>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^volumptuous:
Reason #85766001-L of why John McCain is one of the biggest douchebags on this planet.
To Mrs.Bill O'Reilly up there; How about if you don't decide what I put in my body, and I don't decide what you put in yours, kay? thanks!

How many deaths per year from alcohol? 1,393 (only alcohol poisoning, not deaths related to other issues, car accidents, etc)
How many deaths ever from marijuana? Zero.

Any questions?

No, RS, that volumptuous kid wrote it. And Mr. V man, it is possible to smoke pot and drive. But I suppose that has NEVER contributed to a fatal accident, has it?

volumptuous? you mean voluptuous? that red line under the word means it is spelled wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't give you a line to let you know that word doesn't make sense in the context. So the kid is sexually alluring because of the fullness of his figure or is he pleasing to your senses?
Oh and lots of things cause fatal accidents; eating while driving, playing with the radio, talking on the cell phone, having conversations with passengers, fixing your make up. I guess if that were the only thing keeping marijuana illegal you'd better make sure your cars had no radios, passengers, vanity mirrors, food and came with cell phone signal blockers.
That reasoning is bunk.


Son, we had this spelling/grammar discussion not long ago. Find any mispelling of mine and I'm sure it was a mistake. I'm sorry I can't write as well as others. Guess I was on pot, dangit!

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:
>> ^volumptuous:
Reason #85766001-L of why John McCain is one of the biggest douchebags on this planet.
To Mrs.Bill O'Reilly up there; How about if you don't decide what I put in my body, and I don't decide what you put in yours, kay? thanks!

How many deaths per year from alcohol? 1,393 (only alcohol poisoning, not deaths related to other issues, car accidents, etc)
How many deaths ever from marijuana? Zero.

Any questions?

No, RS, that volumptuous kid wrote it. And Mr. V man, it is possible to smoke pot and drive. But I suppose that has NEVER contributed to a fatal accident, has it?

volumptuous? you mean voluptuous? that red line under the word means it is spelled wrong. Unfortunately it doesn't give you a line to let you know that word doesn't make sense in the context. So the kid is sexually alluring because of the fullness of his figure or is he pleasing to your senses?

Oh and lots of things cause fatal accidents; eating while driving, playing with the radio, talking on the cell phone, having conversations with passengers, fixing your make up. I guess if that were the only thing keeping marijuana illegal you'd better make sure your cars had no radios, passengers, vanity mirrors, food and came with cell phone signal blockers.

That reasoning is bunk.

>> ^volumptuous:
Reason #85766001-L of why John McCain is one of the biggest douchebags on this planet.
To Mrs.Bill O'Reilly up there; How about if you don't decide what I put in my body, and I don't decide what you put in yours, kay? thanks!

How many deaths per year from alcohol? 1,393 (only alcohol poisoning, not deaths related to other issues, car accidents, etc)
How many deaths ever from marijuana? Zero.

Any questions?


No, RS, that volumptuous kid wrote it. And Mr. V man, it is possible to smoke pot and drive. But I suppose that has NEVER contributed to a fatal accident, has it?

Reason #85766001-L of why John McCain is one of the biggest douchebags on this planet.

To Mrs.Bill O'Reilly up there; How about if you don't decide what I put in my body, and I don't decide what you put in yours, kay? thanks!


How many deaths per year from alcohol? 1,393 (only alcohol poisoning, not deaths related to other issues, car accidents, etc)

How many deaths ever from marijuana? Zero.


Any questions?

I think we're being too aggressive about determining what this snuff rule is meant to imply. This is obviously not an offensive video which depicts death or even insinuates any loss of life. The focus of the video is on an explosion, not death. It's awe inspiring. It's newsworthy.

I vote to return.

If he wants to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth, why hasn't he started with the thousands of Jews that live in Iran?

Israel offered those Jews money to move to either California or Israel, and the Persian Jews refused, calling it an obvious political tactic.

And notice in the video he says, "Death to Israel," not "Death to Jews."

Also:

Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all suspected terrorists from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history.

Do you really see Bush that way? Because I do.

>> ^choggie:
I can.
Petty Tyrant, allowed to run free and fuck his people in the ass.
Wants power and control according to his twisted view of empire, which includes wiping all Jews from the face of the earth, not unlike the square mustachioed fuckstick, of recent history..
Kill this piece of human garbage quickly-if we don't Israel will.....excise the cancer, from the host, before it becomes aggressive and unstoppable....
Oh but wait....part of the deal Bush and his ilk made with the oil sheiks, was this phase of geopolitical abortion, that this is their time, to run free, in the name of peace, unity, acceptance and tolerance of another's religions, customs, and fucking sick programs.....forest for the trees folks, forest for the trees......Who lets a cocksucker like this run a country into oblivion???.....Find these fuckers and destroy their bloodlines......

the so-called "good points" thinker, are part of any successful propagandist's rhetoric.....appeals to everyone, very effective, especially with an undereducated and subservient populace.....
Strap Hackmenhandjob to a nice missile, and launch his stupid ass onnit, trajectory: Dead Sea.

If they can do this to them whats to say they dont call you or me an enemy combatant?

As a citizen of the United States, I have the right to due process. Remember John Walker Lindh? A POS once-American citizen caught fighting for the Taliban. He still got a trial and sentence, and unfortunately that sentence was not death.

Enemy soldiers have certain rights under the Geneva Conventions, including being exchanged with our captured soldiers. We can't exchange our soldiers for ragheads cowering in caves who represent no nation. IMAO this enemy forfeited their rights to humane treatment long ago.

Half of these guys are probably innocent, the ones that are not are in the high sec part of the prison.

Unlikely.

Come out with it then, do you think that its ok to kill more innocent people with cruise missiles in the name of a holy war or money?

If our goal was to kill noncombatants, we could level Iraq almost overnight. The truth of the matter is the Iraqi people are grateful we got rid of Saddam and are grateful we're there, despite the presence of insurgents (now minus 20,000 of them) and their intrepid mainstream media propaganda wing in the USA.

Without the support of the Iraqi people, we couldn't stay there to complete the mission.

The FBI gets more useful information out of suspects by coercive interrogation and not torturing them. Torture and imprisonment only brings you bad intel and gets more soldiers killed.

I've heard of both methods tried...I'm happy with whatever works. I tend to agree torture is generally a waste of time for intel, but if there are cases when it's worked, here are the jumper cables.

Furthermore, remember WWII and the internment camps? This is no different.

The Japanese-Americans? Imprisoned illegally by a DEMOCRAT president, however I don't think it's fair to judge a rightfully xenophobic America in the midst of a war for its survival. Though in poor living conditions, the Japanese-American prisoners were not tortured or killed. And, as they were citizens, they eventually got their day in court and were paid reparations.

You and I and possibly event the government can prove that they are enemy combatants, with out manufacture of evidence.

At least some of these combatants were directly caught on the battlefield, attacking US troops and Iraqi civilians. I suspect there'll be plenty of evidence.

"Through fighting terrorism we have in ourselves become terrorists."

Sorry, I disagree. And freedom is not free.

I wouldn't say Opeth "started out in death metal" since that kind of insinuates that they left death metal behind for this prog style, while they are still very much death metal. This is my fav off Damnation by far.

For anyone who digs this and not death metal, check out Opeth's album Damnation, which is all clean-vocal proggy stuff like this. Or perhaps a couple of my favorite slow jams 'Face of Melinda', 'Benighted', or 'Harvest'.

if you hadn't noticed. the media predict doomsday scenarios for every event, it's what sells papers. It's also more often than not, total bullsh*t.

There's comments in this thread trying to state that in countries where guns are banned, criminals can still get them and "gun crime in the UK has exploded" -- yes, it has exploded. There's now three times more gun crimes than a few years ago. It's now about 900 crimes a year involving firearms. In america in 2002 there were 3,012 child deaths due to gun crime. Thats just children, and the UK stats is for crimes, not deaths. So what the hell ?

anyhow, i can see that no amount of reasoning is going to convince you otherwise, so you can have your twenty fold more likely chance of getting murdered. i wont argue the point, but god im glad i dont live in the "land of the free". (quotes used in this instance as the universal sign of fallacy).

Look, I understand that there pretty much will always be those that think the best deterrent against someone with a gun is for yourself to have a gun. My view is to keep guns out of as many hands as possible.

"Bad guys will always be able to get guns" I hear you cry (I do really, it's a weird power I have)... But strict gun control laws and a general feeling that guns are damn hard to come by mean that far fewer crimes are committed with them, far fewer deaths result because of them. And while you say that there are many ways to kill someone, shooting them dead seems to still be the quickest and most effective. I know I'd feel like I had a bit more of a chance against someone with a knife vs a gun. (I could run away for starters).



In reply to your comment:
“well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””””

well i can't seem to find any solid statistics on violent deaths across countries, mainly because i dont subscrube to resources like those, but heres a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

or maybe its because:
Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

i agree with what you're saying about more guns might cause crimes of passion on impulse, but what makes Switzerland different?

United Kingdom vs Switzerland

A European example would be to compare the violent crime levels of the United Kingdom, which has very strict rules against gun ownership, with Switzerland, which has fully automatic assault rifles in 14% of homes. [1] According to the British Home Office, Switzerland had a homicide rate per 100,000 of 1.2 average over the years 1999-2001, which is less than England & Wales at 1.61, although Scotland is higher at 2.16, while Northern Ireland - with its historically exceptional conditions - is at 2.65. The latter compares with the Irish Republic (with similar gun control laws to the UK) at 1.42. [2]

These data indicate a negative correlation between gun ownership and crime. However, simple correlative evidence concerning two examples is inconclusive as to causation. Put another way, these data do not conclusively indicate that the higher gun ownership rate in Switzerland is a cause of that country's lower homicide rate, although that conclusion is frequently drawn.

Data can be skewed to say that there is a positive correlation between guns and crime, and that there is a negative correlation betweeen the two depending on what countries and how you poll etc. This correlation, does it necessarily imply causation? I think theres much more at hand than just how many guns are floating around, its definately got something to do with their culture and how they view guns and violence in everyday life.

i dont know about you but i'd think twice about waving around a gun when everybody has access to those same guns. Its sort of like when everyone has nukes what an awesome deterrent huh.. (btw, what an ugly truth)
besides, if someone is intent on kiling somebody they dont need a gun to do it (one way or another, see: milions of pissed off wives who drug their husbands to death when they come back home smelling like perfume)

on the other hand, not having guns only does the opposite, it prevents the people who can put a stop to a situation like VT massacre and renders them useless while they wait for the SWAT team to arrive. (last incident over there was stopped by a man with a gun) and it like i said you dont need a gun to kill, not having guns wont prevent the millions of other ways to render a person not breathing.

In reply to your comment:
“And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.”””

And?
Where in that does it say anything in regards to gun ownership and a link to gun violence?

Check out this greaph which shows a strong link between suicides with guns and gun ownership levels. (and in case you were going to say... "and shows that there is little evidence that rates of homicide and suicide by means other than firearms increase where gun ownership is lower.")

It's just basic common sense isn't it? Don't give guns to more people, how is that going to make things better? "FUCK YOU MAN, I DESERVED A High Distinction ON THAT PAPER!" BANG, BANG, BANG... Having guns easily accessible means that in the heat of the moment people have the opportunity to do really stupid, deadly things.

Not having guns during heated situations means that there may be fist fights, yelling etc. but not deaths, not anything that can't be apologised for and made right. You can't make right shooting someone in the head.

In reply to your comment:
“i'll play devil's advocate and link you to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_policy_in_Switzerland

In reply to your comment:
“I SO HATE those that try and suggest 'If others had had guns, he could have been stopped'... because we all know to stop violence, just arm more people.

F*cktards.””