10,771 Forum Posts by "Tancrisism"
At 6/13/09 04:10 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: His previous thread's funnier though.
That's quite easy to believe, considering there was no humor to be found in this exaggerated nonsense.
Actually, to set the record straight, Judaism is an ethno-religion. It's both an ethnicity and a religion.
However, it is not a race. Race implies phenotypic uniqueness, and this is hardly the case.
At 6/12/09 01:24 PM, Al6200 wrote: So really, I don't see how people can pretend that diplomacy was irrelevant to WW2.
Actually, I think that one of the major flaws in the Allied policy was that of "unconditional surrender", that is, victory would not be accepted unless the enemy accepted whatever was demanded without reviewing it first.
What should have been done is negotiations should have been opened and the Allies should have been able to demand extremely harsh terms. Negotiations, though, should have been opened. This might have avoided the dropping of the bombs.
At 6/7/09 08:42 PM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: A black student recently did a study for my statistics class about scores for the OGT. His study showed that whites(out of blacks, whites, and hispanics) scored higher on every subject, while blacks scored the lowest.
What do you think this tells you?
At 6/12/09 02:42 AM, Memorize wrote: Obama is more like George W. Bush to the second degree.
He's continuing to use tax payer money to bail out bankers and corporate giants.
He's doubling the deficit.
Although supposedly there are plans to narrow it by the end of his first term...
He's continuing the wars in the middle east.
This makes him sensible, not George Bush.
He's continuing the warrantless wiretapping, only going one step further in claiming that the government is immune to any lawsuit.
I'd like to see a link suh.
So yeah, we've basically got a black democrat George Bush.
Stem cell research, abortion rights, supreme court justice choices, Guantanamo Bay, using diplomacy, admitting possible mistakes...
He is a sort of anti-Semite, since Arabs are Semitic.
At 6/10/09 05:58 PM, SonicSheep wrote: Because the US is the most powerful country in the world at present, and being way up there on that pedestal can make you awfuly paranoid about your mortality.
Keep in mind that the Civil War was in 1865, back when the United States was far, far from a world power.
And once again, 'History is written by the victor'. The union won, and now the southern confederacy is viewed to be the bad guys. If they won, since both sides would have survived there would probally be a more 'balanced' modern view of them.
Although the Confederacy do have the minor blemish of institutionalized slavery... Although it's true that several states in the Union side of the war also had slavery at the time, such as Maryland.
At 6/10/09 04:07 PM, Memorize wrote: It doesn't make any sense at all, both by logic or the law, why secession from the Union would be illegal.
When you don't talk like a douchebag or arrogant asshole, you make really good points.
At 6/10/09 05:41 PM, Demosthenez wrote: There are people more exciting than me, you are right. But I can tell you they arent potheads, I know those retards. They all suck.
So can I assume you wear hemp clothes and have 3 foot long smelly ass dreads?
Just as I started to think you were intelligent...
Ramen has an obscene amount of salt and other nasty chemicals, and multivitamins do not support your bodies needs that well - you need some vitamins more than others. Multivitamins shove them all together in one, and too much of some vitamins is quite unhealthy.
We are constantly traveling in time. Time is a constant, as are the other three dimensions.
At 6/10/09 11:15 AM, SonicSheep wrote: I don't know all the details of it, but that seems to be it in a nutshell anyway
I apologize, I completely misunderstood your post.
Don't judge all of us Americans, though. I've met plenty of Brits with disgustingly nationalistic views similar to the worst of the Americans.
At 6/10/09 08:18 AM, SonicSheep wrote: Obama on the otherhand is not ruling a country in a time of iminent full scale war. The kind of battles Obamas fighting can be won with talk and diplomacy. Sure it may mean sucking up your pride a little bit, but in the end, it will be worth it.
I'm curious which battles you are talking about that Obama has resorted to violence when he could have resorted to peace and diplomacy. The only ones I know of are against the Taliban where he is attempting to contain and finish a war started by his predecessor, and in Iraq, where he is doing the same thing.
Everywhere else, Obama has resorted to diplomacy and peace. This is actually what the topic creator is complaining about, even though he has no idea what he's talking about.
Although Americans seem to believe that they are the worlds master and being anything less than the master in any negotiations is unacceptable.
Some do. Others, such as myself, are against the past American foreign policy far more than most foreigners are capable of being. Perhaps it's because we know about it and have seen its effects (i.e. 9/11).
At least thats the vibe I get from a lot of Americans on Obamas foriegn policy.
What, in your eyes, has Obama's foreign policy been?
At 6/8/09 07:52 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: Nope, dont really plan to go either.
Yet you prefer England... How can you say you prefer where you are compared to a place you've never been?
Thats the thing, England can be crappy but its perfectly ok to live in. Saying to be born elsewhere would likely just end up being a worse place. Even if you can get better living somewhere ok is perfectly...ok.
Exactly. You'd never be happy where you are. Everywhere can be crappy, but everywhere can also be okay.
I like England, for the record.
At 6/8/09 09:54 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Yes I read the article. Did I say he was a lazy stoner? No. I said he was proving he was a stoner. Did you even read what I said or are you quick to judge anyone against marijuana?
Unlike you, I don't categorize people into groups and then assume that they all behave similarly. Not everyone who smokes pot cannot control their usage. Go out into the world a bit and meet some people, it'll do you good.
At 6/8/09 09:49 PM, stafffighter wrote: It's already illegal. Yes, there are movments of decriminalization in places and those are good but really, it doesn't and will not have the establishment that tobacco has.
You say it will not; I don't think I could be sure about that. I know it could, but will it? Time will only tell.
I know economics. Do you know geography? You say the suppy will come. I ask from where? Land is, to quote Lex Luthor "The one thing no one's making any more of."
There is still plenty of farmable land left in the US. Besides, California and Kentucky are already examples of two states with enormous marijuana crop productions. People can build large greenhouses on plantations.
Businesses will form. The Mid-West is still ripe for the plant.
I'm not even against pot being legal. But holding up someone like this as a civil rights hero presents the additude that pot isn't this impassive, harmless thing that should be allowed into the American mainstream. It's a recreational drug, there are better uses for political fever.
I wouldn't say he's like a civil rights hero, and, once again, I didn't mean to insinuate that the prohibition of marijuana compares to the oppression of the blacks in cruelty.
However, I do believe that the prohibition of marijuana is just as illogical and harmful as the 1920's prohibition of alcohol, and, whether you like to believe it or not, marijuana already is part of the American mainstream. So it deserves political fervor just as much, if not more, than other topics.
At 6/8/09 09:31 PM, Korriken wrote: only to those who use it.
No. I actually really don't enjoy smoking pot at all, and I find it obnoxious when my friends do, but I strongly believe it should be legalized.
Think of the revenue wasted on welfare for the influx of marijuana users when no decent company will hire them.
If marijuana was legalized, businesses would probably reconsider their drug test policies. This is a long shot, and seems like you are just being bitter.
Stupid and wrong law is a matter of perspective. Personally I think not executing drug dealers is an injustice to the American Public.
Suddenly I am wondering why I am debating points with you... Do you actually have something serious to say, or are you just being a drama queen?
At 6/8/09 08:20 PM, stafffighter wrote: I get that. And while there are a million completly repedative topics about that this particular act was that of a douche.
I disagree entirely there, but it seems we are looking at this differently.
You can say what would and should and all that but the point is that when you do something up front like that that you know is illegal taking a legal hit is a risk. You can have all the beleifs you want but if that kid didn't know that lighting up an illegal substance in front of a crowd was going to end this way he was irrepairably up his own ass.
Yes, he knew what he was getting into when he did it. But this whole issue brings up the topic of "should he be punished like that?" "Should marijuana be illegal in the first place?"
At 6/8/09 09:20 PM, stafffighter wrote: Ok, breaking up your points here not out of any disrespect but for the sake of clarity.
1. There are legal stipilations in place such as medical use and amounts carrying different penalties. There is no need to make a blanket legalization on that basis.
I disagree with this. It should be legalized for all purposes.
2. Use of a recreational drug vs. the oppresion of a race? Not really seeing it.
The Rosa Parks comparison is that she is the one that sparked the widespread movement. Not that the prohibition of marijuana compares to the oppression they faced.
4. The economic side. This one people throw around a lot. First of all, where would all this pot come from? Would we use American farmland that could be used for food? Do we cut down more rainforests? And don't use the example of tobacco here. It might be bullshit but it's there, it's established and looking at it angrily isn't going to make it go away.
But the example of tobacco works as well in that sense - marijuana is there. It's established. And looking at it angrily/illegalizing it will not make it go away either.
You are concerned over where the pot would come from? If you know anything about basic economics, you would know that with a demand there will always be a supply. And there is a demand for marijuana, thus supplies also exist. If it was legalized, plenty of people would supply the marijuana industry, that would not be a problem.
At 6/8/09 08:33 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: He wasn't presenting his case with any kind of "balls", he was being a stoner.
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Did you read the article? The kid has a 3.7 GPA in high school. Was he high the entire time? If so, you are wrong in your insinuation that stoners are lazy and stupid.
At 6/8/09 07:43 PM, poxpower wrote: I've meet hundreds from all over the world and NO ONE is against it.
Where are the anti-pot people???
I've met a lot of them here in the US. My girlfriend was against it for a while too (until I logicked her into acceptance), and she's from Switzerland.
At 6/8/09 07:32 PM, Ragnarokia wrote: Everywhere is.
You haven't been to California. Actually, the other adjectives describe it comfortably, except for overcast.
If you could've chosen which country to be born in, where would you have chosen?England. Like I did. America would be easier for getting stuff but I kind of prefer England still.
Have you been to the US, out of curiosity?
I don't think I can say where I would rather have been born. If I was raised somewhere else and some way else I would be completely different, and would probably once again want things to be different somehow, and so on. It's trivial and stupid wishing for something else; make the best of what you've got, or change it,
At 6/8/09 07:06 PM, stafffighter wrote:It's not completly unrelated. Legalization advocates keep saying that there will be resonable restrictions on smoking a la tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption in order to avoid the more public stupidity. So in the interest of equality lighting up indoors in a school non the less should be seen as equally asshole-ish.At 6/8/09 06:20 PM, Elfer wrote: Yet if he was advocating the legalization of smoking in government buildings and he lit up a cigarette, he'd just be a stupid asshole.
But he wasn't advocating the legalization of smoking in government buildings, or that tobacco, or anything for that matter, should be allowed to be smoked indoors. He was advocating the legalization of marijuana.
Smoking indoors in a school should have the same rules applied to it that it would have if he smoked a cigarette - he should have gotten into trouble for it. He should have gotten suspended, at the most.
He should not have gotten removed from the school, expelled, arrested, and sent to juvenile hall.
At 6/8/09 06:20 PM, Elfer wrote: Yet if he was advocating the legalization of smoking in government buildings and he lit up a cigarette, he'd just be a stupid asshole.
That's a completely different topic, so yes. Very true. Similarly, if he was advocating the extermination of Mormons and lit up a Bible, he just be a stupid asshole.
He's a champ and a hero.
Hopefully, he will be the Rosa Parks in the legalization of marijuana process.
This guy is a hero and a champ.
At 6/6/09 09:39 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Well, honestly, China is too important as to impose and ideological barrier, everybody trades with China and ignores its lack of democracy and civil rights violations. One could say that China will be a democracy in the future, ie, it is getting democratic, as a consequence of the creation of a middle class.
This is obvious and hardly worth stating. It is still a double-standard, though, to claim that you don't trade with totalitarian regimes and then trade with only the most powerful totalitarian regimes.
I'd rather be an atheist than a religious person because I would hate to feel like I was lying to myself. Avoiding self-deception is a huge plus.
At 6/5/09 04:52 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: However, the US won't accept lifting the embargo unless Cuba returns to democracy, which seems to be quite unlikely.
I really hope that Obama sees through this double-standard. Otherwise we should embargo China and Saudi Arabia, too.
At 6/4/09 10:54 PM, Yorik wrote: Because, although he is a racist bastard, he has the right to express these feelings.
I wonder if he'd do so for a group of black people... "I'm here to explain why all of you are inferior creatures."
He has a right to express these feelings, sure, but I thought we were trying to keep this forum more productive. You cannot debate with such irrational and illogical nonsense.
I suppose we allow the religious to continue posting here though, so...
I kid, I kid.
At 6/4/09 11:05 AM, Grammer wrote:At 2/24/09 01:55 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: But [black people] are ALL worthless pieces of shit that brands ANYONE who DARES point out the bloody, violent truth about them a "racist".Don't feed the trolls
Why the fuck has this topic been allowed to stay open for four pages? It's sickening.
I wouldn't say it's deception by the US, as this seems to have been more run by the rest of Latin America. I hope it goes through though.
