Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/1/04 11:54 AM, Quanze13 wrote: dear invisible guy,
The president has someting called a "national security advisor," say it with me n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l s-e-c-u-r-i-t-y a-d-v-i-s-o-r. This person is incharge of national secutity. They are suposed to help the president protect the country. Clinton's national security advisor told Bush's national security advisor that Al Quieda was going to attack the united states. But The Bush white house didn't do shit about it. That was total incompetence. It WAS bush's fualt, and dont' try to say anything otherwise.

Blah blah blah.
If it had been Gore in office, the same thing would have happened. Only it probably would have been worse, because he would have cut military spending to donate to the "save an owl" fund. Get a grip. 9/11 was going to happen anyway, no matter who was in office.

At 9/1/04 11:25 PM, Angel_Of_Death_666 wrote: Blah blah blah.
If it had been Gore in office, the same thing would have happened. Only it probably would have been worse, because he would have cut military spending to donate to the "save an owl" fund. Get a grip. 9/11 was going to happen anyway, no matter who was in office.

And that is the funny thing, they think Kerry or whoever would have done a better job

At 9/1/04 12:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 9/1/04 10:55 AM, TruthSpeak wrote:

At 9/1/04 10:52 AM, KirbyMan wrote: and you didn't do that to Clinton?

If you arent going to add to the discussion, then stay out. Your statement lacks intelligence, you can either try again, or shut your mouth.

Shut upa you face. He burned you, face it. Your argument was stopped dead in its tracks. The Right had gone after Clinton just as hard as the Left has gone after Bush, end of story, argument over, onto a new thread.

Clinton should be in prison for lying under oath. Usually that happens when people lie in supreme court. Clinton got off easy. And as far as TruthSpeak getting burned, Uh, no? His reasonings are alot more ligitimate than yours. And Clinton didn't accomplish half the things Bush has. Clinton lied to his country, and showed the world that America has just about no moral values left. Bush has followed through with everything he said, -things that the democrats voted for. I feel that the democratic party is becoming more and more like John Kerry...Flip-Flops.

Bush "should've" been executed for abandonment during wartime, he got off easy, what is your frigging point, they're all rich people, and therefor always going to get off easy.

At 9/1/04 01:20 PM, Tal-con wrote: TruthSpeak can't prove anything he says its just full of his own opinions

His statements are common knowledge. Research a little before mouthing off.

Blah blah blah.
9/11 was going to happen anyway, no matter who was in office.

I dunno - had I been in office and 6 days before gotten a memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside United States" I think I might have put a few SAM sites on alert in the DC area.

And if I had recieved a letter from Osama saying "I'll be attacking NYC on the 11th or 12th with hijacked airplanes" I would have scrambled the Air National Guard or at least put a few AWACs into the air looking for errant aircraft....

They are just common sense measures.

But what did Bush do on the day in question? Read about Goats... and worse still, put all those children in danger sitting there in the classroom, because he is a target.

Arnie Almost got it right... George Bush told a lot of "True Lies" about the period around 911...

Next Point: The War on Terror Arnie touted. Do the math.

What are the odds, as an American you will die by an act of Terror? 1/560,000 (mean odds of you being killed by an act of terror in your lifetime)

What are the odds of you as an American being struck dead by a bolt of lightning? 1/30,000 (mean odds of being struck during your lifetime)

That means you have an 18.6 times more likelihood of being killed by lightning than of a rogue terrorist attack.

Yet we spend BILLIONS to prevent them. America by its very nature is open. We presume that one can walk to the corner store without being blown up by bombs. And it works out that way. If terrorists were out to destroy our way of life, every corner store and grocery mart would be under assault.

I personally built the stage GW Bush gave his Shuttle Disaster speech on at NASA. The people that worked on it went through such lax security measures that over 1/3 of the people working there had no picture ID. If terrorists had wanted ole GW done in, it would have been a piece of cake.

But despite the lax security, nothing bad happened. And I guarantee you that lax security goes on all the time. It's just part of the great American way - open stores with no bomb sniffers or metal detectors, and unlocked cars and all the trusting stuff that goes with it...

We have exaggerated this threat to the point of paranoia. (This coming from someone who has more than once on this forum been called paranoid)... This should be saying something to you.

The War on Terror has created more hate towards the US than just about any time in our history, and given justification to every fool out there who thinks strapping a bomb to your ass is a good way to solve a political problem.

It takes a lot of bravery to say, "you know - we in america will not be cowed, or changed by terror." But it sends the strongest message. If we allow ourselves to become obssessed with fear, to the point of xenophobia and kinder gentler fascism, then the terrorists truly have won.

Rant Over: I hope someone was listening.

I see you're still on your toes.

BTW: You're "opponent" isn't going to present much of a challenge.

At 9/1/04 08:31 PM, BarferPro wrote: Liberals are awesome. There is NOTHING wrong with be a liberal.

TruthSpeak, you're a fucking moron.

- End

Yeah, that was intelligent. Keep the deep thoughts coming.

To tell you the truth TruthSpeak my noob friend... Arnold Shwarzenegger said that? The same man that said he wouldn't take money from schools when elected to be the governor of California? The same man who did just that and has raised college and university tuition prices higher than ever? NEVER have I seen someone turn around on their word so fucking quick, and if Bush loses and Kerry wins, Arnold is gonna be RIGHT THERE kissing ass to Kerry. You're posting a quote made by a man who tries to get a state out of bankruptcy by borrowing more money? WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF IDEA IS THAT?! He's gonna have to pay it back either way, now we're even more in debt, and more fucked-over than when we stated, which is why most of the scholars I speak to didn't even vote for his hooked on phonics ass. Dude don't post shit by Schwarzenegger, you should be ashamed of thinking him and Bush are smart, if Bush hadn't gone to war he wouldn't be getting "stones" thrown at him for it and he wouldn't have to be hearing it from the emotional parents of the soldiers that have died in Iraq. You know how many families Bush has ruined since the fucking Iraq war started? You fucking disgust me, Schwarzenegger disgusts me (as a politician not an actor) and Bush disgusts me as a leader, go back to school and do your homework before trying to sound smart again.

Not to mention a man holding illegally holding a position according the California State Constitution...

At 9/2/04 12:00 AM, antiklaus wrote:

Blah blah blah.
9/11 was going to happen anyway, no matter who was in office.

I dunno - had I been in office and 6 days before gotten a memo "Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside United States" I think I might have put a few SAM sites on alert in the DC area.

Yes, and then when you shot down the planes (which have never been used to strike targets), the democrats would probably be shouting that you murdered innocent people and had no proof that the planes were going to strike targets.

This would be one example of how liberals would have gotten it both ways.

And if I had recieved a letter from Osama saying "I'll be attacking NYC on the 11th or 12th with hijacked airplanes" I would have scrambled the Air National Guard or at least put a few AWACs into the air looking for errant aircraft....

They never said he would attack NYC on the 11th or 12th with hijacked airplanes.

You cant just make up intelligence to prove your point.

They are just common sense measures.

Shooting innocent people out of the air isnt common, and it doesnt make much sense unless you know the plane is going to be used as a missle - which I would like to say, Bush, nor anyone else in the admin, knew.

But what did Bush do on the day in question? Read about Goats... and worse still, put all those children in danger sitting there in the classroom, because he is a target.

Pleeeeaaaassssseee.

This is getting pathetic.

Arnie Almost got it right... George Bush told a lot of "True Lies" about the period around 911...

Not true, cant be proven, and already shown to be a false claim. Re-write your rhetoric and try again.

Next Point: The War on Terror Arnie touted. Do the math.

What are the odds, as an American you will die by an act of Terror? 1/560,000 (mean odds of you being killed by an act of terror in your lifetime)

What are the odds of you as an American being struck dead by a bolt of lightning? 1/30,000 (mean odds of being struck during your lifetime)

That means you have an 18.6 times more likelihood of being killed by lightning than of a rogue terrorist attack.

Yet we spend BILLIONS to prevent them. America by its very nature is open. We presume that one can walk to the corner store without being blown up by bombs. And it works out that way. If terrorists were out to destroy our way of life, every corner store and grocery mart would be under assault.

So we should spend money on national security based on MY chance to be killed ALONE???

This isnt about YOU...liberal...its not about ME...liberal....its about Americans. If Americans are in danger, we spend the money. I dont care if it says IM more likely to get struck by lightning than terrorists, what is the liklihood that AMERICANS are going to die soon - THAT IS THE ONLY FIGURE THAT MATTERS.

I personally built the stage GW Bush gave his Shuttle Disaster speech on at NASA. The people that worked on it went through such lax security measures that over 1/3 of the people working there had no picture ID. If terrorists had wanted ole GW done in, it would have been a piece of cake.

The secret service checks it before he speaks. Dont be a fool.

But despite the lax security, nothing bad happened. And I guarantee you that lax security goes on all the time. It's just part of the great American way - open stores with no bomb sniffers or metal detectors, and unlocked cars and all the trusting stuff that goes with it...

What are you talking about?

We have exaggerated this threat to the point of paranoia. (This coming from someone who has more than once on this forum been called paranoid)... This should be saying something to you.

Exaggerated??? First we didnt do enough to prevent it, now we are exaggerating it???

And liberals dont want it both ways???

Here, you take my username, it fits you more with your flip flops.

The War on Terror has created more hate towards the US than just about any time in our history, and given justification to every fool out there who thinks strapping a bomb to your ass is a good way to solve a political problem.

We aren't trying to make friends, we're trying to save Americans. We dont need a permission slip to protect our nation, remember that...AMERICAN!

It takes a lot of bravery to say, "you know - we in america will not be cowed, or changed by terror." But it sends the strongest message. If we allow ourselves to become obssessed with fear, to the point of xenophobia and kinder gentler fascism, then the terrorists truly have won.

We are doing exactly the opposite. Nobody is living in fear. We still fly planes, we still go to Disney, we still carry on our everyday lives because we know that our commander in chief, George Bush, will destroy any terrorists who attack us.

But wait till John Kerry is elected, then you will see Americans living in fear.

republicans and democrats used to be partys with different paths to the same end. now this new right wing wave has ended that. Kerry all the way.

At 9/2/04 12:32 AM, spanishfli wrote: Not to mention a man holding illegally holding a position according the California State Constitution...

Alas Spanishfli muchas gracias se lo agradesco, thanks for agreeing with me, and yes Zeppelin Man ZEPPPELIN ALL THE WAY BABY GO JIMMY PAIGE GO! I mean... Go kerry :)

Is there something wrong with wanting a candidate that does not want war? Rather than want a candidate that decided to go to war regardless of what the people said... this is supposed to be a country of the people, not of Bush, and he doesn't even count as a person... he's like... one quarter person... three quarters jackass.

At 9/2/04 01:58 AM, BarferPro wrote: I think that the current system, although fine with the government built of the people, doesn't work out for the country as well.
Bad people like Bush can get into office and do bad shit to the country. Although, good people like Clinton can get in too, and do good shit.

What kinda good shit? Monica Lewinsky good shit? Or foreign diplomacy and making friends with other countries good shit?

The position of President should be removed, I think.

The system should just work like, represenatives around the country come together and discuss the issues. They vote upon what's best for the people, and the world, and then carry it out. They'd meat every month, at least.

Or, like, have a council... or something...

You mean king of like parliament? All the queen is in England is a figurehead, the power resides in Parliament, that's why people talk about Prime Minister Tony Blair all the time. In a perfect world, people would be able to govern themselves, responsibly and respectfully, but then again, no one is perfect... except for Beyonce she sure comes close to it...

At 9/1/04 10:55 AM, TruthSpeak wrote:

At 9/1/04 10:52 AM, KirbyMan wrote: and you didn't do that to Clinton?

If you arent going to add to the discussion, then stay out. Your statement lacks intelligence, you can either try again, or shut your mouth.

Let see...gnerally before you can make such requirements of other people YOU NEED TO FULLFILL THEM YOURSELF. Your post provided othing signifigant and was simply emtion and your disgust with how people disagree with you or how you percieve Bush to be some sort of patriot.

I will add more later once i finish readint eh entire thread.

This would be one example of how liberals would have gotten it both ways.

#1 not a liberal - #2 - protecting a majority is a tough call - but one a PRESIDENT should be able to make.

They never said he would attack NYC on the 11th or 12th with hijacked airplanes.
You cant just make up intelligence to prove your point.

Old hat around here. The letter did exist - at least according to Slate, and MSN, and a few dozen other sources. We've talked the contents to dust. Ask some old timers.

They are just common sense measures.

Shooting innocent people out of the air isnt common, and it doesnt make much sense unless you know the plane is going to be used as a missle - which I would like to say, Bush, nor anyone else in the admin, knew.

Paris - Eiffel tower threatened by terrorist plane attack -
oh and Just by coincidence, the Pentagon was undergoing drills on a possible plane attack by terrorists on the day of 911. Common knowlege. Do a google search.

And there is that whole letter thing.

Pleeeeaaaassssseee.

I would have had the guts to take the children out of danger - even if I knew I might be putting myself at risk.

Not true, cant be proven, and already shown to be a false claim. Re-write your rhetoric and try again.

Bush claimed no foreknowledge of 911. 13 countries beg to differ, having warned us. Even a kindergartner would call that a lie.

Next Point: The War on Terror Arnie touted. Do the math.
This isnt about YOU...liberal...

Not a liberal - I'm a skeptical Constitutionalist.

If Americans are in danger, we spend the money.

Hardly - pollution, cigarrettes, and aids - do we have a multibillion dollar war against any of the millions of AMERICAN deaths caused by them?

I dont care if it says IM more likely to get struck by lightning than terrorists, what is the liklihood that AMERICANS are going to die soon - THAT IS THE ONLY FIGURE THAT MATTERS.

That's plain stupid. Even the auto industry operates under risk assesment. If one car has a blowout, they don't do a recall. It takes a catastrophic, universal risk before they do anything.

Why waste cash on phantom threats when more people die daily to real ones?

The secret service checks it before he speaks. Dont be a fool.

One agent - one dog. that was it. And they never even searched any of the employees on the way in. Never even went through a metal detector.

What are you talking about?

About trust - and the american way of life.

Exaggerated??? First we didnt do enough to prevent it, now we are exaggerating it???

If you know of a threat - and do nothing - that's not enough. If after negligently allowing the threat to become a tragedy, and exploiting it to the point of parania, that's exaggerating it.

And liberals dont want it both ways???

Don't ask me - I'm not a liberal.

We aren't trying to make friends, we're trying to save Americans. We dont need a permission slip to protect our nation, remember that...AMERICAN!

Friends keep you safe. Having enemies is a bad thing. If you make friends - you DO save americans. If you make enemies you put them at risk.

We are doing exactly the opposite. Nobody is living in fear.

Unless you count the daily terror threat alerts, and the people exaggerating every act of terror that takes place on the planet... you do realize terrorism has occurred for hundreds of years... and will continue. IF we go around making enemies everywhere we increase the odds it will be against us.

John_Kerry is TruthSpeak...

I guess we were kind of mean...

Someone clarify what we are REALLY arguing about here, so I can pitch in.

It began with TS complaining about people attacking the president as if he never did it. I called him on it, and he freaked out. The conversation progressed into a flamewar between TS and Quanze.

At 9/1/04 11:38 PM, Angel_Of_Death_666 wrote:

At 9/1/04 01:20 PM, Tal-con wrote: TruthSpeak can't prove anything he says its just full of his own opinions

His statements are common knowledge. Research a little before mouthing off.

Learn the meaning of "burden of proof". If you wish to affirm something, in this instance you affirming "OMGzorz Bushes the greatestest prezz evar!!!!111", it is intirerly your responsible to present actual avidence and prove your case. The rest of us are either to shoot you down or repeat what you said like the sheep they are.

Somebody bring me a gun and some sheep, I'm gonig to go after some Republican arguments! YEEEHAW!!!!

I R TEH REPUBLIKILLORZ!!!11!!1@@

essentialy this just turned into something ignorant. NO wait forget that. It BEGAN that way. It essentailly dragged our worthwile liberals(quanzie, kirby and i guess antiklaus) out of the woodwork. Threw in some guys obviously new to the board...because weve been through this stuff redundantly. And each side their token "OMG your so wrong" person.

Does anyone notice the grammar patterns and vitrolic attitudes of TruthSpeek closely match Enforcer. along with our newly joined JK? It may not be enforcer but he certainly sounds that way.

They are alike, but TS was much worse then enforcer when it came to ending a flame war. TS fought to the death, then created an alt account and fought to the death, even enforcer isn't that desperate to win.

At 9/2/04 03:07 AM, KirbyMan wrote: They are alike, but TS was much worse then enforcer when it came to ending a flame war. TS fought to the death, then created an alt account and fought to the death, even enforcer isn't that desperate to win.

And many times enforcer had real points too. Thoguh they may have been weak and disagreed with me (which automatically makes them wrong, hehe) he was a much more pleasant adversary than TS.

At 9/2/04 03:07 AM, KirbyMan wrote: They are alike, but TS was much worse then enforcer when it came to ending a flame war. TS fought to the death, then created an alt account and fought to the death, even enforcer isn't that desperate to win.

Ill give TS credit in comparison to enforcer. Ts generally did not respond with one line, as per enforcer. TS, despite lcking facts and logic, at least attempted to make something we could call an arguement. Perhaps thats why it lasted longer than anything with enforcer

You're all nuts.

At 9/2/04 03:16 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: You're all nuts.

I love you.

At 9/2/04 03:16 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: You're all nuts.

But aren't we all just a little nuts, on the inside.

At 9/2/04 03:19 AM, KirbyMan wrote:

At 9/2/04 03:16 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: You're all nuts.

But aren't we all just a little nuts, on the inside.

not I, Im big nuts on the outisde :wink: :grin:

wow i get back to college and my mind becomes a gutterball