Jump to content
OtakuBoards

DeathBug

Members
  • Posts

    1483
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DeathBug

  1. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Skill Drain negates Flip-effect monsters, because as soon as they're face up, they're succeptable to Skill Drain. And they must be turned face-up to activate their effect. It's a matter of timing. Yes, Jinzo would negate Dark Coffin, and yes, your opponent can effectivly 'negate' it by choosing an option that wouldn't effect them. Sucks, huh? ^__^ Well, if their hand or field is clear, you're in a good position anyway.[/color][/size][/font]
  2. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Skill Drain would negate the effects of monsters, but not their costs. Unfriendly Amazon and Armor EXE, for example, have upkeep costs that are needed to keep them on the field; SD wouldn't negate that. Goblin Attack Force and Zombrya the dark don't have costs, however; they have negative effects to balance out their power. Their effects would be negated, because it's an effect, not a cost. Jar of Greed is worthwhile in an enviornment where Mystical Space Typhoons, Breaker and Heavy Storm are played by many players. In that event, you can get an opponent to waste one of their trap removal cards by activating Jar in response to their activation. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother. The text of Lightforce Sword states: [QUOTE]Select 1 card [b]at random[/b] from your opponent?s hand.[/QUOTE] So, not only would you be unable to target the monster they're about to summon (unless by chance), but you can't activate traps until after a monster has already been summoned, not in response to tributing for the summon. So, yeah, Yugi targeting Kaiba's Obelisk before he could summon it was illegal. But Kaiba got him back with his made up effect of Final Attack Orders, so it's okay. ^__^ Magic Cylinder states: [QUOTE]Negate the attack of 1 of your opponent's monsters and inflict Direct Damage equal to the attacking monster's ATK to your opponent's Life Points.[/QUOTE] Spear Dragon states: [QUOTE]When this card attacks, it is changed to Defense Position at the end of the Damage Step. [/QUOTE] However, in your scenario, Spear Dragon never attacked; the Cylinder negated its attack. So, no, it wouldn't go to defense mode after Cylinder's activation.[/color][/size][/font]
  3. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Which movie? [i]Farenheitt 9/11[/i]? No, I haven't; based on my past experiences with the works of Micheal Moore, I cannot validate giving him money in any way, shape or form. Besides, my comments regarding Micheal Moore aren't regarding the liberal establishment of America; they're regarding Micheal Moore himself. Anyone who behaves as he has and continues to deserves riduicule, no matter what ideology they advocate.[/color][/size][/font]
  4. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Darn you if you aren't right, Ben. ^^; 1300 ATK is the cut-off point, not >1300, as I originally thought. I got sloppy. So, I shall replace the Hearts of Clear Water with Rod Of Silence-Kay'est. [QUOTE]DCR-036 Rod of Silence ? Kay?est (Spell/Equip) A monster equipped with this card increases its DEF by 500 points. Negate the effect of a Spell (excluding this card) that specifically designates a monster equipped with this card as a target and destroy it.[/QUOTE] Fire Princess's defense would be at 2000, and Inferno's at 2400; while they're still vulnerable to attack, it's not by much. ...or, I could try Molten Destruction. While I'd thought of that, I thought the attack boost wouldn't matter in the long run, but...if I replaced the Swords of Revealing Light with a Terraforming, and the Hearts of clear Water with Molten Destruction, as well as replacing the Iron blackSmith with Little Chimeras... Well, I'll try it both ways. All of the cards are commons, so I shouldn't have trouble getting them. ^__^[/color][/size][/font]
  5. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Name: Roderick Kingsly Alias: The Hobgoblin Age: Mid-forties Powers: Enhanced strength, various goblin-themed equipment, goblin glider Bio: Roderick Kingsly was a business rival of Norman Osborn, who, through underworld channels, discovered a cache of Osbron's goblin equipment after the original Green Goblin's death. After refining the goblin formula to remove the side-effect of insanity and schitzophrenia, Kingsly created a new costumed identy as the Hobgoblin. The Hobgoblin is a master manipulator and coldly logical man, using his abilities to further his own business goals. Kingsly also has a twin brother, Daniel, whom he uses as a stand-in on several occassions to throw people off his scent. Kingsly's only point of obsession is to protect his own identity, so as to maintain his civilian identity. He is also paranoid to the possibility that he might become as insane as Osborn was. [center][img]http://www.sighost.us/members/DeathBug/kingsly.jpg[/img][/center] [center][img]http://www.sighost.us/members/DeathBug/squanderedlegacypart1a.jpg[/img][/center] [/color][/size][/font]
  6. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms][b][center]Anyone who would like a personal deck fix, please PM your deck to me, and I'll get back to you ASAP. ^__^[/b][/center] Anyway, here are three new decks. Well, okay, one retooled old deck, and two new decks. ^^; [u]DeathBug's Demonic Disruption[/u] Tribute Monsters: The Dark Necrofear Normal monsters: Giant Orc Slate Warrior Archfiend soldier Protector of the Sanctuary Twin-Headed Wolf Night Assailant x2 Newdoria Dark Jeroid Theban Nightmare Kuriboh Mystic Tomato Tribe-Infecting Virus Witch of the Black Forest Sangan Traps: Waboku Ring of destruction Barrel Behind the Door Reckless Greed Rivalry of warlords Magic: Monster Reborn Card Destruction Pot of Greed Dark Hole Graceful Charity Harpie's Feather Duster Mystical Space Typhoon x3 Mirage of Nightmares Big bang Shot Puppet Magic of Dark Ruler Riryoku DD Designator Confiscation The forceful Sentry Dimension Fusion Nobleman of Crossout Premature Burial Scapegoat Overview: Pretty elementary set-up, actually; Fiends tend to have effects that disrupt the opponent, so I add in hand-disruption Magic cards to totally dismantle my opponent's strategy. This deck has my two favorite combos in the entire game: Dark necrofear + Dimension Fusion, and Ring of Destruction + Barrel Behind the Door. I still need to get heavy Storm, Call of the haunted, The End of Anubis, and Dark Ruler Hades. I'm unsure if I want to remove Giant Orc or Archfiend soldier to make room; I know I'll remove Protector of the sanctuary. Here's a deck I don't own the cards for and won't actually construct, but ifanyone else wants to use it, go for it. ^__^ [u]DeathBug's DEAD (Deck Erradication And Destruction)[/u] Tribute Monsters: Vampire Lord Ryu-Kokki Despair from the dark Normal Monsters: Pyramid Turtle x3 Vampire Lady x3 Soul-Absorbing bone tower x3 Spirit Reaper x2 Witch of the Black Forest Sangan Traps: Call of the Haunted Destruction Ring Barrel Behind the Door Judgement of anubis Robbing Zombie x2 Magic: Monster Reborn Pot of Greed Dark Hole Graceful Charity Premature Burial M Space Typhoon x3 Mirage of Nightmare Book of Life x3 Creature Swap x2 Card of Safe Return x2 Card Destruction Call of the Mummy x2 Overlook: What we have here is a Zombie-Deck Destruction deck. Deck Destruction is hard to pull off in this game, because a card here and a card there just ain't gonna' have an effect on your opponent. Hence, run the Deck destroying zombies in droves. Vampire Lord and Ladies are the main attack force, while the Bone Towers and Reapers are mostly defensive. The Bone Towers have a lot to work with, considering that there are twelve cards that can Special Summon zombies. (MR, CotH, PB, CotM x2, PT x3, BoL x3, V-Lord.) The Creature Swaps are for another satisfying combo: swap your tutles and searchers for and opposing monster, then destroy your own monster for your own search. Card of Safe Return is there because you have seven cards that Special Summon from the Graveyard, and an therefore make use of it quite often. Ryu-Kokki and Despair from the Dark make for the brute force, and Robbing Zombie give an additional deck destruction option. Judgemewnt of Anubis protects all the continuos cards that will be on your side of the field. Finally, a budget deck I'm building for my lil' sister, who wants to get into the game. She wants to play the unconventional Pyro deck, so I worked with the best I had availible. [u]DeathBug's Sibling Sizzle[/u[] Normal Monsters: Fire Princess Blazing Impachi Solar Flare Dragon x3 Iron Blacksmith Koitsu x2 UFO Turtle x2 The Thing in the Crater The flame Spirit x2 Inferno x2 Witch of the Black Forest Sangan Traps: Backfire x3 Waboku x3 Magic Cylinder Magic: Monster Reborn Dark hole Pot of Greed Graceful Charity M Space Typhoon x3 Ax of Despair x2 Emergency Provisions x2 Poison of the Old Man x3 Premature Burial Heart of clear Water x2 Swords of Revealing Light Lots to explain here. The Iron Blacksmith helps get out the equips, which are needed to support these monsters. Ax of Despair is there to power up Inferno and the other weak monsters. Inferno, in particular. His effect is excellent, but he's not strong enough to destroy monsters on his own. Heart of Clear Water keeps the Fire Princess and Inferno alive until their effects can be used. PotOM is an easy and efficient burn card, which can also support the Fire Princess. Emergency Provisions is there in the event and of the permanant trap/magics/equips are destroyed; if they're going down, at least she should get some LP gain out of it. Three Wabokus to protect her monsters until she can get her attack force assembled with her Solar Flare Dragons and equips. Three Backfires to punish her opponents for destroying her creatures. Magic Cylinder is the rarest card in the deck, but I think I can wrangle one up. If not, it's $10 with a pack of Pharoah's Servant at Wal-Mart. This deck will make major gains after the release of Hot Blooded Batter. While it's not the best deck in the world, it's cheap, and a bit unique. I was actually surprised by how well it can actually run. I'll need to trade for all the cards tomorrow at the next tournament. So...thoughts?[/color][/size][/font]
  7. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Can someone please explain to me [i]hy[/i] so many people are spending so much time and effort to try and have sex? What, exactly, is the great appeal? I'm speaking mostly of promiscuious or casual sex, but not because of any moral standings. Let's look at it as a matter of common sense. Possible/Probable results of sex: *Physical health complications (Diseases, infections, etc.) *Emotional complications (Oh, the drama) *Potential legal and financial complications *Pregnancy (If you're heterosexual, and pregnancy leads to a whole host of other problems.) Ah, and a sexually active friend of mine, when hearing my opinion, told me that I "wouldn't understand" until I had sex, and that "it wasn't as simple" as I was making it sound. Well, gee, after actually having sex, none of the above potential problems go away; ergo, we can add another possible complication resulting from having sex. *Inability to remain rational regarding sex (?) Granted, if you're with a single partner, whom you know is clean and you share a healthy emotional relationship with, then the dangers of health and emotional complications decrease. And, if you're a homosexual, the risk of pregnancy doesn't exist. (However, statistically, if you're a homosexual male, premiscuous sex is almost three times as likely to result in health complications as a result of disease.) So, if you're with a partner you share a healthy relationship with and whom you trust, and are prepared to deal with the possibility of pregnancy, then sex is okay for you. However, so many people having sex, not even using condoms, don't consider any of the consequences of their actions. They put their entire future on the line to feel good for a few minutes. Are these people just stupid, or oblivious to what they're doing? I understand that some people have emotional complications that drive them to seek intimate encounters, but surely that can't account for all the people having reckless and promiscuious sex. Can it? Am I missing something here?[/color][/size][/font]
  8. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I say this in the nicest possible way: anyone who holds works by Micheal Moore as reasonable pieces of evidence in any argument is an idiot, unless the argument is about what a big fat bastard Micheal Moore is. Anyway, doesn't this thread already exist?[/color][/size][/font]
  9. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]It might just be me, but it seems we're working under the assumption that the image is unauthorized. Does anyone actually have confirmation that it isn't? I ask because it would be incredibly stupid for any PR firm to blatantly break copyright law, and I really don't see a firm working for any president or presidential candidate making such a mistake. I should also point out that President Bush didn't make the ad; his PR firm did. Yes, he approved it, but come on; do you really think he, or John Kerry, or anyone working in Washington would know where the image came from? And if they actually do have enough time to watch anime, then they're not working hard enough. [quote name='Imi']It becomes a big deal to anime fans when they see a well known character being butchered and used in a campaign for someone who most of us don't like anyway, sorry Bush fans, no offence.[/quote] Please don't ascribe your opinions to the group at large.[/color][/size][/font]
  10. DeathBug

    Spiderman 2

    [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms][i]Spider-Man 2[/i] done blown mah mind. SM2:SM ::X2:X-Men. Without having to set up the origins and relationships of the central characters, the film was able to progress much more quickly than the original, resulting in a faster-paced film which really benefits the story-telling. While Alfred Molina can never match William Defoe as a psychotic villain, IMO, the character of Octavios still made a lasting impression, and was a fun villian. My biggest gripe with Dafoe's costume in the first movie was that the plaqstic mask didn't allow for facial expression, which was a shame. Melina didn't have this problem, and you could tell, he was really getting into the role. He convincingly played Octavious [spoiler]both as a likeable and intelligent man and a twisted, obbsessive psychotic.[/spoiler] James Franco, whose role in the first film was kind of an afterthought, really got to shine in this movie. The great irony of Harry Osborn, in the films, is that [spoiler]even when he's trying his hardest to 'be a man' or impress/avenge his father, he's still a pretty weak-willed guy. In his dealings with Dr. Octopus, he allows Ock to walk over him. When he's faced with Peter unmasked, he's unable to take action.[/spoiler] I found a few bits of Harry's dialogue to be forced, [spoiler]("All I have left is spider-Man...he disgraced me by touching me.")[/spoiler], I was, on the whole, impressed with his performance. Toby Maguire seemed much better in the role of Peter this time around, or perhaps I'm just getting used to him as the character. either way, the various scenes of Pete's hard luck rang very true to what was always portrayed in the comics. And, of course, the [spoiler]Spider-Man No More[/spoiler] scene was masterfully done, and looked exactly like the comic panal that inspired it from forty years ago. (I also though the [spoiler]"Raindrops" montage[/spoiler] was hilarious, but that could just be me.) Kristen Dunst was, in my opinion, the weakest of the major players. I'm still not feelin' her as MJ. The character of Mary Jane was always strong-willed, vivacious and outgoing, and Dunst isn't really filling into the character. It's partially because of the scripting, but she seems kind of, i don't know, mousey? Withdrawn? I'm not feelin' it. That's not to say I didn't like some of her scenes. Particullarly, the scene of [spoiler]her telling Peter off at the Planaterium[/spolier] was pretty good. Even the more minor characters get kudos. [spoiler]Aunt May versus Dr. Octopus was great; "Shame on you!"[/spoiler] And, with a much larger role in this movie, JJ Jameson/JK Simmons really got a chance to shine. JK Simmons [i]is[/i] JJJ, all right? It's almost creepy. Thee ffects...wow. I particularlly loved the work done on Dr. Octopus's tentacles. The way they seemed to [spoiler]"talk" to him was downright eerie.[/spoiler] Also, the various showdowns between Spidey and Ock on the NY skyline really gave the feeling of altitude and vertigo. There are so many things you see characters do in comic images that you think you're used to, but to actually see it perfomed...wow. Case in point, [spoiler]Spider-Man launching himself after a civilian in free-fall, or fighting an opponent with six arms.[/spoiler] What didn't I like? Well...[spoiler]the scene of MJ running away from the wedding was too hoikey. They should have skipped that, going directly from the wedding to Pete's apartment. The scene of the train aftermath, with the civilians around Peter, seemed way too forced. I see what they were trying to do, and the basic idea of the scene was good, but it was very poorly executed. Also...once again, Spidey wasn't bvery funny. I mean, the scene on the elevator was great, but one of Spider-Man's trademarks is beeing a wise-*** in the heat of battle. Other than a few quips in the bank, he was mostly deadpan. And, on a minor note, I would have prefered Dr. Octopus to wear scientific garb than hobo jackets.[/spoiler] I wanted to give sopecial mention to [spoiler] Dafoe's cameo, being such a Dafoe fan. The whole scene was great. ^__^ seems the dementia was hereditary, eh, Harry?[/spoiler] So, yeah. See it if you have'nt.[/color][/size][/font]
  11. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms][i]"Let me show you to our fireworks display. Celebrate the birth of youre country by blowing up a small portion of it!"[/i] Ahh, the Simpsons. ^__^;[/color][/size][/font]
  12. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Stephen King, eh? I can't say I've read an extraordinarly large amount of his work, but I've read a couple. I liked [i]The Shining[/i], but thought [i]The Tommyknockers[/i] sucked. Still need to get around to reading [i]It[/i]. He's okay, but not nearly as goos as some people say he is. It's not his fault, though; no one could live up to the hype his works generate.[/color][/size][/font]
  13. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]I can't see this movie, because I cannot validate any reason to give money to Micheal Moore. Moore is a thotoughly dishonest film maker; he weaves staged scenes in with the real footage without telling you which is which. He twists satatistics and footage of interviews to prove his own point. In several cases, he simply lies. (The relatives of bin Laden [i]were[/i] stopped and questioned on 9/11. No one could go to war for oil in Afghanistan because there is no oil in Afghanistan.) He could make an honest film, but that would involve either presenting both sides of an issue, or not streatching and inflating his own information. He can't do that, though, because then there might be a chance his audience would reach a different opinion than him. I've seen previews and read reviews of the film, and I'll address what I've seen: First, he starts with the Florida recount mess. Does he mention that all but one recount conducted by the media came out in favor of Bush? Did he mention Gore's attempt to disenfranchise military absentee ballots? He shows scenes of President Bush and his staff prepping for interviews and press conferences, trying to make them look vain. Does he mention that this is standard procedure for any president? Does he mntion that President Clinton spent more money on popularity polling in his two terms than all previous administrations combined? He claims that Preseident Bush was in bed with the bin Ladens. Did he mention that President Clinton cordially recieved membners of the Taliban to the White House? He claims that President Bush spent 47% of his pre-9/11 time on vacation. Did he mention that his statistic includes weekends? He shows a piece of footage with President Bush on his ranch, but cuts the film off just before Prime Minister Blair enters the frame. He shows the infamous clip of President Bush golfing while discussing foreign policy. Does he show the clip of President Roosevelt doing the same thing? President Roosevelt became a media darling because of that clip. He shows a clip of pre-war Iraq representing children happily flying kites. Yes, Iraq, not Disneyland, was the happiest place on Earth. Not once in the movie does he mention Saddam Hussein. He staged the scene in F9/11 with the Marine recruiters. He staged several of the interviews with military personel. I only know for a fact that one of them was legitimate, because the soldier who gave an anti-Bush/anti-war opinion is under investigation for taking a political stance while in uniform. (Armed forces personel are not supposed to express any political opinion while in uniform; it's part of their code of conduct.) On a side note, the bank scene in "Bowling" was staged. To me, however, what spoke volumes was that Moore [i]didn't[/i] show the footage of the 9/11 attack. His claim? "The theater of the mind" creates a better image. Bull *****. On 9/11, people were given the chance to choose whether they would like to die by smoke inhalation, burning, or plumetting hundreds of stories. Nothing I can image could compare with what actually happened, and Moore knows this. He didn't show the 9/11 footage because he didn't want to give any sort of legitamacy to the war in Afghanistan. The abscence of the truth is a lie. And, while I'm on the subject, I'd like to continue to rail against Moore. In his rascist, self-hating book "Stupid White Men", Moore tells his readers not to try improving your lot in life, because you simply can't. The system is stacked against you, and The Man will keep you down. For this reason, and not his propoganda films, I call Moore un-American. Immediatly after 9/11, Moore said that it was interesting to see america finally get a taste of the terror they spread all over the world. Moore has repeatedly told foreign audiences that the dumbest Frenchman German Britain Canadian etc was smarter than the smartest American. He told the Canadian conservative party not to adopt American-like policies, because "becoming more american is like pissing all over yourself." For this, I call Micheal Moore un-American. Moore takes dishonest and unscrupulous tactics in his film-making. He entered members of his production team to cover the Iraq war under false pretenses, telling them to "catch the soldiers ******* up." He told the crew to keep quiet about connections to Moore, because as soon as they knew he was involve, "they'll know theyr'e ******." Moore hired his crew to create a literal circus, complete with cheerleaders, at a man's execution in Texas. He harassed the family of the executed man's victem, and lied to the sheriff about his intentions. Moore encouraged children to sneak into F9/11 with or without their parents. [QUOTE=Tammy Bruce]Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Today, the system worked. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) upheld their ?R? rating for Michael Moore?s ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? a crass smear of this nation in general and President Bush specifically. The movie is scheduled for release in New York on Wednesday and nationwide on Friday. MPAA ratings are determined by a panel of parents, who in the instance of ?Fahrenheit 9/11? found obscene language, piles of dead bodies, injured children and a beheading worthy of an ?R? rating. Frankly, it sounds to me like it deserves an X. An R at least means no one under 17 years of age will be allowed into the film without a parent or guardian. This is what so enraged Moore and his comrades at Lions Gate Films, the distributor of the film. Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate, argued that the rating should be reduced to PG-13 because 15- and 16-year-olds should be free to see the film on their own because they could end up in military service in Iraq in the next few years. ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040622/ap_en_mo/film_fahrenheit_9_11_rating_2[/url]) But he didn?t stop there. Here the obsession with getting to children becomes clear: "I hope the R rating doesn't have a large impact on the box office," Ortenberg said. "I've spoken with many parents, including some on the appeals board, who absolutely said they are going to take their children to see the film. We'll just have to hope the teenagers we're encouraging to see this picture find their way in through parents or adult guardians." While Ortenberg is being a bit subtle, his intent is clear. He makes this statement after declaring that 15- and 16- year olds should be able to see it, states they?re encouraging children to see it, and then adds, coyly, that kids should ?find their way in.? Still not convinced? Take it from Michael Moore, who would not know subtlety even if it came on a plate, commenting on the R rating in the same report: ?Moore urged younger teenagers to go see the film anyway. "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know," he said.? I was fascinated at the frenzy of these men to have access to children. This is in part because Leftists know, in order to control the future, they must get to your child?s mind without your interference. I sent this note to my personal e-mail list and heard immediately from David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture and founder of Frontpagemagazine.com who, shed an even more frightening light on their agenda. David reminded me that a PG-13 rating also allows secondary school distribution for a film. Talk about unfettered access to a captive group of your children! I?m sure they fantasized about thousands of DVDs being sent, at no cost of course, to high school history and civics teachers nationwide. This message would then have the legitimacy in your child?s eye of being presented in a school environment where they are to accept and ?learn? whatever is thrown their way. The agenda of Michael Moore and Tom Ortenberg is obvious. They know adults will and do see this film as propaganda, and will dismiss it accordingly. Children, on the other hand, do not have the critical thinking skills required to understand when they?re being taken for a ride by an angry and miserable man. And children must see it without that pesky parent who might actually put things in context or even provide a running editorial with the material. That, my dear friends, they cannot have. I wrote a letter to Mr. Ortenberg calling his attention to the shocking nature of what he was suggesting. I wrote in part: The rating is there so parents can determine what their children see. Your encouragement is essentially suggesting that strangers, like you and Mr. Moore, have the right to go to people's homes and encourage children to ignore their parents and disobey them. Who are you to suggest this? You have every right to release the film. How dare you, though, suggest that parents have lost the right to raise their children based on their values? Considering your attitude, I would think you don't have children, but think about the repercussions if a stranger approached children important to you and told them to ignore your instructions? Or if strangers walked into your office and suggested your staff follow their orders and not yours? I think that's something you wouldn't appreciate. Please consider retracting that comment, and encourage children to respect what an "R" rating is for (whether you like it or not) and that respecting their parents wishes is of paramount importance. If you don't agree with those two principles, I think that, too, would be fascinating to Americans. Please do the right thing. During my tenure on the Left as a leader in NOW, I recognized how, in our zeal to promote our agenda, we became indecent. Here, too, you see the results of Groupthink and Malignant Narcissism jammed together. Not only do these people believe they have sole possession of the truth, they are so convinced they also think they know what?s best for your children. Your concerns, your values, your rejection of the propaganda of that film, the maliciousness, and the hate, is of no concern to them. They know what?s best and they are determined to access your children one way or the other. And all this for a film which has been, amazingly, endorsed by the terrorist group Hezbollah! Unbelievable? Not quite. Melanie Morgan, one of the nation?s more important radio talk show hosts, has established [url]www.moveamericaforward.org[/url], a site which shows how to fight anti-Americanism here at home and abroad. She has compiled one of the more complete information bases about Moore?s agenda and the nature of his demagogic film, including background on the Moore?s Hezbollah support. I urge you visit her site. Here?s a newsflash to Ortenberg and Moore ? the American people may be silent a great deal of the time but they should not mistake that as us being empty vessels waiting to be told what to do by people of their ilk. We are tolerant, and care about freedom of expression, but that does not mean we will offer up our children to be guided by self-loathing malignant narcissists who, to say the least, do not have our, or anyone else?s best interest in mind. It takes a lot for the American people to say enough is enough. Viacom and CBS provided one of those last straws with Janet Jackson and the Superbowl. Perhaps they should ask Mel Karmazin (who has since resigned from Viacom) what it?s like when we?ve had enough, what happens when the American people are underestimated by cultural gatekeepers who must think, well, we?re just a bunch of lemmings hoping for Michael Moore to lead us off his cliff. Like the Super Bowl fiasco, Tom Ortenberg and his Lions Gate Films and Michael Moore should know we are awake, we are listening and we don?t like what we?re hearing. They can make and distribute whatever film they want, but going after children, and doing so blatantly and with complete disdain for parents in this nation, will wake up a giant they could never imagine. This is the least of the line we draw.[/QUOTE] And, on a final note, Moore is being sued by Ray Bradbury for not asking permission before naming his film "Farenheitt 9/11". Moore's response to Mr. Bradbury? "Get in my belly!" Because Micheal Moore, you see, is the original Fat Bastard.[/color][/size][/font]
  14. [quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1'] Be thankful you weren't able to see images of monks self-immolating during the Vietnam War.[/size][/quote] [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Very unfortunatly, I did see a picture of that. It disturbs me to no end; I wouldn't recommened anyone else see them if they can avoid it.[/color][/size][/font]
  15. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Wouldja' believe I already had one on file? [img]http://www.sighost.us/members/DeathBug/horoava.jpg[/img] Save it to your own computer, though; I'm going to clear it off my web-host soon. I can touch up the edges if you want, but I can't add any sorts of text; I'm working off of MS Paint.[/color][/size][/font]
  16. [quote name='Harry']And where did you get this little theory?[/quote] [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]No, he's right. In Russia, particullarly, the resistance actually helped turn the tide of the war, because the Axis powers had to send supplies and troops to quell the uprising, supplies that would otherwise have been used against the Allies. Sadly, after surviving that, the Russian people were forced to live under stalin.[/color][/size][/font]
  17. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]The beheadings are disgusting, and perfectly represent the types of animals we're dealing with. You do not negotiate with people as depraved as this; you emilinate them. As for media reaction, here's my train of thought: the media has paraded the Abu Ghrad pictures for months now, showing the US military as perverts. Why should there be any problem about showing the kinds of monsters the al queda terrorists are? We live in an image-dominated world; that's not necessarily bad, but it creates circumstances such as these. The military knew about and was already dealing with the Abu Ghrad perverts in january of this year. The story was already reported in january. Why was there such a fuss in April? Because the pictures came out in April. And, even though everything that can be mined from this story has already been mined, the media continues to show those pictures. Why? Because pictures are powerful, and instil powerful emotions. When I saw the actual pictures of Paul Johnson's decapitated corpse, I wasn't terrified; I was angry. I wanted the people responsible for such inhumanity captured. My resolve towards this cause was strengthened. So, the media should be allowed to show these pictures to remind America of exactly what is going on. Despite President Bush's way-premature declaration, we are at war. And these are the animals we are at war against. You should not ignore reality.[/color][/size][/font]
  18. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Yeah, stupid parents! Making us do chores, and all they ever do for us is...put a roof over our head, feed us, clothe us, tend to our medical needs, drive us places, provide heat, water and power, keep us in the standard of living we're accostumed to... And we have to take out the trash? Damn them!! >:([/color][/size][/font]
  19. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]High school flashbacks....whoa. Look, social circles in high school are about the most useless and shallow method of classification ever. As Wrist Cutter said, don't worry about it. People tell you that in five years, you'll forget all that useless high school stuff, but they're wrong; it's only been a month, and I've forgotten most of it.[/color][/size][/font]
  20. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']Yes, and I get mine from Ft.Hood Army Base in Texas home of the Fourth Infantry Division and First Calvary Division. The largest military base in the free world and the Army Base with the second largest ammount of soldier casualties in this war. 4th ID was one of the first installations sent to Iraq in March '03 and 1st Cav began the replacement rotation of 4th ID back in February.[/quote] Ah, well, if we're going to be comparing bases, the people I speak personally with are in US Central Command at MacDill Air force Base in Floridia. [QUOTE]Plus I spoke with a few soldiers (marine reservists) here in New York, and one of my husband's friends stationed with 4th ID in Ft. Carson CO. HOwever, when I mentioned my sources you said they weren't accurate based by the fact that I asked people I knew. Silly me, eh?[/QUOTE] That's not what I said; I said that a survey of the total military reflected more than you or I speaking to individual soldiers. [QUOTE] By that wording I'm guessing that you think that since the Pope has decided that abortions are wrong all Catholics should go along with the belief reguardless of what they may believe on their own. Are you saying that Catholics have no right to their personal beliefs? Or that since the Pope may also believe that all homosexuals are evil, that all Catholics should believe that, even those who are homosexual and Catholic? I have to say I'm a bit ashamed of you for that.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry I feel that people who are members of a religion should agree with and follow the basic tennents of the religion. The Pope reflects the beliefs of Catholisism, Catholoisism does not reflect the beliefs of the Pope. I'm not Catholic, but why shouldn't a Bishop be able to say "You're in favor of abortion/the death penalty/gay marrige, and our church doesn't agree with that."? I don't agree with those stances, and I'm not Catholic. If John Kerry doesn't hold one of the most basic principles of his faith, why does he belong to that faith? [QUOTE]I can also offer another one- [url]http://conservativepunk.com[/url]. You said once how hard it is being a conservative punk, well, you're not the only one. :D [/QUOTE] After arguing with Cloricus, it's refreshing to argue with someone I actually like. ^__^ [QUOTE]Actually, I was almost hoping for George H.W. Bush. The 80 year - old father of the Devil who jumps out of Air planes :laugh: [/QUOTE] Wasn't that just the coolest thing ever? [QUOTE]Since we're continuously bringing up this War In Iraq deal and not considering the soldiers all that much, I'd like to bring this up: At the moment all soldiers stationed in combat areas receive an extra $400 a month for hazardous duty pay. However, at the end of December because of escallating war costs congress may lower it back to the standard $250 a month. Isn't that just a great way to show the troops how much their lives are worth? What does everyone think of that idea?[/QUOTE] Except they probably won't do that, beause at the end of December, we'll have much fewer troops in Iraq, and the situation will be much more stable. John Kerry on the war: John Kerry voted for the war, yet he's done nothing but protest it since it began. He claims the US went in without any allied support, even though we had Britain, Spain, Romania, Austrailia, Italy, Qatar, Turkey, the Czech Republic and dozens of others on our side. His wartime strategy was recently compared to President Bush's in the New York times and found to be almost the exact same. Kerry and hi staff didn't argue with this result, thus giving it their consent. Yet Kerry does nothing but harass President Bush on his war-time plan. The main difference between them that the Times noted, aside from Kerry wanting "More allied support" (Which I guess means France, who sucks, and Germany), is that Kerry would pull out American troops faster than President Bush would. Yet President Bush is accused of "cutting and running"? I miss Howard Dean. :( Anyway, I'm burnt out on this thread.
  21. [color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Meh, graduation. The original location of my school's graduation was pre-empted by the Tampa Bay Lightning's games, so we graduated in the Florida state Fairgrounds, in the same room they auction livestock. Oddly appropriate, I suppose. In her speech to the class, my principal told us we were the yeast that made the bread of the future. Excellent analogy, eh? Yeast die in the process of making bread, smothered to death in their own filth. wh00t. People say you forget everything about high school five years afterwards; well, it only took me a month. tHe shallow, self-serving exercise in irreverence is over now; yay, we didn't die, fail or drop out for four years. May we get on to the real world now? Dang, I'm not usually bitter. Anyway, i'm going to the honors program of Hillsborough Community College. Finally, something that matters.[/color][/size][/font]
  22. [quote name='Juuthena']But do you think their attempt would've killed as many Americans as we have killed them? [/quote] If Saddam had used biological or nuclear weapons, which was a strong possibility, then yes. Easily. If you were president, and, knowing of what happened on 9/11, you recieved credible information from multiple sources (including other foregin leaders) that a second attack on America was planned, would you act on that information? [QUOTE]Like ChibiHorsewoman, I guess we've read completely different surveys and talked to different soldiers. [/QUOTE] I guess the soldiers I talk to know what's going on a bit more. The soldiers I talk to are usually at MacDill Air force Base in Floridia, for reference. [QUOTE]Best wishes to your father, though. [/QUOTE] Thank you. He probably won't be called up in the situation remains as it currently is, but if there is a sudden upset, who knows? [QUOTE]...and then have this huge religious debate instead? [/QUOTE] It should be a religious debate in the first place, in my opinion. [QUOTE]All I'm trying to say is that gay couples should have just as much of a right to be bound by marriage and have a ceremony just like everyone else. And plus, Dick Cheney's daughter is lesbian.[/QUOTE] That's not the point at all; you asked why the government was getting involved, and the answer is, "because we've made marrige a legal issue". My opinion about marrige is that it should be left up to the churches, and the government shouldn't be involved at all. [QUOTE]I'm not blaming it all on Bush, it's just that since his four years in office, it's been more of a landslide than deteriorating slowly. [/QUOTE] How so? [QUOTE]Was I comparing to the other countries? Gas prices have been going up MUCH faster than I remember it to be before he was put in office.[/QUOTE] The steady increase in SUV and other fuel-guzzling vehicles might be attributed to that, combined with the political situation. Also, no one was paying nearly as much attention to gas prices until President Bush went into office. [QUOTE] And in the seventies, not every single household owned a car, or drove one as often as they do now. [/QUOTE] You just answere your owmn question: more people drivcing bigger vehicles more often. The added war simply sharpened the focus on the problem. [QUOTE]And this might be a bit off topic, but at least the other countries signed the Kyoto Protocol.[/QUOTE] Well, it is off-topic, because that was during President Clinton's administration. But since you brought it up, the reason we didn't sign it was because President Clinton knew enough to know that the treaty was completely unfeasable. The countries that did sign it have alreeady broken it several times over, simply because there was no way to meet the restriction limits. [QUOTE]But the thing is, could Al Queda alone destroy the US?[/QUOTE] That's a good question: no, they couldn't. However, they can kill people. Considering the types of weaponry currently availible, they could kill a great deal of people. [QUOTE] Saddam Hussein was/is a terrible person, and I'm glad he's out of power. However, from recent polls I've seen (maybe you've been seeing different results here as well) more Iraqis say that they felt that they were better off beforet the war.[/QUOTE] I would be very interested in seeing the poll data; the New York Times, [sarcasm]bastion of unbiased media[/sarcasm] ran a front-page human interest story about how the war had horribly inconvienienced the lives of a group of teenage girls. The thing that was downplayed, however, was that these girls belonged to families that worke directly under Saddam. I'd like to know who took the poll, and who those interviewed were. [QUOTE] Especially since we're pulling out before doing what we promised and setting them up with a stable democracy. [/QUOTE] First, we're not "pulling out" in a single swoop; that's not what the June 30th deadline is. On the 30th, we're turning decision and policy-making matters over to the Iraqi government. We will still have troops there for a long time, until they are stable enough on their own or ask us to leave. Second, while we have not met the initial goals we set yet, we have raised power output to averages higher than peak times under Saddam, distributed such amineties as air conditioners, refrigerators, and telephones, vaccinated thousands of children, watched the formation of hundreds of private businesses and several political partries, and trained the largest coalition force currently in the country. [QUOTE]But as for 9/11, the Bush Administration already knew about the planned attack and yet did nothing. Read [URL=http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.20A.us.knew.htm]here[/URL] for more info.[/QUOTE] This is old new; yes, the Bush administration (And Clinton administration) heard warnings thst terrorists were looking to use jets as weapons. Okay, you have that information; now what? What do you do? You can't increase security at the airports; people wouldn't stand for such an inconvienience in a pre-9/11 America. You don't know what they're planning to hit, or where they'll be, and you sure as heck can't pay any special attention to people of Middle-Eastern origin; we had a huge controversy about that after 9/11. If your implcation is that Bush should have done something, then you should have no problem with the war in Iqaq, because now he had information, he knew that Saddam violated UN charters, and he did something. [QUOTE]Terrorism itself is a concept that will always be around, whether with the support of a nation or not.[/QUOTE] But if you know a bnation that supports terror, shouldn't you dso something about it? [QUOTE]Someone could write a book about this. As for a few examples, the Bush Administration pledged $15 billion to help the world fight AIDS. He also promised to 'fully fund' a Low Income Home programme and instead, cut it by $300 million. [/QUOTE] Did he make those promises before or after 9/11?
  23. [quote name='Juuthena']The main thing I have against Bush is for dragging the country into a war without a clear reason. People are dying- and for what? [/quote] The war was pre-emptive; there was a great debate involving the concept of "Pre-emption" prior to the war. We have records from Saddam's regime linking them financially to al queda, and evidence given to us by Russian President Vladimir Putin (who did not send support to the war) indicating the Saddam's government was planning an attack on US soil. [QUOTE] Imagine if your brother or sister was out there and they were out risking their lives and possibly taking other lives for a war without a reason. [/QUOTE] How about my father being in Afghanistan, Jordan, and possible deployment status to Iraq? I assure you, he and the people he works with know exactly what they're working towards. [QUOTE]Also, I'd like to know why the government should have anything to do with Gay Marriage. I mean, if they're in love, why should it be a crime to make it legal? [/QUOTE] The government has to be involved because the government decides legality, and we've all decided that marriges should fall under government jurisdiction. (They shouldn't; it should be left to churches.) [QUOTE]Oh, and maybe it's just because I go to a public school like most Americans, but I really don't think some people who are more financially endowed and have the oppertunity to go to a private school really understand how much the schools are in debt. The PTA asks us pretty much twice a month to donate twenty dollars per family simply to afford the 8th grade graduation at the end of the year. To go to a school trip, you have to pay about an extra sixty dollars besides the cost of the trip, and help the school raise money by participating in bake sales and car washes that are NOT FUN. Our worksheets are simply the backs of used PTA announcements, because the school can't afford enough blank paper to give us new worksheets daily. [/QUOTE] I've said it before and I'll say it again: schools were deteriorating long before President Bush came into the office. Presoident Clinton was in office for almost a decade, and he didn't fix anything. To blame President Bush alone for the school situation is foolish and misleading. [QUOTE]...And who can ignore the gas prices? I don't drive, but every time my dad and I go to the gas station, it costs us at LEAST forty dollars. But I live in San Francisco, so that's normal, right? *rolls eyes*[/QUOTE] We pay less than just about every single country in the workld for gasoline, yet we're still complaining. In Europe, their gas has been more expensive than our current levels for years, and they're sick of hearing us complain. Besides, relative to inflation, or current gas prices are nothing compared to the oil-embargo of the seventies. "All time high" my arse. [QUOTE]Oh, and as for a war on terrorism, it's just pointless. There has always been terrorism and will always be terrorism. And no, the middle east is not the only area where terrorism exists. --[/QUOTE] People said the same thing about the USSR. "Why challenge a totalitarian communist regime? They're always going to be there!" But, guess what? They weren't. Part of the reason was that people don't like to live under totalitarian communist regimes, and will break from them if the opportunity is presented. Another part is that the system itself was horribly flawed, crippling the Soviet Union from within. the final piece of the puzzle was a president who said, "Hey, why don't we try to win the Cold War, instead of accepting co-existance with an empire that would destroy us?" People don't like to live under the fear of terrorism. The system of government terrorists inflict upon those around them is horribly flawed. And there's a president whom, for all his faults, doesn't think we should just accept terrorism, but that we should eliminate it. [QUOTE]And one more thing. I'd rather have someone who makes a moderate amount of promises and KEEPS them, rather than someone who makes a billion proposals and bearly keeps any.[/QUOTE] Examples? [QUOTE](Apologies if this post was rediculous and unintelligent.) [/QUOTE] And I aplogize if I appear rude or stand off-ish.
  24. [quote name='cloricus']DeathBug. Your post has no relevant facts that we do not already know,[/quote] If my post contains known facts, why are you arguing with them? [QUOTE]continued with flawed arguments pretending that they were true when any one who can pick up any number of books will realise are false,[/QUOTE] Yet...you don't reference any books? Hm. [QUOTE]and did not address any of my questions seriously which lead to a babbling post on your part. [/QUOTE] Well, if I answered your petty insults seriously, you might think i take you seriously, and I didn't want to give you the wrong idea. [QUOTE]It was a waste of time.[/QUOTE] But you reply anyway. You remind me of my sister when she constantly tells me how much she's ignoring me. [QUOTE]I do not feel the need to rebut it again as with simple 'facts' from 'reliable sources' (which you fail to be able to sight) can crush what ever arguments you have so far put up.[/QUOTE] You want a biliography? Your use of rhetoric without sighting facts is okay, but my useing facts without sighting sources is unforgivable? [QUOTE]Which I would much enjoy but I have assignments and work which, you might find it odd, come before posting and pleasure. [/QUOTE] So, now...I'm lazy? In addition to being a small-minded wanker? And you kiss your mother with that mouth? [QUOTE]Though I'm sure the others that have replied, and will reply, to your dribble might be able to get through the simple fact that you are wrong.[/QUOTE] Translation: "You're wrong just because you are. No, don't expect me to provide documented evidence, but you better be able to. Wanker." [QUOTE][i]You can keep your conspiracies.[/i][/QUOTE] What conspiracy? I'd like to say it's been fun chatting with you, but it hasn't been. I treat your insults like jokes because you're a joke, but not a very good one.
  25. [quote name='cloricus']Deathbug, your post is long, and you seem to be using this mess of words to hide the fact that it is just a load of your opinion dressed up as fact.[/quote] Well, hello Miss Mary Sunshine. I bet you're a riot at parties, huh? [quote name='cloricus']For the sake of logic I will rebut comments in relation to myself and for the sake of time I will be giving brunt replies as your post really isn't worth it.[/quote] How sweet. ^__^ You shouldn't have. Really. No, really. [quote name='cloricus']I would like to point out that they were totally unexpected by the American command.[/quote] "Totally unexpected"? Central command was well aware that there would be insurgencies, but it was impossible to accuratly predict where in Iraq insurgencies would take place. So, while they were xpected, resources couldn't be rationed until after the incident had already happened;l it was just common sense. [QUOTE]Clap clap to your intelligence[/QUOTE] *bows* [QUOTE]Also what is Lady Cleo?[/QUOTE] A lady. A lady named Cleo. [QUOTE]I find your comparison flawed as the situation was vastly different. [/QUOTE] How was it different? Take out old government, put in better government. Two years after the Nazi surrender, it was expected that the Allies would be unable to rebuild Germany, that they'd have to pull out, and the country would just clapse like a house of cards. It's exactly the same rhetoric that's being used now. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. (The Germans sure didn't like the Allied forces in their country; more of them were angry that the Iraqis are.) [QUOTE]As for a free democratic Iraq in control of it's own destiny, it will come yes, just not any time soon. [/QUOTE] What do you define as "soon"? [QUOTE]Clearly it is you.[/QUOTE] Contrary to your fragile view of the world, the american media isn't exactly awash with praise for President Bush, or Republicans in general. In fact, the most powerful media conglomerates in the country recently discussed the idea of organizing an official opposition to the war. (They decided nott o when someone pointed out that they might then be percieved as "biased". No, really?) CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post...all the big name media outlets in the US (with the possible exception of FoxNews, and I don't watch FoxNews) are controled by democrats, and are biased against President Bush. What's this have to do with anything? Only that, you're right, America is being spoon-fed propaganda. Where you're wrong is your assumption of the content; the propaganda they try to feed us is anti-war, and anti-Bush. [QUOTE]Or would you like to show me some proof of this 'document' [/QUOTE] Love to; can't. It hasn't been declassified. However, the [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/2/224317.shtml]Iraqi Prime Minister[/url] goes so far as to say that Saddam had links to not only al queda, but also 9/11. The US doesn't subscribe to that line of thought, thoiugh, and dchoose not to widely publisize the statements. However, the link between al queda and Sadam is not in question. [QUOTE]I'll save you the typing and admit that that statement is personal opinion and possibly unfounded.[/QUOTE] You know what's great about that opinion? No one from your government is going to kill you in the night because they disapprove of it. Now, the people of Iraq can say the same thing. [QUOTE]I'd rather some one who logically thinks through problems in stead of dropping the world in the Iraq conflict.[/QUOTE] Except the US did'nt drop "the world" in the conflict. We were actually sevewrely critisized for going in without Russia, France and Germany. [QUOTE]Some one who goes to war on a flawed case that had nothing to do with why they were pissed off in the first place is some one I would class as that. [/QUOTE] The US never stated that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. (We stated that it had connections to al queda, but not the actual 9/11 attack.) [QUOTE]Yet again more claims of 'information' that fail to exist. [/QUOTE] Between 1984 and 1988, six seperate teams of UN investigators documented instances of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iranians. In 1988, the Security Council blamed Iraq for using mustard gas in attacks against Iranian cities. The same year, Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz openly admitted that poson gas was enshrined in official Iraqi war policy. Iraq failed to account for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled warheads. Nor has it accounted for 550 artillary shells filled with mustard gas. In the early eighties, Sadaam built a nuclear plantt that would have given him the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons; however, it was destroyed in an air strike by Isreal. So, yes, the UN believed Sadaam had WMD's. [QUOTE]Also you assume I care about a government that rapes and tortures dissidents? [/QUOTE] Well, I assumed you were a decent human being, and therefore would. [QUOTE]Well I do in part[/QUOTE] Good. [QUOTE]but if you are going to take that stand please go and invade chilli, zimbabwe and all of those other nations that have dictators that make Saddam look like a simple theft.[/QUOTE] If it were up to me, we would. I'm not so paralyzed by the political machine that I'd stand by while that happened. Unfortunatly, I am not in a position to craft foreign policy. [QUOTE]You need to realise the original reason for war was WMD, they do not exist[/QUOTE] Actually, we've found: records indivcating purchases of WMD's, laboratories for creating WMD's, storage facilities for WMD's, and warheads designed to deliver WMD's. I'm sure Saddam just kept that around because he thought it was cool-looking. Why haven't we found more than trace amounts of WMD's? Because we told the world two months in advance what we were doing. [QUOTE]He is not cleaning up his mess and leaving it for people who cannot[/QUOTE] Half of the Iraqi facilities are already in the hands of the Iraqi government. It's not like it's going to be a sudden pull-out; we'll be there until the Iraqi government requests that we withdraw all troops. [QUOTE]Enjoy the knowledge that you are part of the reason that they along with nearly 10,000 civilian Iraqi's are dead. [/QUOTE] That was a very vicious remark, but considering the source, I'm not surprised. Also considering that I can't vote until September, I've yet to actually become "part of the reason". The current Iraqi death toll is 6,000, buy the way. To put that in perspective, 50,000000 people in Iraq and afghanistan have been liberated from totalitarian regimes. Casualties are horrible, and should not be forgotten or made light of, but perspective is neccessary. [QUOTE]Though it's nice to see you follow the bandwagons and hype[/QUOTE] Except the bandwagon is driving in the opposite direction, as I said earlier. The media is decidedly anti-Bush, as are several of my close friends. [QUOTE]I sense a wanker trying to score brownie points without reading the posts he is 'dissecting' and trying to get anything he can to string together.[/QUOTE] So...there won't be brownies, then? [QUOTE]If you would read only slightly further, not to hard to do when you put your small mind to it,[/QUOTE] Ah, I disagree, so I'm stupid. Thanks for the clarification. [QUOTE]I follow this party strongly but when it comes to voting it is not who I follow, it's who is the best for the situation that I choose.[/QUOTE] You tell NaturalBlue that s/he was "indoctrinated by his/her parents", yet you vote the same way as your family, and you aren't "indocrtinated". That is the double standard, and the point i was trying to make. Itr's easy to follow if you put your mind to it. [QUOTE]No, you are in America.[/QUOTE] You are completely and totally right. And you knoww hat? I've lived overseas, and I spent my entire high school career researching other countries, and I can tell you, I would not have it any other way. [QUOTE]Sorry to all the intelligent people this generalisation alienates. [/QUOTE] Don't worry; I don't think anyone intelligent reads your posts. *rimshot* [QUOTE]And for your total lack of logic, fact, or basic abilities to argue I award you the infamous ?Disinformation Award?[/QUOTE] From you, I consider that a compliment. [QUOTE][url]http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/[/url][/QUOTE] I love that guy. ^__^
×
×
  • Create New...