Myk JL

Because you have implied that Ron Paul might follow in Hitler's exact foot steps. You say before WWII then you go on as if some how Ron Paul may go & throw his ideals out the window & start a war.

You directed this conclusion soley to Ron Paul & none of the other candidates. Not to McCain who wants to bomb Iran & has made statements about a 100 year war. Not to Obama who might continue the War On Terror in Iraq. And not to Hillary who voted for the war only to change her mind later.

Tell anyone someone is like Hitler & the 1st thing that comes to mind is WWII; not the years before.

Oh really? When did I say Ron Paul would start a war? Quote me on it.

Basically the general education in school is that the Nazi's started World War II and killed 6 million Jews, putting Hitler as the mastermind behind all of it. You have displayed that you know that, but its entirely watered down and in the overall picture... incorrect. Its a lot more complex than that. Hitler didn't bust down the door of the Reichstag and start WWII on day one... it was almost 6 years after he was in office, They barely even mention anything about those years, its not common knowledge.

*shrugs* I could spend an hour or two putting together a side by side comparison, but why should I waste my time on you? You'll just say a bunch of logic defying, overly opinionated, garbage with no solid foundation (aka real facts) because you can't really dispute what I have said. The proof is in the fact that it really happened. I told you it was there, you can look it up on your own time. You know what Paul stands for, I gave you the correct years in German history. I have nothing to hide, I spent four years learning everything about it myself. It doesn't matter to me if you investigate for yourself or not. Just because you don't know about it doesn't make it wrong. Thats a pathetic way to go about things.

Just as no one knew what Hitler would do back then, the same applies for Ron Paul now. You can think he is a constitutionalist all you'd like, and he may be... but only Ron Paul knows what he really is.

How is this similar to Ron Paul or is this just a shot in the dark?

And as for your last paragraph saying you have proof & not showing you have proof? Because I might prove you wrong? You can not make such a case that Ron Paul is similar to Hitler if you have no real evidence to show. And then blame me because I don't find your evidence.

Seeing as I majored in History on the focal point of Nazi Germany, I am more than informed than you could imagine. While your knowledge seems to be limited to the fact that Hitler started World War II, I stated, what he did before World War II in governing Germany bares striking resemblances to what Ron Paul invisions. Just as no one knew what Hitler would do back then, the same applies for Ron Paul now. You can think he is a constitutionalist all you'd like, and he may be... but only Ron Paul knows what he really is.

I'm not saying Ron Paul would invade mexico and canada, and let his cabinet formulate a plan to send millions to their death in execution facilities. I'm bringing to light a legitimate statement that you could make a more frighteningly solid case against Ron Paul than you could the entire Republican party, which is known to support a lot of things in this country that Hitler despised in his own. You can try to refute historical events all you wish, but you will be wrong.

And saying Ron Paul would start a war is ridiculous. Over & over again he has stated that preemptive strikes/wars we have been fighting are unconstitutional. And Ron Paul has a way more solid history than the other candidates who have flip flopped.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that most Americans don't want any more war, we want out of the shit mess we're in. McCain will stay in Iraq (and wherever else Bush has our troops fighting before he checks out). A republican in the white house = continued war. People are tired of the bankers getting perversely rich off of all of this fighting. Obama on the other hand wants out, but does he have feasible an exit strategy?. He isn't exactly brimming with for. policy experience. The shittin mess Bush is leaving in the middle east falls on the next guy's shoulders to clean up. It is and will be a huge issue to the voters.

I like RP's idea declare victory and leave

I like Ron Paul's speech that you can't have a war on a tactic.

I smell an Oscar!... And a wierd thought of one of them cosplaying as Epyon...

A very strong case could be made that Ron Paul's opinions could be more closely compared to Hitler's than any other candidate. Its actually pretty frightening if you look at the history of Germany 1933-1939, just before World War II started. You can't just go throwing the word Communist and Nazi around as an insult. Misinformed statements like that are the same tactics used by the mass media to enslave the mind.

The 2 democrats that had been duking it out have had the pretty much the same social ideals. While the "final" Republican is all for preemptive strikes and wants to bomb Iran.

.....squishing everyone that's on the plane into a bloody goo. Except Sammuel L. Jackson, because he's a badass who will steal a jet and battle the giant plane-bot.

Once the credits end the jet transforms into a magic bullet blender pissing off a lot of robot fans that thought it would be StarScream.

Well it's another damned if you do damned if you don't situation (much like last time). McCain was a given as he really had no one to run against Republican side. Not to surprising Obama won it Democratic side.

Either way I'm not liking our future prospects.

It's not like this wasn't predictable. Most people are sheep for the mass media.

Coming next summer: Robots on a Plane!

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the shirt had said "Anti-Guns"?

Out of all of those the only one that I'm close enough to trusting is Exxposing Exxon.

Corporations also create poverty financially and environmentally which is why they don't go on unchallenged. Our (and other) govts don't do enough to keep the corps in check so the task falls to us citizens. when we get together with the same ideas and we become groups like gp wwf cbd.

This is our earth too. It doesn't belong to just the corporations. Its up to us to make sure they remember and respect that. Protests demonstrations lawsuits and email campaigns aren't extreme. Its checks and balance.

Never said it wasn't our Earth. However the main focus should be on property rights as no one completely owns the Earth.

....

the problem isn't farming fish. the problem is 6 billion people wanna eat and you can't grow enough fish in tanks to feed them. the problem is bottom trawling and line fishing to catch massive amounts of fish to feed the world is destroying ecosystems our food needs to live and propagate. the problem is the destructive practices of commercial fishing.

the greenpeace organization has been confronting government and corporations world wide to adopt environmentally friendly policies for years. if you look at their website or subscribe to their newsletters and campaigns like some people around here do you would realize you're mistaken. without groups like greenpeace, the world wildlife fund, center for biological diversity etc corporations would rape and pollute the planet to our death.

Corporations create jobs. The only times I know of when corporations are in the wrong is when they pollute other peoples property or underpay their workers. You don't need Green Peace or WWF to do that. If anything they just take the opposite extreme of the other. The other being big business in bed with big government.

Slapping someone in public or passing a comment about how sexy someone looks gets you hit with a big penalty/ can get you sued, yes? So, ramming into a boat should be exempt? I wonder if they traded insurance information over their walkie talkies ... you've gotta be kidding.

EDIT: Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I.

If you have someone demanding on a daily basis that you quit your job eventually you're going to snap.

As for over fishing the real problem comes from a lack of innovation in the market. If they could farm fish in tanks there wouldn't be a major problem.

But it's not like Green Peace is making that actual effort. They're just harassing some guys who are trying to keep their jobs & stay providers for their families.

That's retarded! There should be a law against such random attacks towards activists who have a right to do what they're doing.

A persons opinion speak volumes to me as to what kind of person they are.

Wow... This is going to suck...

This sounds like good news!

IMO Greenpeace got what it deserved. Bunch of nuts that usually want governments to increase there powers against business & people.

Then again Tuna is meh most of the time as the only thing that actually taste good is what ever is covering up the taste of Tuna.

Vroom! Wii passes Xbox 360 in US

It finally happened!...

there's a difference between owning a gun for hunting and self defence / domestic use

and if for example, guns weren't legal in America in the way they are now, it would be easy to control ownership of hunting rifles

I'm to tired to explain how a government can control it with relative ease if only people with hunting licences are allowed to own rifles

personally however i do not agree with hunting for sport, but provided the animal is eaten, i have no reason to voice my opinion further

by owning a gun you are creating the very situation people wish to avoid,

you own a gun to protect yourself, there fore the criminal needs a gun to commit a crime.

it is like what commissioner (SP) Gorden said at the end of batman begins, about escalation. when one person has something,. the other gets something better to compensate and surpass.

and listen to some music for an example. a lot of rap music says, treat women like hoes, fuck the police. and if someone steps near you, blow the fucker away

99% of the time, the rappers are just talking shit they wouldn't do for a million dollars, but stupid kids listen to this and think literally if they act that way, they will get money, power and respect

I'm not just blaming rap music, but that's just an example. i do listen to rap and most things, and i know a low of it isn't like that, but then again a lot is.

games like gta4 totally make violence look fun, i know there's plenty of evidence to show links between gaming violence and increased aggression, bu also the reverse effects (people express anger via gaming)

GTA 4 is rated 18 in the UK, but i see mums with 7 year olds buying it for them, and not every kid has a solid personality not to be effected by full on violence.

removing guns from society totally, is a step forward IMO. I'm not saying it would be easy to do so, but wouldn't you rather live in a society gun free, knowing you not going to be a victim of a drive by, or a school shooting, then they way it is now?

You completely forget all the illegal ways to get a gun.

If they don't eat it, it's at least one more deer off the road.

Criminals are less likely to commit a crime on a gun owner. You completely forgot the gun town USA article. The crime the criminal usually wants to commit is on those that usually don't have guns.

Comics aren't where I'd go to for a sound defense. Especially when it comes to real situations. One guy outdoing an entire police forces job. That's just not only ridiculous, but shows how badly armed the police can be when dealing with real situations.

In such a situation with Rap & GTA/Games the real problem is most likely parenting or lack of. There has also been proof that crime has decreased over the years as video games have gotten more advance. Most people who buy Rap & GTA/Games don't commit crimes.

Removing guns from society will only lead to more gun crimes. Not to mention no guns for defense would lead to more violent crimes. I've never had the fear of a drive by because I've never lived in a gun free zone. And I don't go to school anymore so it's currently impossible for me to be worried about being in a school shooting. Not to mention school shootings & drive bys happen in gun free zones. Now you're just exaggerating things that don't happen on a daily, monthly or maybe even a yearly basis.

Three thoughts come to mind...

1. The damn thing is too big to copy DS...
   
2. Point to kill without click seems more accurate, but dirty...
   
3. Without right click this might as well be a Mac...
   

you don't need a Desert Eagle or an Uzi to kill a deer is my point ;p

you remind me for some reason of one pieces' Bellemere ;p

but im glad you dont own a gun, though im 100% sure if your kids went near it, they wouldnt a 2nd time ;p

for the record, i 100% support bug dogs as pets / guards (provided there treated like a member of the family and not a tool)

i do blame the media, i know it sounds typical to say.

but people want to be like celebrities,

but i also blame parenting. and the government too,

im not saying the 2nd ammendment should be removed, but re-evaluated

how hard would it be to make a non-lethal alternative to a gun and bullet.

times have changed, and so should 200 year old laws.

Non lethal deer hunting sounds really boring. And that 200 year old freedom helps more than you want to admit.

why are you taking it personal that someone doesn't believe in guns being needed to feel safe

my example with about sexism in other countries was just an example of cultures / societies clashing, much like the idea of guns being bought in a shop is as alien to me the example i used

illegal guns in the USA means unregistered basically, whether bought from a guy in an ally or stolen from your neighbours house.

living in the UK. we have illegal guns, (smuggles in from other countries)

yet it is extremely rare that any gun crimes are reported in the national newspapers

there was an event this month, but before that i don't think an average person could tell you when one occurred.

and those illegal guns within the UK never see the open streets, when shit does go down, it is usually between people who are not exactly shining examples of a society

don't get me wrong, the UK is getting really bad with crime and youths, everyone wants to be a gangster, so stabbing someone is the new greeting in not so nice areas.

i blame the media / music / TV / bad parenting

why not buy a taser (sp,... the projectile version of a stun gun) if you wish to protect your homes. there non lethal unless the target has a heart condition, and tbh if you have a heart condition, crime really isn't a wise life style

the fact of the matter is guns don't kill people. people with guns kills people. removing guns from society, yes there are other methods of crime. but removing one element of crime is a start towards a better future for our children.

and i read the article. but that highlights my point even more, guns can be a deterrent for crime, but they can also cause crime, and death

much like the idea of a nuclear stalemate between countries, it only takes one person to break the stalemate

if a guy breaks into someones home, and gets shoot, it is not just 'self defence, but murder of another human being, and unless a person is trained in firearms pretty well, they are most likely going to shot someone in the chest, which are pretty much a fun house for hitting something vital to living End of the day, when you own a gun, you have a device build for the sole purpose of killing something...

)this has kinda gone off topic a fair amount, but hell debating and discussing is what the net should be used for more ^^_

When a government makes something illegal the crime goes up. This has applied to alcohol, drugs, & even guns.

Blaming media, music & TV is just basically the same thing Jack Thompson has done with Video Games. It doesn't solve the real problem, but makes wild guesses with very little proof.

Crime is never a wise life style, but as long as naive laws exist it will only make crime worse.

You want a better life for your kids do all that you can to better yourself and not take the easy way out by blaming objects. Blaming it on objects like guns is another way to relate to Jack Thompson.

Dumb asses should know better not to break into some one's house. And shooting them is always a last resort. And if it wasn't a gun for defence it might be a knife, hammer, etc. They still would end up dead depending on how I use it.

I don't consider this off topic as guns were mentioned in the 1st post.