50% Packetloss Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 I added montezuma to my ignore list, you cant image the wonders of not seeing his posts anymore. I highly reccommend it to everyone, not only will it make the entire exprience more enjoyable but it will tack on 10 years to your life. I wonder if that !@#$%^&*er can still read my posts, anyone know?
»Ducky Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 Dunno, but the only reason I stay here in the forums is due to Monte's posting. heh
Bacchus Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 50%, I suspect that you're overreacting because you lack real arguments to defend your views. Your simplistic mind can't cope with outside critics, even constructive one? too bad, you're digging your own hole. Cya.
Aileron Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 Monte...first off the coalition doesn't violate international law. Secondly yes, it is insignificant. The US has close to 300 million people. Even if all those soldiers were US, they would still be a fraction of 1% of our population. And our casulties are only 1000, only 750 of which from combat. That's about 1% of of troops, and about .0333% of our total population. Domestic issues affect almost the entire 300 million, and each of them could probably kill 1% of our TOTAL population indirectly. So, yes, Iraq IS insignificant. 50% is overreacting because he is pissed, which after a long string of anti-US insults from morons happens. Its really the people who hide behind Bacchus and Montezuma that are really annoying. Well look, I see the economy getting better around me, but the man on TV says it is worse. Now, I know from experience that the man on TV has his own agenda, probably a liberal agenda, and does not care about reporting facts. Thus, when it comes down to it, I believe what I see over what the self-exclaimed "expert" on TV tells me. The outsourcing of jobs is a problem, but there is little we can do about it. Third world countries have workers who can survive off of less money, and even if we solve this, with the advances in computers and robotics I doubt that we could hold onto manufacturing jobs for long. The problems with the deficit, health care, college tuition, and the unemployed factory workers can be solved easily in only ten years. All we need to do is construct a large amount of schools for Science and Medicine. Health Care would be the first to solve itself. More med schools will produce more medical personelle. If you think of our health care system as a classic supply and demand model, we can decrease costs by increasing the supply. If we have more medical personelle, we gain that higher supply, and health care costs go down. This does the opposite to the unemployed factory workers. If there are more schools, the tuition of each school goes down. Thus, more workers would go to college, and that would leave less workers in factory jobs. Now, the difficulty of gaining a degree will be easier as well, so those who were previously unable to get a degree for academic reasons would get one. That can take us back to a potential flaw in health care. If its easier to get a medical degree, won't doctors be less qualified and make more mistakes? Not really. If there are more doctors, individual doctors will be less overworked. A C quality doctor working 6 hour shifts will make less mistakes than an A quality doctor working 12. This only leaves the deficit unadressed. If our tax base is composed of engineers and doctors rather than factory workers, our tax revenues are higher, and we could work the debt off.
50% Packetloss Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 Your simplistic mind can't cope with outside critics, even constructive one? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are an idiot. I havent even posted my views; only a bunch of nonsense to piss off stupid people. Instead of sitting on this forum all day and beating off to political debates, like Bacchus and Monte do, I actually have some use to this community. Ive written numerious bots that have helped zones and helped countless people with tech and programming problems. It doesnt seem that you have the congnitive compacity to program jack !@#$%^&*, so maybe you should leave my name out of your posts.
Bacchus Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 man, ain't you some hot !@#$%^&*!? I'm flabbergasted by your leet skills and dedication! go code some sex-bot and have a blast. Kleenex are on me. 'til then, have a nice day mate.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 go code some sex-bot and have a blast. HOLY !@#$%^&* THOSE EXIST!? P!@#$%^&* on the code please..
Bacchus Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 Ask 50%, he'll hack one for you...i'm such a loser with coding.
50% Packetloss Posted October 6, 2004 Report Posted October 6, 2004 !Sex is included into the mervbot core. Bacchus is jelious because he amounts to nothing. He comes on subspace forums and talks in the politics section, how sad is that. Do you even play the game? Isnt that the point of this board, to play the game and help people out with thier problems and inform them of events. I say delete this entire political forum or rename the site. I dont write bots to be "hot !@#$%^&*", in actuality i recieve nothing in return for anything that I have written. I do it so that I can get better and to get people interested in the game. This forum is a tool for engaging people in Subspace, but you re-*BAD WORD*-s seem to think that subspace expands your need to talk about your view points with people who dont give a !@#$%^&*. Maybe its just me, but I cant seem to connect the dots between Subspace and a Political Forum.
MonteZuma Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Monte...first off the coalition doesn't violate international law.That is debatable, but I think they probably did. Secondly yes, it is insignificant. The US has close to 300 million people. Even if all those soldiers were US, they would still be a fraction of 1% of our population. And our casulties are only 1000, only 750 of which from combat. That's about 1% of of troops, and about .0333% of our total population.The death toll and the number of soldiers involved is not the only thing that makes an event significant. Domestic issues affect almost the entire 300 million, and each of them could probably kill 1% of our TOTAL population indirectly. So, yes, Iraq IS insignificant.The war in Iraq indirectly affects more than 300 million people and will continue to do so for decades, if not longer. The war in Iraq changed the government in Spain. The war in Iraq may change the government in the US, UK, Australia (or at least affect confidence in government). The war in Iraq changed the climate of international relations between almost every country on Earth. Look at the reaction to the war in other countries like France, Germany, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Poland, Italy, etc, etc, etc. The war in Iraq and the split between the coalition and 'the rest' has created a global crisis. The war in Iraq has been the biggest threat to the viability of the UN. The world has changed because of Iraq. 50% is overreacting because he is pissed, which after a long string of anti-US insults from morons happens. Its really the people who hide behind Bacchus and Montezuma that are really annoying.Nobody is hiding behind anybody. Well look, I see the economy getting better around me, but the man on TV says it is worse. Now, I know from experience that the man on TV has his own agenda, probably a liberal agenda, and does not care about reporting facts. Thus, when it comes down to it, I believe what I see over what the self-exclaimed "expert" on TV tells me.What you see is a fraction of the total picture. If you care about what is happening in and to the world as a whole then you need to look outside of your sphere of personal experience and try to !@#$%^&*imilate information from other sources. Have you ever heard the story about the five blind brothers and the elephant? -->cool website<-- PS I wub you Ducky
white_0men Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 The dots are very easy to connect. They are people, they have opinions, message boards are used to voice opinions. Don't want to read their opinions? Don't open the message board named Political Discussion.
MasterDrake Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 or just get rich and fly to their houses and shoot them
Vile Requiem Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back! SNOOTCHIE BOOTCHIES
MasterDrake Posted October 7, 2004 Report Posted October 7, 2004 omg I didn't take the Jay and Silent bob idea ... >.> actually if I am rich I can pay them to do it for me YA
50% Packetloss Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Im voting for Michael Badnarikhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badnarik Take this test, short and sweethttp://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html No need to argue, Ive looked at all the candidates and chosen the best one. Anyone who posts below and doesn't agree, you are wrong.
Bacchus Posted October 11, 2004 Report Posted October 11, 2004 Your Personal issues Score is %. Your Economic issues Score is 10%. I'm a left liberal
Petrajs_Killer Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 Your Personal issues Score is 40%. Your Economic issues Score is 40%. I'm a Centrist, ja. I forget which UN resolution it was. But, if Saddam didn't let the UN inspectors do their job in Iraq, then it leaves an open venue to take military action against him. I believe that France, Germany, and Russia all voter in favor for that resolution. So when the time came around to enforce it, surprise surprise, all three countries refused! A country broke a resolution, these three nations didn't want to enforce it, and the war is being called illegal, even though the coalition is enforcing the resolution. But then again, the world is going upside-down. So I suppose this makes sense in some sort of way. Lets forget about the humanitarian aspect of Iraq, since no one likes to mention it. Except, of course, if it makes the coalition look bad.
Vile Requiem Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 People forget Bush told the inspectors to get the !@#$%^&* out, he was bombing Iraq no matter what. Unless Saddam is Bush with a wig, Saddam didn't order them out prior to the war
Dr.Worthless Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 People forget Bush told the inspectors to get the !@#$%^&* out, he was bombing Iraq no matter what. Unless Saddam is Bush with a wig, Saddam didn't order them out prior to the war The instance in question was the 3'rd time inspectors entered the country.. after being kicked out the first 2 times. BTW, nice reply to the resolution comment vile.. Why is it that Iraq was allowed to break multiple UN Resolutions for well over a decade without retaliation?
MonteZuma Posted October 13, 2004 Report Posted October 13, 2004 ...I forget which UN resolution it was. But, if Saddam didn't let the UN inspectors do their job in Iraq, then it leaves an open venue to take military action against him. I believe that France, Germany, and Russia all voter in favor for that resolution. So when the time came around to enforce it, surprise surprise, all three countries refused! A country broke a resolution, these three nations didn't want to enforce it, and the war is being called illegal, even though the coalition is enforcing the resolution.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Using this logic, we should send in troops to invade Israel too. Israel has defied or violated 28 United Nations resolutions. None of the UN resolutions implied that an invasion of Iraq was a necessary or automatic consequence of Iraqi non-compliance. In any case, the weapon's inspectors were satisfied with the level of access they had in Iraq at the time they were ordered out.
Vile Requiem Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Well, when a report comes out saying Saddam was LESS of a threat in 2003 then right after the Gulf War...it's pretty relevant and allows one to make the following logic leap: "If Bush hadn't gone gung-ho into Iraq and pushed inspectors out, there would have been no WMD found because there were none to begin with, thus he loses his rationale for war". In that regard the previous 10 years are irrelevant.In that regard it is NOT 20/20 hindsight, the President made a decision that he had direct control over and blew it horribly, thus creating far more terrorism then he prevented by stopping Hussein from paying off the occasional suicide bomber (which, by the way, one could have helped prevent merely by negotiating a Palestinian/Isreali ceasefire like Clinton did before Arafat's assassination).And losing the main focus of the war, and in fact AIDING the man who attacked us on 9/11 by giving him thousands of men who would gladly die for his cause and making his REGIONAL terroristic organization based in Afganistan and attacking primarily REGIONAL targets (with the exception of the WTC, but he only did that twice) into a vast GLOBAL threat that has the entire Western democratic bloc scared off their !@#$%^&*, caused a major attack in Madrid, and god knows what'll happen around Election Day. Yes, we should reelect this man, who was a cheerleader in college (talk about Arnold getting his "girly man" comment wrong ) and a cheerleader now. A man who sits at the kiddie table giving stump speeches to crowds who had to sign "loyalty oaths" while the real men debate the issues (Cheney, Kerry, Edwards). Why do we SETTLE for the LOWEST common denominator as President?At the very least have them display the real ticket: Cheney/Bush 04.But then again, Cheney's had 4 years to be President and's !@#$%^&*ed it up, that won't work either. The American People are starting to realize the truth, which is why Bush is about to embark on the most blatent "OMG, KERRY'S A *shudder*...LIBERAL!" campaigns you're ever going to see, That means the Republicans know they're going to lose any other way. How do I know this? Because it's "Ol Reliable" Republican Smearing 101. When Nothing Else Works. Watch the Debate. Watch the L word. See that i'm right. It's SAD. (Wow, I love thinking before I eat, it's much clearer).
Bacchus Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 By all means, stop eating...it's working
Aileron Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 Vile, the "loyalty oaths" is just to prevent idiot protestors from protesting in the middle of the speech. I went to one of his earlier speeches...it was free and all they did was security checks. If someone was willing to hold up a sign outside for 5 hours, they would be willing to sign in and hold up a sign inside for 2 hours. Having anti-Bush protestors inside a Bush rally is first off a bad security problem...it would take only minutes for a fist-fight to beak out. Secondly it kinda contradicts the First Amendment. I have the right to !@#$%^&*emble, so I can protest the President, but when the Republicans try to use their right to !@#$%^&*emble, that's just wrong. <_< And third it is kinda rude, especially when that these speeches are paid for by lots of money from both the parties and the cities. Look, Bush is a citizen too. He is gaurenteed a right under the first amendment to speak under proper cir!@#$%^&*stances. A Republican sponsored rally is proper cir!@#$%^&*stances. Thus, he has the right to make his speech without some protestor interupting it. Ow, and Bush didn't debate in this election? I musta been drinking last night, because I swear I saw Bush behind one of the podiums. <_< And Bush was pointing out that Kerry is VERY liberal, nigh communist. Why? So he can claim the moderates for himself. Polls are at 50% and its clear Bush and the media hate each other. (Last night, Bush almost was going to say something about the media, but had to stop himself. Also, he chuckled when Kerry said "according to the Washington Post") Thus, I'd be willing to bet Bush has a solid lead and the media doesn't want to admit it. I mean, its almost 50-50 on this forum, and this forum is filled with socialists! A population mostly moderate would give Bush a significant lead.
MasterDrake Posted October 14, 2004 Report Posted October 14, 2004 maybe you had no heard vile but they found that most of the items used for nuclear activity in Iraq were dismantled and taken by who? no one knows. I'm sure sadaam had plenty of time to get rid of the WMD he had a year with no inspectors and even when they were there they were not allowed to certain areas also you may of noticed the video of them getting rid of WMD that they choose too get rid of. Quit looking past the facts and just hating on bush, you can't count on the news today to tell you alot of truth so quit believing everything you see in the papers and on tv.
Recommended Posts