Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/24/08 06:28 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Hey sadistic monkey let's ban fast food because people get fat.

Good idea.

If everyone owns guns, such as in Switzerland, gun ownership works really well, because while there are guns that can be used to commit crimes, all the law-abiding citizens have them too, so it levels the playing field, which really discourages criminals. Having no legal gun ownership works well too, because it makes a lot harder to get a hold of guns to kill people with.

However, Switzerland is small. Legal gun ownership doesn't work so well in highly populated countries, because some people in those highly populated countries won't want to own guns (and that's understandable). So, you end up with criminals and some law-abiding citizens owning guns, while other innocents don't own guns. Thus, the criminals can easily prey on those without guns. So, gun ownership only works at the extremes: either no one owns guns, or everyone owns guns. If only some people own guns, it doesn't work out so well.

At 8/24/08 01:27 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/24/08 12:58 PM, Saruman200 wrote: True, but still religion causes these things. If religion didn't exist this wouldn't have happened. So it is because of religion, even if not all religious people are like that. Why can't all people be enlightened like me? You know all those billions of people living now and in history who believed in religion and made it an important part of their lives? All idiots. All of them lacked my special understanding of what is best for society. Therefore I dictate that religion is always bad.

This one needed fixing too.

I'm glad you think I'm englightened, but when did I say all relgion is bad? I don't recall ever saying that. If you want to share in my enlightenment, maybe you shouldn't put words into my mouth :)

At 8/24/08 01:42 PM, Tamadrum wrote:

True, but still religion causes these things. If religion didn't exist this wouldn't have happened. So it is because of religion, even if not all religious people are like that.

That's not nessacarily true, what if the town was all atheist instead of christian, and instead of the girl being a lesbian, she was a christian...

The principle might have made a witch-hunt against all theists, lifted up the girls shirt to see if she had painted a cross on her chest and done the exact things he did in real life just with a different view, and discriminating against her for a different reason.

All I'm saying with this is that there are these kinds of people everywhere, and religion has really no barring on the issue.

What? How can you say religion has no barring on the issue? The principal did this because of relgion. Atheists can be shits too, and I never said all relgious people are bad. I know this is an isolated incident. Most of my friends are relgious and I know they would never do this. The fact is however, relgion can make people do stupid things. To say religion has no effect on this is like saying religion had no affect on 9/11.

At 8/24/08 01:26 PM, Jorosh wrote:

At 8/24/08 12:53 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Ya, I think so. Still, he killed hundreds of South Ossetians, the International Red Cross confirmed that. I can't remember how many, but it was a lot.

About 16000 ossetians

I think you added an extra 0. It's 1,600, not 16,000 last time I checked.

At 8/24/08 01:31 PM, neogeo57 wrote:

Joe Biden eats America for breakfast and shits out union jobs. How can you not vote for him? Hell, he's served in the Senate longer than McCain! The guy could probably bench-press that pockmarked old codger. You want Russia dealt with? Ol' Joe will strap on the boots and plow some rectum.

And also, don't use the lame "John mcain divorced his wife" shit since Joe biden did that too.

No he didn't. Joe Biden's first wife died in a car crash and he married his second wife much later. That's it, no divorce.

What's so bad about saying fuck? What makes fuck or shit any different than "the" or "that". Absolutely nothing. There all words, who gives a shit. It's okay if I say "Oh shoot" in front of a toddler, but not if I say "Oh fuck"? Why? What's the difference? Anyone who really thinks swearing is all that bad needs to grow up. Who decided that these "cus" words were all that much worse than other words? It just doesn't make sense. I can understand if she called someone a fuck or something, because some people could find that offensive, but just saying fuck because she can't find something isn't that bad. It's not like she was deliberatly trying to offend someone, but for some reason a stuck-up asshole of a fireman on a power-trip arrested her. Not to mention, isn't that a violation of freedom of speech? I mean literally, he was stopping her from using her right to speak.

And Vladmir Putin is CIA, the Dalia Lamia works for the Chinese, and George Bush is a member of Al Qaeda. It makes so much sense!

At 8/23/08 03:32 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Outside of Israel and the USA the world doesn't see Iran as some "crazy fanatical threat" to anything. Infact, we laugh when the USA sets deadlines for Iran to stop their peaceful nuclear program and Iran ignores them, because standing up to goliath takes some serious balls.

Really. Iran is developing nuclear power for nuclear energy plants. Nuclear power is different from nuclear weapons. A lot different.

The real issue with Mahmoud's rhetoric is he has to use to to stay in power, else his ultra conservative supporters will withdraw their support and pick some other stooge for president. Sort of like how Bush claims he talks to god and all that crazy stuff he says to placate the idiot christians in the usa. Just be thankful the Ahmadinejad isn't the real deal.

Both Bush and Mahmoud are actually fanatics. It's not just rhetoric.

At 8/24/08 02:18 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: McCain will win anyways

Obama is actually leading. Maybe not by much, but a lead is a lead. This could go either way, but Obama has better chances.

At 8/24/08 12:12 PM, Tamadrum wrote: I'm sick and tired of every group getting put with stereotypes that the radicals make. It's just like saying every muslim is a terrorist. It just isn't true, not every muslim is a terrorist and not all christians act like this principle.

yeesh.

True, but still religion causes these things. If religion didn't exist this wouldn't have happened. So it is because of religion, even if not all religious people are like that.

At 8/24/08 12:41 PM, animehater wrote:

At 8/24/08 12:18 PM, Jorosh wrote: Fuck Saakashvili. This bitch killed thousands people. I

Okay I heard that recently even the Russians admitted that wasn't true.

Ya, I think so. Still, he killed hundreds of South Ossetians, the International Red Cross confirmed that. I can't remember how many, but it was a lot.

At 8/23/08 09:35 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 8/23/08 03:48 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Read the article. Georgia's attack on south ossetia killed russian peacekeepers.

"Peacekeepers"? Lol. After fueling the separatists under the table, riling the situation to a point where "peacekeepers" were needed? They were using the situation as an excuse to place troops there... as such Georgia's actions were justified. Now, I'm not going to say that everything Georgia has done is all gummy bears and roses, but talking like they're the only aggressor is naive.

I'd like to see some proof Russia was actually supplying the sepratist factions in South Ossetia. Otherwhise I'm calling BS. Even if the Russians were secretly supplying the sepratists, without proof Georgia wasn't justified in attacking there barracks. If a Middle Eastern terrorist group attacked a US military base and killed US soldiers, then said the US was going against word of God as their justification, would you side with the terrorists? It's exactly the same thing. Georgia attacked a Russian barracks, then used a claim they have no proof of as justification.

They foolishly attacked a russian barracks. Are you suggesting that north korea killing american soldiers in south korea wouldn't be considered an attack on the USA? Yes or no, please.

"Considered"? Sure. But if you remove all of the variables from the situation, yeah it seems simple, but you're missing a large portion of the picture. As such, no conclusion you come to using so few variables can be trusted.

Widen your scope, see the whole board, quit trying to distil the situation past where you should. There's more going on here than just attacks on russian soldiers.

Yah, there's the bombing of hospitals and civilians areas too, aswell as the killing of Russian citizens in South Ossetia.

Also, Afghanistan didn't attack the USA, so your argument makes no sense.

No, they just funded, trained, housed, and supported the people who did... hmmmmm.

How is this relevent to the current Russia-Georgia conflict?

That's the sad fact of war. Civilians get hit in the crossfire. The Taliban and other terrorist groups are among civilians. There not an army like NATO. They don't form checkpoints or military bases. There just normal civilians who've taken up arms to fight for what they believe in. I sympathise with the insurgeants of Afghanistan and Iraq. The real bad guys, the ones who bomb and murder innocent civilians, such as Al Qaeda really only make up three percent of who we're fighting. Mostly we're just fighting against militias of armed civilians, who are really just fighting to defend their homes and their beliefs. If America was invaded, I bet my life savings Americans would take up arms and fight back against the invader.

Generally the KKK and Neo-Nazis are losing members, but there still strong in the deep south. I spent three years of my life living in Houston, Texas. The city itself isn't so bad, but once you start to drive for awhile outside and you get into the Hill Country or East Texas, you can see people will KKK stuff. I even saw a couple burning crosses. Maybe overall the group is losing members, but not in the places it's always been strongest.

That's like saying NATO should dispand because Russia and China don't like it. OPEC represents the major producers of oil, and they joined together in a strategic. If the US or Canada, or Britian were the ones with the huge oil reserves they would do something similar. OPEC doesn't even determine price of oil either, buyers and sellers do.

I lol'd.

However, on a more serious note, the vice president has two duties: helping the president get elected and taking over if the president dies. Otherwhise they don't do anything. Many presidents haven't even bothered inviting their vice presidents to cabinet meetings. The Vice Presidential office has little real power.

Okay, the UK made a deal with a Shia militia. The US has done it too. I'm more symathetic if they made the deal than if they didn't, because if they didn't they just sat around and let the Americans and Iraqis fight because "we don't have plans". But if they made the deal, that's acceptable. Maybe the Mahdi provided them with intelligence about other groups, or maybe they promised support at another date. That's the nature of this war. The Coalition forces couldn't afford to fight all the insurgeants at once, so they have to make alliances with some. That's the simple reality of this war.

At 8/22/08 09:57 AM, aranS wrote: If you're bringing up the invasion, dont forget that clinton wanted to invade North Korea, and he would of done it too if Jimmy carter didnt try so hard to prevent it.

What? Clinton wanted to stop negiotions with North Korea because they were going nowhere, but Jimmy Carter steped in to act as an intermediate between Clinton and the North Koreans.

This is like asking who's the better scientist, Albert Einstein or Tom Cruise. Clinton beats Bush in all categories:

Economy: Clinton got the nation out of the early 90s economic slump that was caused by the outrageous military spending by the first Bush and Reagan. He left America's economy in the best shape it's ever been by the time he was out of office. Bush led the nation into a economic recession.

Foreign Policy: Instead of invading countries that little to do with real objectives, like Bush, Clinton was able to stop genocide during the Yugoslav breakup with clever use of bombings and sanctions at the cost of virtually no American lives (compared to Iraq at least). Bush started two wars that have cost American thousands of it's young men.

Socially: Clinton, along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, pioneered the "Third Way" a policy of moderation and compromise. Bush followed the views of the relgious far right with little room for compromise of any sort.

Personally: Clinton was charismatic, even if he was an adulterist son of a bitch. Bush is just a plain dumbass who sounds like George Sr. dropped him on his head when he was a baby.

Your comparing one of our best presidents to one of our worst. Bush is right down their with Harding, Pierce, and Buchanan, while Clinton is almost up to the level of FDR, Lincoln, and Washington. This isn't only me, most historians have the same view.

Really, I have nothing against Turkey. But denying genocide, by whatever country, is bad. If the US denied that it's actions against the Native Americans amounted to genocide, I would be saying the exact same thing to them.

At 8/21/08 09:26 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 8/21/08 08:47 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I think that the government has been succesful in preventing 9/11, but some of the people who are on their lists could easily be eliminated by common sense, such as Nelson Mandela.

I agree with the last statement but your going to have to explain the first one to me. You refer to 9/11 in the present tense and you say the government prevented it. Explain where the 9/11 that I say about 7 years ago fits in?

I'm sorry I ment to say "I think the government has been sucesful in preventing another 9/11." Very sorry, left out a word there.

At 8/21/08 08:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/21/08 08:39 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Your ignorance amazes me. They have had those passports for years.

o

Noooooooo. It happened YEARS ago, it couldn't have been planned to create a pretext, that's far too long ago for a brilliant strategist like Putin to have planned.

What an idiot. You believe all the Western propaganda so easily.

Propaganda? I didn't read that the passport thing was provocateuring in the news. It's common sense. Besides, that's a bold statement coming from someone who actually believes that Russia's in this to help the little guy out when you YOURSELF, know exactly their stance on Chechnya.

I clearly stated Russia was being hypocritical in this when considering their stance on Chechnya. Their stance of supporting South Ossetia is right, but their stance of not supporting Chechnya is wrong. It is possible from a country to do things that are both bad and good. Nothing is just black and white or good and evil, we're all shades of gray.

Not only that, but I KNOW you have this mentality that I'm somehow defacing Russia by saying they're being expansionist. Can I be any clearer that I respect Russia's and Putin's actions? No, no I can't. Because I came out and said it, you stupid douche.

And FURTHER, you're the one who feels like Russia is completely innocent in all of this. There's nothing, NOTHING to suggest that.

All the evidence points to Russia brilliantly setting up a situation which they then capitalize on in order to reassert their dominance in the region. All of it.

I have never said they were completely innocent. Being justified and being innocent are different things. I can murder a ruthless child rapist who molested my younger brother. I would be justified, but I would still be guilty of murder. Your idea that Russia masterminded the whole thing is like saying the US government masterminded 9/11: both are conspiracy theories with little factual base.

Then when someone (gasp!) disagrees with you can even be civilized. I love the irony and hypocracy of your statements. They make me laugh. I can't believe you don't even look at the evidence when it stares you in the face. Then you accuse me of ignorance. This is one of the funniest things I've seen! You obviously know nothing about the region. Instead you just blindly follow everything you see on the news. How ironic.

Again, I've been saying this before the news said it. I have a thread where I've predicted Russia's actions before they even started threatening countries with nukes. You can't make me out to be a sheep when I'm ahead of the game.

Well, arn't you just a regular Nostradomos.

Not only that, but if you disagreed on something other than the basis of "Russia's doing this out of the goodness of their hearts" then I'd not only be civil, but I'd respect you for not being a stupid cunt that pretends to know more than they do.

I never said Russia was doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.I've clearly stated how hypocrtical Russia is being when they support Georgia's breakaway provinces but not their own. It never occurs to you that maybe, just maybe, Russia can be wrong sometimes and right othertimes. The world doesn't always fit into the categories of "good" and "evil", countries can be both at the same time, or neither.

Your posts contradict. First you say Russia is out to annex new territory, then you assert they don't care about the people of South Ossetia. That doesn't make sense. If Russia wants new terrority so bad, wouldn't it be in their best interests to aid the people of Georgian breakaway provinces? Not to mention the historical clause. Ossetia has been it's own nation for most of history, but Stalin decided to divide it up between the Georgian SSR and the Russian SSR during his reorganization of Soviet territories. This problem goes back a lot farther than the last 15-20 years. This war was not masterminded by Vladmir Putin. Mikheil Saakashvili did. He has long promised to retake the breakaway provinces, and when better a time to do so than while Putin and other world leaders were at the Olympics. He underestimated the fact that Medvedev, while still Putin de facto henchmen, would act on his own, which he did.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation says the president has the duty to defend Russian citizens around the world. Since many of those South Ossetians who were murdered by Georgian artillery barrage were Russian citizens, and additionally ten Russian peacekeepers were killed, it made complete sense for him to invade. So, when you say Russia engineered this whole thing, you imply that the Constitution of the Russian Federation is part of this conspiracy, and that Stalin was in on the whole thing too. Your trying to oversimplify a complex issue spanning almost a hundred years of history by reverted to the old Cold War-esque "Russians are coming!" attitude.

By saying the ceasefire is insencere you ignore the fact that it was Russia who took this ceasefire to the UN. The ceasefire is currently being discussed in the UN security council and being made so it is acceptable to all parties. Do you honestly believe that Russia would first bring the issue to the UN, then, should the ceasefire be passed (which it likely will) ignore it?

This is the ignorance that comes of trying to oversimplify an issue. Instead of being open to new opinions, the minute I began to critize any part of your idea you insult me my intelligence. Then, you say that you have left the topic, only to come back to continue the insults. While I can admit I was wrong about the Cold War. There. I admitted I was wrong about something. Now, do you still find it nessicary to insult my intelligence simply because I take the opposite. Unfortunatly, in life you will meet people who disagree with you. But implying they are stupid or ignorant is not the way to get around this. Why can't we have a civil debate about the issue at hand instead of resorting to personal attacks? While I can admit I indulged in this aswell, I was simply defending myself against an unwarrented attack. If you can't be civil, then you shouldn't bother discussing controversial topics. I think I would listen to your views and respect you a lot more if you didn't insult me. All that does is hurt your overall argument. People are much more likely to listen to someone when there civil then when they're insulting people for seemingly no reason besides having a different view. Okay, my rant is done.

I consider the senseless murder of 11 million people evil. And Hitler wasn't crazy. He was sane. Not crazy, just stupid and evil.

I think that the government has been succesful in preventing 9/11, but some of the people who are on their lists could easily be eliminated by common sense, such as Nelson Mandela.

Whenever it's sugar or anthrax is irrelevant. The campaign acted the right way. Better safe that sorry. If someone is threatening you and sending your white powder, even if that white powder is harmless, it means someone doesn't like you, and they may send something that is actually harmful. Don't confuse being stupid with being cautitious.

At 8/21/08 08:29 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/21/08 08:19 PM, Saruman200 wrote: They do. They gave South Ossetians and the Abkhazians Russian passports.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! OH MY GOD!

Dude, you really are that ignorant. Good fucking God.

No, no, seriously. You don't get why they did that? I swear to God, I mean, believing that they're being honest about the cease-fire is one thing. I mean, you're a gullible dumbass for that, no problem, but seriously. The passport thing went over your head? You thought they did that to be neighborly?

I swear, I'm done with you on this. If it's not blatantly obvious why they did that, then you're completely lost, I'm not going to spend any time on someone who can't even grasp BLATANT provocateurism.

Your ignorance amazes me. They have had those passports for years. What an idiot. You believe all the Western propaganda so easily. Then when someone (gasp!) disagrees with you can even be civilized. I love the irony and hypocracy of your statements. They make me laugh. I can't believe you don't even look at the evidence when it stares you in the face. Then you accuse me of ignorance. This is one of the funniest things I've seen! You obviously know nothing about the region. Instead you just blindly follow everything you see on the news. How ironic.

At 8/21/08 07:49 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

:Yet, by saying "ahead" you imply an advantage, therefore it matters. And the exchange rate in itself is, as I already have said, insignificant .

Also, your debt claim is incorrect, European countries have similar debt/GDP ratios as the US.

Uh, it is an advantage. A small advantage, yes, but still and advantage.

At 8/21/08 07:42 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:23 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:10 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Now, I had said a while back that Georgia was targeted because of their tentative position regarding NATO. They were in talks about joining and, while the jury's out on whether or not they would have been admitted, Russia's sending a message: the Warsaw Pact is back in business.

How?

Russia is absolutely using the Georgian internal conflict to annex it. They really fanned the flames in South Ossetia especially.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just what's happening, they're taking shit over. The neighboring countries are in need of stability anyway, so it's basically just a little unpleasantness and then things'll be much smoother over there than they have been since the late 80s.

I seriously doubt it.

Chechnya isn't a rival country, it's part of Russia. I seriously doubt Russia will attack Ukraine or Poland, that's just bluster designed at resecuring influence.

Meh, it's tentative. I see Russia totally dominating Chechnya, establish a much more obvious control. I mean, Chechnya has been pretty autonomous for a while, even with Russia at the de facto helm.

Not really. Russia has a good hand on Chechnya, the problem is terrorist attacks there.

The Russian Army is actually going through a modernization plan, and it's already though as the second most powerful military after that of the US. I agree Russia won't attack Poland though.

They can muscle around their neighbors, sure, but their military isn't anywhere near as tough as it used to be. Not even close. I know they're bringing it back up to speed, but that's kind of my point. They're not going to be taking the bull by the horns before hitting the gym a little.

I assumed we were talking in the future, not right now, since I find it highly unlikely Russia would just go ahead and attack now instead of waiting.

Russia has been fighting Chechnya for along time. Chechnya is a breakaway provence of Russia, like South Ossetia is to Georgia (I agree with people on how hypocritical Russia is being).

Hypocritical? They don't give a shit about the rights of the South Ossetians or the Abkhazians. They've been using the situation to expand. It would only be hypocritical if they gave half a shit about the situation any further than the fact that it provides them with the perfect pretext.

They do. They gave South Ossetians and the Abkhazians Russian passports.

Russia isn't "annexing" anything. The Pro-West Georgian president is still in power, and this has actually increased it's chances of joining NATO.

Then why are they strengthening their position in Georgia? They're not withdrawing from any positions of strength and the places they are giving up aren't of any strategic value. It's a political move. They've been moving fucking ballistic launchers up closer to the front. You don't do that unless you're digging in.

Russia's not done with Georgia, I can't understand why you would think so. NOBODY is buying the cease fire, that's far from the point. Putin doesn't expect anyone to buy it and, yet, you seem to be. That says something.

Oh, how kind. We were having a debate and you decide to come out and insult me (or at least it implies an insult) for no reason. I've never insulted you, yet you do it to me. Do you do that to everyone who has a different view on something than you? "That says something."

I agree for the opposite reasons. With competetion, the US won't go around messing in other countries business and do stupid crap like attack Iraq for fear of pissing off Russia.

Oh yeah, because the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cuban Missile Crisis are any indication of that. The whole Cold War was entirely fought by messing with other countries business.

All those had reasons. The War in Iraq had not reason.

What do you have to do to qualify as a "regular". I come to this forum everyday, sometimes multiple times, but I haven't been registered that long so my post count isn't very impressive.