|
|
 |
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 2:11 AM "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." — Mahatma Gandhi —striker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Thought |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 6:58 AM
Edited Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 6:58 AM Phil Schneider - November 1995 Lecture Phil Schneider was a geologist, structural engineer, and underground tunneling expert who participated in the construction of many deep underground cities and bases in North America and abroad for the government. In May of 1995, suffering from terminal cancer, he began giving talks in Las Vegas describing in detail the underground cities, the government's secret deal with negative aliens, high alien technology being employed by the government-including "corbamite" (element 140), mining on the moon, FEMA and martial law, the coming New World Order takeover, the Alien/ NWO genocide agenda to reduce the earth's population by 85% before 2029, and a host of other stunning revelations. Phil Schneider was an extraordinarily brave man who knew that he was going to be killed because of the information he was revealing to the American public.
—ZT-In-Thought |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 7:00 AM That they're both ignorant brits (ignorant of history and ignorant of the proper role of government) and I'm rubbing it in their faces (which is fun and easy, kind of like RR). —striker |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Thought |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 10:07 AM Maybe. Yet, some how I can completely agree with that quote from Gandhi, and still completely disagree with you. —ZT-In-Thought |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 11:12 AM <<"Yet, some how I can completely agree with that quote from Gandhi, and still completely disagree with you." The explanation —striker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 12:45 PM striker--I have seen that quote on a number of 2nd amendment gun-nut websites used the same way as you --with no context. I'm sure there's good reason that the most famous non-violent resistor of the last century said that and it probably has nothing to do with him imagining an American society where a ton of the populace is armed to the teeth with minimal regulation. That certainly doesn't characterize Great Britain of the 30's so it's not exactly a stretch to imagine the gun lobby taking that quote and perverting the spirit of it to their own use. Shocking I know. Gandhi was known to share his bed (but according to him not his dork) with a number of teen girls throughout his life, so he was sort of a nutjob anyway. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Thought |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Edited Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 1:27 PM According to google book search it was published in at least four books in what appears to be a kind of original context. Hard to tell from the snippets what that is though. - Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of Modern India page 125
- Mahatma Gandhi, His Own Story page 308
- The Mahatma and His Men - G. D. Birla page 69
- The Indian Review page 784 (this is probably a journal, actually)
Either way, I think this is a perfect example of why reasonable people generally can't have a conversation with those that have extremist opinions on either side of the gun control debate. I think that quote is used opportunistically by militia movement members, Libertarians, etc. without context specifically for it's impact on left-wing pacifists rather that to help explain Gandhi's position (and reasoning for it) on gun ownership rights. For instance, that quote doesn't give me much information. Personally I feel there are plenty of good reasons why people should own guns, and even beyond that I'm not a pacifist; I just don't see violent revolution as being practical in the United States. So, it's impossible for me to agree or disagree with what Gandhi said without understanding more about why he said it. This comes back to the point I've tried to get across to anobody many times about the difference between philosophizing and debating. I would love to have a discussion about any popular controversial topic with any person on the forum provided it's not done in the context each person taking a different side. Generally that's impossible, but in my experience they only kind of useful conversations I've had. —ZT-In-Thought |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Edited Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 3:53 PM Ya know, you guys are desperate. You know that's not a vague quote at all. It's pretty clear. Proof of this is all you've got is to imply that I'm taking that clear quote out of context, YET the funny thing is no one has yet to say what the REAL context was if me and that obvious quote are somehow being misleading. You anti gunners (specifically the two brits) just won't accept the fact that it's YOUR anti gun point of view that is new (it's not normal among men), and that it's YOUR point of view that is based on relatively current political correctness/emotion, and not the experience of history that Gandhi had. In those days history was well understood and at the forefront of people's minds because the entertainment culture e.g. television, didn't exist to distract people and make them obsessed with the "now" instead of learning correct principles from history. When Gandhi said that, there wasn't the anti male/anti gun culture that politicized the issue so bad (which only results in the [b]male[/b] point of view being quieted). If Gandhi had lived today, I doubt he would have waded into that issue THAT way, or may not have said anything even similar to it because back then, there wasn't an ocean of GUN PHOBIC males (like ace/mf) and and ocean of emotion for Gandhi to worry about "wading" into. Men were free to speak the male point of view without fear of intimidation, or being jumped on by the "enlightened" feminine collective (which not only exists today, but now includes MALES). —striker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:27 PM I wasn't expecting to see THIS as the second definition for jaded at dick-shun-airy.com 2. a disreputable or ill-tempered woman. —striker |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:28 PM That they're both ignorant brits You do realize that MJ is from Oz, don't you? This comes back to the point I've tried to get across to anobody many times about the difference between philosophizing and debating. I would love to have a discussion about any popular controversial topic with any person on the forum provided it's not done in the context each person taking a different side. Generally that's impossible, but in my experience they only kind of useful conversations I've had. Did you ever consider the possibility that I can rationally say that I don't think something is workable without it being an attack on you? Or is your idea that we should just bounce ideas back and forth without judgement? Because, you know, all ideas are equally valid and reasonable. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Thought |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Edited Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM I wasn't expecting to see THIS as the second definition for jaded at dick-shun-airy.com / 2. a disreputable or ill-tempered woman. —striker Seriously, all of your posts come to something about gender. What happened? Did you ever consider the possibility that I can rationally say that I don't think something is workable without it being an attack on you? —anobody Yes. What I don't understand is claiming you're having a discussion about parecon, when you're talking about why Capitalism is okay and it's bad parts can be repaired and then how you agree with me on most things when you don't know what I agree or disagree with. In the first case, because you're taking a side (one that wasn't all that relevant to the topic). In the second case, because you didn't (and still don't, on this topic) know what you're talking about. I don't think I ever said you were attacking me, just that you're frustrating the hell of me (trolling). Like I said before, if you could possibly disagree with or attack something I believe in, that would be a MASSIVE improvement. So far, you just kind of like... annoyingly bring up something else that I'm not talking about like it's a counter argument, or get mad at me for giving you information, or jump to conclusions about what I believe in, or associate me with groups of people that I don't really agree with. I'm just repeating things I've said before now. Either you get it or you don't. —ZT-In-Thought |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:34 PM Seriously, all of your posts come to something about gender. What happened? Even if he had the insight and perspective required to be able to answer that, do you actually think he'd tell us? —anobody |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Edited Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:40 PM striker was molested by a gender when he was young. —lexieho |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 5:57 PM A catholic gender repeatedly...if you MUST know. —striker |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 6:53 PM Well since a nun held me down while I ate her out, and made me suck clam on all the other nuns, sometimes 3 at a time, kind of a reverse bukkake, with most being in their 50s and up. They threatened me not to tell, and in front of the priests would punish me for having old lady vadge breath and repeatedly sent me to brush my teeth. This went on for years, and they kept me "hooked" by only allowing me to eat if the food was placed on or in their vaginal openings. They thought it was funny and referred to it as "nunilingus." —striker |
|
|
|
|
lexieho |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 6:57 PM i lol'd, but only at the nunilingus part —lexieho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 9:27 PM You know that's not a vague quote at all. It's pretty clear. Proof of this is all you've got is to imply that I'm taking that clear quote out of context, YET the funny thing is no one has yet to say what the REAL context was if me and that obvious quote are somehow being misleading. Actually I can think of several contexts. Was Gandhi talking about the fact that the Brits didn't allow India a standing militia/army? Do you honestly think he was saying that people needed to keep a handgun under the pillow for personal protection or carry one around in their robes? Was he mad because Indians weren't allowed in the British army? I personally don't know because I'm not a Gandhi schollar and something tells me you aren't either striker. Like I said, I saw that quote floating around a bunch gun-nut sites so it's not even like you're pulling an original thought out of the air here, you're just taking a page out of the NRA playbook. Congrats on your lack of originality. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 9:45 PM Well that took about 2 minutes. Apparently Gandhi was using the argument that Brits didn't conscript troops from India into their Army for WWI for political gain and not arguing for gun ownership amongst the Indian citizenry. Read all about it. Nice try striker. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
ZT-In-Thought |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 10:37 PM
Edited Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 10:39 PM Well since a nun held me down while I ate her out, and made me suck clam on all the other nuns, sometimes 3 at a time, kind of a reverse bukkake, with most being in their 50s and up. They threatened me not to tell, and in front of the priests would punish me for having old lady vadge breath and repeatedly sent me to brush my teeth. This went on for years, and they kept me "hooked" by only allowing me to eat if the food was placed on or in their vaginal openings. They thought it was funny and referred to it as "nunilingus." —striker All right, dude. Be that way. I don't respect you for answering dishonestly. All of the times I've asked you questions, you've just been a prick. I gave you your opportunity to show that you're a real person -- more than a gun nut trolling the forum and you pissed it away. I guess all there really is to you is just this shallow (AND MOST LIKELY VERY FAT) person consumed with guns and Alex Jones. I feel too sorry for you to poke fun at you anymore. God bless you. —ZT-In-Thought |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 11:31 PM <<"Was Gandhi talking about the fact that the Brits didn't allow India a standing militia/army?" Talk about reaching. I think he knew how to say army if he meant army. Your statement flies in the face of HIS us of the words "whole nation." <<"Do you honestly think he was saying that people needed to keep a handgun under the pillow for personal protection or carry one around in their robes?" Of course, that's what people did einstein. Your concept of government searching everyone all the time and dictating what they can carry is a relatively new concept. <<"Was he mad because Indians weren't allowed in the British army?" I think he knew how to say that if he meant that. You're really reaching and grasping at straws here. You know what is just making me laugh to no end here? The fact that all your scenarios presuppose his INability to clearly express himself. Amazing that you continue to assume that. You come up with these scenarios that presuppose that he didn't know how to speak clearly, that he didn't know how to convey a message, and that he didn't know how his words would be received. Absolutely incredible. Your level of denial is also incredible. <<"because I'm not a Gandhi schollar" That is a total cop out and you know it. No one's claiming to be a "scholar" here. So in order to understand a clear sentence, written in the english language now requires one to be a "scholar?" Like I said: cop OUT. <<"Apparently Gandhi was using the argument that Brits didn't conscript troops from India into their Army for WWI for political gain and not arguing for gun ownership amongst the Indian citizenry. Read all about it." Now seems like a good time to repost the original quote and see if, well, any of it jives with your interpretation there: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." Clearly english is a second language for you, but any gradeschooler can see there is a HUGE difference between not conscripting, and the concept of "depriving" a nation of something. (I can't believe I had to just explain that). —striker |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 11:43 PM I know you are more tard than man striker, but even you know as well as I do now that your little bullshit quote is not sitting in space surrounded by whitespace but came from a book that's more than 400 pages long. Nice that you completely ignored my link to the site that explains its context. To get what you're trying to get out of one statement is the equivalent of taking a sentence from Leviticus in the bible and using it to say God hates fags or taking satelite pictures of tractor-trailers and saying "look! those are mobile weapons labs! We must invade." That might work amongst your gun-toting idiot manchild small dicked web-buddies, but I have higher standards. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 12:45 AM For your analogy to be accurate, we'd have to be talking about a place in Leviticus where it says "God seriously dislikes homosexuals" and I was taking that to say "God hates fags." That is analogous to the clear conclusion that MILLIONS have drawn from that very very clear quote by Gandhi. You're essentially saying that the quote says deer have 2 legs and I repost it where it clearly says that deer have four. Your motivation is politics and not accuracy or even proper english. Words mean things, and that must bug you to death as you try to twist what he said because you're in denial. You'll notice that I don't have to twist anything from that quote. I don't have to interpret it either. It's so damn clear, and you KNOW IT that all I have to do is POST the friggin' thing. It's YOU who goes into damage control mode at the mere sight of it, and goes into frantic SPIN mode. Notice my first post, how there is no commentary. I let that CLEAR quote do my speaking for me. I didn't try to ADD to it, or twist it as you have. Why? Because I don't NEED to. You on the other hand, NEED to twist it and spin it, because it says something you don't want to hear. —striker |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 6:18 AM You say that you don't have to justify your fanaticism for guns because fanaticism is normal and I am merely stuck on the specific obsession you've chosen for yourself, namely guns.
Substitute guns for an "approved" item, almost whatever item you wish, and you'll see that it is YOU who has the "schism in their consciousness," which would be more accurately termed a BIAS against a particular inanimate object. I say, again, (I would say that any worship of cultural kibble, knick knacks, that kind of thing is the same as loving guns but since I didn't have time to include the latest Avon catalogue in my post, I thought I'd just focus on your particular fetish.), that all fanaticism is a curiousity to me, especially when someone insists on sharing their passion with me incessantly. Even after I ask them not to. Cuz it's boring to me. Cuz, you know... I'm not obsessed with it. This thread is another example of you conjuring up a discussion about guns for no reason, then pretending to be confused/outraged when people are non-plussed at your bringing up guns. Again.
What is the point? You clearly have no idea why you even like the things, so why should any of us like them, or care that you obliviously do?
Since you're so fond of comparing apples and oranges, let's look at the college football thread on this forum.
Now, what you're doing is the equivalent of Andrew starting a college football thread, being ignored, then starting up several more college football threads, and still being ignored. Then Andrew would pepper every thread in the forum with posts vitriolically attacking everyone here and in the wider world for not liking college football.
Instead, there is one thread, and many people are participating in it whenever they want to discuss college football here. Your zealotry resembles the shaken faith of a Christian. You don't really believe what you're saying at all, do you? What a lovely preface.
Now, to your grievances in this thread.
The original quote: I don't care. I don't idolize anyone, living or dead. I've heard about Gandhi but he's just another godhead. He's worthless to me. I don't care for quoting people. It's hardly ever worth it.
Let's pretend for a moment that I was really into Gandhi though. Especially since he's an icon of peace.
Now, an icon of peace is proselytizing instruments of violence? That doesn't make violence desirable, it makes Gandhi a false icon. If a legendary genius intellect says something retarded, that doesn't make the retarded statement a concoction of genius. It means that the legend was false, or that the legend was having an off day, or the legend was flawed; whatever. What is this induction? Gandhi said something stupid, and Gandhi is renowned for being profound, therefore his stupid statement is profound? It's all moot anyway. The most heinous and (thus far, and forever more) remembered crime of the British in Southern Asia is not razing the population of MUD PEOPLE to the ground. Every last female should have had a hot bar of iron placed inside her vagina; every last male should have had his cock and balls removed and stuffed into his own mouth. And I'm not British, I'm Australian. I don't really mind being labelled British, it doesn't insult me, but then what would a British person say to see me claiming Britishness? I've never had my tiny dick inside the mouthe, anussssss or vadge-ina of a cockney slut, I'll tell you that much. It would be nice. A cute girl with an irish, scottish, welsh, any-London, or any other distinct accent from there is really hot. But then again, anything about cute girls tends to be on a scale of Forgiveable to Fucking Insanely Sexual.
Isn't that always the way? Here, have some Aki
 —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 11:57 PM
Edited Wednesday, January 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM LOVED the pics. Thank you mf for finally clarifying that your australian (in our gun conversations anyway) after letting me call you british like a hundred times w/o me realizing that YOU at least still have a right to own a handgun and ace does not. Now can you be honest and admit that the australian gun laws are totally schizo, bi-polar, multiple personality, borderline personality, nutjob screw loose, wrap around jacket, and RETARDED all rolled into one? C'mon already, your government bans handguns that are too small, then handguns that are too big, like it's got a damn goldilocks comlex or something. The funniest part about your totally insane gun laws, is that your government won't ADMIT that it's ultimate goal was to ban and take everybody's guns. No, the funniest part is when they force hundreds of thousands of people to turn in their "verboten" handguns for cash, and then they were actually shocked when people used that money to buy NEW handguns. Your government, in this case anyway is as dumb and criminal as it gets. Correct me if this has changed, but I believe guns UNDER .38 caliber are VERBOTEN for some odd, stupid, inane reason, and handguns OVER .40 caliber are VERBOTEN for other odd, stupid, inane reasons. You must want to give copious amounts of oral to John Howard then because he loves to say how he loves America but hates how we like guns because, in his PHOBIC words, he says "I hate guns." I don't know how a grown man, a supposedly educated man, can "hate" an inanimate object, but that's what you've got for a president, er I mean prime minister over there. —striker |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Friday, January 5, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Edited Friday, January 5, 2007 at 8:03 PM Alright, already... ENOUGH (in general) about the FIRST Amendment, and ENOUGH (here at the forum, in particular) about the SECOND Amendment!
Don't you people give a shit about the THIRD Amendment? I don't know about YOU folks, but I, for one, am not WILLING to surrender my right not to accommodate military personnel in my home.* This right is constantly being threatened, and no one seems willing to even DISCUSS it.
*...or something like that. It's been a while since I've read it. In case you're not smart enought to realize...Yes, I was joking. —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 5:23 AM Good stuff dusty. If you think about it, the federal government gets around the need for forced quartering of soldiers in your home by having a zillion military bases, as well as by buying people off with inflated worthless paper "money" (falsely called dollars) and convincing suckers to JOIN the military (which thusly puts a soldier in your house w/o the need to get your consent because they got it when you signed the paperwork to become federal property). —striker |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 8:51 AM While I was working yesterday, this guy came over to me and started talking and asking about what I was doing and when I told him that I was campaigning for the environment he started going on about how he's really into the constitution. It's a pretty great pick up line. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 9:50 AM
Edited Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 10:11 AM <<<"I was campaigning for the environment"  Typical chick crap. Hey mandie, you'd better keep "campaigning" for that environment, or else it might disappear. Hey, ever been on a plane? Ever looked down starting at takeoff? Ever noticed that most of the planet has NO ONE living on it? Do you even grasp how large the planet, er sorry, the "environment" is? I didn't think so. Get back to "campaigning" for it. I'll bet Oprah's bank account that you believe in what's in Al Gore's nonsensical PANIC movie. That your parents car is causing the polar ice to [allegedly] melt more than normal. The mind of mandie: 1. A metal object that goes bang when the trigger is pulled is "scary"
2. The "environment" needs to be "campaigned" for or...something is going to happen Will you hurry up and turn up pregnant so you can come down to reality?! <<"...he started going on about how he's really into the constitution." Why do I get the feeling that he said nothing of the sort. Yea, I'm real sure he said "Hi, I'm into that constitution, no REALLY into it." Whatever it was that he ACTUALLY said, there's no WAY he would condense it the way you did. I doubt he was talking about the 2nd amendment or you'd have mentioned it. Soooo, I'm gonna say he was talking about something related to bush raping the constitution since 9/11. Am I close, or do you remember, or were you even listening to him? —striker |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Edited Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 12:17 PM His exact words were "I'm really into the constitution". And of course I'm campaigning for the entire environment, I couldn't possibly just be doing various grassroots campaign work for local laws that protect, oh I don't know, the Chesapeake bay or require automakers to use the technology that they have to make cleaner cars and trucks. Yes, I am single handedly going to save every inch of land on this here planet earth. And a majority of people that I work with are men who could easily kick your ass in a second, so enough with the 'typical chick crap'. —mandeemoo22 |
|
|
|
|
striker |
+ |
Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Edited Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 1:14 PM Caring about the fuzzy "whole" as opposed to caring about REALITY (i.e. tangible individual issues, regarding PHYSICAL personal liberty for example) is the chick crap I was talking about. Chicks don't know how anything ACTUALLY functions so they "care" about the "whole." Caring about the "whole" doesn't require any intelligence, only feelings, emotion, and mindless self importance. As long as women keep things nice and vague and impossible to measure success (they lack concrete, achievable goals) they shield themselves from the feeling of defeat. People like mandie don't like being judged by their results, only their INTENTIONS. —striker |
|
|
|
|
mandeemoo22 |
+ |
Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM well you obviously didn't listen to anything i said in my previous post, but i don't know why i bother explaining myself to you anyway. you do nothing for society, you just spew out ridiculous bullshit on the internet. you must be so proud of yourself. —mandeemoo22 |
|