George Bush won...

[Adh87]

http://www.cnn.com/


damn that sucks for us.

[eq_addict_08]

damn that sucks for us.

True that. Luckily, Europe (I am told) is accepting english as the universal business language. May have to move back to where my ancestors came from.

[Adh87]

Ill go too, maybe I can meet some hot German chicks....

[Spike]

nude women...

[Edgar1898]

I dont think Bush won because of what he did in office, I think he won because people generally considered him the lesser of two evils. If democrats would have picked a more likable candidate I think he would have had a better chance.

[Zisct1]

Spoken like a true Texan,"GO BUSH!"

Yay team~

[mrea]

Thank you people, at least some people recognize Kerry was a terrible choice by the democrats. They should have at least tried. I mean, a terd would have been better than the Senator.

[Edgar1898]

yah, I dont agree with half of what Bush did/does. But he still won the popular vote with a 3.5 million vote lead, so I guess I'm not the only one who considered Bush a better choice than Kerry.

[Melwin]

I dont think Bush won because of what he did in office, I think he won because people generally considered him the lesser of two evils. If democrats would have picked a more likable candidate I think he would have had a better chance.

It's the other way around (half the people who voted for Kerry voted for him because he wasn't Bush, more or less) but your conclusion is nonetheless correct.

[Spike]

You know whats funny, some guy hosted a server on a game I play, and it was called GO KERRY YO THE MAN!.... the dude who hosted it was a 14 year old kid.

[Cisyouc]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!

GO DUBYA!!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!

[SnuggleZ]

http://www.cnn.com/


damn that sucks for us. Agreed. :(

[mattmeck]

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

take that![/url]

[Memener]

http://www.onemansvote.com/~nathan/archives/images/bushuncensored.jpg


\Yea

[Baron Sprite]

All political members are tagged none the less. Ever wonder what's on bush's mind?

http://www.biosprite.net/ng1.jpg

[jimbox114]

Looks like four more years of Rallos Zek, the Warlord.

[ltlruss]

John Kerry, pretty upset about losing his bid to become the next President, decides to drown his sorrows away at the local pub. As he walks into the bar, the bartender looks up at him and asks, "Why the long face?"

[XxMadHatterxX]

I knew all along W was going to win. That's why I didn't take it as harshly as some of my fellow "Pro-Kerry" folks did. I was very upset, however, to find out that the exit polling results showed that the Bush supporters top reason for voting Bush was Values. What a disgusting thing now, that a certain set of people are setting values for the rest of us. It deeply upsets me.

::Sighs:: Well, only four more years...

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN '08!

[Daeath]

...What a disgusting thing now, that a certain set of people are setting values for the rest of us. It deeply upsets me.

WTF? I mean, seriously... So if Kerry was president, he wouldn't be setting values for the rest of us either? It wasn't a contest of he-with-values and he-without. It was two candidates of two different sets of values - and America felt that Bush's set of values was something they'd rather have decisions based apon than those of Senator Kerry. People said they voted for Bush because of his values - not that he has any and Kerry does not.

Kerry was such a weak canidate - too chaotic, basing his opinion on what would get him the greatest popularity. Look at his religion (a typical source of values for most Americans) - he eagerly promoted ideals that were against his belief system. Why? For votes. He's for the war, until it starts turning up bad - then he's against the war.

At least with President Bush you know what you'll have for the next four years, because he'll always take the same stance. Kerry in the presidency would be dangerous - we'd never know what to expect.

Besides, his campaining manager really lost him the election. All his votes came from the same democratic states as the last election. For the democrats to have a remote chance of winning the next election they need to sway some republic voters over, but they won't do that with such a blantant opposer of traditional-values such as either Kerry or Hillary.

[Baron Sprite]

I would rather have a president with enough foresight to change their mind on something when the people want it then someone who blindly tells the world to fuck off... also would rather have someone that would do what the majority wants, even if it is against their beliefs, that shows stronger character then FUCK U GAY BUTTFUCKING ABORTIONIST POOR PEOPLE - u got 0wned don't bother replying.

[m0oni9]

What a disgusting thing now, that a certain set of people are setting values for the rest of us. It deeply upsets me.
When has a certain set of people not set the values for society?

[Baron Sprite]

when I masturbated into the primordial ooze

[Baron Sprite]

oh wait I did, you lose I win hahaha

[Zisct1]

BS obviously, is a noob with no class, ?niw i

[Draupner]

BS obviously, is a noob with no class, ?niw i

You are the n00b. BS pwns. Go die kkthx

[Spike]

lol, quote from my avatar I made for him....

BS pwns

[Baron Sprite]

BS obviously, is a noob with no class,

ur a noob with no class by saying I am a noob with no class nigero

?niw i

wtb looc uoy ekam ton seod sdrawkcab gnipyt

when you like, can make a real argument, and like, use an insult that isn't 100% washed with tide for colors then step up otherwise learn your place and put the cock back in your mouth

[mrea]

I'm not as much pro-Bush as I am anti-Kerry. Of course I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done. But I believe that he was the better choice for our presidency. While yes, he may be a stubborn jackass sometimes, Kerry changes whenever the wind blows and I felt that Bush's positions were better. Dealing with abortion, I feel that it should be banned (unless someone is raped) because I'm sick of skank whores going around having sex all the time and not having to deal with anything. FUCK THEM. Welfare also (even though I don't think this was a huge issue) I see people down the street from me on welfare who have cells phones and stuff. It's total bullshit. Anyway, enough ranting, Kerry sucked balls as a candidate.

[eq_addict_08]

about to bring out some hate in me.. But, I'll hold back for now. The simple fact is, government has NO right to be regulating peoples private lives. It was set up to regulate disputes between two or more people within public life..

[mrea]

If thats so do you think there should be no welfare at all?

[eq_addict_08]

If thats so do you think there should be no welfare at all?

To be honest, yes. We should get rid of all welfare, both individual AND corporate welfare programs.

[Daeath]

Wow Baron - I'm suprised by your quick wit and copious, scholastic lexicon. Amazing.

Since when do people really know anything? Think about it - with what little brain cells any of you didn't 'shoot into the primordial ooze' with the rest of your dignity... Who really understands what's going on, as a whole, in this country - or in countries around us? First off, I'm not one of them - nor is the President. The average, typical American citizen is pretty ignorant - as a whole - to all the vast details of every issue that plagues our society. Do you know who really understands our problems and the best *possible* solution? They don't live amongst us - for the government has seen fit to lock them away in giant 'think tanks' - spilling insane amounts of greenbacks into thier lap so they never want to leave. It's the genius' of this country that rule - not the political puppet-monkey from Texas.

The President of America has so little power - pay attention tomorrow in your 5th grade class and your nice teacher will help the class understand that there are three ("3") branches of power: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The President can't wipe America's arse without permission from the Senate, the house, and the chief justices. He may have some veto privilege, but it's very limited and weak in its use.

Bush is a great puppet - he follows what his advisors encourage him very well, because he understands that he is just like the typical American - ignorant to all the facts. Kerry's too high on himself, his money, his heritage, his fancy-ketchup wife. I don't think he'd have the humility to accept what those who really know what's going on had to say - and would want to please the average Baron for his meager vote so he could stay in office and say that he was one of the most powerful men on the planet.

Dangerous.

[Cisyouc]

Bush is a great puppet - he follows what his advisors encourage him very well, because he understands that he is just like the typical American - ignorant to all the facts. Kerry's too high on himself, his money, his heritage, his fancy-ketchup wife. I don't think he'd have the humility to accept what those who really know what's going on had to say - and would want to please the average Baron for his meager vote so he could stay in office and say that he was one of the most powerful men on the planet. Amen.

Cheney is the ultimate puppeteer.
Go puppet-monkey 2004! FOUR MORE YEARS!

[XxMadHatterxX]

"Values"? I'm sorry, but what we have as of now are just laws protecting our well-being and health. And sure Kerry was a terrible candidate, but I would have rather had him as our president than W. What they're trying to do now if force certain Religious aspects on our every day lives. That's my opinion.

...his fancy-ketchup wife.

That one made me laugh out loud...xD. I actually found that funny.

[eq_addict_08]

"Values"? I'm sorry, but what we have as of now are just laws protecting our well-being and health. And sure Kerry was a terrible candidate, but I would have rather had him as our president than W. What they're trying to do now if force certain Religious aspects on our every day lives. That's my opinion.

Well, we are able to eat fast food every day, that would cause us heart attack be age 40. Our children can eat candy/drink soda every day, which could lead to diabetes. We can drink and smoke which lead to all sorts of diseases. So no, the laws are not just "for our health and well being."

Drugs, gambling, prostitutuion, gay marriage, abortion rights (if repealed) are ALL value based laws passed by intrusive christians pushing their belief systems on the general public.

[Baron Sprite]

big words don't do much if you force them into a sentance to try and impress people fool, learn to speak from the heart and not bullshit fed to you through the media, your eyes are glued the fuck shut irl

btw wtf are you doing talking about his money, u think bush worked his way out of the ghetto into the streets to voice for the people?

didn't I tell you not to bother replying to me? learn to size up before you step up bitch

[m0oni9]

what we have as of now are just laws protecting our well-being and health.
Well, we are able to eat fast food every day, that would cause us heart attack be age 40. Our children can eat candy/drink soda every day, which could lead to diabetes. We can drink and smoke which lead to all sorts of diseases. So no, the laws are not just "for our health and well being."
He referred to existing laws. You referred to non-existing laws. I don't understand how you are drawing your conclusion. However, consider this: what if a law was passed which banned smoking outright? Or if fast food were outlawed? Would our rights be infringed? Would this benefit our well-being and health?

Drugs, gambling, prostitutuion, gay marriage, abortion rights (if repealed) are ALL value based laws passed by intrusive christians pushing their belief systems on the general public.
True, these may or may not be value-based. But do not assume that if law or thought seems to have a footing in "values" that it is excluded from anything else. Do you believe that everyone against legalizing pot believes so because they are some intrusive Christian?

[Zisct1]

See how it says "Former Developer" by her name? Didnt she leave?







Guess not.

[Baron Sprite]

do I even have to reply to that? I see fucking former developer, I don't see, I QUIT THE BOARDS NEVER TO RETURN AGAIN. bet you feel smart.

how about you fucking think instead of pushing reply next time?

why do you idiots keep trying? you fucking fail everytime you come up with some stupid arguement

[eq_addict_08]

what we have as of now are just laws protecting our well-being and health.
Well, we are able to eat fast food every day, that would cause us heart attack be age 40. Our children can eat candy/drink soda every day, which could lead to diabetes. We can drink and smoke which lead to all sorts of diseases. So no, the laws are not just "for our health and well being."
He referred to existing laws. You referred to non-existing laws. I don't understand how you are drawing your conclusion. However, consider this: what if a law was passed which banned smoking outright? Or if fast food were outlawed? Would our rights be infringed? Would this benefit our well-being and health?

Drugs, gambling, prostitutuion, gay marriage, abortion rights (if repealed) are ALL value based laws passed by intrusive christians pushing their belief systems on the general public.
True, these may or may not be value-based. But do not assume that if law or thought seems to have a footing in "values" that it is excluded from anything else. Do you believe that everyone against legalizing pot believes so because they are some intrusive Christian?

Ok, what I was triing to show here, is that "if" laws were truly based on protection of the individual from him/herself, fast food, soda, booze, ect would have laws against them as well. So, since we do allow people to damage themselves, we just pick an choose the ways they can? No. The drugs, gambling, etc. bans, restrictions are in place because someones "value" system says "dem is bad shizzle." THat is the only reason for them at the moment.

[eq_addict_08]

Sorry!! (http://72.3.131.10/)

[mrea]

So you show that some people see it your way... Looks like a lot more people saw it my way... bitch :)

in fact... 3.5 million

[m0oni9]

Ok, what I was triing to show here, is that "if" laws were truly based on protection of the individual from him/herself, fast food, soda, booze, ect would have laws against them as well.
I know what you are trying to say. What I am telling you is that your reasoning is fallacious. In a sack I have five socks, all of which are red. You say that I also have 2 blue balls (haha) in the sack, therefore there is a sock that is not red.

I am not saying laws are or are not based on individual protection. The majority may very well be based on group protection (ie: of society).

So, since we do allow people to damage themselves, we just pick an choose the ways they can?
This is a question of society. Do you think that drug use, gambling, prostitution, etc. does not have an effect on a community? Do you believe that what one person does in a community does not affect another? We do not live in a vacuum. I have seen what many of these things lead to in my own family, and I am sure that is part of the reason I am against them.

[eq_addict_08]

This is a question of society. Do you think that drug use, gambling, prostitution, etc. does not have an effect on a community? Do you believe that what one person does in a community does not affect another? We do not live in a vacuum. I have seen what many of these things lead to in my own family, and I am sure that is part of the reason I am against them.

Well, actually what any adult does in his/her own life certainly could have an effect on others. But, I could be giving it to your mom right now, and throw her 3 hun after i get done, and if we both agreed to it first it wouldn't affect anyone else. Hell we may be flying high on cocaine while getting it on. She takes a cab home, I bask in my glory. Who else does that damage now?

[m0oni9]

Well, actually what any adult does in his/her own life certainly could have an effect on others. But, I could be giving it to your mom right now, and throw her 3 hun after i get done, and if we both agreed to it first it wouldn't affect anyone else.
Well sure, if you want to make some hopeful assumptions, for instance: the interaction will not affect relationships with anyone else. You are effectively saying that if X agrees to Y, then X is not affected by Y. Experiences directly influence behavior, and likewise relationships. How do you know that I am stable, and will not do something extreme, like commit suicide, after learning of this?

[Baron Sprite]

So you show that some people see it your way... Looks like a lot more people saw it my way... bitch :)

in fact... 3.5 million


too bad only like 1/3 the population of usa voted, too bad the rest were probably redneck illiterates like mostly everyone else that voted for bush.

[Baron Sprite]

http://www.biosprite.net/bsvsdeath.jpg

Almost forgot that for you daeath.

[Melwin]

http://humme.dk/img2/bushkerry.jpg

EDIT:
I bet Daeath wears tinfoil hats all day to avoid the MIND CONTROL RAYS from the gov't. http://humme.dk/emot/tinfoil.gif http://humme.dk/emot/tinfoil.gif http://humme.dk/emot/tinfoil.gif

[m0oni9]

Posting that chart to get a rise out of someone? :D

[Daeath]

http://humme.dk/img2/bushkerry.jpg
I bet Daeath wears tinfoil hats all day to avoid the MIND CONTROL RAYS from the gov't.

Too bad I help develop those mind control rays for your government.

Baron, I'm sorry you were abused as a newborn - but that's still not a valid excuse for being mentally defective. You're no mind reader, so don't judge me if you 'think' (not really possible, I know) my words come from the heart or not.

Does it matter where someone bases thier values? People have made a stink about laws being based from religion, specifically christianity. Is it any better to have values imposed from parents, or someone else's life experiences? The source of one's values (religion, family, society, south park in Baron's case) doesn't matter - what matters is what our values are and if/how they are enforced apon the masses. In America, the majority decide what values are considered acceptable behavior. Why should the few decide the fate of the many? If the majority in America are 'christian', and you are anti-'christian' - tough. Deal. Move to France with all the other whiner's of the world. America may be 'Jesusland' - but look on the back of every US dollar. Isn't that why the whiteman came to this land, for religious reasons? This nation is based on religion, and it's religious-based value system will take a while to change - if it does ever. But it doesn't really matter where you base your values, only the values (and thier associated behaviors) matter.

[mattmeck]

2000 Election


Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV
Gore 50,996,116 48 % 21 266
Bush 50,456,169 48 % 30 271
Other 3,874,040 4 % 0 0


2004 election


Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV
Kerry 55,949,407 48% 20 252
Bush 59,459,765 51% 31 286



So not only did more people vote, but more people voted for Bush then in 2000, that tells me that people realise he is a good president and came out to vote for him.

As to the values, i am against abortion and for the death penalty, also being a military family, the canidates views on the military came up in my big 3 concernes, why would i vote Kerry who is against everything i believe in?


And all of the people complaining able these beliefs being forced on everyone.......well more the half the people who voted agree with them, so why should your views that are in the minarity be forced on the majority???

[eq_addict_08]

And all of the people complaining able these beliefs being forced on everyone.......well more the half the people who voted agree with them, so why should your views that are in the minarity be forced on the majority???

Alrighty. Glad someone finaly stated this straight up. WE (the minority) are not triing to force "our" views onto anyone. You can still not be gay, not have an abortion (not do drugs, not gamble, not whatever it is you don't like). We don't mind a bit. We DO mind you (the majority) thinking you have the right to force us to live our private lives by your belief system...

[Melwin]

And all of the people complaining able these beliefs being forced on everyone.......well more the half the people who voted agree with them, so why should your views that are in the minarity be forced on the majority???

Do you support Seperate But Equal?

The majority of people used to.

Also, what the poster above me said.

[Baron Sprite]

Baron, I'm sorry you were abused as a newborn - but that's still not a valid excuse for being mentally defective. You're no mind reader, so don't judge me if you 'think' (not really possible, I know) my words come from the heart or not.

nobody can argue with your logic of steel, that makes an excellent case, thanks for your great post. I think I will print it out.

I know I've kicked your ass when you start trying to insult instead of arguing... whine more I like it.

Isn't that why the whiteman came to this land, for religious reasons?

you're clueless if you even think that.

[Draupner]

2000 Election


Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV
Gore 50,996,116 48 % 21 266
Bush 50,456,169 48 % 30 271
Other 3,874,040 4 % 0 0


2004 election


Candidates Votes Vote % States Won EV
Kerry 55,949,407 48% 20 252
Bush 59,459,765 51% 31 286



So not only did more people vote, but more people voted for Bush then in 2000, that tells me that people realise he is a good president and came out to vote for him.

As to the values, i am against abortion and for the death penalty, also being a military family, the canidates views on the military came up in my big 3 concernes, why would i vote Kerry who is against everything i believe in?


And all of the people complaining able these beliefs being forced on everyone.......well more the half the people who voted agree with them, so why should your views that are in the minarity be forced on the majority???

more people voted cause they the gay marriage ban question on the ballot which brought out the dumbshit bible humpers

[Tree]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/moomootree/treesentry.jpg

[Draupner]

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/images/jland_map.jpg

North should secede from Jesusland which is fuckin us all over and go join Canada

http://denji102.geo.kyushu-u.ac.jp/denji/obs/equator/station/flag/Canada.gif

[Draupner]

and Go Illinois! we pwn u redneck states even though we have a shitload of our own rednecks in the south.

[m0oni9]

WE (the minority) are not triing to force "our" views onto anyone. You can still not be gay, not have an abortion (not do drugs, not gamble, not whatever it is you don't like). We don't mind a bit. We DO mind you (the majority) thinking you have the right to force us to live our private lives by your belief system...
What you have just stated are views. Believing that is it okay to do drugs for recreation, for example, is a view. That is where the conflict lies. You may not feel that you are forcing these views onto anyone, but much of the opposing side feels this way. It is all about perception. Perception drives conflict, not reality. I am actually hard-pressed to call either side "the minority," as the race was so close.

more people voted cause they the gay marriage ban question on the ballot which brought out the dumbshit bible humpers
I could also say that more people on the left voted because of this issue, could I not? I enjoy the posts about "dumbshit bible humpers" and "Jesusland." Let's complain about the division of the country, and then try to divide it more. I am probably stretching a bit, but I have speculated to myself on future civil war. If the mentality of both sides is to criticize and isolate the other, it wouldn't be the first time -- the geography is just different.

Do you support Seperate But Equal?
That is a good question. In and of itself, I do not. However, if the majority does agree with it, who is the minority to say otherwise? The minority may be in the right, but by what mechanism can that be determined?

The question that I will ask you (and I don't know the answer) is: if such laws are repealed (as "Separate but equal"), does the system of majority rule work?

[eq_addict_08]

WE (the minority) are not triing to force "our" views onto anyone. You can still not be gay, not have an abortion (not do drugs, not gamble, not whatever it is you don't like). We don't mind a bit. We DO mind you (the majority) thinking you have the right to force us to live our private lives by your belief system...
What you have just stated are views. Believing that is it okay to do drugs for recreation, for example, is a view. That is where the conflict lies. You may not feel that you are forcing these views onto anyone, but much of the opposing side feels this way. It is all about perception. Perception drives conflict, not reality. I am actually hard-pressed to call either side "the minority," as the race was so close.

So, it is your view that the oposing side feels that if anyone has the right to do drugs or marry their lover of the same sex, those views are "forced" upon them? Sounds alot like whites being forced to accept blacks as equals or men accepting women can think, thus vote on their own. Pretty bigotted viewpoint imo. Though I do believe that it is truly the direction they are comming from.

[mrea]

we pwn u redneck states

Fuck you. Do you think you sound cool or intelligent by saying 'pwn'? You just lower what anyone thinks of you, jackass.

[m0oni9]

So, it is your view that the oposing side feels that if anyone has the right to do drugs or marry their lover of the same sex, those views are "forced" upon them?
It is what I said before: we are not in a vacuum. Example: I am a born-again Christian, trying to raise my child in a moral environment because I feel they will become a better person (more honest, etc). I am seeing what I perceive as decay in society (whether it be gay marriage or anything else). This affects my child. Define morality however you like, but the idea is the same: what one does in a society affects another. Yes, I am of the opinion that many feel that these views are being forced upon them.

Take another example: I enter into marriage. Marriage is recognized by law, but in addition I see it as a sacred institution, the foundation of society. Gay marriage weakens this insitution, thus weakening society.

Sounds alot like whites being forced to accept blacks as equals or men accepting women can think, thus vote on their own.
This is a non sequitur in regards to gay marriage. The opinion (or law) is not that those who are gay are not equal to who are straight -- this is the implication seen by the proponents of gay marriage. The opinion is that two of the same sex should not be able to be wed. Two straight men cannot be wed; neither can two gay men. A gay man and a straight woman can. They are equal in this respect. This is different than saying that a black man or a woman is not as intelligent as a white man.

[Melwin]

That is a good question. In and of itself, I do not. However, if the majority does agree with it, who is the minority to say otherwise? The minority may be in the right, but by what mechanism can that be determined?

Do you support the Constitution's existence?

[Daeath]

I am probably stretching a bit, but I have speculated to myself on future civil war. If the mentality of both sides is to criticize and isolate the other, it wouldn't be the first time -- the geography is just different.

I don't think you are very far from the actual truth, m0oni9... I think the post-election attitudes that are surfacing are clear indicators of another 1860 era. People are becoming less tolerant of thier brother - not out of difference of skin, but in the difference of opinions / mindsets.

I see Americans getting so upset and fed up with this very issue we've been debating for several pages - how the government isn't properly representing our views - that yes, I could easily see civil war in hopes to change our political makeup.

Take into consideration also the views of foreign peoples as well. Each year America pisses off even more of the world's countries - and even though I think it was good to declare war on terrorism globally and to invade the soverignity of Iraq (could've been handled alot more effectively, however) it's made many countries feel less secure about thier independance. What I think is that foreign countries will ally together, out of jealously or insecurity, to find ways to strip the United States of its uncontested global superpower (not taking China into consideration).

Hope y'all in Jesusland know how to properly charge, reload, and unjam an M16-A2/AR-15... nevermind, most of the hunters in the US live in states that voted for Bush - whereas the areas that voted for Kerry prefer handguns (which they have trouble hitting a 300lb. gas clerk at 4ft. away). No worries for the reds I suppose. :lol:

[mysticalninjajesus]

we pwn u redneck states

Fuck you. Do you think you sound cool or intelligent by saying 'pwn'? You just lower what anyone thinks of you, jackass.

no.. but he thinks he pwns u redneck states.. do you think you sound cool or intelligent by asking him if he thinks hes cool or intelligent by saying pwn?

[mrea]

No, but it irritates me greatly that people say that.

[Draupner]

fine then, we are of significant more intelligence then you redneck states, better?
or
we possess more intelligence then you redneck states

[Draupner]

we pwn u redneck states

Fuck you. Do you think you sound cool or intelligent by saying 'pwn'? You just lower what anyone thinks of you, jackass.

Do you honestly think what I care of your opinion, or anyone elses? This whole community I don't give a rats ass about anymore since 99% of the people I greatly respected have departed.

[mrea]

Well whatever, I care nothing for your opinin either, but, to everyone who has posted here:
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.

[m0oni9]

Do you support the Constitution's existence?
Yes, but please don't trying setting me up. It is a strategy that goes after the person, rather than the argument.

fine then, we are of significant more intelligence then you redneck states, better?
or
we possess more intelligence then you redneck states
I won't point out the spelling mistakes that you made. I hope that you didn't take the table too seriously, though. It is widely accepted as a hoax, as there is no data to verify it.

[Melwin]

Do you support the Constitution's existence?
Yes, but please don't trying setting me up. It is a strategy that goes after the person, rather than the argument.

What's the purpose of the Constitution?

[Draupner]

it has been proven that ones ability to spell does not relate in the slightest way to ones IQ

[Zisct1]

la la la la la la ~George Bush won~ and you cant fuckin change it!!
la la la la la la






Well, i guess you COULD change it, but it would take some time, to much time infact then you would be wasting your emu'n hours~

[mattmeck]

Come on people, "I didnt get what I wanted and everyone who took it from me has a lower IQ then me na nananana na nananana"


The USA is a Democracy, last election you complained cause Bush didnt win the popular vote yadda yadda yadda, now this election your complaining because he did. The people have spoken and you were found lacking, your claims of being smarter just show your stupidity.

[Daeath]

Nicely put, mattmeck.

[m0oni9]

What's the purpose of the Constitution?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I'm leaving soon to go out of town for this weekend, so if you want to make your point.. :D

[Melwin]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I'm leaving soon to go out of town for this weekend, so if you want to make your point.. :D

Good answer.

Now, let's narrow it down a bit:

How do you interpret the bolded part?

[Draupner]

imo it says and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, as long as you aren't gay, a woman, or some other group we hate.

[eq_addict_08]

We the People of the GOP, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish 3 or 4 anti-abortion Justices, insure domestic Divisiveness, provide for the common defence of the Iraqi oilfields, promote the general Welfare of corupt corporations, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (as long as we agree in the way which you do it), do ordain and establish this New Constitution for the United States of America.

[eq_addict_08]

So, it is your view that the oposing side feels that if anyone has the right to do drugs or marry their lover of the same sex, those views are "forced" upon them?
It is what I said before: we are not in a vacuum. Example: I am a born-again Christian, trying to raise my child in a moral environment because I feel they will become a better person (more honest, etc). I am seeing what I perceive as decay in society (whether it be gay marriage or anything else). This affects my child. Define morality however you like, but the idea is the same: what one does in a society affects another. Yes, I am of the opinion that many feel that these views are being forced upon them.

Take another example: I enter into marriage. Marriage is recognized by law, but in addition I see it as a sacred institution, the foundation of society. Gay marriage weakens this insitution, thus weakening society.

Sounds alot like whites being forced to accept blacks as equals or men accepting women can think, thus vote on their own.
This is a non sequitur in regards to gay marriage. The opinion (or law) is not that those who are gay are not equal to who are straight -- this is the implication seen by the proponents of gay marriage. The opinion is that two of the same sex should not be able to be wed. Two straight men cannot be wed; neither can two gay men. A gay man and a straight woman can. They are equal in this respect. This is different than saying that a black man or a woman is not as intelligent as a white man.

What one does in their private lives does not effect anyone else. So gays can get married. That gonna turn your straight child gay. No. So, drugs are legalize, is that gonna lead someone who is told the detriments of drug abuse (and believes them) to go out and become an sddict, No. SHeltering people from having to make moral decisions does not make them a more moral person. I believe the bible states that the thought of sin is just as sinful as the act. But, you don't actually see the thought. So, you can go on believing that the world (your child/loved one) is sin free. Your god (by your) beliefs gave you free will. The first lesson we ever learned in existance was if you say "no" people are gonna do it, just to see why...

And, on your second paragraph; I may be an idealist but I would marry for love, not sex. Your view only sees the sex act, (and imo is discusted by it) and not the love. People marry for love, and if one is gay, they do not feel that "love" for the opossite sex. Though imo you do not believe it to be love, but who are you to say what anyone else feels.

[m0oni9]

and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
How do you interpret the bolded part?
Not to rephrase it, but I interpret it as securing blessings, which come as a consequence of liberty. The question seems more to be: what is a blessing? It again falls to interpretation. Who will decide on an interpretation, if not the majority? Either laws should or should not be controlled by the majority. It can't be both ways. If you disagree with a decision, argue to the majority, rather than isolating the minority.

imo it says and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, as long as you aren't gay, a woman, or some other group we hate.
Just so we're in the clear, I hate all gays, women, blacks, and jews. I hope to eventually die alone.

We the People of the GOP,
We the Liberals of the United States, in Order to prove ourselves Correct, establish a divisive Bandwagon, insure an arrogant Society, provide a Lack of foresight, promote action in spite of Consequence, and secure our Notions by agreeing with each other, do ordain and establish this Egocentric Constitution for the United States of America.

When you don't like what someone says, just misrepresent it.

What one does in their private lives does not effect anyone else.
Until we agree on this, we probably won't agree on much else. It's a false premise, as far as I'm concerned, so anything based on it is in question. But I continue on..

So gays can get married. That gonna turn your straight child gay. No.
Did I say it would? No. See above. If a child watches me pee out in my front yard, does it mean they will do the same? No. Does it have an affect on them? Note that this does not imply that every action affects society. That is not determinable.

SHeltering people from having to make moral decisions does not make them a more moral person. I believe the bible states that the thought of sin is just as sinful as the act.
It does not make them a moral person, definitely. Does teaching your children values, and providing for them a good example, influence them to become a "better" person? Why is there so much violence in the Middle East? Does it have anything to do with the child's parents or society?

The second statement is more or less correct, but I don't see what it has to do with anything. (I am guessing that you are referring to Matt. 5:28.) But since you are mentioning the Bible, it does have evidence of homosexuality (read Sodom and Gomorrah).

Your god (by your) beliefs gave you free will.
I don't know how you know my beliefs. Personally, I support determinism. I am not sure that free will (choice not determined by prior causes) exists at all.

The first lesson we ever learned in existance was if you say "no" people are gonna do it, just to see why...
That sounds like a cop out to avoid responsibility. The truth of the statement depends greatly on consequences (operant conditioning, for example).

And, on your second paragraph; I may be an idealist but I would marry for love, not sex. Your view only sees the sex act, (and imo is discusted by it) and not the love.
What you are saying: if a man and woman marry, but a man and a man cannot, then the only factor in marriage is sex. May I say that your view of love being the only factor in marriage is based entirely on selfishness? Both are probably just as valid. By the way, I never said my view was to marry for sex only or love only.

I am taking off. Sorry for such a lengthy post. Have a good weekend, guys. You have given me some things to consider, and I appreciate it.

[mysticalninjajesus]

m0oni9 i have a question for you.. how is it you can watch aqua teen hunger force and never of smoked weed in your life?

[Zisct1]

Props to m0oni9 ^ ^ ^!!

[Baron Sprite]

What one does in their private lives does not effect anyone else.

depends if they throw radioactive materials into a pot of water and boil them, pretty sure that would effect anyone close enough.. mmm radioactive steam.

[Baron Sprite]

besides the constitution is just a piece of paper to protect slavery and plutocracy.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

yay for a debtor nation. ww1 england banked in their values in the usa for what.. something like 100mil gbp for military goods, we broke out then into a creditor nation, around 1970s slowed down and reverted to debtor, we're what, >7t debt now? nice common defense and general welfare note btw, that means money can be slushed about whereever.


Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

yeah when the congressional party got shanked by shays rebellion it was pretty clear to constitutional framers that they were boned without an army of their own.

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

yeah basically you can do your own thing aslong as you do what we say.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

that pretty much means your ass is grass if you ever try to change the system

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

yeah bush might want to have this tatooed on his asshole so when the saudi's are fucking it they can double check it.

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

crap, was giving bin laden's family a free ticket out of the usa after 911 giving aid and fomfort? I think so.

Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

yeah anyone without money is really gonna be thinking about joining up after the age of 35. gotta keep those old rich white guys in power. by that age you've been force fed so much bullshit in your life you are all for the machine.

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

basically you can't do shit about it.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

pretty much if you don't get a puppet you still have the legion to do what you want, congress is a fucking shopping mall of bribed people.

[Melwin]

Not to rephrase it, but I interpret it as securing blessings, which come as a consequence of liberty. The question seems more to be: what is a blessing? It again falls to interpretation. Who will decide on an interpretation, if not the majority? Either laws should or should not be controlled by the majority. It can't be both ways. If you disagree with a decision, argue to the majority, rather than isolating the minority.

What if the majority suddenly decided the minorities were no longer allowed to voice their opinions, or vote? What if the majority decided that dissent was no longer allowed?

[KhaN]

Im european and glad Bush was elected, because it will enfore european cohesion, weak USA = Strong europe. But one thing i REALLY wonder is how people can vote Bush, i mean, drop the iraqi shit, and look at Bush bilan, its like the worst done by an US president. If the four next years are like the last four years, in an economic view, maybe USA will no more be the first country in the world lol.

[Baron Sprite]

maybe USA will no more be the first country in the world lol.

yeah... it will take more then 4 years to work through 11.7 trillion in market revenue a year. usa's per capita gdp is still worlds ahead of the next on the list... and yeah europe isn't really anywhere on there.

[Melwin]

maybe USA will no more be the first country in the world lol.

yeah... it will take more then 4 years to work through 11.7 trillion in market revenue a year. usa's per capita gdp is still worlds ahead of the next on the list... and yeah europe isn't really anywhere on there.

Luxembourgh is like $20000 ahead of you and Norway is equal to you according to your own intelligence (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html).

owned by a stupid little country in the middle of Europe and a bunch of monkeys up north http://humme.dk/emot/sax.gif

[Baron Sprite]

not according to my economics textbooks.

[Melwin]

not according to my economics textbooks.

your economics textbooks are clearly outdated

[mysticalninjajesus]

what if baron replies and tells you its the 2004 edition? THEN WHAT WILL YOU DO MELWIN!?!?!? OMG U BE DONE FORE

[Melwin]

the CIA trumps his stupid books anyway

[m0oni9]

m0oni9 i have a question for you.. how is it you can watch aqua teen hunger force and never of smoked weed in your life?
I was spanked with moon rocks until I became submissive.

What if the majority suddenly decided the minorities were no longer allowed to voice their opinions, or vote? What if the majority decided that dissent was no longer allowed?
Aren't some of the "minority" claiming that the "majority" is doing this right now? What is happening? You tell me.

This is such an ambiguous question in the first place. It is more of a FUD type of scenario than anything else. Example: What if the minority tomorrow decided on a physical assault on the majority?

[Baron Sprite]

latest edition, I'll take fiscal analysts word over the WMD IN IRAQ word

[Melwin]

Aren't some of the "minority" claiming that the "majority" is doing this right now? What is happening? You tell me.

This is such an ambiguous question in the first place. It is more of a FUD type of scenario than anything else. Example: What if the minority tomorrow decided on a physical assault on the majority?

Strawman. Whether or not any minority is claiming anything is irrelevant to the core of this argument. But nice try.

There's nothing ambiguous about it in the first place, but let me clarify. Imagine this scenario: A law is passed that says, in legalese, "Only white Christians may vote".

The physical assault scenario is another strawman. Stick to the argument.

[mattmeck]

a law like that wont ever pas in todays society, so your arguement is hard to debate.

If a law saying only white Christians could vote i would be a General in the revolution!!!!

[m0oni9]

Strawman. Whether or not any minority is claiming anything is irrelevant to the core of this argument. But nice try.
My point by showing my ridiculous example was to show the ridiculousness of your example. From my vantage point, you are evading the original question of whether a majority should rule or not by constructing these false scenarios. A straw man attempts to change the appearance of the opposing argument. If the original question was "should majority rule?" then I do not think that I am the one constructing straw men here, especially when you draw on biases, like the following:

There's nothing ambiguous about it in the first place, but let me clarify. Imagine this scenario: A law is passed that says, in legalese, "Only white Christians may vote".
Only because I hate unanswered questions, I will reply to this.

First we assume that there is majority support this law. By the same token, we also assume that there is a minority which opposes the law. We also assume that somehow this law was passed.

If you are asking what will happen, I will say that I can only make the assumption that the law will be revoked. I will admit, it is hard for me to argue against a point with such false premises.

It is already clear that the majority has made poor decisions in the past. I am sure that they will in the future. I must ask my original question again. How can we better govern if not by a majority? I never said or implied that the majority opinion should not be questioned.

[Melwin]

How will this law be revoked if the minorities no longer have a say? http://humme.dk/emot/confused.gif

[m0oni9]

How will this law be revoked if the minorities no longer have a say?
How has it happened in the past? I am sure the same factors that have shaped things like equal rights would come into play.

[Daeath]

How will this law be revoked if the minorities no longer have a say?
How has it happened in the past? I am sure the same factors that have shaped things like equal rights would come into play.

Exactly - women have become property holders, segregation (except the confederates) has been abolished, Apple Mac's are slowly becoming paper holders...

Thru the right of public speech, public demonstration, etc. the minority has been able to shape the majority's views - a freedom granted by both the Constitution and the spilt blood of the majority. But its still the majority rules - doesn't mean its the 'right' choice or the 'best', but its the best setup we have.

M0oni9, will you father my next child? :lol:

[Melwin]

Exactly - women have become property holders, segregation (except the confederates) has been abolished, Apple Mac's are slowly becoming paper holders...

Thru the right of public speech, public demonstration, etc. the minority has been able to shape the majority's views - a freedom granted by both the Constitution and the spilt blood of the majority. But its still the majority rules - doesn't mean its the 'right' choice or the 'best', but its the best setup we have.

M0oni9, will you father my next child? :lol:

Ah, but that's where it gets funny.

Since the majority holds absolute power, they can also outlaw public speech, public demonstrations and every kind of dissent imaginable. Even a 51% majority, according to m0oni, should be able to do this.

The fact that the US managed to pull out of the minority oppression doesn't mean that it will always happen, or even that it happens most of the time. As person of some reknown proved in the '30s.

[Cisyouc]

/applaud m0oni9

[m0oni9]

Since the majority holds absolute power, they can also outlaw public speech, public demonstrations and every kind of dissent imaginable. Even a 51% majority, according to m0oni, should be able to do this.
We're going back and forth at this point. By this reasoning, I could say that you want the minority to have power to silence the majority, and power to create the laws of the land.

[Baron Sprite]

Exactly - women have become property holders, segregation (except the confederates) has been abolished, Apple Mac's are slowly becoming paper holders...

too bad women get paid less on average and are hired less on average... seems to still be in effect to me

[m0oni9]

Exactly - women have become property holders, segregation (except the confederates) has been abolished, Apple Mac's are slowly becoming paper holders...
too bad women get paid less on average and are hired less on average... seems to still be in effect to me
I wonder if you share this view: I tend to look at most things as either progressing or regressing. Equal rights seems to be a progressive issue to me. In order for any social issue to change, a transition must occur. Since a transition must occur, it must be judged based on its rate of progression, rather than its state only.

[Daeath]

I wonder if you share this view: I tend to look at most things as either progressing or regressing. Equal rights seems to be a progressive issue to me. In order for any social issue to change, a transition must occur. Since a transition must occur, it must be judged based on its rate of progression, rather than its state only.

Agreed. And the US government has done a great job with handling social issues such as this and segregation. I know that the USAF was the first government department to fully desegragate in '47 and I know that women aren't paid any less or promoted any less in said service branch.

Change is hardly ever instant - and rarely should be.

And for those who feel that what you do in private doesn't affect others: tell that to the children of the parent who OD'd on crack or alcohol, or the neighbors of the kid-genius who built a small nuclear reactor in his garage and couldn't properly contain the radiation, or the spouse who contracted the HIV virus from an unfaithful partner.

Every choice has a consequence - and I don't have to try something just because someone told me not to. I know not to point a loaded gun at my temple and pull the trigger without trying it. I know that whizzing on an electric fence isn't the brightest idea either. You may feel its okay to sit in your room and jack-off to the Sear's lingerie catalog, or smoke some pot while watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force - but those decisions have consequences. A childhood friend liked to masterbate, making a life-long habit out of it. He became addicticed to porn (a needed source to fulfill his habit), and his attitude toward sexuality was very carnal. He became prone to cheating on his wife, caught the HIV virus and passed it onto his faithful spouse (all this happening over a course of 20 years). Another high school aquaintance loved a little pot, especially before his MTV liquid television or Orange Clockwork viewing. He loved the feeling of being high - of having his mind expand. Soon MJ wasn't so exciting, and he was found dead 2 weeks after high school graduation from crack OD - full college academic scholarship lying on his desk. He could've become a great military officer, or discover the next-best libido drug, or simply pass that knowledge onto future high school students: but now his worm-infested corpse lies six feet under a California graveyard.

Not that everyone who masturbates or smokes pot is going to end up like these people, but that possibility exists for each who does. Stop with the little things, and you cannot progress into something more serious. Will your life be less without jerking off, or a little chemical high? If you really think so, then you have a very limited exposure to what life can really offer you.

"Wise is the man who learns from his own mistakes, but wiser is the man who learns from the mistakes of others."

[Baron Sprite]

I'll wait for a black or woman president before I say progress has been made since the last major update, right now things are just getting cockblocked into the back burner with other issues

[Draupner]

I'll wait for a black or woman president before I say progress has been made since the last major update, right now things are just getting cockblocked into the back burner with other issues

Clinton '08

[Daeath]

I'll be very suprised if Hillary is nominated in 2008 - let alone the Democrat's pick to represent the party. Hillary's just another Kerry, only louder. I think democrats, in hind perspective, mutually agree that Kerry was a weak canidate (much like his campaign strategy - weak). If the democrat's are going to beat out the Gobernator in '08 they need to find a 'moral liberal'. If that canidate happens to be black or female or both - so be it, you may get your wish Baron. But making an individual's race or sex an issue is racism/sexism. I could care less about the pigment of your skin, or the shape of your sexual gonads - since when does that make you a good/poor decision maker?

It's all about the issues.

[Melwin]

Since the majority holds absolute power, they can also outlaw public speech, public demonstrations and every kind of dissent imaginable. Even a 51% majority, according to m0oni, should be able to do this.
We're going back and forth at this point. By this reasoning, I could say that you want the minority to have power to silence the majority, and power to create the laws of the land.

what

No I don't. I support majority rule, but not absolute majority rule. It's far too easy to get 51% majority for supreme simple majority rule. I never said anything to the contrary.

Edit: Also, Daeath, no democrat will have to run against the Governator for quite some years, and it certainly won't be in '08 :P

[m0oni9]

No I don't. I support majority rule, but not absolute majority rule. It's far too easy to get 51% majority for supreme simple majority rule.
Then I am not understanding your argument. If you want to suggest majority rule as a better solution than absolute majority rule, okay. But I am still having trouble seeing how a decision with majority support will be overturned by this "49%" minority. When does majority rule turn into absolute majority rule?

[Melwin]

No I don't. I support majority rule, but not absolute majority rule. It's far too easy to get 51% majority for supreme simple majority rule.
Then I am not understanding your argument. If you want to suggest majority rule as a better solution than absolute majority rule, okay. But I am still having trouble seeing how a decision with majority support will be overturned by this "49%" minority. When does majority rule turn into absolute majority rule?

I think we agree but are just wording the arguments in different ways.

Absolute majority rule is when the 51% majority of voters has the power to vote the other 49% out, making them a 100% majority.

Majority rule is when certain rights like voting are guaranteed. :p

[Baron Sprite]

It's all about the issues.

Just like there are nukes in iraq

[route]

Just curious so don't blow up with some crazy attack on my intelligence but has the iraq war personally affected you or are you just using it as a crutch to support your obvious bitterness?

[Baron Sprite]

going to war is a huge fucking deal, and sending your country to war with the notion of a preemptive strike (which is a lie) and then have it proven that the whole thing was a lie is a huge fucking deal.

ever watch the news? it went from
shock and awe
hunt for saddam
operation iraqi freedom

notice how there is a lack of operation wtfsecure the wmd caches? once we blew the crap out of one of the oldest civilizations in the world (which I could give a fuck about don't think I care about iraqis), we hunted down their insane leader (sure why not he's a douchebag), looked for his supposed nukes and bio bombs and couldn't find shit so then seamlessly moved into "liberating" the iraqis.

[m0oni9]

Absolute majority rule is when the 51% majority of voters has the power to vote the other 49% out, making them a 100% majority.
That's a misrepresentation. Because majority rules on an issue does not make that majority 100%. It makes them the majority. By the way, for reference, you might want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority, which describes absolute majority, among others.
Majority rule is when certain rights like voting are guaranteed. :p
If the majority does not agree with the minority, then the minority's voting rights have been infringed? I am still having trouble understanding why the minority should have power over the majority.

[eq_addict_08]

Ok, been reading for a while. No real strong arguments that I felt needed a comeback against. But I'll comment on a couple things.

And for those who feel that what you do in private doesn't affect others: tell that to the children of the parent who OD'd on crack or alcohol, or the neighbors of the kid-genius who built a small nuclear reactor in his garage and couldn't properly contain the radiation, or the spouse who contracted the HIV virus from an unfaithful partner.
I would say, punish the true crime, no something that happened to take place before the crime. Charge child neglect as such. I know parents who are great parents and do drugs. People have been charged with passing AIDS on to a partner, that is a crime. But the unfaithfulness is not (though depending on vows you made, could be a verbal contract for faithfulness).
Will your life be less without jerking off, or a little chemical high? If you really think so, then you have a very limited exposure to what life can really offer you.
It is not anyones business what I think about these things. Maybe life would be less without them. That is for me to decide, not you.

Oh well, people will awlays try and tell other people the "propper" way they should be living their own lives. Great thing this is a free and fairly liberal country where those A-holes will eventually lose.

[route]

I think as far as the iraq war goes, obviously the nuke thing was sort of overblown. We can all pretty much agree there's no nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are a different story, he used them in the past. There are satellite photos, as well as on the ground intelligence that watched him move large numbers of trucks into syria days before the war began. Also iraq is about the size of california in terms of landmass, not to mention half of it is barren desert and a large part of what's not is mountainous. Basically I'm still sure there are chemical and/or biological weapons in Iraq, they just haven't been found yet.

And as a side note, even though the nuclear threat was a scare tactic, which is low, iraq has now sort of fallen in under the blanket global war on terror, where it belonged. I think it was just too hard to convince the american public that even while people were fighting in afghanistan, iraq had to be handled. So yes, he lied about nukes but no, the war isn't unjustified. Also it was always about liberating iraqi's as an ancillary mission, it just wasn't as hyped by the media and the presidency as the weapons were.

[eq_addict_08]

route, you must believe anything. The reason was never WMD or liberating the people, those were just something that was fed to us. When the first lie was called, they came up with another story. The end does not justify the means..

[Cisyouc]

We can all pretty much agree there's no nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are a different story, he used them in the past.Uh, no. Saddam had PLENTY of time to move them to Iran or Syria. You cannot prove definitively prove they didn't have weapons, and we can't definitively prove they had them.

[route]

I'm not even going to bother telling you how i feel about your comment about my believing anything. And in regard to the nuclear weapons he may have had them but there was never any conclusive evidence, so it's all really just speculation. There was mountains of proof that he had chemical and biological weapons. So yeah it's entirely possible he had nukes but it will probably never be proven, which in the world theater means they didn't exist.

edit: i'd also like to add that i personally don't give a shit if iraq had nuclear weapons or not.

[eq_addict_08]

Uh yea, reading my last post I have to apologize, route. It was way too rash. Sorry, nuthing against you personaly, I just happen to truly believe that the oilfields were and continue to be the primary reason for us being in Iraq at all. Everything else is just a good excuse to give to the general populus..

[Baron Sprite]

where the fuck do you think he got the chemicals from?

-> USA <- leading arms dealer in the world. think he decided to gas out of the fucking joy of it? he doesn't blow his nose without the ok from usg.


as for the comment about war on terror, that's just a bullshit lie for oil and other industry. why do you think we shoved a puppet goverment into afganistan? oil pipeline. think we took iraq to feed oil to the suvs assraping the streets with giant metal cocks? no it's a gas station for the next target, not to mention we cockblocked china out of iraq. it's like moving a bishop or rook.

saddam tried to kill his daddy and baby bush wants to do the cowboy thing and avenge it. I don't think anyone in the usa besides the pathetic humanitarian fucks gave a shit about anyone in the middle east.

peak oil was hit in what, 94 96 98? sometime around there, it's a downward slope from here, china is pumping out industrial revolution, think industy is fed by sunshine and giggles? the giant plummes of black smoke is the result of a giant cock being shoved up the world's asshole. oil burns and industry grows. all you're going to hear for the next 4 years is derka derka mohammad allah jihad or until the whole of the middle east singing the star spangled fucking banner.

it's kind of hard to win a war when you're fucking with a bunch of dillusioned fucks who think they get into heaven to fuck a never ending supply of young virgins (look it up that's how it is said I shit thee not) by blowing themselves up with c4 to take out a few civilians. what a fucking joke, I have more respect for a fucking serial killer then a suicide bomber, they atleast have the nuts to do it themselves instead of screaming derka derka and pushing a glowy red button in the middle of a pizza parlor. only way to win a war like this is to use the swordfish method. was something to the tune of: They bomb a church, we bomb ten. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourists, we tactically nuke an entire city.

that's how you win a war like this. infantry and armor strikes are for suckers.

believe anything other then above and you're just another mindless drone with your eyes glued the fuck shut by mass media. wake the fuck up and admit you're owned and enslaved by the machine. you can get hyper and defensive trying to convince yourself that you are the voice of the revolution or the voice of the conglomorate, but you're really just a worthless bot bitch that can be worthlessly emulated and replaced by half the world's population. my ai is better at being a fucking idiot then most anyone, and it's smarter then most people, pretty sad that anything you can say in a chat room is undermined by about 620 lines of code. wanna say yeah but that's the extremes? I can mimic the middle level with about 1/6th of that. you're fucking pathetic and you disgust me, bitches.

[route]

95% of that post is the same jaded rhetoric people have been vomiting onto the internet since the iraq war started. Another 2% is dedicated solely to anal sex references. That leaves about 3% worth commenting on. We seem to have different vantage points regarding the war. There's a small chance I'm wrong but it's very small so I'm going to assume you watched the war from your living room, which may be why you feel so strongly that infantry and armor are "for suckers". As far as how the war should be fought you really don't seem to have a clue, so you can preach hate for the government all you want but where the military is concerned you'd save what little face you have left by not boorishly ranting on things you don't understand.

[a_Guest03]

There are two professions that will never run out of work. Never. Guess the first one?
Prostitution
Second is soldier.

Baron, you're right that no one person is the voice of a revolution. As a democracy, we're set up so that nobody but a select few can change anything. The people with power are senators, congresspeople (men and womenses), and el Presidente. They outrule us all the time. So yeah, our opinions don't really matter in government between elections.

But think about other professions first. How much of a single person's opinion matters in the emergency room or in pricing of goods at Walmart? Government is no different. They go where the money goes, like everyone else. And in capitalism, we believe that positive income is good.

So this war that you claim is about oil - is it really? Even if it were, would it matter? This is what our country is founded on: the dominance of other countries in all things power. I know I sound like another "boot in the ass" country-loving redneck, but the truth of the matter is that war happens and has happened since before the Romans. We know that people who win wars usually have higher lifestyle expectations. We know that it's inhumane to take things from defenseless people without recompense.

But I'm not the president. I don't know what the president knows, so I can't complain because I don't know what the fuck is going on. The media always thinks it knows the answer, but even detailed facts could be distorted by our media.

Blame the president if you want, but I blame the people. We have too many needs, and it's not the average American who wants to give up his car for a subway system that will take 5-15 years to assemble and force the rebuilding of communities. Nobody wants to give up a strong economy and decrease our standard of living. We're in a stretch of increasing demands for increase of lifestyle. We medicate people who want to die of old age. We insist on having the highest-paying jobs in the world. We must have at least 1 car per family, sometimes averaging over 1 car per person. We pay our athletes more than doctors.

This money comes from the blood of others somewhere. Every great thing we have forces someone in the world to have something poor. In no way can Americans be considered the hardest-working people of the world. From my experience, I know that Japan has outworked us on a person-by-person basis. It's a great work ethic those guys have.

If we were generous and communistic, maybe we would be more fair, but we're not.

If Iraq hadn't violated its UN sanction, then the president would be an Asshat for attacking Iraq. But Iraq had sanctions set, and failed to comply, and we deposed the government according to the UN treaty. If the US wanted oil from it as well, then it's probably in the best interest of the government and this country to receive cheaper oil. So the US government represents the United States of Asshats, and we're all responsible because we don't conserve our goods and decrease our waste.

Politics won't change our needs. It will only affect which person tries to meet our unreasonable demands. Kerry or Bush - it doesn't matter... We would just bill our own people for our needs with Kerry, and Bush will bill the rest of the world. That's why Bush wins. We don't like paying our own debts.

That's my theory. Politics and society are evil by nature. If the rich of the US couldn't vote, and the Iraqis could vote, then Kerry would've won. The Iraqis don't want to pay for us to take their oil.

I need to wash myself :) US government makes me feel dirty.

[eq_addict_08]

There are two..... US government makes me feel dirty.

You have done a great job of expressing the thoughts I would not out of pure PC. It's a line many do not wish to cross and even more do not wish to even see.

[a_Guest03]

Baron, another good point is that it's hard to win a war against delusional opponents.

Remember what we did to Japan? They'd kill their own families before they'd be occupied by the US. Emperor was god, and god said protect him.

The war on terror will end when people start quelling the resistance until it's no longer reasonable to fight back... Their will will be broken eventually. It took 2 giant bombs for Japan. Let's hope it's less than that for the terrorist resistance.

[Tree]

I WIN
*fake edit*
whoops wrong thread
(btw this is just getting silly, both threads!)

[Cisyouc]

saddam tried to kill his daddy and baby bush wants to do the cowboy thing and avenge it. I don't think anyone in the usa besides the pathetic humanitarian fucks gave a shit about anyone in the middle east. Sigh. No, 'baby bush' is not trying to avenge the 'failed attempts'. It was bascially a bad (in my opinion) attempt to get a PR spin of the main objective out there, because the Americans in the Administration's eyes couldn't 'handle' the truth. Which was, to show the middle-east we arent going to take no bull; you are with the terrorists, or with us. Why Iraq? They were a threat. If you watched the debates, you can see that John Kerry accused President Bush of 2 things. (1) Doing in North Korea what he says we SHOULD have done with Iraq is bad? (2) Going after threats before they materialize WHILE KEEPING THE OPTINION of 'Bush had prior knowledge and threats of 9/11'. Give me a freakin break. I absolutely love how much liberal media can misinform people.

Edit: Added more.

[Killerlol]

Quote:
We can all pretty much agree there's no nuclear weapons. Chemical and biological weapons are a different story, he used them in the past.
Uh, no. Saddam had PLENTY of time to move them to Iran or Syria. You cannot prove definitively prove they didn't have weapons, and we can't definitively prove they had them. On the topic of Saddam having those weapons, also think of how much open desert there is in that area. For all we know they might of just hid what they had.

[Baron Sprite]

95% of that post is the same jaded rhetoric people have been vomiting onto the internet since the iraq war started..

too bad I don't read other posts on the internet about the iraq war and I tossed that post out to piss people like you off.

so I'm going to assume you watched the war from your living room, which may be why you feel so strongly that infantry and armor are "for suckers".

got about 35 friends USMC AF and MI. I don't yell at my tv to farenheit 9/11 like you to come on the internet and bash democrats or liberals because they made a movie about why your goverment sucks.

As far as how the war should be fought you really don't seem to have a clue, so you can preach hate for the government all you want but where the military is concerned you'd save what little face you have left by not boorishly ranting on things you don't understand


yeah tell that to my terrorisim & modern warfare with advanced tactical theory and military management certs. if you think you know shit, you would know to shut the fuck up now about military tactics. unless you're a direct decendant of sun tzu you better sit the fuck down.

I absolutely love how much liberal media can misinform people.

I don't need the media to form my ideas for me, I make them up all on my own. you can have fun watching cnn in your hasmat suit in your fallout shelter though. I pity you.

On the topic of Saddam having those weapons, also think of how much open desert there is in that area. For all we know they might of just hid what they had.

yeah you're pretty freaking warped if you think that. if your country was being invaded and you were pretty much fucked, wouldn't you nuke all your enemies within range? wouldn't you blast the fuck out of the america MCPs? they posted our fucking troop postitions on TV, it wouldn't be that hard.

do you have any idea how hard it is to hide things in there desert when you have about 900 eyes in the sky watching every single inch of your country with about 200 different types of scanners? nuclear weapons leave a nice big trail that is very easy to spot. have you ever lived in a desert? you can't just hitch a ride in a pickup with sapwood chilling in the back and expect not to get noticed by the usm intelligence network or for them not to notice the hole you dug it into.

[Draupner]

Baron i'm sure he watches Fox not cnn :p

[Cisyouc]

I don't need the media to form my ideas for me, I make them up all on my own. you can have fun watching cnn in your hasmat suit in your fallout shelter though. I pity you.Excuse me? CNN is liberal.

[Baron Sprite]

does it look like I watch it or something? you fill in the blank for me.

[Cisyouc]

as for the comment about war on terror, that's just a bullshit lie for oil and other industry. why do you think we shoved a puppet goverment into afganistan? oil pipeline. think we took iraq to feed oil to the suvs assraping the streets with giant metal cocks? no it's a gas station for the next target, not to mention we cockblocked china out of iraq. it's like moving a bishop or rook.Sounds like an opinion formed from being liberal brainwashed.

[Baron Sprite]

Sounds like an opinion formed from being liberal brainwashed.

sounds like a plea attempt instead of a valid counter point.

please quote references of liberals stating china wanted a slice of iraq and we attacked to stop them from capturing the oil fields and expanding their global economic prowess through fuel consumption to produce goods.

please quote references of liberals stating iraq is a fueling point for further invasion.

then quote my quotes of their quotes thereby referencing as a liberal.

thanks

[route]

Actually Baron Sprite, before you stuff any more of your foot in your mouth, i was on the ground the morning the war started. So all your imaginary friends in the marines and those air force people living it up in kuwait really count for anything in terms of your war information.

It never ceases to amaze me how when you know you have no leg to stand on you just start swearing and saying the same tired things like "sit the fuck down". I mean really, do you think your opinion is so highly valued that if you tell someone to shut up they'll just do it? It seems more like some pathetic attempt by you to reenforce in your mind that whatever stupid ideas you're expounding at the moment have some merit. It's especially funny how you thought whatever certification you pretend to have would impress anyone. I know i'm impressed by 60 year old retired generals teaching vietnam tactics to people who have never served in the military.

And your inane assumptions about hiding things in the desert are as usual, completely backwards. It's actually very easy to hide in the desert. The fact that you think we have hundreds of people scouring the ground from the sky makes me wonder about those "certs".

For example, when we pulled up to karbala on april 2nd no one knew the medina division was dug in at the karbala gap. We found out the hard way when some apache's did a fly by and took a whole hell of a lot of fire. Maybe the hundreds of intel analysts just missed the last major city between our position and baghdad?

Not to mention the fact that no one even looked at fallujah until the end of june when 3rd ACR tried and failed to take the city. It was completely overlooked for 3 months, which is why it's turned out to be the insurgent stronghold it is today. Our massive satellite network must have missed that one too.

And the reason Saddam didn't nuke us, in case you didn't learn in your certification classes, is because he didn't plan on losing control of the country. There are hundreds of recovered documents detailing plans about how after we captured the cities, they'd begin their guerilla war, which they did, and after they drove us out saddam would regain control. If he used any of the weapons we knew he had he'd lose all world support. Maybe you missed the day they taught that in your advanced tactical theory class. Really makes one wonder what you actually do know.

[Baron Sprite]

yeah well your whole post pretty much just reassures me you're either 1 - clueless (probably), or 2 - ... well there really is no 2.

if you were even in iraq (doubtful), what are you? if you're MI you're just stupid cannon fodder and what is the fucking point of me talking to you? what was your CO yelling at you as you went in? every unit I've heard is that the weapons are hot and are set to go.

It never ceases to amaze me how when you know you have no leg to stand on you just start swearing and saying the same tired things like "sit the fuck down".

sit the fuck down. It never ceases to amaze me when someone tries to act intelligent on a fucking internet message board with their long thought out sentances that they probably read more than once and ran through a spell checker. you think I honestly give a shit about you at all? well fuck that would explain the MI part.

If he used any of the weapons we knew he had he'd lose all world support

I'm really sure he gave a flying fuck about the world's opinion after his capital got flashbombed and pretty much every divison available of the af that could be conjured out of some old white guy's asshole was either ready or going. if he was captured without blasting the shit out of anything he could he was going to either be executed or jailed for eternity. why the fuck would he care?

oh, and it's people like me that command people like you, I wouldn't be talking down on our certifications, especially figuring since you seem so in love with the war and your service, seems like my level of training did a great job. also, why are you here instead of out on the field? doesn't iraq have hidden wmds? why would you put yourself on the target?

how about for your next post you think outside the box and actually come up with an argument instead of regurgitating the same psuedo-intellectual defensive crap you have been all along. doesn't matter if you can form sentances if the content is hollow.

[m0oni9]

I have been interested in reasoning lately. This is not meant as a contribution to the argument. I am taking the liberty to consider some of it out of the context of this thread. Feel free to correct.

yeah well your whole post pretty much just reassures me you're either 1 - clueless (probably), or 2 - ... well there really is no 2.
Ad hominem. Trying to paint the arguer as clueless to invalidate further argument.

if you're MI you're just stupid cannon fodder and what is the fucking point of me talking to you?
Ad hominem. "You're MI, therefore your arguments have no merit." Also leaves room for excuse to evade further issues.

It never ceases to amaze me when someone tries to act intelligent on a fucking internet message board with their long thought out sentances that they probably read more than once and ran through a spell checker.
Non sequitur. "You have thought-out sentences, therefore you are trying to act intelligent."

you think I honestly give a shit about you at all? well fuck that would explain the MI part.
Ad hominem, non sequitur. "You think I give a shit about you, therefore you are an MI, and there is no point in talking to you."

I'm really sure he gave a flying fuck about the world's opinion after his capital got flashbombed
This paragraph appeared to try to argue a point.

oh, and it's people like me that command people like you,
Ad hominem.

I wouldn't be talking down on our certifications, especially figuring since you seem so in love with the war and your service, seems like my level of training did a great job.
Ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur. "You are in love with the war and with service, therefore you cannot talk down our certifications." I am not sure what premise the "my level of training did a great job" proposition follows from.

also, why are you here instead of out on the field?
Evading the issue.

how about for your next post you think outside the box and actually come up with an argument instead of regurgitating the same psuedo-intellectual defensive crap you have been all along.
Straw man. Attempts to change appearance of argument by insisting that one did not exist.

doesn't matter if you can form sentances if the content is hollow.
Where did that argument come from? Why is being able to form sentences a bad thing? Is typing out poor sentences a set up to provide future proof that a writer was not "too involved" in a post? As an aside, I think this is the first time I have really realized the use of words like "shit" and "fuck" to have the intent of strengthening one argument, and/or weakening another.

[route]

Baron this time when i was reading what you typed i was actually laughing, and few attacks on me personally cause me to laugh.

It really looks like you copied and pasted half of what i typed and just reinserted it into your post like no one would notice you were basically responding to everything i said by repeating what i said.

Again i'm going to call your "certs" into question here because if you know much about MI you know they're not cannon fodder, the military spends too much money training them to put them in any kind of danger.

References to AF (air force i'm assuming) 'divisions'? There are no air force divisions, they've got a completely different organizational structure from the army or marines. The capital that was seized wasn't nearly all the money he had available. The main palace in baghdad, now known as camp victory, had a banquet table with roughly 600 million usd stacked on it. There were also numerous trucks seized by a LRS detachment near mosul carrying millions more in gold bars.

"Your level of training"? What level? You're a random person on the internet that days ago was talking about how everyone messed up and now you're trying to take credit?

As for why i'm still here and not there, i don't know if the thought occured to you, but when units deploy they dont stay there permanently. We've got this thing called a "rotation" where by units move in, do their mission, get replaced by other units and go home. And if you're really concerned about me being here, my battalion is actually slated to leave some time just after thanksgiving. So rest assured, even while you're on the internet talking out your ass about things you don't understand, real men and women are taking care of business.

I could probably write a book about all the stupid things you've said in the last few days but m0oni already handled the actual dissection of your flawed arguments so I'll just end here. Hope to hear from you real soon.

Love, route

p.s. when i'm typing i'm already sitting down so you can stop typing "sit the fuck down".

[Daeath]

Route: Army?

Sounds like it, caught a whiff of cynicalness towards the air-conditioned/cable tv watching Airmen in Kuwait... don't think too harshly of us, not our fault we don't have to march under the heat of the Iraqi sun! ;) But like football: there may be a defense team, an offense team, and a special team but at the end of the day we're all striving for that Superbowl ring.

Regarding Baron's level of military knowledge/experience, well - it ranks at about the same level of his English mastery. I didn't know that the fine institutions of South Park offered a minor in Advanced Military Tactical Intelligence with the more well-known major of Professional English Explicative Communications...

Who better to understand the war in Iraq than those who actually fight it, either marching thru the streets of Fallujah or the intel analyst supporting them? Look at the volumes of erroneous history books written not by the actual soldier/commander, but by self-proclaimed 'certified experts' whose only exposure to war was a raise in oil prices and in nightly updates from a short-sided left-wing/right-wing media.

I can say that there have been some great posts in this particular forum from all sides of public opinion. Isn't this country great or what? Yes, there are a growing number of 'Asshats' but there are still a great many people who are genuine and care more about the needs of others than the needs of themselves. Look at this emulator: how many countless hours have people spent making this a better product at no reward to themselves (other then knowing that there are people enjoying their talents)?

Being in the military, I am directly exposed to many self-less individuals. Here's a quote for Cisyouc: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." I consider you all (even Baron who makes me laugh) my friends. I don't mean just the 'Jesus-lovers', but there are many people of all races/sexes/wealth(or lack of)/education(or lack of) that still care about the common good of all people.

I care about the people of America. I care for the people of Iraq. I may not like some of the things people do, but I care about my fellow man. Who cares what the reasons are/were for war in Iraq/Afghanistan? Is the end result better off for the people of the world? I believe so.

An interesting fact I just learned about the nukes we dropped in Japan: in an instant 130K people, men/women/children, were dead - most civilian. However, at that time Japan had run out of proper resources to carry on war against the 'Allied' nations. Like someone posting earlier about the Emperor and the desperate Japanese, civilians would rather rush into the battlefield with pitchforks (due to the lack of bullets) and die then let the Coalition forces occupy their homeland. Should the war have been allowed to continue millions, both Allied and Axis, would have perished. The cost of Nagasaki’s and Hiroshima's lives saved millions others - including the more than 150K POW's the Japanese held captive and treated rather inhumanely. I think that's a great example of a wartime 'end justified the means' (speaking about using nukes).

This war, the people who fought in it, the President/Senate/Advisors/Commanders who led it - all benefited humanity in the end. War is never pretty, that's what makes it war. It should never be flaunted, overused, or abused - and I don't think OEF or OIF is. America isn't perfect, its President never was nor will be - but in the end we have helped to make the world a better place, just like many other countries too.

[Baron Sprite]

again everybody always just tries to post critical comments on my posts, try to come up with an original argument this is just getting boring. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings with colourful words moon and router.

AF == Armed Forces - divisions - army navy airforce, ect.

It really looks like you copied and pasted half of what i typed and just reinserted it into your post like no one would notice you were basically responding to everything i said by repeating what i said.


really, because I was thinking the same thing about you and moon and pretty much everybody else that replies to me, you just copy and paste the same crap or copy and paste my crap with some lame attempt to analyze a post I throw down on a message board at like 5 am.


I really don't have much else to add to this, I'm seriously running out of ideas, I type this shit whenever I have a 3-5 minute break in my day for argument sake and there really aren't many points left to argue.

"m0oni9": yeah... just critiziing my post, atleast try to be original like route and post some fucking facts mixed in there

also: you totally failed in showing any of my quotes as a liberal -> quote <-.

now:

Baron Sprite wrote:
yeah well your whole post pretty much just reassures me you're either 1 - clueless (probably), or 2 - ... well there really is no 2.

Ad hominem. Trying to paint the arguer as clueless to invalidate further argument.

Ad hominem. Trying to paint the arguer as clueless to invalidate further argument.

Baron Sprite wrote:
if you're MI you're just stupid cannon fodder and what is the fucking point of me talking to you?

Ad hominem. "You're MI, therefore your arguments have no merit." Also leaves room for excuse to evade further issues.

Ad hominem. Trying to paint the arguer as clueless to invalidate further argument.

Baron Sprite wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me when someone tries to act intelligent on a fucking internet message board with their long thought out sentances that they probably read more than once and ran through a spell checker.

Non sequitur. "You have thought-out sentences, therefore you are trying to act intelligent."

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.

Baron Sprite wrote:
you think I honestly give a shit about you at all? well fuck that would explain the MI part.

Ad hominem, non sequitur. "You think I give a shit about you, therefore you are an MI, and there is no point in talking to you."

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Baron Sprite wrote:
I'm really sure he gave a flying fuck about the world's opinion after his capital got flashbombed

This paragraph appeared to try to argue a point.

Ad hominem. Trying to paint the arguer as clueless to invalidate further argument.

Baron Sprite wrote:
oh, and it's people like me that command people like you,

Ad hominem.

Ad Hominem Abusive

Baron Sprite wrote:
I wouldn't be talking down on our certifications, especially figuring since you seem so in love with the war and your service, seems like my level of training did a great job.

Ad hominem, straw man, non sequitur. "You are in love with the war and with service, therefore you cannot talk down our certifications." I am not sure what premise the "my level of training did a great job" proposition follows from.

Begging the Question


Baron Sprite wrote:
also, why are you here instead of out on the field?

Evading the issue.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam,Straw Man.

Baron Sprite wrote:
how about for your next post you think outside the box and actually come up with an argument instead of regurgitating the same psuedo-intellectual defensive crap you have been all along.

Straw man. Attempts to change appearance of argument by insisting that one did not exist.


Straw Man, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, Ad hominem, Ad Hominem Circumstantial, Poisoning the Well.


seems like this is turning into a circle jerk of my dad can beat up your dad instead of a discussion. you might as well just keep ad hominem copy and pasted moon since that's all you're going to be posting about anything I present.

atleast Daeath is even admitting to a degree that all this shit is pointless, even though I am compelled to throw a wtfad hominem at him about his comment on my english mastery, atleast he managed to make a joke out of it.

[Daeath]

Wow, never thought I'd live to see the day that Baron Sprite would throw a positive remark my way! <sniff>

That signature Baron: isn't that the Necromancer's buisness card from the Venture Bros.? Suprised someone caught that....

[Baron Sprite]

ya, this is the original, couldn't find a close enough font so just used some random one, was too lazy to look for more then 5 minutes for a matching one, I'll get around to it some day.

http://www.biosprite.net/ocard.jpg

[m0oni9]

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings with colourful words moon and router.
Oh the pain!


"m0oni9": yeah... just critiziing my post, atleast try to be original like route and post some fucking facts mixed in there
That is why I said it was not meant as a contribution to the argument. Nice job calling me on that one. :D

seems like this is turning into a circle jerk of my dad can beat up your dad instead of a discussion.
You might want to read my preface. I put it there for a reason.

you might as well just keep ad hominem copy and pasted moon since that's all you're going to be posting about anything I present.
If you insist.

You did a pretty good job pointing out your fallacies. I am impressed. But is it my fault that the majority of your arguments here involve ad hominem attacks? Perhaps I should start typing random words to give a little variety.

[Baron Sprite]

actually they were of your comments of my comments, don't know if you caught that or if you were thinking I was agreeing on them.

I didn't see your preface because it blended in with the posted date, either way though I argue to argue, if it was directed to me or not.

But is it my fault that the majority of your arguments here involve ad hominem attacks?

no it's not your fault, but that's pretty much what an argument is, don't know if your text book has covered that yet.

oh yay@me 700 posts

[shanxi]

Wow. What a flavorful thread. You know it was only a matter of time before I chimed in here =)

First off, I gotta say, even though I had to sift thru all the asses, shits, cocks, farts, fucks,and any other derogatory term, I would say that baron sprite is my type of guy/gal! And I dont mean this in any negative way. I was reading thru all the posts, and from what i gatheres, Baron seems to know their shit tactics-wise and military theory.

I just thought I would throw my views in here, hopefully I wont get flamed from the sidelines hehe

Personally, I could give a shit about left or right sides. Any gov't official that is worth 2 shits would get assassinated, its a fact. 3 presidents that I can think of that did something GOOD for the general welfare of the US? *cough* lincoln, kennedy, reagan.

I simply didnt vote this year because I knew it wouldnt make a difference. *shrug* My dad voted for kerry just because he wanted to try someone other than bush, and my mom voted bush, because she felt that "he had balls to stand up for our country"

I could call out my mom, stating that if kerry was pres at the time, he would have gone to war as well, you cant just sit idly by when you need someone to blame.

I was in the USAF at the time when all this shit came to be, as a matter of fact I was on a smoke break in Tyndall, AFB, Fla when the first plane hit the first tower. Snack bar SP (a joke) came up to us and said the pentagon was just bombed. Man that felt like a dream. Next thing you know I was ushered into a nearby hangar and all hell seemed to break loose, being on the east coast we started sending our training jets out on eastcoast sorties.

Shit died down and I eventually got stationed in Kadena AB, Japan. Regular work schedule, til we started seeing russian helecopters and C-5s come rumbling thru. We knew something was picking up and ppl on the base started talking amongst ourselves, but I dont think any of us expected a war in IRAQ.

Next thing you know, around october or november I think, it was my squadron's turn to be deployed to saudi. What a joy that was. Fuckin 2 months later im on 16 hour shifts, sleeping in a tent city. (USAF had it pretty good in UAE, we actually had 2-to-a-dorm living conditions on PSAB (saudi air base) till the army, marines, russians, brits, french arrived, then it was crowded as hell.

Actually Baron Sprite, before you stuff any more of your foot in your mouth, i was on the ground the morning the war started. So all your imaginary friends in the marines and those air force people living it up in kuwait really count for anything in terms of your war information.

I am not denying your involvement, but I was on the ground too, not that I was anywhere near harms way, but I am 75% sure that there were no USAF folks in kuwait unless they were C-130 transport pilots or whatever. We were centralized in Prince Saudi AirBase and some of us were deployed to the Intel division at Qatar.

I think tho, that the argument between Baron and route lies in beleifs vs. experiences.

Baron knows their shit and expresses with passion, but tactical theory doesnt always work in the field.. why? because we have morons in the military that cant/dont choose to follow what should be done.

Here is an interesting comparison if you want a giggle.

GWBush as commander in cheif vs. Sun Tsu's guidelines in The Art of War. ;)

**strictly speculation**
I do beleive there is an undermining element of corruption behind the war in Iraq, yes. We had no reason to be there. I was there, yes, and I do beleive that saudis are nice people as far as whom I met, and I even met Iraqi refugees, but if you think I give 2 shits enough to travel 1/2 way round the world to save their asses on my own accord youre dead wrong. I think that those who beleive strongly in their convictions should lead their own fuckin crusade, not send folks like me (and all the other army,marines that are coming back in flag draped caskets FOR NOTHING)

Now I am getting a little heartfelt..blegh

Global war on terrorism imo is a front. Give the american as well as the world public something to keep their eyes on as the gov'ts hands are deep in the lower/middle classes pockets.
9/11 - we got suckerpunched
9/12+ - embarrassed and shocked, we had to show the rest of the world "we aint fuckin around"
- Bush ADMINISTRATION seizes this opportunity to score some bucks and outline their great plan
- We bomb afghanistan, flashing how big our penis really is.
- We make a new bomb, MOAB, (Military Viagra) to bomb the already bombed into submission afghanis who still dont know what the fuck is going on
- Seeing as how bombing rubble over and over gets redundant, Bush decides to "exact revenge" for his father's attempted assassination (and its nice how Iraq has oil we can use too)
- Confident that this war on iraq would be quick and precise due to our huge penis, the bush administration allows what should have NEVER been allowed in the first place... "THE WORLD'S FIRST FULLY TELEVISED WAR" [when the rest of my military buddies and I heard this on AFN, we all agreed THAT was a prime fuckup right there. War is dirty, you dont want ppl who arent trained for this shit to see this shit.]
- It seemed everyone was anticipating a quick war. lol. I think the universal theory was that.. if the kuwait/iraq ground war lasted 7 days in 1991, then it should last around 4 in 2002 with all our "precision weapons" (big penis)
- with everyone focused on the war effort and WMD, bush turned his artillery on the people of the US of A. WTF I cant get a job as it is with NAFTA so what the hell, lets sign CAFTA as well. Now, the Bush ADMINISTRATIONs supporters, aka big business, can make more money because the business restrictions were lifted, allowing them not only to move to mexico (NAFTA) but CENTRAL AMERICA (CAFTA) as well. All this is doing is hurting the little people aka lower/middle class. Of course, we wouldnt vote on this stuff, but whoa re we to vote on it? 90% of bills in congress dont even get read before they are voted on and signed.

"haha. Do you realize most of the bills that get passed dont even get voted on? Most of the time what happens is they write up a bill and put it in sometime during the night, and they get signed right off the bat in the morning. If we actually read and voted on every bill that was written, the process would be slowed down, considerably"

-so while most of the world is focused on our smokescreen of a war, high society is finding more ways to make money.

It is not all Bush's fault, however. Look at him, obviously he is a puppet =) He reads what the "elites" tell him to, and has no clue what to say when put on the spot.

So the title of the thread is about bush being elected again. Hmm. I think we are fucked if we do, fucked if we dont. If you dont have money, you dont have a say.

My conclusion? I need to move to Holland =)

Edit- I also wanted to add that I wasnt disagreeing with route either, I agree with BOTH posters =) Hooah in the first degree.

A debate is a debate, but dont make it personal ;)

[Baron Sprite]

wow someone actually made an actual neutral post that was informative while providing an argument without any flames to anyone in the thread. pretty much agree with all points, I should sit the fuck down.

I do disagree on the holland part, japan is the shit. well I'm not sure on kadena, never been to okinawa, only honshu and kyushu islands, but I've been to about 85% of the cities on both and loved every one. I'm all about moving to kobe or osaka if they decided to have cheney for pres with bush as vice in 08 to mix things up a notch.

that and the only dutch I know is herberg.

[eq_addict_08]

woot shanxi!!!!

[shanxi]

Haha, okinawa was allright, but im a cold-natured person. WAYYYY too humid for me. When you go take a shower, and are sticky as soon as you open the bathroom door, you know its time to move south =)

I didnt even get a chance to visit Mainland japan =( Ended up getting my thumb cut off and medically discharged =D~

Oh yeah, about the dutch? you dont need to speak anything, let the mary jane do the talkin ;)

[Baron Sprite]

there are two things I hate in this world, people who are intolerant to other people's cultures, and the dutch.



crap I die in cold weather, if it's under 70 I have a jacket and long pants on shivering in the corner. living in 110 temperature for most of your life does that to you though. thank god I moved out of the desert and back to california atleast ^_^ it's like 65 outside and I have a blanket wrapped around me praying to jeebus to smite the freezing winds.

[route]

just to clarify shanxi, there were combat controllers at camp udari in kuwait. There were also a whole lot of AF people at camp doha and arifjan.

[m0oni9]

actually they were of your comments of my comments, don't know if you caught that or if you were thinking I was agreeing on them.
Eh? Your comments were meant to call my comments fallacies? Okay...

But is it my fault that the majority of your arguments here involve ad hominem attacks?no it's not your fault, but that's pretty much what an argument is, don't know if your text book has covered that yet.
An argument is pretty much just ad hominem attacks, so it is acceptable? I admit, sometimes you leave me at a loss for words. Nice jibe with the text book comment, too. I am currently reading Discrete Math for Dummies, vol 1.

[shanxi]

Gah! forgot about the combat controllers! lol. You never hear about those guys =) And Yah I heard about Doha too >< the arifjan I never heard of tho, then again I was just a Crewcheif, im not supposed to know all the cool stuff.. lol

[Daeath]

Well, I think we've all shot this topic in about every way possible... it's been quite entertaining and enlightening at the same time, too! I really don't see this going much further since we've shared our views on Bush vs. Kerry, morals/values/views, war, economics, english... not much left.

Anyone up for some T-day football and BBQ? Oh wait - I gotta work... Penis.

[Baron Sprite]

yeah but it was a good argument. better then most pussy threads of "omagadz bush/kerry suxk~" "OMGZ UR TEH RIGHT 158935% OMGOGMOGMG" "HAHAROFLCOPTER U BOTH RIGHT"

[eq_addict_08]

Well, since this thread seems to be winding down, I'll leave with a parting quote.
Zi Gong asked what was needed for government. Confucius said, "Sufficient food, sufficient armaments, and common people's trust in the government." Zi Gong asked, "Suppose you were forced to get rid of one of the three, which one would you get rid of first?" Confucius said, "Armaments." Zi Gong went on asking, "Which one would you get rid of if you were to get rid of one of the remaining two?" Confucius answered, "The food. Although man will die of hunger without food, man has been destined to die since time immemorial. But if people lose their trust in the government then the country has lost its basis."

[Baron Sprite]

fuck it I would steal their food and guns then kill them all, then I would have everything and not need their trust. (doesn't have to make sense I'm beautiful)

[Scorpx725]

crap I die in cold weather, if it's under 70 I have a jacket and long pants on shivering in the corner. living in 110 temperature for most of your life does that to you though. thank god I moved out of the desert and back to california atleast ^_^ it's like 65 outside and I have a blanket wrapped around me praying to jeebus to smite the freezing winds.

Lolirl