Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/5/03 03:00 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

BTW: dogs are colorblind. they see the world in shades of white, yellow, and brown.

Irish, Chinese, and Africans! You've unknowingly proven the theory!

2nd funniest thing all day...

At 3/5/03 11:44 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

My dog is German (dachshund), and he always barks at my Jewish friends.

Funniest thing ive heard all day...

At 3/5/03 01:09 AM, thenark wrote: I Mean A Legitimate Reason, They Never Tried To Kill His Daddy

yes they did... 1998, one of the many reasons operation desert fox was launched, along with the sex scandal and such... granted the plot was stopped by secret service (i think)... bush SR was in kuwait...

At 3/4/03 10:34 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: 1. What are your personal views on Cloning/Stem-Cell research?

hey if we can make handicapped people un-handicapped its great, i personally would love to see superman (Chris Reeves) walk again and live up to the name...

2. Do you agree with the Church and the U.S.A. on its ban?

dont get me started on the church... assholes need to vote on what to do with pedophiles... i understand why bush banned them but dont agree with it, i want to see more stem-cell research... i am fear-ful of saudi arabia becoming a powerhouse at cloning and beginning a clone army (god star wars can be used in any conversation)

3. What benefits/drawbacks do you see from cloning?

the religious right, the reason republicans have power is anti-cloning because it makes their religion look pointless... man can now create man, without the need for god...

BENEFITS: curing diseases, and helping give children that are handicapped a new life... and religion becomes useless

DRAWBACKS: a 'gattaca' society, or a set way everyone can look...

does anyone know how hydrogen cars work?

the only way new fuel will be made is if the powerplants now are ready for the change...

FUSION power is the way of the FUTURE... but NUCLEAR power is the best way now... then u send all the nuclear waste into a blackhole where it will never be heard from again... unless the black hole turns out to be a portal like steven hawkings believes but what does he know...

At 3/4/03 04:06 PM, Taors wrote: The United States is a stable country unlike Iraq, we will not attack another country unless we're attacked or under the impression that we could be attacked at any moment.

it used to be only IF someone was attacked... did anyone see the movie Minority Report? Can someone honestly tell me that we should rely on guesses to starting wars?

I'm willing to bet that Saddam would attack us if he somehow managed to get a nuke or two, or attack Israel.

Based on what? So then fine let him attack Israel, then we will go in and fix Iraq with nobody complaining... good ole Israel, our only friend in the mideast... although before Israel we had no enemies in the Mideast.

Saddam is the dictator of Iraq, what he says in that country goes. No one would be able to stop him.

OK, so saddam is a dictator, still dont see a reason why we have to attack his sorry ass... let the Kurds and Shia Muslims do it... send money to them to set shit up, but dont send US troops into Iraq...

There are 26 million Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Iran... these are the people that were killed by Saddam (with the chemical weapons the US gave him) but what happens after this war? Will the Kurds get their own country which they had until the end of WW1 and France and Britian fucked borders up? NO, the Kurds will be mildly represented at best in the new Iraq, while they are being killed in Turkey and Iran... of course we wont care about the Kurds in Turkey cuz its a 'democracy' and our 'friend' that is more than willing to hoar itself out for a war... and in Iran, we dont give a fuck about Iran...

OK im not sure if this will float or get me banned or yelled at or anything but, i just had a thought...

In a Bare fisted Boxing match W vs Saddam, who wins and how many rounds?

I think Saddam would take Bush... Saddam is quite large and in charge... 5th round TKO saddam...

At 3/3/03 07:21 PM, whyme04 wrote: im getting really fuckin tired of all this stuff about....suddam hussien had nukes pointed at west coast and shit....

not giving a fuck is fine, but what is the purpose of telling us why do we care what u think? also north korea has nukes pointed at the west

and how they telling us to board our windows and duct tape air pockets just in case....ITS BULLSHIT!!!

what makes it bull shit who knows it could work...

no preson should have to fear what hasnt happened yet!

we arent in fear we are discussing it... if u dont like it then dont fuckin come here

At 3/3/03 03:24 PM, Grinwald wrote: No one vote made a difference on a national scale, but thank God we don't have more people like you who don't crap on the rights much braver men have fought and died for you to be able to enjoy.

Let's not forget one of those rights braver men fought for is teh right to NOT GIVE A FUCK... so i'm not crapping on anyone's rights so quit your bitching to me cuz i dont vote im the reason the world sucks...

At 3/3/03 10:53 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/3/03 02:05 AM, karasz wrote: Bush and Cheney used to work for oil companies, that is the only arguement i ever need, for their term they will be under a cloud of oil lust...

Whoop-de-doo. They have a background in the oil business. That is what irritates me. Anti-war people take the President's oil background, combine it with the fact that Iraq has oil, and then just assume that he just wants the oil, without giving it any more thought. Let me say this again: if we just wanted oil, we could just lift the sanctions and start buying oil from the current regime.

i am not saying that this war is for oil... i just explained why people say the war is for oil... i dont think bush would be to willing to give money to a guy that tried to kill his dad in 1998...

but here is an example North Korea has nukes we are not doing anything, IRAN the 3rd member of the axis of evil is not doing anything at all, so what makes them part of the axis? lets see iraq has oil... iran and north korea have little to NO oil... (i am well aware of the fact that iran can be useful to set up a large pipeline into afghanistan from the caspian sea which will be FUCKIN HUGE) why are we not going after other countries instead why IRAQ what about IRAQ frightens teh BUSH administration so much?

I'm tired of people saying stuff like "we're ignoring North Korea/Osama/the economy". Do you think that when the administration does one thing, that it neglects to do all other things? Yes, something should be done about North Korea. It's just that we have to be more careful with them, because they have already acquired nukes. I still don't think they have the balls to use them, though, and I think they will back down if we take a tough stand. I think that once we're through in Iraq, we'll do something about North Korea.

well the economy has been bad (according to those taht know) the whole time Bush has been in office the economy has not been good, granted at different times its better than other times but overall it sucks... what would north korea have to lose if they use their weapon on the US? especially if Kim Jong IL feels his power is threatened...

As for Iran, they were included in the Axis based on hostility that they have shown us in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were some terror cells in Iran. But why bring up Iran? You said it yourself: Iran isn't doing anything, and no one is talking about war with Iran.

But France has as much anti-americanism as Iran does, Pakistan has more anti-americanism than both and we are doing nothing against them... but since they are doing nothing they should not be part of the axis of evil...

its called a spin, the best weapon in a political war... i took ur question for where the 'war on oil' came from and showed how the bush administration uses the same tool... people are less likely to rally behind a guy goin for a black liquid then trying to 'democracize a region' (dont get me started on that)

Are you saying that Bush is putting a spin on the situation by saying we're goin there to do other things when we're actually going there for oil? I think that the facts speak for themselves--Iraq has yet to fully comply with the terms of UN Resolution 1441. I personally think you're putting a spin on it by using two facts that seem to be related but actually aren't and using them to show that it's a war for oil. Perhaps we should declare this board a No Spin Zone™.

no this spin comment was in regards to the war on marijuania the administration has started, even though for every commercial the same could be said about alcohol... and the spin comment at teh beginning of the thread was about how people can make the statement that the war on terror is actually a war for oil...

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

the same UN that Bush is threatening will be irrelevant if they dont approve a resolution supporting a war with iraq? can u tell me where any of his weapons are? attacking someone for not proving he HAS stuff is wrong... and there is still no smoking gun...

UN Resolution 1441 places the burden of proof on Iraq, not the United States. And if the UN fails to act on its own resolutions, then yes, it is irrelavent.

so then by making the UN irrelevant why should anyone listen to any resolutions that are passed by the UN if the US is claiming it will be irrelevant if the UN doesnt do what the US wants...

but he is disarming... u said urself disarming 6 missiles isnt even, maybe not the best way to go about things but it is a start...

It's a start, but I won't be satisfied until I see a finish.

well that just means u have to wait... i suppose

personally my time is the same time it was 9-10-01 attack after we are attacked... u might not like it but its better than pissing off the world to attack someone that hasnt done anything to the US... oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable of the 19 hijackers 15 were from saudi arabia, 0 from iraq so then lets take out saudi arabia they are more threatening to the US...

I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I know Bush has made the "ties with al-Qaeda" argument, which may or may not be true, but is in my opinion irrelavent--the weapons are the only justification we need. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather piss off the world than see more of my countrymen die.

well no u didnt say anything about 9-11, but if u re-read what i wrote i said 'oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable ' because most of the time i say we should be the way we were on 9-10-01 people say then fine lets wait for another 9-11... it was a pre-emptive comment to stop u from saying that... if we piss off the world, then wont more countrymen die from when we invade the next terrorist nation since we will have no help in a war...

At 3/3/03 01:16 AM, Grinwald wrote: This is not a war for oil. If it were, we would have taken over Iraq back in the Gulf War, when we could have done it with ease. Oil is not the issue here, because, if we wanted oil from Iraq, we could buy it from them. Simple as that. Not to mention that our biggest ally in the Middle East, Israel, has precious little oil to speak of.

ah Israel our only friend in the mid-east... but before Israel we had no enemies in the mid-east... Actually the UN resolution was to get Saddam out of Kuwait not out of power... it would have broken UN resolutions the very thing we are going after Saddam for... also Israel, Turkey, Cyprus are in more violations of UN resolutions than Iraq... but away to Iraq we go...

To the person who said we can't beat North Korea: ... yes we can. They have "like, a million soldiers" (actually, they have 1.082 million) whereas we have 1.368 million. We have a larger navy, a larger airforce, many more tanks, and much better funded and technologically superior armed forces. It wouldn't be a shoo-in, but it wouldn't be tough.

define a win... because in Vietnam we won every major battle, but lost the war based on the public opinion at home, which is what saddam will be fighting to trigger, get the people at home annoyed with the war and he will win... also if NK nukes a city they win, because SK wont let the US nuke NK without huge protests and more anti-amereicanism then already seen...

And as far as Iraq is concerned, if Saddam were to step down, I'm sure Bush would press the UN to set up a democratic government in Iraq. He isn't in this just to go to war, he's in it because 1) It's clear that Iraq harbors terrorists,

so does saudi arabia, lets get those guys... pakistan is a cesspool of terrorism... tibet, and checnya harbor terrorists to the chinese and russian governments, and we get pissed when they do anything to their terrorsits...

2) Saddam Hussein has violeted 16 UN sanctions and has committed multiple, documented war atrocities,

Israel 25, Turkey 20, Cyprus 17(around) yet we do nothign with them

3) Saddam has been reported by multiple defectors to have a nuclear arms program in effect, and 4) Saddam has shown himself in the past to be an aggressive leader. He used nerve gas in combat and against civilians, and there is no doubt, according to former head of the Iraq nuclear arms program Khadir Hamza, that he would use nukes with little hesitation.

North Korea also has a nuclear arms program yet we do nothing... the nerve gas he used was from the US when he was fighting the iranians... against civilians i ask why did we take out the taliban? because A) they beat their women, B) they had osama bin laden? sadly the answer was B, besides turkey and israel kill the kurdish/palestinian citizens yet again we do NOTHING (see a pattern here)

In short: it would be nice if Saddam would accept exile, but he won't. And we could beat Iraq and North Korea at the same time.

bassed on what? north korea nukes seattle or LA and guess what they win by nuking us... because we could have avoided it, and SK wont let us nuke their countrymen, so we invade and have a bloody battle the way Japan was suppose to happen in '45...

At 3/3/03 12:41 AM, TheEvilOne wrote:

At 3/3/03 12:09 AM, karasz wrote:

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war.

based on what? Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world, and are beginning to disable their missles, something 'stubborn' saddam said he wouldnt do...

I don't think destroying six al-Samouds counts as fully disarming as demanded by the UN. And just because they have large oil deposits, that makes it a war for oil? What proof can you offer that the main purpose of the war is to acquire Iraqi oil?

well im not an expert but doesnt it take like 4 or 5 hours to disable a missle? Bush and Cheney used to work for oil companies, that is the only arguement i ever need, for their term they will be under a cloud of oil lust... but here is an example North Korea has nukes we are not doing anything, IRAN the 3rd member of the axis of evil is not doing anything at all, so what makes them part of the axis? lets see iraq has oil... iran and north korea have little to NO oil... (i am well aware of the fact that iran can be useful to set up a large pipeline into afghanistan from the caspian sea which will be FUCKIN HUGE) why are we not going after other countries instead why IRAQ what about IRAQ frightens teh BUSH administration so much?

Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway?

the same place where the WAR on MARIJUANIA claims that weed impairs your judgement but says nothing of alcohol... weed is considered a gateway drug to harder drugs... but those commercials also say that at 90% (dont quote me on that number but i know it is high) of drunk driving accidents weed is found in the persons system... well if alcohol is also there, then 1 can assume alcohol is the true GATEWAY drug...

More ignorance. I never said I supported the war on drugs. In fact, I think marijuana should be legalized. The war is a separate issue.

its called a spin, the best weapon in a political war... i took ur question for where the 'war on oil' came from and showed how the bush administration uses the same tool... people are less likely to rally behind a guy goin for a black liquid then trying to 'democracize a region' (dont get me started on that)

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is,

he's disabling the missles that he IS allowed to have by a previous resolution (odd how others are using the same statements the Bush admin is against the Bush admin) and they are only in breach of the resolutions if there is no payload on the missle... making it a dud and useless...

Iraq said the missles didn't violate any resolutions. The UN said they did, and Blix ordered them destroyed. Who are you going to believe, the UN... or Saddam Hussein? And where are the rest of his weapons? UN Resolution 1441 says that he must show the inspectors exactly what he has, and destroy it. Can you honestly tell me that he has done so?

the same UN that Bush is threatening will be irrelevant if they dont approve a resolution supporting a war with iraq? can u tell me where any of his weapons are? attacking someone for not proving he HAS stuff is wrong... and there is still no smoking gun...

I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

he's letting the inspectors in, he's disabling missiles, and has not been attacked in 12 years by knowing when to say when...

I was referring to him going into exile. But that statement would also apply to disarmament. The bottom line is that he ain't disarming, and he ain't leaving. When is it time for you to say when?

but he is disarming... u said urself disarming 6 missiles isnt even, maybe not the best way to go about things but it is a start... personally my time is the same time it was 9-10-01 attack after we are attacked... u might not like it but its better than pissing off the world to attack someone that hasnt done anything to the US... oh and to ur 'so let's wait for another 9-11 rebuttal' that is inevitable of the 19 hijackers 15 were from saudi arabia, 0 from iraq so then lets take out saudi arabia they are more threatening to the US...

ignorance is no excuse... send him back

At 3/2/03 11:27 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

This isn't a war for oil, revenge, or for the sake of having a war.

based on what? Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world, and are beginning to disable their missles, something 'stubborn' saddam said he wouldnt do...

Where did you guys come up with that stuff anyway?

the same place where the WAR on MARIJUANIA claims that weed impairs your judgement but says nothing of alcohol... weed is considered a gateway drug to harder drugs... but those commercials also say that at 90% (dont quote me on that number but i know it is high) of drunk driving accidents weed is found in the persons system... well if alcohol is also there, then 1 can assume alcohol is the true GATEWAY drug...

But the point is pretty much moot--Saddam has said that he isn't going to leave, and just knowing how stubborn the man is,

he's disabling the missles that he IS allowed to have by a previous resolution (odd how others are using the same statements the Bush admin is against the Bush admin) and they are only in breach of the resolutions if there is no payload on the missle... making it a dud and useless...

I doubt he will change his mind, no matter what kind of international pressure is placed on him. It's time to go bonk some heads.

he's letting the inspectors in, he's disabling missiles, and has not been attacked in 12 years by knowing when to say when...

i would like to join this political discussion group... although i must state my opposition to a leader that can do what is in the group's best interest... isnt that why america has seperation of powers

well there is no fair way to figure this out... the mods should stay out at least of the politics forum, but the capitalist way to deal with the problem would be if u dont like the thread dont post in it then that thread will die out like so many of mine have...

if the flag represents freedom then it represents the freedom to protest... end of discussion, its not stupid, or un-patriotic or anything else... its called what the FUCKING FLAG represents... live with it. America was founded by a bunch of guys that didnt want to trust the government okay...

Also, I respect any military person, police officer, anyone of those people I have nothing but respecct for them... BUT other than Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, World War I & II, explain to me when America was defending itself in battle... Korea, Vietnam, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Panama, Libya, Gulf War, Iraq 2... hell even the war on terror

i jsut heard on MSNBC that United Arab Emirates and Kuwait along with teh Arab League have said that Saddam should step down to avert war... well my question is what would happen IF Saddam stepped down?

i see bush claiming victory and getting most saying 'YAY bush, we threatened and got what we wanted without war... yippie' so then off we go to Nor... Iran, then Syria... and then if there is time, north korea...

I've made my teenage life being able to spin anything... which is why i'm going into politics as a profession, political adviser... and I promise to FIX the world... the way it should be, not skewed to any one side... unfortunately the only way any of u will believe me is if u trust me... and america was founded on the basis of NOT trusting teh government... so oh well...

I still stand by the belief that if you make a trade with North Korea, they will give up their nukes if we give them food, and let the UN inspectors back in... but people say it will make teh US look weak by giving into those that act bad... to which i ask, so? if other countries can be changed with a bribe I suggest we bribe them... besides would anyone DOUBT america's military might?

the thing is Bush is not worrying about this as he should... the president HAS to be able to handle more than 1 thing at a time... the only president i can think of that only worried about 1 thing for as long as Bush has is his dad...

LEFT: everyone would put what was best for the community in front of the people...

RIGHT: everyone would put themselves in front of the community...

that is pretty much how the world would be... 1 'utopian' society... 1 'capitalist' society...

At 3/2/03 10:36 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Try 2.

Well, then it comes down to what you call a war... obviously World War 1 and 2, (last time Congress declared war) then the problem comes what about Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and soon Iraq... (then Iran, North Korea, Syria) but I digress...

I am just curious as to what everyone thinks is teh best baseball video game they ever played?

mine vote goes to Bad News Baseball on nes, somethin about pink rabbits being umpires just gives me warm fuzzy feelings....

wow, im going to go shoot myself now.

At 2/27/03 06:13 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Ok, if you consciously decide to not support any canditates, but if you just decide not to vote because "voting's for fags" or "bush is ghey", then you shouldn't be complaining.

And what other system would you rather they use?
One with the least votes in an area wins?

least votes win... thats hysterical, like anyone in America could win by getting LESS votes... (im not going to finish the thought because everyone knows what is next and if u dont then u didnt follow the 2000 election)

the system is fine, to a point, i dislike the people that vote because its their civic duty, but not knowing anything about the candidates, that is why the election process is a joke. If you have the last radio spot that the person hears before gettin out of their car to vote, odds are tehy will vote for you, or nothing beats the people that vote for whoever is from their party despite what that person stands for, that is the kind of shit that annoys me.

At 2/26/03 08:45 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: I can't see how the people on this board can have such strong opinions and not vote, unless they're underaged. Yes, I vote.

my rationale is no 1 vote has ever made a difference in any election...

I am also well aware in the 1876 presidential election, due to the unknowing of 20 or so electoral votes congress set up a 15 man commision, 7 dems, 7 reps and 1 ind... then the reps made the 1 ind (that was a justice on the supreme court) a state senator and the rep controlled congress voted in another rep and every questionable electoral vote went to the Rutherford B. Hayes even though Samuel J. Tilden only needed 1 electoral vote... and so the dems didnt get too pissed off Hayes said he wouldnt seek re-election. But, i mean come on, what are the odds of that happening?

i think it looks stupid...

Just wondering if anyone here votes, and why, and how old you are if you do/dont.

2 reasons really 1) a person at school is trying to get the 18-25 year old age group to mobilize to vote, so it got me thinking about here. 2) this is not a thread concerning iraq, colombia, stupidity or anything else we are all sick of...

I'm 19 and NO... personally i dont see voting matter; and since im registered in PA, but go to school in RI i know of nothing about the candidates in PA so i do the smart thing and not vote.

<A>darkmedia.cjb.net<A>

this website has a rant by a guy it's pretty good... check it out

political game above is a description... email or IM me to learn more

posted this in general but would like a better response

basically its america... so far just the house of representatives until we get about 70 particpants then the senate will be open for users... there are 2 game masters, 1 is all about foreign issues taht come about, the other plays part as voters and president (until a new one is elected) and cabinet... right now we are near the ending of the presidential campaign, 1 week left democrats have selected Earthern Brown, I'm VP... the republicans havent selected their candidate yet... the presidential election is on march first...

and if you are not active for a week you will be deleted from the game... unless u post something stating your absence

also pointless attacks dont go over too well with the voters...

email me if u want to join...