Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/3/04 01:54 AM, Thelonius wrote:

At 7/2/04 03:35 PM, Evark wrote: Yep... good ol' trust-worthy Bush. I'm so glad we found that African Uranium. And all those WMD's in Iraq. After all, he told us all about this in his State of the Union Address, he wouldn't lie in front of Congress, and all of America. He's way above Clinton.

Lets get straight to the point, shall we? You are trying to turn this into way big of an issue to hide your mistake. You are a regular Clinton, Nixon.

Please note that in the above text you sardonically stated that he would not lie, therefore implying that is what he did. This was after I said that Bush did not lie in his State of the Union Address. So, I defended myself by providing to you the definition of lie. If you want to argue about that, take it up with Mr. Webster.

On a side note, if you do not even know a lie is, then perhaps you are not worth listening to...

Hang on, you're beating the dead horse here... You already replied to this, I already replied to that, then you replied to that, and I've since replied to your latest reply. In the above text, I used an incredibly stupid train of thought to get my point across. Essentially telling you that your train of thought was along those lines, and that I consider those lines to be stupid.

The only one here making an issue about a minute detail is you sir. You've decided the argument is about the definition of a lie. I didn't particularly feel like getting that particular, as it isn't an important definition. I have no qualms with Webster. I will, however, respond when you decide you wish to drag the argument down to that level. You just accused me of misdirection to avoid a mistake I've made when you've just simply ignored all my previous points. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypocrite Hypocritical... eh?

The point here is that Bush had false information he chose to share with the public over accurate information. He deliberately spread misinformation. Since word definitions are so important, here's the definition of deliberate:
1 Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional: mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
2 Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision. See Synonyms at voluntary.

So you are saying he involuntarily gave false information? The president doesn't do anything involuntarily, he calls the shots, he deliberately told us misinformation (lied).

And to the man who just said 'I got served'... what are you doing? You clearly have no idea what is being said, you simply jumped in when it appeared as though he had 'won' without seeing my response first. Its apparent here that if anybody 'got served' it was the both of you, one for his hypocracy and foolish ignorance, and the other for arbitrarily backing the foolishly ignorant hypocrite.

If anybody else has a valid argument I'm willing to hear it. I've decided it is no longer worth my time to debate with someone who doesn't read all my posts, and it is definitely not worth my time to debate with someone who's only opinion is rooted in catering.

At 7/3/04 12:49 AM, majiman1 wrote:
Seriously now, when is the last time you've ever seen someone's liscence plate in your rearview? Have you ever? I've been driving for five years now and haven't noticed one YET! Hell, to tell you the truth, I've neve even read one of those backwards bug shield messages either. So basically you've got this cute little joke that you have to explain to everyone and look like an ass who's just a little to overjoyed with his car.

Well, it was just an intro to show you guys the picture... but I guess I'll defend myself.

You think its unfeasable to have such a plate just because you don't pay attention enough to notice it? Why would I have to explain it to anybody? Who would ask what someone's license plate means? More importantly... Why does it bother you that somebody would want something as trivial as a license plate? Now, all this aside, if someone really did ask you what it meant and you really did have it, are you that insecure that answering it would bother you because you think it would make you look like an 'ass a little too overjoyed with his car'?

That's a great idea, whis I had one too! :)

...

Oh, and if you look at it close enough, it is just the distortion of the picture that makes the R look forwards both ways, its backwards in the mirror but you still get the point

At 7/2/04 11:29 PM, Thelonius wrote:

At 7/2/04 10:56 PM, Evark wrote:

Let me explain this one more time. You seem a little slow so let me dumb it down a bit, o k a y?

I am, by no means, slow, make no mistake about that. You didn't understand my retort. You told me I missed the point, and then made no reassertion of the point I missed, you simply gave me the definition of a lie, after slating everything to fit that definition. I don't think Bush is was as misinformed as you think he was, that point, by now is moot as neither of us can really prove either way.

source --> CIA --> report --> President --> public

You didn't specify what the source was, I'll assume it is the trustworthy one that wasn't good enough reason to go to war with Iraq vs. the lie (I'm still going to maintain it as such) Bush fed us. They will both go through the CIA unchanged, and be written on a report unchanged. The only filter is the president, a man with an agenda.

Next time I will teach you how to tie your shoes!!!!

Thanks, I've always had trouble with that ; )

It was not a technicality and to someone who is not an ignorant fool - and we all know by your statement that you are not! - it should have seemed a truism.

Really, so I missed the point, you failed to restate the point, and then you took my argument apart based on something else besides a technicality? When you start getting into the definitions of words, that is a technicality.

How could it be a lie if he was going by what intelligence told him? And your next statement justiefies it even more.

Yes, he was going by what intelligence told him, and he was also ignoring other information intelligence told him. There are always two sides to everything. This conversation fits my point quite nicely. There are always at least 2 different viewpoints on each issue, this intelligence issue is no exception. I'm willing to bet at the time that Bush went in favor of the less credible source for the sole reason of its conformity to his agenda.

Since we are so "damn good" and "see pretty much everything," should we not also be able to act on that information?

Uh... there was nothing to act on. Remember when they found those WMD's that were the entire reason for the invasion? No?! Me neither, but it doesn't matter, at least we got rid of the 'evil Saddam'.

Think back to 9/10/01 just for a moment please. Which seemed to be more of an accurate intelligence report? A scatchy one stating terrorists might attack sometime around summer by using our own planes against us, or a lengthy report indicating Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, which includes an Iraqi colonel who states with surety that Saddam has access to them as a source? I think the answer is obvious to anyone who is NOT an ignorant fool.

Whew, I'd go with the first report, we did, after all, have very few people informing us as to terrorist information. And I guess that makes me an ignorant fool for your argument. But consider this. Wouldn't you feel kind of foolish putting your faith in the WMD report that turned out to be false and not putting it in the report of terrorists using commercial airlines to attack American monuments? I know I would feel like an ignorant fool, and I'm not even the one who made that mistake.

So far you've managed to call Bush an ignorant fool, as well as yourself one. In addition to pegging me as an ignorant fool who can't tie his shoes, and am too slow to understand you when I've clearly fired back quite valid points.

This is one of my favorites:

http://68-171-4-245.lndnnh.adelphia.net:1157/images/beavisbushcheny.jpg

Man, I wish I had this plate

At 7/2/04 11:15 PM, Chris23 wrote: so i was on aim and Justintec4444 IM'd me for no reason and the message was
The Ending to Spiderman2:******************************************** and so on

so if he IM's you and you plan on seeing spider man 2 jus press the warn button and ignore him.

thats pretty funny, I just got the same thing, I think it was a different screen name though, same start, but different numbers. Only he also sent me a quote from someone else... anyone care to see what it says before I retrieve it?

At 7/2/04 07:47 PM, Thelonius wrote: Obviously, you are too blind to see the point, so let me put it in perspective. Bush has intelligence reports, even though we know them now to have been flawed, to back up what he said. The intelligence reports have nothing to do with Bush. He does not write them and he is not the first one to see them. The CIA, and some other intelligence orgnaizations, gather information from sources, document it in reports, make conjectures based off that information and other information/knowledge, and then pass it up along the branch.

Ah HA! Thats it, I'm too blind to see the point, now you are going to get technical with the wording. So the point is... you can speak English well? No, you have missed the point. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, the point is that it was done. Bush, with his false crusade against terror, has presented misinformation and cited it as a reason to invade a country immediately after ripping another to shreds and then ignoring the clean up.

So, if you look up the definition of LIE (a false statement deliberately presented as being true), you will find that Bush did not lie in that statement. He made an accurate statement based off the information that he was given. On the other hand, Bill Clinton, who we know and has admitted to having the relations described by M. Lewinsky, categorically DENIED them infront of the grand jury, making it a lie.

Your technicality is also incorrect. You can't accidentally say something, and I for one will not just believe Bush was the ignorant fool you make him out to be (although, believe me it is tempting). Our intelligence is damn good. We see pretty much everything. We even had intelligence on the possibility of something like 9/11 happening before it happened. But it is the leaders that choose to ignore that intelligence, and only see the part they want to see. There is no way in hell every single one of the reports he had suggested such a falsehood, he just latched on to the one that was most damaging to the enemy's case, and ignored the ones that had more truth to them. Be clear, he did lie, and I'm not going to be counted as one of the ignorant fools who believes he didn't.

At 7/2/04 01:00 AM, Thelonius wrote:
Now, you asked when else did Clinton "lie." The answer is probably very often, seeing as how he is just as human as you or I, but that does not matter legally. What matters is that he knowingly uttered faslehood under oath in front of the grand jury, which not even our friend George Bush has yet to do.

Yep... good ol' trust-worthy Bush. I'm so glad we found that African Uranium. And all those WMD's in Iraq. After all, he told us all about this in his State of the Union Address, he wouldn't lie in front of Congress, and all of America. He's way above Clinton. I mean, who the hell cares about personal responsibility for the ruin of two countries and the personal order to kill thousands of people (not including the execution orders he signed when in Texas) when a president HAD SEX WITH SOMEONE BESIDES HIS WIFE?!?

At 6/30/04 10:07 PM, Captain_Kingfish wrote: I dont even care if they had WMD or not. The fact is that they are capable of harming America. Its not fun living our Lives scared of a Terrorist attack.

So if something is a threat to something else it should be destroyed? By this logic the world should have attacked America long ago, seeing as we have enough nuclear weapons to hit every major city in every country.

At 7/2/04 03:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: There was once a time when I thought I knew everything and was smarter than everyone else, back when I was 14. Now through many, but not that many, more years of experience I realized I didn't know anything, and when you become and adult, and hopefully a contrbuting member of society you will realize the same.

Amen, I didn't want to say it though. For some reason I still hold punches. I honestly don't remember much other than I thought I knew everything, and now I know that I was wrong. Unfortunately I'm not an adult yet. But I will be soon. (sadly, not soon enough to cast a vote in the election... too bad it isn't the first tues. in December...)

At 7/2/04 03:08 PM, Gooie wrote: Evark, I love you in a totally heterosexual way. Thank you for not being a noob and typing more than me (because I have the attention span of...)

What can I say, I love spouting out tons of crap when it comes to speaking my opinion ( I guess its genetic, sometimes I just can't get my dad to shut the fuck up).

I had to respond to everything, it makes my point so much more sound when I have a response to every single thing he has to say.

<3's to you as well (in an also completely heterosexual way)

At 7/2/04 02:47 PM, pilot-doofy wrote: Let me say this........

We can't stop you, its a forum

:gays are not born gay. I know some gay people and they even admit its because they couldn't get girls attention the way they wanted and got tired of females so become homosexual.

So they are gay because they failed? Thats an invalid argument, they are gay because thats how they are. It doesn't change, and it certainly didn't change because of something like that. So you know fellow 14 year olds who got tired of females and became gay? since the whole 'girls have cooties' stage usually ends around age 11, 3 years of chasing girls isn't a huge deal. People who are in their 40s have dealt with rejection since that age and they don't 'become homosexual'.

Don't fill me full of bullshit, I've had more life experience in 14 years with all sorts of subjects and debates including homosexuality and its marriage dispute than you probably will in over 20 years.

You assume way too much, simply because you think you've had more experience than everyone else doesn't make your opinion right. considering people generally don't learn how to speak until around age 3 and don't remember much before age 4, I'd say your 10 years of experience doesn't amount to much. Thats a generous estimate as well, considering it probably isn't until around age 8 that you realize what adults are talking about

Don't waste your times faggot loving morons.

You are the only one who is allowed to waste your time? I don't think so. You obviously don't have much experience in debates, otherwise you wouldn't fluff up your arguments with such worthless statements. When you are debating something you don't beat around the bush with statements such as that, and your opening statement. Make a sound conclusion to your argument, it will make you sound more competent, and also add weight to whatever you have to say. Good grammar is also a neccesity.

At 7/2/04 02:41 PM, pilot-doofy wrote:
Its not the fact that we're in denail of the movie being true, its the fact that Moore is a stupid cock sucker.

Ah, so this entire argument is based on Moore's sexual preference, my bad, I thought it was about his movie and/or political views.

There is so many faults with democrats it isn't funny. Clinton has shut down the most military camps out of any preident in US history.

Moore isn't a democrat, he is independent. He isn't targeting democrats, he is targeting Republicans for how they've screwed up, namely Bush.

Moore's big fat ass is just a stupid cunt.

You call him a cock sucker, then say his ass is a stupid cunt. I'm guessing you're straight, so you essentially just said you find Moore's ass attractive.

He talks about senators not wanting to sign their children up for the military is hypocritical because they say that war is the way to go. Well I argue that point.

You think we should have police officers don't you? Well why don't you go sign your children up for the job that gets you shot at for $5 of 98 octane.

I'm not seeing your point. We need police to enforce laws of the country. We don't have them to go and attack those who we consider a threat (although the US PATRIOT act has changed that).

Its completly stupid, his arguments are so pointless its amazing he found enough money to make that shithole of a movie. If I was Bush I'd sue that fat fuck for not getting my permission to be in that damn movie.

Well, you can't sue for an appearance in a movie, Bush is the president, and he allowed the footage that was shot of him to be shot, it is no longer up to him how it is used. Also, he can't sue him for slander because what he has said is true, everything against Bush is documented, he simply holds nothing back.

Also, some people WANT to be in the military, so therefore they're having fun when we go to war. We haven't drafted anyone into the military so what's his point about getting the senator's children in there?

Wanting to be in the military is completely different from having fun in war. Nobody has fun in war, ever. Watch somebody bleed to death while crying for their mother and asking you deliver their last message to their loved ones. Sound fun? no. People join the military because it is an opportunity to make money and be successful just starting from scratch. For some it gets them through college, for others it provides support to their families while they don't have to support themselves. (saves money) Michael Moore's point is that Congress is all willing to send someone off to do their dirty work, but when it comes down to their family, its 'no way Jose' for them.

The people who are in the military wanted to be so how can you get pissed because the leaders of this country don't have children who think the same way as these war heroes? Just because his kids don't want to be in the army doesn't make him a hypocrite for saying war is the answer.

Thats not the point, its not that his kids don't want to be in the military, its that Congressmen aren't willing to sign over themselves to go over to Iraq, but they are perfectly willing to do it when it isn't themselves. Moore is essentially pointing out that Congressmen aren't doing their job, they are supposed to be the voice of the people, and nobody wants to go to war, yet they still vote for us to go to war.

Please prove me wrong.

How's that?

At 7/2/04 11:57 AM, pilot-doofy wrote:
Woops! Haha seriously, you're 14, why favor faggots that young? Wait until you get older and girls start saying "I wish I had a gay friend" then you can pretend to be gay because when you touch their boobs they'd think you didn't get any pleasure from it and just laugh.

Quite a remarkable outcome but no, gays should not allowed to marry each other. If he prevent them from legally being wed then we can hopefully make some of it die out. Or on the other hand we could round them up and an island and let them all fuck until they get AIDS and die.

Wait, so you are against gay marriage because you think it might make more gay people? What is so wrong with gay people? Religion doesn't have a say in this at all, Christianity teaches that some huge all powerful thing created everything and that man spontaneously appeared on the earth because of this. Its funny how everyone won't admit to being homophobic when that is clearly all this is. Quit it with the "it defiles the definition of marriage" stuff, the first dictionary was created by one man, so you've put your faith in two books, one created by one person alone that has since been revised, and one written before anyone can remember that is mostly fiction.

AIDS is also not a gay only disease, in fact, more straight people have AIDS then gay people.

At 7/2/04 11:54 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
And, of course, stoking them to make a fast buck isn't remotely dangerous, let alone cynical. By the way, in England, we don't have to have freedom of speech legislated - it's a given.

Uh... The Constitution isn't legislation, its our entire government. The Constitution cannot be repealed as legislation can. It is also a 'given,' although we would put it closer to a 'right' instead of something arbitrarily handed out. I don't know anything (read: much) about how the English system of government works, so I won't argue that any further.

At 7/2/04 12:42 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:52 AM, Evark wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:19 AM, D2KVirus wrote: right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights

"right at the beginning" is the preamble. then there are a few articles, and THEN there is the bill of rights.

a pocket constitution costs $1. I suggest you pick one up.

ah, well, if you had read my post, you would have read that I said "right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights." As in, the first amendment. Not the preamble. There is no preamble to the Bill of Rights. And why would I bother picking up a small version when I've already printed out the entire thing (in large, readable text) for the class I recently completed essentially dedicated to studying the constitution and government?

Don't try to catch me on technicalities in wording, it simply shows your eagerness to completely miss my point as well as ignore what I've written.

At 6/29/04 12:22 AM, deepthrought wrote: Call me ignorant if you will but i for one will not EVER see ferenheit 9/11 because all Moore is interested in is furthering his career and not telling the truth.

If you goto the movie you are just putting more money in his socialist pocket, makeing him believe that his films are good and that he should continue to bend the truth to hiw own whims, please all stand with me and ban 9/11.

Ah, so we shouldn't believe the lies that are told to us when they are obviously fictionalized statements used to further an agenda. We should 'ban' people who's only interest is furthering their career based on lies... who exactly are you against here, Moore or Bush?

Why are people getting so upset over a form of entertainment? Clearly you should be more upset about the Bush administration. Put into office by the lies his brother put forward about Florida, sure, Gore dropped out of the race, but he did that when he truly won both the popular vote of the nation, and the electoral votes of Florida. Now Bush has pushed us into Iraq based on the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" supposedly in there. Saddam Hussein may have been evil, but so far no weapons have been found. And attacking other countries based on good vs. evil is not the way to operate a government.

At 7/2/04 11:19 AM, D2KVirus wrote:
Just like the lamest documentary in some time (if you can call it a documentary), Michael Moore Hates America. Honestly, we need to start muzzling the American Fundamentalists, they're infecting our cinema...sorry, video stores - bottom shelf.

What? Did you ever read the Constitution? I'm pretty sure it clearly says right at the beginning of the Bill of Rights that everyone is entitled to free speech. Everyone . It doesn't matter if you disagree with what someone is saying, they still have the right to say it. And infecting our cinema? Thats completely ridiculous, opinions aren't dangerous, its peoples unwillingness to hear them that causes danger.

At 6/30/04 02:26 PM, The_Enforcer wrote:

At 6/30/04 11:58 AM, antiklaus wrote:

You should do what I do, read books from both sides of the political spectrum and then decide which side is more factual and/or correct on an issue.

The essense of being conservative right here, summed up with "you should do what I do." Nobody should do what you do, everyone should do what they do, on their own. Enforcer has already done what you've done, but it just so happens the material he read was just people bashing Moore senselessly.

simply asinine

I found the use of those two words funny ; )

At 7/1/04 05:39 PM, xgenesis1234 wrote: yes this has happend to once or twice what would happen is there would be giant spaces between the names of the flash animation on the lists resulting in a very long page .

thats happened to me before, in my experience though it was always when I looked at something and then hit the back button to go back to the page before, probably because the top 50 isn't a static list, it updates every once in a while so if you hit back IE doesn't show it right.

At 6/30/04 05:06 PM, SenorFrog wrote:

people can get it from less than that. the saliva i believe can carry it over as well

Yea, Saliva can, but you better be prepared to drink about a gallon of it (that is the required amount to get an infection of HIV from saliva)

Bottoms up!

Evidently you aren't one of those people 'filling these boards who could care less' because you seem to be pretty upset about my choice of words to describe you. So upset that you felt the need to swear at me, and tell me to kill myself.

Unfortunately for you, this doesn't upset me all that much. Maybe if you had a little patience you would actually read people's topics before you flame them. Maybe if you had a little more patience, you would realize that 4 people so far posting topics about this particular flash entry doesn't constitute "fucktards who keep posting about it."

Learn to relax man, just chill out and read what people have to say, if the BBS makes you this angry, then you have a problem.

KMK, yea, but they blow, they have the worst music I've ever heard (the only exception to this is their song "Positive Vibes" due to its non-rap non-smoke pot all the time non-crappy nature)

Hmmm, well, so far this appears to have been responded to by one idiot who didn't even read it, just saw the words Balloon duel and decided he didn't want to hear about it, and another lazy bastard who's only aim is to stifle other users.

Anyone have any real responses?

Alright, Here's the deal. I found an awesome bug in Balloon Duel, it allows you to play any song you want in chipmunk mode (if you've ever heard Alvin and the Chipmunks you know what I'm talking about)

How to do it: Simply take your favorite CD, copy it onto your hard drive in the default folder using windows media player at the lowest quality as an MPegLayer-3 (MP3) format.

Then allow it to name the tags and simply import it into the game. It will make it sound just like the chipmunks are singing it. Leave some comments, and ask any questions if you are having any trouble, just thought I had to share it with someone, and my review will probably quickly get lost in the shuffle.

You can probably do this easily by changing the pitch, but this way it makes it easier, you can have it playing while you play balloon duel.

Well, everyone has to deal with death sooner or later, its just too bad when its sooner.

I never knew Livecorpse. I do however remember his rise in the portal. He started submitting flash entry after flash entry, they almost never seemed to end. One after another I remember thinking to myself "these flashes can't be good, he submits two every day." Evidently everyone else agreed, for he got a couple turds of the week.

But like every other successful person he just kept doing what he'd always done and eventually people realized that his flashes weren't the result of horrible drawing, but closer to artistic prowess. Around this point I actually started to watch his flash movies.

I didn't know him as a person, but it seems that everyone here who did had nothing but kind words to say about his character and personality. I think that says something.

The only people you see flaming him are people who don't really know anything about what happened, or anything about Livecorpse in general. Their posts are rife with inaccuracies, hate, and a false impression that watching his flash, reading his posts and crapping all over him makes them know him well enough to do so.

Its sad when people die, nobody here can deny it. I don't even need to ask "what if it was someone close to you?" for two reasons; It wasn't and eventually it will be and the question will answer itself.

For those who have said they hate people for what they've said I say to you: Bullshit. How can you ever ask someone else not to hate someone based on the examples of them you've seen online when you are doing the exact same thing yourself?

I suggest people respect Adam Christopher Fulton's departure. If not for his life just for the fact that it was a lost life in general. I know I respect him in both ways, but more for the general loss because I never knew him.

He had AIDS, he had money trouble, he has suicidal thoughts, he turned to drugs and alcohol to help clear things up (they never do). He stabbed his neighbor, he shot a cop, and he didn't even have the clarity of mind to understand the immediate implications of his actions. that sucks.

Of course he felt remorse afterwards, eventually everyone does. I do now.

Sleep easy Adam, I don't understand but I don't have to.

Well, I agree with you, portal voting is somewhat of a problem. Many flash entries get blammed that are absolutely cool in my opinion (not necessarily the be-all/ end-all of blamnation or protection). But it definitely is a pain to have to type in the random pass each and every time you vote on every entry.

Perhaps you could install this feature for only those entries under judgement, or a slightly outrageous idea and probably very hard to implicate would be to record users vote history similar to the system for flagging abusive reviews.

At any rate, I think the new security is a good idea, but I'm definitely lazy, and the extra few seconds is definitely a pain to put aside. I think this may cause a slight increase in the amount of entries under judgement at any given time.

Hi guys, I was just wondering, I looked around on the BBS for a while about a topic like this, but only found one on garbage whistles. I was wondering if anyone knows just who exactly has the Diety whistle level. It'd be pretty cool if they had a ranking for that, and while they're at it, they should put a search for topics up in the BBS. Anyway, ignore the extraneous stuff, and if anyone knows can you please tell me who has the diety whistle?