4,237 Forum Posts by "Samuel-HALL"
At 10/3/06 05:48 PM, metalhead0001 wrote:At 10/3/06 03:32 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Exactly. So as long as your tongue is allowed to wag, you retain your free speech.Not exactly. For example, a TV show was cut because some people were offended. This is taking away the creaters freedom of speech becuase by cutting the show, it's telling them that they aren't allowed to express their opinion because some people didn't agree with it.
Case closed.
Though dissent and anger are covered under free speech...slander is not. Nor, fortunately, is hate speech. Racism is not free speech, just as a death threat isn't free speech.
So, technically, this topic isn't about someones free speech being taken away, it's about someone who got offended by someones opinion of their opinion.
No. It's, in all honesty, about things not covered under the 'right' to free speech.
Not every word you say, or write, or print, or televise is free speech. The quicker America realizes this, the better off the average American will cope.
At 10/3/06 03:21 PM, metalhead0001 wrote:At 10/3/06 03:05 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: When I say "You are unpatriotic for not wanting to keep American safe.", that is simply my opinion. My voice of free speech, if you will.
To tell me that my opinion is wrong is exactly what the conservative do you.
And telling me that I am wrong for telling somebody else that they are wrong about someone else being wrong, is enfringing on my freedom of speech.
No, it's not. 'Telling someone they're wrong/unpatriotic/ignorant' is free speech.
Me telling you to shut up...is free speech.
Dissent is free speech.
Promoting imperialism and facism is free speech.
But taking away freedom of speech does not mean telling someone that their oppinion is wrong, taking away someones freedom of speech would be forcing that person not to express their views.
Exactly. So as long as your tongue is allowed to wag, you retain your free speech.
Case closed.
At 10/2/06 04:13 PM, RedSkunk wrote:At 10/2/06 04:08 PM, Jose wrote: Did they earn that money?What does that have to do with anything? Irrelevant. Define "earning."
"Working for."
or
"Deserving."
Don't ask questions on a BBS that you don't want answers to.
At 9/25/06 09:47 PM, fasdit wrote:At 9/23/06 11:59 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:
If it's natural then what is the natural variable?
Never claimed to be a scientiest, friend. Google it, and find out yourself.
Fact is though, global warming and cooling existed long before humans did.
Crack a science book, why don't you.
If CO2 and methane aren't causing the planet's climate to change then what is?
If you had been paying attention, you would have seen where I very clearly said that we, as humans, are speeding up the natural processes of this planet.
At 9/25/06 11:51 PM, NorseBeast wrote: Global warming is not liberal propoganda. From all of the information that we have now, global warming is happening. However, humans are not the cause. We are at most a catalyst for the warming, but the entire cycle is a natural process that has been going on and will continue going on for the etire life of the planet.
Just because the temperature is changing doesn't necessessarily make it bad. It's just a natural cycle.
Exact-a-fuckin-mundo.
There is nothing we can do to stop a natural cycle of earth. Can we stop rain, or sunshine? Can we stop hurricanes, or tornadoes?
We can stop contributing to global warming...but the process will never go away. It shall come to fruition, whether humans exist or not.
At 10/1/06 12:38 AM, ClassicalStar wrote: Well, duh. because people won't give it a chance.
Peace is complacency. Peace is simply a lack of conflict, and not an abscence of problems.
At 10/1/06 01:18 AM, Peternormous wrote: No, they're fucking neo-cons. Learn your fucking political ideologies.
Perhaps you should take your own advice?
At 10/1/06 09:17 AM, metalhead0001 wrote: Welcome to America where if you disagree with President Bush, you're unpatriotic. I agree with you. (I'm the one who started the other "What Happened to Free Speech?" thread, if you care) People have gotten way out of line with calling other peoples opinions "wrong" or "unpariotic". Well, it's upatriotic to call someone elses opinion unpatriotic.
You are being just as closedminded as your opposition.
When I say "You are unpatriotic for not wanting to keep American safe.", that is simply my opinion. My voice of free speech, if you will.
To tell me that my opinion is wrong is exactly what the conservative do you.
At 10/1/06 11:29 PM, Begoner wrote: Are you serious? You are in favour of not allowing protesters to peacefully assemble? Oh, they can protest, and say whatever they want. They can write their little signs, and sing their little slogans, and convince themselves that they matter.
They'll do it in a cage, though, far away from listening ears and watchful eyes.
Show me in the constitution where it says 'you are allowed to block traffic, endanger the leader of the free world, clog streets, and close down business with your protest"
That's right. You can't.
At 10/2/06 10:14 AM, Begoner wrote: No, injustice is a fact.
No...it's not. I call laws that allow hate-mongers and anti-americans to speak in public 'unjust'.
And it is only my opinion.
At 9/25/06 02:09 AM, Shootem-up wrote:At 9/23/06 11:30 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:There would be mass rejection because people don't want all they're precious luxuries taken away with them. Sure, luxuries are great, but look at the empty lives the majority of people lead.
'Luxeries' like electricity, and shelter, and law and order, and societal institutions?
Is food a 'luxery' too?
But if you really want an example of anarchy working, search up Dial House.
Anything can work with a dozen people or so. From communism, to socialism, to facism.
At 9/25/06 01:57 AM, Truthiness wrote: You're a lot more dangerous than a responsible gun owner.
A lot of things are more dangerous than a responsible gun owner.
Hail, for example.
Or NASCAR races.
At 9/24/06 11:26 PM, Dash-Underscore-Dash wrote: What if we had no science, but religon? No guns, bumbs, tanks, or bio-weapons. Science has caused way more deaths than religion.
And science cures our sick. Science not only has extended our life span, but many times pulled us from the very brink of death.
Science keeps us warm. It provides shelter, and security. Science provides transport. Jobs. Food. Clothing. Life.
At 9/24/06 02:23 PM, ClottedCreamFudge wrote:At 9/23/06 05:16 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I hope it is painful for her. I honestly wish and hope and (and if I believed in a god) pray that is ruins her, even if it she's found not guilty...Even if she's found not guilty? Why?
It is only a symptom of her ways that is to be held to justice in court, and not the source. The source is her being what she was, and serving the purpose that she did.
That purpose is the same thing we're raised to believe is the wrongest of the wrongs.
That purpose is the thing we hold even our own government of being shamefully guilty of.
Do her neighbors know who she guarded, and to what purpose her watch served? Does her employer, and her cor-workers? It is doubtful, I think.
They do now, though. And those that did not know will never see her in the same light again. Justice comes from society, too - even when no citizen raises a hand, or a hateful voice. Oh, and imagine the perception, or rather the hypothetical outrage of a hypothetical 'not guilty' verdict. The outcry will be strong, no matter how ignorant it may be.
Justice will come, one way or another, for her.
At 9/24/06 10:02 AM, Kev-o wrote: I think it could work, if people lived in small tribe type things.
If people lived in tribes? If people lived in tribes?
What year is it, kev? Is it still two thousand and six? And you want to live in tribes?
What about electricity? And goddamn jobs? Should we just split three hundred million Americans into...oh, I don't know...seventy two thousan tribes? And then fucking what, Kev-o? Who provides law? Who provides order? Who keeps the power on? Who stops the rapists, and child molesters, and, god fucking forbid it, the terrorists and unaligned countries of the world from slitting the throat of this nation?
What, you don't think countries like Iran, and China, and Russia would love to see America split, in such a way?
Oh, the people are going to do all that? The People. The same mob that elects bumbling, lying politicians, time after time after time? The same country that absorbs almost half the cocain made in the entire world? The same country that can't manage it's own cities without finger pointing, and media influence, and constant government aid?
This nation would eat itself alive, without the strict system of laws that now bind us.
We already consume ourselves, and poison our own people, with the law.
If you trust your neighbors, and your community, enough to allow them to answer 9-11 calls (assuming things like Emergency Services and telephones still exist, in your little anarchist head), and keep the electricity on, and defend the nation, and grow (and ship/market/sell) the food, then you just go on ahead and move into your little commune experiment.
God forbid you join us in the real world.
At 9/24/06 03:30 PM, IndianaJamie wrote: I think its right. A woman ending her unborn Childs life is her fucking choice not anyone else’s
No one else should have....any say so?
Not even...the father?
At 9/24/06 01:04 AM, Blamitality wrote: HOW are those coincidences?
Because they just were. Your mom's friend or what-the-fuck-ever did exactly what many do, sometimes. They get odd little feelings in their odd little brains.
It ain't even any kind of 'luck', because luck doesn't exist either.
It's just coincidance. Chance.
Yea, I didn't read every post on all four pages...but I read many posts.
Why doesn't someone just come out and say it? Seperate yourself from your morals, and prove your point.
Yes, a fetus is a life. Biologically, it's human. If left alone, there's a high chance it will one day be just like you and I. A fetus is alive, and it is a life in the very fucking definition of the word. Stop playing semantics with the term 'alive', and fucking admit it.
A fetus is a life, and so the fuck what? I still support abortion. It ain't conscious life. It's not cognitive life. It's 'life' and 'alive' like a cat, or a squirrel is alive. In all honesty, a squirrel probably has more brain activity than a fetus in it's early stages.
You keep your 'value of human life' to yourself. We can admit that a fetus is a life, and still support it.
At 9/24/06 12:33 AM, jamaicans-are-mint wrote:Hey...you can always use this time in your life to start abusing drugs and alcohol.i already do abuse alcohol and drugs
Just something to think about.
Well then...you know what to do, then.
I didn't realize you were a small child.
Just dump her. Buy that new video game you've been thinking about and forget it, because it's not important.
Hey...you can always use this time in your life to start abusing drugs and alcohol.
Just something to think about.
At 9/24/06 12:27 AM, jamaicans-are-mint wrote: my girlfriend just got of with my mate but i dont know whether to dump her or not because i really love her please help
If you keep her, can you honestly say you will fully and unconditionally forgive her betrayal and deceit?
If not, drop that slut.
Global warming, and global cooling alike, are natural fucking cycles of the earth.
Sure, green house gasses and especially CFCs speed up this natural process.
The earth warmed and cooled in extreme fashions, for billions of years, before humans were even evolved enough to say the word 'ozone'.
Do you believe what you're taught in any science class, about the great ice ages? And the large scale times of tropical and flourishing global warming?
I believe in global warming. And I believe that we, in a small scale way, speed this process up. It is downright retarded, though, to pretend one of Earth's natural cycles is somehow created by mankind.
And the process will continue, even if we shut down every factory for good, tomorrow. It would continue if another automobile was never started again.
Just as the ice age could not be prevented in any way by man's intervention, so will this period of warming be.
We can slow it down, sure. We can cap factories and make cleaner cars, and cleaner energy. Don't pretend it will stop the process, though.
At 9/23/06 11:27 PM, nukechicken wrote: So now that I actually got your attention What the fuck Is this topic all about well I'll tell you and yes It has something to do with Radioactivity.
Smoking Cigerettes Who here does it. Anyone. Well Guess What Your Figurative speaking suckingon rods of plutonium. And I have proof of this
http://www.erowid.or..nnabis_health2.shtml
I don't give a fuck if they grind up pluitonium, rat poison, and asbestos into my cigerettes. I know cigarettes are bad for me, asshole.
If I was worried about my health, I wouldn't smoke.
Done.
At 9/17/06 08:26 PM, reviewer-general wrote: I should probably expand on this a liitle more. I went to my high-school the other day wearing a shirt with an anarchy symbol on it. Immediately people began to think I worshipped satan or something, liked death and chaos, etc. (don't ask me why).
Look up the word, and you'll know why. Chaos is synonomous with 'anarchy'.
I was talking about it with a buddy of mine and we came to the conclusion that as an extreme outsider who doesn't give a shit about the region (wherever it is; nowhere specific), utter chaos is pretty cool.
It shows you someone's maturity age, in my opinion, when they say or live by certain ideas, or ideals. 'UItter chaos is pretty cool'?
Definitely one of those certain ideals.
At 9/17/06 09:32 PM, Shootem-up wrote: The problem with anarchy is the minute you mention the word, people assume it is synonymous with "chaos", which of course it is not.
No...it really is.
It would be naive to say anarchy could work on a large scale in our society, but there are anarcho-type places all around the world (dial house, for example), which proves that it could work on smaller scales.
If people want to anarchy-up their trailor parks, or suburb neighborhoods, I could honestly give a fuck less.
As long as I didn't live in one of those neighborhoods/trailor parks, that is.
At 9/18/06 06:06 PM, Shootem-up wrote: Anarchy is NOT CHAOS
Educate yourselfs for fuck sakes.
Anarchy does not strip you of rights, anarchy gives you more.
I could go on and on about how half of you have the whole idea of anarchy wrong but I'm way to lazy, read around fags.
Really, grow up. You'll (and this is a promise) grow up one day, and realize how silly you used to be. I know I look back at things I thought I agreed with five years ago, and I realize what a fool I was.
Open a dictionary, and look up the word 'anarchy'. It's literally synonomous with the word 'chaos'. That isn't my opinion. That's Webster's, friend.
How does anarchy provide me with rights? Do you have an answer? Or is it just like everyone thinks it is?
'Utter chaos is pretty cool', right? Break it all down and start over, man. Right?
Anarchy is a lame fucking pipe dream. You want to 'break the system down', and 'set everyone free' and 'give it back to the people'. Do you, though, have any plan for such a thing? And even if you did bring down the system...then what?
Think about it. What do you honestly think will happen?
The lights and government and all communication go out for a couple days in New Orleans, and it turns into a hellhole of crime, abuse, neglect, and rage. And that was just one goddamn city, for a couple days.
Imagine the same thing nationwide.
Is that where you want to live, Stupid?
At 9/23/06 10:04 PM, DonDoli wrote: Exactly. That's exactly what my point was. I didn't seem to be able to stop the homo discussion from evolving.
If the reporter had asked something like "Why have these thoughts grown?" or whatever, I wouldn't mind. But when I heard the question, I got angry that they'd say something like that, and shocked that noone cared or noticed.
And imagine the other hypothetical side of the story. If the study, or poll, or whatever it was had shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans agreed with a homosexual lifestyle...what do you think the public response would have been, if some news reporter for MSNBC or FOX asked 'how can we stop Americans from expressing their support for homosexuals?'
At 9/20/06 08:55 PM, CaptinChu wrote: Can this be applied to America with George Bush? The taxes have been heightened, and there have been terrible natural disasters. Is the Mandate of Heaven migrating across the Pacific?
If you believe in stories about heaven, and this heaven's...wrath, then sure.
Otherwise, no.
Yea, your god is punishing America, both physically and economically, to punish us for the unjustness of George Bush
I think that shit's silly.
At 9/21/06 07:11 PM, Begoner wrote: There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and to say it is a disease is quite ignorant.
When people say 'homosexuality is a disease', I don't think most (although some) are talking about it in a derogatory fashion. It's simply their explanation for it. Their interpretation, if you will, of what makes homosexuals homosexuals.
Some people think it's a birth defect. Some people think it's a birth defect, but describe it with words like 'genetic mutation'. When someone says they've been gay since they were a child, what do you think they mean? "Born gay'' means that the dna, or genetics, would be a root of homosexuality. 'Genetic mutation' or 'genetic abnormality' are not negative terms, unless you think in negative terms.
'Normal' people are born with genetic mutations all the time.
The point (the topic starter's), that everyone seems to have missed is that this has nothing to do with homosexuality being right or wrong. Both sides of the issue simply express their own interpretation, and explanation, of homosexuality. Sometimes both sides use points founded in logic and science, and sometimes both sides make things the fuck up.
The point is that niether side has a right to ask questions like 'What can we do to prevent someone who disagrees with us from possessing that opinion?
At least, I think that's what the topic starter was expressing. You guys took that, and turned it into a sissy fight about the morality of homosexuality.
At 9/23/06 06:43 PM, Denta wrote:At 9/23/06 06:38 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Drop almost every scruple you have.I don't see a reason for that...
And i think that the Americans don't really have the right to fuck up down in the middle east, because of a half dead half alive man.
Doesn't have a right, under what pretext? Democracy? The constitution?
Our own laws do not (or should not) mandate foreign policy. How we treat our prisoners, or how we elect governments, or how we have laws to protect our rights has absolutely nothing to do with how we handle other nations.
That's the thing about all empires in the history books - they are often democratic, free, and fair to it's citizens...while still being self-serving enough to take what it did not possess from other countries, for what they felt was a good reason.
I doubt you'll understand what I'm saying. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand it, in principle and theory. I mean, you know what I mean. You understanding what I'm implying, but, unfortunately, you cannot make yourself see the pros of such a thing.
All I'm saying is that it's hard to treat every other country like their American citizens. Always with the fairness, and diplomacy, first - even, in the past, with enemies we knew we'd inevitably face in war. We spite ourselves, with diplomacy. We undermine what has to be done, in the effort to do what should be done.
Diplomacy can be ignorant, too. Asking nice can be the wrong thing to do, sometimes. Might shouldn't always make right, but force shouldn't always make wrong.
At 9/23/06 06:36 PM, Denta wrote:At 9/23/06 05:48 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:If you're a dictactoric asshole, yeah.At 9/22/06 08:07 PM, Sakoyasha wrote: No that is retarded...I mean you can't force someone to join a war if they don't wanna...Especially with a Bomb Threat...Yes, you can.
I happen to be an individual who respects and desires an America that more resembled an Empire, of sorts.
So I can't call your accusation a lie.
How do you beat someone who's arguing a point based off of morals?
Drop almost every scruple you have.
At 9/22/06 08:07 PM, Sakoyasha wrote: No that is retarded...I mean you can't force someone to join a war if they don't wanna...Especially with a Bomb Threat...
Yes, you can.
At 9/23/06 09:56 AM, DethX wrote: Besides, if he actually DOES bomb Pakistan, then the entire Middle East would rise up against America.
Because that would be totally different than the world we live in now.
For real.
His death means nothing. Nor did it ever.
It bothers me, how Americans are so blood thirsty for one man.
He's simply a figure head. Yea, I'd like to see him dead...but that won't stop terrorism. At all. If anything, it will only empower terrorists. His death by our hands makes him a martyr. It empowers the beliefs of the muslim extremists.
I will say, though, that him dying from natural causes prevents him from being classified and defined as a 'martyr'.
I'm not cool with thousands of US troops looking for one motherfucker in the desert. That's ignorant, and inefficient.
Sorry.
At 9/22/06 02:49 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 9/22/06 02:17 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I like JOS' comparison, a little more. A six or seven seems more realistic.For an 80 something year old woman who hasnt done anything remotely criminal in over half a century and to top it off, she married a Jew also.
Oh, so age affects moral conviction?
And who she was married to means nothing. Most of the sickest sociopaths have normal home lives, with wives and children who they 'love'. Doesn't mean they aren't evil fucking incarnate.
Honestly, who the fuck cares.
People who think the halocaust was unforgivable.
And people who value human life.
Oh yea, and people who respect law and order.
At 9/22/06 03:35 PM, Begoner wrote:I don't think anything will be proven through torturing an old woman, which is why I reccomend letting her face trial where it will be determined if she is a murderer or not and then she can be punished duely or let go with a clean record.You don't get it -- the trial is the torture. Granted, it's not the same as zapping her with a high-voltage electric current. That doesn't mean that it won't be painful for her.
I hope it is painful for her. I honestly wish and hope and (and if I believed in a god) pray that is ruins her, even if it she's found not guilty. I hope it destroys any social status she has. If she has a job, I hope she loses it. If she has respect, I hope she loses that to. I hope her neighbors and her community turn high-powered scorn and condemnation on her, much in the way that neighborhoods treat child molesters.
At 9/22/06 04:19 PM, Begoner wrote:The good it will do is that she will have paid for her crimes and it will be shown that atrocity is not tolorated over any span of time.Are you blood-thirsty? Do you take pleasure in causing others pain? She obviously doesn't want to "pay" for her crimes. Who the hell are you helping by hurting her? Not a fucking soul. You're just causing her pain because you feel like it for an abstract reason -- I find that morally abhorent.
Good. I'm glad you do find it morally abhorant...like the rest of us find genocide and opression abhorent.
Justice doesn't always 'help'. In fact, usually it does nothing but punish the guilty.
At 9/22/06 04:41 PM, Begoner wrote: Let's you rob a bank when you're 18 years old and get away with it. Now you're 83 and living peacefully in a foreign country, on the brink of death. You have not committed any crimes since. However, the law catches up to you. Should you get a trial and spend the rest of your life in a prison cell as retribution for the bank manager and his family?
No, not as 'retribution' to anyone - but for the fact that I committed a crime and was not prosecuted for it. Unpunished criminals, like criminals in her catagorey, are the most abhorent human beings on the face of the earth, to me.
At 9/22/06 05:03 PM, Begoner wrote: Oh, and another thing to note -- doing what she did was legal in Germany at the time.
And those who hung, raped, enslaved, and oppressed blacks in American History for also on the right side of the law. Our genocidal march on the native americans was legal. Columbus enslaving and/or executing whole islands full of natives was legal, too.
I guess all those things are forgivable too. No need to worry about morals, as long as it's legal.
At 9/22/06 07:02 PM, RedSkunk wrote:At 9/22/06 04:46 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Here's a question: Why not improve the cluster bomb, so it actually fucking explodes on impact..Cluster bomb technology has improved. The most advance ones have a success rate of "high 90%s" according to the companies producing them, "80%s" according to indie organizations. And bombs with higher success rates (meaning they go "boom") are being used more often. But two things - firstly, much of the information on cluster bombs out there is con, so they stress the failure rates of the earlier tech. And secondly, the more advance are, obviously, more expensive.
If cluster bombs actually have a succes rate of 'high 90's', then I support them.
No weapon is perfect, I mean. Every piece of war time technology fails, sometimes. There have been rockets fired that don't explode; bombs dropped that do not detonate. Even our advanced semi-automatic/automatic weapons backfire, or misfire, sometimes.
But where's the truth? Of course the government will say 'yea, totally. High 90's, all the time'. And obviously those expounding nothing but the cons have an agenda of their own.
Has there actually been any recent legitimate studies on the effectivness of cluster bombs? Or is this topic like most things, where 90 percent of the 'facts' out there are someone's agenda-fed interpretation of what they'd like the truth to be?
At 9/22/06 11:19 AM, NorseBeast wrote: Ok, first of all, I never showcase anything except my opinion. Second of all, in my first post I did give my opinion- indirectly. I wanted to wait and see what other people would say so I could possibly debate it. Not much else to say since I was agreeing with the original post.
No you were not. The original post asked you to compare and contrast the two.
And this is what you responded with -
At 9/22/06 01:13 AM, NorseBeast wrote: I'm an atheist, for the record. I have no bias in that way.
As I recall, I never said I didn't think radical Christianity wasn't dangerous- I just said I thought radical Islam was more dangerous.
And I happen to agree with you, strongly.
The personal attacks are completely unprofessional and uncalled for.
And what are you? A 'professional NG debator'? Give me a break.
At 9/22/06 05:22 AM, fli wrote: Oskar Schindler was a Nazi... remember?
But really, what choice did he have? Be a Nazi, or get fucked.
It doesn't matter, if it was compulsory or not.
American troops that are 'ordered' to shoot civilians are still charged, if it can be proven in court.
Seems like she never personally killed people (although, it seemed that she didn't try to save them either.)
She was a guard in a nazi death camp, and you are honestly questioning if she's killed anyone?
She's got to be a 1.
I like JOS' comparison, a little more. A six or seven seems more realistic.
