Dan

seems contradictory? i am talking about jews, brother.. wake the hell up!!! how is that contradictory?!?!?! and PLEASE!!!!!! blaming the jews is the height of political incorrectness... i am not worried about search results. it's a matter of ideology!!

heh, good observation, Sasun... but i'm not surprised - because it seems like google is being run by zionists who want the jewish holocaust to be the only accepted mass-murder attempt.. no wonder.. google indeed going down the drain..... http://64.21.83.54/forum/style_images/1/icon8.gif edit: boycotting google.. about time..

I beg to differ on that one!!!!! i am all for equality and all that, but i am against people who refuse to give up publicly expressing their customs in a society that has advanced so much and even embraced them as part of its future.. i think it's pretty rude to go to a country and wear your on the head or somewhere that obviously does not appeal to many people. not to mention how rude it is to live in a country and not speak its language (you can speak your own language all you want, but sheesh, learn to speak the country's language!!!) i think the root of the problem is immigration. particularly third world immigration. i'm not saying that it's the nature of those immigrants to be violent or anything, but when they bring those people in who are not qualified to hold jobs, etc., what else are they gonna do but be homeless or do illegal things to earn a living, or resort to violence as a result of depression? i mean, come now, let's all be realistic... not being racist or anything here... if i point out that 90% of sexual assaults are committed by black males, would i be considered racist? it's sad what all this anti-racist political correctness thing is coming down to.. and i think that's one of the problems -- how do you expect to solve a problem when you are censored from speaking the truth?!? I'm not generalising anything. I think other cultures have a lot to offer, etc., but like..... adapting is very important.... you can demand so much from a country that has adopted you.... it's like "give them a patch of land, and they will demand that you give them the whole country." And then they deport a Russian woman for no reason at all.. how about all the Jamaican illegals who are into all that drug/gun business???!?! or the pakis?!?! or gang members who don't hold any documents that would allow them to stay in the country?!?! SICK!!! http://64.21.83.54/forum/style_images/1/icon8.gif totalitarianism you tell me?!??! NO. I say it's stupidity on the part of the government and its various departmental minions!! Time for LAW to be applied!! SHEESH!!! the state of our nation(s)... illegals are illegals. nothing's gonna change that. and non-qualified/non-skilled legals are not supposed to be here. For our sake as well as theirs.

Google excludes race hate, religious sites Google, the world's most popular search engine, has quietly deleted more than 100 controversial sites from some search result listings. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/0,39...20269353,00.htm What do you think about this? Should a search engine do that? A search engine is supposed to give the information to its users in a non-biased manner after all, no? I mean, as long as kiddie porn is on there, I don't see why racialist websites should be banned.... Do you think Google is going down the drain of political correctness?? I for one think it is... maybe it's cos it's being run (/pressurised) by censorship crazed zionists..? Just wondering what people think about this. Obviously, I oppose this. I really don't understand those people who are more worried about websites that promote white pride (without advocating genocide/killing, etc.) instead of being worried about child pornography...... maybe it's because someone's religious book (not gonna name religions here) allows the marriage between old men and 3 year olds..? I think Google is going down big time. Just like AOL.. Censorship has never done any party any good. Except you-know-who (see topic description)....... Just my 2 cents.

ergo total anarchy..

mmmhmmm.. actually, you missed one, and rightly so, but that proves you wrong... you missed good ol' USA in that list... I don't see USA outlawing guns... which is primary what the problem is. USA seems to be upside down.. "ters" as they call it...

Good for you!!!! I quit smoking a while back and although I've smoked cigs from time to time (once a month), I would never ever think about going back to it.. But I never felt addicted to it... I started smoking due to the "smoking makes me look cool" syndrome.. But I'm glad you quit!! I can say that I was an alcoholic a while back, used to go out and drink vodka, beer, rum every day, 7 days a week.. Well, it did take a big blow to knock some sense into me.. I feel healthier, although I want to drink from time to time and know that if I do, I won't go to extremes.. It's good to have one's will-power by one's side.

lol... angel and Sip, chill and shake hands.

Azat, maybe because the population of Switzerland is not as belligerent as the population of USA/Canada? Question: Can you please tell me who commits the most crimes in USA/Canada? i.e. which visible group(s)? And also, do tell me if those groups/ethnicities are present in Switzerland in massive numbers... And to answer your question, Norway probably has the lowest crime rate in the world.. Here's a link: http://www.vixpy.demon.co.uk/gun/articles/tun.htm I mean... it's not like you can get a shotgun in Norway when you're 15 years old, and go around and shoot randomly and injure a 6 year old kid who happened to be walking home with his mom (this happened here in Toronto)....

yes, but having guns to solve the gun violence problem is very uhhh let's just say hypocritical... not to mention, it doesn't solve anything lol... instead, working on getting the guns away from the bad people would be a good thing to do... and in the meantime, i'm not sure if it's that bad a situation.. i mean, toronto is probably the worst city with regards to gangs and gun violence, etc., but it's still a relatively safe place...... unless you're looking/asking for trouble (e.g. women walking alone at like 2 am), it rarely gets to you, especially if your kids are very young (below the age of 5, or for older kids, try not to dress the female kids as if they are ready to get married, that's definitely an invitation for pedophiles.... )... on that note (i.e. safety, etc.), i was walking home at about 3 am once, since i had just caught the last subway train to the station nearest to my place, and had to walk a distance of like 20 minutes cos the buses were out of service -- so anyhow, i was met with like 3 guys (each one of them twice my size lol...), and they stopped me. i was smoking a cig.. and i knew they were looking for trouble, and they looked drunk and high.. so one of them asked me for a cigarette.. now in a situation when the person had a gun, they would probably say "f*** off" cos they knew they would be able to defend themselves [not for the 1 cig, that's not worth like 10 cents even lol].. and that would've probably created problems (who knows, maybe they had guns too..).. so i told him yeah, sure, and gave him one, then asked the other guys if they wanted one too.. so one of the guys took one and the other one said he didn't smoke... and i told them, "be safe fellows. i'll see ya around" because they didn't seem like they were just gonna walk away, and smiled at them and started walking away, looked back and saw them standing there looking at me, and i waved at them and continued on.. they just stood there.. lol.. i don't know.. but i think if i had had a gun, the situation would've been a lot different because of my different attitude. And anonymouse... i am not talking about morality or anything of the sort. i am talking about practical things.. but at any rate.. so if the government is guilty of criminal activity, would the decriminalisation of criminal activity for the general public be a justifiable thing to do? a sane thing to do? you might have a whole lotta knowledge from books and bring them into every single argument/debate about moral issues (i.e. bookish lol), it doesn't follow that following a certain moralist's view or theory or concept would lead us to a favourable position.... at any rate, the theory of morality and the practice/application of it are two different things, the difference between them probably like that of day and night..

lol Sip, haha... i meant in the city.. where there are no bears... at least not the animal kind lol..

mmhmm... but assuming that you DO make sense and are speaking metaphorically... you DO know that it's a criminal offense to shoot someone or to shoot at someone, don't you? So what's the point of having a gun then? I don't see how regular citizens need to have a gun, unless the sensitive nature of their work/job requires/recommends that they have it...

Why do people need guns anyway? I don't see how it's of any use to a regular person....

What makes YOU right if it's only a matter of opinions? Eh, Mr. know-it-all? eh? Sorry I don't understand what you're asking, because there is no active verb in the sentence. My bad if I just can't get the meaning behind it. Sorry.. What I am saying is that instead of just giving up and saying that you can move out of the city if you want to raise your kids in a safe environment, we should try and solve the problem, because if everyone thought like that and moved out of the city, the place they are moving out to would become the same. It's not like it's gonna disappear. My idea of a solution would be introducing tougher gun ownership laws, etc. Make the price of one bullet $5000, and see if someone will go and buy it to randomly shoot around and kill someone they don't know just for the fun of it. Of course, then there would be the illegal bullet market, but how many teenagers would go to the black market just to get a bullet and kill someone with it? If it's available, people will get it, but if it's not, probably 75% of those who do get them will not make the extra effort and go underground to get it...

OK, Mr. know-it-all.... I will not argue with you because I don't think you're worth my time...

lollll... i didn't know that... ok thanks for letting me know what it meant.

good one, Sip!! Welcome to HyeForum, Elizabeth. One the one side, there is the honesty issue. And on the other, there is the "rejecting his ring" issue.. I am not sure which one is the "right" thing to do per se, but if I were you I would probably just accept his choice of ring, after all, as long as it's coming from the heart, that's what matters most, IMO.

eh???

sheesh, and i thought USA was the gathering place of anti-White folks... i don't think i was comparing anything..... i was just saying that if people think it's unsafe to raise kids cos they could be in danger of being killed/raped/etc., what's the world gonna come down to? i mean, if everyone stops procreating for that reason... i don't know what would happen.. maybe then the chinese will take over the world.

It's a matter of principle. I'd refuse to move away from the city just because a gang of s has terrorised the population by their violence, criminal activities, threats, harassment, etc. What I would do instead is vote for a party that is dedicated to fight the root of the problem instead of the consequences of the problem (e.g.: outlawing gun sales instead of trying to get 500 more cops on the streets to control gun violence -- well guess what, those cops aren't exactly mind readers who can travel at the speed of light to the location of violence before it happens in order to prevent it, they can only try to find the perpetrator after the crime has been committed).. In Canada, the party that would get my votes would be the Conservative Party (PC-Alliance ), in the UK, it'd be the BNP, in the States it would be no one (because both Republicans and Democrats have shot themselves in the foot with regards to that issue)... Going away won't solve the problem. And THAT is a very selfish outlook.

No, I don't think it's selfish of us to bring kids into this world. But I do think that it's selfish of those who propose immigration plans (hint hint) to impose such a condition on our kids... i.e. immigration kills. Or at least, illegal immigration does.. Edit: Why is it not selfish? Because that's the way it's been since the beginning of time... think about it, if everyone thought it selfish to bring kids into this world, what would happen to humanity? (Note to all those who will criticise me for this sentence due to my non-procreative lifestyle, I said "IF EVERYONE"). So yeah, I think no matter how hard life is, procreation will go on, even if there are people out there who choose not to procreate due to the fact that the world has become a "cruel place".. And while agree that the world is indeed a very cruel place, I also think we must address the problem instead of the consequences of that problem (i.e. halting the act of procreation).. address immigration problems, address health problems, address gang related issues.. address gun ownership laws, address why that pedo in town was released when he was supposed to remain in jail for another 2 years.. address the various phobias (including the most recent trend, White-phobia.. [and no, I'm not a White supremacist -- just very realistic])...

nooooooooooo MosJan!! omg.. lol...

we are talking about aborting the "child" in the womb, not killing a grown up person. so i'm not sure how that's relevant, gevo.

gevo, i think we are talking about more complicated birth defects...... an example of that would be the birth defects of the children of those who served in vietnam, etc. and who were exposed to chemical material... i know they should've known that there's a high risk for birth defects in that situation, but if it happened, what would you do? do you sit around and stubbornly still argue that all those arguments are BS? i am talking about VERY extreme physical deformities, not the "blind in one eye" type (no offense, A-H, not trying to minimise the important of what you went through). edit: just to add the following: it hurts most when it hits close. people's views and their reaction to this thread might vary if they are faced with that situation in real life.

It's not about playing God. Fact is, saying that someone has no right to do something because X (who has not been proven to exist) is the one who should decide these things, qualifies as null and void.