Let's go.........RANDOM!

[Feud]

That's a nice rant, that doesn't mean that the people I called thugs weren't.

[Jordy...]

Bin Laden, Al-Awlaki, Gaddafi, Kim Jong Il. Rough year for thugs.

excuse me? Gaddafi was a statesman as was Kim Jong Il, referring to them as thugs is unacceptable at this forum and I would like your signed apology for this violation.

My signed apology will require you to hold your breath for the duration of it's composistion, and may take several hours to ensure a proper drafting. This will have to be done in person, of course, as I have no means to deliver a signed copy to you that would be properly certified as authentic. So, upon your next arrival in my local, we can make arrangments to meet and carry out such buisness, provided of course that I don't decide upon the time that I no longer feel sorry for what I said, and revoke my intention to apologize.

This.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Stop complaining, sound like one of the looneys who were at the Occupy wall street shit.

Call them looneys, but you are the real looney for not thinking about what they have to say.

[Feud]

As I said, even if you're accusations of thuggery against Bush and Obama are well founded, that doesn't mean that Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il weren't thugs. My list wasn't meant to be all inclusive, so if you want to add names, fine.

But when you fly off the rails in a rant against American leaders in response to the calling of someone else bad, that just makes you sound fanatical. Someone who's so angry that you refuse to see other crimes around you because you are so narrowly focused on a singular source, and respond viscerally to anything that isn't directly pointed at that evil as a marginalization of it. It's not just not seeing the forest from the trees, it's being furious at claims that there are trees in one direction because you're so focused on the single tree in front of you.

You want to think of Bush and Obama as thugs? Fine. I disagree with some of your claims, and I agree with others. I don't agree with everything my leaders do, and I don't think they are all necessarily legal, and that's a fun conversation to have in and of itself. I think that what they have down pales in comparison to the activities of others, Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il included, but feel free to disagree with me.

But guess what: it's a big world out there filled with wrongs and bad people. But when you marginalize your opinions, your scope, and your outlook, those around you will follow your lead and marginalize them as well.

[ynbniar]

As I said, even if you're accusations of thuggery against Bush and Obama are well founded, that doesn't mean that Gaddafi and Kim Jong Il weren't thugs. My list wasn't meant to be all inclusive, so if you want to add names, fine.

I nominate the Saudi regime.

I wonder when need for oil < perceived level of thuggery

[DTNC Vicious]

I hope Iran's President and Castro take nice dirt naps before new years eve, then that would be a good year

[Jordy...]

Kim Jong was horrible leader, and a lot of people died because of him. Qaddafi had his flaws, but I think we overestimate how hated he was amongst his people.

What I'm saying is though, when the most powerful country in the world is being corrupted it's a lot more scarier then when some unimportant country has a fearsome dictator.

And to be clear on my last point, in the last 30 years or so, incomes for the average working class in America have not been increased, if you discount inflation. This is amazing, because there was a growing economy and a lot more wealth was created. So were did all the money go? To the top 1%.
24% of incomes go to top 1%, even more amazing, this trend continues, within the top 1%, 12% goes to the top 0,1% and from there 6% goes to top 0,01%!!!
Researchers were not able to follow the flow of money any further, but suffice to say this is not a healthy, and in fact very dangerous distribution of wealth.

However to get back to my point, because there average income did not raise for 30 years, but we had to keep growing and the people need to be kept happy, lending became very easily. These 1% people did not feel like paying higher salaries, but they were ok with LENDING some money back so the citizens could keep spending and the economy could continue to grow.
This happens for 30 years and then you reach a point were people are so full in debt that they cannot repay there loans and the whole card-house falls on top of itself.
Furthermore, this uneven distribution of wealth is bad for the economy, because the top 1% ,relatively spent, very little on consumer products.
And without people buying consumer products there economy grinds to a halt.

So what you have seen happening is the transfer of money from the masses to the classes, them buying more control, trough companies etc, and artificially keep the economy growing by debt-financing. Which they knew, could not last forever.

So, I understand if you are against higher taxes and a forces equalization of wealth, but then the government should admit that the market economy is failing and should improve upon it to allow more equalized chances for people to become rich.

[DTNC Vicious]

I can see some of your points, but to say Gaddafi had "flaws" is ridiculous, i have flaws....Gaddafi had little boys tortured to death, i would say thats a little more then a flaw.

[Feud]

Remember back when the riots were going on and I said that I wouldn't be opposed to the police shooting them?

Well...

[Jordy...]

That's insane, first of all, if there are riots I doubt you are a sleep in your house, second of all, if the police sees it happening I'm sure they can alert the residents in time to evacuate.
Third of all, police will shoot arsonists that set on fire properties that are not linked people's homes.

[Feud]

Third of all, police will shoot arsonists that set on fire properties that are not linked people's homes.

While that wouldn't really bother me, I agree that it's not an ideal situation. Instead, they ought to let the property owners have guns and let them shoot the arsonists that are trying to torch their place. That way the police can worry about other things, like looters and such.

[Montyphy]

Remember back when the riots were going on and I said that I wouldn't be opposed to the police shooting them?

Well...

As I said before, considering the whole thing started with the police having shot and killed someone followed by conflicting reports, alleged tempering of the scene, and reports that the police shoved a minor during a peaceful march held in response of the killing, the shooting of yet more people would only have made things worse.

The problem during the riots wasn't that the police didn't have enough powers but rather that they didn't get involved. They had orders to hold back and observe, even while property was damaged and people were attacked. There is also the matter that their communications network failed resulting in them using personal phones to keep in touch and thus meaning they were unable to get to the scenes of the worse trouble soon enough.

[Xarlaxas]

It's also an English tradition whenever the Tories get elected to have riots.

[Montyphy]

Third of all, police will shoot arsonists that set on fire properties that are not linked people's homes.

While that wouldn't really bother me, I agree that it's not an ideal situation. Instead, they ought to let the property owners have guns and let them shoot the arsonists that are trying to torch their place. That way the police can worry about other things, like looters and such.

A number of shots were fired at the police, a man shot in Croydon, and 3 people were killed in a hit and run when protecting their property so I don't see how greater access to guns would have helped things. It would just have escalated the lengths some looters would have gone. It would also mean that more of the looters would have had access to guns with an increased risk of overzealous vigilantism.

[Feud]

As I said at the time, I realize that shooting the rioters would likely not be the wisest course of action. I'm just saying that I personally wouldn't have an issue if that were the course they took. And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

[Xocrates]

And, like I just said, optimally they'd let the property owners shoot the people trying to set their homes and/or businesses on fire.

I really don't want to get in this argument again, but I still find this way of thinking incredibly disturbing.