Page 30 of 33

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:48 am
by GIThruster
Diogenes wrote:
williatw wrote:
Skipjack wrote: An increase in personal arms would make no difference in an armed conflict with another country. You would not get very far fighting an army with a handgun. So that argument is pointless.


I remains to be seen I will concede whether 90 million armed Americans vs. the US military would be a waste of time....and many citizens have considerably more than mere handguns. In any case look at the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, they were armed with little more than small arms and IED. They have fought the US military in Afghanistan for more than a decade, causing the US commander to scream for reinforcements back in 2009, saying that we were on the verge of losing the whole thing without them. In any case my point was that disarmed and subsequently conquered, more than once, is hardly an argument in favor of being disarmed; even if you can't prove it would have made a difference in the conquering (and the even more important occupation afterwards).



At this juncture, an American resistance would make Iraq and Falluja look like a kindergarten party.


Plus most of the American military is conservative and would refuse orders to attack US citizens during most kinds of possible uprising/revolution. If there were a revolution based on POTUS declaring the Constitution suspended and instituting Martial Law, you can be assured the military would bail and join the people. It is guns that keep us safe from this kind of takeover, whether they get used or not.

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:08 am
by Skipjack
The question of the Austrian military attacking its own people is even less likely. We have a Bundesheer. That means that only very few officers are actually doing this as a job. The main army is coming from the actual population, pretty much like in Switzerland. Our stupid socialists have been trying to turn the Bundesheer into an army of paid mercenaries, but the right wing in the country voted against it every time (luckily). The people don't want it for the very reason stated here.

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 2:31 am
by GIThruster
Australia is a good example of what happens when guns are confiscated. Their gun crime skyrocketed when they disarmed the populous. I have no idea whether their situation is as ours, that guns in the hands of the people do really keep them free, but apart from that function they deter violent crime.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/austr ... not-lower/

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:51 pm
by GIThruster

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 1:44 am
by Diogenes
NY State blesses ‘incest’ marriage between uncle, niece



Image



The state’s highest court has toppled a cultural taboo — legalizing a degree of incest, at least between an uncle and niece — in a unanimous ruling.

While the laws against “parent-child and brother-sister marriages . . . are grounded in the almost universal horror with which such marriages are viewed . . . there is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages,” Tuesday’s ruling reads.



http://nypost.com/2014/10/29/new-york-s ... cle-niece/

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:17 am
by Stubby
Consenting adults.

as a matter of consanguinity, or blood relations, half-uncles [age 38 in this case] and nieces [34 in this case] share the same level of genetic ties as first cousins — or only one-eighth the same DNA.

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:20 pm
by Diogenes
Stubby wrote:Consenting adults.

as a matter of consanguinity, or blood relations, half-uncles [age 38 in this case] and nieces [34 in this case] share the same level of genetic ties as first cousins — or only one-eighth the same DNA.




Yes, this will never move beyond this level of consanguinity. We all know how existing boundaries are scrupulously respected by the Judiciary.



Oh, but wait. Perhaps I spoke too soon.



Judge Says ABORTION Makes Incest Okay, And Incest Is Fine Because It’s Like Homosexuality


Image



A judge in Australia’s most populous state has compared incest and pedophilia to homosexuality because homosexuality, now broadly accepted, used to be illegal and widely considered unnatural as recently as a few decades ago.

The judge, Garry Neilson, also opined that legalized abortion makes the taboo against incest unnecessary because the “only reason” incest remains a crime is to lower the risk of genetic defects in children born from incest, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.




http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/11/judge ... cest-okay/

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:35 pm
by GIThruster
The "new morality" is really just the old immorality.

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:29 pm
by Diogenes
GIThruster wrote:The "new morality" is really just the old immorality.




What is so hilarious is that so many of these so called "educated" people think this stuff is new or something. :)

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:12 pm
by Diogenes
Get out your eye bleach.





Transgender military personnel from 18 countries where open service is allowed gather to discuss whether US military could lift ban




Image




The panel, convened by a think tank at San Francisco State University, said the ban has existed for several decades and apparently was derived in part from the psychiatric establishment's consensus, since revised, that gender identity issues amounted to a mental disorder.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -join.html




Sure. Nothing wrong with that bunch.

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:31 pm
by GIThruster
I'm going to have nightmares.

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 11:48 pm
by hanelyp
Admin, can we get a [spoiler] tag?

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:05 pm
by Diogenes
Did people ever really believe it would stop with "gay" marriage?



Report: Chicago schools teaching ‘safe’ anal sex to 5th graders







AVAILABLE GRAPHICS NOT INCLUDED!


(you're welcome)




CHICAGO – A graphic sexual education curriculum meant for Chicago Public Schools’ (CPS) fifth and sixth graders shocked parents during a presentation given during “report card pickup” at the Andrew Jackson Language Academy.

cps6-300x194The presentation included slides that are clearly not age appropriate, and include “demonstrations” of applying male and female condoms (FC), DNAinfo reports.




http://eagnews.org/report-chicago-schoo ... h-graders/

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:47 am
by paperburn1
Has everyone forgotten the book 1984?

Re: Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:36 am
by Stubby
Teaching anal sex...

Not quite true

Chicago Public Schools spokesman Bill McCaffrey issued a statement indicating that the materials were supplied in error and were never part of the elementary curriculum in the district:


The objectionable material presented at Andrew Jackson Language Academy this week is not and never was part of the student sexual education curriculum. It was mistakenly downloaded and included in the parent presentation, and we agree with parents it is not appropriate for elementary school students. As part of our sexual health education policy approved by the Board of Education in 2013, Chicago Public Schools offers a comprehensive sexual education curriculum that is designed to ensure age-appropriate material and minimum instructional minutes for every grade level, consisting of family and sexual health education topics for K-12 students.


Kids are going to find out stuff. You can either lock your kids in home school and keep them away from other children; or accept that this information is going to be shared. The only question is going to be how they get the information.
Google
Friends
mostly uninformed parents
or
sex education