Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/13/06 09:30 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Are you aware of how fucking retarded you are? The issue was never whether or not the deaths in Iraq affect ME EMOTIONALLY. The argument was whether or not 665,000 was an accurate, credible, and honest estimate...WHICH IT ISN'T.

Alright you want to get back to the issue at hand. Yes 665k is less than 45k, however, just as you remain speculative of the 665k figure I remain speculative of your 45k figure.

Now since I made my point you have to throw out bullshit trying to paint the picture that I am content with the death of innocent people, which I'm not. You have to resort to attacking me personally instead of sticking on topic. The topic of argument was the ACCURACY of the 665,000 figure, not whether or not the ACTUAL number is something to be happy or sad about... You use the typical liberal tactic of adding emotionally-charged rhetoric to discredit your opposition rather than argue the points.

No. You come out here cellardoor, rejecting anything which doesn't sound good to you as you always do. The 665k figure did not appeal to you so you had to present evidence for a 45k figure which was much lower than the 665k. That's fine and dandy and obviously 45k is less than 665k, however, I'm also saying 45k is still a pretty high number though and should not be undermined just because it's smaller than the 665k in the other statistic. In case you didn't notice, that was a separate argument.

Are you retarded, seriously? Because it seems you lack the ability to argue coherently and actually stay in-context to the argument.

Says you and you lack the ability to not be precipitously slanted in your arguments, so what?

If US troops had the policy of killing every Iraqi civilian like was suggested, if they WEREN'T trying to avoid civilian deaths, then there would be barely any Iraqis alive and the entire country would be rubble (which it currently isn't despite the isolated media pictures of small areas of Baghdad, or by the out of context photos of Iraq when the media leaves out the fact that Iraq was a unsightly 3rd world country long before the Iraq war.)

You also forgot to mention photos of decimated innocent people, schools, jobs and facilities such as a baby formula factory all reduced to "smoking rubble" by our own bombs and tax dollars as you say.

Once again you can't argue in a coherent manner you have to rant uncontrollably...

Right and you feel you have to attack me personally and viciously whenever I say something you don't agree with me. You wonder why I said you didn't care about 45k deaths? So you know how it feels when people insult you personally for trying to prove a point.

The points of your statement are immediately repudiated by the sheer stupidity of the statement itself. You're just a ranting lunatic.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

At 10/14/06 05:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 10/14/06 05:01 AM, goozebump wrote:

At 10/13/06 09:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I found the quote by the Brig General, so scratch that part of my post.

hahah, dumbass.

It doesn't really have anything to do with the rest of the argument so big deal.

We know but we had to cherish you making a fool of yourself and missing a prominent statement like that... in your own evidence no less.

At 10/14/06 12:35 AM, Nylo wrote: Power outages.

No country on earth throws a shit-fit when the power goes out like the U.S.A

Ya'rlly people become useless zombies when there's no energy, I SEEN IT with my own two eyeses! No but seriously I think if we had a massive power outage for a month, things would be very different. Maybe people would get along like when it happened in NY or maybe they'd trample over each other like when the Katrina struck New Orleans.

At 10/13/06 08:02 PM, BeFell wrote: THE BIG FUCKING THREE

What tree? Oh wait you said three...

That ought to do it, maybe.

Do what? ... You're being to vague...

At 10/13/06 05:14 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: School is just not for everyone.

Perhaps not the way it's set up for some. I despised school through my teenage years, especially middle-school and high-school. Somehow the university experience has been totally different and a whole lot more enriching, and I've never even been to a single college party x.x

The country always need people serving, not just in times of crisis.

True that actually. Soldiers are needed in times of peace-keeping or providing humanitarian aid not just in times of all-out war.

At 10/13/06 05:26 PM, dySWN wrote: If the democrats win the presidency, then the increase in driving age will be the least of our problems...

Yeah seriously, we'd have a whole lot more to worry about like people who think democrats running a democratic government would be a problem.

Anywho, if there are less 16-year-olds driving about then would that also suggest a decrease in retarded little Honda cars with a bunch of pointless stickers, crappy paint jobs and useless enormous spoilers on them? If so, I VOTE DEM!

At 10/13/06 03:06 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: …so was i….it’s just my humour is very dry (i am British after all)….and doesn’t suit the smiley face.

Says there (in your profile) you're Scottish... wait... am I missing something?

The NRA is too-powerful an organization to just simply be ignored, whether anyone like it or not. I mean... they've got guns ;O no but seriously they have pull, moreso than GreenPeace, Peta or NAMBLA <.<'

At 10/14/06 01:33 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: Fuck it, I’ve got myself into a debate with jlwelch, he’s fucking intolerable.

I think a screw came loose somewhere between your first and second posts in this thread. What was that about dude?

At 10/13/06 06:17 AM, fli wrote: Communism is a big one...

That was at it's peak during the cold war. Now I would say, in the broad political perspective it's:
1. Change
2. Too much freedom (But where do you draw the line?)

A wise man once said: "Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" meaning, you're free to do what you want so long as you're not causing harm. But then again... abortions can harm either the mother (for not having it) or child (for having it), stem cell research destroys the embyo (although the umbilical cord stem cells are a new thing) yet it has the potential to fix things and there are other examples which are eluding me more and more as I get sleepier and sleepier... well that's my cue g'night everyone.

At 10/13/06 05:53 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Goddamn you are a fucking moron. The point is that 45,000 is based on the body counts, not personal accounts and this LEGITIMATE finding is alot lower than the 665,000 number. Therefore I provided a link to document that, now you use your stupid sarcasm "we can spare a few more..."

Apparently 45,000 dead doesn't mean shit to you dude. I understand it's a figure MUCH lower than the 650,000 but dude... still... 45,000 dead... how desensitized are you?

Oh and this statement was unsettling.
“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

Source???

Your own website which your provided me with, thank you much. If you're going to question that quote, we might as well start questioning their figures as well, and it would further-prove you reject anything which isn't pleasant to you.

If US forces had the policy of just killing every Iraqi civilian they saw and weren't trying to avoide civilian casualties like they are ordered to, there would be millions of casualties, the whole country would be a pile of burning rubble.

Hm I suppose a pile of burning rubble would be a little worse than a pile of sand and smoking rubble aye?

Besides, it's hard not to "kill civilians" when the people you are fighting wear civilian clothes and are SURROUNDED by civilians don't you think?

Yes, and you have your beloved administration to thank for leading us into a war they damned well knew they could not win, would turn out to be like Vietnam and would later admit they would have no choice but to gradually pull troops back and leave each faction/group to its own territories.

At 10/13/06 05:44 AM, poxpower wrote: People who end up on the fighting fronts are often not the brighest batch of fellahs, because if they were, they'd be in an office pushing a pen instead of doing push-ups in the desert :o

Hence, shit happens.

Just imagine what it was like in ancient times. Imagine the insane shit Roman soldiers could pull when they went "haywire".

Exactly! Thank you pox. A lot of people who end up in the military don't end up there because they got into Yale or something. They end up there for any single or combination of the following reasons:
1. Need the money
2. Can't go to school because of money
3. Don't want to go to school (hence are retarded)
4. Like to be ordered around
5. They are decieved into thinking a military education surpasses a college education (which it does not, I'll give it the benefit of a doubt of saying they're on the same level though).

Notice, the first two reasons I can sympathize with, but the middle two are just plain foolish. And people do go into the military for reasons 3 and 4! A friend of mine in the Army went because he needs the money. His sister, who is in a position to go to college wants to go to the military instead. Why? She doesn't want to go to school, she wants to go out there while waiting for her shaved-head gangster boyfriend to get out of jail. I'm not making this up. She's just one of many examples. Family memebers who have been in the military tell me not to go. Family members who have been in college tell me to go. Hmm.. I wonder why...

In conclusion: If you like to be ordered around, can't think for yourself very well and are afraid of having your own agency, the military might be a place for you. And if you want to be brave and your country seriously does need you (for a serious war and not some stupid invasion) then no one can criticize you.

At 10/13/06 05:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I did some searches for this story and came up with nothing.

Maybe this Nika is full of crap. It's not like a school newspaper is a credible source of information...

Dude do you just automatically reject any information you recieve that doesn't fall good on your ears and accept any information which does? Either that or you're a bad searcher because apparently lapis found some additional information. Let me guess now you're going to say lapis and I are in cahoots? Conspiracy theory from a conservative? Please -.-

At 10/13/06 04:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Bill Clintons sex scandal was NEVER an issue during elections. Republicans seperated it from the political debates, they didn't use it for ammuntion to gains seats in congress and they didn't specifically target certain Democrats that they needed to oust in order to benefit strategically. Democrats however have been attacking certain Republicans with whom their fellow Democrats need to beat in the upcoming elections.

Right then you've got Bush on the defense calling Kerry a "flip-flopper." Kerry switched his decision on going to war because he was originally under the impression Iraq had WMD's (which it did not). Bush was also under the same impression, they were both victims of faulty intelligence. The only difference was when Kerry realized it was faulty, he said "never mind" and Bush stayed the course. I mean obviously who isn't going to vote for a hard-headed president rather than one who can listen to reason right?

This is what seperates Democrats from Republicans.

Exactly.

I picked up my school's newspaper today and found an article which upset me. It didn't upset me because it happened, it upset me because I put myself in the victim's shoes and suddenly my heart sank and I was depressed for a couple hours. Also, I would at least want someone to learn of this man's tragic, cruel and untimely demise.

The article is as follows:
By Nika Pari Nourmohammadi
Times Contributing Writer

Last friday, a Navy corpsman testified that the Marines in his patrol seized an innocent Iraqi civilian on the way to his home and threw him into a cramped ditch. They were releasing the frustration gained from a search for an insurgent by shooting the Iraqi at least 10 times in the head. Bacos was a medic on patrol with the group and watched in horror as Hashim Ibrahim Awad was killed. Bacos struck a deal with the prosecutors taht he would testify as long as he got a lighter sentence.

At 10/12/06 08:38 PM, BanditByte wrote: Whether you realize it or not I wasn't being serious with that statement.

Bah.. then uh... I wasn't either... >.>'..... HA!

At 10/12/06 03:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Here

And read this

and

Thank you cellardoor for providing the links. Phew it's just around 45,000 people, it's ok folks we can spare a few more :S

Oh and this statement was unsettling.
“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.

Yes that's good advice because he knows they'd be up in arms if they saw that as any one of you would if you saw people you knew or people like you being killed in an invasion of your home. Some advice for the Brigadier General would be... "don't kill any civilians" that seems a lot more rational than just ignoring innocent death as he suggests.

At 10/11/06 09:06 AM, The-Stefan wrote: In myth busters they have showed that you can filter used deep-fryer juice wich is something you can get from a resturant since they consider it trash, and then pour it in the engine. It works just as well as gasoline.

Yup and it can give your exhaust fumes the following smells:
1. Fried chicken
2. Fried shrimp
3. French fries
4. Fried bacon

At 10/12/06 09:31 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: During college, I lived on an all-girls floor. One of my guy friends would try and come to see me as much as he could because it "smelled better" where I lived.

"Where you lived?" Mmmmhm, so that's what they're calling it now...

At 10/11/06 11:20 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Therefore anyone who believes that finding is an idiot.

Therefore could you please provide us with some sources so we can stop being so idiotic?

Oh and I wasn't making any serious claims in this topic using wikipedia. The link I posted was in conjunction with a mockery I had created towards the thread-starter. Read the rest of the post before attempting to insult someone, ape.

Because it's going to give me the same answers as scholarly articles, it's faster, and I don't have to go through a bunch of research just to fucking impress you. Pardon my rudeness but I'm sick, feel like shite right now and for you to assume every internet source is completely WRONG WRONG WRONG is just bullshit.

At 10/12/06 01:36 AM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: Gang-bang would i suppose...

None of that tag-team stuff around these forums please, there are children in here! >.> um <.< I think...

At 10/11/06 10:40 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/oldbbs/

Holy crap, I feel like I just got tossed back into the stone age... musn't touch anything... could upset the course of the future... *sneezes on fly and watches all the dinosaurs become infected and die in a domino effect* d'oooooh.... :(

At 10/11/06 10:41 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: All I’ll say is education is infinitely more powerful than legislation.

Not to mention infinitely more important. You wouldn't have crappy legislation if you had truly-educated individuals running the show. No not with honorary doctorates but with something they earned from going to University and kicking ass in class with room for expansive discourse and real teaching for at least 6 years.

At 10/11/06 10:40 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The countries who DIDN'T are the typically corrupt and selfish countries that were illegally profiting off of Iraq anyway!

France was profitting off Iraq? On the terms of what? Fuel for their crappy Peugeot French vehicles?

At 10/11/06 10:37 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: (<-- that number lies, I'm missing 1000 posts from the old bbs.)

What old BBS? Are we in some sort of New Testament BBS now? No more sacrifices? *Snaps fingers* dang :/

At 10/11/06 10:27 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Besides if cartels aren't transporting drugs, they'll be transporting other things: weapons, organs, immigrants, fake currency, ivory, whores, children, cheap labor, etc...

By the same argument you're making... should we also legalize those things I listed above? Then cartels will be completely extinct, but does the price justify the reward?

At 10/11/06 10:32 PM, Freakapotimus wrote: Look, I just give it up, I have no control over who gets it after that.

Noo he wants you to pass the blunt to the left, assuming he's on your left. Seriously though, you can't recommend someone to take it in your stead?

At 10/11/06 10:20 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The only way to curb this is to make it illegal.

I know you meant "legal." :)

As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Drugs are in constant demand.

True

I would compromise for just marijuana right now, as harder drug-addictions are very tragic, but their being illegal helps nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. If substances carry the "illegal" label on them, it makes sane, rational and reasonable individuals not want anything to do with them. If substances are later labeled as legal, I think more people would get in on them because they wouldn't feel so bad since they're not breaking the law. Perhaps if they were legalized with an extremely high tax... hm... nah that'd be almost like what we have now.

Besides if cartels aren't transporting drugs, they'll be transporting other things: weapons, organs, immigrants, fake currency, ivory, whores, children, cheap labor, etc...

At 10/11/06 10:15 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Legalize drugs and open rehabs, and voila, our economy is fixed. Prove me wrong.

Not everyone has the same amount of self-control dude. Also, if any drug is to be legalized it should only be marijuana since it is the least harmful. So long as you do it in moderation kids ;)