At 4/13/03 01:40 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Karasz...just...no...your opinion was valid until you said "cuz." You just don't say "cuz" in the middle of a debate, no matter how bad it is. Just like you never talk in Hacker Slang

why does the word cuz make my opinion any different? its still a valid point that nobody can disagree with, unless they prove they are contradicting themselves and make themselves look like a moron... thus proving my point, that following the prez blindly is a bad idea...

and the hacker slang is fine... just write what the hell ur talking bout underneath it CUZ i dont understand hacker slang...

At 4/13/03 01:40 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Karasz...just...no...your opinion was valid until you said "cuz." You just don't say "cuz" in the middle of a debate, no matter how bad it is. Just like you never talk in Hacker Slang.

Dude, why bitch at others just for using 'cuz'?

I can understand cracking down on 1337 speek, but I don't think bitching because he said 'cuz' is ok.

After all, we come from all over the world. And if ya'll got a problem with it, I ain't gonna sit back and take it.

At 4/13/03 01:42 AM, karasz wrote:

Tisk, Tisk, don't go about making such claims when you know nothing of history. I don't like Ashcroft personally but he is far from the greatest threat ever to our civil liberties. Look up the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams administration. Now that was a risk to civil liberties.

read the patriot act & patriout act2 (domestic security act...) its too damn close for my comfort... anyone infringing on any civil liberties should NOT be the attorney general... it frightens me so much...

I shall go over in brief the Alien and Sedition act....what it did in effect was allow for the immediate arrest of anyone who dissented with the opinion of the Adams administration. Thankfully Jefferson led a movement to dispose of it.

ah.. good ole thomas 'screw 'em if u own 'em' jefferson, he would be my favorite founding father if HE didnt write about equality in the dec of ind, whilst sleeping with his slave also talking of keeping the races seperate...

true its bad, but the potential of the pat act & pat act 2 must be destroyed...

At 4/13/03 02:01 AM, karasz wrote: ah.. good ole thomas 'screw 'em if u own 'em' jefferson, he would be my favorite founding father if HE didnt write about equality in the dec of ind, whilst sleeping with his slave also talking of keeping the races seperate...

He was a man of his times, for a wealthy Virginian not to own slaves in that time would have been quite rare.

true its bad, but the potential of the pat act & pat act 2 must be destroyed...

I agree with you, they are unconstitutional. But they aren't the greatest threat to our liberties every. They are a good deal south of full blown MCcarthyism.

At 4/13/03 02:10 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:01 AM, karasz wrote: ah.. good ole thomas 'screw 'em if u own 'em' jefferson, he would be my favorite founding father if HE didnt write about equality in the dec of ind, whilst sleeping with his slave also talking of keeping the races seperate...

He was a man of his times, for a wealthy Virginian not to own slaves in that time would have been quite rare.

did u at least find the name funny??? but u didnt debate anything i said so i guess i won.... or u dont feel like swinging at an unwinnable debate... which is understandable... since people dislike winning

true its bad, but the potential of the pat act & pat act 2 must be destroyed...

I agree with you, they are unconstitutional. But they aren't the greatest threat to our liberties every. They are a good deal south of full blown MCcarthyism.

but if they are unconstitutional then they are a threat to civil liberties... and personally any threat to civil liberties is a GREAT THREAT...

how far south from mccarthyism? cuz its not much...

At 4/13/03 02:20 AM, karasz wrote: did u at least find the name funny??? but u didnt debate anything i said so i guess i won.... or u dont feel like swinging at an unwinnable debate... which is understandable... since people dislike winning

Jefferson's contributions to society far outweigh his vices.

Also thou should calm thy arrogance or I shall be forced to put thee in thy place.

but if they are unconstitutional then they are a threat to civil liberties... and personally any threat to civil liberties is a GREAT THREAT...

how far south from mccarthyism? cuz its not much...

A bit south.....I'd say about the distance between Richmond and Atlanta.

At 4/13/03 02:31 AM, implodinggoat wrote:

At 4/13/03 02:20 AM, karasz wrote: did u at least find the name funny??? but u didnt debate anything i said so i guess i won.... or u dont feel like swinging at an unwinnable debate... which is understandable... since people dislike winning

Jefferson's contributions to society far outweigh his vices.

im going to guess u didnt find the name funny... oh well

Also thou should calm thy arrogance or I shall be forced to put thee in thy place.

i admit it... i was being quite arrogant... but i mean honestly who wants to defend someone that self-contradicting

but if they are unconstitutional then they are a threat to civil liberties... and personally any threat to civil liberties is a GREAT THREAT...

how far south from mccarthyism? cuz its not much...

A bit south.....I'd say about the distance between Richmond and Atlanta.

hmm... well this is a pointless arguement... since im a bit fanatical when it comes to the civil liberties...

At 4/12/03 11:28 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: Thank God Gore didn't get elected. If Gore was the president, we would probly all be dead. Terrorists would take over the country and Gore would run away like a little girl. The Iraqi people would still be living under Husseins Foot and all Gore would do is try to talk about it while Hussein Builds Chemical weapons to drop on us!

so what is it u dislike about Gore? seems like ur complaining about Gore wanting to use diplomacy instead of force...

based on what would Gore have 'run like a little girl'?

At 4/12/03 11:28 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: Thank God Gore didn't get elected. If Gore was the president, we would probly all be dead. Terrorists would take over the country and Gore would run away like a little girl. The Iraqi people would still be living under Husseins Foot and all Gore would do is try to talk about it while Hussein Builds Chemical weapons to drop on us!

??? Do you really think if a terrorist wants to strike in the U.S right now he can't ? Do you know how easy it is to build a bomb and blow it up in a public place ? You don't know what Gore would have done : He never was president, besides, Bush did not want to wage war anywhere before 9/11, he got a bit stressed, with very good reasons, after the attack and started to try striking everywhere he thought there was terrorists. I think Gore would have became edgy to after such an attack... he would have spoke of war to sooner or later...

At 4/12/03 11:28 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: Thank God Gore didn't get elected. If Gore was the president, we would probly all be dead. Terrorists would take over the country and Gore would run away like a little girl. The Iraqi people would still be living under Husseins Foot and all Gore would do is try to talk about it while Hussein Builds Chemical weapons to drop on us!

First off, You have a Chevrolet sign in your signature. That negates about 90% of what you type.
Secondly, You hold the opinion that Democrats can't wage a war.
Let me ask you this. Who was the President during World War 2?
Oh wait, you would never know something like that.
It was Franklin Rosevelt. A Democrat.

Now try to tell me Democrats can't wage war.

At 4/12/03 08:48 PM, mysecondstar wrote:

and he sticks to his guns. he won't back down for anyone. even Kim Jong Il is backing down saying that he will have talks regarding his nuclear arsenal. he just plays hardball and does things people want to do but never dream of actually doing. and he gets results.

Sure Bush gets results, but are they the ones that we really want?

Dude;

It's not the man, it's the man's party. I sometimes wonder of ol' Dicky is worse! G.W.'s just the man behind the desk, I have a feeling it's his party that are the loose cannons and beurocrats (Dicky!).

Don't bash democracy just because you didn't vote for him!

At 4/14/03 10:32 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Does it matter what we want? Bush has said many times that he "doesn't need the permission of people from this or any other nation to do something that is necessary in the eyes of god almighty." Said during a speech at the Rose Garden, flanked by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sounds a little like a fanatic, eh?

AHHHHHHHHHH STUPID DAMN BUSH!!!!!!!!! That bastard! He has a VERY screwed up idea of Christianity, a religion which in my opinion is a load of crap!

At 4/9/03 06:11 PM, Shangui wrote: Am I the only one thinking that George W. Bush doesnt know the meaning of democratie ?

In conclusion, it has been determined that George W. Bush, in fact, does not know what the fuck "democratie" is. To answer your further questions, Shangui, he also is not familiar with the terms "schleeboke" or "rooferingin". Case closed. Next thread.

Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather said that he robbed the grave and stole the skull of the Native American warrior Geronimo as part of an initiation into Yale's Skull and Bones Society in 1918. The Skull and Bones society has been important to the Bush Family. George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush were also members of this secret society. Prescott Bush got into trouble back in the 1940s. While American soldiers were fighting the Nazis in WWII, a few of the companies Prescott managed were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act because they were selling fuel to and laundering money for Hitler's Nazis. During the embargo on China, GW's Uncle Prescott, Jr.’s company was the only US firm allowed to do business there, exporting communications satellites. Now he's the president of the USA-China Chamber of Commerce, which might be one reason China isn't part of the Axis of Evil He also has ties to Manuel Noriega. The Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs wanted to have Manuel Noriega arrested for drug trafficking, but George Bush, Sr. kept him on the CIA payroll. For more than a decade, thousands of tons of cocaine poured onto the streets of America through the Panama Canal while the US government looked the other way. This destroyed the stability of millions of American families, and the repercussions to our society are still being felt today. GW was in the National Guard, which he joined to get out of serving in Vietnam. He was a pilot in Texas until his flight status was revoked for refusing to take medical exams. For at least six months, he didn't even show up for duty. I just wanna tell people that do not know about this.

At 4/14/03 10:32 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Does it matter what we want? Bush has said many times that he "doesn't need the permission of people from this or any other nation to do something that is necessary in the eyes of god almighty." Said during a speech at the Rose Garden, flanked by Cheney and Rumsfeld. Sounds a little like a fanatic, eh?

I have no problem with that, but I want conclusive proof God thinks this war necessary.

You are all a bunch of braindead fucks.
Just because a person does not know your own language as well as you do, does not give you the right to not let him/her speak. You should all have learnt this long ago.

And a guy said something about 'thank god Gore was not elected' and 'then Saddam would drop bombs on us'.
Wait a minute... Saddam has never dropped any bombs on you, and when I come to think about it, its the other way around! Wow! Besides, are you aware of that up to 1 million innocent people will/have died in this war, 30% of them children under five years old,
you are saying this war is for bringing democracy to Iraq, well, dropping bombs at the people is not democracy, neither is just setting a general as the president (or whatever is should call it) in that country. War increases the use of weapons of mass destruction. This war will also increase the terrorism. If weapons of mass destruction should exist, the chanses for that they are being used increase when U.S. go to war. And it will be the Iraqi people who will be the first victims. The situasion does not get better, when USA says they will use Atom Weapons against Iraq if they use biological or chemical weapons. Atom weapons has not been used in war since 1945. People in the middle east has many reasons to be sceptical to the US. One of the most important reasons is US's support to the Israel occupasion of Palestine. While the US is talking about how Iraq is braking resolutions, is the country giving massive economic and military support to the country who most systematically has broken with these resolutions. A war against Iraq will/is enlarging the hate against the US and the West.

War costs money. Lots of money! USA has used 2 million dollars on making bombs to the war against Iraq. All that money could have been used on poor people, not to create bombs, that is insane.
15th february did millions of anti-war people demonstrate to mark its disgrace against US's war plans. This is the biggest global demonstration ever.

BTW: I agree with you on that Bush is a bad president. Don't have time to state why now. Later.

War is bad.

At 4/24/03 01:19 PM, soadclown wrote: You are all a bunch of braindead fucks.

I was talking about the guys who was saying that this thread was piece of crap just becouse the guy who wrote it wrote democracy wrong.

At 4/24/03 01:19 PM, soadclown wrote: Just because a person does not know your own language as well as you do, does not give you the right to not let him/her speak. You should all have learnt this long ago.

War is bad.

Ill only rip on you for two things, because your stats are loads of shit (if you use stats, give sources. Debators like that kind of thing). First, knowledge of the language is the only way any of us give our opinions. If you dont understand english, post in spanish or whatever language you speak. Second of all you posting "War is Bad" as your conclusive statement doesn't add any credence to your stats. Learn a little more about WWII, and tell me that war cant save lives. If war hadnt been waged, noone would know what a Jew is.

LONG LIVE THE DAG

When a person talks for example english a way no english people would understand then I agree he should speak another language. But everyone here should understand what "democratie" means. Its pretty obvious. Besides, "democratie" sounds like the exact original word. I am not sure if it is french or greek or whatever it is, but it really isn't hard to guess what it means.

At 4/10/03 03:41 PM, fourdaddy wrote:

At 4/10/03 12:09 PM, Slizor wrote: It's funny how both Bush and Blair are crusading for "democracy" while A) undertaking no electoral reform B) being significantly opposed by the people.

significantly opposed? over 70% of the US supports the situation. isnt a democracy sort of built around the principle of majority rule? 30% may be quite a bit, but i really do not see why the minority should be given priority...thats like affirmative action, ridiculous.

____________________________
I think there are so many things out there that persuade people’s thoughts about the war. If all the info provided was truth then the percentage might mean more. I mean 20,000 people in NYC alone protested the war in one day.

At 4/24/03 04:01 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I think there are so many things out there that persuade people’s thoughts about the war. If all the info provided was truth then the percentage might mean more. I mean 20,000 people in NYC alone protested the war in one day.

20000 people protesting? In NYC, city of MILLIONS, that adds up to not shit, let alone enough to win a vote to stop the war.

At 4/12/03 11:28 PM, AmericanBADASS wrote: Thank God Gore didn't get elected. If Gore was the president, we would probly all be dead. Terrorists would take over the country and Gore would run away like a little girl. The Iraqi people would still be living under Husseins Foot and all Gore would do is try to talk about it while Hussein Builds Chemical weapons to drop on us!

Amen dude! Keep supporting Bush! And sweet logo (Chevy logo, aka: Bad Ass Bowtie)

At 4/12/03 11:20 PM, implodinggoat wrote: And before you go say, "But he was so great with the economy" you must remember that it was Clinton's economic policy that allowed the stockmarket to get very overvalued. Near the end of the Clinton administration there were reports that the Dow which was over 12000 should in fact be valued no higher than 9000, but Clinton didn't gove a damn because the levee didn't break until he left office.

I just recently checked out a book from the campus library entitled "It's Still the Economy, Stupid: George W. Bush, the GOP's CEO." When I first saw this book, I thought it was going to be nothing more than Democrat propaganda blowing out every page...well it's true but it does back its statements with evidence and sources. The author is Paul Begala, formerly a counselor to the former president Clinton (figures). It basically praises the Clinton administration for its economic policies while demonizing Reagan's, Sr's and Jr's administration (If you didn't see that coming, you must be blind).

Soadclown...

This is the same damn shit I'm hearing from every anti-war protestor. So far in the war there hasn't beem that many casualties. Besides, compare this to any of the numbers of people that Saddam has killed. Are you saying Saddam is better than GW or are you just refusing to bring other factors into the equation. One of the things I seriously dislike is saying half the story.

War is bad but necessary.

At 4/24/03 10:30 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: 100+ Casualties is still too much for a war that could have been resolved peacefully had Little George not been so damned trigger-happy. Keep your eyes on Syria, that's the next on the list.

I think its more like 1000+ casualties, and then military. Syria you think? I disagree. I reckon theyll go for N. Korea but they gotta sort out Iraq fully first.

There is no way that we could deal with Iraq peacefully. Saddam would never turn over his WOMD and I'm certain he has them. Even without them he was still building weapons that violated the treaties so for the UN to keep its face before the world it would have to do somehting eventually. For 12 years it refused and finally the US realized its policy of "stay strong = stay safe" wouldn't stop terrorists and Iraq's most likely attack on the US would be through these terrorists, the US had to attack. That and the whole oil deal. In any case Saddam had 12 years and he wasted all the chances we gave him.

At 4/9/03 06:11 PM, Shangui wrote: Am I the only one thinking that George W. Bush doesnt know the meaning of democratie ? I mean, he did said himself that he went against his people because they "didnt knew what was good for them". And he accuses others of attacking democratie. I sure hope he wont get elected in the next elections.

Am I the only one who thinks you don't know the meaning of "spelling"?

I am really sick of these "lol bush sux cuz hez ghey" threads.
Bush is not the best president ever, but go and look up some of the accomplishments of Hoover or Millard Fillmore and then tell me he is the worst.

At 4/26/03 12:22 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

At 4/25/03 09:31 PM, DivineSlayer wrote: There is no way that we could deal with Iraq peacefully. Saddam would never turn over his WOMD and I'm certain he has them.

Well, quick, write down all your hunches and we'll start dropping bombs. Jesus. Have we SEEN any proven Weapons of Mass Destruction (I hate people too lazy to write out the words)? When you do, then talk.

Let's see.... U.N. arms inspectors took more than FIVE years to find WOMD in Iraq, and that was only possible with highly circumstancial evidence. What makes anyone tihnk that Coalition troops can find some in one or two months?