7,846 Forum Posts by "Camarohusky"
I say the best way to defeat a terrorist attack (without resorting to terrorism ourselves) would be to get up, dust ourselves off, Give the finger to the terrorists and go do our daily lives not because we don't care about terrorism, but to make the statement, that no terrorism will be strogn enough to make us cower away. The time I fear terrorism will be the 10-15 seconds before I die from a terrorist attack... I realize that the chances of me dying in a terrorist attack are very low, I'm more liekly to die walking to class...
Not recently, I have been watching it, and its become more mechanical than military now, I think they delegated most of the militray stuff the the history channel.
At 7/2/04 05:38 PM, ReiperX wrote:
Yeah sorry about not making that more clear. I'm used to talking about it to other Marines and forget that some civillians don't know as much about the stuff we use and what we are talking about.
Just tell these people to watch the history channel for a couple of days, they will learn quite abit about that kida stuff... Hehe
This is because Europe knows what terrorism really is, and that you cannot prepare for it, all you can do is last through it.
America is a terrorism nOOb. We think that if we all huddle into a hole that we've won, whereas that's exactly what the terrorists want, and by making such a big deal out of 9-11 (I'm not saying that it was a small deal) our country has essentially given the victory to the terrorists.
I don't see why people keep rtying to think counter-factually about what would have happened if we went in... We went in, now let's face it. It's up to interpertation whether Iraq is better or not, and the fact that it can be debated means that our going there was a mistake. We meant to fix the country (or thats at least what they tell us) and it isn't outright better, and it doesn't look like that will change in the near future, or even the far future for that matter. Not to mention that 830+ American soldiers are dead for somethnig a large part of the public doesn't agree with, and that a large part (mainly the part that does agree with it) has no idea about. I doubt there will be any memorial for these soldiers. They will be forgotten in history alogn with all of the other recently unpopular conflicts (i.e. Panama, Granada, etc.)
I never meant to sway your opinion, I was just telling you why your opninon was wrong.
At 7/2/04 04:50 PM, gem1 wrote:At 7/2/04 04:41 PM, ReiperX wrote:By A4 are you refering to the Jet? Are we still using those?At 7/2/04 03:40 PM, gem1 wrote:
No he's reffering to an upgrade of the US military's standard issue military rifle, the M-16.
At 7/2/04 04:41 PM, Justin12 wrote:
That is totally untrue. Just a typical stereotype of 18 and older being better. I do admit that I know nothing about politics, but thats just me. They're are others that do know about politics.
Liek I said before, Knowing politics is different than experiencing politics. Here's a deal. You can agrue about how much you want rights when you sign your life over to a government that repeatedly brekas your and all of the other people in this country's trust. When you sign your draft card little buddy, then you tell me how much you want rights.
At 7/2/04 04:30 PM, Justin12 wrote:
I know, even if I could vote, I wouldnt, but what about the other underaged person who has the same opinion about the "under 18 opression", but wants Kerry, or Bush to win. He should be able to speak his opinion and vote for Kerry, or whoever it may be.
I dissagree. 14 year olds now nothnig about politics. Though some of them may be smarter than 18 year olds, they have never experienced the rights that the average American has, and therefore don't know much about the political state of America. It's one thing to know politics through the news, teachers and otehr sources, but it's a totally different thing to know about politics and governing through experience, whether that be governing experience or governed experience.
When I was 14, I don't think I knew anyone who would make a truly qualified political vote. Young teens are still heavily prone to oversimplification and groupthink, therefore believe that 18 is a very good age to set the voting bar at.
That's because it hos nothing to do with being better than you. The original age was 21, probably because they would think that by 21 they would have enough education, or at least life experiences to make a good quality decision about politics. During the VietNam war 18 year olds were getting drafted to go fight for a war they had no control over, tehy were not even old enough at the time they were drafted to voted to end the war. So on July 1st 1971 the 26th Amendment was created to fix this. And if you don't believe me, ask your pops, I'm sure he had an opinion on it.
When I was your age (I thought i'd never say that this young) I felt the same as you, but now I am much older, and know a lot more, enough to realize how little I knew about politics when I was 14. There are many 18-21 year olds out there who still do not have enough life experience and/or education to vote seriously, so just feel lucky that you only have to wait for 4 years instead of 7.
It's acctually quite simple. 18 year olds can be drafted, therefore they are allowed to vote. If it were not for the draft you would have to wait until you are 21 before the government deemed you mature enough to vote.
Well, now that we've cleared that up, let's get back to the pointless, yet very enjoyable, talk of how we're all gonna get hammered and blow shit up. The American way!
At 7/2/04 03:21 PM, Proteas wrote:
That's odd. Especially considering it was the japanese who originally invented fireworks.
The Chinese invented them.
There was once a time when I thought I knew everything and was smarter than everyone else, back when I was 14. Now through many, but not that many, more years of experience I realized I didn't know anything, and when you become and adult, and hopefully a contrbuting member of society you will realize the same.
And message to everyone else, please ban this kid next he says faggot, will you?
Zing!
Doofy, you got burned.
At 7/2/04 03:06 PM, Gooie wrote:At 7/2/04 03:03 PM, Camarohusky wrote: They can make cars and computerscars? I'll take my mustang against any rice burner ANY day.
Never said their cars were betten America's and by computers I meant video games, my bad.
Just don't buy those crappy Japanese multiple shot ones. Last year it fell over and shot a moratr that blew under someones chair... They can make cars and computers, but not fireworks...
At 7/2/04 07:23 AM, Brown_Hat wrote: Too young to vote but if i did it'd be for Nader. Kerry is little more than a Bush-Lite. Uber-rich, dines with megacorporations, a less than liberal voting record. Hardly the champion of the common man a Democrat candidate should be. And almost as weak as Bush himself.
Vote Green, everything the Democrats used to be and more.
Besides, underdogs rule.
Maybe you're too young to remember 4 years ago...
Wasnt Ralph Nader a big part of getting Bush into ofice, now all conservatives will say no, cause they don't know shit. But he was. Just think, if Nader hadn't run last time... No Iraq war, No record deficit and so on. Sometimes it's better to compromise and take one for the team than it is to vote for your ideology. Like the website says "Kerry is a douchbag but I'm voting for him anyways."
At 7/2/04 09:45 AM, Blamm3r_4_Lif3 wrote: ok. here is whats wrong with gay marriage: 1. really gross. 2. people are used to man/women kissing on the street not man/man or woman/woman(:P). 3.the issue of kids: how can man/man make a kid with each other w/o adopting 1? same goes for women. the only way gays and lezboz can have a family is 2 adopt an orphan. 4.gods will. u read the bible it says the first couple was adam and eve not adam and adam or eve and eve. god created humans with the intention we would reproduce more humans. u cant do that with gays u just cant. males have no egg and females dont have the "right" (i dont no any other way 2 say it...) cum.
Well if the whole poitn of marriage to have children, how come post monepausal women and impotant men can marry eachother? They cant have kids... So tell me... What's the real reason?
At 7/2/04 02:56 AM, red_skunk wrote:At 7/2/04 02:41 AM, The_SuPa_Pimp wrote: That jew has had enough movie timeThanks. Now I know that I don't have to take you seriously ever again.
Amen Skunk. That's the best thing I've heard all night.
At 7/2/04 02:40 AM, Rydia_Lockheart wrote: I get to spend the 4th of July at work. I have to answer phones, so no sneaking outside for me.
I'm sorry. I'll save a shot of my Captain Mos for you. Just to make you feel better.
At 7/1/04 05:36 PM, ReiperX wrote:
Do you actually want to see what would happen if we went after North Korea next? They have nukes, while they may not hit the US, or the US soldiers, they can cripple the economies of other countries though by nuking Tokyo.
Most Americans don't care about North Korea, because they see no immediate backlash, or danger from Korea. But I don't think Americans have any clue what Nuking tokyo means.
One nuke in tokyo and a population greater than that of the state of California, will disappear. Thes 33million+ people. If 33 milion Americans were to die in one moment it would be like 1 in every 8 Americans were gone. Though they are not Americans, they are still people, and that is a staggering amount of human loss. Maybe if the average American knew that they might care more about North Korea.
At 7/1/04 05:10 PM, Proteas wrote: Where in The United States Constitution, a historical document which is the basis for this country, is there located anything that presents the ideal for "Seperation of Church and State?"
OK, I will provide some answer to this question. The separation of church and state is not explicitly stated in the constitution. But it is heavily implied. The freedom to excercise any religion is used to find this. The seperation of church and state stems from this in that any involvement of the church in the state is considered as the state proting a religion, that which is not unconstitutional. But by promoting a religion the government begins the interfere with freedom to exercise religion. This happens as the government has a large influence on the people's lives and when the government starts making religious bedbuddies (no this is not dirty, it's a clean word, ask webster) the people begin to be intimidated if they are not of that religion. This intimidation is a threat and a violation of the freedom of exercise clasue of the 1st amednment to the constitution.
This may not be the clearest explanation, but if you sift through it, you can at least see where the idea comes from.
But literally, there is nothing in the constitution that explicitly states seperation of cruch and state.
Hope that this was an adequate explanation.
The claim that marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman seems very spurious to me... But as of right now there is nothing I can say to refute it... with the exception that I think marriage is just a government title nowadays and that all people willing to honor it should be allowed to recieve it.
At 7/2/04 01:57 AM, red_skunk wrote:At 7/2/04 01:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No seriously, tell us, we would love to know.I just told you it's a gross topic. It's too large, vague.
Ok then just give us a little hint of why it is gross. I seriously want to know why people think it's gross.
At 7/2/04 01:56 AM, red_skunk wrote: Sorry, but I just have to - pretty pathetic poli-sci class.
Having done half ass work and getting an A in the class, while most of the class struggled to get by, I would have to agree with you...
OK, that's fair enough. Let's just say that I personally believe that the average person thinks that, from what I have seen and heard. Though that in no way makes it proof at all.
At 7/2/04 01:44 AM, red_skunk wrote:At 7/2/04 01:29 AM, niffweed17 wrote: well, tell us why it's gross,It's too broad of a topic.
No seriously, tell us, we would love to know.
Im with Raptorman here, I think P-funk would kick the funk out of all the other candidates.
At 7/2/04 01:27 AM, red_skunk wrote:At 7/2/04 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If you surveyed most Americans they would say that defense takes the biggest cut of the American Federal budgetI don't think anyone would say that.
Tell that to 350 college level Political Science students, people who should know more about the government than the average person. In my Political Science class it was overwhelmingly voted that people though the defense was the biggest part of the US budget.
