And their "keeping the peace" was still unconstitutional which is why when it was found out that the NOPD were seizing civilian weapons, they were immediately ordered to stop. And it hardly kept the peace, all it did was disarm innocent civilians trying to protect their homes from those people that are the ones causing trouble. A gun isn't required to cause trouble. A criminal still has many other means, not to menion those criminals most likely weren't disarmed in the first place as they weren't just sitting back in their homes waiting for police to come. All the seizures did was make innocent civilians bigger targets and easier victims for those criminals the police were trying to stop. Uh, no. They also took them from people. It seems you just read one article. Watch that news clip I posted also. It even has soldiers commenting on it and showing live coverage of them disarming people from their own homes. And as I mentioned when I posted those two news articles, those were the first two that popped up. I've never even read those two "sensational" articles before as I read other sources but I couldn't find those ones in time for you. I can find numerous others that are better than those two "sensational" ones, but you wanted proof so I provided a quick link. The video is the better of em all. Did you bother to even watch that? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-368034430006732400&q=katrina guns Watch that video and tell me again that police only took weapons from abandoned homes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hard to have proof since the only guns that have to be registered are assault weapons. And this is just one of the many reasons why the guns shouldn't have been confiscated in the place! I know if my guns were seized, I'd be SOL. - N
americas problem. buncha bs if you ask me ( no one ever notices my bs thread ) btw, it's all bs. once again existabrent
Ask anyone from a Muslim country whose business we were in. Ever since the first Emperor of the Bush Dynasty sent soldiers from a Christian nation onto Muslim land, pretending that he could sort out the problems in a region that America absolutely does not understand at all, the Muslims have not been able to get out of their minds the idea that this is the revival of the Crusades. Air bases of Christian military forces within an hour's drive of the holiest Muslim shrines in Saudi Arabia. The US meddled in Afghanistan in Reagan's time. It was we who created what we now call the Taliban, in response to the rise of what we now call the Northern Alliance, that was supported by the USSR. (Remember them? Weren't those good times compared to now?) And don't forget our support of Israel, that has not endeared us to the Muslim peoples. We have, as I said before, been stomping around the Cradle of Civilization in our cowboy boots, shooting everything that moves, for quite a long time now. I am not talking about rights! I am talking about reality. Many things are not "right" or "wrong," they just are. If you spank your child more than rarely, no matter how "right" you think you are, he's going to grow up to be a dick. That's not right or wrong, it's just reality. If your country meddles in the affairs of people thousands of miles from your borders, no matter how right you think it is, they're going to think your country is a dick. The universe just works that way. I'm not saying we should not defend ourselves. But anyone who thinks what we're doing in the Middle East is making us safer isn't looking at the whole planet. We might spend all of our children's inheritance and finally install a puppet government in Iraq that can stop Iraqi terrorists from attacking the USA. (Oh wait, they weren't doing that in the first place, it was those Saudis, President Bush's best buddies in the whole world.) And for good measure we can drop nuclear bombs on Iran and take them out of the picture. But spin your globe a little to the clockwise and look at some of those gigantic non-Arab, non-Persian, non-Turkic countries to the east of the Mideast. Pakistan? Bangla Desh? Indonesia? Malaysia? Half of the Philippines? Ever take a good look at them? There are more than ONE BILLION Muslims living in those countries! As far as those people are concerned, if you send Christian armies into one Muslim nation, you've insulted them all. Do we really expect to insult ONE BILLION Muslims and not have maybe just a teenie weenie problem afterward? As I said, this is not "right" or "wrong" and there's absolutely no point in debating it on that level. It just is, and if we ignore it we are going to be so truly and irrevocably sorry that I weep for America. Hitting people of any age occasionally will startle them, cause them pain of a level that they are totally unaccustomed to, and make them wonder how they got to that point in their life. Hitting people of any age on a regular basis will only make them want to hit you back. If they're children and they can't hit you, they'll save the revenge up inside them until it festers, and when they become adults they'll take it out on their own children. This cycle is far too well known to be disputed. Every single teenager I knew who was violent had a father who "punished" him physically. I sympathize with everything you say about the sorry state of our educational system, and I suspect in your heart you don't disagree with my feeling that it's basically the fault of parents who are sending kids to school who are more suited for the zoo. But violence is not and never will be the solution to any problem.
Not to mention those non-Iran countries are nuclear armed. Let's hope we don't piss off Pakistan with over half of it's population being radical Muslims where they just may succeed in their attempts of assassinating or overthrowing Pervez Musharraf. This is why I say any military actions taken against Iran will be the straw that breaks the Muslim camel's back. I doubt they'll just sit back and take it any longer. Let's hope that our thousands of soldiers and contractors over there don't all of a sudden become hostages surrounded by the pissed off Muslim world. And ya'll thought the Iranian Embassy incident was bad. Psssh.. Let's hope Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn't outdo himself this time. - N
Oh yeah, that really turned out great. In Europe, we got rid of Hitler and set up Stalin. In Asia, we got rid of Hirohito and set up Mao. Yes indeed, it was really all worth it. Violence accomplishes NOTHING!
Stalin was already in power, and he close off eastern europe, and we didn't use force and honor our treaties with China and Chang Ki Chek, wich is why Mao came to power, a failing of the liberals in our goverment at the time, check your history and not the politicaly corrected one.
Well put spidergoat, the U.S. should obey the U.S. laws as well as foreign laws, while on foreign soil, and if both can't be done, the U.S. should leave that country in a swift movement.
Well okay. Let's accept this statement for the sake of the argument. The question still remains: What exactly did we accomplish in WWII that was worth all that bloodshed and nuclear fallout? Hitler and Stalin might have held each other in check. Japan would have been no more successful at dominating China through military conquest than the Manchus and Mongols were; Japan might already be a Chinese province. As for the liberals, I'm a libertarian with no more respect for leftists than for rightists. But it seems to me that a conservative American government might very well not have entered the war in the first place (on the European front) or provoked it (on the Pacific front).
On the flip side every jew and non-arayan in europe and the middle east (and possibly all of africa) would be dead. So looking at the war in europe our violence stopped a massive genocide that possibly could have produced even more dead than the war.
RE: LordRuryl The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. - H.L. Mencken Only the mob and the elite can be attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda. - Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), German-born U.S. political philosopher. The Origins of Totalitarianism, ch. 3, sct. 11 (1951) The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The Nazi administration was well aware of the fact that once the war was over they would not be able to continue their rampant genocide. Even winners have to make some deference to public opinion. That's why they were trying so hard to wipe out the Jews before the war ended. It's doubtful that they could have made a dent in the Arab and African populations before their fifteen minutes ran out in peacetime. Hitler's death would have taken the urgency out of the ethnic cleansing movement. It was made clear by their extermination of Slavs and Gypsies--both Aryan peoples--that their talk of Aryan supremacy was hyperbolic oversimplification and not a reflection of their actual philosophy. It seems more likely that they simply wanted to kill everyone they hated and they hated everyone: A. Who was in their way, like the Slavs; B. Who they could easily blame for all their problems, like the Jews; or C. Who was already unpopular throughout Europe, like the Gypsies. They probably would have appreciated the Muslims for the values they shared, in much the same way they declared the Japanese to be "honorary Aryans." In any case, it seems unlikely that after winning WWII with much less bloodshed than actually occurred, due to America not joining in the fight and letting it end more quickly, the Germans could and would have mounted the incredible economic and logistical effort required to start annihilating people so far from home. After all, once the war was over and wartime sacrifices were no longer needed, their own constituents would expect them to start expending their resources on food, housing, transportation, entertainment, etc., again.
Fraggel Rocker, quite a assumption, any proof beyond your politicaly correct thought process?, there seem to be a lot of imformation other wise.
Okay, believe me I am trying to see your point. But alas, I am failing. If you are trying to say that the president entered the war without informing congress, you are dead wrong. If you are trying to say that the president should have pulled the troops out after sixty days due lack of congressional authority, you are dead wrong. I stand by my original statement. The point of it is to limit a president from using the military carte blanche. In this case, the president is not doing so. You can make a case against any military action on morals, but legalistically you cannot. You keep asking if I have read the War Powers Act, because you are falsely under the assumption that congress has not given the president the power. But they have, whether or not, you think that we do not have an enemy or the power expressed is unconstitutional makes little difference. Bottom line is you are denying reality.
Again, you are making a case of unconstitutional behavior based on actions taken under duress. This is the crux of my argument. Under extreme circumstances, the government is charged with maintaining or restoring peace. Unfortunately, sometimes that does mean circumventing the Constitution to do so. However, once the peace has been restored those actions should be discontinued. You are going all over the place to feed into the hysteria. You cannot find anything that such unconstitutional measures were conducted for its own sakes. And again, I would be agreeing with you if such situations were happening. However, I am trying to differentiate situations.
While you are merely adopting a narrow-minded, confrontational, bigoted, nationalistic stance. Excellent plan. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It is not a matter of hitting just the use of that word changes the meaning of the purpose, which is suspect is intentional on your part. The reason I say corporal punishment is necessary is not because I want harm a child, nor is it to exact revenge. Instead it is to serve as a disciplinary measure to teach a child that they need to be accountable for their actions. Most likely the teenager you are referring to was abused, of course I could be wrong. At some time in a child's life, a parent is responsible for changing their method of discipline to a more adult level. I do, however, agree that much of the problems are parents who do not discipline. When confronted with misbehavior of their child they turn to denial. So yes, I think a lot of fault lies with parents. But as I have read your responses it has become clear where you stand. You are first a pacifist, except when it comes to actions against you or your country. In other words, you have not condemned any violent actions except those taken by the US. I know you say are neither left nor right, but libertarian. However, much of your views have shown themselves to be considerably more leftist than libertarian, except your view on taxes that are very consistent with libertarians. Your pacifism is in line with Rothbardianism, but your blame America first is flaty leftist Marxist. Therefore you are either a psuedo libertarian that is more marxist, or just a confused libertarian. I love libertarianism. I love the idea of using no force to exchange in ideas, markets, and goods with our fellow humanity. But I draw the line when I have been attacked, and when action is held unaccountable.
Though, of course, I was responding to someone else. Your reply is stock and equally if not insurmountably more narrow- minded. The bigotry and confrontational statements show this.
