610 Forum Posts by "House-Of-Leaves"
OH!
Something else I wanted to add.
There's certain crimes that are committed by people who don't necessarily mean to commit them, but are horribly negligent anyway. For instance...drunk driving.
I've had more than a few friends killed by drunk drivers. It's a horrible, horrible offense, but it's usually a case where the driver didn't -mean- for it to happen. They were just truly stupid.
The most suitable punishment I've ever heard of for something like this was simple, but harsh.
A young man killed a girl while driving drunk. Hit her with his car. While he wasn't sent to jail, he got plenty of fines, and a settlement to pay the family of the girl.
The family themselves came up with this.
Every year, on the date she died, he was to write out a personal check for $1.00. He then had to mail that check to the family of the girl he killed. He felt horrible about doing it in the first place...and her family made sure it was a lesson he could NEVER forget. If he missed one payment, he was to go to jail. I would bet he's never driven drunk again.
Punishments like that, I think, are appropriate. Obviously, it wouldn't work for everyone. But I still think it's a clever punishment.
Oh, YAY! Something other than the war to talk about!
I'm...iffy about the death penalty, and my mind changes when something horrible happens, and I get biased. For the most part, this is where I stand:
It's actually a fact that life imprisonment is CHEAPER than execution. Here is a direct copy/paste:
· A New York study revealed it cost $2.8 million to try an indigent capital defendant through the first stage of appeals – more than twice the cost of life imprisonment. The study concluded that it would cost about $850,000 to keep an inmate in prison for 40 years.
-end paste-
Here's the link:
http://ojp.la-archdiocese.org/mythfact.htm
Some of that is ethics-based, but the important part is the money part. SO many people are convinced that if you kill em...it's cheaper. But they don't realize that it's the appeals process and everything else that keeps things expensive.
So...my stand:
- No death penalty. (To be honest, I think it'd be better to make the worst murderers live the rest of their lives being guilty and alone and miserable. Assholes.)
- De-criminalize certain victimless crimes, and most drug related crimes. (In other words, use fines and records rather than using jail space.)
- Legalize, regulate, and tax (where reasonable) certain things (like marijuana and prostitution).
That's all. Or...well. What I can give in a nutshell.
At 4/10/03 03:38 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:At 4/10/03 03:08 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:so you'll ignore nem? good
I'll refrain for now. I'll take Nem's advice for now, too.
I'll ignore the moron.
I already ignore him, for the most part.
I didn't mean Nemesis. You know that.
At 4/10/03 03:56 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:
seriously though international law has to be "recognized" to be effective. so a nation has to want to be governed by each law for them to be effective.
Which I think I covered in my statement about joining the UN in the first place.
When the US joined the UN, they agreed to follow those laws. Nuff said.
At 4/10/03 03:25 AM, jazz_mazter wrote: Unrelated note, but I heard a pretty cool joke.
You think your job is bad? What about Saddam's doubles after his leg was reportedly blown off in Monday's bombings?
*LOL*!!!
I'd not thought of that. Wouldn't that SUCK??
I can see it now. He's not dead, but one leg is gone. All those doubles...wow. Yeah. *lol*
Sorry. I...guess I shoudn't be laughing. But MAN.
In all honesty, seeing the Iraqi people so elated at freedom made tears come to my eyes. In a good way, yes. :) Hell. I'm a girl. I get emotional.
I was never, ever against the freedom of the Iraqi people. I'm glad this has happened for them. I...I don't know how to say this without sounding like a total bitch. But I'll go for it. Whatever happened there is fantastic. I'm glad they're so happy. But there's problems here in the US that our president needs to deal with. I hope he focuses a little more on his home land soon.
Now...that being said...I need to say this, too. I heard not too long ago a recording of a radio conversation. It's an argument between an anti-war girl (and I mean girl, not woman. She sounded 16), and an Iraqi man named Mohammed. His first words are, "How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"
Her: Ummm...Again, what I need to say is...that...regime change...regime change...
She was interrupted by him saying, 'No. Answer me.' In different ways, of course, but he shut her down, and quickly.
The conversation that ensued was...moving, to say the least. It made me rethink what my motives were for being against this war, and while I stand behind some of the issues I had/have, I'll readily admit that this was for the best, so far.
I stopped actively demonstrating a while back, when I realized how much money went to overtime of the police sent to cover the demonstrations. My issues were about money, somewhat...so I do my part by NOT wasting money that could have gone to the closing schools and whatnot. I also now listen to the advocation of this war with a more open mind, and while I refuse to ignore the legal facts, it makes me infinitely happy to see the people celebrating their freedom from tyrany.
Amen!
At 4/10/03 03:02 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: how do you join the politics crew? it doesnt involve some kind of riddle does it?
Nah. Talk to Ted. :) He's the one, I believe, that looks through the posts and is rather fair about it. It's not about what your opinion is, it's how you present it and whether or not you use arguments like "OMG STFU N00B!" and "BOOOOBIES!".
I think you're in. ;)
See my signature? The little Yin Yang thing? That's what you use to signify you're in.
OH! And!
Nice riddle. :) I was in the processes of figuring it out, had gotten as far as the letters and numbers...then realized that it'd probably been solved already.
As for whoever insulted Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back...WATCH IT! That's a GREAT movie! Not his best...but still. :)
At 4/10/03 12:33 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: wow what a comeback nem, "ignore this moron". i mean i thought i've seen it all but man wowee that was awsome. come on everyone knows what an insultator you are anyway, and you showed everyone at x-sages that i was right about your memory span
...insultator?
Okay, so. I know I don't get along all that famously with NemesisZ, but uh...yeah. That's not a word.
Please. Are you just trying to start shit? You're...you know...*sigh* I've tried to be so, so nice here. But some people just BEG to be kicked around.
I'll refrain for now. I'll take Nem's advice for now, too.
I'll ignore the moron.
At 4/10/03 02:39 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: it's not illegal, international law is a joke. it was a joke before it even came up. as for the constitutional arguement, i see no sign of that. unless there's a pacifist ammendment i missed
Wow, so...I must have missed something that said "This guy is the end all, be all opinion about international law!"
The US joined the UN with the understanding that certain international laws WERE to be followed. If the US didn't want to comply, then the US should not be a member.
Since I don't recall seeing you around before, I'll give my very, very basic explanation of why it's illegal. It's fact.
The US constitution calls for congressional approval before war. It was not given. Therefore, it's illegal according to Constitutional law.
US Security Council resolution 1441 covers weapons that can and can't be had by Iraq, and what can be done. Since this war's stated goal is regime change, and regime change is outside the reach of that resolution, it's technically illegal.
Although it's not illegal to be a hypocrite, this war is the biggest hypocricy I've seen. They attack Iraq for not complying with the UN...but in attacking, they too have not complied with the UN.
Now, since your argument, Mr. Anarchy, was 'international law is a joke', I can't expect you to agree or even -understand- what I just wrote. I try to be very respectful of people's opinions. But when arguments like that are made...when it's obvious that such little thought was put into it...I expect one of a few things.
1. You'll use personal attacks and insults in retaliation.
2. You'll ignore the facts I gave, and insist I'm wrong. If that's the case, show me where exactly in resolution 1441 that regime change is covered.
3. You'll pout and call me names.
It's all fine and dandy. I can't change what you'll do. But I'll be damned if your 'international law is a joke' comment didn't make me want to punch something as much as the fucking 'NO WAR FOR OIL' campaign does.
I dislike the fact that Bush is in control of this country. He's probably a super nice guy face to face.
I don't want to go through and read everything people said. But to the guy that gave a list...I'm gonna be a bitch. I'm sorry.
What the FUCK does believing in God have to do with the price of tea in China?? Shit, man. If that's the way you go through life, picking and choosing your friends and who you like based on their theological beliefs, then you're going to be a very, very unhappy bastard. More people believe in some sort of god, be it the Christian God, or some other polytheistic religion. That is NOT a reason not to like someone's politics.
As for the other stuff...giving a list like that without supporting it will only get you flamed here. Not really by me. I respect people's opinions, for the most part. I too agree that the war is illegal. I've tried to explain it with fact several times. Yet a lot of people still don't get it. It's unconstitutional, it's against UN resolution...it's illegal. But hey. Not everyone is willing to accept the fact, if it means admitting they're wrong.
Being stubborn is not always a virtue.
The electoral process in this country is a little fucked up, in my opinion, if the man that won by popular vote isn't our president. But hey. Arguing about an election that happened three years ago isn't gonna do jack.
The best thing Mr. Bush did is surround himself with people that are smarter than him. He is not a smart man, by any stretch of the imagination, but he's got people behind him that know what they're doing. Do I agree with what's being done, or how? I don't like my civil liberties being fucked with. But Mr. Bush chose intelligent people.
That's all, really.
Hi again, everyone. :)
I've been gone for a while, yes. Quite a long while, actually. I'll do that from time to time. But never fear. I'm back...
But apathetic about debate. Sad, no?
Well, hell. This is what I want to know.
How many people here realize that WMD's aren't the issue anymore? How many people realize that when Mr. Bush decided to entitle this conflict "Operation Iraqi Freedom" that he broke the UN resolution that spoke about WMD's in the first place?
I suspect, boys and girls (if there's other ones here than me *lol*), WMD's were just the patsy to start this whole thing. Whether or not that's the truth? I'll never know. No one will. But that's my suspicion. It's all become about getting Saddam out of power now. In fact, there's been days going by where I won't hear anything about WMD's in the news. It's all about whether the regime in Iraq is going to change, when it will, who's going to take over, yadda yadda yadda.
I'll be the first to appologize to the person who shows me EXACTLY where the Security Council covered regime change in resolution 1441. Until then, no one will convince me that this war is NOT illegal. Sure, the intentions are honorable. It's to help the Iraqi people, and that's fine. I'm glad they're celebrating in the streets. It makes me happy that they have a chance at the freedoms we enjoy. But...if war crimes are committed by our president, why is it okay?
I've been gone for a while, but I've been keeping up with stuff that's been going on around the world. I've been too busy to keep actively demonstrating in favor of peace, and my opinions have not changed. But I'll be honest.
My problem isn't necessarily with this war. Obviously, if anyone remembers any of my previous posts, I do not like it. But I cannot stop it, and Saddam Hussein must be stopped. While I don't like how it's being done, I certainly don't think the US government is going to pull out now and say, 'Oops. Sorry about that.'
My problem is with this country's administration. With Mr. Bush and Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and every other asshole that's decided to play with our civil liberties, and play war games with the rest of the world. Why didn't they decide to go after other, more likely opponents? Why did they pick on Iraq, and not the countries that pose an actual threat?
Meh. I'm tired of debating this war over and over and over again.
Has anyone checked out the part of the site that says, 'HEY! This site is an April Fool's joke!'
It's illegal to tattoo a child that young, I believe.
So...that cracked me up!
OH, and. Sorry for the double post.
But I made a banner! Yay!
Awww, I've been missed!
Seriously, tho...I get busy with life sometimes. If I disappear for a while? Have no fear, I'll be back.
And ponies. Ponies are...well...eh. Expensive?
*sigh*
And I wanted to play the slots, too...
Dammit.
At 3/29/03 07:17 PM, Newgrundling wrote:At 3/29/03 07:15 PM, Newgrundling wrote: Lawful NeutralWhy does the description assume that you are a female?
I don't think that's why it says 'she'. It's just a variation of 'he', so the feminists out there don't get their thongs in a wad.
I was neutral good when I took that test. :)
And people call me evil! BAH! I'm a good girl!
At 3/29/03 03:04 PM, NSS-SEPP wrote: "How To Handle The Protesters"
*snip*
Oh, my god! I laughed SO HARD AT THAT!
Thank you. :) So very much. *lol*
To be honest, I've stopped demonstrating, but I've explained why elsewhere. A large part of me opposing this war is the cost, and the economic welfare of our country. So, when I demonstrate, I cost the city money. Money that could go to schools and all sorts of other things. It's a hard decision. But my priorities have to stay in line. That's my personal decision.
But that? That just...cracked me up. In more ways than one. First, it was satire, and I know that. Second...I've decided that while people speak in generalities, all I have to know is that I am not part of it. To hell with what other people think.
At 3/29/03 03:24 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: When you say the war is illegal, you are wrong.
I don't really want to argue this with you again. Technically, it's illegal. But like a lot of other criminals, they find loop holes.
I am no longer spending my energy on explaining things like this to you. It's worthless. You're too arrogant to see pure logic.
So, tell you something. I'm 25, and I've had the same problem with MINE. And here's how I dealt with it.
I told him the truth. I gave him dirty details. I appologize to anyone that's offended by this, but girls? If you've got this problem? It works.
Tell him, flat out, that because he's not giving you foreplay, he's just no good in bed. With women, we have to get -ready- to have something there. Erections take...what? 30 seconds? Wake up, guys. Us women sorta need our bodies to be physically ready to take what you're gonna give us. That means turning us on.
That means some goddamned foreplay.
Be graphic with him. The (sorta patronizing) words I used to straighten him out: "Honey. I know you're excited. I know I'm cute, and you want me. But I gotta be wet to take that thing. You just undressing does NOT TURN ME ON. The removal of clothing is one of the most un-erotic things a person does. So tell you what. If you don't turn me on? I'm not giving it up anymore. I'm not here for you to use, I'm here to enjoy it, too. If you don't let me enjoy it, and turn me on? Then it's pointless.'
Now, he'll pout. He'll take it as a blow to his ego, most likely.
But be firm. Tell him that once he's there, and things are going? He's great. But in order to make pasta, you gotta boil the water, dont you? Same thing.
I really don't know why this has turned into a debate thread.
Theory and faith are two different things. Someone (can't remember who) pointed out something very important.
You can poke holes in Christian theory. But you can't poke holes in strong, healthy faith.
You can tell me all sorts of things, but that isn't going to make me budge from my faith in Christ.
I give all of you respect for holding your opinions, especially those that have informed decisions. All I ask, as a christian, is for that same respect.
Also, please. Please, please please. I beg. Stop trying to group all Christians into one category. There are horrible, awful things done in the name of Christ.
THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT.
Not all Christians are bigots or hatful assholes.
Please stop thinking of them as such.
At 3/24/03 11:16 AM, Sekky wrote: Uh...Steven King is not very popular at all.
Your signature is right. You do have something wrong with you.
Almost every one of his books have been best sellers, and they're all very good. I have an extensive King library, and while the subject matter is not for everyone, his writing abilities are amazing.
You don't have to like him. But he IS popular.
At 3/29/03 02:37 PM, TheJoe324 wrote:At 3/29/03 12:46 PM, Griffin675 wrote: http://www.outwar.com/page.php?x=573420 this is a free blam pointyou sir, are an idiot.
Amen, JoeJoe.
It's truly amazing how someone can post a non-newgrounds address, and expect people, IN THE BLAM CLUB, to not know it's...well...god damned OUTWAR.
Moron.
At 3/29/03 02:33 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: So you're basically saying, a Lexus isn't just a Camry with leather. So what if it still has a crappy V6, it costs $10,000 more, so it must be better?
Saddam is just a terrorist, he's involved with all of the same things Bin Laden is, he just has political power as well.
Have I ever said Saddam isn't a terrorist? Nope.
He had nothing to do with the 9/11 stuff. That doesn't make him better or worse.
It's a point I wanted to make, considering that everyone keeps linking the two directly, or whatever. I don't like muddled facts. that's my opinion.
But I do, however, agree that Saddam is a bad, evil man. When I argue that, then you can tell me I'm wrong.
At 3/29/03 02:47 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Look, Oregon, don't make assumptions about what I believe.
The only thing I have to go by is your comments.
They are bigoted.
Not to mention, from your forums...a direct quote. Made by you.
"Just so you know, nemesisz.net supports the war on iraq or any other rag wearing dune coons who think they're slick."
That...sounds pretty bigoted to me, pal. But if you say you're not, then...well. Prove it.
At 3/29/03 02:06 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Saying you have friends of another race as a defense mechanism against being a racist is the most racist thing you can do, other than saying "I don't mean this in a racist way" before you say things.
When you move out of the suburbs you can call me a bigot, until then, don't say anything.
Actually, no. I wasn't using it as anything. Don't get so bloody defensive! You asked, simply, if there were any other kind of arab, other than psychotic ones.
I said, yes there are. My friend is neither psychotic or pseudo-religious. Therefore, logically speaking, there ARE other kinds.
You get so, so defensive about something so silly? If you'd stop making such bigoted comments, you wouldn't back yourself into such corners.
Oh, and if you think you're getting to me by making such broad assumptions? You're not. I just don't think you realize how you sound. It's sad.
You'll grow out of it, though, I hope. Or you're going to be a very lonely person.
At 3/29/03 02:38 AM, jimsween wrote:At 3/28/03 10:40 PM, benisveryc00l wrote: you didnt make his statement moot... you said that other countries can hurt us, he said that other countries can't invade us.. hurt doesnt mean invade, what part of this are you having trouble understandingYes I did, he was trying to prove that because a country cant invade us we dont have anything to worry about and Iraq doesnt pose a threat. That is why I brought up 9/11.
Check and mate..
Sorry, NOT check and mate.
Until someone can directly link Iraq with 9/11, I won't believe that Iraq posed an immediate threat.
I agree that America is NOT immune to foreign attacks. Even now.
But the argument with Iraq and 9/11 is silly. There's no link. They're both terrorists, sure. BUT THERE IS NO DIRECT LINK.
At 3/28/03 06:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: If he were, which several sources have debunked, he was not in any sort of leadership position. He was still a spoiled rich arab back then, rather than a psychotic pseudo-religious arab.
(are there other kinds?)
Yes, there are. I have Arab friends. Try not to be such a bigot.
