Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/14/13 04:31 PM, Poniiboi wrote:

At 6/14/13 04:01 PM, poxpower wrote:
You're pretty much a piece of shit lol.

I'll piss on your mother's grave.

Congratulations. You have officially become the least convincing argument on the entire politics forum.

Pretty hard to say, when we have people like you trolling this forum

I'd imagine I just met Poniiboi in real life.

As a former pot smoker I don't know about this.

Yes, it should be legalized as it is pretty much a drain on the economy (although not as high as people think, look you legalize weed you get around 20 billion I think it was, big deal we have a 15 trillion debt, it's an insignificant dent to the overall debt).

I mean, personally, I couldn't take it after a while, it just makes you stupid, and no not long term, I don't buy into those Above the Influence propaganda pieces. But while it feels good (and even then only if you have a good high, I don't know about you but sometimes I started feeling paranoid, although admittedly due to parents being around and etc) it's a waste of money, the effects of weed just hit you too fast and isn't really a sociable drug.

You just say stupid shit, and most of the time you can't get your point across and just sound retarded, and while yeah If the other person is high they might find it funny, but if you've ever been sober around people who are just fucking in the clouds high, you just sound like idiots.

I'll a brew over a joint anyday, it can be controlled better and to me personally being drunk is more fun than being high. You think too much when you're high, and because you're high you just think of stupid shit and spend more time trying to get your words across than just enjoying the moment.

That being said I think it should be legalized, but personally I feel like it's a phase, when you're getting to your mid 30's and you're still getting stoned, it's just a little sad.

You're one to talk of issues considering I was replying to husky not you, the fact that you immediately thought I was replying to you, as if I'd waste time trying to dialogue with a lunatic, shows some minor level of paranoia, or at the least some level of attention you think should be bestowed on you.

You forget you're the one with a four page thread, with everyone both on the left and right of the political spectrum mind you, calling you insane.

I mean at that point can you even still claim "we're the ones whose crazy".

If the whole fucking village is crying wolf, I'm going to tend to believe them over the boy crying invisible fairy.

Gulf of Tolken, isn't that between the Shire and Mordor?

Okay and I respect you and your views, but I don't understand why you were first to call me out as a bigot when I don't believe I've ever done so to you on any of the other threads we've argued, and yes I know I'm not very active in this thread, but I just don't spend as much time here as I do with other things.

My big point in all of this, is that a word has baggage, that's the purpose of them, I'm not gonna say faggot doesn't mean a gay man/woman (as a slur) in the right text, it can.

And again I can't stress this enough, I'm not going up to gay men I know and calling them such, that's being a dick. Nor would I go up to a black man and calling him N--.

But I will go up to a black friend once in a while and say "whad up my n--" in a joking way. Does that mean I view him as such no, I know it's a bad word, just as I know asshole is or douchebag is, so does that mean when I call my friends that when they're messing with me I mean it with a burning passion? No, I'm joking.

However the words in question are Fag and Gay, and I'm sorry but again where and more importantly when I grew up not only did we not know any gays, because we werent sexually cognizant in the first place to even understand the "true" definition of the word, but even when they grew up and realized they were gay, they too used the word before to mean it as lame or a loser.

And some of them still do use it in that way, and yes If you called them a fag solely because they're gay in that context they get upset, but if you as I have talked to them and then they say I'm going to (example) the play later because Im stage techs I said "wow that's gay", this kid's reply "yea I know"

End of conversation I don't know what else to say at this point, the meaning was interpreted as something else, in the manner I wanted it to be and not as a slur.

Honestly, it's the IRS, I mean of all government agencies in the first place, whose opinion of them was actually lowered after they heard about this?

I mean end of the day it was a politically left move, or at the very least a move by people so in the center they hate the right and left, though the chances of that are slim to none. They targeted conservatives, the proclaimed enemy of the left does that then mean that anyone who says that mean to demonize the entire democratic party, the incumbent president and his cabinet and all people left of center. No, it doesn't.

Does anyone actually believe Obama ordered, I don't necessarily, but his credibility is not very good right now, and even though the right may be hyping this up, which in many cases they are let's not deny that. Douchebags like Hannity get a hard on every time they so much as hear the words Obama and scandal in the same sentence because they hate the man with a burning passion.

However when people on the left are also siding with some of these individuals and even admitting that their trust in the man is not very high or non-existent in some cases, then what do you do? Claim they're only doing so because the right is making that much noise or being that adamant and threatening about it that these such people are coaxed/forced into siding with them?

Or the simple truth is maybe the man isn't that beloved and isn't as credible as we once thought.

And I don't have a vendetta against him, I for the most part like Obama and yes the views I do like of his , for the most part, are right of center, but when media outlets on both side are attacking him, and again I know the majority (key word here meaning there a those on the left who also attack him) of these attacks are from the right, than I'm inclined to believe them.

At 6/11/13 09:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/11/13 07:23 PM, Poniiboi wrote: My question to you is, why do you want to say n****r so much? Why can't you just switch your attention to "spoon" and say that?

Are you saying black people are like spoons: they only exist to serve sloppy white people?

Holy shit, at this point are trying to just take offense to anything. And for the record the word you're looking for is spook, not once In my life have I ever heard anyone refer to a black individual as a 'spoon'.

This is like that Tosh.0 skit where he just says a bunch of arbitrary words the group of diverse individuals (there is that better than "minorities" which only enhance how much of a despicable bigot I suddenly am) and they all immediately start finding offense for common everyday words because they're that insecure.

I mean for fuck's sake I think at one point he said dash, and surprisingly the latino among them took it to mean as a person who sprints across borders, when it was supposed to be a clear insult to the asian woman.

At 5/30/13 09:46 PM, Flerovium wrote:

At 5/30/13 09:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In short, you'd rather choose to demena homosexuals by using a word that is, and has been for a long time, referring to them in order to demean your friends, instead of taking the extra syllable it takes to call them a loser?

Best argument I've seen so far.
This isn't worth debating really, I just kind of wanted to see who'd be bigoted enough to say that they're justified in using words like faggot.

It's not a matter of bigotry when I'm calling a person who I know has had sex with a female has never once had any inkling to do so with a male a faggot.

God this is the problem, you hear the word and immediately associate to mean that's my intent, look whether we like it or not word's meaning change even if in the dictionary it's definition is something else.

I hate, fucking hate it when people use literally other than it's text book definition, but now it's even allowed by the dictionary to be used as a stronger form of really, or very, and I can argue all I want but at the end of the day the meaning of a word depends on the people, and right now the people choose it to mean very.

That being said the same is for faggot, since third grade the words meaning for me and my circle of friends and shit for practically my whole school girls and even kids who later were gay, to call such an outcast as a faggot, I honestly don't know what you want from me at this point.

That because a word was used differently and still has (a newfound mind you) meaning as a slur, we should ban it's use?

Why do you think white people don't give a shit when they're called 'cracker', or red-heads when they're called 'gingers', because those words have no impact on them so long as you allow it.

At 6/9/13 06:27 PM, Fim wrote: Another shining example of how guns don't kill people.

go on tony I dare you

No one here, not once, or ever, has said guns don't kill people. That's their purpose, but because they have killing potential doesn't mean they're somehow demonic instruments from which all evil stems.

Do you really think this girl would not be dead or at the least injured if guns were not involved. This psycho would probably have just as easily picked up a bat and bashed her brains in with only slightly more effort than he did by pulling the trigger.

This guy is a big physically imposing man, lack of fire-arms would not restrict his ability to inflict harm, sure it would lessen his over-all effectiveness, but that has stopped the millions of murders done by melee weapons.

Interesting to see you went there first, and by the way I hope you've been watching the news lately, because as I and others have said to you, guns are not the only weapons capable of murder, as the London butchers showed only a few short weeks ago.

Look the only word we know this is about is "G--,F---" or any of its derivatives.

And quite honestly centuries of hatred? Homosexuals are not some repressed people in great masses as the Blacks, Jews, etc.

They're plight has only gained ground in recent times because so too has their numbers.

Now I'm not saying whether or not it's wrong, you are what you are, so you can't help it, I accept that and I wouldn't persecute them for it.

Now faggot is not N----, nor is it K---, S---, K--,it was a word whose meaning has only changed in the recent past as a slur for gays.

I've called people fags and I've also used N------- (though in the 'gangsta' form). Does that mean I'm going up to the people whose associated with those words and saying them to their face? Ofcourse not.

A word is only a word, it's intent varies person to person, obviously calling a black person a n---- is offensive and intolerable. I've said to black friends jokingly, they don't give a shit, which is why I say it, now I'm not saying it to them every waking moment.

A word's reaction changes from person to person. You wouldn't go up to your boss on bad terms and then say "How's it going you S.O.B", to your best friend however you would.

Now I'm not stupid I know such words carry force, but in regards to F-g/G-y, it's interchangeable meaning loser or lame is too socially acceptable. I know the media and society will frown upon but on the playground and schools it's thriving and at least from my experience it's meaning (as a loser/lame) is set in stone and used frequently as such.

I'm sure many of you by now have heard what I'm talking about if not here's the story

Terrible act by a few sickos, but honestly it's slightly annoying having people call them 'home-grown' terrorists just because they happen to be Muslims who were shouting a nonsensical rant Allah wanting vengeance or some other bullshit.

These guys were just some vagrants with a clever, knife, and a faulty revolver hardly the stuff of Al Qaeda or any of it's affiliates. They're not so stupid as to attack in broad day-light on such a small scale as this, and they sure as hell wouldn't stick around the corpse and preach on the street.

I mean really it's just stupid, and it's really pushed by people on the right more so than the left. Shit like that just alienates the already cautious Muslim community and pisses them off, and then they when an actual attack goes down the morons throw their hands in the air and say "WHY'D THEY DO IT? THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM!".

Just treat this as it is, a bunch of cracked-out/retarded hoodlums with a thirst for blood and attention.

I'm also surprised they had time to just waltz around their like clowns for about half an hour, the cops are that slow to react to something like this? I'm not trying to offend British police officers or those in London, but why did no one respond as immediately to this as they should have?

At 5/18/13 08:36 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So...you admit our government is "chaotic"...but I should be trusting them to monitor me and invade my privacy with no probable cause and it'll all be ok?

Right, I kinda of overlooked that.

I meant that more as in people not doing their job. I feel like though with such a system it should be run maybe military like or at least by the CIA, considering they're not too partisan on anything really they just do their jobs.

The ultimate problem I see is that an individual can cause too much carnage by himself these days. It no longer takes a man with an army or money behind him to cause destruction. He can just go out and buy his own weapons or make them and use these tools to cause massive casualties.

We need to be vigilant against these people and I know it seems intrusive on our rights to allow the government to be as involved in privacy as they are (or will be).

But to me it seems like the lesser of two evils, would you rather risk the lives of the present of the lives of the future?

And my point with that is, the problem you foresee is this system being turned against us as an American Gestapo and while that's a valid argument/concern, I feel that while yes our government is flawed, it is not nearly to the point that it could become tyrannical.

We can say no in our government, so I feel so long as we keep such a system, but as a final line, in the sense that this is the farthest we can allow our government to go. It will only get out of hand if we let it.

You know the whole gate-way drug theory? It's a stupid analogy to make but the only one that comes to mind. I know people can just smoke weed and weed alone, is it so hard to believe that the only right we'll be willing to give up is privacy and privacy alone?

At 5/18/13 09:07 AM, Fim wrote:

At 5/16/13 08:28 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

At 5/16/13 05:19 AM, Fim wrote:

At 5/14/13 05:27 PM, soulcailber wrote: was that sarcasm

It was like 4 in the morning and I kinda wanted to dip my toes in the pool of debate and piss off retards like tony, usually I can resist the urge, yh I was being sarcastic. Isn't it obvious?

Yeah, but you're getting into a debate where's there more than a mountain's worth of information proving you wrong.

Trust me, I've been through this debate long enough to know how much people on the pro gun lobby love to cherry pick their sources and carefully ignore cases like Australia where strict gun regulation worked. If you want to believe that living in a country with lax gun laws as they stand, is worth the unavoidable collateral damage of human life then go right ahead, just don't try and tell me there's a rational argument for it. Anyway, I'm seriously done with arguing on newgrounds about it.

I'm not saying you should be able go into a store and pick out a gun and boxes of ammunition in the same day.

There should be background checks, there should be limitations on magazines, and there should not be automatic weapons available for purchase (and yes I know automatic means simply the next shot is readied without need of cocking the gun, but in the media and to people without knowledge of guns they tend to think it means fully automatic).

At 5/17/13 07:24 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Cause unless I'm under criminal investigation, which I should be informed of according to the Bill of Rights, that being the 5th, 4th, and to a degree the 10th and 9th. I like my rights, I'd like to keep them for as long as I can. If I don't draw some lines in the sand and let those in power know what I wont tolerate, why not just let them do whatever the hell they want to me?

But if I say "well, screw them and their rights" then I open the door to my rights being violated as well. It's like this phrase "I may not agree with what someone is saying, but I'll fight like hell for their right to say it". If we don't stand up for our rights, then we can easily lose them. Thats why The Bill of Rights was enacted in the first place.

They don't need to know what I'm downloading online, or checking out at the library, or anything like that unless they have evidence that I am committing some kind of a crime by doing so. The "if you have nothing to hide, what do you care?" defense is a slippery slope.

No, but you do wind up on a secret watch list...and from there you may wind up on their kill lists. Because at this point the government can take out citizens if they feel the threat is great enough. So yes, given that, how about I just give up some more rights?

No offense, but I feel like you have little faith in our government. I understand you entirely, and believe me I do with your argument on 'where does it end', but I mean let's be honest I think you have to be naive to think we don't already have some system in place like this.

And while I understand your complaint on what happens when it's misused, I think there's a lot of middle ground between being watched and being outright assassinated. I mean you have to think about like this, there's 375 million people in this country, of that 200 or so online?

So now you have to be on the look out for people who might be radical islamist, anarchists, conspiratorial, etc. But of that what are you going to do? Keep tabs on all of them who so much as open anything at all resembling what I just said?

I doubt a database can be that large, and if so it's be so large it'd be impractical, so I'd imagine in such a system you'd have to have several red flags, to so much as be entered in such.

And with that, do you think we'd immediately go straight to an assassination? I'd be too large a number and such a scandal government in general would be questioned, I don't think any politician would dare to even authorize the kill without so much as an open dialogue with the suspect or an attempted arrest?

Hell we allowed the Tsarnaevs to come quietly after they shoot up and blew up the town, I don't think anyone would be outright killed without so much as an arrest first.

It is, but if I agree with you, then I'm saying it's so open to interpretation as to have no value whatsoever and we may as well toss it into the trash if we aren't going to follow it's most basic amendments and principles. With all due respect of course, as I appreciate the respect you afforded me.

no problem

Ah, but you see this not the same thing. Because what that kid posted on Facebook is made public, or at least as public as his friends list. Also the law is clear that threats are a criminal act in and of themselves and therefore constitute just cause for further investigation. Not an apples to apples my friend. :)

True, but the only difference really is one is behind closed doors so to say.

I absolutely agree. I don't think that was harsh at all. We've dealt with similar situations here on the site and the idea is the same: You take any statement like that as a threat, as a serious situation, and you do whatever it takes to turn it over to the authorities and let them deal with it. You don't make threats publicly and not expect legal consequences. It's a crime.

glad we see eye to eye on this

That's the fault of the people who ignored. There ARE sufficient mechanisms in place to deal with such crap. I'm a part of one such mechanism (the mod team of this site). You can't prevent every crime and every tragedy, more legislation and violation of people's rights isn't going to help that.

Right I'd just like to see a step forward I mean as a moderator you watch over all activity but in my opinion I see you as fair and you've had several people ouright curse you out and I don't see them being banned so I mean If you can handle such power properly maybe so too can our government.

Such a system can be inplace without that immediate escalation.

Without probable cause? Yes. Because ultimately it WILL be getting to a Minority Report situation, where they're being left to decide if what I'm doing may result in crime. If I check out a book on Hitler for a research paper I may be put on a secret watch list and branded as a possible neo-nazi when all I was doing was a school project. There have been people on this very board who have been investigated for that very thing, so this is not some pie in the sky idea.

I think I already answered in the other post, a few above*

Don't worry about Big Brother, he's only going to slap you if you do something illegal...its fine...sleep, sleep...nope, not my idea of an acceptable situation, and not the idea of the country whose history I was taught.

*

Are you talking about at the airports?

I'm sorry, this is a program in New York City, were cops can stop anyone they choose and frisk them, it has received a lot of bad press, admittedly so, but there are reports that it is indeed effective, which it is.

But they go into a database, and that doesn't go away, stays on their record. Something as simple as checking out a book for a school project puts you on a list...scary not good stuff to me.

But like I said it can't be something as simple as that given the frequency of such searches, if anything it'd have to be accumulative.

We should never ignore the warning signs. My point though is that the tools we had prior to 9/11 were sufficient. The CIA, the FBI, all of them did their jobs, and did it well. The CIA was running around all summer trying to warn the admin an attack was imminent, they didn't listen, then tried to deflect the blame and say "well, the law enforcement and intelligence community didn't have enough resources".

This I have not heard about, but unfortunately wouldn't surprise me how chaotic our government is.

Agreed. Leaving it there because we've got enough gun control threads already, we don't need to derail this one into yet another.

agreed

I will say this, the whole video blame thing is weird I don't know why Obama is getting so upset over it and saying he did call it a terrorist attack, all he said was some general comment about terrorism never shaking this country.

It was a political move, because he never said the act in question was an act of terrorism, more likely he placed the word there to fall back on when it was confirmed that it was such. Now I know I'll take hits for this, and I appreciate he now acknowledges the attack was such (as if it could have been anything but).

At this point, I don't know what's so hard about saying we were wrong on the video thing and to promote that idea, and likewise I don't know what's so important on holding the entire president's credibility to just those word (Republicans/anti-Obamanites).

However it's my understanding that Libya is mostly desert, so unless there are some uncharted caves or a few oasis-like regions scattered about, the guys will responsible are going to be confined to the cities.

Now unless these guys are Muhj-like terrorists aiding the call from all the corners of the Muslim world, then obviously finding them and persecuting them will be hard to do, however I have no doubt our government will bring these guys to justice, it's only a matter of when.

At 5/16/13 10:17 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 5/16/13 10:08 PM, Korriken wrote: One is simply more successful at raising money than the other.

Sure. Except that the donors to Liberal SuperPACs aren't casino owners, gun companies, investment bankers, etc, etc. they're business owners who make millions by hiring peiple at inpoverishibg wages while overcharging their customers for immoral products.

People who donate to liberal superPACs are largely the nation's workers.

So then the Democratic party is somehow this magnanimous organization who only wants to better all peoples, and the Republicans are some sort of oppressive Nazism that's been kept in check by the proud noble Liberals?

Look I know they have a tendency to be more dickish than the other, but If you really think the Democrats are without corruption and their superPACS aren't subject to the typical shady deals under the table and made up of a few immoral business leaders and wholly transparent than you're wrong.

At 5/17/13 07:42 PM, orangebomb wrote: Pure cold logic that will soar over Poniboi's head

Why even argue with this guy? If he want's to think wearing tinfoil is the only thing to save him from the big bad government let him, society's better off without him.

You know what always goes through my mind when I come into contact with people like this, what do you do for a living?

Look the real question is why would you care.

As I was trying to say, these people are insignificant in your life. What they do behind closed doors would literally have no impact on your life, they might as well not even exist.

You should have nothing to fear from them going over your private online history, and emails, unless you've downloaded blue prints of iconic landmarks/buildings in addition to a wikipedia search of explosive ingredients and where to buy them.

And rightfully so I can say I've never once actually looked anything of the sort up aside maybe from a few actual military weapons on Wikipedia, but still not enough to convict me of conspiracy to commit terror.

Obviously our government would not respond in full force to something like that and the instant you look up home made guns/bombs, etc you're house will be swarmed by the FBI and SWAT.

So again I ask why? Because you're committed to some belief in our constitution, which while I greatly respect lets be honest is open to interpretation.

By having such a system in place we could catch such horrible acts before they happen. Look recently some kid posted on Facebook that they "shouldn't go to school tomorrow or else...".

He was interrogated by cops and suspended, harsh I know, but that's idiocy why post something like that? To be edgy cool or funny? Clearly no one thought so, and in this day and age can you simply ignore that to the ravings of some loon.

Look at Chris Dorner the douche posted some manifesto and everyone ignored it until he acted on it.

While I'm not advocating for some Minority report action to be taken, is it so wrong to have some government spook watch you? Creepy, sure but if they're good at their job you'll never see them, and unless you actually act illegally, you'll be fine.

Again, I'm only advocating for people with questionable motives/acts to be watched by FBI something for a period of time,if they fuck up and we catch them before innocents are killed, than it's a success.

Hell look at stop and frisk for an example, everyone bitches how it's racist and stereotypes and while it might it's success can not be denied.

And if the person in question does nothing of the sort, then do you think we'd really continue to investigate the individual and continue to waste resources? No, they would move on to the next spook and wait and see.

Being cautious if somewhat paranoid get's people on edge because they think 1984 Big Brother, Minority report type conspiracy, but as we get more advanced the amount of damage an individual can inflict by himself only grows, should we ignore the warning signs and cost innocent lives just to respect an out-of-date law?

And inb4 some one turns this into about guns, I do respect the 2nd amendment, but an individual does not need 30 rounds in a gun,nor does he need a weapon for the military, and nor does he need to buy such a weapon without any sort of background check or proper paper work to validate such a purchase.

At 5/16/13 05:19 AM, Fim wrote:

At 5/14/13 05:27 PM, soulcailber wrote: was that sarcasm

It was like 4 in the morning and I kinda wanted to dip my toes in the pool of debate and piss off retards like tony, usually I can resist the urge, yh I was being sarcastic. Isn't it obvious?

Yeah, but you're getting into a debate where's there more than a mountain's worth of information proving you wrong.

If Mason re-enters the thread he'd be the one to swamp you with the information, or you could a few pages behind and check what he said.

Either way, end result violence won't stop just because you outlaw one outlet of the hundred others.

At 5/15/13 09:21 AM, morefngdbs wrote: WAHHHHHH I'm not athletic, so I hate sports.

Shut the fuck up.

Stop putting some bullshit conspiracy over sports just because you were picked last in gym. To more than half the world sports is a big fucking deal.

I'm sure you have a love of videogames or whatever and to you that seems more important than sports, and while that's fine to have your own opinion, don't go around acting as if whatever it is you follow is obviously more realistic and better.

Good, now let's work about you getting kicked off here.

Anyone so stupid as to have supported that loon doesn't deserve to be online posting conspiracy theories and other insane rants.

You wanna fight the government and the police why don't you take to the streets like the rest of the so-called 'freedom fighters'.

Oh stop it.

Do you have a facebook? Because if so, then your "right to privacy" should be thrown out the window.

This is the stuff that always got me upset. Why would you care if Bill Smith of the (clearly fictitious) Federal Bureau of Online Interaction Investigation Committee opened your letter of how you want to buy a laptop off of Amazon or etc.

Or an IM/email/w/ever to your friend of what concerting you'll be attending on Sunday.

These men if they even exist are perfect strangers, you will probably never see them, or at the very least ever come into contact with them and them tell you that yes they view your private information.

Why should you care so long as they never show any of this information to your friends and family that you would not want seeing this.

And yet people are perfectly fine posting pictures of them passed out on the side-walk in a pile of puke with the caption "KRAZY NITE YOLO!", give me a fucking break. If there is such a right to privacy our generation waived that right with the invention of facebook.

This is getting a little ridiculous a continent isn't something subjective, you guys can't claim to define something as another when there is already a text-book (literally) definition of what defines a continent, we have 7 and possibly a sixth the only reason there's discrepancies is because Eurasia is one land-mass with-out the necessary separation.

Just look up continent it will say "continents are understood to be large, continuous, discretemasses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water"

Most of the general understood continents fit that definition. It is ideal to be separated by water, but not necessarily the only criteria.

The three that are troubling, are North and South America, and Africa. But as I said before they are so large a landmass and are only held together to another by such a small amount of land (Panama, the Sinai) relative to them that it's almost (not entirely) negligible.

The only reason Euraisa has been split is because of ethnic reasons though of by the proud European cartographers who probably couldn't deal with the thought of Europe being part of the "inferior" continent.

And hell even today it's under contest as to whether or not it should remain separate.

At 5/14/13 08:58 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 5/14/13 10:35 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

Sending the FBI to raid the homes of people to terrorize them into doing your bidding isn't harmless.

Not familiar with this one I'd have to look it up not discrediting you or anything.

The problem with it was that Congress had already ordered the President to stop arming the rebels and on top of this they were dealing with Islamic Iran, trying to sell them arms so they would release hostages. The basic notion probably wouldn't have been controversial but the way it was carried out was.

Right, but again, it's illegal, is it therefore automatically immoral, not to say it wasn't because in the end it was, but was it the man's intention for them to slaughter innocents? Hell I'd consider Ajax worse. Sending in CIA to set up a puppet government that oppressed it's people so much so to the point that it burst into Islamic Fury once the people became impassioned enough.

And again, it's not like Reagan had any control over the Contra's, he just gave them money because they were anti-communist. It's short sighted as hell but he did it with some what good intentions. That being said once it became known they were as terrible as can be, it becomes wrong to continue to aid them and that is where I take issue with it.

Leakages have happened all the time. Just look at the Pentagon papers.

Doesn't make it any less important just because they're frequent, that doesn't apply to crime. I mean what if this was information on a homegrown terrorist cell that the powers at be were so close to capturing and they just needed one more month because they were all going to meet up with the head honcho who has Al Qaeda ties.

Then such information is made public and the group disperses and immediately attacks as a panicked quick reaction.

At 5/14/13 10:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: stuff

So If you advocate sitting back and letting the Syrians handle this on their own, what are you saying we as the American Government should do?

Have talks with these people, and tell them how best to govern once they depose Assad?

I'm all for that and think it's a good idea, but we can't also be naive and think as soon as the dust does settle they'll get together and sing kumbaya. That doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to them, or that we discriminate the new government in any way, but we should keep tabs on certain groups, and monitor who it is that's coming to power, such as an Al-Qaeda affiliate or radical Islamist.

I mean we should offer help to them in any way possible but it has to be done in the shadows as odd as that sounds. Because honestly involvement whether good or bad is what gives these guys ammo.

They can just point and say "HEY LOOK OVER THERE! THAT'S THE OPPRESSIVE IMPERIALIST INFIDEL!". I mean we could send them aid in funds and that's it, but if we start doing so in organized relief efforts that will require some sort of armed security to ensure the safety of those workers.

And all it takes is an American with a gun, for them to immediately pin blame or suspicion on of coming to invade.

I mean again we can avoid that if we just ensure such people don't get in power. But here's where it becomes messy, whose right for us, may not be right for them.

We really can't tell and honestly sometimes we have to stop this whole world policing, I know giving aid to oppressed people and deposing dictators sounds good on paper and in theory, but in practice it might not be seen as such to others, and we may cause more harm than good.

And I get what you're saying, but it should be quite simple here, add more security and put teams on standby, when shit hits the fan send them in.

I know some one fucked up and actually told the team to stand down, and they should get their comeupence if such a person did do such a thing and if it was done for unsound morally/illegal reasons.

But really right now, I think we should be more focused on retaliation than what went wrong, it's been months since this whole thing has happened what has this administration done about it other than say it wasn't our fault or we didn't know etc.

I'd hope that such an operation is ongoing and simply covert, but with all the attention it's getting even from the big man himself it seems as though no such thing is happening.

I'll say this though if it's all an act to give an image to the people responsible, that we're too focused on what went wrong and aren't bothering to pursue them at the moment, when in reality we actually are, he's one clever bastard.

Again that's if this is the case, which doesn't seem so at the moment.

No offense but culture has no role in defining a continent sure I completely understand where you guys are coming from and I agree Europe and Asia should be one.

Which is why it's stupid to only further the separation of landmasses solely by culture. If tomorrow North America was divided into distinct different areas of the country where only certain ethnic groups lived (If all the white went to the Mid-east and Blacks to the North, etc.) that still would not change the fact that North America is North America and nothing more.

The whole Indian subcontinent while yes true tectonic(ly?) is separate from the rest of Asia, isn't so on the surface and for several hundred miles deep, and will continue to be a part of Asia for years to come, hell isn't it stabbed/smashed into the Landmass.

So give it a few million years and couldn't it simply fall under/merge with it, thus eliminating as a single entity? So for the most part India is Asia. and Asia is part of Europe, It's Eurasia.

This shit is pissing me off now.

Who gives a shit about who if anyone is to blame for the lack of security/response.At this point we need to know WHO attacked us and go after these bastards with the wrath of God behind us.

The more we bicker about this stupid shit, the more time we're just giving these pricks to regroup, reform and hell maybe even launch a second attack.

No a Continent is just that a large mass of land, and it's not relative because all you need to do to define one is to establish borders.

For example, you could never call Texas a continent because to the south is Mexico to the West and North is America, It doesn't stand alone.

I mean look at Africa with the exception of the middle east, and again even that is a small amount of distance, the Sinai that is, it might as well be an island sure it would be pretty damn close to Europe but an Island none the less.

Now same for North and South America they're so large a landmass but only connected by such a small isthmus, Panama, that you can't truly call them a single land piece, hell give it 200 years and they might be separate entirely.

Now Antarctica and Australia while smaller are certainly large enough and separate enough from other landforms to be continents.

Myself, personally I consider Europe and Asia to be one, but since cultural ties separate the two that would never happen.

I couldn't tell you about islands, though, especially those in the Pacific, I'd say they're just independent of a Continent all together.