Staredit Network

Eh hem. Now we see where Deathknight stands. Anyone who disses the Constitution so blatantly can get the the Hell out of my country.

Well sorry your high and all mighty king. I didn't diss anything and I don't live in your country.

I wasnt calling YOU a "gay ass middle eastern," i was referring to those extreme muslims Terrorists. They dont stand as cool middle easterns like you; they're mindless people that are just jealous of us.

Good. I hope you live in a country where the King of England can just come into your house at any time and start pushing you around. Huh? Huh what would like that? What now . Good thing I live in America.

In your earlier post you said taht the U.S. didn't dominate in WW2. Then you said that if the U.S. hadn't joined the war, europe would have lost....aka...us won the war for europe...aka...U.S. dominated in WW2. =D




I don't care about your stupid facts. I told a kid that the Soviet Union didn't exist and it doesn't. It might LOOK like it somewhat remains or whatever the heck you are trying to say...but it doesn't.



I don't know how to prove what I say when what I say is my opinion. Opinions don't require proof or backing up.




Oh damn! I better be cafeful as to not 'provoke' you! *trembles in fear* Don't make me laugh.





I agree with ya there. Those people are moochers! They want college money or whatever from the government but when it is time to do their duties, they refuse or whine whine whine.

If you take all the guns away, what will citizens do to defend themselves against robbers who have guns? Or what if the government decides to do whatever they want, how would we protest?

What if another country decides to start attacking at your location, and the army isn't at your house yet. They are just slaughtering people as they get closer to your house. Bet a gun would come in handy.

I'm not sure why we're argueing about guns but...

If all the following conditions are met, then it's ok for them to have a gun:

-The person must have a lisence

-The person must be legally sane

-The person must be an Adult

-The person must not have commited crimes before

Note that I said adults only. Yes, I know people go hunting, including kids. And I am 100% against this because it's retarded. Why would you go out in the wild, with a gun, shooting wild animals? Not only is it defenseless, it doesn't know you're coming, it doesn't know you are a threat (yet, and even so, it could not run away), it doesn't even know why you are in its home.

It's the same thing as you saying theives coming into someones house with a gun to steal. You're going to their home, taking the land and killing the animal.

People hunt for food, just like other animals do. People that hunt don't take a picture and leave the animal dead. They eat it or sell it to be eaten or w/e.

Even better. See my link on the 2000 U.S. election results.
This time Bush did really win (approved by popular votes). Unfortunetly, but it's true never the less.



Extremism only draws more extremist. It's Newton's action-reaction pair (basic Physics).

Bush to me is an extremist. Thus I don't like him. His rash actions towards your (as in U.S.) possible allies after the 9/11th are one of the cases at hand. He drove'em away.



If it's that 'undenieable', give us proof of it. (Refering to the 1st three paragraphs of my quote.)

Actually, one of founding fathers (A.Lincoln) was a Republican and did proclame the equal rights for the slaves of that time, if I recall it correctly. I have no problem with that, that's for sure.
He wasn't an extremist, like Bush. And to me Bush is both a religious zealot and a righ wing extremist. Hence my harsh comments upon him.
I hate extremism. Either it comes from the right or left wing, or even religious.

"Spreading the democracy" as you call it, is actually a way of enforcing stuff upon other ppl's countries. The main reason presented by Bush were the supposed existing WMD's on Iraq. I didn't saw any proof of'em since March 2003. Did you?



But they still represent you (U.S.).

Retarded are you for saying that without even knowing the full context of the debate at hand here. Don't flame ppl or they will do it to you too. This begins to sound repetitive but if you lower the debate level with insults, just don't be amazed if they do the same to you. Afterall you're kinda allowing'em to do the same.

See the intire thread if u want to be fully aware of what been goin' on here lately, that's my advice.



See my comment above on spreading democracy. Don't you think the U.S. became a 'world shock trooper', especially since Bush got into the White House?
That's one of my problems with him. Dialog with foreign countries, allies or not, was stepped down into the bottom concerns list. As a result even your common allies in Europe drived away from NATO and/or even helping the U.S. (U.N. resolution 1441). Goin' into Iraq without the U.N. approval was a major mistake to me. It opened a precedent where you can go blatantly against the U.N. and don't give a damn about the consequences (of that act). That made the U.N. lose influence in international community and was caused by a founding member of it. A real shame, that's all I can say about it!



And you go on... n' on. Prove it, please.
Halliburton scandals in rebuilding Iraq, anyone?
The Patriot Act was in fact a measure by your so called 'for freedom government' (Bush administration).

See the darn thread in it's fullest extent, ok? Included in the lenght of it are the links anyone provided. *Ranting*




Interesting... biased logics never the less, but interesting. That's how I actually saw the initial attacks on Iraq in March '03. You went into their home and kinda told'em how to live their lifes.



Oh boy, are you stubborn. And the rest of the allies? See the link I provided in the same post you quoted. Study history for once. Or aren't you the reading type?
Maybe that's the problem...



If they're facts, they're not stupid. They're real. Either you like them or not.
That isn't the case with WMD's excuse that Bush tried to stuff down our throats. That's merely a factual example. Catched my drift now?

It begins to look like that Putin wants to set his own dictatorship. Either righ wing or left, it simply worries me.

If you don't want to pay attention to the world that surrounds you, that's your problem not mine. "Ignorance is a bliss", someone said once.



That's a start. But this is the serious discussion section, not the I post my opinion one. Always keeps that in mind.
That said, I'll quit on this matter for now.



Partial quotes do wonders... especially when you don't want to look like a jack-ass.
You call me close minded and say it wasn't a provocation?
For details to any interested party, see the real deal in post #239.



Yet, they still represent your country. If you find it to be a problem why not strict the selecting troops rules or improve their formation skills... perhaps not so authoritarian as well? *Hint, hint*

Other than that, I stick to the link in post #237 that Cheese provided.
Truth kinda hurts, doesn't it?

Pears, it's becoming clearer and clearer that you're not here for a real debate and more inclined to just release some steam. So, my advice is, for you to get your dailly jollies elsewhere (if that's possible).



If an efficient gun control would become at hand, the robbers would also find more difilcult to possess guns and maybe the crime rate would lower.
That's what happens in my country. It's not full-proof but effiecent, in some extent.



That why intel agencies are for. Finding it before it happens. Oh, wait... the CIA n' FBI didn't found it in the 9/11th case (see it's Comission report). (I know they did suspect it but weren't cooperative about it. And that messed it royally.)

Happy trigger finger ppl on the loose. So it might work in your case... I guess.
Loose guns are worse. Any hot headed fella might use'em if he/she gets ticked. That just isn't my idea of street safety.



Not in the U.S. lately. If so, when n' where? In 3rd world countries perhaps they hunt for survival. But that's just 'cause they don't have another chance.
Sport hunting is actually huntin' for trophies (fotos amongst those). That's not my gig!

Please ppl, let's quit the gun subject.
To me, unfortunetly, it sheds some light into the way you (U.S.) act in the world recently... shot 1st, see the facts later.

Edit reason: Messed quote feature. Wth happened?

hey now, we're just beating a dead horse here, weither you like it or not, Bush won. althought i wanted Kerry to win, Bush won and we should move on, he's going to be our prez for four more years, unless something happens to him where Cheny becomes prez, which would suck even more than Bush being prez, so relax, it's only four years, not the end of your life, and yes i know there are people fighting over in iraq for our freedom and such, but who could say Kerry would have done anything diffrent? so lets get off this subject and move on, like it or not, Bush won, Kerry lost (Ralph Nader lost too, but thats a given). so, lets all take one big deep breath, and move on.

Very true ryan. I really dont understand why we are still going over this business.

So maybe lock this topic? Or just keep talking about guns...

Bush won cuz his middle initial is W, haven't you seen the campaign adds?

What a clever remark...
Just in case you didn't realized yet, this is the serious discussion section. Not the just post your opinion one (aka garbage section).


Edit add: And yeah, I seriously begin to agree with this thread's lockdown. Unfortunate, but true.

first of all, i was pissed off for that post, and i doubt that you entire country and/or region where your family comes from has been judged to such a height of which it makes me want to give them a free punch to the face for every person they offended

LOL! Prologic, if a robber with a gun enters your house, what are you going to do if he already has a gun to your face? Tell him not to shoot you while you go get your gun? You think you can see someone with a gun running at you from miles away and that you have time to reach for your gun? Also, gun restrictions would restrict those "robbers" of yours. Killing people CAN NOT BE an act of defence.

BTW Sala, I'm Canadian you idiot.

Well... Ever you ever wondered why Bush won? Well, stupid videos couldn't of said it better

I didn't say anything about the other allies...negative or positive...I just said that the U.S. dominated in WW2...which they did.



Only the facts you post are stupid. For example you said this in reply to one of Sala's comments about Kerry being a Liberal:





Pretty dang random...





This is true but my opinions are serious. Also I didn't read any rules that say that nothing but facts may be posted here. Take a look at any other thread in this section....mostly opions. Or if you don't want to look, I could be lame like you and post tons of links =p





I said that because you, and other, have said countless times that I am a typical brainwashed American. Maybe YOU should go back and read previous posts.




They represent a PART of our country. Not eveyone of us is a spineless prideless wimp.





I'm just defending myself. I wouldn't have steam as you call it if it weren't for you =p.





How is that? I have no criminal record so I could get a gun and rob someone. Just because you haven't gotten in trouble doesn't mean you aren't bad.





My family hunts and ya, it's sometimes in competitions and whatnot but that doesn't mean after we declare the winner, we dump the dead animals in a ditch and cover them with dirt. We eat them. And not all guns are used for self defense. Also if this was a perfect world we wouldn't need guns to protect ourselves, but this isn't a perfect world and you have to have some way to protect your family if something were to happen.


I agree with Ryan that this is pretty pointless.

Ok so here we have some facts:

1.) Deathknight is Canadian, therefore he believes it's his duty to let the King of England come into his house and start shoving him around.

2.) Basan is unfamiliar with the concept of scope. You see, when I say one sentence is an undeniable fact, this doesn't mean that everything I have ever said it undeniable fact. It only means that one sentence is undeniable fact.

3.) Furthermore, Deathknight does not believe that you can kill someone as an act of defense. I will not even attempt to refute this claim, as I'm sure you all can imagine a situation where extreme action like that is necessary. I'd rather let you realize his fault on your own than to have me spoon feed it to you.

4.) Retarded people do exist. Go fornicate yourself in the anus you liberal . Political correctness can suck my wang. Furthermore, those retarded people should be dead. Natural Selection needs to make a comeback.

5.) Stop saying we shouldn't be in Iraq and that's it's Bush's idiocy that put us there. We don't need to be in Iraq, but it's not a bad thing that we are. It's not Bush's fault the decision was actually a sane possibility.

6.) Farmers are dumb.

Bush won cause he is gay and the ever increasing gay comunity voted for him.

7) Wendy's cashiers are dumb.

It's good to know where you stand.

then he would've won california, there are a lot of liberalists in california

I think i'm starting to like you Salacious =D

why wouldn't you like salacious, he is cool and funny

Let's see... Russia did more than the US in World War II. The eastern front was incredibly larger than the western. Russian deaths = 27,000,000. American deaths = 300,000. Besides that, we were the largest army on the western front. We didn't really do anything to Japan. Sure we took over a few islands, but that paled in comparison to the western front even. Russia is the reason the allies won WWII.

And about Israel, a majority of the countries in the U.N.? (not sure if it was created yet) voted for Britain to emigrate out of the country and allow the Jews to take over. We're the only country that has supplied them since though. Read Exodus by Leon Uris. It's a bloody great book.

I don't know where you stand, but I would like to ask if being a Liberal is a bad thing. I looked up the meaning just incase our words may be meaning differently, so I'm trying to make sure. Why is being a Liberal bad???

For anyone who doesn't know, being a Liberal means you change views depending on the new facts that come.