Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/24/04 06:18 AM, Axetroninator wrote: Foamy is dead now, "Suggestion Box" proves it. Just let the little fucktard die.

I actually enjoyed Suggestion Box. Yes there are some episodes that I do not like, some are better than others like everything in life. You prove nothing.

I would like to welcome all new members to this club. No you do not need to be Goth to become a member.

Welcome,
TheMason

You know BWS I agree with alot of what you are saying. I think alot of this argument has been largely misrepresented. I do not think there are that many Rich people out there who are like Paris and Nicole, people who do not contribute anything to the rest of society. Most of the successful people I know are very frugal with their money and try to raise their kids to be productive and make lives of their own.
As for the "poor" in this country, I think their "plight" is often exaggerated. I have worked in several American "sweatshops" before, during and even after college. It was hard work but I only worked 40hrs a week and got paid a decent wage with good benefits for my daughter and then wife. Many of my own family members have worked in "sweatshops" yet have led fairly comfortable lives and have been able to provide for their families.

Now as for the "produce" part of the argument. I have noticed that in the factories, as a financial consultant and now the military, that with the higher the pay the longer the time a person puts in. While I may "labor" more than them, they have more responsibility than I (mainly making sure that the business is profitable so that it may stay in business and I may keep my job).

Lastly about the third-world sweatshop argument, our standard of living is much higher than over there. In fact our poor have more wealth than most of the world (as long as they own a refridgerator). That is not necessarially the US's fault if those governments do not provide the same access to things such as education or modern public works.

I guess we could invade and "modernize" (ie-bringing them up to Western standards) these countries but that would only spawn many more topics on many BBSs!

At 1/18/04 02:33 PM, MsBobble wrote: I have to say thats a touph one. I myself believe in evolution, but I like more to stay neutral to both. Maybe they should have those permission slips like for sex e.d. Although I have to say any parent who says "no" is ruining there childs future of having any job that has to do with science, because of some stupid conflict that'll never end

Yes and the US's track record with sex ed is outstanding. In South Carolina that is strictly taboo even though kids as young as 13 are having sex putting themselves at risk for pregnancy or STDs. Other countries that have more in-depth sex ed has lower teenage rates in both categories.

As for parental slips for stuff (especially Evolution) in PUBLIC schools, NO. If parents are that staunchly opposed to it then they should 1) homeschool their kids or 2) find a private school that will not them the theory. Most of the Private schools that do not teach the subject are probably fundamentalist and cheap anyway. A public school caters to a large population, not just fundamentalist christians. Therefore, my child should not suffer because of letigation from faith (especially when that faith contradicts my own) instead of reason.

Besides, if it is that big of deal then it is the parent's responsibility to teach them the religious perspective anyway. Chances are they have their kids brainwashed already anyway and thus the parent's ignorance will take!

At 1/17/04 06:14 PM, BWS wrote: Mason,
The reason why is because it is derived using a theoretical approach. Im almost positive that the geometry he used was non Euclidean. Besides, we cannot test the theory thus making it a Law because we have no means to do so. And the plate techtonic thing: same deal, we cant go study the inside of the Earth, so we cannot conduct a test.

No that may be part of it, I remember in one of my college chemistry courses that the reasons we stopped looking to cannonize (to use a religious term) theories into laws is that we have discovered that with new technology we have learned that a scientific "Law" is NOT absolute and there are factors that we cannot see regardless of what we can or cannot observe or what geometry was involved.

For example, how could Newton have observed the effect upon gravity that planets have as they move through the fabric of space? Or a blackhole? In fact what we call Newton's Laws would probably be termed as theories today instead of laws.

Oh nice pic on your profile BWS!

At 1/17/04 04:06 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 1/17/04 02:37 PM, TheMason wrote: My ex-wife was taking an evolution class when the Europeans successfully cloned Dolly. Her Prof. walked in the next class after the announcement and told the class that almost everything in their texts was now obsolete.

What was she teaching in that evolution class? Theory of Evolution?

If you would read closer Bumcheek you'd notice that she was taking the class and not teaching it. It was also an advanced college level course, not a High School we're just going to tell you a little bit course.

At 1/15/04 09:54 PM, Dagodevas wrote: I know “Fire & Rain” by James Taylor was about the Vietnam War, but everyone should know that one.

Actually Dag I believe that was about his girlfriend/fiancee who died in a firey plane crash while trying to visit her parents.

Shout at the Devil by Motley Crue was aimed at the Reagan administration as was one (I can't think of the title, sorry) on their Dr. Feelgood CD.

At 1/15/04 09:54 PM, Dagodevas wrote: I know “Fire & Rain” by James Taylor was about the Vietnam War, but everyone should know that one.

Actually Dag I believe that was about his girlfriend/fiancee who died in a firey plane crash while trying to visit her parents.

Shout at the Devil by Motley Crue was aimed at the Reagan administration as was one (I can't think of the title, sorry) on their Dr. Feelgood CD.

At 1/17/04 12:34 PM, Taromsn wrote: About the thing about the theory of evolution being a theory... In science class, we are learning the THEORY of plate tectonics. It is still in the steps of a THEORY and it is the most likely solution alike the THEORY of evolution. So... why is it being taught?

Okay Taromsn and those who are in the 100% proof required camp:

If Issac Newton were alive today learning about gravity instead of in the 1700s, his work would be known as theories instead of laws. Why? Because as scientists come to know things in greater detail and technology allows them to see things that cannot otherwise be readily observed. Things that were once considered concrete laws, are now seen to be flawed.

Thus everything after Newton will be known as theory instead of laws. Scientific observations henceforth will never again be able to advance to the "Law stage" (why do you think its Einstein's THEORY of relativity instead of LAW of relativity?).

Scientists accept theories based upon the scientific method, nothing in science is dogma or absolute. My ex-wife was taking an evolution class when the Europeans successfully cloned Dolly. Her Prof. walked in the next class after the announcement and told the class that almost everything in their texts was now obsolete.

At 1/14/04 04:20 PM, Dagodevas wrote: No. There are things in this world we need to learn and teach, but the theory of evolution shouldn’t be one of them.

Sorry Dag, but it should be. I was stationed in South Carolina by the military. My wife at the time was a middle school science teacher. I attended the University of South Carolina. She was not allowed to teach anything close to evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc. In fact she could not even teach that organisms adapt to their environment. Even though Darwin NEVER said anything that really contradicted God. Evolution contradicts the Bible (a human creation, divinely inspired maybe but fucked up by Man), not the idea of God.

As a University student I knew biology majors who became deeply troubled by their lack of knowledge of evolution. Their education and careers suffered greatly from it.

Besides, it is the Religious among us that make this into something about God and religion. Seperation of Church and State. To bad, so sad for those who have their heads up their ass to behold God's creation.

At 1/15/04 01:13 AM, swaenK wrote: Any other possible life forms would prove that most forms of religion is wrong. Which would be great. Cuz religion is bullshit.

No swaenK, we would all become Mormons because they believe taht ETs do exist!

At 1/17/04 01:03 PM, swallowing_shit wrote:

With the aid of France and Russia he built the infrastructure to build an impressive biological warfare infrastructure

WHere do you suppose he got the money for that?
http://www.cjr.org/archives.asp?url=/93/2/iraqgate.asp

He conducted ethnic cleansing.

Where do you suppose he got the chemicals for that?
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html

Oh yeah, he was a DIRECT sponsor of terrorism.

:: If you can guess who that is shaking Saddam's hand, you win a cookie.

The picture is a little fuzzy, but I would guess Don Rumsfeld. Ok, so where's my fucking cookie! (I like chocolate chips)

As for the rest of it, Yes we gave Saddam money during the '80s along with intel and a few small arms. However, if we gave Iraq SOOOOOO much why did his air force fly Russian and French aircraft (MiGs, SUs & Mirages) instead of US planes? Why did we fight soldiers armed with AK-47s instead of M-16s? The tanks were of Russian design instead good ole' Abrams made in Detroit?

The fact is since the 1990s we have given Saddam squat besides humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, soviet expertise and french firms gave Saddam the infrastructure to have one hell of a illegal biological warfare program. Now before I hear about our bio-research, in the 1970s the Pentagon did away with all offensive programs. The reasona: 1) PR and 2) the military saw biologicals as highly ineffective and a waste of money (they were convinced that nuclear weapons were far superior). For more information on this I suggest you read Biohazard by Ken Alibek. He ran the Soviet program and was responsible for hiding it from American inspectors. He defected once he became convinced that the US DID NOT have such a program.

OK folks here's a reality check:

MM & Rush Limbaugh serve the same purpose for their perspective political ideologies.

Both are political propagandists who twist facts and figures into reflecting a reality that fits their message that will effectively mobilize their constituency. I personally hate it when ppl constantly refer to an ideologue such as MM or Rush as if they were oracles of vast wisdom.

Don't you know that when you get your facts from ppl like this that they are filtered? MM, Rush they have their biases and when you quote them you are automatically accepting someone else's bias! This is perhaps the worst sin one may conduct against themselves!

Trade in your robotic minds for human ones, go to college learn about how government runs. Learn about the economy. Talk to ppl with a varied range of opinion and expertise! Do not just sit down with your dem/rep/libertarian/green/etc... friends and talk about how bad shit is.

Finding the irony in those who quote Voltaire,
TheMason

At 1/17/04 03:57 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 1/17/04 12:50 AM, TheMason wrote: What is this? Hypocracy? The Great Liberal from GB using a conservative and borderline capitalist argument? Wait, wait, it is in support of someone whose politics agree with his!

No, I have always believed that people should work hard for their money, and that they should enjoy that money in whatever way they see fit. I dont think that anyone earning a good salary of £150,000 a week should not reap the benefits of their hard work. However, anyone earning amounts that are amazingly excessive, such as over £1m a year, can help by paying more tax on it, because, frankly, they aren't strapped for cash.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.

However, this is not the way liberalism works in the states. Democrats play on class warfare over here as if it is 1917 Russia. The rich do nothing productive. They have not succeeded fairly, or been overly privilidged. Therefore they feel that the rich should give till they bleed in this country.

The point is, Liberals in this country constantly attack the "privilidged" who send their kids to private school, not supporting public school. It also extends beyond where their kids go to school. People like Moore go around preaching their class warfare shit, as if people who are rich should just give their money away.

Ah, different attitude here. I think my town, at the least, just wonders why you want to pay so much cash when there are perfectly good schools here, but, hell, if you want to send your son/daughter to a public school, i'm not going to stop you.

Again, I am a product of public schools myself. Besides the school is only one part of the equation (the parents and the kids themselves the other 2 equal parts) in someone's educational success.
Again however, my point I guess doesn't extend to someone living in the UK. Liberals may be different here than there. Here they display all the same hypocracies as the 1917 Marxists. Scary though. Public/private education is a focal point of their class warfare diatribes.

I think that there is also an issue of Church and State in terms of Marriage. In the battle over same-sex marriages the Christian right has obviously adopted it as a religious institution.
If this is the case then government should not be allowed to recognize marriage as some sort of legal contract. Marriage would just be a social union between two ppl.
However, government involvement is necessary because of all the financial/property/children issues that cannot be avoided. So legal Marriages for all or for none.

At 1/16/04 09:02 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

:and often the wife ends up losing more and may not even be able to get spousal support.

I just want to know, have you ever gone through a divorce?

Hold on here Rugby, I'd be very careful. Yes there is a problem with dead-beat dads. HOWEVER, the rest of the process of divorce is VERY biased against men. I'm going through one right now, and I've got to tell you that I am getting severely raped legally. My wife is bi-polar and lives in her own world with her own coresponding reality.
Just because I stand a foot taller than her, and weigh 100lbs more than her (she is a very petite woman) the courts look upon her as being easily intimadated by me. She is in Medical School and has discussed 1) several ways to kill ppl without it being traced and 2) different agents that will paralyze a person yet will leave them aware of what is being done to them.
I get laughed at when I tell ppl I am afraid of her. In our seperation proceedings she alluded to physical abuse by me (NOT TRUE) and the judge thus prejudged me. Now I am paying about $260 more a month than ppl who make much more than me and in one case has one more child than me.
My wife also went nuts and threatened to call the police and have me arrested for harassment because I told her I had a responsibility to help her provide heat for our daughter when her heat went out. I wanted to help beyond the court-ordered $600/month child support.

I know you may be thinking that mine is an isolated case, however bi-polar is more common in women than men, and this happens alot. There are in fact several support groups for ppl going through divorces with bi-polar spouses.

At 1/13/04 04:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

He sends his child to a private school -- no sense associating with the working class --

What is it? He sends his child to a private school, who gives a toss? If he believes his child will get a good education there, and he has earned the mopney for it, then he has the right to send her there, and good luck ot them both.

What is this? Hypocracy? The Great Liberal from GB using a conservative and borderline capitalist argument? Wait, wait, it is in support of someone whose politics agree with his!

The point is, Liberals in this country constantly attack the "privilidged" who send their kids to private school, not supporting public school. It also extends beyond where their kids go to school. People like Moore go around preaching their class warfare shit, as if people who are rich should just give their money away.

Motto:

That's it! Squirrely wrath is coming your way!

At 1/16/04 10:28 PM, -78- wrote: i had hot anul sex with foamy while the osbournes sat in the corner a masturbated....all of this took place in hot topic....am i goth yet?

Wow, I don't know what to be impressed most with.
1) You got to see Ozzy and Sharon's nasties.
or
2) You have a small enough dick to fit into a cartoon squirrel's ass.

Since it seems you have designated me as the authority on what/who is/isn't goth I leave you with this homework assignment:

Go to your local S&M club, let foamy tie you up and chuck his nuts into your ass while you recite poems written by Poe. Do this while Marilyn Manson sucks his own cock in the corner.

Then Goth thou shalt be.

At 1/15/04 05:19 AM, cockjockey wrote: You'll understand when you get a job that the reason the world is so fucked up is because everyones too busy to even pay attention to whats going on. The only people who actually give a rats ass are powerless to do anything about it because the people in charge refuse to take them seriously due to their age.

Yes, the young really must know everything, with their years of education and experience in the complex intertwining of the fields of history, politics, law, economy, science etc. Yes you have probably completed college. So yes you may know most of the facts, but what have you done with your life that would let you practically integrate your knowledge into this enigma we call humanity and affect some good?

Yet another thread with potential that has gone down in flames...

At 1/15/04 05:38 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 1/15/04 05:32 PM, Veggiemeal wrote: 14 years old? Thou shalt adress me with "sir".

I shall address nobody with 'sir' unless they have earned my respect. Basically, I'm an annoying rebellious, arrogant shit who has a problem with authority :D I love myself.

Wow, I remember those days half a lifetime ago. I'm 28 and still retain those qualities. So I guess this makes me equal not to bum or veggie, but to BOTH COMBINED?

Foamy's NG Special Forces Group & Virtual Card Cult

So far we are a whopping 3 members strong:
#1 TheMason
#2 SRAKeats
#3 lifey

This is my attempt to gather the pro-Foamy forces against the evil clocks and bad animators who are jealous that their crappy work is not good enough to win awards. So please feel free to discuss not only pro-Foamy topics in this club. As you can tell by my opening line, we shall crush all anti-foamy drivel with not only our superior numbers but also our flawless logic and intellect.

At 1/16/04 10:07 PM, Rector wrote:

At 1/16/04 09:59 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) Some of the most exotic women I have seen have been Arab

Yeah, but you couldn't have actually seen too much of them if they were Arab - they wear those ridiculous robes all the time.

(I am also just trying to be funny.)

Yeah but you know, hitting on an Arab girl is like a scratch-off lottery ticket, you don't know if you going win big or crap-out!

At 1/15/04 11:25 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote:

:: aaahright. I'll try to keep it civil this time, even though Dawg here does stretch my patience to the limit.

So let's see. The palestinians work in Israel, get payed Israeli $, and the n use that money to go buy fucking bombs and blow up schoolbuses.

Yes, Isreal has been SOOOOO good to the Palestinians. The Zionists moved the Palestinians from their poor farms into plush high rise apartments on the East Side. Palestinians enjoy equal status and rights under Isreali law. They have equal opportunity to get good jobs, like the Isrealis. Have you caught on to the fact that I'm being sarcastic?

Here's a hint for you stonedpimp: 1) put down the joint and 2) stop 69'n that blow-up doll you call a ho and rent to your friends, and pick-up a book or magazine (like a news magazine, instead of Big Tits for Lil' Dicks) and actually read about the situation in Isreal.
Do you realize that there are SEVERAL GENERATIONS of Palestinians that all they have known has been refugee camps? You think the Isrealis could be a little more sympathitic considering their experience in Germany with the pre-concentration camp Ghettos. Yet when they stood up and fought against the Nazis they were heros.

At 1/15/04 12:30 PM, Maragriz wrote: I've been saying this again and again. Turn the entire middle east into a somking crater with bombs, and there you go, no more fighting,because everyone would be dead, then we invade and enslave France, Invade and plillage all beer, and women (hey trust me, they are hot!) of germany. And finally take over Canada, and Mexico. My Name is Maragriz and I'm running For President of the United States.

Two things:
1) Some of the most exotic women I have seen have been Arab (French whores are usually too stuck-up).
2) Where would we get oil?

(NOTE: Just trying to be funny, I know the US only gets 1/3 of our oil from the Middle East).

At 1/14/04 03:28 PM, H-Dawg wrote: Listen up, y'all. I just wants ta RANT a bit bout all tha HATIN' goin on between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What da FUCK does Ariel Sharon think he's doin trying to disenfranchize, kill, maime, get-rid-off-the-face-of-the-earth all a them Palestinian dudes? And anyone who tells me that Palestinians are just a bunch of terrorists trespassing on Israeli holy-land is ignoring not only that Palestinians have been there a LOOOOONG time before the Israeli state was set up by western superpowers (kind of like the way Pakhistan and India were separated by the British, who then left to let those two states fight it out over a stupid and arbitrary division of land not even decided upon by Indians) and secondly, the fact that Israel, headed by Sharon, is acting much like the Nazi's did when they tried to exterminate Jews. FURTHER, if anyone read the BBC news this morning, they will have seen the article that lists the 4 or 5 BRITISH peace activists that have been pretty much murdered by Israeli soldiers for standing up for Palestinian's human rights. So who ARE the real terrorists in da middle-east, y'all? H-Dawg, OUT!

Yo Dawg,
I totally agree with you. I think Sharon's government is a terrorist organization. I think it is an abomination how Isreal has historically treated the Palestinians. Sharon should be brought before a war-crimes tribunal for his actions as General in Beriut. Furthermore, Isreal's recent claim that the founder of Hamas should be assasinated inflamed the Palestines, and for what?

Lastly, those mofos hatin on yo ass only red part of yo rant dawg! As you switched writing styles halfway through.

Your friend,
TheMason

At 1/16/04 06:43 PM, H-Dawg wrote: Hmmmm, it seems Bush has sent hundreds of Americans over to Iraq and Afghanistan to their deaths in pointless wars, given his other diplomatic options, for no other reason than to boost his ego and his political power. Everybody knows a leader at war (as Bush Sr. demonstrated), no matter how much of an idiot, is almost guaranteed a 90+% opinion rating in the US right now. I'd say he's using the deaths of Americans as fodder for his political ambition. Now, how is that different from Saddam?!

H-Dawg,

What diplomatic option did Bush have with Afghanistan? When did the Taliban EVER show a willingness to come to the table to negotiate? As for the wedding party you mentioned, they were firing weapons into the air in celebration. Believe it or not, small arms DO present a threat to aircraft. In Vietnam, Viet-cong armed only with AK-47s were able to bring our attack jets. I'm sorry that those pilots did not read the "To Be Wed in the Co-ordinates" section of the Kabul Daily Tribune before taking to the skies that day.
As for Clinton almost taking out bin-Laden w/o resorting to war, Clinton stoped the US from getting ObL. Sure he signed the executive order. However, once US agents had a bead on ObL Clinton's policy directions essentially made it impossible for the agents to act.
On the flip side, if we would have taken out ObL and his inner circle, it would not have done anything. You obviously do not anything about terrorist organization OR the Taliban government. Groups such has al-Qaida are multiple-headed Hydras. You cut it off, there would be another cell to take over the leadership. Furthermore, operations (such as 9-11) would continue as normal.
However, I would like to know what secret knowledge of US/Taliban relations that has obviously convinced you that there were diplomatic options available? Especially when only 3 out of 125 nations recognizied the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (2 of the 3 withdrawing their support after 9-11).
As for options with Iraq, after 10 years of sanctions and efforts at diplomacy, Saddam still excercised his iron grip over Iraq. He and his sons committed many attrocities against his ppl. What options did we have other than status quo or war? What would have removed Saddam from power? Again I reiterate: 10 YEARS OF DIPLOMACY!!!!

Speaking as a Serviceman, I would also rather be sent to war by Bush than Clinton. Iraq has cost him dearly politically and (contrary to your logic) has caused him to lose popularity and ranking in the polls. Still he has decided on a policy and is sticking with it, polls withstanding. In Somalia Clinton pulled US troops from the country, even though it was a successful mission, based on the concern/fear that the battle of Mogadishu would have on the polls. EVEN BEFORE THE POLL NUMBERS WERE IN, THE COWARD HAD CUT AND RAN, MAKING THE DEATH OF US AND UN SOLDIERS POINTLESS!!!!

Analysis of Iraq indicated that with French and Russian aid, Saddam had reconstructed his WMD projects. He built research facilities to biohazard 3/4 (US scale) safety standards when peaceful research only requires a biohazard 1/2 safety standard. UN inspectors had intel that he was using prisoners from a nearby jail as human guinea pigs (I believe in 1995&1996). When they inspected the prison, the only records missing were the two years in question. Saddam gave the world the impression that he was developing WMDs and that he was dangerous. Most authorities on the subject saw Iraq as a clear and present threat.

Lastly, what lessons (other than the cancer of imperialism/colonialism) could France teach us? Besides of course how to leave the world a mess and to let others do the dirty work of cleaning it up while we bitch at them? France can either grow some balls (or to be politically correct: tits) and roll up its sleeves and help fix things, or they can sit there quietly like the fuck-ups they are.

At 1/15/04 09:05 PM, H-Dawg wrote::

Do you honestly believe that there were no other options in either Afghanistan or Iraq than to go to war with those countries? Might I remind you that Osama Bin Laden was never the leader of Afghanistan, and further, the SAS and other anti-terrorist groups have been bringing down top terrorist operatives silently and effectively without all of the patriotic hawkish hooplaw for a couple of decades now!

There are several things wrong with your statement here H-Dawg. 1) We are not sure how much a part of the Taliban government bin-Laden was part of. Before moving to Aghanistsan he was selected to run the economy of Sudan. Taliban and al-Qaida forces often worked so closely together it was difficult to tell them apart.
2) The Taliban regime was a brutal theocracy that needed to be exterminated. War should ALWAYS be the last resort. However, all you Doves need to realize that there comes a point where diplomacy will fail. The Taliban did not care about international opinion. They were going to continue their cruel rule safe in the belief that they could also harbor and provide for Islamist terrorists with the full blessings of God. The Taliban believed that they ruled in accordance with God's design, simply put there was not talking (diplomacy) to them.

:As for your comments about the military, well accidents do happen in war, always have and always will. The British officer you mentioned is an aborration, the British and American militaries work exceptionally well together. I should know, I've seen up close, probably more than you have. Especially when talking about aerial warfare, there are so many variables to consider especially in a terrain such as Iraq and Afghanistan where the tactical situation on the ground changes so rapidly.

We do not target civilians, and we take great pains to minimize collateral damage. Often times this greatly increases the risk to US servicemen and women. Be careful of what you see on the news as well, I've seen an "unexploded bomb" in the middle of an Afghani villiage which was actually a external fuel tank from an F-16! Made for great propaganda, but not reality.

As I am serving in the Air Force, I believe I know what I'm talking about because it is an intimate part of my life.

At 1/15/04 07:47 AM, Aleks777 wrote: LMAO. Bush is probably the biggest nazi in the world today. Let me ask you a queestion "pharoh2bsoon" What did Saddam do to Bush? Huh? Nothing!!!

How dumb are you? I mean you must suffer from a total lack of intelligence to even post this crap!

We know that Saddam has been one of three major de-stabilizing powers in the Middle East, Iran & Isreal being the other two, the only of those three w/o the popular support of his people! With the aid of France and Russia he built the infrastructure to build an impressive biological warfare infrastructure (Don't even argue that we haven't found any yet, he built "medical" & "veterinary" facilities to specs WAY beyond that needed for civilian production, and then rattled HIS sword so he could look the part of the region's superpower AFTER the first Gulf War).

He conducted ethnic cleansing.

Oh yeah, he was a DIRECT sponsor of terrorism. Be careful not read bin-Laden or al-Qaida into my use of terrorism. Saddam DIRECTLY and PUBLICLY supported suicide bombings in Isreal. HE paid their families $25,000.

What did he do to Bush? WTF? Who f**kin' cares what he did to Bush, its what he did to HIS ppl that matters.

At 1/12/04 11:47 PM, PretzelLogic88 wrote:

:A lot of policies today are based on religious beliefs, even political parties for that matter.

Yes and look at how wonderfully that has worked in our foreign policy in Isreal and Iran!

So, how, according to you, would total spearation of church and state represent the masses, when clearly the masses are never separated from church???

The opposite is true. There is no church that everyone is required to attend. There is no religion that unifies the masses in this country, hell even the Christians are divided amongst themselves! Everyone has their own religious faith, and moral compass. So yes some religion will sneak in, but we cannot have church as the impetous for our lawmaking.

Lastly Stonedpimp69 when you talk about Amar Khayam do you mean Omar Khayyam the Persian (modern day Iran) mathematician/astronomer/poet?

At 1/13/04 01:09 PM, H-Dawg wrote: O'Neill said that the very
first meeting of the National Security Council involved
discussions of a "post-Saddam Iraq," peacekeeping troops,
and war-crimes tribunals. O'Neill provided the book's
author, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, with 19,000
internal documents -- one of which, from March 5, 2001, was
entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" and
included a map of Iraqi oil fields listing contractors and
countries with interests there.

Interesting point you make here, Bush is in Iraq for oil profits? Why then is he looking to other countries to help manage the post-Saddam oil industry in Iraq? Secondly, having maps of oil fields when discussing invading Iraq was a GOOD thing. Look at all the environmental/economic/military problems created when Saddam lit the torches in Kuwait. There were concerns about these fields other than economic.