Lucky... 0
Recommended Posts
Taller than me
165cms (more or less)
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
165cms (more or less)(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
rehmwa 2
QuoteIt's a joke,
it's psychological insight really - harmless though
I'd very much like a nap right now, though, thank you
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Lucky... 0
QuoteTaller than me
Quote165cms
How tall is that in American? (Bush reference)
HaaaaHaaa 5'6"
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
QuoteHaaaaHaaa 5'6"
Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
To live
They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin' great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet
Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Round here
Short People are just the same
As you and I
(A Fool Such As I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It's A Wonderful World)
Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
To love
They got little baby legs
And they stand so low
You got to pick 'em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That got beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin' peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get you every time
Well, I don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
Don't want no Short People
'Round here
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
We've got your name on the list mate....Better start looking under your shoulder
... We're coming f'you.
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
Tink1717 2
Religion and those who would force others to live by their dogma.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
rehmwa 2
QuoteReligion and those who would force others to live by their dogma.
Is that one or two things in your mind?
1 - Religion (so all religious people you'd kill whether they were unobtrusive or not?)
2 - Those who force others live by their dogma
If you say #1 stands alone, then that would put you into #2.
That's why I ask.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteBetter start looking under your shoulder
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
Amazon 7
Richards 0
What about rude cell-phone users and people who drive slow in the passing lane?
Richards
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>How can you believe that you are no better than a terrorist, child molester, etc...?
Right now I consider myself better than a terrorist. But if I killed 500,000 people I've never met by pushing a button - I wouldn't be.
>in which it would be easier to create a permanent solution.
I can think of one final solution that was tried. Didn't work out that well.
Right now I consider myself better than a terrorist. But if I killed 500,000 people I've never met by pushing a button - I wouldn't be.
>in which it would be easier to create a permanent solution.
I can think of one final solution that was tried. Didn't work out that well.
billvon 3,120
>Do you see a difference between a terrorist and a guerrilla?
A guerilla is a terrorist on your side. Back when we were supporting the Mujahideen and the Contras, they were guerillas.
A guerilla is a terrorist on your side. Back when we were supporting the Mujahideen and the Contras, they were guerillas.
Lindsey 0
Right now I consider myself better than a terrorist. But if I killed 500,000 people I've never met by pushing a button - I wouldn't be.
You might not be better than them, but you'd be da bomb....
--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail
Quote>Do you see a difference between a terrorist and a guerrilla?
A guerilla is a terrorist on your side. Back when we were supporting the Mujahideen and the Contras, they were guerillas.
Guerillas target enemy soldiers and targets, with non-traditional military tactics such as booby-traps, sniper killings etc. Their goal is to kill the enemy and drive them from their land. A guerilla is more of a Patriot, like the founders of the US.
Terrorists do not necessarily target the military exclusively. Their goals are to create fear, panic and political instability. They don't care who they kill and will generally have no problem killing innocent civilians if it helps them achieve their political goals.
Perhaps I missed it in school, but are you implying Washington, Jefferson etc. were no better than terrorists? I can't seem to recall reading about them targeting civilians? Were bombs detonated in England to scare the populace into withdrawl from America or to get England to change their policies?
Please enlighten me.
billvon 3,120
>Perhaps I missed it in school, but are you implying
>Washington, Jefferson etc. were no better than terrorists?
Nope.
>Terrorists do not necessarily target the military exclusively. Their
> goals are to create fear, panic and political instability. They don't
> care who they kill and will generally have no problem killing innocent
> civilians if it helps them achieve their political goals.
Both the Contras and the Mujahideen fall neatly into those categories; they were on our side so we called them guerillas. (We also met your definition during the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I'd hesitate to push that definition too hard.)
>Washington, Jefferson etc. were no better than terrorists?
Nope.
>Terrorists do not necessarily target the military exclusively. Their
> goals are to create fear, panic and political instability. They don't
> care who they kill and will generally have no problem killing innocent
> civilians if it helps them achieve their political goals.
Both the Contras and the Mujahideen fall neatly into those categories; they were on our side so we called them guerillas. (We also met your definition during the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so I'd hesitate to push that definition too hard.)
kallend 2,151
QuoteWhat about rude cell-phone users and people who drive slow in the passing lane?
Richards
I'm with you on that one.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Butters 0
Quote>How can you believe that you are no better than a terrorist, child molester, etc...?
Right now I consider myself better than a terrorist. But if I killed 500,000 people I've never met by pushing a button - I wouldn't be.
>in which it would be easier to create a permanent solution.
I can think of one final solution that was tried. Didn't work out that well.
The proposed situation is hypothetical. It does not take into account individual circumstances (and neither did I in my decision).
I agree, if I pushed the button I wouldn't be any better but I would create a better place temporarily.
I find it hard to compare the solution you mention with the current scenario. Can you expand on the correlation between the two?
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
billvon 3,120
>I agree, if I pushed the button I wouldn't be any better but I would
>create a better place temporarily.
Would depend on who decided what "terrorist" meant. If you took a vote of the world's population, Bush might well end up dropping dead when you pushed that button.
To most people "killing terrorists" would mean "killing the people we're fighting in the War on Terror" which in turn means "killing our enemies." That would mean a military victory - but I don't know that military victories make the world a better place. We've had plenty of em; hasn't stopped our problems.
Finally - I think much of the terrorism in the world is justified by the idea that they're making the world a better place. "Sure, what I am doing is incredibly bad - but if people like me can convince the Sunnis/Shi'a/US/Iranians/Russians to leave, then it will be worth it. I will have made the world a better place." I find it hard to buy into such thinking, whether the evil act in question is blowing up civilians in a crowded marketplace or killing half a million people I've never met.
>create a better place temporarily.
Would depend on who decided what "terrorist" meant. If you took a vote of the world's population, Bush might well end up dropping dead when you pushed that button.
To most people "killing terrorists" would mean "killing the people we're fighting in the War on Terror" which in turn means "killing our enemies." That would mean a military victory - but I don't know that military victories make the world a better place. We've had plenty of em; hasn't stopped our problems.
Finally - I think much of the terrorism in the world is justified by the idea that they're making the world a better place. "Sure, what I am doing is incredibly bad - but if people like me can convince the Sunnis/Shi'a/US/Iranians/Russians to leave, then it will be worth it. I will have made the world a better place." I find it hard to buy into such thinking, whether the evil act in question is blowing up civilians in a crowded marketplace or killing half a million people I've never met.
Tink1717 2
Religion as a concept. TV preachers who fleece old ladies and otherwise victimize their flock, for example. Clerics who exhort others to fly airplanes into buildings for perceived slights for another. If I could personally pull the trigger on Pat Robertson, Jerry Fawell, Jimmy Swaggert, Peter Popov and Oral Roberts and company, I'd be very happy. Bin Laden and company for another (obviously). But also those who actively support those. Like the Saudi royal family, who export Whabi (sp) Islam, the type of Islam that Bin Laden follows and the state religion of Saudi Arabia. The sooner we line them against the wall, the better.
Wherever religion goes, strife, war, death and pain follow. Religion is the chief enemy of moral, social, scientific and ethical progress in the world.
Bin Laden and company for another (obviously). But also those who actively support those. Like the Saudi royal family, who export Whabi (sp) Islam, the type of Islam that Bin Laden follows and the state religion of Saudi Arabia. The sooner we line them against the wall, the better.
Wherever religion goes, strife, war, death and pain follow. Religion is the chief enemy of moral, social, scientific and ethical progress in the world.
Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717
Butters 0
Quote>I agree, if I pushed the button I wouldn't be any better but I would
>create a better place temporarily.
Would depend on who decided what "terrorist" meant. If you took a vote of the world's population, Bush might well end up dropping dead when you pushed that button.
To most people "killing terrorists" would mean "killing the people we're fighting in the War on Terror" which in turn means "killing our enemies." That would mean a military victory - but I don't know that military victories make the world a better place. We've had plenty of em; hasn't stopped our problems.
Finally - I think much of the terrorism in the world is justified by the idea that they're making the world a better place. "Sure, what I am doing is incredibly bad - but if people like me can convince the Sunnis/Shi'a/US/Iranians/Russians to leave, then it will be worth it. I will have made the world a better place." I find it hard to buy into such thinking, whether the evil act in question is blowing up civilians in a crowded marketplace or killing half a million people I've never met.
Once again, the scenario is hypothetical. I am not defining (nor will I define) the individuals that would be identified as terrorists. I am simply making the statement that terrorism is not good and the world would be better (at least temporarily) without it. Thus, I picked the terrorists.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
QuoteHaaaaHaaa 5'6"
dude Id have died when I was like 12 then
If you wipe the tall people out, then who are you going to get things from the bottom shelf for?
Sudsy Fist: i don't think i'd ever say this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this
Sudsy Fist: but you're looking damn sudsydoable in this
kbordson 8
Quote>How can you believe that you are no better than a terrorist, child molester, etc...?
Right now I consider myself better than a terrorist. But if I killed 500,000 people I've never met by pushing a button - I wouldn't be.
Agreed.
I wouldn't chose any option.
Terrorist - 9/11 was wrong. The July 7 bombings were tragic. But what is a "terrorist." Prespecttive is critical on this defination. Are they terrorist or freedom fighters defending their beliefs. And do we not become one when we choose one of the list that "deserves" to die?
Drug dealers - Just illegal? Or not? Just those that sell crack? What about those that grow THC for cancer patients? Or those that sell peyote to the Native Americans for religious purposes? What about pharmaceutical companies? What about alcohol or tobacco? Or even caffeine?
Drunk drivers? Tragic accidents can and do happen. Alcohol can be a significant factor but then what about the drivers that are driving fatigued? They cause accidents too?
Child molesters.... if I had to lean on any of the categories, this would be the highest. Having personal experience with this category, I feel more anger and disgust for them... especially with the current belief that true pedophiles can't be "rehabilitated." But again.... what is a child molester? A 42yo preying on a 9yo? Or a 19yo that is "banging" a 17yo? Society changes those rules so much....
People who batter women.... There are women who batter their husbands too. Either way, spousal abuse is wrong...Domestic violence is more about control. But then again, this poll was about wiping out whole populations .... quite a bit of control there.
I think billvon was correct.
It's a joke, take a nap and think happy thoughts
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites