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

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.

I never mentioned anything like that. You use a typical tactic gun control socialists resort to when they run out of excuses...you turn to the false choice of two extremes. You say that since someone opposes complete weapon bans they must be advocating private proliferation of anti-personnel mines and nukes. You said it, not me. Nice try...

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.

I get those things from ACTUAL FBI statistics, instead of just making things up or believing whatever the socialist news media programs me with. Actual stats FOR YEARS have shown that millions of times gun owners in America have defended themselves against criminal aggression. For every crime committed with a gun you can point out, scores more instances when a gun owner stopped an assault can be pointed out. Because you're only familiar with the claptrap you've been programmed with all you can do is run that programming by automatically accusing someone of shooting you in the face. Why would you be scared unless you were planning on attacking someone? Whatever the reason, don't get mad at America because in general the populace is mature enough to own weapons. Despite what you've been told, your government doesn't let you own weapons because it doesn't trust you with such a responsibility. Shame...

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.
If so as you claim, then at least now you have a taste of your own medicine. I noticed you only quote the parts of my posts that are convenient for you...leaving out the parts you can't explain. I noticed you avoided my questions on why not ban automobiles because they kill so many people-even more people than private gun ownership. I think you have demonstrated who spins what already...

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. .
There you go creating a new argument because you can't handle the one at hand. You said social class...social class INCLUDES all classes. Poor is one of them. Rich is another. I commented on both of them, so now you obfuscate...typical socialist tactic...

You honestly are trying to sell to me, that guns saved more life then it destroyed... Please tell me it's not so...
I was saying that guns in private ownership in America saved more lives than guns took away. PRIVATE in AMERICA. If you want to twist the argument to military guns used in Belgium during WWII then be my guest...Not my fault that the statistics here disprove your programming. In America there is a direct correlation between towns with more gun control laws and increasing crime. Towns with less gun control laws have less crime. It's statistically proven and not some feel good fairy tale made up by some specious sounding socialist. I mean...it's not rocket science...if you are a criminal who are you going to assault, the guy with a gun who can fight back or the guy who doesn't have anything to defend himself with? duh...

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...

There you go using those cookie cutter buzzwords gun control fanatics have been so effectively programmed with. First you say (in a previous post) there is so much crime and violence motivated by guns...and now you imply I'm paranoid by saying "I see criminals and evil everywhere." Which is it going to be? Either there is crime everywhere (and I'm NOT imagining it), or there isn't crime everywhere (and I AM imagining it). Make up your mind...or talk to the local socialist programmer and get back to me. You can't have it both ways. Again, like the typical socialist gun control fanatic you just throw out nice sounding slogans, and what you think are cool one-liners but, your "argument" is incoherent and specious at best. Your "argument" is more an exercise in how many cookie-cutter socialist slogans you can paste together in a world saving speech, than a reasonable exposition that proceeds in a logical progression and sequence.

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. ...

No...unlike you I can read between the lines. You see...we don't have true capitalism...we have MONOPOLISM. True capitalism doesn't discourage competition. In America and in other countries we have a few big monopolies in each industry. Why do you think so many computer people complain about Microsoft? They say it and/or Bill gates is evil. It's because everything is Microsoft. I call it back door communism. Why do you think General Motors is trying to buy Chrysler Motors right now? That eliminates a competitor and that is a main reason. Because of socialist red tape big corporations don't have to worry about new upstarts challenging their control. It's very hard to start new companies in many fields. Eventually these big corporations merge until there are only a few left...they get all of the government contracts...their officers become government officials and vice-versa...eventually you have a plutocracy...which ends up being a lot like NaZi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Don't be naive...think for yourself. Read between the lines of what you read in the news paper.

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.
I already explained it in a previous post...in the real world socialism and communism are not applied the way they are explained in some text books. Don't be naive. Socialism, communism, NaZism, Marxism, illuminism...they all are branches of one tree-satanism. Don't worry about all of that now though...you need to get a grasp on what REAL socialism is all about. Monopolism enriches a small class of people...NOT capitalism. You have been told monopolism is capitalism but, it's not...at least not the good kind. What we have is MONOPOLISM...or maybe a better description would be BABYLONIAN CAPITALISM. There is a difference. Capitalism is natural...socialism is unnatural...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

This country has never been a democracy, and I believe that it is a problem that this country leads people to belive it is. It is not, has never been, will never be. But, we will go to other countries to "set up" democracies.

And, has there ever been a first class president? ;)

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.

Like wise, so because gun ownership has been abused by a relatively small percentage of people, private gun ownership in general is not viable?

I said in another post...we don't have true capitalism...we are basically socialist...actually monopolists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like wise, so because gun ownership has been abused by a relatively small percentage of people, private gun ownership in general is not viable?

I said in another post...we don't have true capitalism...we are basically socialist...actually monopolists.

All big business is monopoly, and it is all working towards a new world order. But, in America we have a little ways to go before we are 100% monopolistic. Small businesses are being wiped out daily, but they still exist. And even though competition is somewhat frowned upon, it still exists as well.

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. .

Oh here we go with the specious speeches designed to deflect attention from a lack of facts and understanding. You can't go and buy yourself a gun remember. Your government doesn't trust you so you don't have that right. XD

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..
No my dear...there is a difference between equal and equally poor...

Why should everybody eat when they are hungry. They should go to work lazy bastards! .
Naaa. They should live off of the hard work of others like leeches. Believe me, I know. I live in America...maybe the only place in the world where the "poor" people are fat.

Why should someone who's sick, be able to afford healthcare without insurance? He should've thought of that before getting sick!
Funny...there was a time when people in America could afford good "health care" without health insurance. That was before socialist lawyers and politicians got involved. Now every doctor has to have millions of dollars worth of malpractice insurance...this helps push up costs. Before the socialists got involved you actually had doctors house calls here...they ended in about 1960. That is the socialist formula...create the problem and then propose the solution...in the meantime you gain power and wealth while the gullible public believes you're benefitting them...

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.

You won't need to worry about that. The most extreme socialists believe children should be wards of the state anyway...and again...you live in Quebec...you don't have the option of buying a gun for your home...and how about them Colorado Avalanche? ;)

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!

There you go again being bamboozled. Your socialist friends impoverish those 3rd world countries and here you are cheering it on. How? Well, your socialist elites arrange for foreign "aid" loans to these countries to "help the poor"...the catch is that these countries have to pay back with high interest...they can't pay back so they end up defaulting and your socialist friends take the collateral which are the natural resources that the 3rd world country needs to pay back the loans to begin with. Another example is how these 3rd world nations dispense with planting crops to feed their own people so they can grow crops that earn money via export. They take this money they earn and use it to pay back the scam loans and interest. In the meantime the people starve. Yeah...the poor countries and cheap labor..."you forgot." Yeah, socialism helps people...sure...

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...90% for 10% Once you realize the roal socialism plays in it then you'll be OK.

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.

You don't see clearly...take your socialist shades off first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jiang, you said this. I dont see a mainly anywhere in this word for word quote.

"Mainly" is there. Go to post # 46...

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..

How did it work for her? How does punting the ball on 4th down help a football team? It's the lesser of two evils. Had she answered the questions they would have roasted her a lot more. And remember, "straight forward" questions can and do get easily twisted by the biased media. I didn't see the interviews but, remember...no matter what she would have done the biased media was going to program a lot of people to hate her. What's wrong with saying she could see Russia? People have been jumping on this band wagon without even thinking about it. She is too conservative to be like Guliani.

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.
Dude...the president is a figure head actually...my only point was that Obama has less than all the candidates this election. As far as POW is concerned I mentioned military experience and that includes more than POW time.

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.

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...

I already said I'm going to see what he's going to do...I'm just not getting my hopes up-especially considering his choice of shief of staff. Depends on what you mean by "better" gun laws. We have too many as it is.

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.

I think you miss the point on guns. If guns took the lives of a million attempted murderers, rapists and child molesters then that's a cool thing...unless you like those types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All big business is monopoly, and it is all working towards a new world order. But, in America we have a little ways to go before we are 100% monopolistic. Small businesses are being wiped out daily, but they still exist. And even though competition is somewhat frowned upon, it still exists as well.

And the NWO is nothing more than world socialism. America is heading towards total socialism at a steady pace...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jingangchan, thank you for your well informed posts. You have obviously read more than a few history books, because its all there. I couldnt agree more with every point you have made. I work with a guy who spews the same socialist rubbish. And when he cant convince or "sell" me on it, he reacts (or overreacts) the same way with almost the same exact statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the NWO is nothing more than world socialism. America is heading towards total socialism at a steady pace...

Let me say first I am enjoying this. And I agree that it is in the future, just not here now.

How did it work for her? How does punting the ball on 4th down help a football team? It's the lesser of two evils. Had she answered the questions they would have roasted her a lot more. And remember, "straight forward" questions can and do get easily twisted by the biased media. I didn't see the interviews but, remember...no matter what she would have done the biased media was going to program a lot of people to hate her. What's wrong with saying she could see Russia? People have been jumping on this band wagon without even thinking about it. She is too conservative to be like Guliani.

That works both ways, ever watch FOX news or CNN. Media is biased, but thats no shock. She still had a smuggness about her that turned people off. Did you see her speech at the Republican convention, I can't speak for anyone else, but that is what turned me off from her. But, as far as the comment on seeing Russia, she was using that as a basis for foreign policy experience of which she has none. The question to her on the bush doctrine was wether or not she agreed, it is a yes or no question. Not a I don't understand the question question. Obama wasn't always a media sweetheart and i'm sure you know that in this country the first black president is going to have far less than a free ride. Think about catholics and what happened when it was announced the new pope was Polish. There are a lot of people who don't like the idea of a black anything, let alone president. I have a frien who told me at his job they've talked about every election around him except the presidential election. Not everyone is happy with our new president and the media definately is not 100% pro anything or 100% pro Obama.

But, my point with Palin is she made a lot of decisions that hurt Mccain chances and you know that its true.

Dude...the president is a figure head actually...my only point was that Obama has less than all the candidates this election. As far as POW is concerned I mentioned military experience and that includes more than POW time.

Figurehead since the start of presidential elections, true. And, Bush made a lot of money for himself this election and Cheney is gonna clean up with the New Orleans contracts. As far as military experience a Lt. Col, is not leadership experience. With that said, Mccain is a great man and some of the torture stories i've heard from war vets are just sometimes beyond belief. But, still not experience.

I already said I'm going to see what he's going to do...I'm just not getting my hopes up-especially considering his choice of shief of staff. Depends on what you mean by "better" gun laws. We have too many as it is.

I don't know if his chief was a terrible choice, it could've been worse, but i'm not jumping up and down over this. As far as gun laws, we have a war on drugs but not guns. The laws on guns could be harder, too many illegal guns on the street, and a lot of those are coming from gun store owners. Why does the registration of a gun not matter until it leaves the gun store? Don't answer the questions rhetorical.

I think you miss the point on guns. If guns took the lives of a million attempted murderers, rapists and child molesters then that's a cool thing...unless you like those types.

i belive you said before, I over simplyfied the use of guns. Well you just change subjects I believe, because now you're asking me about capital punishment, but now I can change subjectsnow I can ask the question of why is it that our country will throw a first time weed dealer in jail for 5to7 years, but let a repeat child molester out in 3. But, I would never shoot a child molester, I would castrate and toss them in jail for life.

There was a guy here in Delaware, from Georgetown I believe, a year or two ago who anally raped his new born son, and was thrown in jail. The CO's ''accidentally" left his cell door open along with several other newly arrested individuals who beat this guy to within an inch of his life and left him brain dead. I like that better and it didn't require an illegal gun........

I've said before that I don't see a problem with guns, but a better reform needs to be in place, because anybody can get a gun. I'm pretty sure you know the old expession that its easier for a child to get a gun than it is to get a library card. It is actually true.

It's almost 2:30 here and even though i'm enjoying this i'm sleepy. So good night to all and to all a good night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jingangchan, thank you for your well informed posts. You have obviously read more than a few history books, because its all there. I couldnt agree more with every point you have made. I work with a guy who spews the same socialist rubbish. And when he cant convince or "sell" me on it, he reacts (or overreacts) the same way with almost the same exact statements.

That is actually very funny, because I was thinking the same way about Jingangchan...

I never mentioned anything like that. You use a typical tactic gun control socialists resort to when they run out of excuses...you turn to the false choice of two extremes. You say that since someone opposes complete weapon bans they must be advocating private proliferation of anti-personnel mines and nukes. You said it, not me. Nice try...

Yes and that was done volountarely because:

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!

That is the exact same thing. See, you are guilty of the things you are accusing me. I use the same kind of rhetoric you do. You accuse me of cookie cutter comments, but it's funny because that's how I see your answers to my comments. I could've type your comments and no one would've seen the difference (except for my bad english). You too only answer to the comments you find convinient and interpret them the way you want. You've never told me why a social monopolist society would want people not to work and ward off society. How would they benefit. It simply doesn't make sense. Why would I be "programmed" to ban guns. Who would benifit from banning gun (financially I mean). I can tell you who would benifit keeping them available... So this is basically never going to end. Society will never fully work anyway...

and how about them Colorado Avalanche?

Nice try, but I'm from Montreal, Quebec and not Quebec city. The Canadiens are still playing here.XD

Socialism, communism, NaZism, Marxism, illuminism...they all are branches of one tree-satanism.

With arguments like that, I don't see why I bother. You're obviously very well endoctrined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jingangchan, thank you for your well informed posts. You have obviously read more than a few history books, because its all there. I couldnt agree more with every point you have made. I work with a guy who spews the same socialist rubbish. And when he cant convince or "sell" me on it, he reacts (or overreacts) the same way with almost the same exact statements.

I don't believe I have overreacted to anyones post with social rubbish, just my feelings on certain topics. I don't feel anything I have said has been rubbish.

One more thing Jiang, when I compared Guliani to Palin, I didn't man politically but rather they react to people. They come across at times of feeling that certain folks are beneath them, that they are better because they have more. Guliani more so than Palin, but she has that assholeness quality. I do feel sorry for Mccain though, because he has tried for years to be president, and I think his ship has sailed. I do believe he would have been a good president, not our best choice, but as I have said the best choice never win. But, I have followed Mccain for years and I have never seen him come across as being better than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Sweden is the real posterchild. If you want to learn about Sweden, read the articles by Fjordman....

I recommend virtually EVERYTHING written by Fjordman. The civilizational construct of modern European leftists is simply unsustainable. They (or rather, the ruling elites, at least) hate their own cultural heritage---Christianity, patriotism, their military, national pride---they see their own history as racist, imperialistic and worthless. With the abandoning of their traditional religion and family structure, they aren't having babies. No country in Western Europe has birthrates even approaching replacement levels. And, with the cost of nanny-state cradle-to-the grave welfare benefits, how are those going to get paid when you have a shrinking population? Immigrants. So you bring in millions of Muslim immigrants from a different value system, you give them welfare goodies, you tell them how racist and imperialist European history is, and then.......what a surprise! The Muslims largely choose not to integrate, but instead prefer their own Islamic values and culture.

So who are you going to put your money on---a shrinking population of pacifist, aging leftists, with no religion, who hate fighting, hate guns, hate the military and indeed hate their own culture (and of course hate the US and Israel), and have been turned into helpless children by the welfare nanny state---or are you going to bet on a youthful, rising Muslim population, who have a lot of grievances from being mistreated, who are confident and revere their own religion and culture, and who are not hesitant to use violence?

I mean, when the European leftists wouldn't even stand up for the Danish cartoonists, who were peacefully using art to critique religious fundamentalism, then do you think they're really going to stand up when the Muslims have much greater numbers and power, which they certainly will in the coming decades?

Good luck getting themselves out of that one. I think Daniel Pipes lays out the various scenarios pretty well:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4323

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Markgway
No...just the same line of "thinking." ;)

You can't compare film censorship with gun control. Guns kill people, movies don't. End of.

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.

Must be because I don't understand what you mean? I've never accused Republicans of being educated. Gun control may be something socialists believe in but it's not exclusively socialist. That's as stereotypical as my saying all Republicans are gun-worshipping rednecks.

Oh...and I think Republicans consider GOVERNMENT controlled health care socialist (i.e. socialized medicine).

So basically fuck someone's healthcare if they don't have wealth or insurance. Let them suffer and die unless they can pay. That the Republican line or just yours?

Well, since they fought for your "freedom," try to respect theirs too. Where they come from gun ownership is gauranteed in their constitution.

Bollocks. I'm sorry but my respecting American soliders' sacrifice in war does not extend to respecting archaic ammendments. The constitution means nothing to me. By all means you respect it if you so wish. You have no right to demand similar respect from anyone else.

Which in turn is an unfortunate "side-effect" of going around the world shooting everyone else in the establishment of the British empire.

Britain fucked up big time. You're not getting at me by criticising Britain. I know we've done terrible wrongs in the past and in terms of Iraq continue to do so (in America's shadow). Blair was as much a warmonger as Bush. We're every bit as guilty. Unlike you I'm under no illusions that my country is a perfect wonderland that can do no wrong.

I'm sure the Brits had little time to shoot each other (unless you're Irish...;)

You'll have to explain that one to me...

No...just Mike Moore...

Actually I don't know about Michael Moore's stance on this but sounds like he knows what he's talking about. America's attitude to healthcare is shocking. Thousands of people die every year from curable illnesses because of inibility to get proper treatment. You pay or you die. The British NHS isn't perfect by any means and needs a good shake-up but the principle on which it was founded remains solid.

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...;)

And yet this drug-running, rapist, child-killer isn't in jail? If you want to lay blame for everything the FBI or CIA does at The President's door then you can apply the same crude description to any and every leader you've ever had. At least Clinton isn't responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in The Middle East.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im glad obama won. i hope he can make the world a better place to live in. i think mccain would have jumped the gun on military issues. hey im in the military myself5 yrs but it looks

like he has a temper, and we need someone on the front who is always level.

Every President has a temper...people often say they want a guy like them in the office...regular people have tempers to some degree or other...a guy with a temper can thus be argued to be "down to Earth." Also, remember that if McCain had been liberal Democrat his "temper" would have been downplayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jingangchan, thank you for your well informed posts. You have obviously read more than a few history books, because its all there. I couldnt agree more with every point you have made. I work with a guy who spews the same socialist rubbish. And when he cant convince or "sell" me on it, he reacts (or overreacts) the same way with almost the same exact statements.

Thaks for the kind words...and yes..that's how these people are programmed...they are fed a constant tincture of 40% feel-good rhetoric, 10% twisted statistics and 50% lies. Many of these people are insecure and are thus vulnerable to such behavior modification techniques. Maybe one guy killed his pet cat when he was 5 years old and now "needs" to constantly prove (partially to himself) that he's not a bad guy, so he takes up the cause of animal rights. That's fine but, then he goes too far...tries to get hunting banned and when someone mentions how hunting can be beneficial he throws a tantrum-not because the pro hunting guy was wrong but, because the cat killer was reminded of the day he killed his cat. People are weak willed and many of these bleeding heart socialists advocate what they do for psychological reasons. People have guilt or other reasons that are the true motivations for their (often ridiculous) positions. They want to believe certain things because it makes them feel better about some skeleton in their closet. A lot of selfishness involved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thaks for the kind words...and yes..that's how these people are programmed...they are fed a constant tincture of 40% feel-good rhetoric, 10% twisted statistics and 50% lies. Many of these people are insecure and are thus vulnerable to such behavior modification techniques. Maybe one guy killed his pet cat when he was 5 years old and now "needs" to constantly prove (partially to himself) that he's not a bad guy, so he takes up the cause of animal rights. That's fine but, then he goes too far...tries to get hunting banned and when someone mentions how hunting can be beneficial he throws a tantrum-not because the pro hunting guy was wrong but, because the cat killer was reminded of the day he killed his cat. People are weak willed and many of these bleeding heart socialists advocate what they do for psychological reasons. People have guilt or other reasons that are the true motivations for their (often ridiculous) positions. They want to believe certain things because it makes them feel better about some skeleton in their closet. A lot of selfishness involved...

You're one funny dude...

When did anyone mention animal rights? When did anyone say he was against hunting? Most of us are against weapons for personnal protection.

You accuse everyone of lies, twisted statsics, feel good rhetorics and lies. Yet, you did exactly the same thing you accuse of all the time. You throw bogus things like : Millions of people saved lives with guns, I saw it in the FBI numbers. Yet, where are those numbers? The only way you adress my arguments, is by twisting what I say, or simply dismiss them with simple logic or answers like: it's evil socialism. You still haven't proove me you know what socialism means. Instead of arguing, you try to make me pass as a brainwash evil, a numb brain. That's rich argumentation. That's a politician form of argumentation, destroy the person instead of the ideas. You should know that I don't live in the States, so democrats or republican propaganda doesn't reach me here. I don't watch FOX or CNN or NBC. Over here, we tend toward conservatism, privatisation, individualism. If I were brainwashed, that's the side I'd tend to.

Look, I'm definately not trying to say socialism is the best option. All I'm trying to understand it sounds so evil in your mind. Why would the evil powers benefit from socialism. Socialist policies cost a lot to the state. Over here we are threaten to loose our public healthcare system and maybe even our National Hydro electricity company. Our public schools struggles. Why? Because those things are a pain in the ass for a government. So why would monopolist corporations want them? It costs money, it doesn't make any. Regulating guns costs money, it makes no profit. How could there be a socialist conspiracy? You still haven't answer me. How would the state benifit of people not working, living of the state? You don't make any sense. And yet, you accuse me of dodging your questions.

You talk about Monopolism... Yes we tend toward monopolism, if you read Marx, it's exactly how he predicted capitalism would innevitably transform, and he said that 150 years ago. That's just he way capitalism grows. Concentrating powers in less and less hands. You should read "The Capital" by Karl Marx.

Oh and by the way, I could have a gun if I wanted do, you have been misinformed. We do hunt over here. We do have shooting stands.

We did go a little bit out of the thread though...;)

We could go on for weeks arguing, but it is getting pretty tiresome for me since it's not my language we're doing it in... Maybe we should go back to Kung fu.XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me say first I am enjoying this. And I agree that it is in the future, just not here now.

That works both ways, ever watch FOX news or CNN. Media is biased, but thats no shock. She still had a smuggness about her that turned people off. Did you see her speech at the Republican convention, I can't speak for anyone else, but that is what turned me off from her. But, as far as the comment on seeing Russia, she was using that as a basis for foreign policy experience of which she has none. The question to her on the bush doctrine was wether or not she agreed, it is a yes or no question. Not a I don't understand the question question. Obama wasn't always a media sweetheart and i'm sure you know that in this country the first black president is going to have far less than a free ride. Think about catholics and what happened when it was announced the new pope was Polish. There are a lot of people who don't like the idea of a black anything, let alone president. I have a frien who told me at his job they've talked about every election around him except the presidential election. Not everyone is happy with our new president and the media definately is not 100% pro anything or 100% pro Obama.

But, my point with Palin is she made a lot of decisions that hurt Mccain chances and you know that its true. .

Palin got McCain a lot of votes...some people were saying they were voting for her just because she was hot even. People are afraid to talk about Obama because they are afraid of being called racist...this is cowardly but, true. People are afraid of being called "terrorist," or "racist" or other in the US much like people in NaZi Germany were afraid to say certain things in the past. One reason why a lot of people are against "black anything" is because of ignorance...but, another reason is that blacks as a whole can easily be argued to have a lot of their own issues. If someone comes out of his mother's womb saying he hates minorities then I think that is bullcrap. However, if a guy gets his wife and daughter raped and murdered by a gang a minorities and then he gets mugged by some more then I can see how he may be gunshy the next time a minority delivers his pizza.

Palin's "smugness" I didn't see...but if it was there it paled in comparison to the Obama smugness where he basically acted as if he had won the presidency for the last year. Of course, when you have the whole media blatantly backing you then I can see why. For some reason I can't understand it but, CNN was very balanced this season...they used to be the Clinton News Network. Fox is obviously pro Republican but, still just a drop in the sea of Democrat biased media. I don't blame Fox.

As far as the Russia statement goes, you have to read into what she was trying to say. She can see Russia from where she lives. The implication is that as Governor of Alaska she has to deal with a world power (Russia) simply due to its proximity. Daily Russian Bears (these are bombers-not the animal), fighters and other aircraft penetrate US airspace at Alaska. Palin has to deal with phone calls on this all the time. Russian intelligence gathering ships enter Alaskan waters all the time...same goes for submarines...Russian fishing boats are another issue...Japanese fishing boats as well. This is just a sample. Do you see how this experience is a good prep for being US President when it comes to national security and commerce issues? Palin is the CEO of Alaskan military forces. Another issue is extreme weather that she must deal with...the weather emergencies she had to deal with is more good training. Can you see how such experience would have been beneficial when hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Palin's only mistake was not spelling out what she meant and not anticipating how the biased media would twist around even that. The media knew what she meant but, chose to misrepresent it.

Figurehead since the start of presidential elections, true. And, Bush made a lot of money for himself this election and Cheney is gonna clean up with the New Orleans contracts. As far as military experience a Lt. Col, is not leadership experience. With that said, Mccain is a great man and some of the torture stories i've heard from war vets are just sometimes beyond belief. But, still not experience..

In the military being even a sergeant is leadership experience...maybe not much but, certainly more than someone who's not been in the military. You see, when you are a sergeant or officer in the military you may only have a small unit under your command...maybe just a fire-team...but, the lives of everyone of those people are in your hands. You have to be responsible. If you are a Lt. Col then you have more people you are responsible for...maybe a company or battalion...maybe hundreds of people...or maybe a squadron of planes...millions of dollars worth of equipment as well as the people. Yes...Lt. Col-even just lieutenant-is experience-good experience.

I don't know if his chief was a terrible choice, it could've been worse, but i'm not jumping up and down over this. As far as gun laws, we have a war on drugs but not guns. The laws on guns could be harder, too many illegal guns on the street, and a lot of those are coming from gun store owners. Why does the registration of a gun not matter until it leaves the gun store? Don't answer the questions rhetorical.

War on guns? In other words you want a war on the constitution. People are quick to forget that firearms are gauranteed by the constitution. Drugs are not. A lot of crime guns are not coming from gun store owners unless you are talking about the gun stores that are broken into or thefts of guns bought from such dealers. Do you know how strict the regulations are on gun dealers? Have you been to a gun store? The records have ot be immaculate. I knew a guy who used to sell guns at gunshows...one day he sold a gun to a guy...the guy he sold it too was busy grabbing his other stuff at the end of the transaction. The gun dealer, trying to be helpful, just handed the newly purchased gun to his buddy who had free hands. This resulted in a federal indictment. The transaction was totally kosher but, because he handed the box to the wrong person he got shut down for it. That's crap but, a good example of how regulated the industry is. Gun stores don't sell guns to kids or other ineligible people any more than liquor stores sell vodka to 8 year olds. This thing about gun stores selling guns to people illegally is a fallacy perpetuated by the socialist media.

Gun registration shouldn't happen at all. Do you really believe registering a gun is going to stop a criminal from using a gun in a crime? If gun control laws stopped criminals from using guns in crimes then they wouldn't be criminals in the first place. The whole reason they are called criminals is because they ignore laws-including GUN CONTROL laws. Gun registration has always been a socialist program to keep a list of all the people who own guns. They know that there is a high possibility that once enough people see through the socialist opression they live under, they may rise up against it. That is why they really want to get rid of guns. That is why gun control people advocate gun control even in areas where there is no crime. Populace disarmament is the ulterior motive for gun control. Population control is the real point of gun control. Crime control is the excuse. There are not too many "illegal guns" on the street...THERE ARE TOO MANY CRIMINALS ON THE STREETS.

i belive you said before, I over simplyfied the use of guns. Well you just change subjects I believe, because now you're asking me about capital punishment, but now I can change subjectsnow I can ask the question of why is it that our country will throw a first time weed dealer in jail for 5to7 years, but let a repeat child molester out in 3. But, I would never shoot a child molester, I would castrate and toss them in jail for life.

There was a guy here in Delaware, from Georgetown I believe, a year or two ago who anally raped his new born son, and was thrown in jail. The CO's ''accidentally" left his cell door open along with several other newly arrested individuals who beat this guy to within an inch of his life and left him brain dead. I like that better and it didn't require an illegal gun........

I've said before that I don't see a problem with guns, but a better reform needs to be in place, because anybody can get a gun. I'm pretty sure you know the old expession that its easier for a child to get a gun than it is to get a library card. It is actually true.

It's almost 2:30 here and even though i'm enjoying this i'm sleepy. So good night to all and to all a good night.

I didn't ask you about capital punishment. Capital punishment is officially government sanctioned and carried out executions of a convicted felon. I was talking about criminals who met a deserved fate at the hands of an armed populace. That is not changing the subject. You brought up capital punishment, not me...and it depends on what state you live in when it comes to sentencing for child molesters and weed users. The molester you mentioned that got beat up got what he deserved.

No...not anyone can get a gun...at least not legally. Send your little brother or kid into a gun store or Walmart and see if he can even get a BB gun. Now on the black market or via theft this may be able to happen. That's where criminals get their weapons, and guess what? When you ban guns ONLY THE LEGITIMATE CITIZENS GET REGULATED. THE CRIMINALS STILL HAVE GUNS AND THEIR VICTIMS DON'T. If the criminals obeyed the (gun control)laws, they wouldn't be criminals to begin with. Like most socialist liberal democrat/socialist tenets, it sounds good at first but, gun control is very specious. The real point of gun control is the removing the very last thing people have that can oppose totalitarian government. That is why Hitler was a gun control advocate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is actually very funny, because I was thinking the same way about Jingangchan...

I see he hit a sore spot...;)

Yes and that was done volountarely because:

That is the exact same thing. See, you are guilty of the things you are accusing me. I use the same kind of rhetoric you do. You accuse me of cookie cutter comments, but it's funny because that's how I see your answers to my comments. I could've type your comments and no one would've seen the difference (except for my bad english). You too only answer to the comments you find convinient and interpret them the way you want. You've never told me why a social monopolist society would want people not to work and ward off society. How would they benefit. It simply doesn't make sense. Why would I be "programmed" to ban guns. Who would benifit from banning gun (financially I mean). I can tell you who would benifit keeping them available... So this is basically never going to end. Society will never fully work anyway...

You see me of doing what I accuse you of and vice versa. The difference is that I give specifics while you just come back with another speech. The difference is that you conveniently leave out half of what I say when you reply when you can't dispute it. I don't do that when I reply to you. I've figured that you are probably a lot better on French than English but, you've shown that you understand English enough that language issues aren't an excuse in your case. I explained to you about what you asked but, because you can't connect the dots don't accuse me of what you do because you want to tit-4-tat. You keep on looking at everything as profit or nonprofit. Not everything is black and white. There are shades of grey. Your diatribes here prove you've been programmed to ban guns. I will explain more in following responses...

Nice try, but I'm from Montreal, Quebec and not Quebec city. The Canadiens are still playing here.XD

With arguments like that, I don't see why I bother. You're obviously very well endoctrined.

Well, I'm a Wings fan so na na na na na naaaaa:p Last time your Habsburg empire won anything Clinton had just assumed office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't compare film censorship with gun control. Guns kill people, movies don't. End of.
Ever hear of the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword"? Mind altering propaganda has doen more to kill people than anything. The point however, was that people are quick to advocate the limiting of the rights of others but, when they get a taste of their own medicine they want to complain.
Must be because I don't understand what you mean? I've never accused Republicans of being educated. Gun control may be something socialists believe in but it's not exclusively socialist. That's as stereotypical as my saying all Republicans are gun-worshipping rednecks.
Yeah, NaZis and Communists believe in gun control too...
So basically fuck someone's healthcare if they don't have wealth or insurance. Let them suffer and die unless they can pay. That the Republican line or just yours?
No...get the socialist out of it so people can afford it. Doctors and nurses have to feed their families too. I guess they're supposed to work for free so someone else can get free healthcare after they've smoked and drinked for 20 years...I find it interesting how so many people advocate improved healthcare until they get told to put down their Big Macs, TV remote controllers, cigarettes and vodka bottles...
Bollocks. I'm sorry but my respecting American soliders' sacrifice in war does not extend to respecting archaic ammendments. The constitution means nothing to me. By all means you respect it if you so wish. You have no right to demand similar respect from anyone else.
None of those amendments are archaic. You can't pick and chose what rights you want and don't want. You have to take all or none. I don't say the British Monarchy or the parliament is archaic just because it's been around for a while. The constitution means nothing to you but, the very reason why you are not saying that in German is because of soldiers sworn to protect that constitution. I can't demand that you respect it but, the next time you guys find yourselves standing alone in Europe I'll be sure to remember that when I cast my votes. I like British culture and history...I have British blood...but, I think that Britain is the seat of world Evil...
Britain fucked up big time. You're not getting at me by criticising Britain. I know we've done terrible wrongs in the past and in terms of Iraq continue to do so (in America's shadow). Blair was as much a warmonger as Bush. We're every bit as guilty. Unlike you I'm under no illusions that my country is a perfect wonderland that can do no wrong. You'll have to explain that one to me...
After all the things I said is wrong with our country you still claim that I think we're perfect. That is illogical. *
Actually I don't know about Michael Moore's stance on this but sounds like he knows what he's talking about. America's attitude to healthcare is shocking. Thousands of people die every year from curable illnesses because of inibility to get proper treatment. You pay or you die. The British NHS isn't perfect by any means and needs a good shake-up but the principle on which it was founded remains solid.
The people here are irresponsible...they chain smoke and when they die of lung cancer someone comes forward and says "Thousands of people die every year." Americans are the fattest in the world...they have unhealthy diets... I don't care what kind of health care system you have, if you don't meet halfway with a responsible healthy life style then the system will be broken by sheer weight. At least in America if you need a Kidney transplant within 1 year you don't get put on a 3 year waiting list...
And yet this drug-running, rapist, child-killer isn't in jail? If you want to lay blame for everything the FBI or CIA does at The President's door then you can apply the same crude description to any and every leader you've ever had. At least Clinton isn't responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in The Middle East.
Half of what Clinton did was as Governor of Arkansas...the biased media blacked out most of the information about his crooked dealings in drug running/money laundering, connections with murders, obstruction of justice, etc. When he was governor he was not in control of the CIA in any way. Also, Clinton was guilty of thousands of deaths in Yugoslavia.

Share this post


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

×