Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/12/08 09:25 PM, Kleinhans wrote: but in practice was a facist state. This means the goverment controls many of the aspects of common life. you often do not challenge them in fear you or something/someone you know could end up damaged or killed. It ended up being one of the most horrible acts ever in history.

This is identical to Communism, thanks.

At 5/13/08 07:11 AM, Slizor wrote: What the fuck are you on? Don't spout fucking drivel at me and then say "Next?" like you've dismissed my point entirely. Fascism is a political ideology in its own right and is not a part of socialism. For fuck's sake, look at the foundations of fascism - it considers itself a "third way" between Marxism and Capitalism, is nationalistic and virulently anti-communist.

Drivel?

Fascism claimed to be a bridge between partisan politics. It NEVER claimed to be a bridge between capitalism and socialism, but between right and left, rich and poor.

I'm sorry, you're too stupid to respond with fact. Try again?

And where did the Nazis declare that all property belongs to the state? I thought the one piece of evidence you had dredged up had said that the state would control property, as most economies did during WW2.

That was before WW2. Offer evidence. Jesus.

No it wasn't, it was based on inequality - particularly between the races.

And communism was based on equality for the WORKING class. Marx and the Communists were disdainful of the "burgoius".

Oh yes, I can make statements too. Next?

Yours aren't based on fact and are therefore wrong.

You haven't done anything of the sort. You have pulled up the "Nazi Party Economic Platform" (from somewhere) and then said that it sounded the same as socialism. You haven't brought up a socialist platform and then offered a comparison between the two, so don't try and bullshit me by saying you offered a comparative analysis that I chose to respond with "nu uh." You've failed to offer a definition of socialism and have a shite argument because of it.

Holy fuck, you're an idiot.

Answer my first question, what is your definition of the "capitalist" world? Does it include all the countries where starvation and disease are still commonplace, or have you left them out of your definition?

Again, holy fuck, you're an idiot.

At 5/13/08 07:15 AM, Slizor wrote:

Hahahahaha! WolvenBear just wants to think that the right-wing has never done anything bad and that the left-wing is the embodiement of evil.

Man, that's pathetic.

This is what's called "changing the subject". Offering no fact, and claiming me foolish to boot.
You're a moron Slizor.

At 5/13/08 11:45 AM, Britkid wrote: What the fuck? No it wasn't. The Final Solution was decided in secret by the most senior Nazis. The German population may have suspected what was going on, but they weren't informed about it.

The Nazis weren't shy about their anti-Semetism. From the late 30s on, they took increasingly discriminatory postions towards the Jews. And they constantly spoke of the destruction of the Jewish race. Claiming that no Germans knew Hitler wanted the Jews gone ignores all of written history.

You haven't proved it any more than me. Basically, I take the assertion that fascism was right wing from my history teacher. He has a phD in History, and before you ask, he is definitely not a liberal. He reads the Daily Telegraph and occasionally spouts off in class about the terrible Euro.

Of course I have. I provided a list of Nazi programs that they demanded implimented. And I proved that they indeed got most of them started. That your professor said otherwise simply proves he's wrong. His PhD being irrelevant in the process.
FDR was a facist and was left wing. Hitler was a fascist and was left wing. And Stalin was a fascist and was left wing. If your teacher wishes to debate me, my email addy is:
wolvenbear@hotmail.com
He can feel free to rebuke me, and come out of our debate feeling much less intelligent than when he went in.

You're just horrified to discover that the right wing can do bad.

What a moronic left wing retort.
Hitler was far from right wing. As I have proved hundreds of times on this board:
Hitler was a left leaning vegetarian. He was all for workers rights and state socialism. He was a beatnik painter who was concerned with the environment ABOVE humans. And FDR was a fervent admirer of his.

IN short Hitler was to FDRs left. If Hitler was a right winger...the only left wingers in the world were in Russia. Not a single one of you brain dead socialists has offered ONE point to refute me. Instead you repeat, without the slightest hint of intelligence, that Hitler was riht wing.

This is why I say "Proof by Assertion". You're clearly and provably wrong. Yet you continue to repeat your stupidity as fact, hoping people will buy it.

Wow, a bunch of stupids again...

I love setting people straight.

1) Marriage is not a constitutional right. Anyone who says otherwize should be mocked incessantly and pelted with rotten things.

2) Gay marriage is hardly comparable to slavery. And anyone who says otherwize is a moron, should be mocked incessantly and pelted with fruit.

3) Every part of the constitution was approved with a supra-majority. Anyone who doesn't get this needs to stop posting in politics.

4) Considering that a vast majority (75-85%) of southerners didn't own slaves....claiming that a majority was OK with slave owning is foolish.

I'm sure there will be more. I live to educate the less intelligent.

At 5/15/08 11:10 AM, bcdemon wrote: Do you have proof that there are no innocent Iraqis defending themselves against the US? Prove it or shut it.

Yes. No human being had ever defended themselves by blowing up innocent civilians.

That is all.

You are just like your lil sidekick memorize, you lie and put words in peoples mouths just so you can have something to argue.

You're a fucking imbecile.

At 5/15/08 03:18 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 5/14/08 08:35 PM, Memorize wrote: emassing

What the hell is that?

There's no such verb as to "emass"....

Amass: verb, to collect unto oneself

Simple typo. Grow up.

And yes, I am a grammar nazi and only came here to point that out. Abuse of the English language should be a crime.

You're also a fool, but we try not to point that out too regularly.

At 5/14/08 09:09 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

double post

Bump; I want a response from WolvenBear.

Shrug, OK here, goes.

At 5/12/08 07:24 PM, reviewer-general wrote: That... He... wasn't making a comparison. He was saying that oftentimes we resort to using prescription drugs to control our kids, even if that might not be the correct solution.

In part yes. But compared to the rest of teh speech it's clear he's making a different point.

How does that distinction not exist? People with dyslexia struggle with reading; they aren't illiterate. DISTINCTION.

People with dyslexia CANT READ. What an idiotic comparison. This is almost like comparing the blind to the normal students. You're trying to make an exception.

There are certain subjects I don't quite get by reading. I need someone to explain and show them to me. It doesn't mean I'm incapable of learning.

Wright is full of crap, because HE was taught by the system he decries. While he is obviously a moron, that is due to his left wing leanings, not his education.

No one ever said that ALL African-American kids have this problem.

Wright did.

Care to elaborate, please?

Sure. Without exception, every black kid who applies himself succeeds. Sometimes they need help, but if they ask for it, they get it. Black children in private school succeed. Black children in magnet school succeed. It's only in public school that black children have a high drop out rate.

This in indicative of the schools (which have a high drop out rate period) rather than the races.

It's idiotic to claim black kids can't learn from books.

In that case, his source was wrong and I will also gladly admit that his argument is incorrect. However, we have been operating on the assumption that the source was correct. Interesting, at least, as a hypothetical situation then.

He's wrong....but please pretend he's right.......
Got it.

In which case, can you please provide evidence that I may look at to accept that?

Yes.
http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyre port/archive/2866626.html

These students are being taught MORE not less, by book and by SUBJECT.
There is no study that shows black students doing better when books are removed.
The more black students are demanded to succeed, the more they succeed, without any exceptions.

How convenient for your argument, simply saying that one half of the argument doesn't exist. Can you explain WHY? I know kids PERSONALLY who are like that.

OK, you know a kid who wants his teachers to tell him stories. Things required to care...:

1. The kid needs stories because he's black. (Bullshit)
2. The stories are required to help him learn. (I demand proof of this.)
3. Without his teacher telling him a story he'll be an idiot.

Problems with this:

I have worked with dozens of black kids who demand no such care in their studies.
My black cousins had no problems learning from books (as no bl;ack kids do).

This is all bullshit.

Beg pardon?

OK, fine. You have repeatedly lied about what he said. You have claimed he said otherwise (than posted the text...thanks). And you have repeatedly claimed it to be a "black thing" which is inherently racist.

You have whitewashed what he said and put it off on his commentators racism.

At 5/9/08 05:41 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Are you stupid? You just pulled that out of your ass with no evidence. Homosexuality is just as common in the animal kingdom as it is in humans. Some animals, such as sheep have very high percentages of homosexuality in their population. In fact most sheep are either homosexual or bisexual. Get some information to back up your claims instead of making up bullshit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?i d=dn3008

Sheep are particularly interesting, he says, because besides humans, they are the only animal where the males may naturally express exclusively gay sexual preferences. As many as one in 10 rams can be gay.

So, sheep are the only animals that really express gay instincts among animals. Thanks for proving my points!

At 5/13/08 02:28 PM, Diederick wrote: Isn't the USA originally a secular nation?

No, not even close.

That has absolutely nothing to do with being Christian or not, sure it's originally a religious institution...

Id like to stop you right there. Well SURE it's religious in nature,But......

Next?

At 5/9/08 06:37 AM, Diederick wrote: Gay Marriage will not increase disease rates, first of all because homosexual don't need to get married to have sex spreading STD's, and second, we are becoming more and more aware of the risks involved in having sex so we take appropriate precautions. Besides that what does the disease rate of a group have to do with their right to marry? I'm disease free, and if I had a boyfriend who was disease free the whole argument becomes unjust.

What stupidity. "Gay sex won't do anything! So allow it!" Next?

Now I get your point that it is hard to identify it because you can't walk up to a penguin and ask: "Good sir, are you a homosexual?"

This is moronic. Because we observe sexual behavior in all kinds of animals. The basis of "homosexuality" among birds is based on two male birds (who raise kids anyways) raising a child. That no gay sex is ever observed is interesting.....

Blaming homosexuality for corrupting marriage in general is the most stupid thing I ever heard.

Except I never said homosexual marriage cirrupts marriage.....

It doesn't mean the doors are opened to bestiality marriages, paedophile marriages, or whatever sickness you can think of.

Yes, it does. If marriage is not left to be defined by the state, then there is no reason pedophilia, beastiality, polygamy, and the like cannot be allowed. UI've debated Harvard scholors on this, and the point is always the same "It won't happen cause.....CAUSE YOURE AN ASSHOLE!" The legal basis for regulating marriage will, at that point, be gone. Next?

Taxes? Blah blah blah.

Dishonest taxes means nothing.

So what's there to stop the US from allowing gay marriage? Apart from the backward people living in it...

All the reasons listed above that you haven't refuted.

At 5/13/08 10:04 AM, bcdemon wrote: That's right, you don't understand. Your going on the "if your not with us your against us" logic, which, like GW Bush, is fucking retarded. See you group them all together, terrorists, insurgents and everyday Joes who don't want your soldiers waving their guns and shooting people. You don't see a difference between the Iraqi who is trying to defend his life from an invading country and a guy who left Saudi Arabia 2 months ago so he could blow up some Americans.

When you call us murderers and celebrate those who kill civilians you don't have a right to call for nuance as you're either too stupid or too evil to understand the dynamic of good vs evil.

There are NO innocent Iraqis defending themselves from the US . NONE. You're a worthless jackass.

At 5/11/08 06:41 PM, Britkid wrote: Hitler's genocide wasn't a 'policy', it was an insane rampage.

Semantics. It was national policy to get rid of the Jews. They debated means, efficiency, etc. It mayt have been insane, but it's not like it wasn't put forward to the voters, taught in the schools, etc.

And I've said before that it was only called that to attract voters. National is a right-wing name. The Nazi Party was from the extreme right.

Proof by assertion.

By any objective standard, fascism was distinctly left wing.

Big deal. One dictator was impressed by another. Hitler disliked nationalisation and he was always planning to attack Russia, even then. And how do we know this? Oh that's right, because he did.

You're not clairvoyant. And hell, you're not even consistant.
He did it, therefore he was always planning it, is a fallcious line of logic. Hitler was not the great mastermind he has been made out to be. He was a deeply inconsistant man, changing decisions on a whim. Both Mussolini and Goering tried to dissuade Hitler from invading Germany. And once Hitler DID invade Russia, his interference kept them from conquering it. As even Hitler realized, he wasn't that bright, and his only real skill was public speaking. He was an extremely short sighted man, who never thought his actions through. It's extremely silly

That's not a 'movement' doing it, it's the actions of a few men. It's not socialism either, there's a difference between socialism and communism. Sorry, this isn't the 60s.

Communism is a branch of socialism. As is Fascism.

Trying to pass it off as an isolated incident here and there is both dishonest and disturbing.

The point is irrelevant anyway. You know that.

No, it's not. The mantra that Nazis=bad, Communists= good is a pathetic white wash by everyone here. And yes, that does include you. Socialism is directly responsible for these attrocities. And the effort to brand Nazis as right winger is both a historical distortion and a slander to TODAY'S right wingers.

At 5/11/08 03:58 PM, Britkid wrote: All I can read from that is that Hitler was slightly madder.

Wow. "I'm wrong, but I'm going to change the subject."

Ok then. Nazism wasn't Socialism.

Yes, it was. As I proved twice on this thread. It was called National Socialism. Next.

Every historian will tell you that Hitler loathed Stalin and his Russia, and vice versa.

Hitler was impressed by Stalin and his control of Russia.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20070212025532AAVNIBw

That's a pretty good recount of it. On a personal level, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all deeply paranoid suspicious men. They had nothing resembling real friendships. Hitler distrusted Communism because he was convinced it was Jewish in nature. He was also convinced that the Communist parties in Germany would revolt, which they did several times. Mussolini was deeply resentful that he was a second tier guy like Franco, even though he was clearly the smartest of the three men (four if you include Roosevelt). Stalin was convinced that everyone around him wanted to overthrow him (ah the lives of dictators are tough). So on one level, you're correct, none of these men were what we'd consider friends.

If we look at things on a political level however, these men were indeed on friendly terms. Despite mutual distrust, Hitler and Mussolini were allies. Stalin signed what he believed to be an eternal peace treaty with Hitler. As one of his own men reported:

"The generalissimo preferred to trust his political instinct rather than the secret reports piled up on his desk. Convinced that he had signed an eternal pact of friendship with Germany, he sucked on the pipe of peace. "

This peace treaty was AMAZINGLY friendly. It split Europe in two. "You get this side, we get this side. There will be no aggression! And if someone else attacks you, we promise to refuse them help." It infuriated anti-Communists in Europe and anti-Fascists in Russia who wanted their respective leaders to take over teh other.

Hah! Way to dodge my point.

You bemoaned Thatcher.

Regardless. You want me to address the point. OK. Why should a movement NOT be held accountable for it's failings? If a movement (socialism) has killed over 100 million violently, and countless more from starvation, and has never been peaceful in it's history, what rational person doesn't look at that?

Not me. See above.

"No one has done that" Yes they have. "Not me." So?

At 5/11/08 04:10 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: Found one.

LOL, that never gets old.

At 5/11/08 10:12 AM, bcdemon wrote: Holy crap, how many times does someone have to tell you that they don't support the killing of innocent people before it gets through your thick fucking skulls?

You said you think the insurgents (which is a blanket term for the various terrorist groups...all of which target civilians) are defending themselves. When called on your idiocy, you claim WE can't understand.

You 2 support death and destruction by supporting a war that has killed thousands of innocent people. You promote death and destruction of innocent people by toting what wonderful work your baby killers are doing in Iraq.

Our soldiers aren't killing babies. What a disgusting blood libel.
We support a war that is trying to stop the death caused by the insurgents you are so fond of. Our soldiers are doing their best to stop the baby killing you claim to deplore so...while cheering on the insurgents who perpetuate it. You're a creep.

You support the terrorist actions of your government and military.

You two support the terrorists, not I.

At 5/9/08 04:15 PM, reviewer-general wrote: That's rather an important distinction, don't you think?

Not really. Considering the overall tone of his speech....anyone who compares reading writng and ritalin...is a moron.

*sigh* He's not saying that they are INCAPABLE of learning from objects, he's saying that, in general, most tend to learn better from people, or they struggle more than other students when using the book method.

Don't =/= having trouble with.
You're trying to make an imaginary distinction.

If the above is true, then, in most cases, he would be correct (in reference to educating them).

Or not. Every successful black child has been schooled the same way white children have. Without exception.

No. He's saying that there's a reason for it; it's not just random craziness. That doesn't justify the misbehavior, per se.

Bull on both counts.

It's ONE example. I would suppose that if one reads the book published by a scientist on the subject (see first page of this thread) you would get many more.

What crap. You're regurgitating nonsense. There's no meaningful quantity of black kids who can repeat ANYTHING verbatum the first time. Compared to white children, the percentage pf kids who can repeat songs is identical.

Look, AGAIN, I am not saying that we segregate white and black students and teach them all in completely different ways. All I'm saying is that, if Wright (or, rather, whomever he sourced) is correct, then this is one of the many reasons why African-American kids aren't as good in school. I am not saying that this is the only reason.

He's incorrrect. Provably.

You have two students. One of them learns perfectly fine from books, but the other struggles in class and can't seem to sit still; always wants the teacher to use stories to help explain points being made. So, Kid #2 should not receive any assistance from the school system in providing him and others with any alternative methods of learning that they can use at the same time as the "normal" methods of learning? He should just suck it up and buckle down to the methods provided. Kid #2 starts failing school, and stops caring. He stops going to school regularly, and when he does he gets into gang activity, drugs, rap, etc. Logically, the first step would be to help him gat on the proper track in school, as well as fighting the other factors in his life.

KId #2 doesn't exist.

No one ever said that different ways of learning are the only things to blame. And, if you still want to view that as what Wright said, I am not agreeing with that. I am not Rev. Wright; I even agree that he doesn't address other factors as much as he should. But, we are concentrating on ONE point that he made, not whether he makes points across the board.

You're whitewashing.

5/9/08 05:47 PM, Britkid wrote:

Their political systems were quite similar. The book is rubbish, the fact that Mussolini is honest enough to admit this doesn't mean their methods of rule were significantly different.

Their means of rule WERE significantly different. There was no genocide under Italy's rule.

Sure.

Offer a counter fact or shut up.

Hitler and Stalin only did that because they were worried about their own safety. Hitler was apprehensive that the USSR would hit back if he invaded Poland, while Stalin knew that no one in Europe wanted to ally with him, while he also had designs on territories nearby. The bastards hated each other though, and both of them always planned for war.

Well, history doesn't offer anything to support that. So pardon me if your mind reading powers of people dead half a century doesn't impress me.

Never heard of it. Is it legal?

Yes.

But that's irrelevant. Why should a modern party be held responsible for the actions of a historic regime similarly positioned on the political spectrum. That's like saying no one should ever vote for the Conservatives because Maggie Thatcher screwed up the country in the seventies.

Thatcher was the best thing to happen to the 70s. Claiming Thatcher is bad is like bemoaning the automobile.

Yet that is not the original discussion. No one is trying to condone the Soviet Union.

Several people have done just that. Try again.

At 5/10/08 06:37 AM, Slizor wrote: Nazis were fascists, not the other way round (i.e. you can be a fascist without being a nazi) and the words are not synonyms.

If all fascists are socialists and all nazis are fascists...it doesn't mean all socialists are nazis. But it does mean all nazis are socialists.

Next?

And the destruction of the bourgeoisie? The advancement of Unionism? Equality between the sexes and the classes?
I thought not. Limited social programs do not equal socialism.

There was no "LIMITED". Decreeing that all property belongs to the state is socialism.
The Nazi platform was based on equality. Next?

No it's not. It's based on the idea that inequality between the classes continues to exist on the basis of the means of production being privately owned.

No. It's based on the fact that the platform of the socialists and fascists was identical. I have offered proof. You claimed "nu uh".

Sorry, what definition of the Capitalist world are you using? One that only includes first world countries?

Claim a meaningful amount of "capitalist" deaths and I will provide a larger list of people who died by tripping and drowning in grape jelly.

At 5/10/08 06:17 AM, AapoJoki wrote: I agree. Because there's nothing we atheists would want more than replace the theocratic Christians in Washington with theocratic Muslim fundamentalists who want to kill every last infidel in the world. And equip them with nukes.

There's not even ONE theocratic christian in Washington.

At 5/10/08 02:51 PM, bcdemon wrote: And you are correct, I feel the insurgents are defending themselves (remember the Polish underground, they were called insurgents aswell), on the other hand, the terrorists are not. They are committing crimes, just as some of the US soldiers in Iraq are committing crimes. Once you figure out the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist you might be able to understand.

If killing innocent people for no reason, then the Unibomber, and the Oklahoma city bomber...not to mention Manson, were self defensists.

At 5/9/08 09:53 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I'd also like to add that while I have been debating across the board with you and several others without ever once insulting any of you, you seem to act as though you're better than me. If you're so bloody smart, argue with me in a way that will make me respect you. I've argued with people that were convincing and polite, people who made me like them more after the debate, regardless of who won or loss.

I am better than you.
I have no need to make a schmuck respect me. Start ARGUING and I'll treat you like you're worth a damn.

Instead, all you've done is back up on issues, and every time I pull up a new logical debate, you act as though you can disprove it simply by stating that I'm an idiot and you are the God Of All Things.

You haven't addressed an argument I've put forward. Claiming "bias" may seem smart to the teens you know...but I shrug to an intellectual midget like yourself and cll you an idiot.

By insulting me, you are clearly proving that you lack the mental capacity to carry on a civilized debate without resorting to banging your fists across your chest.

Oh, I'm a prick. No doubt. And I don't play nice with morons.

At 5/9/08 10:58 PM, thefellid wrote: Sudan: Blacks killing blacks. Ethiopia: Blacks killing blacks. Isreal: Arabs being Arabs. France: blacks being blacks (cept they are muslim blacks not christian) Germany : see France add Arabs and Pakis. The picture is similar in Russia.

Sudan: Muslims killing Christians. Ethiopia: Muslims killing Christians. Israel: Muslims killing Jews. France: Muslims being violent. Germany: see france.

In none of these cases are the Muslims black.

Proof -Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14 ; Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9 -- I'm sure there's many more, esp in Exodus

Exodus is a historical event. Levitucs same.
Not similar.

2nd Comment. Every1 keeps telling grammarnazi to "link." Yet, all the links I've seen in this thread are absolute crap. Grammarnazi could link to his previous posts and this would satisfy as a "link" if you use the standards by this thread...

Or not. Every link I've put has gone to a source.

3rd Comment. Sophisticated terrorists and expert propagandists is quite an overstatement. Most jihadists, many of their sympathizers, and a majority of the ARABS and PAKIS in the Muslim Student Unions at US universities are pretty fucking stupid people; far dumber than the people you guys have called dumb in this thread. (lol @ how Russia scammed them)

Actually, most are insanely intelligent propegandists and dube hundreds of people a piece.

4th Comment. You can argue about the exact definition of WMD all you want, but every1 knows full well (if you are old enough) what was meant by WMD when it was being used as justification for going to war.

Bush mentioned Sarin, Mustard and VX gas. Blix mentioned the same. So we'll go with what was mentioned. My definition is correct, yours isn't.

5th Comment. I don't like it when people say "oh no, we are giving up our civil rights." Other than airport hassles, what specific civil right have you lost since 9/11? In fact, I would say the airport hassles are caused by our rather idiotic efforts to preserve a pie in the sky sense of equal civil rights. If over 99% of potential terrorists are Arabs, why do I need to take my shoes off at the airport? -because of civil rights.... zZzZz..

The airports don't ask people to take off their shoes anymore. The shoe bomber, btw was white.

6th Comment. Our military leaders (generals and secretaries such as Donald Rumsfeld) have failed us more than any1 except for the Iraqi leadership.

Hardly.

7th Comment. RadioactiveRabbit and 1 or 2 others seem to think that if we leave the jihadists will be able to take over, and that this is why Iran is funding terrorism there. I believe Iran is funding terrorism there for a multitude of reasons, including the just for the hell of it reason. I also believe that a civil war would ensue, and we would end up to something similar to the Saddam situation. So again I think we are overestimating the jihadists here... Many of the "attacks" that are claimed to be jihadists in source are really racial tensions, the media here just doesn't like to talk about race. There's no use giving "links" for this because there are plenty on both sides and most "links" would need there own "linking.." would be an endless search for a near impossible to find truth

"I believe" is not substitute for debate.

8th comment. Despite what I've said previously, I do think that grammarnazi is underestimating the terrorist threat. And I don't think that the economic consequences of the war are that significant.

Only thing you've said that's not foolish.

At 5/10/08 01:53 PM, TheMason wrote: One of the things about suppossed Islamic views on women, most of these traditions come from ethnic/tribal/traditional values...NOT religious ones.

The Islamic tribal views are indistunquishable from the religious ones. Most arabic tribes are muslim. To try and split these traditions is impossible.

Also I've studied domestic fundamentalism and terrorist groups. Christianity has the same threads that allow for violent extremism. Just look at the bombings of abortion clinics and Gay/Lesbian clubs. Assassination of Abortion docs. Now I'm not saying these groups are as active as Islamist groups. But we have fundamentalist Christians in modern developed countries that think the Bible authorizes the use of violence in the service of God.

Nonsense. There have been less "extremist" Christian acts in the past 100 years than Islamic acts yesterday in my back yard.

Fix these economies and education systems...and Islamist extremism will wither on the vine.

Islamic extremists cause poverty, not vice versa.

At 5/9/08 09:46 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: One, why do you think your insults help support your argument?

Normally, people I insult...I find them beyond intelligent debate. When someone says something so ridiculously stupid as "Iraq never had WMDs" for example, I label them an idiot and treat them as such.

When someone FURTHER writes off every link they don't like as biased without counter argument ,I feel no need to treat them with respect. "I disagree" is not an argument. It's a fool's retort.

And two, let's use some logic. In the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq used Sarin and Mustard gas extensively against the Iranians, and we knew it. Why is it then that the UN and every other country on the planet said Iraq had no WMD? Did they outright lie and ignore the obvious? Or has the Bush Administration tried to regain lost ground by making every little nerve gas agent into an incredibly powerful weapon than can blow up an entire city?

So, you ask why I call you an idiot, then say something provably false. Every. Single. World. Agency. Without. Exception. Said Saddam had WMDs. The UN made the case to the US that Saddam had hundreds, if not thousands of tons of WMDs that he was hiding. Far from being mushy, Hanz Blix told the UN that Saddam has Mustard, VX, Sarin, and other WMDs. He wasn't shy about it. He flat out said Saddam was in possession of weapons.

They know what they've found aren't real WMDs, so they've been quietly releasing statements so nobody will call them on it.

I addressed and refuted that. They found exactly what Blix told them they'd find. Unfortunately, most of these weapons have US origins. You're just moving the goalposts to try and make your political opponents liars.

At 5/9/08 04:15 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: But it should be if two people wish to.

That's not even remotely a response. "I want it" doesn't even work when you're five, with mom.

It occurs, and more prevalently in other primates of all animals.

And considering how animals are much more instinct driven than humans, it would be pretty stupid to suggest they "choose" to turn gay.

Even the scientists who advance this bogus theory have to admit that no actual homosexual sex occurs. And that orgasm is reserved for heterosexual encounters. The "homosexual link" amongst apes is based on "french kissing" (which considering most animals, including apes, kiss with their tongues, is idiotic) and either butt-butt or crotch-crotch contact. That is to say...nothing that suggests the apes are homosexual. They never have sex with anyone of the same sex.

It doesn't make it a bad thing. Exactly what harm does homosexuality cause?

Higher disease rates for one.

I am of the opinion that homosexuality is neutral. But that's not really a point in it's favor in why we should change the laws.

Except for tax privileges, adoption rights etc

Um, someone hasn't been paying attention to the news! Gay couples adopt all the time. (Ignoring all the heteros who can't adopt.)

As for the tax break...until recently, there was a "marriage penalty". If indiviual A was able to deduct 8 grand , as was individual B...then if they got married, they got to deduct 16k right? Not quite. Since the marriage penalty stipulated that a couple could only deduct 1.5 times what they'd deduct singly. This rocked like crazy if only one party was working. If both parties worked...it was a kick in the pills.
So, this isn't much of an issue either.

Except that they won't happen?

Of course they will. Sorry, if you're not going to try here, I see no reason to offer a factual retort on why you're wrong, like I did above.

So we have a couple appeals to emotion. Blatant distortion about animal sex habits. And a completely tax ignorant appeal. Great! I was hoping for at least ONE good argument.

At 5/9/08 04:07 AM, TonyTostieno wrote: Let's hope so, then again that article makes it sounds like some other crazy fundie fanatical bastard is just gonna take the reins. Well, if nothing else they probably won't do as good a job as the old ones...hopefully...

There's no doubt that a new leader will take the reins. However, this loser has been nowhere near as effective as Zarquai. Al Quida is a hydra, but some heads are much more dangerous than others.

Another blow to AQI is always loved tho.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_o n_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD - Iraqi police commandos captured the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq in a raid in the northern city of Mosul, Iraqi officials said Thursday, in what could mark a significant blow to the Sunni insurgency in its last urban stronghold.

However, the U.S. military on Friday said there were "no operational reports" to confirm the capture of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq as stated by Iraqi officials, adding the capture of another insurgent might have caused confusion.

Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said the arrest of Abu Ayyub al-Masri - also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir - was reported by the Iraqi commander in Mosul, where insurgents have sought to establish a foothold after being widely uprooted from Baghdad and surrounding areas last year.

If correct, it's damn good news.

At 5/8/08 03:58 AM, Ravariel wrote: In my book, and Obama/McCain general would be win/win. There are things I disagree with both candidates on, but in general I think either would do well in the office. I would have voted for McCain over Gore in 2000 had he gotten the nom.

This is like saying, I'd either like Mountain Dew...or piss. I don't care which, and I'll be happy with the rsult either way.

While I'm not a huge McCain fan, and feel he's way to liberal for my tastes...he's nowhere near Obama. While a Clinton/McCain race would be Pepsi/Coke....McCain/Obama would be Pepsi/Vinegar.

Saying Obama/McCain is a win/win is no less foolish than those on this board who pined for a Paul/Kucinich showdown. It simply makes your view of politics suspect.

At 5/9/08 03:21 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Except for the whole being right part.

Of course I'm right. Marriage is not a right. Being natural doess not mean it's preferable. Overriding the popular vote weakens the definition of marriage.

Every thing I've said was 100% factual. Now either offer a counter to my accurate points or accept that you're wrong and shut the hell up.

At 5/9/08 02:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Nah I'm just too "lazy". Isn't that how it works?

No. Because I was too lazy to go back and individually argue each and every comment. So I just grouped them into bundles. You want to pretend I'm wrong, but know that if you get into a debate with me I'm going to wipe the floor with you.

So instead of get into a debate you'll lose, you just say it's not worth responding to (though you responded) and hope that does the trick!

I have never understood why people claim that Hillary is hurting the party. The point of voting is so that votes count. Let the process continue til everyone has their say. Let's not pretend that Obama would be winning if not for the ridiculous DNC voting rules.

BTW, has anyone heard anything about that McCain guy recently? I've forgotten about him.

The longer this goes on, the less chance McCain haqs of winning.

At 5/9/08 02:54 AM, GallitoMix wrote: I have no idea if it will be the worst war of the 21st century. 92 more years to come, and tons of crap could happen in that timespan. And unless science makes some amazing discoveries, we probably won't live past those years to know for sure. However, one thing I know for sure: This was has been pretty much pointless. Really, what was the point in starting a war with Iraq? And all the more, what is the point to continue being there? What is the ultimate goal of it? One would think "benefit". Except that this war is causing no benefit at all. Not for a single person (OK maybe weapons dealers). I think even Bush pretty much wasted his time, he didn't get his oil, and succeeded in being hated by many, many, many people.

Translation: I have no clue about why we're there, becuase I'm too damned lazy to look it up. And I don't understand the situation of the ground today. Because my opinion on Iraq was formed in the last 10 seconds. But listen to my opinion anyway! K?

http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/enem y.html

At 5/9/08 02:30 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Nah your arguments are worthless so I won't reply to them.

Aw, you're too stupid to argue. That's cute.

Oops, missed one.

5. If gay marriage is legalized, despite the national will, there is no legal recourse to prevent polygamy, age limits, and other deviances. I've had hundreds of people try and form a legal basis for this...but none ever can.

I'm too lazy to respond to worthless arguments individually, so heres a bullet point list:

1. Marriage is not a right.

2. Homosexuality is next to unheard of in the animal kingdom. No matter how much the activists hee-haw, homosexuality isn't prevalent in the animal kingdom.

3. Even if homosexuality is naturally occuring, that doesn't make it a good thing.

4. Homosexuals already have all rights as married couples, minus the social acceptance. The gay movement is based on forcing society to accept them.

At 5/8/08 09:16 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Wrong, it depends on the level of power the weapons possess. The Iraqis had used poison gas against the Iranians, and it wasn't called a WMD then.

Poison gas is indeed a WMD. Sarin for example is considered a weapon of mass destruction. As is mustard gas.

If the republicans, who have had their ass kicked on every level since they invaded Iraq, would trumpet as loudly as possible is they ever found REAL WMDs.

Ignoring the blatant stupidity of saying that our forces (who have killed the enemy at a ration of about 5:1 of ours), many of the weapons were sold to Iraq by a Republican government. Mainly W's daddy and Reagan.

Instead, they have been stretching the definition of 'mass destruction' to the point in which virtually every country we don't like possesses them, and quietly releasing statements saying, 'I told you so'. If they ever found a real WMD, they would parade across the streets, denounce every liberal ever, and proclaim george Bush the descendant of Christ himself.

Yawn. So, you cover your stupidity by sputtering on uselessly. The definition of WMD hasn't changed. WMDs have always included CBN weapons. Since your worthless ass got into politics yesterday, and have teh arrogance to assume nothing happened before you...its not surprising that you think you know everything. But you're dealing with a superior intellect who has studied the issue endlessly, and you have no hope of pushing your half ass opinion as fact.

At 5/8/08 09:46 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Too bad you got the quote wrong.

My bad. I said arthimatic instead of Ritalin. Typing as you're listening is rather hard.

"Subject oriented means they learn from a subject, not an object. They learn from a person. Some of you are old enough, I see your hair color, to remember when the NAACP won that tremendous desegregation case back in 1954 and when the schools were desegregated. They were never integrated. When they were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them. Because they learn from a subject, not from an object. Tell me a story. They have a different way of learning.

So, let me get this straight. I got the meaning of the quote 100% accurate. But you're going to post the whole quote to reiterate my point? Granted I skipped a lot of filler (when typing while listening, a lil has to be lost), but the sentences I posted were pretty much what you have here.

Reiteration of points:
Black children don't learn from objects (like books).
Comparing whites and blacks is like comparing apples and rocks.
Black children misbehaving in class is ok...because they learn differently.
That a child can remember a song is proof they learn differently.
Different doesn't mean dificient...even if the difference is a dificiency.
White people are racist.

I was trying to be nice and not treat you as if you were stupid...but then you post the exact words that I paraphrased and call me wrong.

Utterly moronic.