Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/25/04 12:50 AM, swallowing_shit wrote: Operation Iraqi Liberation! (O.I.L. as Anti-Flag put it.)

I believe America has spent more money on Iraq in the past 10-15 years to even compensate with the Iraqi oil.

I believe it was a European ship that verified frozen water on the poles, not an American ship.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

At 1/24/04 07:17 PM, HayatoSan wrote: Really now. This "war on terror" is just some sort of front for the US to control other countries and jack resources. Anyone else agree?

Nope I don't agree.

At 1/21/04 05:01 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: Hell, these assholes are even gonna invade my beatiful country and burn down the windmills and step on the tulips if we trial a Yank in the international court in Den Haag. And what can we do about it? Their army is about 10.000 times as big as ours.

If your afraid of an army's size, fear China. Also, I love that propaganda that you've heard from people around you.

At 1/21/04 11:09 AM, JamsterBoyo wrote: I swear American politics is a lot more fun than British politics.
America Politics = Whoops for joy and rallying supporters.
Brisitsh Politics = Sensible discussion of ideas.

Have you ever seen the British fight over politics? They are brutal, it is so awesome. Like when Tony Blair wanted to go to Iraq the Commons were questioning him and it was so fueled amongst the House of Commons. Just hearing them argue is enough.

You have just wasted 1 minute of my time with this topic.

At 1/17/04 12:23 PM, Taromsn wrote: I just have a question. *Puts on flame retardant suit* Why does the US hate France? Because they refuse to fight? If anything, that is a better show of character because they try a diplomatic approach. Why?

Basically whenever we liberated the French from Hitler's army they were like "You could've done it sooner" while smoking a cigarette. No gratitude.

At 1/18/04 11:41 PM, Hypochristian wrote: Yet, somehow I think your type gets way too much enjoyment outta flamin guys like me. You know, the ones with relivant points... oh well... *sigh*...

Exactly what relevant points?

LOS ANGELES -- U.S. football fans will not see ads featuring scantily clad vegetarians or a political attack on President Bush during February's Super Bowl after CBS said on Thursday that advocacy advertisements were out of bounds on professional football's biggest day.

The network, over the years, has rejected dozens of advertising proposals by advocacy groups, which argue that the network only airs controversial messages that it agrees with.

"We just want to be able to present our jiggly women," said Lisa Lange, spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, asking to join advertisers like beer brewers who have boosted sales with images of scantily clad women.

Liberal group Moveon.org, known for its Internet funding power, told members this week that it hoped to have the first political Super Bowl ad.

But its hopes were dashed when CBS said the spot, which asks "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit," was an issue piece and could not run.

In a letter, CBS told PETA that it would not run advertisements on "controversial issues of public importance."

CBS spokesman Dana McClintock said the policy had been in place for years. "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising," he added. CBS, a unit of Viacom, does run political advertising for and against candidates.

CBS came under criticism in November when it decided not to run a two-part made-for-television movie, The Reagans, after conservatives complained that it was unflattering to former president Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

PETA spokeswoman Lange said that CBS's broadcast of antismoking advertisements and even hamburger chain spots were controversial advocacy pieces, as well.

"In essence, CBS is saying we will air an advocacy ad if we agree with the viewpoint," she said.

The PETA ad shows two scantily clad women snuggling up to a meat-eating pizza deliveryman. "Meat can cause impotence," the screen reads after the rendezvous fails.

CBS also said the PETA spot raised "significant taste concerns."

Wired News

At 1/18/04 06:53 PM, Hypochristian wrote: This thread is about the blindness of the average American public and all the times that I have heard "Bomb the Towel heads," "Bomb Sadam," or "Nuke there towel wearing asses," and how many times we've (the American public) only heard part of the story.

Then how exactly do you know all of the truth if all americans are "so blind of the truth?" The thing is you don't. You probably never will know what exactly is happening. I will probably never know what is happening. The only people that can tell us what is occuring is the people that has actually seen it. So basically you are arguing about a different on-spot source then someone else, which is in turn pointless. You have to take both sides in, not just one. From there you figure out the most logical explanation of the story that is different from both ends. That is what I always try to do on almost every topic.

This is about fascism, this is about lies and this is about the American publics willingness to except everything they're being told. Again, I don't care about Sadam or other countries or the governments of other countries or any of that shit, not because I don't care, but because it is irrelivant to the topic at hand.

One last time, the topic is fasist comments towards the Iraqi people, the lies of the American government, and how the average Joe is just accepting it all. Again, that's facism, lies and acceptence.

I believe the "bomb the towelheads" emotion started after 9-11, not after the Iraq war. This is the fasist comments that you are talking about, right?

Once again, what are the lies the American government is saying? That innocent people aren't going to die? Bullshit, right before the Battle for Baghdad, the US government expressed concern that they are going to try to keep civilian casualties at the minimum. So from there you can conclude that they predicted innocent casualties and expressed it to the public.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stay on the topic! I'm looking for people to agree with, not for patriotic garbage, not for the English governments differences with our own, or how much I'm wrong just because.

Your debating and all you want is people to shake their heads yes. That is not how it works, I'm sorry.

Yeah guys, I'm not racists, but I hate black people.

They pay well so Wade has them.

At 1/18/04 05:46 PM, MsBobble wrote: Well Hypo...

Reference please?

At 1/18/04 03:59 PM, swallowing_shit wrote: The Kurds are supporters of terrorism. American leaders (Reagan, Rumsfeld, etc.) were well aware what was going on iraq and still sent funds,chemical and biological agents to iraq.

I really am not a fan of Reagan, he put the taliban in power and he gave iraqi's weapons. Also, how exactly are they supporters of terrorism? What incident are you referring to? I'm looking at the fact that Kurdish people have been oppressed ever since the Ottoman Empire. The many genocidals against Kurds is also what I'm looking at.

At 1/18/04 03:48 PM, MsBobble wrote: I'm also considering that near 40% of this posts are from hispanics being bitches about true americans

I'm 5/8 english, 1/4 slovakian and 1/8 german. I'm quite sure I am not hispanic. Also, what is a true american? A person who has been here the longest?

Jimsween, that paragraph was towards MsBobble, not you.

At 1/18/04 03:06 PM, Jimsween wrote: I'm going to say what everyone is thinking.... Mass Genocide.

Lol, nice.

Anyways, get your social darwinism out of your head, there is no superior race. I highly respect the immigrants coming into this country. Why you may ask? For one thing, they value everything that they get. The second is they are dam hard workers, none of this lazy shit that has been plaguing (sp?) the US workers. The third reason is that they promote family life, and which they have lower divorce rates. Sure some come in here, have a baby, and mooch off of welfare. The most of them are hard workers though.

At 1/18/04 11:32 AM, Hypochristian wrote: I don't care how many people Sadam or England or anybody else killed, I care that we're supposed to be the good guys, but we've killed 7000+ innocent people!!!

A lot of things kill over 7000 people, car accidents, handguns, AID's, smoking, cancer. Many of these things are preventable. Many of the people that died are innocent bystanders. Also, the Kurd's that live in the north were under attack by the Iraqi government due to religious differences. I'll assure you more than 7000 people died during all of the mass genocides and gassings Saddam did.

I really don't care how many more people Sadam killed, I don't care about that!

I don't see why you wouldn't care, that's like saying you don't care how much Hitler killed.

I care about the lies of our government, and how people are just accepting it!

The government doesn't control the media, the corporations controls the media. What lie is the government spreading? That people aren't dying in Iraq? That innocent people aren't dying?

Stop veering off topic to try and seem more right! The people are being lied to, and all you can talk about is how wrong everyone else is! The lies have to stop! That's my point!!!

I'm not being lied to, I hear about american and iraqi casualties everyday. Just like the car bombing this morning killing 2 american contractors and 17 iraqi innocents. Also, the many checkpoints in which people pass causing them to get shot. Again, what lies?

Again, I don't care what side I am, right or left, I only care about what is morally right. Putting a lesser evil in place of a greater evil is morally accepted by myself. One that doesn't suppress religions, one that doesn't suppress the media, and one that doesn't kill its own people to control them.

At 1/18/04 12:44 PM, Dagodevas wrote: Look, we've said it before and we'll say it again. Communism doesn't lead to a perfect society, Communism can only work in a perfect society.

Well said.

Oh yeah, please people, I'm getting extremely irritated by lack of knowledge in this room. Please read everything about the topic that you can before even considering about posting.

At 1/17/04 09:19 PM, Hypochristian wrote: We've killed 7000+ innocent Iraq civilians during this war.

I love short minded people, I just love them! Before this war, and after the first gulf war, the UN put sanctions on Iraq for their attempt to take over Kuwait. Because of these sanctions, over 1 million people, mostly young children and elderly people. What did Saddam do for these people? Nothing.

Using his logic from the station, we would be in WW9 right now.

No wonder I stopped coming to this board, too much ignorance and unjustified hatred.

At 1/8/04 12:41 PM, Aghh wrote: all i can say is, communism is the future, get use to it, because sooner or later, it will be all over your country

Where in the hell do you speculate that from?

Dude, if the illegal immigrants didn't hop the fence then we wouldn't even be talking about this!

At 1/7/04 10:35 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: It wasn't an enemy cobatant, it was a citizen. Read before you speak will ya? As for the circumstances, there was some looting going on and the soldier who was part of the "quick reaction force" that was sent to stop this. The Iraqi's did not have any fire arms, and the soldier shot him at a 100 meters distance, so it wasn't excactly a life threatning situation, now was it?

Looting without any kind of weapons? That seems odd to me, how about you?

You could be a terrorist too, so should I just shoot you? It was a car with an unarmed family inside, so it wasn't a threat at all. Just because the car didn't stop does not gave them a reason to shoot. That is against any rule of engagement.

The people were at a checkpoint. They were supposed to stop. Because they did not stop even with weapons probably drawn on them, they were shot once they passed the checkpoint. Many smugglers do not want to stop at a checkpoint because they know they will get caught. If you can distinguish between a family that means no harm and a family that has weapons hidden underneath the seat then the US army probably needs you over there as well as the Iraqis. The thing is, you can't distinguish between the two. You have difficulties imagining things don't you?

So you`re saying that people should find it easier to win against the U.S. govt? And how is it impossible? There`s still a thing called the court, and cross examination of the stories told by the defendant.

Well mister smarty pants, the thing is, HOW do you proof that the soldiers acted unjust? How do you prove it wasn't an act of war? The Iraqi's have to figure this out, and unless you have a videotape of the actual accident it's very hard to prove anything.

You have a misconception of Americans. Your thinking if a group of American soldiers goes downtown Baghdad and one of them shoots an Iraqi for "fun" that the others will shut their mouths. That is not true, far from the truth. More likely the soldiers will report to the officer of the one persons action. Also, the trial would probably be dealt in private because that is how our military does trials.

Just a side note, didn't Reagan give Iraqis weapons during the Iraq-Iran war. Didn't Reagan also put the Taliban in power?

This is more proof to how the executive office is slowly gaining too much power.

Judge, your idea about pre-templated images will not work that well. It would look like having a 2d sprite in a 3d game, it just won't look good.