Baltimore Orioles player Luke Scott interview

[BJJ-Blue]

Luke Scott was recently interviewed and asked about baseball, hunting, guns, politics, and other topics. I'm only posting portions, the full interview can be found here: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Answer-Man-Luke-Scott-talks-Nugent-hunting-and?urn=mlb-292970

David Brown: Is there any side of you that sees, politically, the point of people who are into gun control? Or do you worry that if we let [the government] take a little bit, they'll take it all?

Luke Scott: First of all, the reason the Second Amendment was put into place was to keep the government from controlling the people. History will tell you everything. Just look at anywhere else in the world. Look at Russia, look at Eastern Europe, look at South America. Gun control means control. It means control for the government and the government starts controlling the people.

I've spent time in Venezuela. I played down there. I've seen what happens with the people down there. People are in the streets throwing rocks and they're getting mowed down with machine guns. It has nothing to do with crime. Crime is actually less in places where people own guns. Washington, D.C., is a case in point. It has the strictest gun laws, but who has the highest crime rate in the country? Washington, D.C.

The law is made for law-abiding citizens. The guy who you don't have to worry about robbing you, the guy who pays his taxes, the guy who has a job, the guy who's not interested in hurting people. He's not the rapist, he's not the killer. He's the one who's going to follow the law. Now, the law can say you can't have a gun, but the thug, gangster, rapist and criminal — the thief — they're not going to obey the law anyway. It doesn't even apply.

Basically, what you've done is, you've told the man who pays his bills and minds his own business, who's trying to protect his family and provide for his family, if you take away his gun [and] you give him a golf club or a baseball bat, or a knife, and if the criminal has a gun, he's going to win that battle 10 out of 10 times.

The real issue behind these people who are gun grabbers, the truth is — based on fact — the reason why is, they want control. They want control of the people. That's what socialism is and communism.

DB: So how's Obama doing?

LS: Obama ... hmm ... Obama does not represent America. Nor does he represent anything what our forefathers stood for. This country is basically built on an attitude. It's a way of life. It's not because you're born here. It's not that you're supposed to take from those who have and give to those who haven't. That kills a country. It killed Russia.

I have friends of mine who are in the ministry who [work] in churches in Russia. If they can describe [the country] in one [phrase], it's "messed up beyond repair."

That's what communism does. Cuba, Venezuela. People are trying to escape these lands like a plague. What would make a human being swim 90 miles in shark-infested waters on a raft made of tires and planks? To leave their culture, their family, their language, their way of life. Everything they've ever known. What would make someone do that?

You don't see people in America doing that. There's no one here in America swimming the Pacific Ocean — or the Atlantic, or the Caribbean — to leave this place. The reason why is because of the freedom. Freedom for a man to mark out his own destiny. It's not, "Hey, you have so much." Hey, that person worked for that. That's not to be taken and given to someone who didn't put in the time, the effort, and do his part.

Obama, he doesn't represent that. He represents, "Hey, everyone. Give me votes and I'll give you stuff." And there's even people on TV who [are asked], "Hey, who you voting for?"

"I'm voting for Obama."

"Why?"

"So I can get more free stuff."

That's not what makes this country great. That's what tears down a people, tears down nations. Hence, the problem we're having in this country, where we're experiencing unemployment. We're experiencing all of these negative things that are happening in our land as a direct result of that type of attitude — of too much government involvement, of moral decay, and of people lacking honor and integrity.

Eighty years ago, 50 years ago, a man would walk up to another man and go in for loan. He'd extend his hand, he'd shake it and he'd look at the man and he'd say, "I'll pay this back." He would do it. You couldn't even ... to even mention that [scenario] today ... is that a cartoon fantasy? That's how far we are removed.

DB: You don't think that Obama wasn't born in the United States, do you?

LS: He was not born here.

DB: [Sighs].

LS: That's my belief. I was born here. If someone accuses me of not being born here, I can go — within 10 minutes — to my filing cabinet and I can pick up my real birth certificate and I can go, "See? Look! Here it is. Here it is." The man has dodged everything. He dodges questions, he doesn't answer anything. And why? Because he's hiding something.

You know what? People who have bad intentions, people that are deceivers or are not of honor and integrity — that's how they act. I've seen it in every — it doesn't matter what level. It can be in politics, it can be in business, it can be in sports, it can be in the construction field. Doesn't matter. It's all the same attitude. It's the same thing.

People who tell the truth, they're very easy to ... their actions prove it. Something as simple providing a birth certificate. Come on. If you're born here, there's plenty of documents. But you know what? There's no documentation of him. No legal documentation of him. There's been lie after lie after lie exposed, but people put it under the carpet. Hence, the problem we have in this country.

LS: There needs to be accountability for the truth. I don't care if you're the president of the United States, you need to be held accountable. If you're involved in treacherous acts, or you're saying things that are against, or are selling out our country, you should be brought to trial.

I mean, no one's above the law. There's a lot of people that fought for their country and that's not something to be taken lightly. They gave their life, everything they had, they gave their lives, to give us what we have. That's why I'm so passionate about my beliefs -- because someone died. They gave their life, their blood was spilled, so I had an opportunity to chase a dream and play baseball for a living.

For me, that's not something, "Oh, thank you." No. "THANK YOU." Let me honor you for that by actions by sticking up for what you fought for and passing it on to the next generation and doing my part.

[Drake]

This reminds of when the Dixie Chicks were insulting Fmr Pres Bush. And this is why actors, athletes, and musicians should not be commenting about crap they clearly don't understand.

[Syn7]

canada has gun control... we dont have anywhere near the gun crime the states has... like, not even remotely close... we do not have a second amendment, does that mean we are less free??? its next to impossible for the average citizen, whos job isnt involved, to get a permit to carry... we can own rilfes at our homes if we register properly, but even transporting them from A to B requires a diffferent permit that isnt as easy to get as one would think... its pretty hunter specific... otherwise the defence claim only carries weight with having rifles in the home... i have two, and it wasnt easy to register....


so blue... you posted this to show us how much of a retard this cat is, right??? right....???

[Syn7]

This reminds of when the Dixie Chicks were insulting Fmr Pres Bush. And this is why actors, athletes, and musicians should not be commenting about crap they clearly don't understand.

what exactly are your issues with his words??? i have my own issues im happy to discuss... but im more interested in ur opinion...

[David Jamieson]

canada has gun control... we dont have anywhere near the gun crime the states has... like, not even remotely close... we do not have a second amendment, does that mean we are less free??? its next to impossible for the average citizen, whos job isnt involved, to get a permit to carry... we can own rilfes at our homes if we register properly, but even transporting them from A to B requires a diffferent permit that isnt as easy to get as one would think... its pretty hunter specific... otherwise the defence claim only carries weight with having rifles in the home... i have two, and it wasnt easy to register....


so blue... you posted this to show us how much of a retard this cat is, right??? right....???

actually, and you should know this that transporting a longgun or shotgun in canada requires that you have a permit to own those weapons.

for small arms you are correct, you must in fact take prescribed routes to transport any small handgun anywhere in an urban area. You are allowed to carry on your property outside of urban areas and even inside of urban areas on your property, you must locker your ammo in a different locker from where your guns are and all triggers must be locked on all stored firearms of any kind. You may not transport any loaded firearms or carry same.

at least, that's how i reckon it is up here and you're right that we do not have the gun culture crime that is down south, but we do see it (gun crime) in some neighbourhoods especially in the big 3 cities. Particularly related to gangs.

edit- as for the ball player, he is somewhat well spoken but comes across as a victim of propaganda and rhetoric. Almost borderline retarded commentary.

[BJJ-Blue]

This reminds of when the Dixie Chicks were insulting Fmr Pres Bush. And this is why actors, athletes, and musicians should not be commenting about crap they clearly don't understand.

How so? He seemed very educated on the subject matter he was commenting on. He mentioned Venezuela, and he had indeed spent time there. He spoke of people risking their lives to flee socialism/communism, he was right there too. He mentioned that Obama had alot of supporters looking for handouts, correct again. And last but not least he said that blood was spilled to give us the rights we have and he acknowledged they deserved to be honored. He was darn sure correct there.


so blue... you posted this to show us how much of a retard this cat is, right??? right....???

Not at all. I was impressed that a professional athlete had this much 'real world' and historical knowledge. And I was very impressed when he acknowledged the fact that blood was spilled so he had the right to play baseball. Considering professional athletes are often portrayed as greedy, pampered, and selfish, I was very happy to see him say that.

[BJJ-Blue]

edit- as for the ball player, he is somewhat well spoken but comes across as a victim of propaganda and rhetoric. Almost borderline retarded commentary.

Was it propoganda or fact that people have risked their lives fleeing communism/socialism?

Perhaps you could tell us what he stated that would make him 'borderline retarded'.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why would anyone ask a baseball player anything other than baseball questions??
Who cares what is political views are?
Why not ask him what brand of detergent he uses and why?

[David Jamieson]

Was it propoganda or fact that people have risked their lives fleeing communism/socialism?

Perhaps you could tell us what he stated that would make him 'borderline retarded'.


DB: You don't think that Obama wasn't born in the United States, do you?

LS: He was not born here.


This denote borderline retarded. Clearly ignorant and of course, as clearly biased and ridiculous in his assumption that the president should be whipping out his birth certificate, long form short form or otherwise. lol

all "birthers" are borderline retarded for obvious reasons. Such as having being shown, told again and again and even having the hospital personnel present the documents and confirm and the birth announcements et al.

So, anyone, who despite of all the facts to the contrary that still tows that line is one of three things:

1) stupid

2) mentally retarded

3) a racist pr1ck

[Syn7]

i can hear blue saying HOW IS IT RACIST already... he doesnt get it man... he isnt going to get it... thats just how it is... people will make ridiculous connections in their mind to subconciously defend specific characteristic traits that are, to say the least, undesirable... its like a natural defence against animosity from committing social taboos...

[Drake]

what exactly are your issues with his words??? i have my own issues im happy to discuss... but im more interested in ur opinion...

For one, he beat around the bush with his subject. You don't HINT at the idea of our POTUS being a traitor. That is disrespectful as well. That's why I don't like actors and musicians who slammed Bush. How united does that make us look?

This guy needs to either say what he means, or STFU. Making broad statements and alluding to things is stupid, but then agai, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to play baseball. Something for nothing? Why don't you say "Health care" or "Police Departments" or "Fire Stations" or any other public service aimed at serving people, even if they can't contribute. Doesn't think Pres Obama is a citizen? Details. Not just "Oh, I don't think so cuz the news told me".

Problem is, you have a country full of morons who can't be bothered to research anything, and develop and speak dangerous opinions due to your role as a public figure.

1bad, you really do have a problem with hypocrisy, and you definitely have a bad habit of siding with someone, right or wrong, just because they put down people you don't like.

You cannot possibly in your mind conduct critical analysis of this article and come out thinking it was a substantiated opinion based on facts.

[BJJ-Blue]

Why would anyone ask a baseball player anything other than baseball questions??
Who cares what is political views are?
Why not ask him what brand of detergent he uses and why?

If you read the whole interview, you will see. They did start by talking about baseball, and when they asked what he had been up to lately he said hunting. Hunting let to a discussion on guns, and that led to the political part.

[BJJ-Blue]

i can hear blue saying HOW IS IT RACIST already... he doesnt get it man... he isnt going to get it... thats just how it is... people will make ridiculous connections in their mind to subconciously defend specific characteristic traits that are, to say the least, undesirable... its like a natural defence against animosity from committing social taboos...

It had ZERO to do with race. Race was never even brought up.

You want to see/hear racism, listen to Obama, Robert Byrd, and Obama's 'pastor'. Those are people spewing racism.

So yes, I don't get it. I honestly don't see how a discussion where race is never brought up is really a discussion about race. :confused:

[Reality_Check]

I'm only posting portions, the full interview can be found here: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/Answer-Man-Luke-Scott-talks-Nugent-hunting-and?urn=mlb-292970

And yet, oddly enough, you posted the portion with his comments questioning the legitimacy of President Obama.

Clearly this:


Not at all. I was impressed that a professional athlete had this much 'real world' and historical knowledge.

is a post hoc justification for posting more birther nonsense.

[BJJ-Blue]

For one, he beat around the bush with his subject. You don't HINT at the idea of our POTUS being a traitor. That is disrespectful as well. That's why I don't like actors and musicians who slammed Bush. How united does that make us look?

1bad, you really do have a problem with hypocrisy, and you definitely have a bad habit of siding with someone, right or wrong, just because they put down people you don't like.

How is it hypocracy? The man clearly stated his beliefs and political stances. He said he was against gun control. He said people voted for Obama because they wanted handouts. He said people have risked their lives fleeing communism/socialism. He even flat out said he didn't think Obama was born in the US. Not alot of beating around the bush there, he was very specific and direct.

As for those slamming Bush, I only got upset when they called him a racist or garbage like that. If anyone (a musician, actor, etc) railed on him based on his policies, I didn't care. But keep it about policy, don't call the man names. Mr Scott never called Obama names, he was critical of Obama based solely on policies.

[BJJ-Blue]

And yet, oddly enough, you posted the portion with his comments questioning the legitimacy of President Obama.

I clearly stated where to find the whole article and that I was not posting the entire article. I was honest and up front.


is a post hoc justification for posting more birther nonsense.

Yet again you know more than me about what goes on in my head. :rolleyes: I actually don't agree with Mr Scott there, but I posted the political parts of the interview whether I agreed with all (or even any) of them. I posted it for discussion, nothing more. And we are indeed discussing it.

[Reality_Check]

But keep it about policy, don't call the man names. Mr Scott never called Obama names, he was critical of Obama based solely on policies.

So, the birther nonsense was "solely" about President Obama's policies? :rolleyes:

If you wanted to spark a discussion about the policies of the Obama Administration, why include the birther nonsense?

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you read the whole interview, you will see. They did start by talking about baseball, and when they asked what he had been up to lately he said hunting. Hunting let to a discussion on guns, and that led to the political part.

Dude, interviews are planned before hand so that there are no surprises ( not that it always goes that way).
Fact is, no one cares or should care what an athlete thinks about ANYTHING outside his sport.
Same goes for actors.
Musicians are a tad different since many make music their "social expression" and people are free to listen to them or not.
But athletes and actors?
Really?

[BJJ-Blue]

So, the birther nonsense was "solely" about President Obama's policies? :rolleyes:

If you wanted to spark a discussion about the policies of the Obama Administration, why include the birther nonsense?

Mr Scott was A) asked the question and B) was discussing the Constitution, and being born in the US is a Constitutional requirement for the President.

[BJJ-Blue]

Dude, interviews are planned before hand so that there are no surprises ( not that it always goes that way).

This one seemed to be more unplanned. The interviewer asked what Mr Scott had been up to. He obviously had no idea, and thus asked the question. Once Mr Scott said hunting, they discussed hunting and guns. It went from there.


Fact is, no one cares or should care what an athlete thinks about ANYTHING outside his sport.
Same goes for actors.

It depends. Mr Scott had played baseball in Venezuela, so he had firsthand experience there. Also, many athletes are college educated. Which means some will have degrees (or credits in) in things like History and Politcal Science. Some athletes have lived in Cuba and other countries or are the children of refugees. People should actually be very interested in their views on the countries they came from.

I do agree it can be ridiculous. For example if an actor comments about what it feels like to be a soldier simply because he played one in a movie and never served is ridiculous.

[Reality_Check]

Mr Scott was A) asked the question and B) was discussing the Constitution, and being born in the US is a Constitutional requirement for the President.

I'm not questioning Luke Scott, he is clearly ignorant regarding the citizenship of President Obama.

I'm questioning you. As President Obama was born in Hawaii (which has been clearly and repeatedly demonstrated), there is no Constitutional issue. And the birther nonsense is not, and has not been, about policy. Therefore, my question is; why did you include that part of the interview when you stated that you were only quoting portions of it, and that you wanted to focus on policy?

Straight up; can you admit that President Obama is a US Citizen who was born here and is eligible to be President of the United States? Yes or no.

[David Jamieson]

It had ZERO to do with race. Race was never even brought up.

You want to see/hear racism, listen to Obama, Robert Byrd, and Obama's 'pastor'. Those are people spewing racism.

So yes, I don't get it. I honestly don't see how a discussion where race is never brought up is really a discussion about race. :confused:

YOu're a hair splitter and go into denial mode when bad optics focus on your agenda.

More predictable than predictable, your "points" are nothing more than regurgitation from someone else generally.

Also, you always make claims as to not understand why the connotations of something is racists and therefore, as you are incapable of seeing it in others, it is just as likely you are incapable of seeing it in yourself.

You tend to be guarded around this issue instead of simply acknowledging that unfortunately, racism is huge aspect of any country that practices multiculturalism.

It cannot be avoided as the whole concept of it is relatively brand new in the grand scheme of things and very few countries actually actively promote and practice multiculturalism.

It is safe to say, that the less exposure one has to the world, he more likelihood they are going to have outmoded views of humankind and reality.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It depends. Mr Scott had played baseball in Venezuela, so he had firsthand experience there. Also, many athletes are college educated. Which means some will have degrees (or credits in) in things like History and Politcal Science. Some athletes have lived in Cuba and other countries or are the children of refugees. People should actually be very interested in their views on the countries they came from.

I wouldn't take anyone's views on things they are not expert on over anyone elses.
As for what people say about a country they visited or came from, well...
If it is a balanced view I probably would consider it, if it was one sided, probably not so much.
Can you imagine someone taking Michel Moore's view of the States as how it "really is" ?

[BJJ-Blue]

I'm not questioning Luke Scott, he is clearly ignorant regarding the citizenship of President Obama.

He has his opinion, and you have yours. Just because he disagrees with you does not make him ignorant.


Therefore, my question is; why did you include that part of the interview when you stated that you were only quoting portions of it, and that you wanted to focus on policy?

I included the political parts of the interview. To me, discussing the President is political.


Straight up; can you admit that President Obama is a US Citizen who was born here and is eligible to be President of the United States? Yes or no.

Probably. It appears he has the documentation, but his own wife said his home country was Kenya. And since he admits to never living in Kenya, that is suspicious.

[BJJ-Blue]

YOu're a hair splitter and go into denial mode when bad optics focus on your agenda.

What are you babbling aboutnow? I've denied being a racist, but of course that's because I'm not one. Unlike Byrd, Obama, and Wright.


More predictable than predictable, your "points" are nothing more than regurgitation from someone else generally.

Well they are sourced, so technically it is someone else's words I sometimes use. And when I do, I always use quotes so people will know. Maybe this just confuses you though.


You tend to be guarded around this issue instead of simply acknowledging that unfortunately, racism is huge aspect of any country that practices multiculturalism.

I'm not guarded at all. I openly admit I'm not a racist.

Yes, racism is an aspect in many countries/societies. But of course that does not mean everyone in those countries is a racist.

You just have to listen to what individuals say and judge them on their words and deeds. People like Byrd, Wright, and Obama have been caught, or even admitted to, spewing racism and thus in my book are racists.

[Reality_Check]

He has his opinion, and you have yours. Just because he disagrees with you does not make him ignorant.

No, when he is objectively wrong, his claim is ignorant.


I included the political parts of the interview. To me, discussing the President is political.

But saying he is not a citizen, and therefore illegally occupying the Oval Office is insulting. It is not about policy. So this comment was incorrect:


...he was critical of Obama based solely on policies.


Probably. It appears he has the documentation, but his own wife said his home country was Kenya. And since he admits to never living in Kenya, that is suspicious.

You can't even answer a simple yes or no question. :rolleyes:


I'll say this on the topic--At first, I figured the people saying he wasn't born here were the typical wingnuts who see conspiracies on every corner. Then I looked at evidence, I actually took the time to research what they saying, rather than be like you and label them and write them off. They have some relevant points. For example, he went by another last name. His father was not a citizen. His early education took place overseas. His wife's quote. The fact he has not released his birth certificate. There is a good bit of evidence here. Is it enough to sway me? Not yet, but I am really starting to wonder if indeed on this subject, where there is smoke there is fire. But right now, I still can't say they have proven he wasn't born here.

I guess that makes you a quasi-birther. Would that make you an atypical wingnut?

[BJJ-Blue]

No, when he is objectively wrong, his claim is ignorant.

Ok, but by your definition then 1 in 4 Americans must be ignorant as well


But saying he is not a citizen, and therefore illegally occupying the Oval Office is insulting. It is not about policy.

He criticised the man's policies, and said he didn't believe the man was born here. He never criticized Kenya or Kenyans.


You can't even answer a simple yes or no question. :rolleyes:

Because I'm not sure. What do you want me to do? Guess? Lie? Flip a coin?


I guess that makes you a quasi-birther. Would that make you an atypical wingnut?

Call it what you will. There is evidence he was born in the US, and there is evidence he was not.

[Syn7]

So yes, I don't get it. I honestly don't see how a discussion where race is never brought up is really a discussion about race. :confused:

i know you dont understand... and im sorry, but if you dont get it by now, you probably wont...

stop throwing obama in my face please... how many fukcing times do i have to tell you that im not a partisan kind of guy... if i criticise the right, you jump to the left to make your own criticism... i think obama is about as good a president as bush was... he`s a joke... a one termer who got into office because of a shift in thinking due to the fickle nature of the american people and their complete lack of understanding to what they criticise...

the last president i wouldnt personally undo my fly and pis$ on if given the opportunity is jfk... since then, its been one big joke, all of them...

[Syn7]

For one, he beat around the bush with his subject. You don't HINT at the idea of our POTUS being a traitor. That is disrespectful as well. That's why I don't like actors and musicians who slammed Bush. How united does that make us look?

This guy needs to either say what he means, or STFU. Making broad statements and alluding to things is stupid, but then agai, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to play baseball. Something for nothing? Why don't you say "Health care" or "Police Departments" or "Fire Stations" or any other public service aimed at serving people, even if they can't contribute. Doesn't think Pres Obama is a citizen? Details. Not just "Oh, I don't think so cuz the news told me".

Problem is, you have a country full of morons who can't be bothered to research anything, and develop and speak dangerous opinions due to your role as a public figure.

1bad, you really do have a problem with hypocrisy, and you definitely have a bad habit of siding with someone, right or wrong, just because they put down people you don't like.

You cannot possibly in your mind conduct critical analysis of this article and come out thinking it was a substantiated opinion based on facts.

thanx for taking the time to answer...

[Syn7]

How is it hypocracy? The man clearly stated his beliefs and political stances. He said he was against gun control. He said people voted for Obama because they wanted handouts. He said people have risked their lives fleeing communism/socialism. He even flat out said he didn't think Obama was born in the US. Not alot of beating around the bush there, he was very specific and direct.

As for those slamming Bush, I only got upset when they called him a racist or garbage like that. If anyone (a musician, actor, etc) railed on him based on his policies, I didn't care. But keep it about policy, don't call the man names. Mr Scott never called Obama names, he was critical of Obama based solely on policies.

so how do you account for canada having less gun crimes... not because we have less guns and nobody is really allowed to carry??? do you think we have a bunch of well armed gangsters and defenseless citizens up in here??? how do you account for the fact that we have less gun crime per capita, urban or rural... less crime PERIOD... how do you explain that??? our crooks arent as hard as yours maybe huh, or maybe canadians know secret gun disarming techniques we keep to ourselves??? wake up man, the answer is not only obvious, but very well documented... the 2nd amendment was made for a different time... as times change people need to keep up with those changes... those who resist change are eventually squashed by it... just look at the catholic church... probably the most powerful single institution ever... but slowly and surely they are in a major decline... they dont have anywhere near the % of wealth they once had, they arent gonna be the worlds largest landowner for long... and even they see this and are starting to give in a bit... too late imo, but it gives weight to the argument that they are looking at change at all...

[Syn7]

YOu're a hair splitter and go into denial mode when bad optics focus on your agenda.

More predictable than predictable, your "points" are nothing more than regurgitation from someone else generally.

Also, you always make claims as to not understand why the connotations of something is racists and therefore, as you are incapable of seeing it in others, it is just as likely you are incapable of seeing it in yourself.

You tend to be guarded around this issue instead of simply acknowledging that unfortunately, racism is huge aspect of any country that practices multiculturalism.

It cannot be avoided as the whole concept of it is relatively brand new in the grand scheme of things and very few countries actually actively promote and practice multiculturalism.

It is safe to say, that the less exposure one has to the world, he more likelihood they are going to have outmoded views of humankind and reality.

so is that why you think urban folks are more progressive and rural folks are more conservative, on average...??? because of access to information is far more diverse in urban areas... like 20 newspapers of all persuasions vs 1 maybe 2 papers and a grocery rag???(i stayed within the realm of print to keep it simple)

[Syn7]

Ok, but by your definition then 1 in 4 Americans must be ignorant as well


i think thats being rather generous.... i dont think even 1 in 4 are well informed...

[David Jamieson]

so is that why you think urban folks are more progressive and rural folks are more conservative, on average...??? because of access to information is far more diverse in urban areas... like 20 newspapers of all persuasions vs 1 maybe 2 papers and a grocery rag???(i stayed within the realm of print to keep it simple)

The internet is leveling things remarkably fast. The next 2 generations will be unlike any previous. As we will be in it, it won't be until we are old and looking back upon them that we will be amazed by the world they live in and how very different it is from the one we grew in and are closer to departing now. It's not just technology either, it's the entire spirit of the times that is always in flux.

People will still get drunk and party on beaches though, so no worries there!

[Drake]

so how do you account for canada having less gun crimes... not because we have less guns and nobody is really allowed to carry??? do you think we have a bunch of well armed gangsters and defenseless citizens up in here??? how do you account for the fact that we have less gun crime per capita, urban or rural... less crime PERIOD... how do you explain that??? our crooks arent as hard as yours maybe huh, or maybe canadians know secret gun disarming techniques we keep to ourselves??? wake up man, the answer is not only obvious, but very well documented... the 2nd amendment was made for a different time... as times change people need to keep up with those changes... those who resist change are eventually squashed by it... just look at the catholic church... probably the most powerful single institution ever... but slowly and surely they are in a major decline... they dont have anywhere near the % of wealth they once had, they arent gonna be the worlds largest landowner for long... and even they see this and are starting to give in a bit... too late imo, but it gives weight to the argument that they are looking at change at all...

Population, population density, and climate.

[BJJ-Blue]

the 2nd amendment was made for a different time... as times change people need to keep up with those changes...

I totally disagree. They put the 2nd Amendment in there to give the people the ability to fight an oppressive Gov't if need be. Notice EVERY totalitarian country in history has always disarmed the people: The USSR and it's satellite states, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the list goes on and on. There is a reason why dictators prefer unarmed peasants, and the Founders knew it.


just look at the catholic church... probably the most powerful single institution ever... but slowly and surely they are in a major decline... they dont have anywhere near the % of wealth they once had, they arent gonna be the worlds largest landowner for long... and even they see this and are starting to give in a bit... too late imo, but it gives weight to the argument that they are looking at change at all...

Well it goes deeper than that, but your right about the decline. People are waking up in terms of the Catholic Church. In my opinion they are just a money making scheme, and have used force to spread their religion. Look at history, the Inquisition, they used the Indians in the New World as slave labor to extract gold and silver to be sent to the Church, the Spanish Armada, and they all but openly sided with Hitler. Not a good track record. And the sex scandal was an abonimation. They not only hid known pedophiles, but they allowed them to move to new churches and thus continue their sexual assaults just because they knew if they were honest they would face lawsuits. The funny part is that one blew up in their faces. It would have been cheaper to 'nip it in the bud', rather than aloowing to go on for decades longer and thus creating more victims.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The issue with the RCC ( not catholic but roman catholic, there is more than one catholic church by the way) is that it is a huge corporation and like any huge corporation, it makes decisions base don't on loss ratios.
The problem is that it is a RELIGIOUS corporation and as such, it is held to far higher moral and ethical standards than any other and rightly so.
When anything gets big enough, it needs to be organized and religion is no different.
Unfortunatley Christianity does NOT lend itself to an heirarcheal organization and the crap we have now is proof of that.
Christianity is a individual religion and is based on personal revelation as much as on "doctrine".
The RCC is too big and has too many interests outside "the faith" to be very valid to the faith.
And let's not even go into the matter of the Papacy.
It needs reform and it knows that.
What kind and to what degree remains to be seen.

[KC Elbows]

Maybe they could try abstinence, I hear that works.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Maybe they could try abstinence, I hear that works.

BWWAAHH !!!
Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Like any other huge organization, they prefer to "cover up" rather than deal with, they prefer to "ignore and hope it goes away" rather than assume responsibility, they prefer to pass the blame rather than fix the problem.
In short, they are idiotic as any other corporation.

[KC Elbows]

I think all corporations could learn from the example of the makers of Milk Duds. They had a laboratory error, and turned a questionable confection into a money maker, using an honest title.

[BJJ-Blue]

And let's not even go into the matter of the Papacy.
It needs reform and it knows that.

The current Pope was a Hitler Youth. When the best guy they can find to lead their church is a Hitler Youth, you know they've got problems. When they made that guy Pope, I vowed to never again step foot in a Catholic church.


Maybe they could try abstinence, I hear that works.

lol. Imo, they did that for monetary reasons too. When a priest/cardinal/bishop/etc dies and has no wife or children, who is he most likely to leave his estate to? Yup, the Catholic church.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I vowed to never again step foot in a Catholic church.

First off, not every Catholic church is a Roman Catholic Church.
Second, the churches had ZERO to do with what the inner circle of cardinals decided on.
That is like blaming a bank branch for the board electing a former nazi as CEO.

[BJJ-Blue]

First off, not every Catholic church is a Roman Catholic Church.
Second, the churches had ZERO to do with what the inner circle of cardinals decided on.
That is like blaming a bank branch for the board electing a former nazi as CEO.

It may be, but I just cant. I had ancestors die in the Holocaust, and I refuse to support any organization headed by an ex-Nazi. And I haven't heard the non-RCC churches condemn the choice of Pope. If I had been a priest/cardinal/member in that church when the Hitler Youth was named pope, I'd have left the church.

[Lucas]

so the pope is a nazi? is there REALLY such a thing as an EX NAZI?

[BJJ-Blue]

so the pope is a nazi? is there REALLY such a thing as an EX NAZI?

"The pope's chief spokesman, The Rev. Federico Lombardi, rejected such criticism.

"The pope already spoke many times about these problems and also about being German, during his visits to the Synagogue in Cologne and to Auschwitz, saying that this could be providential for reconciliation with the Jewish people," Father Lombardi told reporters. "He did not think that every time he has to repeat this in every speech he makes."

Father Lombardi at first denied that Benedict, 82, was ever in the Nazi youth movement. But when reporters noted the pope himself spoke of his membership in a 1996 book, he revised the statement to say: "He was enrolled involuntarily into the Hitler Youth, but he had no active participation.""

Full article:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/13/popes-visit-raises-past/

http://sabbathrock.com/images/pope-hj.jpg

A Nazi is a Nazi in my opinion. And the Hitler Youth were known to be fanatical, and when involved in combat they sometimes fought to the last man/boy. Some American/British/Canadian units were surprised to find out after battles that the fanatical adversaries they were facing were just young boys.

[Syn7]

Population, population density, and climate.

expand... you dont think it has anything to do with accessability???

[Syn7]

I think all corporations could learn from the example of the makers of Milk Duds. They had a laboratory error, and turned a questionable confection into a money maker, using an honest title.

whats the story there??? recipe clusterfukc turned new hit candy???

[Syn7]

The current Pope was a Hitler Youth. When the best guy they can find to lead their church is a Hitler Youth, you know they've got problems. When they made that guy Pope, I vowed to never again step foot in a Catholic church.



lol. Imo, they did that for monetary reasons too. When a priest/cardinal/bishop/etc dies and has no wife or children, who is he most likely to leave his estate to? Yup, the Catholic church.

the rcc has traditionally been the main agitator in jewish hatred in europe... they are responsible for "the purge" in france, for example, they killed almost 100% of the ones that didnt flee, or couldnt flee... the capets had a tame pope, and together with their hatred combined they did some very horrrible sh!t...

well im not one to defend ratzinger very often... but alot of kids were in hitler youth by force... they at the very least had to appear to be complacent in this era of german history... anyone being different for any reason was singled out and exploited... i imagine a sh!tload of people sent their kids to hitlers youth, which was like a nazi boyscout thing, just to fit in and stay safe...


i have issues with germany... on the one hand i have trouble condemning a whole nation for what was done... but on the other hand... they were the agitators in both big wars and even tho there was resistance i never once heard of any mass uprising by the german people in outrage of the policies they supposedly were secretly sickened by... they feared for their lives, sure... but they sat by an watched genocide... most people kept their head down and didnt speak about it... to me that is a form of facilitation...

in canada, if canada does nasty sh!t on a huge scale like ww2, then we are guilty as a nation for letting it happen... wether coz we were scared, ignorant, weak or just too stupid to stop it, its still our fault... but on the other hand, i can see why people would just stay as neutral as possible... but when the time comes to risk ur life for whats right or save ur life by doing wrong, the true character is exposed... and i think germany had a moment of transparency there... i dont think many people would act any different tho, if the situation were upon them.... but its moot, coz it wasnt... but it did happen in germany... and alot of so called good people, victims, were actually facilitators in my mind...

do you guys think a nations people should be held accountable for their govs actions??? does ur answer change depending on the kind of government??? we choose ours, so are more accountable than, say, a north korean for the actions of their government???

[Syn7]

First off, not every Catholic church is a Roman Catholic Church.
Second, the churches had ZERO to do with what the inner circle of cardinals decided on.
That is like blaming a bank branch for the board electing a former nazi as CEO.

yes but ultimately the branch takes orders from that board, and if you disagree with the board, the obvious move is to take ur biz elsewhere...


im a baptized roman catholic with many priests and nuns in the fam, some call it a free pass, i call it water on a baby with words... nothing more... i am so far from being a catholic... most of my generation in my family on the catholic side has thrown off the yoke of oppression and learned to decide for ourselves whats right and whats wrong... there was just too much control, it turned us all off... we are from the info age, we arent so easilly duped anymore... and we are subject to so much info now that its no suprise that a good chunk of kids grown up in religeous families are a bit confused as to what is true and what isnt... alotta soul searchers out there... me, im comfy with mine, i'll never be a creationist, EVER....

[Drake]

If you were in Germany during that time period, EVERYONE was a nazi. And if you didn't join the youth group, what do you think might happen to the child?

[David Jamieson]

If you were in Germany during that time period, EVERYONE was a nazi. And if you didn't join the youth group, what do you think might happen to the child?

That's not true. There was a lot of dissent towards Naziism when it first rose to power. The voices of common sense and checks and balances were silenced through censorship and other methods over a period of about 2-3 years before Hitler annexed Checkoslavakia and finally attacked Poland following that.

[Drake]

That's not true. There was a lot of dissent towards Naziism when it first rose to power. The voices of common sense and checks and balances were silenced through censorship and other methods over a period of about 2-3 years before Hitler annexed Checkoslavakia and finally attacked Poland following that.

We're talking about different time periods now aren't we?