566 Forum Posts by "Nitroglys"
this entire post doesnt make any sense.
At 12/20/05 12:19 AM, 31SlipKnoTonKpilS13 wrote: in texas, where there is less gun control than most of the other states, gun-related crime is much lower than in "controlled" states. Think about it, would you try to rob a bank if you knew that everyone else in the bank is carrying a gun? um duuuh. Besides, even if guns did hurt us, we have this right I like to call the 2nd amendment, so what would it matter if they did?
For one thing texas isnt exactly a bug hub for gun related crimes, for how big dallas is you dont see it high up on the murder rate chart.
TheMaytar18 wrote:
If you ban guns only criminals will have guns, becuase they will be the ones willing to break the law to get guns. Even if you did get rid of every single gun people would still find ways to kil each oitherthey would just get moe creative about how they do it.
But think how dependent criminals are on guns. if you make it harder to get guns the harder it is for a criminal to get guns. if we can get guns out of the hands of a good portion of people then it will effect gun related crime rates.
I Never liked any form of predjudice and Neo Nazis are my least favorite, especially Illinois Nazis. But i always wondered that if the belif of the Third Reich is that there would be one race made of the German People. So if the Neo Nazis are supporting something that is trying to over throw the standing gov't, are they legaly able to organize protests and assemblies.
At 11/26/05 09:44 PM, sylvosthemaccabee wrote:At 11/26/05 06:51 PM, MegalomaniacVirus wrote: FDRyou are clearly right.
his policies during the great depression did not speed it up but prolonged it. he really screwed up the u.s.a when he decided run again for his fourth term when he was at deaths doorstep. an absolutly despicable president
so your disrepecting the alphabet soup, which started welfare and social security, WPA, CCC, and others are parts of the alpahbet soup. Lead us threw the one of the most monumental wars of the history of U.S. wars. The man started the infulstructure of the presnt day goverment.
At 11/26/05 07:04 PM, ironmaiden233 wrote: i would say reagan was
"Yep... If reagan hadn't been alive, the US might have been a soviet empire, it's no wonder liberals hate republicans."
BS. the abolishment of the Soviet Union fell into his lap. he was just the president at the right time.
come on people think. Paul Simon.
Every day, mostly around this time of the year, you hear about a religous holiday not getting its own day off. And they always go on and on from both sides about how it is wrong to just let all the holidays ever to be celebrated( for example when the people in in texas or somewhere in that area where tey didnt want to celebrate matin luther king day) and the other side wondering why isnt their holiday being celebrated. I dont have a problem with gettin a day off of work, but what im asking is why isnt, in other countries where English people live, a movement to bring their holidays to the country to be celebrated. I mean if you try to celebrate george washington day in Iraq your gunna have some problems. So I am asking why hasent there been a giant movement to bring our holidays to other countries, if that is what there doing to us?
What do we need to stand tall to. There is nothing we need even attmept to attack. The problem is we did attack and now they are bitting at our ankles.
I don't have any problem with the front page now, but it would be a great idea to make a additional front page for flash games. the game page is fine but the only thing you see is the daily # 1 and all of the huge games. I think they should make a entire page just like the front page now but designated purly for games.
I dont know if i mentioned it but the projected cost of the New Orleans rebuild is 200 billion, which is close to the Iraq war.
how many times do you remeber having to rebuild new orleans? And if the hurricanes are so threating at one a decade how come there wasnt any big hub ub over them. Katrina was a "lucky" shot. The odds alone should be enough, but with the protection of having levees, that works, should take away most doubt of a Katrina sized catastrophe. And with the levees it should make sure that any hurricane only causes the typical hurricane damage. Plus what i orriganly was talking about is how could they not rebuild New Orleans, but still throw money away on things like the war. Its not the fact on wether or not we THINK it should be rebuilt, but how the gov't can just dismiss its only country like this.
At 11/22/05 12:09 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 11/21/05 11:56 PM, Imperator wrote: What makes you so sure it will happen again?
At 11/21/05 11:38 PM, Nitroglys wrote: and the odds of a katrina sized hurricane hitting where it did alone are small, not counting all the other problems that went along with the disaster.Katrina wasnt even that large. NO can thank their damn lucky stars it wasnt a catagory 5 when it hit.
And not common?
Trotter says that there have been 12 or 13 major storms to hit within 85 miles of New Orleans in the last 120 years, or an average of one major hurricane occurring once a decade.
Listen to your self. You know how few that is that is. Thats near florida's yearly average.
That seems a little to common in my opinion considering that the damn city is still sinking.
it is nothing like Florida.Really? Maybe you should acquaint yourself with hurricanes, especially those of Andrew size. I saw what that did to houses back in the day. I still remember driving along and seeing leveled houses and flooded places near the intercoastal and beach.
Your not looking at the big thing, it could of been a Catagory 1 and if the levees failed it still would have caused the same flooding. And the flooding was what caused the most damage.
At 11/21/05 11:50 PM, Redbob86 wrote: Just because we have a responsibility to rebuild New Orleans, that doesn't mean it has to be in the same place. Personally, I think it's best to just leave it, move the city elsewhere above sea level.
We dont have to we have the technology to prevent the flood which caused the greater part of the damage. What caused all the damage was a series of things that went wrong and if things go right most of the things that went wrong wont go wrong agian.
At 11/21/05 10:45 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 11/21/05 09:58 PM, Nitroglys wrote: I think that is worth saving.Yeah, great, it has lots of culture.
That doesnt mean we need to throw money at it if this same thing may happen again.
Im all for the goverment building these people homes in a SAFE area but I dont think the goverment should be paying for people to move back in the same damn situation they were just in.
If thats what you call putting people in homes then ya i think we should throw money at it. and it should be the peoples choice, and the odds of a katrina sized hurricane hitting where it did alone are small, not counting all the other problems that went along with the disaster. it is nothing like Florida.
At 11/21/05 07:28 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 11/21/05 06:49 PM, Nitroglys wrote: And you are talking about the homes of over 465,000 people, If anyone should make the decison to rebuild it should be these people.Thats 465,000 people who are feet below sea level. Why do you want to spend billions to rebuild this place when there is a large possibility something like this will happen again?
I still wonder the same thing about some people in Florida even though my damn family is moving back there : /
Why would you want to spend 200 billion on a war that after about 3 years has gone no where and has caused over 2000 deaths(and were spending money to kill them) We are talking about the place these people have called home for many generations, the place that saw one of the most one sided american battles, and has helped pioneer music as we know it. I think that is worth saving.
At 11/21/05 05:53 PM, Draconias wrote:
Anyways, New Orleans should just be left to rot. The place was already on the downhill, it's one giant slum, and it's now the crappiest place in the country to live. There's no reason we should go back there except to return the poor and useless to their cycle of poverty in the slum called New Orleans.
It wasn't all that bad of a place, beside the fact that it was one of the most musicly influental place ever. In 2004 it's unemployment rate was around 5% (which is avg. for a big city) nothing compared to Detroits 15%. The cost to rebuild would be close to the cost of the Iraq Conflict. And you are talking about the homes of over 465,000 people, If anyone should make the decison to rebuild it should be these people.
Are they really suggesting a withdrawl from New Orleans? Is this responsible?
Ok how about this the CIA helped affganistan defeat the Russians, who at the time we were at a cold war with. Now it may not be a all around victory and in the process we helped arm the afgan's, but none the less we helped put Russia in their own Vietnam. And less we forget that the CIA is a Govermental agency so all of their actions are done for the greater good of the USA, their not some cartel killing and torturing people for their own personal gain.
One two these are mainly on the presidental campaign. i tried to find some not from the campaign but i couldnt.
At 11/18/05 11:49 PM, Redbob86 wrote:
Not be tolerated from someone in a position of authority??? Wake up man, this is politics! Kissing ass is the only way these guys get ahead.
mudthrowing isnt kissing someones ass. and even if it had anything to do with their position they are still in a place where they have to make big decisions. it is not toleratable for a political leader, that has to make a possible life or death decison for other people, to act like that.
At 11/18/05 11:34 PM, Frozenserpent wrote:
It's been mud throwing since the times of Jackson and Adams. The times they didn't have mud throwing was when state legislatures elected the president... and that was when the common man didn't vote for the president and were not involved in politics at all.
Im not saying that mud throwing is just starting im saying that it is childish and shouldn't be tolerated from someone in a position of authority.
Some type of descentcy law should be put in place.
At 11/18/05 09:41 PM, Wyrlum wrote:
So? It wasn't bad when Kerry called the administration a regime or when democrats said he wanted to deprive people of food and rights. It's politics. Who gives a crap
Forgive me for not including democrats, but what i was getting at is instead of action the politics are resulting to mud throwing. It is sad when the goverment we have come to rely on isn't getting anything done.
If you were watching C-span in the past 30 mins the House of Reps is voting on oppions about immedate troop removal, and a female republican attacked the Democratic Senator John Murtha (of Pennsilvania) on how he removed his support for the war. She came out and called him a coward. Is it just me or have the Republicans just crossed the line quite a few times latly?
The CIA, Though may have a bad rep of spooks and black box projects, may be the single thing that can help against an attack such as 9/11 again. The bad things are the only thing you hear.
At 11/16/05 02:46 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:
And, again, the goverment doesnt control the "internet," which is something youd realize if you read the article.
they dont control it, but ICANN has to report all of their actions to the gov't. Thats why the .xxx didnt get through, beacuse the right wings said it would "legitimize porn."
At 11/16/05 12:25 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:
The Bush Administration wants to maintain the status quo--how the internet is currently operated. Other nations are the ones wanting more control over it.Thank you :P
Yeah, and Nitroglys you are a fuckin dumbass. How can you read what you think from that?
"Google and other tech companies are worried because, in a worst-case scenario, the stalemate could cause the Internet's unified address book to break apart. If that happened, someone who typed in www.usatoday.com in the USA might see a different site than someone in Canada, Iran or other countries."
This is what might happen, and by break apart it means keeping such sites from russia or any other place out. and if they can do that then they can easily censor. Im not saying they are going to do so, but them having the ability is just as bad.
any change would threaten the internet period.
I Didn't Miss Read It I Just Interpreted It.
the only control over the internet should be by the personal owner of the computer. Whenever you look up something you run the risk of being offended, dont bitch bout just dont take it seriously. Censor is the only thing they can do if they control the internet, and not censor some child porn but sites from other countries. The reason they would control would be to reap benifits.
At 11/15/05 05:45 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: its more to try to combat the horrible evil that is child pornography, not to stop u from posting on new grounds...omfg he iz l1ke teh p3n0r, my fr33d0m of sp34ch!!111!!
Ya child porography is bad but thats not what they would do if they controled the internet. it would be nearly impossible to even dent the child pornograhpy industry.
At 11/15/05 04:54 PM, AnkhX100 wrote: Actually I support Bush on this one. The US government does not control the internet, but ICANN works with the US govt. to maintain the network. And so far there is no censorship, so I don't see the problem.
But if Bush gets more control over it he will censor more. If you read the article it says that it all started over the .xxx used for porn sites. Conserviteves appose it saying it is just too much(from their anti-porn point of view), while others say it would help filter out porn.
Also, why do you want to give the UN the role of maintaining the internet when nations that ban content on it, like Myanmar, China, Saudi Arabia, etc, will have greater powers over it, and may savert the entire program like they did to the Human Rights Council. No, Americans paid for the internet through taxes, and we should maintain it, although I am not oppose for giving nations that do not censor the internet a role.
If you can control something you can reap benifits.
Bush is trying to rally support from other nations to start making it so the goverment has more control over the internet. info not only is this gunna be a useless accomplishment, but if they do suceed then they can censor all kinds of things. The internet is the final fronteir and we can't let them walk all over it.
