Liverpool FC Forum

by **Sabre** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:17 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:Woohoo!

Puppet 1 beats puppet 2 to start on the road to becoming a muppet...

At least give him a chance before coming out with stupid comments like that.

Why is it stupid?

Being a complete moron is part of the job description for the US Presidency.

Let's be totally, brutally honest about this, shall we?

The pathetic game show that is the US election is nothing but an utter f*cking farce. I'm suprised they didn't have cheerleaders and candyfloss.

For Christ's sake - I'm embarrassed for the yanks.

They are the most powerful nation in the world. They helped for the most part to win WW2. People naturally think differently over there after their country has gone through so much. Instead of just mocking them as a farce becasue you see it differently why not just keep your trap shut.

Do not get into a history debate with me, for you will lose.

America entered the war because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

They were quite happy to just continue selling their arms to us, until that. (Accumulating a debt we were paying until 2006, I might add.)

Lando, my friend.

When you remember the victims of war of your country, you remember all of them, and rightly so. You remember every soldier, no matter if it was a sergeant or a colonel who died for the country.

Why in the case of Americans, you focus then in their government? Their government had interests like any other government, we could speak aswell of other governments.

But the fact is, that thousands of unknown americans died in the beachheads of Europe. Guys from Kentucky or Alabama died in Europe, so I find a bit unfair to forget them stating that "America entered the war because Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour". Those are government decissions, but the fact is that lots of AMerican people died in Europe.

Denying that America helped out Europe because they entered the war late, is like diminishing the merit of English soldiers because they waited until Poland was invaded to declare war. The fact is, that independently of decissions of the government, the poor unknown soldiers, the people of america, England and many other countries died in the fight against Hitler.

by **Judge** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:54 am

Igor Zidane wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:but Lando do you really want to see those criminals having access to weapons?

Exactly the point i was going to make .

Bring back national service for everyone , get the feckers before they commit offenses . Teach them discipline and respect , teach them that they are valued if they make a contribution to society , teach them how to behave like decent people . THe situation is getting so bad that the government need a radical solution to the problems of today . Unfortunately alot of parents can't be relied on (they simply don't give a feck what little johnny is up to tonight )so the government need to sort it out .

National service would sort the little sh!tehawks out.

lando's not expecting to give the new ronnie kray a gun, its aimed at other folk, not psychopaths

i reckon a psychological evaluation is done before an offer of service is given, other than that, then its prison

seems fair to me

by **zarababe** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:54 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Number 9 wrote:MLK is a legend,compairing Obama to him is an insult!
FFS Obama has'nt even done anything yet apart from make promises!

How true. Obama is just standing on the shoulder of a giant and the media are just milking it. MLK did more good with the power of his own voice than Obama will ever do in his term as the so called most powerful man in the world.

All governements are elected dictatorships - once they get your vote they do what the hell they want.

Interestingly the US style 'presidential' position is actually the weakest of all due to its reliance on the congress and senate.

let'em measure-up for the drapes in the 'house' then we can all get on his case

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:52 pm

Judge wrote:
Igor Zidane wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:but Lando do you really want to see those criminals having access to weapons?

Exactly the point i was going to make .

Bring back national service for everyone , get the feckers before they commit offenses . Teach them discipline and respect , teach them that they are valued if they make a contribution to society , teach them how to behave like decent people . THe situation is getting so bad that the government need a radical solution to the problems of today . Unfortunately alot of parents can't be relied on (they simply don't give a feck what little johnny is up to tonight )so the government need to sort it out .

National service would sort the little sh!tehawks out.

lando's not expecting to give the new ronnie kray a gun, its aimed at other folk, not psychopaths

i reckon a psychological evaluation is done before an offer of service is given, other than that, then its prison

seems fair to me

well they didnt give me any psychological test when they drafted me as an anti-tank guided missile gunner :rasp

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:53 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:i dont think its fair to blame the government, maybe Bam or Lando can give me examples on how they are predominantly at fault?. manners and proper upbringing should start in the homes itself from the very start. of course you can argue globalization, cultural imperialism and hypodermic needles as factors but it really should start from the family. sending them to camps after they commit offences might cause a different effect in the sense they garner more hatred to the government and since they are criminals, im sure they glory in breaking rules under even tighter security such as the military. they would be more determined to break rules and come in closer contact with others with similar mindset.

if NS is to be implicated, implement it with the new generation or those below the age of 16 at the time the law is created.. i mean, imagine you're one of those 18 year old punks and suddenly a new rule states you've to go to the army. it would cause a riot especially considering how indisciplined they already are.

I didn't say it WAS the Government's fault.

I was merely offering a solution to the problem.

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Sabre wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:
bavlondon wrote:
Lando_Griffin wrote:Woohoo!

Puppet 1 beats puppet 2 to start on the road to becoming a muppet...

At least give him a chance before coming out with stupid comments like that.

Why is it stupid?

Being a complete moron is part of the job description for the US Presidency.

Let's be totally, brutally honest about this, shall we?

The pathetic game show that is the US election is nothing but an utter f*cking farce. I'm suprised they didn't have cheerleaders and candyfloss.

For Christ's sake - I'm embarrassed for the yanks.

They are the most powerful nation in the world. They helped for the most part to win WW2. People naturally think differently over there after their country has gone through so much. Instead of just mocking them as a farce becasue you see it differently why not just keep your trap shut.

Do not get into a history debate with me, for you will lose.

America entered the war because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.

They were quite happy to just continue selling their arms to us, until that. (Accumulating a debt we were paying until 2006, I might add.)

Lando, my friend.

When you remember the victims of war of your country, you remember all of them, and rightly so. You remember every soldier, no matter if it was a sergeant or a colonel who died for the country.

Why in the case of Americans, you focus then in their government? Their government had interests like any other government, we could speak aswell of other governments.

But the fact is, that thousands of unknown americans died in the beachheads of Europe. Guys from Kentucky or Alabama died in Europe, so I find a bit unfair to forget them stating that "America entered the war because Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour". Those are government decissions, but the fact is that lots of AMerican people died in Europe.

Denying that America helped out Europe because they entered the war late, is like diminishing the merit of English soldiers because they waited until Poland was invaded to declare war. The fact is, that independently of decissions of the government, the poor unknown soldiers, the people of america, England and many other countries died in the fight against Hitler.

Sabre, I haven't forgotten about the Americans who died during both wars.

I was simply pointing out to a misguided individual that Britain stood alone for a considerable length of time during WWII, and to suggest that America joined in to bail us out is as wrong as 1+1= 7. America wanted to stay out of proceedings, until Pearl Harbour forced their hand.

This does not in any way detract from the good work and suffering that the American soldiers went through.

Even if they did swan into Britain like they owned the place...

by **tubby** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:23 pm

They didnt join in to just bail us out but they bailed everyone out.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:26 pm

Lando_Griffin wrote:
Judge wrote:plus there should be army boot camps for petty criminals also. it would teach them respect

Bob on, that.

National Service in it's old guise is an old-fashioned, out-dated idea which would cause rebellion en masse if brought back into this limp-wristed world today.

However, if it was tweaked here, and oiled there, it could work. If, for instance, it was not "Everyone, no matter what, does 2 years", but "if you are convicted of more than 1 criminal offence, you do 2 years of National Service", then I have a sneaking suspicion that the country's crime rate would plummet.
This allows for your silly tw*ts who make a "mistake" by "accidentally" pinching a bar of Dairy Milk, but punishes the repeat offender - something which the gaylords in Court do not.

Give Johnny Ballbag the option of nipping his one-man crime-wave in the bud, or spending the next 2 years of his life having his sweaty a*se beasted for 15 hours a day, and I'm sure he'll soon realise that buying items, rather than stealing them, is the right way to go.

If not, there's always Afghanistan...

Spot on.

by **Judge** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:33 pm

bavlondon wrote:They didnt join in to just bail us out but they bailed everyone out.

bav. america joined with us as they had been hit by japan at pearl harbor.

i reckon the americans would never had joined the war effort in europe if it werent for the japanese.

secondly, we'd been fighting germany for 2 years before they came along (they always turn up late for wars

). Seriuosly though, we'd have still beaten the germans albeit over a longer term by ourselves.

Goering was asked what he needed to win air supremacy over the brits. His reply was ''give me several squadrons of SPITFIRES''.

Rommel also said of our lads - the fighting grit is one to be respected

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:36 pm

bavlondon wrote:They didnt join in to just bail us out but they bailed everyone out.

Bav, if you insist on posting about the World Wars, at least ensure your facts are correct.

The Americans ONLY entered the war because of Pearl Harbour, and anyone who believes it was some great gesture of humanity on their part, is very wrong.

I am not suggesting that their entrance into the War wasn't a good thing, and that it didn't help us win. But to suggest they did it to "bail everyone out" is so wide of the mark it is laughable.

by **Bam** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:42 pm

Seriuosly though, we'd have still beaten the germans albeit over a longer term by ourselves.

Dont know about that Judge.

I remember JBG wrote some very good stuff about this a long while ago.

The Americans should be remembered just as much as the Brits, the Anzacs and anyone else who fought.

I think Lando is right about them entering the war when they did, but they did send over ships, and weapons and things like that before then. Then again they also helped fund the IRA

by **Lando_Griffin** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:47 pm

Bam wrote:
Seriuosly though, we'd have still beaten the germans albeit over a longer term by ourselves.

Dont know about that Judge.

I remember JBG wrote some very good stuff about this a long while ago.

The Americans should be remembered just as much as the Brits, the Anzacs and anyone else who fought.

I think Lando is right about them entering the war when they did, but they did send over ships, and weapons and things like that before then. Then again they also helped fund the IRA

We finished paying for those items in 2006. We'd paid appox. £58,000,000 per year for those arms since 1950. (I believe we deferred 5 payments in that time.)

You see, America weren't as generous as people might think.

by **ruskiy playmaker** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:56 pm

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.

http://ap.google.com/article....4CCDU00

I know that he's a republican and that he may be going a bit overboard with his comments, but this really does show that there are people in the US gov, who are worried about what Obama's policies might bring.

by **Judge** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:15 pm

Lando_Griffin wrote:
Bam wrote:
Seriuosly though, we'd have still beaten the germans albeit over a longer term by ourselves.

Dont know about that Judge.

I remember JBG wrote some very good stuff about this a long while ago.

The Americans should be remembered just as much as the Brits, the Anzacs and anyone else who fought.

I think Lando is right about them entering the war when they did, but they did send over ships, and weapons and things like that before then. Then again they also helped fund the IRA

We finished paying for those items in 2006. We'd paid appox. £58,000,000 per year for those arms since 1950. (I believe we deferred 5 payments in that time.)

You see, America weren't as generous as people might think.

agreed lando. we were left in debt to the USA, had to rebuild germany, and send aid to japan. and it was us that won the war.

so what do we have now - USA rich, germany ruling europe through the EU and Japan ahead in the technology race.

it pays not to win

by **tubby** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:22 pm

If America had delayed entering WW2 any longer then Stalin would have sided with Germany. He already had a non aggression pact on the side and was waiting to see if America joined. Stalin could not win the war on his own from the Eastern front so needed Amercia to start a new one hence Europe....It was becasue of WW2 that America went on to become a superpower. Before that Germany had a massive industrial sector but obviously that all got torn to dust.

Liverpool FC Forum

It's absolutely make or break tonight

Who is online