434 Forum Posts by "gerbilfromhellll"
Ok, THIS is the kind of person that gives anyone with any left-ist tendancies a bad name.
There's the anti-bush or anti-current government of the US feeling, which I both understand and agree with. Many people don't, which is up to them. That's why we have debates.
But THEN there's people like this guy. The (generally) ignorant leftists who say that everyone in America should die (or something along those lines) and that they will enjoy watching it (etc. etc.). People like THAT are worse than the President of the US who they are so constantly attacking.
Disagreeing with a country's current policies is one thing. Hating everyone and everything to do with said country/wishing harm/death on all of them is a completely different one.
ok, for those of you that said that some the protesters in these so-called 'free speech zones' would likely be carrying a handgun if allowed close to the president, please think about what you're saying. if someone WANTED to assasinate the president, they can still get a pro-bush sign and be allowed much closer.
or they could even shoot from far away. y'know, so they don't get CAUGHT and EXECUTED....
but anyways, while this doesn't exactly DENY these people their right to assemble freely, it DOES restrict it. more like bending the rules rather than breaking them outright. still though, were this case taken to court, the protesters could very well win.
"Public schools with diverse student populations are far more likely than those with homogeneous populations to be labeled as failing under President Bush's education law, according to a new California study."
notice that it doesn't say that 'public schools with diverse student populations have a worse record (academically, behaviorally, etc.) than those with homogeneous populations'.
what it SAYS is basically that there's a new law that makes more diverse schools more likely to be classified as failing. it's NOT saying that the schools THEMSELVES are worse, just that they're classified as such under Bush's new law.
"No. We're just protecting ourselves."
really? we invaded iraq to protect ourselves? even though iraq had NO weapons that could attack us or our allies and NO connections to the 9-11 terror attacks?
"See, you said "expand and dominate the entire world" and that's not what we do."
that's not what's being said. he's saying is that what YOU want america to do.
"We don't want Iraq. It has no use to us. Not even oil."
then why exactly are we taking it?
"We helped the people of Iraq live better, that's all."
those that survived the war and had their homes intact, anyways
"Not all deserve the gift of democracy"
oh really? what makes you say this?
oh, and just F.Y.I.: the USA is not a democracy.
"or to live in the greatest country in the world (USA)."
1.) what makes someone not deserving to live in our country?
2.) the USA being the greatest country in the world is simply a matter of personal opinion.
"And I know someone (not me) is going to be a retard and say: hey, 70TA doesn't deserve to, or something really stupid like that"
no, you've got as much right to live in this country as everyone else.
"In the Jewish holly book, it is okay to steal from a "goyim" (non-Jew)."
that's odd, considering one of the 10 commandments is 'THOU SHALT NOT STEAL'.
oh, and about this article: i agree that the company was wrong in what it did, but notice that that's just one company-- not the whole government.
"That's funny, because in math class they taught us the "rule of signs" which basically states that (-1)(-1)=1. So then in fact, in the most basic and logical of ways, two wrongs DO make a right."
well, that's because you're multiplying. you're SUPPOSED to be adding. because it's one wrong PLUS another one, not MULTIPLIED by another one. think of it this way, if you have done three 'wrongs', then do three more, is that 9 wrongs you've done? no, obviously not. it's 6. so you're ADDING
-1 + (-1)= -2
so, by your own logic, two wrongs do NOT make a right.
but back on topic:
to whoever started this topic:tje bill of rights bans 'cruel and unusual punishment'. it does NOT say, as far as i know, anywhere that the punishment must fit the crime. that's just some people's way of saying that there can be no cruel and unusual punishment in the US.
whether you may think that torture is perfectly suitable to what these people did, you must admit that it is indeed cruel. whether or not you think the cruelty is JUSTIFIED or not is your own opinion. and torture is OBVIOUSLY an unusual punishment.
so no, unless the consitution is changed (and if there's ever a large enough majority of people like that in congress, i fear for our country), torture will never be legal in our country.
you mean the hague? yeah, i think that's in amsterdam, so that's probably where he's going.
and i'm glad that's where he's going. now there's no chance of him being made a martyr after he's executed (because he won't be. the hague, i believe, doesn't use the death penalty), plus death is never a fitting punishment. it's either too harsh or not harsh enough.
is it illegal for the government to deny the people information? of course not. notice how the government can classify information (only with a good reason, obviously. but foreign relations, at least to my knowledge, counts as a valid reason.) at will and suddenly it's not availible to the public anymore? and how it's consitutional for laws to be passed prohibiting the distribution of certain bits of information for various reasons (nation security, foreign relations, etc.) as long as that reason is 'valid'?
so that law you're talking about is, i believe, perfectly constitutional.
i heard on the news that many iraqis didn't attack the american soldiers because they feared that saddam would return if the americans were driven out (a 'lesser of two evils' way of thinking). well, now that saddam's out of the way, they've got nothing holding them back.
and yes, saddam was a symbol. but soon he'll be a martyr.
honestly, i want him to rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life and let him think about what got him there (it might even drive him insane too. but that stops him from actually thinking about it normally, which defeats the purpose...). death is too light of a sentence and real torture makes us just like him. (to all of those people who wanted to invent ways to torture him, your imagination reminds me of saddam's)
it's hard to make a martyr out of someone who dies a death of natural causes/suicide caused by insanity.
y'know, just because they know about politics doesn't mean that they'll do the things that's best for the country if it means sacrificing any bit of their political support/power. it just means that they know enough to get the sheep (a.k.a masses a.k.a. voters) to go vote for them regardless of what they do.
"DUH!!! YEah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's, I"m not saying him alone, but those acts altogether made americans hate war... and thereby Americans going ANTI vietnam... eventually... American lost the war."
ok, you're just rambling now. i'll just ignore that....
"Imagine if Iraqs did that instead of building weapons of mass destruction."
1.) based on current evidence, there are no WMD in iraq
2.) let's look at it this way:
someone punches you. do you punch back or peacefully ask him to stop, then hurt yourself more when he does it again.
and i'm not saying that non-violent resistance doesn't work. ghandi did some great things with it in india. on the other hand, we went against the will of most of the world to invade iraq, and somehow i doubt in this case that non-violent resistance would've driven out our forces.
what about tranquilizer guns? obviously, if the suspect's got a gun, you don't go charging in with a tranq gun because you'll end up dead. but take the case of the 350 pound man that was beaten to death. there was PLENTY of time during that to get a tranq gun (from wherever it's been put) and shoot the guy in the arm. the guys goes to sleep, no one dies.
now OBVIOUSLY there are times when guns are needed. but non-leathal weapons should DEFINITELLY be used more often
show me a more reliable source than stormfront and i'll believe that.
come on, STORMFRONT is your best source? 'the jew is our racial enemy?' m-hm, sounds like 100% un-baised, un-tainted info to me. *rolls eyes*
i'm glad that people like those at stormfront are in the extremely small minority, and i hope they stay that way.
some of you seem to think that the theory of evolution revolves around the big bang theory. it doesn't. you can believe that god/goddess/gods/supernatural force created the universe AND still 'believe' (although it's not a matter of belief. it's a matter of fact VERSUS belief) in evolution.
trying to make a logical argument for religion is like trying to understand taoism ('the tao that can be understood is not the tao): if you think you're done, you've got it wrong. (if you finish 'proving' creationism, then you did something wrong along the way, such as making your given that the bible is fact. there IS no way to prove creationism without god coming down and telling you so)
"now say it has spread too far and is being used far too broadly"
it took them THAT long to realise that? quite slow on the uptake, aren't they?
of course, if you ask ashcroft, it's not going far enough. i think he wants to start a new McCarthy era.....
"What what WHAT???!!1 I don't know what your definition of capitalism is but you should share it because I know what capitalism is. It is nothing but a system in which you may not use force against your fellow man, and those who do are punished by loss of that right in a just manner. This law of capitalism is global applying to the government, other governments, corporations, groups, and all people"
here is the exact, dictionary definition of capitalism:
"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
this is for all those people that don't have the slightest clue what capitalism is.
i don't blame the officers themselves (as they were defending themselves), but why don't they just give the officers tranquilizer guns?
slizor: well, the whole 'give the countries aid' thing doesn't seem to be working, does it? mostly because of corrupt leaders. if you give them the food directly, then they can't use it to buy weapons/drugs/whatever they use it for. (unless there're some really hungry arms dealers out there. but somehow i doubt that)
ardshepard:
1.) you'll be getting MORE meat than you had before. it'd just be fish meat
2.) you still get your damn burgers. they just cost more.
and yes, it's not america's job to feed the world. but the thing is, we CAN with very little backlash to ourselves. so why shouldn't we?
actually, this is a researched fact. well, not exaclty 'researched', i learned it in my history class back in high school.
cows need a little less than 5 pounds of cow feed to produce 1 pound of cow meat.
fish need slightly more tha 1 pound of fish feed to produce one pound of fish meat.
i can't show you a link to a website because this was just something i learned in history class. there WAS a handout the teacher gave us about this, but come on, i'm not going to save a handout about this kind of thing for 3 years.
"God, Allah, Darhma"
god=allah
SAME being. different words for it. WHY can no one accept this. ALLAH IS THE ARABIC WORD FOR 'GOD'
and dharma is simply your duty as a hindu. not any sort of god. i don't know where you got that from......
oh, and you just don't get it do you? the REASON terrorists don't just kill themselves in a cave is becaue they're trying to attack the people they have a problem with. did the buddhist monk who torched himself accomplish anything by that? of course not. the terrorists are (although it's not exactly an 'accomplishment') 'accomplishing' more than that buddhist monk did.
really, WHY would a suicide bomber or terrorist (and yes, there are christian terrorists. not suicide bombers, but there are christian terrorists all around the world.) not kill anyone besides him if the POINT of terrorism is to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies? and no, i don't support terrorism and i'm not a terrorist, but you really have no clue about the world, do you? terrorists do these things for a REASON, not just because they don't like life. the REASON the 9-11 terrorists bombed the world trade centers was because we (america) supports israel. i agree that bombing two huge buildings is the stupidest way to get a country like america to do ANYTHING, but i'm not a terrorist. i don't know how they think.
the fact remains, though, that they DID get their point across much better than if they had simply killed themselves in a cave.
ok, you people want a solution to world hunger? well, i have one:
this solution involves:
1.NO extra agriculture in the US
2.a cost that would be suprisingly low (although still relatively high. but we ARE talking about the permanent end to world hunger here)
3. a PERMANENT solution to world hunger
so what is this seemingly magical solution, you ask? it's simple.
1.) the government buys 1/2 of the grain produced for cow farming (yes, this does mean that we eliminate half of cow farming. don't like your burgers? deal with it.) note that this doesn't destroy the farming industry, the farmers still get their money.
2.) the government converts 1/4 of the remaining 1/2 of people farming grain for cows into fish-farmers. fish produce over 4 times as much meat per pound of food eaten than cows do, so there's no lack of food.
3.) the 1/2 of grain bought from farmers is shipped to feed the hungry. it IS a fact that this, if done annually, would end world hunger. permanently.
THERE is your solution to world hunger.
although i'm a liberal, today's affirmative action makes me sick.
ok, i admit that minorities, especially blacks, are not yet at the 'level' in society of the majority thanks to the greed and cruelty of whites for most of american history. but affirmative action benefits certain minorities over OTHER minorities (blacks get priority over asians, etc.) as WELL as over whites. and, of course, the AMOUNT that it benefits these minorities is blown out of proportion to say the least. if affirmative action didn't count for SO MUCH, then i wouldn't have anywhere near as much of a problem with it. but, whether or not affirmative action over all is a 'bad' thing (which i personally think it is), you have to admit that america's CURRENT affirmative action system is overly biased and counts for too much.
and then there's the diversity quotas..... don't get me started with diversity quotas....
"If you're a suicide bomber, why don't you blow yourself and your friends up? Up in a mountain or on a deserted island. "
because the whole POINT of a suicide bomber is to strike a decisive blow at their enemies. not that i support them or anything, but why in the hell would they kill their friends?
"Why would you want to harm people you haven't met"
mostly because they are members of a government/people that they hate for one reason or another (that government oppressed them, killed their family and friends, bulldozed their house, took away their work, made people they know starve to death slowly, or any of the other reasons that make people take these drastic and frankly quite stupid actions)
"or have no beef with"
the whole point is that they DO have beef with the people they're bombing because they are members of the government/people that they hate.
"and make it more of a hassle to ride a airline?"
wow. that is the most selfish, ignorant, and callous thing i've heard all day. THAT'S why you want them all to die? so you don't have to leave an extra 1/2 hour early to get your airplane? seriously, you make me sick.
"You're gonna die so why make life miserable for other people?"
because they want to strike a blow at the government/people that they hate.
"Why don't you just kill yourself?"
because they want to strike a blow at the government/people that they hate.
"Obviously, you don't like living."
no, that's not it. they've just found a cause that they feel is more important than their own lives
"Just do it somewhere far away and away from people."
that would defeat the purpose of blowing yourself up, wouldn't it?
"This is why I support Bush."
so that you can ride your aiplanes faster? what a stupid reason....
"Dear President Bush, please annihilate suicide dumbass bomer terrorist in anywhere they hide, and countries or organization that support them."
you DO understand that that would mean that almost every country in the world, including the U.S., would be destroyed?
"You get that job accomplished you will be the greatest leader that ever lived"
no, that would make him the worst leader that ever lived. because he would be the only leader to kill almost the everyone (if not everyone) on this planet.
"and will be voted for a third term for US Presidency"
despite the fact that that's unconstitutional.
"and be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 10 years."
10 nobel peace prizes for killing almost everyone (if not everyone) on the planet? wouldn't that make him LAST on the list for a nobel PEACE prize?
"I am a person who really do not hate anything"
after reading your post, it's pretty obvious that that's a lie
"but when you see terrorists and their act, I flip out."
see? you DO hate the terrorists.
"I do not condone violence at any level"
really? so the whole 'president bush, can you kill everyone in any country that supports terrorism' thing doesn't consitute violence?
"but going up against asstard idiot annoyance like an anal wart suicide bomber schmeggma stain should-have-been-choked-to-death-at-birth-by-its-umbilical-cord terrorist..."
ummm..... all i have to say to that is: what the fuck?
"I'll go medival with a pair of plyers and blow torch on their asses."
despite the fact that there WERE no plyers or blow torches in the medieval period
Dear US Marine. Please kill terrorists with extreme prejudice. Kill them dead. Kill them and put them out of their sorry existence of wasted life and air they breathe. Use all means by necessary. You are heroes and the greatest."
5000? ONE thousand is an inflated estimate.
and i love how the media has started using the word 'slain' in describing soldier deaths now. hey, they finally found a thesaurus. i was getting tired of 'murdered', and 'slain' is slightly more accurate.
it would be hilarious if the iraqis adopt a constitution like our own, and then all the people shooting at our soldiers are aquitted out of self defense. that would be the irony of all ironies.
i've got a favorite two (these only work when listed together)
"for the last time i'm not a homophobe"
"fag"
and that sketch is f*cking great!
"What the fuck are talking about? You're trying to start shit by saying that crap. No, there isn't "irony in that"."
there is, though. you're just too much of a dumb fuck to see it. see, the exact same insults peter used on everyone who disagreed with him apply to you and him more than to anyone else.
"Uh, no, they whine, piss and moan."
just in case the doctors never told you; denial is a bad thing. just admit that no one's whining, and you can go back to the nice building with the padded walls.
"Again, what the fuck are you talking about?"
if you're too stupid to understand, well, then i can't say i'm suprised
"Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean you're right, you damn knee jerk liberal."
i'd ask 'where the HELL did THAT come from?', but i'd rather not know. whatever part of the depths of your asscrack you pulled that out of, i don't really want to know.
"No shit, but they are all still afraid of competition, plain and simple, dumbass."
yep, they're afraid of competition. even though not only is there no contest, but all people like you and peter do are bitch about how everyone but you is wrong, will burn in hell, etc. et fucking cetera
"Hmm, it figures you would be a retard and think that."
just remember, trying to cover up your own stupidity and how wrong you are by calling people retards doesn't work on people with an IQ of over 50. which covers everyone here except you and peter. and maybe that toilet paper fuckwit.
"Butagain, you're wrong."
only in your little drug-induced world
"No, he's a heterophobe."
read what i said above, it applies to that too.
"So shut the fuck up and quit defending him, idiot."
sounds like someone 'can't take the competition'. : p
"Yeah, keep sassing off you little shit."
awwww, poor baby, did i hurt your feelings? i'm sorry. oh, wait, no i'm not. go suck on a bible.
"YOU WILL BURN IN HELL for burning the flag. What kind of question is that? Are you that stupid that you can't figure it out? Yeah, you are."
wow. i mean, i've gotta say, that was pretty amazing. i thought you were stupid before, but you don't even know your own bible. then again, most bible-thumpers don't know the bible that well.
oh, and if you're just too stupid to read all those words, let me summarise the post for you:
1. you are a fuckwit
2. you bitch and moan about how you're right about everything, but don't make any arguments
3. you make some random-ass argument about buning in hell for burning the flag which is baseless and just stupid
4. what you percieve to be 'true' will fade away in a few hours when you're carted off to rehab again.
"but I do believe this is the first time in American history that a President has visited his soldiers in a war-zone during a time of war."
let's see now....
if you count before they were president, then:
washington, whoever the president was during the war of 1812 (sad that i can't remember, but whatever), lincoln, grant, eisenhauer (sad that i can't spell that....), and nixon.
if you don't, then:
the president during the war of 1812, lincoln, eisenhauer, and nixon
so no, he was definitelly not the first
"There should be a easy punishment for burning the flag, like cutting ur fucking head off."
only if you agree to impose the same punishment for stupidity. hey, if i'm going to die, i'm taking you with me.
"Peter, it's tough trying to beat this into these thick skulled, fuckin' jack offs."
i hope i'm not the only one that sees the irony in that.
"They see these as "oppurtunities" to try and belitttle us"
ummm......what? we're having a debate. very simple. peter tries to flame other people, and gets flamed in return. that is the way of the forums.
"when they fail miserably."
it's kind of hard to fail miserably at insulting you when you insult yourself with every post of yours.
"I've watched you, and I like they you think."
why am i not suprised........
"There are too many chicken shit pussy liberals who are afraid of competition here"
competition? what competition? i never even knew there was a contest....
"so all they do it whine, piss and moan."
isn't that what you're doing right now?
"They are all heterophobes too, like that FREAK opivy."
i think you're confusing 'heterophobe' with 'tolerant'. oh wait, i forgot, tolerant's not in your vocabulary
"Anyways, it's nice to see that you are a fellow Bush supporter.
"You aren't one who will burn in hell unike these ass clowns."
so we'll burn in hell for supporting bush, or we'll burn in hell for burning the flag?
by the way, here are two parts of the bible that you have violated
love thy neighbor
don't dust the speck out of your neighbor's eye when you've got a plank in your own
consult a priest immedeately
Wow, thank you for brining up something that happend more than 200 years ago! I'm much more appreciative of the French now! Hm, but what have they done of late...? NOTHING! I'm not judging the French as a whole, just their government.
see, why is it when people bring up france's help in the revolutionary war, they're always told by someone 'it happened 200 years ago, who cares?' but you can't say the same thing about our help in WW2? i mean, yes, it is over 150 years closer to today, but it's still 50 years ago. TWO generations have passed since then. if something that happened 200 years ago is irrelevant, than so is something that happened 50 years ago.
and to anyone who puts blanket stereotypes on the french (y'know, 'all french are snotty/weak/stupid' or something like that). there are SO many american stereotypes out there, and they apply to more americans than the french stereotypes apply to france (e.x. 'all americans are fat'. we, as a nation, are fat. does that mean that all of us are fat? of course not. if i told you 'americans are fat', wouldn't you respond 'that's just an ignorant stereotype'? that's how i respond to your stereotypes of the french). my point isn't that we should stereotype americans, bu that we shouldn't stereotype the french just cause they had the common sense to stay out of a war which has had FAR more bad outcomes than good ones.
"Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies"
lets see, you get rid of the rich and the extremely religious, and you're still left with tens of thousands of palestinaens who didn't leave by their own free will. is it a lie to say it's 'a handful'. no, of course not. is it the truth? no, of cousre not.
i may be in support of certain of israel's actions, but i'm not so blinded that i can't tell facts (and lies/major truth-stretchings) when i see them. unlike certain people, who view EVERYTHING israel has ever done as good....
