Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/1/03 05:28 PM, nitroxide wrote: I will argue your point but, Can you argue a point without branding anyone with an opposing viewpoint a tree hugging,pot smoking,hippy?

I have never done that, you only imagine I have.

Here's a question to several of you, (I think you know who you are):

Do you have any other opinion or topic of debate other than "Let's Hate America", "America is so wrong", "America is evil", "I hate Bush", "I hate America", "America is a Nazi police state", etc. You people seem to have no real opinions, just statistics that you copy-paste on here and an assuredness that whatever argument you begin with will end with, "And this is why America is evil", or "Remember, this is all America's fault".

Do you people really have such one-track minds? Can you think for yourselves? Can you argue a point without branding anyone with an opposing viewpoint a flag-waving, Nazi, fascist patriot?

You know what a lot of these "cuts" are? They're not cuts to the program's existing fnding, they're cuts to the proposed increase in funding. No money is being taken away from what they currently have but the data can be spun to sound like programs are being slashed.

This happened in the early 90s when Republicans in Congress cut an increase in funding to the school lunch program. Rather than increase by x%, the funding only increased by y%. Democrats immediately began to tell the public that the Republicans were "trying to starve their children", (in those exact words, too). It sounded like the Republicans were cutting school lunch funding, but they weren't. No money had been taken away! Yet, this didn't stop the left from jumping on it as an example of Republican "meanspirited-ness".

My point is that statistics can be spun any way you want. What Mark Twain said is ultimately true: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".

At 6/1/03 02:21 PM, nailbomb wrote: Such as the fact that his brother is the governor of Florida

People love to say that, even though there is no evidence of corruption or any tipping of the election.

and that votes from the army were accepted days after the deadline

The army votes were accepted because they had been entered by the deadline and then mailed from overseas bases. They arrived after the deadline.

and if you had the same name as a person with a criminal record you weren't allowed to vote.

It would be nice if you didn't make stuff up.

At 6/1/03 01:31 PM, bumcheekycity wrote: Judge, people aren't going to only have sex to get pregnant, but accidents do happen.

I know that, but they know the risks and potential consequences beforehand, so they shouldn't cry about it afterwards.

"I want an abortion! I wasn't supposed to get pregnant!"

But, you knew beforehand that you might possibly get pregnant, right?

"Yes, but I didn't think I would."

But you knew you might and as it turned out, you did. That's called a consequence of your actions and you've got to accept it.

With my belief that God is the universe, and vice versa, I think Jesus was like a subprogram, an NPC of sorts that God preprogammed to appear at a key moment and preach a certain message that would steer future events.

At 6/1/03 12:53 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:
If he hated America and what it stood for, why would he be on a forum so filled with free speech? He's one of the lovely "I want to look cool by pretending to hate America" people.

Exactly.

"Hey, I listen to punk bands and I hate America and show it off whenever I can! I think other people are brainwashed sheep and accuse them of it! I must be cool!"

Kenney, you're a flamer with a one-track mind who can't realize when boldprint is annoying and inappropriate. Not that I think you're listening.

At 6/1/03 12:43 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Nailbomb is a sabre-rattling fool who likes nothing more than to inspire debate by the worst method possible - offending as many people as humanly possible. I call this the Nemesisz Method.

True, but he specializes of this one topic so much that I think he follows the "I'm cool cuz I hate America" Method.

At 5/31/03 10:08 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: We can't help that unless we get pregnant all the time, do we deserve to be punished?

It's not a punishment, it's a consequence of your actions. You really don't want to get pregnant? Then don't have sex. If you do, you're accepting pregnancy as one of the risks so don't complain about it later.

At 6/1/03 12:07 AM, jimsween wrote:
It's still annoying,

"A witty quote proves nothing"-Voltaire

Jim, let me tell you something important. You can't argue with these people. They've got one thing ingrained in their minds: "America = pure imperialistic, totalitarian evil". If they didn't have that to say over and over again and their favorite little punk bands to quote as if some second-rate musician's opinion was political truth, then they wouldn't have a viewpoint anymore. Let them have their delusions Jim. There's no way to convince them otherwise, and it is, after all, just a phase for most of them.

At 5/31/03 10:49 PM, Kenney333 wrote: its not like north korea is planning a nuclear attack anytime soon, theyre not monsters,and lemme get this strait, your supporting how the cold war was handled

Yes, to some extent I do. The contain and undermine strategy prevented a nuclear war that would likely have destroyed the world. I think the fact that we're all alive today say something to it's success.

At 5/31/03 10:18 PM, fantom326 wrote:
they should have a section for them in the normal memorial where all the other thousands of victims will be remembered.

I agree that they should have a section within the normal memorial, not a seperate one. The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a distinction between people that were simply trapped in the buildings and those who voluntarily ran it to try and save them.

Nailbomb, I think you're doing a great job diverting the argument through bad comparisons and mixed metaphors. You're saying the Mexicans are justified in coming over to America illegally then you compare this to the British taking the Indian's land. Wait, in your metaphor, doesn't this make modern America like the Indians and the Mexicans like the invading British? Think about it. Does this make sense?

Next you perform another jump into attacking the American occupation of Indian land. Now, I see your true goals as I had suspected and stated; this whole thing with the immigrants is just another way to jump around from statement to statement until you can attack America again. This is a strategy I see often:

It doesn't matter if the argument makes any sense or even if you're making a point, just connect as many threads and snippets of whatever together, no matter how illogical the jumps between them are, so that you can get to something to attack America with.

And you resorted to more personal attacks. I'm Christopher Columbus now? Sure, I'm Columbus, I'm a raving patriot, and I’m a hat-wearing cowboy!

At 5/31/03 08:47 PM, Lyddiechu wrote:
*gasp* that is the most glorious helmet i have ever seen!!! im mostly interested in 20th century german history.. WWI and on but especially the interwar period (the german expressionist movement, beginnings of dadaism, etc)

The inter-war chaos and reshaping is pretty ineresting. I would consider myself a WWI buff, ever since I read Barbara Tuchmein's The Guns of August I've had an intense interest in it and the Central Powers in particular (mainly Imperial Germany, though).

imperialism i love mostly because of the aesthetic.

True, nothing can beat the old European empires for sheer grandeur and heraldry.

I'll see if I can dig up some of my links on these topics.

At 5/31/03 08:49 PM, nailbomb wrote: You seem to be avoiding the fact that without the first settlers there wouldn't have been any founding fathers and they had as much rights as the mexicans to come to America. All they want is a better life.

I think we have a different definition of "founding fathers". To me, that means Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Franklin, etc.

If you mean the original British settlers, then their situation is different. Mexicans are sneaking into another country illegally. The British colonists were traveling to another part of the British empire; in effect they never left their country. Even the very first settlers were not going into another country's territory as it was unexplored and unclaimed land.

At 5/31/03 08:31 PM, nailbomb wrote:
How can your founding fathers be born in America? That would mean that there is a whole generation of people before them that brought pregnant women to America, they left when they were born and those babies grew up on their own to create the United States of America. You are not making any sense.

The British began to colonize America beginning with Jamestown in the early 1600s, over 150 years before the Revolution. Do you think that cities such as Boston, Philadelpha, New York, etc. just sprang up before the revolution? There were generations of British colonists before the Revolution. I mean, this is just obvious. There had to be people here to revolt!

To put is simply America was settled long before the Revolution. The founding fathers were the children of some of these settlers.

How can concepts like this and the planes be confusing to you? There seems to be a problem with cause and effect here.

At 5/31/03 08:24 PM, nailbomb wrote: 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

We reinstated the king of Kuwait, an heriditary constitutional monarch.

2003: Citizens of Kuwait are still waiting for their promised democracy

They have democracy. They're ruled by a prime minister and a unicameral legislative assembly that is elected by popular vote. The king is about as effective as Queen Elizabeth.

At 5/31/03 08:14 PM, nailbomb wrote:
Using that logic that would mean you wear a cowboy hat and a snakeskin belt and you like to hunt baby seals and Indians.

Why, you've found me out!

Americans are free to work in Mexico but Mexicans are not free to work in America.

NAFTA applies to companies and commerce, not immigrations and workers. You mixed subjects in your "fact".

Indeed, illegal immigrants, the same kind as our founding fathers.

The founding fathers were not illegal. Eastern North America was a British colony and people from many nations settled there, legally. Not that this makes any difference, however, because most of the founding fathers were born in America.

Now, what about my third point on this "fact"?

At 5/31/03 08:02 PM, nailbomb wrote:
[Out of the 16 members of George W. Bush's cabinet 13 of them are millionaires. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul O' Neil have dclared assets of at least $61 million while Collin Powell has at least $18.5 million. Should a democratic country be run by millionaires? After all it's supposed to represent the population which voted them into the white house.]

Did you complain about Clinton & Co. being rich during his presidency?

Because the USA has turned into a police-state, helping out whoever it wants to, neglecting whoever it wants to, oppresing whoever it wants to without facing any consequences whatsoever.

You're mixing the concepts of imperialism and police states here. You're saying that U.S. intervention abroad makes it a police state at home. Does this make sense?

At 5/31/03 07:05 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
this from the guy who started a thread devoted purely to the entering of messages in a code only available in Snooble. It's a little late to take your concern seriously now. Pick a stance and stick to it, or admit to playing DAG.

There are these two concepts known as parody and satire....

At 5/31/03 07:45 PM, nailbomb wrote:
My mistake, however why do you assume I would associate myself with the so-called leftist cliché?

You certainly seem to espouse their views.

Let's break it down:

FUN FACT: American corporations are free to come and go through the US/Mexico border

Yes, under NAFTA, there is greater freedom for trade.

while those who are trying to flee

You mean illegal immigrants? Be clearer.

the mess that is cause by the presences of those US corporations

You see, thi is where it falls apart. This is an opinuion. Most of your facts seem to fall apart when you get to reason. The "what" of something is easy to report but you're putting your own "why" into it.

are sent back to Mexico where those corporate companies take advantage of Mexico's weak environmental and labour laws.

fact

n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist....

I can use a dictionary myself, you know.

At 5/31/03 07:30 PM, nailbomb wrote:
By the way I called a flag-waving blind "patriot" because you called me a hippy. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

When did I ever call you a hippie? If you bother to look, you'll see that I didn't. I called you a leftist and an anti-Americanist both of which are evident from your posts.

At 5/31/03 06:57 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: COMMANDER!!!!! i have a prussian flag hanging in my room!!! you ROCK SO HARD!!!! i want to save up all my money so i can buy a prussian helmet with the spike oh boy oh boy oh boy i am such a geeeek!!

Yes, they are amazing. If I had the money I would get a replica of the 1903-1919 war ensign.

The most impressive helmet I've seen, Imperial German or not, is the Model 1891 Preußen Garde Kürassier
Parade Metalhelme. Simply amazing.

btw did you take the ap euro exam w hen you were in high school?

Nope.

Are you interested in WWI or all Imperial German history?

Picture: German machine gun crew in shell hole in Battle of Passchendale/Ypres.

At 5/31/03 07:02 PM, Ozcar wrote: The Vatican is a country :) They have their own money, postal service, police and civilians, independent of Rome or any country...

The Vatican is a country

Yes, technically it is. But its population is 1,000 and its area is 109 acres. Are you seriously going to try to prove a political system based on a few city blocks? Not to mention the fact that it uses Italian currency, Rome's municipal services and the Italian justice system. They are not a nation in the true sense.

At 5/31/03 06:59 PM, nailbomb wrote: Commander-K25, all I did was state facts. Not propaganda.

Your commentary on the reasons for invading was not factual, it was your opinion. And your facts are slanted in order to present your particular view of the conlfict.

At 5/31/03 06:53 PM, nailbomb wrote:
Name me one country besides China, Mongolia or Cuba that isn't capitalist.

Vietnam. And all this proves to me is that capitalism has triumphed. This is a victory in my eyes not something to be concerned over. Communism's failure is clear.

You flag-waving blinded "patriot".

Way to resort to personal attacks! I commend you.

Pol Pot came to power mostly because of the US B-52 bombings of Cambodia.

Way to sidestep the bigger issue and my entire point about communism's undeniably murderous history! I commend you again.

I never used the word "oppression"

Not the word itself, but that is the gist of your argument.

At 5/31/03 06:46 PM, Ozcar wrote: The Vatican in Rome, is a comunist country controled for the Pope... and isn't bad at all...

But at USA there's a lot of good brainwashers...

You people are truly pathetic! You're trying to use the VATICAN to prove a case for communism! It isn't even a viable state! It's a freakin' technicality!

You people will do anything so you can end your arguments with:

"The U.S. is evil. Why can't all the sheep in the world see this?"

or

"You're all being brainwashed"

Just because Noam "Propagandist" Choamsky or some communist "news" site told you it's so, doesn't mean that it's true!

I refer you to some of the wisest words ever spoken on the forum:

"Remember, just because you believe less popular propaganda does not mean you are any more enlightened then these 'sheep' you so scorn."
-Raptorman

At 5/31/03 07:26 AM, Slizor wrote:
Orwell would be proud. Peace = War.

Or maybe he's just being realistic. Universal peace is a nice, comforting concept but not very likely to happen. The only peace shall be when there is no more enemy to fight.

"I have never advocated war except as a means of peace."
-Ulysses S. Grant

I would also like to point out that Saddam was not in breach of Resolution 1441 because he had not been declared to be in breach of it. It's very simple, you can't claim the authority of the UN and its resolutions if you are not given the authority of the UN and its resolutions.

If the UN neglects its duties however, someone must pick up the slack.

An interesting document is the Gospel of Thomas. It contains many sayings and utterances of Jesus, some quite enigmatic. This book was discovered in 1945 at Naj 'Hammádì at the Jabal al-Tárif mountain. It is not part of the accepted bible and is linked with Gnosticism which is considered heretical by the church.

A translation here.