Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You have a very uninformed view of Carnivore, and that is why you are angry.

Carnivore has been used about 8 (eight) times since its inception. That's nationwide!

What is Carnivore exactly? It's a physical device, that the FBI has to manually install at the ISPs building. This takes time and expertise.

Carnivore is legally the same as a wiretap. After all, how is email any different than a phone call?

Carnivore is designed so that it can only retrieve emails that have to do with the warrant. A federal judge decides this, and has the power to refuse a wiretap. The Federal Agent who is running Carnivore is physically unable to read any other emails.

Basically, what most people know about Carnivore, has been invented by the media. If anything I have presented is wrong, please correct me.

Politics Suck!

If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you.

Most religions advocate peace, and yet so many religious people ignore it. If you're gonna be in a religion, at least follow the tenets.

The problem is, they see it as revenge, which makes it OK in their minds. That's why I get mad when I hear people say "Nuke Afghanistan back to the stone age." They, too, are justifying killing innocents (by accepting it as collateral damage), making them no different from the terrorists.

I really wonder what it means, now that we've killed more innocent people, than those who died on September 11th.

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/edits/seang.htm

This is about the military tribunals. Basically, they can arrest and execute a foreigner without letting us know.

I also heard that they can convict for a non-death penalty case, with only 2/3 consent of the jury. And remember, the jury is made of military personnel. The odds aren't good for the accused.

Truman?

OK, let's use the analogy that terrorism is an infectious disease.

Yes, we do have to get rid of the infection. But while doing that, maybe we should question why we were infected in the first place? Should we wash our hands more, or not play with rusty knives?

There are peaceful ways to get bin Laden, but we gave up on those very, very quickly.

Oh, and here's a study on the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan. Note, that 3500 is almost the number of people killed on Sept. 11.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1210-01.htm

I don't know about you, but I think this is getting kinda hypocritical.

Collateral damage is acceptable? What if those were American lives? What if it was you?

With that line of thinking, you might as well say that the people who died at the Pentagon don't matter, since they weren't civilians. The people on the plane that hit it were just "collateral damage."

War is terrorism on the wrong side of the bomb.

The footage of Palestinians dancing in the streets was actually old stock footage taken in 1991 during the invasion of Kuwait.

A man had a tape of the news when they showed that, and it is identical to the scenes shown on the 11th.

Oh, and I forgot one thing. Despite them being monstrous in every way, the terrorists who died were not cowards. They died for what they believed in. How many of you can say that you have done that?

Don't get me wrong, these people are seriously fucked up in the head. But they weren't cowards.

Please read the entire post before flaming me. This is sure to get a lot of shit, but please be open minded when you read this. It's hard, especially when talking about something of this magnitude. I AM NOT APOLOGIZING IN ANY WAY! Read the end of the post, if nothing else. I am an American, I hate what happened on the 11th, and here are some things that I don't like about America:

1. People wonder why Osama did what he did. First off, they haven't even proven that it was Osama, and he himself denies responsiblility (but who wouldn't?). But when something like this happens, people want a scapegoat so they can channel their fears.

Osama made it clear in his interview with Frontline that all he wishes to do is get American forces to leave the Middle East (this also means that the US would have to stop supporting Israel), and for the embargos on Iraq to be removed. Between 100,000 and 500,000 Iraqi children (under 5 years of age) have died of starvation or disease because of the UN embargos. About 500,000 civilians over 5 years of age have died as well. (source: Unicef)

So basically, leave the Middle East alone, and terrorism will decline dramatically.

2. Racism in the US against Muslims has skyrocketed. The day of and the day after the attacks, 4 Muslim community centers in my area alone were shot at or burned down. These people are not only NOT involved in any way with terrorism, but they are American citizens.

Killing is against the edicts of the Islam faith. Don't let Osama confuse the issue. He is warping what true Islam is.

3. People want to invade Afghanistan or get some sort of revenge. How will this help? If anything, putting more US troops will make terrorists even angrier. Look at this picture, taken in Pakistan (our ally):

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20010918/wl/mdf54552.html

Invading a Muslim country will drive more young Muslims to terrorism. If the goal of invading any Middle Eastern country is to end terrorism, it will fail miserably.

4. Some Americans don't care when innocent people in Muslim countries die *cough* Afghanistan *cough*. If you want them to respect your right to live, you have to respect theirs.

---------

Now, the other side. What the terrorists did was horrible. I cannot even imagine the grief that must be going through the family and friends of the victims. But the cycle of violence needs to end. Shedding more innocent blood is not the way to honor the lives of those lost (and it will be shed should the US send troops to another country).

In conclusion, pulling out of the Middle East will allow us all to live long, happy lives. Do those guilty need to be brought to justice? Yes, of course. But invading a country won't stop terrorism in any way.
Let the CIA do its job, and don't increase the fodder for terrorists to use in gaining new recruits.

Donate blood. Donate money. Be the bigger person. Don't stoop to their level.

The loss of any human life is tragic. It wasn't until the 11th that I understood why that Buddhist monk set himself on fire during the Vietnam War.

I have nothing against broads in swimsuits. Unless they're six.

Jean Bennet-Ramsey was lucky.

Can't we all just riot? If prices even touch $4 in America I'm sure there will be several riots. I can't wait to get me some looted stuff.

You have an extremely ignorant attitude, Tyrant. In Canada, you can speak French or English. In some Asian countries there are dozens of languages spoken in just a few square miles. There was a National Geographic article about a country where there were 42 national languages. That means every official document has to be translated into those languages.

Your problem stems from your inability to speak more than one language fluently. Quit blaming the immigrants for your ignorance.

Also, you will not find a single immigrant who go back to his/her home country simply because they can't speak English. This country was founded by immigrants. If they went back to their home country they would starve, and subsequently, their children would starve.

When you can tell me that you would starve a child to death because he/she can't speak English, I'll go ahead and support your English-only law.

You might try looking at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty.

I think the scariest thing is, I would consider voting for Hilary if she was the only opponent to Bush, even though I hate her, and don't want a woman President. Actually, I have nothing against women, it's just that women involved in politics are all, oh how do I put this delicately, dykes.

If you had seen the WHOLE Rodney King video, you would have noticed him grabbing the police officer and throwing him on the hood of his squad car. At the time, he was on PCP, which strengthens you. But the media never showed that on TV for some strange reason, or deemed it necessary to mention he was on drugs, and was a convicted felon. Hmmm. Sounds like someone here is brainwashed by the media.

I think hunting is stupid, unless you do it with a knife. I know this an atypical response from an American, but I like a good challenge. Guns are too impersonal. Hunting of deer (or foxes in Britain) would drop dramatically if you were required to hunt with a knife or spear, not only because it's hard to get that close to an animal, but because so much patience and physical strength are required that the redneck population and aristocracy would not be able to compete.

To them, they are doing what is right and just. We all want to do that, left or right. And it's drilled into them, in the case of religious zeal.

Yes, let's stop being such racists and make sure to judge shows by the numbers of different-colored people. If they only put in a few more minorities, kids would stop thinking in terms of race, instantly.

That was my sarcastic reply. Here's a normal one:

The census just confirmed that whites are minorities in most major cities. So isn't showing mainly white characters doing what the article suggests?

Thank you for not being as blind as some people, Bugger. I really couldn't believe it when that guy didn't understand that I didn't mean what I said.

I don't see anything wrong with oppressing those who would want to oppress others. And you try to argue a Nazi out of his beliefs.

Speaking of which, Radam, what makes you think the Constitution is so great? Because it gives us so many rights? It's only a law. Sure, gimme the ol' "it gives you the right to say you don't like it" speech. Yes, I could live in a country where I'm not allowed to. I could also live in a country without Nazis, telephone solicitors, spam mail, spam email, cockfighting, Jehova's witnesses, frivilous lawsuits, accidental child shootings, school shootings, gang shootings, political parties, censored TV, censored radio, censored school textbooks, and Divorce Court.

Keeping people from telling you something isn't always a bad thing, and shouldn't be unconstitutional like you say. However, I agree to non-censorship. I want to see things for how they really are: the way Holleywood executives want us to.

I really cannot tell if I spelled Holleywood right or not. It looks wrong with an 'e'. Oh well.

If you're condoning revoking their right to speak their mind, you might as well kill them.

I'm not condoning revoking their right to speak their mind, I'm talking about creating an anti-racist movement inside their church. De-brainwash them, if you will. Thanks for assuming.

By the way, it's not a religion. It's a hate group with a religious title. You can argue with me on this all you want, but it's just a psychological ruse to make the followers believe they are doing what the Universe intends for them to do.

Also, just because something is in the Constitution DOES NOT automatically make it a good thing.

Radam, sorry it took me so long to reply.

I know taking away the freedom to assemble would be hypocritical in so many ways. And although it is legally a church, it's just a way to make their cause seem righteous (as well as tax exempt). If they were to take power (which they won't) they themselves would remove the rights of almost all Americans (they are against all religions, and members of those religions, as well as every race besides caucasian).

It's like being back in Germany in 1930. If you had the chance to ban the Nazi Party from meeting, wouldn't you?

Yes, let's shield children from reality. That way when they grow up they're totally prepared for adult life.

Even though it seems like I'm a Gore supporter, I'd rather have had neither Gore nor Bush as President. Jesse Ventura should have ran. He is one of the finest persons I know.

Also, forgive me if it's actually 48th in the number of children insured and last in literacy. I can never remember which is which, since they're so close. By the way, I live in Texas, and that has contributed to me not liking him.

The threat of arsenic in our water is simple media hyped paranoia. Much like the Red Scare.

Except that it leads to higher cancer rates, and this has been established by the medical community.

Don't you get it? In 60 years, people will be killing each other for the oil that remains on this planet. That's how much oil we have left. Whether we drill for it now or drill for it later is irrelevant, we're getting that oil. There is no chance that in 60 years, we are going to develop a popular alternative to the internal combustion engine (electric/hydrogen cars are too expensive and are too dangerous for commercial use at the moment, plus, it would not be cost-effective to refit every gas station with liquid nitrogen). In 60-70 years, we might be in another 'dark age'. It's not hurting my pocket book, I don't have a car, but if we keep avoiding using the environment, then we will get _nowhere_. Why do you think there's such an energy crisis in the western US? Every time companies would try to build a new power plant after deregulation, environmentalists would protest it. Well, they're feeling the burn now, aren't they? Call me a bastard. Fine. That's cool. I hope you don't mind if the government puts you in blackout for a month while trying to conserve energy.

You really are the most ignorant person I know. Think back 70 years. There are still horse drawn wagons. Combustion engines have just started to take over. Now go 20 years ahead of that. They say there's only 50 years of oil left in the earth. Another 20 years and they say the same thing. And another.

It's ignorant to say that in the future there will be no viable alternative. There ALREADY are electric cars with the same range as gas cars. And there's that one gas/electric hybrid car that gets 62 MPG. 62! You can't say that in 70 years that number won't go up.
Let's also not forget IT. It's supposed to be some kind of super-efficient engine. Technology that you don't even know about could somehow change the world overnight. It's ignorant to say it can't.

Bush isn't for sweatshops. That's just propaganda. He's just for employment within the hemisphere and around the world. This is the 21st century, if you aren't on top of the game, then you are _behind_. And that's not something to brag about.

Yes, he is for employment. But the only viable employment there is in third world countries is working in a sweatshop, or working for the drug cartels. Bush knows this.

Hard work is required. Strategy is required. Bill Gates would make an excellent stock advisor, he knows his stuff. Yep, they're still people, that's why they make money. If this were truly a cruel society, they wouldn't have any jobs at all (not that I'm for taking away their jobs) I make about $5K a year and one day I'll be making more. Do I complain that Bill Gates is worth $60 billion and I'm not? No! Why should I? He earned it! Microsoft is the most recognized brand name in America today and it didn't get that way through just coasting through. C'mon, he beat out Coca-Cola and Disney for crying out loud!

Rich people don't necessarily work hard. You cannot keep saying that. People inherit it, people win it in the lotto, people are made heads of companies by their rich parents. Some people do work hard. But hard work itself does NOT mean money. Slaves work harder than anyone I'll ever know, yet they are the poorest.

I wasn't changing the subject. Yeah, he had a DUI, 25 years ago (or was it 30?). How the hell does it affect him now? How does it affect any of us? I don't know. I'm sure if I looked at your permanent record, we could all raise something to question your character, too. This is about character, so it's the same subject. Just like my comment that we shouldn't put Al Gore in charge of an economy even though he hasn't participated in stock trading in 20 years. It's part of his character. W's DUI looks like a last-minute attempt by Gore to get votes in comparison.

So if he had raped someone 30 years ago, that should be forgiven too? And if you look at my permanent record, you will notice that I got a curfew ticket once. No traffic tickets, no arrests, no convictions.

He is. He's been governor since 1994, he just beat you right there with experience. Let me tell you something, every time a volcano erupts, there is enough carbon dioxide spewn (?) through the atmosphere that it makes any pollution created by us pale in comparison. It's all part of an inevitable chain reaction. The planet warms up, the ice caps melt, the vapor is trapped in the northern and southern hemispheres, where it then precipitates onto those landscapes. Those areas then become so cool that it lasts through the summer and for many years. We have another ice age. We're not going to become Venus because of the greenhouse effect. I've already mentioned the others.

Ah, but asthma rates and cancer rates will increase with increased pollution and heat. And if he was such a great governor, why is Texas 48th in literacy and last in the number of insured children?

Ha. You'd argue against W. because he has funny hair.

No I wouldn't. Way to judge me. I only argue that he is a poor person and a poor president. Again, way to judge me.

At 4/22/01 10:56 AM, TFX wrote:

At 4/22/01 02:04 AM, kurten wrote:

At 4/21/01 06:04 PM, TFX wrote:

George Washington was also a poor strategist, too. Of the 11 battles that his army fought against the british, he won 2. 1 at Trenton because the enemy was drunk and 2 against Cornwall because the french were assisting.

So being a poor military leader means you are automatically inept as a political leader? Where did that come from?

Yep, it's giving him a bad rep, but I'd rather have a president that says stuff that doesn't come out right than one who sells our country out for money and makes a total disgrace of our nation and the oval office itself. I'm talking about that Clinton guy.

What did he sell again? Was it the beauty of our national parks? Oh, right, that's Bush.

They ASK you to remove any chads that you may have still hanging before submitting your ballot. If you can't follow simple directions, then why should you be choosing the second most powerful man in the world?

So only intelligent people are good judges of character. Just because a person has poor mental abilities does NOT mean they cannot tell a good person from a bad one, or a good leader from an inept one.

Bush did have a big role in this. In that, he let others take charge for him. Bush didn't say 'give them back or we'll nuke your ass' like everyone thought our 'stupid president' would do.

He didn't threaten with war because his advisors told him not to. He's a pawn, and you know it.

I don't either. Let's all boycott big business. You can start by turning off your TV and computer and selling them.

My TV is free. I use my computer to burn my own CDs from songs that I get from Napster. If anything, big business hates me. And if big business is so evil, why are you a Bush supporter?

This is why communism doesn't and will never work. And if the guy below would read this, I think it'll clear up anything else.

So you pay people on the difficulty of their work, and then all social services become payed for by taxes. Communism could work, and never is a long time.

Personally, I'd like to see the abolition of money. Then you'd just be provided with what you need, and everyone could split all the fun stuff between them. The harder or more difficult your job is would mean more benefits, of course.

At 4/21/01 06:04 PM, TFX wrote: Ok, it's time to go Republican on your liberally partisan asses.

I belong to no party, and never will. Let us not forget that George Washington was vehemently opposed to political parties, saying they would destroy the country.

First off, calling Bush a dumbass because he stutters with words is arrogant and incredibly stupid and that's the only reason why people think he's an idiot. I'd love for ANY of these opponents to be able to stand up in front of _millions_ of people and try not to make any mistakes (and if you do, we all call you a dumbass).

I'm not talking about stuttering. I mean things like "an increasing number of imports are coming from foreign countries." As the President he is expected not to sound like a maroon (yes, maroon). Fidel Castro even said he hoped Bush isn't as stupid as he seems. It's giving him a bad reputation, intentionally or not.

:I believe that if you can't remove the entire chad from a ballot then your vote is worth shit anyway and you should go back to kindergarten)

So you're saying stupid people don't deserve to vote. How amazingly patriotic.

Third, despite how much of a 'dumbass' Bush is, did we not get 24 crew members from that plane back without starting WWIII??? Like everyone thought Bush was going to do? You guys don't give him nearly enough credit.

What?!! Bush didn't orchestrate that himself! And there is no way we'd go to war with China anytime soon. The Chinese leadership knows that if there was a war, both countries would be destroyed (them more than us). They don't want war, and we don't want war. They knew they had to give back the crew, lest they be punished with trade restrictions.

Fourth, Bush is for big business. Hell yeah. If you don't think so, remove every logo from every single piece of clothing (shoes, shirts, everything) and say you're against big business. What operating system are you using? What was that? Windows? From that Microsoft corporation? That slice of Big Business??? Shame!

I do not wear logos or name brands, except in the case that I think they look good on their own merit. I do not own a single shirt by Polo or Abercrombie or any other name brand.

Fifth, 53% of tax-cuts for the wealthiest 1%: deservedly so. Rich people, despite what you may think, don't go buy a new car with every influx of cash they receive. All this shit about 'they can buy a Lexus and Joe Citizen can only buy a muffler' is all flying crap! Rich people pay for 7 Lexuses each year (and with returns, invest it) and Joe Citizen pays for about 5 mufflers every year (speaking in averages). Is that really fair as it stands? Some argue 'But they have a lot of money, they don't need it!' That's stupid, to say the least. Rich People made and are heads of the economy. Without the rich entrepreneur and his rich business of mass production, we'd all still be hand-stitching our own clothes, creating our own computer code . . . or even worse, we wouldn't have computers at all. We call that communism, kids.

What's wrong with communism? Just because the Communist Party (which is not communist, it's a totalitarian party) ruined the name doesn't mean it's bad. I'd rather have no poverty than a computer and 36 million Americans BELOW THE POVERTY LINE.

Ok, I think I've said my fill for the moment.

Please read my post on the other GWB thread.