Paranoid Americans

[reconvic]

imported post

You Sister is a good shot I will say but to make a statement saying that you could take on the military is pure fantasy. I was a Recon Marine for 20 years before I got out and trust me, as was said we fight to win by all means possible. War is not a fair fight .
In war there is no fair fight you seek and destroy by whatever means you have when I first went to Nam I was a 0341 a Mortar man 81's and the power is unreal. Besides the Marine Snipers are train to kill beyond a mile with a Barrett .50 cal. You would never hear the bullet that killed you. I am very familiar with a mini-14 and a your weapon. Which is a nice rifle but the fire power of the Military is beyond you comprehension trust me my friend ? Please take no offense but I been there and done it.
S/F. Vic

 

[Barnett3006]

imported post

nzrugby wrote:

Attractive lass your sister.
Now I am figuring out that you are not ex military because of your belief that you can take on your military using only infantry weapons.
A few nasty facts for you, the military does not fight fair, they tend to swamp an area with artillery fire before sending any infantry in.

I never said I can take on my nations military using only infantry weapons, I said the Second Amendment guarantees my right to own and use weapons equal to that of the common soldier. It is not our military I would be concerned about fighting anyways....

Do you really believe that you have had the training of the average grunt in infantry weapons ?

No, and I'm not a mall ninja either.

Dropped twenty rounds a minute down a 81 mm tube, or a 60 mm tube ?

No.

Been trained in the use of the of what we call the GPMG and what you call the 240?

This line of questioning seems to suggest that you believe that the Second Amendment is reserved for only those who are/have been in the military...that is NOT the intent of the Second Amendment...but if it makes you feel better I will be recieving the "grunt infantry" training soon enough.

I suggest you learn to use a spade to dig slit trenches, you will need them.

No thanks, I won't.

Oh a long range sniper rifle, my dear boy the 30-06 round came out with the spitzer bullet in 1906, I would suggest something a touch more modern.

Yup, prior to the spitzer bullet it was the 30-03 (1903) that used a round nose bullet and before that there was the 30-40 Krag (Grandfather to the 30-06) whitch was our nations first rifle cartridge that used smokeless gunpowder. It was adopted in 1892 for use in the Krag-Jorgensen rifle...I am well aware of how long the 30-06 cartridge has been around, I am also aware of its capabilities and limitations.

I suppose I should explain, though, that anything with a usefull range of greater than 100 yards and has a scope is considered by the anti-gun organizations here a "long range" sniper rifle...hence the sarcastic description of my rifle.

Such as a Sako rifle in Lapua 338, yes I know it was not developed in the USA but it is a rather useful cartridge.

I know what a 338 Lapua Magnum is.

 

[Barnett3006]

imported post

reconvic wrote:

You Sister is a good shot I will say but to make a statement saying that you could take on the military is pure fantasy. I was a Recon Marine for 20 years before I got out and trust me, as was said we fight to win by all means possible. War is not a fair fight .
In war there is no fair fight you seek and destroy by whatever means you have when I first went to Nam I was a 0341 a Mortar man 81's and the power is unreal. Besides the Marine Snipers are train to kill beyond a mile with a Barrett .50 cal. You would never hear the bullet that killed you. I am very familiar with a mini-14 and a your weapon. Which is a nice rifle but the fire power of the Military is beyond you comprehension trust me my friend ? Please take no offense but I been there and done it.
S/F. Vic

no offense taken, tell me...did my post read as if I said I could take on the military? This is the second time in this thread that someone said that...I gotta reread my post again because that is definitely not what I meant.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

nzrugby wrote:

No problems for an English speaker with the right skills.
Just browse through the NZ immigration site.
I would NOT use an immigration consultant, our government does keep things fairly straight forward and if one has the skills to immigrate one would have the skills to work through the process without any hand holding.

Define the right skills please. Necessary for the government or for other means?

Seems to be confusion about firearms in NZ though, rifles and shotguns are allowed to a fit and proper person who holds a firearm license.
Pistols can be owned if one is a member of a pistol shooting club, but no way would one get the right to carry concealed.
Assault rifles are banned, if a person needs an assault rifle for deer stalking they should give it up.

Please define a fit and proper person. Thank goodness our 2nd amendment says nothing of the sort. We don't have to be members of shooting clubs to enjoy firearm ownership.

While "assault weapons" are and may be used for hunting purposes, I believe that most that own them; own them for reasons outside of the hunting sport. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

From my army days Browning pistols had some use, drop the magazine and they make a decent club.

Was this an attempt atsarcasm?

Of course we do not use firearms when pig hunting, dogs and a knife only.

While I appreciate the challenges of what I am envisioning with that, it does not seem practicle and for a nation that has serious limitations on firearms ownership (presumably for the reasons of "safety,") that doesn't sound especially safe. I have hunted and killed a wild boar and they are exceedingly dangerous at times.

Oh a question, the second amendment, do people believe they should have the right to use and own ALL infantry weapons ?
Because it must get interesting when the neighbor has a tonne of HE 81 mm mortar bombs in their basement.

Depends on whom you ask. Mortar rounds are ordinance. Some believe we are a nation of rifleman and others believe in the absolute version of the term, arms. I personally believe that our SCOTUS would deem ordinance as not protected by the 2nd amendment, but I could not see how it could be so ruled that rifles and handguns that are currently in common use in our military would not be protected.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

Seems to be some confusion, NZ police are in the main not armed when going about their normal duties.
Firearms are available but the vast majority of the police do not carry them.
Nor do the vast majority want to.

Sounds enlightened and civilised.

Of course if push comes to shove and some group wants trouble, well our SAS are happy to see to their needs.

Famously so.

Immigration, forget the fifty five year mark, any person over forty five coming into NZ on the skilled path would have to have a skill we are badly short of.

Under 45, how likely is it for a native English-speaker to get in?

Well, if you ever do figure it out and roll to NZ, I hope you are prepared to swear allegiance to the Queen of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand

 

[nzrugby]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

Seems to be some confusion, NZ police are in the main not armed when going about their normal duties.
Firearms are available but the vast majority of the police do not carry them.
Nor do the vast majority want to.

Sounds enlightened and civilised.

Of course if push comes to shove and some group wants trouble, well our SAS are happy to see to their needs.

Famously so.

Immigration, forget the fifty five year mark, any person over forty five coming into NZ on the skilled path would have to have a skill we are badly short of.

Under 45, how likely is it for a native English-speaker to get in?

No problems for an English speaker with the right skills.
Just browse through the NZ immigration site.
I would NOT use an immigration consultant, our government does keep things fairly straight forward and if one has the skills to immigrate one would have the skills to work through the process without any hand holding.

Seems to be confusion about firearms in NZ though, rifles and shotguns are allowed to a fit and proper person who holds a firearm license.
Pistols can be owned if one is a member of a pistol shooting club, but no way would one get the right to carry concealed.
Assault rifles are banned, if a person needs an assault rifle for deer stalking they should give it up.

From my army days Browning pistols had some use, drop the magazine and they make a decent club.

Of course we do not use firearms when pig hunting, dogs and a knife only.

Oh a question, the second amendment, do people believe they should have the right to use and own ALL infantry weapons ?
Because it must get interesting when the neighbor has a tonne of HE 81 mm mortar bombs in their basement.

You'll have to forget the extreme xenophobia of many members of this site. Try to disregard them, they do not represent all of us Americans.

As for your comment about teaching Spanish in schools, it is pretty ridiculous. This is @#$%ing America, speak English. It's just another case of catering to the lowest common denominator. Your country's language policy for immigrants is excellent, I only wish it was like that here. I'm tired of dealing with customers at work and being dealt with by customer service people myself that can't understand even the most basic English.

Maybe someday I'll look into moving there. As this country heads down the @#$%ter at break-neck speed, it's getting about time to jump ship. From the searching around I've done due to this thread,NZ seems like a nice place. If only the major hassle of moving to the other side of the planet could be avoided.

I do wonder, why the xenophobia by so many on this site
Lack of exposure to other cultures ?
I would be curious in how many of those who do suffer from xenophobia on this site hold and have used a passport.
Or do education levels have a factor in it ?
Ditto heads ?

NZ is a liberal country which comes as a shock to some Americans who have moved over.
One example was a 8-30 pm Sunday evening TV show where bare breasts were shown on free to air TV.
My American guest said that just would not be seen on free to air TV in the states.
Religion is private, any politician who brings up the fact that he attends a church and therefore is the right person to be voted in risks a backlash.

Using the term family values can cost as well, we had the leader of our conservative type party use it here.
Typical politician he was having an affair on the side.
We do not care about politicians private lives but hypocrisy is hammered.
And one thing to remember, there are only four million of us, so we do not have the advantage of scale or choice in items to buy at times.

 

[nzrugby]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

Seems to be some confusion, NZ police are in the main not armed when going about their normal duties.
Firearms are available but the vast majority of the police do not carry them.
Nor do the vast majority want to.

Sounds enlightened and civilised.

Of course if push comes to shove and some group wants trouble, well our SAS are happy to see to their needs.

Famously so.

Immigration, forget the fifty five year mark, any person over forty five coming into NZ on the skilled path would have to have a skill we are badly short of.

Under 45, how likely is it for a native English-speaker to get in?

Well, if you ever do figure it out and roll to NZ, I hope you are prepared to swear allegiance to the Queen of England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand

True, besides allegiance to the Crown, we are also subjects of HM.
But ask any military type from the UK, Australia, NZ etc if they would rather swear allegiance to a politician and I know what the answer will be.

Besides it saves money, no changing the photos in government offices every four or eight years.

The last son or grandson of a sitting head of state in the USA to see military action was whom ?

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

nzrugby wrote:

I do wonder, why the xenophobia by so many on this site
Lack of exposure to other cultures ?

The same thing could be said about you due to your questioning about our 2nd amendment or assault weapons ownership. I guess that would more aptly be labeled hoplophobia.

Personally, I think that sticking labels or some type of phobiato people that disagree with you or have a different viewpoint or outlook is unhelpful and baseless.

I would be curious in how many of those who do suffer from xenophobia on this site hold and have used a passport.
Or do education levels have a factor in it ?
Ditto heads ?

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with people and for people to be proud of their nation and have awillingness todefend it.There is nothing wrong with citizens striving for liberty and for people to care about gun laws, or taxes, or whatever. There is nothing wrong with people to think their nation should speak only one language. That doesn't make someone afraid of others.

That is not a phobia.

It is ok for people to like America better than New Zealand and vice versa. One doesn't require a PHD or a passport to figure that out.

With all due respect, your comment sounds elitist.

NZ is a liberal country which comes as a shock to some Americans who have moved over.
One example was a 8-30 pm Sunday evening TV show where bare breasts were shown on free to air TV.
My American guest said that just would not be seen on free to air TV in the states.

This is true and this is definitely a liberty issue, but what is your point exactly?

Religion is private, any politician who brings up the fact that he attends a church and therefore is the right person to be voted in risks a backlash.

Yes, religion is private. But why are you not allowed to speak about it? If a politician said that they should be voted in because of a specific religion, I could understand the issue. But why do people need to walk on eggshells with their beliefs, particularly politicians?

Using the term family values can cost as well, we had the leader of our conservative type party use it here.

It is unfortunate that believing in family is some type of an issue.

Typical politician he was having an affair on the side.
We do not care about politicians private lives but hypocrisy is hammered.

This does not represent family values. I am glad hypocrisy is hammered there.

And one thing to remember, there are only four million of us, so we do not have the advantage of scale or choice in items to buy at times.

Well, at least you have the internet.

 

[nzrugby]

imported post

Barnett3006 wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

Attractive lass your sister.
Now I am figuring out that you are not ex military because of your belief that you can take on your military using only infantry weapons.
A few nasty facts for you, the military does not fight fair, they tend to swamp an area with artillery fire before sending any infantry in.

I never said I can take on my nations military using only infantry weapons, I said the Second Amendment guarantees my right to own and use weapons equal to that of the common soldier. It is not our military I would be concerned about fighting anyways....

Do you really believe that you have had the training of the average grunt in infantry weapons ?

No, and I'm not a mall ninja either.

Dropped twenty rounds a minute down a 81 mm tube, or a 60 mm tube ?

No.

Been trained in the use of the of what we call the GPMG and what you call the 240?

This line of questioning seems to suggest that you believe that the Second Amendment is reserved for only those who are/have been in the military...that is NOT the intent of the Second Amendment...but if it makes you feel better I will be recieving the "grunt infantry" training soon enough.

I suggest you learn to use a spade to dig slit trenches, you will need them.

No thanks, I won't.

Oh a long range sniper rifle, my dear boy the 30-06 round came out with the spitzer bullet in 1906, I would suggest something a touch more modern.

Yup, prior to the spitzer bullet it was the 30-03 (1903) that used a round nose bullet and before that there was the 30-40 Krag (Grandfather to the 30-06) whitch was our nations first rifle cartridge that used smokeless gunpowder. It was adopted in 1892 for use in the Krag-Jorgensen rifle...I am well aware of how long the 30-06 cartridge has been around, I am also aware of its capabilities and limitations.

I suppose I should explain, though, that anything with a usefull range of greater than 100 yards and has a scope is considered by the anti-gun organizations here a "long range" sniper rifle...hence the sarcastic description of my rifle.

Such as a Sako rifle in Lapua 338, yes I know it was not developed in the USA but it is a rather useful cartridge.

I know what a 338 Lapua Magnum is.

A word of advice, dump the word gun, a gun is an artillery piece and using it as a recruit in the Marine Corps can lead to some interesting situations.
The word firearm is safe to use to cover all small arms last time I checked.

 

[nzrugby]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

I do wonder, why the xenophobia by so many on this site
Lack of exposure to other cultures ?

The same thing could be said about you due to your questioning about our 2nd amendment or assault weapons ownership. I guess that would more aptly be labeled hoplophobia.

Personally, I think that sticking labels or some type of phobiato people that disagree with you or have a different viewpoint or outlook is unhelpful and baseless.

I would be curious in how many of those who do suffer from xenophobia on this site hold and have used a passport.
Or do education levels have a factor in it ?
Ditto heads ?

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with people and for people to be proud of their nation and have awillingness todefend it.There is nothing wrong with citizens striving for liberty and for people to care about gun laws, or taxes, or whatever. There is nothing wrong with people to think their nation should speak only one language. That doesn't make someone afraid of others.

That is not a phobia.

It is ok for people to like America better than New Zealand and vice versa. One doesn't require a PHD or a passport to figure that out.

With all due respect, your comment sounds elitist.

NZ is a liberal country which comes as a shock to some Americans who have moved over.
One example was a 8-30 pm Sunday evening TV show where bare breasts were shown on free to air TV.
My American guest said that just would not be seen on free to air TV in the states.

This is true and this is definitely a liberty issue, but what is your point exactly?

Religion is private, any politician who brings up the fact that he attends a church and therefore is the right person to be voted in risks a backlash.

Yes, religion is private. But why are you not allowed to speak about it? If a politician said that they should be voted in because of a specific religion, I could understand the issue. But why do people need to walk on eggshells with their beliefs, particularly politicians?

Using the term family values can cost as well, we had the leader of our conservative type party use it here.

It is unfortunate that believing in family is some type of an issue.

Typical politician he was having an affair on the side.
We do not care about politicians private lives but hypocrisy is hammered.

This does not represent family values. I am glad hypocrisy is hammered there.

And one thing to remember, there are only four million of us, so we do not have the advantage of scale or choice in items to buy at times.

Well, at least you have the internet.

Your nation should only speak one language ?
Now that statement is rather sad, one would expect the USA being a country of over 300 million that besides American English people would speak a lot of other languages, native American languages being to the fore one would hope.

Religion and politicians
Politicians are hired to be Her Majestys help in the running of my country, if they need to bring religion up at any time they are in the wrong job.
Religion is part of their private lives which I have no need nor wish to know about.

Taxes, you would agree that it is wrong to take money off the taxpayers of liberal states and send it to Alaska via Washington DC ?
Or is Alaska being a conservative state and poor owed money from the taxpayers of liberal states ?

A willingness to defend the USA ?
Were you Army or US Marines ?

 

[nzrugby]

imported post

Flintlock wrote:

nzrugby wrote:

No problems for an English speaker with the right skills.
Just browse through the NZ immigration site.
I would NOT use an immigration consultant, our government does keep things fairly straight forward and if one has the skills to immigrate one would have the skills to work through the process without any hand holding.

Define the right skills please. Necessary for the government or for other means?

Seems to be confusion about firearms in NZ though, rifles and shotguns are allowed to a fit and proper person who holds a firearm license.
Pistols can be owned if one is a member of a pistol shooting club, but no way would one get the right to carry concealed.
Assault rifles are banned, if a person needs an assault rifle for deer stalking they should give it up.

Please define a fit and proper person. Thank goodness our 2nd amendment says nothing of the sort. We don't have to be members of shooting clubs to enjoy firearm ownership.

While "assault weapons" are and may be used for hunting purposes, I believe that most that own them; own them for reasons outside of the hunting sport. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

From my army days Browning pistols had some use, drop the magazine and they make a decent club.

Was this an attempt atsarcasm?

Of course we do not use firearms when pig hunting, dogs and a knife only.

While I appreciate the challenges of what I am envisioning with that, it does not seem practicle and for a nation that has serious limitations on firearms ownership (presumably for the reasons of "safety,") that doesn't sound especially safe. I have hunted and killed a wild boar and they are exceedingly dangerous at times.

Oh a question, the second amendment, do people believe they should have the right to use and own ALL infantry weapons ?
Because it must get interesting when the neighbor has a tonne of HE 81 mm mortar bombs in their basement.

Depends on whom you ask. Mortar rounds are ordinance. Some believe we are a nation of rifleman and others believe in the absolute version of the term, arms. I personally believe that our SCOTUS would deem ordinance as not protected by the 2nd amendment, but I could not see how it could be so ruled that rifles and handguns that are currently in common use in our military would not be protected.

Sarcasm and Browning pistols, tsk tsk, why would you think that.
Pistols are a useless weapon in comparison to a rifle or pump and semi auto shotguns.
To shoot a pistol well, order in two boxcars of ammunition for practice per shooter.

Skills
What skills the politicians believe we are short of on a month to month basis.
Engineers etc etc.

A fit and proper person, no criminal record and no history of mental illness.
I was astonished to read that the NRA are against not allowing the mentally ill firearms.
Criminals in NZ are rational they know we have no plea bargaining for any crime.
And crimes involving firearms bring long prison terms.

But the ones who worry our polce are the mentally ill, rational with firearms they are not if they can get them.

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

nzrugby wrote:

Your nation should only speak one language ?
Now that statement is rather sad, one would expect the USA being a country of over 300 million that besides American English people would speak a lot of other languages, native American languages being to the fore one would hope.

My comment is being taken out-of-context. Many argue that there should be an official language in America and in fact, many states have come close to initiating such a resolution, including the multi-cultural state of Alaska.

Point being is that it is not a phobia.

Religion and politicians
Politicians are hired to be Her Majestys help in the running of my country, if they need to bring religion up at any time they are in the wrong job.
Religion is part of their private lives which I have no need nor wish to know about.

Politicians are public officials and areyour represenative -or at least they are for us. They essentially forfeit most oftheir private life and leave themselves up for scrutiny to allow the public the determine characterflaws, core values,and work ethic issues before earning their vote.

It shouldn't be looked at as a job but as public service and representingthe consituents.

Taxes, you would agree that it is wrong to take money off the taxpayers of liberal states and send it to Alaska via Washington DC ?

Yes, I would agree that it is wrong. However, roughly 60% of my state is "owned" by the federal government (i.e. all of the people)due to military installations, National Parkland & Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, etc., not including federal instrusion on game management, fisheries, forestry, as well asforced welfare subsistance programs for the Native Alaskan populationthat usurps state authority which would otherwise be a state constitutional violation.

I am more apt to accept federal funds, albeit reluctantly, because of those circumstances which are outside of our control. If our state were returned, it would be another discussion entirely.

Or is Alaska being a conservative state and poor owed money from the taxpayers of liberal states ?

It is not my opinion that the "poor" are owed anything from anyone other than donors, churches,and charitable organizations.

A willingness to defend the USA ?
Were you Army or US Marines ?

I was in neither.I would like to think that all Americans would defend their home, regardless of service in either of those twomilitary branches..

 

[Flintlock]

imported post

nzrugby wrote:

Pistols are a useless weapon in comparison to a rifle or pump and semi auto shotguns.

Maybe not quite useless, but for the most part, I would agree with this statement.

To shoot a pistol well, order in two boxcars of ammunition for practice per shooter.

Yes, it takes a lot of practice to become proficient with firearms. But I was wondering where you are going with this?

A fit and proper person, no criminal record and no history of mental illness.
I was astonished to read that the NRA are against not allowing the mentally ill firearms.

There are always two sides to every story; perhaps it would be wise to be scepticle about what you read or hear about from the major news chainsaround the globe.

The issue at hand is what wouldspecificallydetermine what constitutes mentally ill and whom determines what and when that occurs.

The potential abuse of power is a substantial concern for citizens.

All may be deemed mentally ill for the sake of disarmament.

Criminals in NZ are rational they know we have no plea bargaining for any crime.
And crimes involving firearms bring long prison terms.

If they were rational, they probably wouldn't be criminals in the first place. Convictions involving firearms bring long prison sentences here as well but they often do not serve all of that time and we have horrendous prison overcrowding.

My opinionsuggests that there are too many laws and the recivitism rate is astronomical due to the amount of laws that are deemed felonies, essentially giving that individual zero chance to turn their life around and succeed in the future.They carry that label the rest of their lives, despite the fact that they are free and have served their incarceration time.

 

[buster81]

imported post

Based upon your posts in two threads started by you, both suggesting that NZ and people from NZ are better than the USA, I'm guessing that your motivation for joining is to troll for arguments. Do you have anything useful to contribute?

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

nzrugby wrote:

Taxes, you would agree that it is wrong to take money off the taxpayers of liberal states and send it to Alaska via Washington DC ?
Or is Alaska being a conservative state and poor owed money from the taxpayers of liberal states ?

Damn this guy is good! You need to stick around here.

nzrugby wrote:

I would be curious in how many of those who do suffer from xenophobia on this site hold and have used a passport.
Or do education levels have a factor in it ?
Ditto heads ?

I'm sure most don't hold passports, much less travel outside the US. Then again, I've only been to Canada and the lack of exposure hasn't made me xenophobic. So, yes, I think it's a combination of education (or lack thereof) and the ditto head/Faux News following.

You have to realize something about the US education system. It doesn't teach jack shit about other countries. Every foreigner I've talked to has a thorough (infinitely better than a native)'sunderstanding of US history and modern politics, as well as world history and politics, even though they didn't grow up here. In the US, only US history is taught (and it is taught poorly, politics are hardly taught at all) because, well... because no one else really matters, or so the logic goes. World history is brief and vague. World politics it totally skipped. Ask a US high school student what type of government any other nation on earth has and you'll get nothing but a slack jaw stare in return, "You mean... there's other countries on earth?"

This map is hilarious, until you realize thatit IS most Americans' understanding of the world...

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

Based upon your posts in two threads started by you, both suggesting that NZ and people from NZ are better than the USA, I'm guessing that your motivation for joining is to troll for arguments. Do you have anything useful to contribute?

I don't see the problem. He may be looking for arguments, but he's making people look stupid left and right, and that's just what we need to knock them back to reality.

 

[buster81]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

buster81 wrote:

Based upon your posts in two threads started by you, both suggesting that NZ and people from NZ are better than the USA, I'm guessing that your motivation for joining is to troll for arguments. Do you have anything useful to contribute?

I don't see the problem. He may be looking for arguments, but he's making people look stupid left and right, and that's just what we need to knock them back to reality.

Then he should be able to answer for himself.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
You have to realize something about the US education system. It doesn't teach jack @#$% about other countries..... In the US, only US history is taught (and it is taught poorly..... World history is brief and vague.... World politics it totally skipped...
This map is hilarious, until you realize thatit IS most Americans' understanding of the world...

That's quite an opinion, one you're certainly entitled to. Some schools are better than others, but when labeling a school as "poor" or "great" you have to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. If one were to compare a school in Fairfax County VA, to another school in any other County in VA, you would see disparity. You would see disparity in schools within Fairfax County itself, which is coincidentally 3 million more people than NZ.....You can't compare apples and oranges, education quality has more factors than you might think. Sticking a kid in a room for 8 hours won'tensure they will learn anything. If you tase someone every time they raise their hand, they will stop rasing their hand. We don't tase people for not remembering the succession of the throne in England for the last 100 years. We don't need to. It's in a book. If you need to know - go look it up......

While what you saymay be true to an certain extent of the population, I would imagine it's a stretch to say "most"...... I think that if an individual felt they had a need for that information, it is readily available. Investing the time to commit it to memory then becomes a practical matter...Does one "need" to if it is easily accessible?

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

I'm sorry, if you're from the "we hate America" camp, no matter your physical location, your opinion is worth less than dirt to me and many others on this site. A troll is a troll, and the trolls saying they aren't doesn't make it any less true. Looks like we have another among our ranks, and more noise to filter through on any given day. Maybe it's time to look at the user created ignore feature after all.....

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

I'm sorry, if you're from the "we hate America" camp, no matter your physical location, your opinion is worth less than dirt to me and many others on this site. A troll is a troll, and the trolls saying they aren't doesn't make it any less true. Looks like we have another among our ranks, and more noise to filter through on any given day. Maybe it's time to look at the user created ignore feature after all.....

Yet another off-topic, trollingpost from the biggest whiner about "trolls" and "off-topic" posters.