looks like you're stuck in the 50's yet pal. we've moved on to fighting the idea of "terrorism" :1orglaugh you clearly have your head in your ass, have fun trolling, im going back to work. :upsidedow

I wish i know who wrote this on gfy. I copied and pasted it from another thread but no clue who wrote it here. Anyway, it's so funny and true. This so describes people like Geedub and Deejne and tons of others.

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

Unlike many other countries in the developed world, where it is almost traditional to travel internationally soon after graduation, most americans will never stray outside their own borders; so they get no real firsthand experience of what the rest of the world is like, and can only form opinions based on what they were taught in school (not much) and what they see on TV (typically biased).

You pledge allegience to the flag every morning in school; proceed to learn about Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Paul Revere, Lewis and Clark, Slavery, the US Civil War, how approxiately a dozen Americans defeated the entire English army, then Hitlers army. And that about sums up all the world history you'll get, at least until college (university), if you attend.

Those with more worldly experience may have visited the 3rd world country below them, Mexico, or (what they consider) the 51st State above them, Canada. Some may consider Hawaii an international destination.

I would guess less than 1% of Americans have gone any further.

I have met a scary number of adults here who think that England is still ruled by the Queen and that the USA is the only country with 'Freedom' or 'Democracy' or toilet paper. They do try to give you that impression.

Call it patriotism or propaganda, but this country is more fanatically in love with itself than any other. It really puts itself on a pedastool. Flags on everything. Declarations of 'Land of the Free, Home of the Brave', 'These Colors Don't Run', and other silly solgans on billboards. Businesses even whore out 911 in radio commercials, using patriotism to push product. Politicans compete with eachother on how many times they can incorporate the phrase 'Greatest Nation On Earth' into their speeches. It would border on bizarre if you weren't so used to it.

So of course, with all that around them, a lot of people believe it.

But all the flag-waving and rhetoric would be no more than annoying, if not for the fact that it is blinding the population to abuses of power. America is not a facist regime Yet. I don't know that it ever could be. But they are certainly putting the tools in place to make that a possibility. And that's far more significant than the particular individual who happens to take office.

I won't argue the fact that it is an informal usage of the term. My point is that ultimately those appointed justices, like the rest of our government, answer to the will of the people.

4 of them apparently do not like this concept.

If it wasn't for the US you and you're fagot neighbors would all be sucking German dick now.

Blah blah...if it wasnt for the Europeans your inbreed ass wouldnt even exist right now. Neither would your society. Lame argument? Just as lame as your German thing.

Anyway, i loved how you quickly dissapeared in that thread the other day where you showed me and the rest of gfy that you dont know how statistics work and had no clue what IQ is :1orglaugh That seriously funny shit. I bet felt really fucking stupid when you left. Dont worry, i wouldve done the same man. Just leave and hope the thread dies :1orglaugh

Poor guy :1orglaugh

that would seem to be a likely cause for the uncivilized behavior and signs of aggression so frequently demonstrated by a small % of the people on this board.

I cannot even remember one single time when an American went off on a multi-post spree of complaints about any one particular issue of law or policy in a foreign land, yet it occurs here on a daily basis.

I guess if you know that you are destined to always be a punk bitch in your own country, it might provide some sense of relief to vent towards those who do live in a free society.

Yup there is the difference between me and you. When a image folder accidently gets removed I fix it soon as someone notifies me. You however had latin on your site for well over a year after knowing about it. lol :thumbsup

That's right, I don't know what IQ is. I left that thread because if you argue with a fool, you will leave the argument feeling like a fool.

I think you should read that thread again :1orglaugh

Nah, you know very well you looked like an idiot because you had no clue how statistics work. Every post you made showed that :1orglaugh

Dont worry, it happens to the best of us...well not really but im just trying to make you look less like an idiot who got owned in that thread :1orglaugh

Actually if it wasn't the Russians not the US,they would all be speaking german. We lost about 400k guys ,the russians lost 50 million. If hitler wasnt busy fighting on multiple fronts, dday could of been very different.

and if it was wasnt for the french we would all be british.

Explaining history to Americans like him is the same as trying to teach an egg japanese.

true, but if it were the Russians that liberated western europe things there would have been very different today, the Russians were a lesser evil

The Judge, please explain us again how the average IQ of 1.2 billion people in India shouldnt be as low as it is now because there are some real smart businessmen from India :1orglaugh

Oh shit that was seriously funny :1orglaugh

And how farmers are able to survive in an environment i wouldnt so they have a higher IQ, right? :1orglaugh

Oh man...

Im amazed how people on an education level this low have the nerve to come in threads and act as if they know everything...

it would not matter french or british, how can u compare those to german occupation?

In lieu of 5 more pages of your dreaded "triple :1orglaugh" flying retard attack, I would love to instead see you go before the US supreme court and argue your case. Why don't you? Hit them with enough laughing smilies and who knows what legal decisions you'll end up affecting. :D

I wasnt it was two separate thoughts and my point was that we have had important help in our past.

They don't answer to the will of the people at all. They answer to the law. The will of the people at one time was to not allow blacks to go to the same school as whites. Does that make those Supreme Court Justices traitors?

Our forefathers also didn't believe those rights should be given to women or blacks. They also didn't believe in giving the people the direct vote to elect their own President.

As for the 50% of our money to tax, you are naming a small fraction of the countries and a small fraction of their population. There are also a lot of Americans paying over 50% of their money to the government, and can't get their health care for free. When all is said and done, you can try and break up the taxes all you want, but we end up paying just as much as other countries. They get more for their money though.

To be fair, America did provide almost all the funding and weaponry at the climax of the war so that the Russians could fight them off.

they answer to the law because we permit them to do so.

as I said, if there had been 5 traitors rather than 4, certain actions would likely have been taken by the public to hold them accountable. but fortunately that did not need to happen :2 cents:

guns dont kill people. people kill people.

By your thinking, those Supreme Court justices who found slavery unconstitutional, segregation unconstitutional, as well as sedition laws that didn't allow you to speak ill of the government or politicians unconstitutional, would be deemed traitors by you and your ilk.

The courts answer to no one but the Constitution. They should never be swayed by public opinion. It's the checks and balance of our government. If we didn't have it, blacks would still be picking cotton and women unable to vote or own property.

now you're coming around to the reasoning of the framers of our constitution.

"checks and balances" - they are important.

while every other topic you mentioned may be successfully litigated and debated within our system, banned and overturned, the second amendment is the keystone to our entire system of government. it is the last balance of power between the public and government, and this is not my mere conjecture or a theory by some militia group, it is the opinion of the founding fathers of this country.

By referencing their writings, there can be absolutely no doubt as to the intention of the second amendment. It is intended as a protection from a tyrannical government. So long as we preserve that right, we have little need to fear a tyrannical government from ever coming to be. If we are asked to give up that right, we are being asked to fundamentally alter the system of checks and balances this government is intended to function under.

Those dissenting justices are well aware of this. Whether they personally support or oppose gun control is of no matter. The law clearly states what the majority affirmed, and just a little bit of research reveals the opinion of those who wrote & signed that law in the first place. So yes, I do question the integrity - and loyalty - of any justice who so flagrantly disregards our laws, as should you, regardless of what your opinion is on gun control.

What laws will those dissenting justices ignore next? Something more dear to you? They cannot be trusted. :2 cents:

In the 18th Century, you theoretically could put together a militia and take over the government. The Federal government didn't have a lot of power, nor the reach. Today, that is impossible.

There is no way that a group of armed citizens will ever be able to overthrow the government. Our government has too much sophisticated weaponry and powerful allies to allow it to happen. If you truly believe that it is possible, I don't know what else I can say to you. We are a long ways from that time, the world and technology has changed. Governments have grown up. We can't just walk up to the capital with some muskets and demand a new government.

The funniest part about the ruling is that those who you agree with, are the ones who have routinely ruled against the First Amendment. They are the ones that believe porn is not protected under the 1st Amendment. They are the ones that believe that Habeas Corpus is not a right. That the 4th Amendment isn't really all that big of a deal.

I'm not against the ruling the other day. I just think it's insane to call justices who have a different interpretation of the law traitors. It's a retarded analogy thrown out by conservative blogs to rile up the uneducated. None of the justices there are traitors, they just have different viewpoints.

Just remember that the justices you agreed with the other day are the same ones that believe you have no right to work in this industry.

Well consider for a moment what would happen if the country was so splintered in some way as to actually incite the masses to that level. 300 million civilians vs how many in the standing army? Now do you believe that in such a situation all members of the military would cooperate and follow orders, or would some refuse to serve, some go awol, and other units take the side of the people, bringing with them their equipment? It's not so pointless as it might first seem. (I hope I'm not coming off as some kind of a kook here, that's not the type of event I would ever want to see need to come to pass)

If on the other hand you're talking about some lone backwoods militia group "getting fighting mad", no of course they're not going to achieve anything. There would be little chance of success unless the number of civilians fighting significantly outnumbered the military, and/or some groups within the military would lend support to the people.

well I haven't read any 'conservative blogs' on the matter and I'm not trying to rile up 'the uneducated', it's merely my own opinion.

which has absolutely nothing to do with this matter at all. and though I might find the opinion of the other 4 more personally advantageous in other matters, they still cannot be trusted :2 cents:

It is pointless. They have bombs. They have nukes. They win. It can't and will never happen.

The only way it is even is if we as citizens are allowed to have the same weapons they are. Do you believe we should be allowed to purchase nuclear weapons to use on our government if we don't like it anymore?

It truly is amazing that for a country that is a world leader in so many respects, that is so admired, so innovative and forward-thinking that the U.S.A. is so far out-of-touch with reality because of a clearly outdated Constitutional Amendment.

And gun lovers and gun companies will fight endlessly to protect it and they will keep winning because clearly the judges will forever be afraid to challenge it, and the politicians even more afraid to amend it.

So as always, the answer to America's gun problem?
More guns

Safer place? Nicer neighborhood? That comes with a pretty hefty price tag that not everyone can afford, unfortunately.

I come from Iceland, a country where most men over say 25 own guns and I'm pretty sure Iceland is safer than Holland, with less gun crimes per capita :upsidedow

Think that is exactly what the forefathers had in mind. :winkwink:

Tell that to the Viet Cong or the Sunni insurgents in Iraq. It is extremely difficult to defeat a well armed guerrilla insurgency on their own territory. Additionally in an all out civil war it is usually very difficult to keep all of the armed forces loyalty to central authority. If you study your history you will find that in civil wars the armed forces typically split into various factions loyal to their commanders rather than any central authority. See Yugoslavia in the 1990s or Russia in the 1920s.

:thumbsup

The most common reason you see time and time again about americans having guns is that if they were banned, then the criminals would only have them. Theoritcally its true and makes sense.

But practically its the most retarded reasoning you can have. In all my time in the UK, I have not once seen a gun and no gun related incedent has happend to anyone I know, can you say the same?, I have only seen the police and army have guns. This is because only the most serious criminals, no, not those who rob your house at night, im talking organised criminal sydicates.

now people associate guns with murder in england and thus only the top criminals will use them (top criminals who you will never meet in your life). And top criminals it is well known, will rarley target members of the public, they go after the serious money. And I tell you now, if a report comes through of someone having a gun, the police will go mental and send all they have after them.

Thus an explanation why it is safer without guns than with. Results prove it, doesnt matter how you spin it, the results are places without guns, have less deaths per 100,000 FACT.

no guns = safer community, now whats wrong with that?

because in the USA we have a right to them, and other arguments for or against them are irrelevant, something which annoys the hell out of the anti-gun crowd here :)

personally I'd rather live someplace like Switzerland where everyone has a gun, than in a place where they are banned. I have no idea what the crime rate is in Switzerland, but it seems like a nice place.

I agree, I was never a witness of shooting myself, not that the guns would be banned to posses, they are banned to carry and mainly people don't feel any need whatsoever to get one.

In fact you are MORE likely to get shot if you POSSES a gun:

1) you're much more likely to get involved in a conflict - psychologically, because you have "the gun"

2) how many of the gun owners ever pulled the trigger targeting someone, how many of them ever shot at someone?

90pct. of those that are not trained will never pull the trigger while facing a direct confrontation

Not to mention that the guns became a part of the status for many, it's a great business therefore anyone have to believe "it's their right to have a gun".

At least you are citing and article posted in 2002 on a medical website. An article that uses collected data from 1994. Is that the best you can do? Medicinenet.com ? :uhoh

Have any studies on the correlation between Gun bans and the increase of knife deaths?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080605...s_080605053516

Interesting.

I seem to recall you being pretty scared last year or so when a helicopter was over your neighborhood in search of a knife wielding hooker killer. Safer community? :winkwink: