Skip to main content

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - OakdaleFTL

Been to at least Canada or Mexico this century?
Nope. They neither of them have the civil rights that I expect... (YMMV, of course!)
This post is more interesting than all Smiley's posts combined.
I agree, that this post makes a better point than Smiley's posts; but I'm an American, so I understand what Smiley says -- in a way that Europeans may not.

Indeed, guns are prevalent in this world.
The freedoms that persist in the U.S. are not.

Why is that?

I listen to the likes of Howie, who thinks we're all gun-mad. Yet he's seen his "coppers" kow-tow to Pakis or their multi-culti politicians, allowing decades of rape gangs get away with their nefarious -- what would you call them? Shenanigans?
He doesn't think it's a "big" deal. (I assume he has no daughters; or sons -- else he'd be mortified. Wouldn't he?)

I know that Europeans (some...) reject the right to bear arms; specially as a rebut to established power.
(I suspect that that's the primary reason they do: They are cowed; and they won't abide a portion of the populace that won't be... Such a nice conundrum: What do you do when someone disagrees with you? The modern state says, Crush them. The modern intellectual says, Crush them! The children being "educated" in our universities say, Crush them!!! (They sometimes use more exclamation points...)
What is the point of talking, if you're going to kill us? Shouldn't we kill you first? :)
Is that what you want?
ersi, you  think government grants you your rights... We disagree on this.
We -at least many of us, here in the U.S.- still think that our rights preceded government; that government exists to safeguard such rights... And should be abolished, when it doesn't.  We said so, unequivocally.
But I understand your point of view. You'd have whoever got a majority of the vote be allowed to do whatever they want. Don't you remember what that led to before?
(The Jews do...)

Americans own guns; and, yes, in large part that is to prevent the government from doing stupid shit.

The government will do stupid shit, if it faces no opposition.

Think a moment about why Imperial Japan didn't invade the west coastal U.S. at the onset of WW II... (Too many guns in the hands of too many Americans!) People will fight, if they can.
You'd like people to be unable to fight -- I take it.
Are you unable or unwilling to fight? Have you nothing to fight for? Does your shame make you denigrate nobler souls?

Your country has repeatedly been conquered. That's not a criticism; it's a fact. It's what happened in Europe throughout most of history... Peoples conquering peoples.
And now you want to preach "multiculturalism" as the new religion? :)

Have you considered that only a free people, able to defend themselves, can resist the various entities that call themselves "government"?

Do you miss the Soviet Union? Would you explain why you don't?
Our crime thing is very different from you lot over there
Yes. Your coppers and their political masters cringe at being called Islamophobic, so they let Pakis rape and prostitute young girls for twenty years...
I assume, RJ, that you have no daughters. If you have sons, wouldn't you teach them better?

I appreciate that most Europeans would rather die than defend themselves and their families! (Just another reason to question the reason for NATO...)
We'll see what happens... Spain sided with Hitler, way back when. (Of course, you sided with the communists. didn't you? :) ) The Catalans aren't really indigenous: They've only been there for all of recorded history! They need to be pets of the multicultural globalist cabal, to get street cred! Right.
You have your own opinions, RJ. But owing to a lack of intelligence which likely led to your lack of education, you can't support them with argument.

Do you even know why some Scots want to leave the union?
I doubt it.
Likewise, I doubt you ken nor care why Catalans want to secede from Spain.

History is -for you- a nondescript book that mentions relatives you never knew, and would likely spit on you -- for the obvious reasons.

I'm interested in what happens in Spain: I suspect that I have two children traveling through...
Show me examples of your "mature" opinions!
No examples...? I thought not.
Perhaps Rotherham... :(
Wow! You're quite full of yourself!

But if you're an example of educators and prospective public servants, your country is in dire need of immigrants... The locals can't hack it anymore. :)
I had no idea this guy could be so controversial. I saw him primarily as a guy worn on t-shirts by "edgy" alt-punk types. But I suppose it's very different if you were an adult in the '60s.
Yes. Che should indeed be recognized as the prototypical Communist: Psychotic, murderous and open to any depravity his power allowed him.
Just saying! :)
As for Che, he was one of the greatest personlities of the past century.
He was almost as cuddly as Jeffry Dahmer... :)
Will Ireland next honor "Uncle Joe" Stalin and Chairman Mao? Pol Pot?

I sort-of understand why Howie was offended; I was too.  Likewise, I don't understand why Smiley wasn't... Why wasn't he?
Not only he can say. If he doesn't explain himself, others will do it for him... :)
DnD Central / Re: Living in a Farm...
You really do miss your priviledge, ersi, don't you? You used to be important. But now that the Soviet Union has collapsed, you have to prove your worth to... There's the rub: You don't know what it is.

But your country seems to be doing quite well; You seem to resent that...
Says the apostate! Your feeble mind is good enough to to reckon the the meaning of the word of God? You can't even speak and spell your own language...
Always "for" the indigenous peoples, eh, RJ? :)
Step up, Scotsman! Do your duty! :)

Okay: you don't do that anymore. You just whine and bitch... and die, unappreciated. What did you do for which you should be appreciated?
Unfortunately laughing off what others in the world think is rather immature.
(I had to chime in on this:) Why does any nation care about the opinions of other nations?
Does Scotland care about what Indonesians or Peruvians think about what Scottish do, within Scotland? Does Scotland care about what Indonesians and Peruvians do, within Indonesia and Peru? What matters is, what ties have these countries to one another.

When Th. Jefferson wrote
WHEN in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate & equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
He wasn't just pleading a cause; he was promoting a new political philosophy: Namely, democracy.
(Oddly enough, Howie has never understood this... Unfortunately, many on this side of the pond have likewise been unencumbered with learning.)
Not the piddling bean-counting and "you'll get yours, if you give me mine" politics that Europe has degenerated to -- with such ill effects...
What he spoke to was a cure for democracy's ills: Inalienable rights, that the government -no matter how constituted- were deemed to be sacrosanct to. You know: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But if "Mankind" has become a mere rabble, what matters their opinion?
Some things are not just a matter of taste.

As Smiley has mentioned elsewhere, most of us in the U.S. don't really care what the rest of the world thinks of us. That's because we know what their opinions are worth... We'll listen to and digest the meaning of their pleadings; but we won't accept such "special pleadings" as you'd propose, RJ. You've yourself rejected almost every scholar and genius your country ever produced (except for he who gave you your Telly... :) ), yet you want us to listen to the likes of you!
You want us to go down the same road of socialism that led Europe to ruin? That you haven't yet escaped yourself?
Having piddled away your inheritance, knowing that you'll not appeal to a rich dowager, you'd like to see us also fail -- because you can't imagine how a virile culture can succeed. And if one does, well, that shows you to all the world what you are: Impotent.
"laughing off what others in the world think is rather immature" seems to me to be a remark made by a senile old man. Show me examples of your "mature" opinions!
Hm. Something that really gets Howie's dander up, the Irish terrorists and their enablers, won't lead to a discussion of "reunification" for Ireland. (It won't for Smiley, either... His moral compass seems a bit off too: Perhaps the lodestone that affects them both is the same. A past the never was? :( )

I'll side with RJ on this one issue: Honoring Che (...even on a 1 penny stamp -- give it time, it'll get to that value! :) ) shows a deranged view of history. That Smiley can't care less if Ireland goes Marxist (democracy, and all that? Eh, RJ? :) ) and only seems to want all on the island to share the same misery is telling:
He's just angry that his terrorists aren't seen as "freedom fighters"... Too funny!

BTW: I've always known that Samuel Adams (the mind behind the Boston Tea Party, and much else) was a terrorist; he himself knew it, too. But those seeking independence from the Crown won their revolution... They full well expected to be hung as traitors, had they lost.

There are still some in America who think the Civil War was a second revolution. But the piffling arguments that the war was about anything but slavery are only shamefacedly advanced by folks who still believe slavery was, on balance, a "nobel" institution.
RJ still believes that the Confederacy was maligned. Why? Well, they were...what? Scots? Willing to let Britain help in "their" insurrection? :) They lost, RJ; and history moved on.
Likewise, Ireland lost it's war of unification, Smiley... You argue like the La Raza fringe that think Mexico "deserves" California back!

If you'all won't argue about what you disagree on (besides that each thinks the other unprincipled -- and I see little in your back-and-forth to make me expect any statement of principle soon) all you can do is insult each other. So, of course, the level of insult needs -for you two- to escalate.

The moderator, I think, correctly hints at the pertinent question: Do you have to do that here? Is that what you think this forum is for?
What right minded country would want to follow the USA in this mad nonsense about the need and "rights" of gun ownership?
Certainly not the "sheeple" across the pond...
Have you banned trucks yet? (I mean lorries...)
You had the first mass slaughter at an entertainment venue... But you quickly forgot: Chances are good that the first nuclear event will occur in your country. (Do you have a country?) And you'll blame it on America -- because that's what you do, Howie.

Hey, RJ, what do you do when someone pulls a knife on you? :) I'm guessing, piddle...
When people talk about an armed citizenry, they -if they are leftists- mention low probability, low risk situations... What they refuse to recognize is low probability, high risk situations.
Immanent death seems, to me, to be a high risk situation.

Myself, I don't like loud noises. ("Suppressors" and "silencers" won't help me... I know what they can do; unlike the Hollywood make-believers.) I haven't fired a rifle since I qualified on the M-16. And I haven't fired a handgun in 35 years.
BTW: The range master told us "This is a military weapon, and is capable of full-automatic fire. If you switch to full automatic fire, you will be shot dead on the spot!" It's a special skill for most of the military; what we used to call grunts were trained, and needed to be. The rest didn't.

I like the idea that ersi put forward: There are "gun nuts"... Except, nobody seemed to know he was a gun nut; he wasn't seen at local ranges... Heck, I'll bet he wasn't even a member of the NRA!
There are nut nuts, like ersi, people who think their use of words creates reality. Actually, it only helps them hide from reality.

What, I wonder, will people say when and if we find out why Paddock did what he did?
I already know what ersi will say, and so does he: His opinion is set in stone.
corrupt political system that allows organizations such as the NRA to twist the arms of our "leaders" and prevent sensible legislation such as banning bump stocks
"Sensible legislation" is always the rallying cry! Yet no such proposal ever comes close to having any effect on the recent -or previous or next- "episode"...
...The NRA has come out in favor of banning "bump stocks"... But they're not hard to make.
Why would someone want such a thing? For the thrill of firing an "automatic" weapon! (And, unfortunately, for nefarious reasons.) It's an expensive thrill: Rifle barrels don't last long under such stress.

It will be interesting to see how the Repeal the 2nd Amendment movement goes. (Thank you, Great Britain, for recognizing such as the natural right of an Englishman!) Please understand: The rights specified in the first 8 (9 or 10? :) ) amendments were not and are not "granted" by that document nor by the government; they are merely mentioned as some particular few that our founders thought required special protection from government over-reach...

I await the results of police investigations. I'd like to know what kind of crazy Paddock was...
Please understand, poor Scotsman, that Texas has been constrained by rules set by Congress, a long time ago. Once upon a time, Texas could become 6 states -- but that option went away a long time ago.
We're not like your lot: We decided on union, and made it a prerequisite. It stays as it is.

You silly geese can keep voting, over and over... :)
I haven't been to Texas since '70... And except for them all calling me "Yankee" I had no problems with them. They were good people -- despite their opinion of me... :)
Pournelle is 86 now
Alas, I had got his age wrong -- giving him two more years than God did. RIP, Jerry.

RIH, Alex Jones... :) I don't wish you ill, yet; but I can't bring myself to wish you well...
...oy! The "rising oceans" trope continues to swamp both memory and science!

Could I bear to be apart from my immediate family, I'd gladly move to Florida -- but, of course, you'd rightly claim I'd be dead before it was inundated.
Didn't Al Gore make the claim that Manhattan would be under water by 2000? Nah! He just got the year wrong.
Just like that savant, Ehrlich.

So Luxor can try and be lying to you but the politics show a different honest picture and although he wants to side step it the media has been honest and so too has the voting results.
Who cares about the Howie perfidy?
DnD Central / Re: Living in a Farm...
Yup! I'm entirely against all three.

1. Use the earth; it's our planet.
2. Cherish and enjoy people; don't treat them as pets...
3. "Fair redistribution" is the term used by the lazy or the brigand.

Stay on your "farm," Belfrager. Maybe they won't bother you...

BTW: What does "free" mean to you? :)
Hey, fellows: I'm old and tired! Piaget (who spells his name oddly... :) ) wrote a few books that should be read by anyone who'd appreciate developmental psychology.
The idea that epistemology is gradually acquired shouldn't be controversial; but for Piaget, it would be. He was a scientist and a philosopher. That he advanced our understanding of psychology is undeniable.
Except by those who'd deny everything that doesn't comport with their ideology...

Consider this:
When I teach the Constitution, I like to ask the
class this question: "When we elect a representative to Congress,
whom does he represent?" Only the occasional European or Latin
American student sees the point immediately. The American students,
suspecting a trap, are slow to give the obvious answer: He (or
she) represents the people in his district, his "constituency." They do
come forward with this answer eventually, at which point I inquire:
"'All of the people in his district--including those who voted against
him?" Yes, of course. And suddenly enlightenment dawns--the realization
that there is something special about this American assumption.
In no other country in the world does the electoral process proceed
on any such peculiar assumption. Everywhere else, elected
representatives represent mainly their parties and the ideology of
their parties, which is identified with the "public interest." Only in
America is it taken for granted that they ought to represent, first of
all, the economic interests of all of their constituents. This can be
taken for granted because it has been assumed for two centuries
economic condition within the framework of a settled way of life
than in any ideology or "cause"--or at least expect their political
representatives to work toward that economic end rather than
expending too much energy promoting any particular ideology or
"cause." Surely the main reason that the socialist idea has been so
weak in America is the fact that it necessarily violates this political
constitutional assumption.

(There may be mishaps in my quoting... But so few bother with close reading that they shouldn't matter. Howie will fume: America, bad! and some few others will agree. Some will equivocate. But the main point is undeniable: We are different, in our preconceptions and in our aspirations...

(My apologies, to those who were offended that I assumed that a guy writing in French was French... What was I thinking? He, of course, did his research and taught at institutions in Switzerland, the home of the swizzle-stick -- for which we should all be eternally grateful!)
This, from RJ! :) The word is a technical term... You're a non-technical person, RJ. (Paiget's epistemology and pedagogy. He was French, you know?)
I assume RJ can't swim... :)