Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/27/08 07:33 AM, MickTheChampion wrote:

At 7/26/08 05:04 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Seriously now??? A thought that "racist undertone" stuff, was a load of rubbish. Didn't think racism existed in politics. Poor show chaps :P

There has been a quite startling racist undertone in the criticisms I see of Brown in the English papers, if he was black or a Jew there'd have been an uproar.

When Brown was campaigning in England last year the Conservative Party hired somebody to go around in a kilt and play the bagpipes, following him all day. It's disgusting.

The thing is, the SNP (and Plaid Cymru) both use it regularly themselves, always playing on Scotland/Wales being run from Holyrood/The Welsh Assembly instead of Westminster, which coincidentally happens to be in London, which is in England. You know, the country that invaded and subjegated both populations at regular intervals over the last millenia.

Of course, Daily Mail readers think that England is being run by a Scottish conspiracy led by Gordon Brown, as well as Scottish-born and/or bred Alastair Darling, Des Browne, Douglas Alexander, Yvette Cooper...and that's it, actually, as the rest are English born and bred (with the exception of Ruth Kelly, but she's a f'n idiot anyway so nobody cares).

You mean to tell me that, by murdering Madeleine and hiding the body before making up a story they still can't get straight, the McCanns are saving the world?

At 7/18/08 04:22 PM, ManlyMan97 wrote: Wise words! All people who think Communisim works, go to Communist country and become a citizen. It'll be the oppisite of working.

There's plenty of countries where Democracy doesn't work, y'know. Let's start with the ones to have it forced on them in the past five years, shall we?

What's this got to do with Poltergeist?

At 7/26/08 01:30 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: What gets me is that a lot of people don't know why they hate the government, they just do.

A wee man on the news the other night was like, "Ah've votit labour aw ma life, but nivir again, NIVIR AGAIN! Ah'm votin' SNP this time!" So the reporter was obviously like, "Why?" And the wee guy just went, "Ah, you know why!"

You have to admire the guy - he doesn't know what he's voting for but, my God, he's committed to the cause!

At 7/25/08 05:19 PM, Christopherr wrote:
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World--Dude, coolest dystopia ever.

Never read my average Myspace blog, then...

Can somebody fill me in on whether there were any stories linking Ted Bundy's crimes to the fact he often drove in his VW Beetle beforehand?

If not, why not - it's the same type of story: stating that an object is inherantly evil and corrupting, and can be linked to somebody's violent and/or criminal behaviour.

At 7/24/08 03:50 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 7/23/08 07:13 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:05 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

If everything was "the unknown", then you may as well require three police officers for every member of the population in order to be sure. If one person does a bit of shoplifting and runs, you DO NOT need ten officers chasing him - even with the paranoiac theories, he'd need at least five well-armed friends with a car to justify that level of over-responding.

So 5 armed men with a car requires only 10 police officers? SWAT Teams can be 8-12 officers, often for just one guy in a house with a gun. Is this an over-reaction, or should they just send 2 guys and hope everything turns out ok?

So, one unarmed man running due to being spotted shoplifting requires up to 10 police officers? Keep on topic, please.

Yoou're throwing so many paranoiac "what if"s out at this moment in time it seems like a better idea to have 8 officers per member of the population, which would require half the population of India or China to move over here and join the police force.

There was an incident in Canada where 4 armed police officer from the RCMP were sent to secure a property while investigators were in-route to go over a chop shop and grow op on the property. The man who owned the property hated cops and had guns, but was chased off the property earlier and was at large. He came back and killed all 4 officers before killing himself. So was 4 armed officers to guard a farm that was believed to be empty at the time an over-reaction, or under reaction? Mayerthorpe Incident

Sounds more like a topic for the gun control topics to me.

Also, ever heard the phrase "freak occurance"? What're the odds of somebody who fled a crime scene returning, fully-armed, and gunning down the officers there? Or is this a case where 20 officers should've gone, and whoever was left would be able to tackle him to the ground and arrest him when he was reloading?

I.E. if there's been a spate of shoplifting in the area lately, most people will know that they were caught for the one offence. However, if you have police hate indoctrinated into you, you're going to believe you'll have more pinned on you.

So believing the police will try and pin other crimes on you, ontop of the crime you just committed excuses running from them?

Oh for fuck's sake, will you read what I'm writing.

When the story broke, it was just the one - somehow the second one was missed, even in the local press. Hmm...

That link you posted was written 48 hours after the incident happened and repeated refers to "officers" and mentions two people attacked, two officers on sick leave and that one officer was talking about how his colleague was attacked first then him. I think you just are trying to cover your mistake.

The initial story stated one - then again, the number of the mob has also been changed from four/five in the initial story to 30.

I think I should also point out that this incident was linked to street gang called Don't Say Nothing. This article also mentions it was two constables, not one as you allege, as part of some cover-up.

Cover up? OK, what in the name of fuck are you babbling about now?

As for DSN, their name is one of the most retarded in gang history (apart from another Croydon gang, Shine My Nine) - Don't Say Nothing? Fine, I'll say that you don't live in Compton - get used to the fact next time you're waiting in the Job Centre.

At 7/24/08 04:04 PM, TrueDemocrat wrote:

At 7/24/08 03:55 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Today's new headlines heavily featured Barack Obama's trip to Germany to meet with Andrea Merkel, and compared him to "great Presidents" (i.e. Kennedy and reagan - that's a laugh already, BTW).

So...what's he actually won to merit being headline news, let alone done to justify a state visit to Germany?

The German people have moved past their conservative policies of 1939. Unfortunately I can't say the same for you, as you are clearly a repugnant rebublican, or as I say, rethuglican. Nazi Germany called, they want their political ideology back.

Wow, usually I'm labelled a Liberal do-gooder. That's the first time I've been called a Republican.
*sniff*

By the way, you're an idiot. You'd think the Reagan jibe might have tipped you off that you were about to embark on a tirade of stupidity.

To answer your question, to germany, Obama is already president. They have embraced Obama's policies and embraced Obama himself as one of their own. My foreign policy teacher told me of Kennedy's famous qoute, "Ich bin ein Berliner" meaning "I am a Berliner." Today, Obama is a Berliner. A Kennedeyesque resident of Berlin.

"Obama is already President", you say? Tell me, how many votes have been counted in US Presidential Election? Would it be none? If so, he can't already be President.

So, why is he addressing 200,000 in Berlin? Do you think David Cameron or Nick Clegg should be in front of a rally of 200,000 because it's likely Labour will lose the next British General Election, or do you think that might come across as needless triumphalism with a strong undercurrent of arrogance on their part?

Which, coincidentally, is what JFK did - whether or not he compared himself to a doughnut...

To be frank, you can't go from having a 13,000+ majority to losing by 365 votes without there being more than a hint of anti-Labour and anti-Brown in there. You just don't have a swing like that unless the winning party does something exceptional to appeal to the voters, or the incumbant does the opposite.

Today's new headlines heavily featured Barack Obama's trip to Germany to meet with Andrea Merkel, and compared him to "great Presidents" (i.e. Kennedy and reagan - that's a laugh already, BTW).

So...what's he actually won to merit being headline news, let alone done to justify a state visit to Germany?

OK, you're not aware of the reputation of The Daily Mail, are you?

Long story short, it's the Fearmonger's Bible, published daily in tabloid form, and filled with casual xenophobia and paranoia about everything that isn't white, Middle Class or English (that included Working Class Scots, Welsh and Irish, by the way).

I pay this article as much attention as I give the paper credibility.

At 7/23/08 07:13 PM, JoS wrote:

At 7/23/08 10:05 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: They shouldn't over-respond to this degree - ten officer chasing somebody for shoplifting cannot feasibly be justified, as it is a waste of resources. Two should be more than enough to take care of the situation.

It is the unknown, maybe the individual has a gun, maybe he has some friends he is running to, maybe he is wanted and considered armed and dangerous. YOu want back up to help catch him, and also to find him if he gives the slip. In some areas it is a felony to flee the police.

If everything was "the unknown", then you may as well require three police officers for every member of the population in order to be sure. If one person does a bit of shoplifting and runs, you DO NOT need ten officers chasing him - even with the paranoiac theories, he'd need at least five well-armed friends with a car to justify that level of over-responding.

It depends - if said person was from an area where it is indoctrinated into you that the police are after you no matter what (most likely a council estate), they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

Irrelevant, you still are required to obey a police officers instructions. Besides, if you are a shop lifter running, you know you have done something wrong already, you are not worried about being framed, you know you broke the law and you know exactly why you are being chased.

I repeat, they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

I.E. if there's been a spate of shoplifting in the area lately, most people will know that they were caught for the one offence. However, if you have police hate indoctrinated into you, you're going to believe you'll have more pinned on you.

Strangely they never wade into self-parody: "Wayne, if you get caught the pigs'll say you're Jack the Ripper."

So, to sum up: a solitary officer (when they should always patrol in pairs) got beaten up by a 15-year old girl, before some bystanders saw it as an opportunity to get in a few free kicks on a local officer. In the middle of the afternoon.

I read you link, it actually says that there were two unarmed police officers who were beat up, one 34 years old and one 29. So they were patrolling in pairs.

When the story broke, it was just the one - somehow the second one was missed, even in the local press. Hmm...

At 7/9/08 11:59 AM, JoS wrote: So are you saying if someone runs from the police for a minor crime the police should not give chase?

They shouldn't over-respond to this degree - ten officer chasing somebody for shoplifting cannot feasibly be justified, as it is a waste of resources. Two should be more than enough to take care of the situation.

If someone is running from the police thee is a reason, often more serious then the original offense. People getting pulled over for minor traffic violations often run because they have a warrant for their arrest or something else more serious than the traffic offense. Most people do not run from the police for running a stop sign.

It depends - if said person was from an area where it is indoctrinated into you that the police are after you no matter what (most likely a council estate), they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

That could also be linked to a recent incident in my neck of the woods - an officer was attacked by a 15 year old girl when he asked her to pick up litter she dropped, and a few other people saw what was happening and joined in.

So, to sum up: a solitary officer (when they should always patrol in pairs) got beaten up by a 15-year old girl, before some bystanders saw it as an opportunity to get in a few free kicks on a local officer. In the middle of the afternoon.

No wonder I've altered the Wikipedia entry to say Croydon's been twinned with Pripyat...

At 7/8/08 06:41 PM, ThePretenders wrote: Hey, regulars! Which would fare worse? The eco-friendly G-Wiz car going at 40 mph or the table?

That's clearly fake - a G-Wiz can't do 40mph going downhill on a windy day with morbidly obese people in all seats.

How not to be trustful of the police.

So, they make him spread eagle with a gun pointed at him, handcuff him and search his bag, drag him down the station...then realise he wasn't the right guy? Still, at least he didn't get 11 hollow points in the face.

On the subject of De Menezes, all 44 officers involved in the trial will be granted anonymity. Why?

Meanwhile, locally the police are proving to be half-assed on crime, half-assed on the causes of crime when 40+ officers walk/drive around the local area so they cxan be seen to be acting on knife crime - in the areas without knife crime. So, not only could you probably rob a bank as most of the constabulary were out trying to look important and/or useful, the fact is they didn't go to the hotspots - probably for fear of being stabbed.

That and they weren't around when some fucker tried to punt a football through the window at work, even though they were around the fucking corner...

At 6/27/08 05:26 PM, Ravariel wrote: $700 for a Wii!?

Dude, they're like $250 brand new. Shoulda just asked one of us Staties to pick one up for ya and ship it... woulda been cheaper.

Could be worse, considering Sony have decided 399.99 is the price of a PS3 - in dollars, euros and pounds (although the US vewrsion is fully reverse compatible, the European one isn't). So, the currency conversion amounts to:
US: $399.99
Europe: $629.99
UK: $797.82

Ever get the feeling that you've been cheated?

At 6/28/08 03:54 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/28/08 02:29 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: That still doesn't prevent people being wrong for 232 years.

True, if you're talking about people making the same erroneous argument you've been making.

Not the people that spent 232 making erronious arguments and/or lies based on whichever interpretation they wanted to fit, of course.

Note that the ruling only specifies self-defence, though: there is no dispensation for hunting within the verdict. Is this a gross oversight in trying to sway the laws in one direction, and completely ignoring all others?

No. What the majority opinion states is that ownership of a firearm is an individual right not connected to formal militia membership. Self-defense is only used as an exemplar of a type of a legitimate use of a firearm (like a militia is a legitimate use of firearms). There is no need for there to be a "dispensation" for other types of legitimate/legal firearms usage (ie: target practice or hunting). So this is not an oversight or attempt to sway the laws in any particular direction.

Actually, it is - why would the laws of Penn. and Vermont make sure to have it within their statutes, yet this one did not?

This is one reason why I do not get into the comparative analysis of cross-national gun laws. Your judicial system does not work the same as the American judicial system. Therefore there are nuiances that I will miss. Likewise, you lack the intimate knowledge of how our courts work that I have. Thus you are misinterpreting the meaning and ramifications of a SCOTUS decision.

The Supreme Court, which happens to be an undemocratic process.

There's nine Supreme Justices, four Republican, four Democrat, and one Swing Voter. No matter what, four will vote along party lines, therefore only one vote has any form of meaning - and, as has been raised in some circles, as two of the Democrats aren't likely to hang around much longer (one's had cancer for a decade, the other is in his 90s), it is feasible for Bush to install two young Republicans thus making it 6-2-1. If they vote along party lines, again that's remarkably undemocratic and, indeed, farcical.

Also, the verdict dictated that "militia" translates as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" - in other words, the second Amendment remains outdated as it defines militias as men-only, so therefore this means women cannot own guns.

Obfuscation. Again, the importance of this ruling is that gun ownership AS A RIGHT is NOT tied to membership in a militia. Talk of militias only address the INTENT of the Second Amendment (2A) NOT the substance. And furthermore, since the right is now DEFINITIVELY NOT tied to membership in a militia...this actually means there is no such gender bias as you attempt to create.

I am highlighting that they were using outdated notions in their summing up - afterall, aren't women in the US Army (or, insdeed, the British army etc.) so, therefore, this needed to be included in their summation?

Expect yet another trial, then...

(Especially when the NRA try and sue Chicago over their gun bans - which Mayor Richard Daley supports, saying this ruling will drag American back to the Old West, instead of forward into the 21st Century).

That argument has been used time and again to oppose legislation loosening restrictions on guns in the US. Time and again, this line of reasoning has been statistically proven to be erroneous.

As the gun homicide rate of the US is 15,000 per year and they have the worst gun crime rate of any First World nation (8th highest overall on the whole planet), you mean to tell me they aren't already getting there?

A president or congress cannot overturn this ruling. The only way now that the right of an American to own a firearm can be stripped would be for the people to vote in an amendment repealing or limiting the second amendment. But that would not have the support to pass.

Not necessarily. The main focus was the District of Columbia and, as mentioned previous, both Pennsylvania and Vermont have more thorough declarations in reference to hunting.

Wrong. A SCOTUS decision usually involves only one location. However, a SCOTUS decision applies NATIONALLY. Therefore Illinois and Californian gun laws will be struck down once challenged in court.

Not necessarily - gotta love the appeals process!

Also, how long before women demand the right to be considered part of a militia by the court's definition and, if they are not, that means there will be yet another potential appeal.

Again, this is a fictitious argument you are pulling out of your arse. Women can join the militia...they have a choice (until they join the military) while men do not. Furthermore, women have a tradition of militia service going back all the way to the Revolution.

Yet this was not included within the court's definition of militia, as I have already said.

And if there is an appeal it will be to expand the definition of militia...and have nothing to do with gun rights since (as I have said above) there is currently nothing preventing them from owning guns.

The ruling is remarkably narrow-focused, thus rendering its purpose a massive grey area.

D2K,

Seriously. Your opinions on this matter are erroneous because you are still approaching this from your previous mindset. Specifically: the 2A only grants the right to bear arms to the militia. Therefore you have made arguments from the position that a person's right to own a gun in the US comes from membership in either a formal or informal militia. This argument has been concluded by the ultimate and highest Constitutional authority in the land. Your side's interpretation of the 2A has been shown to be the wrong reading of the amendment.

Let's also look at what their reading says:
* You cannot carry a gun near a Federal building or a High School. This means that, whilst you cannot carry a gun into a government builoding, bank or post office (or high school, obviously), but there's nothing wrong with carrying one into any branch of 7-11 or onto a college campus.

Hang on - so the government and all arms of it are to be protected, but the citizens less so? That sounds rather unconstitutional to me, as it places their safety higher than that of The People.

Also, by striking down assault rifle bans is really asking to backfire - considering US gun shops managed to "misplace" 30,000 weapons last year, upgrading the arsenal that can find its way into the hands of those looking to inflict harm may well render this decision disasterous. Or, to put it another way, if gun dealer are already corrupt and selling their wares on to the criminal class, there goes the section on banning weapons used by the criminal classes that was covered (i.e. sawn off shotguns) - especially if a gun dealer supplies the shotgun, the buyer supplies the saw and the know-how.

Also, they say it's not OK to have bans on handguns and assault weapons, but ones used fror criminal use can be banned? That's talking themselves into a loop, as they managed to contradict themselves with their own judgment.

Also, the day people start to use machine guns as self-defensive weapons in the home is the day it's finally verified that the American political process simply does not work in any logical manner whatsoever.

At 6/28/08 02:41 PM, marchohare wrote: Oh, brother.

I can't believe this debate even exists. If you believe gun control will work, you probably believe that prohibition worked, or that banning abortion worked, or that the War On (some) Drugs works, or that laws against prostitution work.

Even though, as Australia proves, banning guns and enforcing the bans (this is the important part) has seen the murder rate drop notably in that time. Meanwhile, SOuth Africa proves that making guns available to all saw the gun murder rate increase 500%.

Get it though your heads: bans don't work. I can make an effective gun out of plumbing parts from my shed... not that I'd have to. In the event of a ban, buying a gun would be as easy as buying marijuana is now.

A lot more expensive, though. You see, all you need to grow marijuana is a plant pot, some soil, a few seeds and a UV lamp - that's a lot less than the facilities needed to manufacture weapons, smuggle them, or to import converted replicas.

What's amazing is that it's often the same people who realize laws against drugs and abortion don't work nevertheless want to ban guns.

Wake the fuck up.

Australia did more than you ever could. Moron.

At 6/28/08 07:16 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/28/08 07:03 PM, Memorize wrote: Unlike the UK, we aren't within walking distance of one end of the country to the other.

Also unlike th U.K. our whole economy is oil. When oil becomes expensive are whole economy is collapsing. U.K.'s economy is doing better then the U.S.'s.

Actually, you can walk one end of the US to the other - it just takes longer. Also, since when were economies dictated by the size of your country? That's an illogical comment and, therefore, irrelevant (and vice versa).

Also, our economy happens to involve oil - the North Sea oil fields for a start. Meanwhile, we're in the midst of a credit crunch, with house prices taking a real pounding at present, with a 16% drop this year alone.

UK oil prices have always been higher than the US regardless, so once more: stop complaining, as you haven't got high fuel prices.

At 6/29/08 10:22 AM, arxarts wrote:

At 6/28/08 06:25 PM, x-Exodus-X wrote: Damn, looks like he`s never going out of office...

Mugabe's 84 years old, he wont last long, and an assassination attempt will probably kill him.

This is another issue: if this were a Middle Eastern country, he would've had numerous assasination attempts and/or suicide bombers take him out long ago - even his election win in 1980 involved threats of violence from his supporters against non-supporters, and during the 80's his rule saw the Ndeble tribe subjected to a campaign of murder and forced resettlement. Now they have food and oil shortages because of his policies.

Imagine the problems that'd be solved if one guy put a bullet in his head, or detonated next to him? Yet this never seems to happen in Africa - they may be shot in a military coup (most recently in Niger in 1999), but The People never seem to be too bothered in helping themselves.

Also, whilst Kenya may be putting forward armed intervention, it's 1202 miles from Nairobi to Harare or, to put it another way, they'd have to cross Tanzania, Mozambique (and possibly Malawi) to get there. That won't be happening, in other words - the way into Zimbabwe is overland, from either South Africa, Mozambique or Zambia, and which of these are willing to allow armed forces to mass within their borders? There's also a theory that most Africans won't do anything because Mugabe threw the White Oppressors out, so therefore he's good - a similar attitude to Idi Amin in Uganda, in other words.

South Africa are still too busy looking the other way. Whilst Desmond Tutu has come out and criticised the regime, he's also the first to do so by name - even Nelson Mandela didn't do so. And, as with England, their sanctions go so far as to prevent their cricket team playing Zimbabwe's. I get the feeling the only way they'll take any form of action is when their population gets bolstered by a few thousand Zimbabweans every week.

At 6/28/08 01:42 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/28/08 01:10 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: As I keep saying, in the UK it's £1.18 a litre, or $2.35. Multiply that by 4.5, and you'll see why I don't give a flying fuck about your whinging about gas prices in the US, because it is NOT expensive.

Well oil is a bigger problem in America because we are run by a president and vice-pres who used to work for an oil company. We are in a war for oil that has raised prices not lower them. and oil is a huge problem because high prices have driven are economy into the ground and its not coming back up anytime soon. Our economy is dependant on oil and when oil rises are economy falls and the American dollar is worth less then the Euro. Americans can complain because Oil prices have made our economy worse then yours.

Yet America is not paying the equivilent of over $10 per gallon - once again, their whinging falls on deaf ears on this side of the Atlantic, because they have no concept of what legitimate high fuel prices are.

At 6/28/08 01:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 6/28/08 01:29 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 6/19/08 03:41 PM, ScarsRemain wrote: wow, this topic still hasn't broken any new ground
nice post topic though, lots of responses

It's nigh-on impossible for any topic on gun control to break new ground, for the following reasons:
1.) Numerous people will say something along the lines of "The Bill of Rights declares we have the right to bear arms" and leave it at that (even though, actually, it doesn't).
5.) Then somebody else comes along and says it's an American's democratic right to bear arms.

D2K, you're absolutely and objectively wrong on point 1 & 2 as off two days ago. Have you not heard the news? When the Supreme Court publicized their decision they made a matter of law that the Constitutional right to bear arms belongs to the individual. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is and is not a Constitutional right.

That still doesn't prevent people being wrong for 232 years.

Thus the debate on whether or not we have the right to bear arms outside of a formal militia has been decided....that it IS an American's right to bear arms as established by the Bill of Rights. Your understaning/arguments on this point are now moot and any restatement of the "Militia Act" argument can now be said to be irrefuatably wrong.

Note that the ruling only specifies self-defence, though: there is no dispensation for hunting within the verdict. Is this a gross oversight in trying to sway the laws in one direction, and completely ignoring all others?

Also, the verdict dictated that "militia" translates as "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" - in other words, the second Amendment remains outdated as it defines militias as men-only, so therefore this means women cannot own guns.

Expect yet another trial, then...

(Especially when the NRA try and sue Chicago over their gun bans - which Mayor Richard Daley supports, saying this ruling will drag American back to the Old West, instead of forward into the 21st Century).

A president or congress cannot overturn this ruling. The only way now that the right of an American to own a firearm can be stripped would be for the people to vote in an amendment repealing or limiting the second amendment. But that would not have the support to pass.

Not necessarily. The main focus was the District of Columbia and, as mentioned previous, both Pennsylvania and Vermont have more thorough declarations in reference to hunting.

Also, how long before women demand the right to be considered part of a militia by the court's definition and, if they are not, that means there will be yet another potential appeal.

The ruling is remarkably narrow-focused, thus rendering its purpose a massive grey area.

At 6/28/08 01:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 6/28/08 12:53 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: I think it's anti-police music (ie most rap songs, and "fuck the man" rock) that spread the whole "cops r scum" message. They have "fuck the police" lyrics and young people take this in.

Hang on...POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!! POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!!

Whoops, clicked in the wrong topic and didn't notice. Errm, the second part stil lstands.

At 6/28/08 12:53 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: I think it's anti-police music (ie most rap songs, and "fuck the man" rock) that spread the whole "cops r scum" message. They have "fuck the police" lyrics and young people take this in.

Hang on...POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!! POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!!

Hence they see the police not as people who are there to help, but rather people who want to "beat them down" because they're "playa haters". Young kids who have no reason to hate the police are being tainted by this shit.

As opposed to in the UK, where we're indoctrinated with the idea that they're here to help, when in fact they're institutionally racist, trigger happy (as in the Metropolitan Police), and always willing to cover each others' ass when it comes to any inquiry about them being institutionally racist and/or trigger happy.

At 6/19/08 03:41 PM, ScarsRemain wrote: wow, this topic still hasn't broken any new ground
nice post topic though, lots of responses

It's nigh-on impossible for any topic on gun control to break new ground, for the following reasons:
1.) Numerous people will say something along the lines of "The Bill of Rights declares we have the right to bear arms" and leave it at that (even though, actually, it doesn't).
2.) cellardoor6 chimes in, thus putting people off contributing on the spot.
3.) People will say you believe the obviously biased Michael Moore, and direct you to an episode of the apparently unbiased Peel & Teller's Bullshit (a show which Penn Gilette himself admits is "biased as fuck").
4.) WolvenBear acts like an ass. Topic goes off into flame war.
5.) Then somebody else comes along and says it's an American's democratic right to bear arms.

Aaaaaaaaaand repeat...

Good to see Gordon Brown is really putting his foot down on the farcical elections in Zimbabwe, the violence that goes with it, and the potential genocide facing people who want to vote for the opposition - they revoked his honarary knighthood, and banned the Zimbabwe cricket team's tour next year. That'll show him!

Anyone want to drop a few thousand copies of Che Guevara's biography, or more specifically the parts about the Cuban Revolution, on the country? That might be a start - come to think of it, South Africa not looking the other way the whole time would also be a good start...

As I keep saying, in the UK it's £1.18 a litre, or $2.35. Multiply that by 4.5, and you'll see why I don't give a flying fuck about your whinging about gas prices in the US, because it is NOT expensive.

You know, the guy in Zimbabwe who's got his followers attacking and murdering opposition supporters in order to prevent the presidential run-off election this Friday? The dicator nobody seems to pay the slightest attention to?

Nobody made a topic about this?

At 6/23/08 02:35 PM, hereforrock wrote: The limit? Don't say 'fuck' in front of little children or their mothers.

Yes - that's the right of the parent who's idea of childcare is to bawl abuse and/or threaten their kids at the mildest indescrecion that undermines their supposed "authority."

I love living in Croydon...