610 Forum Posts by "House-Of-Leaves"
At 3/26/03 04:12 AM, My-anus-is-BLEEDING wrote: INSERT AWSOME CLOCK PIC HERE
That...cracked me up!
At 3/26/03 03:47 AM, FatCatScandal wrote: ya see, i like clocks and most of there flash work.. apart from tricky.. but when people get all arogant and oity toity like that.. it makes me start to wanna rip your throat out...
Just cos ur good, doesn't mean we wanna here about it all the time. Stop talking and get back to what your good at.. flash making :)
Bah on you! Everyone should love Clocks.
EVERYONE.
Everyone hug your local Clock. :)
At 3/25/03 09:38 PM, Testerline wrote: i Really dont htink there is a process to turn chicks into dudes i know they can turn dudes into chicks but i dont htink they can do it the other way.
How sad that a thread like this gets so much attention.
First...yes. Yes, they can. In fact, I'll be gross enough to explain how. They do the opposite process that they do in men. They cut the lining of the vagina, pull it out, and turn it into a penis. Now...obviously? I've over-simplified, because it would take for-fucking-EVER to explain exactly how they do it.
WHY DO YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT A HS GIRL GOT A SEX CHANGE OPERATION??
A sex-change operation will only occur AFTER extensive psychological assesments. This is to ensure that it's an actual case of wanting a sex-change, and not some delusional bitch wanting a penis for a day.
And for the LOVE OF GOD. Do you know how many years a person has to undergo HORMONE THERAPY before an operation like that? It's NOT as simple as 'hot girl' one day 'breastless and sporting wang' the next. How gullible are you people?
To the thread creator: try doing some research before starting bullshit like this.
Pros, teaching Creationism WITH Evolution:
-- Gives a child the opportunity to choose which he or she believes.
-- Results in a well-rounded, well-informed student.
-- Introduces students to ideas OTHER than Darwin's theories.
Cons, teaching Creationism WITH Evolution:
-- Violates the separation of Church and State.
-- Propogates intolerance toward other spiritual, non-christian religions.
-- Violates the parent's right to teach their children about spirituality themselves.
The fact is, I agree that Creationism shouldn't be taught. But I also think that how the world began is something that will NEVER be 100% proven. Who's to say God isn't the one that caused the Big Bang? Who's to say that the Big Bang isn't how God chose to create?
I think pretending to 'know' something like that is arrogant. I hold a lot of faith in Science, but I don't want to have to debate with my children about what's fact and what's myth. I'd much rather our schools teach evolution as a likely possibility, -mention- creation, then move on with evolution. That way, my daughter won't come to me and say, 'Mommy, teacher told me today that God didn't really create the world.' I have the right to tell her He -did-...and not expect her beliefs to be shunned at school.
At 3/25/03 10:17 PM, Kazou_Kiriyama wrote:At 3/24/03 06:00 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: -- Sending troops and equipment to Iraq: $14 billion.-- Removing a viscous dictator from his position of power: Priceless
-- First month of combat: $10 billion.
-- Every month after that: $8 billion.
-- Bringing troops and equipment home afterward: $9 billion.
-- Immediate humanitarian needs (food, meds): $10 - $30 billion.
-- Post-war occupation/reconstruction: $12 - $48 billion per year.
-- Veteran benefits (based on Desert Storm estimates) $3 - $4 billion
I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sorry, but he set himself up for that one. I'll just shut up now at let you all get back to business as usual.
Kazou Kiriyama
*DIES laughing*
Actually? To be honest? I almost put something like that on there. I knew someone would. *lol*
I agree that he needs to be taken out of power. I've never done anything but agree with anyone who's stated SADDAM IS EVIL!
That doesn't make regime change legal, or wise in the spending department. Maybe I sound like I have no compassion, but I like dealing with facts.
AND OH MY GOD!! I AM A GIRL!
I do not have a wang!
I DO NOT HAVE A WANG!
I'm a girl! I'm not a he!
*lmao* Sorry, I just get 'he' a lot. It seems that not many women debate here.
At 3/25/03 06:44 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: I'm sorry, but the council has already spoken.
-)
Am I supposed to care about the council? Is that supposed to hold some weight with me?
Sorry. I can't be arsed to give a flying fuck about an imaginaty council. *lol* Perhaps it's a little internet game you like to play, because we all needed to play make-believe when we were children...but in reality, those things don't matter.
Oh, by the way. There is no Santa Claus.
I think we're having a bit of an issue in differentiating 'ethical' and 'illegal'.
Everyone's ethics are different, everyone's opinions are different. Especially about this war. But regardless of whether you're for or against this war, facts cannot be disregarded. Technically, this war is illegal.
At 3/24/03 09:09 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Everyone in the world may have known that "serious consequences" means use of force, but Bush has proved that all resolutions need EXACT and PRECISE wording.
Bush managed to dance a merry jig around the Geneva Convention, and the treating of POWs in Guantanamo Bay.
I'm not saying he's being cruel to them, but he sure did pirioulette his way around acknowleging them as POWs.
I agree, Ted. I don't think the POW's are being treated in a cruel way. The sad thing is, he did exactly what you say. Pirouette around acknowledging that they ARE POW's, and therefore -could- treat them cruelly if he wanted to. Ugh.
At 3/25/03 08:03 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I like how Nem argues, because it shuts the idiots up. To people with decent, informed debates that can hold any water at all, he's quite a challenging adversary. His temper is only caused by the idiots who flood in here from general, give him a break. He knows quite a bit about world affairs, and is the brains who came up with the Politics Council. Mwaha.
The council, my friends, has spoken.
I'm under no obligation to any 'council'. Mods? Sure. Council? *lol* No.
I've given several decent, informed debates. He's flamed me. I'm not an idiot. He's flamed me. Now...to be honest? Flaming does nothing to flare my temper. I simply am not affected by silly comments like that. But I hold to the principle that if he DOES have 'decent, well informed debates', he should use them, rather than name calling.
Sincerely, is there any comparison? Decent debate vs. name-calling. Sorry, but no.
At 3/25/03 02:43 AM, OlenWhitaker wrote:Cow's have souls, but you are just to selfish and companced to see that.What does "companced" mean? I looked it up in the dictionary and it wasn't there.
I'd like to know the same thing.
Go to the barn and have sex with your relatives, stupid hillybilly!This doesn't even count as an ad hominem argument, it's just an outright insult. If you have to resort to this sort of thing to make your alleged point, isn't that a sign you're grasping at straws? Oh, and I'd like to hear you answer my previous post near the middle of page two.
*lol* Olen, you've just hit the nail on the head. It happens so often, it's not even funny. Insults do not aid in making valid points.
I'd really like to know what sort of spiritual beliefs Veggiemeal has. It may be in the last three pages...but I can't be arsed to read through all that.
At 3/25/03 02:33 AM, TheShrike wrote: I think the manner in which Nemesisz acts is an affront to intellectual debate.
Exactly the point I've been making. He has no grasp of how to share ideas and opinions effectively.
Yes, Nemmy. There might be a smart idea or two in your head, just as 'The Goth Girl' said. There might even be a smart person in there as well.
*LOL* Oh, dear GOD. Am I going to be known as that from now on?
Seriously...I didn't even KNOW what Goth was until I left eastern Oregon. I grew up in a tiny town! I'm so normal it -hurts-. I just get opinionated.
I'm also way too optimistic to be angst-ridden.
But those ideas... That person is completely buried by an antagonistic, antipathetic, imbecilic and juvenile ego.
I would gladly respect you if your responses would show more than a wit quick to insult rather than reason and a mind closed to ideas rather than being open to new concepts.
Exactly. That's exactly how I feel. There's people in this forum that I don't agree with. But I still respect them for being able to express themselves in an intelligent way. They also respect my freedom to my opinion.
Disagree with anyone here till you are completely satisfied. But lay off the idiotic one-liners, and state your mind- Not your 'unbiased' emotions.
He won't, is the problem. He's a troll, and all he really delights in is sowing discord. This is why I truly suspect he's just a VERY young, precocious child that can't handle being told he's being a naughty boy.
You can't reason with someone like that. But perhaps he can learn from experience.
At 3/24/03 08:20 PM, LedZep77 wrote:At 3/23/03 10:17 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Where are you getting this information from? Al-Jazeera?hahahah ur all terroists!
I weep for our future.
At 3/25/03 02:17 AM, agent66 wrote: After Iraq we're going after Denmark!!!! We're gonna slap 'em like the little girl bitches they are. Then we're gonna rape 'em with broom sticks and tell 'em they got a purdy mouth.
*DIES laughing!*
...purdy mouth...broomsticks...oh, dear. Thank you. THANK you for breaking the tension.
At 3/25/03 01:11 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Oh no, the 25 year old goth girl who didn't finish off all her teen agnst soon enough doesn't respect the facts, what a shame.
Tell you what, take out the picture from your profile and then you can say someone ELSE is a waste of time.
Do you read what you post? Seriously. Do you read it?
Again, you just made yourself look like a fool by using personal attacks to try to prove something. So, I'll let you know this.
I'm not a goth girl. Far from it.
I'm not, nor have I ever been, angst-ridden.
I've given facts. I've posted facts. I respect facts. I've not seen you give any facts. I just posted to you elsewhere...give me facts, I'll thank you for sharing them with us. Give us your opinion, stated in a way that doesn't make you sound like you're throwing a fit? I'll listen, and respect it.
Now...what exactly does my profile picture have to do with ANYTHING said here in this forum? It's Bettie Page. Pin-up girl from decades back. So what? Were you going to make a point, and simply forget?
I'm being honest here. I sincerely don't think you realize the sort of image you're creating for yourself. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't BE here. You continue on and on and on...and never one try to be an adult and say, 'You're right. I may still hold to my ideas that I'm right. But you have the right to believe what you want. That's the American way. You're also right that I've made unnecessary personal attacks.'
You'll be very smart, once you get over yourself.
At 3/25/03 01:29 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: From the dude who's been here a day...seriously, why do I come here?
1
Because it's the only place you can come and talk like that to people who are likely smarter and more informed than you...and not get punched in the face.
Hard.
Seriously, dood. Come off it. If you give me facts? Fine. I'll say, 'Good facts. Thank you for sharing them.'
You try to pass off your HORRIBLY BIASED AND RUDE opinions off as fact? I'll laugh in your face. Only a child would have the audacity to do such a thing.
Shame on you for trying to sound like you know what you're talking about. You had me fooled. I thought you had something to say that was worth listening to.
At 3/25/03 12:41 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You see nothing wrong with hating your country?
Wow, you truly belong with the Westboro Church people.
I realize nothing I say or do will make you realize how you sound, but I must point out: Having an opinion against this war is not synonymous with hating America.
Now...to people who can have an adult discussion: I don't necessarily think that Mr. Moore used his time on stage wisely. But I've also seen our civil liberties slowly get sapped away, so I'm all for practicing them anywhere you can.
Also, whoever said Moore was speaking out against the second amendment...the movie is more about the culture of fear in America than anything.
At 3/25/03 01:17 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: Techniclly, Bush was preparing for Iraq to break the Geneva convention. According the Geveva Convention, gurrila warfare and dressing up as civilians are outlawed. Our milirary planned for gurrilla warfare. Come to think of it, in every war America has fought since the convention, the other side violated the convention. It's no big deal, really.
I suppose my frustration is that, although I know it's alright to get angry at Iraq breaking the Geneva Convention, they act SURPRISED about it. It's like they want the American people to be surprised with them. More propaganda to say, 'BE ANGRY AT THIS WITH US!'
It's almost as if it's one big production for the media, over here. If they -knew- it was going to happen, or suspected it, then they should say so, instead of feigning ignorance.
I just refuse to respect someone that debates with insults and personal attacks. AND links to 'STFU' pictures. I won't waste my time on him anymore, other than to continue to point out that he is simply rude and illogical.
I may have different views than Commander, but he doesn't get personal. And I believe that while he may not agree with me, at least he respects my right to think what I like. I appreciate that. :)
At 3/24/03 04:13 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Well I don't as I have said I believe that man should care for those who CANNOT fend for themselves. Those who choose not to work or have failed to work hard enough in their careers or their education are another matter.
This is not a valid argument in this day and age. Not at all.
There are people with degrees that have been laid off through no fault of their own. Because the job market is so, so difficult to re-enter right now, they cannot find jobs.
You sound very empassioned about what you think, which is good. But be honest. Logically speaking, how is a bad job-market their fault?
You are making an argument that would be valid in a booming economy. Ours is anything but booming right now. Go to a city and see men and women in Armani suits with signs around their necks, enlarged copies of their resumes, successful business people laid off because their company was corrupt or bankrupt...go see that, go ask them how hard they worked. THEN come back and make that argument.
At 3/24/03 06:31 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Your opinion isn't wrong, per se, just misguided and worthless.
How arrogant of you to assume your opinion is worth more than anyone elses.
You're a troll, I've come to see. You don't make informed debates. I think you're here just to cause problems. You make statements that you hope will piss people off.
Honestly? It won't work with me, so move on. I'm confident in my opinion. I do not expect everyone to agree with it, or even anyone. That's not the point of an opinion. I do, however, have facts to back up my opinion. I do not make personal attacks, and I do not get petty.
My honest opinion about you, is that I suspect you're just a precocious child that hasn't learned the true meaning of debate. Once you get personal and insulting...that totally negates any argument you've made.
If you think that insults make you sound better, and more important? Take it from an adult. You will grow up, and learn that that's not how the world works. You make yourself look bad by doing what you are.
At 3/24/03 06:22 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: So you think we should give Saddam another slap on the wrist and trust that this time he'll disarm?
No. I think patience would have been a good thing. I think there were other, more peaceful, less destructive ways to exaust before doing it like this. I do not disagree with WHY it's happening. I disagree with how it happened, and when.
It is a "war," but maybe not on paper. Of course, Bush will take a lot of flak for this because the left will attack him any way they can. Really, he is following a precedent set long before him. If you want to blame somebody, blame Truman.
Hahaha!! True. *lol* So true. I can't argue with that, but at the same time, I can expect the leaders of my country to not make bad decisions.
What if the Allies would have made a preemptive strike on Nazi Germany? Would you consider it legal?
We acted without UN or NATO approval. And we struck first. This is technically an illegal war, no matter how much you want to ignore it.
That's actually a great question. It's flawed, but thought provoking.
If we would have attacked preemptively, it would have saved millions of lives. Instead, we waited, let it escalate, and we didn't get involved until Pearl Harbor. We ended it by dropping the only atomic bomb ever dropped during warfare.
The thing is, though? I don't think a preemptive attack on Nazi Germany would have been questioned like this was questioned. It was clear what was going on. Hind-sight is 20/20, yes, so if I could have killed Hitler before he began his regime, even if it meant spending my life in prison, I would do it. But that's now how things work, and it isn't logical. When we entered WWII, it was already well underway, and a lot of innocent lives had been taken. Getting involved earlier than we did back then would have been justified. And it wouldn't have been do thoroughly debated.
True.
But if you don't want to look at the legality of this war...how about the hypocricy?
Iraq is being attacked for not complying with the UN.
The U.N. never withheld approval. The issue never came to a vote.
Bush is waging this war against UN approval.
The UN wouldn't put it to a vote. That, to me, says it's not giving approval.
The last time I checked, we were still a sovereign nation. The U.N. does not control us. We have attacked Iraq because they pose a threat. Are you saying that nations cannot defend themselves unless the rest of the world says you can?
...Do you understand that now? Bush refused to comply with the UN, in order to attack Iraq because it wouldn't comply with the UN.
No...but what are we defending? That's exactly my point. We aren't defending ourselves one bit. Saddam Hussein poses a threat to his own people, yes. We're defending Iraq, by trying to take out a tyrant. We are not protecting ourselves. In the long run? Possible. I have no idea, I won't claim to know.
This isn't like we're being attacked and fighting back. We're not defending ourselves. Your point is a good one...but it doesn't pertain to this war.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but I support the right of a nation-state to act in their defense and not at the behest of a diplomatic debating society.
Again...we're not defending ourselves. We're waging war on another country. We're the offensive team right now. We're not playing defense.
At 3/24/03 06:20 PM, BinLadenmustdie wrote: I'll repeat, Iraq has repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire after the original Gulf War. Notice I said 'cease fire'. That is because there has never been a peace treaty signed after the original Gulf War. One of the terms of the original Gulf War 'cease fire' was that Saddam must disarm. This was back in '91. For 12 years he didn't abide.
See, part of me agrees with you. Part of me says, 'Yeah, if they didn't want it, Saddam shouldn't have called down the thunder.'
But I refuse to think like that. I do not want to live in a country where the administration thinks two wrongs make a right.
Above being a Big Brother to the world, America also needs to start setting some standards, an example. We're breaking laws to punish the breaking of laws. We're breaking agreements to punish the breaking of agreements.
I don't see why they should be praised for that.
At 3/24/03 05:23 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:
Public curiocity and they put pictures of them on TV. Case closed.
wow...so...you mean the Geneva Convention overrides Constitutional Law now?
I don't know what YOU would do if you were the people guarding the POW's...but I sure as hell wouldn't just let them walk around free, without having a weapon trained on them.
American soldiers were KILLED. Executed. Kicked by a grinning Iraqi soldier.
See, I don't know about you. But no matter how many problems I have with the US Government and the Bush Administration, I'm not going to ignore simple logic and bash them for something like that.
Instead, I'll boggle at them for actually expecting Iraq to comply with the Geneva Convention, either in the past or in the future.
At 3/24/03 06:10 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The USA has a right to protect its interests, foreign and domestic, and the UN and NATO have no power over that.
If you can't see that, I can't help you.
So you're saying that the laws are only in effect when we WANT them to be?
Oh...alright, then. I have an interest in those neat leather pants I saw downtown. I don't have the money for them...but I need to protect my interests. I'm going to break the law to protect my interests, and steal them.
If I were to use your logic while contemplating those leather pants, that's exactly what I could do. It's flawed logic. I agree that the US has a right to protect their interests. But I don't agree that this was the only way to do it.
At 3/24/03 06:08 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Here you go, enjoy.
Ah, so is this what happens when you can't make a logical, informed argument?
I have NO problem with you disagreeing with me, whatsoever. I do, however, have a HUGE problem with anyone telling me that my opinions are wrong. Opinions cannot be wrong.
That's why they're called opinion.
If you're going to respond to my suggestion that you respect people's opinions with a stupid 'STFU' picture you photoshopped, then perhaps you belong in the General forum, rather than one that requires a bit of thought.
That was incredibly unoriginal.
At 3/24/03 06:04 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Suprise suprise, the UN doesn't control the USA; if they don't like it, they can pack up and move to Paris.
Surprise, surprise. It's called International Law. And acting against the UN and NATO, and striking first, makes it pretty illegal. The United States agreed to comply with UN mandate when it joined.
At 3/24/03 06:03 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Was Al Gore funny on SNL?
Yes, very.
Would he have been a decent president?
No, not at all.
Are you stating your opinion as fact AGAIN?
Yes, you are.
Do you KNOW FOR SURE what would have happened?
No, not at all.
I'm not asking you to like Al Gore. I'm not asking you to even agree with his environmental or economic ideas or tactics. But I WILL ask you, yet again, to not state your opinion as fact.
1441 covered disarming Iraq. The stated goal of this war is regime change, which is outside that mandate.
I know there'll be the argument 'it's not regime change!' Yeah, it is. It's been named by our government 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. That is regime change. They started out talking about WMD. It changed to regime change when they realized that those WMD weren't going to rear their ugly heads as soon as they thought they would.
So. 1441 doesn't cover regime change.
The US Constitution demands Congressional approval for acts of war. "Hey, HoL. They haven't declared war." Oh, so this is another 'police action', then? Like Korea? Mhmm.
We acted without UN or NATO approval. And we struck first. This is technically an illegal war, no matter how much you want to ignore it.
Will Bush and Pals actually be accused and tried as war criminals? Nah, I don't think so. There's enough loopholes to jump through, I think. They possibly even covered that by not officially declaring war.
But if you don't want to look at the legality of this war...how about the hypocricy?
Iraq is being attacked for not complying with the UN.
Bush is waging this war against UN approval.
...Do you understand that now? Bush refused to comply with the UN, in order to attack Iraq because it wouldn't comply with the UN.
Honestly, I'm not saying this because I'm a Hussein supporter. I'm using basic human logic. It's -simple-, and I don't know why it's still argued. It's not a personal attack on anyone, it's not empassioned in any way. I also fully realize that Bush and Co. will likely never face accusations for the things I mentioned.
Does that make it any less true?
At 3/24/03 05:38 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: "President Gore, we're under attack sir."
"Hey, is that a blimp?"
(jumps out window and is never seen again, heard saying "I didn't invent the internet to FIGHT!")
I hardly think you're in the position to KNOW what would happen. That's pretty funny, tho. Blimp?? *lol*
What I'm confident about is our own stability as a country, if Gore would have been in office. Our economy was on a good path, Gore knew not to fuck with the simple equation that's taught in almost all college level economy classes...one that Clinton followed. He had us on the road to FINALLY recovering from Regan-omics.
That's one of my biggest arguments. How can we save another country if we can't even save ourselves? It rankles.
At 3/24/03 01:19 PM, nimmer wrote:At 3/22/03 04:46 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Do NOT fall into the post-Viet Nam trend of hating the soldiers, or being bitter toward them.hey i'm soldier neutral. of course prolly they don't want to die and so BUT they still have chosen for a profession in wich you have to kill people and in wich you risk people. i think that's their choice, i am not going to hate them for it but i will not let one tear for a soldier KIA. it's one of the risks of the job. you don't weep for a cook who cuts his finger do you ... wel maybe YOU do house, if tom's the cook :p
Be anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-weapon, anti-ANYTHING.
Do not be anti-soldier. That's just closedminded and hurtful.
*LMAO* Yeah, he's the cook, tho we switch off. And he HAS cut himself. Recently, too. Had to get stitches in his freakin' finger. CRACKED me up!
As for your position, nimmybaby, that's a good one. :) That's all we can really ask from anyone, I think is for neutrality instead of hatred for our soldiers. I haven't shed a tear yet, because I know, logically, that war will have casualties. I know that people will die, and war without bloodshed is impossible. I think more tears are shed by people who know fallen soldiers personally. If my cousin were to be KIA, I'd cry, for sure. But that's just because I'd miss him.
