Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/22/03 10:40 PM, NJDeadzone wrote:

:tips hat and claps hands:: thank you for agreeing, i'd hate to have an argument that several thousand(mostly ignorant) people represent the successful body of america

i can't imagine how stupid the person you'd argue with on that would be...

you know as we speak more and more people are supporting the war. the number rises every week. i believe 56% of the people in the UK believe that Tony Blair's decision in Iraq were "about right" according to SKY news, and i believe the latest number now is at 70% approval in the US according to FOX news.

To take one protester as a indicative of all protesters is plain stupid. And since you did this stupid thing, and are pro-war, I will now declare all pro-war people to be stupid. :P

Nem: You're very totalitarian in your views, can't you accept that "facts" can tell many stories?

Yeah, I guess the facts tell many stories, when they say Bush has 70% approval, it means EVERYONE hates him and he should die, right?

At 3/23/03 07:38 AM, Slizor wrote: To take one protester as a indicative of all protesters is plain stupid. And since you did this stupid thing, and are pro-war, I will now declare all pro-war people to be stupid. :P

i hate to say it...no, wait i love to say it:

that trite little over simplification make YOU look pretty stupid youself.

At 3/23/03 09:17 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Yeah, I guess the facts tell many stories, when they say Bush has 70% approval, it means EVERYONE hates him and he should die, right?

actually, they say it's been bumped up to 76% now. and Tony Blair's is rising too.

BTW, i'm anti-war, but, hey, our good ol' boys are there right now. might as well support 'em. ^_^

At 3/22/03 08:39 PM, TheShrike wrote:

If you're anti-war, all you can do now is hope more Iraqi soldiers keep surrendering

Roger that. I'm not a Ted Kennedy fan (by any means)but in congress even he said that while he was originally against this war, he is putting his political agenda on hold in order to support the troops fully.

First: losing patience with anti-war opinions isn't going to help. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the freedom to express it. God Bless America!

Second: I don't have to agree with this war, and I will continue to demonstrate peacefully against it. That is my right, and I'm protesting the reasons behind it, and the fact that our President can commit war crimes but no one else can.

Third: Polls on Yahoo, or CNN, or any place at all, I don't trust. How many people were polled? The entire country? How is that possible in such a short amount of time? My point is: it depends on where you poll. If they were to poll Portland, I'd almost guarantee you'd have an overwhelming majority be against the war.

Fourth: THIS DOES NOT MEAN I SUPPORT SADDAM HUSSEIN. I'm tired of people thinking it's black and white. I'm going to be potty-mouthed, thanks. Hussein is a motherfucking coward, and his army is now using women and children as human shields. I HATE THAT, it makes me sick. I still hold to my opinion that there were other, more peaceful ways that could have been exausted before going to war.

Fifth: I AM NOT ANTI SOLDIER! I have a cousin in Kuwait. I have a friend in Kuwait. I have friends waiting to go. Ready to go. I LOVE THEM, and I don't want them hurt. I applaud their bravery, I hope they're safe, and I want them to come home.

Sixth: DEMONSTRATIONS, even during war, have helped throughout time. You cannot argue with history. The march on Washington (not during war, but an example of a demonstration that was part of a successful campaign), the Velvet Revolution, the end of the USSR, the Viet Nam war. All of those involved demonstrations that added to a greater GOOD.

As long as my country is spending billions and billions of dollars on this war while schools and courthouses close, and prisons let people go free, I will protest.

DISCLAIMER: The above was my statement of WHY I protest, albeit peacefully, and my opinions. Again. *lol* I've given them many places. I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me. The internet is not the place to do that. Respect for opinions is what I ask for. I'm afraid that will go by the wayside eventually.

i was listening to the radio yesterday and they were interviewing this protester woman. she said, "i don't want my son to die, and i don't want my grand kids to not have a daddy".

HE JOINED A VOLINTERE MILITARY! i could most definately agree had he been drafted, but he joined of his own free will.

At 3/24/03 04:07 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

Third: Polls on Yahoo, or CNN, or any place at all, I don't trust. How many people were polled? The entire country? How is that possible in such a short amount of time? My point is: it depends on where you poll. If they were to poll Portland, I'd almost guarantee you'd have an overwhelming majority be against the war.

The polls you are referring to were conducted by gallup. They are well known as an authority for bias-less and scientific polls. They weren't one of these "do you agree with the war _ yes _ no" kind of things that you'll see on yahoo or cnn.

At 3/24/03 06:57 AM, swayside wrote: i was listening to the radio yesterday and they were interviewing this protester woman. she said, "i don't want my son to die, and i don't want my grand kids to not have a daddy".

HE JOINED A VOLINTERE MILITARY! i could most definately agree had he been drafted, but he joined of his own free will.

Yeah, but he probably signed up to defend his country. He most likely wasn't expecting the U.S. military to be co-opted by oil barons and turned into a conquering force.

You know while watching these Anti War Protestors in New York, it was kind of interresting to see how many Anarchy flags were in the crowd. Kind makes you think that these people are just anti government in general.

At 3/24/03 01:43 PM, panik wrote: You know while watching these Anti War Protestors in New York, it was kind of interresting to see how many Anarchy flags were in the crowd. Kind makes you think that these people are just anti government in general.

Absolutely. Make no mistake about it, most of these people would complain no matter what Bush does. The fact that something controversial is happening gives them a forum to complain. It's really quite convenient for them.

Yeah, I guess the facts tell many stories, when they say Bush has 70% approval

You obviously didn't get the meaning of the word "facts".

swayside: What are you jabbering on about?
It's quite interesting to see that now the anti-war papers (this is in Britain) are rallying behind the troops Blair's approval has gone up? And people say the media don't control the government.

media+war=sensationalism

the people aren't meant to learn the truth about war unless they've fought in it, and even then, they are completely reliant on their commanding officer. I don't agree with it, but it's been the trend in history, despite any news coverage you see.

At 3/24/03 11:45 AM, DenkSmoker wrote:

HE JOINED A VOLINTERE MILITARY! i could most definately agree had he been drafted, but he joined of his own free will.

Oh god get over the Oil Baron thing! Stop driving your car or using anything with a gas motor if you disagree for that reason. Even if this about oil which it is not why dont you consider some of the positive things that will come from this. Ill only list one because I think that it is the most important, it will stop the genocide of the kurdish people. Now if going to war to stop genocide is not a good enough reason then I don't know what is. Regarless of anything eles it is a good enough reason for me. And don't bring up the fact that there are other countries that are doing it also, at least we are doing something that will stop genocide of THESE people..

above post was for Densmoker

At 3/24/03 02:23 PM, Slizor wrote:

Yeah, I guess the facts tell many stories, when they say Bush has 70% approval

You obviously didn't get the meaning of the word "facts".

Perhaps you could go ahead and define facts for us then? The poll in question was conducted by gallup, which is an organization well known for its impartiality.

It's quite interesting to see that now the anti-war papers (this is in Britain) are rallying behind the troops Blair's approval has gone up? And people say the media don't control the government.

The media controls the government? Since your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises of your argument, I'm going to go ahead assume you meant to say "and people say the government doesn't control the media"...

If this is what you meant to say, then the question should arise: If the government controls the media, then why do anti-war papers exist in the first place?

I try to be nice on this forum, but making conclusions like this really doesn't speak well for your intelligence. Correlation does not always mean causation.

>Yeah, but he probably signed up to defend his country. He most likely wasn't expecting the U.S. military to be co-opted by oil barons and turned into a conquering force.<

For God's sake, he could have gotten a DISCHARGE. No one forced him to go, he could have just said "I want out" and that's the end of that. And he didn't did he? He choose to go to Iraq. End of story

At 3/25/03 02:04 AM, UNpossible wrote:

For God's sake, he could have gotten a DISCHARGE. No one forced him to go, he could have just said "I want out" and that's the end of that. And he didn't did he? He choose to go to Iraq. End of story

**poke**
sorry, just playing a friendly game of pin the tail on the guy who has clearly never dealt with military beurocracy before.