Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

About the civilian casualty figure that will be bandied around if this does come to war, (which it seems as if it will, now), one must pay attention to the source. I expect it will be similar to the first Gulf War where Saddam proclaimed these exorbitant civilian casualty rates and the international press hung around Bagdhad and lapped it up, reporting Hussein's every quip as incontrovertible truth. If Saddam says that we blew up a school with 1000 kids inside, it must be true, right?

I'm not saying there will be zero civilian casualties, fore they are unavoidable in any major campaign. I'm saying that one should show severly scrutinize such exaggerted figures.

Another thing to consider is that Saddam has quite a track record of placing military personnel and equipment in residential areas thus creating risks to civilians in the first place.

Not that I seriously expect any of you people on here to actually read it. Your mindless Bush-a-phobic leftism admits no other viewpoints or differing FACTS.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html

Interesting...

Current leaders? Then:

Saddam Hussein - just read Britain's newly compiled report on him if you need to know more

Jesse Jackson - the great deceiver of African-Americans everywhere

Kim Il-Jong (or something like that)

Tom Daschle - the other great demagogue in America

(maybe more later)

At 12/10/02 11:47 PM, VasIndustries wrote: Ronald Reagan was a terrible US President. He was a goddamn actor before becoming president. His economic policies buried the US into awful debt, and its been that way since. Just because none of the White House scandals of his presidency were pinned on him, doesn't mean he wasn't involved.

What!! Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever. Not only did he restore America's confidence in itself after the dreadful doom and gloom moaning of the Carter years, he brought down the USSR. He saw them crumbling and refused to string them along any farther. He outspent them in the military and refused to negotiate. Most notable was the Reykjavik conference over a nuclear arms treaty (one of the SALTs, I believe). Gorbachev tried to push him around and he simply left. The press and the liberals screamed, "He's bringing about the end of the world." A few weeks later, Gorbachev comes back ready to deal, humbler than ever.

Reagan gave America confidence in itself. Carter's point was always the "malaise over America", how terrible everything was. Reagan came in and said, no. It's a new day in America, the sun is rising, not setting. He had the conviction to say that we are better than the "Evil Empire (as he had the courage to state.)

At 12/10/02 06:56 PM, SolarisDX wrote: I think this forum should be renamed to 'Current Events & Politics' or 'Politics & Current Events'.

Or just make another forum for current events :)

how about the Let's-blame-everything-on-America-whine-and-nag-a-thon?

¡Huked en foneks wurkid fur mi!

At 12/3/02 01:45 AM, Spike_J_Wolfwood wrote:

At 12/3/02 01:29 AM, Verg wrote: Hmmm....let me think....
Let's a woman do what she wants?
I guess she wanted to spread her legs too.
Very interesting.
Actions without consequences.
Sounds very pathalogical to me.
But hek, what the hell do I know anyways?
It's just my opinion.

That it is, yet it doesn’t account for accidental or unwanted pregnancy. Lets say that the birth control methods fail or there is a rape. Pregnancy in not a necessary consequence to sex. This is not the middle ages and not everyone feels that they have sinned for not having sex strictly for reproduction. If it were not for the right to choose then at 18 I would have had a wife, a child, no education, and no way to support myself or those who would depend on me. We were responsible, condom and birth-control pills, one failed and then the next. If it were up to pro-life people my life, my girl friends, and that child’s would have almost certainly been ruined.

So they might have had to accept the consequences of their actions? Oh, the horror! The oppression! If you don't know that sex produces babies and contraception is not failproof then you shouldn't do it. There are consequences to a person's actions. If you play Russian Roulette but wear a bulletproof vest but you lose and it, by chance, penetrates the vest, can you say later "It's not fair! I wore a vest! How was I supposed to know that it might fail! It was just a fun game."

And then you go get a docter to slash your baby's throat.

THE COLD, HARD FACTS ABOUT GUNS

By John R. Lott Jr.

John Lott Jr., the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of
Chicago School of Law, is the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions.

Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.

Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety.

Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach.

The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims:

1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and
2) anyone could be a murderer. With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer.

However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on.

Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995, just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.

Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns.

There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's.

When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers.

Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).

Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense.

The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.

Copyright (c) 1998, Chicago Tribune

At 12/3/02 05:49 PM, napalm6b wrote: Ok man so you wrote a very nice report on the text book definitions of conservatism in America. However how is it applied? I think it's a question of priorities and perspective.

American conservatism believes that the government should support large industries because said large industries in times of success will bring up the standard of living of the common employee.

Where'd you get that from? Conservatives generally believe in a free enterprise system. It is the liberal educational system that has taught you that free enterprise = manipulative big business. Conservatives tend to support smaller private businesses run by ordinary people.

That in fact goes to the nuumber one myth about conservatives, that they want big corporations and an ultra-powerful central government. Conservatives in fact support and believe in the common man's ability to manage and think for himself rather than be controlled and micromanaged by government such as in a welfare state.

They also believe in strong military and police institutions to protect the average citizen and US interests abroad.

That is true. "World Peace" may be a nice ideal but we must be realistic. Nations must still be defended by people with guns.

I know I've greatly simplified things but that is a major part of there basic principals. I think their ideology is imbalanced. Corporations have shown time and again that they have no interest in protecting the average citizens. Names like Enron, Firestone, Exxon, Voicestream wireless, Microsoft and the whole health insurance industry come to mind. Hell I've worked for companies that have some pretty shady business policies and have screwed people over daily due to company policy. I have NO interest in seeing people like this running education and other public institutions.

Of course not and conservatives agree. Conservatism is based upon ethical and moral principles. Now why do you seem to associate big, shady corporations and conservatives? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER!

The conservative movement also sees no reason to try to rehabilitate criminals to get them off the streets. I'm not talking about murderers or rapists. I'm talking about narcotics trafficking and thieves. There answer is longer jail sentences and a larger police force, that isn't there to protect the people. It is out there to protect property...... These people need stability and order, not a cage. When they get out they will be meaner and do even more outragoues things because they have no place in normal society. I have seen with my own eyes how the conservative justice system turns people into career criminals.

You once again have been mislead about what conservatism is. A harsh police state is not the answer, I agree. The "stability" you mention is exactly what conservatives are striving for, first and foremost. The main thing we want is a sane and stable society. Most of modern crime and degredation is a result of the collapse of stable society, the core of which is the destruction of the nuclear family. All of this was brought about by liberalism, starting in the 60's.

The conservative movement isn't involved in rebuilding ghettos or creating social programs to give people the tools to get living wage employment. However the liberal movement is and that is why people say they have open arms for everyone.

nix the nationalism

Stalinist Russia
Khmer Rouge
Red China

all of the above

fascism has nothing to do with conservatism

try reading before you post plz

Introducing Conservatism

As Russell Kirk observed, one of conservatism's strengths is its tendency to resist definition. Conservatism does not reduce itself to some simple formula. At their best, the people you might call conservatives maintain a stance that is decisively un-ideological.

So what then is conservatism? Answers to that question are as various as the people who reasonably rely on the past wisdom to resist radical re-organizations of society.

Conservatism has its roots in the ancient world. Since 'The Republic of Plato', conservativism has been a series of attempts by rare, cultivated individuals (like Socrates) to induce others to think critically about the complexity of society. The conservative resists the simple formulas of the tyrant, the utopianist or the mob... not to mention the pollster, the sociologist, or the advertiser.

Abraham Lincoln famously described conservatism as the "adherence to the old and tried to the new and untried." In general, this is basically right. However, conservatives need not be opposed to change per se. Simply look at the changes Lincoln committed himself to: the creation of a federal income tax and a modern military, and an end to slavery in the U.S.

When William F. Buckley and the rest of the editors at 'National Review' stand athwart history yelling "Stop!," one has to wonder just what exactly they intend to obstruct. The twentieth century has created a confusion of somewhat contradictory models of conservatism. Ayn Rand and Patrick Buchanan have, for example, virtually nothing in common. Here, are conservatives grouped into three schools of opinion, those who defend traditional moral, cultural, and economic conditions. In reality, these schools of thought frequently overlap.

1. The Moral Order

Defenders of the traditional moral order tend to be Christian, but need not be. Conservative legal scholars and social scientists sometimes represent these moral positions without being overtly religious.

2. Cultural Conservatives
Cultural conservatives are perhaps the group least represented in the mainstream of current conservative opinion. They rather tend to dread the mainstream. Since the time of George Santayana and Henry Adams, they have inclined towards isolation and introversion.

3. Libertarian Economists and Anti-Statists

Conservatism since the beginning of the Cold War has provided a haven for old-fashioned laissez-faire liberals (as opposed to those "liberals" who are radically egalitarian).

In their opposition to statism, conservatives of the past often defended the eccentric individual against the conforming powers of modern society. However, the radical provocateurs of the past few decades have greatly altered the public's perception. Today, people tend to associate conservatism with moral-majority blue-noses. Liberalism, by contrast, appears to be the party of open-armed acceptance.

-Author unknown, but edited by me

I've been away from Newgrounds for a while. What are these new BLAM and Protection points? Can anyone explain the new voting system?

Thanks.

At 11/6/02 06:57 AM, Drimarki wrote: Republicans now have more seats in House of Representatives and the Senate. To me, what this means is that President George W. Bush would not have to worry about his actions being overrun by Senate, as now the legislative branch has more Republicans than Democrats. This means that it is easier for Bush to declare war on Iraq or any other countries he wish. And this obviously becomes a problem.

What would happen after he declared the war and won against Iraq? Does anybody honestly think that Bush would just sit there doing nothing? No. Since he is too stupid to think about economics, he would instead think about assaulting other countries. And this would result international problem. Look what Bush is doing right now. If the UN does not approve of his actions, then Bush is saying that he would attack Iraq by himself, meaning that he would not need any international aid. This already means that Bush is ready to do whatever actions, and it does not matter if the other nations agree or disagree to that action.

So the whole point of this is... that the fact that Republicans have taken more seat in House of Representatives and the Senate than Democrats is aiding Bush, which causes problems.

Actually, Congress has already voted and approved granting Bush the power to use force if necessary and that was before the election.

You seem to be suffering from the popular Bushaphobia. He is not going to just start "assaulting other countries" for no reason. We are going against Iraq because they've been putting on a smoke and mirrors show about their weapons programs for a decade. They've lied to the UN, they've lied to us, they've lied to everybody. Some of these "presidential palaces" that the weapons inspectors are being refused access to are THOUSANDS OF ACRES. Together they make up the area of an entire city, more than enough room to hide weapons. Even the weapons inspectors agree. The last time they got access to one after months of haggling, it was absolutely wiped of anything. They said there had been an obvious cleanup job. Something had been there.

And about the UN supporting him, guess what? They do. Everyone was afraid that he would just attack and not go through the UN. The Bushaphobics ranted about this on and on. Guess what? He did go to the UN. Now after negotiating, the security council voted UNANIMOUSLY to adopt the US resolution. We can'tgo soft on these tin-pot dictators anymore. He has one chance to let inspectors in to anything with no notice or he's dead. Sometimes it just doesn't get any simpler.

Check out this story: Europeans Outlaw Net Hate Speech

Once again, European leaders prove themselves to be socialist censors. Odd since that is what Europeans accuse the US of...

This is one step closer to 1984. "Hate speech"? That term is almost straight out of Orwell.

At 8/9/02 07:27 AM, Slizor wrote:
Human nature can not be proven, it is an unsupported premise.

Human nature is what makes us tick. It is the direct result of millions of years of evolution. It is the set of basic instincts and desires that we are born with. When you're a baby, does society tell you to want food when you're hungry, or to cry to get it? Human nature supplies basic desires and motives, refined from our basic need and the animal desires of our evolutionary ancestors. Society channels and facilitates those desires. Why do people get an education? To get a job, obviously. Why do they need a job? To eat and live. Why don't they just steal what they need? Well, some do, but society has channeled that desire. If you want to live, then you must work for it. That is how you live, but society did not tell you to want to live in the first place. If you don't believe in human nature, then explain it. You merely say that it can't be proven. Alright, so prove it doesn't exist, because I have made my case. Saying that it just can't be proven is an excuse of a response. By your logic, I can't prove that you exist.

This is not an explaination, this is a weak attempt of a cover-up.

It is simple logic based on evolutionary and everyday evidence. If you tell me to do something for "the good of the proleteriat," I might do it. Offer me money or payment that I can keep and spend as mine alone, to do it, then I will be much more inclined.

Communism does not have to be totalitarian.

And 2+2 doesn't have to equal four, but it does. Communism has inbuilt totalitarian tendancies that lead to oppression. Communism is based on political theory, as much as it is touted as the common man's political system. Only a few elite intellectual types can truly understand this theory and it's direction in a revolution. THey rise to the top and become the new elite rulers (Lenin, Trotsky, etc.) They describe themselves as champions of the people, because the people don't know what they really want, they must be "set in the right direction" by men who "know what they're doing."

Actually it's those who produce and those that do not. The Middle class is bourgeoisie.

So all are decadent bourgeoisie exploiting the "people" except the absolute poorest of the poor. I ask you then, who are the "people", if the majority (the middle class) is "bourgeoisie"?

*cough* Unsupported.

Look around you, there are many examples. I'll give you another. After the Vietnam War, many South Vietnamese immigrants came to the US, the so-called "boat people." Many of them settled along the Gulf coast and became shrimp trawlers. A few families would pool their money and work until they could get their own boat. They saved all they had and began shrimping. They would often live on the boat in tight cramped quarters because they couldn't afford a house, but they had two important things, the will to work and ambition. They saved all that they had and eventually they became more successful than the shrimp trawlers that already lived in the area. Now, they've replaced many of the original fisherman and are doing quite well. Why? Was it government handouts? Was it welfare that made them successful? It was the will to work and get ahead.

They were not communist, don't get me to go into it since even you Commander accept this arguement.

It is proof. Who won the Cold War? Who is leading the world whilst Russia is trying to grasp the concept of not being dictated to about how to work and earn a living?

If every dollar counts as a vote and Bill Gates has trillions of Dollars....

Then that probably means he he makes a good product. If Windows didn't work, then rather than getting a subsidy from the central government to prop up a bad product and force feed it to the public through government stores, he would have been forced to madke something better or go out of business and find another occupation. He makes a good product, not perfect, but the best on the market, and thus, the public has voted him number one.

But it causes a recession. Der.

A recession is just a correction. The market cannot grow infinitely, nor can it be stagnant. It must constantly be moving, and this means down as well as up.

Designing is not what he was talking about. He was talking about things like sweatshops.

Yes, but what was needed, (and what was done), was reform, not a risky and radical new social order.

Again, his arguement falls apart with the Bill Gates, loads of votes thing.

Yes, he has loads of "votes." This is a bad thing?

He is saying that the government is controlled by Capitalists, thus the poor have no power, when the few who would control get into power they will work for the poor, not the rich.

That is naive. Power corrupts.

This justification is that if they get rid of private property, they destroy the rich....who live off private property.

Or they destroy private property so now everyone is poor, (except the central government, of course). This in fact what happened.

At 7/31/02 06:32 AM, susanowoo wrote: Israel are murders !

Nice picture piece of propaganda, but your prscious palestinians commit equal or worse atrocities. At least most Israeli victims are those that are caught in the line of fire and killed by sloppy military action.

Shalhevet Pass, shot through the head in her mother's arms, by a Palestinian sniper.

Given my apparent inability to post the long "Misconceptions about Conservatism" topic, I wont even try to post this, but rather link to source where I found it. Just a few comments on Marx's Communist Manifesto. You "Neo-Communists" really should examine what your beliefs are founded upon before you defend them.

Click here

At 8/7/02 07:00 AM, susanowoo wrote: No !

Why? Just to prove to the World that he is the Boss of the World ?

We all know that the USA is the best army of the World.We all know that the USA controls.

Why this fucker of Bush wants to attack Irak ?

Probably has something to do with his large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and his continual defiance to UN weapons inspections. If he isn't building these weapons, then why won't he allow inspections. He's guilty, we know, he knows it and he also thinks he can get away with it.

At 7/9/02 05:28 PM, Slizor wrote:

Kennedy was not on the left.

He was a democrat, you know...

My point exactly.

Mine too. He was a democrat, a member of a left wing party. How are the democrats right wing? Their very foundations are upon social programs and soft socialism.

Whatever. It's not the point, Conservatism helps the rich. Easy as.

Conservatism doesn't "help" anybody. It neither helps nor hurts but is a social system. And tell me how conservatism helps the rich.

I'll assume you meant "can't". And why can't you?

I did mean can't (where's that edit button!) You can't please everyone, because people aren't the same. That was one of the reasons socialism failed, it tried to treat people like identical factory made cogs to assembled into a social machine, or as mere numbers to be shuffled around on paper.

It's also assumed the form of his name, most(all the I have come across) muslims, who can't speak Arabic call him Allah.

Still, "God" is a very general term. Which God were they talking about when they wrote it? We don't know.

I need a source that says Christians have different moral stances? Here's one example. Mormons think it is ok to have two wives. Catholics don't.

You've picked one of the most far flung sects as an example. I'm not sure how "Christian" they are. Many of their ideas, (such as polygamy), are explicitly prohibited by the Bible and Christian tradition. They also believe that you can go on to become a God after you die if you've done enough good things. Consider also that this sect was founded by a convicted con man who miraculously "had a vision" and was handed a couple of golden plates, by an angel, containing an addition to the bible. Did he not keep these plates? Where are they?

First, I'd like to say that the incident with the girl getting in trouble is an isolated incident. I know at my school, and every other one I've seen or been to, it is not required. You just don't have to say it. As simple as that. In fact, most of my classmates don't because they simply don't care.

As for the argument of imposing religion, in what does it do that? Does it specify a religion to follow? Does it even force you to follow one? Certainly not. If you're truly an atheist, then you shouldn't even care because you consider it all bogus anyway. Also, where in the constitution is it guaranteed? It says that the government shall not establish a religion and it hasn't done so.

Second, how far do we carry this? Those judges that decided to cut it out, they took their oath saying, "So help me god." If their own ruling is true, then they aren't even judges since they took an unconstitutional oath. Congress assembles saying, "God save this honorable court." Will this be cut out as well? And I guess we'll have to cut out the phrase "In God we trust," out of every coin or scrap of currency. This sort of revisionism and erasure of a nation's heritage is exactly what those such as Stalin and Mao-Tse-Tung did. Yes, the phrase "Under God" was added in the 1950's, but the concept itself is an integral part of this nation, passed down from it's founders.

BTW, what if I believe we were all created by giant pigeons? Will yourevise an entire nation to accomodate me? This is how special interests operate, changing things to try and accomodate everyone because it would be so horrible if someone disagreed and was not immediately catered to. They destroy individuality and uniqueness to create a "consensus" so that everone "agrees." Think about what's really being done here.

At 7/9/02 05:52 PM, Slizor wrote:

Which is?

That you resort to petty name calling.

The evidence is insufficent, what you have "proved" is that "I have called you a name"(to be inaccurate). Which, unsurprisingly an idiot could, and probably would point out.

It was a minor point that you made major, so don't look at me about it.

It's not a fabrication(I said seems). You don't just support Israel's right to exist, you support Israel. And it might have slipped your attention, but they do seem very intent on the eradication of the palestinians.

They seem very intent on not being mobbed to death by angry Arabs. They must invade Palestine because Palestine is intent on invading them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't a Palestinian come to the same conclusion?

You most likely come to a conclusion based upon what side you support.

How can you cut back the amount of tax dollars for them, yet still provide them?

It's not the government's job to "provide" for them.

So when you say "cut back governmental excess" it means that you stop supporting the most disadvantaged people in society? No?

It means refusing to subsidize those who won't get ahead in society. This country has more opportunity thatn any other in the world, and it's no suprise that the oppressed and disadvantaged from all over the world come here.

There is also a misperception of just how many poor people there are in this country. In fact, there are just 12.7%

At 7/9/02 06:58 AM, Necromancer31362 wrote: well, ill agree, that palestine doesnt want any jews near it, but sometimes you think that noone does :D

BUT, as im a person full of contradictions.... yes im currently in love with a jewish person.
anyway, so someone must have masterminded using giant bulldozers to move the jews.

WAIT..... the israeli's beat them to it. look @ Jenin.

Jenin, the media-made "massacre." There is absolutely no evidence to support any "massacre" other than what flows from Arafat's propaganda machine, and quite a good one it is. He rivals Dr. Goebbels.

In this alleged "massacre" about 70 Palestinians died. What you don't hear is that almost an equal number of Israeli soldiers died and most of the Palestinian "victims" were not innocent civilians but armed militants taking part in a running firefight where it is inevitable that a handful of civilians will get caught in the crossfire.

At 7/9/02 05:36 AM, susanowoo wrote: no comment

"Freedom" at what cost?

At 7/10/02 01:13 PM, Necromancer31362 wrote: well what i was trying to say was

putin is a friggin ogre. he's ex KGB

bush is a texan. enough said.

Texans are very stereotyped.

clinton is a hick that got a little too happy while in office. hence the garish smile and the yellow area complexion around mouth.

yeltsin just has a few problems.

And for those of you who like to bash Bush, here's the alternative:

At 7/10/02 10:28 PM, Necromancer31362 wrote: hm english politics always reminded me of my friend.
btw said friend is a gay porn addict.
he is flat out disgusting.


lol he is bush's little bitch. i say the EU take up political arms against the US and show it what it is..... an overpowerful nation in a world that loves to hate it.

but maybe that should be another thread :D

The EU, a group of jealous European leaders who like to whine at the US because we seem to have the notion that we're an independent sovereign nation or something. If we ever do anything with letting them tag along, then it's "dangerous unilateralism." They have no serious power or sway in world events and we don't really care about them. That's why they're jealous.