BF2S Forums Gang bangers using military for training

skratch-x wrote:

That's what they're good at; yapping about bullshit that doesn't matter while letting all the important things slip under the radar.  Hey remember when they wanted us to duct tape our windows and buy gas masks?

Huh? They didn't tell us to take it down did they? I've had that shit on my house for 4 1/2 years now....

Bah, it's just more fearmongering claptrap. 

"I can't think of any problem we have as a law enforcement, other than drugs, that is this big of an epidemic."   I don't think the word 'epidemic' means what he thinks it means.  Sure, there are probably some gang members that make it into military duty.  A few probably do come out still full of gang-style hate.  However, I don't believe a significant number of gang members going into service would come back out wanting to pick up the same fairytale bullshit they bought into in their groupthink clique of old.  As it stands, we're probaby talking what, 1 out of every 10k gang members at best that would be willing to be a tool of 'the man' for several years?  A quick google gives me numbers estimating 750-775 thousand ganstas as of 2000-2001.  So that would be what, like 75 thugs in the U.S. that had military training?  Hardly an epidemic...

A gangster's time would be better spent playing paintball, taking up hand-to-hand combat training, and reading books and watching videos.  No servitude to the man, so they can still 'represent' as needed, no being away from the fly bitches...it's win-win.  There are plenty of military folks playing paintball to learn basic tactics from, plenty of books and videos on tactics and such, and many many fine forms of self defense to learn and take back to the brothers on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I don't remember what was going on the end of February '05, but I'm guessing it was a slow news day.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Ken Jennings and I seem to agree on something.... will the Universe implode now ? lol

Nah, I'm sure there are many things we agree on, and if not, we agree to disagree.  That's gotta count for something.

Oh nos!  How about when an ex-marine with no gang association whatsoever goes on a rampage?  Or assassinates a president?  For fuck's sake, it's a misrepresentation of a problem.

Erkut.hv wrote:

So can we all agree it's the media blowing this way the hell out of proportion?

Remember, the media is not in the business to inform.  It is in the business to entertain.  Every news program has a reason why you should watch THEM.  "Exclusively with ABC, up next, this person just got leprosy.  Will you be next?  Stay tuned..."

Also, it is objective truth that a lot of the media does have an agenda.  Case in point: Ted Kennedy's son Patrick's bout with the concrete barriers.

He initially said that it's because of a sleeping pill he's been taking.  What did the news say?  "this goes to show that we should probably be a little bit sceptical of the sleep medications they are putting on the market."

If Dick Cheney had crashed his car into a concrete barrier, the media would have been like, sleeping pills my ass.  You deliberately didn't take that breathalizer test because you were drunk off your ass and you KNEW IT.

The media will blow anything into any proportion that suits their needs, be it for ratings or for an ideology (liberalism).

Don't blindly disagree with me.  Sit back and watch the news.  How much of it is scare tactics?  how much of it is sympathetic to liberal issues?

This is something we need to look at.

Last edited by G3|Genius (2006-05-18 10:45:35)

G3|Genius wrote:

Remember, the media is not in the business to inform.  It is in the business to entertain.  Every news program has a reason why you should watch THEM.  "Exclusively with ABC, up next, this person just got leprosy.  Will you be next?  Stay tuned..."

Also, it is objective truth that a lot of the media does have an agenda.  Case in point: Ted Kennedy's son Patrick's bout with the concrete barriers.

He initially said that it's because of a sleeping pill he's been taking.  What did the news say?  "this goes to show that we should probably be a little bit sceptical of the sleep medications they are putting on the market."

If Dick Cheney had crashed his car into a concrete barrier, the media would have been like, sleeping pills my ass.  You deliberately didn't take that breathalizer test because you were drunk off your ass and you KNEW IT.

The media will blow anything into any proportion that suits their needs, be it for ratings or for an ideology (liberalism).

Don't blindly disagree with me.  Sit back and watch the news.  How much of it is scare tactics?  how much of it is sympathetic to liberal issues?

This is something we need to look at.

If the media was blatantly liberal-biased, you would hear about human rights abuses all over the globe, corruption in the government, environmental concerns, etc.  I hardly think the media is overtly liberal biased.  Centrist, maybe.  Newslines like, "Feds looking into Halliburton billing" is not investigating government corruption.  Headlines like, "UN discussing situation in Darfur" is not trumpeting human rights abuses.  Just because the media is not overtly pro-conservative does not mean that it is liberal-biased.  Bottom line is that the media shows you what they want to show you to make money.  Certain headlines grab attention better than others.  Sure, they could say, "Ken Lay and associates pillaging the coffers of a publicly traded company while the public gets the short end of the straw, live at 10."  But that doesn't have the same attention-grabbing hook as, "Drive by shooting outside a church, live at 10."  Why do people complain that there is a liberal bias?  I don't see that.  Coverage of the illegal immigration marches was just that, coverage.  I never heard any part of the media condone what they are doing, just interviews with people and footage of the event.  Did they cover the protests to bring the plight of immigrants to a national audience?  Or did they cover the event because its a hot-button issue that would get people's mind off the low approval ratings of Bush and Co. and the war in Iraq?

G3|Genius wrote:

The media will blow anything into any proportion that suits their needs, be it for ratings or for an ideology (liberalism).

Don't blindly disagree with me.  Sit back and watch the news.  How much of it is scare tactics?  how much of it is sympathetic to liberal issues?

This is something we need to look at.

lol rofl omg etc.  Wow.  If the media has a liberal bias, why did Clinton get destroyed by the news for getting a blowjob, and there's barely any noise abouse Bush starting a war of questionable legality on a foundation of lies?  Why is it barely mentioned that he has a SUB THIRTY PERCENT APPROVAL RATING?  Why was it such a big deal when Howard Dean screamed (I still TOTALLY don't fucking get that one)?  Why did Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner get IGNORED?  Why did former CIA analyst Ray McGovern get called "alleged" former CIA analyst (wtf??) by the news after questioning Rumsfeld about the validity of the administration's claims, and his questioning dismissed as "harassment", disregarding its validity?

Oh, I don't know... Maybe because media corporations (of which there are I think less than five in the US, because most outlets are owned by larger companies) are just that -- corporations.  What do they benefit from?  Conservative ideals.  Fuck.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

[KS]RECON wrote:

Our Army is the best (all branches) in the world and we're train to be the best of the best, but how every individual is using the skills learned in the service is personal thing. The things/skills you have learned:
a) make you better man, make you proud that you defend the freedom and our country
b) you take the wrong turn and you wake up in jail (your roommate is 250 pound African American and happy to see some fresh meat)
HEY THINK BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING STUPIT!!!
Proud to be American, Proud to be an American Soldier!!!

*Sorry my bad, but when u have only 1 min to write and get out of here, coz u have 1 mil things to do!!!

what unit you in

GGGGGG G-UNIT!
Sorry, too good of an opportunity to resist

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-05-18 12:14:30)

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

or ex-soldiers blowing up federal buildings.  Lets just ban military service for everyone to avoid this problem.

Better Yet dont let the FBI torch any churches. You gotta admit it all stopped on a Dime after that.
They can dish it out better than they can take it.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

Remember, the media is not in the business to inform.  It is in the business to entertain.  Every news program has a reason why you should watch THEM.  "Exclusively with ABC, up next, this person just got leprosy.  Will you be next?  Stay tuned..."

Also, it is objective truth that a lot of the media does have an agenda.  Case in point: Ted Kennedy's son Patrick's bout with the concrete barriers.

He initially said that it's because of a sleeping pill he's been taking.  What did the news say?  "this goes to show that we should probably be a little bit sceptical of the sleep medications they are putting on the market."

If Dick Cheney had crashed his car into a concrete barrier, the media would have been like, sleeping pills my ass.  You deliberately didn't take that breathalizer test because you were drunk off your ass and you KNEW IT.

The media will blow anything into any proportion that suits their needs, be it for ratings or for an ideology (liberalism).

Don't blindly disagree with me.  Sit back and watch the news.  How much of it is scare tactics?  how much of it is sympathetic to liberal issues?

This is something we need to look at.

If the media was blatantly liberal-biased, you would hear about human rights abuses all over the globe, corruption in the government, environmental concerns, etc.  I hardly think the media is overtly liberal biased.  Centrist, maybe.  Newslines like, "Feds looking into Halliburton billing" is not investigating government corruption.  Headlines like, "UN discussing situation in Darfur" is not trumpeting human rights abuses.  Just because the media is not overtly pro-conservative does not mean that it is liberal-biased.  Bottom line is that the media shows you what they want to show you to make money.  Certain headlines grab attention better than others.  Sure, they could say, "Ken Lay and associates pillaging the coffers of a publicly traded company while the public gets the short end of the straw, live at 10."  But that doesn't have the same attention-grabbing hook as, "Drive by shooting outside a church, live at 10."  Why do people complain that there is a liberal bias?  I don't see that.  Coverage of the illegal immigration marches was just that, coverage.  I never heard any part of the media condone what they are doing, just interviews with people and footage of the event.  Did they cover the protests to bring the plight of immigrants to a national audience?  Or did they cover the event because its a hot-button issue that would get people's mind off the low approval ratings of Bush and Co. and the war in Iraq?

Take just one topic, Private ownership of Firearms. The media has such a Bias that it staggers the Imagination.
They call it " Gun Control " It is not. All a gun can do on its own is rust.

Here are some of their more memorable Hysteria bent tag lines and the reality to it.

Cop Killer Bullets .......... Doesn't wear the Barrel as bad because its Teflon coated.
                                     Used exclusively be Police, Never fired at a Police Officer.

Exploding Bullets........... Soft Point ammo will expand on impact with target about .50 in Dia. wont   

                                    over penetrate ( pass thru intended target ) and hit so less prone to ricochet.

Assault Rifles ..............  Look just like Real assault rifles!

Devastator Bullets  ......  Soft Point ammo will expand on impact with target about .50 in Dia. wont over 
                                    penetrate (pass thru intended target) and hit so less prone to ricochet.

Sniper Rifles................. We hopefully all know That sniping is an act that can be done with most any weapon.

Saturday Night specials........ Small and less likely to kill

Anyone with any real knowledge on this topic (particularly Police) will tell you it was

"All over hyped manufactured phrases" to push through, unneeded useless legislation to promote the left wing agenda and weaken the Conservative base of support, which it did. The NRA walked out on G.H. Bush in 92 an it hurt him. No bias? hardly. Unless some people can own up to the Fact that the Media is Slanted left and heavy,  ( Cheering in the News rooms when states came in for democrats ) no real discourse can take place.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Take just one topic, Private ownership of Firearms. The media has such a Bias that it staggers the Imagination.
They call it " Gun Control " It is not. All a gun can do on its own is rust.

Here are some of their more memorable Hysteria bent tag lines and the reality to it.

Cop Killer Bullets .......... Doesn't wear the Barrel as bad because its Teflon coated.
                                     Used exclusively be Police, Never fired at a Police Officer.

Exploding Bullets........... Soft Point ammo will expand on impact with target about .50 in Dia. wont   

                                    over penetrate ( pass thru intended target ) and hit so less prone to ricochet.

Assault Rifles ..............  Look just like Real assault rifles!

Devastator Bullets  ......  Soft Point ammo will expand on impact with target about .50 in Dia. wont over 
                                    penetrate (pass thru intended target) and hit so less prone to ricochet.

Sniper Rifles................. We hopefully all know That sniping is an act that can be done with most any weapon.

Saturday Night specials........ Small and less likely to kill

Anyone with any real knowledge on this topic (particularly Police) will tell you it was

"All over hyped manufactured phrases" to push through, unneeded useless legislation to promote the left wing agenda and weaken the Conservative base of support, which it did. The NRA walked out on G.H. Bush in 92 an it hurt him. No bias? hardly. Unless some people can own up to the Fact that the Media is Slanted left and heavy,  ( Cheering in the News rooms when states came in for democrats ) no real discourse can take place.

I believe the media sensationalizes fire arms because it sells.  They don't take a stand either way.  The media does not come out and push for legislation.  News stations have a vested interest in keeping the public scared.

I don't know what type of legislation you are talking about in regards to gun control that was useless and promoted the left wing agenda.  I will agree that the NRA is probably the number 1 or 2 (I think AIPAC takes 1) most politically influential group in the nation.  Either way, I see the media overhyping issues with fire arms to make money, not to promote a left wing agenda.

skratch-x wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

The media will blow anything into any proportion that suits their needs, be it for ratings or for an ideology (liberalism).

Don't blindly disagree with me.  Sit back and watch the news.  How much of it is scare tactics?  how much of it is sympathetic to liberal issues?

This is something we need to look at.

lol rofl omg etc.  Wow.  If the media has a liberal bias, why did Clinton get destroyed by the news for getting a blowjob, and there's barely any noise abouse Bush starting a war of questionable legality on a foundation of lies?  Why is it barely mentioned that he has a SUB THIRTY PERCENT APPROVAL RATING?  Why was it such a big deal when Howard Dean screamed (I still TOTALLY don't fucking get that one)?  Why did Colbert's speech at the Correspondents' Dinner get IGNORED?  Why did former CIA analyst Ray McGovern get called "alleged" former CIA analyst (wtf??) by the news after questioning Rumsfeld about the validity of the administration's claims, and his questioning dismissed as "harassment", disregarding its validity?

Oh, I don't know... Maybe because media corporations (of which there are I think less than five in the US, because most outlets are owned by larger companies) are just that -- corporations.  What do they benefit from?  Conservative ideals.  Fuck.

How was this war questionably legal? It was voted upon, unlike Kosovo with Clinton, which was illegal. Foundation of lies? Funny thing all the Dems thought he had WMD's as well, are they liers also? This was intelligence passed down to Bush, then voted upon, which passed, don't sit there and act like he just said "go to war fuck voting." Much like Clinton did, to get himself off the hot seat.

They'd learn more from playing America's Army then they would BF2..