Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/13/03 12:02 PM, karasz wrote: well care to explain why???

Margaret Thatcher - for limiting government, breaking the abusive power of Britains rampant unions in the 1980s and asserting sovereignty in the Falklands.

David Horowitz - incredible essayist and conservative thinker. He also has the guts to stand up and expost the leftist censorship in universities today. Most of all, he was once a leading leftist in the 1960s.

Walter E. Williams - great political essays. He's a professor of economics (can't remember the name of the school).

Milton Friedman - one of the greatest economic thinkers ever and an ardent supporter of the free market

Ronald Reagan - for leading America out of the Carter-era "doom & gloom", cutting taxes, endeavoring to limit government and spending the Soviet Union into obselesence.

although i have to question horowitz... hes no different than coulter, shout and complain about the left wing conspiracy...

You've got a very colored view of him, then. His works are always well thought out and carefully reasoned. As for him and Ann Coulter, read The Trouble with "Treason".

At 7/13/03 10:37 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Blarg! I'm sick of goatse! Is that all you people ever serve around here?

We also serve tubgirl for $2.99

At 7/13/03 11:53 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: America is the world's only superpower, America declared itself to be the police state of the world therefore it is only logical to hold America responsible of its actions on a global level.

So that makes it the world's scapegoat.

Hmmm. I see Ninja has hijacked this topic.

Should I give you what you want? Here it is:

Ninja is always right because she writes more and so must be more intelligent!! She believes all others are wrong which must make her right.

Is that what you want to hear?

And yes, you are arrogant because rather than argue with those who disagree, you also try to belittle them and assume that they just must not "get it".

And if you'd bother to have checked, you'd see that I certainly have given sources in the past. You seem to take offense when I ask for sources, but I only do this to unreasonable claims. If someone asked for sources from me, I'd give them. Remember: these are BBS posts, not term papers. By the way, I'm still waiting for a source on this "water poisoning". Don't you think people would notice if 500,000 children died in a country of only 24.6 million people?

If you could give arguments without turning your nose up at people, criticizing sources without constantly providing any yourself and trying to personally undercut anyone who disagrees, then maybe I'd take you more seriously.

The last thing people should do is get their news from a comedy show and then complain about "infotainment".

Political heroes? Hmmm....

Margaret Thatcher
David Horowitz
Walter E. Williams
Milton Friedman
Ronald Reagan

At 7/12/03 05:04 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: B) Saddam did get nukes, and guess from who? The US. Remember just 20 years ago in the Iranian Conflict? Or were you born yet? lol.

We gave him assistance, but not nukes. lol.

Instead of none? lol. You do realize that just 10 years ago the US caused the purposeful water contamination act that killed over 500,000 iraqi children alone, right?

Or were you born yet then? lol.

Ahh, condescending arrogance. lol.

lol.

lol.

roflmao.

heeheehee.

Or were you not born yet?

In fact, in the last 20 years, the US has caused the purposeful deaths of way more Iraqi civilians than Suddam had in his entire reign.

You're guessing about that. We don't know the exact casualty figures.

That should answer the next person who wants to know if they're happier with the US ruling them than Suddam. lol.

A country that fights to enforce a UN resolution and stop dangerous arms buildups or a brutal dictator?

lol.

Not that Suddam was great or anything (obviously), but he was definetly the lesser of two evils to the Iraqi people.

I see. So we've put people in underground prisons, torture chambers and executed tens of thousands for political dissent? lol.

LOLOLOL!!!!! Laddies and Gentlemen, a perfect example of the rarely seen "The Liberals are out to get ya" Republican.

Way to brand someone with your own prejudiced view!

lol.

Please, sir, if you really love that big lovible idiot, actually read my posts there. Heh heh. And maybe while you're at it, check out some of my sources.

"That big lovable idiot"? Now there's an argument!

lol.

The ultra-large SUVs are somewhat ludicrous, but I hardly see much of them anymore. Ford stopped making their super-large, 11-seat SUV.

Yes, I drive an SUV, but's a fairly small one. I like it because I can haul a fair amount of stuff, seat several people and be high off the ground for good visibility. They're great vehicles in terms of functionality.

Also, Bakshi, the BMP-2 owns.

I find it funny.

"Schmooble", obviously based on snooble. Come on, you know you love us.

Just because we once had very open immigration does not mean that we can continue that policy forever.

Times change and sometimes policies must change to reflect that.

Personally, I think that the immigration levels are fine as they are, but I don't yell 'hypocrisy' because many people think they should be changed.

At 7/12/03 04:47 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: People are getting a lot more vocal about the "misleading" information the Bush administration gave out prior to the Iraq war.
I hope this blows up with some big conspiracy.
"Baghdadgate"...no, that just doesn't have the ring to it.

They're usually pretty quick to put a -gate on the end so they can have their nice, neat, pre-written scandal. It seems, though, that the CIA told the administration that the Africa information was real. Bush probably didn't know that it was false.

What a lot of the left is trying to do with this though is use the falseness of a single minor statement in one speech to eclipse all the more solid and important things.

What I meant was that theoretically, strictly theoretically, a person could think one thing but do something else entirely.

At 7/10/03 03:03 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: I agree but what they do is determined by how they think.

What I'm saying is that what they think doesn't matter as long as they don't act on anything (such as racism).

Gandhi may have been the most violent militant ever, but it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't act on it.

This is all theoretical, so nevermind.

At 7/9/03 11:51 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote:

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/index.php

So your source is "Michael Moore says so"?

I am not reffering to the communist axis of evil, though.

Yet wars with them are part of the "statistics" you cite.

There was a dictatorship in, say, Grenada?

Grenada's stable government was overthrown in a violent Marxist coup and the U.S. sent a force to restore order at the request of other Caribbean islands and nations, as well as to rescue Americans trapped on the island. It was an extremely brief and relatively bloodless conflict.

GRENADA CASUALTY FIGURES:
U.S.-- 19 dead (officially).
Grenada-- 49 dead and several hundred wounded.
Cuba-- 29 dead and over a hundred wounded.

Source: Kohn, George C. Dictionary of Wars.

I'm not talking about the cold war.

All this took place during that time period and was part of that conflict. These events cannot be looked upon as isolated incidents. The full political climate, tension and struggle of the time must be taken into account.

At 7/9/03 11:23 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Nothing like Pro-U.S. spin to make it look like George will save your nation even if you don't have oil. Not like there's that much saving involved here.

They're demanding our intervention. As the nation that has been Liberia's historical protector and guidance, we can't ignore them.

At 7/9/03 11:15 PM, BaKsHi wrote: ewwww thats gross dindn't i tell u i'd puke if i heard about that stuff. [covers his mouth and runs]

Believe me, it's not true. At least, I've never heard of it.

Results vary, though. If you retest, and truly answer honestly, your result may be a little different because you may consider the questions slightly differently.

I took it again and my results were:

Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Authoritarian/Libertarian: 0.26

At 7/9/03 10:04 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: There is this magic cheese that southern texans make. They leave this cheese out side and let the flys lay maggots in it and "Bon Apatet'" cheese Texaas style

[sarcasm]
Riiiiiight!
[/sarcasm]

The government may not be much of a problem. Bush has said he'll only send in troops once Taylor leaves office. Taylor has said he'll leave when peacekeeping force arrive.

Can't they just get this over with?

At 7/9/03 12:58 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Ok, what are you doing ignoring my posts?

Hey, I don't have the time to respond to every post, every time or read every single line. Don't get impatient.

Almost 5 000 000 people have died as a result of US interventions

That's a handy "statistic". Any sort of proof or basis for it?

most of them were casualties on the U.S's war on countries which tried to run a collectivist system.

You mean the regimes that practically enslaved their own people under authoritarian dictatorships with forced collectivization, mass executions, political purges, secret police and rule by fear and murder?

Tens, if not hundreds, of millions of their own people died from these regimes (USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.), not to mention the casualties when they invaded their neighbors in wars of conquest.

Peaceful "collectivism"? I think not.

What people that toss around arguments about U.S. interventionist tactics often do is tell a one sided story. You talk of Cold War, yet only mention one side. Add to this a bit of exaggeration and smudging of the truth and you can tell a story about great evils and atrocities committed by evil imperialists upon a peaceful, unsuspecting world. It's an interesting story, but it's a drastic departure from the truth which is that the Cold War was a forty year conflict played out between two equally matched superpowers and their allies.

At 7/9/03 08:53 AM, _crossbreed_ wrote: How do you know if your political candidate is racist or not if he's keeping it a secret?

Do they act racist? Do they implement racist policies?

What politicians think is their own business. What they do is what matters.

At 7/9/03 12:47 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Yes, just as primitive as, say, the Native Americans and Africans (later, African-Americans). Well, good thing we're doing what we always do when we find a "primitive" people. Kill them. It's never failed to show how advanced our society is in comparison.

So you're saying that some sort of genocidal, racially-motivated war is going on?

At 7/8/03 11:30 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: You can't have a handful of people representing millions of people, it simply doesn't work.

You can't have millions of people all trying to represent themselves, though. That's simply chaos and anarchy.

People will naturally gravitate toward people they agree with and form groups. Political parties are inevitable as long as enough people hold fairly common views.

At 7/9/03 12:19 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote: Yep, P.S. Why did Republicans get the Elephant and the Democrates get the awesome powerful, majestic ASS?

It came from a political cartoon in the early 1900s that depicted the presidential candidates riding animals in the "presidential race".

At 7/7/03 11:32 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Did you ever stop to think that the world might have a reson to hate America?

Of course they have "reasons". The Nazis also had "reasons".

At 7/8/03 09:55 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Is there anyone not in the second quadrant?

Only me, so far. I was upper-right, around Tony Blair. Of course, Alejandro, Raptorman and the few other "right-leaning" users either haven't taken the test or haven't posted their results yet.

At 7/8/03 11:08 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: What weapons? Are you talking about the pesticide or the centrifuge?

Or the mustard gas, anthrax, etc. that we know for fact that he possessed at the end of the last Gulf War. The uranium buying in Africa turned out to be false, but we know that he once had weapons and he's done nothing since to show that they've been destroyed. Therefore, it was and is correct to assume that they still exist.

At 7/8/03 06:13 PM, Crack_Smoker wrote: they are not admitting the truth: that GW actually knew that the claims were false at the time he was making them.

And you, of course, know this for a fact?

Yes, the information on uranium purchases was forged, apparently, but that does not warrant jumping to the conclusion that Bush deliberately lied. He may very well have been misled as well, or the information may have been obfuscated or buried through the inefficiencies and inter-departmental communication problems within the bureacracy. Right now, we don't know so it's best not to jump to conclusions.

At 7/8/03 03:29 AM, DarkCyrstal wrote: They need more drug dealers/Odd job laborers.

Drug smuggling is one thing, but most are here simply to earn some money.

At 7/7/03 09:55 PM, _crossbreed_ wrote: Besides, where is self-defense mentioned in "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." ?

A militia is organized for self-defense in times of war.

The wording of the amendment states that private citizens shall be allowed to own guns. It states that this is intended as a way to maintain militias, but it does not make this right dependent on the militia clause.