Bad news for liberals.

[Ronnie Raygun]

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_AIR_FORCE?SITE=NCFAY&SECTION=HOME

[Jeanette X]

He said the planes were not considered weapons of mass destruction for which coalition troops have been searching for months, "but they are weapons (Iraq) tried to hide."
I am not impressed.

[mburbank]

I thought you meant you.

Before you piss me off so much I have to scream, how are you doing? We were all concerned.

[Ronnie Raygun]

thx Max....I just haven't been in the mood to fight with people.

I just heard this today.......it's probable that it's just an example of things to come. And I've got a feeling that WMD will be found at the most inopportune time for the democrats.....because the closer we get to the election the most confident and more outspoken the left will become......it's also true that the onger allied troops are in Iraq, the greater the chances of us finding something becomes.

Just a simple observation.

[mburbank]

I still hope we DO find WMD, no matter who it 'helps' or 'hurts'. I'd sleep a whole lot easier if I thought all that death and destruction and distraction from Al Quaeda paid for by tax dollars was about something real.

"it's also true that the onger allied troops are in Iraq, the greater the chances of us finding something becomes. "

That's only true if something's there to be found. If there isn't, the chances stay exactly the same every day. It's also true the longer we stay there WITHOUT finding anything the further credability is stretched.

I'd wager if something isn't found by a month before the election something will suddenly turn up. And if it turns out to be just more Nigerian Yellowcake, well, we won't know that until after the election is over. The closer they get to the election the more suspect the claim will be. THAT's why the yellowcake fiasco is SO stupid. W. could have made his case without it, but because somebody HAD to go with it (Chenney?) now whatever claims are made are instantly tainted.

I hope they find something massive, incontravertable and soon. The Blowback for our country if they don't may even be more severe than another W. administration.

[The One and Only...]

Umm... there's worse news, lefties. This is just the beginning:

Dead U.K. Expert: Saddam Built a Dirty Bomb
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Monday, Aug. 4, 2003
New evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was provided last June by a top weapons expert, now dead, and it could have an enormous impact on the 2004 presidential election.
The stunning revelation by the British scientist, who committed suicide last month over the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have anti-war Democrats running for cover.

According to Britain's Sunday Times, Dr. David Kelly had amassed convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a dirty nuclear bomb as long ago as 1987, and was perfectly capable of building the deadly weapons right up to the final months of his regime. Moreover the radiological weapons could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.

Dr. Kelly presented evidence of the bomb to the British government back in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it be highlighted in the government's intelligence dossier on Iraq, which spelled out the reasons justifying an attack on Saddam's regime. However, the Times reports, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, for unexplained reasons it was not included.

In a June interview with the newspaper, Kelly revealed that Saddam originally built the dread weapon capable of causing cancer and birth defects for use against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war as a tactical weapon and an instrument of terror.

Moreover Kelly insisted that said Iraq still "possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon, "adding that the threat posed by such weapons was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction because Iraq still retained the main ingredients to build dirty bombs such as nuclear material and high explosives.

When the Times asked why this shocking information was not featured in the British government's case for going to war against Iraq, Kelly said he did not know, but added that there were people in government who were skeptical about the potency of such a weapon.

In Private

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

Later, in July, during his testimony to a Parliamentary foreign affairs select committee in remarks which the Times says have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defense and foreign affairs:


"On one inspection that I led...the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in 1987."

And the Times added that when Maples asked: "Do you think that is true?" Kelly replied: "Undoubtedly it is true." Maples pressed Kelly for details as to why the matter of the dirty bombs had not been included in the government's dossier, saying, "A dirty nuclear bomb, I would have thought, was pretty significant." Kelly explained only, "You cannot include everything."

Maples told the Times this weekend that he remained puzzled and uneasy over why the government had excluded evidence of the dirty bomb from its dossier: "It is a mystery why this issue (of the dirty bomb) was not picked up by the government and why Kelly gave me the answer he did - that there was lots of other stuff that had to be included."

"They (the government) were obviously looking for ways of making the dossier as attractive as they could, and as threatening as they could, and you would have thought Iraq's ability to let off a dirty nuclear weapon was pretty serious." The Times said that Iraq's dirty bomb was made from a material called radioactive zirconium which was packed into a bomb casing with high explosives. Iraq had access to zirconium stored at its Al-Tarmiya reactor site - under United Nations safeguards - ostensibly for use in its peaceful nuclear power program.

The revelation that Saddam had the capability of building dirty bombs and had once done so and tested the lethal weapons that could have been supplied to terrorists groups could provide convincing proof that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction - a fact being discounted by Democrat presidential candidates and many in their party.

As the Times noted, one of the main reasons for invading Iraq cited by both the British and American governments was the danger that Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists. Kelly's revelations bolster that claim.

......

Stolen off Newsfilter.

[AChimp]

I know how to make gunpowder and I have all the ingredients to do so here in my house. Does that mean that I have gunpowder?

Revelations from a dead man are convenient to the cause of pro-war folk simply because no one can ask they guy for clarification, and the he isn't around to potentially recant statements or change his mind. :blah

[Mungus the Foon]

this shouldn't have been a surprise.
the iraqi air force was hidden in the first gulf war too.
WHO CARES if someone has weapons of mass destruction?
i think that all countries should have at least one nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation breeds stability. the whole point of having WMD is to NOT HAVE TO USE THEM. if anyone did then they would be wiped off the face of the earth. these weapons are a useful deterrent to the escalation of warfare to the point where they might be used. look at the india pakistan situation, they are constantly shooting at each other but never go too far because each knows that the other could do serious damage. is anyone going to invade china or russia for having WMD? i doubt it. using the humanitarian excuse for iraq is a load of shit too when you look at the record of the russians with the chechnyans, recently using chemical weapons against them (kind of like saddam and the kurds) and the chinese against pretty much everybody at some point or another. it is only the little countries which ever get threatened, even during the cold war everything was played out through proxy wars. korea, vietnam, afghanistan etc it looks to me like the only surviving superpower from this era is still desperately attempting to find its place in a multi polar world.
why oh why did the USSR have to collapse everything would have been so much simpler if it remained.
DAMN YOU GORBACHEV!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"STOCKPILES"

[VinceZeb]

Mungus..... that kind of thinking will cause mushroom clouds in peaceful countries.

Why does China need nukes? Why should Cuba have them? Does N. Korea have a strong case to have nukes?

If psychos and utter nutjobs have nukes, the world is a more dangerous place. If sane people have nukes, they will use them as a deterrent and nothing more. We have used nukes 2 times in the 50+ year history we have had them. I think it can be easily said that we use them with a bit of thought behind it.

[Zero Signal]

If psychos and utter nutjobs have nukes, the world is a more dangerous place.
Like Bush?

[VinceZeb]

Yes, just like Bush. Because Bush has been out there murdering hundreds of thousands of countrymen while living in a big palace.

I'm glad you don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If anyone was forced to hear your opinion, their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients.

[Zero Signal]

Yes, just like Bush. Because Bush has been out there murdering hundreds of thousands of countrymen while living in a big palace.
He murders a few every single day that we occupy a sovereign nation that we invaded under false pretenses, all while doing it from the White House (palace). To quote a friend of mine: "just because we have mansions instead of castles in this country doesn't mean they function any differently"

I'm glad you don't matter in the grand scheme of things. If anyone was forced to hear your opinion, their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients.
You make it sound like YOU even matter. :lol Please, Vinth, you will only ever matter to the bacteria that will decompose your body when you leave this existence.

"their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients."

Maybe there should be a direct rise in grammar school students instead. :rolleyes

Regardless, I got EXACTLY the response I was looking for from you.

[ranxer]

this sucks,
1 USA is the only Nutjob that used nukes.
2 nobody told anybody that we were going to use the bomb.. it wasnt a deterrent until after we used it. despite the stories we told about dropping leaflets.. they arent true.
3 Japan was ready to end the war before we dropped the bomb on a non-military target. damn.
4 the morning of the day we dropped the second bomb japan had said ok we'll sign unconditional surrender.. we dropped it anyway. the folks that dropped the bomb for us should have been hanged for massive warcrimes. oh well so much for keeping the bomb out of the hands of psychos.

If anyone was forced to hear your opinion, their would be a direct rise in mental insitution patients.
:lol that's pathetic.. bush is the greatest simpleton enabler in the history of america. do you even know anything about who bush is?? have you learned anything about his college record? business record? his military record? damn dude..

all that aside there's no reason for us to have hundreds of nuclear bombs.

oh and for an update on reasons to Impeach the bastard, checkout the TOP 40 at http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp :)

[VinceZeb]

Zero, Ranxer: Which one of you went to Harvard? Which one of you ran businesses? Which one of you has a Master's Degree?


You do realize your "great pundits" are usually high school dropouts, college dropouts, or college grads that graduate in something idiotic like "underwater basket weaving".

Ranxer, Japan wasnt ready to end the war before we dropped nukes. Why do you think we dropped two, and had a third ready for toyko? Have you ever opened a fucking history book?

ranxer, you are the biggest puppet I have ever seen in my life. As much as I agree with the people I admire, I can at least think for myself and come up with a logical conclusion. I even disagree with a lot of the people I dislike. But you are a fucking tool. Any moron that says "I hate Bush" can jam their hand up your ass and you will sit on their lap and put on a great show.

Zero, what the fuck are you talking about? You act like we had no reason to go into Iraq. There has been more evidence mounting every day and supposedly in a few weeks the bombshell is supposed to drop. If/when that does, will you admit that you were wrong? Will you admit that you are a vapid idiot that hates Bush and will act like you are doing something "brave" by bashing him?

No, you wont. You are a liberal and thus a spineless, group-thinking idiot who can be easily replaced in any societal setting.

Oh man, you got the response you were looking for! Oh man, you are great! I bet you tell women about that when you try to pick them up. Although by the pictures I have seen of the men and women on this board, I bet asexual reproduction is a basic tenant.

[kellychaos]

Money is a good thing. :) It can buy you into good schools, make you a leader of commerce and state and buy you out of DUIs.

[El Blanco]

this sucks,
1 USA is the only Nutjob that used nukes.

For the love of God, this crap again.


2 nobody told anybody that we were going to use the bomb.. it wasnt a deterrent until after we used it. despite the stories we told about dropping leaflets.. they arent true.

OK, I'll take your word for it over the pilots who claimed to have done it.


3 Japan was ready to end the war before we dropped the bomb on a non-military target. damn.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT TTTTTTTT

And the cities we hit were industrial centers supplying the Japanese military.

What makes you think that Japan was ready to end it? The fact that they were putting teenage boys into boats and planes full of explosive and then slamming those into our battle ships? Or the way the survivors committed ritual suicide?


4 the morning of the day we dropped the second bomb japan had said ok we'll sign unconditional surrender.. we dropped it anyway. the folks that dropped the bomb for us should have been hanged for massive warcrimes. oh well so much for keeping the bomb out of the hands of psychos.

I'm sure the email from them got to us promptly.


Stop reading your pamphlets and watching your alternative attention whores....er I mean editorials.....fuck it again, "news sources", and actually talk to real people who go through this shit. I can assure you its a remarkable experiance.

[Zero Signal]

You act like we had no reason to go into Iraq.
Sure, we did. It is an organic black liquid formed from the decomposition of planet and animal matter over the course of millions of years.

There has been more evidence mounting every day and supposedly in a few weeks the bombshell is supposed to drop. If/when that does, will you admit that you were wrong?
The administration claimed that they knew Iraq had them and that they knew they would find them when they rolled in to seize control. Where are the WMDs? Oh, I forgot. It is so conveniant for you Bush lapdogs to just forget about those and point to the liberation of the Iraqi people (who want us to leave immediately) rather than answer that question. In your closed, little world, the ends justify the means; no price is too high for you.

Dropping a bombshell would be suspicious. It seems like they are either giving themselves time to make something up, or giving a vague timeline that will last until they find something. :rolleyes

Will you admit that you are a vapid idiot that hates Bush and will act like you are doing something "brave" by bashing him?
Will you admit that you are nothing more than a sheep in Little Bush Peep's flock of ignorant mouthpieces?

No, you wont. You are a liberal and thus a spineless, group-thinking idiot who can be easily replaced in any societal setting.
"a spineless, group-thinking idiot"
:lol This is coming from someone that does nothing but quote Boortz because you have nothing useful to say from yourself.

"who can be easily replaced in any societal setting."
Do not be so vain as to think that you are something so special that you cannot be replaced.

Although by the pictures I have seen of the men and women on this board, I bet asexual reproduction is a basic tenant.
You have already used this lie before. You said that you have not seen any pictures. :rolleyes

[Zero Signal]

3 Japan was ready to end the war before we dropped the bomb on a non-military target. damn.
4 the morning of the day we dropped the second bomb japan had said ok we'll sign unconditional surrender.. we dropped it anyway. the folks that dropped the bomb for us should have been hanged for massive warcrimes. oh well so much for keeping the bomb out of the hands of psychos.

"After the first nuclear bomb was dropped, the Japanese government
held a cabinet meeting in which they summoned Nishina, head of the
atomic program, and asked him if he could duplicate atomic weapons
within a few months.

After two nuclear weapons had been dropped on Japan, the cabinet concluded
that Japan faced utter destruction with nuclear weapons, and some advocated
surrender. But according to emperor Hirohito

"At the time of the surrender, there was no prospect of agreement"

Even with two nuclear weapons, surrender was far from assured. It was touch
and go: Had the coup succeeded, Japan would not have surrendered, and
a considerably more nuclear bombing would have been necessary. The bullet
holes in the imperial palace testify that even after two nuclear bombs,
there was a substantial faction of the government determined not to surrender.

It was certainly true that Japan was defeated, and reasonable people may
disagree on justice of using nuclear weapons under these circumstances, but
to claim, as Alperovitz claims, that Japan was on the verge of surrender,
is not a mere difference of opinion on the interpretation of the facts, but
a simple, crude, barefaced, blatant lie."

http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1996/02/msg00347.html

[mburbank]

"Which one of you went to Harvard? Which one of you ran businesses? Which one of you has a Master's Degree? "
-Vinth Thtupid

And you still think he could have done ANY of those things if he wasn't Poppies son? It's all that got him into Harvard, Poppies buddies fronted the casdh for his business and bailed him out when they failed. Vinth, if your dad was Poppy YOU could have done those things, and you're a retarded monkey

[Zero Signal]

Max, he also forgot to ask "Which one of you went AWOL for a year and had Poppy arrange that nothing happen to you?"

[The One and Only...]

More bad news for liberals. Stolen from Walt Bryars at newsfilter:

A typical argument against affirmative action is that it really doesn't help "disadvantaged" blacks. This is completely true.

Seemingly, ones ability to attain certain qualifications is a much better proxy for "advantage" than race.

Affirmative Action isn't going to give a black D student with an 800 on his SATs a preference over a 4.0 white student with a 1450

Logic dictates that If a black person and a white person are competing to get into Harvard, their families were more than likely "well off".

However, these people couldn't be more wrong.

Even when controlling for educational qualification, race is an excellent proxy for determining "disadvantage"

However, it is a good proxy in a completely opposite way than most pople may think.

A black person with the same grades and SAT scores is much,much more likely to be rich than his white counterpart

For the 1994 SAT tests , The College Board published statistics on SAT scores, adjusting for things such as race and money.

-Blacks from families making less than $10,000 dollars per year averaged approx. 150 points below whites and Asians in the same Socioeconomic category.
-Blacks from families making more than $60,000 per year averaged approx. 200 points less than Whites and Asians in the same category
- Blacks from families making more than $60,000 per year got lower average SAT scores than Whites and Asians from families earning less than $10,000 per year.

Source: The College Board "National College Bound Seniors : 1994 profile of SAT and acheivement Test Takers," Princeton, NJ

And what happens if we adjust for parents' Educational attainment?

-Blacks whose parents had only a high school degree scored an average over 150 points lower than whites and Asians in the same category
-Blacks whose parents had a college degree scored an average over 200 points lower than whites and Asians in the same category
- Blacks whose parents were college graduates scored lower than whites and Asians whose parents only had a high school diploma

Source: The College Board "SAT scores for each ethnic group by highest level of Parental Education, 1994" August 1994, pg. 16

(My "real" source was Dinesh D'Souza's The End of Racism...but these are his sources in the footnotes)

----------------------------------------

So, if a black kid from a family making $60,000 per year has the same qualifications as a white kid from a family making $10,000 per year....the black kid would get a preference for being "disadvantaged" !

How could anyone now support AA in its current form?

[Zero Signal]

Affirmative action is one thing that I cannot condone. If do not have the academics to get into a college, then move aside for those that do.

[ranxer]

the controversies arent settled, i believe what i said isnt proven false yet.. unless you only scratch the surface.

we had been warned about pearle harbor at high levels a half a dozen times before the attacks. the rationale was that if we didnt have a first strike by the enemy we wouldnt have the people behind getting into the war.

i think one reason we don't see much reporting of the truth around pearle is that the victor writes the history in so many ways.

maybe youve seen the reports before and brush them off, but i do not, for the tactic of getting americans hurt to drive a war machine is tried and fully successful.. our government has documents that are top secret still regarding pearle. what about the orders to send first aid workers and supplies just prior to the attack to sit on the west coast? it must not be true then that some report the CIA Director Allen Dulles told of the warnings they receieved in mid nov? I'd love to get to the bottom of the many reports that have fallen out of the history books.

the reasons im partial to believing some of the allegations is because we've seen it before.. unclassified documents now tell stories of the corporate crimminals in our government ready to sacrifice americans to get support for invasions.. its a well oiled technique. granted this isnt unique to america, but this is the country that spends My taxes.

hey zero, there's other opinions about the japan consensus after the first bomb dropped. i understand that there are a majority of sources that say they wounldnt surrender.. being unsatisfied with the reported history and distrusting everything a corporate capitalist does/says sucks, i really wish our administrations werent so criminal. if i find anything yall might find interesting ill link it when i have time.

Vince your insults don't help anyone think about anything but degeneracy

[El Blanco]

i think one reason we don't see much reporting of the truth around pearle is that the victor writes the history in so many ways.

No, thats why we don't see your truth about pearl harbor.

what about the orders to send first aid workers and supplies just prior to the attack to sit on the west coast?

Precaution. The Japanese were rather agressive. All that could have easily been meant for the mainland.

being unsatisfied with the reported history and distrusting everything a corporate capitalist does/says sucks, i really wish our administrations werent so criminal

Same old, same old. You really need to learn that there is no huge secret shadow government.

[Vibecrewangel]

If psychos and utter nutjobs have nukes, the world is a more dangerous place.

I think this should be applied to the gun control issue as well. Smaller scale....same problem.

[The One and Only...]

Yes, except that even if guns were illegal, you could still get them.

And it's a right.

[Dole]

I wish you and every other clueless impotent twat who sees guns as a 'right' could be locked up in some large warehouse somewhere, where you would be free to polish and slobber over your phallic substitutes and gradually shoot each other, and those that werent shot would eventually drown in the mounting sea of decomposing burger-blubber that would spew forth from your rancid corpses :)

[VinceZeb]

Dole, we don't have to see gun possession as a right. The 2nd Amendment does that just fine.

There are some other places that don't believe in gun rights. China, for example.... real nice place that is.

[FS]

Yes, except that even if guns were illegal, you could still get them.

As opposed to nukes, right?

And it's a right.

I realize the (cultural) arguement over the pros and cons of gun ownership is pointless, but "it's a right" is such an empty defense. There do exist stupid laws.

Ah, I wonder if one day, when we're all old and gray and working in the Martian tin mines because our socialist utopia softened us to the point where we were incapable of fighting off the alien oppressor, Vince will still be contesting that invading Iraq was illegitimate because now WMDs have yet been found.

[The One and Only...]

Yes, and there's always the fact that if you really wanted those guns, you could get them. I'm sure there would be a large criminal market. It needs to be said twice.

Comparing them to nukes is idiocy. Nukes are bigger (no stopping by and putting it in your jacket), more expensive (I trust you understand this), only accessable by a few (as opposed to guns, even if they were illegal), and more dangerous. All you need to get illegal guns is to pay a visit to the corrupt cop and pay some cash. To get nukes, you have to do a lot more.

I would never get rid of my guns. You'd have to kill me first. Anyone who would get rid of their weapon just because the law tells them too doesn't deserve to have them. >:

BTW: The next time you say "it's a right" is such a weak argument, I hope someone shoots you. Hey, the right to life is just such a weak argument, right?

[VinceZeb]

Those who trade freedom for security don't deserve either one and blah blah blah....

[pjalne]

There are some other places that don't believe in gun rights. China, for example.... real nice place that is.

You know, China isn't the only country in the world that doesn't believe in the right to own a gun. You know, like entire Scandinavia. Where the crime rate is pretty fucking low compared to the US.

I'm not saying that the number of guns in a society is directly connected to the crime rate, I'm just saying that you're a fucking moron.

[FS]

Yes, and there's always the fact that if you really wanted those guns, you could get them. I'm sure there would be a large criminal market. It needs to be said twice.

Never mind, I thought that when you said "Yes, except that even if guns were illegal, you could still get them." you meant that in direct response to "If psychos and utter nutjobs have nukes, the world is a more dangerous place."

I would never get rid of my guns. You'd have to kill me first. Anyone who would get rid of their weapon just because the law tells them too doesn't deserve to have them. >:

BTW: The next time you say "it's a right" is such a weak argument, I hope someone shoots you. Hey, the right to life is just such a weak argument, right?

I'm not telling you to get rid of your guns. Though as a foreign bystander I'm a little disturbed by your instant hostility. I'm not trying to disarm you so I can better kill you in your sleep. Neither is anyone in the US who disagrees with the public right to own anything that ranks below a backyard SAM battery.

As for me getting shot, there's a very small chance of that happening because guns aren't that easy to get in my country. And few criminals actually have them - most of them that do tend to use them on other criminals.

Like I said, it's a cultural difference. I can never understand what it would be like to live in a society where everyone can own a gun, and I suppose you can never feel safe in a society where nobody can own a gun (legally).

[Dole]

You can't legally own a gun in the UK either. And guess what? our gun crime is proportionately much, much, MUCH lower than that of the states.

If all you can get passionate about is the right to bear arms you must have a pretty paranoid, self-obsessed empty existence.

Like I said, if all the idiot wank-fantasists who own these phalluses just got on with shooting each other the rest of the world wouldn't have to listen to their neanderthal crap anymore.

[The One and Only...]

You can't legally own a gun in the UK either. And guess what? our gun crime is proportionately much, much, MUCH lower than that of the states.

http://www.thepublicinterest.com/archives/2002fall/article3.html

It doesn't matter if you ban guns. People will still get killed. All that it means is it will be done by another manner, or that a hearty underground gun-selling black market will thrive. Personally, I'd rather have a chance against the big, hulking punk who's going to knife me.

So please, shut up, and check your facts. Gun crime may be better, but your overall violent crime rate is suffering. Yours = climbing. Ours = descending. You do the math.

[VinceZeb]

The One and Only, I can't leave you here to take the barrage of liberal idiocy about the gun laws.

Dole, you are in every sence of the word a liberal stooge. London has a high crime rate. You can do a google search and find NUMEROUS articles about it. Just because someone can't get a gun legally does not mean they will get a hold of it. Drugs are illegal. People still get it.

If citizens are allows to carry guns and are well-versed in the careful usage and responsability that is endowed on the gun owner, crime will decrease. It's that easy.

A country without guns is a country that is easily taken over. I'm sure Mao couldn't have murdered, raped, and starved tens of millions if the people could stand up with weapons. Oh wait, assholes like you think guns are nothing but some phallistic wet-dream that guys like Ted Nugent spend every walking moment thinking about.

That is why your stupid ass country lost against a bunch of farmers with guns. TWICE. We care(d) about our life and liberty. You care about security. You are a dumbfuck.

[mburbank]

"Pahllistic"

[Dole]

So who exactly have your guns been defending you against in the US lately? Did they stop 9/11? Are there are armies of maurading foreigners walking around your suburbs that your guns are protecting you against? Or perhaps all the gun crime in your country is your citizens shooting each other.....how delightful.

Vince: if you can happily equate christianity (and all the other right-wing crap you believe) and gun ownership, you are barking fucking mad.

I didnt say there wasn't crime in my country did I? I said we have proportionately far less gun crime in my country than yours which is true. Call me liberal but I would rather be beaten up than shot any day of the week.
You only have to say 'guns' to a NRA-type American and they start gnashing their teeth and frothing at the mouth....like I said before if thats one of the only kind of issues you can get all up in a lather about, I pity you.
Insult me all you want, I am just SO fucking glad that I am surrounded by people who at least have a FOOTHOLD in the real world, and not some narcissistic paranoiac fantasy world that people like vince and one and only live in. If I had to deal with people like you and the Nazi crap you come out with on a daily basis, I would be first in the queue at my local blackmarket gun merchants.
Hope you die real soon :)

[VinceZeb]

I have firearms. I have them because I used to hunt. I have them to protect my family and myself from invasion or harm. I have guns because I am an American.

You are a prissy British wuss who would faint like a fat kid after a 5 mile run if someone broke into your home. You would call the cops. The cops would arrive after the crook is gone and has all your stuff.

The crook in my house would be incapacitated or dead due to my firearm.

[sspadowsky]

:lol

Yeah, how was it again that you defended your family against a criminal using a firearm? Please note that vivid dreams do not count as actual events.

You are a prissy British wuss who would faint like a fat kid after a 5 mile run

He might break out in hives too. You never know.

[mburbank]

And so we return once more to the TOP SECRET story of how Vinth defended his 'Family' with a 'weapon'.

I hope it was 'phallistic'.

One question, Vinthy. If you own gun because you are an merican, is this something you view as , I don't know, a requirement of citizenship? Can you be American and not own a gun?

Oh, and thanks for protecting me against invasion. It's been a real issue. I am comforted by knowing how maany people end up being killed with their own guns.

[Dole]

I picture Vince at night, dick in one hand, gun in the other, PRAYING for a burglar to break in :lol

[Zero Signal]

Vinth said that a family consists of a wife and kids ("Families are begun when children are created."). So does this mean that he is actually spreading his defective genes? :x

Or does it mean that he is still living at home with his parents. :lol

[El Blanco]

You can't legally own a gun in the UK either. And guess what? our gun crime is proportionately much, much, MUCH lower than that of the states.



Youtake stats differently. Its only considered a gun crime if the criminal is charged with weapon possesion. HE can plead that away and it doesn't get counted.

In the US our FBI counts the guns that are withing a five mile radius.

And what is your crime rate compare to Switzerland, where everyone has an assault rifle in their closet?

If all you can get passionate about is the right to bear arms you must have a pretty paranoid, self-obsessed empty existence.


How so? Would you say that about freedom of speech?

Like I said, if all the idiot wank-fantasists who own these phalluses

What is it with the gun control nuts and the penis? Why do you always bring that up? I don't think you can say the pro-gun people have an obsession with it.

shooting each other the rest of the world wouldn't have to listen to their neanderthal crap anymore.

Ya, you can just sit back and let the invaders tell you what you are gonna take.

[AChimp]

And what is your crime rate compare to Switzerland, where everyone has an assault rifle in their closet?
:lol

Military service is mandatory in Switzerland, dumbass. There is a difference between having a gun because I have to and having a gun just because I want to.

[Big Papa Goat]

A country without guns is a country that is easily taken over. I'm sure Mao couldn't have murdered, raped, and starved tens of millions if the people could stand up with weapons. Oh wait, assholes like you think guns are nothing but some phallistic wet-dream that guys like Ted Nugent spend every walking moment thinking about.
So lets say that communists took over the American government, and some Mao-like figure tried to rape murder and starve tens of millions of people. Do you think that Americans would be able to 'rise up' against the government just because they have a couple of pansy ass rifles? And your other comment about China, not having the right to bear arms and being such a bad place. I'm very sure there is a family of Chinese peasants thinking somewhere:
"You know, we barely have the basic neccesities for living, and we can't speak out against the government that is constantly screwing with our livliehood, but if we just were able to shoot a few pheasents once in a while, we'd be happy."

[El Blanco]

So, my having a .38 and learning how to properly use it is worse than my keeping a Steyr Aug how?

[El Blanco]

Do you think that Americans would be able to 'rise up' against the government just because they have a couple of pansy ass rifles?

Yes, because our military is part of the citizenry and not some elite social class. It would be a lot more difficult for them to turn on us.

And your other comment about China, not having the right to bear arms and being such a bad place. I'm very sure there is a family of Chinese peasants thinking somewhere:
"You know, we barely have the basic neccesities for living, and we can't speak out against the government that is constantly screwing with our livliehood, but if we just were able to shoot a few pheasents once in a while, we'd be happy."

No, probably not. But, I bet if they were able to defend themselves before the tyranny kicked in, they wouldn't have those other problems.

[AChimp]

Yes, because our military is part of the citizenry and not some elite social class. It would be a lot more difficult for them to turn on us.
Dude, you didn't contribute a single thing to your argument with that statement.

"So how would the citizens defend against the government with a couple of rifles?"
"Duh... the military is the citizens." :dunce

Well no shit. I thought the U.S. army was made up of foreign nationals all this time. So why does the average citizen need a gun when the army is made up of the average citizen, and therefore they already have access to all the guns they need?

[The One and Only...]

Nice how everyone avoids my points. :)

Does this mean I win?

BTW: I want to keep my guns to shoot the criminal that messes with me, not start a revolution. To start a revolution, one needs to get support within the military and government to be sucessful in this country...

[El Blanco]

So why does the average citizen need a gun when the army is made up of the average citizen, and therefore they already have access to all the guns they need?


Provide stiff resistence at first until enough troops realize what they are doing and refuse to fight against them. Especially the National Guard.


And why are you so offended by my right to defend myself?

[AChimp]

Yeah... except that the troops ARE the citizens... :rolleyes

And stiff resistance? Last time I heard, the army pulls out tanks and helicopters when faced with stiff resistance. Perhaps average citizens should be allowed to own heavy artillery, as well, just in case, because how could assault rifles defend against mortars and missiles? :blah

And why are you so offended by my right to defend myself?
I'm not saying you shouldn't own a gun, I'm saying there's no need to have one, especially if your reason is defending against the marauding drug dealers who want to rape your children and the evil plotting government.

If you're that paranoid, why are you using the Internet? They can track your every move! :chatter

[El Blanco]

Tanks and artillery don't work to well in urban settings. Not if you want the city still standing, anyway.

[kellychaos]

Consider this point and comment, if you will:

Guns are against the natural order, specifically the "flight of fight" trait. Gunless, the little guy in a mismatched fight would run away to safety as a defense whilst the strong would stand and deliver. Strapped, this same little guy would stay to deliver his lethal blow while, this time, the bigger guy who is paralyzed in fear (assuming he has no weapon) would run away. Isn't there something inherently wrong with that? OK, so you say, give the bigger guy a gun and things are on the same footing (as the original scenario), right? Wouldn't they be on the same footing if guns weren't involved at all?

[The One and Only...]

No, because the big guy corners the little guy. Or he runs faster. Either way, it's checkmate.

[El Blanco]

So, only the strong should survive? I mean, how far can the weak run?

Wouldn't they be on the same footing if guns weren't involved at all?

You just said it was inequal. Remember, the little guy had no choice but to run.

[kellychaos]

Assuming that they both had the drop at the exact same time, I say that the bigger guy would take the smaller guy's weapon and shove it up his cowardly ass ... as it should be ... thus restoring the natural order. :)

[El Blanco]

Again, only the strong survive.

I bet you will love that until you realize you ain't the biggest dog in the yard.

[Sethomas]

Guns are just too much fun to be illegal. I loves muh guns 'n booze.

[El Blanco]

Jack Daniels and Samuel Colt. th two greatest Americans in history.

[Vibecrewangel]

Comparing them to nukes is idiocy.

From a strictly psycholgical standpoint I find it interesting that people completely overlook the actual point and always turn to the "but it's a right" or the "nukes are more dangerous" argument.

A lunatic with a weapon is a lunatic with a weapon.

[kellychaos]

Again, only the strong survive.

I bet you will love that until you realize you ain't the biggest dog in the yard.

I don't disagree with you, EB. I was just raising it as a point of interest and playing the devil's advocate to check out reactions. I think the right to bear arms has merit ... to a point. I OWN hunting rifles and a handgun myself. It's just that some of the ideas that the NRA members attach to the sentiment are ridiculous.

[El Blanco]

Kind of like all those silly sentiments ACLU members have?

[AChimp]

Tanks and artillery don't work to well in urban settings. Not if you want the city still standing, anyway.
You would be very surprised. All they have to do is blow up one house to instill pants-shitting fear in the citizens with rifles.

Besides, there's plenty of smaller light armor that can be used where tanks won't fit. Those 6-wheeled things that UN soldiers drive, for instance.

[kellychaos]

Kind of like all those silly sentiments ACLU members have?

More akin to those in PETA, methinks. Yes, conservation and sparing defenseless animals from cruelty and abuse is important to a point but ... :/

[kellychaos]

Comparing them to nukes is idiocy.

From a strictly psycholgical standpoint I find it interesting that people completely overlook the actual point and always turn to the "but it's a right" or the "nukes are more dangerous" argument.

A lunatic with a weapon is a lunatic with a weapon.

They both use the "deterrence" argument, n'est-ce pas? :)

[Sethomas]

I believe in the right to bear arms, I just think that it's only sane to require registration and licensing for all guns. I don't see why the NRA lot gets its panties bunched up over this, except out of excessive paranoia or laziness. I think gun safety should be taught in schools, instead of just in scouting and 4-H.

Edit: I spell gud.

[El Blanco]

All they have to do is blow up one house to instill pants-shitting fear in the citizens with rifles.

Or rage.

Those 6-wheeled things that UN soldiers drive, for instance.

Those are troop carriers. They have a .50 cal gun on top and not much else. It didn't help the pakastani troops who were slaughtered in Somalia.

[kellychaos]

Exactly. If they are such sticklers for discipline and responsibility, why would there ever be a rush to own a handgun or a fear of a backgroung check at any given time?

I also have issues with those that feel a need for assault rifles. Why God, why?! >: ... and don't gimme that "collectibles" crap.

[Vibecrewangel]

Totally there Seth and Kelly

If you can't wait 15 days for a gun you may be exactly the kind of person that shouldn't have one.

[The One and Only...]

Comparing them to nukes is idiocy.

From a strictly psycholgical standpoint I find it interesting that people completely overlook the actual point and always turn to the "but it's a right" or the "nukes are more dangerous" argument.

A lunatic with a weapon is a lunatic with a weapon.

Next time, you should consider reading my entire argument. A lunatic with a gun IS NOT a lunatic with a nuke, and I stated my reasons why.

[Vibecrewangel]

Actually, I did read you whole argument. You believe that that a gun and a nuke are different. And they are in many ways.
I believe that a lunatic is a lunatic.

Your qualifier is the weapon. Mine is the lunatic. I find that the lunatic is the more important part of that equation.

[ranxer]

i must admit the references to cia and others knowing about the pearl harbor attack 12 days before are very hard to find as is the info regarding japan being ready to surrender before the bomb, it all depends on what you read.. ive come across the info in books by zinn and the war on freedom, so i can't prove much here.. many folks with the personal experience are now dead.

my point is not that there's some shadow government (as blanco says) working as a team to pull the wool over our eyes.. its that there are corrupt people in the government using thier power to sway opinion with only a little concern about collateral damage(concern based on selfpreservation). the wmd issue is 90% manufactured and those using the issue should be held accountable.. i just see this situation as similar to many other situations that were surrounded by lies, demonization, fear, and cloak and dagger tactics.

have you heard of the declasified northwoods document?
we've had plans to bait an enemy into first strike or fabricate a first strike(hard to prove) over and over if you look into it.. if you don't believe it or don't care, i'm saying that you have been duped into waving that flag as if gw really cares about you. If the plans were known about, do you think they would use them? control of information is thier first line of defence. plus everybody knows how slippery politicians are, you think that's for no reason? give me a break.

gw rewards the financial contributors and throws the rest to the wolves.. even our GI's are suffering many cutbacks. gw needed collateral damage to back a move into oil country to stabalize the dollar and provide new contracts for the corp heads that got him into power. at least thats what i and many others see as the main reason we had 9-11, attack on afghanistan, wmd's and iraq occupation.

[O71394658]

Ranx, I never know if you're joking, so I'm not even going to bother with that post. :/

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

""This year, will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

(although there is some propaganda circling as to doubt Hitler said this- he [i]did[\i] in fact say the first one)

[Jeanette X]

Ranx, can you give me a link to this declassified document?

[VinceZeb]

Why is it that liberals whine about having "waiting periods" on getting a gun, something that is a plain-as-day right in the Constitution, but whine about ANY waiting period on abortions, which isn't a right in the Constitution at all?

[The One and Only...]

Background checks, etc. They don't want the gun to go to a crazy psycho.

[kellychaos]

Ranx, I never know if you're joking, so I'm not even going to bother with that post. :/

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

""This year, will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"

(although there is some propaganda circling as to doubt Hitler said this- he [i]did[\i] in fact say the first one)

Assuming they're coming from the same person (Hitler), those statements are nonsensical in their contradiction.

If my choices are to either have arms or be ruled by a tyrannical dictator that I have no means to overthrow, take a guess which one I'd choose.

Which leads me to MY point ... what's YOUR point? :/

[El Blanco]

The first statement was made in private, either in his journal or to his high command. The seond one was supposedly in a speech to the people.

[kellychaos]

The first statement was made in private, either in his journal or to his high command. The seond one was supposedly in a speech to the people.

Oh. In that context, it makes more sense. :)

[ranxer]

Northwoods doc links:

referenced via James Bamfords book 'body of secrets':
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

more via infowars: http://www.infowars.com/northwoods.htm


has anyone seen the vid 'why we dropped the bomb' ( circa 1987 i believe)
peter jennings brings a lot of historians to bear on pearl and hiroshima.. they don't go as far as others but the consensus there is that we did not leaflet the japs that we were going to drop the bomb.. the reasoning being that the impact of the bomb would not be as great.. the movie historians hint that the bombs were not dropped to stop the japs but more to keep russia in its place.

i also found this timeline of WWII events interesting, but there isnt enough references to make it definitive :/
http://www.blankgen.com/arkansucknew/viewthread.php?tid=403

[Vibecrewangel]

Why is it that liberals whine about having "waiting periods" on getting a gun, something that is a plain-as-day right in the Constitution, but whine about ANY waiting period on abortions, which isn't a right in the Constitution at all?

Why is it that men whine about something they have no possible way of understanding? Once they shoot their wad their work is done. That is assuming you call that work.

You are so big on the constitution and the "rights" listed therein you seem to have forgoten that life isn't black and white text.

I think owning a gun should be a privilage not a right. And I would hope that someone who wants to protect the unborn children would want to do the same for the children who would be in jeapordy if say a released child molester could just walk in and by a gun without a background check.

Circumstances my boy. You have to consider circumstances.

[mburbank]

I think since the constitution states our right to bear arms, the govt. should provide them. I think there should be huge, unlocked weapons caches on every street corner, weapons loaded and ready. Waiting period, scmaiting period, I have the right to defend myself, why should I be burdened with CARRYING a weapon?

Vibe, seriously, you're asking way more of Vinth in the thinking department then he's capable of. You're asking a man who gets a bone on fantasizing using weapons to 'protect' people to concider consequences.

[pjalne]

What I don't get, is what he means.

Why is it that liberals whine about having "waiting periods" on getting a gun, something that is a plain-as-day right in the Constitution, but whine about ANY waiting period on abortions, which isn't a right in the Constitution at all?

Simplified version:

'Why do people whine about A, but whine about B?'

What the hell kind of sense is that supposed to make? is it:

A: 'Why do people not only whine about A, but whine about B also?'

B: 'Why don't people whine about A, but whine about B?'

C: 'Why do people whine about A, but don't whine about B?'

... or is it upposed to mean something different altogether? I'm not trying to turn this thread into another Vince bash fest, I just want to know what the hell he's talking about.

[FS]

I'm trying to wrap my mind around it but it's so vast and sweaty it keeps slipping out.

So, in Vince world it is amazing that "liberals" don't want waiting periods before they get a gun, while they also don't want waiting periods before they get an abortion, because one is contested by the Constitution while the other is not.

Aside from the complex asininity of it all, I guess that Vince thinks babies can be bought from the baby store and if you squeeze them, they spew bullets. Also, guns are made when two NRA members passionately shake hands and unless it is taken apart within three months, it is indestructable.

[Zero Signal]

:lol2

[mburbank]

What he Vinth is how can somebody do a thing if some other time another guy or the ffirst guy does a thing that has some stuff in common with the thing either of them did first but then they complain about the other thing? I mean how can you object to something and then not object to everything that has anything in common with it?

How hard is that to understand?

I mean, it's not like Vinth is a retard.

[kellychaos]

Consider this Vinth ... or not ... I don't care. There was a Prohibition Amendment in the Constitution which has subsequently been repealed yet the sale of alcohol is still regulated. You can't go into a bar at eighteen, a legal voter, and demand a drink because it's guaranteed in the Constitution as a right. You'll find that in most rights included in the "Bill Of Rights", that there are subsequent laws and court rulings, or precedents, which serve as a guideline to interpret the "grays" inherent in those rights. It's not YOUR interpretation. It's the legal system's interpretation. They've been doing it a long time and they MIGHT just know a little bit more about the original intent of those bits of legislation, don't ya think?!

[mburbank]

Yeah, Kelly, way to whine about a thing that gets whined about when someone else who also could be you or someone of your ilk has already been whining about another things when you didn't whine about the first thing, but they did.

Dumbass.

[kellychaos]

Vinth has hacked Max's account! Call a cop. :eek

[mburbank]

Oh, sure, just like another guy to other the other when they would have been the other whining other guy other the first other other other whine about other when other other before the first of which the other guy other other other other of the whining!

[ranxer]

:lol i'm dizzy

[El Blanco]

babies can be bought from the baby store and if you squeeze them, they spew bullets.

I know the hot new toy this Christmas. I'm gonna be rich.

What he Vinth is how can somebody do a thing if some other time another guy or the ffirst guy does a thing that has some stuff in common with the thing either of them did first but then they complain about the other thing? I mean how can you object to something and then not object to everything that has anything in common with it?


What the fucking fuck. who the fuck? What the fuck? How the fuck did you fucking fucking fucks...........fucking...................FUCK!