566 Forum Posts by "Nitroglys"
Man i would riot for those raids. Such bs. That is just straight up trampling all over the 1st ammendment. We cant even critize the gov't without our doors being broken in. What is this country coming to.
Thank god someone called him out on it. It is totally a move to get hillary's women's vote. She was govenor for what a few years, and only a mayor before that. In the highly likely case that Mccain dies in office do we really want her to lead the country. She can barely lead her children to proper safe sex practices.
At 9/2/08 11:34 PM, Riech wrote: During WW1 aka The Great War... America joined the Allies fighting WW1 April 6th, 1917... why?
A. Britain falsely sent America propaganda that there were atrocities being committed against people in Germany.
Its propaganda. its supposed to be slanted. both sides did it. Germany tried to trick Mexico into attacking us promising their land back. That is war for you. And we would have joined the British side anyway if we had to. Propaganda or not.
B. Britain Fabricated a wire from Germany to Mexico promising to help take back land America had annexed in return for aid...
i googled my ass off lookin for this conspiracy theory. Nothing came up. Sorry but LINK PLEASE!
C. German U-Boats sank the Lusitania, which was carrying an American citizen... what the US wasn't told was that Britain violated international law by transporting arms on an unarmed cruise liner.
Um... make it plural. More than one American citizen died. 114 to be exact. and yes the Americans had been running weapons and munitions to the British. WE ,America, were violating the referendum. We were knee deep when we got into the war. What we did was censor the fact we were aiding the British to make it seem like an innocent cruise liner was randomly torpedoed when the Germans made it perfectly clear they would sink the ship before it even left the harbor. We knew what we were getting into. But we just turned it into a reason to start a war.
Facts: France was still soar towards German after their humiliating defeat during the Franco-Prussian war, and they wanted revenge.
Fact: There has been a long standing hatred between the two countries over the Rhineland for centuries. Their hatred will never change.
Germany didn't start the war, Serbia did.
Yes, But Germany capitalized on it. What does this have to do with the US involvement.
Once the war ended, France forced Germany to sign a treaty breaking thier economic back, and leaving them in poverty so bad that the people cried out for change... and they didn't care where it came from, giving a man like Hitler a window to take over power.
Um...Ya... we forced them to sign it too. It was to make sure they couldnt have the production capability to start another war like this. Yes it made Geramans mad but what do you do. Once they surrender say "Oh yeah thats good enough, now get back to your country and think about what you have done." no. you have to make them pay. Just how things are.
What would have been different had the U.S. joined Germany, Austria and the rest of the Axis? Well for starters, how many countries would have been freed from French and British imperialism?
Ha. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. hah ah ha ha. well for one. How many countries would be under direct German authority. There would be absolutely no freedom. Just another oppressor. and by then Britan was rolling back their colonies, and who has the French imperialised?
Would Hitler have come to power? Unlikely... though it is possible that a similar movement would have take place in France, had Germany forced them to sign a treaty... though I doubt this would have happened...
Why not? If they would be crying with change, why wouldnt this foster a French hitler. Your method of thought is sketchy. You make Germany sound like the good guy.
Thoughts?
You need a history lesson.
At 8/31/08 11:14 PM, RKThrilla wrote:At 8/31/08 11:11 PM, fahrenheit wrote:Indeed...At 8/31/08 10:32 PM, Nitroglys wrote: I have no idea what you even said, or if it had any meaning at all.It helps to have a basic understanding of the English language.
We will never get along..
Its just human nature...
ha, thx much. perfect.
At 9/1/08 12:08 AM, TheMason wrote:
KT isn't telling the whole story. It happen in Denver. In fact there are reports that police pepper-sprayed demonstrators.
Furthermore, radicals on both sides have been planning on disrupting both conventions. And police have infiltrated groups in both cities. So no, it's not bad publicity for either side.
ya. guess i didnt think about it. Fear is a good way to control people. it shouldnt put it past either side to overextend their authority. But i dont think either politican, or anyone directly close to them, had anything to do wiht the raids. just a classic response from the local gov't. *deep breath and sigh* freedom.
Wow. Between the pointless ranting and the bad spelling. I have no idea what you even said, or if it had any meaning at all. I am completely befudled. All i know is that if you have some issues with people having issues with you. Maybe you should get yourself checked out by the hypocrisy police.
thank you. that was funny. especially the bit about the guys grandma being killed in a car wreck at the end. priceless.
that is just too much. I mean i wonder if anything like that was done for the democratic convention. That has to be some bad PR for the republicans.
I love obama and how he will lead this country to properity. but i dont like how much they stress the fact that he is black. if we were normal people we should all be able to look past that and see him for his true credentials. We need to get past the color barrier. and really. why did they have to make his acceptance speech on the anniversary of the "I had a dream" speech?
At 8/9/08 07:05 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Communists come in many shapes, names and sizes and you need to be on the look out for them. Have you heard of socialists? Perhaps social democrats? Democratic socialists? Leninists? Trotskyists? Maoists? Marxists? Anarchists? Social communists? Anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-communists? Anarcho-liberals? They like to say they are all different but they all follow the same line of thought stemming from one man, Karl Marx, and they are all based on the same logical fallacy.
you have some problems understanding some economic basics so i'll try to explain it using a very simple method...Cows.
Economics 101: Models explained - with Cows
SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows, so you give one to your neighbor.
COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and gives you some milk.
FASCISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and sells you some milk.
NAZISM: You have 2 cows. The State takes both and shoots you.
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.
Wow i have never seen such wter washed crap. Sure they give it a leftist slant by saying the corporations are wrong, but thats what they want. there is no oil in america thats what we went to iraq for, thats what we went to afganistan for. by 2010 America and Europe as a whole will have 0 oil reserves. importing being our only source we had to make our steak in an oil rich land. its not a matter of amount of oil either its our refining capacity.
anyway fuck oil go electric.
At 7/12/07 09:15 PM, K-RadPie wrote:Maybe you forgot when Bush said in December that ""Were not winning"?That was back in December. You know, before the troop surge, which decreased violence roughly 80%
Too bad when your own source discredits 50% of the New york times ratings. Plus we dont control half of iraq. 40% is the "green zone" the rest is just as uncontolled.
And there are polls that show only 18% of americans polled think the US is winning in Iraq.69% doesn't think we're losing.
Nor winning, hardly 10% think we are winning. the rest think were at a stalemate.
hell ya. this is what we need. these guys are getting away with too much. there are too many ken lays just walking out from the court room. Corruption that endangers human life should be seen as reckless homicide.
At 7/4/07 01:24 AM, JakeHero wrote:2nd postNot really, we've been bombing iraq from a decade before the iraq war.What the fuck do you mean "Not really?" Bombing bunkers without these arms is like trying to take out a Soviet Tank with an M16.
Ya sounds like a job for something that can "bust" these "bunkers". What in our arsenal could possible do that.
And maybe if we actually knew anywhere in specific where a threat was we could kill him instead of hundreds of innocent people.Well you've obviously never heard of a smart-bomb. Can't say I'm surprised, nor are you familiar with the protocols of the Air Force or Navy pilots when it comes to ubiquitous areas of innocents.
From the man who damns the UN for banning carpet bombing. But it smart bombs are only good if you know where to put them.
You know all i hear on the history channel is how this rocket can hit within 3 meters of it's target. why couldn't those be useful.I really wish TheMason were here to set straight your utterly devoid mind of military strategem.
Hhmm am i wrong?
Well they kinda hated us before we invaded,Right, and they were justified in their attack on 9/11?
Did i say that. Im pretty sure i didnt but you seem to know so much more than i.
but they really didnt like it when we took over their country.And we didn't like it when they attacked us first.
that remains to be proven. but thats a different arguement.
sounds like a good enough reason to hate/kill us. And you cant say that iraq hasn't become a proving ground for terrorist.So terrorist have your blessing to kill Americans?
i didnt say that. what i meant is when it comes to bombing their country overthrowing their gov't and doing nearly nothing to help rebuild i could see how they would want to kill us.
They flock from surrounding countries just to get a chance to kill an american.Islam is a problem, not the arab themselves.
Wow, what religous intollerance. I see it as the extremist are the problem.
We are hurting ourselves by trying to "help" ourselves.Your brilliant military strategy would encompass sitting around waiting for the terrorist to attack because if we act offensively we could piss off the savages in the Middle-East.
You can not deny the fact that us being in iraq is hurting us. wether it be finnacally or by death toll. our presence there is why most of them hate us.
in other words us being iraq is only making it easier to kill us. we are in turn helping them.Because killing them is helping them? Basically, all you've done is confirmed every stereotype I plastered on liberals when it comes to terrorism. Fuck, every leftwinger that tried to debunk what I said also proved this.
So what if were killing them. what is a insurgent death, they are ready to die. what im saying is if we are there only more are gunna come. I see no end to the war in iraq. and if you do please im sure teh enitre country would love to be enlightend on your solution over there. If things keep going the way they are we are gunna be there for decades. Killing all the insurgents we want, itll be awesome.
sry for the tripple post.
At 7/4/07 01:23 AM, JakeHero wrote:At 7/3/07 09:05 PM, Nitroglys wrote:Their numbers are not limitless. If you sincerely believe this I suggest you take a remedial mathematics class.
With recruitment way up since we have made ourselves target, they don't see us as liberators they see us as occupiers.
A common symptom of liberalism, defeatism.
Maybe i should make myself clear. even in your sourse it tells of how al-queda has a centralized organization that governs major terrorist attacks. Then they have a large decentralized following, terror cells, these are the people we see in the news now. Yes we have crippled al-queda's by killing off their leaders, but shit thats something the CIA could of done on their lunch break. A total war on terror is pointless being as to eradicate it completly is entirely impossible beacuse there will always be someone willing to strap that bomb to their chest.
I don't know whether or not you realize what a hierarchy is, but typically the most competent are at the top. The more al-Qaeda officers we kill the harder it becomes for al-Qaeda and such other terror groups to operate. Infact, one military analyst stated that the reason all these terrorist attacks have been foiled is because they're losing more and more experts in the fields of terrorism and are being runned by less skilled and expert leaders.
I want a list of all the terrorist attacks that have been foiled thanks to the United States war on terror. The british had one, but those dumbasses took it as a carry on.
Considering international terrorist need to coordinate their activities on a worldscale, get finances, and piece together the operation, gain munitions, then yes, it's a certainty they need leaders to orchestrate all the above.
Good job their doing. so many cells are out of the reach of funding. And all they need to coordinate is an able bodied soul and access to the internet.
Way to prove you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701610346 /Al-Qaeda.html
Way to help support my arguement. Yes they do have a super structure and people to coordinate attacks. But like i said earlier they have an even larger decentralized movement which makes up most of what we see in our news headlines about car bombs exploding, children dieing and so on.
Then you should hate welfare and entitlement programs. Why don't you come out against those?
Wow what a typical conservative remark. You are the only people i know who would take money away from poor people just to add a little more to your war budget.
Right, because ousting Al-Qaeda out of one country is deepening the hole and killing thousands of islamofascists. Do you not realize that the world is a better place with these assholes dead?
Too bad we didnt see that as such when we funded the afganies during the russian invasion, or the taliban during the afgan civil war. Dont forget Osama was an CIA agent.
I'm pretty sure when the US retaliated against Japan that the war also escaladed. Your thinking would dictate that WW2 wasn't worth fighting.
Ya too bad we arent fighting a single country and a standard way. There is no way you can compare the war on terror to WW2. O and we happend to free half of the known world in less the time the war in iraq has taken so far.
And a full scale invasion could solve this.Um, yes it does. If we overturn countries where terrorist have asylum, then this means they'll have one less base of operation and place to funnel money, weapons, and recruitment.
Ya Iraq no longer a haven for terrorist. and afganistan, already taken over by the war lords and poppy fields are rampent(something the taliban put a stop to) plaugeing the afaginstan people.
Some countries are more prone to support terrorist. Your point is invalid.
Ya maybe the countries that hate us, face it we have more enemies than friends. and how many of them happen to be islamic countries. Fuck to be "safe" we would have to take over the entire middle east.
Another leftwing show of gutlessness! Tell me, would you prefer it if we stopped trying to prevent these kind of devices from falling into terrorist hands or allowing them have free-reign on what they can acquire? It seems to me you are consistently trying to give the terrorist every advantage by cutting the legs from under our attempts to prevent such things from transpiring.
And what have done to prevent this. We should be sending troops to the old russian labratories. Hell we didnt even protect iraq's nuculear facilites just the oil ones.
That's all you've proposed. By that, I mean you're quick to criticize military action to purge terrorism, but do not have an alternative. So one could assume you're apathetic about terrorism and would do absolutely nothing to stem it from occuring again in the US.
Fuck that, i said the war on terror is pointless. We could have done all what we have to terrorism through the CIA. And you know it.
I guarantee if you said that to a person whi's family member died in the embassy bombing, 1995 WTC Bombing, 2001 WTC Bombing, people kidnapped in Kenya, the other people kidnapped and killed, USS Cole sabotage they'd punch you in the face.
What about what you said earlier, end welfare. We just need to chose i battles better. Hell if we wanted to help a country in need out maybe we should help darfur, tibet, or even ourselves. O i know why beacuse they are not up to their eyeballs in oil.
I don't think lefties gave two shits about it from the begining.
Ya we pretty much hate america.
Right, because running away from a problem like a chickenshit because the going gets tough is how wars are won. I can imagine what your ilk were saying during WW2 "I was over Pearl Harbor when the first american soldier died." Do you know what would happen if your brand of thinking was what American politicians went by? We'd of left WW2 and allowed Imperial Japan to expand and Nazi Germany go uncontested. Infact, I wonder what would happen to every war we've fought if the politicians thought the same way you did.
Well im sure i would be just the same if in WW2 we attacked japan and germany for personal gain. Hell we havent even helped rebuild Iraq yet. nearly 5 years and no progress. no wonder they hate us. And i dont recall al-queda saying they were gunna conquer the world and set in place a new world order.
So you're saying killing terrorist, turning their infastructure upsidedown, taking the fight to them has accomplished nothing? You have a very interesting view on victory.
Ya so does Bush. according to him its been mission accomplished for a few years now. The problem is that iraq has no working gov't, they are knee deep in a civil war, and we are doing nothing to stop it.
Blame Bush and Clinton for that.
how about i just blame bush. It was his war on terror and he still let him slip. it was in his
Afganistan and Iraq are in shambles,And no shit. I doubt there's a place on earth that would be the epitome of prosperity after being involved on the losing side of a war.
The countries themselves are still in shambles. What are we just gunna bomb and move on. We should still be in Afgainstan rebuilding villiges of innocents we killed. instead we are building military bases.
Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism,You really have no idea what you're talking about? Are you going to tell me those Baathist deathsquads and Sunni militants aren't terrorist?
Let me refrase that. He had no connection to al-queda as bush so ruthlessly pressed pre-iraq civil war. Hell he has even come out and said there wasnt now. remeber that was most of the reason we supported invading iraq.
And what about in vietnam when we burned countless villiges to the ground, or supported the indoniseans in their killing spree in east timor. We are just as bad as them, every country has its skelotons in the closet.
At 7/3/07 07:37 PM, JakeHero wrote:At 7/3/07 02:21 PM, Nitroglys wrote:
No, I don't. I said you can't kill terrorism since it's a word, but you can kill as many terrorist as possible. Their numbers aren't limitless, even right now al-Qaeda is declining because their high-ranking officers and masterminds are repeadedly killed.
An organization of killing who's members are limitless. sounds pretty hopeless to me. What is a couple of high ranking official if they can replace him. Hell thats if they need a high ranking offical. most terror cells are just a couple of guys with bombs. No leadership their other than their internet sourse.
It is just another problem we are throwing mass amounts of money and american lives at and it will never get better.This is the stupidity and folly of leftwingers: if the fight looks to arduous or hard give up. So tell me, how is ignoring terrorist going to help? It seems to me it's better we're actively trying to get them than sitting around with our thumbs up our ass saying terrorist don't exist or aren't a big problem.
Im sorry i can't stand for something that is just a huge money hole. Here we are throwing billions of dollars at the problem but the hole only seems to get deeper. The war on terror isn't working, it has only escalated it.
I don't know whether you realize this, but Russia doesn't have track of all it's WMDS. Not only that, but smallpox and anthrax are easily proliferated, ths means they could acquire Cold Era WMDs or make their own with all the components surfacing.
And a full scale invasion could solve this. Unless we can invade and control every country that hates us we will be always in fear of that missle from long away. And its been how long since the collapse of the soviet union. I think were pretty well screwed on controling what seeps out of that country now.
Because that's all your argument amounts to. You don't want to endure or spend the money on combating terrorism because it's "throwing mass and money and american lives at the problem" despite taking an aggressive stance is the only reasonable strategy.
Ya i said ignoring won't help the problem. But i never said it was a problem we had to deal with.
But who said terrorism was a major problem. Car bombs aren't going off in our streets. Just the streets of countries we've invaided.It's a problem when it takes the lives of 3000+ americans. Leftwingers get more hysterical when some retarded kid jokes to death on a toy, because the corproation didn't ensure it was "safe," but go out of their way to undermind us or even apologize for the terrorist.
Im offically over 9/11. I was over it when we lost the 3000th troop, i was over it when we lost the first troop. The entire middle east conflict has accomplished nothing to benifit the war on terror. We have yet to get Osama, Afganistan and Iraq are in shambles, Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism, nor did he even have WMDs. It just see the war on terror as a failure and no longer support it.
Like i said before a full scale attack isn't the answer.It was with Afghanistan and it would be with Pakistan(Even though I'm in favor of eradicating that whole hellhole with biological warfare) and Iran. These people are savages and understand power, not negotiation like some would love to believe.
Ya, what a success Afganistan was. We came in bombed the shit out of towns, ran the taliban out then got sidetracked with Iraq. Since then The taliban has taken power once again and the people of afaganistan are in as just as much danger as they were before the war. Obviously we are the same. We entered Iraq Illegaly and attacked without the approval of congress. We have a man in power that also knows only power, and knows what he(and his friends) wants and will do anything to get it.
Um, that's considered warfare. And since the Useless Nuisance has forbidden the use of clusterbombs and bunker-busters it'll be harder to get these assholes from airstrikes alone.
Not really, we've been bombing iraq from a decade before the iraq war. And maybe if we actually knew anywhere in specific where a threat was we could kill him instead of hundreds of innocent people. You know all i hear on the history channel is how this rocket can hit within 3 meters of it's target. why couldn't those be useful.
What do you mean "Gives them a target and reasons to blow us up?" You saying that these islamofascists had a reason after we invaded Afghanistan?
Well they kinda hated us before we invaded, but they really didnt like it when we took over their country. sounds like a good enough reason to hate/kill us. And you cant say that iraq hasn't become a proving ground for terrorist. They flock from surrounding countries just to get a chance to kill an american. We are hurting ourselves by trying to "help" ourselves. in other words us being iraq is only making it easier to kill us. we are in turn helping them.
At 7/2/07 11:47 PM, JakeHero wrote:
I am aware you can't kill terrorism, what I want to do is kill as many as possible
Right there you admit the war on terror is hopeless. It is just another problem we are throwing mass amounts of money and american lives at and it will never get better.
and prevent them from acquiring biological and nuclear capabilities.
We have enough sattilites, spies, and intellegence that we will know whenever a silo goes up. We can criple them sevirely without being in the country for more than hour. A full scale invaision is not the answer.
So tell me you're strategy for stopping terrorism? Sending them a fruitbasket or just ignoring the problem?
Ignoring won't help the problem. But who said terrorism was a major problem. Car bombs aren't going off in our streets. Just the streets of countries we've invaided. Like i said before a full scale attack isn't the answer. we can do just as much as damage from the skies as we can on the ground, if not more. The War on Terror is the problem. it just gives them targets and reasons to blow us up.
At 7/2/07 07:14 PM, animehater wrote:At 7/2/07 07:09 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Another point for The robber barons. Final score Barons-1776 average joe-0.Alot of bitching coming out of you huh?
alot of debate coming out of you.
I watched that racist agenda pushing propaganda. The only thing it made clear is that Bush is not part of a cult bent on world destruction. But you cant say he is some kind of saviour, He kinda has a tendency to push us closer to an apocolypse, between starting your hated WWIII, and going full steam toward a 3rd ice age. It is obvious that the war on terror is more than a holy war against the blasphomous, it is a coorprate dream. with the Bush familes closest business friends being handed contracts to wage war and then to clean up afterward. So Maher was wrong about Bush being in the same sect but he has some of the same futures.
And like elfer said. you cant fight terrorism effectivly. There will be no WW3 steming from terrorism. There will be no former terrorism front. It Hasnt even touched america effectivly since 9/11.
Wow i never thought bush would have the balls to put himself into further danger but he always seems to have the tendency to surprise. Another point for The robber barons. Final score Barons-1776 average joe-0.
The worst part of theis all is that it is another restraint on the american people. It is not a leveling of the field it is sliting the throat of having an opposing enemy. It takes away the voice of anyone who wants to oppose anything. It is a continuation on the patirot act. They are slowing chiping away at the doctrine that makes us free. When will the facisct regieme end. O ya in 08.
At 6/29/07 04:34 PM, Demosthenez wrote:At 6/28/07 10:12 AM, Nitroglys wrote: I dont recall saying i love said people. I just hate Bush beacuse he is the leader of my nation. Higher on the list of resonable hate.Sorry for the crudeness, but do you realize how stupid that sounds?
Ya, it can be taken that way. i guess when i wrote it i thought people would assume the reason for me hating him is for what he has done with his leadership oppurtunity of this nation. I guess i would hate anyone that fumbled that bad.
At 6/28/07 02:21 AM, Gul-Dukat-DS9 wrote:At 6/27/07 08:53 PM, Nitroglys wrote:I find it amusing that a ton of people just hate Bush but DON'T hate Kim Jom Il, Castro, Mugabe, Putin and so on. For these people, I hope they get to live under the governments of any of the aforementioned leaders other than Bush.
People should be tolerant, atleast till they get to know someone. Some people desirved to be hated *cou-Bush-gh* but you shouldnt hate on race, religon, creed, philosophy, etc. they are just a part of what a person could be. The war question is also a question of value.
I dont recall saying i love said people. I just hate Bush beacuse he is the leader of my nation. Higher on the list of resonable hate.
Sure war has its place, i wish it didnt, but if you love it it shows a little about yourself. Just like if you love peace it shows a little about yourself. so closed minded people can make an assumption on who you are. maybe those questions are a tool to show how closeminded you really are. O and he is not judgeing, the quiz in unbaised dont be mad you scored like a nazi.Unless somebody thinks in a way that involves you getting dead. For some reason I don't see you loving such an individual.
If they think in a way that is disrespectful to me in anyway and they don't even take the chance to get to know me, i immediatly lose respect for them. Golden rule man.
And finally, scoring high in that quiz not necesarily make you a Nazi. If a Communist took, this quiz, and he decided that he hates capitalists, capitalism, richs, rock music, etc, etc, and got ascore of 15 or above, would said Communist be a Nazi? No, he would not be a Nazi, because said Communist probably hates Nazis too. He would be just another genocidal asshole, just like nazis are, but hes not nazi, but just communist. See the problem? A communist would end up being just as bad.
Wow you tried so hard to make that point. But you missed the most important part of my post. Like.
At 6/25/07 10:39 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: This whole quiz is flawed. It's designed to make people feel like they should be open minded and tolerant of others, and if they're not, then that's bad. Also, you skew the test with your own opinions about what is and isn't open minded, like the whole war question, which you later almost sortof backpeddled on, but not really. I find that offensive and quite intolerant of you. Maybe you should be looking inward on your elitist self, before judging others and trying to convert them to play like nice children.
People should be tolerant, atleast till they get to know someone. Some people desirved to be hated *cou-Bush-gh* but you shouldnt hate on race, religon, creed, philosophy, etc. they are just a part of what a person could be. The war question is also a question of value. Sure war has its place, i wish it didnt, but if you love it it shows a little about yourself. Just like if you love peace it shows a little about yourself. so closed minded people can make an assumption on who you are. maybe those questions are a tool to show how closeminded you really are. O and he is not judgeing, the quiz in unbaised dont be mad you scored like a nazi.
I really wish things would go back to the good ol' days, issolationism, FDR, less corruption. it seemed better when we focused less intently on the world problems and more on problems in our own country. that is waht the UN is for.
At 6/24/07 09:48 PM, Memorize wrote:At 6/24/07 08:15 PM, Nitroglys wrote:No no no. If you read one of my links it says that after recent recounts he had 6000 some extra votes. more than 10 times bush's win margin. the fact i was goin for was that they hired a company to specificly illegally block possible democratic voters.Who, as you said, could be felons, therefore = no voting rights.
Those were prevented to vote at all. these are votes "thrown away". difference.
If you recall they stoped the offical recout with some 175,000 votes left.How do they stop with that many votes left when he demanded more than 1 recount?
How exactly does that work?
When the president's brother is govouner. how exactly they let it slide is a problem though. but i doubt the new york times is wrong.
and maybe if some people were'nt wrongfully accused to be felons they could of voted,maybe if dead people didn't vote.
Maybe if the military could vote.
Ya those things are wrong. but it doesnt change the fact that normal law abiding citizens were denied the right to vote simply beacuse of who they were gunna vote for.
and more likely would of, democrat. and who knows how many ballots got thrown out beacuse of the confusing butterfly ballot.sourceConfusing?
Dude, that ballot had the NAME and PARTY with a FUCKING ARROW POINTING THE WHOLE.
T'was not confusing.
I dont know how you were out of the loop on that one. it was kind of a big deal. people didn't get them and it made national news
Sry to be such a bug but can i have a source. i cant seem to find anything about the subject.May have been year 2000.
But hey: Huzzah!
Quite a few CNN people funding the DNC.
shazzam
Touche. makes me like CNN more.
At 6/24/07 04:47 PM, Memorize wrote:At 6/24/07 04:36 PM, Nitroglys wrote:been reputedly found as biased and inaccurate.Dead people also voted. And the military from overseas was blocked in the vote as well.
The reason Bush won Florida is because of Ralph Nader.
No no no. If you read one of my links it says that after recent recounts he had 6000 some extra votes. more than 10 times bush's win margin. the fact i was goin for was that they hired a company to specificly illegally block possible democratic voters.
"these public records reports sold by Choicepoint have been shown to be highly inaccurate. According to a report by Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum, Choicepoint's public information reports have a very high error rate. In her sample, 90% of the reports obtained contained errors"And after all of the recounts, who still won Florida?
If you recall they stoped the offical recout with some 175,000 votes left. and maybe if some people were'nt wrongfully accused to be felons they could of voted, and more likely would of, democrat. and who knows how many ballots got thrown out beacuse of the confusing butterfly ballot.source
Ya except CNN has been endited on charges of corruption. Plus a company can't donate. it has to be a person in name to donate to an election campaign.The CEO of CNN.
He was the largest contributer.
Sry to be such a bug but can i have a source. i cant seem to find anything about the subject.
At 6/24/07 04:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:
It's not pointless, it's to show that it's both easy and simple to make an acronym from anything.
Touche on that point, but my coincidince was funny and relavant.
At 6/24/07 04:09 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:At 6/24/07 03:35 PM, Nitroglys wrote: O-peration
I-raqi
L-liberation
isn't that crazy?ha.
Nitroglys
Is
Such
A
Bitch
Crazy huh?
So you come at me with a pointless accronym. I thought that the connection between the war and oil was crazy. now you just make me think you are as well.
At 6/24/07 04:00 PM, Memorize wrote:At 6/24/07 03:35 PM, Nitroglys wrote: They fixed the florida election with the help of a sibling and a hired private company to make sure no felons got to vote.Um... it's pretty common for felons NOT to vote.
Why would you want a criminal to be able to vote for the most powerful seat in the world?
ya your right i dont. But it would make me feel better to know that they weren't targeting blacks. beacuse blacks are like 1000% more likely to vote democrat. Flordia's state gov't paid the company millions of dollars to make this list and it has been reputedly found as biased and inaccurate.
"these public records reports sold by Choicepoint have been shown to be highly inaccurate. According to a report by Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum, Choicepoint's public information reports have a very high error rate. In her sample, 90% of the reports obtained contained errors"
Kennith lay was one of the main contributors the the bush jr. electionAnd CNN was the biggest contributer to the democrats, but you don't see me complaining about it.
Ya except CNN has been endited on charges of corruption. Plus a company can't donate. it has to be a person in name to donate to an election campaign. the legal limit to give is $1000 dollars. all these guys did is gather thousands of names from their country clubs, bussiness, etc. to put names on their checks.
O what would i do without you memorize? no one would bicker with me.
