English Warning To Americans

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:47 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... Ckr2psNvCs

The British people have been completely disarmed according to UN resolution, and here are personal accounts of british citizens of why Americans need to fight for their constitutional rights.

Is it possible we are next. Can you think of any other country or people more like us than Britain?

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:09 pm

By what factor? The only thing we have in common with Britain is English.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:12 pm

Sandy: I want you to kill every gophers on the golf course!
Carl Spackler: Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers, they're gonna lock me up and throw away the key...
Sandy: Not golfers, you great fool! Gophers! The *little* *brown*, *furry* *rodents* -!
Carl Spackler: We can do that; we don't even have to have a reason. All right, let's do the same thing, but with gophers.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:31 pm

Zuruck wrote:By what factor? The only thing we have in common with Britain is English.

Well we do share having a large contingent of people too liberal for our own collective good influencing policy.

I believe, as an example, it was the Clinton administration that wanted to sign over sovereignty of our national parks to the U.N. ... a treaty to join a world wide program with a goal of putting roughly one half of all of Americas wilderness under it's control, including letting them collect taxes from us..I guess for living near the land they would have been granted control of...no one ever explained that part of it.
I'm sure the 'reasons' stated for the program sound brilliant and harmless...to an unfocused tree hugging hippie.
I'm also sure the reason it wasn't ratified by the Senate was because it the contingent of willful idiots in Congress hadn't reached majority status at that time.

So, yea, we do share a language that we subsequently bastardized but add to the list a propensity for suffering fools a bit too much.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:02 pm

One difference is they all let their guns get taken away and now little old men and old women are marching up the street knowing damn well they won't get them back.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:34 am

Will Robinson wrote:Well we do share having a large contingent of people too liberal for our own collective good influencing policy.

Spoken like a true right winger who has no idea on how liberals feel about gun ownership or even how to deal fairly with the needs a collective group in the first place.

I own a gun, I'm a liberal, and I don't want to lose that right either, so there. Besides, don't use Clinton as an example of a "liberal". He was just another party boy right wing appeaser that screwed up the country. The only difference between him and Obama is that Obama isn't a party boy.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:14 pm

Wow tc, you used "Obama" and "boy" in the same sentence....you must be a real racist !

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 12:30 pm

[removed by mod]

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 1:20 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Well we do share having a large contingent of people too liberal for our own collective good influencing policy.
Spoken like a true right winger who has no idea on how liberals feel about gun ownership or even how to deal fairly with the needs a collective group in the first place.

I said NOTHING about guns. My example was NOTHING to do with guns. My example was everything to do with supporting what I DID have to say.
Your rant is the thing that has illustrated someones inability to know about others.

tunnelcat wrote:Besides, don't use Clinton as an example of a "liberal". He was just another party boy right wing appeaser that screwed up the country. The only difference between him and Obama is that Obama isn't a party boy.

I DIDN'T use Clinton as an example. I referred to the attempt of MANY liberals (not just him, and he is a liberal) during his administration to do something really stupid. That "something" was the example and it was the "contingent of liberals" that both countries share and their constantly doing stupid things that I was talking about, Clinton being one of the group.

Knee jerk much?

PS: between Clinton and Obama screwing things up you blamed the wrong guy bigtime!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:32 pm

woodchip you need to tell foil that we've traded barbs for a very long time. conversing with woodchip is the sole reason i came back

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 2:34 pm

Will Robinson wrote:PS: between Clinton and Obama screwing things up you blamed the wrong guy bigtime!

WATCH OUT Will, she'll squeeze GW in there now

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:10 pm

Zuruck wrote:woodchip you need to tell foil that we've traded barbs for a very long time. conversing with woodchip is the sole reason i came back

I know, Z; I remember.

I have no problem with, and might even enjoy, a "Woodchip v. Zuruck Reunion Tour". I'm asking you to learn to cast the barbs without the flames.

If it's a friendly jab, word it as such. If the intent isn't clear, toss in a "

", like woodchip did above.

Keep it professional.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:11 pm

Traders in the New York Stock Exchange felt the shaking and shouted to each other, "Keep trading!" CNN's business correspondent Alison Kosik reported from the floor at 2:20 p.m. E.T

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:17 pm

woodchip wrote:Wow tc, you used "Obama" and "boy" in the same sentence....you must be a real racist !

No, get your racist mind out of the gutter woody. I referred to Clinton as the party boy and said Obama isn't one. Obama has at least been the quintessential family man during his presidency. Clinton treated his whole presidential escapade as one giant sex party.

Will Robinson wrote:I DIDN'T use Clinton as an example. I referred to the attempt of MANY liberals (not just him, and he is a liberal) during his administration to do something really stupid. That "something" was the example and it was the "contingent of liberals" that both countries share and their constantly doing stupid things that I was talking about, Clinton being one of the group.

You said "Clinton Administration" and "liberal" in the same post in your snarky attempt to deride all liberals like some flea infested bedroll. I'm assuming you were using your "example" of putting the national parks under control of the U.N. was just a blanket smear to show that all ideas liberals come up with are stupid or evil when they want to solve some problem. Yep, like all those conservative ideas that come from every Republican President or Congress are all plated in gold, come from God and will solve every problem. Uh huh. Oh but wait, they can come up with good ideas, just as invasive to property rights as a liberal's. Remember that Teddy Roosevelt used his "executive powers" to create a few national parks AND he signed the Antiquities Act. Someone here and there lost some of those cherished land rights with ol' Conservative Teddy using his executive powers for the benefit of the commons. Hmmm, maybe he was a closet progressive liberal.

http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/conNatPark.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_Act

As for his wanting to put America's National Parks under control of the U.N. as Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, his intentions were honorable, but overreaching. I'm sure his ham fisted idea, to protect our cherished parks from destructive influences by private enterprise or private land owners, was well intentioned. Of course, 2 problems cropped up. Clinton overreached his presidential authority with his "idea" and ran smack up against that cherished American ideal of property rights and ownership. That's the sticking point, who should control the land, who should preserve it and for what purpose. There will always be opposing views on that point. But even as a liberal, I think Clinton's idea gave away too much control. Our nation's land should remain under our jurisdiction.

The gun ownership jibe I brought up was pointing out that a liberal can wish to keep gun rights too. It's NOT a conservative ideal. Don't lump all liberals into the hippie "get rid of all the guns" camp.

flip, maybe God is sending a warning! Wussies! A magnitude 5.8, mouse nuts!

http://online.wsj.com/article/APd735785 ... e0b37.html

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:26 pm

Pretty sure He's already done that TC, that was just an earthquake

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:30 pm

I'm sure his ham fisted idea, to protect our cherished parks from destructive influences by private enterprise or private land owners, was well intentioned. Of course, 2 problems cropped up. Clinton overreached his presidential authority with his "idea" and ran smack up against that cherished American ideal of property rights and ownership.

This is to suggest that the only way Clinton felt he could protect national land from private enterprise was to give it over to a higher governing authority than the US government itself. Not sure if that is well-intended, desperation or just a heads-up.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:46 pm

flip wrote:This is to suggest that the only way Clinton felt he could protect national land from private enterprise was to give it over to a higher governing authority than the US government itself. Not sure if that is well-intended, desperation or just a heads-up.

We all know where his head was at the time, or should I say his "little head". Any ideas that come from there are always suspect.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:08 pm

"Costello: Look, you gotta pitcher on this team? Abbott: Now wouldn't this be a fine team without a pitcher. Costello: The pitcher's name. Abbott: Tomorrow. Costello: You don't wanna tell me today?"

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:34 pm

tunnelcat wrote:...
Will Robinson wrote:I DIDN'T use Clinton as an example. I referred to the attempt of MANY liberals (not just him, and he is a liberal) during his administration to do something really stupid. That "something" was the example and it was the "contingent of liberals" that both countries share and their constantly doing stupid things that I was talking about, Clinton being one of the group.
You said "Clinton Administration" and "liberal" in the same post in your snarky attempt to deride all liberals like some flea infested bedroll. I'm assuming you were using your "example" of putting the national parks under control of the U.N. was just a blanket smear to show that all ideas liberals come up with are stupid or evil when they want to solve some problem.

You assume a lot.
On topic and in context I pointed out both countries have liberals that "overreach" to borrow your euphemism.
You decided to defend all liberals from what you perceive as an attack. Your reaction is telling and predictable....REAGAN - Boo!

tunnelcat wrote:...

As for his wanting to put America's National Parks under control of the U.N. as Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, his intentions were honorable, but overreaching. I'm sure his ham fisted idea, to protect our cherished parks from destructive influences by private enterprise or private land owners, was well intentioned. Of course, 2 problems cropped up. Clinton overreached his presidential authority with his "idea" and ran smack up against that cherished American ideal of property rights and ownership. That's the sticking point, who should control the land, who should preserve it and for what purpose. There will always be opposing views on that point. But even as a liberal, I think Clinton's idea gave away too much control. Our nation's land should remain under our jurisdiction.

You just made my case for me. Thanks.

tunnelcat wrote:...The gun ownership jibe I brought up was pointing out that a liberal can wish to keep gun rights too. It's NOT a conservative ideal. Don't lump all liberals into the hippie "get rid of all the guns" camp.

I didn't.
How about you don't lump me into that camp of conservatives that think you're a dumb ass just because you are a liberal.
I judge each liberal dumb ass on an individual merit basis.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:52 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I judge each liberal dumb ass on an individual merit basis.

LOL I think maybe you need to add that one to your signature!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:01 pm

Foil wrote:
Zuruck wrote:woodchip you need to tell foil that we've traded barbs for a very long time. conversing with woodchip is the sole reason i came back
I know, Z; I remember.

I have no problem with, and might even enjoy, a "Woodchip v. Zuruck Reunion Tour". I'm asking you to learn to cast the barbs without the flames.

If it's a friendly jab, word it as such. If the intent isn't clear, toss in a " ", like woodchip did above.

Keep it professional.

Zuruck has special dispensation from me to flame/troll/and/or dream of a sexual liaison with me.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:10 pm

Zuruck wrote:woodchip you need to tell foil that we've traded barbs for a very long time. conversing with woodchip is the sole reason i came back

You just need to learn the word "allegory" around here. If I were to call you a twaddle brain slacktard, Foil would immediately get red in the face and strike my offending verbiage. However, if I posted that twaddle brain slacktard were a special breed of people and I'm reminded how special you can be, then I'm not directly calling you a twaddle brain slacktard so all is well in the world even tho everyone will catch the connection...except you of course.

flip · Post by **flip** » Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:14 pm

Lol. Nuff Said.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Aug 24, 2011 8:28 pm

No he was quite clear what I need to do. I can say the nastiest shiz possible but as long as I put a stupid smiley at the end of the sentence, we're all good. So let us hold hands

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:40 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Well we do share having a large contingent of people too liberal for our own collective good influencing policy.

that's rich. We have buffoons in power in DC who think the End times are near, and folks running for President that fear the Freemasons, folks who think compromise with anything more liberal than a John Birch society treatise is treason,and you come up with this? Liberals are the least of our nation's worries.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:00 pm

In just a few centuries, the people of Easter Island wiped out their forest, drove their plants and animals to extinction, and saw their complex society spiral into chaos and cannibalism.

I wonder if you could get a real life estimate on population growth if the people were confined to an island

At any rate, they estimate 20000 in a few hundred years. Beyond that, define End Times. I'm pretty sure we're closely headed to being over-populated ourselves.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:33 pm

Will Robinson wrote: On topic and in context I pointed out both countries have liberals that "overreach" to borrow your euphemism.
You decided to defend all liberals from what you perceive as an attack. Your reaction is telling and predictable....REAGAN - Boo!

Like conservatives don't ever overreach and cause a national economic crisis, um, kind of like in 2008.

FDR - BOO!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:08 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Will Robinson wrote: On topic and in context I pointed out both countries have liberals that "overreach" to borrow your euphemism.
You decided to defend all liberals from what you perceive as an attack. Your reaction is telling and predictable....REAGAN - Boo!
Like conservatives don't ever overreach and cause a national economic crisis, um, kind of like in 2008. FDR - BOO!

Well the OP was about gun rights and how people in England are now so weapons emasculated that the authorities lock up honest citizens protecting their home if they use a firearm. The conservatives, for all their short comings, are not trying to make us into a defenseless nation like jolly ole England. Each and every one of us should be thankful we have the NRA protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:53 pm

I change my stance. I now believe we are at the End of Time

. I just saw a real life Mass Driver on Natgeo.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/vid ... world.html

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:59 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Well we do share having a large contingent of people too liberal for our own collective good influencing policy.
that's rich. We have buffoons in power in DC who think the End times are near, and folks running for President that fear the Freemasons, folks who think compromise with anything more liberal than a John Birch society treatise is treason,and you come up with this? Liberals are the least of our nation's worries.

You are so narrow minded and dogmatically democrat-party-fanboy to the core that you can't even take my comment in the context it was obviously offered....as in this thread on the English giving up freedoms to the U.N.'s machinations!

Zuruck said we don't share anything but the language with the Brits in a thread about their policy infringing on the populations ability to bear arms. A policy that follows the U.N.'s guidance.
I said, in effect, we share more than the language because in both countries we have a large group who want to lead their respective countries down that same path. Sort of works with the subject matter of the thread no?

I wasn't listing/ranking 'worries for the U.S'. That would make no sense as a response to Zuruck's statement. But your twisting of the subject that way lets you prop up your rightwing strawman and now you can puff up your chest and knock him down with your superior skills and much deserved bravado right?

I guess if someone says anything derogatory about liberals it gets your liberal-spidey-senses tingling.
Well done Democrat-man! How dare anyone talk about anything involving the looney left when there are still looney rightwingers loose on the planet! But with Obama in office it looks like you'll be a very busy superhero...

The way you and TC pop in with your Oh Yea?! Well repubs suck worse! is silly.

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:03 am

See, I can understand why Slick voted for Obama because Obama's policies are a definite benefit to him, but I have no idea why TC would vote for the man.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:53 pm

woodchip wrote:Well the OP was about gun rights and how people in England are now so weapons emasculated that the authorities lock up honest citizens protecting their home if they use a firearm. The conservatives, for all their short comings, are not trying to make us into a defenseless nation like jolly ole England. Each and every one of us should be thankful we have the NRA protecting our 2nd amendment rights.

Yea, and I was trying to point out that not all liberals are trying to take away people's gun rights. There are factions of liberals even more left than me ya know.

Will Robinson wrote:The way you and TC pop in with your Oh Yea?! Well repubs suck worse! is silly.

The present day Repubs with their Christian morals politicking and wealth grabbing greed, umm, DO SUCK! I haven't seen a moderate Republican out in the wild since before Nixon.

flip wrote:See, I can understand why Slick voted for Obama because Obama's policies are a definite benefit to him, but I have no idea why TC would vote for the man.

Well, if hindsight were foresight, I'd have realized Obama was a nut-less pushover Republican appeaser and a mistake to elect. Given that however, since my other choice turned out to be McCain/Palin, I STILL would have voted for Obama. However, if it comes down to either Perry and any of the his ilk running on the Republican ticket right now, or Obama, I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Obama. But if the Dems were to put up a strong primary challenger who has half an ounce of balls, I'd change my vote.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:10 pm

If Obama is going to be reelected anyway then you should just vote for a independent or a third party, even if they are complete lunatics. Anything to chip at the armor around the two huge parties currently controlling the whole show is good. And really between a party lunatic and an independent lunatic, whats the difference? It isn't like the outcome would be any worse.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:46 pm

Krom wrote:If Obama is going to be reelected anyway then you should just vote for a independent or a third party, even if they are complete lunatics. Anything to chip at the armor around the two huge parties currently controlling the whole show is good. And really between a party lunatic and an independent lunatic, whats the difference? It isn't like the outcome would be any worse.

I've thought about that. I would rather vote for an independent than Obama since he's been such a disappointment. But you know how third party candidates usually split the vote 3 ways in a spoiler race. That's how Lieberman got reelected, by a slim 3-way margin. Most voters go into the voting booth and vote for someone they've heard of and rarely base their vote on any informed basis, not that that matters I guess. What scares me is if someone absolutely crackers like Rick Perry or Sarah Palin wins the presidency because the Dems split their vote 2 or 3 ways and didn't give a majority to any one strong candidate. It comes down to voting for the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know.

Now if liberals can get riled up enough to run a very strong primary challenger against Obama, then we're talkin!

flip · Post by **flip** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:12 pm

Normally I would agree TC, but not this go around. There's a great deal of discontent in this country now and none of that "Hope and Change" is gonna be effective this time around. With the mood of the nation as it is right now, a 3rd party candidate has a real good chance this time and they know it too. In most every poll I've seen so far, Ron Paul has been neck and neck with every other candidate, but NO one seems to be promoting him at all, nor discouraging him at all, just kinda ignoring him and pointing elsewhere. So far, this guy might be a real contender and the fact he is really being downplayed by the establishment goes to support that.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:13 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Well repubs suck worse!
The present day Repubs with their Christian morals politicking and wealth grabbing greed, umm, DO SUCK! I haven't seen a moderate Republican out in the wild since before Nixon.

and just like a trained Parrot

I found the quote that TC Lives by

I always voted at my party's call, and I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
William Gilbert

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:08 pm

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.
Milton Friedman

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:16 pm

flip wrote:... but I have no idea why TC would vote for the man.

No idea? Didn't you watch the election? Most people were just plain suckered by a lot of empty idealistic banter. It was the perfect candidate for a generation that gets their reality from media and the progressive/liberal teat.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:21 pm

By the way I predict that TC and a whole lot of liberals are going to forgive Obama come the election. It's a fickle thing. They just need some kind of a impressive token or offering to bring them back in. That is unless the Democrats field some shiny new candidate that totally overshadows him.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:30 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote: They just need some kind of a impressive token or offering to bring them back in.