Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue



Play Time: Move Your Feet (Shockwave required). Thanks Nick Brigden.
Links of the Day: Cannot find server make your time. Thanks Berklee. All your 404 error belong to us.
Stories of the Day: Smothers Brother's son is porn star. Thanks Chuck!
A web of cheating. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Iraq war could send German cars in wrong direction. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Wild Science: Riddle of 'Baghdad's batteries'. Thanks crazy0ne.
Cat on the Cutting Edge. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Weird Science: Secret to sleep is to have sex about five times a week. Thanks Bob James.
Images of the Day: Bubbacomp. Thanks Mike Martinez.
Digital Eel GDC Mystery Tour 2003.

View
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 15.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >

132. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 20:16 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Our Founding Fathers were supreme champions of freedom of speech. But we should never forget that Alexander Hamilton was shot over something he said. Because in their infinite wisdom our Founding Fathers also gave us the second amendment, the right to bear arms, which is a reminder that while we can pretty much do and say whatever we want-you better watch it, asshole.

The free-speechers always argue the slippery-slope: if you muzzle free speech, before you know it, we're living in 1984 and Big Brother is picking out our ties. Those seeking to control free speech, on the other hand, argue that if we allow Johnny Soulpatch to burn the flag, before you know it, we're living in "Lord of the Flies" and Piggy is fighting for his life. But there is a middle ground between government rule and mob rule. A place where only those who can make obscure references to literature, art and pop culture on their weekly cable show will be allowed to speak freely. A utopia... if you will.

Our enemies see our diversity of opinion as evidence that we are weak and divided, but it is the very presence of a vibrant marketplace of ideas that ensures our continued survival. That, and the high-tech weapons that can lock in on the glint off a scimitar from five thousand miles away.

As much as I believe that our leaders have followed exactly the right course in wiping out the Taliban assholes who gave safe haven to the murderers of my fellow citizens, I recognize that the dissenters to the war and the verbal defenders of our enemies fulfill a vital function in our democracy. Specifically, they give me somebody to hate whose name I can actually pronounce.

As much as we don't like to admit it, you gotta say, the freedom to bash the U.S. government is a unique and beautiful phenomenon...... When done with a certain degree of panache! I've noticed that in the Middle East when they burn the American Flag, they aren't even using real flags. They are just using flags painted onto sheets. This really pisses me off because there are hard working kids in Taiwan who make our flags who can use every penny they can get.

As a matter of fact, at this point, the only thing that galls me about someone burning the American flag is how unoriginal it is. I mean if you're going to pull the Freedom-of-speech card, don't be a hack, come up with something interesting. Fashion Old Glory into a wisecracking puppet and blister the system with a scathing ventriloquism act, or better yet, drape the flag over your head and desecrate it with a large caliber bullet hole.

Once hotbeds of free speech, college campuses across the country have engaged in an arms race to see who can craft the most restrictive speech code. Years of Political Correctness, binge drinking, and dropping bing cherries out of your ass into a shotglass have bred a backlash now, where anyone who dares to stray outside the conventional school of wisdom is ostracized, slapped with the mark of Cain, and, worst of all, made to forfeit their Student Activity Fee discount to see Dave Mathews jam, and, more importantly, inspire, during Spring Fling on the Quad.

Whatever happened to the notion that college was a place where the best minds in the nation vigorously debated all sides of an issue, while the rest of us went back to the dorm and got laid? Usually by ourselves.

I have no problem with people who respond to what they don't agree with. I enjoy the drama of a toppled podium and the sound of microphone feedback as much as the next guy. What I do have a problem with are the people who fail to see the glaring hypocrisy of screaming the words "shut up" into a bullhorn.

Why should even the most repugnant ideas receive the same freedom of expression as more accepted ones? Because the American system is less a "free marketplace" of ideas than it is a playground. And the best way to dispense with unpopular ideas is to let them roam free, so they can have their asses kicked up and down the jungle gym by the cool ideas.

The ability to be critical of our government is what makes this country great. Thanks to these freedoms, we get the hip irreverence of Art Buchwald, the folksy yet politically incisive song stylings of Mark Russell, and the pun-tastic parodies of The Capital Steps. And it is for these reasons alone, we must squash free speech immediately and become a police state.

We need to let those who repulse us have their say alongside those whose speeches make us rise to our feet in applause. How else will the shiny pearl of wisdom stick out against the black velvet of stupidity? It's better to just let the Ku Klux Klan march through your town than it is to waste your time and money trying to stop them. Instead of challenging their right to free speech, use your energy to point out to your children the irony of the fat guys in the pointy hats and the pee-stained bed sheets, spouting forth all sorts of mono-syllabic eugenic claptrap, and all the while, claiming to be the master race.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
131. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 20:08 babar
 
>Did we start nuking and nobody told us? maybe chem weapons? Not that I know of.

No, I was exagerating. But we are attacking him with far more military power than he possesses. Not exactly WOMD, but you get the point...hopefully.

>can you clarify what you are talking about. the current wording doesnt make sense, bein that we are in war with them for that very reason.

We tried to get the UN to back us in this war....they didn't. We are going against the UN's wishes to force Iraq to obey the UN.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
130. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 20:04 babar
 
>The turmoil in the Middle East is fundamentally a religious "jihad" against the Jews. Period.

He said this war was about non-compliance with the UN. Israel has been in non-compliance for a few decades and nobody has bombed them. Period. Why Iraq, why now?

And why aren't we bombing NK for threating us with Nuclear War today?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
129. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 19:58 DrEvil
 
"..We are bombing Iraq with WOMD because he won't get rid of his WOMD.."

Did we start nuking and nobody told us? maybe chem weapons? Not that I know of.

"We are disobeying the UN to force Iraq to obey the UN."

can you clarify what you are talking about. the current wording doesnt make sense, bein that we are in war with them for that very reason.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
128. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 19:41 Jojo BoZley
 
And why aren't we bombing Israel for non-compliance with resolution 242...

Who would bomb a strategic ally?

they must retreat from territories they are illegally occupying...

When Jordan annexed the West Bank, did the Palestinians cry for liberation back in 1949? In 1967 Arab war, Israel defeated Jordan and the other attacking Arab states, seized control of the West Bank because the Arab states "refused to make peace & recognize Israel, and Israel refused to return land to declared enemies, lest they use it as a staging area for war against Israel a third time."

No one gave a shit about that land before, but NOW they do. The turmoil in the Middle East is fundamentally a religious "jihad" against the Jews. Period.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
127. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 19:12 babar
 
>Thus, their findings have more merit than yours.

In my daily life I find very little support for Bush. If his approval rating was that high 70% of the people I run into daily would support him...in reality it's not even close to that. It's less than 10%.

>This war is about non-compliance with U.N. resolutions.

So let me get this straight. We are bombing Iraq with WOMD because he won't get rid of his WOMD. We are disobeying the UN to force Iraq to obey the UN. Should Russia, China, France and Germany start bombing us for using WOMD and not complying with the UN? If not, why not?

And why aren't we bombing Israel for non-compliance with resolution 242 that says they must retreat from territories they are illegally occupying, which has been in affect for several decades if I'm not mistaken.

What was that about selectively ignoring certain aspects and turning a blind eye?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
126. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 18:46 JM
 
Of all the people I talk to on a daily basis I'd have to say his rating would be 1% approve and 99% disapprove....but what do I know, I just do my own research instead of believing what CNN tells me.

So if you asked 1 person what they thought of Bush and they disapproved, he'd have a 100% disapproval rate in your eyes. The difference between your "poll" and CNN's is that they are surveying a considerably larger number of people than you are. Thus, their findings have more merit than yours.

I don't remember hearing that his scuds were banned, but even if they were so what.

So what? So everything. This war is about non-compliance with U.N. resolutions. Here is some of the proof you so desparately seek. Just because you choose to selectively ignore certain aspects of the evidence doesn't make you right. Keep turning a blind eye my friend.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
125. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 18:37 babar
 
>Hmmm let's see Presidents rating 74% Dissaprove 20% ....

Of all the people I talk to on a daily basis I'd have to say his rating would be 1% approve and 99% disapprove....but what do I know, I just do my own research instead of believing what CNN tells me.

>I thought Saddam wasn't supposed to have scuds..... uhh... Hans you there?

I don't remember hearing that his scuds were banned, but even if they were so what. They aren't that great to begin with (are they even considered a WOMD?) and they wouldn't reach America anyway. They barely even reached Israel during the Gulf War. Where's the chemicals? The nerve gas? The Anthrax? The nuclear missles? The terrorists that are gonna attack our country? Score 0 for Bush's lies.

>Dude, the only reason you are anti-war is: You can't get laid at college with out it.

As soon as you start with personal insults you've lost the debate.

This comment was edited on Mar 21, 18:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
124. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 18:33 babar
 
> I d i o t

As soon as you start insulting people it's obvious you've lost the debate.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
123. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 18:31 babar
 
>We are certainly not puppets of a tiny country like Israel, but you and the Arabs sure don't have anything better to do then cry about Israel!!

So I guess Ariel Sharon was lying when he said "Don't worry about America. We, the jews, own America. They know and we know it."

If anybody should open their eyes it's the sheeple in this country that believe everything they see on CNN.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
122. Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 18:12 bigp3rm
 
I d i o t

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
121. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 18:06 [SPZ]SPANKER
 
Hmmm let's see Presidents rating 74% Dissaprove 20% .... uhh score board, peace necks lose. I thought Saddam wasn't supposed to have scuds..... uhh... Hans you there? doh. I love all the peace marchers rioting and fighting, ooh impressive. Thank God Gore the whore isn't in office or that we don't have any other pussy democrat. Dude, the only reason you are anti-war is: You can't get laid at college with out it. The following link is so bitch'n and so typical of a peace neck... LOL

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
120. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 17:31 Jojo BoZley
 
Babar, your towel is way too tight!
Loosen it up a bit and wake up & smell the proverbial coffee. Put down the crack pipe, open your eyes.
Dude, you're not impressed cuz you iz brainwashed!

The middle east IS already unstable. So what if Israel benefits? Of course they benefit with weaker enemies. We are certainly not puppets of a tiny country like Israel, but you and the Arabs sure don't have anything better to do then cry about Israel!!

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
119. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 16:36 babar
 
Done....not impressed at all. Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world. Once we own it we won't need to import as much from other countries saving us a ton of money in the process. I think that saying it's about WOMD is far more dishonorable. If it was we'd be bombing North Korea for threatening us with nuclear war which is far worse than anything Iraq has done to the US.

I noticed you didn't say anything about me claiming it's also about Israel benefiting from destabilazation in the middle east. Please read this and think about it..... http://www.rense.com/general29/poll.htm

This comment was edited on Mar 21, 16:41.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
118. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 16:29 sc4r4b
 
babar--I waas planning on staying out of this until I read your following remark...

This war is about oil for the US and destablization in the middle east that will benifit Israel.

Please read this and think about it...
‘No Blood for Oil’ Is a Dishonest Anti-War Argument

The slogan is neither intelligent nor honorable.
Intelligent people can honorably differ about the wisdom and morality of war against Iraq.

But we should be able to agree that oil, an economic motive, is not driving U.S. policy.

Already the threat of war has added a "war premium" of about $10 to the price of a barrel of oil.

The cost of waging war, plus the cost of any damage Saddam Hussein does to his oil facilities, plus the post-war costs of occupying and rebuilding Iraq, would far exceed any foreseeable U.S. gain from changing the Iraqi regime that will control Iraq's oil.

Invade Canada?

We import 58 percent of the oil we use. But if seizing oil were our aim, our troops might be massing not in Kuwait but in North Dakota preparing to invade Canada, the number one source of imported oil — providing three times more than Iraq.

We import twice as much from two other hemisphere neighbors, Mexico and Venezuela, as we do from Iraq.

Remember, oil is fungible. It pours from many sources into the world market pool.

After a war, we will get Iraqi oil the way we currently get more than one million barrels a day of it. We will buy it, paying what we pay today — the world market price.

The "blood for oil" delusion springs from paranoia.

It accuses the entire American leadership of dishonestly invoking the specter of weapons of mass destruction — to disguise economic cupidity.

But such weapons are not specters. They are real, and we should be able to debate how to deal with them without slandering the men and women making U.S. policy by calling them cynics, eager to shed "blood for oil."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/DailyNews/george_will_030302.html


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
117. Question Mar 21, 2003, 16:26 babar
 
If this war is all about Iraq having WOMD why aren't we bombing the crap out of North Korea? They threatened us with nuclear war today which is a whole lot more than Iraq ever did to us.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200303/21/eng20030321_113706.shtml

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
116. Re: Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 16:10 babar
 
LOL! Next time you call someone an idiot you might want to recheck your spelling first....it's b-a-b-a-r.

He's not using them because he doesn't have them. If he did the weapons inspectors would have found them. The inspectors said that all the sites the US sent them to had nothing to do with WOMD and they claimed the US was sending them on wild goose chases. In one of the satellite photos that the US claimed had a big truck next to a building to move missles turned out to be a fire truck.

This war is about oil for the US and destablization in the middle east that will benifit Israel.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

Oh, and as far as me going to help him fight...don't be rediculous. I'm not an Iraq supporter. I'm against the US invading countries so that we can take their oil.
This comment was edited on Mar 21, 16:21.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
115. Barbar the idiot Mar 21, 2003, 15:59 bigp3rm
 
Hey smart guy.. If he used chem/bio/nuke wepons then the French wouldn't come to save him! LOL
You think that maybe they cant get orders into the field? Go back and to your cave.. Better yet, invite Iraq leaders to come rule you.. If you really think that he dosen't have these weapons, then, take a ship to Iraq and take up arms.. You fuckn gimp boy..

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
114. Re: Questions... Mar 21, 2003, 15:54 yonderboy
 
no one disputes that Hitler had chemical and bio weapons in WW2, but he certainly did not use them...
just keep your uppityness patient, those answers will be given in the next few weeks.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
113. Re: Questions... Mar 21, 2003, 15:23 babar
 
>And for those who claim Iraq doesn't have such weapons- 2 scud missiles fired toward Kuwait have been shot down. The scud missiles Iraq doesn't have.

Where's all the chemical weapons? Where's the nerve gasses? Where's the nukes? Where are all the Iraqi terrorists that were supposed to attack us? Why isn't Iraq using these weapons on the US troops while we are trying to invade their country?

Maybe because he doesn't have them? Surely he would use them if he did...I mean that's the whole reason we're going to war, isn't it...because he might use them against us? Now would be the perfect opportunity. Why isn't he using them?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
412 Replies. 21 pages. Viewing page 15.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo