Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/13/07 03:33 PM, Memorize wrote:

You're not making yourself look good, I hope you know.

o god your gunna love this.

In Vietnam, we lost 2500 US soldiers in 1 month. "That pales in comparison to the..." 100 per month we have now.

Nah its more like an avg of 300-400. . It gets pretty bad some months but some its kinda low.

65228 civilians? In 4 1/2 years? You people claim it's in civil war yet the US civil war lost many times more than that.

Ok that doesnt seem bad too you Here is a better look at all the deaths. 65228 isnt near civil war standards. it is a massacare. We only lost 2.500 that day, that is the most civilan causiltes we've seen.

Honestly, you screwed yourself in that post.

Im sry Memorize you have been caught with your thumb up your ass.

At 6/11/07 03:07 PM, SouthAsian wrote: But...hundreds of thousands of human lives were lost.They are of the same worth as any other human being.I just get so riled up, when people just ignore all the death.They had lives but they don't anymore.

this right here is the mindset most americans lack. if you consider yourself a human being than you shouldnt see yourself as above any other race. i believe theres a word for that hhhmmmm...racist. We lost 2500 people that faithful day. that pales in comparison to the 65228 civilans killed due to military intervention in iraq, or the thousands killed in darfur. what about darfur, what about tibet, what about isreal. there are so many other evil dictators why did we choose saddam. i guess your just gunna have to look that up yourself.

come on FUnk please give me an debate. you said it yourself no one wants to take u on. well i have and i want my day.

P.S. Demosthenez...awesome song in your sig.

At 6/11/07 12:09 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

Wrong. Winning is when you no longer need to be there. Winning is when you don't need to keep spending 100s of billions of dollars trying to win. The problem is that the American military sees that as losing. "Pulling out will embolden the Terrorists" as we're often told.

:\
sounds like something ive said"when no one has to die"

That's crap. Staying in Iraq emboldens the Terrorists because it's their country. Iraq didn't attack America, so saying "But they're Terrorists! We don't leave 'til every Terrorist is dead!" is what Funk is talking about. You can't count Terrorist attacks and say "There's less than yesterday, so we're winning. But there's more than last week, so we're losing. But there's about the same as last month, so it's hard to say... but if we had a 10 year trend we'd know MUCH better how the war is going!"

I never said that they were terrorists. i just said that since we overthrew their enitre gov't we should not leave untill everything is up and running. i dont care how bad it was before we still need to make it a better place. at least we should we have been there longer than WW2. I love your optimism on how long the war is gunna be"a 10 yr trend"

But no worse than your "its store policy you break it you've bought it" analogy. It's more like a customer signing a 10 year lease on a fine-china shop because staff are too busy throwing porcelain at each other to notice a force 9 earthquake.

no i still like mine better. its true. if a country goes into another country and over throws its leader dont you think its that countries problem. i do.

At 6/10/07 09:16 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Stop seeing the deaths of civilian targets as "success"? It's just a thought. Right now "winning" is determined by death toll. Society is too mobile for land mass to count anymore. We don't consider car wrecks in japanese made cars war casualties from WWII, do we? Therefore, deaths caused by insurgent made bombs can't honestly be considered war fatalities either. Only hard targets have military significance. Civilian targets are easy numbers; it's like saying you beat a colony of ants because you poured burning gas on it.

they are proving a point. there is anarchy everywhere in iraq. and they have the power still to kill at will. these car bombs arent new. its been nearly 4 yrs. we should either have better anti terrorist measures (something i know your against god forbid we actually try and hunt down these bastards) or we shouldnt of ever been there in the first place. i dont remeber saddam running a plane into one of our buildings. and where are you going with this death count to win the war. no one sees it as that. winning is when someone doesnt die.

and that whole japenese car analegy. horrible. if a bad guy makes a bomb and it does what it is supposed to do and kills people that is a direct attack by that bad guy. your just trying to downplay the fact that the insurgents are winning.

Meh, the phrase "nations" is a little outdated. The whole nation concept is based on land borders, which, thanks to worldwide media and automobiles, is too dynamic to measure. Instead, what we are left with are cultures with no land boundaries. The only thing we need to fight is the cultural belief that there's some kind of math of warfare where if nation 1 loses 5 civilians, and nation 2 loses 5 civilians, they're both even. However, mathmatically that works out to 10 dead civilians, total, end of story. There is no equality in war, therefore, you can't use an equal sign in war mathmatics. If people HAVE to kill each other, they should at least be killing people who have a chance to opt out of the battle.

But yeah, the "nation" concept doesn't seem legitimate to me anymore. We need another way to determine a valid target other than "not one of ours".

ok ya ill give you its not a struggle of nations. but we never saw it as a war against iraq. just the unruly factions. and like i said earlier them killing civilans is just flexing their muscle. plus it helps that in their eyes they are not civilans. their either shites or sunni. and it has the whole struggling ghetto mantality"you kill someone from my crew ima kill someone from yours".that is another dynamic of the war you have to consider. it is a civil war.

At 6/9/07 05:36 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Because screw Iraq. Those people are foreign. Plus, they do that whole nepotism thing. And they burn camel poop for fuel. Well, the poor do, and that's all that matters. Sure, they had and used WMD on their own people, but it's not our fault they used it all before we got there to stop them. That's the UN's fault for not following through on Gulf War 1 and pissing off an entire culture with their bearaucratic half-assery.

For one thing the kurds are far from their own people. the whole idea of that its their fault for not being able to be a functioning country unless its with a king is sick. they shouldnt be held responsible for something like that. kings are all that have owned the middle east. and i think it is a good time for a change. now does that give us the power to go into their country and control it like our own. no. its more a reason for a revoultion inside the country. thats what mexico has been doing for centuries and its seems to work for them. i think were there for a few peoples personal gain. and that is why i dont support the war.

and dont get on the UN for the first gulf war. we lead the effort and we left just as fast as the UN did. it was our war then just as this is our war now.

Conversely, I don't support the occupation and rebuilding Iraq because... well, I'm not going to repeat myself. Read line one of the first paragraph if you're confused. No, seriously. READ IT UNTIL YOU'RE SMARTER.

this is where i dont get your arguement. the rebuilding of iraq is the only reason i see a reason for staying. its store policy you break it you've bought it.

Summary: I support war=yes. I support peace-keeping anti-terrorism strategies=no

so you support the pointless killing but not the cause. sounds like every red neck i have ever talked to about this subject. KILL THEM DAMN TOWELHEADS. THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!

*waits patiently for people to attempt FAILtastic straw-man ad-hominem attacks..... by fags.

At 6/7/07 10:37 PM, Ham549 wrote: Ah yes the electric car... Well I will give you some expearence with somthing a bit smaller my electric bike. It is a wonderful thing but.... Evean rechargibeal batterys run out and can't hold a charge anymore I have had to get new batterys for my bike and they are $$$. Now Lead Acid batterys are big bulky hazordious and heavy makeing the old electric cars troblesome. With recent new battery technolgy this has improved. But rember batterys are $$$ and still don't hold as much energy per ariea as gas does. The Tesla a new sports electric car that kicks @$$ runs off a ton of laptop batterys and just cauclate how much desposeal pluse new batterys would co$T. But don't get your hopes down because carbon nano tube batterys are being studyed that recharge in minuts not hours hold the same charge as todays high end batterys are light weight and last for years. When thoes come out Hellow electric car hell maby evean plane bote and everthing elce

OK ill give that i bet batteries wont hold as good a charge. but remeber were dealing with huge industrial batteries. these things are bigger than laptops, and not just one of them more like 8. these things can hold a reliable charge. there not your little rc car. but think about it your have hundreds of moving piesces in an internal combustion engiene. thousands of things can go wrong and can end up costing more than the cars worth to fix. in an elecrtic engiene there isnt even a transmission. there are a handful of things that can go wrong with an electric engiene compared to an internal combustion engiene.

At 6/7/07 05:28 PM, TheThing wrote: No, the pockets of gas/car companies weren't getting thin (we had a democrat in office, so businesses were controlled), but rather the owners. At the time, it cost more to recharge your car every 6 hours for 6 hours then it did to get gas every 200 or so miles. It was also impractical; like I said, you had to recharge the car often or it would just die in the middle of the road.

back then they would comute over a hundred miles. the avg work comute is 30. anything over is impratical. and if you watched the movie it was an equivilent of 20 cents for every liter of gas if you paid for the electricity for your car. tahts seems like a deal to me, even 10 yrs ago.

does anyone remeber the mid 90's? if you do you might remeber the electric car boom. you couldnt buy them but you could lease them. they were new to the market and completly revolutionary. the fact remains that for some reason near the end of the 90s all the electric cars were repposessed and deystroyed. idk about you guys but i bet someone felt their pockets getting a little smaller. and we have yet to see them make a comeback. in this day and age where gas is 3.50 a gallon and ethanol is much better it seems like electric cars would be a god send. but what do we get, hybrids. it has been proven that electric cars aren't the wussie machienes they have been made out to be. if you watched the history channel show about new cars it goes indepth on electric cars that can match up with some of the worlds fastest cars. there has even been a land speed record set with a car ran off of D batteries. but that shouldnt matter. what should is that electric cars can run all day and all you have to do is plug them in when you get home. and if your eco concious enough you wouldnt even have to pay to charge them if you had solar panels.

heres a link to part of a documentary about this.

remeber when clinton put in the automatic weapon ban. it went up a few years ago. but we saw something like a 30% decrease in murder by gun. seems a pretty solid conclusion.

welcome to the real world. all the politican does is push his own agenda. this is a great base for his running for president. it cements his position on abortion and gives him a decisive background. the last thing a cantidate needs is to be called a flip flopper.

At 6/6/07 01:31 PM, LordJaric wrote:

At 6/6/07 01:24 PM, Nitroglys wrote: is there any proof he exists. if so enlighten me.

He can't proof it but it can't be disproven.

ya i already said that.

At 6/6/07 07:54 AM, LaurenAwesome wrote:

Your proof is shit....I just had a conversation with my friend about this yesterday and at least he made sense. I still believe there's a God though. Whether God's a force moving everything or he's a giant person sitting on a cloud, there is an almighty creator, which I like to call God, that puts motion into everything and make the universe go round. And until you have so good fucking proof.....SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! >;O

well if you had a conversation and i take it by the way you talk you won so bring your proof. i intrested. from what you say above you sound like every other agrugment i got in with my friends when i was 14 and an athiest. you are perfect example of what i said earlier with religon being pounded into your head since you were born. you just need to take a step and think about it. is there any proof he exists. if so enlighten me.

i bet that inside of our lifetime we will see crude oil dry up completly. its hard to believe but ya think about it at the rate we take it and the millions of years it takes to make it something has gotta give and its either gunna be us or the supply.

everyone is so critical of our ways of govt. but i have never seen someone purpose solutions. Ya capitalism can fuel growth and prosperity but it steps on a lot of people in the process. Communism is great if your a tribe and not a large community. it is equal to everyone, everyone eats, everyone has a car, everyone gets paid the same. problem is people. explotation and corruption is why the USSR fell. I guess what im asking of you is to add a solution to every problem you cited other wise i could of looked up in the forum history and gotten the same things youve said.

At 6/5/07 07:15 PM, WORLDTHREAT wrote: It's impossible to prove or disprove god, but it is possible to prove that it's very unlikely that god exists with all the other possibly true religions, and of course the lack evidence of god's existence. U've made 3 small points that don't really prove anything at all

Thats the point. proving or disproving relgion is impossible. im glad you took out the time to point out that i talk in circles. but what is sadder me talkin in circles or you posting a completly pointless post that has nothing to do with the topic. thank you for contributing.

the religon argument goes both ways. on one hand there are years of people believing, giving to, and dieing for the church. either genius or idiocy. but there is no solid proof of god existing. think about it in a court room would the god exists arugement hold up. no it is all hearsay and written word. there is no solid proof jesus rose from the dead or turned water to wine or any of that. it was just told to us and we believed it.

But the science side has a harder case. they not only have to prove their argument of evolution they have to disprove the arcaic belif in god. it is so ingrained into us few of us question it. and those who do are automaticly ostrascized and outcast by the church.

My personal belif is that religon once had its place. to explain the unexplainable. why we die. why should we live. where we go when we die. is there more to life. most of these questions can be answered by modern science but we are so scared of aknowleging it. beacuse it would put in jepordy our very upbringing

At 12/29/06 10:20 PM, LolOutLoud wrote:

I hate people like you. You are the same kind of person who you hate. Your an arogant asshole who can blame mistakes on an entire civilazation. You can't judge The United States on the words of a few. and if you knew anything bush has a 23% approval ratting.

At 12/30/06 10:12 PM, Oblivia wrote: It´s a proven fact that conservatives are the most generous people in America. The poorer states tend to be helpful to one another, as for the rich states like California and New York are the least generous. I believe that liberals want the government to give out welfare checks to the unfortunate is propbly because they´re too greedy to give away their money to someone whose life is downtroden and in need of help unless the have to pay it through tax money. There´s also the part where the government is too greedy and the possibility the government is being selective of who they consider is unfortunate, like special-interests groups or something that´s unneccesary. I think a good way to help the unfortunate is help them to find jobs so they could get a better living rather than bunch them all into a ghetto where the only kind of people to look up to are pimps theives, drug dealers, and other hardened criminals. By doing this would improve the economy, save us money, and in the long run America would earn a wonderful reputation.

I figured out your problem. all these conservitive states that are helping out have to. they have to hand out money beacuse red states have the highest rate of unemployment. all of the top 5 states with highest unemployement rate are red. And whats this liberals don't want to give "their" money. Its not like the Conservitives are pouring money out of their pockets. Now wether the red states are giving out more money per person or all together isn't made clear. The welfare system in itself isn't one of my favorites. it gets raped and abused to much, but it is needed. your rant is a dream and near impossible. You forget that these people on welfare might not want to help themselves(which is the reason i dont like the welfare system) and just are lookin forward to the 900 dollars a month. i dont think a simple change of system would help the economy or save us money.

communism redesributes wealth amoung the population elimanting classes. Communism believes in gov't in fact true conservitism believes in less gov't, out of the lives of people and such. Communism believes in believes in bigger gov't seeing how they would have to manges social education, welfare, healthcare all that good stuff. Your just really confused.

The thing is Kerry didn't mean to make fun of our military. He intended to make a joke at the expense of Bush.

"You know, education - if you make the most of it - you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get US stuck in Iraq,"

It makes sense if you think about it. plus why would anyone make fun of a solider, let alone someone in a position as kerry where their carrer hinges on everything the say.

Hate and money are the only things that keep the world from achieveing utopia

I think that most news now is bad. at least news that means anything. we have to focus on these bad things beacuse they beg our attention. The sad thing is that there is more bad news in the world we dont hear about, a lot more bad news.

how can you have an anti-political, political party?

At 10/27/06 09:20 AM, Mr-Coffee wrote:

I will not hire someone who refuses to recognize law and order. I will not call these people citizens because all they're doing is raping our economy and driving wages down.

Not illegal immagrants just immagrants. dumbass.

It shouldnt bother anyone what race jesus was as long as you understand and follow his teachings of equality and peace.

At 9/23/06 09:54 AM, DethX wrote:

How could Jesus be American? The USA did not exist when he was hanged.

1. Jesus was crucified not hung.
2. The puritan settelers thought that when they came over they were making a new holy land. that they were the chosen of god and that america was god chosen land. The settelment Salem is part of Jerusalem. See.

He is not the son of God, either. Scientists have proven the existence of someone thought to be Jesus, but whether or not he had magical powers is still questioned. A lot.

i dont believe in the bible but there has been some proof of cities and stuff that existed that the bible mentions. ( i dont think that gives it any credibility but some do.)

Christian images of Jesus are apparently racist, too. :o

Its just that white people were christans for a longer than any other race. So after thousands of years of beileveing this their not ready to just accept that any other race would be their savior. Plus white people think their better than any other race so they wont beileve that their savior is black or sumthin.

At 9/11/06 02:46 AM, -Hyperwave- wrote:

You sir are a dimwit, the point about the 747 hole in the pentagon wall? the wall is reenforced concrete and steel, i dont think the plane would just make a cartoon style perfectly plane shaped hole and at those speeds the plane would break up when it hit that sort of structure, the answer to your question? the planes wings broke from the force of the impact. Its all mechanics.

Ok so the alluminum nose and fuseloge punch a hole then what keeps the wings from doing anything at all. if you look at the pics there is only fire damage.
Picture. . so the planes wings just desentegrated with no impact trace. or are you saying they were sucked into the hole. All thats there is a hole about 60 ft wide.

At 9/6/06 11:13 PM, GrammerClock wrote:

BZZT, wrong again, this bill didn't allow the president to go into the Iraq war at will, because if you recall, the Senate approved a vote to go into Iraq!! So the Senate agreed with Bush that Iraq war was necessary. But you're claiming he over-reached his boundaries.

Wow, you fail at debating.

the law that would be passed would allow him to just attack at will.

BZZT, sorry Einstein. If you read it, the bill allows the president to attack any country that has attacked or assisted attacks on the United States. Iraq didn't attack the United States. The bill was in response to 9/11, and the Senate approved a vote to invade Iraq. No boundaries were crossed, now stop your whiny liberal propaganda and get over it.

OK then all we need to do is point a finger. And the senate thing, if your read about it, gave him the power to threaten war. Therefore they didn't fully support the war just gave him the power. I know kinda sticky...but true. I'm not saying he crossed any boundries, but knocking down boundries doesn't help the cause for justified war.

Ok GI Joe, I'll remember to come to you when the country needs to make military decision.

Saying it wouldn't work?

Btw, Islamic extremism isn't a subculture, it's an ideology. Terrorism is a tool thats scapegoats Islam to justify killing innocent civilians.

No, Islam, christianity, and buhdism are ideologies. Islamic extremist is a deviant sub-culture of islam. Your just supporting the ignorance thought that every islamic person is a terrorist. So the ideology of islamic extremist is the teachings of the koran, just like the bible beaters in the mid-west are

Through misinformation, not a lie. I just want to make sure you know.

It was pretty much all hearsay.

No, we'd still be there, because we believed Saddam had WMD's, and that he was willing to use them on us. That alone is a reason to go to war.

Have you ever seen the episode of the boondocks where the 2 white guys go into the 7/11 try and steal some beer, and when stoped by the arabian clerk they stop and start threating to put his gun down, A gun he didnt have. And when he didnt put down the gun they started shooting and other arabians came out of the woodworks to fight against the guys. I just like that for a view on iraq.

Sorry to bring you down to reality, but American can't tackle the world's problems all at the same time. We stopped a genocidal dictator, liberated 25 million people, and now you're whinign about how we could've done more? Oh please.

I was being sarcastic. If we just conquered a country for their dictatorial leader we had a lot better choices. Its just kinda handy to have a footing in the oil haven that is the middle east.

Only because your idiocy and ignorance warrants it, I will quote directly from the page:

"The reported plots aimed to strike a wide variety of targets, including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, ships in international waters and a tourist site overseas, the White House said last night. Three of the 10 were directed at U.S. soil, officials said. The government, they added, also stopped five al Qaeda efforts to case possible targets or infiltrate operatives into the country."

Don't you dare tell me, "oh lol, no bombs were involved, so it's okay". That's retarded. Even though you don't even know that, and it's safe to say that if terrorists wanted to take down the Library Tower in Los Angeles, they'd use bombs.

Ok, people who hate america with goals. Sorry i had to say it. Now we may have thwarted some supposed attacks, but 10 is hardly a victory. Plus the thing that i really hate about these bustings is the ways they got busted. Phone tapping and all the good stuff that comes with the patriot act. I personally would die in a plane crash to protect my phone. And like Thomas Jefferson said "those who are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for some libriety diserve neither."

So yeah, read the article before you dismiss it all in one blanket statement. You're wrong, the US gov't has thwarted more terrorists plots than the liberal media wants you to know, get over it.

Ya liberal media, whatever. If more have been twarted show me.

Deja Vu
This Sounds Famililar.

A nice view on the Pentagon crash.
A better pic to do the math yourself.

The thrid wall punch out.

FBI says they weren't wrong with terrorist's names
And the significance of this? It only tells you that there is no truth in the identity of the hijackers and linking them to Al Queada that justified the invasion of afganistan.

Fun Facts about the Bin Laden tape.