If you think the DUmp is funny, get a load of this...

[Casey]

One of my friends gave me a link to this forum a few weeks ago. It was too leftist and moronic for me to join, but I decided to keep reading it for fun. Anyways, I thought I'd share the fun with you. Here's a thread by a kid called Ww2nerd, a 15/16-year-old Canadian:

Privatized Healthcare! Oh Noes!, I'm kinda scared...

Ww2nerd   Posted: Oct 4 2009, 08:57 PM

Lately the idea of privatized healthcare has been floating around Alberta, as the government is making cut after cut after cut to try and minimize its deficit.

I'm personally very scared. I'll move if they go private. I don't want my fate to be up to some greedy Fatherless Child in a board room.

There's much more in that thread. He and DragonLegend (my friend) get into a heated debate about Canada's and the US' health care systems, which ends with Ww2nerd calling him names and deleting his posts.

This is a thread by DragonLegend. It's too long to quote here, so I'll just say it's about Iran's testing of a nuclear-capable missile that can reach Israel, all of the Middle-East and parts of Europe. Parasky, also a teenager, shares his wisdom:

Parasky   Posted: Sep 29 2009, 12:34 AM

Oh no, they tested a missile with a range of 1200 miles. I'm terrified, however will the United States and our tens of thousands of armed nuclear ICBMs, technological advantage over every military on Earth, super massive air force and the strongest navy ever to exist deal with such a threat?

Ww2nerd explains Iran's nuclear ambitions:

Ww2nerd   Posted: Sep 29 2009, 03:19 PM

They aren't religiously motivated in acquiring nukes. They want them for two reasons:

So they can continue their oppressive dictatorship, without fear of harrassment by the west

America's usual sticking its nose in places it doesn't belong. It's making them feel threated

There are many more discussions like these. Go check them out, if you have the time.

[franksolich]

Oh my.

I see where they're coming from.

I went to the history forum over there.

An alleged Canadian alleges Pierre Trudeau was the greatest Canadian.

An alleged Australian alleges Gough Whitlam was the greatest Australian.

I'm not so sure about the sanity of these new primitives.

[crockspot]

Oh my.

I see where they're coming from.

I went to the history forum over there.

An alleged Canadian alleges Pierre Trudeau was the greatest Canadian.

An alleged Australian alleges Gough Whitlam was the greatest Australian.

I'm not so sure about the sanity of these new primitives.

In my time in Quebec, I learned that Trudeau is widely admired (at least among the anglophones) for having a bit of spine, and standing up to the separatist terrorists of his time. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld were admired as well.

Here's a little video clip of Trudeau dealing with some idiot newsmen, which in Canada is the equivalent of Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech.

[youtube=425,350]-7_a2wa2dd4[/youtube]

[formerlurker]

In my time in Quebec, I learned that Trudeau is widely admired (at least among the anglophones) for having a bit of spine, and standing up to the separatist terrorists of his time. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld were admired as well.

Here's a little video clip of Trudeau dealing with some idiot newsmen, which in Canada is the equivalent of Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech.

[youtube=425,350]-7_a2wa2dd4[/youtube]

Uh, in the words of Richard M. Nixon  -- Trudeau was a pinko communist asshole.   

[formerlurker]

Parasky   Posted: Sep 29 2009, 12:34 AM

Oh no, they tested a missile with a range of 1200 miles. I'm terrified, however will the United States and our tens of thousands of armed nuclear ICBMs, technological advantage over every military on Earth, super massive air force and the strongest navy ever to exist deal with such a threat?

Hey halfwit, how about your country stop sucking on the defense teat of the United States and actually defend yourselves for the first time in sixty plus years.    mmmkay?

[The Village Idiot]

Alberta, as the government is making cut after cut after cut to try and minimize its deficit.

I'm personally very scared. I'll move if they go private. I don't want my fate to be up to some greedy Fatherless Child in a board room.

Nope its better to get down to a neighborhood shack for a wet rag on the head and an aspirin for whatever ails you than go private where the customer gets to decide their own fate

[GOBUCKS]

Pierre Trudeau was a dead ringer for Martin Short.

[Casey]

More lunacy:

DragonLegend   Posted: Sep 8 2009, 07:37 AM

Iran is run by fanatical, Mahdist Mullahs who believe that a nuclear holocaust would hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. Plus the fact that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have already expressed their desire to wipe Israel off the map. Only a fool would allow Iran to have nuclear technology.

Ivan, the 15-year-old Russian currently living in Mexico:

Иван   Posted: Sep 8 2009, 08:13 AM

Ummm, it's not like if the idiot American politicians, or the jewish-christian mythology was any better. Also, Mahmoud probably said that to gain support from the millions of the fanatic Iranians (even though I can be completely wrong here).
And, finally, I just find too ironic the way how the american media criticizes the Iranian nuclear program, thinking that they are making WMDs against the "infidels". Yet, the US invaded Iraq (ironically, searching for some WMDs too) & Afghanistan, and Iran is still getting more attention...

DragonLegend   Posted: Sep 9 2009, 07:54 PM

1- The US didn't invade Iraq searching for WMDs. That's just something the Bush Administration said. If you read the Authorization, you'll find no mention of Iraq having modern, ready-to-use WMDs.

And you're kidding yourself if you think Iran's received more attention than Iraq.

2- The US invaded Afghanistan because they were harboring al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that attacked America on 9/11 and killed nearly 3000 innocent Americans and foreigners. What's wrong with that?

3- Iran is getting the attention because it's the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world, and supports/funds/arms terrorists from all over the world, especially Lebanon (Hezbollah), the Palestinian territories (Hamas, Islamic Jihad), Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Argentina. I repeat, only a fool would allow them to be WMD-capable. "They're not going to use their nukes" is simply wishful thinking, and Bibi's not dumb enough to take the risk. I hope he strikes Iran's nuclear sites soon.

Иван   Posted: Sep 9 2009, 09:26 PM

1. Sorry, they were searching for oil. Better?

Oh, and yes, I actually was jk when I said that Iran recieved more attention than Iraq. Once again, I just made a satirical comparison.

2. Oh yes, and ****ing the country and the civils who live there is obviously a good reason. Also, there are many speculations about the 9/11 not even being involved with Afghanistan. And, actually, IMO, the 9/11 was US's fault, how much incompetence is required so such an amazing terrorist attack happens in the UNITED STATES?

3. Well, tbh, I have never heard of any source that mentions anything about Iran supporting the whole world's terrorism groups. If that was the case, I would have to agree with you here, though.

Parasky once again shares his wisdom:

Parasky   Posted: Sep 10 2009, 10:01 PM

I wish our leaders would realize they are being too arrogant to open their eyes and see that the whole reason Iran is doing this is because we're making them feel threatened by putting our big American noses where they don't belong.

Lazurath, a 14-year-old Australian who spent much of his life in China and is currently visiting Vietnam, discusses Hamas:

Lazurath   Posted: Jan 9 2009, 11:54 AM

Well, Dragon, since we all know just HOW much you hate democracy, I can see why you are against one of only TWO successful Middle-Eastern democracies estabilished WITHOUT the help of your little Yankee friends to come and "help them" establish one (and unsuccessful at that, too.)

The thread gets derailed, and Ww2nerd shares his views regarding Bush and Republicans:

Ww2nerd   Posted: Jan 12 2009, 11:26 PM

- I despise Republicanism, and it is only beaten on that list by religious bigotry and violence. That does not make me any dumber than any other individual.

- I admit, Bush isn't as bad as I make him out to be, I read something about him breaking up a fight with his guards and the Chilean police, if he's willing to do that, then by all means, he's one up in my books. I do however, still consider him to be a mental midget, and a aggressive war monger, guilty of planning and waging wars of aggression

Ww2nerd   Posted: Jan 14 2009, 12:10 AM

I'm not sure if I'm the only one who sees this, but Demoracy for war is as much of a propaganda cause as Invading and butchering a country's civilians on the basis of an attack on a radio station.

To quote hitler:
"I shall come up with a propaganda cause for starting the war. Nevermind if it is plausible or not, the victor shall not be asked after the matter"

Which is the same situation bush is in. I'm sorry, but I see a lot of parellels between the parties, that you would probably like to ignore rather than acknowledge.

To prove my point:

==NOTE MIGHT BE GRAPHIC==

Waffen SS killing civilians:
http://www1.yadvashem.org/this_month/july/img/7.jpg

Soviet Killing of Civilians:
http://www.libreopinion.com/members/memori...t/ucrania10.jpg

American Massacres in Iraq:
http://www.worldproutassembly.org/iraq%20dead%201.jpg

Notice: I could not get a direct photo of Iraq because of Republican censorship. However, such things have been reported, and this is one photo.

Ww2nerd   Posted: Jan 19 2009, 04:57 PM

Well then, I guess it's a genocide. They have killed over 3,000 civilians for an empty cause, in a country they were not invited to invade, which posed minimal threat to them, but was attacked because of falsified documents the president used as a propaganda reason for starting the war...........

Honestly, I don't have to go any further than saying this:
Number of Iraqi Civilians that should have died because of Americans: 0
Because America never should have been there in the first place.

Number of Iraqis killed because of American action: 3, 000+ (And that was a total back in 05) Because of an action which is doomed to failure, but you are all too stupid to see it. Religious sectarian violence is a plague in that country, and nothing any of you do is going to fix that. It's still going to be a shithole, just one with a powerless democracy.

I'm just appalled at how stupid the President was to order this action. Because fact is, it cannot concievably succeed, and if you don't realise that, you have a severe mental deficiency. IT IS RELIGIOUS, AND THAT CANNOT BE BEATEN. LOOK AT ISRAEL. Now, you've invaded the Arab lands, which is what pissed them off and made them fly planes into the trade centers in the first place, but now, rather than the threat being imagined, youre president was smart enough to make it real.

I say keep american troops in Iraq for another 20 years, let them keep dying, and hopefully the casualty figures will deter it from starting such aimless wars again. They need a butchery like stalingrad to ensure that The presidency will not start such aimless wars again without thinking carefully.

Ww2nerd   Posted: Jan 21 2009, 11:27 PM

Sick how Israel is preparing for a barrage of war crimes, even though nobody has raised a complaint against the US for similiar practices.

 

[The Village Idiot]

What is Republicanism? I still don't know what that is.

[Ree]

Why would any sane person wanna go that board to play with the kiddies?

[Casey]

Now they're discussing abortion. Abortion... Should It Be Legal Or Not?

Иван   Posted: Oct 7 2009, 11:34 PM

Yes. The government has no right to decide over a woman's body. Also, what's the point in brining to the world another life, which, certainly, not even it's own mother wishes it on earth? It was just a mistake or an accident; not like if it would bring such a great difference not to abort it, not mattering how cruel does it sound.

Ww2nerd   Posted: Oct 7 2009, 11:49 PM

Understand that while I am pro-choice, I am not exactly pro-abortion. I still believe it should be the last option considered.

Ultimately however, I, being male, have absolutely no right to dictate what a woman can and cannot do with her body, as that is a fundamental violation of her human rights.

And, I personally do not consider anything human until it has a reasoning, thoughtful, consciousness. Something that makes it human. Otherwise, it's no different than any other animal.

As such, anybody reading this: DO NOT bother talking to me about its "human" rights.
May sound callous to some of you, oh well.

To quote Trudeau:
"Reason before passion"

I'll take it every time.

Parasky   Posted: Oct 8 2009, 12:08 AM

Scientifically, there's no repercussions. The fetus, at the stage it is aborted, has no brain, no memories, no hopes, no dreams, no personality; nothing that makes us distinctly human. In all honestly the only thing you can compare a fetus to is a plant; simply living, no purpose or thought, at the smallest level, in its existence.

However, there's always that potential that worries me. The possibility that it has the correct arrangement of genes that give it the brain of someone who changes the world. It could be the next Carl Sagan, the next Alan Turning, the next Einstein, who knows? Is that a definite reason to be against abortion; the possibility that the pseudo-child could have grown into a person who changed the world for the better? No; it could just as easily be the other way around. It could grow up to be the next Hitler or Stalin just as much as anyone else.

So really, there's no real scientific, ethical, or moral background to be against abortion, so the only reason left is religious. And religion, being a personal belief, makes abortion a personal choice. Thus, I am pro-choice.

By the way, I forgot to mention that Ivan (the Russian), Ww2nerd, Parasky and Lazurath are all hard-core Atheists.

[franksolich]

Well, shit.

And, I personally do not consider anything human until it has a reasoning, thoughtful, consciousness. Something that makes it human. Otherwise, it's no different than any other animal.

This must mean primitives on Skins's island, and primitives from other island, aren't human.

Even I wouldn't go that far, excepting in four instances, the drek primitives.