Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Raw/Rare.

The last thing I heared of the UN trying to do something good was in Somalia. Well, actually the US got everything settled, let the UN take over, then they fucked up, and then we all lost.

I see how it is.

You send in a lot of troops, people yell "That's too much, more are getting killed!"
You send a little and people yell "It's not enough"

What...the..fuck.

Here's an idea for those who went to Vietnam and got screwed up. When you go to war...don't do drugs at the same time.

Altho I respect those who served, but it wasn't only the war that messed up their heads.

Instead of spending so much money to execute someone, why don't they just pay a family member willing to do it $100k?

Personally, if a person who killed someone in my family was sentanced to death...i'd gladly pull the trigger.

It's always seemed to me that White lower middle class people have it worse than say, black upper, poor class people.

For the black poor person, they can get into stuff like that. The white guy is too rich to get things like that and too poor to afford anything of value.

At 7/2/06 05:53 PM, RedScorpion wrote:

I'd be interested in this as well. What were the other 2 circumstances and situations?

They were pretty much just like the first.

At 7/2/06 09:15 PM, backbeatbozo wrote: If you can't take it, learn to ride a friggin bike.

Problem tho is (for a lot of people like me), everday we drive around 1 hour to the job site and require a car to get the job done as well.

However, if we did start to ride bikes, we sure wouldn't be fat asses anymore.

At 7/2/06 11:31 AM, kidray76 wrote:

Actually, the war on Iraq has a major effect on the gas prices here in the United states. So make sure you read all the post before u try to just jump in witha comment.

Also make sure you read all the links *hint hint

At 6/30/06 10:51 PM, Lettuceclock wrote:

He doubled their anti-terrorism budget, Einstein. If he DOUBLED their money and they where still underfunded, it's not his fault.

Oooo, the anti-terrorism budget, which he used for...?

Which is why he had his men set up plans and reports for the new administration. What was he supposed to do when bush ignored the reports, like one entitled "Bin Laden Determined to strike inside of U.S"? How the HELL was he supposed to stop 9/11 when he wasn't in office any more?

How the hell is Bush suppose to stop Bin laden when he doesn't know the exact time/date/and where abouts of the attack? Clinton had 8 years to prepare, Bush had what? 8 months?

The easy solution, take out Bin Laden when you have the chance.

What? He was ONCE offered Osama Bin Laden, but he declined because the offerers themselves where terrorists (remember, we DO NOT deal with terrorists) and he had nothing to charge Bin Laden with since he hadn't proved anything yet.\

Actually it was 3 you twit. Besides, what would you do? "Bin Laden set to make a huge attack on the United States (in this case killing around 3000 people)". I think any sane person would do something about that.

Funny. You refute none of my points. And I find it funny that he was "soft", yet more then twice as much terrorism has accured on G.W's watch.

Well, you lose on that arguement already presented in this thread.
stupid ass.

At 6/30/06 10:21 PM, kidray76 wrote: As u can see, no has supported your arguments, at least some people are willing to consider the president is at least a little responsible for gas prices.

Lets blame the president for all our problems! Viva la revolution!

At 6/30/06 07:18 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

For what, deciding that congress has some power?

No, for giving a break at terrorists.

At 6/30/06 03:54 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

Once again, you can't counter anything I say. You have no points. I'm discussing points of legality, logic, and fact, not defending Saddam the man. If you don't have the intelligence to get that, then you shouldn't be posting in here. This forum is more on your level.

And yet you completely ignored what I said earlier. Im not disagreeing with you (for the most part). I kow they were decades older.

What im saying is just because they were doesn't mean they still don't have a desructive potential. If according to some people that these were just found around Iraq, then do you realize how easily it would've been for Al Quida troops to have gotten a hold of them and used their remaining power to cause damage?

Just because these aren't the same WMDs we've talked about before the war doesn't mean there weren't other good reasons for taking him out. By saying we shouldn't have gotten rid of Saddam and tried helping the Iraqi people is exactly how I expected people like you to try to defend Saddam why working your way around it. What I mean by that is "It's none of our business that people are being slaughtered over there", "The UN wasn't backing us" ect ect.. So much for the famous quote after WWII about the US being a protector of innocents around the globe (by Winstin Churchill I believe).

That is what I mean by selfishness. Just because im adding a little mudslinging humor doesn't mean im not trying to present a point.

Next time, why don't you try a little of that Logic you tell me about.

At 6/30/06 04:53 PM, RedScorpion wrote:

I'm sure you could figure out what the issue was about by reading the first post. Stop being a damn nitpicker.

I can nitpick all I want.

At 6/30/06 02:33 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

Of course, I thought I knew everything when I was your age, but I found the hard way that I didn't. Luckily, I was able to get back on my feet again.

Hahaha.

You're defending a mass murderer. And you're post makes me think today's general liberal is more of a hippie than I thought just a few minutes ago.

Let's take a look at the track record of what a the Liberals in America want:
-Lets go easier on Rapists.
-Lets go easier on Murderers.
-Lets even go easier on Child Molesters.
-Lets not allow people to shoot those who break into their homes.
-Lets have all the consentual sex we want any time of the day with as many people as we so choose.
-Lets legalize pot.
-Lets not go into Iraq regardless of his torture chambers and rape rooms.
-Lets defend Saddam because we didn't like going into Iraq in the first place.
-Lets not be able to even grab a terrorist by the collar when interrogating because we want to consider it "torture".

Other than the "material possessions", that sounds very hippie to me.

You expect to win a war this way as well?

But honestly, did you have to make that big rant of well...blabbering?

And even tho he had them years ago, he still sold them to other countries in which were later used. Hell, you should be glad we went in anway considering that those 'WMDs" are still quite dangerous and could've been easily picked up by Al Quida forces in Iraq.

You're funny. You remind me of those fat people.

"Hey I think i'll eat at McDonalds" *gets fat* "It's not fair, im suing McDonalds".

People like that should be taxed to hell for doing something so stupid.

Wow, your topic title is extremely misleading. "American's unaware oil comes from Canada" when it's actually more like "Americans unaware that Canada is their #1 oil supplier".

You sound a lot like the media.

At 6/30/06 02:27 PM, Elfer wrote:

rather than have these things regulated for you by somebody else in exchange for cable, a bed, and of course, delicious delicious prison food.

Oh, so now you're talking about the liberal paradise.

At 6/30/06 01:45 PM, Kamikazetomato wrote:

The only pro-torture stance I'll ever take is against legally sane rapists. They deserve to get castrated with rusty knives.

Im not saying im pro-torture, im saying that I wouldn't care if they were.

To me however, all people who rape and murder for no reason are insane; none are sane by my standards.

At 6/30/06 01:28 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

Neither did the United States, who had saddam as an uncomfortable ally against Iran. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

That we did go against him before, but didn't bother to finish ( :( ) Funny how you people like to find any excuse to dismiss Saddam of violations. Apparently no one cares about innocents in other countries, all you care about is your own sexual satisfaction apparently and taking no responsibility for any of your actions (that's right you left over hippies).

At 6/30/06 01:43 AM, Lhotun wrote:

Oh yeah, and I agree. All criminals deserve to be killed and tortured. Not only does that make it more fun when you convict innocent people, it will really show how we can beat China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia in the blatantly pointless cruelty department.

Ok, im going to skip the rest since it's been argued and get to my main point. What is with you idiots thinking that im talking about the "potentially innocent"?

At 6/29/06 11:08 PM, FightingForFreedom wrote: Criminals are humans. Regarless of how evil they are, they are still people.

Yeah...and they deserve to die/tortured.

At 6/30/06 01:07 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

That incident occured in the late 1980's. That hardly proves that Saddam had productive capacity in 03.

Even tho when he did use them they were illigal...and yet the UN did nothing.

At 6/29/06 08:42 PM, Pennmannen wrote: So your dad shared a cell with a murderer and a rapist?

Way to NOT completely read the post.

At 6/29/06 08:32 PM, Lhotun wrote:

You act as if every prison in America is a glorious vacation, with murderers getting the best.

No, but compared to "the ghetto"...

Prisons vary widely, from the level of security (in some facilities even phone priveleges are minimal, so you could imagine TV and radio) and from state-to-state.

People who get traffic violations and don't show up to court get worse treatment in prison (for the time they're there) than the murderers and such.

For Example: My dad forgot to show up on the court date. So he spent a weekend in prison. When he got home he said "You know something isn't right when the serial killers and rapists get to watch cable tv, but the minor traffic offenders can't get squat".

Either way, I don't think "prisoners get to watch TV, so we should kill them" is a very compelling argument.

Did I say that? *Checks posts ...nope.

Also, you act as if nowadays it is impossible to wrongly convict someone, which is a purely foolish assessment.

*checks posts again No, what im saying is we're much, much, much, much (emphasis) better at catching killers now than back in the day...when criminals were treated like...well criminals.

At 6/29/06 07:59 PM, Gagsy wrote: The console itself will still be sold out for months whether of not you lot decide to buy one.

Yes, of course. That is until they realize "OH GOD, I HAVE BILLS?!"

It seems to me they're escaping punishment with actually a quite nice cozy cell, with a nice bed, relatively good food, and of course cable tv. Oh, and you can't forget about the tennis courts and basketball courts which they have available through out the day.

At 6/29/06 07:54 PM, kidray76 wrote:

I'm blaming him for the high gas prices now. When you start wars with countries and turn up nothing in the process, well ...................

yes, because us being in Afgan and Iraq with relatively small troops is what's causing the price of barrels to go up!

Maybe...just maybe if consoles lasted longer than 4 years.

At 6/29/06 07:49 PM, kidray76 wrote: Oh, if u want to know about his oil ventures. here ya go. HOw much stock, how much he invested in oil, what the company did over its entire history. Would u like more proof? Or do i need to by a shoe horn to get your foot out of your mouth?

http://en.wikipedia...iki/Zapata_(company)

Again...that's like me saying that because my family has stock in a company (which, we do), now we're responsible for everything in it! Including maybe poor customer service!

Lets all jump on the bandwagon and blame Bush for all our problems. What's next? "Damn President Bush for my boss not paying me this week"?