Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - U.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedU.S. Moving Toward Totalitarianism?
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 08:03
Originally posted by James Lee James Lee wrote:

"I certanly wouldnt trust half the population of any country with a gun." - sleeper

Would you trust them with a car? Piloting an airplane? Educating your children?




i dont trust half the drivers on the roads in this country, it seems that people find a driving license to be a dis-engage brain license.

If a pilot has had all the training to fly a plain and is considered responsible then I would trust them, ater all its their life as well as mine thats at risk if they screw up at 20,000 feet.

I dont see the conection between owning a gun and educateing children.

The fact is most people will probably panic if they ever encounter a situation where they need a gun and probably cause more harm than good.
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
BaldJean View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: May 28 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10387 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 08:30
there was a study done last year that researched the state of civil liberties all over the world. the USA did not even make the top 50; if I remember correctly they were ranked 73rd. Germany fell out of the top 10 (they were 12th) due to an incident in which the offices of a newspaper were searched. at the top of the list were some Scandinavian states, by the way


A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20685 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 08:44
Originally posted by sleeper sleeper wrote:

Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

Originally posted by crimson thing crimson thing wrote:

Weirdly, our police do warn you before shooting you, and no, unlike Americans, we don't have the right to shoot up a high school on a whim; thus we have no need of guns.
WTF are you talking about? I'm starting to worry about you, crimson. First you (deliberately?) grossly misinterpet what I'm trying to say, and now you're saying the US condones murder? :S The VAST majority of gun crimes are simple robberies; I don't know what you hear, but you make it sound like kids go on a shooting spree every week. Crime in the U.K. has increased dramatically since the gun ban. True, there are less gun crimes, but there are many more crimes because people can't defend themselves from criminals.
 
I'm not clear what you mean by warning, but if somebody is trying to escape (not resisting arrest, actually running away) then the police have the right to shoot to wound to stop him or her.


I think you took him a bit too literally there Ghandi 2. I for one am glad that guns are illegal here, they would only lead to an increase in deaths, I certanly wouldnt trust half the population of any country with a gun. Its also nearly impossible to make such a link between  the increase in crime and a gun ban (when the hell was that introduced, I dont think it was recent).
 
You know that the people saying that guns do not kill people , but people are killing people are bloody industry puppets. Complete and total BS!
 
Having a gun in your hand gives you a sense of power that is unreal, makes you act braver that if you did not have one. Guns make it easy to kill someone since you do not have to make contact with the person you want to kill. Killing someone from your own hands (by contact is incredibly difficult)
 
Let me give you a story of my teen years.
There was a real bully in school, that even most cops were afraid of let alone the school authorities. But he was under 18 and had been found parttaking in two murders >> a really vicious guy, that Canada only waits for him to get to majority to send these arsehloes in Northern territories to cut lumber or dig mines >> but as far away from society as possible >> not exactly prisonners in goulags , but you get the picture >> you have to steal a boat or a place to get away
 
For some stupid reasons (I was get friendly with a girl he had views on), this guy pulled a knife on me and stuck it to my face pressing enough to draw blood pouring down my collar. I smashed his foot with my heel and kicked him in the teeth as he was bending over to grab his foot , then hoofed him in the balls and he drpped. I grabbed his knife (he had drppoed it) and decided that this arsehole would ruin my life anyway, so I had to do him away >> I just could not do it, plungeing the knife into his body was simply an impossible act for me. HAD THIS BEEN A GUN instead of knife,  I am sure I would've pulled the trigger as I was scared enough for my life when he got back on his feet. It was clearly self-defence and I had enough witnesses. So I did not knife that arsehole but I did jump with both feet on his knee destroying it, but at least I was temporarily safe.
 
 
What I am trying to say is that widespread gun circulation in a country spreads violence and death . It only spreads more fear of violence and the vicious circle starts, since you will buy a gun to protect yourself and your family, then the kids will soon or later toy with the thing >> let's face it, no-one keeps a gun in a safe, because if you do need it it is inaccessible quickly enough to be effective.
 
GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Sean Trane - May 31 2006 at 08:45
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 11:16

Sean Trane :

ClapClapClapClapClap
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 11:40
Ghandi:
 
Re your comment that the illegal search anhd seizure issues have "died down":
 
Back to Top
Chicapah View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 14 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8238 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 11:54
Maani:
 
Registering for the draft and actually being eligible to be forcibly shipped over to Vietnam are two different things.  Your profile says you were born in 58 which means you wouldn't have been 18 until 76, long after we were out of southeast asia.
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
Back to Top
man@arms View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 31 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 238 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 12:12
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

Originally posted by sleeper sleeper wrote:

Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

Originally posted by crimson thing crimson thing wrote:

Weirdly, our police do warn you before shooting you, and no, unlike Americans, we don't have the right to shoot up a high school on a whim; thus we have no need of guns.
WTF are you talking about? I'm starting to worry about you, crimson. First you (deliberately?) grossly misinterpet what I'm trying to say, and now you're saying the US condones murder? :S The VAST majority of gun crimes are simple robberies; I don't know what you hear, but you make it sound like kids go on a shooting spree every week. Crime in the U.K. has increased dramatically since the gun ban. True, there are less gun crimes, but there are many more crimes because people can't defend themselves from criminals.
 
I'm not clear what you mean by warning, but if somebody is trying to escape (not resisting arrest, actually running away) then the police have the right to shoot to wound to stop him or her.


I think you took him a bit too literally there Ghandi 2. I for one am glad that guns are illegal here, they would only lead to an increase in deaths, I certanly wouldnt trust half the population of any country with a gun. Its also nearly impossible to make such a link between  the increase in crime and a gun ban (when the hell was that introduced, I dont think it was recent).
 
You know that the people saying that guns do not kill people , but people are killing people are bloody industry puppets. Complete and total BS!
 
Having a gun in your hand gives you a sense of power that is unreal, makes you act braver that if you did not have one. Guns make it easy to kill someone since you do not have to make contact with the person you want to kill. Killing someone from your own hands (by contact is incredibly difficult)
 
Let me give you a story of my teen years.
There was a real bully in school, that even most cops were afraid of let alone the school authorities. But he was under 18 and had been found parttaking in two murders >> a really vicious guy, that Canada only waits for him to get to majority to send these arsehloes in Northern territories to cut lumber or dig mines >> but as far away from society as possible >> not exactly prisonners in goulags , but you get the picture >> you have to steal a boat or a place to get away
 
For some stupid reasons (I was get friendly with a girl he had views on), this guy pulled a knife on me and stuck it to my face pressing enough to draw blood pouring down my collar. I smashed his foot with my heel and kicked him in the teeth as he was bending over to grab his foot , then hoofed him in the balls and he drpped. I grabbed his knife (he had drppoed it) and decided that this arsehole would ruin my life anyway, so I had to do him away >> I just could not do it, plungeing the knife into his body was simply an impossible act for me. HAD THIS BEEN A GUN instead of knife,  I am sure I would've pulled the trigger as I was scared enough for my life when he got back on his feet. It was clearly self-defence and I had enough witnesses. So I did not knife that arsehole but I did jump with both feet on his knee destroying it, but at least I was temporarily safe.
 
 
What I am trying to say is that widespread gun circulation in a country spreads violence and death . It only spreads more fear of violence and the vicious circle starts, since you will buy a gun to protect yourself and your family, then the kids will soon or later toy with the thing >> let's face it, no-one keeps a gun in a safe, because if you do need it it is inaccessible quickly enough to be effective.
 
GUNS KILL PEOPLE!!!
 
 Shocked Whoa dude that's scary!  But, you made your point and I couldn't agree more.  I live in the Kansas City area and we have one of the highest crime rates in the country.  Every night on the news you are almost guaranteed to hear about someone shooting someone else.  Last night we had another "thrill kill", where two young men shot and killed a poor guy riding home on his bicycle from work simply because "he was there and they were bored".     
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by man@arms - May 31 2006 at 12:12
Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 12:22
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Ghandi:
 
Re your comment that the illegal search anhd seizure issues have "died down":
 


What's absolutely infuriating about this is that Congress was more than willing to waive due process for search and seizure when it was the "general public" at risk (i.e. Patriot Act)...

Now that they see the writing on the wall, and realize that they are _not_ exempt and above the law, they're "outraged". More likely they're terrified that the depth of their corruption is at risk of exposure.

Disgusting.
Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
Ghandi 2 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: February 17 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1494 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 14:51
Originally posted by crimson thing crimson thing wrote:

I'M AFRAID THIS IS GONNA HAVE TO BE IN CAPITALS. GUNS DO NOT DEFEND YOU FROM CRIMINALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
IMAGINE THE SITUATION - A MUGGER CONFRONTS YOU WITH A KNIFE. HE WAITS PATIENTLY WHILST YOU DIG DEEP IN YOUR BAG OR POCKET, RELEASE THE SAFETY CATCH AND SHOOT HIM! YEAH, RIGHT............
 
FORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T QUITE REACHED THE STAGE IN THIS COUNTRY, AS SEEMS TO APPLY IN THE STATES, WHERE YOUR 'RIGHT' TO SHOOT ME OUTWEIGHS MY RIGHT NOT TO BE SHOT.
So you're saying that criminals have the right to be guaranteed safety from harm while they are robbing you? That's good...
 
First, if somebody is trying to mug you, you would probably already be ready for someone to come. But think about this. If you were a criminal would you rather: a) Break into somebody's house when you know they don't have a gun b) Break into somebody's house when you think they might have a gun c) Break into somebody's house when you know they have a gun (like in Switzerland)? I would definately go for a. That's a big way how guns prevent crime. Everyone in Switzerland has automatic weapons, and they have very little crime.
Originally posted by sleeper sleeper wrote:


I think you took him a bit too literally there Ghandi 2. I for one am glad that guns are illegal here, they would only lead to an increase in deaths, I certanly wouldnt trust half the population of any country with a gun. Its also nearly impossible to make such a link between  the increase in crime and a gun ban (when the hell was that introduced, I dont think it was recent).
In 1996 Violent crime [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page27.asp]Rape[/url] Robbery Interestingly, despite that, overall crime. Crime per 1000 people rate compared (Australia also enacted a ban in 1996) Can you prove a link? Obviously not. But you can't really prove anything. If guns are harder to get, then obviously there are going to be fewer gun crimes, but I'm talking about crime overall.
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Ghandi:
 
"...shoot to wound...?"  You've been watching too many Dirty Harry movies.  Police are not trained to "shoot to wound," they are trained to shoot at "center mass" - i.e., the largest part of the body (torso) - which includes the heart, lungs and other vital organs.  There is no such thing as "shoot to wound."  Certainly they may not want to (or try to) kill the perpetrator, but neither are they looking to - much less capable of - shooting a gun out of someone's hand, or hitting them in the leg (especially if they are running).
Ha, I wasn't suggesting police shoot a gun out of a person's hand. Hitting someone in the leg is also hard. However,  the chances of killing or even seriously injuring someone with one shot is fairly low. And if he is seriously hurt--I know this is going to sound heartless, but it's not supposed to be--then he shouldn't have tried to run away.
Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:


I wish I could say I didn't expect the compulsory draft to return. Maybe Dubya's 3rd term?
Wow, you guys are a bunch of cynical b*****ds. There is no possible way Bush could serve a 3rd term, and there is also no possible way the draft would be re-enacted. You know why? In our modern army, with the technology and gear we have now, training someone is very, very expensive. Much more expensive than it was to train someone back in WW2 or even Vietnam. So it's not cost efficient for the Army to waste all that money on an unwilling conscript.
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

Ghandi:
 
Re your comment that the illegal search anhd seizure issues have "died down":
 
Eh? I never said anything about search and seizure; I was talking about the NSA and General Hayden. I need to subscribe to view that article, but didn't the FBI search his place because they thought he was taking bribes and find about $90,000 in cash? It's nice to see that Congress can rally around the cry of civil liberties...when they're afraid of also being implicated with the same corruption that that one senator was serached for.
Originally posted by Sean Trane Sean Trane wrote:

 
You know that the people saying that guns do not kill people , but people are killing people are bloody industry puppets. Complete and total BS!
A gun can't get up and shoot someone; it is a tool, and like all tools it can be used well and used poorly.
 
Quote Let me give you a story of my teen years.....
-SNIP-
If that had been a gun you wouldn't have resisted; therefore, your point is moot. And the gun ban had not yet been enacted at that point, so it's not really relevant to the discussion of a gun ban.
 
Quote What I am trying to say is that widespread gun circulation in a country spreads violence and death . It only spreads more fear of violence and the vicious circle starts, since you will buy a gun to protect yourself and your family, then the kids will soon or later toy with the thing. let's face it, no-one keeps a gun in a safe, because if you do need it it is inaccessible quickly enough to be effective.
Now you're just making **** up. My dad keeps his guns in a safe, and any intelligent gun owner does also. The non intelligent gun owners are usually the criminals anyway, who would probably find a way to get a gun anyway (just like drugs are illegal, but if you're persistent they really are not all that hard to get)


Edited by Ghandi 2 - May 31 2006 at 14:52
Back to Top
crimson thing View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: April 28 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 848 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 16:33
I frankly can't be a++ed to reply to the numerous factual errors & schoolboy sophistry in G2's rant above. Just 2 things to ponder.....
 
"Everyone in Switzerland has automatic weapons, and they have very little crime"
 
You might like to reassess this...........
 
and, just how useful a "defensive weapon" is a gun in a safe? You must have very patient & gentlemanly burglars............
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:15
Ghandi 2, their are two big reasons for a increase in crime here, drugs (in witch case they wont give a f**k if youve got a gun, they want money and the want it now!) and chavs (also known as the scum of the earth).
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:16
Originally posted by man@arms man@arms wrote:

 
 Shocked Whoa dude that's scary!  But, you made your point and I couldn't agree more.  I live in the Kansas City area and we have one of the highest crime rates in the country.  Every night on the news you are almost guaranteed to hear about someone shooting someone else.  Last night we had another "thrill kill", where two young men shot and killed a poor guy riding home on his bicycle from work simply because "he was there and they were bored".
 
[/QUOTE]
Holy sh*t man! And I thought "happy slapping" was bad.
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
Empathy View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 30 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1864 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:23
Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

Originally posted by Empathy Empathy wrote:


I wish I could say I didn't expect the compulsory draft to return. Maybe Dubya's 3rd term?
Wow, you guys are a bunch of cynical b*****ds. There is no possible way Bush could serve a 3rd term, and there is also no possible way the draft would be re-enacted. You know why? In our modern army, with the technology and gear we have now, training someone is very, very expensive. Much more expensive than it was to train someone back in WW2 or even Vietnam. So it's not cost efficient for the Army to waste all that money on an unwilling conscript.


Cynical? Guilty as charged. However, my parents were in fact wed when I was born. Wink

There was "no possible way" many of the things this administration has done could have happened. Yet, this administration has shown nothing but contempt for rule of law, and have proven again and again that when they don't like the laws, they'll simply ignore them, with the all-encompassing "National Security" blanket. You should do some research on Bush's "signing statements". He has _never_ vetoed a bill, and the amount of signing statements he has issued as justification to ignore legislation he deems contrary to his goals is _more than double the amount of signing statements of all previous presidents combined_. FACT.

Some would have claimed that could never have happened. But it's happening. Is it that much of a stretch that in order to "protect us" he decides to ignore the 2-term limit? or reinstate the draft?
Pure Brilliance:
Back to Top
Forgotten Son View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 13 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1356 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:48
Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

In 1996 Violent crime [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page27.asp]Rape[/url] Robbery Interestingly, despite that, overall crime. Crime per 1000 people rate compared (Australia also enacted a ban in 1996) Can you prove a link? Obviously not. But you can't really prove anything. If guns are harder to get, then obviously there are going to be fewer gun crimes, but I'm talking about crime overall.


THere is no causal relationship between decrease in gun ownership and violent crime in this country, Hardly anyone had guns in this country before the ban anyway. It's not as if people started taking the oppurtunity to rob people because Old Man Smith down the road had to hand in his double barrelled shotgun. I think you'll find that increasing crime is due, IMO, to an increase in wealth of the individual. Back in the 50s, tehre was very little crime because there was very little to steal. Increases in violent crime, again IMO, are down to the frustration of the working class who are continually being made redundant and a disenchantment of youth cultures as a result of that.

While I agree with gun restriction, a total ban is taking it too far, particularly in this country. When a ban on pistols came into effect all that happened was that people who acquired pistols legally and met all the laws regulating their use, dutifully handed them in, while people who want to use them illegally, acquire them illegally, which is why gun crime has still managed to increase, particularly in the city where I live.
Back to Top
sleeper View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 09 2005
Location: Entropia
Status: Offline
Points: 16449 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 17:53
Originally posted by Forgotten Son Forgotten Son wrote:

Originally posted by Ghandi 2 Ghandi 2 wrote:

In 1996 Violent crime [http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page27.asp]Rape[/url] Robbery Interestingly, despite that, overall crime. Crime per 1000 people rate compared (Australia also enacted a ban in 1996) Can you prove a link? Obviously not. But you can't really prove anything. If guns are harder to get, then obviously there are going to be fewer gun crimes, but I'm talking about crime overall.


THere is no causal relationship between decrease in gun ownership and violent crime in this country, Hardly anyone had guns in this country before the ban anyway. It's not as if people started taking the oppurtunity to rob people because Old Man Smith down the road had to hand in his double barrelled shotgun. I think you'll find that increasing crime is due, IMO, to an increase in wealth of the individual. Back in the 50s, tehre was very little crime because there was very little to steal. Increases in violent crime, again IMO, are down to the frustration of the working class who are continually being made redundant and a disenchantment of youth cultures as a result of that.

While I agree with gun restriction, a total ban is taking it too far, particularly in this country. When a ban on pistols came into effect all that happened was that people who acquired pistols legally and met all the laws regulating their use, dutifully handed them in, while people who want to use them illegally, acquire them illegally, which is why gun crime has still managed to increase, particularly in the city where I live.


Were do you live Forgotten Son, I know gun crime has been a real problem where I come from.
Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005

Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 18:33

When the country of Sweden instituted a total ban on guns decades ago, crime was obviously reduced by an enormous margin.  But there was still some crime, and still some illegal gun ownership.  However, when they banned all toy guns as well - thus not permitting children to "learn" guns - 20 years later the crime rate dropped to the lowest in the world.  So it is not simply gun ownership that is a problem, but the fact that we allow children to play with "toy guns," which teaches them that the "gun culture" is okay.  (Of course, then there is the problem of violent action movies, and, more recently, video games.)

Re Bush's "third term," Empathy is only mildly overstating the case.  Although it would be unprecedented (no pun intended), the president does have the power, under certain conditions, to postpone elections.  Normally, this would require a super-majority of Congress (2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House) and, possibly, a majority of State governors.  However, the president could attempt it, and even possibly carry it off.  However, were that to happen, there would be no question of Bush's despotism (remember that he said, "This country would be easier to rule if it were a dictatorship"), and unless the country truly was in active and immediate danger, there would be an unbelievable backlash.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
AtLossForWords View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 18:42
Originally posted by maani maani wrote:

When the country of Sweden instituted a total ban on guns decades ago, crime was obviously reduced by an enormous margin.  But there was still some crime, and still some illegal gun ownership.  However, when they banned all toy guns as well - thus not permitting children to "learn" guns - 20 years later the crime rate dropped to the lowest in the world.  So it is not simply gun ownership that is a problem, but the fact that we allow children to play with "toy guns," which teaches them that the "gun culture" is okay.  (Of course, then there is the problem of violent action movies, and, more recently, video games.)

 
Peace.
 
Banning toy guns sounds a little farfetched for some, but I personaly think it may be a step in the right direction.  Toy guns, paintball guns, dart guns provide a different influence from movies.  Movies do not provide the empirical experience that something like a dart or paintball gun can.  From just watching a movie, a person doesn't get the same experience of "violence" or "action" that physically going out and using a toy or paintball gun.

"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
Back to Top
erik neuteboom View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: July 27 2005
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 7659 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 19:16
In the early Eighties I was drafted but not really pleased with it (like Frank Zappa Wink ) and started to read books about the importance of selling weapons and support dictatorships in order to continue the situation for the USA multinationals. At about twenty years later few things has changed and, looking at the title of this thread, you can say that 'puppet on a string' Bush Junior and the 'Texas oil and weapons clan' have succeeded to dominate this world. For me it's incredible that such an unreliable and opportunistic person like Bush junior managed to become president of the USA but in my opinoin this is the proove that the democracy in the USA is related with money, bribery, corruptecy and the importance of selling weapons and oil, after Cambodia and Vietnam, I am afraid that Iraq will be another battlefield on which many innocent and poor USA civilians will pay for the interests of some rich families in the USA that rule this earth .... Cry..
 
 
Back to Top
James Lee View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 05 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3525 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 22:48
wow, the US gets slammed for lack of civil liberties and then for allowing citizens to own guns. Anybody get the number of that ironic car that just hit us?
Back to Top
maani View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Founding Moderator

Joined: January 30 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2632 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 31 2006 at 22:56
James:
 
ROFLMAO!
 
Erik:
 
Ditto.  Just remember that Bush was not elected, he was "coronated" by the Supreme Court - mostly by justices chosen by Reagan and Bush pere.  Indeed, given that Scalia's son was one of Bush's attorneys, Scalia had a clear conflict of interest, yet refused to recuse himself.  And for those who think my "coronation" comment is overstated, five different independent, non-partisan studies showed that, had all of the votes in Florida been counted properly, Gore would have won - hands down.
 
Peace.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.371 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.