Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/13/03 02:49 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:44 AM, karasz wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:40 AM, evilkate wrote: Monitering closely and arresting are very different processes.

true, and i concede defeat on that front... but what about you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty?

That just means you aren't sentenced until proven guitlty, in my opinion.

oh... well im going to have to say, im 110% against ur opinion... but at least now we know where u stand on that issue...

the reason im against ur opinion is because, looking at one person differently based on the color of their skin or religion IS bad... just like slavery, apartheid, and genocide... and affirmative action... but hey thats a whole other debate...

At 4/13/03 02:47 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Respecting the dead is just a matter of class. I would like some respect when I am departed thus I give those who have gone before me the same.

At 4/13/03 02:47 AM, evilkate wrote: Because they died with the INTENTION of preserving the US. And it matters because them BEING DEAD, they can't really defend themselves. And I agree with the goat person that it's extremely low to associate your anti-war sentiments with NOBLE soldiers. They died respecting their country and they deserve respect.

well to both of you i must say... ok... i asked a question and got actual answers i must say im quite impressed i didnt get flamed for asking the questions...

At 4/13/03 02:40 AM, evilkate wrote: Monitering closely and arresting are very different processes.

true, and i concede defeat on that front... but what about you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty?

At 4/13/03 02:34 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:30 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: I don't care, they knew what they were doing when the signed up.

pretty much yeah... although you couldve said it with a little more tact...

This is true, although its still rather disturbing that you can show such apathy for the loss of human life merely because they were fighting a war that you disagreed with.

apathy is the easiest way to not have to deal with things...

I don't care if you hate Bush but extending that hatred to dead soldiers is pretty fucking low.

how come? why does it matter if you dont respect the dead?

At 4/13/03 02:36 AM, evilkate wrote: Way to show respect to the people that died with the intentions of preserving the country that has babied you your entire life, ingrate.

how is dieing when you are invading a country protecting the US? and again i ask the previous question... why does it matter if you dont respect the dead?

At 4/13/03 02:31 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:27 AM, karasz wrote:
ah... the last sentence is the question... how far is too far? i mean its easy to set limits, but the specifics are the fun thing... white male 18-40 yr olds are about 90% of all serial killers... should we watch all of these people? according u we should... but profiling doesnt work... by arresting every black guy with a mercedes violates their civil liberites and civil liberties are the MOST IMPORTANT THING in this country... without them we are no better than Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran or any other country that isnt too fond of us...

I don't think monitering someone suspicious more closely than others is any violation of civil liberties. It becomes a violation when police brutality enters the picture.

im not sure where it says so but people are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty... but i guess if we suspect them as being guilty then its still ok, cuz it will decrease the amount of crime... (if you arrest all of one type of people guaranteed crime decreases...)

At 4/13/03 02:31 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:20 AM, karasz wrote: did u at least find the name funny??? but u didnt debate anything i said so i guess i won.... or u dont feel like swinging at an unwinnable debate... which is understandable... since people dislike winning

Jefferson's contributions to society far outweigh his vices.

im going to guess u didnt find the name funny... oh well

Also thou should calm thy arrogance or I shall be forced to put thee in thy place.

i admit it... i was being quite arrogant... but i mean honestly who wants to defend someone that self-contradicting

but if they are unconstitutional then they are a threat to civil liberties... and personally any threat to civil liberties is a GREAT THREAT...

how far south from mccarthyism? cuz its not much...

A bit south.....I'd say about the distance between Richmond and Atlanta.

hmm... well this is a pointless arguement... since im a bit fanatical when it comes to the civil liberties...

At 4/13/03 01:09 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 01:00 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: profiling is wrong and the biases are based on the individual police offical

however the police have the right to investigate anything they find suspiscious therefore their biases can be unleashed

Just because it's morally wrong, that doesn't make it wrong to be used by police officers for protection purposes. Profiling could prevent you from being mugged by some guy with corn rows, silver teeth, and over-sized pants. Of course, not all criminals can be profiled, it's still a helpful police tactic as long as it's not taken too far or handled with violence.

ah... the last sentence is the question... how far is too far? i mean its easy to set limits, but the specifics are the fun thing... white male 18-40 yr olds are about 90% of all serial killers... should we watch all of these people? according u we should... but profiling doesnt work... by arresting every black guy with a mercedes violates their civil liberites and civil liberties are the MOST IMPORTANT THING in this country... without them we are no better than Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran or any other country that isnt too fond of us...

At 4/13/03 02:10 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:01 AM, karasz wrote: ah.. good ole thomas 'screw 'em if u own 'em' jefferson, he would be my favorite founding father if HE didnt write about equality in the dec of ind, whilst sleeping with his slave also talking of keeping the races seperate...

He was a man of his times, for a wealthy Virginian not to own slaves in that time would have been quite rare.

did u at least find the name funny??? but u didnt debate anything i said so i guess i won.... or u dont feel like swinging at an unwinnable debate... which is understandable... since people dislike winning

true its bad, but the potential of the pat act & pat act 2 must be destroyed...

I agree with you, they are unconstitutional. But they aren't the greatest threat to our liberties every. They are a good deal south of full blown MCcarthyism.

but if they are unconstitutional then they are a threat to civil liberties... and personally any threat to civil liberties is a GREAT THREAT...

how far south from mccarthyism? cuz its not much...

to loosely quote from eminem

'do the lyrics load and cock the rifle too???'

despite my dislike for him he has a point... GUESS WHAT people do things regardless if they hear it or not... playing a video game does not put the fucking gun in someone's hand and cause them to shoot people... its the problem with the world 'its someone elses fault...' always a fucking problem... until people start taking responsibility for their own problems... until then MORE twinkie defenses...

which i must say is fucking genius... albeit helping to destroy the worlds society but FUCKING genius nonetheless

At 4/13/03 02:02 AM, implodinggoat wrote: My vision at this point, is that Cheney steps down due to health concerns and the Republicans should then have Colin Powell become Vice President.

wont happen... KKK would take him out like it was there job... which is funny cuz he was in the military and the KKK is quite supportive of the military... just another irony in the world...

Powell is so liked that with him as vice president the Democrats would have one hell of a time getting more than ten electoral votes.

well the dems would be done... a BLACK guy running with the reps... would either cause their heads to explode or end the existence of the democratic party...

Then Powell would be set to become president in 2008.

wrong... KKK would have sadly succeeded by now...

The only obstacle is convincing his wife to let him run. She is concerned that some KKK son of a bitch would assasinate him if he was president which I must admit is a possibility.

his wife isnt stupid... and it would happen sadly...

although i must admit he's been getting on my nerves recently, with his switch on the iraq issue... oh well

Ride the Bush wave...

also, have some kids beat up a homeless guy before Maj. Leader Bill Frist, who happens to be walking down the street, saves his life... im not saying that will happen or anything im jsut saying it would be nice to have a guy save someone's life...

and ride the military winning the war... and having a not horrible economy...

then bingo bango, the game is over

ah.. good ole thomas 'screw 'em if u own 'em' jefferson, he would be my favorite founding father if HE didnt write about equality in the dec of ind, whilst sleeping with his slave also talking of keeping the races seperate...

true its bad, but the potential of the pat act & pat act 2 must be destroyed...

At 4/12/03 02:00 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Here are my favorite philosophy quotes:

I think, therefore i excist!

At least, that's what i think....

(Some Greek Philosopher)

actually that was rene descarte... french philospher and he said 'I think therefor I am'

yeah im a big dork...

also to prove i exist is quite easy... im writing this post... somebody must typing at the computer that a piece of paper somewhere in my house says that i own it... ALSO my bank statements prove that the credit card that i OWN was used to buy said computer... SO i have proof that i exist through the things that i own/use...

ok kids rip it apart

At 4/13/03 01:49 AM, evilkate wrote:

At 4/13/03 01:47 AM, implodinggoat wrote: Remember when people used to deal with their problems instead of popping pills?

Nahhhh, me neither.

Chemical imbalances cannot always be dealt with without the assistance of medications. If you have never had that problem, you're not in a position to tell someone MENTALLY ILL to "deal with their problems".

but its one thing to have a mental problem... its entirely different to be giving ur 4 year old ritalin... i mean hell part of being a 4 year is being hyper...

im going to have to say... what happened to like smackin ur kids?

i mean im not talkin about abusing them, but they act out, slap them on the ass...

but no give them a pill, thats the answer to everything.... just like in brave new world by aldous huxley... yeah the world is so damn fucked...

At 4/13/03 01:40 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Karasz...just...no...your opinion was valid until you said "cuz." You just don't say "cuz" in the middle of a debate, no matter how bad it is. Just like you never talk in Hacker Slang

why does the word cuz make my opinion any different? its still a valid point that nobody can disagree with, unless they prove they are contradicting themselves and make themselves look like a moron... thus proving my point, that following the prez blindly is a bad idea...

and the hacker slang is fine... just write what the hell ur talking bout underneath it CUZ i dont understand hacker slang...

At 4/12/03 11:14 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/12/03 10:47 PM, SuperG007 wrote: I have to agree with you on this. Bush does not really understand whats going on, his only saving grace is that he has surrounded himself with fairly competent advisors. The only true exception with this is the antichrist jon ashcroft, if there has ever been a greater threat to our civil liberties then i don't know it!

Tisk, Tisk, don't go about making such claims when you know nothing of history. I don't like Ashcroft personally but he is far from the greatest threat ever to our civil liberties. Look up the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams administration. Now that was a risk to civil liberties.

read the patriot act & patriout act2 (domestic security act...) its too damn close for my comfort... anyone infringing on any civil liberties should NOT be the attorney general... it frightens me so much...

At 4/10/03 04:38 PM, Squall222 wrote: -Don't be a group of Nazis. Hes the president and just because you personally don't like one thing others may be in favor of it. Basically mostly the democrats put out this stuff to try to make fun of Bush. Hes the president and if you dont like the way we run our country go somewhere else.

so in order to NOT be a nazi, we should blindly follow the leader...

ok well what were your opinions of clinton during his scandals including when they tried to impeach him? cuz since he was the leader instead of calling for him to be impeached you shouldve followed him blindly...

see how stupid that sounds when someone else says it?

say whatever the fuck u want bout anyone... so long as its not assualt...

At 4/10/03 11:22 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:

At 4/10/03 11:16 PM, Jlop985 wrote: We need to do what we did with Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. Rebuild their economy and government. There are three factions in Iraq- the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. To provide democratic stability I think that they need a parliamentary democratic republic.

but the US doesnt have even money to rebuild an entire nation from the ground up... hell we dont have enough for our country...

I keep on finding parallels to the Iraqi cultural and religious setup to Austria and the Balkan regions. The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds should have their own sovereignty. This plan would be beneficial in two ways. First, the groups would become manageable by the UN, secondly, it destroys Iraq's oil power base creating competitive prices for the former #2 exporter of oil in the world.

the kurds will never have their own country... cuz turkey and iran and syria would be more than happy to destroy any Kurdistan made... cuz they kill them just like saddam did... AH i love the world...

of course, similar to India/Pakistan, some groups just won't move off their desert farms

which is exactly what we want... cant have too many hot-spots in the world now can we...

i too would like to join the crew...

At 4/9/03 11:50 PM, Lord_Miroku_Sama wrote:

At 4/9/03 11:38 PM, ichbincow wrote: Ok ----NO the US would not intentionaly attack a civilian targetPLEASE check your facts before make a post that shows you to be the intellectual equivelent of a retarded paint sniffer

Hello I know that, I just wanted to know what other people thought about the subject. Actually how do you know that our military hasn't hurt any civilians.
You also forgot one other part the Iraqi soldiers were also dressing like civilians, now who's uninformed?

its still you though lord... u wanted to know how people felt about attacking civilians... its a biased question...

also we did hit that hotel killing a few journalists... which is always super duper fun

war against belguim... also i think diplomatic immunity wouldve come through...

At 4/8/03 12:04 AM, implodinggoat wrote: I mean think of it,No Rye bread, No Hebrew International Salami, No Coffee Talk, No Seinfeld, No Mel Brooks, No Larry David, no yiddish I mean can you imagine living without the word chutzpah? What sort of a world is that?

also lets not forget how the world would collapse without doctors, dentists, lawyers and bankers...

At 4/7/03 06:44 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83449,00.html

'Agence France-Presse reported that the substances had turned out to be pesticides, but Rumsfeld said it could take several days to get a positive identification of the chemicals.'

if this was said... then why is the topic existing??? since it takes days to find out what the hell this shit is... how can we speculate either way? so basically lets wait for the shit to be identified then complain about the war...

Yeah, we all know about those pesticide missiles...for the really tough insects.

yeah man, ive seen some crazy shit man..

At 3/19/03 04:06 PM, Dig_the_Man wrote:

At 3/19/03 03:59 PM, clownfish wrote: You're pretty sure of yourself aren't you?

Yes I am.

if there were no wmds, and i was right i would be doin the same stuff u are...

Face it, the US is entirely out of line...

Not entirely...

dig u are correct

and the only reason the other states followed the US in the UN is because they fear an embargo. The reason only those states spoke up was because their export and import is strong enough to handle the impact of a US embargo.

umm... an embargo would fuck the US economy also; so lets not forget about that

What about Canada then whose economy is solely dependant on the United States. Or perhaps you may have forgotten. This is not an unjust war... what is unjust is preventing Iraqi people from having the fullest lives possible. Let them taste democracy, and if they find it bitter or sour, then let them turn back to their old ways. But give the people a chance, because I like the taste of freedom which is the honey of democracy!

i take it you are all for removing all dictators RIGHT dig? personally so am i... so i suggest after the mid-east is rid of their dictators would u suggest africa or asia to be next? personally i think africa would probably be easiest to liberate their people...

after all u do want all peoples to taste the honey of democracy after all... too bad the only that can happen is at the blood of american soliders... oh well at least the populations of those african nations noone can name will be free...

At 4/7/03 05:47 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: ***Comander-K25 sets mode: +extreme_rant

WMDs have been found. Canisters of Serin and Mustard gas plus chemical filled missiles. So ALL THE PEACENIKS, LEFTISTS, COMMUNISTS, SOCIALISTS, WEAK-KNEED DIPLOMATS, RED-TAPE BUREACRATS, HIPPIES, PROTESTORS AND FRENCH PEOPLE WHO OPPOSED US BETTER

<A> http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030407/1/39vcv.html <A>

umm... i kinda feel bad for ruining the rant for ya... but turns out it was pesticide...

and i suppose u could make the arguement that pesticides can be used as chem weapons... BUT then all gardeners that use pesticides have chem weapons... so blah

At 4/6/03 10:23 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: Yea, Riverra did come out to da and appologized about the incident(retard).

i assume ur calling him the retard... and not me,

Well sometihng on cnn said that a general was supposed to be against goverment actions. he said that on fox. I was just wondering if the CNN has a diff. opinion. Me personally like CNN better. Just becouse of Wolf Blizter. He is cool

there are a lot of generals against the govt actions...

i know of one that was supposed to be saddam and he kicked the US ass in the war game over the summer, but then the rules were changed to allow the US to win... and by rules changed i mean dead soliders brought back to life, sunken ships risen and the communications that the General was using was limited to only cell phones at certain times...

but the general really ripped the US a knew one at the war game... using fishing boats to ram and sink carriers and other devasting losses to the US... i cant remember his name though...

At 4/6/03 10:10 PM, DarkCyrstal wrote: I was watching something on Fox News and it showed that Peter Arnett, (a reporter that told Iraquis Info about trop movement and plans) might be tried as a traitor. Well, not to make anything more suspicious he is now working for Arab Televisio. LOL

actually Geraldo Riveria did that, he drew lines in the sand and said ON AIR what the troops were going to do, and where they were going to go...

Peter Arnett said that the US plan didnt work and demoralized the troops (which im going to guess is a lie since they are still doing what they are suppose to do...)

Do you thinkk CNN is mroe anti-gov or pro?

i think all TV news is pro-gov... i dont get the question...

At 4/6/03 07:39 PM, pornstarbob wrote: JBTIYUCO

bastard, i think u got it...

good stuff pornstarbob...

At 4/6/03 07:10 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: It's only good when he gets really stupid people on it, like no-name "actors."

im going to have to disagree... the best skits i have seen are when colin quinn is with denis leary, chris rock and dave chappelle for that one on one thing...

personally i dont like the show, i just dont think that its as funny as i was expecting... especially colin quinn, at snl i thought he was great on weekend update... and that show he had on nbc was fuckin hysterical... wish it was still on... i just dont find him that funny at all