Hockey Fan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 73 Posts

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Read all about it:

“In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.”

The full opinion written by Justice Scalia and the dissenting opinion as well:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
and so countless tax dollars has been spent on scrutinising (an outdated) piece of text called the 'second amendment' and has decided that any legislative change since that amendment's draft, goes against it.

well hopefully the DC population welcomes the chance to have a community with a greater element of potential lethal force than not.

yay for progression. *sarc* founding fathers... you may start spinning in your graves now, as it seems development towards civility began and ended with yourselves!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,541 Posts
and so countless tax dollars has been spent on scrutinising (an outdated) piece of text called the 'second amendment' and has decided that any legislative change since that amendment's draft, goes against it.

well hopefully the DC population welcomes the chance to have a community with a greater element of potential lethal force than not.

yay for progression. *sarc* founding fathers... you may start spinning in your graves now, as it seems development towards civility began and ended with yourselves!
I laughed when I saw the sign on the news "Legalize the Constitution" I was like, where the hell has this guy been, doesn't he realize that his current government has officially made the American Constitution into glorified toilet paper.

Only in America would they allow their government remove Habis Corpis(sp?), allow torture, remove their rights to a speedy trail, and not give a reason to an individual for their arrest, give permission to do wire taping on their phones, allow their schools to have 4 day weeks because bus gas bills are too high and then protest that hand gun regulation is a violation of their rights.

Its like crying about a singed hair when your whole body is burnt. God Bless.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
I laughed when I saw the sign on the news "Legalize the Constitution" I was like, where the hell has this guy been, doesn't he realize that his current government has officially made the American Constitution into glorified toilet paper.
And you can bet you bottom dollar that if Edwards or Kerry were elected, we'd have a much different ruling today and a much worse situation.

Only in America would they allow their government remove Habis Corpis(sp?), allow torture, remove their rights to a speedy trail, and not give a reason to an individual for their arrest, give permission to do wire taping on their phones, allow their schools to have 4 day weeks because bus gas bills are too high and then protest that hand gun regulation is a violation of their rights.

Its like crying about a singed hair when your whole body is burnt. God Bless.
If you're talking about habeas corpus with the enemy combatants in the Middle East, there is a problem there. They're not truly POWs, but they are enemy combatants. The problem is the US shouldn't be holding them. They should be held in Iraq or wherever they're captured and tried as traditional criminals as there really is no legal definition and case for the US to be trying them. The rights the Supreme Court afforded these captives is ridiculous and a joke as they're not US citizens. Torture? You mean making them listen to Western pop culture? You mean making them wear dog collars and be led around by female guards because it's a shameful thing for them to submit to a female because of their male-dominated society?

Where did they remove habeas corpus? From what American citizens did they do that?

Wiring tapping and phone monitoring is being performed on incoming calls that generate from the Middle East. They're not wire tapping and monitoring day to day phone calls that generate and end within the country.

It's not handgun regulation that is a violation, it's the complete ban on handguns. It's the requirement that all firearms in the home be disassembled, unloaded, and locked. It's that violation of an individual's right to self defense of himself and his family, or herself or her family.

Go read the entire thread on "Why the Gun is Civilization" and check out the stats that compare crime in areas where guns are banned and where guns are not banned. Compare those stats to where people are allowed to carry guns on their person to where you can't. The stats overwhelmingly prove in every situation, every location, every city, every state, that where law-abiding citizens can carry a firearm for personal protection, violent crime levels are lower than where people are prohibited from protecting themselves with a firearm. The numbers don't lie.

See how you're upset about habeas corpus, about wire tapping, and all these other things that you think are unconstitutional...it's ok to be upset about those, but it's not ok to celebrate that a 30-year-old unconstitutional piece of legislation was struck down??? I don't get it, perhaps the hypocrisy and inconsistency is just typical for most people.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
and so countless tax dollars has been spent on scrutinising (an outdated) piece of text called the 'second amendment' and has decided that any legislative change since that amendment's draft, goes against it.
And how many tax dollars are spent by police forces investigating the hundreds and hundreds of murders that happen in Washington DC and other violent crimes because people can't protect themselves?

Outdated? What's outdated about it? What's wrong with it? Or are you just pissed because I was correct about how the Second Amendment is read and what it actually means?

Legislative change that you talk about that's supposed to be a good thing is what you advocate for and those of us who believe in freedom and liberty call it the erosion of our rights. We know how controlling the government is in the UK. We know we don't want that in the US. Just be happy you're in your own socialist, police state. You can stay there. Enjoy the complete lack of liberty and freedom. Enjoy how the government completely dominates all areas of your life. Enjoy that you can't even use your own fuel in your cars without paying the government their racketeering monies. What am I talking about? The people who are fined and have their cars impounded for not paying fuel tax to the government when they want to run cooking oil through their diesel engines. When it comes to freedoms and personal liberties, the UK just plain sucks. Enjoy it.

well hopefully the DC population welcomes the chance to have a community with a greater element of potential lethal force than not.
No, hopefully the criminal population welcomes a force from the law-abiding citizens who are now allowed to defend themselves.

You don't even know what the ruling says do you? This ruling is only for firearms in the home. IN THE HOME. What does that mean? It means you can't shoot someone outside your home. You still can't carry a gun outside your home. You are only allowed to have it in your home. So, to shoot someone and use this "God-awful, scary, make me wet my pants in fear lethal force" is for someone to unlawfully enter your home to cause you harm. Sure sounds like there is going to be a wave of death and destruction of good people.

Here, we see the definition of clueless, head in the sand, and brainwashed into faith that the police state will protect you even though it constantly fails.

:rolleyes:

yay for progression. *sarc* founding fathers... you may start spinning in your graves now, as it seems development towards civility began and ended with yourselves!
I'm sure the founding fathers are not spinning in their graves on a day that an unconstitutional legislation was struck down. I'm sure the founding fathers, if you had a clue who they were, why they did what they did, and why they wrote the constitution the way it was written, had ever intention of protecting the people from an oppressive government like the one existing in the country where you live.

Fact of the matter is this: you have less freedom, less choice, less freedom from oppression, and less freedom from an overbearing government who dabbles in all areas of your life than I do. I enjoy that. You apparently enjoy having your life fingered by the government. You can stay where you're at and enjoy that. You don't have to come here.

The decision to strike down unconstitutional legislation does not affect your life, so get over it.

The funny thing is that you'd be up in arms and jumping all over things if the government put an unconstitutional ban on free speech or imposed a government sanctioned religion. Those would be unconstitutional, but you'd be up in arms about it. But when it's not something you care about (firearms and second amendment), it's ok to take it away from everyone else.

You're just inconsistent. You don't care about freedom. You care about you and your interests. For me, it's not about firearms. It's about freedom and liberty. It's about not having an oppressive government rule my life. It's about choices. It's about being able to protect yourself and your family in the most sacred of places, your own home.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
This was an interesting post I read in response to the talk of some UK people being upset about the ruling:

UK thinking is why we became an independent nation. USA thinking is why we remain one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
This was an interesting post I read in response to the talk of some UK people being upset about the ruling:
this effort by the anonymous poster, to provide a wittily concise phrase, is lacking in both historical context and indeed when considering the simple passage of time!

referring to the american colonies seceding from The Crown in the 18th century is a poor excuse to justify the decisions of today.

it seems that any sense of progression is lost; such is the state of civility in your great nation.

have fun with that, but please do not think i am 'upset' as much as profoundly sympathetic to your plight jt; fear is a terrible thing to have to live with.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
this effort by the anonymous poster, to provide a wittily concise phrase, is lacking in both historical context and indeed when considering the simple passage of time!

referring to the american colonies seceding from The Crown in the 18th century is a poor excuse to justify the decisions of today.

it seems that any sense of progression is lost; such is the state of civility in your great nation.

have fun with that, but please do not think i am 'upset' as much as profoundly sympathetic to your plight jt; fear is a terrible thing to have to live with.
It is the mindset of the people and the government that has not changed much since the Revolutionary War. This country still values liberty, freedom, and individual rights. The citizenry of the UK apparently do not. That hasn't changed. It's not an anonymous poster, I found it on another forum and took the person's name out as that name is irrelevant. Just like I wouldn't post your screen name on another forum.

I don't live in fear, but I'll tell you, I feel bad for you because living in ignorance is worse than living in fear. At least I recognize what's going on around me. You're oblivious and ignorant to a totalitarian government forming in front of your face. How could you possibly care? You don't even see it happening. :n
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
It is the mindset of the people and the government that has not changed much since the Revolutionary War.
and that (if true) is unfortuneate.

This country still values liberty, freedom, and individual rights.
but only theoretically, as a previous poster in this forum has made reference to already. but sure, he is as deluded / ignorant / jealous / blind as i am....:rolleyes:

It's not an anonymous poster, I took the person's name out
:confused:

I don't live in fear,
sure... you just want guns because your's is a life of unending comfort. :thumbsdow

At least I recognize what's going on around me.
and what is that exactly?

You're oblivious and ignorant to a totalitarian government forming in front of your face. How could you possibly care? You don't even see it happening. :n
there is stifling irony in this last comment.

when considering a gloabl context, which nation exhibits a greater threat of totalitarianism, the United States or the United Kingdom?

you should find that your concerns of blindness ought to be levelled not at me, but at yourself.

http://elrabiadelcamarada.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/the-us-totalitarianism/
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
and that (if true) is unfortuneate.
It is unfortunate that the citizenry in the UK still believe in tyranny and totalitarianism.

but only theoretically, as a previous poster in this forum has made reference to already. but sure, he is as deluded / ignorant / jealous / blind as i am....:rolleyes:
Theoretical? As in like I can still keep and bear arms and you can't. That's pretty real to me. As in I can still walk the street, drive my car, and live in my house without being subjected to random searches by the police? That seems pretty real to me.

That I can still use a pocket knife in public to open a letter or some other package or even possess a pocket knife, something like a Swiss Army knife in public, because I know you can't. That seems pretty real to me.

When I put fuel in my car, more than 50% of it isn't government taxes like your fuel? That seems pretty real.



Or maybe I'm confused on what the definition of theoretical means. :n

This is self-explanatory.

sure... you just want guns because your's is a life of unending comfort. :thumbsdow
I enjoy my firearms. Thursday will be the third time in a week to the range for some shooting. I enjoy it thoroughly. I don't have to ask permission to shoot it.

When I carry a gun, it's like putting on my seat belt. I don't wear the seat belt because I fear that I might be in an accident, I wear it because one day, it could save my life. The same is true of carrying a firearm. I don't fear an attack, but there is a possibility the firearm could prevent injury or death from an attempted attack. That's not fear. That's practicality. You can call it fear, but that's your incorrect assessment. You can make all the unfounded assumptions you want, but when it comes down to it, you have zero experience and are clueless about the mentality of a gun owner like myself.

and what is that exactly?
I'm referencing you're complete degree of oblivion to the way the government in the UK functions and operates. The degree in which the government is imposing its will on the people without any regard for individual rights, personal liberties, or freedom from the government in anyway is shocking and disgusting. You can't see it happening. It's normal for you. But for me, I find it appalling and unbelievable that the people of the UK will voluntarily give up their right to privacy. The UK is becoming a police state. I won't be surprised if there are soon random and regular ID checks, "Papers please," to check for whatever information they want. It won't be long before you can be detained without reason and held for as long as they like.

If you've not seen the movie "V for Vendetta," go get it and watch it. The UK is approaching that sort of governmental control.

You might bring up the detainees at Guantanamo or Gitmo, but those aren't American citizens. They're enemy combatants and POWs. Different story.

there is stifling irony in this last comment.

when considering a gloabl context, which nation exhibits a greater threat of totalitarianism, the United States or the United Kingdom?

you should find that your concerns of blindness ought to be levelled not at me, but at yourself.

http://elrabiadelcamarada.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/the-us-totalitarianism/
Sure, look up the Constitution and the personal freedoms and liberties guaranteed in that document and compare it to what the government in the UK is doing.

That's cute, you posted someone's blog. I'm supposed to take this as facts and absolute truth on the issue. Is this what you would call a tabloid blog?

I don't know about you, but when they're conducting random, public stop and searches for weapons and impounding cars for not paying fuel tax on fuel they didn't buy from the government in the first place and the state is taking control over everything, I'd say this definition sounds like the UK:

From the blog you posted:
By definition, the totalitarian rule is a concept used to describe any political system where a state regulates every aspect of public and private life.
One unique political party that controls the state
Can you say the UK's monarchy? The US has a checks and balance system with the three branches of government. Three branches, all of which hold individual powers...doesn't seem to fit that bill.

This writer is completely clueless:
The United States have two official parties. They have the Green party and a few others but like in most Western Representative Democracy, very few manage to be known or heard of. (See control of State controlled Mass Media). So we have the democrats, and the republicans. Both parties standing in the right wing, Republicans are conservatives while the democrats are considered liberal. Both stand for Capitalism and make sure the U.S. remain to the political right wing. The well-known Elections of 2000 or even 2004, prove that even if the population choose one candidate, there are easy ways for the administration to ignore those facts in order to maintain their people in power.
They also have the Independent Party and the Libertarian Party.

The Democrats of today do not wish to stay to the political right. They want to socialize everything and have government control. The liberals and Democrats of today do want totalitarianism, hence, the reason I so staunchly oppose them.

Ignore the facts? Sure. Do your homework. I love when people are mere puppets of the media. This is worse than a tabloid.

State controlled Mass Media
Wrong again. This is not the government's media outlet. There are countless media sources out there and if you follow any of them, the majority have a left wing/liberal political agenda. MSNBC was practically a paid program for Barack Obama. The left in this country get a free pass on the issues.

It is clearly a manipulation from the state, in order to spread lies, terror and propaganda. Also, on all major news channels, you won’t hear about the communist party or the green party. When you do, it will be really short segments due to something major.
Right…you truly are clueless. A private individual starts a media station and it’s clearly a manipulation of the state. Notice, in 1996 when Fox was started, it was Bill Clinton, a democrat, who was President. Notice how there is legislation going around right now called “The Fairness Doctrine/Act” that is an attempt for conservative radio shows to force their audiences to listen to an equal amount of material from liberal sources. See, in this country, I have the freedom to listen to what I want. I CHOOSE, not the state. Anyone in this country can start a radio program and build an audience. If you have a message and people like it, you’ll build an audience. If people don’t like your message, you won’t last on the air. That’s how it works when the state doesn’t control the media. Whoever wrote this article is next to retarded.

Centralisation of the Economy
Some will think that I will shoot myself in the foot by saying this but…the U.S. Economy is centralised. While not run by the government, it is held with a firm grasp by the private bankers. Also in most totalitarian states it’s the government who has full power, in the U.S.; it’s the bankers. The government is also a puppet to that small group of economic elites who decide the faith and future of the country. Nonetheless, it’s interesting to notice that the government support an anti-constitutional tax on income ruled by the IRS, while there is no law forcing a citizen to declare his incomes to the government. Yet, if a citizen doesn’t, he will have the IRS forcing his way into his life, terrorising his family until he pays or loses everything. Many have their houses sized or end in prison because they haven’t filled their form, or don’t manage to pay their taxes. The IRS even attempts to declare that the Supreme Court of the United States means nothing when it declares that the 16 amendment considers incomes as a profit or gain of a company, not an individual. Hence, companies can be taxed, not citizens. Interestingly enough, taxing the population brings nearly 5 times more incomes to the Government than taxing the companies. In order to have citizens compel to this unknown and unwritten law, the free country’s government will stand behind the IRS code of hundreds of pages to read, while the constitution and everything related to the rights of citizens stand on a few pages. Believing bluntly what they are told, they will look into the code and give up, instead of looking through their rights. If you ask people around you, they will tell you that you need to pay tax on incomes for education, roads or other services, yet there are so many taxes on everything already that there is no need for this tax at all. Education is paid with house taxes, roads with gas taxes, etc. The Government knows exactly how much you earn, and with new technologies, start to know exactly what you are buying as well.
I disagree with the income taxation, but the economy is not centralized. Even if this douche bag is right and it’s controlled by, as he/she wrote “PRIVATE” bankers, those are not government pawns. This person defeats his/her own points. This person claims the economy is centralized, makes one point that conflicts the claim, and then writes the entire paragraph bout the IRS and taxation. This person doesn’t have a clue how to put a coherent and relevant argument together. This is the definition of FAILURE.
Notice who constantly wants to increase and expand taxation…the leftist democrats. Those who want to expand government control. Those who subscribe to the train of thought found in Marxism. Those who believe in the Communist Manifesto. Obama is drawing his playbook and policies from this text. Read it and you will agree.
Notice who is constantly trying to reduce taxation and decrease taxes…the conservatives. Lower taxes, smaller government, strong foreign policy is the definition of conservatism.
Mass Surveillance
From the CIA to the FBI, adding up with the Patriot act and other powers presidents have given themselves, the terror propaganda of 2001 did a wonderful job in order to ease their investigations of the U.S. people. Families have accepted that the states might listen on their phone calls, on their Internet communications or historic of navigation on the web. They are also accepting to have secret FBI agents in their kitchen meetings unknowingly, even if it’s only to talk about peace and eat cookies.
If this isn’t fear mongering, I don’t know what is. People like to use things like the Patriot Act to scare those who don’t know the details of the Patriot Act. The monitoring of calls is on incoming calls generating from areas where terrorism and its related activities are present. They’re not monitoring my call to order take our or order a pizza. This entire article is playing to the minds of those who are gullible and don’t do their own research.

Also, more recently, a family in Florida accepted to have a chip implanted in their body which act like small GPS. Those idiots think they will be more secure that way, yet of course, they seem to forget that their every actions are now monitored by the state, and those chips will soon be implanted in passports, driving license and other items that are carried around. Unknowingly for most, they will see their freedom going away in no time as the states will be able to tell everything that they do (chips), say (spies and recording of phone calls, adding to other methods mentioned). There will be only their thoughts left and then, I doubt anyone will be able to do anything to know if anyone agrees with them or not, by fear of being punished by the state’s agents.
Notice it was a choice by the family, not a creed or order from the state. Notice how in every state that legislation has come up about imposing the use of RFID national/state ID cards, this legislation has failed, over and over again.

Again, whoever wrote this crap is retarded and doesn’t do research or is simply trying to pass this fantasy fictional crap off as real, legitimate information.

Considering that Capitalism has failed and will keep failing, the only way to maintain people in the ignorance, and control a possible revolution, is now to push their philosophy further by apply those principles.
How has capitalism failed? The US has been around for over 200 years and has yet to fail. No country practicing communism has existed that long. Again, this person is an idiot.

Why are the majority of the top 100 wealthiest people in the US? 27 of the worlds 100 wealthiest people are in the US. Does any other country come close to having that many? Nope. Russia is second with 17. The UK doesn’t even break 10, they have 8.

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/world2008.pdf

Like everywhere else where the Western representative democracy applies, the population has been put asleep and if they don’t wake up anytime soon, it will be too late to do anything about it. We keep waiting for things to get worse, or hoping for better with a change of leadership but the fact remains that our very structure isn’t working. As long as the population won’t take its responsibility as a group, for the future of humanity, there will be nothing else than slavery gradually heading back toward all rights to the masters, no right to the slaves.
So…what’s going to happen if we don’t wake up? We just had a court ruling tear down an unconstitutional gun ban. That doesn’t seem like the government getting stronger or more powerful. That was the Supreme Court telling the government it had gone too far. Quite the opposite of the fear mongering in this article.

However, if you look across the pond in your backyard, you’re seeing stop and searches, random seizures, banning of all things dangerous, ridiculous fuel taxes, a monarchy where the only way to get power is to be born, etc etc etc. You tell me which one sounds more like the land of the free and which one sounds like it’s getting closer to a totalitarian dictatorship. I’d love to see how the people of the UK would be crying in their fish and chips and in their pints after a terror attack on the scale of 9/11 happened in London. You all would have RFID chips implanted and barcodes tattooed by now.



Nice article, (*sarcasm*), but really, nice try, I appreciate the effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Theoretical? As in like I can still keep and bear arms and you can't.
The point which you wish to ignore, is why would any civilised individual want to?

As in I can still walk the street, drive my car, and live in my house without being subjected to random searches by the police? That seems pretty real to me.
And that is real to me too. However, what isn't real to me, is the charge and monetary fine caused by 'jay walking'. You can still 'walk the street' tho..:p

That I can still use a pocket knife in public to open a letter or some other package or even possess a pocket knife, something like a Swiss Army knife in public, because I know you can't. That seems pretty real to me.
Yeah, coz everyone needs to carry a razor sharp five inch blade for fear of encountering an unopened letter.:thumbsdow

When I put fuel in my car, more than 50% of it isn't government taxes like your fuel? That seems pretty real.
And my free health care system seems pretty real to me too.:D

Or maybe I'm confused on what the definition of theoretical means.
Well you sure are confused by something.:rolleyes:

I enjoy my firearms. Thursday will be the third time in a week to the range for some shooting. I enjoy it thoroughly.
Sounds like an effort in over-compensation for something lacking…… oh dear. Do you wear leather chaps too?:eek:

When I carry a gun, it's like putting on my seat belt.
No it is not, as already explained.:n

there is a possibility the firearm could prevent injury or death from an attempted attack. That's not fear. That's practicality.
And how many times have you had cause for such preventative measures?

Your claims of practicality are rendered obsolete by probability. You don’t need a gun, you need a reality check.

I'm referencing you're complete degree of oblivion to the way the government in the UK functions and operates. The degree in which the government is imposing its will on the people without any regard for individual rights, personal liberties, or freedom from the government in anyway is shocking and disgusting. You can't see it happening. It's normal for you. But for me, I find it appalling and unbelievable that the people of the UK will voluntarily give up their right to privacy. The UK is becoming a police state. I won't be surprised if there are soon random and regular ID checks, "Papers please," to check for whatever information they want. It won't be long before you can be detained without reason and held for as long as they like.
Quoted for sheer irony.:beer

If you've not seen the movie "V for Vendetta," go get it and watch it. The UK is approaching that sort of governmental control.
You think all comic book fiction is a basis for reality? Please then, for your own sanity, never watch Scooby Doo! Dogs can talk!!!!!!!:laugh:

You might bring up the detainees at Guantanamo or Gitmo, but those aren't American citizens. They're enemy combatants and POWs. Different story.
Nevertheless, whether your invoke xenophobic tendencies or not, if you have cause to detain someone, then it is in the context of international conflict and as such falls under Human Rights Conventions.

If they do not submit to such convention, then you have no cause to detain them. Either way, your failed logic is profoundly flawed and whether you see it or not, is irrelevent, as the dye has been caste in your nation's name.

Anyway, this is off topic.

I don't know about you, but when they're conducting random, public stop and searches for weapons and impounding cars for not paying fuel tax on fuel they didn't buy from the government in the first place and the state is taking control over everything, I'd say this definition sounds like the UK
What country are you talking about now?:dunno:

Can you say the UK's monarchy? The US has a checks and balance system with the three branches of government. Three branches, all of which hold individual powers...doesn't seem to fit that bill.
You think the british monarchy has any say in any actual issues of state? Are you serious? The only ONLY reason they persist, is to draw in US sourced tourism monies, coz y'all think they're "so quaint".

If it weren't so funny, I would feel sorry for that which you labour under.

Please tell me more about my country....
Did you know it never ever stops raining over here?
that we all carry umbrellas always and only wear pin-striped suits, whilst saying nothing but 'heavens to betsy guv'nah!' ?
oh and queen elizabeth is just an actress, our real monarch is Dick Van Dyke!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

This writer is completely clueless:
Cue rant.....:y

The Democrats of today….. I so staunchly oppose them.
Well I would never have guessed *sarc*

Ignore the facts? Sure. Do your homework. I love when people are mere puppets of the media. This is worse than a tabloid.
What like 'buy a gun, blacks bring it on themselves, pray to god, bomb the arabs'…… more irony!

Wrong again. This is not the government's media outlet. There are countless media sources out there and if you follow any of them, the majority have a left wing/liberal political agenda. MSNBC was practically a paid program for Barack Obama. The left in this country get a free pass on the issues.
If something was perceived to be biased, this does nothing to undermine the observer's comments, as the US is a one party state of governance. As far as political control…. Consider the FCC.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term.


Nuff said IMO

Notice, in 1996 when Fox was started, it was Bill Clinton, a democrat, who was President.
in a one party state such a distinction as this is irrelevent. You have been duped.

Notice how there is legislation going around right now called “The Fairness Doctrine/Act” that is an attempt for conservative radio shows to force their audiences to listen to an equal amount of material from liberal sources. See, in this country, I have the freedom to listen to what I want. I CHOOSE, not the state.
When there is no choice, what is there to choose from? You have been duped.

Anyone in this country can start a radio program and build an audience.
Not at all true….. If you can get thru the tenuous application process which is limited due to ambiguous 'aeronautical' constraints on available bandwidths, you then have to maintain a license, which of course presents economic exclusivity. Unless you wish to broadcast ONLY TO 200 FEET!

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/howtoapply.html

Incidentally, if anyone can find how much it costs just to apply for a radio station to start broadcasting please let me know; you will be a better online searcher than I, as all I could find on the FCC site is that they refuse payments on credit cards of figures greater than $99,999!!!!!!!

I disagree with the income taxation, but the economy is not centralized. Even if this douche bag is right and it’s controlled by, as he/she wrote “PRIVATE” bankers, those are not government pawns. This person defeats his/her own points. This person claims the economy is centralized, makes one point that conflicts the claim, and then writes the entire paragraph bout the IRS and taxation. This person doesn’t have a clue how to put a coherent and relevant argument together. This is the definition of FAILURE.
I think a more precise definition of 'failure' is the inability to appreciate that a minority of people control the majority of wealth. This is the definition of 'centralisation'[/I].

And if you fail to perceive the close relationships between such 'private' individuals and those in public office, then your's is not a case of failure, but abject delusion. I wonder which is worse to suffer from?

They’re not monitoring my call to order take our or order a pizza.
You might feel secure when ordering your pizza…. But thanks to this legislation, if for whatever reason you order a pepperoni pizza (which happens to be Bin Laden's favourite) then the patriot act allows the tapping of your fone!

It is carte blanche for the gov to do whatever in the name of fighting terrar and of course the last person to know it, will be the person being tapped.

You may think the patriot act doesn’t directly apply to you; but it could. And how on earth would you ever know if it ever did? THAT is the point!

Notice it was a choice by the family, not a creed or order from the state.
You have to ask yourself, what was the basis, the source of the reasoning that lead to their 'decision'.

It is called manufacturing consent; just as with you carrying a gun, even tho there is no tangible need to, other than to cater to those fears you hold in your imagination. But yeah, to own a gun was you decision…..:rolleyes:

How has capitalism failed? The US has been around for over 200 years and has yet to fail. No country practicing communism has existed that long. Again, this person is an idiot.
How could a communistic state have existed for longer than the USA when the ideaology wasn't even around until 1848!!!! (who's the idiot now?)

Still…. Give it another 40 years and see who in the following map are still 'red'….



Why are the majority of the top 100 wealthiest people in the US? 27 of the worlds 100 wealthiest people are in the US. Does any other country come close to having that many? Nope. Russia is second with 17. The UK doesn’t even break 10, they have 8.
And this is a measure of capitalist success? You have been duped.

Meanwhile 17% of the US population are below the median income. This is third in the world behind a nation you think is impoverished, Mexico or backwardly socialistic, Russia.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_med_inc-economy-population-below-median-income

So…what’s going to happen if we don’t wake up?
I imagine you will have to await the day the feds come to take your kids and your guns away? I dunno, I didn't write the article I merely posted it for you to see that your opinion on the virtues of this recent verdict along with your broader persepctive is skewed into the minority.

Nice article, (*sarcasm*), but really, nice try, I appreciate the effort.
Well whether sarcastically unappreciative of the link or not….. It suited your purpose of straying away from the topic at hand. Good for you. *sarc*:thumbsdow
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
The point which you wish to ignore, is why would any civilised individual want to?
Because we aren't sheep hopelessly dependent upon an insufficient police force to rescue us from the uncivilized people that exist in any society.

I don't have my head in the sand about the police's ability.

And that is real to me too. However, what isn't real to me, is the charge and monetary fine caused by 'jay walking'. You can still 'walk the street' tho..:p
I've never met a single person who has been issued a fine or citation for jay-walking. Just like sodomy is against the law in a number of states...never seen anyone ticketed for that either.

This is also real to you...being subjected to the government's racketeering for the public transportation by charging the amount of taxes they do on fuel at the pump making driving unaffordable for a significant part of the population.

Yeah, coz everyone needs to carry a razor sharp five inch blade for fear of encountering an unopened letter.:thumbsdow
Who said anything about a razor sharp 5" blade? You can't carry any knife in public. I can carry a 5" blade if I want or the 1.75" folding knife I like. You can't carry anything. Isn't it nice to have choices? I wouldn't be surprised if there was a citation issued for carrying a plastic knife in public for the purposes of eating a salad.

And my free health care system seems pretty real to me too.:D
When you pay taxes for it, it's not free.

Well you sure are confused by something.:rolleyes:
Just like your misconception that healthcare is free even though you pay taxes for it?

Sounds like an effort in over-compensation for something lacking…… oh dear. Do you wear leather chaps too?:eek:
Your points are becoming less and less worthy of my time. This is a joke. It really shows you have nothing better to say. Grow up.

No it is not, as already explained.:n
Yeah it is. You can't tell me what my though process is. It's my own.

Just like you refuse to accept that gun bans have failed miserably at reducing violent crime and you continue to cling to your pseudo-reality where the facts don't matter for the sake of continuing your fledgling argument and your refusal to admit you're wrong. Just like you were wrong about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

And how many times have you had cause for such preventative measures?

Your claims of practicality are rendered obsolete by probability. You don’t need a gun, you need a reality check.
How many times have airbags saved your life? None? Then have them removed from your car. How about your anti-lock brakes? How about smoke detectors? How about door locks? How about a life jacket? How about a helmet? If none of those things have ever saved you, don't use them ever again.

You need to learn how to be consistent with your views and arguments.

Quoted for sheer irony.:beer
Irony is subjective. It's fine you don't want to discuss the issue or the point, you would rather just meddle around with it and poke fun. Enjoy yourself.

You think all comic book fiction is a basis for reality? Please then, for your own sanity, never watch Scooby Doo! Dogs can talk!!!!!!!:laugh:
See above. It's not the comic being based on reality, it's simply a comparisson. This appears to be a primary defense mechanism for you. Instead of facing the reality that your government is becoming a sort of leviathan, you try to poke fun at me. It's ok, the bag has been pulled over your eyes, you've been fleeced, and you've bought into it 100%.

I know there are issues in this country, but it's nowhere near where things are at where you call home.

Nevertheless, whether your invoke xenophobic tendencies or not, if you have cause to detain someone, then it is in the context of international conflict and as such falls under Human Rights Conventions.

If they do not submit to such convention, then you have no cause to detain them. Either way, your failed logic is profoundly flawed and whether you see it or not, is irrelevent, as the dye has been caste in your nation's name.

Anyway, this is off topic.
And if these same people were attacking your country, the government would be doing everything they could to prevent further attacks. Walk a mile in the shoes of someone who experienced 9/11.

What country are you talking about now?:dunno:
I'm talking about the UK. I'm picking apart the article you posted, the joke opinion piece that completely ignores the facts. Hmmm...sounds like your kind of article...oblivious to what the real world is like.

You think the british monarchy has any say in any actual issues of state? Are you serious? The only ONLY reason they persist, is to draw in US sourced tourism monies, coz y'all think they're "so quaint".
That's funny, I don't know a single person who's ever visited the UK for the purpose of seeing the government. Actually, I know very few people who have visited the UK or even have an interest in doing so.

If it weren't so funny, I would feel sorry for that which you labour under.
You can find it funny, but I'm not the one getting searched and patted down or having metal detectors swept over me in public for no reason. That's your problem. I feel bad that you don't know what the words privacy, freedom, liberty, individual rights, freedom from the government, etc mean. You're completely dependent.

Please tell me more about my country....
Did you know it never ever stops raining over here?
that we all carry umbrellas always and only wear pin-striped suits, whilst saying nothing but 'heavens to betsy guv'nah!' ?
oh and queen elizabeth is just an actress, our real monarch is Dick Van Dyke!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Have your laughs. It's your way of pushing reality out of the forefront of your mind that your rights and minimal freedoms are dwindling and constantly under attack. You might wake up some day.

What like 'buy a gun, blacks bring it on themselves, pray to god, bomb the arabs'…… more irony!
What is this nonsense?

If something was perceived to be biased, this does nothing to undermine the observer's comments, as the US is a one party state of governance.
Wrong. Read your history.

As far as political control…. Consider the FCC.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term.


Nuff said IMO
Your opinion is wrong. The FCC is primarily charged with technology and standards, not content. The FCC is not out there controlling the content brainwashing the public.

in a one party state such a distinction as this is irrelevent. You have been duped.
And you're clueless. If the media is controlled by the state, why would Fox have been allowed to start broadcasting something different, something challenging the other media outlets? If there is such control, Fox would have never got off the ground at all with their "dissenting" message.

5 > 1. Simple math. You have Libertarian, Independent, Green, Republican, and Democratic. There's more than 1 party.

When there is no choice, what is there to choose from? You have been duped.
You're clueless and starting to look like an idiot. There are stations broadcasting all liberal views. That is choice. When I turn on my satellite radio, there are at least a dozen talk stations covering politics. There are numbers news channels. There are choices. People choose to turn into the stations they like because of the content and the hosts. That's called choice. When I have two competing channels with different content and I can pick which one I want, that is choice. You continue to live in your own world and talk without knowledge.

Not at all true….. If you can get thru the tenuous application process which is limited due to ambiguous 'aeronautical' constraints on available bandwidths, you then have to maintain a license, which of course presents economic exclusivity. Unless you wish to broadcast ONLY TO 200 FEET!

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/howtoapply.html

Incidentally, if anyone can find how much it costs just to apply for a radio station to start broadcasting please let me know; you will be a better online searcher than I, as all I could find on the FCC site is that they refuse payments on credit cards of figures greater than $99,999!!!!!!!
Wrong, anyone can get a job with a radio program and work their way through the ranks to where they can host a show. The satellite radio providers are always looking for more content. Just because there is a cost you can't afford doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to do so. You can't afford it. That's a personal problem, not a government controlled sanction against you or your message.

I think a more precise definition of 'failure' is the inability to appreciate that a minority of people control the majority of wealth. This is the definition of 'centralisation'[/I].


Centralization, maybe, but not centralized in the hands of the government, which is the topic of the article at hand - totalitarianism. You have been duped.

You can buy into whatever you want. But when the author contradicts himself and you buy into it, you're just as wrong as he is.

And if you fail to perceive the close relationships between such 'private' individuals and those in public office, then your's is not a case of failure, but abject delusion. I wonder which is worse to suffer from?
Talk to me more about delusion. Let's go down that path, shall we?

Money controls things in every country. That's part of how things are. See how more people are forced to use the government controlled public transportation at a cost because of the government imposed absurd taxes on fuel? It's racketeering. No matter what you do, you're a revenue generating cog for your government, nothing more.

You might feel secure when ordering your pizza…. But thanks to this legislation, if for whatever reason you order a pepperoni pizza (which happens to be Bin Laden's favourite) then the patriot act allows the tapping of your fone!
Have you read the Patriot Act or are you simply going on what you think you heard from some guy who writes articles like Sabbi?

It is carte blanche for the gov to do whatever in the name of fighting terrar and of course the last person to know it, will be the person being tapped.

You may think the patriot act doesn’t directly apply to you; but it could. And how on earth would you ever know if it ever did? THAT is the point!
Intelligence gathering occurs in every country by every government.

It is what it is. The Patriot Act does not apply to me as I do nothing that qualifies me for monitoring. Read the Patriot Act before commenting on it.

You have to ask yourself, what was the basis, the source of the reasoning that lead to their 'decision'.

It is called manufacturing consent; just as with you carrying a gun, even tho there is no tangible need to, other than to cater to those fears you hold in your imagination. But yeah, to own a gun was you decision…..:rolleyes:
You're so clueless it's laughable. I can carry a gun whether or not I want to. I can buy one if I want or I can pass on that and not buy one. I could sell all of my guns.

Are you trying to tell me the government is manufacturing consent for me to carry a gun by having an ineffective justice system that doesn't keep criminals off the streets? Are you telling me that it's the governments' of the world who are at fault that crime exists world-wide?

Are you trying to tell me it's the government "manufacturing consent" to have parents put chips in their kids' bodies?

How could a communistic state have existed for longer than the USA when the ideaology wasn't even around until 1848!!!! (who's the idiot now?)
The idea of the collective (the founding principle of communism) has been around much longer than that. Who's the idiot now? Native Americans and numerous tribal civilizations have lived in commune/collective living agreements for centuries prior to the founding of the United States.

Still…. Give it another 40 years and see who in the following map are still 'red'….

You mean this map:


With the following summary:

A map of countries (using present-day borders) that have been ruled by a one-party Marxist-Leninist state at some point in their history. Note that some of these Marxist-Leninist regimes were very short-lived.
You're right, I am fully expecting the UK to be taken over by some sort of socialist government.

I see it much less likely for it to happen in the US any time soon.

And this is a measure of capitalist success? You have been duped.

Meanwhile 17% of the US population are below the median income. This is third in the world behind a nation you think is impoverished, Mexico or backwardly socialistic, Russia.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_bel_med_inc-economy-population-below-median-income
I've not been duped. There are social welfare programs in this country that promote and maintain a level of poverty. There is an overwhelmingly large percentage of people living in poverty in urban centers in this country. Poverty and living below the median income is primarily found in cities. Where are the most social welfare handouts? In the cities? Where are the majority of liberal and leftist views found? In the cities. For example, Pennsylvania typically goes to the Democrats in the general election. Why? The population in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh outweigh the rest of the state. Even though once you get outside of Philly and Pittsburgh the state is overwhelmingly conservative, there is a population strong enough in those two cities where to push the state to the left. Where is the majority of poverty in this state? In Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

The stat wasn't about overall success, it was showing the opportunity any individual in this country has to be wealthy and that's show by the fact that the US has more than a 1/4th of the world's top 100 wealthiest. The economic environment in this country allows for that. It's not found as abundantly in any other country.

Wasn't it you who told me stats are misleading and only a number? Who's to say the source is credible and objective?

I imagine you will have to await the day the feds come to take your kids and your guns away? I dunno, I didn't write the article I merely posted it for you to see that your opinion on the virtues of this recent verdict along with your broader persepctive is skewed into the minority.
You think one guy's blog who is a resident of Canada is the authority on this country and its political atmosphere? If so, you've been duped by the big one. You pick and choose sources that are convenient to your points and disregard the rest. I am far from the minority in this country. You don't even live here. Your attitude and mentality is the reason we have the problem we have in this country with hypocrisy. It's your mentality that's responsible for the nightmare of political correctness. It's your mentality that approaches the Constitution with the view that one can simply erase or rewrite the parts you find inconvenient. It's your mentality seen in some politicians here who seem to have the goal of destroying this country.

Well whether sarcastically unappreciative of the link or not….. It suited your purpose of straying away from the topic at hand. Good for you. *sarc*:thumbsdow
You posted it. It's the garbage you buy into and accept as reality. It's your single source that's convenient to your views that can't be backed up by reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Because we aren't sheep hopelessly dependent upon an insufficient police force to rescue us from the uncivilized people that exist in any society.
The solution to this problem which you have successfully identified, will come from determining how / why the police are 'insufficient' and whether an armed populace (with yourself included) might contribute to this.

Afterall, as you say, there is an 'uncivilised' element to any society, which beggars the question, why would you willingly spread firearms amoungst them!?

I don't have my head in the sand about the police's ability.
But you do about the consequence of an armed population.

Who said anything about a razor sharp 5" blade?...... I can carry a 5" blade if I want. Isn't it nice to have choices?
:confused:

When you pay taxes for it, it's not free.
And when you pay taxes….. You get nothing. Which is preferable do you think?

Your points are becoming less and less worthy of my time. This is a joke. It really shows you have nothing better to say. Grow up.
How wonderfully condescending of you; however my comment was in response to your 'ego fluffing' in the form of reporting how many times this past week you fired guns… as if this held any relevence at all to anything.

Just like you refuse to accept that gun bans have failed miserably at reducing violent crime and you continue to cling to your pseudo-reality where the facts don't matter for the sake of continuing your fledgling argument and your refusal to admit you're wrong. Just like you were wrong about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
An indication of how you seem incapable of understanding a contending point of view. Your loss. Never mind.

I never said that a gun ban would reduce violent crime and I merely illustrated how the 2nd amendment has been misconstrued thru time to mean something other than what it was originally drafted for.

How many times have airbags saved your life? None? Then have them removed from your car. How about your anti-lock brakes? How about smoke detectors? How about door locks? How about a life jacket? How about a helmet? If none of those things have ever saved you, don't use them ever again.
Fatuous reasoning.

Airbags, life jackets, anti-lock brakes, smoke detectors, crash helmets all provide passive safety without the risk of any of them being misappropriated for malevolence. I wonder why you might prefer to ignore this obvious factor by claiming the gun is some how a cure to your fears, as opposed to the cause of them?

Irony is subjective.
Not really. But the ability to enjoy it, is certainly not without its limitations.

I know there are issues in this country, but it's nowhere near where things are at where you call home.
And this persists as your form of comfort, even tho it has no relevence to this thread.

And if these same people were attacking your country, the government would be doing everything they could to prevent further attacks. Walk a mile in the shoes of someone who experienced 9/11.
And so what was your experience of 9-11 and how did this contribute to your thinking that being armed was a good idea? In fact, how would being armed be good for anyone who experienced 9-11?

It is an enduring legacy to your nation that the WTC attacks can be invoked as an unquestionable justification for anything. You do the victims of that day, as well as the future of your country a tremendous disservice by stooping to such depths.

Incidentally, who has been detained indefinitely (despite international law) with the result of providing further info on what happened that day?

You can find it funny, but I'm not the one getting searched and patted down or having metal detectors swept over me in public for no reason. That's your problem.
:confused:

Have your laughs. It's your way of pushing reality out of the forefront of your mind that your rights and minimal freedoms are dwindling and constantly under attack. You might wake up some day.
Cue irony. You just cannot help yourself can you?

What is this nonsense?
Sound bites from your good self. You are painting quite a picture of yourself.

Your opinion is wrong. The FCC is primarily charged with technology and standards, not content. The FCC is not out there controlling the content brainwashing the public.
Not opinion, but fact as per their own www site.

And you're clueless. If the media is controlled by the state, why would Fox have been allowed to start broadcasting something different, something challenging the other media outlets? If there is such control, Fox would have never got off the ground at all with their "dissenting" message.
It is called a façade. You have been duped. My sympathies. Point in question….. War in irak found to be based on spurious intelligence and fabrications. Consequence? Nothing. Any criminal charges? Nope. Any calls for impeachment? Nothing with any effect. And war tribunal? No chance. And thus, what opposition is there to the policial party which perpetrated this dire situation? There is NONE. United as one party.

You have Libertarian, Independent, Green, Republican, and Democratic. There's more than 1 party.
Theoretically speaking perhaps. In reality tho… see previous observation.

You're clueless and starting to look like an idiot. There are stations broadcasting all liberal views. That is choice. When I turn on my satellite radio, there are at least a dozen talk stations covering politics. There are numbers news channels. There are choices. People choose to turn into the stations they like because of the content and the hosts. That's called choice. When I have two competing channels with different content and I can pick which one I want, that is choice. You continue to live in your own world and talk without knowledge.
And what comes from all of this diversity and dissention? Nothing.
Why? Coz talk is cheap and the effect is a one party system. Any distinction begins and ends with the rosette colour.
Is that democratic choice? No, it is a façade to maintain your complacency.

Wrong, anyone can get a job with a radio program and work their way through the ranks to where they can host a show. The satellite radio providers are always looking for more content. Just because there is a cost you can't afford doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to do so. You can't afford it. That's a personal problem, not a government controlled sanction against you or your message.
This is grasping, in an attempt to salvage any credability in the original (and seen to be lacking) claim.

So now from 'anyone can start a radio station' we have to consider the chances of someone being employed by a pre-existing station, who then earns promotion thru out their career, until a point at which they might contribute to content.

Not only does one's being hired depend upon others, but so does every step of career progression and content idea submission etc etc etc…… and so this freedom goes only as far as someone's manager, station owner, sponsor portfolio, local political representative and FCC legislator. Yeah… 'free'. :laugh:

and i would be insulted, if i needed to be told that the most accessible form of governmental coercion was based upon economic exclusivity; so i shall refrain from responding to your suggestion of 'Just because there is a cost you can't afford doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to do so. You can't afford it. That's a personal problem, not a government controlled sanction against you or your message.'

Centralization, maybe, but not centralized in the hands of the government, which is the topic of the article at hand - totalitarianism.
Consider the relationships between the chiefs of these private corporations and the local public servants.
You will see the 'hands of government' if you have the courage to look.

Have you read the Patriot Act or are you simply going on what you think you heard from some guy who writes articles like Sabbi?
Is this your attempt to tell me that even if they wished to, those behind the curtain could not eavesdrop on every facet of your life?

Are you trying to tell me the government is manufacturing consent for me to carry a gun by having an ineffective justice system that doesn't keep criminals off the streets? Are you telling me that it's the governments' of the world who are at fault that crime exists world-wide?
:duh

Are you trying to tell me it's the government "manufacturing consent" to have parents put chips in their kids' bodies?
:duh

The idea of the collective (the founding principle of communism) has been around much longer than that. Who's the idiot now?
Who is the idiot now? Well I guess it is the person who talks about communism and then receives a post they do not like and so begins to refer to tribes instead…. Without any kind of reference or substance.

Believe me, if you wish to suggest I am an idiot, I will not be concerned in the slightest. Knock yerself out.

You're right, I am fully expecting the UK to be taken over by some sort of socialist government.
Expecting? What like democratic socialism you mean?

The stat wasn't about overall success, it was showing the opportunity any individual in this country has to be wealthy and that's show by the fact that the US has more than a 1/4th of the world's top 100 wealthiest. The economic environment in this country allows for that. It's not found as abundantly in any other country.

Wasn't it you who told me stats are misleading and only a number? Who's to say the source is credible and objective?
The point remains that the concept of capitalism beneifts the few by exploiting the majority. It is clear from this very fact that such as system is subjectively good or bad, more than any other.

As for the source's credability, if you wish to undermine then that is for you to do. I assure you tho, you'll not be able to to.

You think one guy's blog who is a resident of Canada is the authority on this country and its political atmosphere?
Nope, I never even suggested that. It was simply one of many like minded opinions. If I were to post all that are available, these posts would get even longer!!!

Your attitude and mentality is the reason we have the problem we have in this country with hypocrisy. It's your mentality that's responsible for the nightmare of political correctness.
This is a brave allegation seeing as you know nothing about me.

It's your mentality that approaches the Constitution with the view that one can simply erase or rewrite the parts you find inconvenient. It's your mentality seen in some politicians here who seem to have the goal of destroying this country.
'Inconvenient' - not at all correct

'destroying the country' - as nonsensical as it is melodramatic.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
The solution to this problem which you have successfully identified, will come from determining how / why the police are 'insufficient' and whether an armed populace (with yourself included) might contribute to this.
We've already talked about this. The police can't be everywhere. In the US, they have no obligation to provide any personal or individual protection. There is case law explaining this. The police cannot be held responsible or liable for not protecting an individual. There is case on this as well. The police have no duty to protect anyone. They are not obligated to put their lives on the line for any individual. That's the way it is. You want protection, it's up to you as the individual to provide it yourself.

We've talked about the legally armed citizens. Statistics show that in every city and state that allow the legally armed citizen to carry a firearm in self-defense, these cities experience lower violent crime numbers than cities and states who do not.

Afterall, as you say, there is an 'uncivilised' element to any society, which beggars the question, why would you willingly spread firearms amoungst them!?
We don't and you're and idiot if you think we do.

But you do about the consequence of an armed population.
You do. I've presented numerous sources, tables, statistics, etc and you ignore them or call them tabloids or that I pick and choose my sources to fit my argument. Take it or leave it, you're wrong. Plain and simple. Do you own research. Prove me wrong. You won't, because you won't take the time to do this and if you do, you'll find I'm correct. Good luck.

You would be confused. Your government doesn't allow such choices.

And when you pay taxes….. You get nothing. Which is preferable do you think?
I don't pay taxes for healthcare and I pay fewer taxes as a percentage of my income than you. Which would you prefer?

An indication of how you seem incapable of understanding a contending point of view. Your loss. Never mind.
I understand your view and I see where you're coming from. However, your solution has failed in real life, in reality. So, you're entitled to your view as much as you're entitled to be wrong by sticking to that view regardless of the stats and data presented to you. This is the definition of ignorance. It's also a way to define insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I never said that a gun ban would reduce violent crime and I merely illustrated how the 2nd amendment has been misconstrued thru time to mean something other than what it was originally drafted for.
You don't have the slightest clue what it was originally drafted to mean because you haven't researched it at all. You haven't read the writings of those involved in drafting the Constitution and you haven't read about the history of the forming of this country and how firearms played an essential role in ensuring its survival. You won't find one piece of writing by a single person who drafted the constitution that says the private citizen should not have access to firearms.

Fatuous reasoning.

Airbags, life jackets, anti-lock brakes, smoke detectors, crash helmets all provide passive safety without the risk of any of them being misappropriated for malevolence. I wonder why you might prefer to ignore this obvious factor by claiming the gun is some how a cure to your fears, as opposed to the cause of them?
And yet you expect me to change my views because you're afraid of firearms? There are lots of people who are afraid of cars and motorcycles and planes and boats. Should we eliminate all those things because someone is afraid of them?

Not really. But the ability to enjoy it, is certainly not without its limitations.
Sure it is.

And so what was your experience of 9-11 and how did this contribute to your thinking that being armed was a good idea? In fact, how would being armed be good for anyone who experienced 9-11?
Being armed has nothing to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with what we were previously talking about with the holding of captured enemy combatants and intelligence gathering.

It is an enduring legacy to your nation that the WTC attacks can be invoked as an unquestionable justification for anything. You do the victims of that day, as well as the future of your country a tremendous disservice by stooping to such depths.
Simply an opinion. Did we do injustice when we stooped to such levels of declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor? You know more people died in the WTC attack than Pearl Harbor?

You would remain confused as it seems like a normal part of life to you to have the privacy of law abiding citizens invaded on a regular basis. That doesn't happen here. Shocking, I know.

Cue irony. You just cannot help yourself can you?
This, coming from the person who lives in a country where self-defense is a punishable crime and where your personal belongings are not private.

Sound bites from your good self. You are painting quite a picture of yourself.
I'm enjoying the one you're presenting as the person who ignores anything that challenges his view of the world.

Not opinion, but fact as per their own www site.
Show me text from their site where it shows they control the content of the media and they're participating in brainwashing.

It is called a façade. You have been duped. My sympathies.
Cute. It's funny how you sound like such conspiracy theorist. Take the tin foil hat off. It's amazing how you think everything in this country is a conspiracy, but you ignore everything about your own country's proceedings.

Point in question….. War in irak found to be based on spurious intelligence and fabrications. Consequence? Nothing. Any criminal charges? Nope. Any calls for impeachment? Nothing with any effect. And war tribunal? No chance. And thus, what opposition is there to the policial party which perpetrated this dire situation? There is NONE. United as one party.
There aren't any infractions that qualify to impeach the President. You seem to have a grotesque misunderstanding of how this government functions. You seem to forget that there was an overwhelming support for the Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Should we impeach every single member of Congress who voted in favor of the war?

Theoretically speaking perhaps. In reality tho… see previous observation.
Yup, you've been duped and you read what you want and believe what you want and ignore everything that challenges your little view of the world.

And what comes from all of this diversity and dissention? Nothing.
Why? Coz talk is cheap and the effect is a one party system. Any distinction begins and ends with the rosette colour.
Is that democratic choice? No, it is a façade to maintain your complacency.
Wrong again. Conservative talk radio has been very effective in stopping legislation that is bad for the country. Why do you think this legislation is only targeting conservative talk radio? It does not bring up forcing liberal stations to broadcast conservative content? It does not charge the liberal-slated newspapers to print conservative pieces. If you can't see that, you're either willfully blind or borderline incompetent.

This is grasping, in an attempt to salvage any credability in the original (and seen to be lacking) claim.
Wrong, you misread the first claim and went off on a rant that had nothing to do with the point I was making. I wasn't suggesting someone can start their own radio broadcasting facility.

Also, anyone can qualify to get a radio broadcasting license to use a HAM radio. Those can reach audiences at great distances. Those don't cost $100,000.

So now from 'anyone can start a radio station' we have to consider the chances of someone being employed by a pre-existing station, who then earns promotion thru out their career, until a point at which they might contribute to content.
This happens all the time. Where do you think talk-show hosts and DJs get their jobs from?

Not only does one's being hired depend upon others, but so does every step of career progression and content idea submission etc etc etc…… and so this freedom goes only as far as someone's manager, station owner, sponsor portfolio, local political representative and FCC legislator. Yeah… 'free'. :laugh:
Laugh it up. People don't seem to have trouble getting jobs and getting shows started.

and i would be insulted, if i needed to be told that the most accessible form of governmental coercion was based upon economic exclusivity; so i shall refrain from responding to your suggestion of 'Just because there is a cost you can't afford doesn't mean you don't have the freedom to do so. You can't afford it. That's a personal problem, not a government controlled sanction against you or your message.'
Again, this is your personal problem. Not mine. If you can't afford something, it's not my fault. Go do something differently with your life.\

There is economic opportunity in this country that doesn't exist in other places around the world. Why do you think people come here legally with a few dollars in their hands and become wealthy? They work hard and they work smart. That concept of economic opportunity and freedom may be new to you.

Consider the relationships between the chiefs of these private corporations and the local public servants.
You will see the 'hands of government' if you have the courage to look.
There are lobbyists in every government. There are limits to their effectiveness and why do you think there are actions being taken right now in Washington to eliminate their influence?

Is this your attempt to tell me that even if they wished to, those behind the curtain could not eavesdrop on every facet of your life?
This is clearly your attempt to sidestep the question and answer that, no, you haven't read the patriot act. This is you answering as such to avoid bringing up that you have no idea about what you're talking about and only going on baseless ideas and what you think the Patriot Act might say.

:duh

:duh
Sure, more tin foil hat stuff. So, you're answering with a "duh" that you're telling me the government wants me to carry a gun because they're intentionally not properly prosecuting and punishing criminals. Then you try to tell me that I shouldn't carry a gun because I'll never need one and they constantly get up out of their holsters and jump into the hands of the criminals. You talk down to me about living in fear of my neighbors and that's why I carry a gun but at the same time try to tell me it's government action keeping the criminals on the streets on purpose in the first place.

This is the funniest thing I've read in quite a while. I should buy stock in tin foil based on your consumption alone.

Who is the idiot now? Well I guess it is the person who talks about communism and then receives a post they do not like and so begins to refer to tribes instead…. Without any kind of reference or substance.
Why should I give you a reference? You don't read them anyway. And if you do, if they conflict with your Mikey Mouse view of the world, you ignore them. If it's inconvenient, you call it a tabloid.

I don't need to give you a reference...it's common sense and in your history books. Read about the agrarian and communal societies that existed the world over prior to the industrial revolution.

Believe me, if you wish to suggest I am an idiot, I will not be concerned in the slightest. Knock yerself out.
You'll ignore that claim just like you ignore all the other data, facts, and statistics I present to you. It's nothing new to you.

Expecting? What like democratic socialism you mean?
Like totalitarianism. Complete centralization. Read the Communist Manifesto. It will sound like home when you read it.

Shouldn't take you long, you can read it in one sitting.

The point remains that the concept of capitalism beneifts the few by exploiting the majority. It is clear from this very fact that such as system is subjectively good or bad, more than any other.

As for the source's credability, if you wish to undermine then that is for you to do. I assure you tho, you'll not be able to to.
And communism is the exploitation of the worker for the communist dictator. You see, Stalin nor any other communist leader ever lived at the means those who lived under their rule did. Those who rule in a world of communism aren't subject to the laws of the state. Therefore, no one has opportunity, no one.

At least in capitalism, there is equal opportunity. There will always be different levels of ability, intelligence, and skills. Those who excel and have better abilities should always have the ability to be more successful.

Nope, I never even suggested that. It was simply one of many like minded opinions. If I were to post all that are available, these posts would get even longer!!!
Like-minded individuals who are generally incorrect about every facet of their articles. Great, post a bunch of articles by a group of idiots who can't get their information right. That'd be a great way to convince me my views are wrong. However, I frequently post credible information and statistics and you blow them off. I at least took the time to read and comment about the entire article.

This is a brave allegation seeing as you know nothing about me.
I know enough about how you view the world. I know enough about people like you who keep their heads firmly buried in the sand on a number of issues. I know enough people who are hypocritical.

'Inconvenient' - not at all correct

'destroying the country' - as nonsensical as it is melodramatic.
Ok, well you can call it what you want, but when the defining parameters for a government's existence are laid out and clearly defined, and then you and groups of people like you wish to rewrite the document, that's destroying the country that is defined by that founding document. This country was created on purpose with a purpose and how it was created was not an accident. It was to prevent the style of government that exists in the UK from forming at all here. When people with your thought process want to change what's inconvenient to them, it's a matter of changing the government and the country as a whole.




If you don't like the Constitution as it is, it's one more motivating factor for you to stay where you are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
The police cannot be held responsible or liable for not protecting an individual. The police have no duty to protect anyone. They are not obligated to put their lives on the line for any individual.
Well that is unfortunate for you then, and more indicative of a litigious society than one that suffers from a lack of authority. It is a wonder that a police force exists at all, but it does and so you ar obliged to conform to them and yet cannot have any expectation of them? This is so whacky, it cannot be correct.

Statistics show that in every city and state that allow the legally armed citizen to carry a firearm in self-defense, these cities experience lower violent crime numbers than cities and states who do not.
This is a consequence of a lack of universality, rather than a benefit of being armed.

We don't and you're and idiot if you think we do.
Name calling aside, I fail to see the 'idiocy' of observing that legalising the ownership of a firearm, fails to equate to their being more wide spread.

Prove me wrong. You won't, because you won't take the time to do this and if you do, you'll find I'm correct. Good luck.
It is not I that needs luck. Statistics which are all too well known the world over, illustrate that the gun ownership in america is one of the main aspects of your society tha tmakes it comparable if not worse, than those lawless states you feel superior over.

Meanwhile other westernised nations who do not permit such massive gun ownership have markedly lower homocide rates. This is so well known, it doesn’t require proving.

I don't pay taxes for healthcare and I pay fewer taxes as a percentage of my income than you. Which would you prefer?
How much tax do you pay then?

I understand your view and I see where you're coming from. However, your solution has failed in real life, in reality.
The rest of the world alas, would disagree with you my friend.

So, you're entitled to your view as much as you're entitled to be wrong by sticking to that view regardless of the stats and data presented to you. This is the definition of ignorance. It's also a way to define insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
It is not I, who is labouring the concept of greater gun availability to combat, gun crime!

You don't have the slightest clue what it was originally drafted to mean because you haven't researched it at all. You haven't read the writings of those involved in drafting the Constitution and you haven't read about the history of the forming of this country and how firearms played an essential role in ensuring its survival. You won't find one piece of writing by a single person who drafted the constitution that says the private citizen should not have access to firearms.
And you will not find one piece of writing by a single person who drafted the constitution that says you ought not put your balls in the mouth of a crocodile, but that doesn’t mean it is a good thing to do.

Point is, with historical context in tact, and as you just said, 'the firearm played an essential role'. But emphasis is placed on the past tense of the word PLAYED. I am sure your founding fathers would hope that since then, you have progressed. It seems they are entitled to be disappointed in you.

And yet you expect me to change my views because you're afraid of firearms? There are lots of people who are afraid of cars and motorcycles and planes and boats. Should we eliminate all those things because someone is afraid of them?
:confused:

Did we do injustice when we stooped to such levels of declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor?
Of course you did. That was a prime example of manufacturing consent….. Which you find easier to dismiss as tin foil hat time…. (More of that later)

You would remain confused as it seems like a normal part of life to you to have the privacy of law abiding citizens invaded on a regular basis.
Where do you find your 'facts' from?

This, coming from the person who lives in a country where self-defense is a punishable crime and where your personal belongings are not private.
:confused: see previous question.

Show me text from their site where it shows they control the content of the media and they're participating in brainwashing.
:laugh: go fetch for yourself.

Cute. It's funny how you sound like such conspiracy theorist. Take the tin foil hat off. It's amazing how you think everything in this country is a conspiracy, but you ignore everything about your own country's proceedings.
Cite 'conspiracy' so as not to think about it. This coming from the guy who claims such a grasp of reality. I mean really…. How would you know?

There aren't any infractions that qualify to impeach the President. You seem to have a grotesque misunderstanding of how this government functions. You seem to forget that there was an overwhelming support for the Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Should we impeach every single member of Congress who voted in favor of the war?
And on what, was this 'overwhleming support' based upon?

Yup, you've been duped and you read what you want and believe what you want and ignore everything that challenges your little view of the world.
My little view of the world counts the votes made for all these parties, which you allege had an equal chance of achieving election.
My view also considers the financial resources each has and the resultant media coverage. What does your view allow…. Little more than a life long commitment to voting red no doubt?

Also, anyone can qualify to get a radio broadcasting license to use a HAM radio. Those can reach audiences at great distances. Those don't cost $100,000.
No they don't cost over $100k, but they are still FCC regulated and the audience that the transmit to are only other ham radio operators. Reaching out to the masses, it is not. Nice try tho… no really! :rolleyes:

Laugh it up. People don't seem to have trouble getting jobs and getting shows started.
Of all those who try, how many succeed?

Again, this is far removed from your original allegation (irresepctive of your efforts to revise)

There is economic opportunity in this country that doesn't exist in other places around the world. Why do you think people come here legally with a few dollars in their hands and become wealthy? They work hard and they work smart. That concept of economic opportunity and freedom may be new to you.
And how many come with a few dollars in their pockets, simply to earn over $100k to give to the FCC?

Stop flailing and get back on topic please.

There are lobbyists in every government. There are limits to their effectiveness and why do you think there are actions being taken right now in Washington to eliminate their influence?
You say this now, even tho previously, you tried to suggest that there were no such relationships. Consistency?

Sure, more tin foil hat stuff. So, you're answering with a "duh" that you're telling me the government wants me to carry a gun because they're intentionally not properly prosecuting and punishing criminals. Then you try to tell me that I shouldn't carry a gun because I'll never need one and they constantly get up out of their holsters and jump into the hands of the criminals. You talk down to me about living in fear of my neighbors and that's why I carry a gun but at the same time try to tell me it's government action keeping the criminals on the streets on purpose in the first place.
Presumably you are suggesting inconsistency on my part. However, you make yourself guilty of the exact same thing, but disagreeing with both views.

But yeah, the gov holds your welfare as an over-riding priority…. :rolleyes:

Why should I give you a reference? You don't read them anyway. And if you do, if they conflict with your Mikey Mouse view of the world, you ignore them. If it's inconvenient, you call it a tabloid.
I have read everything you have posted and indeed several were tabloid. You should post reference tho, as it might make your ascertions appear less garbled. But as you prefer; yeah, communism fails coz of tribes…….

Like totalitarianism. Complete centralization. Read the Communist Manifesto. It will sound like home when you read it.
Shouldn't take you long, you can read it in one sitting.
Such a black and white world. There is no end to your willingness to leap to extremes. Well done. However, you suggested an expectation of socialist governance in the UK; but newsflash, we have had a democratic socialist government since 1997!

And communism is the exploitation of the worker for the communist dictator. You see, Stalin nor any other communist leader ever lived at the means those who lived under their rule did. Those who rule in a world of communism aren't subject to the laws of the state. Therefore, no one has opportunity, no one.
In this respect communism is little different to capitalism. But I will agree, communism is a philosophy that functions on in theory and not sadly, in practice. Such is the weakness of human kind.

At least in capitalism, there is equal opportunity. There will always be different levels of ability, intelligence, and skills. Those who excel and have better abilities should always have the ability to be more successful.
Whilst I will concede that communism fails, I cannot accept the idea that there is 'equal opportunity'. This is bollocks.
Class or racial prejudices guarantee this in both of our countries for the vast majority of people.

This country was created on purpose with a purpose and how it was created was not an accident.
Deliberate and devoid of any ambition to progress thru improvement. Shame really.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Maybe you should read this "Evil Among Us."

Watch the video with the interview of the shooter in jail.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Well that is unfortunate for you then, and more indicative of a litigious society than one that suffers from a lack of authority. It is a wonder that a police force exists at all, but it does and so you ar obliged to conform to them and yet cannot have any expectation of them? This is so whacky, it cannot be correct.
It is correct. Like it or not. The same applies in your country. The police do not have a responsibility to the individual to protect them from crime. Police are charged with the duty of responding to crimes and apprehending suspects. The courts handle the justice/punishment. The police only are responsible for putting the criminals in the possession of the authorities so they may be tried in court and providing the evidence to conduct such a trial.

This is a consequence of a lack of universality, rather than a benefit of being armed.
No it's not. Not at all. Crime exists most where the targets are easier prey. This is like the food chain. The predators attack the easiest prey. If the prey can fight back and protect itself, the predator moves on to new prey.

Name calling aside, I fail to see the 'idiocy' of observing that legalising the ownership of a firearm, fails to equate to their being more wide spread.
Because those who legally purchase/own firearms do not go around the community like Johnny Appleseed spreading guns throughout the community. Owning firearms does not equate to dispersing or dispensing the rations of arms to all individuals.

It is not I that needs luck. Statistics which are all too well known the world over, illustrate that the gun ownership in america is one of the main aspects of your society tha tmakes it comparable if not worse, than those lawless states you feel superior over.

Meanwhile other westernised nations who do not permit such massive gun ownership have markedly lower homocide rates. This is so well known, it doesn’t require proving.
There may be more homicides in this country, but the fact remains that several of these "westernized" countries you're talking about half higher violent crime rates in all other categories outside of homicide.

Also, there was an article I read recently that more than 50% of all gun deaths each year in this country are suicides.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.
From the Associate Press...

Perhaps we should be focused on DUI issues since more people die from DUI and alcohol-related accidents compared to gun related deaths, suicides included.

How much tax do you pay then?
Federal, State, and Local all combine for less than 30%. I pay less taxes when I put fuel in my car as well. I don't pay a VAT tax, either.

The rest of the world alas, would disagree with you my friend.
Wrong wrong wrong. Your own country has higher violent crime than the US outside of rape and homicide. That's just your country. We're not talking about the rest of the world either.

This isn't a pissing contest between the UK and the US. The UK was brought up as an example of how reducing the public's ability to protect themselves has resulted in higher violent crimes like home invasions, robberies, assaults, etc.

It is not I, who is labouring the concept of greater gun availability to combat, gun crime!
Right. It's you who thinks that taking away the guns from the law abiding citizens reduces crime. It doesn't. Every example of where guns are banned has resulted in higher violent crimes, robberies, and home invasions. That's not an acceptable solution.

And you will not find one piece of writing by a single person who drafted the constitution that says you ought not put your balls in the mouth of a crocodile, but that doesn’t mean it is a good thing to do.
Don't be ridiculous. I already provided countless quotes from a number of signers/framers of the Constitution who supported the right to keep and bear arms for the individual. What more do you want?

Point is, with historical context in tact, and as you just said, 'the firearm played an essential role'. But emphasis is placed on the past tense of the word PLAYED. I am sure your founding fathers would hope that since then, you have progressed. It seems they are entitled to be disappointed in you.
Needs change. Firearms are just as vital today as were then. Why do you think there has never been an full-scale invasion or any major attack on this country by any military on the mainland United States in the last 200+ years?

Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto understood it. "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." That was as recent as WW2.

I know, nothing new. It's ok.

Of course you did. That was a prime example of manufacturing consent….. Which you find easier to dismiss as tin foil hat time…. (More of that later)
You're truly clueless if you feel it was wrong, immoral, whatever to declare war and Japan for what they did. I guess it was injust and manufacturing consent when the UK declared war on Nazi Germany after their invasion of Poland, you know, since the UK wasn't attacked by Germany first. You have to be kidding me with this...

Where do you find your 'facts' from?
Random stop and searches, gun bans, an upcoming knife ban, etc.

:confused: see previous question.
Not surprised by your confusing...see the above. When you're being stopped and searched on the street randomly without probable cause for whatever contraband the government feels is a threat simply because there is a crime level that's obviously unacceptable to everyone else in your country...I would expect this to be self-evident to you. I would expect someone like you, someone who claims to be a law-abiding citizen to be upset by being treated like a suspected villain for simply going about your business.

:laugh: go fetch for yourself.
That's what I thought. You can't/won't.

Cite 'conspiracy' so as not to think about it. This coming from the guy who claims such a grasp of reality. I mean really…. How would you know?
What?

And on what, was this 'overwhleming support' based upon?
A near unanimous vote in Congress. A unified call to action by the American people. People are so forgetful these days. This was less than 7 years ago.

My little view of the world counts the votes made for all these parties, which you allege had an equal chance of achieving election.
My view also considers the financial resources each has and the resultant media coverage. What does your view allow…. Little more than a life long commitment to voting red no doubt?
I'm thoroughly disgusted with what the Republican party is doing. Both parties these days are appalling. However, you want to talk about slanted media coverage...you just don't get it.

The last time McCain went to Iraq to visit with military officials, etc...the news reported it in two sentences: "In other political news, John McCain is in Iraq again."

However, now we have Obama going to Iraq for the first time in years, yes years, first time ever, never been to Afghanistan before, and he has an entire entourage of reporters following him around like wanton slut groupies jockeying for interviews.

You have recent events where Jesse Jackson used the word n*gger and it was all but swept under the carpet until recently. This is the same guy who called for action against the white lacrosse players at Duke and the firing of Don Imus after calling the Rutgers Girls' Basketball team "nappy headed hoes."

You have liberals protecting liberals in this country when it comes to the media.

You have Nancy Pelosi recently calling the President Bush a "complete failure" when she has failed to do anything she said she was going to do as Speaker of the House. She's failed to act in the position of leadership she holds to even get Congress to do its job at all.

It's called slanted media and hypocrisy. This is what makes that article you posted from the whack job blogger about the US being totalitarian and media slanted to benefit the Republicans so farking laughable.

No they don't cost over $100k, but they are still FCC regulated and the audience that the transmit to are only other ham radio operators. Reaching out to the masses, it is not. Nice try tho… no really! :rolleyes:
Anyone listening on that frequency can pick it up. It doesn't require special technology. It requires a license to broadcast which can be obtained by passing a test. Do you have any knowledge on the subject at all?

Of all those who try, how many succeed?

Again, this is far removed from your original allegation (irresepctive of your efforts to revise)
How many people play soccer? How many become professionals? 1/10,000th of 1%, maybe?

The question wasn't whether will or will not be successful, it was about opportunity. You're twisting things to try to avoid the fact that anyone can do it. Now that I've established that, you're now challenging how many people are successful at it. When you can't win the argument, you change the argument. Typical.

And how many come with a few dollars in their pockets, simply to earn over $100k to give to the FCC?
What does immigrants being successful in this country have to do with the FCC? Another typical response. Take two unrelated issues and merge them to make it look impossible to answer.

Stop flailing and get back on topic please.
Stop twisting the questions around because you can't answer them without admitting you're incorrect on the issue.

You say this now, even tho previously, you tried to suggest that there were no such relationships. Consistency?
I never said that at all. I never said there are no relationships at all in any way, shape, or form.

Twisting again? Stretching?

Presumably you are suggesting inconsistency on my part. However, you make yourself guilty of the exact same thing, but disagreeing with both views.

But yeah, the gov holds your welfare as an over-riding priority…. :rolleyes:
Again, when you're losing the argument because I've clearly pointed out the flaws in your ever changing views, you attempt to sidestep the issue and move on to something else completely unrelated. Nice.

What are these two views I allegedly disagree with? That the government is purposefully keeping criminals on the street? Yes. I disagree with that. That I carry a gun because of a government created fear? Yes, I disagree with that as well.

Is there something I'm missing, because that doesn't make me a hypocrite or inconsistent in my views.

I have read everything you have posted and indeed several were tabloid. You should post reference tho, as it might make your ascertions appear less garbled. But as you prefer; yeah, communism fails coz of tribes…….
You have me laughing again. More allegations of tabloids, yet you use the most slanted news sources this country has to offer. You're still hung up on the tribes thing. I never said anything about communism failing because of tribes of Native Americans. Another sarcastic and callous twist of unrelated things I said being used together in an effort to make me look stupid. It's ok, it's fine that you want to try to win the debate by parse sentences and thoughts together that are completely unrelated and out of context. Debating with methods like that simply shows you can't win and your views don't hold water. It shows you can't win by sticking to the facts, so your resort to parsing/twisting/stretching/etc in an effort to ridicule.

Such a black and white world. There is no end to your willingness to leap to extremes. Well done. However, you suggested an expectation of socialist governance in the UK; but newsflash, we have had a democratic socialist government since 1997!
What does the UK being socialist and my suggestion that you read the communist manifesto and having it sound like home have anything to do with a distinct black and white world?

Communism and socialism fail. They resort to totalitarianism and tyranny. You watch. Nowhere on earth has it traversed a destiny without going through those phases.

In this respect communism is little different to capitalism. But I will agree, communism is a philosophy that functions on in theory and not sadly, in practice. Such is the weakness of human kind.
Sorry, it's not sad. Sorry, it's not like capitalism. Anyone in a free-market, free-enterprise society can be successful. When you have the freedom to work as hard as you want to earn as much as you want, that is always better than when it doesn't matter what you do or how much you work that you always make the same as the next person. Communism tries to run a society the way a machine operates. No one piece is more important than another because when one part of the machine breaks, the whole thing is out of commission. Therefore, no matter what that part does, not matter how big or small, or how much effort it exerts, it is equal in all respects to the other parts. That doesn't work in reality because people, well most people, obviously not you, have a desire to become better and improve their situation. You can always improve. No matter what. Communism teaches apathy and complacency.

Capitalism allows the best of the best to rise to the top and be the best while those who are not as ambitious can stay at a level their comfortable with. It's called economic opportunity. Communism is about economic oppression.

Ask the Cubans how they like their brand new ability to have access to cell phones, microwaves, and electronic rice cookers all this year. Imagine that. Something as simple as the microwave, an appliance we take for granted, they're getting to use for the very first time.

Whilst I will concede that communism fails, I cannot accept the idea that there is 'equal opportunity'. This is bollocks.
Class or racial prejudices guarantee this in both of our countries for the vast majority of people.
Sorry, classes in this country are defined by liberal politicians who want to control those with the money and the power. There is no ruling class in this country. There is no part of this country that says if you're born into this family with this family tree, you can't do this or you can't do that. That's bollocks.

Racial prejudices are self-imposed by people who want to make excuses. Look at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The two biggest race card players. They make excuses for black people and blame whites for everything. All the while you have guys like Tiger Woods accumulating incredible wealth, a man like Michael Steele becoming a successful politician who I wouldn't mind seeing run for President next time around. He's a black man I would vote for because I like his policy views. The hysterical part of your argument about race is there is a possibility we could have a black president this upcoming year and you think there are still strong racial limitations in this country. That's funny.

Deliberate and devoid of any ambition to progress thru improvement. Shame really.
That's funny. Here's the preamble of the US Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

More perfect Union...surely there's no progress there. Surely no ambition or progress in this country when this is the world's leader in countless areas of technology and developments.

Why do more people want to immigrate here every day than anywhere else in the world?
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
After knives are banned, you'll see these marketed for a while, until they're banned, too.

 
1 - 20 of 73 Posts
Top