Why is America afriad?

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:

New Roosevelt wrote:

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:

New Roosevelt wrote:

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:

Gracania wrote:Proportional response which is not what Afghanistan was. Now the government of Afghanistan needed to be destroyed but the twin towers as a reason for war is not proportional.

What?........... Wait wait wait, we were supposed to let them attack the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and head for the White House (even though they didn't get there) and we're supposed to negotiate?!?!?! WTF is next, someone nukes us and we invite them to dinner?

You know that there is actually NO evidence that they flew a plane into the pentagon right? There was no metal, no skeleton of the plane, nothing like that to indicate a plane flew in. In order for the type of metal in 747's to melt, the temperatures need to be ASTRONOMICALLY high. INCREDIBLY high. Like upwards of 5000 degrees. And there is no way it got that hot.

Oh yeah, that's right, because those 2,000 people just went poof.

You realize that your comment has nothing to do with what I said, right?

Read it.

You're one of those conspiracy theorists that 'know the truth' and yet have no idea. Unless you were just pointing out one of those conspiracy theorists said.

Why don't you try taking your head out of your ass? It was a bomb, not a freaking plane! The twin towers we're planes, as everyone watched them fly into the building. No one. And I mean NO ONE in the pentagon confirmed seeing a plane flying towards the building. And like I said, for the metal in 747's to melt the temperature needs to reach about 5000 degrees. And it is impossible a plane crash and it's aftereffects could make the temperature that hot.

I would have to beg to differ

many of my friend's father's work(ed) in DC, and they saw an airplane crash into the Pentagon. Also, how can you explain the plane + passengers + crew missing? It was a plane, not a bomb.

How can you explain no skeleton of the plane left?


If ANYONE, expert or otherwise can explain why the plane WASN'T there, I'll surrender my argument. But it's impossible to do so, as experts say, 5000 degrees...

I'm bringing this back on topic. We were talking about patriotism and I said America has shown the naegative sides of too much Patriotism. People wanted examples so here goes: McCarthyism and the investigation into un-American activites.

New Roosevelt wrote:

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:

New Roosevelt wrote:

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:

New Roosevelt wrote:

Wilhelm Tuscini wrote:

Gracania wrote:Proportional response which is not what Afghanistan was. Now the government of Afghanistan needed to be destroyed but the twin towers as a reason for war is not proportional.

What?........... Wait wait wait, we were supposed to let them attack the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and head for the White House (even though they didn't get there) and we're supposed to negotiate?!?!?! WTF is next, someone nukes us and we invite them to dinner?

You know that there is actually NO evidence that they flew a plane into the pentagon right? There was no metal, no skeleton of the plane, nothing like that to indicate a plane flew in. In order for the type of metal in 747's to melt, the temperatures need to be ASTRONOMICALLY high. INCREDIBLY high. Like upwards of 5000 degrees. And there is no way it got that hot.

Oh yeah, that's right, because those 2,000 people just went poof.

You realize that your comment has nothing to do with what I said, right?

Read it.

You're one of those conspiracy theorists that 'know the truth' and yet have no idea. Unless you were just pointing out one of those conspiracy theorists said.

Why don't you try taking your head out of your ass? It was a bomb, not a freaking plane! The twin towers we're planes, as everyone watched them fly into the building. No one. And I mean NO ONE in the pentagon confirmed seeing a plane flying towards the building. And like I said, for the metal in 747's to melt the temperature needs to reach about 5000 degrees. And it is impossible a plane crash and it's aftereffects could make the temperature that hot.

It was not a bomb, I was right there at the TV set, watching that plane crash and burn into the tower, how you mistake a plane going "whoosh......... bang" into a tower for a bomb is beyond me, so I doubt it's me or has to get my head out of my ass, I think it's you.

Enough with the conspiracy theory stuff!

http://www.tfeagle.army.mil/tfetalon/PhotoGallery/15TalonPhotos/Nov12/Images/Pic18-Pentagon-9-11.gif

http://tomdiaz.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/geo_pentagon_9-11_lg.jpg



Where is the plane?

Right inside it, I could see part of the tail, but anyway since Gracania doesn't want this argument anymore, I will agree to stop. After all, this is his forum.

The problem with the discussion is it doesn't get anywhere. Its like debating History according to the Vatican, we can claim its biased but until someone gets in the Vatican archives we'll never know.

Ah well we can all agree this is bollocks:

Yes it is, but anyway despite me being a conservative, and believing in god, I'm not an overly religious person.

Anyway back to guns. I don't understand your point that guns protect people. It just isn't true. In America gun crime is higher than in countries that don't allow guns and that is not about size of the population. Gun crime is still higher in the US when compared on a ratio that accounts for population and general crime rate than in the UK. And anyway, anyone who thinks that people who were the victims of gun crime would have been better off if they had been carrying guns remember Dallas 1963 when the world's most protected man surrounded by committed agents carrying guns was shot and killed. Would Kennedy have been better off if he and his wife had been carrying Uzis?

We have higher gun crimes because we are the 3rd highest population. My point of view is 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Guns aren't the problem, what is a problem is kids are not disciplined properly anymore. Because if you spank your child for going and shooting out a window then ope you must be a child abuser, and that was actually enacted by liberals.

Why should we lose the right to bear arms because the government says, thereby we lost so much power it's not funny, not to mention the government becomes hugely inflated and powerful, and then what is next, our freedom of speech, our freedom of opinion? But oh wait, with a liberal government you can marry another man because you like getting bumped in the ass! I'm sorry, but I would rather be able to go out hunting or defend my family from a thief, and stage a protest when I want rather than be able to legally go out and marry another guy.

As the great Thomas Jefferson said - When the government fears the people, there is liberty, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

And one of his other sayings that I love - the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government.

That's just wrong on so many levels. You see any countries in the 1st world that just because they don't have guns their country is a dictatorship? Seriously though, did you read what I wrote about population? Also the Jefferson remark, if you need a gun to feel that your government won't destory your rights, then brother you're already in a tyranny.

Gracania wrote:That's just wrong on so many levels. You see any countries in the 1st world that just because they don't have guns their country is a dictatorship? Seriously though, did you read what I wrote about population? Also the Jefferson remark, if you need a gun to feel that your government won't destory your rights, then brother you're already in a tyranny.

No, not just the fact they don't have guns makes them a dictatorship, but it destroys rights, and guns are a first step to a very slippery slope to dictatorship. Also, yes I did read about the population, and I think you fail to realize that the only other country anywhere near our population size that is first world, and has guns has about 120 million less people.

On the Jefferson remark, how do you figure? Because it's worked well for every other country? Yeah right, look at every country that actually outlaws guns, and tell me, would you want to live there? No you probably wouldn't because it is either a dictatorship or is becoming one.

My country is not a dictatorship, Canada is not a dictatorship etc. Meanwhile Switzerland and America who are two of the countries with the most gun ownership are also two of the countries with the worst records on racism, right up there with South Africa, Nazi Germany and Israel. Linked? Maybe maybe not but the gu ownership makes a difference because racists are usually the ones who are extremists.

Oh and by the way how about these statistics:

Number of people killed by guns in the United States in 2004: 29,569
Percentage breakdown by US gun deaths in 2004, by type:
* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S. gun deaths)
* 11,624 homicides (40%)
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4%).
That averages out to 81 people dying everyday from guns.

Right there it says more people are murdered by guns, more people commit suicide with guns and more people are shot accidentally than are killed for legal reasons. 311 people who were killed for legal reasons. Lets break that down; 311 people who may perhaps have broken into someone's home and was killed legally but 649 brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, grandparents neighbours etc who were shot accidentally.

God bless America. However if He ever comes to talk He better announce himself so He doesn't become one of the 649 or the 311 depending how you look at it.

Gracania wrote:My country is not a dictatorship, Canada is not a dictatorship etc. Meanwhile Switzerland and America who are two of the countries with the most gun ownership are also two of the countries with the worst records on racism, right up there with South Africa, Nazi Germany and Israel. Linked? Maybe maybe not but the gu ownership makes a difference because racists are usually the ones who are extremists.

Oh and by the way how about these statistics:

Number of people killed by guns in the United States in 2004: 29,569
Percentage breakdown by US gun deaths in 2004, by type:
* 16,750 suicides (56% of all U.S. gun deaths)
* 11,624 homicides (40%)
* 649 unintentional shootings, 311 from legal intervention and 235 from undetermined intent (4%).
That averages out to 81 people dying everyday from guns.

Right there it says more people are murdered by guns, more people commit suicide with guns and more people are shot accidentally than are killed for legal reasons. 311 people who were killed for legal reasons. Lets break that down; 311 people who may perhaps have broken into someone's home and was killed legally but 649 brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, grandparents neighbours etc who were shot accidentally.

God bless America. However if He ever comes to talk He better announce himself so He doesn't become one of the 649 or the 311 depending how you look at it.

I said countries that actually outlaw guns are usually dictatorships, the UK doesn't outlaw them, though at the rate the damn liberals are going you might see them go poof soon. Anyway

you are right there are a lot of gun related crimes and gun related deaths, accidental, sorry for sounding cold but they deserved what they got, if it's an accidental death by a gun, 90% of the time they were being an idiot, and you get what you get. As far as people who commit suicide with guns, hm okay so we should ban; prescriptions of all kinds, I mean after all you can commit suicide with those, and we should ban people being able to swim, because after all, you can kill yourself while swimming, and we should ban people from having knives, because those you can kill yourself with......you get the point, and it's suicides can't really be used because then we would have to ban so many things it's not funny, but then again liberals would probably do it, after all the government knows what's best for you.

And on murders, yes good point, but again should we ban everything else, including hands because they commit murder? And should the person who is defending themselves be simply killed without a fight because they were obeying the law and they weren't allowed guns?

I agree with what you said about suicides, that is not a gun control problem its about social care. What I was showing was that saying guns are there to protect people and stop crime clearly is not true. You need tighter gun controls so that the people who use them with an immoral purpose can't get them legally. As I showed the positives statistically just aren't there. Usually intruders with guns will only fire if they are threatened by an occupant. What do they gain by going in and shooting occupants if they know that killing them will only cause them more trouble. Who are the police going after, the guy who stole a TV or a guy who walked in stole a DVD player and killed the occupants? Criminals really aren't that stupid.

I'm so tired of people who say its about defense, it is not. People can buy a gun, load it, then drive hundreds of miles and until they pull the trigger they haven't broken a law. I'd rather some innocent citizen has their car stolen and doesn't have a legal way to stop them that involves murder with a deadly weapon than wife beaters, racists, homophobes, anarchists and just plain evil people have access to guns. The truth is some people just like guns and that is why they want ot protect their ownership. There is no other reason as I've shown with my statistics. Statistics beats rhetoric every time. Put a Statistician against a Talk Show guy and see who wins.

Gracania wrote:I agree with what you said about suicides, that is not a gun control problem its about social care. What I was showing was that saying guns are there to protect people and stop crime clearly is not true. You need tighter gun controls so that the people who use them with an immoral purpose can't get them legally. As I showed the positives statistically just aren't there. Usually intruders with guns will only fire if they are threatened by an occupant. What do they gain by going in and shooting occupants if they know that killing them will only cause them more trouble. Who are the police going after, the guy who stole a TV or a guy who walked in stole a DVD player and killed the occupants? Criminals really aren't that stupid.

I'm so tired of people who say its about defense, it is not. People can buy a gun, load it, then drive hundreds of miles and until they pull the trigger they haven't broken a law. I'd rather some innocent citizen has their car stolen and doesn't have a legal way to stop them that involves murder with a deadly weapon than wife beaters, racists, homophobes, anarchists and just plain evil people have access to guns. The truth is some people just like guns and that is why they want ot protect their ownership. There is no other reason as I've shown with my statistics. Statistics beats rhetoric every time. Put a Statistician against a Talk Show guy and see who wins.

I still don't see how that point can be used, there have been so many cases of people walking in and killing someone because they were high, or they were drunk or they were just plain trigger happy, and you know what, if the people didn't have guns, then they would be dead. Guns DO DEFEND, you liberals can try and skate around that and say that it's just rhetoric all you want, but it's true. Statistics don't beat rhetoric, because it depends on where you get the statistics from, if you get it from a liberal government, it's going to say that guns are evil and all they do is kill people, you get it from a conservative government, guns are perfect and safe and no murders are committed by them.

Now, I'm not going to use the old statistics excuse, because either the statistics are dead wrong, or are corrupted. I look at reality, and guns save lives. In fact here's something for you, in New York City it was a well known fact that you couldn't fully stop at a stoplight or you'd get carjacked and shot, now there was several cases of guys defending themselves WITH A GUN that even police officers admit wouldn't be here if it wasn't for them HAVING A GUN.

You understand that in the US constitution it doesn't say we actually can have AK-47's in our closets. Liberals, in the US, don't wish to get rid of the 2nd amendment, they just want to tighten it so that no one runs around east LA with a bazooka launching it into another gang's territory. The second amendment calls for the right to bear arms as an armed militia. Politicians in america greatly debate wether this means we have the right to a national guard or a right to actually carry guns around any where.

BTW, I'm from Arizona, it's where I was born, has anyone heard about this new law? It passes through the Arizona state legislature, now citizens can carry concealed weapons into bars. WTF??????? If you wouldn't let someone drink and drive, why the hell would you let them drink and carry a gun??? Boy howdy, glad I moved outta that state. .

Phenosia wrote:You understand that in the US constitution it doesn't say we actually can have AK-47's in our closets. Liberals, in the US, don't wish to get rid of the 2nd amendment, they just want to tighten it so that no one runs around east LA with a bazooka launching it into another gang's territory. The second amendment calls for the right to bear arms as an armed militia. Politicians in america greatly debate wether this means we have the right to a national guard or a right to actually carry guns around any where.

BTW, I'm from Arizona, it's where I was born, has anyone heard about this new law? It passes through the Arizona state legislature, now citizens can carry concealed weapons into bars. WTF??????? If you wouldn't let someone drink and drive, why the hell would you let them drink and carry a gun??? Boy howdy, glad I moved outta that state. .

True it doesn't, but most liberals want to go further than just tightening the laws, which I also disagree with, instead of making new laws that simply overcrowd the legal system, increase the size of the government and violate our constitutional rights, we should enforce the ones we have.

No you have to change the laws you have. I know in Florida they passed a law that you can legally shoot to kill if you feel threatened. There was a case where some kids were playing knock knock run (you know where you bang on the door and run away) and as these kids of about ten ran away the guy came out of his house butt naked and shot them in the back because he claims he thought they were robbing his house. He recieved no punishment as he was within the law.

In conclusion, from across the ocean, America seems a strange and deadly place.

Australia has had a dramatic decrease in gun crime after banning handguns, now the only problems seem to be with illegal weapons.

The Gun Mentality is far too entrenched in the US.

In the First World, the US is losing respect. To me it seems like it would be a rather bad place to live. Lower Health Care standards, higher crime rates, higher drug rates. It's like a wealthy third world nation.

A wealthy 3rd world nation is a good way to describe it. You know it is actually the ultimate end of capitalism, some people have millions and most have nothing. Countries with lower GDPs that are in the 1st world are usually the more balanced ones because of things like an NHS.

And yet we are still the most powerful in the first world.

Don't get me wrong, the US and our Capitalist Paradise isn't great, but you know what? We are still the most technologically advanced country in the world, and even as fast as China modernizes, it will still be at least 50 years before they catch us up.


I do agree however, that we are at the worst part of capitalism. But I don't know of a better economic system other than capitalism, so until I see one, I'm going to have to just stick with it!

Technologically advanced? No. There are many countries, whilst smaller, which are more technologically advanced. Scandanavia and Japan come to mind.

The US is the richest country in the world. There are no doubts about that, but that's because of sheer numbers.