446 Forum Posts by "Guitarmy"
At 9/11/06 02:43 PM, IndianaJamie wrote: I’ve been thinking. Is the modern car any good?
Are they saving on fuel?
Are they safe?
Are they practical?
Can you feel happy with your new car knowing that a house cost as much 50 years ago.
no there fucking not.
There soft (cant get in a crash without throwing the engine). They have so much electrical shite in them that your seating position comes second. "it goes from 0 - 60mph in 3 seconds and has a top speed of 210 miles an hour" That’s fantastic...IF YOU EVER OWN A FUCKING MOTORWAY!!! I mean you buy a super car and the chances of you going above 100mph are slimmer than the body work. Those new censor keys where the car locks when you walk away. How fucking useless is that? 80% of the time a person checks its locked. An airbag is the most useless invention in the world. Lets say you hit a tree on the road. The bag will deploy after the impact. So the car company can say instead of the airbag killing you it will break your jaw and nose.
what’s your opinion?
Actually most cars are safer. Older cars had thick frams up and down and when they got in a crash the cab, where you sit, would be destroyed and the engine house would be prestine. New cars have crumple zones. A technology invented in 68, but not implemented in the U.S. untill 92, because... that's how America works. What that does is make the engine compartment and trunk act like a cushion from the crash the car breaks there destroying the engine, yes, but allowing you to walk away with your life. I don't know anything about airbags.
At 9/18/06 05:50 PM, Dizzy-D wrote:
They had the economic means to do this because they were under a communist system. learn you history god your stupid
Yeah, they were great economists. Totally had us beat.
At 8/29/06 04:16 AM, The_Green_M wrote: I see that more as less violent Communism than Socialism. Besides you could write a short story to defame any political ideology.
Yes I see where you're coming. A "less violent Communism" is far more likely to fail than Socialism. You're right as well about writing short stories to defame a political ideology. However you offer no argument to the points risen here.
"there was something that happened at the plant where I worked for twenty years The Twentieth Century Motor Company.
It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. ... They let us vote on it too, and everybody -- almost everybody -- voted for it ....
The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need. ... they made it sound like that anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being.
... Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there is a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it in and each bucket you bring breaks the pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six -- for your neighbor's supper -- for his wife's operation -- for his child's measles -- for his mother's wheelchair -- for his uncle's shirt -- for his nephew's schooling -- for the baby next door -- for the baby to be born -- for anyone anywhere around you -- it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures -- and yours to work, ... with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end ...
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ... It took just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars --rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to "the family," and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his "need" -- so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that "the family" would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because its miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm -- so it turned into a contest among six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brothers... what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot?
... What was it that they'd always told us about the vicious competition of the profit system, where men had to compete for who'd do a better job than his fellows? Vicious wasn't it? Well, they should have seen what it was like when we all had to compete with one another for who'd do the worst job possible. There is no surer way to destroy a man than to force him into a spot where he has to aim at not doing his best, where he has to struggle to do a bad job day after day.
... Amusement was the first thing they dropped. Aren't you always supposed to be ashamed to object when anybody asks you to give up anything, if it's something that gave you pleasure? ... There was a man who'd worked hard, all his life, because he'd always wanted to send his son through college. Well, the boy graduated from high school in the second year of the plan -- but "the family" wouldn't give the father any "allowance" for the college. They said his son couldn't go to college, until we had enough to send everybody's son to college -- and we first had to send everybody's children through high school, and we didn't even have enough for that. The father died the following year, in a knife fight with somebody in a saloon, a fight over nothing in particular -- such fights were beginning to happen among us all the time.
Then there was an old guy, a widower with no family, who had one hobby: phonograph records -- "personal luxury", they called it. But at that same meeting, Millie Bush, somebody's daughter, a mean ugly little eight-year-old, was voted a pair of gold braces for her buck teeth -- this was "medical need," because the staff psychologist had said that the poor girl would get an inferiority complex if her teeth weren't straightened out.
The old guy who loved music, turned to drink instead.
... But the shiftless and the irresponsible had a field day of it. They bred babies, they got girls into trouble, they dragged in every worthless relative they had from all over the country, every unmarried pregnant sister, for an extra disability allowance, they got more sickness than any doctor could disprove, they ruined their clothing, their furniture, their homes -- what the hell, "the family" was paying for it!
They found more ways of getting in "need" than the rest of us could ever imagine -- they developed a special skill for it, which was the only ability they showed.... Yet this was the moral law that the professors and leaders and thinkers had wanted to establish all over the earth.
If this is what it did to a single town, where we all knew on another, do you care to think what it would do on a world scale? ...To work -- with no chance of an extra ration, till the Cambodians have been fed and the Patagonians have been sent to college. To work -- on a blank check held by every creature born, by men whom you'll never see, whose needs you will never know, whose ability or laziness or sloppiness or fraud you have no way to learn and no right to question -- just to work and work and work -- and leave it up to the Ivys and the Geralds of the world to decide whose stomach will consume the effort, the dreams and days of your life.
And this is the moral law to accept? This -- a moral ideal? ... Our agony took four years, from our first meeting to our last, and it ended the only way it could end: in bankruptcy.
Ivy Starnes made a short, nasty, snippy little speech in which she said that the plan failed because the rest of the country had not accepted it, that a single community could not succeed in the midst of a selfish, greedy world ..."
This is quite simply it, Socialism is a wonderful idea, and it very well could work, provided we stole everyone's freedom. Socialism is plainly slavery, you're a slave to the government, whether you choose it or not is entirely irrelevant. Socialism changes one thing, essentially, in government; it takes peoples representation away replacing it with a corporate board representing money instead. Instead of the government working for you, you are working for the government. Instead of working for yourself you are working for your government.
At 8/23/06 06:46 AM, emmytee wrote: http://www.guerrilla..n_WMDs_Found_in_Iraq
HOW can they believe this....... I mean, what can you do against such blind stupidity
They had chemical weapons, old degraded ones from the 80s, we found those and called them weapons of mass destruction to trick the public, when in reality it was just illegal anti-personel stuff.
At 8/24/06 08:50 PM, theDESIRE wrote: Please help me understand this graph? I would really like to know what to call myself if asked where I stand politically. I got this from Political Compass.
Left and Right wing are economic, left wing being a regulated economy completely controled by the government, Right wing being absolutely no bussiness law. The Y axis is civil freedoms. So you're a Liberal Centrist. Now, by American standards you'd be extremely left. Democrats are far more right than you are.
At 8/21/06 01:47 AM, TremcladClock wrote: Since when do the degenerates on MySpace have intelligent political opinions?
They don't, however, some can vote.
At 4/13/06 08:42 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: What's so wrong with teacher bias? They're humans, you're all grown ups, unless you're brain-dead lampreys you know not to be coerced by someone else. They're not putting a gun to your head and telling you how to vote.
How about when they start basing your grade on their bias, suppose they start teaching you opinions because they are in the position to do so. Teacher's being biased is ok, but classroom bias is a huge problem.
At 4/13/06 04:27 PM, SevenSeize wrote: My university is extremely left wing. I support everyone having free speech but like someone said earlier, it kinda gets on your nerves having petitions shoved in your face all the time. And in my speech class, we were discussing Cindy Sheehan and to make a long story short, I let it be know that she gets on my nerves. So my car got keyed. REAL mature people at my university....
You should complain about that to administration, say that your school is politically intollerant and as a result your private property was damaged.
My only problem is what you said about standardised testing. I love standardised testing, it proved time after time that the people in the A.P. classes were retarded, and the kids being shafted were generally far more gifted. But all in all, fuck public schools in general. Private schools are the greatest.
I also agree why should we give a shit about this. Doesn't arguing about other countries problems seem a little redundant and pointless? With that said, let's get back to Bush and Iraq.
Wow, this nigga is hip n shit, bitch.
At 8/18/06 02:45 AM, Rioan wrote:At 8/17/06 06:48 PM, Vrael wrote: why dont we just make more ozoneIt's made up of O3, to be exact.
its made up of chemicals right?
so why not just make ozone we should fix our problems with pollution but until then we could just make more ozoneWe could, but here's the problem with that:
couldnt we?
1.) Making O3 takes up more resources than it helps to save.
For example, if I made 1 pound of ozone, I probably made enough ozone-damaging substances to destroy 2 pounds of ozone.
No, you'd have oxygen. Not 'ozone-damaging substances'
2.) O3 happens to be a very toxic gas, so making it would take a lot of funding (safety measures). Too expensive.
We use ozone generators in water purifiers. Look into it, the problem is that it has a short halflife of 8 minutes.
3.) O3 belongs way the hell up in our atmosphere, how would we get it there? Again, that would take up resources.
You're right there though.
At 8/15/06 03:37 PM, Vertigo200 wrote: 1 - How many American soldiers died on D-Day during the taking of Omaha beach?
2100
2 - Which front, East or West (including Africa), had the total largest number of manpower involved?
East, Russia.
3 - Who was the greatest Axis general of WWII? You may name more than one if you wish.
Rommel
4 - Who was the greatest Allied general of WWII? You may name more than one if you wish.
Patton
5 - Which country captured the biggest number of Japanese soldiers during the war?
China.
6 - Of these countries, which suffered the biggest number of casualties (both civilian and military): China, France, Germany, Japan, UK, US, Soviet Union?
I have no idea, Probably the Soviet Union, then France or Germany.
I'm an American.
At 8/17/06 06:52 PM, Idyes wrote: We probably can not do this for the same reason that we can not do something similar with CO2 effects on global warming. Theoretically, we could just build a giant factory to pull CO2 out of the air. However, realistically, it would just cost too much.
No it doesn't ozone is just O3 we use it in water purifiers to clean water and create no hazerdous byproducts, just oxygen and... OXYGEN! The problem lies in the fact that ozone has a half-life of only 8 minutes, it's created by chemical reactions brought on by the sun in the atmosphere, all the carbon monoxide makes it impossible to do that so it simply dissappears instead of reproducing.
At 8/16/06 07:54 PM, Begoner wrote:If the U.N. meant withdraw from all or the territory they would have said so.Yes, they did say so. Did you read the resolution at all? Do you have trouble understanding English? Resolution 242 called for:
"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
You have to be retarded to argue that it did not, in fact, call for withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all the territories. That's such a stupid semantical point that it's laughable -- "territories occupied in the recent conflict" obviously refers to the territories which were occupied in the 1967 war -- all of them. Otherwise, it would say the specific territories from which Israel had to withdraw. That site is ultra-rightist and biased and does not even site sources for their assertions -- they simply claim there was a discussion on the wording when in fact there was none.
because at the time Hitler had made the international community think that Poland was the aggressor.Are you serious? Nobody thought that Poland was the aggressor -- the same way that nobody thinks that Hezbollah is the aggressor. The world knew that Germany was the belligerent just as the world knows that Israel is the belligerent (except the US, of course).
Hitler fiegned attacks all along his border with Poland to justify the war. Many people think Hezbollah is the aggressor, I do, for one.
Hezbollah's stated goal is the 'total destruction of Israel'Once again, wrong. In fact, Hezbollah’s present leadership disclaims any interest in contesting Israel’s right to exist outside of disputed territories. Nobody, not even Nasrallah, is calling for the destruction of Israel. Nasrallah said that the matter of a two-state solution with Israel rested with the Palestinians and that it is their war.
No they occupied it; they took military control and not economic or civil control.So you don't consider taking military control of territory the same thing as "taking" territory. I see.
Taking territory is to add it to your nation's geography. Taking military control of a piece of land is not taking the land, it's taking military control, you can't simplify it beyond that. Now if Israel began setting up an intern government, collecting taxes on the region and setting up regional checkpoints that would count as taking territory.
No one is a 'Combatant' until you declare war, which Hezbollah politley declined to do before kidnapping the soldiers.Hezbollah isn't a country. Hezbollah can't "declare war" on anybody legally. They can be in a perpetual state of armed struggle until Israel gives in to their demands, which they have been for the past couple of decades.
Hezbollah is a militia and hence it can declare war legally.
Now according to the Geneva convention, any combatants who assimilate themselves into civilian society and still attempt to achieve their means are spies, and can be held without trial, and shot int he field without much more reason than what they are doing is immoral military practice.
No, they cannot be "shot in the field" even if they do hide themselves in the civilian population. Nonetheless, this does not apply to Hezbollah militants, who comply with the Geneva Conventions:
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:
(a) during each military engagement, and (b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Hezbollah combatants hide equipment in people's homes without evacuating it and creating a 'military zone'. They assimilate into civilian populace as a means of hiding from counter-attack, all of which are war crimes. The Viet Cong followed the Geneva convention. These people do not.
Now, can you show me any proof that Hezbollah have been negotiating, or that they tried to this time, then announced that Israel wasn't meeting their demands and there was nothing left to do but fight, after that, proceding to take what would be, if those previous steps were taking, prisoners of war?Here's one site:
http://www.chomsky.i..rticles/19960423.htm
There aren't many sites detailing Hezbollah-Israel negotiations because Israel refused point-blank to withdraw from the West Bank -- there was no negotiation, and Israel refused to give in to such demands. Obviously if it isn't going to listen to the UN, it isn't going to listen to Hezbollah.
Did you even read that? Nowhere in there does it mention any negotiations, it even makes mention that 242 is no longer applicable. This site is biased and still doesn't support your arguments, nice try.
At 8/15/06 04:23 PM, Begoner wrote:The West Bank is Palestinian not Lebanon, the U.N. recognized in 2000 that Israel has fully complied with 242.The UN has never recognized that Israel complied with 242. I would appreciate a link if you have one stating that it did. Anyway, it doesn't matter if the West Bank is Palestinian territory, Lebanese territory, or Samoan territory. It's occupied territory. Israel is occupying it against international law when the whole world is telling it to leave (excpet the US, of course). Everybody has the right to fight against an occupying power until that power gives the land back to its rightful owner. It doesn't matter whose land it is. Are you saying that Great Britain should have never gone to war with Germany because Germany only invaded Polish land, so they had no right to care? No. An illegal act of conquest affects us all -- we need to stand up against it and send the message that we'll fight for our land and our rights. Israel has been taking both away for decades, and the world has done nothing about it.
If that's true why is Hezbollah, the Labanese Nationals, fighting Israel?
If the U.N. meant withdraw from all or the territory they would have said so. In fact there was a big debate about adding the words, 'The' and/or "all' into the wording. They said no, specifically because they didn't mean to withdraw from the whole of the land conquered. Some reading for you
Many people argued that England should have stayed out of the war with Poland, because at the time Hitler had made the international community think that Poland was the aggressor.
Hezbollah's stated goal is the 'total destruction of Israel', if you know any diplomatic means of achieving that, I'm sure Hezbollah has tried it. "Hey could you disband your government and seccumb to foriegn rule for us please?"
You are an idiot, the last time Israel actually took territory was in 1967,Really, now? What do you call the invasion of Southern Lebanon? Did they just "borrow" the land?
No they occupied it; they took military control and not economic or civil control.
Hezbollah isn't negotiating either, they randomly kidnapped 2 soldiers as bargaining chips for the release of other prisoners.Hezbollah has bargained for decades. Israel just doesn't listen. The US is on its side, and we all know what you can do if you have the US on your side. Hezbollah has tried and tried peaceful means, but Isreal has not budged. Israel continued to go into sovereign countries, kidnap their citizens, and throw them into jail without a trial. Imagine if the Canadian government sent some soldiers with guard dogs to burst into your home in the middle of the night, abduct you, and stick you into a small, cramped cell with little food or water and kept you there for years without charging you. Imagine that has been going on for decades, and even though the UN told Canada to stop, it hasn't stopped. What do you do? You've tried talking to Canada -- they don't listen. So you do the only thing that you can do -- you fight Canada. Well, that's what Hezbollah is doing. They're fighting Israel. And they haven't KIDNAPPED anybody. They have taken prisoners of war. In a war, you do not "kidnap" enemy combatants. Israel is the only belligerent that is kidnapping people. To free the women, children, and other prisoners that are being held without a trial in Israel, Hezbollah took some prisoners of their own. They're not asking a lot -- they are just asking for justice. But do they get it? No. They get the cruel and inhuman bombing of Lebanon. You are equally cruel and inhuman if you agree with it.
No one is a 'Combatant' until you declare war, which Hezbollah politley declined to do before kidnapping the soldiers. Now according to the Geneva convention, any combatants who assimilate themselves into civilian society and still attempt to achieve their means are spies, and can be held without trial, and shot int he field without much more reason than what they are doing is immoral military practice. Now, can you show me any proof that Hezbollah have been negotiating, or that they tried to this time, then announced that Israel wasn't meeting their demands and there was nothing left to do but fight, after that, proceding to take what would be, if those previous steps were taking, prisoners of war?
At 8/16/06 03:44 PM, D-Bibz wrote:At 8/16/06 03:22 PM, -Grubby- wrote: Vietnam war. Fuck Nixon!!We had troops stationed in Vietnam long before Nixon's time. He just inherited the mess when he became president. If anyone's to blame it's Kennedy.
Not even Kennedy, he was going to cut back on troop deployments and end the war. Lyndon Johnson created the problem after Kennedy was gone by escalating the war.
At 8/15/06 06:54 PM, Begoner wrote: All wars are equally pointless.
You pussy.
At 8/15/06 01:46 PM, Prototype-ZuLu wrote:
:However on the same hand it's also fair enough to say that our military budget is a disgrace and our equipment, weapons, communication devices and all the other gadgets of destruction are sub par to non-existent!
you don't even need an army.
At 8/15/06 12:24 PM, Visual wrote: You do deserve your own land. Just not someone else's
Israel has historically been called Israel and been populated by Jews for 3,000 years. They've got quite a big claim to it.
At 8/15/06 12:14 AM, shi_huangdi wrote:At 8/14/06 10:58 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: ...with 60,000 infantry troops which are amphibious assault-ready (something Canada doesnt have at all)aw balls, i want amphibious assaultness
USA USA USA
At 8/14/06 05:51 PM, Begoner wrote:Attacking military targets is also an act of war. If you attack a sovereign nation's army, they have every right to attack you back.Also, 242 was already complied with,Are you retarded? Seriously. Resolution 242 called for:
"withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
Do you think that means "essentially" that Israel must withdraw from all, some, or none, or that Israel must withdraw from the territories which it unlawfully occupied. Think, man. Also, Israel would have the right to defend itself if Hezbollah attacked it for no reason. However, Hezbollah has a perfectly legitimate reason for attacking -- Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank.
You have the right to protect yourself if you get any sort of act of war. Whether you started it or not, soveriegnty is the right to defend yourself. The West Bank is Palestinian not Lebanon, the U.N. recognized in 2000 that Israel has fully complied with 242. If you want to argue about the U.N.'s descisions that's totally up to you but according to them 242 is over.
:If Israel continues to defy international law, commit blatant war crimes (which only the US's vote on the security council stops the UN from taking action), and refuses to negotiate, then Hezbollah is perfectly justified in taking military action. Israel is a rogue state without any respect for international law which is gobbling up the territory of its neighbors. Somebody needs to put a stop to it, and it needs to be done now.
You are an idiot, the last time Israel actually took territory was in 1967, they've occupied places before and that is completely different. If an occupation is illegal you replace is with International forces and leave it at that. The only real problem with Israel right now is that it's controlled by zionists who don't give the Palestinian population any sort of say in their government. The Jews think for some reason they have a right to create a country that is totally biased towards religion and race. That is an entirely different debate, Palestine south, Lebanon north.
Hezbollah isn't negotiating either, they randomly kidnapped 2 soldiers as bargaining chips for the release of other prisoners. That is not exactly diplomatic, you didn't hear anything like: Hezbollah tried to open up negotiations again for the release of Lebanese prisoners, when that failed they kidnaped Jewish soldiers for bargaining chips. They never tried anything of the sort. Now obviously by going to war the Jews are attempting to make a land grab, what with begging the U.N. to put international soldiers in there.
At 8/14/06 07:33 PM, Pwnage_In_A_Can wrote:At 8/14/06 07:19 PM, cOnScRiPtRED wrote: We train with the US Rangers with our most basic infantry.The rangers aren't jackshit compared to our other special ops.
The rangers are light infantry. Not special operations soldiers, just specially trained soldiers.... as light infantry... That's also perfectly understandable, Canada needs light infantry, so they train their basic soldiers with light infantry. You don't have enough soldiers to make a standard infantry-man.
Wait, rockets landed in Lebanon?
Hezbollah needs to fucking die. This is fact, palestinians are the one's who have rights and problems being violated. The Lebanese can go fuck themselves, their contest is over and has been for 6 years. Again this is just Hezbollah trying to destroy Israel. Palestinians are the only people with any right to complain about Israel.
That is Zionism, basically the Jewish equivalent of the Aryan nations. Except they control israel, and don't let arabs have any rights at all similiar to blacks in the 60s, except they have no Martin Luther King who preaches peace, all they are both taught is violence.
At 8/14/06 04:07 PM, Idyes wrote: No, they have room for other options as well such as attacking military targets and not civilian ones. As long as they attack civilian targets, I will defend Israel's right to attack them.
Attacking military targets is also an act of war. If you attack a sovereign nation's army, they have every right to attack you back. Also, 242 was already complied with, it never in the text says "all" of the terroritory, in fact there was a debate to add that bit in, it never happened. Israel was ordered, essentially to relinquish some or all, or none.
At 8/14/06 03:57 PM, Idyes wrote: No, Israel has done some bad stuff as well. They think that just because they dropped leaflets in a town asking residents to evacuate that gave them the right to bomb any buildings in the town without thinking about civilian presence first. They should have known that civilians might stay.
Ya know, it's your own fault if you stay in an area that you've been warned to leave for threat of death. These people aren't children, don't act like they're that incompetent.
