[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

You're hung on this source thing aint ya? Have you been going to night school or something? Learning how to become a jurno for the local rag? Have you actually read your so called "sources"? You'd get a dirty big F if you presented them as evidence for an academic paper. You'd get laughed out of whatever area you were writing for.

Did you ever respond to my challenge about crime statistics in Australia?

Looting: An Argument for Gun Ownership

No.

Therefore you are my bitch until I say otherwise.

Shut up and sit down.

[ConqSoft]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Ha...you wish...

Im showing you all the error of your ways, and how you too can become a model citizen.

Yep, we're all freaks. Hell, I wouldn't blame you one bit if you left and never came back.

[EDDIE110171]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Bushie Jr. is the most blatant, dishonest, big business mongering arsehole that ever cheated his way into office. Phuck the environment, and phuck all of America who doesn't earn mega dollars - all about his cronies.

At least Bacchus won't have to change his point of view when he becomes an Aussie.

[FantasyGod]

Such bitterness from the admin and mods... I suppose they're human, too.

[Cowboy1600]

Originally Posted by Mo Noyz

Did you ever respond to my challenge about crime statistics in Australia?

Looting: An Argument for Gun Ownership

No.

Therefore you are my bitch until I say otherwise.

Shut up and sit down.

Can you read? If so go back and have a look at the "sources" you quoted

[Proto]

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

Did they not attack the WTC in '93? Did they not blow up one of our ships in '98(?)? Did they not crash 4 planes and take down both of the WTC's?

Yes, we invaded them in Desert Storm at the request of the Kuwaiti's because Saddam invaded and occupied THEM.

If someone were to walk up to you and start punching you, would you sit there and take it or would you fight back?

What do you mean "they"?

Who, Muslims? What, all of them?

Oh, and by the way, the 4 planes flown into your buildings were flown by Saudi citizens.

[Proto]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

Cindy Sheehan is upset about the loss of her son. Her current objectives may be of dispute but the loss of a loved one, especially a child, can drive individuals to express feelings that may be formerly supressed. There is no telling whether or not she had supported the Bush administration's Iraq campaign.

The points of argument for the Iraq campaign are moot. The president had already chose and excuted his decision for this country. The country may be divided on the cause and necessity of war but one thing is certain, the United States is fighting a foreign campaign on credit. I don't know if you all feel that being at the financial mercy of China is a good thing since the United States is delving deeper into a bottomless national debt. Now combinged with costs of rebuilding in the aftermath Katrina and Rita, it just drives the country deeper into the hole. Perhaps we can discuss the future as opposed to pointing the finger and beating on a dead issue.

Intersting article from Sunday's Observer newspaper:


Alphabet of global downturn

Financier-turned-economic pundit Jim Mellon sees no reason to be optimistic about the world's financial future

Sunday September 25, 2005
The Observer


The unwelcome arrival of Katrina and Rita in the US has swept away illusions about American society. The competence of the authorities, the standard of living of many of its people, the fabric of the country's infrastructure - all have been cast in doubt by the storms' effects. Third World scenes of starvation, looting and rampage have emphasised the fine line between ordered society and the law of the jungle. No country is ever that many steps away from anarchy and chaos.

The same is true of financial markets. Although a natural optimist, I am going to make a prediction that is almost apocalyptic. In a short time - a few years at most - the rich West and Japan will have a terrible shock. Living standards will fall precipitously, companies will fail en masse and established institutions will find themselves in financial peril. Asset prices - particularly those of houses - will fall dramatically in some countries, notably the US and UK, and world trade conditions will deteriorate significantly.

Worse, global tensions will rise and China will not only be a threat to Italian sock and bra manufacturers, but a potential military threat to the Pax Americana.

There will be no warning of the arrival of this downturn, but the early signs are clear. Simplistically, I distil these threats into five categories, A, B, C, D and E. All of them represent confluent trends that herald the end of a long period of human advancement in the rich world. Six decades of technological advance, growth in material output, extension of human longevity, and unbroken peace in our cosseted part of the world, is coming to a conclusion.

The five trends are:

· Anti-Americanism and the beginning of the end of US hegemony.

· Balances - trade, fiscal and societal - which are out of kilter as never before.

· China's growth which has put it on the way to being the world's largest economy and the main Pacific power.

· Debts run up by consumers, companies and governments are at all-time peaks, and a dramatic and painful correction is the only remedy.

· Environmental: even ardent Bushites must be beginning to think man is having some effect on the planet's climate. The world's population has quadrupled in 60 years, and the problems of waste and consumption, as well as of pollution, are not going to get any better.

The anti-Americanism is a feature of nightly TV news bulletins. Since two-thirds of the world's population - the part that is young and growing - live in relative poverty, there will be frustration about and antipathy towards the Big Brother of the affluent world.
The US policy of acting as a roving cop has added to Second and Third World disaffection, and fundamentalism and terrorism are the children of disaffection. Efforts to help the poor world with rock concerts and debt cancellations are noble but insufficient, especially as Western farm subsidies do more harm to developing countries than our aid does good.
This anti-Americanism, and the US forays into hot spots around the globe, are in themselves not major factors in my economic predictions. But they add a backdrop of malaise to an already deteriorating situation, and will complicate any recovery from what is going to be a period of decline.

Balances - the B on my list - are glaringly awful. The US imports half as much again as it exports, and it pays for the deficiency in its own, self-printed currency. Trade's obese twin deficit - the fiscal one - is largely paid for by Asian central banks recycling surplus dollars they receive for selling goods to America, through the acquisition of US government debt.

These negative balances - which apply to the UK as well - have been around for a long time, but we are close to the limits of their expansion. Any refusal by the Asians to keep on funding US profligacy, or any serious moves to protectionism by the major Western nations, will tip us into a rerun of the 1929 Wall Street crash.

There is only one way out for the US, and it involves pain. I forecast that a deflationary period of adjustment is imminent and that while, confusingly, we are in a short period of commodity-induced price inflation, ultimately asset prices will fall.

The Anglo-Saxon housing bubbles are close to popping, and that will drag down consumption - the great driver of the world's economy - by more than anyone now imagines.

And that brings me to China. Its growth and ambitions are well known. Nearly a quarter of the world's population are prepared to work for wages which are on average one-hundredth of those in Germany. Whatever Germany, or the US or Italy, try to do, they cannot compete with that. More and more production will go to China, protectionist pressures will intensify and diplomatic tensions will grow with them.

All sorts of potential flashpoints exist, but if I had to pick one it would be Taiwan. China wants Taiwan back and one day it will have a go at getting it. The US response to that should be of more than casual interest to us.

In a way, we are in 1912 again. British supremacy was waning then and a new military power rising, one based on economic achievement. Then, of course, it was Germany. We have to hope a similar conflict doesn't result with China.

The first problem with debt is that US and UK consumers have been using rising house prices as a kind of ATM machine to take out equity to spend, often on imported goods. When the merry-go-round stops - as is beginning to happen - the consumption stops too. A slump in consumption lasting a decade or more, as happened in Japan, is possible for both nations. American debt is higher today relative to the size of the US economy than it was in 1929, and all the monetary and fiscal tinkering in the world can't cure its pernicious effects.

Last there are environmental issues. Wind farms, solar power and carbon credits will be nowhere near enough to combat the effects of population growth, China's higher consumption of commodities and the obliteration of the rainforests. Less consumption and more nuclear power are the only solutions.

In short, within three years the world economy will be in a significant downturn, and the correction process for the Anglo-Saxon economies will last as long as a decade.

Pay, and therefore living standards, will have to adjust to the effect of Chinese competition. Stock markets will collapse, house prices in the over-extended markets of the UK and the US will fall by up to 50 per cent, and major investment banks and other financial institutions will go bust.

Opportunities will abound for those with cash and little or no debt, but remember that the people who threw themselves from Wall Street windows in 1929 were generally not those who got caught up in the early part of the Crash. They were those who bought when shares had halved. Cheap can and will get cheaper.

[jaim]

Holy crap. I read some of this thread and have to say some of you are the most ignorant people I have ever come in contact with on the internet.

Here is an except from our U.S. Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Any of you idiots know which part of the constitution this is from? I'll answer that for you semi-literates.
Amendment I, Bill of Rights!

Cindy Sheehan (sp?) has done everything according to the above quoted material. And she has a right to do so just as even the dumbest one of you has, whether you know it or not.

Jesus ****ing Christ people. Get a clue.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by Proto

What do you mean "they"?

Who, Muslims? What, all of them?

Oh, and by the way, the 4 planes flown into your buildings were flown by Saudi citizens.

Don't bother correcting these relatively small details. Half the board is aligned with the current administration's policies and, with N4SPD in particular, is also bent upon Iraqi responsibility and justification of the Iraq invasion.

Fighting foreign wars usually have nothing to do with patroitism (ie. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). In fact, during the 20th Century (prior to WWII), the United States had no enemies that would even appear threatening. However, due to change in foreign policies and foreign interventions, enemies begin to amass and evolve. These foreign conflicts typically stem from the policies of presidential administration in power at the time of conflict. Korea, Vietnam, and Central America were the result of Communist containment policies (US soil was not attacked). With the discovery of oil in the Middle East, economic interests have arisen toward the sovereign nations of Middle East (ie. Lebanon, nothing to do with US soil). With every foreign intervention, new enemies form and evolve, each deadlier than before.

Just to touch on the Iraq subject and revive a dead issue: Human rights in other countries have nothing to do with patriotism or the defense of US soil. So logic and international law would yield that the United States may not invade and remove the regime of a sovereign nation. It appears as though President Bush was not in favor of the former Iraqi Gov't and decided to give Iraq a new gov't (because he could and felt like it). President Bush acted upon suspicion of Weapons of Mass Destruction (specifics???) and harboring suspected terrorists. To this date, Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found and there have not been significant, credible links between terrorists (9/11 in particular) and the former Iraqi regime. Those of you that counterclaim really should supply evidence from a credible source otherwise, suggesting WMD and terrorists links.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by jaim

Holy crap. I read some of this thread and have to say some of you are the most ignorant people I have ever come in contact with on the internet.

Here is an except from our U.S. Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Any of you idiots know which part of the constitution this is from? I'll answer that for you semi-literates.
Amendment I, Bill of Rights!

Cindy Sheehan (sp?) has done everything according to the above quoted material. And she has a right to do so just as even the dumbest one of you has, whether you know it or not.

Jesus ****ing Christ people. Get a clue.

Federal laws are actually informal amendments to the Constitution. May not have be a glorious arrest for NYPD, but Cindy Sheehan violated a law.

[sheepofblue]

Am I the only one amused by the fact that Cowboy1600 qouted himself?

[BDA116]

Once again the lack of intellect from the left wing fringies rears it's ugly head.
A) Sheehan wasn't arrested for practicing her freedom of speech. Most here acknowledge the fact that we all have it, that has nothing to do with it. She was arrested for blocking a public sidewalk, knowing full well what she was doing was violating the law. She was asked to move and she refused.
Her little party was organized by a group fronting for the Worker's World Party, a communist anti-American group. Yeah for her and her little sheeple.
B) WTF do the NYPD have to do with this arrest? I didn't know they had jurisdiction in D.C.
Again, fact means nothing to the leftists.

[EDDIE110171]

Originally Posted by jaim

Here is an except from our U.S. Constitution.

Except what?

[luvtolean]

British papers really like sensational bullshit don't they?

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Once again the lack of intellect from the left wing fringies rears it's ugly head.
A) Sheehan wasn't arrested for practicing her freedom of speech. Most here acknowledge the fact that we all have it, that has nothing to do with it. She was arrested for blocking a public sidewalk, knowing full well what she was doing was violating the law. She was asked to move and she refused.
Her little party was organized by a group fronting for the Worker's World Party, a communist anti-American group. Yeah for her and her little sheeple.
B) WTF do the NYPD have to do with this arrest? I didn't know they had jurisdiction in D.C.
Again, fact means nothing to the leftists.

Three times

Don't make me anthrax ya'

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Cowboy1600

Can you read? If so go back and have a look at the "sources" you quoted

*ahem*

Can you read?

Please show me where I quoted a SINGLE source in that thread.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by Fantasy World

So logic and international law would yield that the United States may not invade and remove the regime of a sovereign nation.

Please show me where it is written in our Constitution that the United States is beholden to international law.

[CBR929RE]

lets look at it this way. would she have protested the war had her son not died? probably not. She's an idiot. If she believes so strongly against it she should have spoken up when it started. Her son's death is not a cause for action.

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by CBR929RE

lets look at it this way. would she have protested the war had ehr son not died? probably not. She's an idiot. If she believes so strongly against it she should have spoken up when it started. Her son's death is not a cause for action.

Likely the best point any of us will ever see or hear.

[Mattress]

Originally Posted by ND4SPD

So in other words they didn't want to pay for school so they figured they'll go in the military, do their 4 years and have an education. Am I right or am I right?

I joined because I was sick of school

[BizJetGuy]

What really happened at the demonstrations


Edit: I can't believe I read this whole GD thread this morning.

[tigerblade]

Originally Posted by Proto

The unwelcome arrival of Katrina and Rita in the US has swept away illusions about American society. The competence of the authorities, the standard of living of many of its people, the fabric of the country's infrastructure - all have been cast in doubt by the storms' effects. Third World scenes of starvation, looting and rampage have emphasised the fine line between ordered society and the law of the jungle.

If I based my opinion of my country on what I saw on TV, I would be extremely depressed.