Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/4/08 01:24 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 9/3/08 07:28 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Seriously, not everyone is out to get you, don't be so hard done by.

Right. I hallucinated all of the Sarah Palin threads on the front page. Right.

Lol, let's have a look at those threads shall we.

What do you think of Sarah Palin?: Someone praising her.

McCain selects female woman as VP: Someone asking about her, pretty neutral, just a thread about her.

So the only really bad one is the one about her 17 year old daughter, and most people in that thread have already pointed out how stupid it is...

You may not have hallucinated those Sarah Palin thread, but you certainly hallucinated bias.

The EU has no obligation to act out against Russia. They have no unified foreign policy or defense policy. People need to stop treating them like NATO. They're not. The EU is an economic alliance, not a military organization. If there was "EU Army" I would agree, but too bad there isn't. That's like saying NAFTA should have reacted to the Russian threat. The level of military and foreign policy cooperation between the EU and between NAFTA is roughly the same: almost none.

At 9/3/08 07:50 PM, Chavic wrote:
Just look at the covers of US weekly. The most recent had a picture of Sarah Palin holding her infant with the bold title of "Babies, lies, and scandal." In the article it points out such scandals as Palin's husband getting a DUI, but fails to mention it was 22 years ago. It also talks about how Palin is trying to get a police officer fired, without mentioning that the police officer tazered his own 10 year old son and threatened Palin's father.

While a few months ago, there was a cover that showed a picture of Obama and his family and the nice title of "Why he loves her."

Bias much?

Okay, I was proven wrong. However, I probably should have been more descriptive. I mean, I wasn't really meaning talbloids and celebrity gossip magazines. Your still right though.

Because McCain has a reputation for being a maverick. People don't think "Bush" or "Republican" when they see him, they think of a maverick who challenged his own party and reached across party lines. Of course, he's shifted to the right now that he's running for president, but that doesn't change what people think. And it doesn't matter anyway, McCain is still losing.

I agree. People's personal lives should be kept out of politics. That's what the Democrats said with Bill Clinton, why can't they live up to that? However, I disagree that the media has a liberal bias. That's just bullshit. Unless someone can actually provide a reliable source showing the media said something biased (and I don't mean an analysis or editorial), I'm calling BS. Whatever, I agree with you.

Guided evolution is just another type of shitty theistic metaphor. Now that evolution is no undeniable anyone that tried to deny it happened would look like a complete idiot to anyone who know what there talking about, they try to pin it on God. Religion used to deny that the Earth was round and that the Earth revolved around the Sun. When it become so undeniable that those things were true, they made up some bullshit metaphor for it. It's happened before, and it'll happen again, because these people just can't admit that they're wrong.

I suggest you read the "what party do you belong to" topic. It shows there are roughly the same amount of Democracts and Republicans. Why does it seem everything has a liberal bias these days? The Main Stream Media, blogs, Youtube, Wikipedia, and now Newgrounds? Seriously, not everyone is out to get you, don't be so hard done by.

The fact that you failed to provide any reliable source for your bullshit conspiracy theory about Britian faking the Zimmerman telegram, made the rest of your argument all the stupidier. I won't bother debunking your points, everyone else already has.

At 9/2/08 10:25 PM, homor wrote:
stuff

Sarcasm is lost on you, isn't it.

At 9/2/08 09:32 PM, TheMason wrote:
Where in Obama's or Biden's past do they have experience like that?

Obama may not, but Biden does. He actually went to Georgia and talked to there president, instead of just blustering about it like McCain. He's been chairman of the sentate foreign relations comitee for years and has worked with leaders of both are allies and hostile nations.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the whole experience issue is crap. But I saw an error and decided to correct it. Ultimately, Sarah Palin doesn't have more experience than Obama or Biden though. Being a governor of a small (population-wise, not land-wise) state and being president of a nation is very different. Nothing can prepare you for the presidency, nothing.

At 9/2/08 09:33 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Saruman, I'm skipping alot because you've taken a false preface, and it's painted subsequent things that I've said in the wrong light... and caused further misinterpretation. Maybe i suck at communicating. I dunno. Anyway... here's the meat of what I'm trying to say.

Well, if you hadn't skipped over stuff, you would have seen that I said I might be mistinterpreting your post :P.

Explain to me the mechanics or dark matter and energy and why er how er through what processes it behaves the way it does?

I can't, but if I work to become a scientist I may be able to.

Hey. Alot of that stuff. We don't know. But that doesn't mean we should stop looking for the answer. it just means we don't know. It doesn't mean we should give up. It means we don't know. And it means people like you and me probably won't know until we're given some information from real scientists.

Okay, I did misinterpit your post. To me, you sounded like you were saying we either don't know, or God did it. Guess I misread.

You can find out yourself if you're into it. That's not my career choice.

Not mine either. Sorry I misunderstood you. As I said, I was rushed.

At 9/2/08 09:29 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/2/08 08:19 PM, Saruman200 wrote: You say I have the illusion that I sit on a mountain-top but you try to force your own point of view on others. How hypocritical. What do I believe? I believe that all cultures are equal and acceptable. I believe that nothing is "right" or "wrong", rather there is just points of view. If you can't understand that, than it's pointless to try to reason with you.
And when did I say people should care about foreigners as much as they do their wives and children? You've only succeeded in arguing with yourself, because as far I can tell no one here has said that but you.

I force nothing upon anyone. I merely evaluate. Whether I know there are other cultures that would feel the same is immaterial. It is my culture and values, just as it is my family's and neighbor's. It doesn't matter what the details are. In any contest of influence or preservation, I want mine to be triumphant. Just as how I would want my family's lives to exist rather than those of some foreigners. That is the way human interactions work, and it doesn't mandate that one group aggressively tries to force its culture on the other; peaceful coexistence is possible so long as neither is threatened, purposely or not. But from this preference the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that mine must be better.

Okay, I guess I misunderstood.

Did I say the US should claim most responsibilty! No! Stop bullshitting yourself into believing I've said things I haven't. All I said is that we can't blame this all on one side. Your arguing with yourself again.

No, you only implied that terrorism has some legitimacy as a response to US actions. It has none, ever. Reasons for hard feelings or anger, perhaps. Reasons that justify blowing oneself up to kill innocent people, I don't think so.

No, I'm implying that the US does bad things things too. Never said that is justification for terrorism. Just pointing out the thing isn't one sided.

Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are international...

True. An oversight on my part of my wording.

Okay.

Why is this issue US-centric? There are other countries than the United States you know. But, I'll answer anyway: the Völkisch movement (Neo-Nazi terrorists), the Earth Liberation Front (Eco-terrorists), Russian nationalist movement (various Neo-Facist nationalist groups in Russia), Aryan Nations (white supremacists, not really foreign I suppose, since they were founded in America but now operate worldwide), Jewish Defense League (Jewish and Israeli nationalists), Hammerskins (Neo-Nazi, like Aryan Nations, founded in US, but now international), and Operation Red Dog (not really a terrorist group, but a group of American and Canadian Neo-Nazis who planned to invade Dominica with the help of former Dominican president Patrick John).

And that's quite a list of vicious terrorist groups there. How about another tally, this time of confirmed deaths stemming from the actions of these groups. I shouldn't have to make the distinction between deaths caused by the group, as opposed to deaths caused by individual members of the group, but I will anyway.
ELF-0
JDL-7
Hammerskins-0
Aryan Nations-0

Wrong, they have detonated homemade bombs and lynched people. I don't have time to provide sources, but a google search should reveal some.

Al-Qaida and spinoff groups--probably tens of thousands.
So apparently, there are poser terrorists, and REAL terrorists. Guess which ones are Islamic/Arab...

You want to expand the list to the entire world? Go ahead. I doubt you'll find anything that compares to the scope and destruction of Islamic fundamentialism and jihad.

But it doesn't really matter. I think it's pretty clear that the terrorists the US has to take seriously, those that aren't going to limit themselves to arson and a few hate crimes, are Islamic terrorist groups.

But does that justify racial profiling? No. Not to mention your changing your views. First you said, that not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. Untrue, as I said, there are non-Muslim terrorists. Scope of there attacks are irrelevant. I still proved your statement that all terrorists are Muslim wrong. If you had said "most terrorists are Muslim" or "many terrorists are Muslim" or just "the worst terrorists are Muslim" it wouldn't have been as much of an issue. As you said, American actions don't justify terrorism, but terrorism doesn't justify racism. Surely you can agree that's logical?

At 9/2/08 09:22 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 9/2/08 09:15 PM, TheKlown wrote: An anti-American filmmaker who's out to abolish the July Fourth holiday is visited by three ghosts who try to change his perception of the country.

www.fanfiction.net

I'll read it.

He's not talking about a story he's going to write, it's about some stupid anti-Michael Moore movie.

What the idiots behind this movie don't realize is that by critizing Michael Moore for exercising his freedom of speach, they're the ones being anti-American.

Okay, my earlier post was rushed and after reading over it I found it could be kinda hard to understand, so I'm going try again. Sorry for the double post but I don't want to confuse anyone.

At 9/2/08 06:51 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 9/2/08 06:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

I wasn't speaking in a timeless ideal. If you want to devote your life to tackling dark matter and beyond you're more than welcome to. Let us know what you come up with. But the fact of the matter is we don't have all the answers to the nth degree, not now, nor will we ever, concievably.

Well, when you say stuff like "eventually" and "everything" it generally sounds like your speaking in universial truth or timless ideal. True, we don't know everything, but scientists still work tirelessly to find these things out. If when the apple fell on Newton's head, he could have taken your two choices: he could have "I don't know why this apple fell on my head" or "God made this apple fall on my head". But instead he decided to find out, using logic and science, why the apple fell on his head and discovered gravity.

I was not exlucing the use of logic or science to explain a phenomenon. I was not advocating cognitive absence. I said, "If you keep asking "why". I felt that logic and/or explicit science were inherently built in to the question "why". The issue is that it is only built in to the question "why" to a certain extent.

I don't quite follow, but I guess I misunderstood your first post. However, on the question "why": if we're talking about all these complex cosmic theories on this gigantic universial scale, the question "why" is silly, because not everything happens for a reason.

Assuming science picks up where knowledge drops off is analagous within this context to assuming God picks up where knowledge drops off. 'I believe in science and logic, therefore I assume that the laws of science yet unknown to me continue to operate thusly.' 'I believe in God, therefore I assume that God's law yet unknown to me continues to operate thusly.'

Belief in God and belief in Science and logic are very different things. Science has been tested, many of it's ideals (if not all of them) have been proven correct. Thus, when knowledge ends, you can logically assume the proven laws of science will continue. However, God is unproven. Why assume that when you don't understand something, it must be something that hasn't even been proven to exist. Lets use an example:

A line goes on and on, across a flat plane all the way to the horizon. You can logically assume the line goes on beyond the horizon, because it's been proven the line exists, and there is no reason why the line would stop at the horizan, it's perfectly logical to assume the line goes on. However, since you have no way of knowing for sure, you could just assume that a underground tunnel exists beyond the horizon. You have no proof an underground tunnel even exists in this area, but considering you can't see beyond the horizon, what's wrong with assuming a tunnel is there? So, which is more logical, the line, or the tunnel. Which is more logical, science, or God.

At 9/2/08 06:51 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:

At 9/2/08 06:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

I wasn't speaking in a timeless ideal. If you want to devote your life to tackling dark matter and beyond you're more than welcome to. Let us know what you come up with. But the fact of the matter is we don't have all the answers to the nth degree, not now, nor will we ever, concievably.

True, we don't know everything, but scientists still work tirelessly to find these things out. If everyone had taken your too options, either attribute it to God or say you don't know and give up, nothing would ever have been discovered.

I was not exlucing the use of logic or science to explain a phenomenon. I was not advocating cognitive absence. I said, "If you keep asking "why". I felt that logic and/or explicit science were inherently built in to the question "why". The issue is that it is only built in to the question "why" to a certain extent.

"Why" isn't really a logical question. To be a "why" everything has to happen for a reason, and I don't believe that's true. So really, "why" is a question that is completely irrelevant on the cosmic stage. To ask someone "why" something happened at the cosmic stage is biased because not everyone believes everything happens for a reason.

Assuming science picks up where knowledge drops off is analagous within this context to assuming God picks up where knowledge drops off. 'I believe in science and logic, therefore I assume that the laws of science yet unknown to me continue to operate thusly.' 'I believe in God, therefore I assume that God's law yet unknown to me continues to operate thusly.'

Exept science is far more likely and logical than God (completely so actually). There not comparitive, because science is based on already proven facts, and God is based on nothing.

At 9/2/08 07:01 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/2/08 06:12 PM, Saruman200 wrote: First off, there's nothing wrong with cannibalism. While our culture may view it as wrong and disgusting, some cultures view it as respect for the dead. Your trying to force your own Western moral values on other cultures

Jesus Christ do you stand for nothing? You can preach your moral relativism all you want, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is who YOU are and what YOU believe. Whatever you have stuck up your ass, its giving you the illusion that you sit upon some mountaintop, basking in eternal wisdom while we ants struggle about with our quaint ideologies. Face it; 4000 years of human history has proven the existence and prudence of an "us versus them" mentality, and if someday a brilliant person should conceive of a workable alternative that makes people care about foreigners as much as they do of their wives and children, there's no way in hell it's going to be you.

You say I have the illusion that I sit on a mountain-top but you try to force your own point of view on others. How hypocritical. What do I believe? I believe that all cultures are equal and acceptable. I believe that nothing is "right" or "wrong", rather there is just points of view. If you can't understand that, than it's pointless to try to reason with you.

And when did I say people should care about foreigners as much as they do their wives and children? You've only succeeded in arguing with yourself, because as far I can tell no one here has said that but you.

Kill everyone who dares to disagree with you, good idea. If we execute all the terrorists, how are we any better than them?

Because we are reactionary in our response. They attacked us while we had left them in peace. "Live and let live" is completely compatible with "live and let live, or else we will f*cking kill you."

If you believe that the Muslim extremists and the US were at peace before Al Qaeda attacked, you really are ignorant. This conflict has being going on since the 1980s, and the US has had it's fair share of atrocities aswell.

Oh yes, I've forgotten about the horrible atrocity of recognizing a country in the 1940s that has since earned a right to exist through combat. Shameful! And let us not forget how we gave money to counterrevolutionaries in Iran in the late 50's and limited weaponry to the Shah afterwards. Disgraceful!! And how could we leave out how we gave Stinger missle systems to the Afghan rebels and Saddam? Of all the suffering in the region, surely we must claim most, if not all, of the responsibility for it?

Did I say the US should claim most responsibilty! No! Stop bullshitting yourself into believing I've said things I haven't. All I said is that we can't blame this all on one side. Your arguing with yourself again.

Hmm. Let's do a count of all international terrorists (as in those who don't target agents of their explicitly recognized rulers) who have ever posed a threat to the United States and keep track of their dominant race:

Neo-Nazis, white supremacists

What part of "international" do you not understand?

Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are international...

Black--none, save those African Muslims who have leagued with Al-Qaida (only on a domestic level, as well)

Not all terrorists are Muslim...what ignorance. Terrorism is a universial problem that is present in all races and religions. Your trying to oversimplify the situation by racially and religiously stereotyping.

Fine, enlighten me so I can cast off my ignorance. Name a non-arabic/muslim foreign terrorist group that poses as much of a threat to the United States. Come on. There must be an example somewhere in your PC encyclopedia.

Why is this issue US-centric? There are other countries than the United States you know. But, I'll answer anyway: the Völkisch movement (Neo-Nazi terrorists), the Earth Liberation Front (Eco-terrorists), Russian nationalist movement (various Neo-Facist nationalist groups in Russia), Aryan Nations (white supremacists, not really foreign I suppose, since they were founded in America but now operate worldwide), Jewish Defense League (Jewish and Israeli nationalists), Hammerskins (Neo-Nazi, like Aryan Nations, founded in US, but now international), and Operation Red Dog (not really a terrorist group, but a group of American and Canadian Neo-Nazis who planned to invade Dominica with the help of former Dominican president Patrick John).

Sources: Wikipedia, Terrorism Knowledge Base, FBI

At 9/2/08 06:35 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote:
At this point you can say, well we just don't know, or you can attribute it to God. So, everything could potentially be a miracle.

Or you could take the third option: use logic and science to figure it out, instead of just saying "I don't know" and giving up, or saying "God did it" and taking the easy way out.

At 9/2/08 05:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/2/08 05:51 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Einstein's religious views are a matter of constant debate.

It's printed black on white that he was a Deist who believed in Spinoza's God, i.e. nothing really concrete.

But he also claimed to not believe in a personal God. I don't know if that conflicts with Spinoza's God, but from some of Einstein's later statements he seemed more like an atheist or agnostic to me, but whatever.

but I find it stupid everyone brings up his name in order to prove there side is the "smart side".

In my experience, from the debates I've seen, it's usually religious people who pop in "hey did you know that person XYZ was religious?" and then the other side has to refute the lie. If you watch any of these debates, you'll see how unfair it is.

I do watch these debates, and participate in them occasionally, and I agree.

The religious constantly lie. Constantly, they spew out tons and tons of "facts" that are just outright lies and there's simply no time to refute all of them, and when you do demolish one, they move on to the next, they won't acknowledge their defeat.
And next debate they're in, they start the routine up again.

Which is one of the reasons I maintain that shaggy isn't a troll. He operates exactly how religious people, even really high-ranking ones, debate. Just state tons and tons and tons of claims, then move on as soon as anyone refutes them.
Just talk talk talk, never respond, never learn, never concede anything.

True. That's why I mostly just give my opinions and then leave, maybe stay around awhile to see if anyone replys to my post. Otherwhise I don't have the patience to sit around and try to make my point to people who are too stubborn to change their views even when it's obvious how stupid religion and creationalism is...

At 9/2/08 05:41 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 9/2/08 03:49 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

First off, Native American culture still exists. And what do you mean the "reformed people's of Germany". Like Ex-Nazis, East Germans, what? Besides, Germany has had the same culture it has today as it did 1000 years ago. Politics have changed, but not really culture.

Native American culture still exists, and it has no influence whatsoever. The German culture survives, except now the nazi movement is almost totally dead. The Japanese culture, because of the war, reversed completely from a warrior-code dominated society to one dominated by pacifist entrepenuers who look on their former enemies as their greatest protectors.

Nazism isn't a culture it's a political movement...

I suppose your correct in saying cultures can be destroyed, but destroying culture is a terrible thing. You make it seem like something we should do.

And even the littlest Christmas tree has Christmas spirit, right? Please, you sound like some after-school special.

And you sound like a immature racist. We can do this all day. But let's get back on topic.

Cultures are neutral. There are no good ones, no bad ones, only ones that relate to your own. You are understandably prejudiced to believe cultures are always good because the US education system teaches that African and Native American cultures were peaceful, earth-loving, blessed lifestyles from God and the evil, greedy, bigoted Caucasian colonists smashed their boots upon them.

Exactly: cultures are neutral. So why should we destroy them. And when did I say African and Native Americans cultures were peaceful, earth-loving, blessed lifestyles? All cultures are the same, one isn't better than the others...

Some cultures should be destroyed, in any case. The Aztec human-sacrificing possibly cannibal culture. Nasty business. The Spartan child molesting, baby killing, warrior-producing culture, too.

First off, there's nothing wrong with cannibalism. While our culture may view it as wrong and disgusting, some cultures view it as respect for the dead. Your trying to force your own Western moral values on other cultures

Kill everyone who dares to disagree with you, good idea. If we execute all the terrorists, how are we any better than them?

Because we are reactionary in our response. They attacked us while we had left them in peace. "Live and let live" is completely compatible with "live and let live, or else we will f*cking kill you."

If you believe that the Muslim extremists and the US were at peace before Al Qaeda attacked, you really are ignorant. This conflict has being going on since the 1980s, and the US has had it's fair share of atrocities aswell.

Wow, stereotyping much? Let's go out and kill anyone with brown skin, a plain dress, and a turban. You know, let's kill every Muslim. Every Middle Easterner. Everyone who's not a rich, white American. Genocide em up! Why not? After all, we're the "good guys".

Hmm. Let's do a count of all international terrorists (as in those who don't target agents of their explicitly recognized rulers) who have ever posed a threat to the United States and keep track of their dominant race:
Caucasian--none

Neo-Nazis, white supremacists

Black--none, save those African Muslims who have leagued with Al-Qaida (only on a domestic level, as well)

Black supremacists aswell

Oriental--CHINESE CYBER TERRORISTS!

There's lots of terrorist groups in Asia. I don't know any of them by name, but I know they exist.

Arab--50 billion miscellaneous groups targeting Europe, the US, Israel, Africa, the Middle East, and Indonesia.
Best that you frame it in terms of the square/rectangle phrase. All terrorists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are terrorists. Even so, there should be mandatory screening of all Middle Easterners at airports, docks, etc. Screw the PC bullshit with scanning old ladies.

Not all terrorists are Muslim...what ignorance. Terrorism is a universial problem that is present in all races and religions. Your trying to oversimplify the situation by racially and religiously stereotyping.

About Einstein's religious beliefs (from Wikipedia)

"Einstein clarified his religious views in a letter he wrote in response to those who claimed that he worshipped a Judeo-Christian god: 'It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.' "

Einstein's religious views are a matter of constant debate. Also, we must remember Einstein lived half a century ago. If he were alive today, who do you think he would have sided with in this debate, science or religion? I highly doubt it would have been religion.

We must also remember Einstein was also a Zionist and a socialist. Does that mean we should all be Zionist socialists? Einstein may have been a genius, but I find it stupid everyone brings up his name in order to prove there side is the "smart side". Einstein was but what man, his views on the subject shouldn't be anymore important than yours or mine.

At 9/2/08 04:32 PM, Memorize wrote: Not conservative?

How is a pregnant 17 year old girl making the decision to have the baby and marrying her boyfriend (who is of the same age) NOT Conservative, especially in today's atmosphere?

That seems very inclined towards Conservative ideals.

Well, the Christian right generally considers it immoral to have sex before married. I don't know, this whole seems like stupid bullshit to me: who cares about her 17 year old daughter?

At 9/2/08 04:02 PM, wutwutinthebutt wrote: i have no idea what you people are talking about. try speaking some fucking english you tards

Lolz. Try learning to capitalize your words at the beginning of sentances: that's basic english.

At 9/2/08 03:28 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 9/2/08 01:07 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: So don't rub them off as all anarchists who should be executed.

So they weren't all anarchists. They're still problem Americans, interrupting while the adults were talking.

Your solution: kill anyone that has a different view then you? Smarty pants. :P

At 9/2/08 03:46 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 9/2/08 03:37 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:

At 9/2/08 03:33 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Our enemies ride a crusade of hatred, envy, and wrath. Teaching them isn't going to solve the problem: executing them would.

Because killing every single terrorist is SO EASY AND POSSIBLE

We don't have to kill every single terrorist. Just as we did not have to kill every Native American, to get the job done. We only have to kill and imprison enough where it kills their culture and ideals. The rest falls into place.

Because killing those innocent Native Americans was a good thing right? Killing anyone that's different than you is the way to go right? And when your done killing most of them, oppress the rest and force them to take you views. Sounds like a real freedom loving American.

At 9/2/08 03:33 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 9/1/08 10:58 PM, jonnyrules935 wrote: You cannot win a war against terrorism or radical religious societies.

Sure you can. You forget the fact that cultures are assimiliated and/or destroyed everyday. Just as the good ol' Native American. Or the reformed people's of Germany. Radical islam is just another culture, and it's a fact that culture can be killed of conformed.

First off, Native American culture still exists. And what do you mean the "reformed people's of Germany". Like Ex-Nazis, East Germans, what? Besides, Germany has had the same culture it has today as it did 1000 years ago. Politics have changed, but not really culture.

I suppose your correct in saying cultures can be destroyed, but destroying culture is a terrible thing. You make it seem like something we should do.

So the american people are right, get those soldiers outta there, it doesn't make you people look weak, it makes you look intelligent.

You don't seem very intelligent. Hope we don't have any of you on our side.

Everyone that has a different opinion then you is stupid right? How immature.

Use schools against terror, not bombing civilians against terror.

Our enemies ride a crusade of hatred, envy, and wrath. Teaching them isn't going to solve the problem: executing them would.

Kill everyone who dares to disagree with you, good idea. If we execute all the terrorists, how are we any better than them?

'cause, how can you make out the terrorist in the croud ?

Easy. Brown skin. Plain dress. Possible turban. Name is 'Achmed Muhhamed".
Easy.

Wow, stereotyping much? Let's go out and kill anyone with brown skin, a plain dress, and a turban. You know, let's kill every Muslim. Every Middle Easterner. Everyone who's not a rich, white American. Genocide em up! Why not? After all, we're the "good guys".

At 9/2/08 02:20 PM, Memorize wrote:
You said "shotgun wedding". I picked up on it and used it as a spring board in a semi-serious, slightly humorous and exaggerated fashion.

Way to pick up on it, dumb fuck.

Somebody needs to take a deep breath and calm down.

At 9/2/08 01:13 PM, DevilDog016 wrote:

At 9/2/08 11:58 AM, Saruman200 wrote: People think the world will end on 2012. Guess what, it won't. People think the world will end because the scientific experiment your talking about. Guess what, it won't.

The mayan calendar ends on Dec. 24 2012. Those guys were on to something maybe

Yep, and Y2K and the whole 6/6/06 thing was all true aswell. Plus, contempary Mayan scholors say the calender doesn't end on Dec. 24, 2012 because the Mayans thought the world would end on that date, they ended it because they wanted a huge celebration to mark the end of the whole cycle. There goes the consiparcy theory.

Source

At 9/2/08 12:11 PM, Jizzlebang wrote: Since when were they rioting about nothing? I heard they were protesting the war.

That's what I heard too. Who knows, people riot for whatever reason. It's like it's that uncommon...

Considering space is limitless, it would be pretty hard for the government to control the whole thing. But then again, space ships need fuel and have limits, so it's not like the entire universe would be open to us. Plus, the governments of the world would probably have the most advanced space ships, thus they would have an advantage on civilians ships. This is way to speculative. It would all depend on how advanced the space ships were, how advanced and how many the government's ships were compared to the civilians, how big and fast the space ships were, etc... I would hope the government would have control however, unless you want your space ships to get looted by space criminals and be throw out into the vastness of space to run out of air and die...

If she's a good vice president, I don't give a fuck about her personal life. Those bastards at the media should stop screwing around in people's personal lives for their shitty little scoops. I wonder how they would like it...