K
Kilroy
Guest
>[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jul-23-01
>AT 00:40 AM (GMT)
>
>>So, if you do something I
>>don't like I could break
>>your arm so you don't
>>do it again?
>
>Yup, especially if you're carrying a
>larger stick than I have.
So you want us to go back to the "biggest muscles is the leader" stone age?
>You need to understand that your
>"freedoms" and "rights" are only
>granted to you because the
>United States government ALLOWS you
>to have them. People
>seem to be caught up
>in the notion that humans
>are somehow *entitled* to such
>"God-given rights" when the fact
>of the matter is that
>your **GOVERNMENT** is the ONLY
>entity that can and does
>ENFORCE those rights.
That's the difference between us I guess, I think that every person should be able to do (almost) what they want without fear of oppresion.
>>Right, do
>>the words "fascist methods" mean
>>anything?
>
>Fascist supress any method of "freedom
>of speech." Those police
>were bringing a bunch of
>*rioters* and *hooligans* to bay
>because they turned a *peaceful*
>demonstration into a violent riot
>that caused massive damage to
>cars, businesses, and people.
>No, I don't think that
>is fascism.
Well, I think so. My oppinion, not yours.
>>I know that it's stupid to
>>attack the police but as
>>briosafreak said, when you're scared
>>or angry you do stupid
>>things and when the police
>>harras you for no reason
>>(I mean that, the police
>>harras some people for absolutely
>>NO reason) some people get
>>mad and do stupid things.
>No reason? How about being
>an unruly crowd and trying
>to get them out of
>the way so they didn't
>harm anything? I would
>not be surprised if these
>people went there to CAUSE
>a riot.
At the start of the second or third day of demonstrations the cops stopped the demonstraters at the beginning of the marsch BEFORE they had done anything. I know you will say something about "only to prevent" but I think it's wrong to judge a person before he has done anything. And there was no reason at the time. No.
>>I don't expect the cops to
>>do nothing, but they shouldn't
>>KILL people.
>
>Humans are expendable, especially worthless rioters.
> Those people are a
>sore on the buttocks of
>society, wasting the time of
>people, damaging property, using up
>resources. Why don't these
>people get a JOB and
>a LIFE? If people
>in the USA and other
>"free" nations spent half the
>amount of time APPRECIATING what
>their governments do for them
>rather than bitch about laws
>and policies they don't like,
>this planet would be a
>much better place.
So you value a car more than a person? Hey i buy you a new BMW if I can kill your mama!
>>OK the currebt
>>program is called "Son of
>>Star Wars" by Greenpeace, but
>>it's still a idiotic thing.
>
>Greenpeace is another one of those
>useless organizations that have no
>life. Those people seriously
>need to be oppressed, as
>they literally litter the world
>with their propaganda, and hold
>up industry.
>
>If one of those Greenpeace boats
>tried to stop my TANKER
>from making it to my
>destination, I'd just run it
>over, or maybe start shooting
>those waste-of-time humans. Greenpeace
>members seriously need to get
>jobs.
They have. Greenpeace. And why do you think saving the planet so unneccesary?
>>I don't know what the
>>english word is but it
>>will only lead to the
>>situation that was during the
>>60s and 70s. They have
>>nukes, we must have nukes.
>
>It is an entirely different situation.
> For one, there is
>no Soviet Union, the big
>communist powers are now very
>much open to trade and
>are for the most part,
>not hostile, and most importantly,
>we have lots of little
>nations that have one or
>two nukes, that for *some
>reason* don't like the western
>nations and might launch a
>nuke because they have nothing
>to lose.
Has it ever happened? No. So I don't see a reason to build the defense system yet. And Russia has been building up their army in the past few years. Putin (ex KGB) has said that "Russia must reclaim the Baltic states as soon as possible". And the russian army performed an exercise a few years back which ended in a full nuclear attack on Poland.
>Also, what makes you think that
>the nuclear weapons situation has
>changed with the bigger nations?
> Instead of the big
>bombs of the 60's and
>70's we have MIRV nuclear
>missiles that carry up to
>twenty or more warheads in
>a single missile. Not
>to mention that there are
>tons of nuclear submarines with
>enough firepower to level every
>costal city in the United
>States. Do you think
>our interceptor fleet, that has
>failed about four out of
>five tests in Alaska will
>be able to combat that?
> They're not meant to
>block a full scale attack,
>but rather take out the
>few nuclear weapons that small
>nations with vendettas have.
>
>>They have bigger nukes we
>>must have bigger nukes, etc.
>
>Wrong. The trend nowadays is
>to fit more nukes into
>a single missile. Our
>interceptors would not be able
>to stop a full-scale attack
>ANYWAY.
You know what I mean.
>>That situation almost caused us
>>the fallout scenario.
>
>No, political tension due to two
>world powers with different agendas
>almost brought us that situation.
>The situation is different now.
>>Nuclear War
>>that destroys the whole world.
>
>That will never happen.
How do you know that? It could happen. They who live shall learn...
>>And I think it's pretty
>>damn stupid to kill a
>>person, specially if you are
>>a cop.
>
>Oh, and it makes it better
>if you're a civilian and
>you kill the cop?
>Would you cheer if those
>hooligans killed a cop?
No but cops are often seen as a role-model for young people. If they killed the cop who (IMHO) murdered Carlos Guiliani, maybe yes.
>>I wouldn't shoot him. i would
>>say: Look, a police car.
>>Throw it at it! 8Because
>>I would probably be one
>>of the peaceful protesters myself)
>>If I were a police
>>man, I would duck and
>>then i would put handcuffs
>>on him.
>
>*Rolls eyes* You've just lost
>what little credibility you had.
How come? Because I don't want to use to much unneccesary force? Do you think that the things that happened to the protesters in DDR (beatings, people who "disappeared" etc) was right to?
>>So, if someone is dangerous he
>>should be killed?
>
>If he is violent and could
>potentially seriously injure, if not
>kill a person, yes.
So you wouldn't want to try and help him or anything like that? You must have high fate in humanity.
>>Why don't
>>we kill everyone with a
>>gun as well?
>
>Not all people with guns are
>violent. Violent people with
>guns should be killed.
No but people with guns are dangerous and can be violent.
>>Including armed
>>forces and police.
>
>Nope, they're enforcing the law.
Too often thru violence.
>>Hell, let's
>>kill everyone who ownes kitchen
>>knives as well. Let's kill
>>all the little kids who
>>throws snowballs at each other
>>as well.
>
>You're becoming ridiculous now.
>
>>A guy I
>>know almost got blind because
>>of a piece of sand
>>in the snowball that hit
>>him in the eye.
>
>Was that snowball meant to kill
>that person? I don't
>think so.
No but it was violent.
>>There
>>is 80 firearms on every
>>100 citizens in the USA.
>>Doesn't that tell SOMETHING about
>>the country?
>
>It sure does, that we have
>too many rights here.
>
>>Sweden have been occupied by other
>>countries on some occations but
>>we don't have laws that
>>let us have military weapons
>>"just in case the danish
>>come back"
>
>And that's good.
Isn't that just the opposite of what you said above?
>>Who gave the police the right
>>to kill people unquestionable?
>Unquestionably? That person they killed
>was violent and a hazard
>to everyone and everyone around
>him. He could've killed
>or seriously injured someone.
>He was attacking an officer
>when he was shot.
>It was self defense, and
>justified.
And still too few people have questioned what he did. For some weird reason, the penalty for rape is much lower than that of violent rioting. THAT is sick. (MHO)
>>If
>>someone killed your friend (answer
>>this one honestly) wouldn't you
>>want SOME kind of revenge?
>
>Depends on why they were killed.
> If he was killed
>innocently, say, as a bystander
>in a gunfight, yeah, but
>if he were killed doing
>something stupid like throwing stuff
>at police, I'd say he
>was killed because he was
>STUPID. I'd be more
>mad at him for being
>a DUMBASS, than the police
>who were defending themselves and
>everyone around them.
So stupid people is also OK to kill? Why not just educate them instead?
>>>I think people who run from the law should be dealt with >harshly. In the case of O.J. Simpson running from police, I >would've given the order to have him shot in the car instead of >following him around in police cars like he was the president >or something.
>>
>>WHY? Just WHY?
>
>It is an admission of guilt.
> I'd have them shot
>if they are being pursued,
>but if the person gives
>up they should be arrested.
> I seriously doubt people
>would take their chances running
>from the law if we
>weren't so lenient with people
>running from the law.
OK. Your oppinion not mine.
>>Pamper, I can come and visit
>>you with a baseball bat
>>and I can show you
>>what the police means with
>>"pamper".
>
>And for what reason? I
>haven't started VIOLENT RIOTS, or
>have thrown a FIRE EXTINGUISHER
>at a police officer.
>What you are describing is
>wrong because the beating done
>for NO REASON. These
>rioters were damaging buildings, burning
>cars, harming police officers and
>being a nuisance to society.
> They diserved the beating
>they took, as with all
>rioters. If they were
>having a perfectly peaceful demonstrations,
>yeah, it would be wrong,
>but these people were no
>better than thieves and hooligans.
It happens to often that people get beaten BY the police for now other reason than showing their oppinions. So if you wear a NIN t-shirt can I kick your ass and call it pampering then?
>>And I can bring
>>a few hundred armed guys
>>who can oppress you if
>>you don't mind (you do?
>>Ahh then we must beat
>>the shit out of you.
>>You still mind? well meet
>>ol' sparky).
>
>I'd sure as hell APPRECIATE what
>I've got here more than
>before. Those rioters should
>learn what it means to
>APPRECIATE what they have.
>Maybe THEY have some sense
>beaten into them.
>
>>I've met people who were brutally
>>beaten by policemen for helping
>>a guy who was half
>>dead AND wounded policemen.
>
>I'm sure you'd do the same
>thing if you saw your
>friend get injured by a
>bunch of hooligans, only to
>see a friend of the
>hooligan try to assist him.
No I wouldn't. I would thank them. And those people weren't "friends" of the hooligans.
>>Is
>>that OK? And YES those
>>people hadn't thrown a single
>>bottle or stone.
Again no. They just happened to be at the same protest.
And Johan. Sweden may not have been occupied by the danish for the last 472 years but I bet that Constitusion will still exist in 300 years.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a73d53c60e9b786.jpg
"The frogurt is also cursed."
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
>AT 00:40 AM (GMT)
>
>>So, if you do something I
>>don't like I could break
>>your arm so you don't
>>do it again?
>
>Yup, especially if you're carrying a
>larger stick than I have.
So you want us to go back to the "biggest muscles is the leader" stone age?
>You need to understand that your
>"freedoms" and "rights" are only
>granted to you because the
>United States government ALLOWS you
>to have them. People
>seem to be caught up
>in the notion that humans
>are somehow *entitled* to such
>"God-given rights" when the fact
>of the matter is that
>your **GOVERNMENT** is the ONLY
>entity that can and does
>ENFORCE those rights.
That's the difference between us I guess, I think that every person should be able to do (almost) what they want without fear of oppresion.
>>Right, do
>>the words "fascist methods" mean
>>anything?
>
>Fascist supress any method of "freedom
>of speech." Those police
>were bringing a bunch of
>*rioters* and *hooligans* to bay
>because they turned a *peaceful*
>demonstration into a violent riot
>that caused massive damage to
>cars, businesses, and people.
>No, I don't think that
>is fascism.
Well, I think so. My oppinion, not yours.
>>I know that it's stupid to
>>attack the police but as
>>briosafreak said, when you're scared
>>or angry you do stupid
>>things and when the police
>>harras you for no reason
>>(I mean that, the police
>>harras some people for absolutely
>>NO reason) some people get
>>mad and do stupid things.
>No reason? How about being
>an unruly crowd and trying
>to get them out of
>the way so they didn't
>harm anything? I would
>not be surprised if these
>people went there to CAUSE
>a riot.
At the start of the second or third day of demonstrations the cops stopped the demonstraters at the beginning of the marsch BEFORE they had done anything. I know you will say something about "only to prevent" but I think it's wrong to judge a person before he has done anything. And there was no reason at the time. No.
>>I don't expect the cops to
>>do nothing, but they shouldn't
>>KILL people.
>
>Humans are expendable, especially worthless rioters.
> Those people are a
>sore on the buttocks of
>society, wasting the time of
>people, damaging property, using up
>resources. Why don't these
>people get a JOB and
>a LIFE? If people
>in the USA and other
>"free" nations spent half the
>amount of time APPRECIATING what
>their governments do for them
>rather than bitch about laws
>and policies they don't like,
>this planet would be a
>much better place.
So you value a car more than a person? Hey i buy you a new BMW if I can kill your mama!
>>OK the currebt
>>program is called "Son of
>>Star Wars" by Greenpeace, but
>>it's still a idiotic thing.
>
>Greenpeace is another one of those
>useless organizations that have no
>life. Those people seriously
>need to be oppressed, as
>they literally litter the world
>with their propaganda, and hold
>up industry.
>
>If one of those Greenpeace boats
>tried to stop my TANKER
>from making it to my
>destination, I'd just run it
>over, or maybe start shooting
>those waste-of-time humans. Greenpeace
>members seriously need to get
>jobs.
They have. Greenpeace. And why do you think saving the planet so unneccesary?
>>I don't know what the
>>english word is but it
>>will only lead to the
>>situation that was during the
>>60s and 70s. They have
>>nukes, we must have nukes.
>
>It is an entirely different situation.
> For one, there is
>no Soviet Union, the big
>communist powers are now very
>much open to trade and
>are for the most part,
>not hostile, and most importantly,
>we have lots of little
>nations that have one or
>two nukes, that for *some
>reason* don't like the western
>nations and might launch a
>nuke because they have nothing
>to lose.
Has it ever happened? No. So I don't see a reason to build the defense system yet. And Russia has been building up their army in the past few years. Putin (ex KGB) has said that "Russia must reclaim the Baltic states as soon as possible". And the russian army performed an exercise a few years back which ended in a full nuclear attack on Poland.
>Also, what makes you think that
>the nuclear weapons situation has
>changed with the bigger nations?
> Instead of the big
>bombs of the 60's and
>70's we have MIRV nuclear
>missiles that carry up to
>twenty or more warheads in
>a single missile. Not
>to mention that there are
>tons of nuclear submarines with
>enough firepower to level every
>costal city in the United
>States. Do you think
>our interceptor fleet, that has
>failed about four out of
>five tests in Alaska will
>be able to combat that?
> They're not meant to
>block a full scale attack,
>but rather take out the
>few nuclear weapons that small
>nations with vendettas have.
>
>>They have bigger nukes we
>>must have bigger nukes, etc.
>
>Wrong. The trend nowadays is
>to fit more nukes into
>a single missile. Our
>interceptors would not be able
>to stop a full-scale attack
>ANYWAY.
You know what I mean.
>>That situation almost caused us
>>the fallout scenario.
>
>No, political tension due to two
>world powers with different agendas
>almost brought us that situation.
>The situation is different now.
>>Nuclear War
>>that destroys the whole world.
>
>That will never happen.
How do you know that? It could happen. They who live shall learn...
>>And I think it's pretty
>>damn stupid to kill a
>>person, specially if you are
>>a cop.
>
>Oh, and it makes it better
>if you're a civilian and
>you kill the cop?
>Would you cheer if those
>hooligans killed a cop?
No but cops are often seen as a role-model for young people. If they killed the cop who (IMHO) murdered Carlos Guiliani, maybe yes.
>>I wouldn't shoot him. i would
>>say: Look, a police car.
>>Throw it at it! 8Because
>>I would probably be one
>>of the peaceful protesters myself)
>>If I were a police
>>man, I would duck and
>>then i would put handcuffs
>>on him.
>
>*Rolls eyes* You've just lost
>what little credibility you had.
How come? Because I don't want to use to much unneccesary force? Do you think that the things that happened to the protesters in DDR (beatings, people who "disappeared" etc) was right to?
>>So, if someone is dangerous he
>>should be killed?
>
>If he is violent and could
>potentially seriously injure, if not
>kill a person, yes.
So you wouldn't want to try and help him or anything like that? You must have high fate in humanity.
>>Why don't
>>we kill everyone with a
>>gun as well?
>
>Not all people with guns are
>violent. Violent people with
>guns should be killed.
No but people with guns are dangerous and can be violent.
>>Including armed
>>forces and police.
>
>Nope, they're enforcing the law.
Too often thru violence.
>>Hell, let's
>>kill everyone who ownes kitchen
>>knives as well. Let's kill
>>all the little kids who
>>throws snowballs at each other
>>as well.
>
>You're becoming ridiculous now.
>
>>A guy I
>>know almost got blind because
>>of a piece of sand
>>in the snowball that hit
>>him in the eye.
>
>Was that snowball meant to kill
>that person? I don't
>think so.
No but it was violent.
>>There
>>is 80 firearms on every
>>100 citizens in the USA.
>>Doesn't that tell SOMETHING about
>>the country?
>
>It sure does, that we have
>too many rights here.
>
>>Sweden have been occupied by other
>>countries on some occations but
>>we don't have laws that
>>let us have military weapons
>>"just in case the danish
>>come back"
>
>And that's good.
Isn't that just the opposite of what you said above?
>>Who gave the police the right
>>to kill people unquestionable?
>Unquestionably? That person they killed
>was violent and a hazard
>to everyone and everyone around
>him. He could've killed
>or seriously injured someone.
>He was attacking an officer
>when he was shot.
>It was self defense, and
>justified.
And still too few people have questioned what he did. For some weird reason, the penalty for rape is much lower than that of violent rioting. THAT is sick. (MHO)
>>If
>>someone killed your friend (answer
>>this one honestly) wouldn't you
>>want SOME kind of revenge?
>
>Depends on why they were killed.
> If he was killed
>innocently, say, as a bystander
>in a gunfight, yeah, but
>if he were killed doing
>something stupid like throwing stuff
>at police, I'd say he
>was killed because he was
>STUPID. I'd be more
>mad at him for being
>a DUMBASS, than the police
>who were defending themselves and
>everyone around them.
So stupid people is also OK to kill? Why not just educate them instead?
>>>I think people who run from the law should be dealt with >harshly. In the case of O.J. Simpson running from police, I >would've given the order to have him shot in the car instead of >following him around in police cars like he was the president >or something.
>>
>>WHY? Just WHY?
>
>It is an admission of guilt.
> I'd have them shot
>if they are being pursued,
>but if the person gives
>up they should be arrested.
> I seriously doubt people
>would take their chances running
>from the law if we
>weren't so lenient with people
>running from the law.
OK. Your oppinion not mine.
>>Pamper, I can come and visit
>>you with a baseball bat
>>and I can show you
>>what the police means with
>>"pamper".
>
>And for what reason? I
>haven't started VIOLENT RIOTS, or
>have thrown a FIRE EXTINGUISHER
>at a police officer.
>What you are describing is
>wrong because the beating done
>for NO REASON. These
>rioters were damaging buildings, burning
>cars, harming police officers and
>being a nuisance to society.
> They diserved the beating
>they took, as with all
>rioters. If they were
>having a perfectly peaceful demonstrations,
>yeah, it would be wrong,
>but these people were no
>better than thieves and hooligans.
It happens to often that people get beaten BY the police for now other reason than showing their oppinions. So if you wear a NIN t-shirt can I kick your ass and call it pampering then?
>>And I can bring
>>a few hundred armed guys
>>who can oppress you if
>>you don't mind (you do?
>>Ahh then we must beat
>>the shit out of you.
>>You still mind? well meet
>>ol' sparky).
>
>I'd sure as hell APPRECIATE what
>I've got here more than
>before. Those rioters should
>learn what it means to
>APPRECIATE what they have.
>Maybe THEY have some sense
>beaten into them.
>
>>I've met people who were brutally
>>beaten by policemen for helping
>>a guy who was half
>>dead AND wounded policemen.
>
>I'm sure you'd do the same
>thing if you saw your
>friend get injured by a
>bunch of hooligans, only to
>see a friend of the
>hooligan try to assist him.
No I wouldn't. I would thank them. And those people weren't "friends" of the hooligans.
>>Is
>>that OK? And YES those
>>people hadn't thrown a single
>>bottle or stone.
Again no. They just happened to be at the same protest.
And Johan. Sweden may not have been occupied by the danish for the last 472 years but I bet that Constitusion will still exist in 300 years.
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a73d53c60e9b786.jpg
"The frogurt is also cursed."
"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
