823 Forum Posts by "karasz"
At 4/21/03 12:44 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote:At 4/20/03 11:12 PM, karasz wrote: why wouldnt the Iraq be part of OPEC??? OPEC can control oil prices in europe and south korea/japan... 2 areas very important to the US (traditionalist theory) SO if the US can influence more votes the better off the US is...1 - You don't understand what OPEC is, or the USA's opinion on it.
well lets see, if the US isnt getting any oil... and ONLY a US company (HALLIBURTON) has the contract to fix all the oil refineries y would halliburton want to sell oil to the US allies for cheap???
2 - How could Iraq being part of an oil cartel be better for the USA than Iraq being a country too afraid to sell oil at anything higher than $5 a barrel exclusively to the USA?
cuz the oil doesnt go to the USA... if iraq was going to sell the oil to the US THEN all of ur flaming on those that said the war 'was for oil' is hypocritical, since u just said that Iraq would sell the oil to the USA for cheap...
so which is it nemmy, are u a hypocrit OR wrong???
well its nice to see a topic with bad intentions that started out bad stay that way...
At 4/19/03 09:17 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: We need to shoot idiots who post bullshit like this...all of them.
jusge i like u and all but... wouldnt this post count as one of the one for which we should shoot people?
At 4/21/03 01:38 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: If I wrote, "I dislike Fox" do you think people would find that as a reasonable argument for they themselves to avoide it?
u couldve written Y u dislike it... but did u honestly need all 16 lines???
At 4/20/03 11:28 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: yes and he further widened the gap incurring a faster meltdown of Soviet trade
so... everything bad to the soviet union wouldve still happened... just faster...
well go nixon... and his speedy foreign policy...
At 4/21/03 01:02 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Well, no tv or even radio station would be a good choice at all. Since they are all competing for ratings, they all have a tendancy to be a little biased.
ok so that is the answer to the question...
I suggest reading books or "underground" magazines for informations on such issues. "Underground" means magazines that are not mainstream or "popular" magazines.
i know what underground means...
Remember, these too are competing for readers.
welcome to the world of money... its sad when the underground stuff sells out just like the rest of the stuff... oh well i suppose the world will always be like that...
For a book, I suggest reading "Stupid White Men." Now, this book is a little on the liberal site (as you may tell by the title. lol), but it contains many points and especially facts which no news station would ever tell you. It's gotten tons of awards and it's even a little humorous (it tells stories for example, like this one bank who actually gave away guns inside for signing up for a checking account---it's a regular Ripley's Believe it or Not. lol). For a movie, I suggest "Bowling for Columbine." This movie is fantastic because it targets the lies the media tells or has told and how it affects our society (it's also about gun control, if you're interested). This one will at least make you more aware of America's media tactics, which can help protect you against them. For a magazine, I suggest "Harpers," "Add Busters" (this one is also a little liberal) or even a paper called "Funny Times" (this includes many hilarious political cartoons and cartoons that target our society's culture. It also gives lots of information on both). I don't usually advise people to use the internet for their references, although some sites can be quite reliable. Look for sites that quote books or federal information. "The Friends of the Earth" are a liberal group, but they are very interesting, even to the most Republican of you. ^_- Plus, they mostly list unbiased facts than their own voices, and all their information comes from reliable sources which they list for you (check out "The SUV Link" for an example of their work---it has some information about the auto and oil industry which should appeal to Republican interest ^_^). Now, as for television....although I don't advise you to use tv news stations for your only means of gathering information, CNN seems to be the most straight forward (they don't beat around the bush as much or use silly tactics to drag in viewers, such as Fox is notorious for----of course they get less rating simply because of it -_-'). The BBC (when it's on) is also a fairly good source of information. Avoid Fox at any cost. @_o' They have no soul. lol! I'm not so much talking about their views, but the way they feed off of the pain and tragities of other people to gather ratings. They also use cheap emotional tactics to gather viewers, like putting the families of victims on the air, "talking to their loved ones in Iraq." If you were to stop and think about it, this is neither news nor facts, it's just emotional propoganda (but it does get ratings. -_-' That's why Fox is at the top). In fact, Fox has a tendancy to go over one topic over and over again until viewer interest declines (like they did in 9/11 or the Michael Jackson issue). They do this with their shows, too (like "reality series"), but that's another issue. The problem with this is that other news shows who compete with Fox then feel pressured to cover the exact same issues for just as long. This is why most tv news is unreliable.
this whole paragraph right here... could be made much simpler if u list the source then ur reason... especially with the fox news thing... i mean u wrote 16 lines in this field just about fox news, when it all couldve been stated 'i dislike fox news for their spoon-feeding of the news instead of just saying it outright'...
see how my way stops u from getting carpal tunnel? i mean u make good points and stuff but u have to stay on topic or nobody will read ur posts and u wont get anywhere on the forum...
just something to think about...
ninja scientist... holy shit...
ok write in sentences, and break them up... ITS easier to read when broken up... all u have to do is hit the enter button once a point is made...
imagine it like talking, u gotta breath at some point right?
At 4/21/03 12:46 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: NEMT's ONE QUESTION INTELLIGENCE TEST:
Q: Is the media lying to you?
yes/no
If you answered yes, you are a paranoid moron, if you answered yes, you're probably still a moron because you go to internet forums and assume people care about your opinions, however, you do not have a loser-opinion about the media.
whose the moron that wrote YES to both???
care to explain nemmy???
well we can all agree, the CATHOLICS are great at marketing their holidays with fat guys in red suits AND a fucking bunny...
i hate the world so much...
here's a question... what news would u hear to get the full story on the war?
At 4/20/03 10:19 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: if the united states helps the Middle East evolve to a level where it can compete industrially with the world, who loses the most out of it: Europe! With the united states demolishing medieval economies and rebuffing them with cash and technology, the European nations will be at a distinct disadvantage. Oil + Technology+young workforce-mullahs=a limitless potential of trading power. Am i off?
and with economic power comes military power... and with 50% of the mideast being 14 and younger the mideast will soon be a power, along with the US, the EU, china, and india... WOAH nelly... should be a fun world in about 20 years... when im W[hite] H[ouse]C[heif] O[f] S[taff]... shit...
At 4/20/03 10:14 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: New Iraq will not be in OPEC, OPEC is a cartel, and the puppet government wouldn't dare go against the USA's wishes.
why wouldnt the Iraq be part of OPEC??? OPEC can control oil prices in europe and south korea/japan... 2 areas very important to the US (traditionalist theory) SO if the US can influence more votes the better off the US is...
didnt nixon meet with mao, after there was already a russo-sino split???
At 4/20/03 09:55 PM, Shogunner696965 wrote: If they took down the government, which they did, are they going to put their own U.S. standard government
in their place?
interim govt for a 3-5 years... THEN the 'elected' leader of Iraq, which will happen to be pro-west will have a lot of favors to repay to the US...
then iraq will be brought back into opec and the US will have 2 votes... kuwait and iraq, to do what the US wants it to...
At 4/20/03 09:46 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: Hoover nearly wrecked the country, rugged individualism was the opposite of what the country needed after facing its first depression
how do u know that? personally i think ur right... BUT man, what would the world be like if hoover was right?
Both Bushs have bad timing because the economy happened to suck during their term. Had Bush Sr. been reelected...well things could've been very different for PR
hmm.. no clinton bashing ever... i think thats a world i wouldnt mind living in...
and all you Nixon bashers are mistaken because he sped the process of ending the cold war through his outstanding foreign policy.
no he didnt... the soviet union collapsed due to an impossible economy in russia... unless the ruskies overhauled the entire system the USSR had a shot...
all organized religions are cults...
CHANTS and collection plates...
kin jong IL is brilliant...
any guy with the balls to have 2 fighter jets fly next to a US spy plane is brilliant...
has to be the second most brilliant thing against the US ever...
first being 9-11, cuz i mean damn nobody saw that coming... then NK... then pearl harbor...
everything is propoganda... everyone has a side, so they have a spin to the issue...
EVERYTHING...
At 4/19/03 09:53 PM, implodinggoat wrote:What the hell are you talking about?
how can it be a representative congress if only 1 is directly elected by the people?
before the 16th amendment that had the people directly elect senators, the state leg. did, and i was reafering to how tahts not a representative govt SINCE the senate was elected by those that are elected...
No, thats why there was an ammendment to get rid of that back in the early 19th century why you brought it up is beyond me.In addition the state legislature that elected these senators was like wise elected by the populous.do we want a govt that is indirectly elected by the people...
i was refering to how the US wasnt a truly representative govt, since the electoral college is there and the senators USED to not be directly elected...
At 4/20/03 10:38 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote: And so what if he was a radio personality and an actor?
ur right this means nothing... SO NO republicans bitch and moan about liberal actors...
Do former jobs in areas of other than politics or law not qualify people for office?
yes... CRACK HOAR, Pimp, prosititute, mob boss... those kinds of thingsyes...
At 4/19/03 07:18 PM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:At 4/19/03 07:12 PM, karasz wrote: so what ur saying is becuase this forum is full of americans, people shouldnt say america is full of stupid peopleYES, unless the include all other countries. obviously it will be taken as an insult, wether or not it is meant that way. it is in fact a dumb thing to do. i believe in his RIGHT to say it, but having the RIGHT doesn't mean you necessarily should.
just because U dont necessarily thing he SHOULD doesnt mean shit...
i say- say what u want, when u want, just get ready to defend it...
good thinking, next can u get the dreaded infidel foreigners to be slaves to the better Americans??? cuz with a slave i may have a chance at getting laid... i mean if it were me OR the shotgun to the face what would she do?what in fuck are talking about?
well the slave part was a joke...
me: calling US citizens stupid is moronic
you: OH MY FUCKING GOSH HE WANTS TO DESTROY THE WORLD!!!!!
well the case could be made once u start violating people's rights when do u stop?
cuz hitler didnt stop, stalin didnt stop... in fact after violating people's rights what PERSON did stop?
At 4/18/03 10:54 AM, jazz_mazter wrote: I do not see why people fuss about the government set up by the coalition. It must be done.
i know it must be done... but dont call it a democracy when no Iraqi citizens have voted for it...
If we just handed the country over to all the liberated citizens of Iraq, they would just have another person rise up to power again.
probably yeah... but just remember MY complaint is that isnt not a democratic govt... since nobody voted for them...
This way, we can make sure that they get adjusted without some other dictator coming in. After all, it IS an interim government.
how come the US founding fathers set up a democracy but nobody else can??? i mean doesnt anyone think that its weird?
it would be easier to just have a US official be in charge of iraq for like 3-5 years... hopefully then the country will get on its feet and be able to do some stuff...
At 4/19/03 07:03 PM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: you come on a BBS where there clearly a ton americans and then say america is full of stupid people then claim to be smart.
so what ur saying is becuase this forum is full of americans, people shouldnt say america is full of stupid people... so Slizor should be silenced from speaking his mind bacuase it may upset most people here on the forum???
good thinking, next can u get the dreaded infidel foreigners to be slaves to the better Americans??? cuz with a slave i may have a chance at getting laid... i mean if it were me OR the shotgun to the face what would she do?
bitch would take the shotgun....
At 4/19/03 05:44 PM, jimsween wrote: So you think we should go in there and start shooting everyone trying to loot, yeah that'll cause peace fast.
well if all the looters are dead that leaves the non-looters...
theoretically it works... but so does a bunch of other stuff...
At 4/19/03 12:12 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: who cares, as long as hes not here. (in the good ole USA of course. Hey bubba, pass me another beer and fetch my gun. YEEHAW! Memphis TN Redneck capital of the world)
whats the purpose of toppling a regime when the leader of that regime is still out there...
hmm... the US sucks at getting guys, osama, mullah mohammed omar, saddam, hitler... maybe the US needs a new method of getting the bad guys...
perhaps an elite secret agent group of crack hoars with aids, hep B & C, and gonnahearra...
nah thats just stupid...
At 4/19/03 02:37 AM, Polcan wrote: Forgive me of my ignorance, but i have no idea wtf you just said.
i was fuckin around... same thing as FUNKbrs was...
basically all i said was im from pottstown pennsylvania...
At 4/19/03 12:42 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: thass right yo', keep yo pimp hand strizong dawg (dirty south up in this mug North Memphis Tennessee represent)
north memphis tennessee playa in the house... AWWWWWWWWW snap...
i be representin P to the O to the double T to the S town... Pennsylvania style...
At 4/19/03 12:49 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:At 4/18/03 11:13 PM, karasz wrote:yeah, because the international medical community cant do any research on a new disease without a green light from the us pres? what kind of hippie crack are you smoking, cause I want someAt 4/18/03 08:18 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:his idleness while it was becoming an epidemic didnt help...-ronald reagan (iran-contra, aids epidemic)how was aids reagans fault?
granted it wouldnt have stopped it, but would have given the medical community at least 6 years of development...
the CDC could have been doing some research if they had more funding instead of giving money to the fucking military to make sure the downfalling communist werent going to take the US...
At 4/19/03 12:25 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: you do have to admit that bagdad bob has a very convincing smile, despite the fact that he lies like a rug. I wonder if he ever took acting lessons?
its not that hard to just lie
At 4/19/03 01:15 AM, Shogunner696965 wrote: Is he dead? Is he hiding? Or did had he fled the country?
he's in my basement, next to osama, the tooth fairy, big foot and santa...
he's hiding in the caves of iran... just like osama was like a year ago... know he is walking amongst the cool guys of pakistan...
