Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/5/11 04:10 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: You say my cowboy mentality doesn't work. Looking at our pussy in chief, obviously being apologetic and backing down doesn't work either. What do we do?

Last cowboy President: We got attacked
Non-cowboy President: We haven't been attacked.

Well fuck, looks like we're doing pretty good

At 3/5/11 04:09 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Right. The US does not commit any war crimes ever, and our ex leader can leave the country without worry because other countries won't try him for war crimes. So because no other country (Except for the ones who do) want to try, we should say fuck it and be just as bad as them?

I didn't say we didn't commit war crimes. But because we are held to the Geneva Convention, we are held at a higher standard. and of course we should. If someone isn't willing to fight by the rules, the rules need to be changed.

Better to piss off the enemy then try to make everything better? Domestic terrorism has been happening for years, and us being the asshole will only make things worse.

And yet being nice hasn't been making things better.

At 3/5/11 04:13 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: I didn't say we didn't commit war crimes. But because we are held to the Geneva Convention, we are held at a higher standard. and of course we should. If someone isn't willing to fight by the rules, the rules need to be changed.

"War crimes are committed by our enemies, yet we are the ones who have to follow the rules."

Implying that we follow the rules (we don't by the way.) You believe we are the best nation, but we shouldn't be held to a higher standard? Tell me, if we are over there to stop the terrorist groups from doing atrocious things like killing non-combatants, yet we do them also, why are we over there?

Better to piss off the enemy then try to make everything better? Domestic terrorism has been happening for years, and us being the asshole will only make things worse.

And yet being nice hasn't been making things better.

Last time we got attacked was with a Cowboy president in charge. Now we have one who tries to make things better and reconcile. Oh hey, the wars dying down under him and we have not been attacked by a foreign threat.

At 3/5/11 04:11 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Last cowboy President: We got attacked
Non-cowboy President: We haven't been attacked.

Well fuck, looks like we're doing pretty good

Except for Fort Hood. And the attempted time square bombing. and the attempted christmas day bombing. and the recent attack in Germany against Americans. And the murder of two solders in Little Rock. All done by Muslim Extremists.

Way to be a pussy, Obama

At 3/5/11 04:17 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: Except for Fort Hood. And the attempted time square bombing. and the attempted christmas day bombing. and the recent attack in Germany against Americans. And the murder of two solders in Little Rock. All done by Muslim Extremists.

Oh hey, look at all the domestic terrorist attacks (that means not foreign) and the attacks that didn't go through or weren't on our soil.

Way to be a pussy, Obama

Oh right. Obama has complete control over the Americans who decided to go shoot some shit up and if he had a sterner foreign policy these domestic attacks wouldn't happen. I say we bomb the USA to prevent the radical Americans like Jared Loughner from attacking us.

At 3/5/11 04:21 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Oh hey, look at all the domestic terrorist attacks (that means not foreign) and the attacks that didn't go through or weren't on our soil.

Fort Hood (domestic) happened. With Times square bomber, we caught a lucky break because his bomb malfunctioned. Little Rock (domestic) happened.

Christmas day was the only one stopped.

So 1/4 domestic attacks were stopped before it could go through, 1/4 malfunctioned, and 2/4 cost us American lives.

Oh right. Obama has complete control over the Americans who decided to go shoot some shit up and if he had a sterner foreign policy these domestic attacks wouldn't happen. I say we bomb the USA to prevent the radical Americans like Jared Loughner from attacking us.

Jared Loughner wasn't a Muslim Extremist. And I've made my point that despite all the ass-kissing and apologising, we are still hated and under a threat of our enemy.

At 3/5/11 04:34 PM, MrPercie wrote: as much as I like this complaining because all i really hear is AMEIRCANS ARE CUNTS or EVRYONE ELSE IS CUNTS

to be honest, I think you both sound a little cuntish in there own way which isnt making this any better.

Nohing wrong with arguing like cunts. Kinda fun actually.

At 3/5/11 04:29 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: Fort Hood (domestic) happened. With Times square bomber, we caught a lucky break because his bomb malfunctioned. Little Rock (domestic) happened.

Yes. Domestic. Foreign policy has everything to do with this and not the growing resentment towards our prolonged occupation of countries we have no reason to be in.

So 1/4 domestic attacks were stopped before it could go through, 1/4 malfunctioned, and 2/4 cost us American lives.

Only 4 terrorist attacks have ever been attempted to be carried out post 9-11 right?

Jared Loughner wasn't a Muslim Extremist. And I've made my point that despite all the ass-kissing and apologising, we are still hated and under a threat of our enemy.

Oh right. I forgot we were waging a Holy War against Islam and invaded the Middle East because that's where the majority of them are and the majority of Muslims want Americans dead and not just a few extremists. When people are Islamic it is a terrorist attack, yet when they aren't it's just another shooting even though one had an assassination attempt on a US leader.

At 3/5/11 04:40 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

:: Yes. Domestic. Foreign policy has everything to do with this and not the growing resentment towards our prolonged occupation of countries we have no reason to be in.

We're getting out, but the hits keep on coming.

Only 4 terrorist attacks have ever been attempted to be carried out post 9-11 right?

As far as we know. Those were the ones that have gotten close to happening or did happen.

Oh right. I forgot we were waging a Holy War against Islam and invaded the Middle East because that's where the majority of them are and the majority of Muslims want Americans dead and not just a few extremists. When people are Islamic it is a terrorist attack, yet when they aren't it's just another shooting even though one had an assassination attempt on a US leader.

I didnt say Lougher wasnt a terrorist. I said he wasn't a Muslim extremist.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

At 3/5/11 04:50 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: We're getting out, but the hits keep on coming.

From Americans.

As far as we know. Those were the ones that have gotten close to happening or did happen.

You're fucking retarded. There's shit being planned all the time.

I didnt say Lougher wasnt a terrorist. I said he wasn't a Muslim extremist.

How is Loughner's religion related at all to this discussion, and why are his actions different or why would you feel the need to bring up his religion if he pulls the same shit that another person does?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Stop being such an idiot

At 3/5/11 04:53 PM, RacistBassist wrote: From Americans.

Who are Muslim extremists

You're fucking retarded. There's shit being planned all the time.

which kinda proves my point that despite everything we are under attack

How is Loughner's religion related at all to this discussion, and why are his actions different or why would you feel the need to bring up his religion if he pulls the same shit that another person does?

Because Loughner's motives have nothing to do with the motives of the extremists.

Stop being such an idiot

Stop falling back on insults because your arguments suck

At 3/5/11 04:56 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: Who are Muslim extremists

Only if you count the terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. It isn't like over 90% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims.

which kinda proves my point that despite everything we are under attack

By Americans and extremists. No amount of being an asshole to other countries will fix that. Like the greatest man in existence has said, speak softly and carry a big stick.

Because Loughner's motives have nothing to do with the motives of the extremists.

I don't see your point with this. You're saying he doesn't count because he doesn't have the same motives as the other domestic terrorists (Which, by the way, have different motives also)

Stop falling back on insults because your arguments suck

Stop using your retarded logic then.

At 3/5/11 05:00 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Only if you count the terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. It isn't like over 90% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims.

In the last 10 years, most of them have. And of the other attacks committed by non Muslims, i could guarantee most of the motives were not the same as the muslim extremists.

By Americans and extremists. No amount of being an asshole to other countries will fix that. Like the greatest man in existence has said, speak softly and carry a big stick.

Of course its extremists. I never said it was all Muslims. once again, you put words in my mouth. And we are speaking softly and backing out like pussies. At least we backed up our talk with the big stick. Now we look emasculated.

I don't see your point with this. You're saying he doesn't count because he doesn't have the same motives as the other domestic terrorists (Which, by the way, have different motives also)

In this conversation, he doesnt count. We are talking about attacks based on a negative view on the United States. Im bringing up attacks based on a negative view of The United States. Loughner is irrelivant to this conversation because his motives werent based on a negative view of the United States.

Stop using your retarded logic then.

My logics fine. You're the one lacking any logic.

At 3/5/11 05:00 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Only if you count the terrorist attacks committed by Muslims. It isn't like over 90% of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims.

This. If anyone ever mentions terrorists people think of Arabs or Muslims.
Unlike in Northern Ireland where the terrorists are Catholics.

I like how this thread got completely derailed. Anyway, I should just say this to RacistBassist: AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

At 3/5/11 05:13 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: I like how this thread got completely derailed. Anyway, I should just say this to RacistBassist: AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

It seems to just be 'America, Fuck Yeah!' vs 'Yeah, Fuck America!' now.

At 3/5/11 02:03 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/4/11 07:53 PM, Danavers wrote: They blew up two of our buildings and killed hundreds of Americans, if we joined WW1 for the Lusitania it makes sense we're over there.

You mean the Saudi hijackers who had no connection to Iraq, (You know, one of the only places in the ME that had its foot on radical islams throat?) and who was only based in Afghanistan?

Had its foot on radical Islams throat? Strange that soldiers are dying over there. I was also referring to the War in Afghanistan, we're in Iraq because we thought they had WMDs, and they didn't cooperate with us.

At 3/5/11 05:13 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: I like how this thread got completely derailed.

I think the mods are waiting for Wade to come in and give his two cents before locking it.

At 3/5/11 05:33 PM, Danavers wrote: I think the mods are waiting for Wade to come in and give his two cents before locking it.

Wade just seems to be naturally drawn towards topics about guns.

Can we just get completely back on topic now?

At 3/5/11 05:10 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: In the last 10 years, most of them have. And of the other attacks committed by non Muslims, i could guarantee most of the motives were not the same as the muslim extremists.

Actually no. The FBI date was compiled in 2005, and what you say is true only if you ignore the non-Muslim attacks, which is what you are doing.

Of course its extremists. I never said it was all Muslims. once again, you put words in my mouth. And we are speaking softly and backing out like pussies. At least we backed up our talk with the big stick. Now we look emasculated.

"Muslim extremists." Would you describe people like McVeigh as "Christian extremists" or people like Loughner as "Atheist extremists" (Sorry, forgot his actual religion at the moment so I might be wrong.) Really? What country has "called us out" besides NK? (They've been doing that shit for years, everybody just ignores them) The fact that you keep pointing out that they are Muslim, while dismissing those that are not say a lot about your beliefs.

In this conversation, he doesnt count. We are talking about attacks based on a negative view on the United States. Im bringing up attacks based on a negative view of The United States. Loughner is irrelivant to this conversation because his motives werent based on a negative view of the United States.

Joseph Stack committed a terrorist attack for his resentment towards the US government. Loughner did the act because of his problems with todays politics. Oh wait, that sounds exactly like the other terrorists.

My logics fine. You're the one lacking any logic.

You believe that the majority of attacks are by Muslims and other examples don't count.

At 3/5/11 05:33 PM, Danavers wrote: Had its foot on radical Islams throat? Strange that soldiers are dying over there. I was also referring to the War in Afghanistan, we're in Iraq because we thought they had WMDs, and they didn't cooperate with us.

And oh look, there were no WMDs and the apparent source of the info said he lied. Well shit, why are we still there? We overthrew a legit government. Granted, it may have been a dictator, but why would we do that?

At 3/5/11 05:57 PM, RacistBassist wrote: And oh look, there were no WMDs and the apparent source of the info said he lied. Well shit, why are we still there? We overthrew a legit government. Granted, it may have been a dictator, but why would we do that?

Because it was not a legit government. Not by a long shot.

At 3/5/11 06:25 PM, Danavers wrote:

At 3/5/11 05:57 PM, RacistBassist wrote: And oh look, there were no WMDs and the apparent source of the info said he lied. Well shit, why are we still there? We overthrew a legit government. Granted, it may have been a dictator, but why would we do that?

Because it was not a legit government. Not by a long shot.

May I ask how it wasn't? It was a sovereign nation, and had a well established government.

At 3/5/11 06:29 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/5/11 06:25 PM, Danavers wrote:

At 3/5/11 05:57 PM, RacistBassist wrote: And oh look, there were no WMDs and the apparent source of the info said he lied. Well shit, why are we still there? We overthrew a legit government. Granted, it may have been a dictator, but why would we do that?

Because it was not a legit government. Not by a long shot.

May I ask how it wasn't? It was a sovereign nation, and had a well established government.

Saddam Hussein.

At 3/5/11 06:34 PM, Danavers wrote: Saddam Hussein.

And how does this make them not a sovereign nation or established government? True, they were dicks, but we were in our past also.

Jesus, of course I'm talking about Muslim extremists. MOST OF THE ATTACKS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ARE FROM MUSLIM EXREMISTS. FROM 9/11 (which was even before we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq) to now, most of the attacks have been by Muslim extremists.

Joseph Stack committed a terrorist attack for his resentment towards the US government. Loughner did the act because of his problems with todays politics. Oh wait, that sounds exactly like the other terrorists.

I cant argue with Stack. Loughner attacked Giffords because she didnt answer a question the way he wanted her to.

You believe that the majority of attacks are by Muslims and other examples don't count.

I said Loughner was irrelevent because, once again, his attack was based on the fact that Giffords didnt answer a question the way he wanted. It wasnt based on a negative view on the U.S.

The fact is, there is a negative view on the United States by Muslim Extremists. There have been numerous attempts by the Muslim extremists to harm Americans home and abroad. You bring up people like Loughner and Stacks, but they have not disproven the fact that Muslim extremists are still pissed off. I have disproven your point that being the opposite of Bush will make things better. Because, once again, the extremists keep attacking.

At 3/5/11 06:40 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/5/11 06:34 PM, Danavers wrote: Saddam Hussein.

And how does this make them not a sovereign nation or established government? True, they were dicks, but we were in our past also.

Go ahead and read the history yourself, doesn't look like much was established until we came in. And we came in for a damn good reason. Should we have pulled out by now? Probably, but we didn't and now Iraq is a nicer place. (Or will be, after we leave.)

At 3/5/11 07:14 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 3/5/11 06:48 PM, Danavers wrote: Go ahead and read the history yourself

The wiki you cite actually calls him "president". Maybe you should read your own sources.

That doesn't make the source inaccurate.

As far as the merits of invading... there were no merits. President Bush cited the reasons for invading as "they attacked us on 9/11",

Bush never said they attacked us.

At 3/5/11 06:46 PM, Roy-Tomara wrote: Jesus, of course I'm talking about Muslim extremists. MOST OF THE ATTACKS IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ARE FROM MUSLIM EXREMISTS. FROM 9/11 (which was even before we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq) to now, most of the attacks have been by Muslim extremists.

The FBI disagrees with you. But hey, it's not like they know what they are talking about at all right?

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/public ations/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05

I cant argue with Stack. Loughner attacked Giffords because she didnt answer a question the way he wanted her to.

So, you mean he had resentment towards members of the US government?

I said Loughner was irrelevent because, once again, his attack was based on the fact that Giffords didnt answer a question the way he wanted. It wasnt based on a negative view on the U.S.

The terrorists you bring up were irrelevant to because they were mad at elected officials and our intervention in their politics and wasn't based on their negative views of the US. See how fun it is?

The fact is, there is a negative view on the United States by Muslim Extremists. There have been numerous attempts by the Muslim extremists to harm Americans home and abroad. You bring up people like Loughner and Stacks, but they have not disproven the fact that Muslim extremists are still pissed off. I have disproven your point that being the opposite of Bush will make things better. Because, once again, the extremists keep attacking.

You are again equating extremism with a religion. Hell, the FBI data shows Jewish groups have done more attacks then Muslims. Bush made things better? He's the reason we're in this fucking mess. Let's look at death tolls: Bush's first two years: Over 2000. Obamas: Less then 30.

Alright, I'll toss my hat into the ring regardless of who is debating about what.

When I think of Gun ownership, I also think of pot. Because, in a way, guns are very similar to pot. Except there is one difference, pot is illegal in America and guns aren't. Now remind me just how many people illegally own marajuana in this country? Just how many of the probable hundreds of thousands of people are actively engaged in the possession, use of or selling of pot. If you can think of that than you understand my point about how illegalizing guns would only increase the amount of guns sold on the black market. It's not hard to get a gun without a permit, hundreds of people in your area more than likely do so each day.

And besides the argument that illegalizing guns would only allow citizens who want guns for protection to be helpless if they got in harms way of someone with a black market weapon. Why illegalize them in the first place? Humans will do what they want with or with out the tools to do them. Meaning, if somone really wanted to get a gun to harm people, do you honestly think illegalizing them would solve one damn thing? I believe not, I believe it would only endanger the honest citizen who wants to protect themselves. I myself, one day, would like to by a gun for both sport and protection. People out to harm, will harm, gun or no gun. Because once again, humans do what they want. Regardless of law, regulation or control, you can't stop someone from slipping past the line.

There's much more I have to say about this matter but I just wanted to throw in my two cents, not the whole dollar. So I have to say "Second Amendment, ALL THE WAY!"

At 3/5/11 07:39 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Humans will do what they want with or with out the tools to do them. Meaning, if somone really wanted to get a gun to harm people, do you honestly think illegalizing them would solve one damn thing?

Yes I do actually.

The fact is that guns are almost impossible to get here in the UK and the murder rate per person is significantly lower than the USA. Its pretty obvious when you look at the statistics that guns have a massively larger role in crime in the USA than the crime in the UK and that looking at gun crime statistics you can see why.