28 Forum Posts by "EmperorManpig"
At 2/20/08 10:24 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The government COULD force churches to pay taxes, but then...
2) Priests would have to be given voting rights and full citizenship rights given their taxpayer status
I thought that priests were full citizens and could vote? Am I wrong?
I thought something had to made up of cells to be considered alive.
At 4/4/07 02:14 PM, JoS wrote: Its good to see that they have been released. I wish we could get a statement from them before they talk to any MOD spin doctors, but I am sure that wont be possible.
I would also like to point out that the Iranians gave the co-ordinates they claim were on the GPS unit when they arrested the Brits, which puts them inside Iranian waters, while the MOD never released any co-ordinates and simply replied that they were in Iraqi waters. There is no agreement on the boundary between Iran and Iraqi waters. Iran wants to go by geographical proximity while Iraq wants special boundaries. The co-ordinates given by Iran are closer to Iran's coastline than Iraq's coastline. And since no agreement is in place I would have to side and I think most people would agree with me on this, abide by geographical proximity.
In any case, at least they are home soon.
I think its been discussed on this thread before that the Iranians gave coordinates ( the same ones as the Brits) that put the British in Iraqi waters first. They then changed the coordinates to make it look like they were in Iranian waters.
At 4/3/07 10:48 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: No, the difference is that during WWII people weren't led to believe that that war wasn't meant something.
Iraqi is a democracy under siege from people who wish to destroy it, defending them is no different fundamentally from defending the French, Dutch, and British like we did in WWII.
It's just that coverage of Iraq has been negatively tainted by the media from the beginning for political purposes. In WWII, the US wasn't being sabotaged by political opponents of the administration at the time.
If more ppl realized this, we would be a lot better off. It's good to see that some ppl stand up to the morons.
At 4/3/07 04:55 PM, Sigfrid wrote:
Here is the link for the nonbelievers.
All that link does is bitch about "racism in predominantly Anglo courts." The website is obviously biased.
At 4/3/07 11:46 AM, DarkSarafan wrote: No matter what people call it, but if there's a war going on Iraq, it's civil war, but lookie what we got there: North American troops pretending to be the law and order there.
Before the invasion of Iraq, everything was totally ok there, no mass killing of whoever it might be, people living their lives like on other neighbor countries...
Whatever, the "Iraq war" isn't good on any aspect presented. Occupied against UNO/ONU's authorization, against more than 72% of all world, a small lie is enough to invade a country that was HELPED BY THE AMERICANS, and by the way, THE SAME SADDAM HUSSEIN RECEIVED WEAPONS FROM THE US on the Iran Iraq war.
Nice, huh?
There were no mass killings before the invasion, huh? Have you ever read a history book? Saddam tested bio/chemical weapons on thousands of Kurdish civilians in the 80's (one of the reasons for his execution). He also massacred an entire Shi'ite town after an assassination attempt on him. Don't open your mouth if you don't know what you're talking about.
At 4/3/07 12:10 AM, Debauchery wrote: Sources? Christ alive! Type Supreme Court rulings into goddamn Google, its not that hard.
Well some of us have lives that don't revolve around political rants. You brought this up, you link to the source.
At 4/3/07 12:00 PM, DarkSarafan wrote: Funny, US still has the very same bad habit of invading other nations' territories without asking anyone if they care.
And you still get mad with people wanting what was theirs in the first place? Please...
"What was theirs in the first place?" They lost that territory fair and square. They signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1846. We have had that land for about 160 years. They have no right to the territory and no right to complain.
At 4/2/07 11:54 PM, Debauchery wrote: Sigh, the Supreme Court (who has the power to do that shit cause they're badass) ruled that an insufficient number of state legislatures passed the sixteenth amendment and that the amendment therefore grants no new congressional right to impose direct apportioned taxes. The Supreme Court's ruling was ignored.
As for the government being corrupted by bankers, its called the Federal Reserve. It's comprised of private banks. It controls the printing of US currency, which is why we've had so much inflation. Since the control of American gold (the gold that is supposed to belong to you and me) has also been given to the Federal Reserve, the spending power of our dollars are in jeopardy. Without audits on our gold, our money may as well be pulled from thin air.
I will agree that our gov't is corrupt and it's not perfect, but it could be a lot worse. Also, you should really cite some sources if you want ppl to take you seriously.
At 4/2/07 10:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 4/2/07 10:50 PM, EmperorManpig wrote:At 4/2/07 09:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 4/2/07 08:45 PM, EmperorManpig wrote:Not quite sure what you're talking about. I meant that the native americans had no nations with borders. I wasn't talking about the Europeans.Apparently you haven't studied Native American culture have you?
If you could provide some sort of link proving me wrong feel free to do so.
If nobody killed their enemies in war, all of the soldiers would be able to get back up and fight again indefinitely. Then the war would go on forever, or until the two sides signed some sort of treaty. Either way, nothing would be accomplished.
At 4/2/07 09:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 4/2/07 08:45 PM, EmperorManpig wrote:The situation is different because there wasn't a nation with borders here at the time. And don't bring up the "We trespassed on Native American territory" rant because they didn't have defined borderlines and their territories often changed and overlapped.You mean like the Europeans.
Considering how many wars have been faught between the European states on the boundries of thier countries and nationalistic feelings.
Not quite sure what you're talking about. I meant that the native americans had no nations with borders. I wasn't talking about the Europeans.
sorry. previous post's quote should have been in italics, not bold.
(wish I could edit.)
Really, so there isn't a Great Britian anymore, or a France, or Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Germnay, Italy, Japan or any other nation that has sent it's people here. The Immigrants that came back in Puritan times, and the ones that come now aren't really that different at all.
The situation is different because there wasn't a nation with borders here at the time. And don't bring up the "We trespassed on Native American territory" rant because they didn't have defined borderlines and their territories often changed and overlapped.
Yet more insanity from the Iranians:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_
mi_ea/british_seized_iran
At 4/1/07 01:19 AM, JoS wrote:
Too bad we live in a world governed by laws and not morals.
So you bitch about ppl following laws and not morals, yet most of the problems you seem to have with the US is that we broke some kind of "law?"
Why don't you come back when you have a real argument.
I think this thread is supposed to be a joke. Did anyone even open the link?
According to this article, the Iranians are going to try them for espionage.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/m iddle_east/article1563877.ece
Invasion does not imply intent. Although uncommon, it is possible to invade a country without knowing that you are doing so.--Begoner
You CANNOT "accidentally" invade another country. That's the most ridiculous load of crap I have ever heard. Begoner, you have to be a complete moron to believe any of the crap that you spew from your mouth.
At 2/19/07 02:45 PM, troubles1 wrote: THE Prison system is overcrowded ,and it is the taxpayer who is paying the bill , I say if they are sentenced to life in prison then they should be executed they are of no use to us, or maybe they should make the family of the person who committed the crime pay the bill ,or decided weather to kill the person, if they don't want to pay for the inmate, then we wont have to do it.
I agree. Besides, executing them makes the rest of us feel better. And you can't put a price on that. :)
At 2/15/07 09:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:At 2/15/07 08:48 PM, LadyGrace wrote:At 2/15/07 08:46 PM, dySWN wrote:It was also about the south's constitutional right to secede from the Union. Except Lincoln broke constitutional law, suspended the writ of habeas corpus and basically fuck the US for a good long time.The South didn't have the Constitutional right to secede from the Union though.
No state does according to the US Supreme Court.
In the 1869 ruling of Texas v. White, the Supreme Court ruled that no state can secede from the Union.
The Civil War ended in 1865. At that point in time, states DID have the right to secede. But still, Lincoln didn't declare war until the Confederates attacked Ft. Sumter in S. Carolina, which was Union territory.
At 2/16/07 03:39 PM, EricTheRed wrote:At 2/15/07 10:59 PM, EmperorManpig wrote:At 2/15/07 08:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:You do realize that the muslim countries see us as invaders so invading another muslim country will make even more of them belive that fact since there not going to buy the US did this for morals reasons.
since the ppl committing the genocide in darfur are mostly muslims as part of their global jihad against non-muslims, the U.S. may actually have interests in stopping this. that being said, i think we are probably too tied down in other areas to do a whole lot other than supply some arms and money.
The muslim world doesn't care what we do or don't do. They are going to attack us anyway. We might as well try to them from advancing their holy war around the globe.
At 2/15/07 08:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Africans have been killing each other for centuries. Beyond that the US has zero obligation to the people of Africa, Darfur or any other god for saken country.
Let the powerless UN take care of it.
The only obligation the US has is to it's own peoples and it's own interests.
Niether are in Darfur.
since the ppl committing the genocide in darfur are mostly muslims as part of their global jihad against non-muslims, the U.S. may actually have interests in stopping this. that being said, i think we are probably too tied down in other areas to do a whole lot other than supply some arms and money.
At 2/15/07 09:50 AM, Togukawa wrote:
The retaliatory strikes do far more damage to the Palestinian population than the unaimed missiles fired by Hezbollah and Hamas could ever hope to do to the Israeli population. The latest war showed that Israel considers the life of 2 Israeli soldiers more important than the life of 1000 Lebanese civilians.
i agree that the death tolls for civilians doesn't help the situation, and it would be better to try and take out the fighters with snipers, etc. the only problem is that the terrorists blend very well into the civilian population. it's very hard to single them out and the civilians usually try to protect them.
At 2/15/07 08:23 AM, LinkManDX wrote: I don't know what's funnier: the original post, or the fact that people are actually taking this guy seriously.
ppl have pretty much forgotten about the original post. they're all debating what's been said afterward.
At 2/15/07 09:50 AM, Togukawa wrote: What's sickening? That the Palestinians run crying to the media when civilians are slaughtered, or that Israel deems it completely acceptable to attack cowards that hide among civilians, even if they know that lots of innocent people will die in their attack?
if someone is shooting rockets at you, would you sit back and take it? palestinians usually shoot at israel from the middle of cities and towns. israel doesn't have much choice except to retaliate. if the palestinians are so worried about their civilians, why don't they attack from nonpopulated areas? they don't care about their civilians. they just want them to die in a counterattack so they can use the media to gain sympathy.
At 2/14/07 04:06 PM, ReiperX wrote:.
Israel isn't a horrible country like some people try and make it seem, but at the same time they do a lot of horrible stuff too. And the US and other countries tend to turn the blind eye to what they do wrong. Israel has a long history of overkill when getting targets, and not carring how many innocents are harmed when this happens.
most arab civilian deaths inflicted by the Israelis happen because the jihadists hide among civilian populations like cowards. they wait for the Israelis to stike back at them so that the civilians around them will die. then the Palestinians can run crying to the media about how Isreal targets innocent civilians.
it's sickening.
At 2/14/07 04:31 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: Well I personally belive that the war islamic extremism should end where it REALLY began, Iran. But can't we just take advantage of any potential ethnic,religious etc. divisions it may have?
ppl have tried. there are powerful groups in Iran that hate the Ayatollahs (the Kurds for example).
while they are strong in numbers, no one has been able to convince them to revolt yet. but luckily for us, Ahmadinejad's hateful rhetoric is pissing a lot of Iranians off.
