Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/1/04 11:22 PM, Quiche wrote:

At 1/1/04 04:25 PM, TheMason wrote: and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

1: What the hell did Clinton have to do Kim? If Kim's dad was dictator, and he was being trained from birth to be a dictator, and elections in North Korea are a mockery, what affect did Clinton have on North Korea's leadership? Please tell me. I'd like to know.

2: "Rouge nations" have always been around since the beginning of the Cold War. Rouge nations will always be around till true democracy becomes available to everyone. Given as how most "rouge nations" are Communist, former Communist, or Middle East, its only natural for them to hate us. Clinton had no more affect on them than Reagan or Bush Senior, both of whom made a career out of tampering with the Middle East and Latin America.

Here's the thing, if you look at the way that Rogue nations view America and its ability to defend itself. For example, if you look at how bin-Laden views America: He defeated the Soviet army, and the Soviet army is alot more tough than the American army. Therefore the American military does not pose a serious threat to him.

Why? Because the American people does not have the stomache for high American casualties. This was proved by Clinton's actions in Somalia. We won the battle of Mogadishu, we accomplished the objectives of the mission and sustained few casualties when compared to the awesome amount of firepower against us. It was Clinton's actions afterward that has diminished the perception of American power. Task Force Ranger was withdrawn from Somalia, all war criminals were released and what progress we made in that country was lost.

This emboldens people like Kim. From all that I've read about N. Korea is that they do not think we have the intestinal fortitude to fight.

This is the Clinton legacy.

At 12/29/03 06:11 PM, motive23 wrote: Lemme ask you this question... Have you ever seen a white drug dealer?

Yes, several in fact.

I don't know how it is in England, but here in the States most of the country is rural without any effective police presence. As a result there is in this country a significant amount of the population that does not have police protection. In terms of physical violence (rape, assault, etc.) many have to fend for themselves without assistance.

Interestingly, these areas have per capita a lower rate of violent crime than urban areas that have a police force. One difference is attitude, firearms are seen as tools and are respected more in these areas than in the urban centers and the suburbs.

I'm surprised that I haven't seen this topic yet, it seems as if many on this forum seem more liberal and/or dissatisfied with the Bush Administration.

I would hope that this discussion would avoid more emotional and irrelevent topics such as his reported womanizing. Also can we have a more intellectual discussion without all the "mother fuckers" and what nots?

Personnally I do not think his legacy will be remembered as that great. The economy had started rebounding during the 6-9 months BEFORE Clinton's 1992 election. (Not that Bush had anything to do with it, the economy runs on a cycle of its own and if any US government body has anything to do with it it would be the Congress).

Secondly, I think his negligence in the proper use of the US military helped give us a reputation as being weak and ineffective to people like Bin-Laden and the Kim Il-Jong regime. So yes I think Clinton's policies opened the door to Terrorists and rogue states of all kind of stripes to attack us.

At 12/30/03 08:24 AM, Gibberish wrote:

At 12/30/03 04:33 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Do you really have a that biased media? In the UK we probably get slightly more pro-Palestinian stuff, but it's about 50-50. The major news channels are very un-biased.

By UK law, the five mian TV channels - and the BBC's channels - have to be unbiased.

How can that be? Bias is not something that you can simply legislate away. Somewhere along the way someone (an editor/producer) will have to make a decision on what stories to cover/air and what stories to not cover/air. Furthermore, the reporter on the scene has to make decisions on what information to include in their report. At some level these people's biases will seep into the news. If this was not the case, there would simply be too much information to air/print in the space available.

The issue of American news being biased is kind of trumped up. A true biased media would be one in which the major channels were operated by a political party or the state. We do not have that here. What we do have is slanted journalism, and this is where the decisions made by those who operate/produce the reporting.

Lastly, I think we hear alot on Isreal/Palestine. However, most Americans tune it out (until a 9-11 happens, then we go back to sleep). I think CNN is more balanced in their reporting while Fox news is too slanted towards Isreal.

At 1/1/04 01:18 PM, Peter90688 wrote: I think everyone should have ne gun they want, including rocket launchers, rail guns, ect. But, i will be the only ones with the bullets, because frankly, i wouldnt trust ne mother fucker wit a gun.

Drama: 5
Curses: 5
Abuse of the English language: 10 (This is not a good thing)
Ideas expressed: 0.

You brought up Columbine, but the problem there was not guns or Manson. Society (ie-School, other kids, parents) failed the Trenchcoat mafia. In this country it is considered ok to prey upon the weak, those who are disadvantaged because of poverty or their home environment. I have seen this personally, when my wife and I took in her High School aged brother who was in the planning stages of a columbine rampage. He had to leave school because at home he was sexually, physically and emotionally abused. At school the other kids took no pity on him, and like a bunch of newborn chickens they began pecking at the weakest amongst them.

In many ways we have become too materialistic and conformist in our society without checking it with any real sense of virtue. Unfortunately we have not learned the true lesson of Columbine, that it is not material influences (ie-guns, music, movies, etc.) but the types of homes and communities todays kids are growing up in.

At 12/31/03 04:25 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/30/03 12:33 PM, KWAS71KCK wrote:

Well, probably not just texas, probably other southern states like mississippi, louisiana, alabama, arkansas and georiga. no offense to anyone from there, but most of them there are dumb and can't even speak properly, get a load of their accents. holy crap

*breathes in, counts to 10, breaths out*

Just because southerner's have accents, does not automatically make them dumb.

I've noticed quite a few northern people have pretty odd accents, but they weren't in the least bit stupid.

Good God! Now we're talking about North/South rivalries! WTF! I thought we were talking about and INTERNATIONAL issue, not and DOMESTIC one!

Personally, I do not think that the US needs simply MORE gun control laws. The issue has become highly politicizied and thus does not necessarily reflect reality any more.

IE-The focus on Assault rifles. These guns only account for 1% of the crim committed in this country, but most of the media attention is focused on them.

Furthermore most of the people commenting on what can and cannot be considered a sporting arm, do not understand what they are talking about. For example the calibure that the AK-47 and M-16 fire are perfectly legal and effective as a hunting round, and is perfectly legal as long as the rifle has a 5 round mag.

During the last intifada, we heard alot over here about the Isreali attacks on the Palestinians in Jenin and I have heard alot in the media about Sharon's record from the early '80s in Beruit and the war crimes he committed.

As for the Jewish controlled media, the US is a Christian (for the most part) country and has a hard time understanding Islam and other religions (becuase Christianity is NOT a tolerant religion).

Personally, I think most Americans have lost their revolutionary roots and have lost the ability to understand and sympathize with oppressed peoples.

Why are we talking about a domestic issue in this BBS? Gun control is a seperate topic from "America the bully". If you guys want to discuss gun control, why not start a new BBS? Why take up space on an unrelated topic?

At 12/29/03 02:33 PM, ____bumcheekcity____ wrote:

At 12/29/03 01:46 PM, JamsterBoyo wrote: I think we should beat out of Saddam seeing as he was "linked" to Al Qaeda.

He wasn't though. The CIA gave Osama money, and trained him. Maybe we should beat it out of them.

Just a little history lesson, the CIA never gave Osama money. What the US did do was give Pakistan the money in the 1980s to train the mujahideen to fight the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, the Pakistanis used this money to train islamic militants who after expelling the Soviets would be useful in their conflict with India.

Not to apologize for the CIA (actually quite the opposite), but they probably did not realize what the money and training was completely going for because of limitations on area knowledge of the Middle East and Islam led the CIA to simply give money to allies in the region (ie-Pakistan and the Shah's Iran) to handle things.

As for Osama being important, taking him out will not really do us any good because 1) it would Martyr him and serve as a rallying cry and 2) it would only be one head among a 1,000 headed hydra.

If any one wants to bring up Saddam in relation to point 1, remember his is not considered a good Islamic leader by many Islamists and he was found cowering in a rat hole and was taken without firing a single shot.

At 12/30/03 08:53 PM, Izuamoto wrote: oh not another one of these where are all the republicans at topics!?
listen, if you're all supposed to be the "logical" ones, use your majestic right wing logistics to figure out that this is an entirely pointless thread that has nothing to do with serious politics,

First off Izuamoto, logistics refers to transporting things (such as supplies, mechandise, etc) from point A to B. Perhaps you meant to use a word such as brainpower or mental faculties or simply use "logic".

I think that this could be a good message board because not all Republicans are "right-wing". Some of us are staunch economic or military conservatives while being somewhat socially liberal. This could give Republicans a forum to discuss issues pertaining to our party, while demonstrating to non-party members that the Republican party does have depth and range in its ideology and that it is not completely controlled by the Christian right.

Also, I do think that the BBS would be better if those who just want to flame on Republicans (or Democrats) would just go preach to their own choir instead of harassing the other side (this goes for Republicans too), unless of course they have something intelligent to add to the conversation besides their own ignorant biases.

At 12/29/03 01:18 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 12/29/03 12:19 PM, TheMason wrote: China does not pose a threat? Let's see they are a nuclear power that is constantly being monitored for human rights abuses.

Just like America, lets run through that.

- Nuclear Power
- Constantly being Monitored for Human Rights Abuses

Yup! Just like America!

Okay, I'm sorry, I forgot about how the US harvests organs from prisoners (condemned or otherwise) for profit, or forces women to have abortions if they are not ideologically pure enough. We outright ban or jail all of those whose ideas oppose the government. No wait, THAT IS China and does not happen here!

Over here in America we have the death penalty, but it is administered only after on average 14 years of appeal. When there is found to be a problem with this system our government puts a moratorium on it (see Illinois) instead of just letting it happen and admit to error. Abortions ARE a matter of choice and will always be. We have seemingly unlimited media outlets expressing all sorts of views and opinions. Over here a political prisoner is not really one per se, but a matter of public opinion.

I can see where it would be easy to confuse the US and China.

I looked at that site, I noticed the link after I responded to your post, and you had not put many dates after the countries you mentioned.

As for China, the US wanted to halt Communism. The result is a tiny island nation of Taiwan that has a better standard of living than that of its parent nation who suffers under a brutal central control. So much for Chairman Mao's legacy.

Iraq, I'm tired of hearing about how we gave them arms during their 10 year war with Iran. Yes we gave some aid, but obviously nothing very sophisticated. If we had they would arm their infantry with M-16s rather than AK-47s, their armor would M-1A1 Abrams instead of T-72s, and their air force would fly F-15s and F-16s instead of MiGs and Miragaes. As for WMDs, we aided the Isreali Air Force in destroying a nuclear production plant. Meanwhile the USSR is supplying Iraq with the fruits of an illegal bio/chem program and the French are supplying the airplanes (mirages). Then, in spite of UN sanctions, France and Russia then helped Iraq build plants whose specifications far exceeded those required for peaceful research/production.

As for Afghanistan, obviously Blum's arguments are based upon dubious scholarship. Afghanistan had a Soviet backed regime. However, some in the regime wanted to switch sides (hence CIA presence). Then in 1979 the USSR took action against this government by inciting a coup and then invading the country. The result was a 10 year war in which we provided arms (in co-operation with Egypt, Isreal and China) to the Mujahideen against the Soviet invaders. When the Soviets left, so did we. We did not even try to nation build. What happened then was religious fanatics were able to gain power and enforce their barbaric worldview on the rest of the nation. Maybe if we stayed and rebuilt the country, sent in troops to enforce law, etc. history would have been different. However, our involvement only makes things worse.

I saw Blum's quote about "A terrorist is a person with a bomb, but no air force". The US Air Force does not target civillians. We go to great lengths to avoid civillian casualties. But in war things happen and mistakes are made. But we do everything possible to keep them from happening even when we incurr the risk.
A terrorist by nature will be attracted to civillian targets, this is the method of their brand of warfare. It is sad that Blum is so arrogant/ignorant to see this distinction.

Well Swallows, this post has gone on too long and I must go.

TheMason

We are also getting off track here. I don't think that the real issue is humor, or delving into biology. We must deal with racism in our institutions.

I was involved in an auto accident where I was hit by a black lady. She sued me for $5000 in injuries. During deposition she basically admited that she was at fault. My insurance company still paid her the settlement, avoiding a court battle. The reason, it happened in St. Louis, MO where the majority population is black. The experience of the insurance company was that a black jury would not find in favor of a white person over a black person.

This kind of thing is wrong. History does not matter, nothing can undo injustices of the past. Besides there would be very few people alive today that actually owned a slave (besides it was a minority of people back then who owned slaves, very few could afford even one). I hate to sound naive like bumcheeckcity, but damn when are we going to grow up and stop letting the little things tear us down?

At 12/29/03 12:03 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

At 12/29/03 11:54 AM, Gibberish wrote:

You are only focusing on one aspect and that is their color of their skin. Black people also have a larger Achiles Tendon which allows them to jump higher. I might be wrong on the tendon or muscle, but I did hear about that. So why can't there be a difference in brain mass between races if there can be a difference in the initial muscle mass?

This was actually a theory in the 1800s, so what scientists did to prove it was took skull from deceased from several different races and filled them with sand and measured them. Of course the white man was shown to have a larger brain capacity, ie-more intelligence.

Skip ahead to the 1960s. The experiment was redone and guess what, there was little to no variation between the races.

What was the difference? In the 1800s theories such as those were considered the be fact (for women, the body only had so much energy that a women couldn't physically get an education/job AND have children). However, these theories are merely racism disguised in scientific jargon. The scientists of the 1800s expected to find a difference in brain mass so they did. The scientists in the '60s had different and better tools to measure cranial capapcity so they knew there was no significant difference.

What about countries who posed no threat or weren't even oppresive?

China
Iran
Iraq (1990)
Afghanistan (1979-1992)
Haiti

Yeah what about those countries?

China does not pose a threat? Let's see they are a nuclear power that is constantly being monitored for human rights abuses.

Iran is a strict theocracy imposed upon a people who, according to many polls, do not want to live under an Ayatollah. They are also in the process of developing nuclear and biological weapons (the US doesn't even have a bio program). Furthermore, Iran is one of two nations that threaten peace in the Middle East (the other is Isreal under Sharon).

Iraq, c'mon just look at all the abuses under the Hussein regime, HE USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE! This was against an ethnic minority. Can you say Genocide (a la Hitler)?

We intervened in Haiti because there was a warlord in power. Well yeah he gave his enemies necklaces. But wait these were actually tires dosed with gasoline and after being placed upon the victim's neck lit on fire. Real nice people there.

As for Afghanistan, I'll show the picture one last time.

Next time, Swallows, don't just swallow the shit you're spoon-fed without question. You'll learn more and be a more productive member of society.

Evolve, die but do something.
TheMason

At 12/28/03 10:25 PM, Oyster_Clock wrote:

Because america is filled with retards.

You hear that............................ thats the sound of no one careing, remember that sound for you will hear it ofen. No one care what you think cause your a fucking red neck who masterbates at Gorege W. Bush gay porn

Oyster_Clock, can you say anything that really makes sense? Your "rant" is just babbling that you think sounds tough. Why don't you use that brain of yours (I'm sure its looking for a work-out) and say something clever, witty or intelligent to add to the conversation.

And like America isn't a threat to the rest of the world right? Have a look here for some lovely actions America did for the world.

Yeah and we also stopped a group of people who built a soccer field with UN funds, and then used it as a public execution/punishment center. It is popular these days to attack the US for trying to use military force against repressive regimes, but the truth of the matter is many of these dictatorships and theocracies just do not care about the well-being of their people. Kim Il-Jong in N. Korea starves his people while building a military that threatens the stability of a region. Saddam refused to cooperate with the 1992 UN peace plan, resulting in economic sanctions that hurt the people and not him. As for Afghanistan see the picture.

European colonialism wrecked havoc on the third world, and after WWII we were looked to to fix those problems (ie- Vietnam [France's baby] and Isreal [England's baby]. The world is not a perfect place, there is violence and chaos and lacks of reason.

Evolve, die but do something.

At 12/24/03 10:21 PM, Aleks777 wrote: This is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard... Like I said before America just wants fame (all over the world). And its kinda working. But hey half those examples u just gave made no sense what so ever. I mean USA wasnt even in the situation. They would have probably made things worse.

USA sticks there nose everywhere and one day they will fuck up.

About ur Europe becoming NAZI germany. Thats not true. Do u even know who stopped Germany from taking over Europe and made Hitler commit suicide?

Russia... Enough said.

First off, the US WAS in most of those situations that he mentioned. Secondly where the hell did you learn about history, from a Cracker Jack box? The US helped keep the Western front open in Europe this allowed the Russians NOT to fall to the NAZIs. Furthermore, Hitler was surrounded by the US and USSR and it was a race through the streets of Berlin to get to Hitler.

Secondly, the US is about the only Nation/GO to successfully Nation-build in the last half of the 20th Century (Post-War Japan especially, and Germany). They are now some of our best trading partners. When we try to hand over this task to others (Somalia) we just get fucked (9-11) when it is mishandled.

Lastly, we are the only military superpower in the world. We are also economically strong. We are the ones the World turn to when they need help. You don't ask a panhandler for money or a 98lbs weakling to beat-up a bully!

But you know you are right, we only want the fame. Its not like we have the history of European colonialism (eradication of non-Western cultures/peoples) to enlighten us!

That is a wonderful idea, make everyone vote! Let's make all the people who do not pick-up a newspaper make important decisions on the course of our country! On one side we have a bunch of uneducated/uninformed individuals who would vote based upon a irrational knee-jerk reaction to something they do not understand, or on strictly partisan lines because their family voted that way. On the other hand there are those who are highly educated but specializied to the point that they do not have the time to contribute to study of politics.
The 49% of Americans who do NOT vote (the % for non-Presidential elections is MUCH hire) are probably doing a service for their country by leaving their ignorance (as according to the dictionary sense) out of the electorate,