quote:Originally posted by glassman: anybody with a five dollar bill and milk jug can make all the explosives needed Mach. i can go to the Home Depot with 100$ and come out with more dangerous stuff than you want to know about.
I never said it was expensive. Just said not everyone has the KNOWLEDGE to make explosives without blowing themselves up as well as making it properly explode at the right time in any area. Not everyone has military training Glass.
quote:immature?
who's being immature? immaturity is the unwillinness to take responsibility for ones own actions. deciding that a gun is responsible for somebody's outrageous actions is the absolute height of immaturity. people kill people, not guns.
Yes, people kill people and not guns. But Guns sure make it alot easier for those people to kill people and as many as possible then let's say a knife, pipe, fists,bat etc. Less guns, less people can kill. That is maturity. Crying and threatening civil war over guns is immaturity. It is much liken to a kid throwing a temper tantrum if his GI Joe's are taken away.
quote:i would be willing to bet you don't even know what an assault gun is.
the 94 gun ban banned NO assault weapons.
true full auto assault weapons were alway still available.
the fact is that an assault weapon, a REAL assault weapon simply requires a federal tax stamp.
I have a fairly good idea what a assault weapon is but yes you are right that I am no expert in such things. I would assume such things as AK's, uzi's, Mac-10's etc. fall in this category but like I said I could be wrong. But anyways it is no brainer that a human behind such a weapon can cause & control alot more deaths , so therefor a limit or ban of such weapons to the general public makes sense with the exception of LAW ENFORCEMENT, MILITARY, PRESIDENT SECURITY DETAIL ETC.
quote:you seem to me to be suggesting that everyone get a psych evaluation before they buy a gun.
do you know how many doctors sell illegal pain pills and take them themselves?
today the largest concentration of drug addicts by profession is still doctors. they have no more "integrity" then the average person.
you are basically throwing all the responsibility for YOUR (and my) own safety to other people.
that is immature.
Yes exactly. EVERYONE that applies for a gun license SHOULD get a evaluation first. Not to suggest they are a mental case but to make sure they ARE NOT a mental case. And if they are should have their license denied to make that much harder for them to obtain a weapon to hurt themselves or others like our country's CHILDREN. I think this makes sense and is by no means immature.
Yes, I am quite aware that doctors abuse drugs and such. But I would take my chances with a doctor evaluating a persons' mental state then not having them evaluated and letting them own a gun. I liken it to facing the death penalty in a murder case and taking my chances with a drug addicted lawyer then me representing myself with no chances of winning.
I am quite sure the Government or whomever would pick a impartial and perhaps non-addicted doctor for such evaluations. The chances of a addicted doctor being picked without their knowledge are alot less then a mental case slipping through the cracks and owning a gun imo.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
There have been a string of armed robberies lately here in Ohio. They just caught the gang. Guess what? They had guns but didn't have permits! CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE PERMITS.
Here in Ohio, businesses are allowed to post signs prohibiting licensees from carrying concealed handguns on the premises. Almost all banks have those signs. Unfortunately, the criminals don't obey the signs and thus the armed robberies.
I normally won't patronize a business that doesn't allow concealed carry and very few private businesses prohibit them for that very reason.
BANNING guns is just a big joke. All that does is ensure that ONLY the criminals are carrying guns! RIDICULOUS!
IP: Logged |
posted
Crying and threatening civil war over guns is immaturity
i'm not crying or threatening. i'm telling you that you live in a place that is not "in tune" with 75% of the rest of the country. the amendment would ONLY pas by criminal activity and the people would rise up.
as for saying only LAW ENFORCEMENT, MILITARY, PRESIDENT SECURITY DETAIL ETC. should have them?
pretty soon? they will just stay in office and never leave..
i wish the world you think you live in was real, but it isn't.
in Mexico guns are illegal aren't they? maybe that's a major factor in why the poor people stay so poor down there, the HAVES just take whatever they want...
i know that in China the government maintains control by force...
and Burma? they killed alot of unarmed people there..
Darfur?
power hungry people just do whatever they can get away with...
that won't happen here, and don't tell me it's because America has something "special in the water" cuz it was taken by force and trickery and lying by people with lots of guns from people who had very few of them.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I just do not see where a psychological exam would do much good other than add a lot of cost to the system or an individual. Who would pay for it?
Maybe looking at past medical records then asking for an exam if there was a red flag but it seems like you start opening another can of worms about rights and the abuse of them.
These psych exams could probably be passed by many a serial killer because they relay on your answers in general for evaluation. I feel that a lot of these individuals that are threats could pretty much figure out how to answer so as to not be thought of as a threat.
I would think most of these mental exams would have to be pretty simple and most could pass if they wanted to.
But if they are a little more complicated then there will be many entrepreneurs( word use loosely in this case) out there that will be happy to help you out for a price.
Here is an example:
Psychological Written Exam Preparation and Psychological Interview Preparation
..........School is the number one firefighter preparatory school in the country. Since 1950, our seminars and entry-level products have successfully prepared over 40,000 applicants for firefighter examinations across the country.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: There have been a string of armed robberies lately here in Ohio. They just caught the gang. Guess what? They had guns but didn't have permits! CRIMINALS DON'T HAVE PERMITS.
Here in Ohio, businesses are allowed to post signs prohibiting licensees from carrying concealed handguns on the premises. Almost all banks have those signs. Unfortunately, the criminals don't obey the signs and thus the armed robberies.
I normally won't patronize a business that doesn't allow concealed carry and very few private businesses prohibit them for that very reason.
BANNING guns is just a big joke. All that does is ensure that ONLY the criminals are carrying guns! RIDICULOUS!
It's late. I may be misreading...
as I understand this thread, I say it's stupid to ban weapons. Each and every citizen needs access to legit firepower. Otherwise, thugs rule...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
So therefor it is fair to say that Iraq/Sadaam,Iran and similar countries would have the right to have all sorts of weapons because they view us as the world Thug. Correct me if I am wrong? and we are trying to BAN certain weapons from those countries that in theory would have the right to have to defend their country.
But as for domestic reasons. Thugs do not rule because we do not have guns ourselves. Thugs rule because our law enforcement is inefficient or not enough recruitment/numbers in our police forces. I can't speak for other states or cities but here in NYC area rookies are paid $26,000 to start so the NYPD are getting less and less recruits and more rookies and such are quitting over the low salaries that they can't even live on much like alot in the military. What needs to be done is less guns by citizens and more pay for cops and such so that job is more attractive enough to lure more recruits and keep current police officers.
More Guns owned by more people does not equal less crime. If anything it equals more innocent deaths, accidental deaths, suicides , stolen guns etc.
More law enforcement hired and put on the street more does equal less crime which did happen in NYC at one point when Guiliani and Bloomberg are/were mayors. But now it's turning around again because of low salaries and resignations.
But anyways if you think a private citizen whom most are not well trained in using a firearm will equal less crime because a criminal would think twice about entering a home and such then you are living in a dream world because hardcore criminals sometimes welcome gun fights. More guns in society will just be making this nation into more of the old wild west. No law and order. Just gun fights with some unarmed innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.
Fight for cops getting higher salaries especially at the rookie level and let them do their job which is LAW ENFORCEMENT and not Vigilantism. I don't pretend to be a cop and neither should you. If you want to own a gun to protect your home then that is fine but don't tell me that assault weapons are needed because that is BS.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli: So therefor it is fair to say that Iraq/Sadaam,Iran and similar countries would have the right to have all sorts of weapons because they view us as the world Thug. Correct me if I am wrong? and we are trying to BAN certain weapons from those countries that in theory would have the right to have to defend their country.
that's why, IMO, Bush is a criminal and a fool Mach.
there are treaties that can be worked out, but "banning" as in passing a law that says they can't or we'll attack them is pretty much criminal unless you have UN sanction. even then? it's guided by "treaty laws"
and do NOT forget, Hillary voted for the war too, no matter how she tries to justify it now? she voted for it and she is also unapolagetic about it.
More Guns owned by more people does not equal less crime. If anything it equals more innocent deaths, accidental deaths, suicides , stolen guns etc.
cops should run the world? a cop on every corner?
sorry man, you belong in China you'll be happier there.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hillary's camp is running a scorched earth campaign and is destroying the Democratic party as we watch.
Bill is leading the assault.
who the heck wants him back in the White House running policy? making phone calls to other countries? trying to whip the Congress to his views?
they're doing more damage to the Dems than the GOP ever could.
with the GOP party deflated the way it is? i'd say it's time for a third party to step in and fix the country.
Kerry accuses Clinton of 'abusing' the truth Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor January 25, 2008 12:35 PM
Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts is the latest prominent Democrat to hit former President Bill Clinton for his criticisms of Barack Obama.
"I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened," Kerry said in an interview today with National Journal On Air. "I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top. Things have been said about Barack Obama's positions that are just plain untrue."
the debate I saw? She got back in his face, *after* he poked her.
As far as Bill goes, to me that's the strength of their deal: She's got great back-up. I get it that that's the weakness of their pitch, too, the "dynasty" angle. Put it this way...I wouldn't be interested in Hillary at all by herself. With Bill behind her? I'm ok with that...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
not sure what you're saying... he said she worked for Wal-Mart, she said he worked for a scum-bag...what? a slum-lord?
Anyway...shoot, Amory Lovins--my hero--has done consulting for Wal-Mart *and* the Pentagon. I was a management consultant for ARCO Oil & Gas.
My point is Bill back in a position to advise and shape policy ain't necessarily a bad thing...
Clearly, it's time for either a woman or a ethnic minority to have a shot at the big show. Not sure who Obama has for backup, to compensate for greenhorn-ness...
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
green-horn-ness? isn't that what Bill showed up in Wash with in 92? i want to see change. experience is not what's gonna get US change.
the Clintons are a re-rerun and the last show ended up with Dubya beating Gore by a few electorals, and losing the popular vote...
as for his judgement? i beleive he is JUST as responsible for 9-11 as Dubya... the WalMart jab was legit is my point..
the Clintons are being told to tone it down by many of the top Dem leaders. Bills attitude is in his own words are that he doesn't care.
By injecting himself into the Democratic primary campaign with a series of inflammatory and negative statements, Bill Clinton may have helped his wife's presidential hopes in the long term but at the cost of his reputation with a group of voters that have long been one of his strongest bases of political support.
The rout came after weeks of racial polarization, much of it involving the former president, who thrust himself into the fray in a manner more reminiscent of backwoods Arkansas politicking than conduct befitting a former commander in chief. It was one phrase that began the racial ball rolling. When Bill Clinton referred to Obama's claims of consistent opposition to the war in Iraq as "the biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen," many blacks heard more than policy criticism. They heard a dismissive attack on the first black with a real chance of winning the White House. They heard echoes of racial battles of the past. And they heard it from someone who was supposed to be on their side.
Bill Clinton has not been the only campaign surrogate to stoke the racial fires. References by at least two Clinton supporters about Obama's past drug use, including a comment from one of the wealthiest African-American businessmen in the country.
E-mails have surfaced, some traced to Clinton campaign volunteers in Iowa, claiming that Obama is a Muslim. Former Senator Bob Kerrey, on the day he announced his support for Clinton, made sure to make a point about how wonderful he thought it was that Obama's middle name is Hussein. A radio ad in South Carolina sought to portray Obama as a fan of Republican policies in the 1990s. The candidate herself contributed to the furor when she intimated that while Martin Luther King Jr. was a wonderful leader, it took President Johnson to make the Civil Rights Act a reality.
But it has been Bill Clinton who carried the campaign's attacks in the wake of his wife's Iowa loss. The "fairy tale" comment was followed by the claim that he had personally witnessed attempts at suppressing votes (a topic that touches blacks on a personal level) in Nevada by Obama supporters. It was Bill Clinton left to carry the ball in South Carolina for most of last week, while the candidate was in Super Tuesday battlegrounds like California.
When confronted with the rhetoric, Clinton lashed out at the media - and his wife's opponents. "I never heard a word of public complaint when Mr. Obama said Hillary is not truthful about character," he told reporters last week. "When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called Hillary the senator from Punjab. I never said a word." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/26/politics/main3755521.shtml
IMO? he doesn't care about he country or his party, he is simply out to win no matter what, and you'll see more of that..
my prefernece of the Dems would be Edwards, but he is coming off too angry...
he's correct to be angry, but peopl aren't interested in listening to him.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"Not presidential" is how former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle described Bill Clinton's behavior on the campaign trail of late. All the same, it may be effective. Clinton's campaign is aimed at capturing voters who make up a huge part of the Democratic demographic: Middle class, white, female, older. Those are the voters who may shy away from backing a "black" candidate, as they have in earlier contests in this race. Despite his huge margin of victory, Obama captured just a quarter of white voters.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
and do NOT forget, Hillary voted for the war too, no matter how she tries to justify it now? she voted for it and she is also unapolagetic about it.
cops should run the world? a cop on every corner?
sorry man, you belong in China you'll be happier there.
Hillary voting for the war and then going against it does not phase me. I was for the war myself before I found out the facts Bush laid out were false. Hillary much like the rest of us were duped. But anyways i still believe then and now that Sadaam should of been ousted, just that it should of been done by Bush Sr. during the "legal" war (Persian Gulf War).
As for a cop being on every corner. We'll what is wrong with that? It is their JOB lol Law enforcement. More cops on the beat, less crime on the streets. It's a deterrent for criminals to commit a crime when a cop is around. Make sense? I think it does.
As for China, we'll I wouldn't mind being there but only because I have a preference for asian women lol But as for police being on every corner there. We'll I would say their crime rate is way lower then ours. So that does say something. I am not talking about having a cop on every corner checking everyone. But just a police presence as a deterrent. Simple as that.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
As for a cop being on every corner. We'll what is wrong with that? It is their JOB lol Law enforcement. More cops on the beat, less crime on the streets. It's a deterrent for criminals to commit a crime when a cop is around. Make sense? I think it does.
Instead of having a cop on every corner (like we could afford that), a better solution is to have law abiding citizens carrying guns. That way, the criminal never knows who has a gun. Studies have shown that when states pass a concealed carry law, crime goes down (I'll try to find a link). Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence that accidents go up when concealed carry laws are enacted. More guns mean less crime.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was for the war myself before I found out the facts Bush laid out were false. Hillary much like the rest of us were duped. But anyways i still believe then and now that Sadaam should of been ousted, just that it should of been done by Bush Sr. during the "legal" war (Persian Gulf War).
Hillary was duped because she didn't do her due dilligance. Plenty of data was available that showed Bush was lying. Where was Hillary when the Admin went after the CIA people that tried to tell the truth? nowhere to be found.
As for a cop being on every corner. We'll what is wrong with that? It is their JOB lol Law enforcement. More cops on the beat, less crime on the streets. It's a deterrent for criminals to commit a crime when a cop is around. Make sense? I think it does.
a cop on every corner is the Clinton plan for America too...
you want to live in a police state? there's plenty of places where you can go and do that. Burma comes to mind. Pakistan is more or less a police state. Napoleon ran one.
generally? police states are, or become dictatorships. this country was designed to avoid that and the "living constitution" will not be changed to make it one without a civil war.
As for China, we'll I wouldn't mind being there but only because I have a preference for asian women lol But as for police being on every corner there. We'll I would say their crime rate is way lower then ours. So that does say something. I am not talking about having a cop on every corner checking everyone. But just a police presence as a deterrent.
of course their crime rate is way lower there.
the Criminals are in charge and they control the statistics:
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: Instead of having a cop on every corner (like we could afford that), a better solution is to have law abiding citizens carrying guns. That way, the criminal never knows who has a gun. Studies have shown that when states pass a concealed carry law, crime goes down (I'll try to find a link). Additionally, there is absolutely no evidence that accidents go up when concealed carry laws are enacted. More guns mean less crime.
A. Why shouldn't we be able to afford the cops salaries vs. paying greedy politicians higher salaries?
B. When did i ever say that law abiding citizens shouldn't carry guns? What I did say is that the licensing process should be more stringent so ONLY LAW ABIDING citizens are licensed to carry them and not criminals and/or mentally ill people. If you are a law abiding citizen then you have nothing to fear from gun control laws. Simple as that. You will get your precious gun that you really use for blowing up things with and use the "I need to defend my home" excuse to own them. Just will take a little longer.
C. As for criminals not knowing who is carrying a gun in public. Well first I don't think a criminal really cares much less when they commit a murder and think they will get the death penalty or not. But let me say this, do you want every parent carrying concealed weapons when they pick up their children at school, or do other activities. What message do you think that will convey to your children? Plus just because you are licensed to carry a weapon it does not mean you have the training to use them much less how to confront a criminal who is pointing one at you.
D. Saying more guns means less crime really is a stupid comment. Sorry to say that. In the Wild West practically everyone carried guns and crime was rampant with no Law & Order. To say what happened then won't happen now is naive.
Anyways here is a little article/research i found interesting:
Hillary was duped because she didn't do her due dilligance. Plenty of data was available that showed Bush was lying. Where was Hillary when the Admin went after the CIA people that tried to tell the truth? nowhere to be found.
We were all duped including you in the beginning. As for the going after the CIA people. Where was any politician? Don't throw eggs at one person. Obama and other politicians only make comments about something like that when it's a issue in the media otherwise they don't say anything.
quote:a cop on every corner is the Clinton plan for America too...
you want to live in a police state? there's plenty of places where you can go and do that. Burma comes to mind. Pakistan is more or less a police state. Napoleon ran one.
generally? police states are, or become dictatorships. this country was designed to avoid that and the "living constitution" will not be changed to make it one without a civil war.
Sorry Glass but you exaggerate things I say. You seem to equate a police on every corner with Federal troops or military. When I say "police" I mean NYPD, LAPD etc. for examples that work for the city or state they live in, not the Federal Gov't and much less whomever the President is. I'm talking about the regular "beat" cop that currently earns a crappy salary but believes in making their community better and safer. That is the "police" i mean. Not your imagined "police state" from George Orwell's 1984 and similar novels. We are far from being a dictatorship regardless of whom is running for and will be elected President. So stop exaggerating. Seriously. Your starting to sound like Bdgee's radical views.
quote:of course their crime rate is way lower there.
the Criminals are in charge and they control the statistics:
You may know more about Guns then I do Glass but I certainly know more about China and how things are there right now excluding what they do to the outside world in terms of trade, finance etc. I am in constant contact with chinese citizens and they tell me everything about what is going on in there. Perhaps you should do the same. I used to think that our media did not distort facts and such because it was not state owned. But I changed my mind when I actually talked to the people in other countries and see how much our media bends the facts. I won't go into details about that but you should research it yourself. First and foremost by talking to people who actually live in those countries. As for crime being down in China compared to ours. We'll it is simply for the fact that there is a police presence that deters crime and/or when a criminal is prosecuted the punishments there are more severe. For example being executed for running drugs and such. Though I'm not for the death penalty I can see how China's drug problem is alot less then ours due to it. China doesn't f*ck around. If you get a certain sentence it's carried out unlike here where you can be in appeals till you die of natural causes. Or here where you get 30 years and get out in 10 years.
But anyways as for putting a photo of the Tiananamen Square incident. That is rather childish because that was 20 years ago. China is alot different now then in 1989. Like I said I know because i chat with people while you read what the media puts out and take it as gospel. But if your going to put that pic up of the Tiananamen Square incident why don't you put up the pic of "Kent State" and tell me that we are still living like in the past? Hmmmm i haven't heard of any college kids being killed by National Guards on campus lately. Oddly sounds like China. No such things since 1989. Must mean that humans learn from their past mistakes and try not to repeat them.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
I am in constant contact with chinese citizens and they tell me everything about what is going on in there. Perhaps you should do the same. I
you are either being a Pollyanna or you just don't know how much censorship is going on in China...
people in China who "talk bad" according to th eGovt disappear. they go to jail if they are lucky. this is fact. that doesn't happen here, but i have been becoming concerned that we are moving that way, and people with your attitudes are the reason...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: you are either being a Pollyanna or you just don't know how much censorship is going on in China...
people in China who "talk bad" according to th eGovt disappear. they go to jail if they are lucky. this is fact. that doesn't happen here, but i have been becoming concerned that we are moving that way, and people with your attitudes are the reason...
You really are ignorant about China Glass... a country you know nothing about other then what a biased media tells you... What you do know about the country is what they do outside of it such as cheap products, buying up U.S. debt etc.. that I will give you but anything else is just conversation...
Make a chinese friend and ask them yourself about their country and i don't mean the local chinese restaurant owner but someone who actually lives there... if you want me to drive you into the direction of where to find one.. let me know and i'll PM you... otherwise like i said it's just conversation...
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
You will get your precious gun that you really use for blowing up things with and use the "I need to defend my home" excuse to own them. Just will take a little longer.
What? I can assure you that I don't use my handgun for blowing things up. I wear mine for self-defense in the low income neighborhoods where I manage rentals (an another at home to protect my family.
But let me say this, do you want every parent carrying concealed weapons when they pick up their children at school, or do other activities. What message do you think that will convey to your children?
Yes, I think it would convey the fact that you are responsible for your own protection. Police don't really "protect and serve", they investigate crimes after they occur and arrest those that are responsible. You are responsible to protect yourself.
Plus just because you are licensed to carry a weapon it does not mean you have the training to use them much less how to confront a criminal who is pointing one at you.
Again, that's untrue. Ohio and most other states with concealed weapons permits require you to have training including time on the range shooting from a variety of positions. The course I took was conducted by an instructor from the police academy.
Saying more guns means less crime really is a stupid comment.
No, it's true. I'll try to find some articles to post.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Propertymanager: What? I can assure you that I don't use my handgun for blowing things up. I wear mine for self-defense in the low income neighborhoods where I manage rentals (an another at home to protect my family.
I was being sarcastic. I didn't mean every gun owner. But most get a woody from owning a powerful weapon that can destroy something. It is a euphoria and the self defense excuse is just that a excuse for alot of them.
quote:Yes, I think it would convey the fact that you are responsible for your own protection. Police don't really "protect and serve", they investigate crimes after they occur and arrest those that are responsible. You are responsible to protect yourself.
No it conveys the message that it is ok for mommy and daddy to carry a gun then why can't I? Before you know it they are able to find your "hidden" gun with a "safety" and bringing it to school. Which has happened alot if you ever read the newspapers or watch the news from time to time.
Police are to protect and serve. Investigating crimes after the fact is 2nd thought. If they didn't protect and serve we wouldn't need beat cops walking the streets or driving around. They would just wait at the police station till a crime was reported for them to "investigate". Seriously, quit while your ahead. A cops job first and foremost is to deter crime not wait for it to occur. If we didn't have any Law & Order this society would be nothing but a bunch of vigilantes and lawlessness like we had in the Old West.
quote:Again, that's untrue. Ohio and most other states with concealed weapons permits require you to have training including time on the range shooting from a variety of positions. The course I took was conducted by an instructor from the police academy.
Shooting at a paper target is not the same as shooting at a moving, human being in various scenarios. Also the psychological aspect of it not everyone is ready for. You could be shooting at your own teenage kid sneaking back in for missing curfew. Knowing most of you with your gun ho attitudes you would probably shoot first and ask questions later.
quote:No, it's true. I'll try to find some articles to post.
Do show. But it better be fact and not opinion. I equate this issue with drugs. The more drugs proliferate our society the more addicts you will see. Same thing with Guns & violence.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
LOL your Chinese freinds tell you how great it is over there? then what are you doing here?
I didn't say they said great but improving and for the better. Like when my friends told me they invested in the Shanghai stock market for the first time. They were excited. That is just one example. As for what am i doing here and not there. I could ask you the same thing since you think our country is down to sh*t. Why don't you move to somewhere else?. Then you won't have to worry about Hillary, the GOP or anything else. As for me. We'll Costa Rica and alot of other countries really are better then the U.S. in different ways but I choose to live here because this is where I was born. Simple as that. For better or for worst. Censorship happens in China but so what now. My friends and chinese citizens in general have access to the internet so that censorship their government does is for nothing. I send friends links to different news agencies from around the world. They can read all they want from there. And do. What is funny is that you think our media is flawless and unbiased. You really should rethink that and do your own research on our media. Our media may not be censored but it's out of control and we are blind to believe everything we read or see from them.
quote:actually i know alot more about China than you could possibly learn from one of it's citizens.
ah, no. That is like a Chinese citizen telling you he or she knows more about your country (the U.S.) then you know. Sorry, try again.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
actually? i know alot more about China than you could possibly learn from one of it's citizens on the 'net or the phone. unless you speak Chinese?
Actually you saying you know more about China then it's own citizens is a ignorant American attitude that we have a bad reputation for around the world. And not just China but that is one example.
Why would i need to speak Chinese to communicate with them. They speak/write english lol You'd be surprise how fast they are learning english. Mainly because they want to work for British or American conglomerates that are in China now. But anyways I am learning a little Mandarin on my own and through them. Here's some simple words/greetings etc. so you can say you know some chinese and claim to know more about China then their own people. Don't forget Mandarin has 4 tones so pronounce each tone correctly:
Ni hao : hello/hi Ni hao Ma?: How are you? Wo hen hao: I am fine. Xiexie : thank you
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: no it's nothing like it.
the Chinese people are not able to learn about their own country
and the last time i checked? if you google censorship you get China.
ah but they do. Sometimes they tell me about news of their country before our media picks it up. News that you read and hold gospel. But anyways they do learn about their own country from the internet. I know you think their internet is censored but trust me it's not. Some of it is but most of it isn't. He'll they can see porn which is suppose to be totally banned.
As for googling things. Google media manipulation and you probably will get U.S., U.K. , Russia etc. As for censorship in the internet. There is probably more censorship in Thailand then there is in China.
As for Clinton around the world. He is universally loved in other countries including Costa Rica. I know you don't believe that about him but it is true.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
posted
As for Clinton around the world. He is universally loved in other countries including Costa Rica. I know you don't believe that about him but it is true.
i know all about how much foreign exchange students loved him.
i think he's got one agenda. himself.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Shooting at a paper target is not the same as shooting at a moving, human being in various scenarios. Also the psychological aspect of it not everyone is ready for.
I don't think the police train by shooting at real people either. Are you proposing that concealed carry holders (or even police) should train by shooting at real people? That sounds a little drastic to me!
IP: Logged |
i know all about how much foreign exchange students loved him.
i think he's got one agenda. himself.
Not only exchange students. Everyone. As for himself being the only agenda. That's not really true and your statement could be said of all Presidents since it takes a ego to be a nations leader.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
I don't think the police train by shooting at real people either. Are you proposing that concealed carry holders (or even police) should train by shooting at real people? That sounds a little drastic to me!
Yes!!! and start with Bush as the moving target dressed up as Obama bin Laden lol Btw cops do some training that requires more of a moving target. I don't know what they call it officially. But i seen it in cop documentarys on tv.
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
1. Do you now, or have you ever owned or fired a gun? 2. Have you ever attended a concealed weapons class? 3. Do you know the laws that apply to holders of concealed weapons permits? 4. Have you ever been a victim of a violent crime?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
What is funny is that you think our media is flawless and unbiased. You really should rethink that and do your own research on our media. Our media may not be censored but it's out of control and we are blind to believe everything we read or see from them. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
