540 Forum Posts by "tawc"
At 5/26/08 06:36 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote:
Lets see, my granddad was growing up in Northern Ireland at the same time as the Black and Tans were based over there. His dad was often stopped at checkpoints by tehm and searched and he said the Black and Tans were mostly Australian and New Zealand troops sent over after WWI. Who's more likely to be telling the truth, someone who gets their facts from family members who lived in Belfast at the time of partition or someone whose most like never been to Northern Ireland in their life?
I'm not going to belive you, because your talking shit.
I don't see how you could tell were they were from at a checkpoint, unless you had a proper conversation with them, which isn't likely. People may of mistaken Cockneys for Aussies. Back then accents were different from what they are now, Australian would of sounded more london, and not everyone would of known what an Australian sounded like, or even maybe a cockney.
And there was alot of Propaganda being thrown around.
Your call
I'm gonna go with me,
I don't see how having never visited N.Ireland makes any difference.
I've been to Malta, but couldn't tell you much about it. I've never been to Russia, but could tell you alot about it.
At 5/25/08 07:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
So, where are you getting your information from? Because you must have access to a wealth of information the whole world is oblivious to considering you always, ALWAYS say shit that gets shown to be completely, literally incorrect all the time when confronted with credible information. Apparently all statistics in the world are wrong, and everything that you pull out of your ass is true.
Wait wait wait. You were the one who started of saying Germans are the largest ancestory in the US, and you still maintain that, even though I have proved that your Stats are complete shit. As the 1980's Census shows 30million more British Americans than the 2005 Census.
Aswer me one question....What happened to the 30+ Million British-Americans????
At 5/24/08 10:03 AM, simple-but-sandy wrote:At 5/23/08 02:04 PM, tawc wrote:Unfortunatly I know more about the history, genetics of the British isles than you (and by the looks of it the United States)Says the person who thought the Black and Tans were from Scotland
I said, the Black and Tans were mostly from The large industrial cities of England, Scotland an Wales, and I would be correct.
It was you who said they were Australian...lol
At 5/25/08 03:48 PM, Z-esty wrote:At 5/25/08 01:58 PM, andhination wrote: We're allies. Stop arguing with each other over who's better and let's show some love.agreed ( but we did save your ass in ww2)
Yea, the 'great battle of Dover' where the US defended our country agaist the nazi scum.
Wait..I just made that up!
At 5/23/08 05:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: And of course, the more recent census, representing more accurately the population as it is today... not 30 years ago.
hahaha, you still don't get it. It's not accurate. And It wasn't accurate.
How can one be more accurate than the other? Were people more prone to lying back then? lol
Either that or somehow 30million British-Americans have gone missing since the 1980's.
At 5/23/08 05:03 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You know less than me about probably every subject imaginable, especially the ones you choose to parade your ignorant nonsense about.
Thats a mighty thing to say, when you just then misunderstood the ethnic types SCOTS-irish and ulster-SCOTS, not understanding how they could be classed as British.
(I did only say what way you look at it) And since were talking about Ancestory then yes people who have ulster-scots background most likely will also have scottish background and therefore british background.
Funny how you apparently found 2 links that contradict eachother, and you accidentally posted the one that you didn't want anyone to see.
I don't give a shit if they contradict each other. It proves your wrong about your assumption based on statistics that are blatently inaccurate by at least 30million (LOL) were you swear blindly that they are right.
Interesting, so you posted contradictory links and you're just assuming that the one that you want to be true is then true one?
no, I am showing you that YOU CANNOT PUT ALL YOUR FAITH IN STATISTICS, even ones provided by the goverment.
At 5/21/08 10:01 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Because I figured that, since you did it before, you incorrectly included the Irish into the equation when they are part of the UK (N. Ireland) but not Britain.
Unfortunatly I know more about the history, genetics of the British isles than you (and by the looks of it the United States)
I said ULSTER-SCOTS, People in Ireland who dissend from the Scottish. Scots-Irish whatever.
Thats from the 2006 Census, yet in the 1980's Census over 50 Million were reported EnglishThe link you provided doesn't say that.
Wrong link. This is the right PDF with the 1980's stats.
and therefore add the people who reported themselves Scottish, Welsh it is over 60Million.Provide the page and cite the exact numbers because the page you linked to doesn't say that.
Link above, Report, Page 2
English: 49 598 000
Scottish: 10 049 000
Welsh: 1 665 000
British: 61 312 000
German: 49 224 000
You could add Scots-Irish who are desended from the British populations of Ireland. Not to mention the fact that half the Irish-American population are protestant and therefore a large proportion are probably Scots-Irish and so have large British Ancestory as well. You have a massive number of Americans desended from the 'Brits'
But we'll just stick with the obvious 60 Million
o noes, I was right all along.
At 5/22/08 09:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Your country's military can't even operate without the US. All of Europe (Including your country) depend on the US for GPS, your only access to satellite navigation and guidance is via AMERICAN provided-GPS.
It won't be for long. Europe is getting futher and further away from American dependency.
American military in the EU is slowly getting smaller and smaller. Of course it has done at the end of the Cold war, but since then it still is dropping. And the US gets pissed of about it.
European military is becoming more modernised.
Look at the Galileo system, Completley dependent from Americas GPS, Save me from your bullshit about it being hacked. You as well as I know, that was nothing. It was in very early prototpye stages. It won't be operation until 2013.
You may turn your nose up at the future of Europe. But the big dicks in the US are worried about it. They don't like the idea of Europe getting it's own GPS system, they also don't like any improvement on European Military. Saying theres no need for another superpower. So blatently they can see it.
At 5/20/08 09:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
You fail to realize the difference between the UK and Britain.
How do I? You said British when you blatently ment English. I corrected you.
British-Americans will amost certainly be the highest ancestory group in the United States.Nope.
Yes, certainly
Britain is Scotland, England, and Wales, it does not include Ireland.
When did I say it did?
US Census - Ancestry of Total Population:
German: 50,764,352
Compare that to Britain:
English: 28,290,369
+
Scottish: 6,006,955
+
Welsh: 1,959,794
Combined British-Americans: 36,257,118
Thats from the 2006 Census, yet in the 1980's Census over 50 Million were reported English and therefore add the people who reported themselves Scottish, Welsh it is over 60Million.
Nope, I wasn't. You and I both know that I know the difference.
No you weren't. You were meaning English. Why would you say British? British like you say isn't even an ethnic type.
You read in the United States Census that Germans, Africans, Irish then English are the largest ancestry group.
Allthough you fail to realise that, that is what people claim.And apparently I'm supposed to believe what you personally claim instead... interesting.
Well it is. Explain how in 1980's over 50Million Americans claimed English Ancestory. While now it is under 30 Million. If it's not what people claim.
Then It must be Mass genocide, Evacuation, Displacement, emmigration. Stop relying on your fucking statistics, close minded fool.
1980's 50Million English-Americans
2006 23Million English-Americans
English-Americans in 1980 were more numerous than German-Americans this present day!
English Settlers (as well as the rest of Britain) were the first Settlers to arrive en masse.Yeah, and then after the Revolution that changed. Then we got a whole lot of immigrants from all over the world in periods of waves at different times, from different regions. Germans made up the biggest by far, though.
English immigration kept coming.
Even in 1860 at around the time of the biggest amount of German immigrants. English Americans were still 35% of the population. Before the Huns arrived the percentage would of been alot bigger.
So it's likely a very very large amount of Americans will have English blood to a degree but just not know about it.And it's almost certain that they all have Africa blood far back enough and in even smaller proportion to their overall make up. Does that mean all Americans are African Americans?
Were talking about American history Not human history...'douch bag'
Face it, there are more Americans of German descent than there are of British descent, specifically English. Hell, it's kind of odd we're even saying "British" as if people within Britain identify as having a singular ancestry anyway. "British" is not even an ancestry, because it's an island with multiple cultures and ethnicities. You'd be hard pressed to find a British person emphasize being solely "British" if he's English, Welsh, or Scottish. That's kind of like a US citizens of mixed ethnicity today saying simply "American" when asked about their ancestry.
I don't need to face it. I don't give a shit about American Ancestory, but your wrong in saying German ancestory is the largest.
Yes it is kind of odd were saying 'British'. You the one who mentioned it. I CORRECTED YOU.
The Irish were fleeing Ireland (hello, potato famine maybe?), and came here literally by the boatload. How exactly are they English?
When did I say they were English. I'm saying that if an American is 50/50 Irish/English they will 9 times out of 10 say they are an Irish-American.
Nearly all of them will label themselves IrishProbably because they are, and their Irish ancestors were not English.
Thats not what I'm saying. If they have both, they will just say Irish. Listen
Wow, no it's not. That's definitely not the stereotype, at all.
Wow. Thats why I said 'is seen as'
At 5/20/08 02:07 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote: For all those people who are complaining about the amount of money the monarchy cost us.
They cost each taxpayer less than 17p per year, you'd hardly miss that amount of small change
No you wouldn't miss it, but thats not how you should look at it.
It's princable, none of our money should go to a family. It should go to the country and the people.
Think of how much of that is a year, tax payers combined. I can think of numerous better ways that money can go to.
At 5/19/08 08:15 PM, fallingashes wrote:
Your just giving people ammunition, because what your saying is bollocks.
At 5/20/08 05:25 PM, SeraphimFalling wrote: I like how every one who isnt an american is suddenly a self righteous prick. I mean compared to other countries through out history, we are very mild. I mean Britain has tried to take over the world before, and they killed alot more ppl than we ever did doing it. Atleast we dont SAY we own the country, what, we have vietnam and iraq? They basically raped India, Jamacia, The Carribeans, And they tried to rape us, but we owned them.
lol, Britain Raped the Native Americans, Not the White Americans. And then America won their independence after a war in which Britain won the majority of battles and the large majority of decisive battles. The small amount of Decisive battles won by the American side were mostly won by the french.
America won it's independence by pestering the British whilst France fought the Decisive battles. They didn't win by owning.
Also Britain does have a terrible history of atrocities. But America also has. It did wipe out the majority of the Native American Population in the US. Also Ever hered of the American-Philipino war? no Didn't think so, not many Americans do, funny that.
At 5/19/08 10:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 5/19/08 06:30 PM, Dsmano wrote: I recently looked at a poll for what was the most hated country in the world, the highest amount of votes went to the UK, but why?Because of how British people act, think, believe etc..
Assuming that the majority of these votes came from US people, which is quite plausible, I come to the conclusion that the Americans generally dislike the Brits.Nope.
Americans actually generally like Brits... until they meet the vocal ones. Then the political monster rears its head and the British reveal themselves to be hateful, ignorant, hypocritical assholes whose entire belief system is practically based around blaming/berating Americans for every single thing, using double-standards and overt hypocrisy in the process. Brits will display enormous amounts of downright delusion when referencing WWII, Iraq, Vietnam, education, imperialism, gun control etc... as sources of insult to the US. And it's a simple fact that more often than not, the British people who talk about these subjects are completely oblivious to the actual facts.
Well, a lot of that is a load of bollox seeing as unless you are native to the country, then the chances are your ancestors came from some part of Britain.That's not true. Only a small percent of Americans now are of British descent. In fact, Americans of German descent make up a larger portion of the population.
Wrong again cellardoor. You Still fail to realise the difference between English and British.
British-Americans will amost certainly be the highest ancestory group in the United States. As that will include people from England, Scotland, Wales and even maybe the Ulster-Scots (which will include a large amount of Irish-Americans) depending on how you classify the term. As well as most of the people who just class themselves as Americans on the Census
Howether I will presume that you didn't really get that wrong but infact just ignorantly made a misconception, A common mistake amoung many people, but I wouldn't expect it from someone so knowlegable as you... You were saying British when meaning English.
Anyway you also as ushall put to much faith into you beloved statistics. But cannot see past them, This happens alot amoung the more clever of us. It's called close-mindedness.
You read in the United States Census that Germans, Africans, Irish then English are the largest ancestry group. Allthough you fail to realise that, that is what people claim. English Settlers (as well as the rest of Britain) were the first Settlers to arrive en masse. So it's likely a very very large amount of Americans will have English blood to a degree but just not know about it. Germans arrived en masse much later and therefor are easily to find in family records.
Secondly People don't like to say they are English. If you are mixed English, Irish. Which a huge amount of Americans will be, Nearly all of them will label themselves Irish, Because Ireland is seen (and probably is) nicer, more romantic, more friendly, generally cooler to be ,etc
The US was only predominately British before and shortly after the Revolution.
The US was Predominately British ancestory since the British became well set up in the Americas till the present day.
At 5/19/08 07:58 PM, T-N-T wrote:At 5/19/08 07:57 PM, tawc wrote: Grand theft auto is a British game. Metal gear solid is a japanese game.Since when GTA a british game?
Since the person who came up with the very first GTA was Scottish. And every GTA has been developed in Scotland. By Rockstar North (The first Rockstar which is a Scottish Company)
Grand theft auto is a British game. Metal gear solid is a japanese game.
At 5/11/08 09:16 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 5/11/08 12:54 PM, Professor-D-Weed wrote:Many british people, specifically the English, are ignorant, judgmental, hypocritical, delusional, brainwashed, hypocritical douche bags.At 3/10/06 07:21 PM, Fuckle wrote: Im from England and alot of people on NG hate us,why?Because many of my fellow Americans are ignorant, judgmental, douche bags my friend.
Your Ignorant and judgmental to state than many British 'specifically the english' are that. that also makes you hypocritical.
Delusional, brainwashed...Well you won't admit it because your ar incredibly Delusional and Brainwashed, but you love America so fucking much it's scary and you hate other countries (you won't admit that either)
At 5/7/08 06:59 PM, Brick-top wrote: Do you think that police should carry firearms or should they put more research into non-leathal weaponary?
Police should only carry guns in highly dangerous gun crime areas.
If every copper in Britain carried a gun. They would pull it out every time a piss head started giving them grief.
Britain has enjoyed a fairly low level murder and gun crime rate compared to other countries. Since the introduction of modern policing, which in Britain have never carried guns.
They should have armed response (Which they probably do) within miniutes of any urban area.
Yes, Australia should become a Republic, get rid of the shitty flag...except for the Southern stars.
As should the rest of the world under Queen Elizabeth. Including Britain.
A Parliamentary Republic is the way foward!
At 4/16/08 03:45 PM, tawc wrote:
My main point was a question about school shootings, I was asking why there was a huge amount of school shootings in the US compared to elsewere. And of course, when you openly admitted that you thought of commiting homocide :)
lol,
I mean that my other main point was when you. Openly admitted, that you considered volountry manslaughter/second degree murder, or whatever.
At 4/16/08 12:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 4/15/08 02:55 PM, tawc wrote:At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 4/14/08 01:32 PM, tawc wrote: Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.Nope. If European media, especially British media actually covered it openly and fairly compared to how they covered Columbine, it would have taken they weight out of their argument that school shootings only take place in America, and that this is because of gun control. Instead of the years and years of constant "OMG AMERIKKKA COLUMBINED GUN CONTROL LOLZ", they would have covered school shootings that were worse and were closer to home.
lol, I would love to see some fucking American coverage of the German killings compared to the British coverate, American media is so focused on inside America and news to do with America.
You jump to conclusions, that British media is biased, when there are simple reasons why columbine got more attention than the german one.
Besides the amount of people the Erfurt massacre killed, it wasn't paticulaly anything new. And anyway... were you actually in Britain at the time to witness this terrible media bias? Did you read the British newspapers and watch the British News?
Because I was in Britain and allthough I was young and didn't really pay much attention to news. You may not belive me but The German shooting, along with 9/11 (and war against terrorism), A massacre in a hall in Russia or Eastern Europe and various other events, I remember being major news items. And that had alot of talking about afterwoodss by adults, in school assemblys and by parents.
I think I remeber my parents talking about Columbine and Dunblane, but I was very young then.#
Columbine Is the most significant school shooting, It showed huge amounts of things. Like I have said before but you chose to ignore. There was two of them, They were into the gothic lifestyle and music, COMPUTER GAMES, TRENCH COATS, they had a fucking arsenal of guns and explosive, it was planned out to very small details, these details were shown to the public. Along with video footage from them videoing themselves before hand, and CCTV. The Police stand off hand massive coverage. There was glimpse at the lives of the two shooters.
The Erfurt massacre had some of these things as well. And because of that, they were already known because of columbine. Violent music/video games and lifestyles were already being accused because of columbine. That is why Columbine has a more lasting effect. It was the first to shed light.
You are the one who is biased, be it because of biased american media or what. The Reason Columbine, Amish and V tech are more covered and now more remembered than European shootings is obvious.
Columbine because of what I have stated.
Amish shooting because of the terrible irony and the fact that it was young children. Much like Dunblane.
V-tech, because it was only last year and the shear number of casulties.
There are a number of shootings between all these, which I have never hered of. That Red lake school shooting I only know of because the cunt had a newgrounds account. And people talk about him on here.
Do I need to remind you of our previous encounters again...?
Please do, you sad little cunt, showing other threads completly irrelivant to this one, does not in any circumstance make me give a shit.
Pathetic. Post away.
Not only did it get a lot of coverage due to bias at large, but also because people in European and British media wanted to use it for a specific political point. They were using it as ammunition (pun) to take gun control out of context and attack America.
hahahaa, Listen to your self, whos the one whos being brainwashed? I hope these are your own little ideas and conspiracys, because if it's the american media feeding you this, then they are bodering on totatlarian lol which even me the brainwashed british prick knows isn't true.
In order to fortify this propaganda they implant into your head, they cover other shootings, and other issues related to gun control as a whole in a certain way to preserve it.
lol
If there's a shooting in America, one of the first things you see on your ridiculous media is "OMG we told them so! Americans and their guns! Damn them!". Then there's a shooting in Germany "Oh, this is awful..." with no mention of the fact that Germany has strict gun control and yet the shooting still took place.
Complete bullshit
The German shooting you mentioned, and were talking about....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th e Erfurt shooting was carried out with legally owned firearms. The German goverment then decided to bring more Gun control. I don't even know if it's paticulaly outlawed now.
The Amish school shooting had such large coverage because they were Amish!
V-tech because it was so massive.
Dunblane, because it was in Britain and it caused the Ban on handguns.
Germany and Finland because they were in europe.
Emphasizing school shootings anyway a evidence of bad gun control is completely illogical. I guess to you, you'd rather have more people die as a whole, as long as there is less school shootings.
In my responding post to start of, I just stated that you give me a load of statistics showing how gun crime has gone up since the ban on guns. And I don't belive that it's because of the gun ban. I belive it's because of the rise of gang culture. That was it, I wasn't asking you to show me the same statistics and basically the same post you show everytime, which I was responding against.
My main point was a question about school shootings, I was asking why there was a huge amount of school shootings in the US compared to elsewere. And of course, when you openly admitted that you thought of commiting homocide :)
You're assuming that banning guns in the US will make things better. I showed you it won't, you ignored it. I also showed you how gun problems have got progressively worse in your own country since your draconian gun laws were enforced, you ignored that as well. I showed you that the areas of your country that had the most legally owned guns had the least crime, and the areas where there were the least amount of guns there was the most crime, you ignored that.
So instead you focus on school shootings.
Funny.
You know there have been several cases of you getting completely disproved, and yet you keep arguing your point anyway. You epitomize bias. You're so biased that even when what you say gets literally proved wrong without a shadow of doubt, you start swearing compulsively, run away from the thread, only to argue the very same thing again that was previously disproved.
At 4/15/08 04:19 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:And in an interview with the police after he admitted that if he had a gun he would of shot up a school.Well there ya go, end of thread. People who do this type of shit will do it with whatever they can get their hands on.
no, he stabbed one person with a knife, but openly admitted that if he had a gun, he would of shot up a school.
At 4/15/08 12:25 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 4/14/08 01:32 PM, tawc wrote: Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.Nope. If European media, especially British media actually covered it openly and fairly compared to how they covered Columbine, it would have taken they weight out of their argument that school shootings only take place in America, and that this is because of gun control. Instead of the years and years of constant "OMG AMERIKKKA COLUMBINED GUN CONTROL LOLZ", they would have covered school shootings that were worse and were closer to home.
You are so biased and ignorant! being completly honest, the only shootings which I can think of are Dunblane, Columbine, The Amish school shooting, The German Shooting, The Finnish shooting and V tech. And I think I remember a Canadian shooting.
The Finnish, Amish and V tech I remember because they were recent.
Dunblane and Columbine I remember because they have kept in common knowledge.
The German one I remember because I remember my mum talking about it and seeing it on the news when I was young.
I laugh at how because columbine got so much media coverage you think it's British media bias. When the real reason for it and why it is so remebered is because
There were two of them,
America had alot of media coverage of it and we all know how America media dominates the world!!!!
They loved the gothic music and the trenchcoats. Were steriotypes of school shootings stem from.
They had an arsenal of weapons, including explosives.
As well as other reasons.
The Amish school shooting had such large coverage because they were Amish!
V-tech because it was so massive.
Dunblane, because it was in Britain and it caused the Ban on handguns.
Germany and Finland because they were in europe.
The other one I can think of is the native indian lad who shot up a school, but I would be oblivious of that if it wasn't for Newgrounds.
There are many many more American school shootings. Many more There are so many which basically don't make it to our media. Even some fairly large ones. Were as European ones will nearly always make it to British media.
That's where the media comes in with Europeans, it's to appeal to their sensibilities rather than provide them with facts. Media in Europe will be more successful if they stroke the delusional anti-Americanism that Europeans have developed over the years to help cope with their inferiority.
I can't speak for European media, but British media really isn't that biased, I would say from what I've seen, not nearly as biased as the US media, but I couldn't make much of a jugement!
Stop trying to preach how biased British media is, because It really isn't that biased at all. Your just talking shit.Tawc, once again, the only thing you do is talk shit. The fact you didn't even attempt to respond to the facts I provided makes it even more hilarious when you accuse other people of "talking shit". You never prove what you say, so you make up for your lack of substance by just swearing compulsively.
You are talking shit, you are ignoring the fact that the US has far more shootings than anywere including the whole of europe combined!
Infact I remember in the news not long ago where some fucked up British kid stabbed a lady something like 30 times. And in an interview with the police after he admitted that if he had a gun he would of shot up a school.
At 4/13/08 06:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 4/13/08 05:37 PM, tawc wrote: I'll ask you a question. Why the fuck is it that the US has by far the most school shootings than any country?OK first off, the US has a large population. The fact that it happens more in the US is partly because there are simply more people, more kids, and more schools. However, there are LOADS and LOADS of school shootings in other countries, but they never get as much attention as the ones that happen in the US.
Ok, take Europe, which has more population than the US, yet the US still has far more shootings!
School shootings happen in countries with tighter gun control all the time.
For example, something that shows you how much people are obsessed with the US is how the Columbine Massacre, which happened in 1999, was the biggest news ever. Up until VT, people all around the world basically referred to Columbine as proof that the US needs gun control. Yet, in Germany, a country with very, very strict gun control, they had the Erfurt Shooting in 2002, just 3 years after Columbine, yet it's one of the least known shootings even though MORE PEOPLE died in that event than in Columbine.
Complete bullshit!! I remember the german school shooting more than columbine, just because the American media didn't make much of it, doesn't mean the European ones didn't.
I remember it on the news, and I remember them saying that the the kid who did it listened to Slipknot, and my mum then got pissed of because I was listening to Slipknot.
Although the US does have a peculiar amount of school shootings, part of the reason that it seems so exclusive to the US is because of media bias. You're not getting an accurate assessment, because you're constantly being bombarded with media that is designed to undermine the US and attack the US. If there was 1 massacre in the US for every 10 in Europe, your media would still try to give the ones in America disproportionate coverage due to their predetermined goal to criticize the US.
But there isn't one US massacre for every european one is there. There are far more American ones.
Stop trying to preach how biased British media is, because It really isn't that biased at all. Your just talking shit.
People pay way, way more attention to the US than they do other countries so even a worse massacre in Germany will not get a fraction of the coverage that a massacre in the US will.
The German one got masses of coverage at the time, maybe not in your country which doesn't focus on anything outside the states, but Britain did. Columbines rememberd more now. Because of American culture and media dominating the world as you love to put it.
You said "I had a shotgun in the trunk of my car, I thought about shooting him"That was dramatized. Although I said "no BS", I did embellish the details a bit for effect, although the backstory is true.
lol please just shut the fuck up.
I'm pretty sure you did say it but whatever. I can't prove it, never mind.
I'm pretty sure I didn't, and I'm postive you would of kept a sexy little bit of bait like that, because thats the sort of cunt you are.
At 4/13/08 02:21 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Your whole argument is voidUm what. No it's not, in fact I can prove that gun ownership is more beneficial to society than harmful. I've proved many, many times, including probably to you, that guns are used more responsibly and in defense of people than in crime in the US.
No you can't, you sprout shit about how places like the UK are growing in Culture, since the Ban on guns. without taking into account the fact that gang culture and things are growing rapidly.
I'll ask you a question. Why the fuck is it that the US has by far the most school shootings than any country? If it's not because of gun control. Then it must be something wrong with American society. And you can't blame it on the minoritys, because in most cases it's white middle class Americans.
Try me.
as you have admitted that you considered illegally using your firearm, not as protection or as recreation, but to commit homocide.I didn't consider it. I've never, ever, ever actually seriously thought about killing an innocent person.
You said "I had a shotgun in the trunk of my car, I thought about shooting him"
Luckily you didn't, but people do, don't they. People do in this country, where there is gun control. If you had been intoxicated, or dellusional. You could of done.
And you're missing the point that people can think about anything, it doesn't mean they'd do it. I'm sure every single person in the world has been angry enough, or felt betrayed enough at some point to have violent thoughts. If you say you haven't you're a liar.
I admit that. But not many people find them selves out side their birds apartment getting pissed, while she is getting fucked by some cunt. And you have a gun in your boot.
Also, refresh my memory... didn't you tell me you wanted to kill me in a PM once? Does that make you a murderer? Does that mean you shouldn't be able to have access to sharp objects or be able to operate a vehicle? I have my own opinion of that, but I'll let you answer that yourself.
Show me this PM. I can't remember saying that.
At 4/12/08 04:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Cellardoor, you once said in a post, that your girlfriend cheated on you with some 'douche bag' lol
And you wen't over to beat the shite out of him. lol
howether, you also said you were sitting in your car outside their house or apartment and had a gun in the boot, and that you considered, getting that gun out. Did you not say something in a post ages ago, along those lines?
Your whole argument is void, as you have admitted that you considered illegally using your firearm, not as protection or as recreation, but to commit homocide.
Best ways are to either marry an American, or if you have a trade/proffesion, get a company in the US to sponsor your move over their.
Australia and Canada are fairly easy for a British citizen to emigrate to, As long as you can prove your self an 'asset' by bringing skills over.
Anywere in the EU is increasingly more easier to move to. And the Republic of Ireland basically has open borders with the UK.
Loads of opportunities.
At 4/2/08 05:53 PM, Raguel wrote:At 4/2/08 05:51 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: Funnily enough, they are actually two different ciders over here.When I lived there (the evil land of the wicked queen) they sold our Bulmers under the name Magners and then brought out the exact same drink labelled as Bulmers to compete with it as the Irish were always asking for it.
English Bulmers is alot older than the irish one, It was called Magners, because their is already Bulmers out. Fuckin hell, next you'll be saying stout originates in Ireland.
This sticks confusion on it something fierce.
At 3/28/08 08:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The British Empire provoked the war by capturing US sailors, making raids into US soil, stealing ships and supplies and all sorts of shady shit.
After the war, the British no longer did that. So the US gained more from the war than the British did. The British didn't lose, but they didn't gain anything whereas the US did gain compliance from the British.
Your so misguided though, The British stopped all the 'shady shit' because of the end of the Napoeonic wars. Are you really so patriotically biased that you can't see that. Any account will tell you that, American Historians as well, Not just Canadian and British Historians.
I didn't say the British lost the war of 1812, but they did lose in the American Revolutionary war, which people believe was extended by the War of 1812. The British were unable to make gains against the US, and the treaty of Ghent essentially restored the status quo. So essentially, if you look at it form the standpoint that the British were trying to reclaim the American colonies, they lost.
Some Americans believe 1812 was extended from the American Revolutuionary war.
But British were not trying to reclaim the colonies.
When the USA Invaded Canada, it's Goals were to capture Canada and stop Britains 'shady shit'
It failed to Capture Canada, And When Britain fought back, the US urged for a peace treaty.
The Impressment and Trade restrictions came to an End because of Victory in Europe. The war of 1812 had nothing to do with it.
For fucks sake,
Impressment ended with the defeat of Napoleon. Not at the treaty of Ghent.
The war of 1812 had nothing to do with it.
The Trade restrictions on the US were put by the British, so that America did not help the French. The War of 1812 only changed changed the trade restrictions into a full blockade of the US, which Crippled the US economy.
Britains Goals were not to reclaim the Colonies, It wasn't Profitable but to defend Canada, and to strike humiliating blows at the US. Both of which it achieved.
It was a stalemate, I don't understand how you can edge towards America coming out tops. You on numerous occasions have stated that both Korea and even Vietnam were victories because the US succesfully defended those countries even so in both wars, Most US operations into enemy territory ended in failure. Just because the war of 1812 is the other way round you change your story,
You Sir are a hippocrate! ;)
And by the way, your wikipedia links have been edited recently. Just thought I'd point that out, seems a little fishy.
Wikipedia is always being edited, the pages are popular. But I haven't touched them, I don't edit Wiki unless I have a legitimate source. Anyway I gave you other links to back them up.
lol, You call people misguided. Americans are so delusinal. The war of 1812 didn't achieve anything.Except for the fact that the British ceased their piracy and illegal invasions.
illegal invasions? by whome the Native Americans, who may or may not of been funded by the British.
after the war Americans were still attacked by the Native Americans.
Piracy like I said was a result of the Napoleonic wars, and Ended because of the Defeat of Napoleon
Sounds like an excuse.
It's not an excuse it's a fact.
That makes absolutely no sense.The British gained no ground. The borders were restored after the treaty.I know they were restored, that is why It's a stalemate, What I'm saying is that no land was given back to Britain by America, even so they started the war by invading Canada, where as Britain did give back land. When the treaty was signed America had lost land and Britain had gained land.
No it doesn't lol
I think I ment that when the treaty was signed. Britain gave back American land where as America had no Land to give back to Britain. Even so it was the US who invaded first.
At 3/27/08 11:48 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 3/27/08 11:15 PM, tawc wrote:At 3/27/08 09:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
Lost the war, fail to gain any land, fail to gain any political concessions, and end up in a post-war agreement that repeated the status quo that came as a result of the British defeat in the American Revolutionary war.
Lost the war? It was a stalemate due to the treaty, howether before the signing of the treaty, Britain had gained lan, The US lost Land. Also I would like to point out, The US INVADED Canada. Britain defended it. Britain pushed America out of Canada and then carried out an act of revenge (allthough not as brutal as the US attack) on Washington, and also captured Detroit and alot of surrounding land.
If Britain lost the war of 1812, then The American military lost Vietnam, Korea and even the defense of Kurwait in the first Gulf war.
Um, the war began because the British were harassing US vessels, commandeering ships and crews, conducting cross-border raids both into American land and seas.
lol, no the war began when the United States invaded British North America. What you said was a reason for war, allthough we all know to right that it was imperialistic expansion on the USA's part.
The war ended with the British no longer doing that, and the British gained no benefit.
lol, You call people misguided. Americans are so delusinal. The war of 1812 didn't achieve anything. That was a result of Britain and it's allies being Victorious in Europe against a massive Powerfull Empire. And no longer needed to do it.
Somehow the majority of Americans feel it was a victory, even so it was a stalemate.It was a victory because the British stopped their piracy and incursions into Us territory.
Hahahaha, your pathetic. Britain stopped it because of the end of the Napoleonic wars.
The British gained no ground. The borders were restored after the treaty.
I know they were restored, that is why It's a stalemate, What I'm saying is that no land was given back to Britain by America, even so they started the war by invading Canada, where as Britain did give back land. When the treaty was signed America had lost land and Britain had gained land.
It captured a colonial capital. So if a Canadian is taking credit for the burning of Washington, and suggesting that Canada did it, that would mean they'd have to admit York surrendered to the US.Such as the fact that York surrendered to US troopsYes, York...The United States was at war with the United kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, It Captured York, thats the Old British North America York, not the actually york in Britain.
Yes, but your saying it was Britain v USA which it was, so burning a colonies capital is not like burning the Capitol of the USA
Anyway The US did much more damage to 'york' than Britain did to washington D.C.
Yes Britain did capture Washington D.C and captured it even so Britans forces were outnumbered 2:1Were as at the battle of York American Forces still Outnumbered British forces 2:1Those are some pretty specific claims.
I did give a Wiki Link, but i forgot that you ignore wiki when others use it, but often use it yourself.
American force: 1,700
British Force: 700 (Majority were Milita and Indians)
Battle of Bladensburg which was the attempt by the US to defend Washington
British forces: 4,500
American forces: 8,000 (Majority were Militia)
Also a Non Wiki link to back up Wiki.
Also Americas goals were to capture the whole of Canada and stop the impressment of sailors and the restrictions on trade.
America failed to capture Canada and the impressment of sailors etc was stopped by the British because Britain had no need to any more due to the end of the Napoleonic wars. It had NOTHING to do with the war of 1812
Americas goals were to protect Canada and carry out humiliating attacks on the US, never to take the whole of the US as this would of been un profitable. Allthough it failed most of it's major attacks it did achieve the Burning of washington which was a great blow to the US and a major reason America sought for a peace treaty, which was granted by the merciful British goverment (lol)
