Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/19/04 03:19 AM, FatherVenom wrote: Hey there. Normally this would be where I try to recruit you for the DAG, but if Funk's already backing you, I'll leave it up to you. Anyway, I'm also online quite often if you have any questions for me. Don't be bothered by my away message. Trillian (my IM program) lets me talk while away, which I do quite often. Did anyone else know that? I know red and befell knew, but anyone else?

Don't know whether I should take this as a good or a bad thing yet, lol. I take it that it's not too bad if I'm being backed by anyone after 2 or so days of posting, but who would have thought the politics forums would have so much... politics?

What is exacly the extreme. Ever since 1947, the entire Middle East has been trying to wipe them off the face of the earth. Iraq (I think I said the Egyption PM said this and that was wrong) joined the other 7 countries that allied against Israel in 1967 saying, "Israel is a mistake which must be rectified." Thus, how can you take trying to survive against people who are trying to wipe out your entire race as paranoid. Their fears are real, and it is difficult for people who don't live in a society such as theirs to fully understand that, because we don't have people who are plotting a genocidal war, literally every day.

It's hard to deny that there was some oil greed involved. But it is pretty silly to suggest that oil was the driving factor. Something as horrible as war is almost never (and I say almost because there might be some obscure exception) fought on one basis alone. Even wars fought that were for, in large part, resources were for a resource that nation already had a relative abundance of. Oil is basically just a little extra bonus, and I don't think that it hurt our decision to go to war. You know how oil works, it can sure grease the wheels a bit.

Hitler burning the Reichstag and then blaming it on the Jews. It helped him a lot. And you forget that people have been pulling the wool over our eyes for a lot of things even today. There is a lot of stuff going on that the average person will never know about and on the one hand, it's bad and it's definately on the shady side of legal, but then again, if we knew completely what our government did and exactly how it operated, many important things wouldn't get done. Politics is the art of compromise and the art of hiding the fact that something got compromised. It's the way things run and don't be naive enough to think that any government, any president is on a high enough moral ground to do some shady things.

At some points it is very necessary. Hyperinflation can destroy an economy. In 1929, the stock market went way out of control and we ended up with the Great Depression. If there was some way that the steam could have bee let out the vents a little slower it never would have happened, but at the time there was really no working knowledge on what to do. Everyone always likes to see the economy fly higher and higher, and that's the danger of it. The Fed in this case made a slight overcalculation causing the economy to slow down a little bit too much. To be perfectly honest, I still don't understand the whole system fully, and I don't think I ever will. I like to see the economy soar just like the next person.

My dad is really big on that, well, he used to be until I shot down all of that stuff. The basic theory is definately a recipe for a takeover, I'll give em that, I just don't believe that the elements have been in place for this to be going on right now, but I don't want to get into all of that again.

Well thanks, I appreciate it. I'm probably going to go with a differnt alias though, this one is so old it's funny, I can barely even remember what it was about. You'll be seeing me as JRod, I've already posted on a couple of threads on the PC forums.

It is completely within the realm of possibility, it just isn't probable.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting it. The guys we're fighting in Iraq are mostly light ragtag groups that, I'm willing to bet, only have sweat under their shirts. A .223 is going to go right through without thinking twice, you know it.

I completely agree that Clinton had some great prosperity. Our country hadn't been that prosperous in a long while. A big point that I was getting at is it isn't so much the president as the Fed that can make large economic changes. The recession was spurned by an increase in the discount rate by the Fed. This not only popped the tech bubble, it also screwed over a lot of other people, that's why there was a recession. Clinton's policies were good, but an economy cannot run at that level for too long, other wise you'll run into a syndrome when people think the stock market will never drop, what happens then is that speculators drive it up and up until you get hyperinflation. I'm not knocking Clinton, the economic policy was quite sound. All I'm saying is that when the Fed brought that discount rate up, a lot of unintended things happened. And of course, Bush got stuck with a lot of it. You're right, the tax cuts to the rich never work. A tax cut really only works when you can put extra money into the hands of the average consumer, because they tend to have the highest marginal propensity to consume. I will definately give you, and back you up on that point, but the increased government spending that has been occuring has filled a lot of the slack in our economy. People are quick to point to the president when things happen, but the truth is, a lot of the economic policy doesn't go directly through there, the Fed has so much control of the economy through open market operations and the freedom to adjust the interest rates. If they really wanted to screw things up, they could adjust the amount of money that banks are required to have in reserve, but the Fed tends to leave that alone. I read that article by the way and it's pretty accurate. The tax cut for the rich, again is a ridiculous idea, and Reaganomics really screwed the country, although a lot of the defecit came from the arms race with the Soviets. You also have to take into account the fact that stagflation, the economy being stagnant during a period of inflation was a new and bizarre occurance that baffled economic theorists of the time, so it's easy to criticize looking back on it. Of course, that doesn't make it any better a solution.

To sum it up, it wasn't the tax cuts the brought the economy down. the Federal Reserve, a seperate entity from the Bush Administration, and even helped to acheive a good part of the prosperity of the 90s caused a temporary recession. The tax cuts were not the brightest idea, but the increased government spending seems to have our economy back up. In no way am I calling Bush the economic genius of our time, because what I've seen of Bush is that he's a pretty average President, he just hasn't royally screwed our country like a lot of people seem to be saying.

Actually our soldiers aren't dying every day. We really haven't had a whole lot of casualties. This was one of our quickest and cleanest wars ever. It is quite possible that three people he went to boot camp with died, I wouldn't call that one a complete fabrication. If he really is lying, don't worry about it, that's not really worth it.

Spookshow, I'm not talking about the spin from the rifling, I mean the spin the occurs when the bullet hits a target and goes end over end. When it slows down from hitting body armor, it allows the bullet to topple more because it doesn't have so much x-axis velocity. But yeah, a smaller bore will definately get you better penetration, but that's not what you want when you want to screw up a guys innards.

Any President would fight back after what happened on 9/11. That was an unprovoked act of war perpetrated on our soil. If that is not a justification to go after the responsible parties, then I don't know what is. We seemed to think so in WW2 when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. How many instances can you count that America has been attacked on its own soil and it hasn't retaliated. This isn't Bush policy, this is world policy. When someone attacks you and you don't respond, you set yourself up for more bold assaults. Nobody's going to think we're being big about it by taking a 3000 casualty loss on the chin. That is naive and ridiculous. The war on terror has gone pretty far, that is pretty apparent. However, I don't think that there's going to be another attack on US soil in the near future. People understand our resolve and they realize that if they want to kill our citizens, then we're going to take the war to them. If we were dealing with a reasonable people, then everything would be fine and dandy and we wouldn't have to go to war, and I'll take that any day. But when somebody perpetrates an act so vile and so malicious as to send a couple jetliners into a completely civilian target, then you aren't dealing with reasonable people. You're dealing with people that only respond to force.

The law is inherently unconstitutional, and when you get right down to it, that's the core of the topic, personal opinions on homosexuality aside.

Right, that's all I'm saying. Just because Kublai Khan wasn't Chinese doesn't mean he didn't get hisself one huge empire. And I gotta say something about that Thanatos_DTH1. I'm a quarter hispanic, and that pretty much entitles me to be hispanic. It's crazy, but I guess it's just one of society's little classification fetishes, everybody's gotta be in a group.

Yeah, I saw a show on the Discovery Channel a while back about how the .223 is more effective against heavier body armor. It's because it allows that sucker to spin around more, if I'm not mistaken. There really isn't much we can do about the cartridges, freakin NATO, but I'll tell you what sure as hell isn't lethal. Our heavy equipment. I'd like to see somebody getting up after taking a 50 cal machine gun round from a Bradley or somebody try leaving a vehicle that gets slammed with a HEAT round courtesy of an Abrams.

There are certain states that allow homosexual marriages, I do believe.

At 7/19/04 01:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/19/04 12:58 AM, griffenmaster wrote: And lastly, China was a super power from the B.C. until the Mongolians invaded. Even then, Mongolian ruled China was a superpower.

Well... I guess it all depends on your definition of a superpower

Taking over an empire close to the size of the old USSR in the 12th century was quite a feat for anybody. I don't think the Romans were even able to swing that kind of sheer land mass. Their military was also quite powerful. A Mongolian horse archer was a pretty tough enemy to beat, especially when they were in the saddle at around 4 years old.

No joke. But you know? Stories about how great our boys fighting for freedom overseas don't sell as well as atrocities. It makes me sad to see that. It also appears that the media likes to give Bush a hard time in general. I'm always seeing him second guessed and ridiculed, when, in fact, his policies are perfectly sound. There's nothing extraordinarily great about him most of the time, but he's doing a pretty fine job. I have to say though, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I think he did a pretty damned fine job of stabilizing the nation. Since then, he's been pretty decent to okay. But I digress. More clips like Spookshow mentioned would definately be a nice change.

I'm going to have to agree with the consensus, Iran isn't worth it. They don't pose a serious enough threat to us. Honestly, I think we did well in Afghanistan and Iraq and now it's time to send the boys on home. Which we probably will. The political ramifications of starting another pre-emptive war would be so dire that they would be ridiculous. Especially in such a close time period, it borders on madness. There's no way that America would consider it a viable option, and if they do, there are some pretty scary, irrational people in the Pentagon. No, I don't think that we're headed in that direction, and I wouldn't be too afraid of the Iranians if I were you. At least not any time soon.

Lincoln was a very effective President. I mean he did manage to get legislation passed that abolished slavery, and do you think it was just the Southerners who didn't want that passed? There were a lot of ill feelings in the North towards blacks as well, even if they didn't own slaves. Lincoln performed a gargantuan feat with that one.

I could never contemplate having to kill a child. It would tear me apart inside, and must have torn some poor GIs apart as well. I'll bet a lot of them can still see the look on those children's faces. It makes me cringe what they must go through, and you're absolutely right, they knew what they had to do, I don't really think it makes it that much easier though.

Wow, a thread where people listened. I think I'm going to break down and cry. I think it would be best to get back on topic, however. This isn't another Bush thread. I don't believe in the Nephilim, personally. The Bible only records the three children, Cain, Abel, and Seth. If the Nephilim were going to play such a crucial role in the birth of Jesus, it would make sense that they would be introduced a little more... well, introduced at all.

Ah indeed, patriotism is doing something for your country because you feel that it is in the best interest of the country as a whole.

At 7/19/04 12:33 AM, Spookshow wrote:

It was a hard choice but look at BHD... Things like the little boy with the AK-47 actually happened.

You better believe it happened, which was a big reason why the soldiers did bad bad things. That sort of stuff messes with your head, and you start to go crazy. My best friend's dad is a Vietnam vet, he had some intense psychological trouble before he met the Lord.

Oh God, now I see it, thanks a lot. Geez man, keep it to yourself next time.

Eh, definately some gaping holes, but it's good you got to the ancient history deal. Islam was not created by Ishmael, it was created in roughly 600 AD by Muhammed. Jews and Muslims have never lived in peace. And Palestine was owned by Britain and after WW2, they couldn't maintain control of it and gave it to the UN who, in turn, divided it into two countries: Israel and Palestine in 1947. In 1967, Israel was at war with 8 other countries intent on wiping it off the map. Instead of being defeated, they defended themselves AND took Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Sinai peninsula and the West Bank. The ending is pretty much the same. The Palestinians want land, but they also see the Israelis as mortal enemies simply because that's the way they've always seen each other since Biblical times, and trust me, they've never lived in peace.

WW2 was before the Geneva Convention. I think that was one of the major reasons they had the Geneva Convention. And you're absolutely right that careless collateral damage is outlawed, I should have been more specific. Indescrimanatory bombing is basically the way they did it in WW2, with the bomber sights and using 4 squadrons to hit a single factory. In this day and age, doing something like that is needless and savage. We never did that in Iraq, and we prided ourselves in keeping collateral damage to a minimum with our "smart munitions" that we can guide into the window of our choice. Still, accidents happen and THAT is an accepted consequence of war. I'm glad you brought up that vagarity in my previous post, it was misleading.

As far as Agent Orange is concerned, wow, I did say never. My bad, you're absolutely right, they did use it on villages in dense undergrowth. It wasn't a weapon, nor was it meant as a weapon. The indescrimanatory spraying of Agent Orange, which they did a lot of, did not violate the Geneva Convention, as it was not a weapon, it was merely seen as a defoliating agent and the long term effects were unknown. It was a horrible oversight, but I don't think it can be classified as a Geneva violation.

Thanks for summing it up Illustrious, that's pretty much what I was getting at.

I think it reflects poorly on a person's intelligence to assume that simply because other people believe something it has to be true. Bush is far from an idiot. However, simply because he sometimes slips verbally, which I've heard people do far more often than Bush, in fact, the most intelligent person I know is not the best with words, people think that he's incapable of running a country, nevermind the fact that all of his policies are in keeping with basic politics (if the economy is down, tax cuts and increased spending, if someone attacks your sovereignty then prosecute the ones responsible). If your number one trait in a president is cunning linguist, then that's your business, don't use it to rate a man's intelligence. I'm not saying Bush is a genius, I don't think that we've really had a man of outstanding mental strength as a president, but we've never elected a retard.

Wow, that has got to be a horribly flawed argument. You can't suggest that simply because somebody is against something, then they are against things that are almost wholly unrelated outside of stereotypes.