Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/12/05 01:56 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: On the topic of 9/11 please tame it down this year, so far people that have lost someone that day haven't truly been able to mourn for there own losses of friends and family on there own.

I find it funny how similar your argument is to that one roman story, about how your supposed to kill rape victims so everyone can get over it.

Not that I disagree, I don't know, I just found that funny.

At 9/12/05 12:41 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: why was 6 mossad agents found loitering near the WTC crash site?
why did 2000 jews didnt turn up for work on that very day?
why were 6 jews celebrating on their workplace's roof while videotaping the incident?
why did the israeli government prevent ariel sharon from going to the US for a celebration bbefore that day?
why...........?

It probably has something to do with none of those being true. Probably...

At 9/11/05 10:11 PM, marchingtyrants wrote: and about the pentagon, it wasnt a plane, and why the hell the FBI took the tapes away?? all propaganda to blame the innocent.

Awww dannnnngg! I can't wait until October 1st.

This thread made me giggle. Kudos to you all.

At 9/11/05 05:15 PM, lapis wrote: One of these documents establishes that U.S. military aid to the Chilean armed forces was raised dramatically between the coming to power of Allende in 1970, when it amounted to US$800,000 annually, to US$10.9 million in 1972.
The generals were against Allende, so if US wanted to get rid of Allende it would be wise to fund those that opposed him.

Haha. Okay, do you have any idea how much one tank costs? Or one jet fighter? 11 million is nothing.

And they did. The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public.

But as I said before, the air we gave to Pinochet was in line with the aid we were giving to other third world nations, it wasn't particularily large as it was prior to Allende, when we were trying to support Chile's government.

With a pro-US dictator in power who has the support of the military there's no need to give more aid as the threat of communists taking over has gotten smaller.

Haha, this is where the pro-conspiracy peoples argument gets sloppy. For some reason the US can force a coup with just a few million dollars, yet Pinochet, a cruel dictator, is somehow invulnerable to a coup. And at that, pinochet for some reason loves the US so much that even despite a lack of support publically and materially he will continue to love us forever.

Saying we didn't give aid because it would look conspicious proves that we didn't do all we could, and there is no way to determine that was our reason for not giving aid rather than we didn't want to aid a dictator.

You did, but less.

What? You might want to read that again.

I can make assumptions. Just like you.

The difference is I'm offering arguments and evidence as to why my assumptions are correct.

If you're gicing a country military aid just before and after an anti-democratic coup then you're not doing that for development purposes. It doesn't take mind-reading skills to figure that out.

And it doesnt take mind reading skills to figure out that 10 million dollars wont even buy two tanks. Besides that, it's more likely the US would be giving the aid to prevent a coup, since anti-allende sentiment was already rising and allende would have ultimate control over how the money was spent.

Then they lied, right? Because the US did, in many occasions.

None of those presidents lied about it, maybe FDR.

And this case certainly does not disprove that claim, we can very well stand for global freedom and still support a dictator, espescially when there is a Soviet threat. Cuban missile crisis, anyone?

I really doubt that Allende's Chile was a threat to American homeland security. When you support someone who had violently overthrown a democratic government then you're not helping worldwide freedom. If soviet missile were being built in Chile then I could understand America getting restless. There weren't any. The US supporting this coup was the result of the anti-communist doctrine that penalized a lot of people who had nothing to do with Soviet agression.

Are you daft or something? Do you not get the connection? We though Castro wasn't a threat either, until the Soviets sent a nuclear missile there. Cuba helped the Soviets massively during the cold war, Cuban troops were used all throughout the carribean (Grenada comes to mind) and africa. Allende made friends with Cuba, so we cut back aid, we didn't want to see another Soviet satellite in the carribean.

At 9/11/05 04:49 PM, lapis wrote: There wasn't really a need to do anything more. The US had already built up the Chilean army during Allende's years. And as long as Pinochet was in power the communist threat was thwarted, so it wasn't necessary to give him economic aid. Furthermore, Nixon didn't want to get in the news with the whole Chile thing, parts of the CIA documents covering it were not released until the late nineties. So more conspicious aiding was not a priority.

Wow, I'm not sure where to start. How exactly did we build up the army during Allende's years? Those were the years we gave the least aid.

You would logically give aid to keep Pinochet in power, if you wanted him in power.

The reasons for giving aid before Allende came into power are the same for after, so it makes little sense not to give the same unless our motivations had changed.

Saying we didn't give aid because it would look conspicious proves that we didn't do all we could, and there is no way to determine that was our reason for not giving aid rather than we didn't want to aid a dictator.

Let me be more specific: after the coup the US did everything they thought was necessary to aid the new anti-democratic regime that killed over three thousand people and tortured many more

So now you can read the US's mind, too?

Apperantly, the amount we give in aid to keep a dictator in power is pretty much the same as the amount we give to third world countries to help development. Strange coincidence.

There wasn't anarchy, there was a reasonably stable goverment that had increased it's popularity from 36.3% in 1970 to 43% in 1973. The only threats to stabiltity in the region were the generals, and the US supported them. Allende's economic reforms were actually doing pretty well the first year, but the free fall of the copper prices (Chile's most important exports those days) trashed the economy.

Anarchy is having repeated coups. I wasn't referring to the state during allende's presidency but rather the state of Chile as a whole after the coup.

And of course America is looking after it's own interests, but US presidents have always claimed that the US stood for global freedom and democracy and this is just one case that disproves that claim.

Thats also not true, most US presidents have said the US was not going to interfere with international politics. And this case certainly does not disprove that claim, we can very well stand for global freedom and still support a dictator, espescially when there is a Soviet threat. Cuban missile crisis, anyone?

At 9/11/05 04:30 PM, red_skunk wrote: Sure he could. The US interfered with Chile throughout Allende's presidency in a variety of ways. The US was the major player responsible for the coup, and Pinochet's ensuring reign of terror.

Oh come on. If he went to the Chilean people and said that thier woes were the US's fault for not giving as much aid as they used to, they would immedeatly murder him.

All Castro had was that we placed an embargo on him, which was the least of his economic problems.

If a few million dollars is enough to change a government, then why don't we just do that for Iraq and Iran and north Korea? I'm waiting for one of the pro-conspiracy people to explain that.

At 9/11/05 04:09 PM, lapis wrote: What we do know is that after the coup, the US did everything to aid the new anti-democratic regime that killed over three thousand people and tortured many more. These are facts, and for me reason to like the US even less. Now I'd blame this all on Nepal or fucking Botswana for all I care, but I don't because they didn't have anything to do with this.

Thats not true. We aided him, but there was plenty more we could have done. Our economic aid to Chile never reached its previous levels.

Nevertheless, you can't blame a country for looking after it's own interests. It's the same as us giving money to Colombia to fight the cartel. Just because they can't get thier act together doesn't mean that we should all be subject to the perils that amount from a virtual anarchy.

At 9/10/05 09:45 AM, lapis wrote: I think most Egyptians just don't give a shit about who's ruling over them.

I'll venture a guess as to why....

We give them 2 billion dollars in aid every year. More than any other country. With that amount of surplus cash to a third world country you can do wonders.

At 9/11/05 02:21 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: I think it's a good example of Dollar imperialism and very unreponsible foreign politics from the US.

Dollar imperialism sure is cheap, considering we only spent like 4 million. Jeeze why arent we doing that with Iraq.

The coup wasn't because of the US, it was because of Allende, just like Castro, he screwed his country up by rushing economic reforms, except he couldn't blame it on the US like Castro could, eventually some people got angry enough to start a coup.

At 9/11/05 02:13 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: You had it coming.

I challenge you to give an actual justification. Really, do it.

At 9/10/05 11:24 AM, Velocitom wrote: They also need oxygen to process their food.

To be accurate, they use water. Not the oxygen in the air.

At 9/8/05 09:40 PM, bcdemon wrote: Yes Jim I do understand.
But I want to encourage government run refineries and wells so we can have cheaper fuel.

That wont give you cheaper fuel, most likely. For one, because if it would privately owned already would have. There has to be some sort of placement/availability reason that Canada cant refine all its own fuel.

Considering the privately owned refineries can't seem to keep their shit up to par with the demand levels, maybe gov run is the way to go.

Historically, government run things have performed much worse than privately run things. I can't think of a single example of a government run thing running more efficient than a government run thing.

In the end, your talking about having the government buy out the entire oil industry which is a huge shift in power, just because your oil price up went up 20 cents in the wake of a disaster.

An income tax is better than a sales tax because it encourages spending money instead of saving it. And money spent stimulates the economy.

At 9/6/05 09:44 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/6/05 08:51 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Because its there fault for living in a place prone to disasters, why should we pay for florida citizens who live in a place that gets hurricanes every single year.

I personally dont see why we should keep on paying people who keep living in a place that's hurricane prone, and after they get hit by the hurricane they stay there until the next one hits; and the next one and the next one and the next one.

Exactly. The simple answer is, we have to. We need Florida, California, and and the sum we pay for it is greatly exceeded by what it gives us. Same with New Orleans, we need a seaport on the delta.

The complex answer is, we have to. Were humans, not ants. Part of being humans is we don't always do what is the best for society. If we did we would ban guns, ban smoking, ban drinking, ban meat, ban fun, and ban everything else.

And yet you want every burden to be placed on him, or so it seems.

I never said that. His burden is simply to be the last line of defense, if all else fails he can be depended on to recieve a briefing every 30 minutes and react to it. I'm blaming bush, because I'm not the constituent of either the governer or the mayor.

Is that a serious statement?

Yes it is. Name one activity that the president did before that is now sped up by computers. Presidents never did menial labor.

How does that not matter?

Because I'm not their constituent. I'm the presidents constituent. And for all the wrong they could have done, the wrong the president has done is at the very least equal to thiers. He had the power to stop this, he didn't.

They could've aided people on getting out of the city for one thing. But if some of those people were smart, they'd have left when they heared the hurricane was coming (not pinning all of them, just the ones who heared and decided to stay anyway).

Do you know that for a fact? Can you show me something they could have done that they didnt?

At 9/7/05 12:38 PM, bcdemon wrote: Uh huh. But I still think we should be paying considerably less for fuel than other countries, due to our vast supply of oil. Other (OPEC) countries that can't even produce what they consume pay considerably less for gas and oil than we do. Which gets me back to wanting Canada to join OPEC.

No no, you don't understand. The fact that you have oil doesn't make oil a cent cheaper for you, that only works with developing countries. Thier oil is cheaper mainly because the government owns the oil companies, and forces them to sell it cheaper domestically, in order to encourage industrial development so some day thier economy wont depend on oil.

Canada is already about as developed as it can get, so you certainly don't want to encourage gas use.

At 9/6/05 08:16 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Where the fuck did you come up with that?

Because its there fault for living in a place prone to disasters, why should we pay for florida citizens who live in a place that gets hurricanes every single year.

It's like you want him to be a dictator yet want every blame to fall on him.

What? How does that make him a dictator? All I'm asking is that he do his job. He just has to sit there and get a report every half hour from an advisor, and then decide what to do about it. Thats a far cry from totalitarianism. A very far cry.

So when it comes to bush, an oath means everything...interesting. No one can serve at the best of their ability every fucking day.

It would seem as if pretty much every president in modern history before him served to the best of thier ability much more often.

Were talking about the president of the US here, the most important job in the world. How can it ever be acceptale to not work harder than everyone else at it? He only has to do this for 4-8 years, he can vacation later, now his job is to serve the american people.

It's a privilege to be the president, and when you have the fate of 300 million people in your hands, you can't be taking vacations.

There's a little thing we have called computers, does wonders really. And just because he's the president, everything lies on him? What kind of shit is this? You're acting as if no one else has responsibilities.

Oh come on, like computers somehow reduced the workload of the president. Because before he had to refill his typewriter ink and deliver mail personally.

I'm not saying nobody else has responsibilities, that doesnt matter. The fact is that Bush failed his. He clearly never even took the time to ask about Katrina and what was being done to prepare, thats grossly negligent. To assume everything was going to be handled to such an extent as to not even take a few minutes out of your day is pathetic.

With the governer and mayor, it's entirely possible that they did as much as they could, just as it's possible they didn't do enough. We will see soon. But we know for sure that Bush did not do enough, he could have done so much more. And now a major city is nearly destroyed. A catastrophe we will see massive effects from.

At 9/6/05 06:55 PM, TimeFrame wrote: If they had the chance to get out but chose not to, then they had it coming (their fault).

By that logic, we shouldn't help out anyone in disasters, because its thier fault for living in such a hazardous area. THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT US! Its a sad state of affairs when subsidizing businesses and meddling in internationa affairs takes so much of the governments effort that they can't do the one thing they were created to do, which is protect us. Instead, they simply say 'get the hell out' and get back to wasting 30% of our paycheck.

If I were president, id have figured that their own governor would at least fucking do something.

Figured? You don't have to figure anything, you know exactly what hes doing or not doing. Or at least you would, if you were at all doing your job.

So just because 1 man worked constantly, that means everyone else should be working harder? That's kind of fucked up.

I'm not saying that, however I do believe all presidents should be working very hard. Theres no reason for him to not be working at least 12 hours a day, HES THE FUCKING PRESIDENT!!!

He ran for office, which is telling us that he will work his hardest to serve us.

He swore an oath that he would serve the country to the best of his abilities.

It's a privilege to be the president, and when you have the fate of 300 million people in your hands, you can't be taking vacations. If Bush would have been watching the hurricane there is no way it could have turned out as bad, unless he does indeed hate black people or he just doesnt care about them. That alone should be enough to convince that he should be working more.

At 9/5/05 11:30 PM, TimeFrame wrote: All im saying is that the people had plenty of time to evacuate, it doesnt take that long to get out of a city. And the mayor could've at least helped people out instead of leaving everyone behind.

Right the people had time to evacuate, but they didn't. It's the governments responsibility, no matter what, to protect them and the city. Irregardless to whether people stayed, the national gaurd should ahve been in to make sure the levees didn't break. Lets say that the mayor didn't do what he could have, and the governer too, why didn't Bush step in then?

Jimmy carter worked something like 15-22 hours a day, he was constantly working and watching what was happening with the country. Bush spends something like 4 months a year on vacation, but a working vacation, of course. I don't care if hes working, he should be working more. He needs to be on the button to watch out for if other people make mistakes. Thats the least he could do if hes going just appoint all his buddies from college.

At 9/6/05 12:09 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: ... hurricanes only form in unusually warm waters dumbass

Thats not true at all. If your going to make shit up you shouldn't call others dumbasses in the process.

... fucking moron... if anything the releasing of water out of icebergs would cool the seas just like in a glass of water.

Yeah, because thats how the ocean works, exactly. Nevermind that the water off Alaska is warm. Seriously, you shouldn't even consider arguing global warming is fake if your knowledge of earth science is limited to what you heard some guy on a morning talk show say.

Temperature shifts are natural for earth. Earth has survived them before and it will again. There has never been any direct proof that humans are the cause of global warming. In fact volcanoes spew out more of the dreaded polution that supposedly causes global warming than humans produce.

Again, your just quoting shit you heard from some jackass who knows nothing about science.

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

"Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."

But thats right, youre a scientist arent you, you know lots of sciency thingies and such. I'm sure your vast knowledge of how the earth REALLY works surpasses that of the entire scientific community. If not, it doesn't matter, because thier just stupid liberal fairies and you could take any one of them in a fistfight any day.

I'm tired of this shit.

It's understandable, being wrong sure must be tiring.

This is just the way the world works. I'm sure you have all heard of the great flood and noah. what you probably don't know is that it was based on actuall fact. At the time the water in the mediteranean sea had been dropping steadily due to evaporation. A land bridge was blocking any water from coming in anymore. When the bridge broke the mediteranean filled back up, flooding the area in a matter of months. This is just one of the things that water has done to our planet.

There have been millions of floods in our past, the difference is, NOW WE CAN BUILD WALLS. Theres on reason man should have to move because of nature, were supposed to have conquered the planet, not the other way around.

Lesson: SHIT HAPPENS
What you should take away from this: YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT

Of course you can't, not when idiots go around pretending they know a thing about science.

At 9/6/05 03:41 PM, bcdemon wrote: Yeah, I'm not buying that "supply and demand" bit anymore. Katrina didn't harm Canadas supply, yet our gas jumped $0.20 overnight because of the Gulf Coast devastation. Canada (Alberta) has such a huge supply of oil, we shouldn't be paying anywhere near even $1 a gallon, much less $6 a gallon. But considering some of the actions Alberta is talking about taking due to their vast revenues, I think I might be moving in the near future.

You don't think Canada buys oil and gas from America?

The system of global economics isn't as simple a web, its an interwoven repeating web. Some parts of Canada buy Canadian oil and refine it then sell it to gas stations, some parts buy American oil and refine it, some parts sell oil to America and then America refines it then sells it back, its all crazy like that. It has to do with transport costs, price competition, and business contracts.

Although, even at that, keep in mind New Olreans is a MAJOR city for not just the US but the world. Were going to see wide reaching effects from this, New Olreans being shut down is like Shanghai being shut down, or Montreal. The price could have jumped in anticipation of not just effects to the oil industry but effects to the economy in general.

The fact remains, the price of crude jumped, not refined. That implies that any price gouging is international and intentionally done by nearly every oil country.

At 9/5/05 10:27 PM, TimeFrame wrote: I still dont see why bush is the one getting rediculed about all this

Cause pretty much everything in some, or only involves a decision made by Bush. He appointed the head of FEMA. He revised the budget. He failed to send in the national gaurd. The war in Iraq, initiated by him, tied up supplies that would have been usefull. His creation of the homeland security department but inability to give it its own funding sucked up funds for New Orleans disaster protection.

Show me what the mayor and governer could have done.

At 9/5/05 06:31 PM, bcdemon wrote: Ok, but that still doesn't explain why OPEC nations pay 50 cents (US) a gallon and we in Canada are paying $6.00 (US) a gallon.

Two reasons.

1. Opec nations aren't usually as developed, thus less people are consuming oil, so there isn't as great of a demand but there is a huge supply.

2. Opec regulations don't apply to seeling domestically, I would guess the government probably charges alot less to its own citizens because they want to encourage economic development.

At 9/5/05 06:23 PM, bcdemon wrote: Ahhh, so what your saying is OPEC nations don't refine oil to get thier gasoline, hence the cost? Or, what exactly are you saying?

No no, I'm saying, alot of people think theres some conspiracy amoung exxon mobile and shell to hike up gas prices in times of crisis. Thats not what happened, the price of crude (from OPEC) is going up probably because of real economic factors rather than price gouging.

At 9/5/05 01:31 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: There have been a lot of strong hurricanes before; one more doesn't prove anything.

I don't think you understand me. This hurricane was strong directly because of extra-warm waters. I'm simply saying this is how one could argue that it was Global Warming's fault. It's impossible to know if the extra warm water was directly or indirectly caused or helped by Global warming, however.

Warm water often occurs naturally, but this one could have been caused, or aided by global warming.

At 9/4/05 11:53 AM, bcdemon wrote: I would like to take this moment to extend a heartfelt wish to the thousands and thousands of people around the world who lost someone to death today.

I think you misunderstand, this isn't important because hes American, it's important because his replacement could mean a huge shift in power.

At 9/5/05 07:49 AM, Bio- wrote: Nuclear power plant. Hydro-electric power station. etc. no oil required.

It's rather hard to power an entire country on Hydro-electric, and by rather hard I mean impossible.

Nuclear power is an option, but doubtfull, we would need so many more plants, and plants actually cost more money than they make, so they all have to be subsidized by the government in some way, plus people are generally afraid of nuclear power.

At 9/5/05 11:35 AM, TimeFrame wrote: Why did you respond to scarAHF? He makes an interesting point in saying, "their Govenor had been warned about a natural disaster like this by scientists and Bush delcared New Orleans a disaster area 2 days before the damn thing hit land and she didnt do a damn thing about it".

I'm not saying they werent too at fault, I'm not about to comment on that yet because we don't know the extent of what they could do. Right now I'm only hearing 'bus the people left out' which seems like a good idea, until you realize that alot probably didn't want to leave.

Nevertheless, the federal government STILL did not do anything. There is no possible excuse for that. And I'm talking about before AND after the hurricane.

At 9/5/05 10:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: Here is my beef, like most others. I buy more gasoline than oil (1 month = $500 in gas - $30 in oil), so I don't really care if oil prices go up, as opposed to gas prices. I wish Canada would join OPEC, only for the fact that thier gasoline is averaging about $0.50 a gallon, whereas I am paying $6.00+ a gallon.

:-/

I'm not sure....

You may not know this..... but....... gas is made of oil. They refine the oil and stuff to turn it into gas.

At 9/3/05 05:50 PM, TimeFrame wrote:

At 9/3/05 05:49 PM, ThemonkeyonNG wrote: after the storm calmed. BUT NO, HE WAITED...

I never said he didnt wait.

Why did he wait? Isn't that...... oh, I dont know, criminally negligent?

Wouldn't that mean its his fault the situation got so bad?