Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/6/06 08:04 PM, GrammerClock wrote:

How is allowing the president to fight a country degrading the checks and balances provided by our constitution, when the constitution itself says the it is the president's duty to protect the country?! No, don't answer that, your stupidity might rub off on me.

When he's wrong. thats why we have the checks and balances. the law that would be passed would allow him to just attack at will. You know what a good idea would be for rooting out a terrorist cell would be, covert ops. send black box groups into their organizaiton. Because terrorist are a sub-culture, if you take over the entire country your just inhariting their problem sub-culture.

Go cry me a river with all your: "wah, bush is violating the constitution", BS. I'm getting tired of it, and it means less to me the more I hear it, especially because I know it's not true.

Heres a tid bit of advice. If you dont want to look like a complete ass don't insult someone your trying to have an intellectual debate with. It brings nothing to debate and just brings down how people look at you.

And when did they say that? Oh right, back in 2003, how silly of you. Now how many politicians are claiming what we know to be wrong now?

So, thats how they sold us the war. We probably wouldn't be there right now if they didn't make the terrorist connection.

25 million Iraqis liberated, genocidal dictator out of power? I'd support a war with Iraq even now, despite knowing they don't have WMD's.

So you think we should tackle all the African dictators next, and then go take out Iran for their nuclear program, or Chavez because we labeled him a "terrorist". we need to pick our battles, or no battles at all. If we get hit we don't need to take over 2 countries.

Oh snap son, you just got told!!

Ya all those terrorist with no bombs. Just people who hate america.

not to mention the big loophole they left for the baby formulas

It's not a loophole, it's an exception. Babies need to drink, durr.

Aww but when the exception is able to be exploited it becomes a loop hole.

No, Cheney's just a crazy old man, I stopped taking him seriously when he spouted off the "F" word at a Democratic senator for mentioning Halliburton.

Ya well him and rove are still the ones pullin bush's strings.

How do you derive the meaning of life from a video game.

At 9/5/06 10:04 PM, GrammerClock wrote:

That bill is actually a good idea. It doesn't benefit the Bush admin., it benefits America. The constitution states it is the president's duty to defend America. Not option, it's his job. If a country attack America we don't just have a right, but an obligation to strike back.

Grammer your supporting the degredation of our system of checks and balances. That sounds like a good idea right.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Unless you're not refering to Iraq, but there are few who would argue we never should've invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.

Thats not what the white house said. : At 9/5/06 05:02 PM, emmytee wrote:

How many US troops are dead now?

2,650+, I think. Why you ask?

Do you think they died for a just cause.

Who are still ready and willing to kill innocent civilians, awesome.

Now the entire middle east hates you: bush has pretty much garunteed another attack at some point with his war on terror/Isalm.

And they will faill?

And the bush administraion had nothing to do with that, not to mention the big loophole they left for the baby formulas

Well, I'd like to know what led you to that conclusion (I can safely assume ignorance, but I'm sure there's other factors).

You said it yourself Cheny made that comment and if he didnt come out publicly and appologize for it, it is a ligeitiment white house statement.

Charles you need to stop spuing nut uhhs out of your mouth and back your statements with some evidence.

And Jos Im sure that larry isnt paying for the rebuild, he probably got some gov't contract for the rebuild. The bombs are a posibility, placed on key places of the structure's interior. and calling off the secruity officers and dogs. Ok why was the size of the hole in the pentagon so much smaller than it should be when a 747 hits it. And the fact that all of the planes that should of been covering the U.S. were placed outta their coverage zones especially the ones covering D.C.

The whole story is just to skechy to trust in full.

Ok lets look at the finacal angle of 9/11.
-Larry Silverstein, the towers owner, took out a multi-billion dolllar insurance policy months before 9/11.
-It created a prempt to war on the very vague phrase "terrorism" he used to create contracts with his business buddies, like dick cheney's company haliburton, and hand out gov't money.
-The oil companies new steaks on the oil line through afganistan.(worth billions)
These are someting that anyone that is atleast a little human would stop and think about atleast doing it. Not to count he was well within his power to do so.

At 9/1/06 11:48 PM, AccessCode wrote:

Maybe, just maybe on a couple of those. All he's really saying is that the majority holds all the decisions. It's not like the minorities win in the presidential elections.

Ya well majorites change. Dont you think its kinda handy to have a choice.

At 9/1/06 11:28 PM, Nylo wrote:

That's not true at all. Our democracy still holds the Republic in check and vice versa. If the republic could do whatever it wanted we'd already have George Bush's social security reforms taking place and a constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

The democracy is still functional.

No, thats not waht i meant. What JHMX is talkin bout is pretty much fascism

Yeah im pretty sure this isn't democracy at all. this is exactly the opposite of democracy.

At 8/26/06 11:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

The word is spelled "condescend," and it's not exactly the appropriate term for what I did. The way I'm talking to you NOW is condescending, what I did with regards to RATM was point out both their good and bad points.

Well maybe the whole part where you sarcasticly said "Yep, their lyrics just REEK of awesome intelligence." kinda made me think you were condescending them.

Example; I think they were excellent musicians, and it sucked that they broke up the way they did. I like the fact that they have politically charged lyrics, but I despise the fact that teenie boppers tend to act like Rage was the ONLY politically charged band out there.

but those are an example of a part of the Rage audience. A part that i pity.

And anyone whos take their political angenda seriously won't some band dictate their thoughts, but more inspire them to think outside the box.

Ideally, yes. But this is not an ideal world.

touche, but bummer for them

Saying something like RATM dictated mass amounts of people political thinking is like saying rap music is the reason theirs murder in the hood. Its an arrogant and reckless accusation.

Point duly noted.

At 8/26/06 08:09 AM, SirSeraphdeFallen wrote: well i own the program, but ou still have to buy the code to unlock the unlimited mp3. me personally i save it as a wav and then convert it with cool edit pro. that is the easy solution. use a different program to convert from wav to mp3.

i dont think i have cool edit pro but I think i need the code.

At 8/26/06 07:36 PM, Proteas wrote:

:" Yep, their lyrics just REEK of awesome intelligence."

If I had the chance to do so, I would strap Zak De La Rocha to a rocket and launch him into the sun. Why? Reason one; "breaking up a perfectly good rock band" because of his own overinflated ego. Reason two; Influencing a generation of pseudo-intellectual Anarchist wannabee's who let RATM dictate their political agenda to them.

"You managed to praise and condensend them in a phrase. And they may have spawned some anarchist but thats not what they were about. They were out to make the Gov't come clean about blood on their hands, wounded knee, rights infringment, etc. And anyone whos take their political angenda seriously won't some band dictate their thoughts, but more inspire them to think outside the box. Saying something like RATM dictated mass amounts of people political thinking is like saying rap music is the reason theirs murder in the hood. Its an arrogant and reckless accusation.

I just need the code you get so you can have unlimited mp3 conversions so i can put them on my phone.

Im look for anyone who uses Magix music maker and has the code that allows unlimited mp3 conversions. Please can someone help me on this.

One thing, I know it might seem like a shoe-in now, but trust me we'll find some way to shoot ourselves in the foot on this. And another thing a few might step up and speak out against bush and his actions and one of 2 things might happen.
1. These voices will die out and no action will be take for their cause(more likely)
2. They might spark a revolution against the administration and we could end up making bush leave office with a little blood on his hands.

Either way I will stand behind their voice.

Isreal in itself is a mistake. It should of never been created, we knew it was gunna make drama in the middle east and it has and it is all our fault. the only thing we can do is let it play out it's reign of terror till it pisses off the wrong country and gets deystroyed. Diplomacy would be useless. and about the photos more power to them. Its not like their the only ones that doctor photos for better press. Its part of war, political oppinion, and the truth is that Hezbollans are getting massacared every day and the more they can make Isreal look like the blood thirsty sicks they are the better.

theirs enought in circulation now just downsize production.

At 8/13/06 02:22 PM, Kasualty wrote: Our attempts at modernizing Africa are like upgrading a horse to a car by mounting wheels on its legs.

Ok so lets just give up on Africa. Lets dump it into the ocean and try to forget about it. God man there are millions of people there suffering there and it shouldn't take Angelina Jolie for us to discover that.

At 8/9/06 04:10 AM, SlicedOranges wrote: If any of you seriously think there's any kind of government conspiracy in any fashion whatsoever, I loathe your existance.

thanx for your retarded and useless comment on our topic.

These are supposed to help my arguement for connection between bush and iraqi oil.

1

2

At 8/8/06 10:36 PM, Grammer wrote:

Fine reamin brainwashed.

That makes no sense. Listen, if you can prove your little conspiracy theory then fine, try it and I'll tear your argument to shreds, but right now you've got nothing but speculation.

What do you think i did after i said that.

Well I'm sorry to be the first one to tell you, but America can't solve all the world's problems at the same time.

O but it can spare time for the remotely functioning gov't and say it has been seeking WMDs(when palestine and Iran, two neighboring countries of Iraq, have been mineing materials and conceving nuclear fission and North Korea and Simlar states which needed to be talked down.)

How They Did It.

the more you sell, the more money your get.

Which is not connected to the price of gas itself. Still, you have failed to prove that Bush or the Iraq war has a hand in manipulating gas prices.

But History shows us that the UN fails at pretty much everything it's done

Ok so their not so succesful. But it says something when your not even backed by the worlds worst peace keeping organization.

You say that as if it was America's or the Bush admin. fault. When the Bush admin. called for the UN to do something bout Iraq, and a vote was held for invading the country, 4 voted for it. Four, that's pathetic, and only echoes the fact that the UN was willing to sit idlely by (yet again), while innocent people suffered.

Well they knew Iraq souldn't be at the top of the list to take down

Ok now all you gotta do is get, you know, proof that we went there for WMD

OH. MY. GOSH. In my history of posting in Ng Politics, I haven't heard an argument that stupid in... three weeks. Let me elaborate.

1.) I don't feel I need to go and look for all of the evidence that amassed pre-Iraq War that told us that Saddam was looking to build WMD's.

Bush's main argument for Iraq was WMD. I don't need to prove that to you, it's common knowledge, and is akin to me proving to you baloons can float in the air. But I will anyway:

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Now, we later found out that this was wrong, but it is clear that Bush's main reasoning for the Iraq war was for WMD's

Ya i guess he should of done his homework better cause now we've stormed a country damaged it to a point where we have to stay and occupy.

2.) I don't need to prove anything to you. You need to prove to me Bush did something wrong. Let the accuser stand accused, and innocent until proven guilty.

Just like we should of done with Iraq. We should of been dead sure that Iraq was harboring WMDs and then invaded. But why do it to Iraq when its neghibor Iran has a nuclear program.

and Saddams link to terrorism.

I never claimed there was, genius.

Bush Did

No, I said it made no sense, because your claim lacked basic punctuation, spelling, and grammar, and wouldn't be considered even a complete sentence. But concerning your point, since you like to pretend you're smart, our troops signed up to protect our country. It's their job. Many troops, and I know this firsthand, believe what they're doing is the right thing.

Ok and im sure that the troops are overjoyed their dieing everyday in Iraq.

You're not a military analyst, you don't know the circumstances of the troops in Iraq, and to put it bluntly, you don't know what it takes to win a war. I'll leave that to the generals of the American military, thank you.

Guess the secretary of defense is a bad analyst

http://breakingnews...q_progress_continues


Oh snap.

HA! from a site called redstate.com. You know what too, i even looked on your site to find something extremely conservitve to show how red it is but got sidetracked to see their limits of conservitism (how blue they got). But They didnt have anything, Nothing first i searched WMDs being wrong and couldn't find much of anything, then got daring and searched for patriot act and not one result showed. Kinda slanted huh.

Five of the Iraqi Army’s ten division headquarters, 25 brigade headquarters, and 85 battalions in the Iraqi Army now have the lead for security responsibilities in their areas. "Additionally, to date 48 of 110 Coalition Forward Operating Bases have been transferred to Iraqi control.

Heres my statistics

To say 30 years is an exagerration would be an understatement.

That lone fact doesnt flaw my arguement. He may of asked but the fact is he went anyway without the backing of a lot of countries. Plus its not like we tried really hard to play diplomat with the countries.

If other countries want to sit idlely by while an oppressive genocidal dictator ran a country, that's their problem. Personally I think genocidal maniacs should be held accountable.

There are plenty of genocidal dictators around. We just pick the nice and juicy ones.

Society been letting them do that for a while now, actually. So yes, is the answer.
Gas prices are being hit hard all over the world. Not just America, and not just Iraq.

HHmm...

Oil Company profits

At 8/8/06 07:17 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 8/7/06 11:38 PM, Anti_Noob wrote: Not really, I haven't notice this response until recently.

You're both stupid. Happy now? Ya, my name is spelt iFncorrectly, but the world will keep turning.

At 8/8/06 12:57 PM, Nitroglys wrote: How about this logic, Bush comes to the oil companies and say if they fund him and help get him into office then he will help get them a steak in the mother of all oil feilds if they give him a percentage.

No, the pink unicorns still make a whole lot more sense.

Fine reamin brainwashed.

If you told me America did nothing to help poor African countries then you'd be lying to my face, and I'd have to ask you to leave before I'm infected by the stupidity of such an assertion.

I didn't. We may have droped a few big macs on them and killed a few arms dealers but nothing close to liberating and installing a democratic gov't. And we got close to starting once with swomalia but got our feet wet and ass wiped and we left. that could of been swomalia's "pearl harbor."

That is circumstancial evidence, and I fail to see how invading a country wil lots of oil is somehow connected to rising oil prices. If you knew anythign about economics, you'd know the more you have of something, the less it's worth.

If you remotly know anything about oil you would know that the more you have, the more you sell, the more money your get. And i thought you might not have been talking out your ass.

I wouldn't trust the UN to watch my dog, let alone liberate an entire country. The massive list of UN failures are too much for me to name with the 2,650 characters I have remaining as I type this.

See this is where you and me see differently. I see the U.N. peace corps as a respectable assosaction and if enough countries saw iraq a threat then they would of been there instead we had britan and japan and so smal provinces. and us as the major fighter.

Great, now all you need to do is provide, you know, proof that we went to Iraq for oil, instead of making general assumptions.

Ok now all you gotta do is get, you know, proof that we went there for WMD and Saddams link to terrorism.

But yeah, at the time, the factsa pointed to WMD's existing in Iraq. We were wrong.

This makes absolutely no sense.

think real hard now, come on you can do it. It means that were keeping troops longer than there tour requires.

and still no reason to be there.

I believe I answered this already. I'll do it once more, but so help me God you better not tell me again there's no reason to be in Iraq, I'm not going to continually rebut that point for pages on end.

To leave Iraq now would cause mass anarchy. Iraq cannot fully defend itself right now, and to cut and right this instant would create just another breeding ground for terrorists.

Ok so cut and run would be bad, but we dont need to keep bringing people over to maintain "gov't overthrowing" numbers. we should play defenese and build up their troops. But they gotta wanna stand on their own two feet cause i dont wanna be in Iraq for 30 yrs.

That would be bad but what im saying is were still paying the price for this war we shouldn't of started in the first place. What would be great for me personaly is if our gov't came out and said we made a mistake and that we needed peace corps help (becuase the situation screams for it) but we still stick to our cowboy diplomacy and won't ask for help instead saying your either with us or against us.

The point would make sense, in fact it would have solid ground to stand on, in fact it might even be considered intelligent, but there's one problem. Bush never said he didn't want other countries to lend assistance in the Iraq War.

That lone fact doesnt flaw my arguement. He may of asked but the fact is he went anyway without the backing of a lot of countries. Plus its not like we tried really hard to play diplomat with the countries.

The oil company doesn't need a war to raise their prices, they can do it whenever they feel like it. I still fail to see how this all connects to Bush, or a 9/11 conspiracy, so we may have lost track somewhere along the lines.

Would sit there and let oil companies raise gas prices for no reason and not do something about it?

That's not even a comprehendable sentence.

its a question. And do you think soceity would allow for them to just raise prices without valid reason.

Screw this, I'm sticking with the pink unicorn theory, it makes so much more sense than all of the other 9/11 conspiracies out there.

What the gov't tell you that theory too.

I don't need the gov't to tell me the 9/11 conspiracies are full of crock. Evidence and common sense tell me that.

O and heres a good site for your precious Popular Mechanics debunking.

Political Sceintist

At 8/7/06 10:17 PM, Grammer wrote:

Ya it sucks. But you know who I blame? The people in charge of the oil companies. I know it's weird, I thought placing the blame there was odd myself when it first came to me.

How about this logic, Bush comes to the oil companies and say if they fund him and help get him into office then he will help get them a steak in the mother of all oil feilds if they give him a percentage.

Our ocupation of the the oil utopia, and a flimsy to no reason being there.

We're liberating 25 million Iraqis, for someone to call that "flimsy", I would have to question their value on human life.

If we really wanted just to help some people in 3rd world countries why wouldn't we go to kenya or some other african country where we know they have weapons of mas destruction and we know they commit mass genocide of rival tribes everyday. These parts of Africa are way more messed up then Iraq. It was just to damn conveintent for iraq to be part of a major harbor of oil in the middle east. We are a lone country we should leave the peace keeping to the U.N.

Like I said All that needed to be done is give a "reason" to be there so as not to cause society to fall apart in anarchy.

I assume we're sticking to Iraq when we talk about the "middle east", despite this topic being about a 9/11 conspiracy. I didn't know this was the new Official Bush Topic.

You asked me why Bush would orcastrate such a thing and i gave you an answer.

But yeah, at the time, the factsa pointed to WMD's existing in Iraq. We were wrong.

Even now while were, still in the middle east still bringing people over, still keeping people , and still no reason to be there.

American troops are to stay in Iraq until the Iraqis can defend themselves. I don't know if you'd like to see Iraq descend into anarchy, but personally I wouldn't like to see another breeding-ground for terrorists.

That would be bad but what im saying is were still paying the price for this war we shouldn't of started in the first place. What would be great for me personaly is if our gov't came out and said we made a mistake and that we needed peace corps help (becuase the situation screams for it) but we still stick to our cowboy diplomacy and won't ask for help instead saying your either with us or against us.

And the reason for gas prices rising is if you take a minute and think about what the middle east thinks of us of course you would think that they would raise prices. SO the oil compaines capitalize on the fact that they got new land in the middle east so raise prices to both lower suspistion and making large profits. That is why their setting the record, because if they bought it from the middle east their paying more so not making more just breaking even.

The oil company doesn't need a war to raise their prices, they can do it whenever they feel like it. I still fail to see how this all connects to Bush, or a 9/11 conspiracy, so we may have lost track somewhere along the lines.

Would sit there and let oil companies raise gas prices for no reason and not do something about it?

Screw this, I'm sticking with the pink unicorn theory, it makes so much more sense than all of the other 9/11 conspiracies out there.

What the gov't tell you that theory too.

At 8/7/06 08:46 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Your right Grammar, Pink Unicorns are the answer.

And these forums are'nt filled with Selfrichouse, egotistical, Inside the box thinkers. Who couldn't think for themselves out of a paper bag.

At 8/7/06 03:31 PM, Grammer wrote:

You know, that would make sense, but you forgot to consider the magical pink unicorns which are the real cause of gas prices rising. Why, what all those evil, dastardly, oil companies had to do was capture these mythical creatures, then turn them into glue and spread it over Iraq. This would magically increase gas prices, and I'm surprised no one has caught on to this insight, although I'm sure those corrupt oil tycoons already knew about it, they'd just rather kill 3,000 innocent people.

Or maybe Bush was put into office because the electoral college put him there, and Bush doesn't have a hand in oil prices, and terrorists really did cause 9/11. It's a thought.

A thought. Lets look at the situation we have now in the middle east. We have oil prices going up, Oil companies breaking profit records every fiscal year, Our ocupation of the the oil utopia, and a flimsy to no reason being there. Like I said All that needed to be done is give a "reason" to be there so as not to cause society to fall apart in anarchy. Even now while were, still in the middle east still bringing people over, still keeping people , and still no reason to be there. Yet were still fighting for the unreachable idea of "peace in the middle east." And the reason for gas prices rising is if you take a minute and think about what the middle east thinks of us of course you would think that they would raise prices. SO the oil compaines capitalize on the fact that they got new land in the middle east so raise prices to both lower suspistion and making large profits. That is why their setting the record, because if they bought it from the middle east their paying more so not making more just breaking even.

At 8/7/06 12:48 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Your right, the oil companies sabatoged an election, got an inept and unintelligent president elected, brought down two skyscrappers in New York, and then started a war in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that gas prices would rise up.

Of course, every one in the government and the business have been sworn to secrecy, and we all know how people keep thier mouths shut.

No all that anyone has to be in on it are the heads of oil companies, like the bin laden family. And they fund Bush's election get him into office get a couple people to help put the planes into the buildings, tell anyone that can do something not to do anything, and blaim it on terrorism for a premptive invasion of the middle east.

At 8/7/06 08:04 AM, angelo_ryan wrote: Bush isn't smart enough for that, but I do think that he knew about it, and I do think that it was done by...well, America, under government order. I read a LOT.

of course him personaly wouldn't just do this their is no real profit for him like that. He was put into office by oil companies to commit this heinous crime to make a prempt to war with the middle east for his precious oil line.

I dont think its wrong for people to get offended. It their right as a human being to do so. Its more of what they do when their offended that gets me mad. You may be a perfect family that doesn't have any family problems or anything of that sort and you'll probably get offended by something on T.V. but you dont need to make other people feel the same way you do about that perticular genre of comedy(or something). It should be left to individual families to decide what they watch or draw the line where they get offended. Shit like imposing your thoughts on other people is what starts wars and crusades. And organzations like the FCC are just suporters of the bible beaters wrath. They use their baseless moral driven laws to makeing money off people who get offended. So basicly the people who get offended and supports the FCC's acts end up losing money to support said organizations. Not only that people getting offended is a market of its own, The Clearplay dvd players, and The ESRB. Im mean people probably do need to loosen up a bit and think about the sticks and stones, but thats not the problem, its how they handle themselves about it. So i guess what it boils down to is that im not asking you to change who you are or what offends you but to not be so selfish with your actions and think about what other people think of the show, cause someone likes it.

At 8/6/06 11:42 PM, KaleFlame wrote:

Id like to see you argue the points made in the posts above by me, natwel, and Haradrim. Calling people like steven jones a dumbass would be like calling you informed.

he was using sarcasm

At 8/6/06 04:41 PM, sodapop111 wrote: rofl thats a retarded idea

terrorists did it pretty simple

Ok source yourself.