth country. Britain is not the posterchild of socialism. Yes, there's nannyknowsbest.com and a bunch of news stories that come out of there sometimes. However, Sweden is the real posterchild. If you want to learn about Sweden, read the articles by Fjordman and the book The New Totalitarians by Roland Huntford. For one, it is a one-party system there and a recently established opposition party (don't know much about it) has been assaulted. A sign of it's impending destruction appeared when Malmo police admitted they have no control over their city. Socialism is godless but not satanic and what went on in the British Empire is irrelevent to this discussion.

Anyways, about socialized healthcare. Saskatchewan's reforming theirs and might even privatize some parts of it.... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081105.wmedicare1105/BNStory/National/home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I give up, you convinced me, I'll go buy myself a gun and I'll open myself a company in a poor country and sell it back in western countries with maximum profit.

You're right. That's the way it should go, survival of the fittest. Treating everybody as an equal is what Satan wants and he almost got me.

Why should everybody eat when they are hungry. They should go to work lazy bastards!

Why should someone who's sick, be able to afford healthcare without insurance? He should've thought of that before getting sick!

Why should I care if my kid blows his brain with my gun? I told him not to play with it! I should've kept it locked you tell me? Well, I need to keep it accessible for when the criminal/rapist breaks into my house.

Why should everyone owns his means of production? It's so much easier being exploited, you don't have you think. You punch in and out, doing the most monotonous jobs. Well, do something else, you tell me? Who's going to do the monotonous job? Oh! That's right, I forgot, the poor countries and cheap labour. They'd kill for a job over there!

We live in a free market!!! Everyone is paid to their just due... after I take my share of course. So let's see, 90% for 10% of the population, and there you go, 10% for 90% of the population. But that's not exploitation, we split the profit, we give them enough to live... for the day. Then they'll be back tomorrow! Mwahahahaha!

Yeah you're right, I see clearly now...

Now if you could you step away from my chain now please, I'll be on my way out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok... So because a system has been batardised by a few dictators, it is not viable. Like you said yourself, there is a difference between practice and theory.

Socialism and communism are derived from Marx and Engels thinking, and have never been apply the way the were meant to. With the way you think, the present economic situation in the US, and the rest of the world, is proof that Capitalism doesn't work.

Capitalism by itself does not work but in America, it was combined with a democratic republic based on Greco-Roman thought and government and a religion that promotes the sanctity of the individual believer in Christianity. Thus America flourished. Look to my second post containing the quote by Douglas MacArthur to see what has happened when one of three has been banished from the public sphere. Our economy went down the crapper and as for politics, we elected third-classers in Bush and Clinton. When the other two cease to exist, bye bye America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most blacks voted for Obama because he's black...trust me...

Jiang, you said this. I dont see a mainly anywhere in this word for word quote.

No...Palin was clever...she knew how the biased socialist press works...they ask a question-usually a loaded question-and when they get the answer they twist it around to make the conservative look bad.

How did that cleverness work for her, it is part of why people didn't like her and did not vote for Mccain. Not answering questions that are loaded is one thing, but she also did it with straight forward questions. The most publicized being about the Bush doctrine. I understood the question, so did you, it wasn't loaded, it was straight forward. Did she agree or didn't she? Or do you expect me to believe she really didn't know what the question meant? An idiot move. I don't believe she is stupid, just not ready for politics. This may fly in Alaska where there are no cameras, but not in the race for the most powerful position in this country, or around the world. Let's not forget her idiotic comment about being able to see Russia. She is not cut out to be second in line, not built for big time politics. And I defenitly wouldn't want her to be president. She is a female Guliani.

I never said Bush was perfect...he sucks in most areas...another socialist overall...Bush did have experience being governor of texas though as well as in the business world. Being governor is a lot closer to being president than Senator. McCain has years of experience in both the military and Congress.

I don't have as much of a problem with Bush as many people do. But, when you argue experience, Gore had more and one term and a half as governor is not a lot of experience. Especially when you compare it to the last three decades of presidential experience. Check Bill Clintons experience and then come back and tell me that Palin or Bush or Mccain have experience. Check Bush Sr., Reagan etc. and tell me about any of these candidates so called political experience. Also, being a P.O.W is not political experience. I visit the veterens home here in Delware every so often, and there are a few P.OW's there, all of whom think that Mccains time as a P.O.W is actaully a reason for him not to be president. Some of their stories do touch your heart.

There will never be true unity...and true unity is more than a speech. As long as the constitution is violated there will be problems. Yes, if a president inspires then that is good but, it's got to be more than that in the end.

True. But how about we give Obama a chance to do more. Gave Bush a second term. We all see how that is turned out.

That's ridiculous. You over simplify things like many who misunderstand firearms. If that old guy you mentioned had no gun...if NOBODY had guns...let's say some thug breaks into his home one night and attacks him with a knife. Okay, 250 lb criminal who just got out of jail after 10 years of weight lifting and being turned into an animal vs. 120 lb 80 year old with osteoperosis. Hmmm. I wonder who would win? Lol. I guess you expect the old guy to pick up a knife and teach the 250 lb thug a lesson?

I don't misunderstand anything. As i've said, I do not have a problem with an object that doesn't have a brain. My problem comes down to the dumbasses who misuse said objects. But, we do need better gun laws.

Simplistic thinking? Where did I ever say that crimes were only comited by poor people. That's your problem, you understand what you want and spin it in your head. Power corrupts as much as proverty renders desperate. I said social class conlict, not pauverty. A conflict involves two or more parties. So for you crime is genetic!?! They have the evil gene??? Where are you from the 18th century? A person is a result of his environement, education and historical context.

You honestly are trying to sell to me, that guns saved more life then it destroyed... Please tell me it's not so...

That is true, if our government truly focused on spreading education equally across the board then crime would be cut back drastically. People would feel they had a purpose and a future. There always gonna be fools out there, but I will never feel that guns save lives, only because they take toooooooooooo many lives. It is not an even trade.

I am an independant, and I do agree that of all the choices Ron Paul would have been a great choice. I have been fond of Nader for years though.

One more thing, i respect everyones feelings on any subject and I enjoy a good debate, like the one we've all got going. But, let us all not get into the name calling and keep it grown up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×