| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
You think the UK is relatively unarmed?
Compared to the US? And bearing in mind that we were talking about armed civilians? Yes, without a fleeting shadow of a doubt.
quote:
The UK invaded many other nations in its long history.
True, but this is really a different discussion. The only thing I was disputing was that an invading force would think twice about armed civilians, given that they are already committed to taking on the entirity of their enemies' armed forces. I just don't think that's very likely.
quote:
George W. Bush was elected.
'fraid not. He lost by over 500,000 votes. Fair enough, you say you don't have the evidence, but since 2000 the whole debacle has been investigated (as thoroughly as it should have been at the time) and the facts indicate pretty clearly that your current president shouldn't be where he is. The final recount probably would have proved this, and that's why the Bush administration used its influence in the supreme court to get the recount stopped (think about it: if everything was above-board, why stop the recount at all, when it was mere hours from completion?). If you look for it, the information is all there for you. What amazes me is how little the American public seem to care about this fraud.
Sorry for going off-topic.
quote:
The U.K. did got to war in Iraq even the the vast majority of British citizens (Is it proper to use the term 'Brits') were against the war.
Yes, that's true. Not sure of the relevance here, though.
quote:
P.S. I read somewhere that the Prime Minister is not the Commander-In-Chief of British military forces. Is that correct? If it is correct, then who is?
Don't know about that. Churchill was our commander-in-chief during WW2, iirc, but frankly I'd be horrified if Blair had that role today. No idea who has, though. |
Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:24 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
@piln
If there are not many civilian firearms in your country I will not debate that. You live there, I do not.
About the importance of personal Firearms
quote:
Posted earlier by Darrius Cole
The UK invaded many other nations in its long history. How many of them were as well armed as the UK was?
quote:
Originally posted by piln
True, but this is really a different discussion. The only thing I was disputing was that an invading force would think twice about armed civilians, given that they are already committed to taking on the entirity of their enemies' armed forces. I just don't think that's very likely.
Think twice? Generals and war-planners have to look at that type of thing. If they don't, then they are idiots. Remember, if you intend to invade a country at some point you have to put soldiers on the ground, in THEIR home field. When an invader gets to the mainland to invade a country the battle is between the invader's army and the resident country's armed forces plus their civilian population. With a country as heavily armed as the U.S. is everyone is a potential soldier.
I want to make another point about the importance of firearms. The enemy is not always an outsider. Often a government will become overly oppressive. A large part of why the U.S. was able to win independence in the first place was because the average citizen had a weapon and was able to fight. The bottom line is: you are not as likely to abuse a person if you know he will shoot back.
About George W. Bush
He was elected. While I do think their was some funny stuff going on in Florida, there is no evidence that would hold up in court. The Florida votes were recounted by private institutions. They all say Bush won Florida. I personally think ballots were destroyed. But that is my gut with no evidence. Bush did lose the popular vote by 500,000, but that doesn't matter. The US Constitution says that the Electoral College elects the President.
Here is a quick rundown of the Electoral College. Each state is worth a certain number of electoral votes. The number of electoral votes a state has is determined by the population of that state. If a candidate wins a simple majority of a state's popular vote, he gets ALL of the electoral votes for that state. Whoever gets the most electoral votes is the President.
Because the President is elected by the states, the loser of the popular vote can be elected President. That is how Bush won and it has happened before. It could theoretically be worse than it was. If a candidate wins the 12 largest states by 1 vote each, he could lose the other 38 unanimously, and he would still be the president.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole
Last edited by Darrius Cole on Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:34 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by NidPuterGuy
My last post was kinda directed to you..
No kidding.
quote:
Originally posted by NidPuterGuy
But I'm tired of every religion, Mormons included, pushing their religious views on everyone else.
That's funny, I don't remember pushing my religion on anyone.
As for Kerry, I'd rather crawl through shards of broken glass than vote for him.
quote:
Originally posted by patriot
Well when you say firearms do you also meen airguns.Not those plastic things I mean real airguns. 
I guess I do consider airguns and beebee guns to be firearms. In which case, I do not consider them to be "toys". I do consider them to be too dangerous for children to use when unsupervised, just like rifles and pistols.
quote:
Originally posted by piln
What amazes me is how little the American public seem to care about this fraud.
1. It was not a fraud.
2. You clearly have no understanding of the purpose of the Electorial College. If you'd like to have an understanding of it, then I suggest reading the Federalist Papers.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:34 am |
|
|
cptmaxon
High Emperor
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Posts: 557
Location: Israel |
[quoteOriginally posted by Scribelus]
(6) Israel has every right to exist and prosper, but it should pull back to the 1967 borders so it can control its borders more effectively. Don't believe in increasing borders to the "biblical state of Israel", whatever that is[/quote]
Hello just felt an overwhelming need to respond to that , and the words lunatic fringe comes to mind almost nobody here wants a "biblical state of Israel"
as for firearms since a tour of duty is required from every Israeli citizen I fired alot of Rifles MG and Cannons and it was fun but i didn't own them In point of fact the law here doesn't permit carrying guns unless you're part of the security forces kinda wierd law for a country plagued with terrorism
_________________
"We're still flying"
"it's not much"
"It's enough" |
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:42 am |
|
|
Conan The Librarian
City Guard
Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 144
Location: Merry Olde England |
[quote="piln"][quote="Darrius Cole"]
quote:
Don't know about that. Churchill was our commander-in-chief during WW2, iirc, but frankly I'd be horrified if Blair had that role today. No idea who has, though.
Maybe its the Queen or one of her corgies. 
_________________
The optimist sees the doughnut.
But the pessimist sees the hole. |
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:56 am |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
Agh, misunderstandings, and all my fault! I must have been a bit fuzzy-headed last night, my ramblings on this page bear little resemblance to the thoughts in my head. I'll try again...
Darrius, "wouldn't think twice" were totally the wrong words for me to use. Of course, you're right that an invading force would certainly take armed civilians into account, I just think that if such a force believes it can take on the military might of the invadees and win, they'd be more than able to deal with armed civvies, who simply don't have the same training, resources and coordination of a regular military force. It seems much more likely to me that the invaders would acknowledge the threat and take appropriate action, rather than be deterred.
As for the election, the fact that I only mentioned the popular vote was another mistake on my part, and I'm not surprised you reached the conclusions you did. However, I am familiar with the US's electoral college (although admittedly, I'd never heard of it until seeing news coverage of this affair), and for some bizarre reason, in my response to Darrius, I didn't mention what I consider to be the most important pieces of information:
Firstly, the fact that thousands upon thousands of Floridians were illegally prohibited from voting - only ex-felons were suposed to be excluded (according to Florida state law), but Florida's secretary of state in charge of elections, Katherine Harris (who also happened to be heading up Bush's campaign) ordered that broad search criteria ("similar" names, "similar" social security numbers, matching birth dates, etc.) be used to identify them. She was informed that this would result in many false matches, but insisted that it be done anyway, which alone I think is absolutely disgusting, but it gets worse. The result was that thousands of people with no criminal record, or who had only committed misdemeanors, were struck off the electoral roll, and there was nothing they could do about it. Not only that, but a load of additional names was sent up from Texas (of ex-cons from that state who had moved to Florida) to be added to the list, even though the people named were again only guilty of misdemeanors or had served time for felony offences and already had their voting rights reinstated.
iirc, nearly 200,000 people were prevented from voting in this manner. Now, of course, some of those were ex-felons, and so preventing them from casting a vote was lawful. But thousands of those people were eligible voters who had their civil liberties taken away for no reason. More than half of those people were black. This is relevant because black Floridians were overwhelmingly pro-Gore (more than 90% of them voted for him - those who were still able). Now, Bush supposedly only won by 537 votes in Florida. How do you think the vote would have gone if those people hadn't had their right to vote taken away?
Secondly, the overseas absentee ballots. I'll make this brief, as I don't remember the figures, but I do remember that about 700 overseas ballots were later found to be unnacceptable, but had still been included in the count. Unbeleivable stuff like ballots that turned up after the deadline, some voters with two ballots each (both counted), ballots from unregistered voters, ballots that had been posted from within the US! The oversees ballots that should not have been counted, on their own, reduced Bush's lead in Florida into negative numbers, so even disregarding the aforementioned vote-blocking, Bush lost in Florida. This is not to mention the fact that, shortly before the recount was stopped, it was looking like Bush's lead was actually a lot less than 537 votes after all, but of course we'll never know the truth of that thanks to Bush's buddies on the supreme court.
I don't have any of the information at hand right now, but what I've seen/heard/read over the last few years is more than enough to convince me that the wrong man "won." I'm sure anybody else with an interest has made up their mind with equal conviction, and I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I just wanted you to know that I wasn't shooting my mouth off with little consideration of the facts (something I try to avoid). Should have been a bit clearer in my original comments, though. |
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:19 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
@piln
I pretty much agree with your last post.
Armed civilians may not be enough to deter some country who believes that they can decisively defeat your military. It does factor into the equation, though.
As for Bush getting elected. You described what I meant by "funny stuff going on in Florida." The fact that the Governor of Florida is Bush's brother explains why all the doubts went in G. Bush's favor.
I saw G. Bush tell Jay Leno (a TV show host) that Jeb Bush understood that if G. Bush lost Florida that Thanksgiving would be unusually cold. I SAW HIM SAY THAT.
You did however, leave out my favorite explanation of what happend to the Florida votes, "The ballot truck got lost on the way to get the votes counted."
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:09 pm |
|
|
piln
High Emperor
Joined: 22 May 2003
Posts: 906
Location: Leeds, UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Darrius Cole
"The ballot truck got lost on the way to get the votes counted."
lol... I forgot about that one, but now you mention it I do remember the news. It certainly caused some jaws to drop! |
|
Thu Jun 17, 2004 11:10 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Conspiracy theories, pah. 
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Fri Jun 18, 2004 6:49 pm |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
Yep, just theories, can't prove any of it. The bottom line is (As you have probably noticed, I am a big fan of the bottom line) George W. Bush is the President of the United States.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Fri Jun 18, 2004 9:48 pm |
|
|
Patriot
Small Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 1421
Location: Athens,Greece |
quote:
Originally posted by Val
Conspiracy theories, pah.
Aah Boring |
|
Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:20 pm |
|
|
shrewgirl
Head Merchant
Joined: 10 Dec 2002
Posts: 51
Location: isolated mountain top when not at work |
I own guns, I shoot guns, I hunt with guns. That being said I think there should be tighter control of and regulation of gun ownership in the US to ensure they are used responsibly.
About the election thing; it looks like it may all be a moot point. I just heard on the news that Tom Ridge(the Homeland Defense Guy) is consulting with the Justice Department about postponing our presidential election this November in the event of another terrorist attack...regardless of what party you belong too, regardless of your religion, regardless whether you even live in the US or not that has to send a little chill down your spine...the right to vote was sort of the whole point of our country being formed...
maybe it's just a coincidence that this is happening in the administration that was "elected" or "appointed" with so much controversey four years ago...
what bothers me is I have been hearing this exact scenario from many "conspiracy nuts" on many message boards for the past 18 months or so, that the administration will not allow itself to be voted out of office so it will find a way for the elections to not take place...that has never happened before....it is unprecedented and unconstitutional...
what is the point of remaining a nation if the steps that are taken to "ensure safety" end up destroying the very rights, privilages and liberties that this country was founded upon?
If our right to vote is taken away or "suspended" how long will it be berfore "gun ownership" or "freedom of speech, to assemble, to protest" is suspended...Tom Ridge is George Bush's man, Bush is responsible for his actions...so whether he was elected or not is moot if the elections are suspended and he remains in office...sounds like another George that did not want to give the people of this country the right to representation through voting, and it wasn't Washington...
_________________
Hindsight is 20/20...there is opportunity in crisis...Member of The Alliance of Middle Earth |
|
Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:45 am |
|
|
Darrius Cole
Most Exalted Highlord
Joined: 04 May 2004
Posts: 406
|
I notice people tend to think that constitutional rights existence simply as convenience. They do not. These rights exist to protect us.
If the founders thought a right important enough to write it into the Constitution then we should not change it out of fear. That is how people lose rights, in a state of fear. First, they want your gun, because people are irresponsible, never mind that governments are just GROUPS OF PEOPLE. Next, they want to hold "enemy citizens" without trial. Then, it is too dangerous to hold elections, ...etc. Before long, troops are coming from another country, looking for your weapons of mass destruction.
Almost every person or group of people in power will eventually begin to attempt to expand that power if left in position long enough. Because of this reality the people need to be protected from the government. We see evidence of this every day. My friends already call G.W. Bush the most powerful President in recent history because he seems to have power beyond that of the Presidency. (Power being defined as the ability to force your will on others.) Then, he argued that the President had the right to declare that a US citizen is an "enemy combatant" and to imprison that person forever without a trial. (A clear abuse of power) He would have gotten away with this were it not for a check to his power that is written into the Constitution.
P.S. I wonder if people in Communist China, where they can not criticize the government, have the right to keep and bear arms? I do not know the answer but I am going to guess "no." I believe that a billion people with guns can talk about whatever they want to talk about.
_________________
Always with you what can not be done. Hear you nothing that I say? - Master Yoda
Only the powerful are free. - Darrius Cole |
|
Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:14 pm |
|
|
Patriot
Small Tiger
Joined: 31 May 2004
Posts: 1421
Location: Athens,Greece |
Well every summer I go hunting with my uncle.I've shoot many times with a gun but I don't know much about them.Probably I'll learn more in the army  .
_________________
(Firefox_Mythos)(Παντος)Reaperfox(Ρουβαλης)Tezafox Katsaridoktono(Ντουσικος)Che(Ταγαρης)Crusader(nokos)shadowfox(Μηχελης)aquafox(Στελιος)thunderfox_gomos(Γιωργος) |
|
Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:18 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Oh good grief.
If the Bush administration doesn't have a plan in place in the event of a terrorist attack, then they'll be branded as irresponsible.
If they do develop a plan, then conspiracy theorists will leap at the chance to say it's a power grab.
Ever heard the phrase, caught between a rock and a hard place?
Personally, I think that no matter what happens before election day, we should go on as normal, hold elections and flip terrorists the birdy. Terrorists seek to influence people through fear. If we continue on as normal and don't break when they rattle their sabers, then they have no power over us.
I wouldn't be surprised if they try to repeat their success in Spain. If there were some plan in place to delay the election until it can be reorganized, then I think it'd just be an engraved invitation to terrorists, both foreign and domestic, to attack or attempt to delay the election. Then all the conspiracy theorists can run around squealing that they were right about the administration grabbing for power. It's a crock. The only planning that should occur is to ensure the election goes forward regardless of any attack. Terrorists cannot be allowed to stop the functioning of this republic in such an elementary way. Frankly, I'd like to see both parties step up and agree, in public and in the open, to abide by whatever result of the election in November without a bunch of stupid lawsuits or court orders.
Also, for those that think Bush lost Florida, read this. Also, look at who did the study if you don't think it's credible.
As for those that think tons of people were disenfranchised, how about a little reality check.
Florida bans felons from voting (unless they've been granted clemency). Before the 2000 vote, the state hired Database Technologies to purge rolls of felons and dead people. Some non-felons were erroneously removed from the rolls — but the errors didn't "target" minorities.
The Palm Beach Post found that a review of state records, internal e-mails of [Database Technologies] employees and testimony before the civil rights commission and an elections task force showed no evidence that minorities were specifically targeted.
The law against felon voting does have a racial impact, since African-Americans make up the greatest share of felons (nearly 49 percent felons convicted in Florida). But the application of that law in 2000 skewed somewhat the opposite way — whites were actually the most likely to be erroneously excluded.
The error rate was 9.9 percent for whites, 8.7 percent for Hispanics, and only a 5.1 percent for African-Americans.
From this one can realize three things.
1. There was no malicious intent to deprive law-abiding citizens their right to vote.
2. No one has any idea how those people would have voted if they had the chance.
3. If you want to speculate how those people would have voted by looking at the percentages of who voted for whom and then saying that someone won, then you better do it for everyone, not just African-Americans.
As for putting more restrictions on guns, why do I have to have my right to keep and bear arms restricted? I'm not a felon, yet it feels like I'm treated like one when I want to purchase a firearm.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:43 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
