Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

To the detractors of the patriot I ask you this, have YOUR personal freedoms been encroached upon?

No, they haven't..and if they were, the FBI doesn't care about you having cybersex on AIM, so get over it.

This is kind of like when Twisted Sister endorsed Al Gore..

At 1/25/04 05:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Heck, this War on Terror is a crock. There's proof of NO weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush just wanted to capture Saddam for not giving in earlier. If he gave in earlier, maybe the conversion of Iraq woulda happened sooner. If it did, hell, the USA would have more oil.

What are you talking about? It's a logical impossiblity to establish proof of nothing, but I'll assume you just messed up the syntax there and meant "there's no proof" not "proof of no." If you want proof, ask the Kurds Saddam gassed with blood agents, ask the Iranian soldiers who were subjected to mustard gas shelling. Every politician since the first President Bush has established Saddam as a dictator, and Clinton made it part of policy to remove Saddam from Iraq in 1998.

Oil has nothing to do with the war, you really think the US could just fill up a bunch of tankers and sail off without anyone noticing?

You've really show your ignorance, learn politics before posting in a politics forum.

One time I stole Howard Dean's newspaper, and then all day I heard him screaming to his family "WE'RE GONNA GO NEXT DOOR, AND WE'RE GONNA TAKE BACK THE SPORTS PAGE, AND THE COMICS, AND THE BUSINESS SECTION, AND THE OP/ED"

France and Russia have been extracting illegal trade concessions from Iraq for over twenty years, these largely involve weapons, including those putting Saddam in material breach of UN resolutions.

At 12/19/03 09:59 AM, Slizor wrote: That is completely irrelevant. To be leader, or even part of the "free world" you have to support human rights and freedoms......which the US hasn't done.

You're right, this would explain US action in Somalia and the Balkans. I guess those were a hypocritical wars for oil too, but the evil republicans hid it really well that time.

You have some gripe with america because you don't have any legitimate political or historical knowledge, you're a complete moron, and anything further said will be ignored.

At 12/19/03 10:13 AM, Slizor wrote: A "reluctant warrior" would not make war with a country it feels could threaten it in the future - that being the reason the US went to war.

You mean the country every administration has deemed a threat since 1990? The country whose leader's removal was made policy by President Clinton in 1998? The country which tried to assassinate not one but two US Presidents?

You're right, Iraq was no threat, and Bush was clearly the only one who felt it was.

Those tricksters, the 'newgrounds-over 18-US resident' vote alone will destroy Bush, surely.

At 12/18/03 11:55 PM, Dagodevas wrote: MLK & Gandhi inspired their people to bring change and it worked.

No it didn't, both were killed without their actions or followers directly changing the social systems in the USA or India/Pakistan. Gandhi did not accomplish anything in South Africa either.

At 12/19/03 04:47 AM, TheTio wrote: America is neither reluctant, or warrior like.

Just because you don't happen to like America doesn't mean any time someone says something positive about it, you need to claim it's wrong.

Then again, you're probably not that intelligent - but you're from New Zealand, you got dealt kind of a bad hand.

At 12/18/03 10:52 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Really? Then why is the US almost always the only nation to vote against humanitarian resolutions? Did you even look at the resolutions and the "opposed" voting outcome? :\

There's never been a UN resolution the US has opposed unilaterally. You should take your political knowledge from credible news sources, not band members who never finished high school.

At 12/18/03 11:02 PM, Charles_Joseph_Clark wrote:

:It is a selfish, fashist and totally ethnocentric country!

You are an uneducated waste of oxygen, learn to spell, take a history class, do SOMETHING to improve your intelligence - then post here.

At 12/18/03 07:28 PM, punk_shithead wrote: Feel free to prove us wrong with actual facts instead of sarcastic assumptions. (i.e. a list similar to the one introduced in the thread)

What are you talking about? No one is trying to prove anything, the US has voted against many UN propositions, and so have all other member nations - it's not something one can debate.

Why does there need to be a next? The US is great because it's the reluctant warrior. The US isn't on some endless bloodlust binge.

At 12/18/03 06:34 PM, Slizor wrote: No, if they had supported the resolutions, then they could be considered part of the "free world". But they didn't, so they're not.

So I'm assuming every other UN nation has approved every UN resolution?

You don't know what you're talking about, you're as ill-informed as ever.

At 12/18/03 03:31 PM, diazepim wrote:

:I'll bust out my blowtorch and pliers for some medieval action.

You're one of the stupidest people here, seriously.

Vegetarianism is great!

Club seals, not sandwhiches.

While we're at it, let's just kill everyone with AIDS, too - because hey, that would solve the problem.

Right?

At 12/18/03 11:49 AM, diazepim wrote: Public Executions... Torture chambers... is that really unconstitutional?

Ahem, the eighth ammendment...

At 12/18/03 07:41 AM, napalm6b wrote: like segregation and eugenics!

Yeah, liberating oppressed people is a lot like genetic discrimination.

Just so you know, the republicans freed the slaves.

Why should anyone waste their time talking politics to some fool with an anarchy logo in his signature?

Well, if it's on the internet somewhere, it must be true.

At 12/18/03 12:07 AM, Unchain wrote:

At 12/14/03 05:45 AM, calmius wrote: Bush is AWESOME!!!

Is destroying the enviroment awesome? Is bankrupting our goverment awesome? Is war awesome? Is spilling blood for oil awesome? Is going AWOL in a time of war awesome?

You sure make a lot of sense...

If the USA had simply agreed with everyone the UN has ever said, wouldn't that make the USA the "follower" of the free world, not the leader?

I don't think I see your point, assuming you have one.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're a fool.

Regardless of your opinions, torture will never be legal in the USA, and that's a good thing. Justice isn't about injuring the unjust.

Malvo and Muhammad have shown they are a danger to society, and their crimes are particularly cruel and heinous; because of this, they should be executed by Virginia Commonwealth law.

At 12/17/03 05:13 PM, SKS_Hyper wrote: Hmmm, um Nemesisz

While I'm sure you've gathered a lot from your eight posts here, maybe you should stick around longer before assuming you know how people think, that would be great, thanks.

Learn to recognize hyperbole when you see it, also. See if you can squeeze that on your to-do list in between "act important at a forum" and "download porn."

At 12/17/03 04:09 PM, Chaoslight wrote: I think you are smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. If not, your loss.
Tell me, then: What would you do?

I'd make sure no members of the supreme court had died in 1996.

At 12/17/03 03:46 PM, Chaoslight wrote: How ultimate is this power?

Wow, from putting deceased scientists on the supreme court to imposing socialism on country which spent thirty years fighting it, your policies sure are crappy..

I do agree with your proposed treatment of people who refuse to type "you," though.

Saddam didn't spend twelve years lying to the UN just to have the US find this evidence in a few months. There are most certainly chemical weapons in Iraq, it's only a matter of time until they're found.