Possibly. But it'd only stand a chance if the President was female.

Alcar...

If it was a women, that would be bad. We'd start and finish a new war once a month...

i wouldnt be able to sleep at night knowing that. Sure they have a big army with good weapons, but they dont use it properly. Eg. The second nuke dropped on Japan was not needed, but they had to see if it would work.

I think that countries should be mates, world peace ect ect. But one country should not police the world. We should elect a cabinet of people, one from every continent to rule the world. That way, wars wouldnt dare start, as the enemy would litteraly have the whole world coming down on them.

Does anyone have any games where you beat up sadam or bin ladin? I think you should post 'em here just to rub it in...:D :D :D

When me and my bestfriend rule the world it'll be fun in a bucket...

Blah, blah, Majic. Sure, there are a lot of people out there on the "I hate Bush" bandwagon, but there are also a lot of people dislike him because... oh gee, I don't know... he isn't a very good president. :D And correct me if I'm wrong Majic, but didn't you agree with some of the anti-Bush statements expressed in this thread at one time or another? I mean, it's cool that you're trying to have an open mind and everything, but... erm... look, even I don't know what I'm trying to insinuate here. I'm just going to move on...

And I don't think he goes to sleep with a big smirk on his face, either. He's doing his job. He isn't doing it very well, but he is doing it. So yes, people do need to stop thinking that he concocts little schemes in his Fortress of Oppression miles below the Earth's crust. :D

"Mwuhahaha! I wonder how I can screw up the world NOW!!! Bwuha! Ha ha! Boy, I'm evil."

But Jesus tap-dancing Christ, f*ck some of you. Just because a select few of us dislike Bush's policies, it doesn't mean we're doing so to be "cool" or "alternative." It means that we just disagree with Bush's policies. That's it. It's the anti-anti-Bush people that are doing the stereotyping here.

Anywho, my point is that it's OK to be skeptical. It's the basis of American freedom. We have the right to disagree with current government practices. What was the reason we went to Iraq? WoMD. Have we found any WoMD? No. What happened when we didn't find any? We used Saddam as a scapegoat.

I feel that my views are perfectly justified. Like I've said before, if WoMD are found, then I'm going to take it like a man and admit that I'm wrong. Until that happens, I have the right to say that all this Iraq business is nothing but poorly executed farce.

Well, I might have to disagree about the second atomic bomb. In the first place, they probably could have not been used, but the second bomb was actually dropped because Japan still was not surrendering after the first one. I admit, we should have probably given them more time, but they refused to give their conditional surrender.

Anyways, I kind of like your idea about a bunch of world leaders who would be elected to govern the world.

EXACTLY. God, I may just kiss you now, SeaRex.

Just because we don't like Bush doesn't mean we're trying to fit in, be cool, or follow any so called "trends". Hell, if any of us were that concerned with fitting in, we probably wouldn't be constantly talking on a video game message board.

So, yeah, just look at SeaRex's post and imagine my name on it instead of his, and you've basically got my opinion on all this.

I'm sure they surrendered beforehand and America still dropped it. It wasn't the fact they bombed them either, it was the fact they bombed civilians...

SeaRex summed up my feeling on the situation as well. I'm not trying to fit into the Bush-disliking for fun.....I just don't like the guy. To tell ya the truth, I didn't like Gore either, so my thoughts aren't mainstream blah blah, trying to fit into everyone elses views blah blah. In fact, the media projects a "we love Bush" feeling all the time, so I'm glad I can have my own thoughts.

-oddguy:fuzcool:

She would not :p

Don't be daft, the majority of women don't strive for greed. Whereas the majority of men do, and Mr.Bush is a perfect example.

Don't be naive. You want fairness, and no greed? Get a woman. I LOVE the fact that New Zealand has a female as the Prime Minister. Go NZ!

Alcar...

Yeah Peter, but the New Zealand PM looks like a transsexual who doesn't pass.

As for 'WMD', George Bush today said this:


"So what's the difference?"

"If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger," the president said. "A gathering threat, after 9-11, is a threat that needed to be dealt with."


So basically, he's admitting that Saddam doesn't have any weapons. The thing is, he lied by using the excuse that Saddam has weapons as a motive for war, a motive that has since been shown to be unfounded.

I don't think the Pres is evil, he's just really inept.

CG's ramblins
 

AHEM... forgive me for contradicting the FORUM FOUNDER (who I have not seen before) but... that is a claim relating to events before the war made with facts from after the war.

For example, Bush starts the war on Iraq saying that Saddam had WoMD. Ok, now that has since been proven to be incorrect. Saddam DIDN'T have WoMD. However, if you notice, I used the words "since been proven". When the war started, nobody said there were no WoMD. Only after the war did we KNOW that there were no WoMD. So could it be possible that Bush started the war either because his information was incorrect (but he thought it was correct and therefore felt so very very very sure of his accusations?

And how do we know for SURE that he lied to the world? Maybe he was so confident that he was right that he made his statements to the world.

Now all of that makes it sound like I'm supporting bush. Honestly though, I really dislike him. He is inept as you said, he is stupid, and he is above all wrong... plus, he isn't man enough to admit he was wrong. Now a leader who can stand up and admit to the world that he was completely wrong is a leader worthy of praise.

Re: CG's ramblins
 

Good show, Canned Gabbiar.:fuzwink: I totally agree. Yeah, I think Bush is a loser as well, but if he does turn up those WMD's, then I'll take back the mean stuff I said about him and be Man to admit I was wrong.......but I'm not holding my breath. You do bring forward an interesting point......what if Bush thought his info about WMD's was accuarte and that he wasn't planning on lying to everyone for war? Hmmmmm, I wonder.

*ponders*

-oddguy:fuzcool:

Re: CG's ramblins
 

Sort of like the United Nations? Except America doesn't listen to them... Which leads to my next comment.

The United Nations had not yet found any, and were still searching, which is when Bush said, 'Nope, not listening to you, *cough*we need oil*cough*, we're going to war.'

**** you, I won't do what you tell me. :p

Yadda yadda yadda yeah yeah yeah, ok wow you're all so intelligent. No, no Saddam wasn't a ****ing scapegoat you dimwit, Saddam was the reason that we went to war.

And yes, yes you are being "alternative" just to fit in and look cool, because that's what you Rage Against The Machine loving kiddies like to do. Saddam was a terrorist, he had to be eliminated. Whether he had weapons or not, he was still a nasty person. Get used to it.

We CAN and WILL beat terrorism, and no thumbsucking trend****ing teenager with a bad attitude is going to tell me or the rest of the intelligent world that a Tyrant and Terrorist shouldn't've been taken from power. That sort of person doesn't deserve to be on the face of this earth, let alone in the good books of some unrealistic "peace protester".

George Bush, or any other president, doesn't run america. He has people who do it for him. He mostly authorises actions, promotes himself in other countries, and tries to arrange solutions to national and international issues. America doesn't need more oil, America doesn't need more money, America needs popularity with the eastern world to prevent attacks altogether.

What you are suggesting is that we should've left Saddam alone so that he could kill hundreds of thousands more innocent Iraqi's. Wow great idea, seriously, you should run for president.

I don't know how many times I should type out "oh my god what a moron" to sum up the feeling here, but if I did decide to waste that much space it'd probably end up on macro.

The only complaint you have is that you were lied to, and that Britain and the US didn't get UN approval. Do you honestly think that is a very caring view? Do you really give a piss about "The system" if you are prepared to go against it to picket the whitehouse? You are all a bunch of contradictory peace hippies that think they're making a difference to world peace by allowing an evil dictator to carry on killing hundreds of thousands (which is essentially what you are trying to do by the way).

Who gives a shit for UN approval? Who cares about what they tell you? Saddam is gone now, and the world is a safer place. Really if you had any idea of what Saddam had done to his people you wouldn't be against the war.

No, Saddam WASN'T the reason we went to war. We went to disarm supposed WoMD and didn't find any.

Am I the only one that remembers the "countdown to disarm?" If our intentions were only to liberate Iraq, we wouldn't have given Saddam a f*cking timelimit to disarm his "Weapons of Mass Destruction." We would have just gone in, kicked his ass, and left. Instead, we (Why am I even using the word "we?" Aren't you "from" Russia?) waited. We waited for him to disarm weapons that he didn't have. Then, when Saddam refused to disarm the (so far) non-existant weapons, we swooped in and "liberated" the Iraqis. After all, with our seemingly infinite supply of oil and money, it would just look terrible if we were wrong for once.
You summed it up perfectly: "oh my god what a moron." First, I don't even listen to Rage Against The Machine. Second, you're a little stereotyping nazi bitch. Oh my yes... I disagree with Bush's policies... therefore I must be following a trend! It only makes sense to discriminate EVERY SINGLE anti-Bush person into a neat little shrink-wrapped package! And if they disagree with what I think, I can just denounce them as dimwits who are merely trying to pass off as intellectuals! After all, if they don't support Bush, they can't be right.

Shove it up your ass, Hitler.
Did I ever say that he wasn't a nasty person? No. Did I ever say that he didn't deserve to be removed from power? No. All I said was that America went into Iraq for the wrong reason, and then acted rashly to save its reputation.

Christ. For someone who "doesn't" live in America, spends most of his time working on his computers/web cams, and playing an online game, you sure do know a lot about us.

It's obvious that no real progress is going to be made in this topic. You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your's. So after your usual holier-than-thou rebuttal, I'm not going to bother responding. Go on, fire away. No one will care. Arguing over the net is just like the Special Olympics, anyway. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

Thank you for that Searex, you've put what i was thinking into words, without me doing anything about it.

All I know is that I am not following rage against the machine...I have never even heard of that.

And Jacob I do agree, I dont think the killing of all those civilians in Hiroshima, or Nagasaki was needed.

Although when Japan attacked pearl harbor, I dont think it was right slaughtering our Navy in their sleep either. Plus we werent really involved in the war at the time, they brought us in with that attack, and in the end it did come back to haunt Japan, in a very very horrible way.

I do disagree with some of Bush's policies. And granted, I was a bit overreactive. Truly though, some of teh stuff I've heard about this is just so... paranoid. Ugh. Think of it like Area 51. Nutcases discredit the people who actually DO research and find information on it, instead of throwing wild theories of paranoia.

And god damnit, I STILL think Sadam looks like the hobo I saw a few days ago. hes got the same hair/beard and such.

I concur. SeaRex, you can word things perfectly and get your point across so well. I think I'm in love.

lol Majic.

**** yeah! *Holds up hands for a high five*

*Rolls eyes*
Band kids...

I don't think innocent people should have had to die for it. But if they did have to bomb them, why use something of such devastating effect, that continued to damages people's health fifty years on?

Sorry, you lose.

I saw this on Fox News Channel and thought it was quite funny. Haven't seen the rest of the site, so I'm not endorsing anything. I just thought the cartoon was funny. Take a look.

The Lord of the Right Wing

-oddguy:fuzcool:

That was funny! I love it!:fuzgrin:

I agree that was pretty funny.:fuzsmile:

After having the flash movie load, then stall, load, then stall, load then stall. I was finally able to see it in it's entirety. It was funny, especially the part about the five people that gave him the ring.

Alcar...

LOL, that cartoon was funny. Good one.

Ok, I'll start with: What the heck was that? What's up with this usenet thing? I'm not exactly sure what usenet is, but after reading the definition, and some other stuff at the site, I don't think it is really relevant to what we are actually talking about. You didn't really justify or reinforce your argument with releveant facts but just tried to make it seem like you won by using some stupid "law" that has no meaning.

Plus, I don't this site has anything to do with usenet because:

1) Posts made here are not broadcast to other computers. Computers connect to this database and take data from it.

2) From the articles, Usenet is an entirely different thing altogether.

(Now at this point, I may be wrong and will be quite happy to admit that I was wrong since I don't completely understand this whole usenet buisness. I just took the parts I do understand. Still, most of the following still apply).

Now to the actual point. Using that Godwin's "Law" isn't a way to "win" an argument. For one thing, it doesn't even apply here.

1) It is a "Law" on Usenet.

2) All supposed discussion, chatting etc. "LAWS" are just hogwash and have no real meaning or effect whatsoever.

Plus, you don't really "win" the argument anyway. The other person doesn't tell you honestly that they were wrong. Plus, you don't get anything from supposedly "winning" the argument. Like Searex said (and what MANY people have said):

"Arguing over the net is like running in the special olympics. Even if you win, you are still retarded."

In short, don't use a stupid thing like Godwin's "Law" to SUPPOSEDLY "win" or reinforce an argument. It's not.... smart.

Anyway, with that said, I hope we are still on good terms :). I just love Searex's oratory skills (well, writing skills).

After watching Louis Theroux last night i came to the conclusion that if we want to rid the world of badness and terrorism we're going to have to cleanse most of America.

Its a sad fact but that country is inbred and f*cked up. Sure, you have the few decent Americans but the majority are screwed on a major scale. Whether they be Nazi Skinheads/Skinbirds or members/supporters of the KKK or members of some kind of Christianness they're dangerous. I'm not just singling those three out either, yes there are aload more of badness' that are spreading their messages but at the end of the day the majority of badness' are Americans.

So, lets all sign a petition to stop terrorism. To cleanse America.

*Rocks to 'We're an 88 RAC and roll band' by Landser. A Skinhead band with a racist song...but it has a good beat to it*

I partly agree with you, Jacob....which is a milestone might I add. Yeah, America is way screwed up and we brag about how great we are. Pfft. :rolleyes:

-oddguy:fuzcool:

What? Who said anything about me winning? Who said anything about reinforcing some kind of argument? This is all stuff you have dreamed up in order to appear to be jumping onto SeaRex's bandwagon, and it is not a very honorable way to gain the admiration of anyone.

I'm not arguing for any point, nor am I reinforcing any point or argument for a point. Previous to this post and my last, all my posts have been an expression of my opinion and point of view. And unless you are me, you are in no position to scrutinize my opinion.

Godwin's law is about making sure that nobody is compaired to, or referred to as anything to do with those responsible for the horrific acts during world war II. And it is also about making sure that a conversation does not break down to an argument and/or conversation to do with Nazi's or Hitler, sparked by an anolgy of such. If you can't see the relevance in that, try imagining what it would be like if someone called you Hitler or "Nazi Bitch".

I'm sure you'd want people to cut it out, almost as much as Godwin did when he made that Usenet rule, back when Usenet began in the late 80's.

So you think that is good do you? You think it is good to call people such names? You think it is good to try and insult someone? You think it is good that moderators agreed with the non insulting parts of his post, without noticing the fact that I was called "hitler" and "nazi"? If yes to all, I think you're mad.

The blunt factor of this entire argument, is that if your standpoint is that Saddam Hussien shouldn't have been captured, then you are more of a sadist and nazi than you could ever claim that I am. The end result of this war was that Saddam was captured, and thousands of Iraqi's were saved from oppression and death, if the war had not've happened, Saddam would still be in power, and the world would have one more bad guy. What this world doesn't need is bad guys, and what this world doesn't need even more than bad guys, is people fighting for the rights of badguys, thinking that they are supporting freedom and peace.

It would be naive to just think that by never going to war, there would be no world problems. As Saddam has shown, you don't need to go to war to cause a world issue.

Yeah, and at the end where hes going like "Its the ring ring, and the bling bling, trying to rap.

This cartoon reminded me of that one picture of Bush wearing Sauron's ring.:D

This may seem a little random but RATM owns. The "war" in Iraq was about 3 things
1. Getting those approval ratings high and having a solid issue that you can ride to an election.
2. War profiteering
3. Shrub getting revenge on his most hated raghead boogieman. I can see it happening, Bush watching as S.H. gets a bunch of bombs rained on his palaces "That was for Poppy, Biatch!!!"

Statikk HDM's Corollary to Godwin's Law: If someone invokes Godwin's Law on BBS and not Usenet it proves they are an ignorant and arrogant piece of monkey crap. When Godwin's Law is invoked on BBS a mad dash to call the perp an ignorant and arrogant piece of monkey crap will commence and the winner gets a post up of 10 and the honor of declaring the thread closed. Who wants to second this? I'd really appreciate it because I LOATHE Godwin's Law.

hey er...what are they going to do with him now? i think they should give him back to Iraq and let them deal with it. Or bush will just say its Saddams turn to count and him to hide...

If you take one more joke from good quality British TV, and screw it up like that again, I will eat you.

You know what this thread needs? A big oversized avatar of Che Guevara.





Oh hey you got one! :D

this thread needs a vague, ambiguous, and outright off-topic post. IN fact, I would do one, but that would piss people off. but I just need to point something out. so, delete accordingly.

Justified causes with ulterior motives. Imagine making a beverage without nowing how to market it. You decide to get people to drink by GIVING IT AWAY FOR FREE! HEY, you have to get people to know how good and f-ing refreshing it is! It turns out to be so good,that you're consumers want more and MORE! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!!!! So hey, you give 'em more, knowing full well too much beverage, without moderation, can be bad.....and even deadly. eh, whatever.....they'll start to pay soon. When you say there's no more, you tell you're consumer that they have to work in order make more. Demand is up, you're consumer is satisfied due to the addicing quality of your beverage, and profits go through the roof, as well as your neighbors' rooves. And you will not run out, since the consumers are the workers too, and demand is always up! (hey wait, this little anecdote sounds familiar..... :rolleyes: )

so....you have the main reason (money) and you have the ulterior reasons (control and power) replace money with protection of profitm and control and power with money, since money means control and power.


(hey Death, how are ya?)

Hi Boj, I'm great thanks.

Weird post. Sounds like a good plot for a computer game.

he would and all...