Jump to content

Home

TK-8252

Members
  • Posts

    6090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TK-8252

  1. Vote for McCain if you would like to see four more years of George Bush's policies. That's all there is to it. If you like the current state of our economy and our foreign policy, then John McCain is your man. While I'm not a liberal (I voted for Ron Paul in my state's primary), I will be voting for Obama in 2008. While I may not agree with him on some things, such as those policies which would give more power to the government, I actually agree with him on more things than McCain. Besides, the Republicans are the ones who actually expand government, despite their empty rhetoric of lower taxes and smaller government. Republicans just use different means to expand government... such as by claiming that their expansions are vital to "national security," which is the authoritarian way to power. When I see McCain talking on TV I just can't help but think he's a really weak candidate who is in no way prepared to take on the charisma of Obama. I really have to hand it to Obama... the man can work a crowd.
  2. That's right. After all, we're not the Roman Empire.
  3. Wait a minute... since when do our soldiers have freedom of speech? Their right to speech is severely limited, actually. As far as I know, soldiers cannot even communicate with anyone back home without their message first being read and approved by the military. Soldiers can be punished for communicating something - such as troop movements - that compromises their security. Also, there's probably a number of things you could say to your commander that would get you dishonorably discharged. What this soldier did was so outrageously negligent that he should be punished. Our mission in Iraq isn't just to kill the enemy, but it's to build a positive relationship with the Iraqis. Shooting the Iraqis' holy book is certainly not going to win any hearts and minds. This soldier is guilty of dereliciton of duty. A lot of you guys have said "it's just a damn book so what's the big deal, it's not like he was shooting innocent people!" Well, if he was going around just shooting innocent people, it would actually do less harm to our reputation than shooting their holy book. Soldiers shoot innocent people all the time. It's rare when they do something so STUPID as to shoot the Qur'an for target practice. You may think it's wrong that this is more offensive to the Iraqis than killing innocent people, but too bad, it's not what YOU think, it's what the Iraqis think. We're trying to win their hearts and minds, not yours.
  4. A new Jedi Knight game isn't even one of the options?
  5. Just because one of the cops was black does not mean that he can't be racist. There are lots of black cops who are just as prejudice as white cops. White or black, cops racially profile, no doubt about it. So then **** Sean and his rights as an American citizen and a human being. Mistakes should not be forgiven. In fact, you should be killed for what you've done in the past. Right? Police are ONLY supposed to use deadly force if there is an immediate threat to someone's life. Actually, no. Police do not have the right to kill someone for not cooperating. They have the right to arrest them. As far as looking like going for a weapon... I still don't understand how Sean could have reached for a gun that is nonexistant. Ridiculous. First of all, they were undercover. That means that they look like any carjacker you might run into. And, by the way, even if the police were in uniform, evading police is not a crime that you are put to death for.
  6. You guys still haven't explained where that gun is that Sean Bell was allegedly reaching for. How could he reach for a gun that doesn't exist? The fact of the matter is that an innocent, unarmed, black man was gunned down by police, because they thought he was "reaching for a gun." How many times has this scenerio played out? Too many times. Cops are held to such a low standard when it comes to their liberal use of deadly force. They are allowed to essentially murder innocent, unarmed people just because of a suspicion. If I were suspicious that someone was going to pull a gun on me, and I shoot him, and he turns out to have been unarmed, I would be convicted of murder, no doubt about it. The police CANNOT be held to a lower standard than the average citizen.
  7. Are you sure? So if I reach in my pocket while being questioned by a cop, they are within their rights to shoot me dead? I doubt it. The suspect was in a car when he was shot. Reaching for something while in your car is not something you deserve to die for. The cops were trigger-happy and that's all there is to it. Yes I am. I imagine the only place you could legally kill an unarmed intruder would be Texas, and even there, you probably would still be prosecuted for it.
  8. I find it strange how cops can pump FIFTY ROUNDS into an UNARMED MAN... and get away with it. Don't cops need to, like, actually SEE the gun the man was suspected of carrying before they open fire? Jesus... if I were to see someone break into my house, and he does not have a weapon although I suspect he does, and I shoot him just once, I would be thrown in prison for a very long time. The idea that cops should be held to a lower standard than your average citizen is just outrageous.
  9. No one really thought of Democrats as the anti-war party until the Iraq War went south and they started criticizing. Many Democrats were for the Iraq War - John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc., before they were against it. The Democratic Party is not an anti-war party... it's an anti-Republican-war party. Just as the Republican party is an anti-Democratic-war party. The dirty little secret is that starting war is the most quick and efficient way to expand the power of the executive branch to borderline unconstitutional levels. Both parties are out to grab power, whether it be by winning elections, stealing elections, gerrymandering, warmongering, scaring the people, passing bad legislation (the Patriot Act comes to mind), or outright criminal activity (Watergate, warrantless wiretapping, etc.) The Republican Party used to be thought of as anti-war. The Vietnam War ended under Nixon's Presidency. Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for "nation-building" and other military engagements. I really doubt that the Democratic Party would be nearly unanimously against the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it, just as I really doubt that the Republican Party would be nearly unanimously for the Iraq War if a Democratic President would have started it.
  10. What? When has Bush ever said that we would not take strike al-Qaeda in Pakistan if their government does not approve? If we knew where Osama bin Laden was, and he was somewhere in Pakistan, but their government tells us not to kill him, do you really think ANY American President would not go ahead and take out the man behind 9/11? And yeah we might lose them as allies, but what good is Pakistan as an ally if they won't let us take out what we know are al-Qaeda hideouts? If we lose them as an ally, well, damn, but I'd much rather see al-Qaeda destroyed and bin Laden dead. Read this article. Bush's homeland security advisor said basically the same thing Obama said.
  11. Yea um... it's gonna be the policy of ANY American President to go after Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda if we know where they are, no matter if that country wants us to or not. What Barack said was not anything new. It has been our policy since 9/11. It will be the policy under any future Presidency, whether it be Clinton, Obama, or McCain. This thread is an obvious Obama-bash which tries to play on his relative lack of foreign policy experience (not that Clinton or McCain have any positive foreign policy experiences - their votes for the Iraq War come to mind) and doesn't really hold any merit.
  12. You know, none of the statements I've heard on the cable news channels made by Rev. Wright are even that bad. Yeah, they're unconventional views, but I tend to agree with him - at least on what I've heard him say. I must not be hearing the worst of what he's said, because nothing I've heard was in any way racist. Rev. Wright actually makes a lot of sense if you filter out the hysteria in the media. Which is weird, because usually preachers are full of ****. Just because Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (see: actual racists) say that Rev. Wright is racist and a separatist, doesn't make him one. Don't believe the hype!
  13. I'm a little too lazy to read the article in its entirety, but is this proposal something that is mandatory for all girls or some kind of voluntary thing that the government will pay for girls to be sterilized for a few years? I would doubt that something like this could be mandatory, otherwise Britain would have joined the likes of Communist China when it comes to human rights and personal freedom.
  14. Only in single player mode. In multiplayer it performs the same as the DC-17m rifle.
  15. I'm sorry but that sounds like a total cop out. For all intents and purposes, your answer is basically like saying "it's magic."
  16. Think for a moment about what you just said. You are proposing spending ourselves into MORE debt through military spending because our debt makes us vulnerable to aggressors. We can't keep doing this. Actually, we started those wars. The reason why we build all these weapons has nothing to do with our national security. It has everything to do with the military-industrial complex, and the corrupt lawmakers who continue to fund these projects in order to please their corporate buddies. This is the reason why we continue to make bigger and better war machines, and why we continue to use them, whether it's in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly in Iran, if McCain wins the Presidency.
  17. And this type of weapon serves what purpose? How do we kill insurgents in Baghdad exactly with such a weapon? What a waste of taxpayer money. I want to see less money going to this nonsense and more towards science and medicine.
  18. Wow, I bet Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan would hate it if you were making laws. Every picture of them "down there" without underwear would be used against them in a court of law!
  19. Oh, I'd agree that my analogy might not be the best, but I do think that it holds merit. I didn't have to use civil rights as the example; I could have used something else. "I don't drink apple juice, so if it were banned, then I wouldn't care." (Unless of course you do drink apple juice.) This is also a similar mindset I see with the smoking debate, although I don't want to go too far off-topic. "I don't smoke, so if it's banned, then I wouldn't care." Why not live and let live? Why not stand up for the rights of others to do as they wish? You know, as in: "I disagree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it."
  20. I don't understand this mindset at all. "I don't personally do something, so if it's banned, then I don't care. Imagine having such a mindset during a time like the civil rights movement. "I'm not black, so I don't care if they have rights."
  21. Didn't Dr. Phil used to have dignity? Wasn't he the guy who tried to keep troubled marriages together? And give advise to those who are getting divorced? And help parents with their out-of-control kids? Now he's discussing Britney Spears and debating the ever so important issue of sagging pants?
  22. And even with the creationist explanation, they never answer the biggest question... who created god?
×
×
  • Create New...