FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Do you know the real price of milk?

Do you know the real price of milk?

(1:55) The heartbreaking truth behind milk production.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fon C. Foont (1620 days ago)
So what? War is hell and peace is a motherfncker.
ReplyVote up (235)down (138)
Original comment
So what? War is hell and peace is a motherfncker.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Ghuest (1620 days ago)
First off, human species would never survive and evolve to this day if they did not hunt animals for food, cloth, tools, etc. Only life in today's modern cities allows you to be vegan, since you have advnced shelter, modern health system and food that has more additives than main igredients to compensate for proper diet. Until few hundreds of years ago, you could eat only season fruits and vegetables and during the winter you wouldn't really be able to dig up food from the frozen ground or barren trees, would you? Also, eating animal food was the only source of building up immune system, ingesting bacteria and viruses from compatible species served as today's vaccine. Being vegan for the sake of being sorry of animal treatment is hypocritical because the world that allows you today to survive as vegan is build by natural carviorous predators - human. And yes, it is sad how animals are treated today by industries, which in turn is result of moden society - people moving into cities where they don't have means to breed own animals or plant food. No farmer that breeds cattle for himself treats them cruely (except crazy ones), but rather almost as family. Animals are mass-reproduced to feed big cities, in which 99% of vegans reside. If humans clones were food, I'm sure there'll be enough people who would see that as just a job, same as most mass producers of vegetables do that only for money (and probably can't stand raddishes and love the steak). So: animal meat = nutritious and healthy; mass reporoduction, ill-treatment and mass slaughtering = business. For scenes like in this video I can only blame the economic system and greedy society. I can also blame the electronic industry for providing everyone a camera, so that things going on for centuries suddenly appales city kids. But also I am greatful to all kinds of animals, whithout which we wouldn't be where we are now, including providing us the significant source of food and keeping us healthy to survive up to this day.
ReplyVote up (141)down (122)
Original comment
First off, human species would never survive and evolve to this day if they did not hunt animals for food, cloth, tools, etc. Only life in today's modern cities allows you to be vegan, since you have advnced shelter, modern health system and food that has more additives than main igredients to compensate for proper diet. Until few hundreds of years ago, you could eat only season fruits and vegetables and during the winter you wouldn't really be able to dig up food from the frozen ground or barren trees, would you? Also, eating animal food was the only source of building up immune system, ingesting bacteria and viruses from compatible species served as today's vaccine. Being vegan for the sake of being sorry of animal treatment is hypocritical because the world that allows you today to survive as vegan is build by natural carviorous predators - human. And yes, it is sad how animals are treated today by industries, which in turn is result of moden society - people moving into cities where they don't have means to breed own animals or plant food. No farmer that breeds cattle for himself treats them cruely (except crazy ones), but rather almost as family. Animals are mass-reproduced to feed big cities, in which 99% of vegans reside. If humans clones were food, I'm sure there'll be enough people who would see that as just a job, same as most mass producers of vegetables do that only for money (and probably can't stand raddishes and love the steak). So: animal meat = nutritious and healthy; mass reporoduction, ill-treatment and mass slaughtering = business. For scenes like in this video I can only blame the economic system and greedy society. I can also blame the electronic industry for providing everyone a camera, so that things going on for centuries suddenly appales city kids. But also I am greatful to all kinds of animals, whithout which we wouldn't be where we are now, including providing us the significant source of food and keeping us healthy to survive up to this day.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
According to my doctor and dietitians, eating a vegetarian diet does not deprive you of any necessary proteins, amino acids, minerals, or vitamins. You can, however, only get vitamin B12 from animal products so you do need to supplement your diet with an artificial B12. You don't need much of it. Other animals that are herbivores end up eating their own feces because bacteria in the colon produces enough B12 but that is disgusting and unnecessary for humans with technology to create B12 synthetically. Regarding your statement about humans being a natural carnivorous predator, that's not true. We are omnivores so we can survive with either meat or plants. Vegetarians do not eat meat for a variety of reasons. The one you mentioned is due to the cruelty to animals but I don't eat them because I don't want another animal to be killed when I could have eaten a potato instead. I don't care if those animals lived happily on a huge ranch -- they still are slaughtered before their natural time. Humans who eat meat apparently put no value on the lives of other animals. I'm sure more people would stop eating meat if they were told to kill their own cow, chicken, or pig as many of those people couldn't do the killing. At least that's my hope. Humans have animals as pets. How many of you could kill your dog or cat for food when you have a cupboard full of beans, rice, and potatoes? You become attached to your pets and that means there is hope for mankind in the future. I hope that everyone, one day, will be a vegetarian and let the animals live a natural life of their own.
ReplyVote up (131)down (113)
Original comment
According to my doctor and dietitians, eating a vegetarian diet does not deprive you of any necessary proteins, amino acids, minerals, or vitamins. You can, however, only get vitamin B12 from animal products so you do need to supplement your diet with an artificial B12. You don't need much of it. Other animals that are herbivores end up eating their own feces because bacteria in the colon produces enough B12 but that is disgusting and unnecessary for humans with technology to create B12 synthetically. Regarding your statement about humans being a natural carnivorous predator, that's not true. We are omnivores so we can survive with either meat or plants. Vegetarians do not eat meat for a variety of reasons. The one you mentioned is due to the cruelty to animals but I don't eat them because I don't want another animal to be killed when I could have eaten a potato instead. I don't care if those animals lived happily on a huge ranch -- they still are slaughtered before their natural time. Humans who eat meat apparently put no value on the lives of other animals. I'm sure more people would stop eating meat if they were told to kill their own cow, chicken, or pig as many of those people couldn't do the killing. At least that's my hope. Humans have animals as pets. How many of you could kill your dog or cat for food when you have a cupboard full of beans, rice, and potatoes? You become attached to your pets and that means there is hope for mankind in the future. I hope that everyone, one day, will be a vegetarian and let the animals live a natural life of their own.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
there is a place where most people do that. It's called India.
ReplyVote up (115)down (109)
Original comment
there is a place where most people do that. It's called India.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
Do what? I mentioned a lot of things in the comment you replied to.
ReplyVote up (132)down (117)
Original comment
Do what? I mentioned a lot of things in the comment you replied to.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
""I hope that everyone, one day, will be a vegetarian and let the animals live a natural life of their own. "" you would hate living in India.
ReplyVote up (111)down (117)
Original comment
""I hope that everyone, one day, will be a vegetarian and let the animals live a natural life of their own. "" you would hate living in India.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
Are you sure about that? My friends from India eat chicken and other animals. Where did you get your information about them letting the animals live a natural life of their own? From my experience of knowing many people in India, they do not.
ReplyVote up (117)down (108)
Original comment
Are you sure about that? My friends from India eat chicken and other animals. Where did you get your information about them letting the animals live a natural life of their own? From my experience of knowing many people in India, they do not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
i said most people ""there is a place where most people do that. It's called India"" not all of them. I can't give definitive scriptural references on this subject, but I can give you my cultural observations as a Hindu in India. In general, there are more non-vegetarian Hindus than vegetarians. Some families are traditionally vegetarian, while others are traditionally non-vegetarian. From ancient times Hindu society was divided into 4 classifications or castes, based on one's profession: (a) priests, teachers, (b) warriors, kings, (c) businessfolk, (d) agricultural labour. Some people (even Hindus) have a misconception that you can tell from the caste of a family whether they are traditionally vegetarian or non-vegetarian. For example, the generalisation is that the priestly caste and the businessfolk are vegetarians, while the warrior castes and the agricultural labour are non-vegetarian. This generalisation is true to some extent, but there are exceptions to the rule as you travel from one part of India to another. Beef is the one form of meat that Hindus are not supposed to eat, since the cow is considered a sacred animal and should not be killed; but beef of a cow that died of natural causes is eaten by families of the agricultural labour caste. Before I explain the exceptions to the rule, let me set the definition of a vegetarian as one who does not eat meat, poultry or fish products. Dairy products like milk, butter, ghee, cheese are acceptable as vegetarian food. In certain coastal parts of India you will find the families of the priestly caste will not eat meat or poultry but will eat fish - so they are not entirely vegetarian by definition. The Hindus from Kashmir who all belong to the priestly caste even eat meat (excepting beef). I have also come across exceptions to the rule that families of the warrior caste are non-vegetarian. There are some sub-sects of this caste who are totally vegetarian. Is this getting very confusing? In some places, it appears that Hindu society has had to evolve a different set of rules about food, depending on the environment. The above example of Kashmir is indicative of how Hindus who lived in an environment that gets snow-bound for several months in the year, had to subsist on a diet of meat, even though many families of the priestly caste in India are vegetarian traditionally. Non-vegetarian Hindus also make vegetarian dishes - so they can swing both ways! Non-vegetarian food and ingredients are more expensive in India than vegetarian ingredients. So, many non-vegetarians in India are not able to afford that lifestyle on a daily basis. Today, you will find a few non-vegetarian Hindus turning vegetarian and many vegetarian Hindus trying out non-vegetarian food. So Hindy society may be evolving, unwittingly, to another new set of rules regarding food! But, whichever way you look at it, I haven't heard of any Hindu recipe involving eyeball soup or monkey's brains! LINK more here LINK
ReplyVote up (122)down (116)
Original comment
i said most people ""there is a place where most people do that. It's called India"" not all of them. I can't give definitive scriptural references on this subject, but I can give you my cultural observations as a Hindu in India. In general, there are more non-vegetarian Hindus than vegetarians. Some families are traditionally vegetarian, while others are traditionally non-vegetarian. From ancient times Hindu society was divided into 4 classifications or castes, based on one's profession: (a) priests, teachers, (b) warriors, kings, (c) businessfolk, (d) agricultural labour. Some people (even Hindus) have a misconception that you can tell from the caste of a family whether they are traditionally vegetarian or non-vegetarian. For example, the generalisation is that the priestly caste and the businessfolk are vegetarians, while the warrior castes and the agricultural labour are non-vegetarian. This generalisation is true to some extent, but there are exceptions to the rule as you travel from one part of India to another. Beef is the one form of meat that Hindus are not supposed to eat, since the cow is considered a sacred animal and should not be killed; but beef of a cow that died of natural causes is eaten by families of the agricultural labour caste. Before I explain the exceptions to the rule, let me set the definition of a vegetarian as one who does not eat meat, poultry or fish products. Dairy products like milk, butter, ghee, cheese are acceptable as vegetarian food. In certain coastal parts of India you will find the families of the priestly caste will not eat meat or poultry but will eat fish - so they are not entirely vegetarian by definition. The Hindus from Kashmir who all belong to the priestly caste even eat meat (excepting beef). I have also come across exceptions to the rule that families of the warrior caste are non-vegetarian. There are some sub-sects of this caste who are totally vegetarian. Is this getting very confusing? In some places, it appears that Hindu society has had to evolve a different set of rules about food, depending on the environment. The above example of Kashmir is indicative of how Hindus who lived in an environment that gets snow-bound for several months in the year, had to subsist on a diet of meat, even though many families of the priestly caste in India are vegetarian traditionally. Non-vegetarian Hindus also make vegetarian dishes - so they can swing both ways! Non-vegetarian food and ingredients are more expensive in India than vegetarian ingredients. So, many non-vegetarians in India are not able to afford that lifestyle on a daily basis. Today, you will find a few non-vegetarian Hindus turning vegetarian and many vegetarian Hindus trying out non-vegetarian food. So Hindy society may be evolving, unwittingly, to another new set of rules regarding food! But, whichever way you look at it, I haven't heard of any Hindu recipe involving eyeball soup or monkey's brains! LINK more here LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
It's amazing how you can say so much with so many words but make no sense and provide absolutely no evidence stating that the majority of people in India are vegetarians. Basically you can say that about the USA too because some of us are vegetarians using your logic. I'd even believe you if you could provide some sort of proof that more than half of the people living in India were vegetarians but you provide nothing. No provable statistics -- nothing.
ReplyVote up (105)down (101)
Original comment
It's amazing how you can say so much with so many words but make no sense and provide absolutely no evidence stating that the majority of people in India are vegetarians. Basically you can say that about the USA too because some of us are vegetarians using your logic. I'd even believe you if you could provide some sort of proof that more than half of the people living in India were vegetarians but you provide nothing. No provable statistics -- nothing.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
40% of the population. 470 million. In the State of the Nation survey in 2006, 31% are lacto-vegetarian 9% are lacto-ovo vegetarian. the rest eat very few meat because it's expensive, and nobody eats beef.
ReplyVote up (107)down (106)
Original comment
40% of the population. 470 million. In the State of the Nation survey in 2006, 31% are lacto-vegetarian 9% are lacto-ovo vegetarian. the rest eat very few meat because it's expensive, and nobody eats beef.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Link? You used to provide nothing but links and now you're posting statistics that cannot be proven and not providing links to your source. Don't you realize that 72.4% of all statistics are made up?
ReplyVote up (110)down (114)
Original comment
Link? You used to provide nothing but links and now you're posting statistics that cannot be proven and not providing links to your source. Don't you realize that 72.4% of all statistics are made up?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
you need to learn how to use the internet :) here you go LINK
ReplyVote up (113)down (124)
Original comment
you need to learn how to use the internet :) here you go LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Wikipedia again? You want me to edit that page with a different number and then link it back to show you how easy it is for someone to change that data? I'm not going to do that but it proves my case that Wikipedia is not an authority on anything. None of this matters anyway because I don't care about this statistic. Mainly I was claiming that you're quoting things you cannot backup and not that I really care about the answer. I know I'm a vegetarian and I'm glad there are others out there -- even in India. I hope more people see that killing animals for food is out-dated when you can have a vegetarian diet and still be healthy. According to the Vegetarian times, you'll ward off disease, keep your weight down, live longer, build strong bones, reduce risk of food-borne illnesses, have more energy, reduce pollution, consume fewer toxic chemicals, and spare the lives of innocent animals. LINK
ReplyVote up (139)down (113)
Original comment
Wikipedia again? You want me to edit that page with a different number and then link it back to show you how easy it is for someone to change that data? I'm not going to do that but it proves my case that Wikipedia is not an authority on anything. None of this matters anyway because I don't care about this statistic. Mainly I was claiming that you're quoting things you cannot backup and not that I really care about the answer. I know I'm a vegetarian and I'm glad there are others out there -- even in India. I hope more people see that killing animals for food is out-dated when you can have a vegetarian diet and still be healthy. According to the Vegetarian times, you'll ward off disease, keep your weight down, live longer, build strong bones, reduce risk of food-borne illnesses, have more energy, reduce pollution, consume fewer toxic chemicals, and spare the lives of innocent animals. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
well, i doubt that if you edit wikipedia, the other people wouldn't notice it and correct it. I doubt that any article on wikipedia will stay "cengland0-ed" for long. I don't eat meat very often because i don't really like the taste. I do crave it some times, maybe once every 2 weeks, but i wouldn't call myself a vegetarian. And i don't really care about the innocent animals as long as there's unlimited amounts of human suffering in the world. Besides, those animals are suffering because of industrialization, because of the corporations who care only about maximizing profits, it wasn't always like that, but that's capitalism for you: every living being has to suffer, the god Profit, son of Greed demands it.
ReplyVote up (109)down (126)
Original comment
well, i doubt that if you edit wikipedia, the other people wouldn't notice it and correct it. I doubt that any article on wikipedia will stay "cengland0-ed" for long. I don't eat meat very often because i don't really like the taste. I do crave it some times, maybe once every 2 weeks, but i wouldn't call myself a vegetarian. And i don't really care about the innocent animals as long as there's unlimited amounts of human suffering in the world. Besides, those animals are suffering because of industrialization, because of the corporations who care only about maximizing profits, it wasn't always like that, but that's capitalism for you: every living being has to suffer, the god Profit, son of Greed demands it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
Just remembered another comment. How would you feel if a lion or cougar killed your son or daughter so it could eat? You wouldn't like that, right? At least I hope not. So then why do we get mad at these animals just for doing what is necessary for their survival? Obviously you have feelings for your children and don't want their life to be wasted to feed another animal. Well, that's how I feel about a simple chicken. I wouldn't want that chicken's life to be wasted for me when I have other options for a healthy diet.
ReplyVote up (107)down (123)
Original comment
Just remembered another comment. How would you feel if a lion or cougar killed your son or daughter so it could eat? You wouldn't like that, right? At least I hope not. So then why do we get mad at these animals just for doing what is necessary for their survival? Obviously you have feelings for your children and don't want their life to be wasted to feed another animal. Well, that's how I feel about a simple chicken. I wouldn't want that chicken's life to be wasted for me when I have other options for a healthy diet.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
what about middle eastern children that get blown up to smithereens by US drones because they "look like terrorists" from the sky? is it ok to kill them and destroy their livelihood for the sake of oil, power and profit? i can only imagine how much money your bank made (since you mentioned several times that you work for one of the biggest) in loans for military contractors and weapons manufacturers. Double standard much? (you would say no but i would say yes). I would much rather kill a chicken, pig or cow or even a cat, for food than to kill human families for the god of capitalism: PROFIT, son of GREED. but that's just me. I would prefer if none of these bad things would happen, but if i were to choose, i would choose to kill chicken instead of human beings.
ReplyVote up (130)down (119)
Original comment
what about middle eastern children that get blown up to smithereens by US drones because they "look like terrorists" from the sky? is it ok to kill them and destroy their livelihood for the sake of oil, power and profit? i can only imagine how much money your bank made (since you mentioned several times that you work for one of the biggest) in loans for military contractors and weapons manufacturers. Double standard much? (you would say no but i would say yes). I would much rather kill a chicken, pig or cow or even a cat, for food than to kill human families for the god of capitalism: PROFIT, son of GREED. but that's just me. I would prefer if none of these bad things would happen, but if i were to choose, i would choose to kill chicken instead of human beings.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
Name a US drone that killed innocent middle eastern children for the sake of oil, power and profit. The drones in Afghanistan are there to help free the people from terrorists. We get very little, if any, oil from Afganistan. If I remember correctly, their chief export was heroin so the US is probably involved in helping the citizens make a more useful economic model and selling some of their oil may be one of them in the future. I assure you that we will not be taking anything from them by force and will be paying them for any commodities that they produce in their country. And what loans to military contractors are you talking about? The government pays military contractors -- not banks.
ReplyVote up (118)down (122)
Original comment
Name a US drone that killed innocent middle eastern children for the sake of oil, power and profit. The drones in Afghanistan are there to help free the people from terrorists. We get very little, if any, oil from Afganistan. If I remember correctly, their chief export was heroin so the US is probably involved in helping the citizens make a more useful economic model and selling some of their oil may be one of them in the future. I assure you that we will not be taking anything from them by force and will be paying them for any commodities that they produce in their country. And what loans to military contractors are you talking about? The government pays military contractors -- not banks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
about the drug trade and the involvement of the CIA. LINK . And yes, you are right about who pays the military contractors, my apologies. However i would like to add that the US deficit has a lot to do with the war, and it exists partly because the government borrowed money to finance the war which is also being fought by military contractors, so you are technically correct. LINK but you are not technically correct about the drug trade.
ReplyVote up (110)down (111)
Original comment
about the drug trade and the involvement of the CIA. LINK . And yes, you are right about who pays the military contractors, my apologies. However i would like to add that the US deficit has a lot to do with the war, and it exists partly because the government borrowed money to finance the war which is also being fought by military contractors, so you are technically correct. LINK but you are not technically correct about the drug trade.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Yes, the US deficit was increased due to the many war efforts we were involved in. What you didn't mention is that the United States issues bonds and pays interest on those bonds to pay for our budget deficits. I never mentioned drug trade anywhere so I don't know how I could be wrong about it. The comment I made about heroin and Afghanistan was correct even though I was going by memory. LINK
ReplyVote up (97)down (104)
Original comment
Yes, the US deficit was increased due to the many war efforts we were involved in. What you didn't mention is that the United States issues bonds and pays interest on those bonds to pay for our budget deficits. I never mentioned drug trade anywhere so I don't know how I could be wrong about it. The comment I made about heroin and Afghanistan was correct even though I was going by memory. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
"""their chief export was heroin so the US is probably involved in helping the citizens make a more useful economic model and selling some of their oil may be one of them in the future. "" not only did you mention the drug trade, but you also mention Afghanistan oil. reread the article about how the heroin export was created : LINK
ReplyVote up (100)down (110)
Original comment
"""their chief export was heroin so the US is probably involved in helping the citizens make a more useful economic model and selling some of their oil may be one of them in the future. "" not only did you mention the drug trade, but you also mention Afghanistan oil. reread the article about how the heroin export was created : LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
i did not mention Afganistan, i mentioned the middle east. Nice try. LINK and list of dead children LINK
ReplyVote up (114)down (123)
Original comment
i did not mention Afganistan, i mentioned the middle east. Nice try. LINK and list of dead children LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
Fine, it's not Afganistan, it's Pakistan. So how much oil did we take from Pakistan by force after we killed those people? None!
ReplyVote up (129)down (124)
Original comment
Fine, it's not Afganistan, it's Pakistan. So how much oil did we take from Pakistan by force after we killed those people? None!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
you're missing the point. In the middle east there's also Iraq and Iran. I would also like to add north Africa (Lybia).
ReplyVote up (110)down (113)
Original comment
you're missing the point. In the middle east there's also Iraq and Iran. I would also like to add north Africa (Lybia).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
You said we kill children with drones for the sake of oil, power, and profit. So I asked you to provide proof and you gave a link to Pakistan drones killing children. Now you're talking about Iraq, Iran, and Lybia. Make up your mind. Find a country where we killed children on purpose for the sake of oil, power, and profit.
ReplyVote up (97)down (112)
Original comment
You said we kill children with drones for the sake of oil, power, and profit. So I asked you to provide proof and you gave a link to Pakistan drones killing children. Now you're talking about Iraq, Iran, and Lybia. Make up your mind. Find a country where we killed children on purpose for the sake of oil, power, and profit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
it's as if you don't know how to use the internet and i have to google everything for you. here you go LINK . the Iraq war was started for oil, the Lybia one as well. Afghanistan is a whole different issue, but what the hell is Oman, and Yemen and Pakistan being droned? so much for sovereignty, so much for human rights.
ReplyVote up (105)down (114)
Original comment
it's as if you don't know how to use the internet and i have to google everything for you. here you go LINK . the Iraq war was started for oil, the Lybia one as well. Afghanistan is a whole different issue, but what the hell is Oman, and Yemen and Pakistan being droned? so much for sovereignty, so much for human rights.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
The page you linked does not contain the word "oil" anywhere. Besides, I know better about the Iraq war so you cannot snow me on this one. The war was started due to suspicion of Saddam having WMD's -- most likely the chemical kind. The USA was not the only country involved in this war so it was a multi-national effort to disarm Iraq. So the way I see it, you cannot backup your claim that we purposely killed children with drones for the sake of oil, power, and profit. If you cannot back it up, it didn't happen.
ReplyVote up (114)down (100)
Original comment
The page you linked does not contain the word "oil" anywhere. Besides, I know better about the Iraq war so you cannot snow me on this one. The war was started due to suspicion of Saddam having WMD's -- most likely the chemical kind. The USA was not the only country involved in this war so it was a multi-national effort to disarm Iraq. So the way I see it, you cannot backup your claim that we purposely killed children with drones for the sake of oil, power, and profit. If you cannot back it up, it didn't happen.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
ha ha ha :)) have you been living under a rock? so what you're saying is that you want articles with the words "oil" and "Iraq" in them :)) ok, here you go LINK and LINK and LINK and LINK and LINK . happy now? as if you didn't know these things already. But hey, if i were you i would also want to find all sorts of excuses for the actions of amoral corporations and immoral banks and corrupt politicians, since you are the defender of all of them. PS: learn how to use google :)
ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
ha ha ha :)) have you been living under a rock? so what you're saying is that you want articles with the words "oil" and "Iraq" in them :)) ok, here you go LINK and LINK and LINK and LINK and LINK . happy now? as if you didn't know these things already. But hey, if i were you i would also want to find all sorts of excuses for the actions of amoral corporations and immoral banks and corrupt politicians, since you are the defender of all of them. PS: learn how to use google :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
First link is Wikipedia so I'm not going to read it. The second link does not say we started the war for oil. The third link speculates (without proof) the exact opposite of what you're claiming. It says "The invasion was not about blood for oil, but something far more sinister: blood for no oil. War to keep supply tight and send prices skyward." The fourth link speculates it was to keep the oil off the market too. The fifth link does quote 3 people (one is a former federal reserve chairman so is not an expert) did say it's about oil in 2007; however, nobody in 2003 said this and that's when the war started. They are speculating because big oil companies did benefit from this war 10 years after but it was not the reason for going to war in the first place. And about me using Google, I know how to use it. What I have stated before is that your messages need to state a claim and then have a link in it to backup your claim. Going forward, I am going to ignore comments that do not follow this convention because, frankly, you're wasting my time and I think that's what your intent is. I've fallen victim to your tactics too many times and I'm going to have to put a stop to it. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
ReplyVote up (102)down (107)
Original comment
First link is Wikipedia so I'm not going to read it. The second link does not say we started the war for oil. The third link speculates (without proof) the exact opposite of what you're claiming. It says "The invasion was not about blood for oil, but something far more sinister: blood for no oil. War to keep supply tight and send prices skyward." The fourth link speculates it was to keep the oil off the market too. The fifth link does quote 3 people (one is a former federal reserve chairman so is not an expert) did say it's about oil in 2007; however, nobody in 2003 said this and that's when the war started. They are speculating because big oil companies did benefit from this war 10 years after but it was not the reason for going to war in the first place. And about me using Google, I know how to use it. What I have stated before is that your messages need to state a claim and then have a link in it to backup your claim. Going forward, I am going to ignore comments that do not follow this convention because, frankly, you're wasting my time and I think that's what your intent is. I've fallen victim to your tactics too many times and I'm going to have to put a stop to it. Thank you and have a wonderful day.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
in retrospect, chances are that those speculations are true. You just stated that oil interests were involved. you're arguing against common sense; it's true that Galileo also argued against common sense and he was right, but satanist also argue against common sense, and i can't say that they're right. Conversations are held between people not robots, so the way you want it to go is unrealistic. thanks for the wishes, a nice day to you too.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
in retrospect, chances are that those speculations are true. You just stated that oil interests were involved. you're arguing against common sense; it's true that Galileo also argued against common sense and he was right, but satanist also argue against common sense, and i can't say that they're right. Conversations are held between people not robots, so the way you want it to go is unrealistic. thanks for the wishes, a nice day to you too.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1618 days ago)
you argue about why but the fact is the usa and uk f**cked up so bad on iraq and so many war crimes went on the people who started it should be locked up (winter soldier iraq)
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
you argue about why but the fact is the usa and uk f**cked up so bad on iraq and so many war crimes went on the people who started it should be locked up (winter soldier iraq)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1617 days ago)
agreed!
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
agreed!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
I realize that the intelligence said there were WMD's and both the USA and UK were wrong. We should not have attacked Iraq but we did and we ended up removing a horrible dictator in the process. We even helped rebuild their country from the damage that we caused but it was clear some of the citizens still did not want us there even though we were trying to help. They would kill our soldiers believing we were occupying their country when we were just assisting them into building a new political system and new infrastructures like electricity, water, and sewage. Before I can state if people should be locked up, I'd need more information on who gave the bad information and how that happened.
ReplyVote up (98)down (107)
Original comment
I realize that the intelligence said there were WMD's and both the USA and UK were wrong. We should not have attacked Iraq but we did and we ended up removing a horrible dictator in the process. We even helped rebuild their country from the damage that we caused but it was clear some of the citizens still did not want us there even though we were trying to help. They would kill our soldiers believing we were occupying their country when we were just assisting them into building a new political system and new infrastructures like electricity, water, and sewage. Before I can state if people should be locked up, I'd need more information on who gave the bad information and how that happened.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1617 days ago)
a good start would be to listen to your own soldiers (winter soldier iraq).now a question for you.lets say a group of countries feel that the usa capitialist way of life is wrong.this group of countries has the power to invade the usa as they want to assist you in installing a new political system what would you do when some of the soldiers have just shot some of your family while assisting you in setting up there new political system??? please dont answer with the this is not possible answer but for the min just say this has happened as with iraq.
ReplyVote up (122)down (187)
Original comment
a good start would be to listen to your own soldiers (winter soldier iraq).now a question for you.lets say a group of countries feel that the usa capitialist way of life is wrong.this group of countries has the power to invade the usa as they want to assist you in installing a new political system what would you do when some of the soldiers have just shot some of your family while assisting you in setting up there new political system??? please dont answer with the this is not possible answer but for the min just say this has happened as with iraq.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1617 days ago)
Our intent was to disarm the country from it's WMD's. Saddam was known to have violated international crimes. If you look at this LINK , you will see he was responsible for killing thousands of people. Now isn't it worth removing him as the dictator of the country as a secondary mission? The Iraqi people seem happy that he's gone because they were the ones that tried and convicted him and then he was subsequently hanged.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Our intent was to disarm the country from it's WMD's. Saddam was known to have violated international crimes. If you look at this LINK , you will see he was responsible for killing thousands of people. Now isn't it worth removing him as the dictator of the country as a secondary mission? The Iraqi people seem happy that he's gone because they were the ones that tried and convicted him and then he was subsequently hanged.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1617 days ago)
we will soon enough LINK . Carbon tax is one example. Environmental Taxation A Guide for Policy Makers LINK . It's gonna be harder in the US to implement such rules, because Corporations are ...not people, but Gods according to your corrupt capitalist democracy and your corrupt supreme court LINK
ReplyVote up (109)down (76)
Original comment
we will soon enough LINK . Carbon tax is one example. Environmental Taxation A Guide for Policy Makers LINK . It's gonna be harder in the US to implement such rules, because Corporations are ...not people, but Gods according to your corrupt capitalist democracy and your corrupt supreme court LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1617 days ago)
Sorry cengland0... wrong post. i meant to post this somewhere else. Carry on :)
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
Sorry cengland0... wrong post. i meant to post this somewhere else. Carry on :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1617 days ago)
you realy dont know what went on in iraq do you.you only know the story that the usa whats you to know? we killed thousands of innocent iraqis.used drop weapons to cover up the crime so when do they get justice for this crime???when do the usa soldiers get justice for what they went through???
ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment
you realy dont know what went on in iraq do you.you only know the story that the usa whats you to know? we killed thousands of innocent iraqis.used drop weapons to cover up the crime so when do they get justice for this crime???when do the usa soldiers get justice for what they went through???
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1617 days ago)
Extreme claims require extreme proof.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
Extreme claims require extreme proof.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1617 days ago)
winter soldier iraq again all the proof you need from the horses mouth
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
winter soldier iraq again all the proof you need from the horses mouth
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1617 days ago)
forget it, he has an agenda.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
forget it, he has an agenda.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1617 days ago)
If you're talking about me, what do you know about my agenda?
ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment
If you're talking about me, what do you know about my agenda?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1617 days ago)
your answer implies that you have an agenda????
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
your answer implies that you have an agenda????
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1617 days ago)
you got him admitting it. that was easy. i've been trying for a while :) kudos tornado :P
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
you got him admitting it. that was easy. i've been trying for a while :) kudos tornado :P
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1617 days ago)
I don't know about you 123456789 but the way cengland0 answers means a lot to me I have had my concerns about the way he posts. you have posted your views in the past. for me now its up to cengland0 to explain what he means by agenda so I can figure out if I am the fool or the fooled back on Monday if no post on this from cengland0 I will also know which one I am.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
I don't know about you 123456789 but the way cengland0 answers means a lot to me I have had my concerns about the way he posts. you have posted your views in the past. for me now its up to cengland0 to explain what he means by agenda so I can figure out if I am the fool or the fooled back on Monday if no post on this from cengland0 I will also know which one I am.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1616 days ago)
You obviously don't know what the word "agenda" means because you make it sound like a bad thing and it's not. I have a daily agenda for my personal life and I have work agendas for my professional life. Why do you think having a list of things needing to be done around the house and workplace is a bad thing? I just attended a 3-day meeting with all my colleagues and the agenda was created several weeks in advance so everyone knew what all the talking points would be ahead of time and they can prepare any questions they might have. Do you have a problem with that? If so, then get a life.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
You obviously don't know what the word "agenda" means because you make it sound like a bad thing and it's not. I have a daily agenda for my personal life and I have work agendas for my professional life. Why do you think having a list of things needing to be done around the house and workplace is a bad thing? I just attended a 3-day meeting with all my colleagues and the agenda was created several weeks in advance so everyone knew what all the talking points would be ahead of time and they can prepare any questions they might have. Do you have a problem with that? If so, then get a life.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1616 days ago)
ha ha ha ha!! :)) nice dodge, but i don't think tornado will buy it :))
ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment
ha ha ha ha!! :)) nice dodge, but i don't think tornado will buy it :))
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1614 days ago)
Latest comment: once their where three walterego guest123456789 and tornadodog now there are two!!
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
Latest comment: once their where three walterego guest123456789 and tornadodog now there are two!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Veal Farmer (1619 days ago)
CAN EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING THIS IDIOT TROLL CENGLAND0, I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY THIS, BUT HE'S A BIGGER ******* ARES WIPE COCK SUCKER THAN SAM FFS!!!!
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
CAN EVERYONE PLEASE STOP FEEDING THIS IDIOT TROLL CENGLAND0, I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY THIS, BUT HE'S A BIGGER ******* ARES WIPE COCK SUCKER THAN SAM FFS!!!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: gruffalo (1618 days ago)
Er I dont know how to break this to you, but just about everybody on here is a troll
ReplyVote up (2586)down (89)
Original comment
Er I dont know how to break this to you, but just about everybody on here is a troll
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: THE TROLL!! (1618 days ago)
not me!
ReplyVote up (103)down (76)
Original comment
not me!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fol de Rol (1618 days ago)
Back off, Veal Farmer - or I'll eat you for my supper
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
Back off, Veal Farmer - or I'll eat you for my supper
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fon C. Foont (1619 days ago)
Vegetarian. Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
Vegetarian. Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1620 days ago)
those bastards!
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
those bastards!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: VEGAN! (1620 days ago)
that's why i'm vegan! Vegan is the way to go! everything else is MURDER! you murderous meat eating, milk drinking, cheese and eggs and fish eating Bastards!!
ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment
that's why i'm vegan! Vegan is the way to go! everything else is MURDER! you murderous meat eating, milk drinking, cheese and eggs and fish eating Bastards!!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
You think that's heartbreaking, you meat eaters should see what it's like in the slaughterhouse. Glad I'm a vegetarian.
ReplyVote up (80)down (686)
Original comment
You think that's heartbreaking, you meat eaters should see what it's like in the slaughterhouse. Glad I'm a vegetarian.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1620 days ago)
But I guess you're OK with it because there's a profit to be made?
ReplyVote up (185)down (86)
Original comment
But I guess you're OK with it because there's a profit to be made?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
Not really okay with it. There are some things that are just not right and killing another animal is one of them. I also don't think it's right to make a profit by killing humans, robbing convenient stores, etc. Unfortunately, it's legal to kill animals for food so there's nothing I can do about it. The majority opinion is okay with it so I'm the minority on this issue.
ReplyVote up (103)down (80)
Original comment
Not really okay with it. There are some things that are just not right and killing another animal is one of them. I also don't think it's right to make a profit by killing humans, robbing convenient stores, etc. Unfortunately, it's legal to kill animals for food so there's nothing I can do about it. The majority opinion is okay with it so I'm the minority on this issue.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hrtle55 (1620 days ago)
"...I also don't think it's right to make a profit by killing humans, robbing convenient stores..." So you must be against firearms manufactures and those that sell weapons? Not only are they used on animals, but humans too
ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment
"...I also don't think it's right to make a profit by killing humans, robbing convenient stores..." So you must be against firearms manufactures and those that sell weapons? Not only are they used on animals, but humans too
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
Suppose you haven't heard the axiom, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? With that said, I support the manufacturer of guns. I own some and I've never killed anyone and never plan to kill anyone. Hopefully I'll be lucky and never have to use my gun except for my regularly scheduled target practice which is just shooting inanimate objects.
ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
Suppose you haven't heard the axiom, "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? With that said, I support the manufacturer of guns. I own some and I've never killed anyone and never plan to kill anyone. Hopefully I'll be lucky and never have to use my gun except for my regularly scheduled target practice which is just shooting inanimate objects.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1619 days ago)
sometimes guns kill people when they go off on their own... but not very often, which means that there's an exception to the rule presented by you, which means the rule is inaccurate and false :) The correct way to formulate the rule is "guns kill people very rarely! most times guns are used by people to kill other people!" :) you're welcome :)
ReplyVote up (88)down (119)
Original comment
sometimes guns kill people when they go off on their own... but not very often, which means that there's an exception to the rule presented by you, which means the rule is inaccurate and false :) The correct way to formulate the rule is "guns kill people very rarely! most times guns are used by people to kill other people!" :) you're welcome :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1619 days ago)
Please provide a link where a gun went off on it's own without it being held or controlled by a person and it wasn't mishandled. The only case I have ever heard is where 3 people were wounded -- not killed, and the authorities said the gun had been altered. Since you made an extreme claim, it requires proof.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Please provide a link where a gun went off on it's own without it being held or controlled by a person and it wasn't mishandled. The only case I have ever heard is where 3 people were wounded -- not killed, and the authorities said the gun had been altered. Since you made an extreme claim, it requires proof.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
LINK and LINK . thousands more out there on the interwebs, just google it.
ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
LINK and LINK . thousands more out there on the interwebs, just google it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
I did Google it and found nothing and you found nothing too. The first link was about a woman hugging an officer. I'm sure the trigger was accidentally pulled during the hug process and the article said the officer is still on duty while it is being investigated. That means the investigation is still continuing so it's not evidence yet. In the second link, the gun discharged while he was laying it down and "It's obviously negligent and reckless to some degree". In both of these cases, the guns were still being handled by people and did not go off by themselves. It might have been considered accidental but not without human interaction.
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
I did Google it and found nothing and you found nothing too. The first link was about a woman hugging an officer. I'm sure the trigger was accidentally pulled during the hug process and the article said the officer is still on duty while it is being investigated. That means the investigation is still continuing so it's not evidence yet. In the second link, the gun discharged while he was laying it down and "It's obviously negligent and reckless to some degree". In both of these cases, the guns were still being handled by people and did not go off by themselves. It might have been considered accidental but not without human interaction.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
Accidental discharges are rare and happen with very old firearms that don't have modern internal safeties, or "bubba-ed" guns with poor "gunsmith" work that compromises the drop safety of the weapon. Negligent discharges happen when people don't follow the four rules. i don't see how the Officer was Negligent. That was an Accidental discharge, the gun fired even though nobody pulled the trigger.
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
Accidental discharges are rare and happen with very old firearms that don't have modern internal safeties, or "bubba-ed" guns with poor "gunsmith" work that compromises the drop safety of the weapon. Negligent discharges happen when people don't follow the four rules. i don't see how the Officer was Negligent. That was an Accidental discharge, the gun fired even though nobody pulled the trigger.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1618 days ago)
The gun did not fire by itself. If you are negligent and throw a loaded and cocked gun on the ground, you shouldn't be surprised if it goes off. You do not have to pull the trigger in order to fire a gun. In fact, you can pull the hammer back and then let it go before it click into place and that will fire the gun. Many of the older revolvers didn't even have a trigger. Those that do have a trigger that pulls back the hammer when you pull the trigger are called double action. So if a human is involved when the gun goes off, it's their fault -- not the gun's fault. Show me evidence where a gun locked in a gun safe went off by itself without anyone touching it and it killing someone. You cannot do it because it doesn't happen.
ReplyVote up (110)down (91)
Original comment
The gun did not fire by itself. If you are negligent and throw a loaded and cocked gun on the ground, you shouldn't be surprised if it goes off. You do not have to pull the trigger in order to fire a gun. In fact, you can pull the hammer back and then let it go before it click into place and that will fire the gun. Many of the older revolvers didn't even have a trigger. Those that do have a trigger that pulls back the hammer when you pull the trigger are called double action. So if a human is involved when the gun goes off, it's their fault -- not the gun's fault. Show me evidence where a gun locked in a gun safe went off by itself without anyone touching it and it killing someone. You cannot do it because it doesn't happen.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1618 days ago)
we're talking about all guns not just a gun locked in a gun safe. And since we're talking about all guns the exception exists, and since the exception exists the correction stands as true "guns kill people very rarely! most times guns are used by people to kill other people!"
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
we're talking about all guns not just a gun locked in a gun safe. And since we're talking about all guns the exception exists, and since the exception exists the correction stands as true "guns kill people very rarely! most times guns are used by people to kill other people!"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1620 days ago)
but what about the music?
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
but what about the music?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
I don't like music added to videos. In this particular one, they kept the original audio and mixed in music designed to invoke a specific emotion of sadness. I can decide my own emotions without the music telling me what to do. I wish movies from Hollywood would also be free of music. It is sometimes so loud that you cannot hear the dialog so you have to turn on the subtitles. Very annoying. I find myself constantly playing with the volume control. I turn it up while they are talking and then have to turn it down during a scene with a lot of loud music.
ReplyVote up (102)down (76)
Original comment
I don't like music added to videos. In this particular one, they kept the original audio and mixed in music designed to invoke a specific emotion of sadness. I can decide my own emotions without the music telling me what to do. I wish movies from Hollywood would also be free of music. It is sometimes so loud that you cannot hear the dialog so you have to turn on the subtitles. Very annoying. I find myself constantly playing with the volume control. I turn it up while they are talking and then have to turn it down during a scene with a lot of loud music.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fon C. Foont (1620 days ago)
Chuck you Farley
ReplyVote up (99)down (427)
Original comment
Chuck you Farley
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Do you think this practice belongs to another age?
Do you think this practice belongs to another age?
Abused dog feels petting for the first time
Abused dog feels petting for the first time
Honest Ads - The Meat Industry
Honest Ads - The Meat Industry
Bot Lives Matter
Bot Lives Matter
Tickling is torture, the truth behind the slow loris pet trade
Tickling is torture, the truth behind the slow loris pet trade