Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

OH! And something for TheShrike.

It's probably been seen before, but damned if I didn't laugh.

*laughs uncontrollably*
*falls down*
*breaks leg*
*keeps laughing*
*taken away to the hospital*
*still laughing*

Can't you just SEE him saying that? I can picture it, really.

To be honest, people, I think George W. Bush is a nice guy. I think he's a very passionate man about what he wants. I think he's like all Texans I've met (notice, I didn't say ALL TEXANS. Just the ones I've met), in that he's hospitible and gracious.

That does not mean I have to agree with him.

Folks, I'm tired of seeing all of you pretent to be intellectually able to speak your mind, then flame each other needlessly. It's rediculous. Commanding people not to post? Demanding for another to 'get the cock out of your mouth'? Please. When did this turn into gradeschool?

I'm not exactly sure why it's so hard to understand. Debating something is one thing. Being raving assholes about it is another. If those of you who are getting involved in flame wars think you're impressing someone by what you say, you're wrong. I mean...think about it.

Are you at all hurt by the text you read from someone who doesn't like you, but you don't know?

When someone says to you, 'You're a fucking idiot.' does it make an honest difference in your life?

If it doesn't...then tell me. What makes any of you think that YOUR flaming is going to get anywhere?

This is the internet, folks. Flame wars are about as useful as emoting "/me punches you in the face" and expecting anyone to actually feel it. It's also like the 8 year old that claims he's gonna hack you for calling him queer. It's petty and childish.

ahh, but since this is the internet and there is no real repercussion of flaming one another (no one in their right mind is going to hop on a plane to Chicago to come kick my ass for something i would post. not that i'd flame anyone^_^) it boosts up people's egos thinking that they zinged someone. childish, yes. but this is the internet.

Bush is a dumbass. America was helping Iraq and it was for the oil, now they are using all the shit that happened as a cover to take out Sadam and take over the DAMN OIL!!

At 3/27/03 10:13 AM, TST wrote: Bush is a dumbass. America was helping Iraq and it was for the oil, now they are using all the shit that happened as a cover to take out Sadam and take over the DAMN OIL!!

ridiculous and unfounded. prove its a war for oil. are you aware that if we wanted oil we would take a larger country (saudi arabia?). this is all besides the point that 2.2% of our oil comes from iraq, compared to 7.9% coming from saudi arabia.......or the about 17-18% we get from canada and mexico combined.......

yes, this is OBVIOUSLY a war for oil (sarcasm, extreme sarcasm)

get some facts before you post something else that makes you sound like a total idiot

At 3/27/03 10:27 AM, fourdaddy wrote:
ridiculous and unfounded. prove its a war for oil. are you aware that if we wanted oil we would take a larger country (saudi arabia?). this is all besides the point that 2.2% of our oil comes from iraq, compared to 7.9% coming from saudi arabia.......or the about 17-18% we get from canada and mexico combined.......

yes, this is OBVIOUSLY a war for oil (sarcasm, extreme sarcasm)

get some facts before you post something else that makes you sound like a total idiot

I would like to begin by saying I don't think this is a war for oil. However, I'm sure that when making the decision of whether or not to go to war, the oil factor certainly didn't hurt.

While we get a small amount of our oil from Iraq, it does not mean that Iraq has a small amount of oil. Iraq has a huge oil supply. We get much more oil from convenient sources like Canada, but the imposition of a puppet govt. or extremely American-friendly govt. in Iraq will make their oil quite convenient. After the war, the U.S. probably will "help" the new Iraqi govt. and struggling economy by making them a highly favored trading partner - for rebuilding their decimated country we will recieve oil rights, contracts, and very sweet prices.

At 3/27/03 02:38 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: I'm not going to get into the war in Iraq, because quite frankly, I don't feel like it. However, I do have some things to say concerning Bush's domestic policy...

Education
His idea for national testing is decent, but he doesn't give the states the money to enforce the provisions of his program. Result? Education still being poor and state governments being pissed at Bush on this issue

Is education the responsibility of the federal government? I don't really see how you can blame education problems on the federal government, especially when you only cite the national testing program. Here in Oklahoma, the education system is practically broke. But I can't say I hold Bush or anyone in the federal government responsible. I pin the blame on our state government (Frank Keating has to be the worst governor in history). And right now, it is the state government that is taking the initiative to fix our education system (and we'll get a lottery, to boot!). I believe education is the responsibility of the individual states.

Environment
When Bush went into office, he undid a shitload of envirnmental acts. Moreover, he continues to allow SUV's to have crap fuel efficency under a loophole. Add to the fact that he pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and we've found that Bush is a envirnmentally unfriendly President. Even his supporters admit that they are putting business interests above the environment.

SUVs are one issue I disagree with the administration on. But I don't exactly like the Kyoto treaty. Businesses need to show responsibility regarding the environment, but don't impose too many environmental restrictions that could adversely affect businesses. It's just a matter of priorities. People disagree on what should be a priority between the economy and the environment. And with the economy in the shape it's in right now...

Corporate Accountibility
Before Enron, Bush took the opinion of "trust Big Business. They regulate themselves" With this in mind, Bush, in the name of removing economic barriers, reduced several regulations on businesses in regard to accounting. Bush changed his public statements after Enron and Worldcom, when he realized that, shit, one can't always trust big business. His Corporate Accountibility act, fell well short of its intended goal, as the loopholes that plagues it have left the rate of scandels before the acts equal the rate after its passage.

I haven't heard much about accounting scandals lately. Granted, the war has dominated the news, but someone would probably find some room to report on it, right? Look at it this way: in the cases of Enron, Worldcom, etc., for their stock prices to be that overinflated, they would have to have been overstating their profits for quite a while. That means under Clinton's watch, boys and girls! I think it's funny that these companies had been doing this while Clinton was president, and then when Bush comes into office, they finally get caught. Of course, Bush gets the blame.

Fiscal Responsibility
Bush, in a nutshell, wants/ed to cut taxes and increase spending. Um, anyone see a problem here? Two minus's do not make a plus. With the Clinton era budjet plans, the US managed to get a surplus, a surplus squandered by the Bush administration. The tax cuts did not "pay for themselves" even before 9-11, and the loss of the surplus preceeded that tradegy.

There was no talk of increasing spending before 9/11. The tax cuts were giving the surplus back to the people. But let's see... 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, the troubled economy, the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate for a year... is this entirely Bush's fault? When the economy turns around, with more companies generating more revenue, more tax dollars will come in. Maybe that will cut the deficit a little bit. And come on, be honest... can you say that you DON'T like the fact that you aren't paying as much in taxes every year?

At 3/27/03 01:57 AM, TheShrike wrote: More super-fun bush stuff

I adored this picture. Ah, a breath of fresh air.

At 3/27/03 12:26 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Is education the responsibility of the federal government? I don't really see how you can blame education problems on the federal government, especially when you only cite the national testing program. Here in Oklahoma, the education system is practically broke. But I can't say I hold Bush or anyone in the federal government responsible. I pin the blame on our state government (Frank Keating has to be the worst governor in history). And right now, it is the state government that is taking the initiative to fix our education system (and we'll get a lottery, to boot!). I believe education is the responsibility of the individual states.

You are correct in saying education is primarily in the hands of the states. But Bush campaigned with his "No Child left behind program" which involves federal oversight of the States' educational work. States still need federal grants, grants which Bush has been slow do give.

SUVs are one issue I disagree with the administration on. But I don't exactly like the Kyoto treaty. Businesses need to show responsibility regarding the environment, but don't impose too many environmental restrictions that could adversely affect businesses. It's just a matter of priorities. People disagree on what should be a priority between the economy and the environment. And with the economy in the shape it's in right now...

The Kyoto treaty basicly puts a cap on CO2 emissions. The United States generates 25% of the world's CO2 emissions. Since Co2 leads to globl warming which contributes to environmential disaters, which destroy life and economies, Bush should have opted for the long term benefits the Kyoto treaty provided. Furthermore, less regulated emissions causes grave air quality issues in the NOrtheast, where much of the pollution is blown, which brings down property values. The minor additional cost businesses would have had to pay would have been balanced by the short term and ling term benefits.

I haven't heard much about accounting scandals lately. Granted, the war has dominated the news, but someone would probably find some room to report on it, right? Look at it this way: in the cases of Enron, Worldcom, etc., for their stock prices to be that overinflated, they would have to have been overstating their profits for quite a while. That means under Clinton's watch, boys and girls! I think it's funny that these companies had been doing this while Clinton was president, and then when Bush comes into office, they finally get caught. Of course, Bush gets the blame.

As an extemper, I have to read to news a lot. Scandels are still being reported, but they are, as you said, being drowned out by war talk. My statement that the rate of scandels before the COrporate Accountibility Act is the same as afterwards comes from an Economist article I read somewhere. Yes, I agree that theses companies were being dirty throughout Clinton's administration. They have been dirty from Reagen all the way to George W., when tghey were nly caught because they went bankrupt. The reason Bush in under fire for those incidents was because of his unwise policy decisions to repeal several acts governing corporate responsibility.
oss of the surplus preceeded that tradegy.

There was no talk of increasing spending before 9/11. The tax cuts were giving the surplus back to the people. But let's see... 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, the troubled economy, the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate for a year... is this entirely Bush's fault? When the economy turns around, with more companies generating more revenue, more tax dollars will come in. Maybe that will cut the deficit a little bit. And come on, be honest... can you say that you DON'T like the fact that you aren't paying as much in taxes every year?

There was talk of increasing spending before 9-11, actually. Bush increased spending on a missle defense program that didn't accomplish much and on agrigultual grants. Moreover, his tax cuts spent well more than the surplus. He overshot a balanced budjet by a lot, even before 9-11 and the War in Afghanistan. For your last comment, to be honest, I'm only 18, and taxes havn't really come a factor for me. Regardless of how happy tax cuts make people, they should be done in a fisclly resonsible way.

Not anti-Bush, but still worth posting.
Watch out, Dubya! This'uns more slippery than shit from a duck's ass!

At 3/27/03 06:10 PM, TheShrike wrote: Not anti-Bush, but still worth posting.
Watch out, Dubya! This'uns more slippery than shit from a duck's ass!

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! That one was great.

loverly

And here's one for all of the Al Sharpton fan...
(wait a sec...)

At 3/28/03 12:21 AM, TheShrike wrote: And here's one for all of the Al Sharpton fan...
(wait a sec...)

Ho ho ho ho ho! THAT was a treat! Now only if they could do one for Hillary.

Kazuo Kiriyama

At 3/28/03 12:40 AM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote:

At 3/28/03 12:21 AM, TheShrike wrote: And here's one for all of the Al Sharpton fan...
(wait a sec...)

Ho ho ho ho ho! THAT was a treat! Now only if they could do one for Hillary.

Kazuo Kiriyama

Hey, Hillary has a good chance of winning in 2008. Besides, I love Al Sharpton's hair. Mwahahaha! I like the George W. quarter better, though.

At 3/28/03 10:19 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Hey, Hillary has a good chance of winning in 2008.

If Hillary ever became President, I'd move to Switzerland.

The only thing I believe Hillary really has to get her into office is a little star power. Get it? STARR power? Bwa ha ha ha haaaaaaa!!!!!

...I made a funny.

Kazuo Kiriyama

Hey all you liberals out there, shut the hell up and stop harrassing Bush. He's doin a damn good job and has a damn good cabinet behind him. Clinton did a shitty job and half his cabinet consisted of whores. George W, we applaud you.

I liiiike Bush.

At 3/29/03 12:21 AM, alejandro1 wrote: Hey all you liberals out there, shut the hell up and stop harrassing Bush. He's doin a damn good job and has a damn good cabinet behind him. Clinton did a shitty job and half his cabinet consisted of whores. George W, we applaud you.

Ah, the bane of all politics forums, trolls. Don't tell others to shut up simply because they disagree with you. Furthermore, you can't just make broad statements like that. You need to back them up. As for the whore comment, I really can't see Janet Reno and Madiline Albright shake their booty at passing strangers. Ick.

At 3/29/03 12:52 AM, Disguy_youknow wrote: Furthermore, you can't just make broad statements like that. You need to back them up. As for the whore comment, I really can't see Janet Reno and Madiline Albright shake their booty at passing strangers. Ick.

Ok, who's responsible for the US going to war, Bush or Clinton. Well, who's the one who didn't enforce the post-gulf war agreements to stop making weapons of mass destruction. As for Reno and Albright, how do you think they would act in this situation? God, I'm glad we have Powell and Ashcroft. Janet Reno.... ewwww.

At 3/27/03 10:27 AM, fourdaddy wrote:
ridiculous and unfounded. prove its a war for oil. are you aware that if we wanted oil we would take a larger country (saudi arabia?). this is all besides the point that 2.2% of our oil comes from iraq, compared to 7.9% coming from saudi arabia.......or the about 17-18% we get from canada and mexico combined.......

Honestly, it's good to finally see someone who knows their facts about American oil. Most people don't realize that we only get about 10% of our oil from the Middle East. Fewer know that we produce 50% of the oil we use. Honestly, other countries are too dependent on oil from the Middle East. Europe gets 33% of its oil from there and Japan gets 66% of its oil from there. For those who do not know, Bush just invested one billion into fuel cell research which will produce fuel cell cars within 15 years. From then on, we will be able to produce the oil for lawnmowers and such and we will be liberated from the need of foreign oil. Honestly, I can't wait to see the looks on the faces of Middle Eastern leaders when we turn our oil freighters away from their harbors, hehe.

At 3/29/03 03:54 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 3/27/03 10:27 AM, fourdaddy wrote:

Bush just invested one billion into fuel cell research which will produce fuel cell cars within 15 years.

That was a cutback disguised as giving money, we usually invest waaaayy more into new energy. Where did you get 15 years? It's not even sure that that will work you cant just say 15 years.

At 3/29/03 03:37 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Ok, who's responsible for the US going to war, Bush or Clinton.

Bush caused the US to go to war. Whether this is a good thing is debatable

Well, who's the one who didn't enforce the post-gulf war agreements to stop making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush Sr.. Clinton, and Bush Jr. all have this on their hands. Bush Senior left Saddam in power after the first Gulf War, I major blunder. Clinton did take action on Iraq, cruise missles, but I feel the cruise missles couldn't do everything. George W. left Iraq pretty much alone until after the Afghanistan fighting was over. His ititial reason to attack was unfounded claims that Saddam was giving WMD to terrorists, then when that wasn't popular, he switched the reason to ridding Saddam of weapons, then switched the main reason to fighting for human rights.

As for Reno and Albright, how do you think they would act in this situation? God, I'm glad we have Powell and Ashcroft.

You think just because one is liberal that they would oppose war and fighting back against terrorists? You are mistaken. 5 years ago, democrats were considered the "warmongers" by the Republicians for attacking Iraq with cruise missles. Reno and Albright would take similar counter terror measures and counter Iraq measures, if nessesary. The one big difference would be that they would take as many civil liberties to do it, which is a good thing.

Janet Reno.... ewwww.

Yes, Janet Reno is ugly. Point?

Thank you for providing actual arguements this time around.

Ahh... The Clintons. I don't even need to make a comment about this one.

Bush should be ranked up there with Lincoln and Regan and every other good president we have had in office. He has had a hard time and hes only just begun his term in office. How would you handle it if someone flew a plane into your house. Saddam is just as dangerous as Bin Laden. Please keep in mind Saddams attepmts on former presidents lives. Not to mention all the chemical wepons that we have found in the past. ITS NOT LIKE HE CANT HIDE ALL OF THOSE WEPONS. If he attacked us now and killed 35,000 of us then we would all be mad at bush for not taking action. Think of it like this. A man inspects your chimmney and says it MIGHT catch fire, so wouldent you want to do something about it

At 3/30/03 08:11 PM, RageAholic wrote: Bush should be ranked up there with Lincoln and Regan and every other good president we have had in office. He has had a hard time and hes only just begun his term in office.

Uh... Hmmm, lemme see... Bush was elected in 2000, it's currently 2003... Hmm.... Elections in 2004... Yeah... good point about Bush being so green.

How would you handle it if someone flew a plane into your house.

... I'm not even going to point out that Sept 11 didn't involve private residences... D'oh!

Saddam is just as dangerous as Bin Laden. Please keep in mind Saddams attepmts on former presidents lives. Not to mention all the chemical wepons that we have found in the past. ITS NOT LIKE HE CANT HIDE ALL OF THOSE WEPONS.

I agree with the first statement. I can recall that which you refer to in the second. Yess, mm-hhmmm... Yes... yes...

If he attacked us now and killed 35,000 of us then we would all be mad at bush for not taking action. Think of it like this. A man inspects your chimmney and says it MIGHT catch fire, so wouldent you want to do something about it

let's imagine we hadn't invaded Iraq. Let's imagine he attacked us, or gave weapons to terrorists who did attack us.
I wouldn't hold that against Bush, I'd hold it against Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge.

And Bush would retaliate, and I'd completely support that.

Saddam didn't provoke us to take military action. He provoked the UN.

And now for Bush's opinion on Turkey's position in the war...