Jump to content

What is wrong with America


Red Alert

Recommended Posts

Sarnia, have already answered the Thatcher point, but in relation to how Canadians feel and Americans and vice versa, if you tell me you are best buddies, ok. But I have spent time in Seattle and Connecticut and also have friends in Canada and the impression I get is that there is no love lost across the border. In fact you come across to me as more American than Canadian (no offence meant).

 

No offence taken ...........I don't know where you got that impression from.........like I told you I live 2 miles from the border and in the US every week..........and have found that they are way more friendly and likeable than the peeps n Toronto and the GTA.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offence taken ...........I don't know where you got that impression from.........like I told you I live 2 miles from the border and in the US every week..........and have found that they are way more friendly and likeable than the peeps n Toronto and the GTA.....

 

Maybe they need to get to know you?;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you think I said that EH ???? go on show me..........You are a f.ck..g nutcase ..........so just show me OK .........

 

Here, you said it here:

If you think that the onion thing has defeated me .............well think again ............unlike you I knew it was complete crap but somehow you were laughing at a joke reply ..........laugh on at yourself :)

There you go.

 

"Complete crap" and a "joke reply" are your words.

 

You now have the opportunity to back track again and say that the comment from M underneath that Onion "news" report is NOT "complete crap" and a "joke reply" if you like.

 

Let me know what you want to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half the population OK ............did you know that SW Ontario pop. about 2 million is larger than the UK?? .........HTH

 

Ah I see what you're saying ... death by police shootings per sq km is a more useful metric than death by police shootings per capita? Glad that's cleared up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, you said it here:

 

There you go.

 

"Complete crap" and a "joke reply" are your words.

 

You now have the opportunity to back track again and say that the comment from M underneath that Onion "news" report is NOT "complete crap" and a "joke reply" if you like.

 

Let me know what you want to say.

 

Just tell me where I said that it was not complete crap and a joke reply........go on tell me ......asked before but you never did.........wait!!! in your mind that was a true reply EH!!!......you really do need to see a specialist that can help you............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already do know me .............that Ok with you???..........what are you trying to say goat boy???

 

You said Americans: "...are way more friendly and likeable than the peeps n Toronto and the GTA"

I said: "Maybe they need to get to know you?;)"

I was implying that they may appear friendly but that once they get to know you they may fire a few rounds to see if they can penetrate that skull.

The use of a smiley was to indicate that this was a light hearted comment.

HTH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just tell me where I said that it was not complete crap and a joke reply........go on tell me ......asked before but you never did.........wait!!! in your mind that was a true reply EH!!!......you really do need to see a specialist that can help you............

 

Odd.

 

Your description of the reply "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" as "complete crap" and a "joke reply" is what you have said on here, quoted back to you several times now.

 

So, just answer this question, for absolute clarity:

 

Do you agree that the reply "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" is "complete crap" and a "joke reply" as you said before? It's Yes or No.

 

It's really important to try and understand your position on this.

 

Three or four more days and we might get there. It's a wonderful way to start my mornings.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd.

 

Your description of the reply "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" as "complete crap" and a "joke reply" is what you have said on here, quoted back to you several times now.

 

So, just answer this question, for absolute clarity:

 

Do you agree that the reply "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" is "complete crap" and a "joke reply" as you said before?

 

It's really important to try and understand your position on this, as it contradicts your previous sentiments.

 

Three or four more days and we might get there. It's a wonderful way to start my mornings.

 

Me too CBF! I can hardly get to sleep at night because I'm so excited about the madness to come on this thread. I check it before I have had my morning sh*t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too CBF! I can hardly get to sleep at night because I'm so excited about the madness to come on this thread. I check it before I have had my morning sh*t.

I think our defecation cycles are in alignment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three or four more days and we might get there. It's a wonderful way to start my mornings.

 

Me too CBF! I can hardly get to sleep at night because I'm so excited about the madness to come on this thread. I check it before I have had my morning sh*t.

 

This thread is rather scary. Not only has it got CB Fry and I on the same side, but I've also learned that I'm part of the SaintsWeb Dawn Bombers squadron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offence taken ...........I don't know where you got that impression from.........like I told you I live 2 miles from the border and in the US every week..........and have found that they are way more friendly and likeable than the peeps n Toronto and the GTA.....

 

My sample was taken from a relatively small group of people and things I have picked up from the media but as you live there and experience it first hand I defer to your perception. Perhaps its just the people in Seattle? :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said Americans: "...are way more friendly and likeable than the peeps n Toronto and the GTA"

I said: "Maybe they need to get to know you?;)"

I was implying that they may appear friendly but that once they get to know you they may fire a few rounds to see if they can penetrate that skull.

The use of a smiley was to indicate that this was a light hearted comment.

HTH.

 

Ok I understand what you said now...........how can they get to know me in Toronto and the GTA when they don't speak English!!!........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd.

 

Your description of the reply "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" as "complete crap" and a "joke reply" is what you have said on here, quoted back to you several times now.

 

So, just answer this question, for absolute clarity:

 

Do you agree that the reply "restrictions on guns only limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves" is "complete crap" and a "joke reply" as you said before? It's Yes or No.

 

It's really important to try and understand your position on this.

 

Three or four more days and we might get there. It's a wonderful way to start my mornings.

 

OK my position clear now...........I believe in the right to protect myself and family ............start your morning wonderful tomorrow :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sample was taken from a relatively small group of people and things I have picked up from the media but as you live there and experience it first hand I defer to your perception. Perhaps its just the people in Seattle? :p

 

Seattle is in Washington State..........remember the media is Torontocentric and don't have a clue.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK my position clear now...........I believe in the right to protect myself and family ............start your morning wonderful tomorrow :)

Would restrictions on guns limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would restrictions on guns limit law abiding citizens from protecting themselves?

 

I don't think so........but that's my opinion ...........yours is obviously the opposite.........and what the f**k does law abiding citizens mean ........youre a subject of the british crown not a citizen........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so........but that's my opinion ...........yours is obviously the opposite.........and what the f**k does law abiding citizens mean ........youre a subject of the british crown not a citizen........

 

 

"On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became either a British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen or British Overseas citizen.

 

Use of the term British subject was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other Commonwealth country. The category of British subjects now includes only those people formerly known as British subjects without citizenship and people born in Ireland before 1949."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became either a British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen or British Overseas citizen.

 

Use of the term British subject was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other Commonwealth country. The category of British subjects now includes only those people formerly known as British subjects without citizenship and people born in Ireland before 1949."

 

So ............I don't care .......do you???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great pic ........shame that the words are complete crap...........

 

"The assertion that guns offer protection is a mantra the NRA has repeated often. In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, LaPierre opined: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", insisting that schools should have armed guards.

 

Academics such as John Lott and Gary Kleck have long claimed that more firearms reduce crime. But is this really the case? Stripped of machismo bluster, this is at heart a testable claim that merely requires sturdy epidemiological analysis. And this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

 

The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them." "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The assertion that guns offer protection is a mantra the NRA has repeated often. In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, LaPierre opined: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", insisting that schools should have armed guards.

 

Academics such as John Lott and Gary Kleck have long claimed that more firearms reduce crime. But is this really the case? Stripped of machismo bluster, this is at heart a testable claim that merely requires sturdy epidemiological analysis. And this was precisely what Prof Charles Branas and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania examined in their 2009 paper investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault. They compared 677 cases in which people were injured in a shooting incident with 684 people living in the same area that had not suffered a gun injury. The researchers matched these "controls" for age, race and gender. They found that those with firearms were about 4.5 times more likely to be shot than those who did not carry, utterly belying this oft repeated mantra.

 

The reasons for this, the authors suggest, are manifold. "A gun may falsely empower its possessor to overreact, instigating and losing otherwise tractable conflicts with similarly armed persons. Along the same lines, individuals who are in possession of a gun may increase their risk of gun assault by entering dangerous environments that they would have normally avoided. Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them." "

 

Quick cut and paste there ..........from wherever LOL ( keeping score)..........so what you are trying to say is don't protect yourself trust the cops...........but the cops have been vilified on here .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick cut and paste there ..........from wherever LOL ( keeping score)..........so what you are trying to say is don't protect yourself trust the cops...........but the cops have been vilified on here .........

 

Don't put words or ideas in my mouth.

 

I do protect myself: I live in a safe neighbourhood; I lock my doors; I stay out of trouble; I obey the law; and I keep guns out of the house.

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK ..........:rolleyes:

 

You can roll your eyes as much as you want. You backed up your argument with CB Fry by making the point that he was a subject, not a citizen. When I provided evidence that your point was incorrect, you said that you didn't care.

 

It's hard debating with someone whose thoughts lack consistency or logic. Sorry.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...