At 12/6/09 06:09 PM, joe9320 wrote: This has been a very touchy issue for everyone here, especially for Australians like me. So I'll ask you Americans your opinion on censorship in any country: do you think it's good or not?

My opinion is that censorship is bad because it remove freedom of speech from citizens, and alos it is horrible to censor.

Err that's too vague a question.

FCC mandating swear words be bleeped is censorship.

The military releasing a document to the public and blackening out sensitive information, that's also censorship.

Also I heard during one of the World Wars the military would view letters troops sent home to their family and blackened out information that might've given away where they were in case they should fall into the hands of the enemy. If that's true that would also be censorship.

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Big government doesn't necessarily equate to better law enforcement or national security, so put me in smaller government. As for what that means I say we scale back some of the things the government gets involved in.

At 11/19/09 09:29 PM, Gorstak wrote: This picture says it all :P

Actually no that picture misses a huge feature of libertarianism. Yes they like fewer government, yes they generally don't like government but yet they still realize that we're going to need one. Do you like paying taxes? If no would you still agree that they're a necessary evil (and I mean taxes in general)?

Similar principles apply.

Libertarian: We need a government but don't need/don't want it to be anything more than law enforcement, a military, and things like the CIA, and FBI to protect us from foreign threats, although they should be limited in their reach (no spying on the general populace, need warrant for search and seizure etc. etc.). I think I may have missed a few other functions they also think we need so don't yell at me if I missed some. Anyway this is the extreme libertarian, I think most of them are fine with the existence of state funded fire departments and schools (or at least they can be and still be considered libertarian).

Anarchist: We don't need a government. I've heard some talk about competing law enforcement agencies so it wouldn't be complete chaos but it was complex and I've forgotten a great deal of it.

Hope that helps.

America love it or leave it truly is BS.

How was America formed?

A bunch of colonists were piseed at the way King George was treating them.

They could've left but instead they tried to change it, and eventually they started a violent revolution.

So if anything saying 'bite your tongue and put up with whatever the government is doing' is pure unAmerican Bullshit.

Here we be posting the distance records we got, if you have a screenshot post it. Also please mention how many nukes you used to get there as well as other bits.

Here's one I got using the tank, the gold gun, the max upgraded jetpack and 3 nukes (how much distance does a nuke give anyway, I'm not sure)

I had another record of 2540117.1 ft without any nukes.

The race baiting truly is pathetic in more ways then one.

First of all it's an attempt to silence critics with a logical fallacy.

You're a racist therefore we don't have to take you seriously is ad hominem.

Let's pretend that all the tea party protesters were racists, does that fact make them automatically wrong? No. Does it lower the validity of their arguments in any way? No. The taxing, spending and health care issues they are protesting are not racial issues so the fact that they might be racists is irrelevant.

I love how some uber-conservatives were claiming protesting Bush/Iraq war/their favorite policy makes people un-American and the liberals (correctly) contested that stupid logic. Now some libs are saying that protesting Obama might make you a racist which is almost the exact same bullshit. One does not need to be racist, or anti-American to disagree with the president.

At 7/25/09 01:21 AM, Crazyhobo51 wrote: It bothers me so much these days about how liberals, democrats, and intellectuals are advocating "humane" executions and lengthy prison sentences, all just wastes of money! We should just get rid of the whole trial system and execute anyone who is found to commit a crime, Judge Dredd style, none of this crap about juries and stuff. In my opinion, felonies should be instant executions, delievered by the arresting officer of course, and misdemeanors should have a fine of 5,000 to 10,000 dollars, depending on the severity of the offense

So unless you agree with using the death penalty for felonies, ignoring parts of the bill of rights, and
dismantling our criminal justice system you're a liberal?

I think that would make most of the US liberal then.

^
Err flies are animals dude.

At 6/13/09 12:11 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 6/12/09 11:29 PM, satanbrain wrote: Judaism is a religion, Jew is a race. and you know what happen to those think themselves "master race".

A Muslim believes in Islam, a Christian in Catholicism, a Jew in Judaism.

Know the difference between race and religion!

Muslim Christian and Jew are not races.

They are descriptions that point to religion.

One does not have to be a certain race to be a Muslim Jew or Christian nor does someone's race change if they convert.

At 6/12/09 10:50 PM, holmzito wrote:

At 6/12/09 07:00 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 6/12/09 06:05 PM, SeraphimFalling wrote: You know what, I think that jews are the master race, and aryans deserve to be put in camps and slowly killed and tortured.

Judaism is a religion not a race!

Tee hee, you sure are cute when you are completely wrong.

Actually he's right

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/j udaism

At 2/24/09 08:50 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Also Black History month is racist, just like you.

Also, wow, making generalizations to support your claims.

Atheists, racists, and fundamentalists dancing in a tree, which one makes me sicker, only time can see.

And what pray tell is it about atheists that sicken you?

Canada should allow concealed carry of handguns in the state, perhaps the rather high rape rate would go down.

At 6/10/09 03:35 PM, Fim wrote:

At 6/10/09 01:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

without guns, there will always be a baseball bat, knife, crossbow, blowgun, etc

Just out of curiosity , say they ban guns, baseball bats, knives, crossbows, long bows, blowguns etc. even rocks & sticks get banned !
What do you do with the people, who bare ass naked, are lethal weapons just because of their training in fighting techniques. Sure you ban fighting training next, right...then what, have humans arms & legs cut off ? everyone kept chained up ,hand cuffed ?

We are able to make a weapon out of just about anything, so IMO banning something because it can be used as a weapon is a useless gesture. Banning won't work .

At 6/10/09 01:53 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/10/09 08:21 AM, Fim wrote: I could say the same about you

at least he isn't blaming inanimate objects.

I'd like to draw your attention back to my very first comment, that there is a difference between cultery and guns - which were designed purely to kill.

All this bullshit about defending yourself against potential gun weilding criminals (who I might add can buy guns just as legally as you can) or against the government, equipped with tanks and nukes and a collosal army, just sounds like paranoid excuses with no real basis. I'm just about done explaining myself in this thread, if you have any more points, please make sure beforehand that I've not already answered them in the past 2 pages.

A. guns can be used against criminals that are armed with something other than guns or even un-armed such as a strong rapist overpowering a victim with their bare hands.
B. They can't buy them just as easily as citizens can, they have to get a background check which includes a criminal record.
C. Would there ever be a citizen revolt it wouldn't be that cut and dry, the military might split up, and we could get foreign aid (like in the revolutionary war, which the British tried to suppress in part by restricting citizens from fire-arms). Governments have become tyrannical and oppressive all the time and to say it will never happen agin is foolish. If they were we would still need an armed populace to get rid of them.

Also you've yet to prove that self-defense isn't a legitimate reason to own a gun in fact people have posted stories of people using guns for self-defence.

At 6/10/09 03:34 AM, Psycho-Medic wrote: What? I was saying that he said he saw no other purpose besides killing people yet he mentioned one in the same post...

Oh so I quoted the wrong person then, sorry.

At 6/9/09 08:26 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote:

At 6/9/09 07:04 PM, RussianGiant wrote:
i would ban all guns. no civilian use except for army or hunting purposes.
i see no purpose in having a gun except for killing somebody, not self defence[sic].

...hunting purposes.
i see no purpose in having a gun except for killing somebody

Look at that, you rebutted your own argument! If only more people would do that it would make arguing much easier.

So all those people who win medals at the Olympic shooting events will eventually kill people?

At 6/9/09 03:47 PM, Fim wrote:

you miss the point completely. you wanna close your eyes and scream "this isn't about crime!" when it very much IS about crime. without crime there would be no reason who scream for a gun ban, would there? try to deny this point.

I think a ban on guns would reduce gun crime yes. amazingly.

No it won't criminals will still get guns on the black market and citizens will be left unarmed.

That's because you're a brainwashed liberal sheep! you can only see the bad in guns, and totally ignore the good uses for them. I can take a shotgun into the wood, blast a large animal, like a deer, and completely remove meat from my food bill for weeks! Or I can take my rifle to a shooting range and vent some steam by blowing away targets, as opposed to clobbering my neighbor.

By that logic your a brainwashed republican NRA sheep! You can't grasp the fact that the only purpose of a gun is to kill, whether it's a animal or a human. It's always going to be my view that there are better alternatives to using a gun for almost all curcumstances.

Target practice and shooting galleries are non-lethal uses for guns, FFS they're even in the Olympics

Oh and tell me if your government ever decided to become tyrannical, oppressive and/or a dictatorship, what would you use than as a "better alternative" to throw them out if you couldn't use guns? Armed citizenry is a defense against tyranny and when you unarm them the government can then start oppressing the people with little to no resistance.

Everything to do with crime, which is WHY YOU WANT GUNS BANNED.

I want guns banned because guns are bad mmmmk.

Would you also like alcohol, and cigarettes banned? How about fatty foods and skateboards?

Guns make it SO much easier. In the heat of the moment anyone could pick up a gun and kill someone, if that wasn't so easy I don't think the firearm murder rate would be as high as it is in the US. I've explained this soooo much I think you are either just plain idiotic or maybe you just won't listen to reason because you're too set in your personal view.

I think you're the idiotic one who won't listen to reason because you're too brainwashed in your liberal propaganda. someone states reasons why guns shouldn't be banned, you reject them, stating that they have nothing to do with gun bans.

If someone gives me a reason that outclasses all the cons of guns then I would change my view. However the negatives of gun ownership in the US are so staggering that the only justification I can find for them still being legal is that they have been legal for a long time and people dont want to change,

Ok how about fairness. Many many people can own guns and not hurt a person or animal with them, to take their guns away just because some low life criminal scum (who can get their guns off the black market anyway) kill people with them is unjust and unfair.

for fucks sake they voted for diversity in britian's got talent.

proof that the UK has no common sense...

dont call me darling

darling, the US voted for bush - twice. That's why I have no faith in the intuition of the public to do what is morally right, epsecially when it comes to guns. There's always going to be 1 physco who will buy a gun and use it for the wrong reasons.

Yeah and if they can't get it from stores than they can get it illegally like the Columbine boys did.

Also taking away people's right to own guns when they have committed no crime and are no threat is perfectly moral and ok. </sarcasm>

At 1/18/09 02:36 AM, fli wrote:

At 1/17/09 11:20 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Keep in mind schools can all ready search backpacks and lockers for no reason

They don't search backpacks and lockers for no reason.
I believe most of the times, there are very reasonable reasons.

I've heard a story about a school who searched everyone's locker all at once looking for drugs.

Well at the very least they don't need probable cause like police do, they only need reasonable suspicion or something like that.

They never actually found anything on her. First they searched the bag then stripped search her.

Oh and what's wrong with a simple pat down?

You know the schools are abusing power when they think strip searching a 13 year old is ok.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen .strip.search/index.html

"A 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain reliever will have her case heard at the Supreme Court."

" The case involves Savana Redding, who in 2003 was an eighth-grade honor student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona. Earlier that day the vice principal had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen pills in the possession of one of Redding's classmates. That student, facing punishment, accused Redding of providing her with the 400-milligram pills.

The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, Kerry Wilson, escorted to an office and confronted with the evidence. She denied the accusations.

A search of Redding's backpack found nothing. Then, although she had never had prior disciplinary problems, a strip-search was conducted with the help of a school nurse and Wilson's assistant, both females. According to court records, she was ordered to strip to her underwear and her bra was pulled out. Again, no drugs were found.

In an affidavit, Redding said, "The strip-search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had. I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Redding and her family sued, and a federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, ruled against the school."

Keep in mind schools can all ready search backpacks and lockers for no reason

At 12/23/08 10:11 PM, nonameowns wrote: This year, new policy on the stairways. The left stairway is only for up direction while the right is only for down direction. New principle said it's for safety reason. Pretty bullshit and add more time to walk to class.

Yes we can't let kids be bumping into each other on the stairway. Think of the chaos that would unfold.

At 12/23/08 04:38 PM, poxpower wrote: Someone should make a game where you gather statements from Popes and you have to guess in what century they were said.

That would be pretty amusing actually.

At 12/23/08 03:56 PM, ReiperX wrote: It's their right to speak their beliefs.

Who here is saying they don't have that right?

At 12/23/08 04:05 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:34 PM, reddge wrote:

At 11/30/08 10:32 PM, zNelson24 wrote: That isnt right. You should make this more...public. Last time I checked, you couldnt boot someone out of school because of their medical condition.

They don't boot him out, they just mark him for dress code violations.

Thats still discrimination, you should seek action man.

No kidding, either get a lawyer or get the media involved.

The bad press alone may make them change policy, and if not I'm sure the lawyer can pull something.

They showed us a video in our school about harassment policies (which of course everyone made fun of later, "the wind's harassing me"). And apparently it showed a story about a guy who called a girl ugly on one of those hot or not websites, and then it showed how she was hurt and all but then it showed the SCHOOL getting the kid in trouble for it.

I'm pretty sure the guy did it during his own private time away from school. I remember thinking this is gotta be the most BULLSHIT thing I have ever heard. I also remember thinking if I was in his shoes I'd sue the school.

Anyway my 6th grade middle school had some stupid policies, you had to keep your shirt tucked in all the time and whatnot and I have two stories about their stupid policies over doing it.

I thought this random kid was going to kick my friend off the bleachers, it looked that way but he was joking and I didn't realize it.
Anyway I told him that if you do that 'I'll kill you' in a usual tone.

He knew I wasn't serious but his friends told him he could get me in trouble for saying that so he did.

I told the school officials all this stuff and they still gave me the maximum sentence: suspension for X days (don't remember how long).

Then I was drawing a bomb in one class, not a real bomb, but a fake cartoony black circle with a fuse. Just doodles. They tried to get me in trouble for that but my Mom threatened to get a lawyer and they dropped it.

I've heard they loosened up a bit but I haven't heard anything about that school in a long time.

Sorry about the title, damn you character limit

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behavior was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.

"(The Church) should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.

"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."

The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."

The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."

He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleM olt/idUKTRE4BL2FE20081222

At 12/9/08 05:38 PM, marchohare wrote:

To be fair, the Church isn't being hypocritical: it opposes the death penalty, as well as abortion. It doesn't believe homosexuals--or anyone--should be executed. At the same time, it opposed giving homosexuals special status, as if executing gays is worse than executing anybody else.

I don't agree with the church's position, but I don't see it as hypocritical. It seems, in fact, fairly consistent.

No it's not, the Vatican is against murder (of course) yet at the same time it doesn't like giving the death penalty to murderers, why wouldn't the same logic apply to homosexuals?

The law doesn't give special treatment to gays it doesn't say 'ye shall not execute a gay man' it says 'ye shall not make being gay a crime' that's it. The Vatican claims this will somehow lead to gay marriage, which I find very suspicious.

At 12/9/08 09:21 PM, CBP wrote: Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi said "no one wants the death penalty or jail or fines for homosexuals"

Taken from your first link. Why don't you read the whole thing next time? I do think that gays should be allowed to marry, but this is slander.

Well I tried to make the title vatican opposes un resolution banning homosexual executions or something like that but it wouldn't fit. That was the closest I could get. Although I see your point, I should've put that quote in.

Liberal can be manipulated a lot.

What do you call PC freaks who want to make sure we use soft language about minorities and people with certain sensitivities?

Liberals.

What do you call free speech nuts who want to make it Ok to say almost anything, no matter how profane no matter who it offends, even if it shows disrespect for God, patriotism and "traditional values" even uncensored on national TV?

Liberals.

What do you call people who support nanny state government that would get rid of handguns fatty foods, cigarettes etc. for the good of the populace?

Liberals.

What do you call people who want to legalize pot, smack, prostitution, assisted suicide and other such things because they believe what people do is their own business and government should not get involved?

Liberals.

At 12/8/08 08:47 PM, Korriken wrote: I've given this a bit more thought and my question would be this.

"How would the UN even TRY to force Islamic countries, such as Iran, which has mandatory death to homosexuals to not only STOP this long held tradition of executing homosexuals, but also to PROTECT them in defiance of Sharia Law? "

Good going France, you bunch of stupid snail huffing day dreamers... I could just imagine this passing and a bunch of gay Iranians decide to jump up and publicly declare their gayness.... Then they end up danging from a piece of rope attached to a crane.

Personally, before *I* would let such a notion pass, I would ask everyone "How in the bloody hell are we going to enforce this drivel?" Personally I'm 100% against wasteful symbolic legislation on any level. that time and energy could have been used for something with meaning.

And if the vatican had just come out and said 'this legislation won't do jack, so we're not supporting it for that reason' I think most people would be fine with that. Alas they didn't.