Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/13/06 09:27 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:

At 9/13/06 09:10 PM, Nylo wrote: You're mistaken, friend. What freedoms have been taken away?

Search & Seizure and Arrests can be had without a warrent now, and very primarily privacy.

U.S citizens are nowhere provided rights to privacy in the Constitution. Historically you'll find that the right to be let-alone can hardly be defended; you don't even have privacy rights to your own trash. As for warrentless arrests there must be profound probably cause for such action and the case must still go before the judicial process. Though to be honest I always thought that part of the Patriot Act was total shit.

Is it wrong for people to be scared?

Not 'wrong' but rather, very dicouraging. It's the entire point of Terrorism, you know; to spread fear among your enemies.

I'm gonna rub some people the wrong way with this statement, but that fault lies heavily on the Bush Administration. Scare tactics were used to get public support for the war in Iraq. That might have been all well and good if President Bush had two cents worth of PR leadership. I still believe firmly that no one loathes president Bush's inability to lead more than through-and-through true conservatives.

The last time America was so divided was during era of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War; were those good times?

Without a doubt. Freedom isn't free, every inch of it we've had to fight tooth and nail for. The Civil Rights movement paved the way for true equality in America; de-segritation and women's sufferage. The Vietnam/60s explosion brought in radical new ideas, music, and checks on governmental powers.

It's a pivotal point in history and the nation is changing again. I firmly believe that this country is grid-locked at a crossroad, and where it goes-- too early to tell.

At 9/13/06 09:27 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: Not 'wrong' but rather, very dicouraging. It's the entire point of Terrorism, you know; to spread fear among your enemies.

That is not the entire point of terrorism. The terrorists that caused 9/11 has a very specific purpose for doing so, and it has to do with American foreign policy that affects the Middle East. There has been no erosion of our Middle Eastern policies toward the policies that the terrorists would like us to have. In fact, the terrorists dislike our post-9/11 policies more than our pre-9/11 policies. Thus, the terrorists are not closer to achieving their purpose for carrying out the attacks on 9/11. Therefore, they have not "won."

However, since you brought this up. One thing that worries me is that Americans will elect democrats for fear of losing more lives by terrorists in Iraq. If we end up electing democrats that manage to pull us out of Iraq or something close to that, then the terrorists would have actually made ground toward their purpose.

There is also the attacks on Spain. I believe that in the end was a victorious day for terrorism.

Other than those two issues, I don't see where the terrorists have made or will make very much progress toward achieving their purposes. So far, most of their attacks have backfired in their faces with the completely opposite effect than intended occurring. Terrorism remains a very poor method for achieving a political purpose.

it ant the apocalypse yet, America hasn't lost all hope terrorist haven't even began to get ahead of us. I mean there is some fucked up shit going on though Bush admitting to secret prisons what the fuck kind of country is this, are we this low to step to our own enemys level and torturing human motherfuking beings and have it kept secret, Bush should be executed how the fuck was he relected president.

At 9/14/06 02:41 AM, BushidoBrown wrote: Bush should be executed how the fuck was he relected president.

War-time presidents historically have a really high chanve of getting re-elected.

Oh, and ixnay on the executionbay. Proteas is out for blood on that kinda stuff.

At 9/13/06 09:02 PM, altanese_mistress wrote: Life has been disrupted, freedoms after freedoms are being taken away in the name of security, people word-wide are fearful of an attack on any place at any time, America is looking worse and worse on the global stage....

...

Its not much a matter of wether they have disrupted normal life or not. The matter here is: Will people just surrender and accept everything terrorists demand? Or will people continue to resist?

Now, if women are willing to give up their rights, wear masks, unconditionally obey their husbands, maybe terrorists will stop. If private property is totally and completely dissolved, maybe terrorists will stop. If Occident is willing to give up its way of life, maybe terrorists will stop.

All the anti-American thing has been caused by groups who were left hanging after the Soviet Union went down. Believe it or not, a lot of people wish Soviets would return.

You decide which you prefer.

A simulation:

Two guys get ready to fight.

<Guy 1> Here, I am a decent man. I don't want to fight.
<Guy 2> *** Punches Guy 1 in the face ***
<Guy 1> Hey! Lets talk, dont be violent, please!
<Guy 2> *** Kicks guy 1 in the balls ***
<Guy 1> Ouch! Allright, then I have to fight. I know Karate.
<Guy 2> *** Hits Guy 1 with an iron bar ***
<Guy 1> Hey! You are cheating!
<Guy 2> *** Finishes Guy 1 with a nunchaku ***

See? You can't beat an asshole if you are decent. You are criticizing the USA government for being an asshole with its foes, while its foes doesn't abide by any rule whatsoever.
I know it sucks, but its how reality currently presents itself right now. Guy 1 was decent, but he lost. Guy 2 is the one who gives the orders now. Do you want to be decent?

See? You can't beat an asshole if you are decent. You are criticizing the USA government for being an asshole with its foes, while its foes doesn't abide by any rule whatsoever.
I know it sucks, but its how reality currently presents itself right now. Guy 1 was decent, but he lost. Guy 2 is the one who gives the orders now. Do you want to be decent?

There's a world of difference between being decent and not fighting when someone attacks you. In fact, your example is so ridiculously simple I think I'll stop writing.

Slizor out.

I have a rock, this rock keeps man eating tigers away would you like to buy my rock?

Homeland security is a waste of money.

At 9/13/06 10:35 PM, zach9311 wrote:

sr for bein kinda ignorant, im only 12...

I think your alittle to young for politics go join the other forums the adults are talking.

I wouldn't call yourself an adult. At least not at the mental level judging from your posts.

altanese-mistress - if you're going to make a thread could you come off as sound a little less of a whiney, liberal cunt?

At 9/14/06 05:12 PM, BanditByte wrote: altanese-mistress - if you're going to make a thread could you come off as sound a little less of a whiney, liberal cunt?

If you're going to respond to a thread, could you use a few less insults and a few more arguements to prove him wrong so he looks like an idiot anyway? I could call you a dumbass motherfucking retard, but does that mean I am right and you're wrong?

At 9/14/06 05:25 PM, 200monkeys wrote: If you're going to respond to a thread, could you use a few less insults and a few more arguements to prove him wrong so he looks like an idiot anyway? I could call you a dumbass motherfucking retard, but does that mean I am right and you're wrong?

Incase you didn't notice, that wasn't directed too you.

Cry me a river, dickhead.

I didn't say it was directed to me, especially since I haven't posted on this forum yet. It was saying don't consider insulting someone to be qualified as quality debating. You can throw in insults in addition to your debates for sure. I am not here to stop insulting on Newgrounds.

Ok, saying that Liberals want Terrorists to win is as bad as saying Bush created AIDS. Total Bullshit.

At 9/14/06 05:52 PM, 200monkeys wrote: Ok, saying that Liberals want Terrorists to win is as bad as saying Bush created AIDS. Total Bullshit.

Well, many liberals support foreign policies that diminish the US role in the Middle East for the reason that those policies incite terrorism against the US. This is not only what the terrorists want, but for many terrorists, it is their reason for attacking the US in the first place. Therefore, they win if these liberals get into power.

terrorist havent won, idiot.

At 9/14/06 05:25 PM, 200monkeys wrote: ....prove him wrong so he looks....

Who is this 'he' and 'him' you speak of?

At 9/14/06 05:51 PM, Gul-Dukat-DS9 wrote: What altanese-mistress doesn't realize is, if the world got shaped the way terrorists want it to be shaped,

I'm not saying I WANT terrorists to win; I'm simply saying terrorists are meeting goals. Just because the West hasn't been overthrown doesn't mean they aren't accomplishing other goals...

And how come there are only two choices to people like you; either hunt down terrorists or surrender to them?

Of course, liberals want terrorists to win, so they can make up for the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Now thats just utter bull.

At 9/13/06 09:02 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Life has been disrupted, freedoms after freedoms are being taken away in the name of security, people word-wide are fearful of an attack on any place at any time, America is looking worse and worse on the global stage....

Americans have spy satellites, bradley armored fighting vehicles, and cruise missiles.
We've got nothing to be afraid of.

Sadly, the rest of what you said is true.

Is it possible to get on an airplane anymore if you have shoes or a bottle of water? Can governments (particularly America) really keep saying they don't have secret prisons?

There was an article in the New York Times newspaper about secret prisons for enemy detainees which are located in the green zone of Iraq. Pretty much Abu Graib stuff or worse going on there.

I apologize, I can't find the article without registering an account on NYT online.

At this rate, it won't be long before America and it's allies are completly expelled from the Middle East,

According to which news sources?
Say what you want about the Fox News Channel, but they were the first news organization that I know of to give the military a fair shake. They deffered to the people who were fighting this war in Iraq, instead of just making assumptions about without asking the people in charge.

worse case; divided between states that declare home-rule and other nations taking grabs at formerly American states and territories)

Molly Ivins, (liberal bombthrower that she is) wrote a very good article about European based corporations attempting to buy water reserves in the United States, so they could bottle it and sell it as they please.

I'll look around for the article, and post it as soon as I can.

At 9/14/06 08:57 PM, Mako2 wrote: Molly Ivins, (liberal bombthrower that she is) wrote a very good article about European based corporations attempting to buy water reserves in the United States, so they could bottle it and sell it as they please.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the American corporation (Coke) bottling tap water in Europe and selling it as bottled water…

linky

At 9/14/06 09:11 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

I wonder if it has anything to do with the American corporation (Coke) bottling tap water in Europe and selling it as bottled water…

European water is so clean you could eat off it! (or, something)

At 9/14/06 11:39 AM, Slizor wrote:

There's a world of difference between being decent and not fighting when someone attacks you. In fact, your example is so ridiculously simple I think I'll stop writing.

Even tho his example is right on the money.

Slizor out.

Now if only it were permanent.

There's a world of difference between being decent and not fighting when someone attacks you. In fact, your example is so ridiculously simple I think I'll stop writing.

Even tho his example is right on the money.

No, it's exactly off the money. It is also a false dilemma because he's saying there are only two courses of action "be decent" or be "indecent". There are, in fact, many different ways and many different degrees of ways of dealing with terrorists. As there are with pretty much every situation.

Slizor out.

Now if only it were permanent.

You could all sink into your mindless Republican hatred of anything that doesn't agree with your narrow world view.

I'm only here to exercise everyone's brains now and again.

Im kinda Republician more than liberal. sorry liberals.it actually depends on what subject we talk about. some times I turn liberal.But not most

Even though this is the stupidest subject on the forum.

God damn Green party is what pisses me off the most

At 9/15/06 07:22 AM, Slizor wrote:

You could all sink into your mindless Republican hatred of anything that doesn't agree with your narrow world view.

Reminds me of your version of free speech.

I like how it only applies if it agrees with you, haha.

The Terrorists have not won because we are still kicking their ass all around the Middle East and in their terror cells in Europe and North America. They will win, however, if we give up the fight before their brand of thinking still has a grip over the minds of 20+ million or so people around the world.

At 9/13/06 09:34 PM, altanese-mistress the idiot jester returned:

By the gods you again?!!?

We are wining and i bet we will claim to victory. Im sure are big contry will kick that rinky dink ass contry to dirt.

Learn to spell.

Vietnam anyone? How about a conquest of Canada? Invasion of Pyongyang?

Small portion of North Vietnam's military was farmers who knew the enviroment better than the US marines and a very large portion of their military was trained by communists.
The Korean war was ignitiated by the North Koreans who had OVER 3 million soldiers, more than 500 soviet-made tanks, and had China give over 650,000 soldiers for backup. While S.Korea and the UN only had 1million to 1.5 million soldiers. And barely any artillery.

And if all go's wrong lets bomb it.Or beat it to a pulp.what about a suprise attack.

Yeah, that always works, doesn't it?

Sometimes.

what piss's me off is we bomb these places then we come back and rebuild
there citys.thats fuck'd up.

So it's better to leave people suffering, and leave the new government weak and vulnerable to being overthrown and replaced by an even worse one then before? We actually learned from the Treaty of Versailles and rise of Nazism, you know...

I actually agree about not leaving the country or people suffering. I mean look at Mexico in 1700's to 1800's!

At 9/13/06 09:02 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Life has been disrupted, freedoms after freedoms are being taken away in the name of security, people word-wide are fearful of an attack on any place at any time, America is looking worse and worse on the global stage....

Yes, life has been disrupted. Yes, we are making sure people do not board airplanes with knives or chemicals.

We did not choose terrorism. Terrorism set it's sight on the free world.

And what rights have been taken from you? Your freedom of speech obviously isn't being affected. Nor is your assumed right of dissent. The press bashes our president everyday...so that right is still intact. Protests go on daily.

Name me something that homeland security has taken from you. Name one right that no longer exists for you.

We're adapting, is all. If we didn't check people before getting on planes, people would bitch about a lack of security, the first time there was an attack (be it by a terrorist, or a crazy person).

Can governments (particularly America) really keep saying they don't have secret prisons?

No. They should be men about it, and come forward with the cold nasty truth.

I don't feel they should stop...but they should own up to it.

At this rate, it won't be long before America and it's allies are completly expelled from the Middle East, and America will be only a shadow of it's former self by 2100 (or, worse case; divided between states that declare home-rule and other nations taking grabs at formerly American states and territories)

That's one example of a worse case scenario, yes.
It's just not a likely scenario, at all.

At 9/13/06 09:27 PM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 9/13/06 09:10 PM, Nylo wrote: You're mistaken, friend. What freedoms have been taken away?

Search & Seizure and Arrests can be had without a warrent now, and very primarily privacy.

And people that are not breaking the law have nothing to worry about.

Innocent men do not get arrested and convicted, 99% of the time.

Is it wrong for people to be scared?

Not 'wrong' but rather, very dicouraging. It's the entire point of Terrorism, you know; to spread fear among your enemies.

Weshould be scared of terrorism. Should we just sit back and not worry about evil me who, as I type, plot the death of my friends, family, and allies.

There is discourse in this country, and that's a good sign. It's our way.

The last time America was so divided was during era of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam War; were those good times?

Actually...yes. Those were good times, because they lead to America changing it's ways. Times like the civil rights movement, and the vietnam war empowered America.

Are you saying an empowered American is a bad American?

Name one single terrorist plot that has been foiled with wire-tapping? In fact, name all the terrorist plots that have been foiled outside of the Middle East ever since 9/11/01.

There you go.
And the clincher.

Do a little research, before making ridiculous statements.
It took me all of ten seconds to open google.

At 9/13/06 09:39 PM, Kev-o wrote: Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

Way to go. Thanks for adding so much to the conversation.

At 9/13/06 09:57 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I can't wait till the day that it's (the patriot act) repealled.

So what if it is? The government will continue doing the same exact thing, it just won't be covered on the evening news every night.

You are not being given a choice. Secret prisons will continue to exist, no matter how many laws we make, or repeal. Phone calls to and from the middle east will continue to be monitored. People that rent twenty books on how to build bombs from their local library are going to be put on a watch list.

With or without the patriot act, it shall continue. With or without your approval, it shall continue.

Get used to it.

At 9/13/06 10:47 PM, TimeTrials wrote: Ah, the one place where the constitution doesn't mean diddly. The Supreme Court.

The entire point of having a Supreme Court is so that America has the power to change the constitution to better fit the times.

At 9/14/06 02:41 AM, BushidoBrown wrote: Bush should be executed.

You say that, but claim your freedoms are being taken away?
How is your freedom of speech and expression being taken away, if you're allowed to make death threats against our president, and get away with it?

At 9/14/06 05:52 PM, 200monkeys wrote: Ok, saying that Liberals want Terrorists to win is as bad as saying Bush created AIDS. Total Bullshit.

'Liberals want terrorists to win' is not what was said.
What was conotated was the fact that The Bush Administration losing the war on terror is a good thing for the democrats.

Losing the war in Iraq = Good for the Democratic party.
Losing the war on terrorism = Great for the democratic party.
Another terrorist attack on America = A Democrat in the white house, in '08.

At 9/17/06 04:47 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

The entire point of having a Supreme Court is so that America has the power to change the constitution to better fit the times.

Ok, then I want Double Jeapordy to be completely removed as it's illogical for a man to get off with a serious crime like rape or murder just because he was tried once already.

At 9/17/06 05:16 PM, TimeTrials wrote:

At 9/17/06 04:47 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: The entire point of having a Supreme Court is so that America has the power to change the constitution to better fit the times.

Ok, then I want Double Jeapordy to be completely removed as it's illogical for a man to get off with a serious crime like rape or murder just because he was tried once already.

And that argument could be presented to the supreme court.

Considering reality, though, we both know that your argument wouldn't get anywhere close to a lower court...much les the supreme court.

We need amendments that fit the changing times. Allowing judicial double jeopardy is not neccessary, at this time.