SOCL

For me, the definition is: -Nation: certain people(s) with common attributes (usually language, but also culture in general) generally consenting to a common authority, especially government -Country: the geographical area controlled by a state and/or inhabited by a nation of people(s) -State: the governmental system which administers a certain area and/or peoples And these may be separate or all combined.

Welcome back, Olorin! And now, my usual Moderator bit. Please put all welcome-back or welcome-new messages in this forum: http://forums.swrebellion.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3666 Thanks!

I really only have one fact bit to add, and that's that members of Congress, both of the House and Senate, have free mail (that is to say, free to them but at the expense of the tax-payer), which has been commonly abused for use in elections. If I remember correctly, McCain-Feingold attempts to put a stop or at least a cap on this. Careful what accusations you make, Jin. I have very severe doubts that even left-leaning individuals like myself "dislike America".

Well, this is ironic. I sat down hoping folks from abroad would respond, since I'm very interested in hearing those opinions! You folks, especially Mori and Max, bring up a point that has (though quietly) been looming over the election. The fact of the matter is, whoever we elect in the U.S. will reflect a certain way of thinking to the rest of the world. You would be amazed at the reaction that Barack Obama, an African-American, can run for President. To much of the world, and especially the Middle East, we are seen as white, racist nation, and the fact Hillary Clinton is running means very little since it's not particularly unusual for women to be among the chief executives of the world (i.e. Margaret Thatcher, British PM in the 80s; Angela Merkel, present German Chancellor). The fact he is a minority has actually, and quite radically, changed many people's views abroad. I know in the USA much of electorate has become jaded with the issue of race in the present election, but what we perceive here is only a drip in the ocean of perception internationally. Indeed, the election of Obama might be enough to change the perception of the United States greatly and perhaps help with rekindling international relations, most of which are in a state of disrepair and rot if only for a lack of upkeep, but also from the totally offensive, unilateral manner of the present Administration. There are greater forces at work in this election that we as U.S. citizens cannot see (being so close to it), but that what we decide will affect. In many ways, I think this goes beyond the best candidate for the job, but instead for the sake of a greater issue: that of the United States image abroad. Jahled, don't get me wrong, McCain does not have my vote. I was trying to say that if I was forced to choose among GOP candidates, McCain would be my pick, but he is far from being (in my opinion) the best qualified candidate. Tofu, I've always had this theory that had we not got ourselves involved in Iraq, Afghanistan might be stabilized (seeing as we could have placed the emphasis from Iraq and Afghanistan on just the one country) and might perhaps be helping this UN coalition in Darfur with perhaps a brigade or two of peacekeeping forces. Additionally, we might also be assisting the government of and the European peacekeepers in Chad, along with perhaps even stabilizing Kenya, but of course, only if so invited or requested by the particular country or the United Nations. We might even be helping strengthen associations like the United Nations and NATO rather than weakening them by "going at it alone." It was quite heartbreaking back when the NATO allies wanted to enact Article 5 of the treaty--a bit created with the intention of the United States assisting Europe in the case of war with the USSR--to assist us after September-11, but the Administration turned down the offer. It was an extension of friendship and solidarity, and it was snubbed, which only goes to show how important my earlier argument about strengthening international ties continues to be. It's interesting, though, to see the Republican base divided in the same, if not extremely similar way the Democratic base was fragmented in 2004...

Tofu and I generally have the same opinion on this matter. If I might add, though, I rather like Hillary Clinton as a politician, but dislike her for being a politician (or rather, a stereotypical politician). Further, she's too much of a divisive figure to serve the Democrats can true purpose. She is more potentially dangerous in her ability to unify the Republican base against her rather than unify the Democratic base in her favor; indeed, I'm rather certain a large percentage of independents wouldn't so much cast their vote in favor of the GOP as against Clinton. As a Vice Presidential candidate, I have a hard time saying anything other than she would still be potentially dangerous to the electorate and especially the Democratic Party; further, she an extremely strong-willed person who will likely not take being VP very kindly and make hell for anyone who is made the Presidential nominee. As much as an Obama-Clinton ticket might be nice (or at least interesting) to see, I think that would cause too many problems and ought be scrapped. I don't generally favor Republicans, but among the GOP candidates McCain has my vote. Romney I don't have too much against, but I believe he's a waning power. Huckabee and Ron Paul are both political dangerous, not just for the GOP but for the country as a whole, especially with regard to foreign affairs.

Barack Obama.

My local theater gets their movies late...really late. I plan to go see American Gangster tonight.

Corran Horn? Haven't seen you in forever...how's it going? How? He only has a single post? Welcome, corran!

Welcome, wesir and Stillard! Please be sure to post welcomes and hellos in the new members thread. I have the habit of locking down these sorts of threads in order to not clutter the forum, so it's nothing personal. Hope to see you around!

Heh. I had to look twice before noticing that bit, too. I especially like the utterly not-amused lion-face. He seems so...not-amused...

Plan to disappear on us again for another year or so, wormie? See if you can get Scathane and Trejiuvanat to return, too, eh?

People want to own knives, fine. I own lots of knives--some are collectible, others are for cooking. Can they fire off 600 rounds per minute, 725 per minute, or 800 per minute, like an AK-47, SAW, or M16? No. Well, damn, I wonder why they're not classified as being as unsafe as assault rifles. I think this has a lot of do with the risk and danger. Rob, no offense, but I do not trust you (or anyone else) outside the military (and even then, not most of them!--and I know a lot of them) with an automatic weapon or any firearm with that sort of rate-of-fire. It's ridiculous and dangerous no matter how well trained you are. You might not commit some crime, but you may misfire or someone might steal your weapon and commit some horrible crime. It's simply not worth the risk. Automatic-fire weapons, in my opinion, should not be permitted outside official military hands and in certain law enforcement situations/agencies. Civilians have no business with these weapons, and non-civilians have no business privately owning them.

I guess I'm the only one who caught this. Rob, it's The Force Unleashed, not Legacy. May the BEAK be with you.

Jesus, wormie, just when I thought a whole bunch of the oldies had died, you turn up! Good to see you, old friend!

No, no, no: Tex received a pension and a pair of cowboy-boots, Eagle. Are there any animated GIF gurus who can devise some way to honor the occasion? Perhaps a simple WOO YAY or sorts would do...

Wow. I'm not sure whether to shake my head or pity you for knowing that bit of trivia...

I have to agree with Tofu on that last point.

Tofu, that's a photo of Lee after the Civil War. How about one during the war. Sadly, I have to say, in most instances in history, the unshaven fellow loses against the more shaven one. Hannibal lost to Scipio, Vercigetorix to Caesar, the Tsar to Lenin. I could go on, but it's really not that important.

I could have sworn I heard a rumor or something to that effect, but then again, I don't have source...

That's not to say the space battle can't be awesome and marvelous, but it seems like the most logical thing for the Vong to do since they will have "home field advantage."

Agreed upon by whom? I think they're flaming liberal propoganda machines! And Tofu ... (** points finger **) ... "You're stupid!"

Namely Krytos.

Ominous, nothing personal, but please do not double-post. Just got back and edit your post unless it's been at least a week or so since your last post. That's just normal moderator stuff, not debate stuff. I realize the police won't show up as soon as you want. In Puerto Rico, towards the central part of the island, there are terrorist agents (or were until recently) who do car-bombings against American government dignitaries, and in the past have bombed an Air Force base that use to be there. And yet, around all those crazy Puerto Ricans (who are Hispanics, by most definitions), I don't need a pistol and most white, black, Asian, or otherwise human people don't need guns. Only very recently has the east side of the island become very dangerous, so now the police are trained like soldiers and carry assault rifles on a normal basis in certain parts. Is this safe? Hardly. In fact, not at all. The escalation of the firearm race on my poor little island has only led to more firearm crimes, not fewer, despite the fact, as I just mentioned, the police carry assault rifles. Think of those images you see on the news of our soldiers in Iraq, patrolling the streets. Now take away the Kevlar helmet for a black beret or baseball cap, change the camouflage uniform into a blue uniform with a black Kevlar (bullet-proof) vest over that), and change the tan boots into black boots--and there you go. Hard to believe that is happening in (believe it or not) the United States. For most people, it's easy enough to say, that's happening in one of our territories and not an actual State. Well, fine, if that's where most people want to leave it, there's hardly anything I can do, but how will you like it when it happens in D.C., NYC, Chicago, or L.A. I remember seeing the California National Guard in full combat uniforms in the streets in 1992, walking right past my house. I also remember witnessing forces from the active-duty 82nd Airborne Division patrolling New Orleans in 2005. It wasn't a pleasant sight and it would be foolhardy to say that a firearms escalation couldn't result in that on a near-daily basis, just with police. I hardly understood that, mate. Your punctuation and spelling are flipping me out. I think you're saying that you should just forget about someone breaking into your house because you don't have a gun, right? Forgive me for bringing in the rational advice given by most, if not all law-enforcement agencies, but they advise the public not to fight back. If you want to, that's your problem, but you are more likely to survive if you lay low and let it pass. And I think Tofu hit the issue quite well when he said a security alarm will scare off most people. Heck, even in the areas considered "slums" in places like D.C., house alarms are usually the savior of most lives in robberies and such. And why do you assume you're going to be dead? Most armed robberies do not end with death or even wounding, and yet the ones where people fight back end, overwhelmingly in someone, if not both parties, either wounded or dead. If you like the 50/50 odds of survival and the 75/25 odds of wounding under the concept of mutual annihilation, that's fine--take your life in your hands. That doesn't mean, however, the rest of us should risk our lives because you're walking around with a firearm. You shoot, they shoot, and the innocent bystander dies. Fantastic. Forgive me, but did you read what you wrote? That doesn't make any sense! You're telling me to look at explicitly biased statistics? That doesn't make any sense--as much sense as looking at explicitly anti-gun stats. How can you even reason on such a statement? Am I the only one who noticed this? Deep breath. Let it out. Stretch. Thank you, Tofu, for keeping our heads on straight.

So your local militia who is planning for the day they have to go to war with the U.S. government are okay? Members of the KKK are okay? I promise, they're not just collectors, if at all. And I'm surprised you might say these things, because kids accidentally shooting their friends or even their parents with a firearm happen all the time. Those cases are accidents, yes, but they happen frequently--not long ago, it happened in Virginia Beach where a kid got a hold of his dads M4, believing it to be an airsoft rifle. The bank-heist scenario, though, Rob, with all due respect, is very, very, very rare. I think the last major bank heist, and likely the only one in recent history, where assault rifles were used, was the Beverly Hills shootout. Someone else in this thread said it quite well: most gun crimes are committed by law-abiding citizens with firearms. Quite honestly, I do not believe it's anyone's right to own an assault rifle. If a majority of people feel threatened by it, then it is a threat, no matter whose hands they're in. Assault weapons and other fully automatic firearms were designed with the intention of use for offensive combat, not collecting or for the thrill of having one. There's nothing to stop someone from saying, "Damn it, I hate the world" or "My girlfriend left me, so now everyone must pay!" and taking that assault rifle or Uzi on a rampage. I hate to bring it up, but the Columbine school-shooting, possibly one of the single worst gun crimes of our time, saw the use of at least one automatic weapon. And let me bring something else up. A few years back, living at Fort Campbell, an Army base, a Soldier lost it and took his M4 at his platoon. This was a military installation, and if it wasn't because the local police are also Soldiers with their own assault rifles and training in taking down people with assault rifles, it could have been much, much, much worse. So even restricted to military personnel who are well trained and honed in their use, assault rifles are still dangerous. I would not feel even close to safe if my neighbor or any one of you here on these forums owned an assault rifle. I have my doubts that any of you are trained in their proper use (i.e. hunting, attacking, and killing), and if you are, that makes me feel even less safe. I've been trained in their use and I don't feel safe having them around--hence, unlike many Soldiers, I do not own any firearms. And to add to firearms being unsafe, even in the hands of the well-trained, not too many years ago a pair of former U.S. Army Rangers decided they'd start a career as bank robbers. They used a G4 assault rifle, a Mini-14, and a CAR-15 as their primary weapons, along with an assortment of pistols and sub-machine guns. It took an FBI team of somewhere between twelve and twenty to gun them down because law enforcement are not trained in offensive combat, nor are they trained in defending against those sort of weapons or tactics, which the two Rangers used effectively. Hell, one of them was medically dead for five minutes but was still moving, taking position, and killing FBI agents before he was finally brought down with a well-placed round to forehead. Now, don't give me this "It was the Rangers who did it" because these Rangers would not have been able to do everything they did without the use of those assault rifles. Had they only had pistols, or say no firearms at their disposal, they would not have had the ability to carry out these sort of robberies or kill so many law enforcement. It may be true that people kill people, not guns, but guns enable people to kill people, much more efficiently, at that. I can promise you, what happened in Beverly Hills or Columbine or Virginia Tech or with these two Rangers would not have happened if the most they had at their disposal were katanas and baseball bats. It simply couldn't have happened. In any event, if law enforcement does not have the means to fight it off, then it should not exist, period. I do not believe that law enforcement should then have to arm like soldiers and train like military, because that's nonsense--an arms race with the promise of mutual annihilation is hardly a way to live freely. It's unfair to the rest of us who do not want firearms around us (eh, didn't think we could pull the fair card like you guys can about it not being fair to take your guns away, did ya?). The police and law enforcement should not have to arm up, armor up, and roll out in armored vehicles with assault rifles and other fully-automatic weapons to keep me safe. Hell, if I wanted that, I could move to Iraq or Afghanistan or Kenya or Somalia, and look how well that's working out... No, assault rifles are only dangerous in the hands of the public. The government has the obligation to keep its people safe, and if that means some people are going to cry over losing the use of loosing thirty bullets in a single spray, then so be it! It's nothing worst than the conservative-backed PATRIOT Act; indeed, it's much less of a sacrifice... That's right, blame it on race. What an easy way out. Ominous, I live in a Black community, I live in a Black neighborhood, and most of my friends are Black. I also have a great deal of White friends. You know who's scared of who? People in the Black community are scared of White people. They know the reality of their situation, and I can promise you most people outside their situation cannot begin to understand it. Let's stick the facts of gun crimes, please, and not lower ourselves political back-and-forth, and not bring in irrelevant nonsense, like race being at fault and such. If that's the case, well, hell, I'm Puerto Rican. I should own a gun and drive a Toyota right? They're called STEREOTYPES. So why won't the people of Upstate NY let NYC and Long Island become their own state?

Yes, hide the spoilers or suffer at the hands of the Moderator--because he really wants to see it.