823 Forum Posts by "karasz"
At 3/30/03 04:28 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Seriously, this is the dumbest thread since that flattus guy wanted to debate me.
care to explain why this thread is stupid? or are u jsut going to ignore it with ur council thingy?
At 3/30/03 04:27 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: if we assume you could do it, then it probably wouldn't make the world a better place. people are told by their god (usually) to be good and nicve to people and be tolerant. alright there are some fanatics who will kill for their religion but that cant be helped and wont stop if you rid the world of it.
2 things 1) people are told by their god to kill others... 2) no religion = no god = no one to tell the person to strap up and take out some infiedels...
ah, sod it, maybe im wrong, maybe we would all live in peace and happiess and have fun all day.
probably not, but i think terrorism would be resorted back to its original political roots
At 3/30/03 04:19 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: USA > The World
That's basically what it all comes down to.
nemesisz the world could take us, i mean hell there are 300 million US citizens compared to 5.7 billion people in the world (excluding the US) that would mean a 19-1 ratio for THE WORLD... i mean i could take about 35-40 toddlers... but i mean the US doesnt have action heroes to take them all...
would it be easier to just rid the world of religion? since the war on terror is against islamic fundamentalism, why not just say hey pope ur next, then go right down the line and destroy all religions, since that would take out the key part to most of the worlds hot spots?
im well aware that this is impractical and wrong... BUT would it make the world a better place?
At 3/30/03 03:22 PM, TheShrike wrote:At 3/30/03 10:53 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: They want us to let them do whatever they want, and stay out of middle east/israel whatever. If we do that just because they kill a few of our people, that's called surrender. Giving in to them is surrender.No, waging war and then giving up is surrender.
Deciding to not push our nose into the politics of foreign states, deciding to not wage war over it... Is not surrender. Under your definition, we've surrendered to half of the world.
well ur both right... but shrike is forgetting the political game behind this... although it would be easy to just walk away from the mid-east the opponents of bush would say 'so the terrorists win' since one of the things they want is the US to leave the mid-east and their holy land...
although im starting to get sick of the whole fucking problem, i say we just outlaw all religious fanatics... there anyone that doesnt like it will also be shot... then no more problems...
At 3/30/03 11:59 AM, BinLadenmustdie wrote:At 3/30/03 11:48 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: yup. youre right there. we were bery nice to Bin Laden and we were friends and allies for many years, but then we started treating him and his people like shit so he went and did 9/11. simple as thatWe started treating him and his people like shit? Do you have any reliable link to prove this or is this just what someone told you and you believed it?
i think she is referring to the fact how we stopped giving the 'muhjaheddin' (spelling????) money... which is true but not the reason Osama hates us...
after the soviet invasion into afghanistan, osama's guys and the taliban won... after that the soviet union hit the beginning of the end, and 3 years later the soviet union became non-existant... this gave Osama the belief that he and his men destroyed the soviet empire... which is untrue (and dont say the US did it, cuz they didnt the soviet union collapsed under its own economic hardships, and not from the US spending more, just from a poor economic system... fascist communistic nation just didnt work...)
THEN after that, osama returned to his homeland of saudi arabia to find Saddam invading Kuwait and osama went to the king/prince (dont remember) and said that HE will be the one to rid the world of saddam... the king/prince said no, the americans will do it... and that pisssed him off...
so osama hates the US cuz 1: we stopped giving him money, 2: we left afghanistan after the soviets invaded, 3: the king/prince of saudi arabia let the US invade saddam and not osama...
yeah, the poppy fields are back at pre-taliban levels... and the last time i remember even heraing about afghanistan is when karzai went to the senate and said 'Dont forget us' other than small little scrolling things on tv saying '3die in afghanistan' i dont remember before that when the news said afghanistan
At 3/30/03 01:10 AM, Anti-corruption wrote: because of too many rudeness from many angry peace protestors. i come to realisation. is it ok to scold vulgar like FUCK U, BUSH? this kind of vulgar to some authority which 50% of US citizens voted in favour of him? even though in the end, he's anointed by the selected few.
granted the framers of the constitution probably werent thinking of the exact words people would say they did put the first amendment there to make sure people could disagree with the government... and bush only got like 48% (of the vote, which is like 1% less than gore... give or take)
in Eminem records, the Eminem Show. White America. he scolds an anthority. "FUCK you Ms Cheney! Fuck you Tippee Gore! FUCK you with the freest of speech this divided states of embarassment will allow me to have, Fuck You"
all protected in the first amendment...
i guess this kind of song is simply too much to take. it's kind of treason. it's should be banned.
how is it treasonous? banning it would invalidate eminem's 1st amendment to disagree with teh govt...
using vulgar to scold an anthority in public, or poke fun of him or her. it's simply rude and the person should be in jail.
just because its rude doesnt mean it should be an arrestable offense... would u put someone in jail if they cut in front of someone else in a line? NO, pissed off and yell maybe, but no jail time...
Clean gov't deserve some respect.
no gov't is clean...
you can disapprove what he or she is doing but showing your reasons which is appropriate and not out of point.
but not insulting or make fun of him or her.
well eminem isnt exactly the kind of guy thats going to make a song proving everything wrong with the guys in power... AND lets not forget eminem's target audience, im sure is younger, and alot of overseas, so if people are going to like the song where he makes fun of the govt more, than more will buy the song and he makes more money...
At 3/29/03 11:24 PM, jazz_mazter wrote:At 3/29/03 11:09 PM, Anti-corruption wrote: then you should put words like "just kidding or joking" at the end of the thread.Wow... someone's sarcasdar needs a little tuning.
'sarcasdar' new favorite word... ALSO the logical seems to fit... so we can only assume that all meat-eaters are communists,
All Pro-war people are Communists...
1) Does anyone remember Stalin and the whole COLD WAR thing?'
2) the cold WAR & the WAR on terrorism... coincidence or conspiracy... U decide...
3) Stalin disliked people that spoke out... PRO-WAR people dislike those that speak out...
4) Stalin has a mustache, as does Mario... and Mario was invented by Nintendo, that is based in Japan... NUKE THOSE COMMIE BASTARD JAPS...
5) There is snow in Moscow... and it snows in DC... HA, another conspiracy unthwarted...
Between Hitler and Stalin everyone is either a NAZI or a COMMIE... DAMN those super-intelligent fools...
At 3/29/03 11:00 PM, Raptorman wrote: The US wasn't attacked by Vietnam, hence "provoked by arm" al la Spanish American war, WWII, Afganistan, ect.
um... we werent attacked by Afghanistan, Al-qaeda hit us, their leader just lived there...
and although we took out the bad guys, the war isnt really over either, cuz the war was to install democracy in Afghanistan... but al-qaeda is on the run... so its really anyone's guess...
At 3/29/03 01:26 PM, Disguy_youknow wrote: No country was supposed to, but a lot of ilegal weapons sales did occur. And by the way, the $250 million wortyh of military equipment we gave to Iraq was mostly chemical weapons to use aginst the commies in the area.
WRONG, it was to kill the Iranians cuz we were still pissed at them for the whole hostage thing...
i think from 1980-1990 (1980-1988 is the Iraq-Iran War) would be a good time to look at those numbers... not that it really matters either way
OR a year by year thing would also be good
At 3/28/03 10:32 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: And the Democrats whine whenever a bill is proposed to drill in ANWR, but the fact of the matter is that only a small portion of the reserve would be set aside for drilling, and wouldn't have that much environmental impact at all.
until there is a spill AND BANG... then we have a big problem...
but if its such a small portion then how would it get the oil, since we have no way off knowing HOW MUCH oil is there, then how do we know where areound it is????
At 3/28/03 10:06 PM, TheShrike wrote: I know I will be voting in the 2004 election, and I will not vote Bush, at any rate.
I'm thinking of writing in Cthulhu.
Why go for the lesser of two evils?
Because then it becomes a wasted vote... sadly YES i know it would be great if the best candidate would win, but voting for someone other then the Dem OR Rep will sadly help the candidate that you do not want to win...
what state do you live in...
At 3/28/03 10:04 PM, mysecondstar wrote:At 3/28/03 11:58 AM, Jiperly wrote: If you don't stand and let yourself be heard, then the politicains will care even less on your opinion on the war- If no one protests it, then they won't know how strong the opposition is(ie. Britian government is a supporter of the war, but 1.5 Million, or 15% of all the protestors worldwide, protested on February 15, 2003 over the war......)either way it wouldn't be strong enough. hundreds of thousands marched in NYC in the past month. the city itself is more than 10 million. hardly a scratch in the population. also you can be heard without protesting. it's called the elections. if you don't like it, vote for someone else.
500k is 5% of 10 mill pretty damn good to protest in the same place a terror attack took place... ANYWAY, a decent percentage of the world is against the war, but u are correct in that protesting is useless... VOTING is the best way to reform the government...
At 3/28/03 09:46 PM, mysecondstar wrote:At 3/28/03 09:41 PM, karasz wrote: well this group IS taking the initiative, THEN in 2004 we will see how the 'get out the vote thing goes' THEN who knows...i think that the 2004 presidential elections will be kind of a pushover. it'll be Bush v. Kerry and Bush'll kick his ass a la Reagan v. Mondale. i think it was Mondale... but in any case, the election i want to see is 2008: Hillary v. the WORLD!
im sorry thats incorrect, it will Bush v. Dean and if the economy stays the way it is Dean may pull the upset like another Fmr gov. of a small state against a BUSH after the war with Iraq... wow, someone please tell me i havent fallen in a space-time continuim rift and its really 1991...
well this group IS taking the initiative, THEN in 2004 we will see how the 'get out the vote thing goes' THEN who knows...
well glad someone enjoyed that...
At 3/28/03 08:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:At 3/28/03 04:57 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:Sadly, most people don't vote. Maybe that's the problem.
As for abolishing the exsisting government, there's many ways the people have been shut out of the government. We have no say. Voting doesn't do much anymore.
I'm actually in a group on campus that is trying to get the 18-25 year old people to vote... its a grass roots deal in rhode island... SO im sure we will be hitting the news before u know it...
At 3/28/03 09:03 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:At 3/28/03 08:52 PM, karasz wrote:First...I'm a SHE.
um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling.
A girl. Hah.
you're lying... women dont know things
by the way im jsut kidding...
well this is definitely a pretty sucky day for me... what exactly is it that makes my arguements pointless...
At 3/28/03 08:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:At 3/28/03 08:40 PM, karasz wrote:You almost never make any sense, that's what I mean.
what do u mean as usual???
really??? i thought i was quite the well-versed arguer... well that fucks up my day...
At 3/28/03 08:40 PM, karasz wrote: although its not really helping my case since i dont care about the animals there, but what good would it do for us? there is not enough oil there to last for more than 6 months, so care to explain how that is going to help the US?Where did you read that? The peta newsletter? We have no way of knowing how much oil is there, but there have been estimates, both large and small. It helps the US because it increases the global supply of Oil, as well as giving the US another trade advantage.
um, house of leaves just said that there is only 6 months of oil there, and he works against the drilling, the other number i heard was 25 years but whatever
I'll take GDP over a few seals any day.
the US GDP is larger than anyother nations GDP, what is this little bit going to do?
WOO-HOO i win...
HA whose the idiot now??? (probably still me for one reason or the other...)
At 3/28/03 08:37 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: You've yet to say anything logical defending the alaskan wasteland, so I'll just assume you have nothing, as usual.
what do u mean as usual???
although its not really helping my case since i dont care about the animals there, but what good would it do for us? there is not enough oil there to last for more than 6 months, so care to explain how that is going to help the US?
At 3/28/03 08:06 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:At 3/28/03 07:38 PM, karasz wrote:Ah, an idiot, I see. The Mideast IS a poor third world region, with a limited rich ruling class. If their money is gone, they become even more unstable, which is a big no-no. Even if this weren't the case, I fail to see what that has to do with the environment at all?you're kidding me... the environment is important, but thats not why im glad the bill was defeated...what if we do an intelligent thing and convert to like FUSION power or SOLAR power, then we wont have to worry about oil and the mid-east will turn into a poor 3rd world region and then the ANTI-US sentiment will only grow since we along with the west are doing nothing to fix the country... then before you know it the mid-east becomes ARABIA and they are pissed... ah, the future
HEY, im not an idiot... well the ruling classes money comes from oil and when oil is refined and used it hurts the environment, SO thats how it deals with the environment...
also if there is no RICH rulling class, then it would seem to be supreme time for a democracy to be instilled, while everyone is of the same class..
Fusion power at non-hazardous temperatures is a pipe-dream, which is why you never hear anything about cold fusion anymore. Solar power is impractical and expensive.
so is the missle defense but why should we give up just because its a pipe-dream, impractical and expensive?
Nevertheless, once again, this has nothing to do with the environment. Basically what you said was "I'm glad we're not destroying the frozen wasteland, so we can find other ways to waste money on energy, and possibly destabalize an already hostile region."
well its better than 'FUCK our grandkids, i want my gas-guzzling car to fuck the planet over, WHILE im supporting terrorism, and its way more than buying weed, thats for damn sure...'
At 3/28/03 07:44 PM, jimsween wrote: Fusion power hasnt been perfected, the most we ever got back was 86%. Solar power is a pipe dream, You would need miles of solar panels to equal the output of one coal pwer plant.
well the fusion power problem will get better within 15 years... but until then the damn mid-east will be of importance to the US...
we can always use nuclear power... and dont even start getting freaked out that nuclear power is unsafe, cuz chernoybl happened cuz the scientist were doing testing at really bad times to see how far the plant could be pushed, and the tests were unathorized...
and 3-mile island nothing happened so HA...
and driving a car causes more death than nuclear power plants...
At 3/28/03 07:10 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: The environment doesn't matter, seriously, do you care what happens to frozen wasteland?
you're kidding me... the environment is important, but thats not why im glad the bill was defeated...
what if we do an intelligent thing and convert to like FUSION power or SOLAR power, then we wont have to worry about oil and the mid-east will turn into a poor 3rd world region and then the ANTI-US sentiment will only grow since we along with the west are doing nothing to fix the country... then before you know it the mid-east becomes ARABIA and they are pissed... ah, the future
At 3/28/03 04:45 PM, TheShrike wrote: Heightened security at airports...
Good
i can live with it...
Homeland Security...
Good (I have my reasons)
no, i dislike it, mainly because the FBI and CIA are NOT involved in homeland security...
Another ID for Big Bro to track me...
Bad
true
Attacking terrorists with explosives...
Good
yeah as long as we know the TERRORISTS from the patriots of their country...
Attacking US citizens for not supporting Bush(or his war)...
Bad
i agree with you
Kicking the french, whether they're right or wrong...
Fun
TRUE
Supporting US soldiers...
Good
TRUE
Checking ID at state lines...
Bad
TRUE
Making Canadian jokes...
Inevitable
well they are damn dirty Canadians
Bending over and letting Big Bro take whatever rights he wants...
Bad
True...
The list goes on and on...
I think we've done just about as much as we can. All we can do now is wait and see if it works. I have no intention to sign over any more of my freedom than absolutely necessary.
I have no intention to sign over ANY of my freedoms, if the terrorists get to beat the US by using OUR freedoms, then they beat us... (wow im goin to get raped for that one)
but i refuse to give up any freedom in the name of John Ashcroft to fight the war on terror...
At 3/28/03 03:20 PM, NSS-SEPP wrote: if the other nations would decide to go against the US it would be like going against themselves since they almost totally depend on america. their economy is linked with the US economy. if the US for example would take ALL its money and all its resources out of Germany or france then their goverments would start to become unstable because they dont have the resources they´d normally have and they would then eventually crumble from within. Even now with the full support of the international community both of those countries have serious financial troubles and are at the brink of a recesion or maybe even a new great depression.
just remember, if 1 industrialized country has a depression soon ALL countries will soon hit a recession, which would mean the economy would go south and then Georgey McBushbush wont be re-elected... and then we say hello to the new President... (my pick is still HOWARD DEAN)
At 3/28/03 01:16 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: the only way to combat terroism is to make peace with everybody. extend friendly relations to poor african countries who will someday get nukes and blow us to smithereens. we bomb people, make them hate us and then cry when they bomb us. its just stupid.
combating terrorism with peace although could be the way to go, has too many bad things...
1) US looks weak... and the US will let 50k kids die in a jungle before they look weak...
2) could u imagine the new Arab Summit, with its Leader Osama bin laden, or the next OPEC meeting and Saddam is there? wont happen, ever
i dont know how politically knowlegdable (cant spell) everyone is (its 1 thing to be up on current events its another to be politically savvy) anyway nobody would vote for someone on the platform of PEACE with the ARABS... cuz the opponent would say YES lets meet their suicide bombers with tulips....
it jsut wont ever happen
