If he has lived there that long and has help oput in everyway he can then he should eb allowed to stay. The goverment is punishing him for his ancestors mistakes. Thats not right.

Could name a specific example of this?

As far as land goes, like repirations for anything, it has to be up to the person to make the moral judgement to give anything back if his ancestors wtole it. You can't force someone to make a morally sound decision, and you can't act for him in such a case.

If I get another semi-educated black guy tell me that I owe him something again... I'll sure owe him something.. a smack in the face! Oh wait.. thats a hate crime

Some black dude told me that, he said that because my ancestors were white I owed him crap BS

Exactly, you can't try to morally obligate someone if they don't feel it themselves. Forcing a racist like channler to be friends with a black man does not work.

[quote=DoomedOne]Exactly, you can't try to morally obligate someone if they don't feel it themselves. Forcing a racist like channler to be friends with a black man does not work.[/quote]

Look man, I made rules about attacking people..

Hows does that statement I made make me racist?!?!

If you mean I implied that semi-educated black dude ment their whole race then you've made an unfair assumption..

This man was plain stupid, if he were white,yellow or purple for all care, I would of said the same thing. I have several black friends, and many of them don't act like their trying to imitate the bloods and the crypts.

Just because I know who I would like to be around does that make me rascist? Just because I prefer to have a white girlfriend does that make me racsist? Because I live in a nice suburban neighborhood does that make me racsist?

Trust me, I could be racsist if I wanted too. If I said anything racsist (which it could only be interpretted as rascist if your very politically correct and liberal) it was the fact that I was impling that I owe no one but God, my parent, my nation, and my friends.

Tell me doomedone, what state do you live in?

And please, so this nice little place doesn't get shut down please refrain from attacking anyone.

And while I'm at it, why not another topic...

Educational Downfall Among Minority's

*Phew* I'm gonna get a beer at the coffee shop..

[quote=Channler][quote=DoomedOne]Exactly, you can't try to morally obligate someone if they don't feel it themselves. Forcing a racist like channler to be friends with a black man does not work.[/quote]

Look man, I made rules about attacking people..

Hows does that statement I made make me racist?!?!

If you mean I implied that semi-educated black dude ment their whole race then you've made an unfair assumption..

This man was plain stupid, if he were white,yellow or purple for all care, I would of said the same thing. I have several black friends, and many of them don't act like their trying to imitate the bloods and the crypts.

Just because I know who I would like to be around does that make me rascist? Just because I prefer to have a white girlfriend does that make me racsist? Because I live in a nice suburban neighborhood does that make me racsist?

Trust me, I could be racsist if I wanted too. If I said anything racsist (which it could only be interpretted as rascist if your very politically correct and liberal) it was the fact that I was impling that I owe no one but God, my parent, my nation, and my friends.

Tell me doomedone, what state do you live in?

And please, so this nice little place doesn't get shut down please refrain from attacking anyone.

And while I'm at it, why not another topic...
Educational Downfall Among Minority's[

*Phew* I'm gonna get a beer at the coffee shop.. [/quote]

No none of that makes you racist, it's that whole thing the other day with your burning crosses on peoples' lawns.

Also, I was not aware there was an educational downfall among minorities.

I will briefly mention my opinions on stated issues. Note that I skimmed over the thread searching for topics, not opinions, so apologies for any repeated arguments.

Iraq War:
For. WMDs or not, a nation has been freed. It is not America or a dictator that is holding them back now from safety and proper democracy, but their own people. Iraqis are destroying Iraqi food supplies (by killing the suppliers), future sources of wealth (oil reserves), and essential infrastructure (water pipelines, roading networks, police and hospital systems). Iraq has never been a tourist hotspot either, but any and all acts of sabotage are screwing their nation from most tourist profits they could be receiving. Bigger worry is the lack of foreign capital. Without that, their economy will never develop beyond third world, thus their people will constantly live in fear of poverty and worse. America is being rewarded with murder for saving a nation. It is commendable for Bush to stick his course and the soldiers and civilians risking their lives to help Iraqis survive another day. Including my uncle.

Murder in Suran:
Murder is murder. Unacceptable in whatever form it exhibits, no matter what religious belief or societal principle it originates. Despicable as always. The world needs to get involved. I am for non-intervention in other nations by foreign powers, but several things I find too severe to ignore. Suran and Iraq, plus Afghanistan, are unfortunately three such cases.

Pictures of Saddam:
What a stupid thing to get upset over. The guy has ordered the deaths of thousands and has, directly and indirectly, killed millions more through his policies and lack of. He needs to be humiliated. To me this is just anti-Bush or anti-American protestors getting on their high-horses and trying to make issues out of nothing.

Socialism vs. Anarchy:
Personally I don't think either could work. The very definition of anarchy seems to back this up. It is chaotic. Socialism, while great in an ideal world, is not applicable in ours. Earth is far from perfect, and socialism thus far too hard to adapt successfully over the long-term. Largely people are selfish and profit-motivated. With socialism (and various forms such as communism), free-riding behaviour invariably exists. People, upon seeing that they will get the same benefit from not working as they were while working, will shirk. With work being an inferior good, i.e. not-working is preferred to working, if the levels of benefit are the same for each, as they would be with pure socialism, then people will choose not to work yet still collect unaltered benefit. While some will see the futility of this, they are not capable, not by a long shot, of supporting the vast majority of others who do not. The economy and society would collapse. Economic ruin. Unsustainable.

I am a capitalist, but also a realist. Pure forms of either don't work, that's why we have a nice, generally balanced, mix. Doesn't always work and often I wish parts were changed, but effective overall. Therefore I'll say that no such revolution would ever occur.

White man in Africa:
That is racism. Were a black man expelled from a predominately European nation there would be massive public outcry, and I would expect no less in a case like this. Like current Zimbabwe. Unless an individual is an illegal immigrant then there is no cause to eject someone from a country. Criminals are locked up. People who don't pay taxes (and other crimes) are criminals and should be jailed or, if not a native, exported back to their native land. Expulsion on the grounds of race is more discriminatory than most other actions. And, were that behaviour by a state witnessed often, that is just cause for economic sanctions.

[quote=Channler][quote=DoomedOne]That's a little unrealistic. They don't come to America politically. They're not waiting for a debate when they cross the border. They're not trying to jsutify anything.

Also, it's not the situation over all. Where have you been? Cancun? Baha?[/quote]

Err.. well when I ment family, I ment my older brother

Me and him crossed the boarder (we just drove through) and got waisted in some nobody town.

But I did go down there with a my church missions group, and we went to some hell holes..

BTW, if the illegal aliens are so fluent in english, as you have said, why the hell can't they speak it? And why, if they bother, do they take the english courses when they know that either they will drop out, and/or walk away knowing how to say, "Hey mister tobbacco farmer! Gemme a job!"

America is home to Americans, WHY should we let NON americans live in our country? Splain to me why this doesn't make sense..[/quote]

If you feel that strongly Channler, just think about how the native americans thought when what are now supposedly 'born-and-bred'' americans came and set up camp (and killed all their buffalo )

And stole all their land and killed all their people, don't forget those too

[quote=Chumbaniya]
If you feel that strongly Channler, just think about how the native americans thought when what are now supposedly 'born-and-bred'' americans came and set up camp (and killed all their buffalo )[/quote]

I see your point there, but I must say

A) the native americans were from asia, so there not native anyway.. grass is more native then any of us

If they would of stopped fighting each other and join together, like that league that I can't rember the name of, to fight the "white man" then there would prob be a indepent Indian American Nation.

C) History is writtin by the victors, therefor, America is the american citizin's nation, not the "invading mexicans". I just firmly believe that if you want to live in america, and any other nation for that matter, you should be a legal citizin of it. Am I wrong for that idea?

BTW thank you Hammergand, seems me and Jona have another friend here

EDIT: DoomedOne, thats why I asked where you live... see here in north carolina people that actually want to make something of their lives are a minority, whether they white black etc... But a majority are the minority's that are failing academically(SP), and they get a frickin curve on their grade!!

oh but Channler!! I´m your friend as well and Jona´s and hammy´s and ...Wolfie´s and and..all others as well!......maybe I just don´t agree with you in ALL topics.....

If we all agreed in everything, this place would get pretty boring. It's nice to be able to debate our beliefs in a frinedly environment

I concur, as long as people don't call each other names besides Newb...

I think we need another topic. I've been brainstorming, but haven't come up with one. Anybody?

Guess its my time to get in involved very late in this topic... My thoughts about the war in Iraq was that it simple was done to fast and not with a real plan... Of course the situation have changed and in a way its much better for the people with Saddam out of the way. But as I turn on the new's I hear about suicide bombers killing many people and US Soldiers...

I think that it should have been thought much more over, as they revealed that they never found any WOMD if I remember... :confused:

[quote=Fuzzy Knight]
I think that it should have been thought much more over, as they revealed that they never found any WOMD if I remember... :confused:[/quote]
Weapons of Mass Destruction would be easy to hide; Jordan could have easily taken some. After the searching for them, however, I doubt as to whether Saddam had the capability to make his own, but I'm certain that he had some or plans to acquire a few anyhow.

Besides, I'd consider him and his sons WMDs that have been dealt with. They have caused many deaths.

Ok this topic isn't quite as present as the others but I'm always wanting to discuss something about WW2

If Hitler Hadn't Committed Geonocide With the Jews, Do You Think He Would of Made it Farther?

This is getting too cluttered.

Channler:

I was joking about the racist thing

I understand the more support the easier it feels to debate, so I don't mind you rallying up with hammer and jona. If I were alone I would try to relate to all the people who agree with me as well

I live in California where it really depends on how rich or poor you are as to how successful you are in school. Most poor people here are minorities. I wrote a whole paper on the self-destruction of the black race caused by conditioning of slave-drivers.

Minque:

You didn't meantion me :ashamed:

Hammergand:

A society that followed 100% socialism has never been attempted. anyway the govenrment I would isntall given the opportunity would plug up all of the short comings and make it much more difficult to corrupt.

Lastly:

"Only a sith deals in absolute" - Obi-won Kenobi

"You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" - George W Bush

EDIT based on new topic:

No, the third reich and what not only gave the jurors for the nuremburg trials an easier time at sentencing all the upper ranking nazis. Other than that, it was more about people fighting for their way of life. Although, the picture of Hitler as a madman burning jews did help empower people more against him.

Thw WOMD are in Syria right now.

This may be old but i wish to know what people think about this.

The square in china where they Chinese army killed about 2000 protestors who wanted democracy. I just want some of yall views about that part in our history

On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up

N...K... ??

North Korea

China was never a true communism. They were only socialist for a short while. I mean come on, a capitalist communism is begging to be corrupted.

They need a change in goverment... and a leader.

But America should not be the enforcer of this change. If the people are strong enough, they can do it. Every time we support an uprising of a people a dictatorship comes into power.

[quote=LoneWolf]On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up[/quote]

Big difference between North Korea and Iraq was that we knew that victory was attainable without a massive loss in lives. If I'm not mistaken doesn't NK have a fairly large army?

Besides I think that if we alone ever made a move agaisnt NK then china would be right up in our faces about it..

I'm fairly sure britain would be right beside you guys................again..

[quote=Channler][quote=LoneWolf]On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up[/quote]

Big difference between North Korea and Iraq was that we knew that victory was attainable without a massive loss in lives. If I'm not mistaken doesn't NK have a fairly large army?

Besides I think that if we alone ever made a move agaisnt NK then china would be right up in our faces about it..[/quote]

Exactly. Bush is afriad of North Korea. He could start ww3. When obtaining oil and making his buddies rich it's just more intelligent to go after weaker, war-torn countries.

[quote=DoomedOne]
Exactly. Bush is afriad of North Korea. He could start ww3. When obtaining oil and making his buddies rich it's just more intelligent to go after weaker, war-torn countries.[/quote]

I'm still trying to find this magical oil you keep on talking about doomedone... :hugesmile:

jsut because they secured the oil doesn't mean they'd bring the oil prices down. They pocketed billions on this war. The oil prices, at this point, are not a direct corrolation to how much oil is easily obtainable. The first thing the soldiers did when they invaded Iraq was secure the oild fields. Even if it wasn't Bush's goal to get the oil, which it was, the oil prices would have gone down because it's not exactly a secret that we did secure all their oil.

[quote=DoomedOne]jsut because they secured the oil doesn't mean they'd bring the oil prices down. They pocketed billions on this war. The oil prices, at this point, are not a direct corrolation to how much oil is easily obtainable. The first thing the soldiers did when they invaded Iraq was secure the oild fields. Even if it wasn't Bush's goal to get the oil, which it was, the oil prices would have gone down because it's not exactly a secret that we did secure all their oil.[/quote]

And where do you suppose Houdini, err I mean Bush, put the oil that he's keeping for himself and his friends?

And need I remind you that we secured the oil feilds so the they wouldn't BURN THE OIL! I'm sure those Eco-Nazi's would of had two and half cows if they were lit ablaze.

And who is "They"?

Oil companies. Oil companies have been raising the oil prices for what appears to be no reason since we did manage to secure the opil fields. YUour problem is you assume oil prices directly corrolate with how much oil we have secured. We've secured the oil, it's ours, plain and simple. We're not letting it sit there either, we've been shipping it out of Iraq since day 1.

You can't try to tell me Bush didn;t want to oil, because let's face it, they have it, they accomplished securing the oil fields early on, and they've been shipping it out as I've said. That goal was accomplished, and it was Bush's primary goal. That's why he won't attack North Korea, because morals and real threats don't mean a damn to him or his administration. He invades and occupies countries for the same reason Reagan did, Bush did and Clinton did, money.

Well even though I really don't agree with you, I'm glad that your not some sort of liberal hippy.. Puttin clinton on that list really made it clear.

No I do not think that oil prices are directly related to the war and what not. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) doesn't america get most of it's oil from venezula (SP?)

Somewhere along there. Anyway, the fact that oil companies are rasing the price of oil has nothing to do with the sitatuion in Iraq.

[quote=DoomedOne]Somewhere along there. Anyway, the fact that oil companies are rasing the price of oil has nothing to do with the sitatuion in Iraq.[/quote]

Well if you think that is what I ment then I apologize, cause I didn't quite mean that.

Our oil problem goes back to the days when the car was first invented. ONe man is not to blame for that trouble. Everybody has commited to it. Every single person who dries a car, uses a heater or helps someone who uses these things is at fault.

All of our presidents are to blame. Bush is the present one so naturally hell get the most critisism right now. When the next pres. comes to office hell get hammered by the same people who hated bush. Its a never ending sequence. People just need someone to blame for their mistakes.

[quote=Channler][quote=LoneWolf]On the note of WOMD's
How come America havn't gone for NK yet? their reason for Iraq was to prevent him using his ones, why aren't they doing the same to NK?

The protester massacre
That was just plain messed up[/quote]

Big difference between North Korea and Iraq was that we knew that victory was attainable without a massive loss in lives. If I'm not mistaken doesn't NK have a fairly large army?

Besides I think that if we alone ever made a move agaisnt NK then china would be right up in our faces about it..[/quote]

I think the real reason north korea isn't attacked is because they actually HAVE weapons of mass destruction; It was fine to attack iraq since they had no weapons to use against the american coalition forces - if north korea was attacked, they could defend themselves using the weapons that the war was about. The only countries that can be attacked for having weapons of mass destruction are those that DON'T have weapons of mass destruction.

EDIT: Channler, you talk about loss of lives being an issue - personally I'd be more afraid of the American army fighting on my side than of the enemy - at least you can do something about them (I can't see any way of fighting back against friendly fire)

I agree on that Chumb... Its almost like in the cold war, if you would first attack Russia or North-Korea whole hell would break loose... :ashamed:

[quote=Chumbaniya]
EDIT: Channler, you talk about loss of lives being an issue - personally I'd be more afraid of the American army fighting on my side than of the enemy - at least you can do something about them (I can't see any way of fighting back against friendly fire)[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.. why would you be afraid of the US fighting on your side?

[quote=Channler][quote=Chumbaniya]
EDIT: Channler, you talk about loss of lives being an issue - personally I'd be more afraid of the American army fighting on my side than of the enemy - at least you can do something about them (I can't see any way of fighting back against friendly fire)[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.. why would you be afraid of the US fighting on your side?[/quote]

Friendly fire is a big killer when fighting on the side of the americans. Remember when they shot down that british helicopter? Supposedly they thought it was Iraqi. Since when did the Iraqis have an air force, and even if they did, they wouldn't have helicopters anything like modern western models.

So your saying that the we shot down the helicopter knowing that it was a friendly.. that doesn't make much sense.

Besides, even with all these war corospondents(SP)* there they can't possibly get everything in the war.

Oh and you know what makes up most of the causulty's in the war?

Car accidents...

BTW if you think we are bad you have never heard of the russians then.. Talk about friendly fire...

russians were almost forced to shoot at their own troops during conflict.

"Who's that? I don't know him! Shoot him he is an enemy!"

"What? That's Ivan! You sent him out to scout two minutes ago."

"SHOOT HIM DAMMIT HE'S COMING THIS WAY!"

I would not be afraid to fight with the ameicans because of friendly fire. Theres more of a chance of you getting shot by a friend in another army than in an american army.

Or if you're talking about the things they did in Stalingrad in WW II, it was because they were desperate. They couldn't lose that city, it would have been a huge blow to morale

The germans would have taken that town to if hitler hadn't stoped his offensive into Russia. Not that thats a bad thing but its a lesson all military people should learn. If you've got the enemy on the run ans desperate keep pushing them back and don't stop.

Hitler was insane at this point, his general's all told him things like that, be he ignored them completely

Insane at this point? When did he cross the line?

Let's see...

Confirmed Chancelor

Ends unemployment in Germany

Reads book of the black Raven

Researches the spear of christ
____________________________________________________________

Decides to begin a search for the Spear of Christ

Invades Polland

Etcetera

He had megalomania and just started to completely ignore his advisers to the point of making completely insane decisions

To think we could be singing the german national anthem right now...

We won the war how come they're not singing the american national anthem?