Hello. It seems that almost the majority of ichigos is from outside the united states. I was wondering what people thought of our new president, barack obama. In case your wondering, i have suspicions he is the anti christ

No, the Anti Christ will have superhuman powers and will rise after the Rapture. I do have suspicions that he will come from Europe as well.

He has a big job to do, after the hole Bush left the country in.

a black president. wow. this is great! next, we'll have an asian president! :D

I'm pretty sure the japanese like obama (because not only is obama a person, it is a city)

I like obama! although I thought he started out bad...

i have suspicions he is the anti christ

What are your suspicions and do you have evidence to support them? And even moreso, does this truly matter?

What are your suspicions and do you have evidence to support them? And even moreso, does this truly matter?
I'd be quick to argue that not many things do. XD
Obama is a good speaker, but I dunno. I guess we'll see how he handles things. My life won't change too much no matter what he does, so I'm not especially worried.

He has fantastic oratorical skills and ran an excellent campaign. But so far it seems he hasn't lived up to the hype.

I think John Stewart puts it well when he commented on Obama's recent plan to weatherize homes to stimulate the economy, "It seems he can only run in two speeds: John Kennedy or John Kerry... Abe Lincoln or Abe Vigoda."

the democrats are just shady, as much as we need them in the states, that was very low of them to throw in all those hidden costs making it a mega bill.
Who do they think they are? Henry Clay :P

Nevertheless I <3 Obama

Is anyone familiar with chicago style politics?

My dad showed me something on the news about one of our ships getting blown up (in the middle east) back when clinton was president, and that person who set it up went to gitmo for it. Obama dropped all the charges on this guy! Wtf is this shit? This is why I hate democrats. XD After all, they are the ones that caused this economic shithole by de-regulating wall street. :\


Is anyone familiar with chicago style politics?

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/political-pictures-blagojevich-ebay.jpg

Sorry. I couldn't resist! XD

At least he can speak, which is more than we could say for Bush.

Hello. It seems that almost the majority of ichigos is from outside the united states. I was wondering what people thought of our new president, barack obama. In case your wondering, i have suspicions he is the anti christ

I have suspicions that you are a fucking moron. Please go fuck yourself and leave us alone, k? Thanks, bye bye.

And for everyone who's wondering -- only the staff may dish out personal attacks.

Well, in this case I wouldn't mind other people doing it either. Seriously, calling Obama the antichrist. Why, because he's a black democrat and he beat your senile old republican guy? Seriously, why are republicans so fucking retarded?

lol I heard people in china were like WHAT!? A BLACK MAN!?
I think they liked bush cos he just kept buying and borrowing but im pretty sure the chinese have realized that none of it is ever coming back. lol

Anti-Christ rofl! xDDD
He can be the anti-christ for all I care (yay I'm from australia, but hey, USA influences affect here too) but as long as the anti-christ does his job, it's fine.

Hmm, maybe the OP was just joking to stimulate a discussion (or flames). =)

Anyways, I doubt China prefers Bush over Obama. As far as I know (which isn't much), Bush didn't exactly like China for a whole bunch of reasons, and would have probably happily gone to war if not for it being rather suicidal. Obama's whole campaign is on fixing the economy and internal things, etc., so the Chinese should at least feel more at ease.

He is intelligent :), and probably limiting his actions to go along with the current policies.

I feel that America is gonna place blame on Obama even when its not his fault.

I don't particularly like any thing he's done so far, and I really don't like how the media portrays him. I don't hate Obama, as much as I hate those dumbasses in congress wasting our money on crap we don't need, and then taxing the crap out of us! Then again Obama is promising us all these really nice sounding yet useless programs like socialized medicare. But guess what alot of those programs don't extend to everyone, so middle class families like mine are completely boned yet again cus we end up usually having to pick up the slack that the stupid asses that refuse to work won't pick up. I really do hope Obama can bring the prosperity he promised us, because right now I really don't have much hope for future generations.T_T

Euphoria, I agree. It really pisses me off when people don't work, but then they bitch about the economy. How about instead of being lazy and just living off of welfare and unemployment, they get a job? Seriously, because some people who really need the welfare aren't getting it because a bunch of lazy fucktards who don't work take it all!

I don't have any hope for future generations either...politicians keep cutting our education to protect their bajillion dollars a year salary, but let them! Cause when we all register to vote in 2-4 years, fuck them. Guess who isn't getting our votes? XD

I was and still is against the bailout plan. Obama supported the plan. Look at whats going on with the economy post-bailout.

We'll see how things turns out after another nine months. Until then, I'm not holding opinions towards Obama other than I felt he was much better candidate than John McCain.

XD sorry for offending you neko. Cant we all just respect each others opinions though.
Really though anti-christ or not i hope he doesn't go off and spend money on coupons for digital t.v. converters....oh wait.

I don't respect the opinion of people who talk about someone being the "anti-Christ" because I don't consider them mentally capable of discussion. Sorry.

Meh, media has a way of building someone up and then knocking them down to generate controversy and interest in the (largely undereducated) public. Most of the stuff about Obama probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. He is, like most other presidents in the past, talented, yet human.

Meh, media has a way of building someone up and then knocking them down to generate controversy and interest in the (largely undereducated) public. Most of the stuff about Obama probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. He is, like most other presidents in the past, talented, yet human.

Yeah, I know ^_^. I found it hard to watch most news stations during the election, because everything that was said felt way too subjective. I also found it odd that when anything negative came out about Obama it was hardly ever aired or put on a week later after it came out, but if anything negative about the other candidates turned up ,it was aired almost immediately. It seemed very unfair and cheap like throwing sand in someone's eyes or a swift kick to the nuts during a playground brawl. But that's all in the past there's really no point in complaining now, all we can do is look a head to the future and hope things will get better. :coolio:

Has anyone seen Obama's speech on the Lincoln anniversary (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#29170751)? It's very refreshing to see an American president who actually, y'know, speaks correct English. It was a good speech. :)

I'm not really sure I care whether or not he can speak correct English at this point. He just signed the $787 billion stimulus plan yesterday, and I'm just wondering what happens if this sends us into an even bigger hole. Who's going to pay for it? 'Cause it sure better not be those of us who actually work for a paycheck. We're not giving $$$ to the government so they can screw us over.
The papers will tell you that Obama went to Caterpillar to promote the stimulus bill last Thursday, but they probably won't tell you that the Congressional Representative for that district, Aaron Schock, was also there, and he did not have any Cat employees or other people come up to him after Obama's speech and ask him to vote for the bill. In fact, he got about 1400 requests to vote against it, which he did. I agree with Schock, personally (of course, I did vote for him :heh:). In his words, this bill is too big to get it wrong. I read that when you put together all of the money that the government is shelling out to "bail out" the economy, you would have enough to pay off 90% of all mortgages in America. Seriously, I know everyone loves bashing Bush, but Congress is even worse, and now we have a president who wants to "spread the wealth around."

He's sending more soldiers into the middle east. Didn't someone say they would be pulled out?

Obama always said that he would pull the troops out of Iraq, but move more into Afghanistan. That's where the troops are going.

Also, the stimulation plan is a good thing I think, because it is money that's going straight into the economy to create jobs and work on the future (think of fixing up important roads, that provides work now and improves the infrastructure for the next few decades). Unlike Bush, who just kept throwing money into the bottomless pit that's called Iraq, something that Americans didn't get anything for in return.

I agree, the stimulus package is a good thing.

Obama always said that he would pull the troops out of Iraq, but move more into Afghanistan. That's where the troops are going.

Also, the stimulation plan is a good thing I think, because it is money that's going straight into the economy to create jobs and work on the future (think of fixing up important roads, that provides work now and improves the infrastructure for the next few decades). Unlike Bush, who just kept throwing money into the bottomless pit that's called Iraq, something that Americans didn't get anything for in return.

Yeah, I guess it will create more jobs, but those jobs will probably be short term. Also there is a whole crapload of stuff that is not needed as I said one of my earlier posts. America is slowly drifting towards socialism, and in large societies socialism will not work as nicely as people think it will. It's one of those concepts that sound on paper but in action it will eventually hurt the very people they where trying to help.

Im all for the stimulus package but....Im not sure but i heard the stimulus package is spending money towards food stamps. How is this supposed to help the economy?

Socialism wouldn't work in America. People like doctors want their 10987340184723047 dollars a year salary. XD

Cloud, I have to agree with you on Nobama (lol) wanting to 'spread the wealth'. There is no need for that in an economy like this. Whenever I start working, I'm not paying taxes so the lazy people that don't work can get free money. x_x My parents know alot of people who lost jobs, but haven't gone back to work because unemployment gives them enough to get by. (I think it's like $15K a year for unemployment, but don't quote me. :P)

If people don't help themselves, they don't deserve to be helped. Which is why this idiot shouldn't 'spread the wealth' and fuck the middle class to hell and over in doing so.

Euphoria, I'm definitely with you on the spending thing. Useless and harmful spending is way too easy to slip into a bill that's already 1000 pages long. The problem is, we have too many idiots in Congress who will do just that (like the moron who actually bragged about getting funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska from a completely unrelated bill).

EDIT: And by too many, I mean only one is too many.

Yeah, I guess it will create more jobs, but those jobs will probably be short term. Also there is a whole crapload of stuff that is not needed as I said one of my earlier posts. America is slowly drifting towards socialism, and in large societies socialism will not work as nicely as people think it will. It's one of those concepts that sound on paper but in action it will eventually hurt the very people they where trying to help.

It works fine for a lot of countries in Europe. In the Netherlands, which is quite socialistic, a much smaller percentage of people live under the poverty line, for instance. Poverty in America is a lot higher, because as soon as you lose your job, you're on your own. In a lot of European countries we have social security to make sure nobody lives in poverty.

Of course, that doesn't mean there are no homeless people here, or no people who do live in poverty, but in general, it's a lot better than in America. Scandinavian countries are also very good in this department I think, although Noir7 would know more about that :think:

Anyway. Communism is bad, capitalism is bad, socialism is good.

edit:
@Zippy: in socialistic countries, a doctor can usually still make a lot of money. Basically, what socialism stands for, is that society takes care of people who can't take care of themselves. Communism is where everybody has to make the same amount of money, and that's something that would never work (it doesn't even work in communistic places like China or the former USSR).

America is slowly drifting towards socialism, and in large societies socialism will not work as nicely as people think it will. It's one of those concepts that sound on paper but in action it will eventually hurt the very people they where trying to help.
Yes, but drifting towards something is not the same thing as being something. Socialism in moderation is just fine, and I think America could stand to be a bit more socialist.

You sound like you're trying to start a second Red Scare or something. =P

*screams like mccarthy* THE COMMIES ARE COMING! THE COMMIES ARE COMING! XD *adds 'one nation under god' to end of pledge*

BTW, I heard somewhere that this 'stimulus' money has strings attached. One of them is giving more to welfare. When some govenors denied the money because of the strings attached, obama said something like "if you don't take this money, it's an insult to the black people" or something like that. Fucking racist.

Yes, but drifting towards something is not the same thing as being something. Socialism in moderation is just fine, and I think America could stand to be a bit more socialist.

You sound like you're trying to start a second Red Scare or something. =P

It would be very good for America, especially for the people who have trouble getting around buying food and stuff. The rich people pay more tax so the poor people can get financial aid if needed.

how bout marxism? ~doesn't know what im talking about~..anyways
Would somebody care to elaborate why my cousin is being shipped off to iraq tomorrow?

It would be very good for America, especially for the people who have trouble getting around buying food and stuff. The rich people pay more tax so the poor people can get financial aid if needed.

It sounds good, but it isn't. Alot of people in this country don't work because they are lazy. (this isn't to say every unemployed person is though) I don't blame them, cause with welfare and unemployment, along with food stamps, anybody can scrape by! It's really sad when people who need that aid to survive can't get it, because a bunch of lazy SOB's decides they aren't going to work and take advantage of the system. :( *cough* like some of the illegal immigrants do *cough*

People should have a job to be eligible for aid like that, unless there is some legit excuse for not working. (like breaking your arm or something) If people don't help themselves, they don't deserve any sort of aid if you ask me. :\

Lately in Obama's speeches, all I hear is bla bla crisis, crisis bla bla. I thought Obama was the bringer of"hope." I know things are bad, but it's no "Great Depression".I mean the other day I couldn't even get a parking spot at the mall it was so pact you'd think it was christmas time, so we can't be that bad off. There is merit in not lying to the people and telling them things are not going to well, but constantly focusing on the darker side of things is bad for people psychologically. If you keep telling people that we're in a depression, less and less people are out there spending money, and then eventually the system will fail. Capitalism is like the human body with people as the heart and money is the blood. If the heart ain't pumping the body will die, and all the people who default on their loans, the banks that give out those bad loans,and the people that don't pay their taxes are like cholesterol clogging the hearts arteries eventually leading to a heart attack.(wow I sound lame)

I mean the other day I couldn't even get a parking spot at the mall it was so pact you'd think it was christmas time, so we can't be that bad off. That's a way to stimulate spending: Emergency Christmas Now

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_airline_pilots/2009/03/18/193314.html?s=al&promo_code=7C6C-1

This should really change some people's opinions...how is taking firearms away from pilots going to stop another 9/11? If anything, that could be the CAUSE of another attack!

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think he's in it to fuck this country into hell and over...<_< Especially with the closing of Guantanamo. The only thing that can happen from that any terrorists there go join up again with their terrorist groups...

The slow progress of taking away firearms actually makes me like him more. Look at America's murder and rape rate compared with other well off countries. Or developed countries, but I don't like the list since the consideration of being developed has no definite standard. Either way works

But its true that the taking away of pilot's firearms is illogical if Obama has not being restricting fire arms in other areas. And I'm not sure, but do we know exactly what happened inside the airplane that crashed to the twin towers?

Removal of guns from people? Ha. That won't solve anything, as there's already too many guns out there. If you want a real solution, control the ammunition used by the guns instead.

If Obama were to remove the ammunition as of now, there may be an uproar. He can only remove firearm usage from certain areas as of now.

Mm... But if he were to remove the weapons from public use, ammunition would be the choice. I doubt gun removal would happen until 50 years later or so. But I never understood how this firearm logic worked. Whats the use of guns anyways other than hunting? Really, this is not the time of gun militias.

Gun removal won't work in the US. The constitution says that every American should be allowed to carry a gun in case they encounter a British soldier (hey, it was written after the independence war, what'd you expect?) and the constitution can't be altered, so they can't remove that line from it or change it. Therefore, rednecks and hillbillies consider it their god given right to carry around a gun (remember Asuka? That was actually something he literally said).

Removing ammo wouldn't work either, people could get desperate enough to make their own. Yes, it's possible to make your own by reusing old shell cases, one of my dad's friends goes to the range alot and does this to save money. :P

Or, it would give another thing for people on the street to sell illegally...<_< Nothing good comes out of this...his reasons for wanting to remove guns from the public are good, but people have other ways of getting them.

It sounds good, but it isn't. Alot of people in this country don't work because they are lazy. (this isn't to say every unemployed person is though) I don't blame them, cause with welfare and unemployment, along with food stamps, anybody can scrape by! It's really sad when people who need that aid to survive can't get it, because a bunch of lazy SOB's decides they aren't going to work and take advantage of the system. :( *cough* like some of the illegal immigrants do *cough*

The unemployment is relatively low in Europe, as Angelic pointed out. Or do you think the US has a larger share of "lazy" people than Europe?

The vast majority of people doesn't want to spend their life dependent on the government for providing the bare minimum to get around.

It's a simple aspect of human nature and society. Humans want to be recognized by others. If you don't have a job your status in society is about as low as it gets. Humans want to be independent and free. Relying on the state for money is always connected with restrictions.

Probably the most important factor is this though: Would you be contend with the bare minimum? I wouldn't. (Almost) nobody would. I'd want to be able to buy the stuff I want. A new TV? A fast PC with broad-band connection? Maybe a car (and the money to actually buy gasoline for it)? You know, everyone wants to have various things. Even the lazy unemployed.

Yes, it is considered 'low' just to take the free money versus just working for more, but some people just don't give a crap...<_<

I love it when laymen start discussing "economics". First the information is filtered (read: dumbed down) by the media, and then it gets another nice wash out on the internet.

Nobody has the holy grail of information. It's up to you and your intelligence. Despite this when a lot of people you know got fired, there is not too much to talk about.

I don't think he is an anti christ I think America needed him and he will do much good to america since bush did not get involved until it was to late or out of hand but he's trying to prove himself to the American people

So doing things like disarming commercial airline pilots is doing good to America? If another 9/11 happens, at least we'll know why! <_<

That's bullshit, a pilot shouldn't need a weapon, the door to the pilot's cabin should be shut and locked. Besides, if hijackers got themselves a hostage, the pilot probably wouldn't shoot anyway. Security should just make sure no weapons get on the airplane.

Weapons should be regulated more strictly in the US anyway, everyone thinks he's a gun hero there - until they snap and shoot everyone at school, then everybody cries their heads off "how on earth could this have happened?". Easy, everyone can get a gun in the US.

So doing things like disarming commercial airline pilots is doing good to America? If another 9/11 happens, at least we'll know why! <_<
It may sound strange to you, but those evil terrorism-supporters in the white house have reasonable arguments to support their view. You, on the other hand, have an insubstantial talking point that only scratches the very surface of a topic that is more complex than "Obama hates guns, duh".

Let me summarise the most relevant points:

a) Obama isn't the only one - Bush was against guns in cockpits in 2002 as well (http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/sns-worldtrade-airlines,0,2044618.story). This doesn't lend much to the argument itself (ie. Bush isn't an authority in that regard), but it provides some context at least.

b) Only a tiny fraction of pilots actually went through the psychological evaluation and weapon training (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/today/2004-03-11-sky-archivemarch10_x.htm) that is required. Today there isn't even a gun in most cockpits that could be removed by this prohibition.

c) Pilots repeatedly misplaced or lost their guns (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/today/2004-03-11-sky-archivemarch10_x.htm). Kind of defeats the supposed purpose of terrorism prevention, don't you think?

d) Guns and cockpits don't go well with each other. Consider what consequences a pressure leak in the cockpit would have? It already happened that a pilot accidentally fired his gun in the cockpit (http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032308-sjf-gunonplane.1c4cabd1.html), in the worst case, i.e. if he had hit the flight control panel or the front window, the plane could have crashed. Kind of defeats the purpose as well.

e) All the security measurements that have been taken since 9/11 make it as good as impossible to get a weapon on-board of planes anyway.

f) In any case, it shouldn't be the task of the person in charge of flying the plane to deal with these incidents. Trained cabin personnel (not in gun-usage, but hand-to-hand combat or possibly tasers) makes a lot more sense. How's the pilot supposed to protect the passengers and the crew?

If anything this prohibition makes flights more safe - not less. I'd rather be on a plane where the pilot can concentrate on flying.

So back to your point:

So doing things like disarming commercial airline pilots is doing good to America?
Yes.

If another 9/11 happens, at least we'll know why!
The probability of another attack occurring exactly on same day is rather small. I reckon a different day is more likely.

But seriously, if a plane crashes because the pilot accidentally fired a bullet into the control panel, at least we'll know why.

It may sound strange to you, but those evil terrorism-supporters in the white house have reasonable arguments to support their view. You, on the other hand, have an insubstantial talking point that only scratches the very surface of a topic that is more complex than "Obama hates guns, duh".

Let me summarise the most relevant points:

a) Obama isn't the only one - Bush was against guns in cockpits in 2002 as well (http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/sns-worldtrade-airlines,0,2044618.story). This doesn't lend much to the argument itself (ie. Bush isn't an authority in that regard), but it provides some context at least.

b) Only a tiny fraction of pilots actually went through the psychological evaluation and weapon training (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/today/2004-03-11-sky-archivemarch10_x.htm) that is required. Today there isn't even a gun in most cockpits that could be removed by this prohibition.

c) Pilots repeatedly misplaced or lost their guns (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/today/2004-03-11-sky-archivemarch10_x.htm). Kind of defeats the supposed purpose of terrorism prevention, don't you think?

d) Guns and cockpits don't go well with each other. Consider what consequences a pressure leak in the cockpit would have? It already happened that a pilot accidentally fired his gun in the cockpit (http://www.wcnc.com/news/topstories/stories/wcnc-032308-sjf-gunonplane.1c4cabd1.html), in the worst case, i.e. if he had hit the flight control panel or the front window, the plane could have crashed. Kind of defeats the purpose as well.

e) All the security measurements that have been taken since 9/11 make it as good as impossible to get a weapon on-board of planes anyway.

f) In any case, it shouldn't be the task of the person in charge of flying the plane to deal with these incidents. Trained cabin personnel (not in gun-usage, but hand-to-hand combat or possibly tasers) makes a lot more sense. How's the pilot supposed to protect the passengers and the crew?

If anything this prohibition makes flights more safe - not less. I'd rather be on a plane where the pilot can concentrate on flying.

So back to your point:

Yes.

The probability of another attack occurring exactly on same day is rather small. I reckon a different day is more likely.

But seriously, if a plane crashes because the pilot accidentally fired a bullet into the control panel, at least we'll know why.

I agree wholeheartedly with this entire set of statements. You sir win the internet.

You all make really good points, but I'd still liked to have armed pilots just to be prepared for the worst even if the worst is unlikely to happen.
Besides what kinda guns do you think pilots are going to be using ^_^ ? I doubt the pilots are armed with any type of gun that fires something strong enough to pierce through the plane lol. If the windows can withstand multiple shots from frozen chickens shot out of cannons, I think they can handle 1 or 2 9mm rounds.:heh:

You all make really good points, but I'd still liked to have armed pilots just to be prepared for the worst even if the worst is unlikely to happen.
Besides what kinda guns do you think pilots are going to be using ^_^ ? I doubt the pilots are armed with any type of gun that fires something strong enough to pierce through the plane lol. If the windows can withstand multiple shots from frozen chickens shot out of cannons, I think they can handle 1 or 2 9mm rounds.:heh:

Nope, chickens are large, bullets are tiny. Lots of pressure on one point = more likely to punch a hole than lots of pressure on a large surface. Think of a plastic bag, with your hole hand it's harder to go through than with just your finger.

Makes sense, but do you really think the pilot is going to be aiming the fire arm towards the windows? One of the most simple rules of fire arms safety is if possible don't point the gun near anything you don't want to hit :heh:. Even if they can bust through windows 9mm still are not strong enough to go through the walls of the plane, unless you fire multiple shots the same area.

However, I totally agree that it's not the pilots job to stop the bad guys. I'd just like them to be prepared if the time comes you know ^_^.

I'd rather not see the pilot having access to a weapon. What if he is depressed and wants to kill himself? And take the whole plane with him? He could use the gun to shoot the co-pilot and then make the plane crash.

If you're saying this is unlikely, it's about as unlikely as someone hijacking an American plane by getting into the cockpit. Simply because security is a lot tighter and the door is actually locked nowadays. If they want to hijack an aeroplane, they'll use explosives or hostages, and a pilot with a gun won't make a difference then.

And if you're wondering, yes, it has happened that a pilot wanted to make the aircraft crash with him. I saw it in air crash investigation, which is based on true stories.

If that's the case then why fly? You take a risk when you fly in planes anyway, adding a small risk like armed pilots is nothing. Personally I'd rather be shot, then say if where pilot to get suicidal and decides to crash the plane ( you'd have a greater change of survival, depending on where you are shot of course ^_^). You'll just have faith in the pilot, not everybody is clinically depressed, or sociopathic.

You don't get it, do you? Guns in cockpits won't add to airplane security, so why bother introducing an extra risk?

Also, the chance of an aeroplane coming down is smaller than the chance you'll crash while driving a car, so that's besides the point.

Why remove them though? In the slight chance a terrorist manages to get a gun on board, everyone is fucked. Training personnel in hand-to-hand and maybe tasers is a good idea though...unless the terrorist they are fighting has a gun. Then your bare fists and a taser won't do you any good.

It's not that I don't understand, I just have my own understanding of the situation that led me to a different conclusion ,is all.

The firearms are just a precautionary measure. The pilots( for now anyway) and the air marshals carry firearms for the same reasons police do, and are only fired when the situation demands it. It's not like they want to kill somebody, but when you're placed situation where you're in charge of people lives, the time might arise when you'll have to, to save lives. Innocents might get hurt, but if you saved a few lives as an end result I think it's ok. If you ask anybody who has had to make that very difficult choice, somebody like a soldier or police officer, they'll roughly say the same thing I said more often then not.

@ Euphoria

If you were a pilot with a gun, and a person on board hold a hostage at gunpoint. Do you kill the person risking the people around him + the hostage?

Actually, a better question is - would YOU pull the trigger?

Yes, I would if it was the only option. You can't always use hostages as an excuse to standby and do nothing. The loss of the hostages would be very sad, but even if you only save one life it would be worth it. I wouldn't be able to live myself if I just let somebody very dangerous take over the plane, and did not utilise every option given to me to keep that from happening.

Yes, I would if it was the only option. You can't always use hostages as an excuse to standby and do nothing. The loss of the hostages would be very sad, but even if you only save one life it would be worth it. I wouldn't be able to live myself if I just let somebody very dangerous take over the plane, and did not utilise every option given to me to keep that from happening.

That's what you say now, but would you actually do it? Being a hero is very easy - in theory - and since it's "the right thing to do" people automatically say that they'd do it.

If a child was in a burning building, would you rush in to save it, risking your own life? A lot of people would say yes, but that's because when there's no danger involved (at the time you're saying it) it seems the right answer. When there's actual danger (when you're actually standing in front of the building) your instinct takes over and you go in self-preserve mode. Some people can surpress this (firemen can with their protective gear, taking away part of the dangers) but most people can't.

Why remove them though?Read my post again. I gave you some reasons. For starters, you could address them, instead of asking the question I just answered again.

In the slight chance a terrorist manages to get a gun on board, everyone is fucked. Training personnel in hand-to-hand and maybe tasers is a good idea though...unless the terrorist they are fighting has a gun. Then your bare fists and a taser won't do you any good.
The "slight chance" you refer to here is insignificant, maybe you'll find it interesting to know that the 9/11 high-jackers used box cutters as weapons.
Also, as Neko Koneko pointed out, the door to the cockpit is locked.

The risk of having a weapon in the cockpit is real and has precedents, gun-wielding terrorist-high-jackers on the other hand is only a hypothetical risk. One that is best mitigated at the airport, not on the plane.

That's what you say now, but would you actually do it? Being a hero is very easy - in theory - and since it's "the right thing to do" people automatically say that they'd do it.

If a child was in a burning building, would you rush in to save it, risking your own life? A lot of people would say yes, but that's because when there's no danger involved (at the time you're saying it) it seems the right answer. When there's actual danger (when you're actually standing in front of the building) your instinct takes over and you go in self-preserve mode. Some people can surpress this (firemen can with their protective gear, taking away part of the dangers) but most people can't.

I still stand by my statement, but you are not wrong. I haven't been in that situation so I can't truly know how fear and doubt would affect me.

I haven't read this topic, and only started reading from page 5, and I'm still struggling to find the connection to Obama.

Obama wants to ban guns from aeroplane cockpits. Anyway, we've strayed away from the subject, thank you for pointing that out.

Yeah, sorry about that.:heh:

It happens :P

Anyway. I was talking about Obama with a friend the other day, and we both found it funny that so many people are complaining about what he's done so far, even saying Bush did better in the beginning. Keep the following in mind though:

1.) Bush took over after Clinton. The world was at relative peace, the economy was very good and Clinton left Bush a lot of money in the US treasury. Bush started two wars, didn't stop the economy from crashing and spent all the money on his crusade.
2.) Obama took over after Bush. The world is kinda chaotic nowadays, the economy is very bad indeed and Bush left a lot of debts for Obama to sort out.
3.) Obama's only been in office for about two months. He still has 46 months to go and do his thing, so cut the guy some slack.

I voted for Obama, so yeah, I like him lol.

I think the biggest problem though isn't necessarily with him, but with us...the people.

A lot of people got so caught up in change that they forgot it doesn't happen overnight. It will take years to get back on track. I think a good majority of people set themselves up for disappointment on that.

And then there are the people who are too stubborn to accept that he WON and he's the PRESIDENT and are too caught up in hoping he fails (or trying their hardest to revoke his presidential status http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jvhtmoNEnyP1Bu6Ol4zJsN94mlewD96O5TV03), to realize that if he does fail, WE ALL FAIL.

Correction, you all fail. Europe is gonna be just fine.

Correction, you all fail. Europe is gonna be just fine.

Well no shit. I wasn't talking about WE THE WORLD, I was obviously only speaking as an American.

America fails anyway, as long as they don't get rid of that stupid constitution and rewrite the whole thing to fit today's standards.

I propose Acts of Parliament. They sound cooler.

Fine I'll stand down on that...

Hmmf, yeah so he might be the first African American to take up the role of President but come on! He bribed his kids with a puppy for gods sake! I mean honestly who does that! I feel kinda lucky that I live in Australia.

Then again he is the Bozo that rules almost everything that we do! Our financial maket is collapsing, the economy market is a load of shit at the moment and he is still gonna give his little babycakes a f***ing dog for f***s sake! WTF! Stand down!

For the record, the economy went to shit before he came into office.

And he hasn't gotten his daughters a dog, but if and when he does it's not like that'll be the one thing to make or break or the economy.

Hmmf, yeah so he might be the first African American to take up the role of President but come on! He bribed his kids with a puppy for gods sake! I mean honestly who does that! I feel kinda lucky that I live in Australia.

Then again he is the Bozo that rules almost everything that we do! Our financial maket is collapsing, the economy market is a load of shit at the moment and he is still gonna give his little babycakes a f***ing dog for f***s sake! WTF! Stand down!

Wow, and I thought the topic starter was an idiot. You are really a complete moron. Please, don't post anymore if you don't have anything useful to say, because if you think Obama's responsible for the economy, you clearly haven't the foggiest of what you're talking blabbering about.

Are you also that guy who complained that Obama was drinking beer at a football game?

Next he'll complain about Obama farting when he's using the toilet -_-

I don't know if it was mentioned, but this is a fuckup (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html) of epic proportions. I know it's not Obama's fault, but someone in the pr department should be fired. And the best part is? They didn't even work on Brown's player :mellow:

I don't know if it was mentioned, but this is a fuckup (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html) of epic proportions. I know it's not Obama's fault, but someone in the pr department should be fired. And the best part is? They didn't even work on Brown's player :mellow:

To be fair, the movies were a special request made by Obama. You can't get a set like it anywhere else. It's not like he headed down to the Wal-Mart and grabbed random dvd's from the bargain bin.

And honestly, that's a lot better then what the Queen gives out, isn't it? She gives dignitaries a framed picture of herself. I'd like a set of classic American films over that any day, sry2say.

I take it you didn't read what Brown's gift was? And, yes, I would imagine the Queen would give her subjects a picture of herself.


I'd like a set of classic American films over that any day

Too bad one of those films was made in England. An American film so "classic", it was even made and directed by an Englishman in his home country.

As much as I am a dedicated American, it's getting harder each day to keep respecting our President.

All his promises aren't being fulfilled, and what he said he wouldn't do he has. In his campaign, Obama promises never to sign bills with earmarks attached to them. And look at his new stimulus plan he signed his 54th day in office- Over 9,000 (no Vegeta pun intended) earmarks were on that bill.

Our 'beloved' President WAS a good speaker, but now all he has been about it secretly bashing and blaming the old Administration about all the slack that he has to pick up. I am sorry, but seriously, stop complaining. To add to our President's love for America, his the apologies he gave in Europe last week: they were uncalled for and completely a slap in the face to us Americans back here in our OWN country.

We are NOT an arrogant country. Europe has never been the "leading" powers of the world even since America has established itself in the picture. Does Africa come to Europe for help, or the UK? No, they've come to the United States to solve their AIDS problems and we've always been able to help people as a nation. We aren't arrogant if we are protecting our allies and helping our fellow humans, that makes us leaders. And Africa isn't the only example, as we all know. And England, we aren't occupying places in the world the make them US territories for ourselves.

I am sick and tired of people saying that Obama is this Godsend and that Bush was a "fucking moron." It's just not true. Yes, I agree that Bush probably wasn't the best President, not even close, but did he sell our country out? Was he the single person responsible for our debts? Hell no! Debts are mostly caused by feuds and disagreements within the White House; so many things (oil regulations, for example) are under so much severe watch by Left-Wings for our environment. Because we are going to war DOES NOT mean we are sending our troops to be killed. The blood is NOT on the hands of Bush. There wasn't any draft at all; everyone in the service signed-up to be in our military services, and they 100% knew and were willing to fight. Know what? That's what they did and that's what we are doing.

You can't blame one person for anything hat happens in America; our country was originally set-up that it was for the responsibilities of many peoples. Yes, the Bush Administration had some fuck-ups, but if you're the kind of person who is all about change and is here to fight for a better tomorrow, then show me what you've done and then maybe I'll take a little finger-pointing.

I'm so sick and tired of people already complaining about Obama. Give it some time to get in effect, okay? And remember, Bush got a stable economy, relative peace and everything from clinton. Obama got the exact opposite from Bush.

And I am sick and tired of people complaining about Bush. He's been out of office since the end of January. Stop trying to stick up for the guy-- I can see liberals in other countries going wild because of our new President; That's when I question, "How are WE arrogant?" When the world is so concerned with our new leader, how does that not make us powerful?

America is certainly not a horrible country or a fuck up. THAT'S what I am sick and tired of hearing.

he is ok

o rly?

As much as I am a dedicated American, it's getting harder each day to keep respecting our President.

All his promises aren't being fulfilled, and what he said he wouldn't do he has. In his campaign, Obama promises never to sign bills with earmarks attached to them. And look at his new stimulus plan he signed his 54th day in office- Over 9,000 (no Vegeta pun intended) earmarks were on that bill.

Our 'beloved' President WAS a good speaker, but now all he has been about it secretly bashing and blaming the old Administration about all the slack that he has to pick up. I am sorry, but seriously, stop complaining. To add to our President's love for America, his the apologies he gave in Europe last week: they were uncalled for and completely a slap in the face to us Americans back here in our OWN country.

We are NOT an arrogant country. Europe has never been the "leading" powers of the world even since America has established itself in the picture. Does Africa come to Europe for help, or the UK? No, they've come to the United States to solve their AIDS problems and we've always been able to help people as a nation. We aren't arrogant if we are protecting our allies and helping our fellow humans, that makes us leaders. And Africa isn't the only example, as we all know. And England, we aren't occupying places in the world, then make them US territories for ourselves.

I am sick and tired of people saying that Obama is this Godsend and that Bush was a "fucking moron." It's just not true. Yes, I agree that Bush probably wasn't the best President, not even close, but did he sell our country out? Was he the single person responsible for our debts? Hell no! Debts are mostly caused by feuds and disagreements within the White House; so many things (oil regulations, for example) are under so much severe watch by Left-Wings for our environment. Because we are going to war DOES NOT mean we are sending our troops to be killed. The blood is NOT on the hands of Bush. There wasn't any draft at all; everyone in the service signed-up to be in our military services, and they 100% knew and were willing to fight. Know what? That's what they did and that's what we are doing.

You can't blame one person for anything hat happens in America; our country was originally set-up that it was for the responsibilities of many peoples. Yes, the Bush Administration had some fuck-ups, but if you're the kind of person who is all about change and is here to fight for a better tomorrow, then show me what you've done and then maybe I'll take a little finger-pointing.

AMEN! :) I agree that Bush wasn't great, but he didn't cause the economic shithole. People fell for those scam housing loans, so it's really because of gullible people that the economy is in the crapper right now. X_X I mean, if a greedy bank is offering those interest-only loans, people should use common sense to figure out they are getting played...<_<

Bush didn't do anything to stop the economy from collapsing though. He was too busy waging war against two countries at once, sending all the American dollars to Iraq and Afghanistan never to be seen again. He should have invested that money in America, into social security etc. But he didn't because he wanted to be a 'Great Crusader'

@Mazeppa: The reason why the rest of the world is so concerned with who your president is, is because your country is big, has a big mouth and tries to force the rest of the world around. This is exactly what Bush did. "If you ain't with us, you're against us". Basically, the rest of the world is scared that you guys will start more wars, get into more conflict and mess up the world even more than you already did. Don't take it personal, but after Bush, the whole world pretty much hates America, we spit on you people. You're unbelievable arrogant assholes who think they can control the world, and the world is getting tired of that.

AMEN! :) I agree that Bush wasn't great, but he didn't cause the economic shithole. People fell for those scam housing loans, so it's really because of gullible people that the economy is in the crapper right now. X_X I mean, if a greedy bank is offering those interest-only loans, people should use common sense to figure out they are getting played...<_<

It has absolutely nothing to do with "Scams" or "Greedy Banks." Actually, on the contrary, it our OWN fault. Do you know HOW many people have Credit Cards? How many people buy on Credit? Hell, I do, but I actually have the money to pay off anything I might have to borrow (which is nothing usually more than a few dollars every month, when I forget to transfer money in my checking account). XD

It was our fault spending more than we could actually afford and taking loans and never paying them off. Thank God buying on margin has been made "illegal" in the stock market, or else it WOULD be another Great Depression, but you notice how it didn't just crash? It's not doing well, obviously, but it isn't like it's dead; the people that were making a bunch of money, living above their needs and buying so heavily on credit they seem to have nothing payed off now have their homes foreclosed, are 'bankrupt' and are living in tents and on the streets (God bless them, though).

@Zippy-- You really have to open your eyes more to the situations. I can obviously tell you're a hardcore conservative, which is fine, but if you are not willing to open up to a different way of thinking, just to know and see how someone else looks at it, then you're in the dark. Yet, don't worry: many strong liberals are the same EXACT way, but just on the liberal side (obviously).

@Neko-- I don't take it personally, because personally (XD) I didn't really agree with going to war so hastily in the first place (and I've thought that out more during the last few years). I can see why Bush had jumped in the Middle East and started tearing things apart. Many people see it as him being another Hitler or whatever and flushing the world down a giant toilet. Although, many people give him a little slack just as they give Obama: Bush was handed a pretty good situation to work with, but look what happens out of NO WHERE. I swear, when the attacks on the WTC Towers happened in 2001, we American's were 110% devastated, and many of us were lost without answers. I agree with the extremely strong security upgrades, but maybe the war was a little bit much. I don't even remember when we exactly went to Afghanistan for the first time, but it seemed like it was Noon on 9/11 when we did. But, you can't look at it (initially) as Bush trying to be another Alexander from Mesopotamia, but I think he was scared and worried and wanted to protect the American people, so the best thing (and it probably wasn't the best idea) was to sniff the people out who did it and silence them.

I am in no way 100% Right Winged and in no way, or intention, will I become 100% Left Wing. I choose to stay in that 50 percentile, and a little closer with some Conservative view (so maybe about 60% would be my political range or whatever).

EDIT-- And on the concern of America being these arrogant people who want to control the world. Hold on a minute! For starters, what country does NOT want to feel the most powerful in the world? What country does NOT want to get their way? What people 'strongfully' agree that they should, literally, rule the world with an iron first?

I, myself, certainly am not some arrogant vigilante who feels it's serving the world justice if America reigns supreme. Yet, I DO feel that it's our right to be the best country we can be. I 100% agree with that, but before you sink your teeth into that, I mean nothing about controlling the world and fucking it up. I with that we'd become a little more like ancient Japan and shut off something (not LITERALLY like Japan, but you get the picture). I can agree that our actions have been haste and slightly arrogant, but I feel that our President is a coward and hit EVERYONE (including me) below the belt by feeling it was just to give people an "explanation" for our actions. Oh pluease! I am for change, but not for turning myself into another C-word.

It's not about what other countries want though, it's about what America is and how they portray themselves. Basically, America claims to be the land of the free, the rich etc. However, crime rates are higher than most of Western Europe, you have the CIA and FBI spying on you all the time (Bush made that possible) and there's a lot more poverty in the US than in any other Western country. So, while you people still shout your ideals of the roof, you can't even make them true on your own soil. That makes you a bunch of hypocrites. Don't tell us what to do if you can't even do it yourself.

And to be honest, I don't think any country in the world is as forceful as America. Basically America's just trying to bully the world around while not being able to sort out its own problems. Take Iraq for instance. Before America invaded it wasn't such a bad place. Okay, Saddam Hussein was an arse and he did kill people, but the general population wasn't off as bad as they are now. Did they ask to be saved? No, they didn't. Now take North Korea. The people there adore Kim Jong Il. What would happen if Amerika invaded? Total chaos, like in Iraq. Why? Because the one leader disappears. You can't for freedom and Western ideals on those people. They have to do it themselves. With Iraq, America had NO right whatsoever to interfere. Only if the people of Iraq would revolt, then they could assist them. But America thinks it can just poke its nose in whatever part of the world they feel like. And that is just WRONG.

@ Mazeppa: I guess that's what I was trying to say, lol. XD It is annoying to see people be so gullible and just spend spend spend rather than save save save. <_< It's almost like people forgot you have to actually HAVE money in order to spend...


you have the CIA and FBI spying on you all the time (Bush made that possible)

I remember reading somewhere that someone wanted to blow up the brooklyn bridge or something, and that they were caught because of this 'spying'. Oh, and blago may have never been caught either if this 'spying' didn't exist, because I'm pretty sure that was done over the phone...So I really don't see the problem. :\



Before America invaded it wasn't such a bad place. Okay, Saddam Hussein was an arse and he did kill people, but the general population wasn't off as bad as they are now. Did they ask to be saved? No, they didn't. Now take North Korea. The people there adore Kim Jong Il. What would happen if America invaded? Total chaos, like in Iraq. Why? Because the one leader disappears. You can't for freedom and Western ideals on those people. They have to do it themselves. With Iraq, America had NO right whatsoever to interfere. Only if the people of Iraq would revolt, then they could assist them. But America thinks it can just poke its nose in whatever part of the world they feel like. And that is just WRONG.

So, are you saying we should have just left Saddam to keep killing people? That is just terrible to even think about! Maybe they didn't ASK to be saved, but when people are terrorized by someone, they are probably too scared to act themselves. Maybe the whole 'oh, there's a WMD here' was a BS reason to start a war, considering there probably isn't any WMD, but they are better off without Saddam terrorizing everyone...

As for N. Korea, I doubt we would ever invade, but since they are developing nukes and stuff, it's just stupidity if we don't keep an eye on them. And if our new president goes ahead with ridding America of nukes, that's an even bigger reason to worry...

All his promises aren't being fulfilled, and what he said he wouldn't do he has. In his campaign, Obama promises never to sign bills with earmarks attached to them. And look at his new stimulus plan he signed his 54th day in office- Over 9,000 (no Vegeta pun intended) earmarks were on that bill.All those unfulfilled promises. Like the executive order to close Guantanamo he signed? Or the one that allows funding of stem cell research? Setting a date for getting the troops home? Fund research in energy technologies? Create new financial regulations? Oh wait, I think he may just be doing those things.

He's done and is doing a freakin' lot. There's only so much a president can do at a time and after years of inactivity in the government all this takes time. Mind you, if the GOP would be willing to COOPERATE and compromise instead of voting "NO" on everything, how the hell do you suppose Obama could do everything he promised?


While we are at it: Obama NEVER promised such a thing as to "never sign a bill with earmarks attached". He promised to control earmark more rigorously than previously. I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a link to a speech were Obama actually said what you think he said.

And here is a nice little reminder: roughly 40% (http://mediamatters.org/items/200903010011?f=s_search) of the earmarks in the bill are sponsored by Republicans and six of the top ten earmark sponsors (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fthecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2 009%2F03%2F02%2Fthe-top-10-list-of-earmarkers%2F) are Republican Senators.


Our 'beloved' President WAS a good speaker, but now all he has been about it secretly bashing and blaming the old AdministrationI don't think he's doing it secretly, it's quite obvious what he (and the majority of Americans) thinks about his predecessor, after all, he had the lowest approval rating in history.

Yes, I agree that Bush probably wasn't the best President, not even close, but did he sell our country out?Did Obama sell your country out? In what way?

Was he the single person responsible for our debts?There almost never is a only single person responsible for anything, but he was one of the driving force behind it. He took office with a projected surplus of 5.6 trillion dollar, he left with a 3.4 trillion dollar deficit and a wrecked economy. That money didn't disappear on its own, and even if it did it would be the presidents job to figure out a way to prevent it (not to accelerate the process).

so many things (oil regulations, for example) are under so much severe watch by Left-Wings for our environment.
What's that got to do with anything? Do you actually believe that oil regulations harm the economy? If so, in what way?

That's when I question, "How are WE arrogant?" When the world is so concerned with our new leader, how does that not make us powerful?Doesn't that just show how little concern you show for the world when you're concerned about the fact, that the world is concerned about you?

but I think he was scared and worried and wanted to protect the American people, so the best thing (and it probably wasn't the best idea) was to sniff the people out who did it and silence them.
Then he missed the country he was looking for by a few hundred kilometres with his invasion (Hint hint: he was looking for Afghanistan not Iraq). :)

I remember reading somewhere that someone wanted to blow up the brooklyn bridge or something, and that they were caught because of this 'spying'. Oh, and blago may have never been caught either if this 'spying' didn't exist, because I'm pretty sure that was done over the phone...So I really don't see the problem.

Nobody cares about privacy anymore? Welcome to 1984. I suggest you read it, even if you're an American.


So, are you saying we should have just left Saddam to keep killing people? That is just terrible to even think about! Maybe they didn't ASK to be saved, but when people are terrorized by someone, they are probably too scared to act themselves. Maybe the whole 'oh, there's a WMD here' was a BS reason to start a war, considering there probably isn't any WMD, but they are better off without Saddam terrorizing everyone...


Well, yes. They didn't ask to be saved, the country wasn't ready to be saved. Look at the mess now. A country like Iraq needs someone to keep control, and Saddam was that someone. North Korea is being oppressed, but no Bush there (since no oil). Cuba is being oppressed but no Bush there. In China people... ah, nevermind, you wouldn't understand. Did I mention Africa btw?


As for N. Korea, I doubt we would ever invade, but since they are developing nukes and stuff, it's just stupidity if we don't keep an eye on them. And if our new president goes ahead with ridding America of nukes, that's an even bigger reason to worry...


So, Iraq has no nukes, but let's invade them anyway. Yay, whee, let's force "freedom" and our great American ideals on these people. Oops, now they start killing eachother. And where are the damn nukes? Eeh... oops?

Hey, N-Korea has nukes! Mr. Bush! They gots the nukes! Ah what the heck, no oil, no gain. Let them.

Seriously, the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with Saddam Hussein. It was about OIL, OIL and OIL.

Americans need to understand that it's not their job to decide when a country is ready for a revolution. Also, how about we stop talking about countries we never been to - unless you've been to Cuba/N. Korea/Mainland China and can tell how exactly they're being oppressed now - not 10 years ago, now - then don't spread misinformation.

Americans need to understand that it's not their job to decide when a country is ready for a revolution. Also, how about we stop talking about countries we never been to - unless you've been to Cuba/N. Korea/Mainland China and can tell how exactly they're being oppressed now - not 10 years ago, now - then don't spread misinformation.

I don't remember the American public deciding anything. President Bush exercised his constitutional right to engage the United States armed forces for 90 days(see 1 and 2) without the approval of Congress or a formal Declaration of War. While I believe this constitutional right is necessary, (See 3) 90 days may be too long for modern combat scenario's where we can easily be involved with conflicts that last only 6 six days and have twice as many deaths as the 5 whole years we spent in Iraq(See 4). At the same time I have no confidence in Congress(many people like to point out Bush's approval rating but forget that Congress's war even lower for many years) to respond quickly, rationally, or even accountably in a sudden moment of crisis(ie the Bank Bailout).


1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished
3: ie, Perl Harbor, it was necessary for President Roosevelt to organize the armed forces before Congress could act, Congress decided to declare war the next day. Though that measure almost didn't happen at once, and if it didn't it would have rapidly descended into weeks of debate. On the other Roosevelt did use this power to mobilize the Armed forces to help the British in Europe, when Congress only declared War on the Japanese at first, after Congress had voted down many times before to enter the European war.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_War

And somehow it's not the public's fault that they didn't revoke that "constitutional right" after World War 2? Or the fact that, I don't know, they elected Bush? And you're confusing the "time spent in Iraq" and "time until Iraq army surrendered". Different things. And yes... let's solve economic problems with politicians.

And somehow it's not the public's fault that they didn't revoke that "constitutional right" after World War 2?
Why would they have done so? Roosevelt saved Western Europe with his decision to enter the European War.


Or the fact that, I don't know, they elected Bush?
I don't see how this has anything to do with how included the American public was the decision to invade Iraq. It doesn't make a difference who is elected President, no else besides the President has any say in where the armed forces are sent for 90 days.


Different things.
Ummm... yeah. Different things indeed?


And yes... let's solve economic problems with politicians.
I know right! Lets have them solve all our social ones instead! :)

Maybe a different president wouldn't have gone to war? And yes, thank god for Roosevelt :mellow: Them fjords needed saving badly.

Actually, Roosevelt saved America by going to war in Europe. That Europe was liberated from the nazi's was, for the American politicians, just a very nice side-effect. Of course, I myself am grateful for all the American soldiers who have given their lives to save our sorry arses here, but that's over 60 years ago now and America still thinks they own us. Think again.

@alone: yes, we did need saving, otherwise all of Europe would have become either a facist 3rd reich or a communist outpost of the soviet union, NO THANKS!


I don't see how this has anything to do with how included the American public was the decision to invade Iraq. It doesn't make a difference who is elected President, no else besides the President has any say in where the armed forces are sent for 90 days.

They chose the son of a guy who's gone to war before. That oughta ring a bell. Oh wait, it didn't. Then why did America re-elect Bush?

They chose the son of a guy who's gone to war before. That oughta ring a bell. Oh wait, it didn't. Then why did America re-elect Bush?
Because in 1999 there were no wars to be fought? In 1999 there was (for a short time) peace in the middle east. In 1999 the biggest issues were global warming and the bursting of the dot com bubble.

I didn't mean that. America elected Bush the first time, he started two wars. Shit happens, no big deal, he's a moron, now all vote Kerry and the world will be a happy place again. Oh, wait, they vote Bush AGAIN. Okay, you people asked for it, now we (=the world minus Israel) will hate your guts for the following decade.

I didn't vote for Bush, do I get bonus points on this portion of the test?

Because in 1999 there were no wars to be fought? In 1999 there was (for a short time) peace in the middle east. In 1999 the biggest issues were global warming and the bursting of the dot com bubble.

You're joking right? You elect a president based on whether or not he is suitable for the current situation in the country, and not on whether he is capable of doing his job in all types of scenarios?

I think it's kind of weird that the person who started this thread just wanted everyone's opinions on his Antichrist. :/

You're joking right? You elect a president based on whether or not he is suitable for the current situation in the country, and not on whether he is capable of doing his job in all types of scenarios?

Actually I think that's how many people vote in america, and it annoys the hell out of me.

Obama seems to be a good president but we'll have to see what happens to fully judge how he runs the country. He seems a lot cooler too.

Actually I think that's how many people vote in america, and it annoys the hell out of me.

Can you blame the people who voted like that though? The economy is in a shithole right now, and if someone comes along saying, "I'll fix our economy" people will vote for them so the current crap situation isn't around anymore.

@Alone: at least in America the president is properly elected :P In Russia they just arrest the opposition ;) KGB ftw

@Zippy: nope, anyone would do that.

at this of point so early on it's hard to judge his ability but at the moment he does not seem to be doing to badly

I didn't mean that. America elected Bush the first time, he started two wars. Shit happens, no big deal, he's a moron, now all vote Kerry and the world will be a happy place again. Oh, wait, they vote Bush AGAIN. Okay, you people asked for it, now we (=the world minus Israel) will hate your guts for the following decade.

Americans weren't thinking about the two wars going on when they reelected Bush. They were thinking about social issues, specifically "family values." They didn't think Kerry had them, so he didn't get elected. He was pro-abortion, anti-gun and all that other fun liberal stuff, and apparently that wasn't what people wanted. I'm not going to say the people's approach to the election was flawless, but it's not a bad thing to think of home first, i.e., social issues that affect daily life take center stage in an election. Maybe they should have considered the wars more than they actually did, but they didn't.

Wars, terrorism, rogue states,... They all seem to be quite new terms based on the recent events. Maybe they were not. Anybody who read about the neocon project for the new american century knows very well it was all a well prepared political conduct. Bush was only a puppet. The american president usually is a puppet. -.-

The american president usually is a puppet. -.-

Especially when Harry Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

He is ok... Personally, I'm not really all that into politics so don't really ask me.

He is ok... Personally, I'm not really all that into politics so don't really ask me.

Me too, but I still want to see Universal Heath Care for America. It's just time. My mum say's this on the English UHC. "Oh but Kevin, if you get all your medical bills payed for you loose the motivation to keep fit."

My response: "Eh!? WTF are you on about? It's not about motivation. If you want to be fit then go for it, but having UHC is not flawed because it may make people loose motivation to keep themselves "in shape."

My mum's one of those mums....She gets up at 5am to run in the park and has a massive vegi garden.....THAT'S SCREWED!!! I could NEVER get up at 5am EVER for a run haha.

This is all I need to say. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw)

This is all I need to say. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs)
Or, if you don't get it from that video...I laugh at people raging against Obama

So far I think on the international side Obama's done a better job than Bush could have ever done.

Of course, real American hillbillies who are the offspring of their father and their mother/cousin/sister in law (<one person) won't agree with me here. Oh, and before you whine about national politics, keep in mind he's still cleaning up the trash Bush left him. It took Bush 8 years to create the rubbish, it usually takes longer to clean it.

This is all I need to say. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs)
Or, if you don't get it from that video...I laugh at people raging against Obama

Excuse me, did you even watch the video? I already know the answer anyway. By the way, I got a kick out of your's. XD

@Neko-- And if you want to just bring up Bush again, then you've just proven that you are just like every other person out there that think that a President can REALLY do all that kind of stuff. You forget who the people who are really in control. Obama and Bush are just fronts.

i think that obama has been an amazing american president (for a change) and without a doubt i believe that obama will go down in history as one of americans most loved presidents. but there are alot of people out there who rage on about how great obama is just because he's black, he isn't really black he's mixed race, and so they rage on about obama because of the color of his skin rather than how good his politics are

Lol, talking about politics is almost as bad as talking about religion.
I agree with mazeppa, the congress has more power than the president. >.>
And Oh my god, that video............what the hell.......thats depressing.

I think it's more hopeful that depressing. If people want to go back on how they think I hate Obama, they're very mistaken. I could really care less about Obama, he isn't doing anything good and he isn't doing anything bad. He's neutral to me, and all he is is a front; a face to the people who really have this world (and more importantly, their newest tool, America) under control. But, people are just going to write off that video because of it's title and after I actually speak some truth they'll also write that off because it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. It's no theory, and it's no conspiracy. And let's not forget, we're all smart people here, never judge a book by it's cover (or title, for that matter).

And just to prove my word, Kennedy was the last real president (and what did that get him?). Everyone, even up until today's president, have been fake. And for the record: No, Lincoln wasn't killed because of slavery. Time to graduate from grade school.

Yeah, i am currently watching the video. Theyre saying obama is nothing but a puppet, And when kennedy started to reduce federal reserves and everything....
But i dont know, im kind of fearful still.

But like I said, it's nothing to be fearful of.

I am a Christian, and you think I'm all holy-rollin' about Armageddon and the coming of the Anti-Christ? I think not. I am knowledgeable and faithful of what will happen, and more hopeful knowing what will happen than not.

Knowledge is power. To not get quite of topic (What is you opinion on Obama?). Quote, "This is all I need to say." is perfect. He's a puppet, and the face of tyranny.

Oh maybe........ :\
Lol, did you catch public enemy?
He was pretty educated for a rap artist. I had a completely different idea on the intelligence of rap artists. He used galvanizing in a sentence. Im going to have to show my brother this >.<
Oh and jesse ventura is rich too XD

Mazeppa, I think it's funny that you seem to base your opinion on Obama on some anti-Obama propaganda vid.

You should look up some German propaganda videos from Hitler's time, you'll learn to totally love the guy.

I think it's more hopeful that depressing. If people want to go back on how they think I hate Obama, they're very mistaken. I could really care less about Obama, he isn't doing anything good and he isn't doing anything bad. He's neutral to me, and all he is is a front; a face to the people who really have this world (and more importantly, their newest tool, America) under control. But, people are just going to write off that video because of it's title and after I actually speak some truth they'll also write that off because it sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory. It's no theory, and it's no conspiracy. And let's not forget, we're all smart people here, never judge a book by it's cover (or title, for that matter).

Isn't doing anything bad?!?!?! He is making a DEATH PANEL!!!!

@Sephiroth: Seriously, are you and everyone else quite done with that shtick about everyone who opposes Obama does so because he's black? I despise his politics and ideals. I couldn't care less if he was black, white, or green. I oppose socialized health care and "End of Life" counseling for the elderly. I oppose huge government spending that will only increase my taxes. If Bush had been putting this crap forward, I'd oppose him or any other president to suggest the idea. Those who actually do oppose Obama because he's black are part of a miniscule minority, and they should not be made to represent the rest of us who actually have our political opinions (mostly) figured out.

And let's not all forget rule number one of the United States' Presidents. If s/he is currently president, s/he is hated for everything and anything. I'd like to say that I watched the video, but after seeing that the first analogy was based off of Burger King by someone that looks like an extremist, I couldn't help but think the rest was a load of crock. Even if it was KRS-one that said it. It was so blaringly horrible that I didn't want to watch the rest. The best part is that ChangeDaChannel edited the video so that this was their first interview. Their idea of targeting their audience is very misguided.



Isn't doing anything bad?!?!?! He is making a DEATH PANEL!

Which was a rumor that escalated due to Palin's and Grassley's unfounded mention of them (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all).
I hate you nytimes. One day you won't be so stupid as to require login from external sites

More about this (http://news.google.com/news?q=death+panel&oe=utf-8).

Lol, seriously M? Did you really just take me serious? More over, do you really think I'd be one to take fox news seriously? Anybody with even a minuscule amount of rational thought knows there won't ever be a death panel.

@Sephiroth: Seriously, are you and everyone else quite done with that shtick about everyone who opposes Obama does so because he's black? I despise his politics and ideals. I couldn't care less if he was black, white, or green. I oppose socialized health care and "End of Life" counseling for the elderly. I oppose huge government spending that will only increase my taxes. If Bush had been putting this crap forward, I'd oppose him or any other president to suggest the idea. Those who actually do oppose Obama because he's black are part of a miniscule minority, and they should not be made to represent the rest of us who actually have our political opinions (mostly) figured out.

a slight misunderstanding of what i was saying although the responce was quite retarded. if you read carefully read what i said i meant everyone saying how great he is because he's our 1st black president. the muslims love him rappers even made a song about him titling my president is black. clearly fuck off on that i dont like him cause he's black shit. i hate that as well. im saying that alot of people love him because of the color of his skin being the 1st black president rather than how good his politcs are

@Sephiroth: In that case, I do apologize. When you said "rage" I thought you meant people who hate Obama. But in regards to what you actually said, I agree. It's the same with Obama's new Supreme Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor. The media was going crazy about how historic her appointment would be because she's a Hispanic woman. You don't put someone in a political position because they'll make history as the first Indian or Aleutian in that position, you do it because they're good for the job.

There's no reason for me to even say anything. No one even watched the whole 1 our and 53 minutes of the video (Hell, even M admitted it). It doesn't matter if it LOOKS like it's propaganda, you're supposed to hear the entire viewpoint, but it appears people will make un-educated decisions.

Even if it is "propaganda" and "extremist" or even "controversially insane" or whatever, I still watched the whole thing and listen to a lot of other viewpoints [in full]. I'll stick to my controversies, then. After all, you're just believing the mainstream propaganda anyways.

he's got another three years left before people see if he's the anti-christ or a flop....

Why does everyone constantly insist he's the anti christ? It isn't as if everyone will know he is the anti christ, or like he will make a statement saying he is.

The world and its inhabitants won't know who he is, even when he comes.

There's no reason for me to even say anything. No one even watched the whole 1 our and 53 minutes of the video (Hell, even M admitted it). It doesn't matter if it LOOKS like it's propaganda, you're supposed to hear the entire viewpoint, but it appears people will make un-educated decisions.

Even if it is "propaganda" and "extremist" or even "controversially insane" or whatever, I still watched the whole thing and listen to a lot of other viewpoints [in full]. I'll stick to my controversies, then. After all, you're just believing the mainstream propaganda anyways.

That's a nice way of saying it. "Watch my propaganda video or you'll just be a sheep like the rest". Then I'll be a sheep I guess, but I'm not wasting 2 hours of my life to watch some right winged Obama bashing. So far Obama's been a lot more open towards the rest of the world than Bush has ever done. America's working towards their international status that they had when Clinton was president, which is a good thing.

If you want to be the "leader of the free world" as America likes to call itself, start by being liked by the rest of the free world. We'd happily follow you guys if you weren't such dipsticks to start two wars in the middle east and act like a bunch of paranoid morons.

All I'm saying is, give Obama 3 more years to do his job. He's still cleaning up the shit left by the previous government.

You know what. Seriously, you're misjudging the video and you didn't even watch it. I'm done here. It's fucking useless. Yes, useless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

I don't know if someone already posted this or not, but if you guys actually take the time to watch the movie and research the claims made for yourself (like I did) you WILL see how Obama is just another NWO puppet, just like every damn president after Kennedy. Not like it's not obvious though, with his nazi health care plan and constant trampling on our 2nd amendment rights. <_< (hell, the whole fucking constitution is constantly being trampled on!!)

Your whole constitution is pretty old fashioned, take for example the right to carry a gun. that's just retarded. It might have been a good thing back then in the wild west, but nowadays it's pretty stupid to carry a gun around wherever you go.

How is the right to carry a gun retarded? People should have the right to be armed in case is a situation pops up where they need to defend themselves...:\

Zippy, people who aren't in a country where guns are everywhere can't really understand that concept. They live in countries where guns have been outlawed from the start. What's funny is, of all the gun-bashers I've seen, not one has ever proposed a logical plan to ending, or restricting gun rights in America.

It's a Catch-22 in America's case. Guns have been around far too long to remove them from the society. Even if the Government decides to get rid of them, there's far too many in circulation to prevent black market sales.

Besides, even if a law did pass and make the right to bear arms illegal, those that want to have a gun can still obtain it, and the black market is far easier to purchase a gun from than your standard Wallmart.

I'd like to see them try and pass an unconstitutional law! XD Of course, all the NWO-owned media will make this look like a good idea if it were to happen, just like they do with everything else to get the sheep to believe anything their told. Kinda like how the media kept putting all that swine flu BS on air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnSX_jS0STA

Erm... All of the amendments, bills, and acts are ways to modify the way the constitution reads. It's not as static as you believe it to be... Otherwise, the US law and government would be profoundly simple.

Your whole constitution is pretty old fashioned, take for example the right to carry a gun. that's just retarded. It might have been a good thing back then in the wild west, but nowadays it's pretty stupid to carry a gun around wherever you go.

You see, this is a very common misconception. In our modern society, most people cannot understand true proper English. Let me quote the US Constitution...

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This does not say that every individual of the United States of America has the right to own, carry, and use a firearm as what "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." sounds like it means. Really, the "people" refers to the citizens of the United States of America as a group. Since earlier in the sentence it mentions a "well-regulated militia," the "people" in this instance more specifically refers to each state's militia.

Also, let's take a closer look at the sentence. Remember your younger days when you first learned to form sentences? You could write a sentence such as "The good boy, who could never lie, told his father what happened" and also write it as "The good boy told his father what happened." A good boy usually infers a young male child who can be trusted. Adding "who could never lie" to the sentence only confirms this connotation.

Back to our quote from the US constitution, we can do the same thing with this sentence as in our example. The sentence simplifies to "A well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." The two sections that were omitted only serve to confirm the definition of a militia. The first section confirms the belief of the founding fathers of the United States of America that a militia is always necessary to keep the national government in check. Thomas Jefferson even quotes...

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The second omitted section also confirms that a militia is a body of people that can wield weapons to pose a force against their opposition. Again, it does not state that every person has the right to a gun, it is referring to "people" as the militia.

To sum up, each citizen of the United States of America does NOT have the right to a gun. Only the militia ( the United States Coastguard or your local police department for example) has the right to a weapon to represent the citizens.

;)


EDIT: It also does not say that every citizen of the United States of America is banned from having a gun. Prohibition is the worst solution in any case. It has an adverse affect, making that act more desirable such as the popularity of underage drinking in college settings in the US.

People just need to think and stop being those weird looking people I see at Wal-Mart very time I visit (boy do they make me feel bad about being an American). If you are a hunter, buy a gun. If the neighborhood is seriously that bad, move. If that is not possible, buy a small gun. Don't just buy guns for the hell of it.

well, honestly, this is my opinion on him..He, at first, seemed like a pretty cool guy. Somewhat different than the other presidents we as americans have had in the previous years. He is a bit funner (not a word). Americans wanted change and so far all we got out of this new president deal is..well..let me think..new penny designs for 2009. Lol, my friends and I joke around about Obama wanting change..so far we have new change..but only for pennies. :P Obama isn't too bad I have to say it's just he wanted people to vote for him and he promised too much that he knows he won't be able to fulfill throughout his years as being our president. But it's too late to judge him he has only just begun. Wait, until next year and see if there actually is change..if there isn't..I'm sorry USA-ians (not actual thing..i'm hoping it will be someday..-_-) this is another president not going anywhere for a while..just have to make the best out of taxes and over-priced gasoline. Thank you and goodnight! :)

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Of course, if that turns out to be real, we won't have to worry about his BS...

I didn't read the whole article, but, if one parent is a U.S. Citizen, doesn't that make you a U.S. citizen at birth?

I would think both parents would have to be a US citizen. :\

No, I'm 99% sure only one parent has to be a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_citizenship#Through_birth_abroad_to_one_United_ States_citizen

It looks like your right. :P You learn something new every day I guess...xP

Of course, if that turns out to be real, we won't have to worry about his BS...
Great thing that it won't. Have checked out the online Kenyan Birth Certificate Generator? /cynicism

The whole birther stuff... it's like saying: "Oh sure we lost the election and the senate majority because our policies are pretty unpopular, but hey, at least we can try to smear the opposition to such a ridiculous degree that they have something ELSE to talk about other than our decline." Not realizing that those kinds of attacks are the best example FOR their decline.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

Of course, if that turns out to be real, we won't have to worry about his BS...

I kinda think it's a stupid that you seem to think they haven't done a background check on Obama before he became president.

I never said they didn't. But seeing as how the globalists/NWO run the country now, I guess it doesn't matter as any truth wouldn't be told.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6glpT4vg_18

This guy ACTUALLY flew to Kenya and got a copy of the certificate. I don't know if this one is fake too, but who would go through all the trouble and expense of going to Kenya and not come home with the real thing?

I still would have chosen Obama over McCain.

I still would have chosen Obama over McCain.

And Rupaul over Obama.

And Rupaul over Obama.

Rupaul?

I never said they didn't. But seeing as how the globalists/NWO run the country now, I guess it doesn't matter as any truth wouldn't be told.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6glpT4vg_18

This guy ACTUALLY flew to Kenya and got a copy of the certificate. I don't know if this one is fake too, but who would go through all the trouble and expense of going to Kenya and not come home with the real thing?

Don't underestimate the republicans and their tendency of mud throwing. They'd do anything do make Obama less popular.

Even engaging the KKK.

Don't underestimate the republicans and their tendency of mud throwing. They'd do anything do make Obama less popular.

So sad, but what's just as sad is that many Democrats are blind to see that they are no better.

Pretty much Obama is a flawless god with prefect legislation and policies x_x

Don't underestimate the republicans and their tendency of mud throwing. They'd do anything do make Obama less popular.

If that was directed towards me, I'm not republican. I'm anti globalist. :P (research the bilderberg group or look at some of Alex Jones's movies if you don't know what I'm talking about) Which is why I wouldn't have voted for mccain or obama, since BOTH of them are NWO puppets. If I was old enough to vote, I would've voted for Ron Paul. He was gonna do a bunch of stuff to piss off the NWO, like audit the Fed, which DESPERATELY needs to be done. It's kind of BS that the bank who makes our money has never been audited if you ask me.

If that was directed towards me, I'm not republican. I'm anti globalist. (research the bilderberg group or look at some of Alex Jones's movies if you don't know what I'm talking about) Which is why I wouldn't have voted for mccain or obama, since BOTH of them are NWO puppets. If I was old enough to vote, I would've voted for Ron Paul. He was gonna do a bunch of stuff to piss off the NWO, like audit the Fed, which DESPERATELY needs to be done. It's kind of BS that the bank who makes our money has never been audited if you ask me.
*HC puts on his tinfoil hat.*
.....Proceed.

Even worse than the NWO is the NHK. Those guys are to be feared for sure!

If that was directed towards me, I'm not republican. I'm anti globalist. :P (research the bilderberg group or look at some of Alex Jones's movies if you don't know what I'm talking about) Which is why I wouldn't have voted for mccain or obama, since BOTH of them are NWO puppets. If I was old enough to vote, I would've voted for Ron Paul. He was gonna do a bunch of stuff to piss off the NWO, like audit the Fed, which DESPERATELY needs to be done. It's kind of BS that the bank who makes our money has never been audited if you ask me.

If you're an anti-globalist what are you doing on an international forum that's been founded by a British person and is mostly run by a Dutch person, based around anime which is from Japan? :P

Just stepping in for a second; I think she meant she's a Constitutionalist. *Bow out*

If you're an anti-globalist what are you doing on an international forum that's been founded by a British person and is mostly run by a Dutch person, based around anime which is from Japan? :P

Wow, that is NOT what I meant. *pokes mazeppa's post* You should research things like the North American Union and the bilderberg group to see what I'm talking about. (ENDGAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement is a good documentary to watch on this) It really annoys me how SO many people do not see this shit coming! x_x

I thought it was BS too when I first saw it, but if you research the claims made and just think about it, it all makes sense. If you go on youtube, there are alot of other people who are waking up, and making videos to wake other people up as well. Their accounts are ALWAYS getting banned because they are showing people the truth!

Wow, that is NOT what I meant. *pokes mazeppa's post* You should research things like the North American Union and the bilderberg group to see what I'm talking about. (ENDGAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement is a good documentary to watch on this) It really annoys me how SO many people do not see this shit coming! x_x

I thought it was BS too when I first saw it, but if you research the claims made and just think about it, it all makes sense. If you go on youtube, there are alot of other people who are waking up, and making videos to wake other people up as well. Their accounts are ALWAYS getting banned because they are showing people the truth!

:\

http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/magv12n04_cover.jpg

Maybe it was a conspiracy, maybe not. But when Alex Jones interviewed Aaron Russo about it...that was some scary shit. Aaron told AJ that 11 months before 9/11, that David Rockefeller had revealed to him (they used to be freinds) the plan for a one world gov't and the RFID chip, and that there would be an event that would allow them to invade Iraq. Yes, you could argue it it isn't any real proof, but I doubt someone would lie about something like this, especially someone like Aaron who has already done documentaries on this stuff. What's even creepier, is that Aaron DIED some time after doing that interview. You can watch the part that tells you this if you don't believe me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

Because someone made a movie, you doubt they would lie? That's almost as laughable as saying that because someone is a politician, you are hard pressed to believe they have lied.

Aaron Russo was a film producer (and not that fantastic of one at that) who died of bladder cancer.

So, people, in summary, I want documented (that is, authoritative sources) proof from seven sources that present identical by the same tests of validity that are mutually exclusive to one another regarding any of the above. Otherwise the information henceforth presented is the viewpoints of the minority, attempting to belittle the party without standing cause or benefit, and are acting upon personal opinions rather than research when attacking the party at hand.

Remember, research without validity is nothing but moot. But when thrown into sociocultural topics, it's called slander.

In layman, you're throwing all your eggs into one basket and believing in an egoist / extremest / neoimpressionist. It's like the claims that President Obama is "the antichrist", which was chosen as slander because there's no unified definition of what exactly makes one as such (making it wonderful for people to argue against because there cannot be a counter argument for anyone; even the Pope (http://books.google.com/books?id=ICCi66SNBUoC&pg=PA140) living in Vatican, whom is the figurehead/leader of the Catholic subdivision of Christianity).

The difference between what you've said and my example is that it's quite clear that the information isn't from a sound source. It's like the tabloids you see everyday at newstands that follow pop icons. Anything for a dime, anything for attention, anything for pulling people into following.

I don't like politics, which makes me not such a big fan of politicians. As to answer M's post (or maybe just expand) I feel that the only sources are the pure ones.

As in, those copies of the bills being considered or what have you. This is why Presidential Addresses (to stay on topic, my opinion of Obama is that he speaks nicely) are nearly pointless to listen to. Do you think 20 minutes of speaking to us what this bill can/will do is going to inform us? Not really..not at all, in my opinion. We need to dig deeper to the copy of the bill posted by the government on it's website (which, even then, I have no idea if that's tampered with).

Facts, facts, facts. Gotta love 'em, but y'all definitely hate 'em too. XD

Wow, that is NOT what I meant. *pokes mazeppa's post* You should research things like the North American Union and the bilderberg group to see what I'm talking about. (ENDGAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement is a good documentary to watch on this) It really annoys me how SO many people do not see this shit coming! x_x

Like the feeling you have when you're driving on the wrong side of the road and suddenly you're wondering why everyone else is driving on the wrong side of the road? I think I know what you mean. (:

M, the only problem with finding 'valid' sources for things like the NAU is that you aren't going to find anything on any of the major news stations like CNN and FOX, because they are all owned by these NWO fucktards. Sure, you could use some of the stories on infowars, but all the sheep in this country are SO ASLEEP that they won't believe it, just because their precious corporate media stations didn't say anything about it. <_<

You know, kinda like how the media is all "omg, another person died from swine flu, GET VACCINATED NOW!", but not so accidentally forgetting to mention that vaccines can be harmful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_qGcX8V3Rw) (watch the clip from 1:50) People have been getting this syndrome from the NWO hoax...I mean, swine flu vaccine that makes them paralyzed. I think it was called guillan-barre syndrome or something like that...

I never said megacorps is an authoritative source, though they do dominate the field in the public eye. All I'm asking is some scholarly research (or thesis) published in an established journal proving the claims.

It appears as though the Internet has once again eroded the term research.

It appears as though the Internet has once again eroded the term research.

These days, people think "Google" and "wikipedia" when they hear "research" :mellow:

You know, kinda like how the media is all "omg, another person died from swine flu, GET VACCINATED NOW!", but not so accidentally forgetting to mention that vaccines can be harmful. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_qGcX8V3Rw) (watch the clip from 1:50) People have been getting this syndrome from the NWO hoax...I mean, swine flu vaccine that makes them paralyzed. I think it was called guillan-barre syndrome or something like that...
First, you shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube, it's not a realiable source just check out all the end-of-the-world prophecy videos. Second, you should do some independent research. Seriously, Guillain-Barré Syndrome is very different from autism. The video you posted is about autism.

Let me get this clear: There is no link between vaccines and autism.

The claim is based on a discredited study done by Andrew Wakefield. Not only did almost all of his co-authors retract their name from the publication after it became apparent that it was deeply flawed and all consecutive studies made by other independent researchers (the Cochrane Review, one of the most reliable sources for medical research, looked at 34 high quality studied) that showed that there was no such correlation, but further investigation showed that he apparently manipulated the data (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece) and was paid quite an amount by lawyers (http://briandeer.com/wakefield/wakefield-deal.htm) who wanted to sue the vaccination industry.

Furthermore, Thimerosal, the chemical believed by the antivaccinationists to cause autism, was taken out of vaccines years ago and the prevalence of autism hasn't changed (http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/clinical-care-research/20080116autismstudy.html).

Somehow the claim survived Wakefield's fall from grace, which is a shame. Because of the fearmongering the vaccination rate in parts of the UK, Australia and the US dropped below 80% and measle outbreaks occured. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8057661.stm) I wouldn't really bother with these false claims if it weren't seriously dangerous. It puts peoples life in danger.

ETA:

These days, people think "Google" and "wikipedia" when they hear "research"
I know what you mean, but I think they have their rightful place. Google, while not perfect, makes it a lot easier to find relevant (and not so relevant) information on a topic than it has ever been before. That's a good starting point for doing research on something. You still have to be able to judge the reliability of your sources, but at least you have sources to judge.

Wikipedia has a lot of well written articles and, most importantly, a comprehensive list of source material and secondary material to read up on.

I think the bigger problem is that most people don't even go through the trouble of reading a wikipedia entry.

First, you shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube, it's not a realiable source just check out all the end-of-the-world prophecy videos. Second, you should do some independent research. Seriously, Guillain-Barré Syndrome is very different from autism. The video you posted is about autism.

I know it's different, and I actually have researched. I just wanted to show that video because the kids in it got autism somehow, and if it were due to natural causes, it would have been noticed earlier!

Some people who have already received the swine flu vaccine have actually contracted Guillain-Barré Syndrome (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/01/Swine-Flu-Shot-Linked-to-Killer-Nerve-Disease.aspx). This even happened with the 1976 swine flu vaccine! I can't believe there are people who are going to take this vaccine, knowing what happened in '76. <_<

You really need a tin foil hat, you know that?

Some people who have already received the swine flu vaccine have actually contracted Guillain-Barré Syndrome (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/01/Swine-Flu-Shot-Linked-to-Killer-Nerve-Disease.aspx). This even happened with the 1976 swine flu vaccine! I can't believe there are people who are going to take this vaccine, knowing what happened in '76. <_<

Let's not forget that Dr. Mercola is a D.O. and not an M.D. with a rather extravagant theory on human metabolism. He published something called the no-grain diet (http://www.nograindiet.com/), which is actually quite unhealthy diet that attempts to eliminate grain products in your diet. It's funny that a professional nutritionist knows nothing about how essential complex sugars are in human metabolism. If you didn't understand all of that, then grab any (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Human-Nutrition-Society-Textbook/dp/063205624X) nutritionist (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0073302104/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=063205624X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0EE32HT973J9DXRM6TJ3) textbook (http://books.google.com/books?id=46o0PzPI07YC) and you'll laugh as hard as I do when he's mentioned.

Let's not forget that he has two (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/CyberLetters/ucm059189.pdf) warnings (http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/archive/g6034d.htm) from the FDA in regards to how he's handling his nutritional supplement sales on his sites. As a D.O., he certainly doesn't know to follow the ruleset used in the nation he practices in.

ALSO, Let's not forget, and this one's more personal preference than anything, that he denounces many proven modern techniques for alternative medicine techniques which are sort-of proven. Not that this is good or bad, but being a math minor, I'd prefer to have a treatment which has a rather lengthy history and something that's physically provable than something that's been used for a long time and has a slight chance that it will work (I'm looking at you Homeopathy). An interesting aspect about this fact, though, is that he not only promotes these esoteric practices, but also sells them as well. Maybe that's why it feels like he's a medical salesman trying to get me to buy a particular EMR system when I read his articles.

I'm sorry Zippy, but I have to say you need the cap as well. I'd like to take you seriously, but using a source like this almost cries out for the above rebuttal and dismissal of your claims.

Anyways. Back to President Barack Hussein Obama.

Awesome headline. "Warning: Swine Flu Shot Linked to Killer Nerve Disease"

Let's see what a real neurologist has to say about GBS.

If recognized early and treated properly, most patients with GBS have a short illness – days to weeks – and recover nearly fully. However, severe or untreated cases can result in permanent paralysis and there is a 3-4% death rate. (Although I have treated many cases, I have never seen a death from GBS – not even close. I suspect these cases result from a significant delay in treatment or improper treatment.)

GBS can not only be triggered by the flu or other infections, but also by vaccines used to prevent infections. This is because vaccines are designed to stimulate the immune system, to provoke an immune response – which is what causes GBS. The risk of getting GBS from the flu vaccine is about 1 in a million. This is very reliable data, as we have been using the same basic technology for the flu vaccine for decades and we have reliable statistics on GBS as treatment requires hospitalization. Some cases may be missed if they are very mild (probably rare, but also if a case is too mild to be recognized then who cares) or from misdiagnosis (also probably rare as it is fairly easy to eventually confirm the diagnosis even if it may be difficult initially). (Source (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=784))

So... 1 in 1.000.000 get GBS from the flu vaccine of which 3-4% die. Yep, from all the dark and sinister plots to poison the public I have witnessed so far this got to be the most effective.


Anyways. Back to President Barack Hussein Obama.
Yeah, sorry M. Sometimes I can't resist the temptation of responding even if it is off-topic. Leaving comments like that unchallenged just seems wrong. :think:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Lol. I'm sorry. I like your guys discussions, but I must point out how lovely this picture is of topics such as these.

yeah, I love xkcd. read them all time and time again

Most of these more recent topics discussed in this forum got me thinking (actually, this entire thread did). Just some food for thought:

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259021328&sr=8-1-spell

I've finished Dr. Paul's book "End the Fed" and have come with great understand why it is so important and how America will be so much better without it [the Federal Reserve]. Furthermore, it's got my studying economics now, even after I took a course on it last year...let's just say my mind wasn't too big on economics/politics/government/philosophy a while back. I've started reading "The Revolution: A Manifesto" today. In the first 53 pages, it gives us quite a lot to think about.

And no, to shatter everybody's expectations, Dr. Paul is quite a sound guy. Just read up on him if anyone really cares that much.

http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama

http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/hes_barack_obama

Haha. It's funny because people think he's not only really going to do that, but that the way he goes about such things are possible. :P