search results matching tag: military base

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (25)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (3)     Comments (135)   

Trump Supporter CHANGES MIND on Biden in 60sec

newtboy says...

Russia invaded Ukraine to expand. They came up with a dozen lame excuses, like protecting Russian speaking people in Crimea from being insulted and to stop the local government (who they called extremists) from taking abandoned Russian military bases, NATO expansion was never a reason they gave for invading.
In Ukraine proper, his stated excuse was that the new Ukrainian government (formed after the Kremlin installed puppet government was ousted) was comprised of NAZIs who were ethnically cleansing Russian speakers in the East, a total fabrication.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/in-putins-words-why-russia-invaded-ukraine/
Try keeping your revisionist Russia centric anti democratic fantasy history to yourself. I know some random internet blowhard failure broadcasting from mommy’s basement told you this alternative fact nonsense, you have got to stop trusting them.

There’s been more NATO expansion in “buffer” nations since Russia invaded than in the 50+ years beforehand, with more coming because they invaded their neighbor…again.

Ukraine will be a NATO country now, so is our business.
Ukraine was in a treaty with the US, so was already our business. We guaranteed their borders against invasion in exchange for their nuclear arsenal. No nation will ever do a nuclear disarmament treaty with America, we don’t keep our word or we would be fighting there.
Russian expansionism isn’t stopped by ignoring it, it’s encouraged. Trump encouraged the expansionism into Ukraine proper (Crimea was Ukraine) when he recognized Russia’s claim on the seized territory, giving the green light to expand their military operations in Eastern Ukraine (that they denied existed but absolutely were there fighting during Trump’s administration and even before, recall Russians shot down a passenger plane in Ukraine in 2014 and never left).

The EU is supportive enough of Ukraine that they just unanimously agreed to $54 billion in military aid, and the EU is our closest trading partner so again, our business. The MAGA ploy to block any aid to Ukraine to aid Russia (hoping it would look bad for Biden) has failed, the EU miraculously stood up as a unified front and agreed to fund Ukraine.
NATO has agreed to admit Ukraine as soon as possible, something never considered before the invasion.


Ukraine is a lost war, lost by Russia…Russia just won’t admit it yet, but their country will be feeling the loss for decades…loss of their army, loss of an entire generation of young men, loss of their economy, loss of hundreds of trade agreements/partners, loss of trillions of dollars, loss of international standing and cooperation, loss of stability. At this point, even if Russia took Ukraine tomorrow, it would be a loss for Russia. They destroyed their prize, and themselves in the process, and the rest of the world is happy to destroy them through a proxy while Russia engages directly and is crushed daily.
Winning!

https://youtu.be/WhILMFdifhk?si=k-egPJ1oDrqKrd_S

Ukraine has already won this war by destroying Russia. It’s exceedingly likely they will also drive the Russians out and may even take some of Russia a s a buffer zone…Russia is losing badly.

bobknight33 said:

The question is Why is Russia invading Ukraine.

The answer is NATO creeping into buffer countries that was agreed on after the fall of Russia.



Finally Ukraine is not a NATO country----------- This is none of our business.




Ukraine is a lost war.

Trump Supporter CHANGES MIND on Biden in 60sec

newtboy says...

As usual, you have it all 100% backwards. Not surprising since you are a Russian propagandist.
Russia secretly invaded Ukraine in 2014 as pure expansionism, when they finally admitted the invasion their excuse was Russians in Crimea were being poorly treated and a fear extremists would take over Russian military bases, having absolutely nothing to do with NATO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation#:~:text=Russia%20eventually%20admitted%20its%20troops,Russian%20military%
20infrastructure%20by%20extremists%22.

NATO is now “creeping into buffer countries” because Russia started and continues an expansionist policy and threatens its neighbors. Russian expansionism started first. There have been 3 rounds of NATO expansion since Russia started retaking now sovereign lost satellite territories in 2014.
There was never an agreement that NATO wouldn’t accept new members, just as there’s nothing stopping Russia from making allies.
Ukraine was going to be an EU country until Russia’s installed “president” ignored the people and chose Russia over Ukraine and was deposed and expelled so Ukrainians could democratically choose their own leadership which they did. Then Russia invaded.
There was absolutely no chance of them joining NATO until after the invasion, now it’s a near certainty.

Democracy in Europe IS our business. We will be fighting this war at some time, either now while Russia is weak and poor through a proxy or later when we are in a much weaker position fighting them with American soldiers directly…much better to choose now for less money and zero Americans, I know you would prefer to just let Putin re-annex the Balkan states and expand as far as he chooses, returning to socialist communism under his tyrannical leadership, but the free world would prefer to stay free.

And again, it is our business as I clearly explained to you repeatedly because we signed, and actually directed the trilateral disarmament agreement in 92 when we agreed to secure their borders against any incursion and they gave up nuclear weapons the collapsing soviets couldn’t afford to secure themselves. You would make any future agreements, and any current treaties moot and impossible to guarantee because our guarantee is worse than worthless. So shortsighted and not smart. It’s important to keep your word internationally, I know as a MAGgot that doesn’t make sense, just like telling the truth even if it hurts you doesn’t make sense to you…honesty and honor are foreign concepts to your ilk.
It would be nice if you could remember being so wrong so I didn’t have to correct you over and over and over on the exact same topic…but you can’t admit you are wrong so you will forget you were proven wrong, again, and spout the same ignorance, again, forever. So sad and mentally defective….it’s a main feature of MAGA, severe brain damage.

Walk away MAGA policies would hand the world to China, Russia, and N Korea without a word of complaint, then confusion over where our allies are when they come for us.
Ukraine is a war Russia started, one that’s being won by Ukraine with help, and one that has crippled Russia for decades to come WAY cheaper than any American policy could have. Give Joe credit, fine, Joe bankrupted Russia and destroyed their military…I don’t give him that credit, you do.

No, leftists said he would bring us into ruin, and that if he followed trough with his stated intentions he would bring us into war…but he never follows through and caved to China and Russia instead of standing strong for American ideals, interests, and Western democracy. He nearly did start a war by assassinating Iranian government officials and Syrians. I remember when you said ISIS was a nothing burger and not worth paying attention to, right before they took near half of Iraq and Syria, started attacking Americans, and we went to war with them in 2017…who was president then?
We were still at war in Afghanistan when he left office, he had just surrendered unconditionally to the Taliban and Al Qaeda under an agreement they broke repeatedly, but we were still there until Biden (poorly) facilitated the retreat Trump negotiated. Trump/MAGA didn’t avoid or end wars. Nice try at revisionism.

The policy bringing the US near war today is our Israel policy that is the same unthinking blind support for Israel from both parties, same from both presidential candidates. We are in direct military actions endangering American soldiers daily because of THAT conflict, not because of Ukraine. The unbridled ignorance is disappointing even from you. 🤦‍♂️

Ending wars by capitulating like Trump did with Crimea and surrendering unconditionally like Trump did in Afghanistan is not “winning”, it’s losing without even trying and hands the world to dictators.

bobknight33 said:

The kid is asking the wrong question.

The question is Why is Russia invading Ukraine.

The answer is NATO creeping into buffer countries that was agreed on after the fall of Russia.

NATO has not stopped expanding since the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from 17 countries in 1990 to 30 today, several of which were once part of the Soviet-led Warsaw pact.


Finally Ukraine is not a NATO country----------- This is none of our business.


Biden failed Policies have done nothing but keeping pushing for war --

Ukraine is a lost war.

FJB

You leftest said if Trump was POTUS - He would bring us into war--- Never happened.
MEGA 2024 to end wars.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Bob o Bob o Bobby bob....
All 3 of those issues are caused by Republicans....Trump specifically.
Not one is technically voter fraud, although the point is to deny as many citizens their right to vote. If you call that cheating, and I agree it is, it's more Republicans cheating, not Democrats.

Trump and his crony he installed as postmaster have intentionally hobbled the usps, removed sorting machines around the country, and cut overtime to zero among other mail slowdown techniques in preparation for the massive mailings of the election. This is causing a backlog of mail nationwide, and is why so many ballots arrived late in NY....many weren't sent to voters until the day before the election, thousands more simply weren't postmarked at all. Our post office is filling up with undelivered mail NOW because of Trump's scheme to deny votes by deconstructing the mail service....very Trumpian to destroy an essential service for his own personal gain, just like he didn't mind the military wasting tens upon tens of millions per year on foreign fuels and foreign airport fees to stay at his expensive failing hotel in Ireland (Scottland?) instead of American military bases like they did before Trump because it made HIM money.

The post office requested $3 billion for election preparations, Trump refuses to give them a dime, and actually said publicly that he won't so they can't help with mail in voting, because it's bad for Republicans.

Now, wanna try again?
You said you know cases of Democrats committing vote fraud...cheating. This ain't one. These are three articles about how Trump is already cheating this election by denying most Americans a safe way to vote, and since polling places will be largely closed or under staffed, that means the entire election is defunct by Trump's design.
I get why you refused to answer if it's all you could produce after two months, one Republican ploy to deny millions of Americans their right to vote. Jesus Fucking Christ.
🤦‍♂️

bobknight33 said:

For someone who has the answer on all matter you are suddenly dumbfounded in finding such issues.
Gather that fake news does not mention such things. brian stelter and Rachel Maddow are doing you wrong.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ballots-pile-mail-potential-nightmare-looms-election-night/story?id=71719232

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/scattered-problems-with-mail-in-ballots-this-year-signal-potential-november-challenges-for-postal-service/2020
/07/15/0dfb8b42-c216-11ea-b178-bb7b05b94af1_story.html

https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/84000-mail-in-ballots-disqualified-in-nyc-primary-election/

VoteVets - Traitor

luxintenebris jokingly says...

what? fake a bone malady? to rename badly named military bases?

hey! if you actually have info, that can independently be verified (meaning, factual) - dish it, bobby!

it'd be a real distraction. a black president passing on removing traitors' names from US bases? or if barry faked his birth certificate (stay w/the hits), wasn't 10 during vietnam and really is 68! oh! mah-mah!

or it's just another spit and split salvo?

sing it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uEWQrZldnk

[think bk is softening. no rationalization for the draft-dodging, being traitorous, or why dj is pictured on the three-man aryan volleyball team?)

bobknight33 said:

Obama was asked to do this also. So now lay the blame on Trump.

BACON CAUSES CANCER!!!! MCDONALDS IS GIVING FREE CANCER!

newtboy says...

It's not time you lack, I got an A in statistics which I took after advanced placement B/C calculus, thank you.
Please stop hyper exaggerating the danger of all animal products and the benefits of veganism.

No, we're acting like +1% lifetime risk of one type of cancer, from 5%-6%, is a totally acceptable level of risk to trade for a lifetime of pleasure when taken knowingly, and is a far cry from +18% every time you eat bacon. It's probably far less than the additional risk of drinking municipal water, or breathing anywhere East of the West coast, certainly exponentially less than breathing air in any major metropolitan area, or living within 25 miles of a military base or airport.

I'm also acting like people who lie about or misrepresent the stats only prove their position is untenable and that they're untrustworthy. If 1% total increased lifetime risk is enough to make your point, why erroneously claim +18% per serving? It makes it so easy to dismiss and overlook any real point you might have had.

Nothing is unanimous, and that goes double for nutritional advice. Somewhere there's a doctor that insists you can't possibly get enough nitrates, most would say if you're healthy go ahead and have some bacon...in moderation. My doctor and numerous documentaries say the stress of worrying incessantly about every little risk factor is a much bigger risk factor than almost any other for innumerable disorders and diseases. I'll take his advice, thanks.

transmorpher said:

I don't have time to teach you statistics. Stop trying to downplay the danger.

And for the third time, even if it is 1%, that's still millions of people suffering from colon cancer in the USA alone, but y'all are pretending like 1% is 0%.

Regardless of the numbers THE RECOMMENDATION IS UNANIMOUSLY DO NOT EAT. Very clear language that leaves no room for dispute.

MAGA Catholic Kids Mock Native Veteran's Ceremony

newtboy says...

Bob.
Get seen for cranial rectosis.
3:21 mark

"He served just under 4 years, and was discharged at the exalted rank of private."

You somehow think that means he's not a veteran? Go to any local military base and tell them that, see how it goes. He has been consistent stating he was not in Vietnam or battle, he didn't claim to be a war veteran or Vietnam vet, that was just lazy/poor reporting...but not nearly as poor as this 1791 ranting YouTube tripe that actually corroborated my statement by accident.

Seriously, get seen. There's something amiss if you thought this was somehow proving he's not a vet.

bobknight33 said:

Technically no, Electrician/Refrigeration repair technician.

3:16 mark

Finally There Is Bipartisan Agreement: Trump Blew It

newtboy says...

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

Spacedog79 said:

Lest we forget that Crimea started when we sponsored a violent coup in Ukraine, right on Russia's doorstep. How provocative is that?

The thing to remember about Crimea is that it holds Sevastopol which is a strategically vital port for Russia, it is their only port that isn't ice locked during winter. We knew full well they would have to keep hold of it one way or another, and thankfully Russia found a democratic way of doing it instead of violent.

Under the circumstances I think Russia deserves credit for being so restrained.

California City: The Largest City Never Built

artician says...

This sounds like a place you'd either have to be retired to live at (i.e. Palm Springs), or otherwise have access to one of the nearby airfields/military bases.
If people can't commute into a city center for growing industries, ... Well, from that perspective this is just a pre-Detroit.

RT-putin on isreal-iran and relations with america

coolhund says...

I never said to rely on Putin or RT solely. I just tried to explain that ignoring him and RT because of stupid reasons like that is not very wise, because the west isnt much better. You have to see all the sides to make a proper judgement.

A, B and C are irrelevant. Ownership is irrelevant because the western media is also "owned" by people with an agenda. But even between those different people there is a common agenda. You can see that in Germanys media right now very well. They are outright lying collectively to the people just to stay politically correct.

Reputation also is irrelevant because objectivity > reputation.

Funding is also irrelevant, as you said yourself. You can see it very well that it doesnt change much where they get their money from. The agenda matters. Also very well observable lately.

Putin first and foremost is a counterweight. He makes the western mistakes more obvious. He also has very good points when defending his own countries actions. Even the homosexual ones, if you ever listened to him on that topic. Yes, as a political leader he is of course manipulating, but he makes much more sense, actually uses facts and doesnt nearly lie as much as any politician I have ever seen.
You of course need to have and acknowledge those facts to realize that. But you made it clear that you arent. Comparing Russias imperialism with Americas shows just how much. Its pretty much clear the USA was involved in that coup detat once again. Now imagine how the USA would have reacted if Russia did that in Canada or Mexico. Or imagine how the USA would react to being completely surrounded by Russian military bases, having decades of history of destabilizing and overthrowing countries and whole regions, breaking and ignoring international law, even threatening the country where the international court sits to never dare to bring one of their before their court and then Russia claiming that the USA is the aggressor.

Actually Russia has long been very passive about the eastern expansion of NATO and they forgave that bleeding out of Russia towards the west in the 90s. Something like that happening at their doorstep actually justifies much MUCH harsher reactions, but they didnt use them. Instead they actually took another (hypocritical) slap in the face rather passively and silently with those sanctions.

Syria... I am surprised you even bring that up, because thats just stupid to use that for your argument. Syria has been a long ally of Russia and they asked for help after the US and NATO started bombing their infrastructure instead of ISIS. The war in Syria is even more obviously an externally funded war, not a civil war, while in the Ukraine you can actually see parts of a civil war, it started like that, because those people didnt want the new government. Also again mostly due to America and their support of other totalitarian regimes in that region.
You should read this:
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/31/holes-in-the-neocons-syrian-story/

RedSky said:

1 - Well let me deconstruct that a bit. Presumably you rely on news, how can you rely on any of it to be trustworthy? Several ways obviously, I would say the main are (A) Ownership, (B) Reputation and (C) Funding.

A - Ownership - RT (and it's web of shadowy news sites pretending to be local) are owned by the Kremlin or clearly Kremlin linked oligarchs. Their incentives should be clear, promote the Putin narrative. When all independent TV news has been shuttered within Russia or taken over, you would expect these outfits to be heavily biased towards propaganda. I would similarly have to be suspect of outfits like Voice of America (US government funded). Corporate news sources have their own incentives. I happen to like the Economist but I'm mindful of its ownership involving the Rothschild family and Eric Schmidt (Google) being on the board for example. After all, every news outfit is owned by someone.

B - Reputation - This is the main one to me. You can say what you will about Western media, but there is a cultural expectation among its people and its reporters of the freedom to report newsworthy stories. There are obviously biases and those form part of the news source's reputation. We know TV news tend to be short on fact and sensationalist. Equally, we know Fox News to be right wing. We inevitably find these things out because no matter how much a news owner might want to control its message, freedom of speech sees the reputation leak out. We have reports (regarding Fox for example) that memos go out to use specific language like "Climategate" or we have controversies such as when photos of NYT reporters were photoshopped with yellow teeth.

C - Funding - Advertising vs Subscription, but that's not really relevant here.

My main point is, relying on Putin directly or any of his web of 'news' to get information about Russia or America is particularly silly. We know their ownership, reputation and thereby incentives. Or any state backed news. For corporate news, ultimately any bias from ownership, reputation or say government influence will leak out.

2 - I don't see him as any more politically effective or intelligent than necessarily any other major leader. If I've expressed anything here it should be that what Putin says is just as calculated and manipulative as any politician. Just because it has a veneer of 'speaking truth to power' or recounts some truths does not mean it is true in its entirety. Bluster and waging wars is politically popular in Russia, he is simply playing to a different audience. I would say any notion that he is more 'objective' is farcical. After all the kind of imperialism that he decries of America is the exact kind he's engaged in in Ukraine and now Syria!

newtboy (Member Profile)

300 Foreign Military Bases? WTF America?!

newtboy says...

Not the one's in Germany...or Japan...or to some extent any in the middle east....but I do get your point. While those two are now allies, the reason the bases are there is because they were enemies, so we denied them the right to have their own military.

Yes, for the same level of effective military, replaced by the countries each of these bases are in, it would cost more overall, I'm sure you're right. BUT...most of them don't need anywhere near the level of military we supply, and they would still be our allies, so have our huge, advanced military backing even if they supplied their own military instead of relying SOLEY (or even mostly) on ours. Also, that $100B per year would be spread out over nearly 300 countries, so far easier to pull off.

About not being invaded...just to name 3....Kuwait had a US military base when Saddam invaded, Iraq has many, and they aren't dissuading ISIS. I actually think we have one in the Ukraine too, but I'm not sure (we certainly have a treaty that said clearly that we were supposed to defend them with the full force of our military if they were ever invaded...so much for that promise though). It's often a deterrent for considerate governments, but not all military agencies are thoughtful or consider the repercussions of their actions (I think the US policy proves that clearly).

Praetor said:

Except almost all these bases are in allied countries, not as an occupying force (Guantanamo predates the Communist Revolution,so tough luck for Havana). These bases provide mutual defense and security.

Countries with US bases in them don't get invaded. How much do you think it would cost to have every single allied country try and run and maintain a truly effective military for their own defense instead of using the US as a strategic partner? Way more than $100b a year.

(P.S. loving the irony of the guy with the handle of Praetor and the avatar of the Emperor arguing he doesn't live in an empire, lol)

10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman

Trancecoach says...

I don't understand why she doesn't do what most women (and men) who don't want to be approached (be it by men, women, panhandlers, whomever!) while walking through a city do, and wear earbuds??? It's a very simple solution and provides an easy and practical way of ignoring most of these attempts (if not dissuading them altogether).

Also.. This.

And:
"Let's all stop and focus our attention on "catcalling" women. Let's forget the drone bombings of entire cities, the fact that the US has 900 military bases in over 153 countries, the fact that you are almost 9 times more likely to be killed by a police employee than a terrorist....let's take a break from that and focus on the fact that sometimes men are creepy to pretty women."


And:

"The path to empowering women is not by disempowering men.
While many feminist campaigns and viral videos are great at expressing the (superficial) problem, they're not helping to solve it. Prolonging the "battle of the sexes" and "blame game" mentality will never stop rape, harassment, or abuse. All that's being done is expressing pain and anger, which is fine, unless it's directed at another. Attacking men for attacking women isn't going to solve anything.
We need to go so much deeper than this. So much deeper.
We don't need to see more proof of "how fucked up society is"; this only propagates stereotypes that induce resentment and fear. We need to see the power of compassion, love, forgiveness, healing, empathy, and acceptance between both sexes. We need to learn why people hurt other people (hint: it's because they're hurting themselves) and how to heal it and empathize with it.
We need women to open up and love in the face of men approaching, not shut down and run away. We need men to open up and love in the face of rejection, rather than becoming bitter or forcing our will upon another.
Unabashedly, I do not support or promote campaigns that are based in pain, resentment, anger, or fear, no matter how noble the cause. I wish to lift up both sexes – nay, all people – without perpetuating the pain and conflict.
This darkness has been illuminated out in the world, now it's time to illuminate the darkness within ourselves and heal it. What we see out in our culture is a reflection of how so many of us are unable to resolve the conflicts, rejection, and hurt caused by the masculine and feminine inside of us. We can not fix this by signing new laws or going out and trying to control everybody; we do this by starting the forgiveness and healing process within ourselves and going out into the world shining love instead of hate."

Daily Show: Australian Gun Control = Zero Mass Shootings

Jerykk says...

1) As I mentioned earlier, implementing border control for each state is never going to happen. As I also mentioned, border control has already been proven ineffective at stopping both drugs and illegal immigrants so why would guns be any different?

2) My drug analogy is perfectly valid. Drugs are banned yet they are still smuggled into the country. And no, people aren't growing cocaine or heroin in their backyard. And yes, smuggling a small packet of cocaine by hiding it in your ass is easier than smuggling a gun through the same means but guns don't have be smuggled intact. They can easily be disassembled and the individual parts smuggled separately. Many of these pieces would be small enough to hide in your ass. But this is all largely irrelevant because the bulk of drugs are not transported via anus.

3) The motivations of mass shooters is highly debatable. I'd argue that they want to feel empowered and the easiest way to do that is in schools which are undeniably the least likely places for people to be armed. If they tried to go on a shooting spree in a police station or military base or gun convention, they probably wouldn't get many kills. Instead, they'd be shot and killed by someone else and that's something no shooters seem to want (hence the reason why they always commit suicide after the spree instead of letting themselves be arrested or killed by the police). In fact, if you look at the history of school shootings in the U.S., many of the shooters were adults. The Sandy Hook shooter was 20 years old and he primarily targeted first-graders who obviously weren't his peers. When it comes to mass shootings, it's all about quantity and targeting people who can't defend themselves is the most effective way of achieving that.

4) Do you have any statistics to support your claim? I seriously doubt suicide rates plummeted in countries or states where guns were banned. Japan and South Korea both have extremely strict gun laws yet they also have some of the highest suicide rates in the world (South Korea is #3, Japan is #8, the U.S. is #33). If you weren't serious about killing yourself and just wanted attention, you wouldn't use a gun in the first place. You'd stand on the ledge of a building and wait for the news vans to appear. Like you said, guns are the quickest way to kill yourself so you wouldn't use them if you had any doubts or hesitations.

newtboy said:

Part 1 has already been answered, if there's no border control, and no national regulation, it's fairly useless. If done nation wide, it could be effective.
The drug legalization point is a total red herring. People don't get addicted to guns, like the do to drugs. People rarely use drugs to rob others so they can buy guns, but the reverse does happen constantly. You can't grow guns in your back yard, or smuggle them in your asshole (well, I can't).
Most school shootings happen in schools because that's where the targets are, because the shooters are also school kids and the targets are their peers, and that's where you find them in a group, school. It's not about them being 'gun free zones' and so 'safe' to go shoot people there, or we would see more mass shootings in banks and amusement parks and other 'gun free zones'.
Yes, suicide by firearm is far easier and quicker than most other methods, meaning when you remove that method, suicide goes WAY down, because having just an extra minute to think about killing yourself often means you change your mind and don't do it. That especially goes for those 'crying for help' that really want to be caught and stopped. If a gun is not available, a HUGE percentage just don't go through with trying to kill themselves, and another large portion tries a method that either doesn't work or takes long enough to 'save' them.

Golf GTI Paints with Light! - Motor Trend

skinnydaddy1 says...

So much work for a crappy pay off.... (Personal Opinion) Sorry... All that just to spell out GTI? Come on...

This could of been something epic.

We have an American Military Base, German Car, Japanese driver.
Just a little subtle hint at something?

Work with me here....

radx (Member Profile)

bareboards2 says...

And why was it a military base? Because all those "founding fathers" who poured a butt load of money into PT were in danger of losing it all when Seattle got port status instead of us. Those "founding fathers" still had lots of pull in Washington DC, so they got the Fort put here to prop up the local economy. And now it is a State Park -- one of the few that actually doesn't need any tax funds to stay open -- it actually makes a profit.

Plus there are wonderful bunkers to play in. And walks to take through the woods.

Have you ever seen An Officer and a Gentleman, with Richard Gere and Debra Winger? That was filmed here. All the base scenes were filmed at Fort Worden. A couple of years before I got here. You could tell which buildings were used in scenes -- or rather, which SIDES of buildings were used in scenes. They repainted the buildings a pristine white -- if they were in camera view. So the backsides were all peeling and nasty.

That was before the Fort started making money, of course. All the sides of the buildings look nice now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Ehz_cAMGc

You can see the Fort at :57, 1:05,1:52 and the iconic 2:06. All a brisk 15 minute walk from my house. Look out my kitchen window, and you can see the tree covered hill that is the Fort. (The jogging scene at :38 is on the other side of the hill - sheer bluffs to the water.)

It is indeed a very neat place. You watch that movie, come over here, and I'll give you a tour, okay?

radx said:

Fort Worden's history sounds rather intriguing. From blocking fort to training base to juvenile detention facility to vacation housing/museum complex within a century.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon