He did break International Law invading Iraq, he is holding many suspected "terrorists" in Guatanamo bay without due judicial process, and he has been called by a British poll "the most dangerous threat to the world." How many innocent people have lost their lives, homes, families in Afghanistan and Iraq because of his hawkish militaristic approach to foreign policy? If there were any justice in the world, perhaps it should be Bush behind bars right now possibly facing execution, and not Saddam!

At 1/14/04 03:46 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: H-Dawg, I agree with what you're saying, but I have to remind you that if you write like Eminem talks, then nobody will listen.

Damn, G. Thas just RACISM! I be CRYIN' when DAT be goin on. I'm glad y'all aren't around to see dat. H-Dawg, OUT!

At 1/14/04 09:52 AM, pharoh2bsoon wrote: um...yeah...i want every one who is a currant soilder or veteran here on this thread to continue what you are saying, cause they EARNED that right. everyone else who is saying that soiolders are: stupid, undeserving, and overal worthless can go shove it up your vegan ass and crawl your way back to Berkley! Soilders are dying everday fighting for what we hold dear. In WW1 and WW2 and Korean War, we saw our soilders as defenders of freedom, now, since the vietnam war, we have a not as kind view. It is easy for most people to say that soilders are stupid, undeserving, and overal worthless because we do not know what it is like on the front line. We do not know the sacrafice they give each and every day. I have a family friend who has a son who came back from the middle east and him telling his father the events brought him to tears. I had 2 uncles who served in the vietnam war, one is dead. The other never got a victory ceremony when he came home. It sickens me that they don't get much if any thanks for what they do. So I think that making the American soilder the person of the year is the best thing they could do.

Duh, YEAH! Rah rah rah KILLIN' PEOPLE FOR A LIVING! Hey, maybe we should vote JEFFREY DAHMER Time's person of the year!! He killed a LOT more people than most soldiers have! This is, of course, harsh, and I do feel that defending one's country is not ENTIRELY the wong thing to do when you are being threatened with extermination and there is no other choice, nor do I think that the average soldier chose that career because they wanted to get some "action" under their belts and get to fire guns at people and kill them with impunity.! I do think, however, that it is probably much easier for a young, naive person (aka, a dumbass) to take on the job of front-line soldier these days, as they probably haven't formed many of their own opinions - and haven't thought much about anything yet - and therefore aren't burdened with the harsh reality that they are being sent in to a fight not to defend what THEY PERSONALLY believe in, but what some DICK-HEAD GOVERNMENT POWERBROKER believes in. Not only that, this soldier is also asked to kill other young, innocent dumbasses that are very much like him/herself, except wearing a different uniform and answerable to a different dick-head powerbroker! I'm sure most soldiers, particularly after being thrust into dire circumstances, are not all just thrill-seeking cowboys wanting a license to kill - I'm sure they actually believe they are doing good, which makes me feel very sorry for them and the ideological connundrum they have been forced into. Being a well-meaning gi-joe who was FOOLED by their government into thinking that killing people in Afghanistan and Iraq was going to make the world a better place, however, should NOT be a criteria for making "person of the year."

Listen up, y'all. I just wants ta RANT a bit bout all tha HATIN' goin on between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What da FUCK does Ariel Sharon think he's doin trying to disenfranchize, kill, maime, get-rid-off-the-face-of-the-earth all a them Palestinian dudes? And anyone who tells me that Palestinians are just a bunch of terrorists trespassing on Israeli holy-land is ignoring not only that Palestinians have been there a LOOOOONG time before the Israeli state was set up by western superpowers (kind of like the way Pakhistan and India were separated by the British, who then left to let those two states fight it out over a stupid and arbitrary division of land not even decided upon by Indians) and secondly, the fact that Israel, headed by Sharon, is acting much like the Nazi's did when they tried to exterminate Jews. FURTHER, if anyone read the BBC news this morning, they will have seen the article that lists the 4 or 5 BRITISH peace activists that have been pretty much murdered by Israeli soldiers for standing up for Palestinian's human rights. So who ARE the real terrorists in da middle-east, y'all? H-Dawg, OUT!

Back to the original question, "America, leader of the free world?": I'd say Bush has perverted the notion of "freedom" to the extent that it now means shelter from his globalized "protection racket." He's like a mobster who has invented a certain concept of "terrorist," from which he intends to "free" the world from. There is NOTHING "free" about American democracy. If you fall out of the juridicial limits of the system, you are ATTACKED by that system!! That isn't freedom, it is an ideological PRISON that Bush is trying to CONFINE AND SUBORDINATE THE WORLD within according to his own totalitarian regime!! This includes his own people who, like the victims of 911, he has used as pawns to justify his own perverted military campaigns in pursuit of ideological, economic, and military global dominance. American freedom means exactly the opposite of freedom! H-Dawg, OUT!

At 1/13/04 05:58 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote:

At 1/13/04 04:52 PM, H-Dawg wrote:
But it already is becoming dominant on the economic front, and in a global worldview, I don't think geography really matters much when material military presence has largely been replaced by economic warfare in the form of "structural adjustment,"

Japan has no oil on that lil island that they have. The only oil that they are getting is being pumped in Russia. Russia cuts it off, Japan is scerwed. Its that easy.

Yo, check dis, y'all. It aint just about "oil." Its necessary to take the symbol oil to its logical meaning, which is as a symbol of economic capital - mo money, y'all. Sure, having oil or access to oil certainly means one has power, but I don't think that is the ONLY form of economic power there is. Japan obviously has other means of controling economic power than just oil, otherwise why do they have such a superior standard of living, in a crass capitalist consumer-goods sense, then us North Americans? I personally think oil is terribly misused as a commodity, particularly since so many products - like plastic, resins, all sorts of things we can't do without - depend on it, and yet we burn it up mostly in cars and use it to polloute the atmosphere. Thank god we have begun producing hydrogen-powered cars!! Oil is precious, but not for the reasons we think it is right now. And in the future, I don't think the controlling of oil reserves will mean as much as it does now in terms of military and economic dominance. To sum up, "oil" in the context of our discussion = economic power. And thus, it is only one form of that kind of power. H-Dawg, OUT!

But back to the original question, what about Iran? Aren't they slated as the next best bet to receive a missle full of American whoop-ass? There's also Seria. Hmmmmmmm, don't all of these countries have........oil? Innnnnnnnteresting!

By the way, Mason, thanks for the Caleb Carr book reference! I will definitely pick this up, particularly given how apparently knowledgeable you seem to be on these issues! Thanks. Best, H-Dawg.

At 1/13/04 03:08 PM, TheMason wrote: First off, I doubt that Japan will be able to take over world dominance. Japan may be an economic power house but it is limited by its geography.

But it already is becoming dominant on the economic front, and in a global worldview, I don't think geography really matters much when material military presence has largely been replaced by economic warfare in the form of "structural adjustment," "tied debt" and the dominance of transnational corporations in determining laws and movement of people and products across borders. Japan has a LOT more up-to-date and cooler "stuff" than Americans in a day-to-day standard of living basis.

Terrorists will always be with us, so does that mean we give into them? Do we give into mob rule, and discard justice?

I would counter this point by asking "whose justice?" Isn't a fundamental problem here the fact that BUSH is imposing his OWN sense of justice, or "the right," over and above International law or anyone else's sense of justice? He seems to think that because HE designates someone a terrorist, THAT ALONE makes them a terrorist - as opposed to a "freedom fighter" for example - and any country that chooses to "harbour" them is ALSO a terrorist state. This is simplistic, dumb-assed, cowboy logic that frankly makes CANADA a terrorist state if it were to defend the "human rights" and due process of law of someone Bush perceived as a terrorist!! It seems to me that Bush's idea of justice is only supportable if Bush himself turns out to be God!

At 1/13/04 03:14 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/13/04 01:09 PM, H-Dawg wrote: O'Neill said that the very
first meeting of the National Security Council involved
discussions of a "post-Saddam Iraq," peacekeeping troops,
and war-crimes tribunals. O'Neill provided the book's
author, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with 19,000
internal documents -- one of which, from March 5, 2001, was
entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and
included a map of Iraqi oil fields listing contractors and
countries with interests there.

Interesting point you make here, Bush is in Iraq for oil profits? Why then is he looking to other countries to help manage the post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq? Secondly, having maps of oil fields when discussing invading Iraq was a GOOD thing. Look at all the environmental/economic/military problems created when Saddam lit the torches in Kuwait. There were concerns about these fields other than economic.

But surely the important point here is that O'Neil's book points to Bush as the AGRESSOR in Iraq, irregardless of world opinion, diplomatic options, or any real or imagined direct threat posed by Saddam's regime!! The "threat" seems to have been perceived by Bush to be economic, which explains the part about the oil field maps - THAT was the real threat, losing political, economic, diplomatic control over Iraqi oil fields, not some crazy, unsubstantiated (and apparently made-up) theory about weapons of mass destruction. And even more insidious, is the apparent fact that Bush saw 911 as a GODSEND of an excuse to go to war with Iraq in order to change the regime and regain influence over Iraqi oil. I mean, look at who is power-brokering all of the Iraqi reconstruction contracts!!! Its kind of sick when you think about it - Bush using the deaths of innocent Americans as pawns to regain political and economic control over one of the richest oil reserves in the world. Bush's dad apparently tried to BUY that control by proping up such a heinus dictator as Saddam, and Bush Jr., when Saddam shows his true colours and will not cooperate, just moves in like a mafia hit-man and "makes a regime change." He doesn't give a fuck about innocent Iraqi citizens, or he would have tried harder to find a solution to his own political problem that didn't involved dropping bombs on them!!!! Now I gots myself all DEPRESSED n'shit. H-Dawg, OUT!

A lot of policies today are based on religious beliefs, even political parties for that matter. If religion differs from person to person, and if someone is truly a follower of that religion, how can he possibly go against the ideals of his religion in order to please others?

If there was to be no relation whatsoever, then you'd need a country of atheists. "In God We Trust" is most definitely present on all of our currency in the U.S. because the majority of the people voting on money designs wanted to express their belief in God and express that their morality and beliefs are rooted in such. Our constitution doesn't even prohibit this display (as some would like to believe), saying in the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This only provides that Congress cannot establish an official religion and that people can practice any religion they want. Nothing is said of barring public displays of religion. If that was actually the case, then churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/etc. would also be prohibited because they display a strong sense of religious presence.

So, how, according to you, would total spearation of church and state represent the masses, when clearly the masses are never separated from church???

Yo yo yo yo, DUDE!! The problem here isn't peoples belief in a church doctrine, its the fact that any government that attaches itself to A church doctrine necessarily excludes all other religious beliefs (for example, atheists - which IS a belief system based on God, if the exclusion of God). One of the major problems facing democratic states these days is that the ideas and beliefs that bind a country together can only be "moral" to the extent that they create a certain idea of the "other" that they have ethical responsibilities too. Therefore, there is no room for ethical or moral systems of belief outside of a certain moral system. Of course, if you believe that there is only one God, and "He" is in your own image (or your own belief system), then the problem is solved. However, you would then be PLAYING GOD, are excluding any others that are NOT in your own image, and are therefore NOT ETHICAL by your own definition of Christian ethics. But dat's cool, y'all, cause I be hangin' out wid ya anyways. H-Dawg, OUT>

At 1/12/04 11:14 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/12/04 10:55 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: Bullshit? America is the strongest nation in the world because it's economy makes up 30% of the world's, and it's military is #1 in the world, the amount spent on the U.S military exceeds the next top ten combined by far.

Why stop with the next top ten? In 2004 the pentagon's budget is expected to top $400b, isn't it? Back when our budget was $310b (3-4 years ago?), global annual military expenditures sat at
780 billion dollars. No other country on Earth could pump up their military spending 40 billion a year. Our military budget is larger than the rest of the world's combined.

We also have a system of government that allows freedom and oppurtunity, don't even TRY to deny that. I am a proud American, every country has it's pride, but America's is scrutinized by the world.

A system of government that allows freedom and opportunity is nothing new, and it is practiced much more effectively in dozens of other countries. With a military budget of our size, don't you think we deserve alittle scrutiny??

Also, remember September 11th?? Don't even begin to say that America's war against terrorism and tyranny is unjust.

I fail to see how the current war against Iraq has anything to do with September 11th, 2001. The "War Against Terrorism" is an asinine excuse for expanding the US's base of power in the middle east and ratcheting up military spending yet another notch.

Just to add to this string, here's a little item I just read in Harper's Weekly about the "so-called 911 connection to the war in Iraq" :
HARPER'S WEEKLY REVIEW

[Image: A Christian martyr.]

Former secretary of the treasury Paul O'Neill revealed in a
new book that President George W. Bush was already looking
for an excuse to invade Iraq during the first few weeks of his
presidency. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That
was the tone of it," O'Neill said. "The president saying
'Go find me a way to do this.'" O'Neill said that the very
first meeting of the National Security Council involved
discussions of a "post-Saddam Iraq," peacekeeping troops,
and war-crimes tribunals. O'Neill provided the book's
author, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with 19,000
internal documents -- one of which, from March 5, 2001, was
entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and
included a map of Iraqi oil fields listing contractors and
countries with interests there. O'Neill also said that Bush
was disturbingly disengaged ("like a blind man in a room
full of deaf people") during cabinet meetings, and that many
high-ranking administration officials have no idea what the
president wants them to do and that they operate on "little
more than hunches about what the president might think." (Harpers Weekly, Jan 13, 2004).

At 1/12/04 10:39 PM, Empanado wrote: And H-Dawg gets a hug from the HugBear and gets shooted for hugging!

Yo yo, thanks, y'all. Even if i did gets shot, dat be just like back in da hood, y'all. Now I'm gettin' all nostalgic n'shit. I be cryin', y'all. I'm glad your not here to see dat. H-Dawg, OUT.

Hey, y'all, they should also say somethin about masturbation in dat pledge of allegiance. Somethin like: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice [and masturbation] for all.' Somethin like dat, y'all. Whaddya think? H-Dawg OUT.

Yo, I could use me a hug, y'all. H-Dawg, OUT.

At 1/12/04 03:15 PM, TheMason wrote: Personally I think that there should be as little connection between religion and politics as possible. Throughout history, contrary to the thoughts of an ill-informed poster, religion has been bad when associated too closely with politics. Europe suffered under the dark ages because the church controlled things such as education and literacy.

I do not have a problem with little things such as prayer in school or other government venues. However, I have a problem with making laws out of religious beliefs (ie-prohibition and not being able to purchase alcohol on Sunday). I was raised Catholic and we drink during mass. As an adult I'm no longer Catholic, and I believe that the real Sabbath is on Saturday and those who worship on Sunday are heretics.

It goes further than mild annoyances though. The Supreme Court's (SCOTUS) decision on Roe v. Wade is fought in theocracies such as SC. And let's face it, Pro-lifers' motivations are mostly religious in origin. It is hard to get an abortion in this state, something SCOTUS has said is a woman's right, like it or not. So here we have a case of religion butting heads with what is supposed to be the final say in issues of the law.

You know, not only do catholics drink during mass, but they eat the body of Christ, which is technically CANNIBALISM!! So maybe a solution to mixing religion and politics is just to REALLY INSIST that there should be no cannibalism in schools or political institutions, which would rule out the Catholics at least. H-Dawg OUT!

Here's another issue that comes to mind, Mason. instead of making blatant "Political Realist" arguments to support US foreign policy (or arguments that simplistically take for granted the axiom that everyone will only act in their own interests, and if they don't somebody else will and trample them), are there any other possible solutions to foreign policy decisions that think outside of this (Western) ideological box? One argument for even making the attempt to think outside of traditional political theoretical models is that these models can only ever reproduce one outcome - a western model of world domination. In other words, even if Japan takes over world dominance (which it looks like it will), the way global economics/politics/military systems are set up right now, they will do it by reproducing a western capitalist/ideological system, but better than the US. And once this is achieved, this system will probably fall out of vogue, and will change itself into something else. I think US foreign policy, the way it stands, merely accelerates this inevitable outcome by making itself the big target of terrorists - not the global policeman but the global concentration camp commendant - and while it does this it is depleating its resources through EXTREMELY costly wars, like the one with Iraq!! (maybe that's the REAL reason Rumsfeldt had to cut the military budget!!). So, any ideas on other possible "utopias" that don't play that boring catch-22 game of political realism that always ends up in West is good, the rest are bad results?

At 1/12/04 08:34 PM, TheMason wrote: That is not at all what I'm say H-Dawg. My point is that we have all these little morons out here talking about how arrogant the US as if their countries are morally superior to the US when in fact the problems of today are inherited from their failed colonialism.
Does this give us the right to rape and pillage the world? Of course not. Let's face it, France and Russia did not want the US to go to war with Iraq not out of some sense of moral righteousness. They did it because they were economic allies with Saddam selling him military equipment. Yes we did aid Saddam in his war against Iran but if we sold him that much equipment we would have faced M-16s instead of AK-47s, M-1 Abrams instead of T-72 tanks, and F-16s instead of MiGs and Mirages.
In terms of N. Korea when we learned of their re-initializing their nuke program we put diplomatic pressure on them. We have not significantly increased our presence there, a sure sign that we do not have any immediate plans of going to war. Yes we called them part of the Axis of Evil but what else would you call a country that starves their people while the elites live in luxury and build WMDs?
SecDef Rumsfeld is currently talking about decreasing our military. Does this sound like a move to solve all our problems through military instead of diplomatic means?
Are we perfect? Hell no, we make mistakes and have made bad foreign policy decisions. In fact I do not like our current stance in Isreal, I believe Sharon is a war criminal who is interested in war instead of peace.
Just in Iraq and Afghanistan there were no peaceful solutions. Saddam was not going to willingly let go of power and stop being a brutal dictator just because some diplomat told him it was right to do so. The Taliban was not going to stop their oppressive theocracy just because the world was putting pressure on them.

I'm just tired of a bunch of young, uneducated, preachy Europeans constantly pointing out the bad of US foreign policy as if the problems of the world today was caused BY the US instead of being INHERITED from them.

The thing that disturbes me, is, that while you may be correct in saying that Iraq and Afghanistan were brutal regimes, it is always interesting to note the brutal regimes that the US DOES NOT go after, and the ones it CHOOSES to focus on. Another aspect of this point is the RIGHT the US has to seek revenge on a couple of countries who happen to contain a few people that the US needs to capture/kill in order to find scapegoats to punish for a successful terrorist attack (911) that finally penetrated its complacency in regards to what its own foreign policy has fostered in terms of terrorist attacks against the west in direct response to economic/military/imperialist global terrorism carried out by western superpowers like the US against 2nd and 3rd world countries (designations created by the 1st world). The famous example of US complacency Chomsky brought to light is East Timor, which, largely because of chomsky, the US finally helped out. But the whole Afghanistan and Iraq wars seemed like huge sabor-rattling exercises largely staged to provide a tangible war scenario so that Bush could A) reinstill confidence in the ability of America to defend itself (which is TOTALLY contradicted by the fact that terror alerts have NEVER GONE AWAY since 911) and B) a bit of Bush senior getting his licks in after years of Saddam laughing in his face. But creating a war scenario just so you can publicly have a tangible forum in which to "win the war against terrorism" is not only bogus, but CREATES A WAR SCENARIO in which the US becomes a real target and, according to an overwhealming majority of British polled, the biggest threat to the world. I don't think you can fight terrorism effectively like that. Read Gayle Rivers on this. Just my thoughts. H-Dawg out.

Now dat I got all a dat off my back, G, I gotsta get back to da crib and eat me some escargot and beer. Hmmm, I wonder if Bush is gonna let his new "secret police force" rumoured to be working in Iraq sodomize Saddam Hussain before Bush gives him back to the Iraqis? Or maybe Bush has dressed him up as an alter boy and is doing it to Saddam himself right now! If Saddam sold the shmagma-soiled dress to the press, do you think Bush would be impeached, or deified? Just wonderin, y'all. H-dawg, OUT!

At 1/12/04 07:18 PM, TheMason wrote: I'm getting real tired of some of these damn European leftists in here criticizing US foreign policy over the past 50 years. Lets look at the centuries leading up to 1914. Spurred on by colonial interests countries like the UK, France and Germany began involving themselves in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire, Africa, N & S America and Asia. These three countries along with several others (Spain, Portugal, the Dutch etc) set up colonies displacing local cultures and traditions (set up the slave trade in Africa, introduced Smallpox [intentionally in some cases] to the Native Americans, India, Vietnam, and caused division between Jew and Arab). During WWI France and Germany made contradictory promises to the Arabs to destroy the Ottoman Empire that was aligned with Germany.
Following the war, these promises were not followed through and these foreign powers set up governments in these lands that were subservient not to the native's intrests but their own colonial interests. In fact England helped the Zionist movement in Palestine without caring much what happened to the Palestinians.
Then in WWII the resources of Europe were all but destroyed by your own damn internal squabbling and colonial ambitions. You were left with little ability to control your expansive and oppressive empires. The US, by virtue of geographical location, did not suffer the same loss of ability to produce so we stayed strong. We occupied Germany and Japan and once these messes were cleaned up we left these countries to govern themselves.
We have division in most of the world as a result of EUROPEAN colonialism. Once the dust of WWII settled we were left to clean-up YOUR mess. Yes we have made mistakes, we have at times been arrogant. We should have put pressure on the French instead of the N. Vietnamese. But we have had some success, governance of Afghanistan has largely been returned to the Afghani's as it will in Iraq. We will not control these governments for centuries as the European model dictates. You do not like our methods or the strife in the world, guess what too damn bad you Europeans created much of this fucked up shit. No please sit down and let us do our job if you are not going to help.
________________________________
God bless Tony Blair! And fuck the French!

Oh, mon dieu! Une autre American qui ne comprende pas l'histoire de la monde! SO, you're saying that just because colonialism raped and pillaged the world before the US came on the scene, that it is ok for the US to do exactly the same thing, except with new global economic forms of imperialism/terrorism? And even if the US feels that it is justified in totally disregarding International Law, or any other international authority on ethics or human rights because of its own perceived monopoly on "the right" or "democratic freedom," what makes you think that the American version will last any longer than, say, the Roman Empire? Particularly with so many non-white, non-christian/protestant, non-western states now posessing and seemingly willing to use nuclear weapons to defend THEIR ideas of ethics or human rights? I think that if the US continues to "rile up the natives" with its new breed of colonial empirialism, IT IS INEVITABLE that it will get nuked - not just a couple of little planes flying into the side of the world trade centre. This is an inevitable course that the US seems to be laying out for itself. If it were more interested in diplomacy, it would probably attract more diplomatic retributions and cooperations, as opposed to the violent ones it is attracting now. And hey, Sharon in Israel was adopting the same "anti-terrorist" rhetoric that Bush uses in Sharon's ongoing terrorizing of the Palestinians, which exemplifies my point. H-Dawg OUT!

Yeah, yeah - except all a them PHAT/FAT AMERICAN people. The law should exclude hugging them, unless they made it so that it was only one of them, and a bunch of us huggin them in a team. Then it would be ok.

Sup, y'all. No no, I do believe at least 50% of Americans is PHAT (even if they are the biggest terrorist state in the world, according to Noam Chomski, and attested to by the fact that they break international law on a regular basis, for example in Nicaragua in the 70's and 80's, and in Iraq). But aside from all dat, dey is da PHATTEST mfks dey is, y'all. H-Dawg OUT. (of course, I be talkin about the government, not all da fly American homies. Peace!)

How about, "All Flash, No Substance. We Promise!" - This sort of ironic slogan aims at probably most of the Newgrounds members who just want to relax and enjoy our fun, cool, humorous entertainment, but are SERIOUS about our flash!

At 8/11/03 10:11 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 8/11/03 02:12 PM, H-Dawg wrote: She's HOT, she's NOT a punk-ass, totalitarian, all "takin' over the world and threatening folks" 'n shit Re-fucking-publican (y'all know who I'm talkin' about), and she's got my vote!!

What in the hell are you talking about?

Perhaps I need to clarify: She's HOT - Meaning, I think she's good looking for a 50+ year old; She's not a PUNK-ASS TOTALITARIAN WAR-MONGERING REPUBLICAN - namely, she's not George Bush or George Bush junior (same diff'), and Hilary is also about 8 million times smarter than either of those two 1-term losers; SHE'S GOT MY VOTE - meaning, should she run she would DEFINITELY have my vote. Also, I think she would be associated with Bill Clinton politically, who was immensely popular. Further, she would be an historic choice as the first woman president, and in a vulgar sexist sense, people might want a tough woman as president to "heal" the nation and get its "house" back in order after war-hawk, cowboy George Bush has messed it up and done all the "dirty work" abroad. There you go, H-Dawg spellin' it out for y'all. Later.

She's HOT, she's NOT a punk-ass, totalitarian, all "takin' over the world and threatening folks" 'n shit Re-fucking-publican (y'all know who I'm talkin' about), and she's got my vote!!

I vote go back to the old integrated view. Better performance wins out for me. H Dawg OUT!

You said it first, FREAKIN AWESOME!! All space-age-y n' cool n' stuff! /H-Dawg out.

At 5/13/03 01:00 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: I don't think that gay people should be able to marry. Maybe they should be off on some island on some part of the ocean which is unnavigatable.

Hmmmm, then how is they supposed to get there in the first place, y'all? I don't think this be makin' much sense, bro. See, tha thang is, if you is afraid a somethin, like all the gay brothas and sistas, you maybe should be axin' y'self what is it in ME that makes me scared a them? Is you afraid a bein' INFECTED or some shit like dat? Don't worry my man, cuz it ain't catchin', it just is. Peace. H-Dawg, OUT!

Hez whaz'up dawg? Got mez uh q!!!
Is it necessary to write like that? It makes you impossible to understand. People who write non-sensically like that usually get made fun of and told to get off the politics forumn.

I'm assuming that you're trying to say is that degrees don't everything and that everything should be taken with a grain of salt. In other words... EVERYTHING I ALREADY SAID IN PREVIOUS POSTS!!! Did you not read them? Did you feel the need to translate them into wigger-style ebonics?

Whoa! Don't be hatin! It's all good bro! I was just havin' me some fun, and takin' my topic more seriously than myself or my PhD, dig? Seriously, just kiddin' around. If y'all are lookin for some DOPE source information on a number of the issues we have been discussing in these forums, my doctoral advisor pointed me toward this cool website: http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm. Z-magazine is one of those "lefty" sites, but it has some FANTASTIC writers writing for it (like Chomsky, etc etc) and the facts are always relevant and shocking. Also, check out Harper's Weekly, which is a weekly email posting from Harper's magazine. This is a VERY scary and intriguing look at the week in politics, written in a very ironic and sardonic style. Sure to fascinate and horrify! H-Dawg, OUT!

Yo yo yo yo yo, peep dis, y'all: Da H-Dawg gots him a PhD in Cultural Studies, dig? But, I'm not necessarily convinced dat some muthafuckin' degree n'shit is DA SHIT all da time, dig? 'Fact, I seen me some pretty fucked up shit commin' from da mouths of some a dem doctors, y'all, so beware just cuz some punk-ass muthafucka be wavin' a badge in y'all's face, it don't necessarily mean you automatically be steppin' inta his car right a way and goin' down town wid' the dude, y'knowwhatI'm sayin? Ya gotsta take EVERYTHING wid a grain a salt, y'all. H-Dawg, OUT!