America the Divided.

[Robber Baron]

How close do you think this coming election will be?

The libertarian party has my vote.But then again maybe GW cause he has a backbone although I dont agree with everything he does he still has morals,common knowledge,and he sticks to what he says.

Flip Flop Kerry is a rich turd who does anything to get a vote.

That and since Bush has been in office "The Man" has not come for my guns.hence no new gun laws.
Sept the AWB will expire and I can put the bayonet back on the AK along with my folding stock.

So how close do you think this election will be?

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Robber [email protected] 22 2004, 07:47 PM
How close do you think this coming election will be?

The libertarian party has my vote.But then again maybe GW cause he has a backbone although I dont agree with everything he does he still has morals,common knowledge,and he sticks to what he says.

Flip Flop Kerry is a rich turd who does anything to get a vote.

That and since Bush has been in office "The Man" has not come for my guns.hence no new gun laws.
Sept the AWB will expire and I can put the bayonet back on the AK along with my folding stock.

So how close do you think this election will be?
Hitler always kept his word. He had a backbone, you need to be gutsy to try and take over the world and kill 6 million people while you're at it.

Just because someone stands up for what they believe in doesn't mean that belief is worth supporting.

And why the hell do you need a Kalashnikov? Seriously, why? And a bayonet? What are you going to use that for aside from killing people?

[Robber Baron]

I have it to protect me and mine.And also because people like you question why I have one.It kind of makes me nervous.If you catch my drift ole brady.

[CubanFox]

Originally posted by Robber [email protected] 22 2004, 08:43 PM
And also because people like you question why I have one.It kind of makes me nervous.If you catch my drift ole brady.
Why would that make you want to own something that can fire 10 rounds a second?

[Robber Baron]

Well sit down for a sec and let me explain.
Man has a right to defend him/her/it's self from all sorts of threats.And well why settle for anything less.

A armed society is a polite one.

It just freaks me out that someone tells me what I can have as a firearm.

Ohh yea what seperates a free working man from a slave?A free working man has the chance to own firearms.

Molan Labe.

[CubanFox]

Hmm. I see what you mean. But still, I'd ban private gun ownership if it were possible.

As for the free man/slave thing, no, I believe free will and self determination characterise a free man more than ownership of copious amounts of fire arms.

[Crusader 4 da truth]

Originally posted by CubanFox+--> (CubanFox)Hitler always kept his word. He had a backbone, you need to be gutsy to try and take over the world and kill 6 million people while you're at it.[/b]

:D Typical Bush is Hitler, you guys just don't seem to get it. Its this kind of crazy rhetoric that hurts your cause.


CubanFox
And why the hell do you need a Kalashnikov? Seriously, why? And a bayonet? What are you going to use that for aside from killing people?

He needs it to fend of crazed communists after the revolution ;)

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da [email protected] 22 2004, 02:30 PM
:D Typical Bush is Hitler, you guys just don't seem to get it. Its this kind of crazy rhetoric that hurts your cause.
Indeed.

[Osman Ghazi]

Typical Bush is Hitler, you guys just don't seem to get it. Its this kind of crazy rhetoric that hurts your cause.


Its not even that. Cubanfox just pointed out that robberbaron was praising GW for having certain values, which is fine, really. However, he then pointed out that maybe these values/traits aren't positive.

Believe me, I'm as tired of Bu$h = as you are.

Edit: What I was originally going to say was this:


Flip Flop Kerry is a rich turd who does anything to get a vote.


Bush is only slightly less rich and I have no doubt that he and Kerry would go to similar lenghts to get a vote. Believe me, if you see any difference between Bush and Kerry, you should get yours eyes checked to say the least.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Crusader 4 da [email protected] 22 2004, 07:30 AM
:D Typical Bush is Hitler, you guys just don't seem to get it. Its this kind of crazy rhetoric that hurts your cause.
No one said that Bush is Hitler. What was being said was that having certain traits doesn't necessarily make you a good person. It's fairly simple logic: Person A is proposed to be good because he has trait X. Person B, who is historically known to be a complete bastard, also had trait X. Thus, having trait X isn't necessarily conducive to being a decent person.

That type of analogy is completely valid.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Robber [email protected] 22 2004, 11:06 AM

Ohh yea what seperates a free working man from a slave?

A "free working man" sells himself by the hour.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Robber [email protected] 22 2004, 09:47 AM
How close do you think this coming election will be?

The libertarian party has my vote.But then again maybe GW cause he has a backbone although I dont agree with everything he does he still has morals,common knowledge,and he sticks to what he says.

Flip Flop Kerry is a rich turd who does anything to get a vote.

That and since Bush has been in office "The Man" has not come for my guns.hence no new gun laws.
Sept the AWB will expire and I can put the bayonet back on the AK along with my folding stock.

So how close do you think this election will be?
AK's are OK, they are quite sturdy, they'll discharge while wet, sandy, and with 1/4 of their parts missing.

However, with a little aded TLC, I think a modern AR-15/M-16 is a better shooting weapon. better muzzle velocity, more rounds per minute, and more precise, especially at longer range. They also have the attachable grenade launcher.

[DaCuBaN]

AK's are OK, they are quite sturdy, they'll discharge while wet, sandy, and with 1/4 of their parts missing.

That's a socialist gun you're talking about there. Are you sure you wouldn't like to retract the statement? :lol: :rolleyes: ;)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:15 AM

That's a socialist gun you're talking about there. Are you sure you wouldn't like to retract the statement? :lol: :rolleyes: ;)
Hey, lets not kid ourselves, with this comment, much like the debates on this board, I can admit when certain points are good, but my final statement is always that "We're still better!!! ;)

[Robber Baron]

There is a grenade launcher attachment for a AK.

I have a norinco MAK-90.And a Bushy m-4 (AR-15)

In Sept I'll be able to have folding/Tele stocks thanks to AWB sunset.

I like the AR but it's like a Porche.You have to baby it.
The AK is like a Old Chevy.Run it and run it fast

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 24 2004, 01:12 AM
AK's are OK, they are quite sturdy, they'll discharge while wet, sandy, and with 1/4 of their parts missing.

However, with a little aded TLC, I think a modern AR-15/M-16 is a better shooting weapon. better muzzle velocity, more rounds per minute, and more precise, especially at longer range. They also have the attachable grenade launcher.
AK's also have bigger rounds, capable of penetrating much more than an M-16. I've spoken to many people in the military here and even they admit the AK-47 is much more deadlier than an M-16, although those are more accurate.

[Colombia]

Why would any of you carry a gun?Here in America we don't have gun crazy fiends running all over the place.Do you all live in such bad towns?

[Robber Baron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 06:52 AM
Why would any of you carry a gun?Here in America we don't have gun crazy fiends running all over the place.Do you all live in such bad towns?
people in the USA riot over Basketball games.Imagine if they were hungry.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 07:08 PM
Person A is proposed to be good because he has trait X. Person B, who is historically known to be a complete bastard, also had trait X. Thus, having trait X isn't necessarily conducive to being a decent person.

That type of analogy is completely valid.
Not if you are arguing by non-essentials.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:15 AM

That's a socialist gun you're talking about there. Are you sure you wouldn't like to retract the statement? :lol: :rolleyes: ;)
I wasn't aware guns had any political affilation.

[Osman Ghazi]

people in the USA riot over Basketball games.Imagine if they were hungry.

You won't have to imagine that, just give it 30 years or so.


Not if you are arguing by non-essentials.

Explain.


I wasn't aware guns had any political affilation.

It's usually very similar to that of its owner.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 24 2004, 12:35 AM
Not if you are arguing by non-essentials.
No, it's applicable to non-essential traits, too. Trait X, possessed by persons asserted to be 'good' and persons known to be 'evil', therefore doesn't necessarily make a person 'good' or 'evil'.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 04:09 AM
AK's also have bigger rounds, capable of penetrating much more than an M-16. I've spoken to many people in the military here and even they admit the AK-47 is much more deadlier than an M-16, although those are more accurate.
Actually, round velocity has as much to do with penetration and power as size.

Both rounds can easily kill. Thus, I would prefer the more accurate round.

There are supporters of both weapons.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by Robber [email protected] 22 2004, 09:47 AM
How close do you think this coming election will be?

The libertarian party has my vote.But then again maybe GW cause he has a backbone although I dont agree with everything he does he still has morals,common knowledge,and he sticks to what he says.

Flip Flop Kerry is a rich turd who does anything to get a vote.

That and since Bush has been in office "The Man" has not come for my guns.hence no new gun laws.
Sept the AWB will expire and I can put the bayonet back on the AK along with my folding stock.

So how close do you think this election will be?
Please vote libertarian and throw away your vote. Bush has morals? Like if you're not a hetrosexual you aren't entitled to the same rights as everyone else and lying, in order to justify a war? What about detaining people and holding them with no access to a lawyer and without being charged?

[gummo]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 24 2004, 04:23 PM

You won't have to imagine that, just give it 30 years or so.



Explain.



It's usually very similar to that of its owner.
If the US starts to starve I will move up north and eat canadians.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 24 2004, 04:23 PM

You won't have to imagine that, just give it 30 years or so.




Actually, America is easily the world's largest exporter of food. California iteslf exports more food, and more varied food, than any single other nation. We won't be straving in 30 years, or 100. We have a significant surplus, even after export and domestic consumption. If need be, yields can be distributed domestically to the extent that they are required.

Nice try, Osman.

[gummo]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27 2004, 02:50 PM
Actually, America is easily the world's largest exporter of food. California iteslf exports more food, and more varied food, than any single other nation. We won't be straving in 30 years, or 100. We have a significant surplus, even after export and domestic consumption. If need be, yields can be distributed domestically to the extent that they are required.

Nice try, Osman.
It's the ungrateful people that we feed that will starve. Maybe we should stop supplying other countries with food now and stockpile it.

[gummo]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 24 2004, 04:23 PM

You won't have to imagine that, just give it 30 years or so.




You may, at least in your own mind, have morals in Canada but we have spam. As long as we have spam we shall not starve!

[Osman Ghazi]

Actually, America is easily the world's largest exporter of food. California iteslf exports more food, and more varied food, than any single other nation.

A) Calfornia couldn't export more food than China, surely?
B) The question isn't whether its there or not, the question is will people be able to buy it?
C) It was not talking about a total collapse, it was in reference to Lucid's... I mean gummo's post about bread riots.
D) There will be bread riots long before there is actual starvation and, in the short run, the rioters may even succeed in gaining the concessions they desire.

[Nidafarian]

Previous | Next

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," ---THE OVAL
OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2001-GWB

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace
president."--Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:34 PM ET --Reuters

Hmm, can this not be coined "Flip-Flopping"?(you would think one could conjure up a better adjective than this "trendy" new term..i believe this term to be worse then the "WAZZ UPP!!" phase) To be "Flip-Flopping" on such matters as war and peace as the President of the U.S is huge.. As for morals, are you talking about the ones of George H or George W? Oh wait.. they both had the morals to drop "precision" guided bombs filled with Uranium on innocent women and children... At least they died instantly and did not have to suffer the repercussions of the uranium contaminating there drinking water and causing massive poisoning throughout Iraq...Now here's moral question...Why?


"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little
security deserve nether." Benjamin Franklin

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 29 2004, 07:24 PM

A) Calfornia couldn't export more food than China, surely?
B) The question isn't whether its there or not, the question is will people be able to buy it?
C) It was not talking about a total collapse, it was in reference to Lucid's... I mean gummo's post about bread riots.
D) There will be bread riots long before there is actual starvation and, in the short run, the rioters may even succeed in gaining the concessions they desire.


A) Actually, yes, California is the world's 2nd overall larger exporter of food, 2nd only to the USA itself. China may export say, more rice (not even sure of that), but as for all foods together, California exports more. Also, as part of it's communist component, much of China's crops are distributed internally.

B) In a state of emergency, food in the US can be distributed very cheaply.

C/D) I would say that bread riots are something of factual communist russia more than the theotrhetical near-future USA. Another jhit against communism (and yes the USSR was communism, the communism of reality, not the pie-in-the-sky theorhetical utopia).

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 11:45 PM
Previous | Next

"I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office
in foreign policy matters with war on my mind," ---THE OVAL
OFFICE, FEBRUARY 7, 2001-GWB

"Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace
president."--Tue Jul 20, 2004 04:34 PM ET --Reuters

Hmm, can this not be coined "Flip-Flopping"?(you would think one could conjure up a better adjective than this "trendy" new term..i believe this term to be worse then the "WAZZ UPP!!" phase) To be "Flip-Flopping" on such matters as war and peace as the President of the U.S is huge.. As for morals, are you talking about the ones of George H or George W? Oh wait.. they both had the morals to drop "precision" guided bombs filled with Uranium on innocent women and children... At least they died instantly and did not have to suffer the repercussions of the uranium contaminating there drinking water and causing massive poisoning throughout Iraq...Now here's moral question...Why?


"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for a little
security deserve nether." Benjamin Franklin
I could find anyone in the media spotlight that is frequently quoted, and eventually find a contradiction somewhere.


Besides, those two comments don't even really contradict each other. the fact is, he is a war president, i.e. he is a president at war.

At the same time, he concedes that no one wants to be a war president.

Again, not really contradictory.


And second, let's not spin unfortunate collateral damage with syntax that makes it out as if he specifically targeted women and children.

Why? Well, the WMD intelligence was obviously faulty, I admit that, but Saddam was in violation of security council resolution 1441 nonetheless, and America's post 9/11 policy of preemption was applied legitimately to the Ba'athist regime.

We need more thoughtful submissions from you if you expect to legitimately debate here, rookie.

[Osman Ghazi]

Another jhit against communism (and yes the USSR was communism, the communism of reality, not the pie-in-the-sky theorhetical utopia).


Communism is stateless. The USSR was a state. Therefore it was not communist. They call that logic.

[Nidafarian]

Ok, i agree with you that by just reading these two comments they may not seem to be contradictory.. However, these two comments were both made on Public Television and on could observe on each separate occasion that he was trying to portray himself as too different people when making the comments. A warmonger, and a pacifist..
Who are you Mr. Bush?

Mr. Bush knew what his weapons did as did his father...Look at Gulf War syndrome, Making this moral decision to use them again is a crime against humanity. So what are the after effects of these weapons? See for yourself.
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

I hope you can see the connection i am trying to make for it is apparent that you did not the first time. As for the name-calling, please don't be so shallow... If that is all you can resort to then please do not respond to this. This is not a high school locker room

[DaCuBaN]

the WMD intelligence was obviously faulty, I admit that, but Saddam was in violation of security council resolution 1441 nonetheless, and America's post 9/11 policy of preemption was applied legitimately to the Ba'athist regime

My emphasis, obviously.

Again, this is typical - trying to both have the cake whilst simultaneously eating it. By this 'rule' Israel should have long since been annexed, as should many, many other nations. The US needs to have their balls held in a vice and told to choose to either listen to the UN or don't: You can't have it both ways.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 29 2004, 08:16 PM
We need more thoughtful submissions from you if you expect to legitimately debate here, rookie.
Hah, you complaining about thoughtful submissions and legitimate debate?

Why don't you start by reading some theory and dropping the grade 5 arguments about "factual Communism"?

Or I may be forced to more aggressively persue my policy of editing out some of your more troll-like posts <_<

[Dio]

I think its pretty clear that the U.S. does not listen to the U.N. at all. Since it, along with Israel, vetoed almost all initiatives by other countries to limit "terrorism" and other things that could impede on U.S. hegemony.

U.S. arsenal does not contain weapons that could be considered terrorist. Such as depleted uranium shells, i don&#39;t think that would bode well for domestic morale if found out, and publicly reported.

Guess what, the U.S. is also the top importer of food. Which it recieves from starving countries like Haiti.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 01:37 PM
Ok, i agree with you that by just reading these two comments they may not seem to be contradictory.. However, these two comments were both made on Public Television and on could observe on each separate occasion that he was trying to portray himself as too different people when making the comments. A warmonger, and a pacifist..
Who are you Mr. Bush?

Mr. Bush knew what his weapons did as did his father...Look at Gulf War syndrome, Making this moral decision to use them again is a crime against humanity. So what are the after effects of these weapons? See for yourself.
http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

I hope you can see the connection i am trying to make for it is apparent that you did not the first time. As for the name-calling, please don&#39;t be so shallow... If that is all you can resort to then please do not respond to this. This is not a high school locker room
The name calling was just a rookie shake-up. It was done for fun. I look forward to discussions with new members.

I wouldn&#39;t go so far to say that Bush ever claimed to ba a pacifist per se.

As for the weapons choice, he really has to make the choice of safety for US soldiewrs, which is acheived through many means, one of those is using the most effective offensive weapons.

Incidentals such as collateral damage or lingering DU radiation are unfortunate byprducts of ootherwise just operations in Iraq.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2004, 02:22 PM

My emphasis, obviously.

Again, this is typical - trying to both have the cake whilst simultaneously eating it. By this &#39;rule&#39; Israel should have long since been annexed, as should many, many other nations. The US needs to have their balls held in a vice and told to choose to either listen to the UN or don&#39;t: You can&#39;t have it both ways.
Actually, DaCuBan, the US didn&#39;t listen to the UN in either case. Preemption obviously goes against certain UN philosophies, but we also acted on 1441 not beacause the UN told us to, but because they were paralyzed with inaction and stagnation, and rendered themselves inept, thus we proceeded to take action where the UN wouldn&#39;t.

WMD&#39;s are just an afterthought. Essentially, The USA was the only nation with the juevos to back the UN&#39;s mouth.

[Osman Ghazi]

The USA was the only nation with the juevos to back the UN&#39;s mouth.


The question though is why aren&#39;t you using your juevos to back the UN&#39;s several resolutions against Israel? You listen to the one resolution against Iraq, but not the 50 or so leveled against Israel. Why?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 04:46 PM

The question though is why aren&#39;t you using your juevos to back the UN&#39;s several resolutions against Israel? You listen to the one resolution against Iraq, but not the 50 or so leveled against Israel. Why?
Because Israel is a proxy state conducive to U.S. interests.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 30 2004, 03:08 PM
Hah, you complaining about thoughtful submissions and legitimate debate?

Why don&#39;t you start by reading some theory and dropping the grade 5 arguments about "factual Communism"?

Or I may be forced to more aggressively persue my policy of editing out some of your more troll-like posts <_<
Are you going to claim that a legitimate observation and analysis of real-world communism is "grade 5" and "trolling"?

I think that you are just a bit frustrated because it is hard to circumvent the facts and real-world history. Theory is just that, theory, and is always trumped by real-world application.

Before you threaten action against me for trolling, make sure that I am actually trolling.

Thany you, sir ;)

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 30 2004, 04:46 PM

The question though is why aren&#39;t you using your juevos to back the UN&#39;s several resolutions against Israel? You listen to the one resolution against Iraq, but not the 50 or so leveled against Israel. Why?
Fifty?

Try 69, more than any other country in history.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Have any been levied at the palestinians?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 30 2004, 10:52 AM
Have any been levied at the palestinians?
Is Palestine a country recognized by the U.N.?

[Seraph]

sorry for joining the thread late but I had to respond to this.

"A armed society is a polite one."

What country do you live in, because if you&#39;re referring to the US you are sadly mistaken. This country is far from polite, and the murder rates, along with the bloody and brutal history is proof of that.

[imperator]

bush sticks to his words

self evident lie.



hitler kept his word

well, wouldn&#39;t his alliance with Stalin be called giving his word not to attack his own allie?
seems to he broke his word to peices right there

[imperator]

Theory is just that, theory, and is always trumped by real-world application.


one thing you should learn.. never say "always"
that is a quite interesting theory of yours, however.
:lol: