Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/14/11 11:58 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: [it's not like 9/11] just happened outside the bounds of rational explanation, without cause, as if all their feelings had no origin or as if there was no catalyst

now, i'm not saying "well if we just didn't ____________ then they wouldn't be mad and the towers would still be there!"

Pick a side. You contradict yourself. Either it was a response to something we did or it wasn't.

At 8/14/11 02:07 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

i was under the impression that the 9.11 attacks were perpetrated as a response to the U.S.'s global military actions, especially those in middle eastern lands, including their unwavering support of Israel.

Also because we don't preach radical Islam in the government, support Westernized, free nations, and actually allow Jews to pray safely. 9/11 isn't a "response" to anything. Osama bin Laden was a freak and his actions cannot be rationally explained or justified.

Recently I saw in the news the official plans of what to do at Ground Zero: An American architect is building the memorial called "Reflecting Absence." It will pretty much have where the towers were be two deep pools with the names of the fallen inscribed on the side at street level.

While I think it is appropriate, I don't think it's enough.

If it were up to me, we would rebuild the Twin Towers and open them up to business again. They may not be the original WTC but it would truly heal NY and the US in my opinion, to see the Twin Towers standing strong and tall again. It would send a message to the world of American resilience; that whatever was destroyed, America can rebuild.

I'm aware that it would cost more and would take much longer to complete. But I think a brand new WTC (with a memorial inside of course) would be far more healing than a memorial.

What do you think?

Yuck. I would vote for Romney in a heartbeat, and I would consider Pawlenty seriously. But if Bachmann wins the primary I will vote for Obama.

At 8/12/11 03:58 PM, ReThink wrote:

Oh the radio eh? This wouldn't happen to be from Glen Beck would it?

No, I've heard it on radio commercials, not radio programs.

I hear all the time on the radio "Buy gold now! The government can print more money but it can't print gold! Gold prices have risen! Why aren't you buying?"

What are your opinions on buying gold? I have my own but I'm keeping them to myself. Have any of you ever considered investing in gold or actually done it? What would you say to someone who says "I'm going to buy gold," and why?

I think it all depends on who he's running against. For 2012 for the most part it's going to be a lesser of two evils decision. If someone like Michele Bachmann or Rick Santorum (Tea partiers) runs in the general election, Obama will win because although he is unpopular, he's not a joke candidate. On the other hand, if someone like Pawlenty or Romney gets to the general election, I think they would have very good shots at winning. Romeny and Pawlenty are both Republican, but in Democratic states. Pawlenty balanced the budget in Minnesota and Romney worked efficiently in a state that's 99% Democratic.

Who's going to vote, too? 2008 was heavily biased towards the Democrats because of eight years of Bush. 2010 was biased towards the Republicans because of an anemic recovery. Now both parties have had their time to shine--and fail. I think bipartisanship is going to be a key part of this election. 2008 and 2010 were partisan elections. Now, the centrists will have their voices heard.

At 8/7/11 08:44 PM, camobch0 wrote: For the same three reasons people join terrorist networks, and support oppressive evil governments, and etc. for millennia.

1. They have been beat down by an "enemy" (fear), in this case, many western cultures repeatedly attacking and attempting to destroy or convert Arabs and Muslims for a thousand years. Christians repeatedly brought crusades that killed many innocent Arabs. We invaded many Arab countries to steal natural resources such as oil, minerals, and diamonds, destroying lives in the process. We manipulated the people of the Middle East to steal what is theirs. And the West has a very long and extensive history of doing this (KIlling and stealing land and items from most of the Native Americans, a lot of Arabs, a shitload of asians, an assload of Africans, I could go on.) So there is that.

So therefore all of the West is to blame? The United States freed Kuwait in the 90s, freed Afghanistan in the 80s, and we never colonized the Middle East. If anything, bin Laden should've attacked Europe. There is no rationale for what he did; either that or he doesn't know jack about history.

2. They were raised to believe that these terrible things were right (more fear). Great example: A lot of people born well before the American Civil Rights movement were brought up very harshly to believe that black people were horrible and evil. Many of them held those racist beliefs well beyond the passage of legal equality. Even nowadays, so many American children are being brought up to believe that all Arabs are evil and devil-spawn, as well as blacks and gays. These prejudices that are forced into a child's mind from so early on until they are grown ups are extremely hard to get rid of later on in life.

Amazing. That doesn't make it rational. Just because you are taught something at birth does not mean it is rational.

3. MONEY. Being with the bad guys usually means a lot of money and women to rape. Maybe not the money so much in Osama's case, but definitely the rape-able women. Why do you think Republicans are trying to keep us in Afghanistan and get us into more wars, then distract the average American by destroying our economy? So that the private contracting companies that they are either working at, or receiving massive campaign contributions and personal payoffs from will keep getting them a lot of money. With simple distractions or lies, these guys make huge money.

You are delving into conspiracy theories. I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks that all wars are started by Republicans in order to enter a new world order. Your arguments for number 3 make absolutely no sense. I'm a Democrat and I know that the "Bush started the war cuz he's evil and luvs oil" idea is false.

I'm sorry, now I'm just realizing the absolute stupidity of your argument. The Republicans get us into more wars and then destroy the economy (which allows us to start wars, you know) to distract the American people? If you're going to argue, argue with facts, not conspiracy theories. Know why they're called conspiracy theories? Because if they were true they'd be called FACT.

I also notice how you conveniently left out Obama, who increased the troop surge in Afghanistan and bombed Libya with NATO, as well as invaded Pakistan to take out bin Laden. I know you're a die-hard Democrat but don't pretend like one party is perfect and the other isn't. Democrats like you give Democrats like me a bad name.

At 8/7/11 07:11 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

it wasn't our fault he thought that he should kill the jews, it was our fault he came into power. Our policies destroyed Germany's economy making political extremism more attractive to people.

Iron-Hampster, I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm saying that there is no one to blame for why Hitler decided to kill the Jews, just as there is no one to blame but Bin Laden for 9/11.

At 8/7/11 08:16 PM, Warforger wrote:

Your logic boggles my mind "Hitler killed Jews because he was an insane madman! Therefore Bin Laden did the same because he was also an insane madman! " how are the two connected in any way?

They ARE connected. We teach in history class that Hitler did what he did because he was evil and crazy; yet somehow in this day and age, we are looking for rationale why another Hitler (Bin Laden) did what he did.

Osama Bin Laden committed terrorist attacks because he wanted to get back at the United States public, they did not feel the pain of the Muslims they bombarded and they frankly didn't rise up against the United States actions, so he wanted to get back at the Americans for what they didn't stop and make them feel what he felt, as well as cripple the United States.

What are you talking about? We helped Bin Laden in the 1980s; it was the Soviets that were bombing the Afghanis. We were also freeing another Muslim country, Kuwait, from Iraq. Why didn't Bin Laden go after Russia or Iraq in 2001?

At 8/7/11 02:02 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: no one wants to believe they were wrong in any way.

So then were there any reasons for Hitler to hate the Jews? Or was it simply the result of bad ideas and a crazy mind?

One thing I noticed in the weeks and even months after his death, was that all the newspapers and tv programs started running biographies and documentaries about the world's most wanted terrorist. Hour long broadcasts showed in detail the man who plotted and carried out 9/11, as well as other terrible terrorist acts.

One question was in the limelight: Why did he do it? Was it something that America did to him or a personal grudge? Did something traumatic happen to Bin Laden as a boy?

Or was he simply a diseased maniac?

When we learn about WWII, we always have the same answer as to why Hitler started the Holocaust: Because he was an insane, hateful man. We don't say that Hitler was provoked into killing six million because he was so traumatized by his mother's death, or from Germany losing WWI. The fact is, we teach in schools that there was no rational explanation for the Holocaust or WWII and it was simply the ideas of a diseased nutjob. And I'm not dismissing this reason; there was no real reason for the Holocaust. It wasn't anything that the Jews or Allied Powers did to Hitler. It was his own diseased mind.

So why would Osama Bin Laden be any different? This Saudi nobleman whose family got rich from American dollars fled to Afghanistan where he was helped yet again by America and the West to free Afghanistan from the Soviets. Unlike the Soviet Union, where there was no freedom of religion, America had (and still has) freedom of religion where Muslims can pray safely. Why would he attack the US? Because we left and somehow created a power vaccuum? We didn't help the Afghanis in the 1980s to replace the Soviets as occupiers.

What I don't understand is this search that somehow, somewhere, we did something to Bin Laden to make him hate us. That somehow there must be a rational explanation for why he ordered people to hijack planes and crash them into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and almost into the White House, or to enslave the Afghani people.

Why did Osama Bin Laden form Al-Qaeda and do what he did? Because he was a diseased maniac like Hitler. There are people who do not need logical explanations to commit crimes. They do not need to be provoked. They do not have to be rational. Bin Laden did what he did because he was crazy. Case closed.

It is these people who also carry guns and have large followings. And trying to be understanding, trying to understand why they did what they did, is an attempt to justify murder.

If his ancestry is Native American then it's no problem. But there are tribes in America today and they live apart from the US on reservations. They are technically on US land but not actually part of the USA. The result is high crime rates, no education, no restrictions on gambling and alcohol, and utter poverty. If a Native American wants to be President he must be an American citizen and he cannot be a citizen of his tribe alone.

At 7/27/11 08:42 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 7/26/11 08:56 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

When did I ever put it across like that, "evil israel and brave palestine"?

By saying "more palestinian children are harmed than Israelis..." but this argument's going nowhere.

People that are biased towards Israel can ignore and forgive Israel for any/every thing. So saying Israel kills a lot of Palestinian children is a useless thing to say, because they (you, satanbrain, adrshepard and others) just chalk it up defending Israel and they ignore it. But telling them that more Palestinian children are killed than all Israelis combined puts the amount of civilian casualties into perspective.

Not always. I think Israel needs to stop building its settlements in the West Bank immediately.

Then there are people who think the amount of civilian casualties is irrelevant. In which case no amount of statistics or emotion is going to help. Their mind is made up and nothing can change, or even sway it.

The amount is not thet most important thing. The amount of war only shows how terrible the war is, not necessarily who the bad guy is. Take a look at percentage killed, how many were combatants and how many were civilians? If countries A and B fight, what matters is the percentage of deaths that are combatants. What's worse, 800/1000 casualties being combatants or 20/80 being combatants? Size doesn't matter when it comes to determining morality.

At 7/26/11 07:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

You must have some level of neutrality in your writing.

IT'S A FUCKING INTERNET FORUM...

That's not what I was saying. You can't have an argument on this by saying "Well, evil Israel harms poor, brave Palestine because _________" Would you argue like that and demonize your opponent by words instead of facts?

I didn't feel that way at all. I thought he was just pointing out the fact (especially in his follow up) that based on the sources he's reading from, that more Palestinian children die from attacks by Israel then vice versa. I fail to see how pointing out what someone understands to be a fact is deceptive. Unless it's simply because it's a fact you don't want to hear.

I completely acknowledge that more Palestinian children die than Israeli children. I even had a post saying how in WWII the Axis countries had higher casualty numbers than the Allies. Bcdemon wasn't being deceptive; he was putting emotions into an argument.

There are different types of Republicans and Democrats. There are log cabin Republicans, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc. There are Blue Dog Democrats, New Democrats, Progressive Democrats, etc.

Democrats in general are center-left on the economy and social issues. They want government to step in and help out the people, and want little government influence on what happens at home.

However, New Democrats like Bill Clinton are pro free trade, support reforming welfare and see the need to cut spending and decrease the size of the government. Blue Dog Democrats are a bit more socially conservative, supporting the death penalty or gun rights.

Republicans in general are center-right on the economy and social issues. They want government to promote family values but want a free market and little government influence in the economy and not a lot of government spending.

However, not all Republicans think alike. Mitt Romney passed RomneyCare. Log Cabin Republicans are socially liberal especially when it comes to gays. Even Bush was an economic liberal -- he never saw a spending bill he didn't like.

I think most Americans are moderates: socially liberal and fiscally conservative, which makes it tough to decide which party. For the most part your views on economics determine your party.

For me personally, I'm incredibly moderate. I'm very socially liberal except for death penalty, illegal immigration, and affirmative action (support, oppose, oppose) and I'm very fiscally conservative except I think we need to raise taxes on everyone including the rich and I think we need more banking regulation.

I would consider myself a New Democrat or a Blue Dog Democrat. Obama and Pelosi are way too leftist for my taste but the Republican party is also being stubborn and are playing politics.

At 7/25/11 05:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Well he did follow up with some numbers to back up his assertions :)

Yes but he did it unprofessionally. You must have some level of neutrality in your writing. In a debate it would be unprofessional to describe the conflict as "Israeli criminals kill Palestinian children."

Notice how even when I argue against Hamas I don't go "the evil Hamas every day murders little children" when I know full well it's more complicated than that. bcdemon was trying to get the reader to focus on the fact that Palestinian children are killed by Israelis and make him/her forget that Israel is fighting--and killing--militants as well.

At 7/25/11 01:01 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: actually try to refute the argument they made instead of changing the goal posts to make yourself more comfortable :)

I was not so much refuting his argument in that sentence as I was pointing out his barbed language, "more Palestinian children are killed." He was trying to focus more on the Palestinian children that die and not Hamas combatants, and the Israeli soldiers that die and not Israeli children.

At 7/19/11 11:00 AM, bcdemon wrote:

And since 2000, the ratio of Palestinian deaths to Israeli deaths is around 6:1.
More Palestinian children have been killed than all the Israeli deaths combined.

So the good guy is determined by whose side has the least amt of deaths?

WWII deaths:

Germany: 8.6 million
Japan: 3.1 million

USA: 418,500
UK: 450,900
The USSR had 23 million dead, but I suppose that if the USSR stayed neutral then the US and UK would be the villains, right?

Quantity alone does not matter. Look at the percentage of civilians/total wounded. Israel's civilian death/total deaths ratio is MUCH smaller than Hamas's. Israel's ratio is about 4/10; Hamas is about 7/10.

And nice try, "more palestinian children are killed than israelis" you don't think Israeli children are killed by bomb attacks or Qassam rocket strikes?

Muammar Gaddafi has announced during a broadcast yesterday in Tripoli that if NATO doesn't stop its bombing of Tripoli, Libya would strike back.
Gaddafi has threaten to bring the fight "to Europe, to target your homes, offices, families, which have become legitimate military targets, like you have targeted our homes."

So will he? Can he? Libya isn't incredibly powerful and has its hands full with a civil war and a UN blockade. However, you can't forget terrorist attacks like the Lockerbie incident. What do you think?Source

At 6/28/11 05:22 PM, SundownCabinRentals wrote: I think folks need to take a deep breath and put themselves in the President's shoes. They say never judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. The President is only one person and let us not forget that he inherited 8 years of previous debt. He cannot fix all of these things in one 4 year term; it is imperative that we give him another 4 years to even have a record pattern of the changes; good or bad!

That's a very nice speech there but according to your logic we shouldn't judge Osama or Hitler or anyone.
We all understand that President Obama inherited tons of debt. He's also almost doubled it. And I think you're probably kidding when you say it's imperative that we give him another term to repeat the mistakes he's made this term.

I would consider giving Obama a second term if he was making the hard decisions that will actually benefit us in the long run. He's not; this move is a short-term jerry rigged fix that is purely for political gain.

At 6/26/11 06:26 AM, satanbrain wrote:

It is very relevant, territorial claims are based on the ignorance of the reality of the war for for independece and the events who have taken place before it.

And when discussing the war haven't I always shown the facts were on Israel's side?

It doesn't matter where we were born, if we were born in siani we would still have no right to hold it.

What do you mean? It does matter where you are born! You were born in Israel, thus you are Israeli.

Crating a culture and staying in a territory long enough doesn't make it ours. We won't disappear because we will not give up our land.

And why is that land yours? Because you stayed on it long enough and created your own culture.

Satanbrain, do you realize that I'm one of the (few) people on this supporting Israel? I don't know why you're attacking my ideas.

This is strange; I'm arguing with you why the land is yours.

At 6/27/11 12:52 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I guess I'm just used to it only being mentioned like it's only the US doing this when it's actually part of a global strategy to attempt to force lower overall gas prices by putting up a small amount of reserves to say "drop prices, or we will start using up the reserves and play chicken with you pricks".

Who would we play chicken with? OPEC? The oil companies? They don't care. They have so much more oil than we do that they will easily outlast the West's oil reserves. Any game of chicken they would win because once our oil reserves run out (which they would in that situation) we'd be crawling back to them on our knees, and how merciful will they be then?

At 6/26/11 11:50 PM, djack wrote: What exactly do you suggest as an alternative? Solar is extremely expensive, very inefficient, and to produce any reasonable amount of power has to take up several square miles of desert land (land that is home to many species that are rare due to the hostility of their natural environment and land that would normally absorb pollutants like CO2 but can't with solar panels covering them up) e.g. the new solar power plant being built in California which will take up 5.5 square miles of land, has received $1.6 billion dollars from the U.S. government to help build it, and will only produce 370 megawatts or 1/10 of the power produced by large hydroelectric dams/coal power plants/nuclear plants. Wind turbines are more dangerous than any other type of electrical generator, fills the air with noise pollution, and costs farmers billions of dollars annually. The only options left are hydroelectric (too bad the U.S. has already built as many dams as is possible) and nuclear which many people fear because of overhyped stories about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Wind turbines are not loud at all. There are videos proving that.
Other possible areas are tidal energy, wave energy, and nuclear. Nuclear energy is efficient, and, when contained right, has little if no greenhouse gas emissions.

At 6/26/11 02:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Um, in the interest of accuracy...why aren't you mentioning this is actually a GLOBAL strategy and not just a national one?

Read my original post. I clearly mentioned 27 other countries are doing it too.

It is irrelevant at this point who did what in 1948. Israel is here. The people live in that land. They were born there; same with their parents and grandparents and so on. Israelis created their own life and culture. It's unreasonable to expect them to disappear now. Israel is here to stay and will stay.

Shortly, if not already, President Barack Obama will release 30 million barrels of oil from the oil reserves to drive down the cost of oil.

The President says it's to lower the cost of oil and make paying at the pump easier for American families. The US is not alone; 27 other countries are doing the same thing with their strategic oil reserves.

To get a sense of how much oil Obama is releasing, the US has about 730 million barrels of oil reserves. Obama is releasing about 30 billion, about 4% of the total reserves.

I personally see this as an incredibly stupid idea. Why?

-These oil reserves are meant to be used for national emergencies, like if the US were to be attacked and an oil embargo put into effect. Or if somehow the US cannot get oil from other countries. The oil reserves are meant to be used for government and military purposes. High gas prices do not constitute an emergency that requires us to drain from our "just-in-case" reserves.

-Oil is simply a commodity bought and traded on the open market. Accordingly, its prices are extremely volatile. In the long run, releasing 30 million barrels of oil is not going to do anything to the price of gas. Even before the oil was/will be released the price was already going down. Flooding the market with our own oil is a political action simply so that Obama can say "look at me, I drove gas prices down!"

-This will set a precedent for the future that if gas prices get a little high, then we can just tap into our own reserves, no problem. Remember, oil (and especially our reserves) will not last forever. We need to focus on green, renewable energy. Staying tethered to oil means more pollution and more money going to Al-Qaeda via Saudi Arabia. High gas prices have spurred consumers to invest in greener energy. That's the wave of the future.

-It's not the role of the government to set and control prices. That's called a command economy. In a capitalist economy the market determines the price of oil. Government intervention will only screw up the price of oil further, because once that little burst of 30 million barrels is used prices will rise again. Not only is Obama's plan an overreach of government power, it won't do anything in the long run.

That's my opinion. What do you think?

-

My post, "Israel is a terrorist country!" has been on the front page in Politics for just over a year now.

At 6/16/11 10:22 PM, Little-Rena wrote: From what I have read, it seems that Obama is supporting Argentina

You have GOT to be kidding me. So much for our "special relationship."

Egypt's embracing Hamas but Syria's people are against Hezbollah...wonder what that means for Israel.