Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/9/03 09:21 AM, D2KVirus wrote: "In this world, there are known knowns, which are considered common fact. There are unknown knowns, which we all know but don't know it. Then there are known unknowns, which we suspect. Lastly, there are unknown unknowns."

WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?!?

Is this the mind of somebody you want to be in charge of your military, who is worried about not knowing what isn't known, and therefore making some shit up and sending in the cavalry?

If you think so, may I suggest Prozac, it might make you a little less gung ho in nature, and therefore a normally functioning human being.

he's just following a logical thought process of knowledge. it originally had to do with intelligence and wisdom but he decided to use it as an example of what we know or think we know in iraq.

the intelligence factor is as follows:
the man who is smart and knows he is.
the man who is smart but doesn't know he is.
the man who is not smart but think he is.
the man who is not smart and knows he isn't.

At 3/9/03 02:03 PM, DenkSmoker wrote: You guys ever watch COPS? You know what amazes me - every time some dude gets pulled over with drugs or guns or whatever in his car, he always gives up his right to protection from unreasonable search. I mean, if you have 50 pounds of pot in your trunk, and the cop asks you (which they always do) "mind if I search your car", for the love of god, say NO! If you're pulled over for speeding, having a broken taillight, being black or whatever, the cops do NOT have a right to search your car. Just say "I'd rather you didn't" and if they give you a hard time tell them you are just exercising your constitutional rights. If they search your car anyways, you have a case to get the evidence thrown out. Anyways, just thought I'd give a friendly tip to everyone :p

well,cops can see whether or not you are suspicious or not. they are trained to read voices and body language. so whenever they see someone acting in such a way that they would deem suspicious, they'll ask to check their car, and they can refuse. most people who have something to hide will try to make it seem like they have nothing so they allow it (before they run away as the cop moves towards the trunk).

At 3/8/03 11:58 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 3/8/03 10:22 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: If history has taught us anything, it's war is ALWAYS the answer. No conflict is ever solved positively without war.

What about that time...you know...oh, what was it...there was a situation...something...um...wait, let me think!

You're right...I can't think of one.

India's independence from Great Britain. i'd say that's a great example.

At 3/8/03 02:05 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Not everyone is a blind leftist with a grudge against the President of the United States. As for Blix, I want to see them. I want to see the drone, the anthrax, the canisters of chemical weapons filler. Right out there in the open, with reporters taking pictures, with it on the nightly news.

i would also like to see it. if the UN is going in there with their objective to find the truth, it should come out for the world to see. and i'm not a leftist! i'd like to consider myself a moderate ^_^

GAH...watch the news, read a paper. France won't do it because it's their policy directly from Jacques Chirac. Germany won't do it because Gerhardt Schroeder got re-elected on an anti-war platform and now has to live up to it. and you forget about Russia, the nation with another veto. they won't go because they don't want to lose the millions they invested in iraq.

At 3/8/03 10:49 AM, EvilBread wrote: Did anyone else see this show? It was very interesting.

i didn't see it, but it just goes to show you the injustices saddam hussein has committed. and you're spelling isn't so bad.

At 3/7/03 11:41 PM, Narcissus wrote: I personally protect myself from many illogical, irrational laws simply because I take the time to research the procedures and codes. If more did the same, we would not even be hearing of this. Americans have become far too lax in their legal (and financial, as well) education. Get lazy and you are bound to get milked by someone else.

i absolutely agree. i think the country as a whole have become incredibly indifferent to practical knowledge more specifically knowledge of our rights as citizens of the United States. this country was founded on the premise that all men deserved freedom as their God given right.

and after 227 years we stand in the face of great adversity and we collapse. our founding fathers would cry if they see what our government has become. we are backtracking. as a country we need to be more vigilant instead of cowering behind our duct tape and plastic sheets.

and now we're at a junction in our history in which we are giving up our civil liberties because we don't know what to do. it's just a preview of what may come in the future as we rely more and more on others to help us instead helping ourselves.

At 3/7/03 09:50 PM, nimmer wrote: for the Iraq crisis

just place the country unde UN mandate; put UN soldiers at the borders so that they can't export (or import) any weapons and put some more soldiers on strategical bases (where they can make weapons). if Sadam doesn't want that then you can still attack

something like that could also be used for the israelic problems.

they can't cover all the borders all the time. which leads me to believe that any kind of border patrol by the UN will be highly ineffective. and what the US is trying to get at here is that they don't like saddam. that is why they gave him an ultimadom: disarm or leave. the figure he won't disarm, and they know he won't leave, so take action and oust him.

At 3/8/03 12:55 AM, Jlop985 wrote: You know, once I believed all the crap that the Bush administration said about democratizing Iraq and getting rid of Hussein. However, there is proof that the war is just for oil. North Korea actually had WMD, and is threatening to use them, and Bush isn't doing anything to stop them, CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE OIL.

you also fail to realize that north korea is a much different scenario for war. in iraq they are going to have battles over stretches of desert. in Korea, if they were to attack, would be completely and utterly urban warfare. plus any provocation may cause the north koreans to advance into South Korea and straight into Seoul, a city with 12 million people 20 miles south of the border between the two countries. so i can't stress enough how different the entire scenario is.

also, north korea doesn't only have weapons of mass destrcution but they are also nuclear. in no way do we want to provoke someone that has one and fire it into one of our allies, ie. South Korea, Japan or into our own country (as yet untested but still possible). if you had, in the palm of your hand, millions of peoples' i would be cautious. also the US sent a fleet of long range bombers to Guam to, in a sense, to flex the US military's might.

At 3/7/03 08:36 AM, basher13 wrote: i'd most likely go with Martin Luther King
diffrent thing is Martin have colony in U.S and Gandhi Have in own country.So is mean the diffrent thing is the age.

you do know how incredibly incoherent that was. it's like you are still residual drunk from last night.

At 3/7/03 08:44 AM, basher13 wrote: Then.

yes, then. since then we have been under the scrutiny of the world. what we got away with on our homeland before isn't going to happen again. the only time america really embarassaed it's self was Japanese internment. and that had nothing to do with resource but civil liberties. with the world as a stage, no one will do anything damning to their own self image.

At 3/7/03 10:31 AM, Das_Gaylien wrote: So youre saying youre that one out off 2000? Of course I wouldnt know if you are, but it seems to me you dont have to be smart to manipulate with people and if youre really smart youll realise that the only thing you can actually use intelligence for is helping other people, I have always been very popular in school for instance, but somehow I have always felt lonely as well, maybe thats because I have a quite high IQ, anyways I started to manipulate with people and I was astonished how easy it was, but actually it just made me even lonelier, it was first when I learned to help others my life became meaningful, and I became less lonely sob" sob".
This is a load of crap to write in a BBS post I know, but I just couldnt help it Tchaaa.

sadly, i feel you. it's almost comically to see "normal" people going about their daily grind and how surprising it is how little they know or realize in life. most of the thing i would write off as common sense isn't so common sense to them. it's absolutely mind boggling to tell yo the truth. now i may be zinged for claiming to be someone that's more of an intellectual, if that's what they call it, but it makes no difference. the fact remains.

i was listening to the news on the radio the other day. none of my other friends do it. and i was drivign my buddy along with me when the noon business hour came up on WBBM radio. the was i see things, economics is logical. everything follows in a pattern and hardly deviates from it. my friend next to me was saying, "OH! that's why i dno't have a job!" as if he found out the earth was round for the first time. don't get me wrong, i love this guys. he's one of my best friends, but him finding out this late that the stock market was over-inflated and that the sudden burst of the internet bubble started an almost catasrophic down turn in the markets turning every bull to bear, every "profitable" internet company going down and bringing the rest of the world with them, having the nasdaq at 2200 and watching it plummet to 1300, that's huge. smart analysts knew that the market was so unstable that it could fall at anytime. that was in 1998. no one cared. they were happpy they were getting rich off of some dot com (sorry newgrounds..needed to prove a point i love you still! don't kill me....) if anyone remembered the Super Bowl it was filled with dot com ads. i'll tell you this now. out of all those companies that made ads then, i can only remember 2. yahoo and monster. but that's getting off topic.

i'll repeat that was 1998. the year is 2003. five years ago. i thought you had to live in a cave for those five years not to know about the market falling and unemployment rising, or at least if you didn't know that first hand, you experienced it. it's either that, or that they just entirely ignore what is going on around them, and that is their own fault. that's it's intelligence or if "America is getting dumber", it's America is getting more ignorant.

At 3/7/03 02:38 AM, mysecondstar wrote: and thenark is absolutely correct.

i rescind my previous statement. they won't starve them. they'll only put pressure on them to lower their prices on oil. not starve them. that is overstating. and it isn't just arab countries in OPEC. if i remember correctly Venezuela is a part of OPEC and they are in South America.

At 3/6/03 12:52 PM, kingflippy9000 wrote: WHAT?! how can anyone think that Bush ISN'T gonna take Iraq's oil. that's just being naive. HELLO?! the Bush family made like all their wealth from oil. Watch the news. We want to fight to get saddam out, spread democracy to Iraq. Saddam should be ousted, I agree. What I don't agree with is the fact that Iraq has been a dictatorship for a long time. We can't force a political system that does not want it. If someone told you to do something you didn't want to, you'd tell them to fuck off, just like Iraq would do to us. Also to ensure there is democracy in Iraq after Saddam is out, our military is being stationed there for 5-10 years. What will they do there? Make sure that WE get the oil supply. So don't tell me that Bush isn't after Iraqi oil or distracting from the fact that our economy is shit, or basically using Saddam as a scapegoat of terrorism because we can't find bin Laden.

consensus is that if the US takes the oil, then the entire world will then see that oil was all the war was for and not the set up a democracy in iraq. it will create a diplomatic nightmare. and that is the last thing that Bush wants to happen.

and thenark is absolutely correct. with a US friendly government in place, they will sell oil to the US under OPEC prices. and since they do that the other OPEC nations will be forced to follow suit. it's the smartest thing Bushie thought up yet. or maybe it was Condolezza Rice? i'd wager it was...

At 3/6/03 07:33 PM, IndecentXposure wrote: My uncle used to be a interrogator for the government and i can assure you the U.S gov will and never would use torture and never allow torture to go on in there presence. What they're probably using right now is sleep deprivation techniques and truth serum.

i used to wonder about that. how exactly does the truth serum work? better question, what is it made of?

At 3/6/03 07:50 PM, Evanauto wrote: Many would say yes, America is getting dumber. However i believe that this is not true. The answer is that sports has taken the minds of the people. Just listen to any sports radio or TV sports debate show (Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, The Best Damn Sports Show, etc.) and listen to the people who call in and rattle off opinions and facts about the any and all sport team in this country.

you can't say, since many people call into these sports shows, that it is "everyone". in fact it probably consitutes a smaller percentage than you would think. let's say only guys like sports (not true, i know) but of those guys maybe 70% really, really enjoy sports. so you have right there only 35% of the population of this country accounted for. that leaves you with.. hat..65% left? so it isn't necessarily fair to say that 35% of the American populous should represent the majority.

The fact is that to many politics and other well- meaning topics dont have the flash that sports does. Sports have heroes that rise and fall on a regular basis(Pete Rose, LaBron James, Michael Irvin). So does politics, (Trent Lott, Bill Clinton, Enron, etc.) but the masses didnt watch Clinton testify, they saw the Super Bowl.

people have different likes and dislikes in this world. some people enjoy sports more than politics. some politics more than sports, or both equally like them of hate both of them. it's all a matter of demeanor. and there was a poll done on the Super Bowl. something along the lines of 65% of the people watching it were watching it for the commercials only and not the game (funny how that number works with the one above, doesn't it?).

the question remains: How is it possible to get people to enjoy politics with the fire and passion that sports have?

people do. i guess you just don't know who they are. in fact, i feel strongly about politics, and i love the Chicago Cubs (curse? what curse?!).

first, thank you thenark for finally writing like a regular human being. i'm grateful ^_^

but back to the subject at hand. in modern day America, i would have to say Franklin Delano Roosevelt. because he had a very debilitating disease in polio, i guess it humbled him in a way. he never took anything for granted. he had great power, being a Democrat he believed in big government, during the Depression and World War 2 yet he only did as much so much as opposed to taking over every facet of government.

At 11/23/02 03:43 AM, untitled-1 wrote: Bill Clinton is the best president ever, and the only one thats not crooked, and o yea, i HATE America even though i live here. 9-11 did not affect me at all or any big american shitty event.

you sick bastard. i had friends who died at the WTC. do you actually think that since you weren't affected by it that no one else was? do you put any thought into what you write before you write it? what sort of indecent, insensitive nonsense is this? shitty event you say? try calling it a shitty event is someone you knew and loved was in there. i can't believe that god damn disrespct and disregard of anyone.

and if you hate America so much, move to Canada. or anywhere for that matter. you take your civil liberties for granted my friend. America may not be perfect, but it sure as hell beats out just about every other country out there.

At 3/5/03 07:23 PM, Grinwald wrote:

At 3/5/03 12:54 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

Totally false. We didn't leave at all. Our troops remain, and an interim government is in place. They're doing much better economically now than ever before under the Taliban. Just because Bush didn't mention it in his speech (He didn't mention Hillary Clinton either, but that doesn't mean she doesn't exist) doesn't mean it's not happening. It's just that nothing too exciting has been going on over there ever since we liberated it.

as i said before, there are about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan as we speak. it takes about 40,000 to actually occupy a country.

and not only did he not mention Afghanistan in his speech, he neglected them from the national budget. this led Hamid Karzai, the new president of Afghanistan, to tell Bush not to forget about them.

At 3/5/03 09:28 PM, Perseph0ne6 wrote: I think the US is well past its prime, though our stanard of living is higher than a lot of countries. China, Japan, Canada, and Great Britian seem to be as powerful or even more powerful than we are.

if any of those countries were to become more powerful than the US, it would have to be China. they are advancing so fast in almost everything. let's not forget that they also have the most populated country in the world. Japan was hurt real bad along with the rest of far east Asia. so much so that they needed help from the IMF. and they are still recovering. Canada and GB aren't really going anywhere. Canada seems to be dormant and just enjoying the scenery and GB can only go so far with the resources it has.

fact of the matter is iraq has enough to make a difference to us. if they get a coutry that will sell us oil for a cheaper price, then other OPEC nations have to follow in order to stay competative in the market.

At 3/5/03 09:53 PM, Perseph0ne6 wrote:
That's such a poetic way to insult some one. :)

flutters eyelashes::

thank you persephone ^_^

At 3/5/03 07:48 PM, Grinwald wrote: Not quite... we have Iraq and North Korea. Who supports Iraq? Just a bunch of student protestors. Who supports Kim Jong-il? Well, let's just say he's pretty light on friends. For a world war, there needs to be an enemy that can't be easily removed. Like, say, World War II, where Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain (all major world powers at the time) allied against everyone else. I think that the US alone could handle North Korea and Iraq, so it should be even easier with all the UN support we have (and yes, we do have lots of UN support, just not necessarily in the security council)

i'm not too worried about iraq. i'm a little more anxious about north korea. but there is something else involved as well.

the problem i see is that we'd be fighting two wars on two different fronts. iraq won't have worldwide ramifications on its own. however, north korea will drag in China just by principle alone. it happened in the Korean War, you can bet your knicks tickets they'll do it again. once China joins the fray, people WILL notice. people will join bandwagons faster than you can say, "bob's you're uncle".

also, an even more delicate situation with iraq will ensue because Osama bin Laden (alive or not) has ordered all cells to attack if the US attacked iraq. then we have terrorists attacking the US and its allies. try not calling that a world war. we have huge China, and invisible terrorists lurking about.

granted all these scenarios are only hypothetical, yet they have a high probability of occuring.

also, Spain is hardly something you'd call a superpower by any respects. also it turned neutral pretty fast.

At 3/5/03 03:12 PM, Soundbyte2kx wrote: heh, see, this is not an issue of the US Vs. North korea. N.K. is effectively a hazard to themself and others. Kim Jong Ill has blackedout the entire country. if we were to attack, we'd take out all his strategic points first, since they still have electrical power.

As for Korea, it would be WAY easier to do in Kim Jong Ill then Saddam... all we'd have to do is have the South Koreans handle it... Maybe with some assistance from their japanese allies.

not to steriotype, but i believe that the typical Southern korean has more then the skills necessary to overthrow north korea. Troop management,resource allocation, strategic planning...

I mean, the worlds top-ranking starcraft players are South Korean... the nation knows how to handle a Zerg rush...

However, in this case, N. Korea dosn't have a prayer. with no discernable infrastructure (other then one to get their leader whores and booze) the nation will crumble under the first millitary attack wave.

north korea's army is much larger than saddam hussein's.

also, you completely forget the China factor. China will feel provoked if they have a democratic country directly on its border. it makes them nervous.

plus, if anyone would attack first, it would be the north. and they could push down to Pusan so fast, we may have well lost all of South Korea. let's not also forget that Seoul is one of the most populated cities in the entire world. evacuating a city the population of 12 million in a country the size of indiana is NOT the easiest thing to do.

plus with someone as erratic as kim jong il, there's no telling if he'll use his nuclear weapons against us at any given moment given circumstances right to him. casualties would be huge. and America doesn't want a war with huge casualties. they want something simple and relatively easy like iraq or Afghanistan. also, kim jong il can see if the US is massing troops in Korea. he might consider that enough provocation to attack first. so this scenario isn't as cut and dry as you'd think.

At 3/5/03 02:56 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Is there some way to remove Nark and make the quality of this board just a bit bette? It's obvious he's just trying to get attention.

amen

At 3/5/03 02:38 PM, Soundbyte2kx wrote: it's not a war about oil.
Okay, it is, but it's also a war about vengence.

You know, i'm taking bets around school for total casualty rate (of our soldiers) for the duration of this war... both weeks.

that has to be one of the sickest bet i have ever heard of. betting on how many people will DIE!? i have friends over there right now and they might just become one of your statistics.

and also, what vengence? what are you talking about?

At 3/5/03 02:48 PM, Soundbyte2kx wrote: sigh, the problem with Iraq... we can't install a new Sha... personally, i think we should work to get the country's infrastructure built (like we did with Japan, Post WWII) then worry about the regeim. We can't allow anyone just anyone to become Saddam's replacement killer. Especially not anyone in his army. or any of his associates... the most outspoken people for peace tend to wind up very, very dead in Iraq.

Personally, i'm in favor of offering them statehood.

Yeah, just welocme them into american statehood, then start settign up buisnesses, police, colleges. give it a year, and they place might as well be called "little america". Then we only have to worry about DOMESTIC terrorists,. and there's allways fewer of them then there are of the foreign types.

Maybe we'll start having to deal with Iranians, turks, and everyone else illegally crossing the border to try and get work in Iraq-sylvania.

Hee hee hee.

that has to be one of the sickest bet i have ever heard of. betting on how many people will DIE!? i have friends over there right now and they might just become one of your statistics.

also, the infrastrutcure in iraq is fine as it is. the US is actually taking steps to NOT destroy them so that rebuilding would be easier.

i never really had a problem with my dog being racist. in fact he barks at everything. wait a sec, maybe he's just really stupid. that wouldn't surprise me too much. he did bark at my Christmas tree because he ran into it.

At 3/5/03 01:13 AM, thenark wrote: The War Is About SUV's, Vehicles That Get Less Than A Mile To The Gallon

i swear by east passing moment your comments are becoming more and more unintelligible. fine, SUVs are making us go war. WHY are they making us go to war? you see you've come up with a point, yet you neglect to back up that point with evidence to your side. we can't argue anything unless you make an argument. it's no wonder that people "dislike" you. but it's not that they dislike you either. it's that you have no point to your posts. plus, capitals for every word is incredibly difficult to read. i hope you know that. and i'm sure you do.

furthermore, 10,000 troops is hardly enough to police an entire country. especially a country rife with terrorists and rogue tribal leaders. normally it should take at least 40,000 troops to be effective in any given occupation. so apparently we are about four times behind the number of troops that should be there.