170 Forum Posts by "Kieland"
At 2/20/06 06:47 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
:: At 2/19/06 10:51 PM, Kieland wrote:
Piss on that noise. They have no right to a trial. We're holding them as a potential threat to us, and not charging them with anything. They're in holding, not jail. And these men do not fall under the provisions of our judiciary, so again, piss on that noise.I suppose you'd like the American tax-payer to foot the bill for all those trials too?If it means keeping innocent men out of jail, then yes.
Come on. That's a bit extreme don't you think? When did America, 'land of the free and home of the brave' become America, 'you'll have freedom but if we even suspect you then we get to throw you in jail.'
I get that you want to keep the country safe from future attacks such as 9/11 and I respect that. However, what is the price of safety? The imprisonment of men who could be innocent? Surely you don't believe that innocent men should be held accountable for things they didn't do?
I think there's a chance that many of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are terrorists, but in America is innocent until proven guilty. Are we so blind by our hatred for terrorism that we'd let innocents suffer? I think there's a chance that some of those prisoners are innocent and that doesn't sit well with me.
According to MoralLibretarian such trials would waste tax money. So I guess the question is, what is the price we're willing to put on freedom? And if we give detainees fair trials and find them all guilty, well what have we lost? Apparently tax money. So I admit that I don't know what the government should do here, but my opinion (no matter how worthless it is to you) is that freedom is worth more.
At 2/19/06 11:57 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Here. And here. And here. And here. And here. And here's a scaled down picture of the original "Simple Sambo" pic.
Here's an article where Democrats say what I've been saying: black republicans deserve criticism because they are republicans.
I'll start by thanking you for actually providing proof for you claims, but you're still generalizing dude. It's clear from the articles you supplied that there are racist Democrats out there, way to go. However, they don't represent the mindset of every liberal in the country. That's generalization.
:I didn't say he deserved it, but they are in there for a reason.
Going back to your pro-guantanamo bay argument for a moment. You say that the enemy combatants don't deserve to be locked up? Is that what you're trying to tell me? Please clarify, because you're saying that they're in there for a reason so what is it? The government must have its reasons to lock them up. However, without fair trials we just have to assume that the government has concrete evidence to imprison them.
I'd rather be sure that we haven't detained innocent people.
:You're not a liberal, are you?
Oh I'm a liberal, but not the type of liberal you're ranting about. You're saying that liberals put Wal-mart before fighting terrorism and that's bullshit. So you've decided to mock me instead because you can't come up with any evidence to back your claims. Please, find me as many articles as you can where liberals have done this. I guarantee, however, that this is just your thick-headed generalization again. You're not making intelligent arguments anymore. You generalized and were caught and now appear to be resorting to mocking me in order to worm your way out of it. How mature of you, sir.
You have a problem with certain Democrats who have said and done racist things and I don't blame you. Racism is pointless and foolish. However, you're applying these few sample cases to every liberal. Why should all of us liberals be painted racist because a select few of us are dim?
Your arguments are weak and moronic. I'll concede to your argument that John Kerry appeared to be laying it on a little thick, but just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean he can't go hunting and act religious. But who gives a shit anyway? He lost, Bush won, end of story. Liberals have to move on and we are, albeit slowly.
Your argument points are still idiotic, however, because in the end it doesn't matter. You're still generalizing. I don't know where you're getting your right-wing bullshit, but not every democrat is a racist asshole like the ones you've pointed out.
At 2/19/06 04:47 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: They don't pretend like they are liberals though.
Dude clarify your argument here, please. Are you saying that Kerry went from being a Vietnam soldier to pretending to be conservative? Clarify and we'll continue from there.
I suppose you'd like the American tax-payer to foot the bill for all those trials too?
If it means keeping innocent men out of jail, then yes.
:Even if they aren't terrorists, oh well. Better safe than sorry these days.
Better safe than sorry? You must be being sarcastic. No one deserves to rot in jail because we want to be 'safe' and they happen to be the same race as the terrorists who attacked us. That's bullshit.
It's also over the top to say that the Republicans are corrupt when Democrats easily make more money from lobbyists and special interests anyway.
It's over the top to say that because you don't want to pay for fair trials then suspected terroists should rot in jail, but does that mean all Conservatives are over the top? No. You're generalizing again dude.
Yes, liberals are. They think more harm is done from Wal-mart than from Islamic terrorists.
Again I have to beg for some proof. You're generalizing and pulling shit out of your ass. You sound as if you're making shit up. And besides even if you have undeniable proof that a liberal or a liberal group placed higher priority on Wal-mart than terrorism, it doesn't represent the majority of liberals.
Michael Steele, Condi Rice, Walter Williams, Colin Powell. All successful men or women treated like traitors to their race because of their political affiliation. Do your own research, look up some of the shit they've had done to them by liberals of either color.
Since I think your argument is bullshit, I beg of you, find me as single reported instace of this act being committed. I don't think you will, but I'm willing to be proven wrong if you can find me an actual link to an article that reports this racism you're talking about. And if you can, it is once again generalization and does not represent the majority of Democrats.
I suppose I should have added that liberals don't mind successful black men as long as they stay liberal. If they become conservative, they are pelted by oreos or the victims of cruel caricatures.
Cruel caricatures? Where? Find me an example, I beg of you.
In short, you are a generalizing moron who is making shit up. Either that or you have actually found instances of such actions taking place (such as the Democratic racism you're ranting about) and now you're generalizing and labeling every single liberal racist or anti-patriotic. That's bullshit and you know it.
At 2/14/06 09:27 PM, Seanman wrote: There would be even more competion. Because we could have like 10 opponents for president. And Citizen won't vote based off what party they are in so, people will listen to the Ideas of each candidate and vote for a better president.
It could go either way. I agree that some people will tune out candidates entirely based on party, however, even if we get rid of the parties those biases will be there.
Here's an idea. Instead of dismantling the party system, why don't we try to strengthen other parties like the Green or Independent? (A long shot if ever there was one, but still its worth a shot.)
At 2/18/06 10:18 PM, Imperator wrote: But that's kinda a stretch....No, it wasn't the kinda national blunder the rest are.
Monicagate wasn't a national blunder at all. It was one president's moral failure that was turned it something that was bigger than it was. Its left scars, but I think Vietnam's esclastion, the Bay of Pigs, the Great Depression's rampage, etc. are more pressing matters than Bill Clinton's sex life.
At 2/19/06 03:49 PM, TrendWhore wrote: Where do you get those numbers from mackid?
I'm not sure where mackid got those numbers, but I've heard it before.
I can't stand the death penalty. From reading this thread, it sounds as if those in favor of the penalty want those who've caused suffering to suffer themselves. However, to do so is inhumane. We shouldn't lower ourselves to these monsters' levels and give them the satisfaction of remembrance. We should lock them away and forget them. However, we shouldn't kill them. We're not the murderers, they are. So let's lock 'em in cells with big fat guys named Bubba and let it be done with.
At 2/19/06 03:36 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: They are for higher taxes and class warfare.
We just don't want countless tax cuts for the rich. And we don't want class warfare, that's a generalization. Its facts, the poor are suffering man. I'll level with you though, there are SOME out there who believe that the rich should always give to the poor, but that's not the feelings of all democrats, just a few. If you're rich and have money, I think you should keep it. I just don't think the government should cater to the rich and leave the poor out in the cold.
Liberal politicians are deceptive: when they campaign, they go hunting, pretend to be pro-war, pretend that they are religious, etc.
Republicans are just as bad. The entire anti-John Kerry ad campagin is an example. John Kerry DID fight in Vietnam. George Bush said that Kerry was a braver man than he in an interview with Matt Lauer. (I think it was Lauer). However, conservatives made it sound as if Kerry didn't fight in Vietnam and if he did it wasn't courageous. Well in my opinion, anyone who went to Vietnam was courageous.
The Democratic party show a chilling desire to extend the bill of rights to terrorists and enemy fighters for Al-Qaeda and Al-Zawahri, whether they be at home or abroad.
Actually, we just hate the Patriot Act since its landed many in jail in Guantanmo Bay without proper trials. Sure you can argue that we're stopping terrorism but are you completely sure that everyone in Guantanmo is a terrorist?
The rhetoric of the Democratic Party is so kooky and extreme that it turns the average American off.
Your proof? We're not kooky as you call us, we're just disorganized right now. We need to get our shit together. But I don't know where you get kooky from.
The Democratic Party is almost completely made up of special interests.
Both parties are partisan these days. Everything is white or black to both sides, neither is looking at the grey.
Their priorities are out of whack. They prefer to attack Wal-mart, which brings jobs and low prices to communities and offers a reasonably affordable healthcare plan for 12 bucks a month, rather than terrorists.
Wal-mart and terrorism have nothing in common and we aren't choosing Wal-mart over terrorsim that's way out there man.
Liberals will call successful black leaders Uncle Toms or Oreos.
What the hell is this? Do you have any proof? Or are you just pulling that one out of your ass? Can you find me a quote? And even if you can, it's probably one dumbass' opinion and doesn't reflect the opinions of every Democrat in Washington. That's out there man.
I could think of more, and I could think of a list of things people don't like about conservatives, but the American people see the Democratic Party and liberals and this is what they see.
I think you've listed things you've seen. For example, I've never heard of anyone calling blacks Uncle Tom's or Oreos in recent news. Maybe back in the segregation days, but not recently. It sounds as if you're generalizing. Do all Republicans condone slavery because the majority of slave holding states in the past were Southern States which are predominately Republican? I could, but it wouldn't be true. You need to calm it down there.
At 2/19/06 02:49 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Liberalism is dead. No one wants to be a liberal anymore. Maybe in another 40 years they'll get back in power.
I'm afraid the liberals are a dying breed. I am one of the last of a dying race.... Shit.
The sad truth is that the Democrats in Washington aren't fighting as hard as they could. As a liberal I cringed when I watched clips of the Sam Alito hearings. The democrats rambled on and on instead of asking pressing-matter questions. They would ask a direct question and then apologize and say that they didn't want Alito to think they were trying to offend him.
We need more Democratic government officials with back bones.
But not Hillary Clinton.... never Hillary (cringe).
At 2/18/06 08:23 AM, Newground_Freak wrote: Jesus was a jew.
edn.
If you hope to denounce such a massive religion as Christianity, then you're going to need more evidence than the fact that Jesus grew up and was raised as a Jew. The Old Testament is based off of Jewish beliefs. The difference is that Christianity built off of said Jewish beliefs and added to them. Christianity is not trying to deny that Jesus grew up Jewish. Christianity believes that Jesus was the Son of God and to the Christians it doesn't matter what religion he grew up following, he's still the worshiped Lord of Christians.
So if you want to truly denounce Christianity, for God's sake come up with something better than the fact that Jesus grew up in a Jewish household. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but for shit's sake at this point it sounds as if you're just hoping to rile up a few Christians.
At 2/13/06 07:45 PM, The_Tank wrote: Great theory jackass.
Yes I quite like that theory myself, thank you for your agreement.
By the way, if you can't tell I 'm using sarcasm like I did in my previous post, the one you apparently did not like for whatever reason.
Sarcasm is described by wikipedia (an online encylopedia) as the following:
Sarcasm is often used in a humorous manner and sometimes expressed through particular vocal intonations. Sarcasm is often expressed in ironical statements.
Do I honestly think France will rise against us? Can't say. Who knows what the French government will or will not do in the future. However, based on my current feelings for the present administration I would not mind if the European countries came to America and performed a "regime change" (as Bush once labeled our efforts in Iraq).
When the European nations finally rise against us (and I think they might) then it will take more than France to overthrow us. I think it may take an alliance of all the world powers in Europe to take us down.
Excellent insight and allegory by the way. If only we'd known better back in 2000...
Personal faith is a beautiful thing. If someone can find a faith that suits their lives and gives them something to believe in and strive for then that is great.
However, mass religion is something I distrust and dislike. Its pretty much a group of individuals saying "Hey we believe this so you should too." That's the basic politics of an organized religion. Or at least that's how I see it. I'm a cynic.
I believe in the Separation of Church and State and that "bible thumping psychos" should all be marooned on a deserted island. (Hmm, the workings of a new reality show? Survivor: Jerusalem?)
So if you believe in your religion, great and good for you. However, don't go trying to incorporate your religion (whatever it may be) into a government. That supresses the religious faith of others who may believe in something different than you. An obvious example would be the Religious Right in America, or Muslim Extremists in the Middle East.
Besides, quote-unquote missionaries suck. They run around to third world countries and help people while promoting their religion. Idea: help the poor and the under-privelaged without recruiting them.
Though I do not agree with the new Social Security plan, I'll say this: Republicans and Democrats are falling under. Both sides. Republicans in my eyes have become consumed with themselves. Democrats are just loosing hope after Kerry's loss in the election.
So, are Republicans sissies? I'd like to say yes, but Republicans have been on the attack alot more than Democrats lately. Am I happy about that? Fuck no. But it is fact. It seems that most of the really bad smear campaigns are started by Republicans. But whatever. I wish they were sissies, it would make it eaiser for Democrats to get back in power.
At 4/8/05 01:04 PM, SgtSandbag wrote: I think we are on the way to a totalitarian government.
300 years ago, we fought to keep this country free from the tyrannies of King George and the British. Now another King George is on the throne. What are we to do now?
I say we form an underground resistance movement. Vive la resistance! Or we just hold in there until 2008 where Georgie Bush has to give up his throne by law. Either way... though i'm partial to the resistance movement.
Cochran was a good guy, and a damn good lawyer. He is another member of a growing list of people who have died in the past few months (those included being the Pope and comedian Mitch Hedberg). Truly we are loosing some very good members of society these past few months.
At 3/22/05 04:25 PM, ghost_dance wrote:At 3/22/05 04:22 PM, afliXion wrote: Are you insane? Everything you said and anton levey said were the exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus taught.!Yes, that's exactly my point. That right wing paradigms are in fact complements to satanism and that christianity is the opposite of that.
Ooh, nice and thought provoking. I think the main idea of your argument seems fairly farfetched but then I look at some of your examples, like the gluttony vs. supersize connection, and I have to say... it makes sense in a strange sort of way. Then again I hold a deep loathing for right-wingers but that's not the point. The point is that i have seen tons of forum topics that related one political group to some evil historical figures (ie the liberals are like Hitler topic) and the arguments the authors of these topics use are pure bullshit. This topic however, seems to use some form of twisted intelligence in its condemnation of right-wingers.
Then again, I loathe right-wingers so maybe that's why it seems so true to me. I don't know. For the purpose of this topic I'll say you're on to something.
It is a democratic right to be able to protest. If these protesters wish to risk personal harm to themselves in order to excerise this right, they should be allowed to. This is their wish and it is their lives. To tell them when they can and cannot protest its not a democracy. And Iraq is supposedly a democracy now.
At 3/26/05 06:37 PM, Tomsan wrote: Ok I do not believe in the bible, but I think this argument is weak. who says that all light is from the sun and the starsmaybe there IS an diffrent form of light, the one god created at the beginning. maybe we and our science dont know the light yet. you cannot explain things with so called scientific facts. when you do ofcourse the bible is wrong, but that doesnt says it has been disproven
You'll notice that I asked for an explanation to my question that was not the light just 'is'. And that's really what you're saying. There is no proven form of natural light in space other than the stars. And for the record I will take scientific facts over something that many people believe to be one big proverb to be interpretated. A Catholic priest at my Church once told us that the Bible is to be interpretated and not taken as pure fact. Which is strange for a priest to say, I know.
So my point of the argument is that I can't prove there is no other form of light but you can't prove there is another form of light. And so far, scientific fact, which is a hell of a lot more realiable in my opinon, seems to favor my side of the argument.
Sorry in my previous post I forgot something.
All of my quotes from Genesis are from chapter one thus they should say like Genesis 1: 10, Genesis 1: 16, etc.
Oops.
Genesis 3: And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Ok God created light. Where in the Universe does light come from? The sun and the stars. Thus we interpret this as God made the sun and the stars the most natural form of light.
Genesis 10: God called the dry ground "land", and the gathered waters he called "seas".
This adds to my previous statment. If there is just now land then the aforementioned light couldn't have been fire because where the fire have been? Floating in the water?
Genesis 11: And God said, "Let the land produce vegentation...".
Ok so now we have plants and stuff. Remember that. Here comes the humdinger.
Genesis 16: God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
Ok so now God made the sun, the moon, and the stars.
Hold the phone. Now where in God's name did the orginal light come from. If he just now made the most natural form of light in the Universe where was that original light coming from? And if the original Earth was just water there couldn't have land so fire would have just "floated" in water and there was no vegetation until later so there was no plants to create a steady flow of oxygen to feed any fire. So where did the light come from?
Another thing. If there was no true sun or stars until after the vegetation was made that would mean that the vegetation was just in space there. Space is negative 400 degrees. In other words, God made vegetation and stuck them in a deep freeze because there was no sun or stars to warm up the Earth and keep the plants alive.
And also, before you answer, I will not accept the answer the light just 'was'. There is no scientific proof that the light could just 'be'. It had to come from some natural source.
I would love to hear your answer for this one... :-)
"Our enemies are cunning and resourceful, so are we. They are always looking for new ways to hurt the American public, and so are we." -Georgie Bush.
"Fool me once.... uh shame... shame on me. Uh.. fool me twic... ya can't fool me again!" -Georgie Bush.
"We'll call it the Patriot Act and it will entail the following..." - Unknown... alright I made this last one up, but still it gets the message across.
You sir, have taken one of the stupidest threads on NG BBS and made a parody that had me laughing for at least a full half hour. Excellent work.
I believe in a strong separation of Church and State but the Easter bunny is religous? Get real. The only similarity is the name. If you look at the facts there is no clear connection between the bunny and the holiday. Easter = the day in Christian dogma when Jesus arose from the dead after dying on the cross for our sins. Easter bunny = fatass rabbit that gives kids eggs, chocolate candy, and those 'peeps' candies.
There is no real good reason to change the name of the Easter Bunny. Then again there is no real good reason to have the Easter Bunny in the first place.
And for God's sakes, use your search bar before you post a new topic.
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=244296
I am not saying abortion is right or wrong. What I say is its a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and her future, the government has no place or say in it. Many people seem to believe its simple and painless for the mother and that if legalized random hookers will use it to avoid the reprecussions of their actions. But abortion isn't a picnic for the mother either. Can you imagine how hard that decision is? Its not as simple as going, do I want it or do I not want it? Its the woman's choice, not the government's.
The original list given was about as farfetche'd as our reasons for war in Iraq. In otherwords, completely fucking useless and ignorant. You clearly do not have a true opinon but would rather just degrade others with usless, pointless, and groundless information that you pulled out of your ass. Hence the reason why you should stick to watching flashes and ignoring forums. In the 'Politics' forum, people actually expect you to use evidence and intelligent to make your points. Not bullshit. Although curses come in handy most of the time to display emotion at a better level you ignorant douche.
This is the end of the environment, or at least the beginning of the end.
Karl Rove
He's an underhanded bastard who is the epitome of the 'smear campaign'. He's sneaky, he's mean-spirited, and he would rather tear apart an opponent with rumors and attack ads then meet them with political arguments.
