Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/2/06 02:59 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Wait, do you want to remind me when I was talking about levees?

Oh, and the Republicans own Congress. They can basically push through most anything they want. So what the hell exactly is your point?

Um, the levee thing is old news. Louisiana has been bitching about how they've needed repair for three decades now. So while GWB is in fact guilty of neglect, he is one of several useless politicians who knew how bad things were getting and did nothing to stop them. This list includes: Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, and Carter.

Funny how a three second look at the facts tells you that everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, fucked this one up. Only a fool or a partisan blames only Bush.

90% of our welfare costs go to administration, so that's kinda the problem we have now.

At 1/29/06 12:38 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: Why Race?

Why indeed? Is it just me, or do all your arguments have to go there? Everytime you start a post it's about racial seperatism, or isolationism or some such crap. It doesn't matter.

1. It's controversial.

Only if you're a fool. Normal people don't hide theirchildren's eyes when someone of a different color walks down the street. Race is only controversial when someone uses it as a way to sperate the races or assert superiority/inferiority. Which you do here. And then it just pisses people off.

2. It points out flaws in our current worldview.

No it doesn't. We believe people are people. That's part of the reason for Iraq. That's why we helped out in Bosnia. You're being childish and arrogant. Just because YOU are racist.

3. It shows a different view of history: populations.

BS. Throught history, whenever race has mattered, it has led to tears. ALWAYS.

4. It provides a suggestion of a different world order.

I disagree. See #3.

5. It gives a tangible measurement of decline.

Same as 3 and 4. Just because you think that people coming together is a bad thing. I don't.

6. It is a compelling reason to change society.

You're an idiot. Poverty is a goal to get rid of, not race relations. AIDS< cancer, those are things to get rid of. Not white and black people interacting. The KKK/nazi mentality shows through finally.

7. It explains so many of our failures.

Because they offer dependance. They tell black people they can't succeed and cause more problems than they solve. It's that simple.

8. It's compatible with environmentalism.

So a black woman having a white baby will end the world by speeding up global warming. Gotcha. Dear God, the racism is so thick you can cut it.

9. The prospects of racial isolation mirror our own feelings.

Bullshit. Some of my best friends are black. And some are asian. Just because you're a racist doesn't mean everyone else is. What about white guys who can't stand being with a woman who's NOT black? Or who only find asians attractive. Racism is a social construct. This has been repeatedly and scientifically proven.

10. Understanding this issue gives us something to use to shatter modern society.

Society being shattered! Yes that's the solution. Total anarchy. That'll make everything better!

I repeat. Do you ever offer something that's not blatantly blame whitey racist?

At 1/30/06 06:53 AM, Dranigus wrote:

That's because you have issues and you have problems. There is no reason why you should feel safer around a group of women over a bunch of straight men. We aren't as malicious and malevolent as women have ever been, if you've done your history and all without using fabricated education.

No, but she can fear being raped. And that's more likely to be perpetrated by a man rather than a woman.

But anyways I can tell you are using the "sarcasm." Unfortunately it's rather obvious, I just wanted to illustrate what you were saying was wrong nevertheless. Anyways individual freedom isn't something you can obtain in a country that isn't even truely democratic. Another thing you are wrong about.

Ok, and? Her sarcasm was wrong? So, she's saying something she doesn't believe? And she's wrong for stating an opposite to an opinion she believes in? I'm confused. We have PLENTY of individual freedom here. You're talking out of your ass. We have a representative democracy. Becase if we had a true democracy...we wouldn't have time to do anything but review data and vote.

Maybe if you weren't so emotional, you might finally be right about something. And maybe if you stop focusing on sarcasm and actually use your brain, you might actually "outsmart" me.

And maybe if you weren't so fucking rude and condescending she'd talk to you like an adult. She's made plenty of points. You refusing to acknowledge them doesn't make them wrong. Why does she have to "outsmart you". She just has to prove you wrong. And when an argument is so blatantly hypocritical as yours it's not hard. "Nazis are bad people because they are intolerant of others. I hate nazis, therefore they should be banned, jailed, illegalized."

You can't make a view point illegal or punish people for it. Hell, I've know some nazis who are NOW good people. People change. Nazi gets his life saved by a jew, suddenly he doesn't hate jews so much. That's why my father stopped hating black people, cause a couple saved his ass in Vietnam. In the bible, Paul was a pretty bad guy, but he came around. How about instead of condemning these people (who are just as human as you and I), we change their minds and make them understand that skin color is irrelevant. And maybe instead of being such a dick to people, you could try arguing rationally yourself. Maybe after the 6th time you insulted her she had no reason to listen to your ignorant remarks anymore.

By the way, there has been so much dillusion of the Jewish "race", that it is possible to track back Jewish people whose parents or grandparents came from outside the race". There are black jews. Arab jews. Etc. Kinda like all the other races. They breed with other races and intermix. They're no longer black or white, but somewhere in between. Or they're both, depending on how you look at it.

At 1/30/06 02:21 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/30/06 02:16 PM, sliverlordx wrote: This is why welfare like most other government programs should be priviatzed.

Welfare privatised? Do you even know what you're saying? How on earth would that work?

We'd get McGuyver to run it. DUH!

At 1/27/06 11:09 AM, LuckFarmer wrote:

Through geometry and algebra many of found ways to know the exact number the ball would lands on.

No point here. Even though you can predict the direction the ball will bounce (with the help of a computer), it doesn't help you. You can only make the computation AFTER the ball hits for the first time. You must bid before the ball is dropped. You cannot at all assume where the ball will land this time by where it landed LAST time. That's almost like saying the batter hit a home run into right last time, so this time he'll ground out to second. Possible, but no way to prove it. Until AFTER the connection is made. The table worker will spin it at a different speed, drop the ball a little higher or lower, from a different point even maybe. Since a lot spin thewhell BEFORE they even drop the ball, knowing what number it's going to land on is impossible. Theoretically, in a controlled environment, where a computer watches the spin, the angles, etc, it could probably predict where the ball would land after it's been dropped, but not based on where it landed last time.

At 1/30/06 10:26 AM, Gunter45 wrote: The US Army is wasting its money by going into all kinds of conflicts that we have no business going into. Why on earth did we go into Somalia, Yugoslavia, and East Timor, to name a few recent ones. We had no business there, not only because we had no interests in the regions, but also because it's none of our concern how those countries conduct their internal affairs. We have wasted millions upon billions of dollars on trying to be the world's nanny and what has it gotten us? Nothing but a bad rap. We get chided everytime we enter a conflict, both by our own citizens and the international community. Not only that, we're making people expect it of us. When we didn't go into Rwanda, what happened? We were lambasted.

That's because people love to bitch about the U.S. We can do no right in their eyes. However, talk to the Bosnians that were saved by Clinton's intervention. They love America, because otherwise they'd be in a mass grave. Same with Bush's intervention in Afghanistan. And Iraq. There will always be dissenters. Piss on them. Deep down, no matter how much people complain, they EXPECT us to solve their problems. The fact that most of the people are ABLE to complain comes from good men and women dying for their freedom.

Is it just me, or has this gotten a little too far? I favor military isolationism and cutting back the military budget. Maybe we'd have a chance at having a *gasp* surplus by not spending billions of dollars on useless conflicts and wars.

Hmmm, and put all of our people in the armed forces out of a job? How the hell does that help America? Who decides whether a conflict is useless? You? I hope not. For some there is no justification for a war under any circumstances. Look at tha Democrats. Bush didn't respond quickly enough to 9/11. But he was unneccessarily harsh of the Afghani people. He RUSHED to war with Iraq. But he's not doing enough in the crisis with Iran. You don't think the wholesale slaughter of innocents is cause for intervention? You don't think someone threating our allies is a just cause? How about a madman getting nukes? If we have to make cuts, how about we do it in welfare? Maybe stop funding schools? No more social security! Put that money back into the gov't. Cut road funding? All of those would save money at the detriment of our citizens. But those may be programs you agree with! And heaven forbid we cut them.

I hate people who are never happy, and want it both ways.

At 1/24/06 06:54 PM, red_skunk wrote: I think it makes sense to tie the minimum wage with the rate of inflation. Otherwise, you get long periods of the min. wage remaining where it is, and it becomes pretty worthless (what's the difference between 3/hr and 4/hr? You'll starve either way). Additionally, tying it to inflation, you wouldn't get the sudden increases in cost of living, theoretically associated with business which raise costs because they can't afford to take the hit when raising employee wages.

When you raise the minimum wage it creates inflation. The employer has to pay his employee more money, therefore he must raise costs or have a few select but unappealing options: fire some employees, cut some kind of benefit, or just lose money. Raising minimum wage hurts those on fixed salaries, and decreases the value of money (because on the whole, people now have more of it).

At 1/29/06 03:47 PM, ironmaiden233 wrote: In my school we did something were we debated about random seraching of lockers. It was very sad that everyone was willing to give up there privacy just so they can have the thought that they are safe.

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
Benjamin Franklin

The key words here are essential and temporary.

Number one: the lockers are school property. They can be searched at any time for any reason. Including random searches. Kind of like your parents can search your room if they so feel. Not illegal. Not a liberty. Certainly not essential.

Two: Do you have the right to privacy in public? To a degree. But, to fly on a plane, you must have your baggage X-rayed. You must go through a metal detector. A lot of stores won't let you come in with a backpack on, or a huge handbag. Dorms can search your room for alcohol, and make rules which infringe against your privacy. Apartments can make rules such as: no smoking, no pets, etc. Federal buildings don't allow guns....etc. One could argue that you don't have a huge expectation to privacy in a public space.

Third and finally: To most people, safety is more important than privacy, especially in public. Example, after the train bombings, the subways started instituting random bag searches. People consented, because a guard seeing your (condoms, cigarettes, tampon/pad, etc) is not nearlyas bad as being blown up, and not being able to use those unmentionables.

Franklin's quote is used fully here (unlike most places), but with seemingly little understanding. Franklin said a lot of things that most who invoke that quote probably wouldn't appreciate. "When there's no law, there's no bread." "A sleping fox catches no poultry." "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "A little neglect may breed great mischief...for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost." "There is no little enemy." "Let thy Child's first Lesson be Obedience, and the second will be what thou wilt." "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." "I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."

My favorite is "Who fools thee, nearly as often as thyself?" or maybe "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

At 1/29/06 10:15 PM, Mighty_Genghis wrote: When pondering whether Hitler's Germany created a more knowledge-friendly atmosphere than its Western counterparts, it is important to ask yourself: Did Nazi Germany ever suppress information due to moral taboos? I would imagine that in Hitler's Germany it wouldn't be so difficult to talk about issues of race and eugenics in a mature and objective manner.

The problem with Western societies is that they function according to a populous model where it becomes more important not to offend people than it is to garner higher degrees of knowledge and truth. This sort of climate slows down scientific growth and achievement.

"The Jew is much like a vermin. He comes in, eats, reproduces, spreads filth and destuction." Or "It must never be allowed that the two races shall be mixed. There are the Germans, and there are the lesser race, the tainted blood." Or "The extermination of the Jew is imperative to the purity of the nation." Etc.

Is that the mature and objective manner in which you are referring?

Of course they suppressed information. Are you daft?

This topic is a throwback to: "Hey, Hitler may have been a mass murdering madman, but at least he had the trains running on time." Who the hell cares?

At 1/22/06 11:23 PM, SANAND wrote: And were the only life form ever to exist, and that ever will exist, then we owe it to ourselvs, and the universe, not to die out, and become extinct. We, as a race, need to buckle down and do the best we can to survive, atleast to the age of space colonization, then if earth dies theres still hope for the human race. It just pisses me off that all of this hard work towards the evolution, and progress of man may be totally in vain.

Well, look at it this way. If God exists, and made us. I find it incredibly unlikely that he made this entire universe of endless stuff just for us. If he just made us, there would be Earth and that's it. So therefore, there's more out there.

If you believe in Evolutionism, then you HAVE to believe that there's somethig else out there. There's no way that only one planet had the conditions for spotaneous life.

Either way, you gotta believe in other life.

This is an old but fun argument. Atoms make the cell. Cells make the human. Humans are like parts of the cell that is Earth. The solar system may just be a really huge atom. Add all the solar systems in the universe, and maybe we make up a person somehow. Maybe right, maybe not. Who knows? But it is fun to think about.

At 1/22/06 07:49 PM, The_Tank wrote: Thats all good in theory Mr Philosophy, but if it's true than that would mean that we aren't cells, but parasites destroying a cell. The earth would be the cell, and we animals destroying it would be some sort of germ.

We're not germs or parasites. We do some good and some bad. We're not destroying Earth. The cell of Earth is still doing just fine and will continue to thank you very much.

At 1/21/06 08:43 AM, mackid wrote: But race and IQ can be correlated. To a point, that is, and it's likely that it's affected by environmental factors (due to the nature of the testing).

"For example, while only 0.25% of the world population is Jewish, Jewish scientists make up 28% of Nobel prize winners in physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, and have accounted for more than half of world chess champions.[10] In the U.S., Ashkenazi Jews represent 2% of the population, but have won 40% of the US Nobel Prizes in science, and 25% of the ACM Turing Awards (the Nobel-
equivalent in computer science)" Example?

http://en.wikipedia...ace_and_intelligence

(look at the bell curve graphic. It was too big to post)

(Explanation for graphic: "Approximate IQ distributions in the U.S. based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IQs for Whites (mean = 101.4) and Blacks (mean = 86.9) from (Reynolds, Chastain, Kaufman, & McLean, 1987, p. 330); distributions for Hispanics (mean = 91) and Asians (mean = 106) are less precise.")

And it hasn't occured to you that maybe something in their environment encourages this? Maybe Jewish parents demand their child succeed more? Maybe there's something in the centuries of hardships they've gone through that have helped form their culture and drive? Etc? If you take a white and black person, and put them through the exact same situations in life: same parents, schools, education, etc, they would mostly likely grow up into the same situations. That's obviously not genetics, it's environment.

At 1/20/06 10:32 PM, FireLord91 wrote: Religion - Does loads of pointless things for someone that probably doesn't exist. They praise for hours 'cause the mummy told them so when they were little kids and now they don't know any better.

Science - Tries to find out facts.

Religion: Accounts for the majority of charity in the world. Led to the voting rights of women, blacks, and other foreigners. In a lot of cases, led to leaders making moral decisions to save other countries. I wouldn't call any of that useless.

Science: Has found cures for diseases, explored out glaxy, even if only a little. Etc.

If you look back, you'll find that several scientists who made important contributions have also been religious. Science and religion (morality) go hand in hand. To deny this is silly.

At 1/21/06 04:05 AM, crankytoad wrote:

At 1/20/06 05:07 PM, WolvenBear wrote: So yes, nation building includes killing 6000 Iraqis. And it has also included sactificing over 2000 brave soldiers so that whiny pussies can sit back and bitch about the freedom they have...to bitch about the war.

1 american for every 3 iraqis? You think they'd be wiser than that...

What is that even supposed to mean?

Yeah, but keeping that in mind, if Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction, and it wasn't about the oil, why did he go to war?

HE DIDN'T LIE ABOUT THE WMDS. God, I am sick of people saying that. Have half a brain. Everyone believed that Saddam had them. Everyone from Clinton, to Kerry, to other Clinton, to Kerry said the same thing: we believe he has or is close to having WMDs. Why did they say that? Because they'd seen the same intelligence as Bush. Either they're ALL liars, or they all believed that he had them. I go with number 2.

At 1/22/06 06:24 PM, Dilapsor wrote:

Americans are not insistant on getting America out of wars. They're insistant on getting America out of wars that waste time, money, and lives for simple matters of pride. I can't recall a single person who was against the war in Afganistan. And even early on many people were in support of what they assumed would be a simple regime change in Iraq. That's why so many democrats voted for it (believe it or not).

Guess what? There was a vote again a couple months ago. The vote was simple:
Iraq. Do we stay or do we go?

This was after all the bitching, all the pissing and moaning. And all the "pull out now" chants. While I don't have the numbers for the House, the Senate went something like this: Stay-97, Go-3. Then they turned right back around, and complained we needed to pull out.

As for against the Afghanistan war: see-Michael Moore.

At 1/20/06 05:41 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote:

At 1/20/06 05:23 PM, WolvenBear wrote: Well what Toad said is: Wrong. See partial birth abortion. Since PBA is abortion and is done in the third trimester: Abortion is legal all three trimesters.

Are you sure? I guess the law is different here in the UK then.

more things

Look, in the end it all comes down to opinion. I've entered these abortion debates far too much, they go on forever. There's no end. I believe that women should be allowed to kill their fetus if they don't want to go through several hours of contraptions for a child they're not going to keep. You think differently. I'm not going to change your opinion, and you can't change mine. Let's leave it at that.

In all fairness, while changing opinions is nice, changing the law is better. And while you're entitled to your opinion, if you say something wrong, it should be shot down.

In the end abortion can be answered by one simple question. Is it a child? If it is, we are killing it, and all the dumb justifications are irrelevant. Will it kill you to have the kid? No. Have it you shall then. And we've already allowed millions of children murdered. If it's not a child, no biggie. I was a blowhard for nothing. No harm no foul.

At 1/19/06 04:06 PM, Blackmagic wrote:

So the fact that organisims can change and adapt does not show that they change?
Thats like being shown a cube and saying "This isn't a cube!! Its a sphere made out of italian people! Are you stupid or something!"

Did I say things didn't change? No, but I said your example dosn't help your case, and it doesn't. It certainly doesn't back the idea that for no reason we came out of nothingness and evolved into what we are today. There's evidence of micro-evolution, but none to support macro-evolution. And if you are going to cite evidence supporting an idea that we came from nothingness with no guidence, don't offer forward as evidence an example of ID. It's much like you showing me a rubix cube that has a sticker on it that says "Made in China" and telling me it evolved from a square on it's own. If I tell you computers can't be screwed up without a virus, and then delete key files, (thereby making my computer not work), it'd hurt my case. Or at the least, be a bad example.

At 1/19/06 04:25 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

Right, onto the topic.

Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Hypothesis
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Hence we call it the THEORY of evolution WolvenBear. Incidentally, since ID cannot be tested by further investigation (God controls evolution, can't be tested) it should really be called the "Dogma of Intelligent Design".

And I still contend that it is hypothesis. Why? BECAUSE IT HASN'T FUCKING BEEN PROVEN!! Jeez, I'm sorry about that and all, but how many times have I typed that in this thread. Twice? Three times? Does it matter? It CAN"T BE PROVEN. There have not been any fossil records found of the numerous "evolutions" between man and ape, or between ape and fish. To prove Darwin's hypothesis right one of a few things has to happen. One: we have to be able to create life from non-life. We've been trying. And we've been failing. Two: We must find evidence of the two celled organism, or four celled. Since most cells don't fossilize, and there are no two or four celled organisms around today, we have to take it on faith. Three: find the "missing link". Not that there's just one, but finding somthing partly ape and partly man would help. Why did I call it faith? Look at Blackmagic's comment. Proof that different dog breeds were intelligently designed is somehow proof of natural non-ID evolution.

And what was the first thing I said in this thread? Oh yes, it was something along the lines of: ID is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom. I think I also classified the debate as stupid: seeing as how it wasted tax dollars that should be spent on teaching Jimmy to count to 4.

I don't care if you believe in ID or not. But at least understand it. ID actually goes hand in hand with Evolution. Something started us off here and we evolved from that. Like Evolution, it can't be tested. But it has some limited evidence in it's favor. The Cambrian explosion, and the little thing about life not coming from lifelessness. Both are hypothesises. Because they both are:

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Both have flaws. Neither can be proven at this point. And both have huge loopholes you could drive a semi through.

At 1/19/06 06:21 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote:

Basically what Toad said...your whole point is made invalid because abortions are only legal for 20-24 weeks (I can't remember the exact figure).

Well what Toad said is: Wrong. See partial birth abortion. Since PBA is abortion and is done in the third trimester: Abortion is legal all three trimesters.

Sorry, but by your definition of life "memories", if I agree with you, I see no reason why we can't murder children up to..let's say...three. Oftentimes people don't remember things until 2 or 3 years old, so it's safe to kill them before then.

A fetus has no mind activity before 20-24 weeks, thus it couldn't experience anything.

There is actually debate over this. It's rather inconclusive to me either way. And again, not my point, so irrelevant.

Why bother illegalizing abortion when it will just contribute to an already overpopulated planet anyway? Surely a woman should be able to choose not to go through labour for a child she doesn't want.

"What about adoption?"

When a woman gives up her child (even if she didn't want the child in the first place), both the child and the woman end up traumatized, whereas with abortion the traumatization is on a much lesser scale.

B.S. women who get an abortion are 165% more likely to end up in the hospital than women who carried their child to term. They often have massive feelings of regret. To this date, not one mother has died of giving her child up for adoption. They may have regret later on for giving up their child, but they can remedy it and try to meet with their kid. As for adoption, the child almost never ends up traumatized. There is a HUGE demand for adopting infants, and alot of parents wait until the child is over 13 to tell them the truth. I have yet to meet a single child adopted at birth who has grown up traumatized because of adoption. Most kids who are screwed up by the system are the ones who are taken away from tehir crackhead mothers at ages 8+.

At 1/20/06 04:09 PM, _StillBorn_ wrote: Does nation-building include securing oil for the west or killing roughly 6000 (I think this was the figure, correct me if I'm wrong) Iraqis, then?

The 6000 figure includes: terrorists/insurgents, those killed in suicide bombings...aka not by us, and people killed in rioting and by other groups, aka Shiite on Sunni violence.

So yes, nation building includes killing 6000 Iraqis. And it has also included sactificing over 2000 brave soldiers so that whiny pussies can sit back and bitch about the freedom they have...to bitch about the war.

At 1/19/06 06:04 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote: I can see a major moral dilemma here. If USA were to stop all warfare against those whom bin Laden calls "his people", al Qaeda would definately decrease terrorist activity - I'm not saying they would stop it completely though; the al Qaeda is such a vast network that I doubt Osama bin Laden's authority is sufficient to make them all stop attacking American and European people. But all in all, accepting an offer like this could seriously make people more safe.

No, it couldn't. Spain tried that, terrorist attacks increased. It was only after they turned back around and redoubled their efforts on terror that the attacks decreased again. Clinton took that attitude too, and it helped lead to 9/11. I appreciate your optimistic worldview, it's refreshing, but misplaced.

However, what makes this a dilemma is the fact that Osama bin Laden needs to be held responsible for his actions, as some of you have pointed out. Bin Laden may consider that this entire war began when USA sent troops to Saudi-Arabia and attacked Iraq in the early 90's (which is why he considers this a normal war where he is in a position to negotiate), but to the rest of the world it looks like he unprovokedly attacked civilians.

He knows it's not a real war. Don't dillude yourself. He admits he needs time to plan another attack (which with us putting him on the defensive, he hasn't had), then asks for a truce, which will....give him more time to plan another attack.

Which is worth more? Bringing Osama to justice, or ensuring the safety of millions of people? Perhaps USA should make a counter-offer along the lines of: Osama and his closest henchmen turn themselves in to the International Criminal Court of the Hague and the USA will pull the troops from Iraq and stop chasing the rest of al Qaeda's fighters around the world. Whatever. At least they should hear them out, see if they have anything reasonable to say. A little communication never hurt anybody, but lack of communication is one of the reasons we have problems such as terrorism in the first place.

He won't accept that counter-offer. He has no intention of actually surrendering. He's losing. He wants time for us to back off and he'll attack again. Since accepting his offer won't "ensure the safety of millions", the only thing we have left is to pursue his flea ridden, camel riding, yellowing turban wearing, sick psychopath to the ends of the Earth and send his ass to an early (though not early enough) grave.

As to the question about whether bin Laden can be trusted to uphold the truce - I think if he publically states that he and his organization are now in peace with the USA, it will have an impact. As I pointed out earlier, it probably isn't enough to stop all Jihad fighters from planning and commiting terrorism, but his most loyal followers should obey him.

Hmm, didn't Saddam pledge he was at peace with us once upon a time? And that he'd allow the UN inspectors to do their jobs?

This was an intriguing statement from Osama, though. He never ceases to surprise me. It's a shame such a smart man like him is also a religious freak and a homicidal lunatic.

What was intriguing? It's the same shit he's always spouted. We brought it on ourselves...we're evil....we only hurt Iraq...blah blah blah...I'm parroting the anti-war Democrats...etc. Stop applauding this guy. He's a mass murderer who targets "his own people" for fun. He's sick and we need to bury him, preferably alive, in a box with venomous snakes scorpions and fire ants.

At 1/19/06 06:40 PM, Dulnar wrote: It doesn't take much at all to get a judge to hand out a warrant. It's not an indictment and it doesn't need a formal hearing on the matter (unless there's no probable cause). You can just call up the office, have them fax over all the warrants you want, and then tap their phones without their knowledge. But Bush sidestepped this because he knew that, in this case, his underlings didn't have enough probable cause for even the most Bush-loving judge, I'm guessing. He broke a law that was in the books for this exact reason, and that's an impeachable offense.

It's not quite that easy. The court (and there's only ONE they can go to on this issue) has rejected more warrants in Bush's first term than it has in it's entire history. It has also modified a huge number. Not enough probable cause? These people were calling numbers associated with al Queda. If that's not probable cause...nothing is. As I said, I support the president on this one. However, it is a valid point. He broke a rule, albeit maybe a bad one. He still broke the law. Whether or not he could make a good case and save his ass from impeachment, I have no clue. But this is the only one on his list that has ANY merit to it.

He really never supported the use of torture, but he didn't do a damn thing when the Abu Ghraib incident was traced back to Rumsfeld, did he? Not impeachable, however, Rumsfeld should have been fired.

I wouldn't consider most of what happened torture. Stand here in your undies whilest we piss on the Koran. Offensive? Yea. Hurtful? Maybe a little bit mentally. But legal? 100%. Add to the fact that terrorists are not covered by the Geneva convention (they are not members of the army of an opposing state, and they willfully target innocent citizens), and what Bush did here was OK. No matter how abhorrant you find it.

Agreed. Let's give him some constructive criticism, though. That is what he asked for.

I agreed with most of your post, just those few points, I figured I could help him with considering the fact that they might actually work in favor of his argument.

In all fairness, people here did that. Thneir advice on this one was quite simple: let this one go. It's almost completely inaccurate, uses conspiracy theory, ignores reality, and charges with crimes which are either not crimes, or weren't really Bush's fault. There is almost nothing he can do to make this good, except scrap it and start over. That's the fair criticism, even if it seems harsh.

At 1/19/06 03:52 PM, Blackmagic wrote:

Faith is belief without evidence.
Just by observing something as simple as different breeds of dog can we see that there is most certainly something to evolution, things do change. Certain things happen which are strange and unexpected, like blue budgies. We can either compare this to our records in history (which is onging, I wonder how much more we will know in future generations) to the previous states of certain breeds of animal and notice a change, an adaption. We gave it a name, evolution.

I look at the different species of Dog, and I go back to the books and find out the varieties of Dog came from selective breeding by humans. To me, that's not huge evidence in support of evolution. That'd be like, if a law was designed forcing people to marry inter-racially, I wouldn't consider all the new "breeds" of humans to be evolution, just forced ID.

At 1/19/06 10:25 AM, LuckFarmer wrote: Condilesa Rice vs Hilary?

I'd cry. A lot. That'd be even worse than Gore vs Bush.

At 1/19/06 01:38 PM, Noob-Antichrist wrote: If you were somehow forced to join one of these four religions, what would you join?

The choices are:

Islam
Hinduism
Sikhism
Buddhism

please explain your reasons why.

Hinduism. If you're a good enough person, you can be reincarnated as a God.....Oh the terrible things I will reap upon humanity....

OH SHIT, not a God yet. I mean, um....I like kittens!

Heh heh heh, ya that'll fool em.

At 1/17/06 08:03 AM, Rukaii wrote: In the past month, I actually decided to sit down and watch Moneyline and a few other programs on CNN and other newsnetworks and I was honored with hearing people from all over the world say that, "If given the choice between America and China, I'd rather live in China." Well, I'm certainly aware that the world dislikes America, but now I'm convinced that the world has given up on America and could give two sh*ts about us -- though I don't blame you -- who would want to support a warring nation that goes into nations such as Iraq who have never made an aggressive move against the United States.

So, what do you all think? If given the choice between America and China, would you rather live in China or America?

You do realize that for a decade Saddam's troops shot at our planes right? And that he tried to kill a former President after the war had ended. Both of those are aggressive moves. And as for who would want to support us...let's see, there's England, the other important country in the world. And there's Iraq and Afghanistan, the two countries we liberated. And Mexico, who we saved from going into bankruptsy during the Clinton years....and also.....

You get the idea.

At 1/18/06 06:56 AM, Blackmagic wrote:

At 1/18/06 12:28 AM, ThebanLegion wrote:
People often think that creationism is religion, this also isn't true.

This square is not a square, its a triangle because it has 4 sides.

Theory of Evolution:
Observation --> Hypothesis --> Testing --> Conclusion

Creationism:
Observation --> ...

Even believing in Evolution to a degree, I must say, it has not been tested. There is no way to test it. Realistically, it should be called the hypothesis of Evolution. Like ID, it cannot be tested or refuted. It still requires almost as much faith as creationism.

Gee, 1 million random web addresses, and a one week database, to see if online porn companies break the law....both pointless, AND hard to argue against. But gee, if Google had RANDOMLY chosen 1 million non-porn sites, and showed who accessed them over a week, this would be over and the federal gov't couldn't bitch anymore. Not that any problems would've been solved by that....

At 1/19/06 02:59 PM, Quanze13 wrote: http://feeds.feedbur..ters/topNews?m=13770

Even the Pope says that Inteligent Design is bullshit. I don't really see how anybody could possibly pitch it as a valid theory anymore.

He doesn't say that anywhere at all. In fact the Pope has repeatedly said that ID is 100% accurate. Since you didn't bother to read the article, or if you did, you decided to ignore what it said:

PARIS (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has restated its support for evolution with an article praising a U.S. court decision that rejects the "intelligent design" theory as non-scientific.

Wow, they said ID was "non-scientific". Not that it was bullshit. It IS non-scientific. But then again, so is evolution. Not that I care either way, but dear Jesus, learn to read and comprehend.

Plus it pisses me off that we're wasting millions of school dollars on "teach evolution or ID" when little Jimmy in the back thinks the answer to 6X6 is brown shoe, and doesn't know the alphabet past 5. A Q C D B 5 G.....

At 1/19/06 03:08 PM, -Michael- wrote: Bush and Usama. I don't know who to trust. They both were friendly years ago anyways.

Gee, who to trust who to trust. The guy who runs our country, albeit shoddily, without a clue as to what he's doing it sometimes seems. Or the guy who has launched numerous terrorist attacks on our country, and our allies, claiming tens of thousands of lives, 3000 during the WTC attacks. What a difficult choice....are you stupid? And if you make such a statement as "they used to be friends", please...feel free to back it up.

Unfortunately, the very fact of our military establishment could not exist if we didn't have a terrorist threat.

Of course it could. Osama isn't the only threat to our country. Nor is terrorism in general. There are still organized countries, like Iran and N.K. who absolutely hate us and the entire world. Besides, we keep the military even in times of peace, cause God only know where the next threat will come from.

Osama bin Laden knows he's dividing the American public and he's doing a good job at it. I don't agree with Bush and I never supported the war in Iraq.

Osama isn't dividing our country. The Democrats are by bitching about the Republicans like you are. And the Republicans then turn around and call the liberals terrorists and cowards, which really helps our cause. Only an idiot listens to Osama and says "Hey, that's a good point there."

Unfortunately, our administration fights war like the terrorists do, more deaths, less negotiations. I mean, what's wrong, at least sit down at the table with them instead of being a romantic.

Yea, just like them....they suicide bomb places, and purposefully target innocent men, women and children, and we...kill them and free oppressed countries. Gee, that sounds like exactly the same thing. Again, are you stupid? The bastard killed 3000 people and convinced 19 men to kill themselves for his glory. Sure, I'm sure he'd just love to negotiate with us. How bout we send you? You're a good guy probably, so when he brutally murders you and scatters your body parts (and those of anyone who accompanies you) to the four corners of whatever city, we'll send in someone to collect your pieces and give you a hero's funeral. It was noble, but it was stupid. At least you tried. Good enough for me to say you were a good guy (though a dumb one) at your funeral. You don't negotiate with mad men who kill 3000 people. What happens when you agree to truce? You give them time to plan and the ability to attack anyone BUT you. Hell the guy has admitted he needs time to plan another attrocity. Why not give it to him? Let's not keep him on the defensive or anything. He's desperate. The only reason to meet with this bag of dirt is to send him to his maker, and a nice red hot poker in the ass.