Lets Stop George Bush before he Destroys the Whole Planet Earth.

Ksan said:
Quite why we are to be restricted and hampered, is the real question -

Bush and Bliar are the reason, trying to deflect from their world domination policies.


- the question is 'why?', to what end do they need us pliable and unquestioning?

Because we've been gaining too much freedom, especially since the end of WW11. It's too easy for the likes of Bliar etc. to use the fear of terror to get control of the populace back. The one thing that stands in Bliars way is the House of Lords.

We all have a right to free speech, I sought to imply that God does not even come into it
God has nothing to do with it and we don't have "free speech" here, never have and never will. But then do we really want it?
 
I've just tried reading thro' this thread and have lost the will to live:mad: :( :confused:

Hey Rich you are right I am not anti hunting per se but I am anti blood sports and think those who participate in any activity causing death or distress to any living creature purely for pleasure is a pervert.

Did we not discuss this previously, or should we hijack this meandering thread,:D

Brian
 
:eek: :eek: :eek:

wow...go away for a couple of days and things spin out into the surreal...even for the 'cooler.

the government stole all the Thorazine perhaps:confused:
 
Last edited:
Terri321 said:
there must be some substance in it or they [Hollywood] wouldn't do it –

I'm not sure whether you can get anymore circular. :rolleyes:
 
Brianwarnock said:
Hey Rich you are right I am not anti hunting per se but I am anti blood sports and think those who participate in any activity causing death or distress to any living creature purely for pleasure is a pervert.
Brian

We're in total agreement there Bri :eek: :D


Did we not discuss this previously, or should we hijack this meandering thread,:D

Well this is a serious thread based on the subject matter, but I think a little hijack here and there won't go amiss :D
 
ShaneMan said:
I have to say I'm not since I pretty much don't believe any of the media.

How can you form an opinion then on the world around you? :confused:
 
Rich said:
How can you form an opinion then on the world around you? :confused:
I don't know about Shane, but I rely completely upon the unbiased and accurate information I receive here in the 'cooler...especially from you, Rich:D
 
Bodisathva said:
I don't know about Shane, but I rely completely upon the unbiased and accurate information I receive here in the 'cooler...especially from you, Rich:D

You could just watch the BBC, I don't get to come here that often:cool:
 
Rich said:
You could just watch the BBC, I don't get to come here that often:cool:
Sorry, I'm afraid the Thought Police and Ministry of Misinformation prevent us from being in contact with any non-state-sanctioned info...
 
Bodisathva said:
Sorry, I'm afraid the Thought Police and Ministry of Misinformation prevent us from being in contact with any non-state-sanctioned info...

Well I know they do in your country but here try as they might they can't.
Oddly enough that's how we know so much about you :cool: :p
 
Rich said:
Well I know they do in your country but here try as they might they can't.
Oddly enough that's how we know so much about you :cool: :p
I base my knowlege of the English on the Harry Potter books, myself:D
 
Rich said:
Where have I ever said it wasn't ?
Oh, I don't know, how about almost every dang thread that you turned into some gun related issue against America. Why do you have guns, such a gun happy country, etc. AND now you say being disarmed is a bad thing.
Why do I bother, you only say what is in your best interest at the time, you obviously are not sticking to your morals, if you have any, as different posts portray totally different sides of any issue. Consistancy is means nothing to you in my opinion.
 
Rich said:
How can you form an opinion then on the world around you? :confused:

Truthful answer, not very easy, and when it's all said and done...an opinion is probably all I do have. It seems to me that the media has agendas. Almost all the major networks have reputations. CNN, BBC, CBS, & etc. are liberal. Fox News and others are conservative. Folks tend to watch the ones that come closer to their opinions. I think there are things that you can watch and listen to, that are obvious it has to be the way they are reporting but get to the bigger stuff and it will almost always be reported from someone's slanted opinion. I watch the news and I make sure I try to watch as many channels as I can so I don't get stuck in a rut of only hearing it from one side. It's funny to watch the same story being reported and then see the opinions start entering in. I think the news channels have reputations for a reason. They live up to them. Listen to Fox report on the Middle East conflicts and you'll hear the conservative slant. Listen to CNN or the others and you'll hear the liberal side. Somebody has to be fudging on the truth. That's why I say I pretty much don't believe the media. I don't think they have proven themselves to be trustworthy.
 
Brianwarnock said:
... and think those who participate in any activity causing death or distress to any living creature purely for pleasure is a pervert.
What would you say about someone who causes the death of every conversation he gets involved in? :rolleyes: :p

Yet again, thanks for your compliments earlier. :)

MrsGorilla said:
You'd probably be wearing a hat made of aluminum foil too, in order to keep "them" from sending thoughts into your brain.
Around here, that's not a bad idea. :rolleyes:
 
The Government is even in the process of rounding up those whose homes were not destroyed and trying to haul them off. As well as taking their arms.

Terri, the government lost that case, has to give back the guns, and has new, much stiffer rules for confiscating weapons in times of emergency. Like, don't threaten the cops, but if you have a gun in your house and the cops know it, they must not take it unless your gun was illegal in non-emergency times. (Like, a felon owning a handgun, or an illegally owned fully automatic weapon without a special license for same.)
 
Rich, I've given up trying to enlighten you. Why? Because your mind is closed and forever poisoned against all things USA.

By giving up, it is not that you have won this game of verbal sparring; it is rather that you have shown your disdain for the slightest possibility that your answers might not be 100% right. Which means you have proven that you have already lost but don't admit it to yourself. After a while, even the most persistent of us realizes we are beating a dead horse. (I'll leave it to you to decide which PART of the dead horse is being beaten.)

I acknowledge that there are no simple answers to the "what if" game: What if the USA had entered WW2 earlier or later? What if we had not supplied some of the "freedom fighters" who later became our enemies? What if we let the situation in Iraq go on longer? What if we had taken down Saddam during GHWB's term rather than stopping after 100 hours? We can play the "what if" game forever, but the only REAL game is "what IS."

I regret that you cannot see parallels between WW2 and current-day Israel. Today's wars aren't always fought by the countries actually waging the war. Sometimes they fight through proxies. For instance, the Korean war and Viet Nam wars were actually mainland China against whomever, but they chose a "neutral" country as their battlefields. (Doubt me? Check supply routes for both situations.) And Israel is the proxy for the war that Iran really wants to fight against all of the west. (Doubt me? Track the origin of the money that bought the missiles.)

The parallels are there. Details? Yes, very different. Situation? Not really so different. As to whether we are supplying the bombs that kill innocent civilians... (1) So why don't you chastise the countries that supplied Israel's enemies - or don't you think of THEM as innocent, too? (2) To some ways of thinking, there ARE no innocent civilians in Lebanon if they allowed Hezbollah to operate with impunity. Tacit acceptance is acceptance. Failure to oppose is acceptance.

Rich, you also have this thing about racism in the USA. It isn't a monolithic "all or nothing at all" situation. It is a matter of degree. Racism exists EVERYWHERE including your beloved UK. But the devil is in the details. We are eliminating one type/target of racism only to find that it has been replaced by another target. And I dare say if you were truly objective, you would find the same to be true for the UK.

Therefore, Rich, have fun with your tactic of repeated intransigence to new ideas. Oh, by the way - if you are ever accosted by gang-bangers, refuse to acknowledge their ideas and requests, too. When you recover from your hospital stay, if you still have fingers left, let us know how it came out. Here, you can use that tactic. In the real world, you would find yourself an outcast very quickly.
 
FoFa said:
Oh, I don't know, how about almost every dang thread that you turned into some gun related issue against America. Why do you have guns, such a gun happy country, etc. AND now you say being disarmed is a bad thing.
Why do I bother, you only say what is in your best interest at the time, you obviously are not sticking to your morals, if you have any, as different posts portray totally different sides of any issue. Consistancy is means nothing to you in my opinion.

I'm talking about the trained armed forces we have, not armed vigilantes. :rolleyes:
 
The_Doc_Man said:
Rich, I've given up trying to enlighten you. Why? Because your mind is closed and forever poisoned against all things USA.

I always thought you more intelligent than that Doc, but I see you've resorted to the usual anti-American response.

By giving up, it is not that you have won this game of verbal sparring; it is rather that you have shown your disdain for the slightest possibility that your answers might not be 100% right. Which means you have proven that you have already lost but don't admit it to yourself. After a while, even the most persistent of us realizes we are beating a dead horse. (I'll leave it to you to decide which PART of the dead horse is being beaten.)

What you mean is that because I refuse to accept your point of view I'm either stupid or just anti-American


I acknowledge that there are no simple answers to the "what if" game: What if the USA had entered WW2 earlier or later? What if we had not supplied some of the "freedom fighters" who later became our enemies? What if we let the situation in Iraq go on longer? What if we had taken down Saddam during GHWB's term rather than stopping after 100 hours? We can play the "what if" game forever, but the only REAL game is "what IS."

"What is" now is that the world is more screwed now under Bush and Bliar than it ever was



I regret that you cannot see parallels between WW2 and current-day Israel. Today's wars aren't always fought by the countries actually waging the war. Sometimes they fight through proxies. For instance, the Korean war and Viet Nam wars were actually mainland China against whomever, but they chose a "neutral" country as their battlefields. (Doubt me? Check supply routes for both situations.) And Israel is the proxy for the war that Iran really wants to fight against all of the west. (Doubt me? Track the origin of the money that bought the missiles.)

The parallels are there. Details? Yes, very different. Situation? Not really so different. As to whether we are supplying the bombs that kill innocent civilians... (1) So why don't you chastise the countries that supplied Israel's enemies - or don't you think of THEM as innocent, too? (2) To some ways of thinking, there ARE no innocent civilians in Lebanon if they allowed Hezbollah to operate with impunity. Tacit acceptance is acceptance. Failure to oppose is acceptance.

Then by your own rules we should have bombed the crap out of the US when it was openly funding and arming the IRA.

Rich, you also have this thing about racism in the USA. It isn't a monolithic "all or nothing at all" situation. It is a matter of degree. Racism exists EVERYWHERE including your beloved UK. But the devil is in the details. We are eliminating one type/target of racism only to find that it has been replaced by another target. And I dare say if you were truly objective, you would find the same to be true for the UK.

Yes and the latest target is Muslims, again using your rules we should bomb the crap out of every Muslim country on the planet, oops silly me, we've already started. You stay with your belief that the war in Iraq was fought for noble reasons because few outside of America hold that opinion.

Therefore, Rich, have fun with your tactic of repeated intransigence to new ideas. Oh, by the way - if you are ever accosted by gang-bangers, refuse to acknowledge their ideas and requests, too. When you recover from your hospital stay, if you still have fingers left, let us know how it came out. Here, you can use that tactic. In the real world, you would find yourself an outcast very quickly

New ideas, since when did bombing the crap out a country solved anything?
Again using your parameters we should have bombed NI off the face of the earth, after all according to you all the Irish must have been guilty too.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom