Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/6/04 01:22 AM, Jimsween wrote: There are some problems with it. First, most of the mexican border is river, and the rest has fences on it,

Minnesota boy thinks he know the border. the mexican government is nowadays very loose about people getting in and out of mexico. And the river is pretty scary, scariest river i've ever met.

which may be scaleable why people, but not trucks. And you still ahve the get the nukes into mexico or Canada, and it is impossible to get it into Canada, and only slightly easier for Mexico.

Much easier, so much so, they could see it and not care.

Second how would he get the money for a nuke, a who would make it for him, and how would he manage to get it without the US finding out.

Somebody very stupid.

Do you realize the difficulty of purifying Uranium or Plutonium? Third, the confusion could very well start a nuclear war, and while Osama might not like the west, I really doubt he wants to see the entire human race destroyed.

He is very religious, even burned down opium fields, because they were against his religion. and did you know that right after WTC's collapsed no one was allowed near it until after a construction team removed items like steal and some other stuff and later were reported liquifying it, so that no one could examine it? btw can you tell im drunk?

At 3/15/04 11:42 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: Am I the only one thinking that if America didn't talk stuff out and just did it, like in Iraq.

And a great thing that was?

We could of said "Fuck you UN, we are going in" we had over thirdy allies without the UN!

And why don't you think we have any now? a good reason, its not the UN, figure it out.

I say Fuck France, Fuck Germany, Fuck Russia, fuck anyone else who doesnt like what America is doing, and just get the job done!

What a speach!! hahahahaha, you really aren't stupid are you? because i thought it was the fact that you need to post rediculous, obsene messages to get attention, it seems that way to me.

It seems to me, that you blew off "think before you act" and went with "they'll love me if i bash everyone". You r stupid, end of story. type something that has a meaning and maybe a source, a topic (not fuck everyone that hates me), and don't live up to my impression of you (its a bad one).

At 3/15/04 07:41 PM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: Although isolationism was what caused the Great Depression of 1929, I'd still give quite a bit to see the faces of people who watched and heard that speech.

Maybe it is time for the Americans to go home, and tell the rest of the world where they can shove their griefs.

Wh ydon't i see you more often? i don't see you at all in the cooky debating in some of the other forums. and i've never seen you debate with "le Rieper" or "Izuamoto". not saying your chicken, not saying it adds up either. It's not a challenge!

I don't believe in god because, i have no reason to. I respect that you stand behind your beliefs, but it was proven by who knows (google-it) that some christians go to church and believe in the teachings solely because they can't make their own minds. diffrent words same thing.

I'm not saying don't believe, im just saying that shouldn't critisize another over beliefs or whatever. because so far no one can prove anything on the subject.

I'm not in favor of a church that takes money away from you. (tything and what-not). And im not in favor of missionaries. don't force anything on anybody!

At 3/15/04 11:53 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: You guys can say all you want, but one fact remains. . .

HA, . . . . . HA HA HA, fact huh? This is no place for petty online name-calling. Do you not get enough attention at home? stfu!

FRANCE SUCKS!!!

In what way? because they would help in a useless war for tyrannical supremicy? its not, but im sure thats the way they see it, because 1. there is no good reason for this particular war, and 2. because america has never helped out in anything unless it aides them a substancial way.

At 3/15/04 11:35 PM, Eskimo_Joe wrote: HA HA HA HA!!!! I dont really have anything to say. . . but once I saw condoms as a topic name. . . I knew I had to post in here!

That just shows you what kind of person you are.

That is so scary! For all you know,

Scary? in what way?

I could be a Walmart security man!

And your going to bust him online? one question for you joe, did you get banned or did you run away for awhile?

At 3/12/04 10:57 AM, darkphantom wrote: Finally somone else see this.

Yes a bias dumbass

Age is no indication of maturaty however pepole still choose to use it as such.

Who? i ask you? because i don't think you know what in the flying fuck you are talking about.

The thing is anyone whos able to vote and is intelligent enough to see this in certain pepole would not go along with the idea as it would lessen the value of there vote...

What is a vote? something you agree with. and if it is so, why not support it? you should really think before you talk out of your ass.

selfish human nature within the majority of the human population.

selfish is it? you ramble. you philiphosize about something you know nothing about. If i were you i'd read that little topic "Read before you post" because your arguement is neither helpful or part of the subject. I implore that you not talk unless you think carefully first.

sorry about the typos, in my last message. like know is supposed to be no, and some other stuff.

At 3/15/04 08:03 PM, dantheman1998 wrote: I think the treaty was a logical one. Saddam had already invaded Kuwait and lost. To keep him from continueing to invade Kuwait or be aggresive, a treaty by the UN was drawn up. Do i think its Fair? Well we have to consider what type of person Saddam was. If he was stockpileing and creating WMDs he sure as hell wasnt going to be using them to protect his country .Saddam didnt give two shits about his poeple.

Saddam didn't want Iran to know he didn't have any. I think its not very fair, i completely agree with the articl i linked to, did you read it?

I think the question was more like"Why does he have WMDs? Hes not suppose to?.

he doesn't, thats what i think, i linked to some articles i strongly agreed with, did you read any of them?

In what sense?

Any

Why did Osama attack in the first place?

I don't believe he did, but i can't argue that he didn't, but a great site on the topic (in my opinion) is http://www.911hoax.com/

I think Osoma wants a repeat,even if he needs some help, just my opion

You should really get the fact that Osama and saddam are two very different people.

If thats what it takes yes

Don't you find that arragant? You think that the US has the right to police the world?

I think australlia still likes us

eh, who cares about australia

Yes basically they were aussumptions but at the time these were logical assumptions

logical to what degree? I find know logic in it.

Back on 9/11 the thought of the ties with Saddam and Osoma were convieced to be much stronger then they are today. And Saddam not letting weapons inspectors in lead to the assumption of him having WMD's.

Yeah but the ties are very weak at best, like someone else said. And saddam had his reasons, like not letting Iran know about it, (an enemy of Iraq). and who gives the UN the permission to snoop around someone elses back door? and what kind of evidence did they have to even concur that Iraq had any?

*NOTE* that last paragraph is somebody elses arguements, sorry for taking it.

At 3/15/04 03:51 PM, hired_goon wrote: Should people be allowed to marry horses?

done and done

At 3/15/04 10:54 PM, Izuamoto wrote: wow, what i stunning intellectual arguement. you sir, should be a senator

actually smarter than a lot of senators, pretty sad. And where are people coming up with the whole definition thing. I've never seen a definition stating that it was a man and woman exclusively, i haven't even seen one discussion gender at all.

Izuamoto, i applaude you. The town i live in has a 45% divorce rate (or something like that). and also a lot of teen pregnancies.

At 3/14/04 11:02 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: I nailed my sister last week, I have a slave who cleans my hosue and cuts my lawn so whats your point?

thats pretty gross.

Social customes are one thing, technology and moral behaviour are another thing. A family has for generations always had turkey for xmas. Now why shoudl they change to say pork for christmas?

what does that have to do with homosexuality?

At 3/14/04 04:25 PM, Jimsween wrote: Stupid Bush and his southern accent.

Why do you think that an accent is what people make fun of him for, maybe some, but the fact is he fucks up a lot of sentences (ex. you are a fucking retard: Bush). And for someone that accuses others of assuming, dont.

At 3/14/04 08:14 PM, dantheman1998 wrote: Bush invaded Iraq not because of Iraq was weakeror because of oil or any of the stuff but because thier was a reason. Iraq had broken the Treaty with UN again about the WMD's and not letting the weapons inspectors in and investigate.

A good reason that treaty was not such a good one. source # 3. Do you think its fair? again source # 3, and a just reason for one such as myself to believe this "Conspiracy", source # 4

If saddam had nothing to hide, then why not let the weapons inspectors in and see? I think its safe to say he had something to hide. Remeber the countdown? Bush gave ample time for Iraq to respond and thier was none. So now thiers a delema(sp)

if you use that to accuse them of having WMD's, wouldn't it also be fair to say "if they had any they'd have used them?" - i think so. And also you'd believe Bush never went awol, even though it took him a while to release the information? and the time wasn't exactly ample (not saying it matters).

1)Do nothing and make the UN look weak by not asserting force

The UN IS weak.

2)Let the UN sort it out which could take years and by then Saddam and the Al Quida could mount another attack(if thiers was a connection and when 9/11 happened this seemed more then true)

could, if your right, but why? answer me that. source #4

3) Take matters in to own hands and take action even if it makes you look like the bad guy

To every country in the world? thats actually the case as i see it.

Bush obvioulsy went with 3 because it was the safest for the american people and make no assumptions about connections and ties and WMD's all that crap.
Would Saddam sold WMD's to Osama?
more then likely
Did Saddam have WMD's?
more then likely
Chances Bush was willing to take by doing nothing?
none

What do you base these assumptions on? i wonder?

A couple of sources:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3430331.stm
2. http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/102205.php
3. http://www.thelantern.com/news...eal.Cause.For.War-405694.shtml
4. http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0311-04.htm

Great points! ! !

At 3/13/04 08:45 PM, EvilGovernmentAgent wrote: These sites are lots of "what if" and theories, with a little actual truth interjected.

Yeah, right, but they usually have some good points namely 911hoax.com, pretty crazy stuff, hey maybe they alter their images/media for entertainmets sake, but nonetheless, i find it pretty interesting.

The mainstream media doesn't blantanly interject on anyone's behalf at least. CNN does a better job of offering me the cold hard facts that I want than most other websites.

I'm not saying that their in on "The Conspiracy" i'm saying, like someone mentioned earlier "It's [alot] more subtle than Fox, but all of those news outlets you named are still a bit right-leaning, or, at the very least, hardly air any leftist thinkers." - Red_skvnk. And if someone (news source) is making a point to make someone look bad (ex. a woman didn't want a c-section because it would make her look bad) they're probably not going to put in a picture of them looking like their best (put in a picture of the woman [ very much homeless looking ]).

I find it funny that people who fight hard for the approval of gay marriage proceed to sterotype people in the south as hicks.

At least in Arizona they consider THEMSELVES hicks. I'm not saying its right, i'm just saying its the best way to catagorize them.

Go nuts.

I will, thanks for permission.

At 3/13/04 08:02 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: Yes, and I agree with your original post, but look here - sites like gorewon.com and bushsucks.net and cheneyisawhore.org, while probably providing adequetely authentic news (warped, assuredly) - no one will change their minds from sites like that. So, look at their sources, find specifically what your looking for, then lexis-nexis the mainstream media for original sources that people won't be so quick to attack. These make much better sources.

Aaaah, great point, but i find it hard to find a site debating such topics, without source of undeniable bias, except globalpolicy.org, it took a while to find a bias statement, but great least-unbias site i know. It doesn't hurt to add your own sources either.

At 3/14/04 12:37 AM, evil_n_stuff wrote: Well, I'd have to say I definately agree w/ you here. I am so sick and tired of people judging others - no one has the right. To ea. his own. Everyone has things, about them that could easily be critized and judged by another. Look, we all have skelletons in our closet, things we are not proud of - that does not make one person better than another.

thanks, glad to know there's more than me, and Izuamoto and some other people, awesome points ! !

And also to add to the topic, do you agree that people having religious stances on the topic, would be any less open to individuals, not supported by their religious studies?

At 3/13/04 09:14 PM, Kyle_22 wrote: Did he convince them to kill, or are you just going by lies you were told? Or am I believing lies? I read his "court rant", I guess I just feel "sorry" for the guy. Maybe I'm just gullible.

You probably know as much or more than about him than i do, so i have no idea.

At 3/12/04 10:45 AM, mpython99 wrote: Something has occured to me, the majority of the people that are compaining about the US government, and its leaders are either under the age to vote or not from this country.

Well, this website doesn't exactly attract adults, and you assume that it doesn no good, i used to support Bush, and now i'm very anti-bush.

It seems though that these people seem to have the all knowing opinion and ideas that can save this country.

If you know something, it makes it a fact, opinions are much different.

I implore you that if you don't have the right to say whats going to happen in this country please don't try to convince the rest of us. It really does no good.

it goes both ways, pro-bush and anti-bush both do their share of cinvincing and debating. and that really is what this forum is for. Politics, presidential election occur this year and it's a hot topic.

Now I'm not saying that one party is better than the other, thats for you to decide, but if you can vote do so based on the issues not on the parties.

I'm not debating which party is better, i have debating the integrity of a candidate, namely Bush. You assume and generilize. And by the topic i'd say that you are bias toward either a republican view or a Bush view (not necessarily the same). I say that because you targetted the "anti-Bush". and i don't think thats fair to target them when a majority of pro-bush do the same (of what i've seen, i may be wrong about both sides).

And don't do any of this vote for the lesser of two evils, actually research the canidates.

I have, thanks for assuming.

I realize this will welcome a lot of people flaming me, but it is something that I had to say.

I respect that, but don't clame to be unbias, when you target a group.

At 3/13/04 10:59 AM, Kyle_22 wrote: I was talking about Charles Manson, and he didn't kill anyone.

well, your right, but charles' following did. he convinced them to kill, so through that i consider him guilty through assosiation.

At 3/13/04 10:59 AM, Kyle_22 wrote: I was talking about Charles Manson, and he didn't kill anyone.

who's that manson guy who killed a whole bunch of chicks in california some time back?

At 3/13/04 03:02 AM, Le-Reiper wrote: Being married with 2 people working you are penalized you don't get a tax break. But as far as Civil Unions being the same as Marriage and getting the same benifits, its not the same. We found out a while back that seperate but equal really doesn't work.

holy crap your smart

At 3/12/04 07:05 PM, letsbuystuffonebay wrote: george bush didnt really start thinking till 9/11.... i think thats what clicked his brain..

well unlike us, Bush is either retarded or a puppet, either way he's still not a good candidate for president.

At 3/12/04 07:41 PM, Kyle_22 wrote: It's off topic, but why is Manson being compared to Dahmer? Manson didn't kill (or eat) anyone.

not Marylon Manson, it's another guy that did kill people.

At 3/12/04 04:32 AM, violent_pastries wrote: You know,
If we gathered together everyone standing against Bush, and everyone they know who stands againt Bush, and everyone they they know who stand against Bush

so on and so forth

and if the chain is unbroken

we might gather...............9.126 people s6tanding against Bush

9.126 people? is that possible? and there a lot morethan 9. even in this very forum i've see more than 9.where do you get your statistics. and everyone for bush go to my thread about why you might not like W.

At 3/12/04 02:08 AM, darkmage8 wrote: A little bias on my part, but I can't vote for a guy who wants to push for the renewal of the Patriot Act, end of story. But that's a whole other argument.

i thought you were pro-bush!! or if kerry wants the renewal im voting Nader.

At 3/12/04 06:46 PM, meowmix_deliveryman wrote: So minorities are normal? i don't get that at all.

I meant aren't, not are, sorry in advance.

At 3/12/04 02:01 PM, Damien3003 wrote: You are 100% correct.

Well, not exactly, if in this case with pope of dope and his statements above, obviously being narrow-minded. I think that when someone is obviously narrow-minded (popeofdope), like i thought he was kidding at first, i think it's ok to call him narrow-minded. i looked it up just in case.

Actually, by definition...they are a minority. That makes them the complete opposite of 'normal'.

So minorities are normal? i don't get that at all.

The man serving you at a restaurant may also molest children. Your teacher may beat his wife. The piano teacher might cheat on his taxes. Sometimes, what goes on behing closed doors DOES matter.

Your comparing something evil to anothers sexual origions, thats really not comparible in the least.

I judge people mainly by life choices and opinion. Those two things make up the majority of what 'personality' is. So though i may not think it, literally, my opinion of the person may change (not neccessarily for the worse) upon learning that they engage in bondage.

Gay people are born gay. it's not a life choice. bondage is somewhat a life choice. it's not exactly comparable.

Looking at things from soley a genetic basis...its not natural at all. lol in fact, it's quite the opposite. No matter what your personal opinions may be...you cannot deny that our DNA was designed for man-woman intercourse.

DNA?!?!?! yeah, but preferences (sexual) is way different than what your body structure works. i see it this way. you may have a guitar in your house, it doesn't mean you have to enjoy guitar.

This is such a trite, beaten cop-out. Alcoholics are not born with alcoholism, obese people (there's a difference from obese and fat) are not born with that in their genes. The crack smoker, the wife beater, the child molester: They were not born with it. They made a life choice. They CHOSE to act upon their desires.

alcoholicism is a disease (not a preference). Fat/obese (no difference) or either born with a slow matabolism or enjoy eating. If you don't act on desires then people that enjoy sleeping with a civil sex wont enjoy sleeping with the opposite sex. And a crack smoker, wife-beater, and child molesters are sadistic (meaning cause harm to others).

I am not anti-gay...i base my arguments on genetics and nature. I support the right to choose homosexuality, just as i support the right to smoke crack.

smoking crack is not anywhere near homosexuality when talking about nature/genetics or anything else for that matter.

But i do not want to see anything in the constitution protecting crack smokers..sorry...maybe it's the asshole coming out in me. But i will agree with you...either your pro-individual or anti-gay...you can't be both at the same time.

Smoking crack is not anything like being gay, and being pro-individual doesn't exactly mean you agree with the mentality of a person but that you support them. In my case i support Kerry because he is the less of two evils. still evil, but less of.

At 3/12/04 11:20 AM, Damien3003 wrote: Ethics of homosexuality are irrelevant. The law, however, is very relevant. I smoke pot, and i believe it should be legal, and i believe i should have a constitutional right to pursue my happiness just like the next guy...but that doesn't change the law, does it? Agree or not, we are all forced to at least recognize the law. Everytime i don't smoke a joint in a mall, or in a conveniant store, i am recognizing and respecting the law, even tho i disagree with it.

I'm talking about the ethics of it. The fact that it's a law is irrelevent. I disagree with a lot of the laws/amendments and do in fact discuss them. Maybe i should add also the ethics of the new law being passed by mr. Bush.

The law, as well, has clear legal definitions for marriage. Everyong in california who are taking a part in this...they are breaking the law. Yes, that's right! The preachers and justices of the peace, anyone who issues a marriage liscence..and yes..the homosexuals themselves...they are in direct violation of the law. This...protest..if it can be called that...should be forcibly stopped imediately. If a bunch of backwater virginians started performing thousands of homstyle abortions in the back of a church, you can bet your sweet, bleeding heart that the federal government would put and angry and immediate stop to it. This is no different.

Again, it's a law, your right, but i'd like to talk about it and it's ethics. if it's a law or not is not a relevent factor, in this thread.

I'm really no anti-gay either...i support the right of the individual...so by default...i support the choice of homosexuality. I'm only talking about the law here, friends.

Yeah and thats not this threads topic. i'd like you to comment/debate on this thread!

Once again, sexual preferences and personal opinions have nothing to do with it. These people, by getting married, are in direct violation of FEDERAL law. That means, good buddy, that every single state in America could legalize gay marriage, and it'd STILL be illegal. And you know, i can use that 'But they have FEELINGS' cop out for anyting. Manson had feelings, so did dahmer, and hitler. Doesn't make them automatically good people, does it?

sexual preferences have everything to do with it, and so do opinions. Manson, Dahmer, and Hitler definitely had feelings, the view of the world, the way they were raised, and the fact that Manson was "clincally insane" have an important role on their feelings/morals/ethics and so on.