Terrorist jihadists and attacks could
increase at least until 2012.

Or…if US withdraw from Iraq and starts showing bit less arrogant foreing policy, displeassure and blatant hatred towards US will decrease and reduce the base for terrorism….

Right wing nutcases? How about the woman on the youtube video where she says that Obama will pay for her gas and her mortgage or better yet the two co-workers at my job who think that Obama will give them a raise at our job as part of his “spread the wealth” mantra. They don’t sound very rational. Believe me when I say that those who voted for Obama are already checking their mailboxes looking for that $100,000 check that they think Obama promised them. I say that by the end of 2009 they will be screaming, “Where’s my f-ing handout!” and I’ll be laughing my ass off.

Well you can call them left-wing nutcases with my permission:diablo::diablo:

Actually I believe that feudalism is taking shape in the USA. The “nobles” in Washington believe that all wealth in this country is their’s to play with and we “serfs” should be happy for the table scraps they toss down to us. The “noblity” also includes incompetent CEO’s who bankrupt their companies and demand a bailout from the Feds. The celebritards in Hollywood also think of themselves as “nobility” as well. They lip sync a couple of songs or make some crappy movies that debute in a DVD rental shop and they think they know how to run the universe.

Funny as I tought there already were sort of feudalism in US…big corporate hawks, shareholders and board-seater aside with grand-land owners gasping the money and screwing over the little man but hey, I don’t live there so what do I know??

Jesus guys is irony and sarcasm completely unawere to you?????

Now the point of my ranting was to demostrate how silly the accusations of Obama being a moslem and his alledged terrorist claims were. I tought it would have been obvious that as by presenting these wackiest ideas that some most ignored red-neck right-wing nutcase would do in bitter sense would be considered being ironicals…

So don’t worry GA, I wont do it anymore for curtesy sake and as apparently it’s meaning was completely lost:(

Osama, Osama, Osama….or was it Obama? Well how counts of all these terrorist:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Important thing is that now finally the Islamistic extremist have won and took over USA. I wonder how soon it takes to get the Sharia law in place:confused::confused:

But to touch on the idea of bridging the gap between blue and red, I am a firm believer that each side, not necessarily the individuals, but the politics of both sides aren’t easily reconciled, if at all. A very simple explanation, which in no way accounts for everything, is that we have two competing ideologies, socialism and capitalism, and personally, I don’t know how you make the two work together “fairly”.

Just a point tough to ye americans, you don’t have two competeting systems, or if you do it’s not sosialism and capitalism. There is no sosialistic in neither of your major parties policy. There are just two different competeting way of look at capitalism which in all it’s “greatness” is fully intergratred into US economical system. There is not even social-democratism in US main politics, just “free for all” and “lets guide it little” type of approaches to the economical system.

If US Democratic party would take a trip to europe, lets say for Finland and conducting similar policy as it does in US, it would be considered extreme-right-wing (from economical point of view tough). Even our own most conservative and far-right borgeousparty would seen “sosialistic” compared to US democrative party not to mention our actual sosialdemocrats and sosialist parties. So thus it’s bit hilarious and yet distracting to see US democrats to be called sosialistic as they really are just liberals. And for your information, liberalism isen’t sosialism, it’s another shade of right-wing (other being concervatims) ideologies just as social democracy and sosialism are shades of left-wing ideologies.

Well it looks like the US is going to be invaded from the inside as the latest estimations from the election posts tells Obama’s lead…

OBama, Obama, Obama, Osama, Obama, Osama….:cool:

You do not trust your own country do you? The voters will decide.

Nah…he just cannot bare that USA will be ruled for the next 4 years by Black Muslim Terrorist who hates america:dev2::dev2::diablo:

1: For defense of self or others. (law enforcement is often unavailable, indifferent, inept, overwhelmed, under funded and under trained, slow to respond and sometimes corrupt: so individuals should have the right to bear arms) . It also is a deterrent against criminals.

What is better protection than some back country hill-bill with his assault rifle making the work of police, procecutor, judge and executor:dev2:

2: An armed public is a deterrent for foreign nations to militarily take and occupy the United States. (I think the UN is incrementally and very insidiously trying to attack and revoke the US right to bear arms, to undermine our Constitution and country and establish a much stronger world government ( a “new world order“)

And if all the US citizens suddenly lost all their weapons, right away in a row there would be invasion of….of…hmm…ahh…ooh…which country?

3: A well armed public; is a deterrent for fascist leadership or an unjust coup attempt. I think if Congress didn’t think the public was armed, that they would be more tyrannical.

And in all other western democracys we are defensless if the govenrment suddenly goes fasist…arrhghh…so thats why our truckers had to decrease the width of their trailers by 10 cm as they didn’t have any guns as a deterence force against the bloody EU Fasist:mad::mad:

4: If the US government was to get too far out of line, (and if all reasonable peaceful methods have been exhausted or deemed unappropriate) private gun ownership gives the public the ability to rebel with significant force on a more level playing field.

…or they could just like vote a govenrment that wont go too far out of line, couldn’t they? I mean isen’t that the idea of US political system:confused:

5: For hunting: to provide food, clothing, and other raw materials and for money such as bounty, tourism for guided hunts, etc

…

Oh yeas the fur….I mean we cannot let people to walk naked in the streets do we? And they do need to eat something….Wonder have any one tought that it would be a good thing if you could like harvest some mellow animals in some closed place and like kill one or two once a while to let the people eat meat time to time? I know it sounds wild but could it be done?

6: For sportsmanship. Such as marksmanship, competition shooting, ect… ( I feel that this is also covered in the “declaration of independence” under the “pursuit of happiness” )

Ah well you see I’m a sports-shooter, my sport being the air-rifle and small-brone rifle, the sole rifle-sports in the olympics. Altough there is other type of shooting sports, yet no ISSF branch requires weopons like pistols over .32 calibre or so on…