Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"that state the Ayatollah said it"

At 12/10/07 08:16 AM, Slizor wrote:
Firstly..
Secondly..
Thirdly..
Fourthly..
And fifthly..

Sixthly, (and this is critical to the originality of it's source) ..IT'S TRANSLATED!

Fatwas (fat%u0101w%u0101) are almost exclusively issued native language; Arabic. Anything proclaimed under the order of Islam is done in Arabic. Likewise, the Qur'an has been translated into many languages, but they all refer back to the original Arabic text. Although natively, 90% percent of the world's Muslims do not speak Arabic, the language is still used in everyday prayer and such.

Authenticity around the study of Islam is all about having the original in Arabic. Any "official translation" would almost certainly be expected to source the original speech, and give evidence to the person (or persons) who did the translation. Citing a proclaimation of this type without also being able to cite an original text (or in this case more likely a transcript of an original recording) is just asking for trouble.

.

At 12/9/07 05:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Me: "The sky is blue"

Slizor: "no"

Me: "proof: the sky is blue"

Slizor: "who said that? Oh.... Um... that source doesn't count because I don't want it to."

A more honest version of events;

Cellar: "The sky is blue"

Slizor: "No, light is blue."

Cellar: "Wow (LINK) ...'Leading figure says translated scripture states that the sky ISinfact blue'."

Slizor: "Who.. wha?? Look, what color is the sky at night? Why is the sky not blue at night? Explain that to me if you can! If you can't, then just drop it."

Cellar: "Wow, you can't even accept the sky is blue! What kind of ignoramous hippy liberal dipshit illogical debate is this? I even have more reputable famous persons who also state "the sky is falling", but you're a terrorist sympathizer, so sadly you'll only believe what other anti-American extremists believe."

.

At 12/7/07 06:16 AM, Al6200 wrote: I wonder why France hates us:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/National IQs.aspx

Holland being at the top of that list is even more compelling to be honest.

(..but what this has to do with the N.W.O. is anybody's guess!)

^Now that's a good use of the politics forum!

I'm pretty sure most ppl outside the US has hardly heard of the guy thou. So apart from his stance on the Iraq situation, can you give a brief rundown on him for the rest of us, or post a link or two which is representative/objective as far as you see it, kos we are curious.

At 12/6/07 05:32 PM, TheMason wrote: Well let's try this experiment...post up the areas you have expertise in...

O' dear lord... my only "expertise" is having been a total (and i mean *TOTAL*) news junkie for over 30 years ...and like not swallowing too much BS!

Hmm.. yeah ok, i have "some" expertise in BS 101 (ie. age/experience). That's all i bring to the NG table i'm afraid. That and my passion for weed.. which is considered more of a "negative expertise". Like, do techy + sci-fi hobbies also count for any?

**cowers in teh corner aways from everyone flashing around all their diplomas**

Definition of *Total* :: flipping between LIVE broadcast FOX and BBC news at 2 or 3 in the morning (NZ time) when 911 happened as a case in point.

At 12/7/07 03:55 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:

At 12/5/07 12:41 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Hey, be the World Bully. Steal everyone's money and resourses.

Everyone as in:

Having a few American oil companies move into Iraq after 2003.

^See. This is how shallow one can be when one is immersed so deeply within the lie. They (can i call them "They" without being misunderstood, i dunno?) are stealing YOUR MONEY and YOUR RESOURCES.

(wiki)

"For 2007, the [military] budget was raised to a total of US$532.8 Billion. This DOES NOT include... other items such as; nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production OR the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"...which are funded largely through extra-budgetary supplements... (cost of war)

Include practically everything US military related (intelligence/diplimatic envoys/Bush's private jaunts to the middle east, etc, etc) and you're well on you way to about 1 Trillion dollars in 1 year (that's about 1 Million.. Millionaires for anyone who is a bit numbershy).. and for that sort of money you need wars and constant global tensions to justify the budgets. Think of all those scientists and technicians and stratigic planners and so on and so forth.. well the mind boggles.

Sure, an argument can be made (and proly will be made) that America NEEDS all this weaponization and spending to counter Russia's resurgant military, or the something like a 50% increase that China is pumping into it's own military suddenly. But hey, remember that this is claimed to be the exact way America bankrupted Russia following the Cold War. Isn't China now playing the same "if they do it, we should do it" game. So yeah, that wiki page shows a world map, and contrasts spending by GDP (and i'm sure Cellar will be the first to point to some "minor" statistical number like GDP to confuzzle everyone), but when you account for every country chasing after America's spending, or spending ever more to defend against America (who invaded a couple of countries of late i might add) then that puts this whole spendup into perspective.

Call everyone Terrorists.

America is at war. "They" (there's that word again) are your unseen enemy, am i right?

You don't think anyone is a terrorist. You live in denial.

My "Terrorist" is anyone who talks up World War 3, without a valid enough reason.

You don't even understand the terrorists motivation or goals.

It was either to STOP America acting like an ASSHOLE... OR... to get America to continue acting like an ASSHOLE. I forget which one it was, but the latter looks way more likely with the benefit of hindsight, and considering who was the President was when 911 happened.

Wahhh, waaah. It's our fault, waaah.

Rofl. This isn't JudgeDredd, is it? Oh well, if it is, you're a radical now.

At 12/6/07 03:41 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: how do YOU know they are correct if YOU are the one who has been so adamant about the US having been wrong in the past? Oh that's right..

IRAQ.

ranting like stoned hippies..

wha'-evaar!

At 12/6/07 01:07 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/6/07 12:33 AM, Imperator wrote: Here's a thought on trust: When do you start trusting the words of another nation or group? Or enemy for that matter?

Cellar: how do you know we aren't wrong now? How do we know that even though Iran suspended it's weapons program in 2003, it hasn't restarted it covertly again, and is just using the civilian program as a cover? Hell, how do we know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs when the report is only somewhat confident it has?

^^There's your answer Imperator. You don't trust them. EVER! You keep you foot on the throat of the enemy choking for air. Even when your own spy agencies (supposedly the best spy agencies in the world) turn 180 degrees on previous assessments, and finally concur with international weapons inspectors. This wasn't about stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. It's about the axis-of-evil. Iran is the enemy. Nukes or no nukes. No let-up for good behavior.

So, how do you know that Iran has stopped all of its nuclear weapons programs? Only 1 way! Repeat what you did to Iraq; years of punative killing sanctions, followed by wholesale illegal invasion.

At 12/5/07 07:15 PM, stafffighter wrote: Tattoos cost a dollar, right?

Only in prison (..don't ask me how i know).

At 12/5/07 07:01 PM, Lindione wrote: I think maybe a type of award could be given out to those that make the best political arguments on the forum, maybe that could speed things up.

We have an annual members choice awards, of otherwise little consequence beyond peoples personal egos ..due in a few weeks as it happens.

At 12/5/07 02:27 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm actually rather surprised I can even talk about the American Empire and not get harassed.

From my perspective (our country still being a member of the Commonwealth) is that today's empire building needs to be tied to free population flow, and i don't mean troops poised in barracks, or delegations visiting heavily cordoned green-zones, but rather civilian representatives able to walk the streets, or US businesses able to trade with confidence. American sanctions / invasions have had the exact opposite effect of dis-engaging American companies and civilians from the everyday life of those they are supposed to be freeing from tyranny, thus creating the conditions necessary for a equivalent form of "occupier tyranny".

Basically, how exactly are American companies meant to show Iran the democratizing effect of free and open trade, including "open technology" such as cellphones, internet, and the like, bypassing government intervention on everyday life, when they are instructed by US government not to deal with that or other nation.

Infact sanctions pretty much have the opposite effect; "[Iran's] oil infrastructure resembles security and military areas these days, as the government has reverted to using subsidiaries associated with the Revolutionary Guards to keep up some of the projects." ...because sanctions have forced out any hope for legitimate commerce.

So yeah, the other main example of American Empire-building was certainly economic expansion thru free trade, but the modern reality (including the widely-held perception) is that America is more into economic dis-engagement, where sanctions are just another tool that your government can leverage over the positive force of private commerce exported by it's own citizens.

.

Bleh. Reptilians are a MUCH bigger threat to mankind dammit!!

At 12/5/07 03:57 PM, DarkNati0nX wrote: Flip Flopping?

Sheer idiocy. Now tell me, how does Flip Flopping relate to Politics? You putting the word 'canidate' doesn't mean its politics.

Huh? (see my reply to said topic)

As a regular from back-in-the-day, this Politics section is down on what it used to be. I'd say the frustration and futality of pointless headbutting is one reason this section has a high dropout rate. The main point of comradery seems to be one of extreme views. The rest are pit of headless snakes.

There are a bunch of new regs who keep a sense of continuity, but that's about all. Nothing like when the NGPC and DAGs faced off, nothing like the open anarchy of before modships were assigned, not even a remote hope that either Fulp will poke their head in on some random topic that doesn't rate it's own public news announcement. All those STFU pics are gone (some will say for the better), but the result is a lot of fun intelligent guys and gals have moved on from boredom of repitition.

The TS seems to be talking about outward perception, but anyone looking in on current threads of minute nit-picking debate would baulk at joining in. Widening the scope just by title change might have an affect, but it's hard to say whether that affect would be enough. Looking at the other sections; Art, Flash, C&C, General (titles that hardly enthuse), they have a much bigger online community of regs appeal. To revive the politics parties (DAG isn't dead btw ;O) or make a political flash thread sticky, or anything similar to grow the politics section would take considerable time commitment which appears to be lacking, and sadly, a title change alone isn't going to make a substantial enough change to the apparent stagnation of the politics section, which is a shame really because the rest of the site is powering along like a veritable juggernaut.

Anyways, good on u for raising the issue. Others comments?

The republicans really did tap into the power of stigma pretty successfully; "flip-flopper" is the new all-encompassing putdown.

However, in countries with a multi-party system (more than 2 party like America) then "negotiation" is the buzz-word of choice. No one flip-flops. They give and they take. Infact if you do actually change your mind on something controversial, then you can quite easily pass it off as an enlighten move towards negotiation by bartering your change in stance with an equal change or softening in stance of a like-minded party, thus strengthening the outwardly percieved relationship of joint cohesion.

The trick in politics then one of PR management. Before any public announcement is made, check to see what political capital can be traded with the announcment, otherwise it'll get skewed by your opposition as a weakness of spirit or mind or determination, a forerunner to surrender.

(harmless plug 4 nominations)

At 12/5/07 01:01 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Maybe you need to read about the country you're defending, Iran, who ACTUALLY has amibtions of ruling the world and ACTUALLY has a brutal dictarship.

Here's the problem. You've obviously read pure propaganda. I don't have to read a book on Iran to know it has strict religious laws. It's hellish part of the world where if you don't crack a whip then terrorism flourishes. WHAT EXACTLY is America doing in IRAQ? Oh that's right, FIGHTING TERRORISTS because they removed a BRUTAL DICTATOR. There you go. Didn't need to read any book. Common sense. Don't invade brutal dictatorships unless you've got a sure-fire way to stop urban sectarian terror. What didn't America learn from it's Iraq mistakes??

At 12/5/07 02:43 AM, Memorize wrote: The irony of the topic starter being own'd by the very report he's clammoring onto is quite hallarious.

You lost me. What's so funney ironic about threatening WW3 on Iran? Oh, that's right, it's the very same threat of oblivian that Iran threatens Israel with, except that Israel and America actually have nukes.

So bluff is a game only played nations with nukes, otherwise it's empty terrorist rhetoric. Isn't that what Cellar saying? Or is this Islamist dictatorship bashing Wednesday? My bad.

At 12/4/07 08:29 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 12/4/07 06:29 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 12/3/07 07:15 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I nominate God. Biggest flip-flopper ever.

Wins with the first post. Congratulations.

Definitely wins extra points for creativity.

Okay.. except, unless tony4 can adequately explain why God is such a master flip-flopper, then he'll only winnor the humor category (see rules^^) ..meaning sadly God will miss out on yet another trophy.

At 12/4/07 04:26 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 12/4/07 03:52 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Presidents usually don't serve a second term for putting a moron on the board of directors.

Didn't mean to imply the president would choose a moron. As an outsider it just sounds weird that the nation's leader nominates/appoints Fed Board Members, as well as Supreme Court Judges. As backup to economic failure this could make a lot of sense, but as a regular duty (excluding checks and balances) it just sounds oddly undemocratic. I don't know the history behind it, but i'm guessing it's just too hard to reach any timely concensus out of a 2 party system to be done any other way.

At 12/4/07 09:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: This is getting hilarious.

Not that funny after all.

I think the White House will be redecorated and renamed the Brown House after Obama wins and settles into office.

At 12/4/07 08:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You seem so caught up in a delusional Bush-bashing spree..

Bush is delusional, and bashing his or the US intelligence performance isn't just an American past-time. You're the one with his head up the gaping "we can do no wrong" asshole of lies. Hey, be the World Bully. Steal everyone's money and resourses. Call everyone Terrorists. Talk up WW3 all you want, and wave the American flag over all your conquored and divided lands. But at some point it will bite you in that lying ass, when everywhere you look there are enemy nations, and travelling anywhere in the world will be dangerous pastime.

Your only way to stop this kinda scenario is take over the entire world, run it as a brutal dictatorship, kill everyone who looks at you funny, or doesn't pray to the same God, then laugh at how powerful you think you are. The whole world might just end up being terrorists, but goddam open your eyes and realize they're all gonna be terrorists of America's making.

This isn't some fucking blind poker game your country is playing. Or maybe it is, and the whole WOT just an new adventure into global psycological mind-fucks, before we're all wired into a computer and tortured into confessing our hate of the overlords.

I'm only speaking my...

***yoinks.. hears a knock at the door***

At 12/4/07 01:47 PM, n64kid wrote: Generally the president appoints 2 per term (one every two years) and generally board members serve 14 years, with a few exceptions like Alan Greenspan who served nearly 20 years.

Anyways the point of this thread is that the Fed is not a private corporation.

So a two-term president might possibly appoint 3 or 4 members, of a board of 7. That's potentially just as bad as the Fed being a private organization.

~
"It matters very little who is making the decisions. However, it matters very much who is making the decision about who is making the decisions." - Dredd.

To paraphrase the reporter questioning Bush over the report...

"Your intelligence had you saying Iraq had a mushroom-cloud in their pocket, and Iran is near kicking off World War 3. How is this beef-up of the facts not Terrorising the American public?"

At 12/4/07 03:56 AM, Imperator wrote: I mean shit, even CANADA doesn't listen to us much anymore..

..nor Australia, or Japan for that matter. Russia fleetingly. Pakistan barely. Turkey even less so.

America's current list of buddy nations now include the likes of; Poland, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Israel, Saudi Arabia. Can anyone seriously imagine the representatives of all these countries at a party!?

Yeah. With newly instated sanctions on Iran, including the freezing (ie. theft) of all Iranian funds in America, pretty closely follow many years of the self-same sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions (on oil in particular) are then followed with somewhat dire warnings to any other countries that deal with Iran (who might also have operations in America!). It's a not so indirect way of saying "..now that we Americans have decided not to buy Iran's oil, we don't want to see any of that black-gold being sold to anyone else either."

This highlights once more that the main consequence of the Iraq invasion was to cancel all existing oil contracts with production partners in China and Russia etc, thus allowing American firms to "negotiate" bargain-basement supply contracts with their own newly installed Iraqi leaders.

Come on then, on average, how many years does the average board member serve of the possible 14 years available to them? On average, how many presidential nominations are made to the board during the average presidential full term in office?

If the average of those two numbers is anywhere near 4 then me thinks the American public have a right to be concerned about presidential (partisan) involvement at any level, let alone for direct uncontestable nominations.

Sorry, are they contestable? (..i'm not American, so i wouldn't know)

The White House response to the report doesn't fill one with confidence either;

"The bottom line is this: for [international pressure] to succeed, the international community has to turn up the pressure on Iran - with diplomatic isolation, United Nations sanctions, and with other financial pressure - and Iran has to decide it wants to negotiate a solution."

*shrugs*

Maybe the White House "solution" involves buying millions of gallons of oil from Iran, and then gifting it back to them, just so that they don't continue to persue nuclear power as a viable (clean/green/carbon free/environmental) option, ie. exactly as they have now arranged with Nth Korea.

In other flip-floppity news; U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies released on Monday concludes "that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen" ..completely countering the Bush & Cheney assertion (as recently as October 2007) that if Iran "stays on its present [nuclear arms] course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences."

This latest report comes 5 years after a 2002 intelligence estimate on Iraq concluded that it possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program. That estimate was instrumental in winning the Congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, but it subsequently proved to be deeply flawed. This latest estimate brings US Military assessment on Iran more in line with the judgments of international arms inspectors.

Honestly, with all the heightened tensions in the middle east, there certainly seems to be confusion between fact and fantasy regarding the so called "axis-of-evil" nation's weapons programs, or worse, a very slanted portrayal of such to the American public for political purposes.

Time for another Comp! : )

Generally speaking, political achievement is guided by a "steadfast principles principle". Once you've determinedly fought for one's point of view, you then have to stick to it - no matter the changing circumstance or popular fashion. To flip-flop is political or career suicide in most cases.

Ok, here's the challenge; Name any internationally renown political or prominent figure (incl. scientists, theologians, activists, etc ~alive or dead it doesn't matter), who flip-flopped on their base ideology (ie. not just on one particular issue). Futhermore, explain why your candidate Biggest Flip-flopper thus changed their stance so absolutely.

(note: humor allowed, but only nominations with believable cause-effect rationale and multiple user votes considered for serious contendership)

.

At 12/2/07 09:02 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/2/07 11:07 AM, Lindione wrote: I think they might be concerned about farmers hiding weed that makes you high in with the the hemp.

Generally speaking, this would only work if you went through your entire field slaughtering all of the male plants.

Pot users these days are spoiled and don't want to smoke leaves.

Yeah, 99% of smokers wouldn't waste their time with leaf, but i'm prolly in that odd 1% who would proly smoke THC-less hemp leaf round town just to confuzzle the cops.

I'm certainly no expert on the smell of burning hemp leaf, but if it smells even remotely like marijuana then all those "COPS" prog scenarios where bunch of dudes get busted cos their car is fuming with the stench of weed, well they would have to get the benefit of doubt, or until there's a more accurate drug testilizer thingy for drivers.

Moreover, it'd be nice to have a few lb baggies of dried hemp laying around the house just as subterfuge for any "unexpected visitors".

So yeah, i guess i'm not so spoiled for choice then. However, if only for political reasons, i would certainly smoke, collect, and grow all major hemp varieties (ranging from 0% THC, right up to whatever the THC minimum bar is set at). I'd also proly go as far as to start an international "Top Hemp Competition", and openly trade premium hemp seed stock thru web auctions. But hey, that's just me, and kuz in all honestly, current international law as it stands on hemp & weed cultivation are not environmentally or scientifically sound, outdated, counter-rational, and suck major ass.

.