About the "American Flag" debacle and 9/11

Edit history:

Kay: 2003-09-19 12:07:47 am

2003-09-19 12:02:32 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

"However, on the global level, something like an oil natural resource does NOT belong to any other country!"

- Wrong. Oil fields within the territorial waters of Norway belong to us and no one else. End of story.

Let me tell you what would happen if the "Sole World Power, the US of (insert Halo wherever you see fit) A" got control over the worlds largest oil reserve.

First of all, they would never agree to a partnership in OPEC, because this would put a restrainer on their ability to produce and export oil. The result would be a massive prize war, as the US would attempt to export as much oil as possible to strenghten their economy. AND because the US would probably have the ability to rival, and even outproduce all the other contries in the world combined. The World would cry out in vain, as the Americans did what was in their own best interest.

Oil prizes would drop through the floor, even if they are already lower than they should be (imho). Think about this when you tank up your car over there across the Atlantic; if you were in Norway, it would cost you over 3 times as much to do it (Still: For 2 consecutive years Norway has been Awarded "Best nation to live in" by the UN).

And yes, before you even mention it, Norway is not a part of OPEC, basically cause we're not big enough to influence the organization in our favor - yes, you read it, OUR favor. You know, the stuff that WE feel is important. We are greedy bastards who wants the most profits from this resource, [sarcasm] as opposed to the "Sole Power" the US who will take charge of all the oil reserves in the world, and freely distribute them globally. Share the goods! [/sarcasm]

Obviously the low prizes would be a world-wide effect, which would again lead to oil being the cheapest way to get from A to B, warm up your house, etc. Which would of course lead to pollution skyrocketing, bye-bye Kyoto agreement, the utter and total collapse of commersial ways of travel in the districts and probably a whole slew of other problems...

I want to say that I'm not against the USA. I think it's a great contry in many ways. What I don't like is this blinded, patriotic bullshit that's impairing your vision and judgement. Phil, you are just naive. A nation acts according to it's own interest. Primarily concerning economic growth. And we have to! It's a competition out there. It's always been a competition between contries, and that's how it will stay for a long, long time. Do you think we would have solved all the worlds problems with one sole power "The United States of Earth". Do you really think that starving children in the 3rd world care which contry they belong to. What would the economy be like in US of E? I'll tell you how. There wouldn't be an economy. Cause who would we export products to and make money offa? Had Hitler won the war in the forties, you would probably have your Sole World Power already. I only know one thing for sure. I wouldn't wanna live there.

"However, on the global level, something like an oil natural resource does NOT belong to any other country!"

- Wrong. Oil fields within the territorial waters of Norway belong to us and no one else. End of story.

Let me tell you what would happen if the "Sole World Power, the US of (insert Halo wherever you see fit) A" got control over the worlds largest oil reserve.

First of all, they would never agree to a partnership in OPEC, because this would put a restrainer on their ability to produce and export oil. The result would be a massive prize war, as the US would attempt to export as much oil as possible to strenghten their economy. AND because the US would probably have the ability to rival, and even outproduce all the other contries in the world combined. The World would cry out in vain, as the Americans did what was in their own best interest.

Oil prizes would drop through the floor, even if they are already lower than they should be (imho). Think about this when you tank up your car over there across the Atlantic; if you were in Norway, it would cost you over 3 times as much to do it (Still: For 2 consecutive years Norway has been Awarded "Best nation to live in" by the UN).

And yes, before you even mention it, Norway is not a part of OPEC, basically cause we're not big enough to influence the organization in our favor - yes, you read it, OUR favor. You know, the stuff that WE feel is important. We are greedy bastards who wants the most profits from this resource, [sarcasm] as opposed to the "Sole Power" the US who will take charge of all the oil reserves in the world, and freely distribute them globally. Share the goods! [/sarcasm]

Obviously the low prizes would be a world-wide effect, which would again lead to oil being the cheapest way to get from A to B, warm up your house, etc. Which would of course lead to pollution skyrocketing, bye-bye Kyoto agreement, the utter and total collapse of commersial ways of travel in the districts and probably a whole slew of other problems...

I want to say that I'm not against the USA. I think it's a great contry in many ways. What I don't like is this blinded, patriotic bullshit that's impairing your vision and judgement. Phil, you are just naive. A nation acts according to it's own interest. Primarily concerning economic growth. And we have to! It's a competition out there. It's always been a competition between contries, and that's how it will stay for a long, long time. Do you think we would have solved all the worlds problems with one sole power "The United States of Earth". Do you really think that starving children in the 3rd world care which contry they belong to. What would the economy be like in US of E? I'll tell you how. There wouldn't be an economy. Cause who would we export products to and make money offa? Had Hitler won the war in the forties, you would probably have your Sole World Power already. I only know one thing for sure. I wouldn't wanna live there.

Orbs

2003-09-19 10:23:20 am

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

Anyone saw Clintons speech for the labour-party? It was broadasted by the bbc just b4 the war started. I thought he made more a lot of sense. Ofcourse he could speak much more freely/his own opinion then when he we prez.

phil

2003-09-19 03:11:16 pm

Huhae

Quote:

Btw you mentioned freer Turkey...Ever heared how the Turks treat the Kurds?

Ever heard about school bombings in USA?

What I see from Alex, and finally from you, Orbs, is a utopian outlook of mind. I SHARE THIS OUTLOOK -- but only in Hope, not in my expectance of it in Reality.

I *KNOW* that utopia cannot happen -- it did not happen in USSR, did it now?

phil

2003-09-19 03:13:54 pm

Huhae

Quote:

>Please give me an example how Clinton has brains when Bush 2 doesn't?

"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

That ought to be something...

Martin obviously doesn't like reading. But that's ok, this forum has a neat quote option so I can repeat myself again and again and again.....:

Quote:

Under Clinton, Military secrets ended up in China.

Under Clinton, that same China laundered money for Clintons reelection campaign (hmmm...)

Under Clinton, "dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. "

Under Clinton, on 19 of 20 occasions where ENRON asked the Clinton Administration to underwrite foreign loans, the administration said yes, to the sum total of $2 billion dollars.

Under Clinton we had way too many Presidential pardons to drug-runners and tax cheaters.

Under Clinton we had Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the perjury scandal, etc etc etc.

And again, "During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured"

And you, Alex, Are telling me that Clinton had more Brains??? Maybe thats not such a good thing, if all those brains did were increase the size of his bank account and his home furnuture. (I bet you don't remember when he sold White House furniture for himself when his 2nd term was done...)"

[glb]Clinton was a Democrat piece of shit that got lucky because the Economic Cycle -- which has NOTHING to do with the Presidential Cabinet -- was on the up-swing.[/glb]

If you mention Clinton as being better than Bush in the future, I'm simply going to laugh. At you.

/me laughs at martin

[quote]>Please give me an example how Clinton has brains when Bush 2 doesn't?

"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html

That ought to be something...[/quote]

Martin obviously doesn't like reading.  But that's ok, this forum has a neat quote option so I can repeat myself again and again and again.....:

[quote]Under Clinton, Military secrets ended up in China.

Under Clinton, that same China laundered money for Clintons reelection campaign (hmmm...)

Under Clinton, "dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. "

Under Clinton, on 19 of 20 occasions where ENRON asked the Clinton Administration to underwrite foreign loans, the administration said yes, to the sum total of $2 billion dollars.

Under Clinton we had way too many Presidential pardons to drug-runners and tax cheaters.

Under Clinton we had Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the perjury scandal, etc etc etc.

And again, "During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured"

And you, Alex, Are telling me that Clinton had more Brains???  Maybe thats not such a good thing, if all those brains did were increase the size of his bank account and his home furnuture.  (I bet you don't remember when he sold White House furniture for himself when his 2nd term was done...)"

[glb][u][b]Clinton was a Democrat piece of shit that got lucky because the Economic Cycle -- which has NOTHING to do with the Presidential Cabinet -- was on the up-swing.[/b][/u][/glb]

If you mention Clinton as being better than Bush in the future, I'm simply going to laugh.  At you.
[/quote]

/me laughs at martin

phil

Edit history:

phil: 2003-09-19 03:19:04 pm

2003-09-19 03:18:45 pm

Huhae

When I meant "oil belong to the world" i meant it in a metaphorical sense. Obviously Norway owns its oil field. But it is unacceptable for the OPEC countries to strangle the world because they make something like 80% of the worlds oil. OPEC tightents oil noose --> forcing the rest of the world either to suffer or to comply to OPEC's demands. It's like the Middle East is holding the Oil RIfle to the head of the World. And when you couple that with Saddam, it is easy to see that removing Saddam, even if it is partly because of oil, is right. There is nothing right about removing Norway because of oil -- because Norway is an extremely sensible government (although I would like to see what kind of monstrous changes Norway gov't would have to go through if suddenly Norway was the sole world power...)

Ripah I can't understand many of the oil points your trying to make... And I have little time to sit down and throughly read them -- running to class.. Could you rephrase yourself a little clearer please? Thanks..

When I meant "oil belong to the world" i meant it in a metaphorical sense.  Obviously Norway owns its oil field.  But it is unacceptable for the OPEC countries to strangle the world because they make something like 80% of the worlds oil.  OPEC tightents oil noose --> forcing the rest of the world either to suffer or to comply to OPEC's demands.  It's like the Middle East is holding the Oil RIfle to the head of the World.  And when you couple that with Saddam, it is easy to see that removing Saddam, even if it is partly because of oil, is right.  There is nothing right about removing Norway because of oil -- because Norway is an extremely sensible government (although I would like to see what kind of monstrous changes Norway gov't would have to go through if suddenly Norway was the sole world power...)

Ripah I can't understand many of the oil points your trying to make...  And I have little time to sit down and throughly read them -- running to class..  Could you rephrase yourself a little clearer please?  Thanks..

lodis

2003-09-19 04:19:05 pm

yuck fou

really phil...
here you sit accusing people of not reading what you write and then you won't even read ripahs text? hypocrite. I found his text to be easily read, and I'm fairly fluent in english.
You really do need to learn a few basic points in how to argue. You're not exactly making any friends here, but hey, maybe you don't care.

Whenever people don't agree with you, you just seem to brush them off by saying they "obviously" haven't read what you wrote or just tell them they're dumb.

I wasn't going to become involved in this discussion as I don't think we're getting anywhere but when you start lashing out at level-headed people like Ripah I get pissed off.

alex

2003-09-19 04:53:38 pm

Quote:

Do you not realise that America, as the sole world power -- the biggest (on an average, by 50x times) producer of goods -- will also be the biggest polluter? In order to make goods, you have to have electricity, converting factories, etc. This all makes pollution. So, you say it pulled out the protocol on global warming (which, by the way, is a FARCE made up by scientists just so they can have more grants) because "it can do what it wants?"

Uh.. First of all let me take you up on that -- "Yes." United States is a sovereign country, the most successfull in the history of the human civilization, so YES it can do what it wants.

And still you dare to wonder why some people hate USA. BTW how do you define the most successfull? Is it the 21% GDP of the world or that do you use some kind of other meters? And by the way even if it is a bit early to tell if global warming is true or false, do you really think its worth taking a chance?

Quote:

But the real reason why it pulled out is simply because it CANNOT fulfill the requirements of the Kyoto protocol -- as a direct *consequence* of it making, on the average, fifty times as many goods as any other country!

Oh, I understand it now. The most important thing in the world is producing goods instead of securing the world from pollution. I'll repeat some of the issues I listed last time in hope they will reach your brain this time:

-Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%
-Cut funding research for research into cleaner, more efficiend cars and trucks by 28%
-Revoked rules strenghtening the power of government to deny contracts to companies that violate federal laws, environmental laws and workplace safety standarts
-Cut half a billion(!) dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency budget
-Abandoned his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming

If Bush (or whoever does things for him) had a slightest will to improve environmental situation, they at least wouldnt to things listed above. It's not that they CANNOT fulfill the requirements of Kyoto protocol, they just DONT WANT to, as it would mean less income from oil. I'm quite sure that USA wouldnt fall apart financially if they had Protocol signed. If they had will for improving miles/gallon ratio for new cars, they would do it. Japanese can do it, so why not big almighty USA?

Quote:

Here are some examples where Clinton did NOT have brains:
Under Clinton, Military secrets ended up in China.
Under Clinton, that same China laundered money for Clintons reelection campaign (hmmm...)
Under Clinton, "dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. "
Under Clinton, on 19 of 20 occasions where ENRON asked the Clinton Administration to underwrite foreign loans, the administration said yes, to the sum total of $2 billion dollars.
Under Clinton we had way too many Presidential pardons to drug-runners and tax cheaters.
Under Clinton we had Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the perjury scandal, etc etc etc.
And again, "During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured"
And you, Alex, Are telling me that Clinton had more Brains??? Maybe thats not such a good thing, if all those brains did were increase the size of his bank account and his home furnuture. (I bet you don't remember when he sold White House furniture for himself when his 2nd term was done...)"

Clinton was a Democrat piece of shit that got lucky because the Economic Cycle -- which has NOTHING to do with the Presidential Cabinet -- was on the up-swing.

If you mention Clinton as being better than Bush in the future, I'm simply going to laugh. At you.

Yes, yes and yes. But if you read my last post really close, you can find that I said:

"I dont say that Clinton was any good" dunno if you noticed it, and contunued with "but at least he had brains" which you apparently did notice.

Clinton fucked up a whole lot of things and in most of them he got a loads of money as a result. But that has nothing to do with being without brains. He was a dirty thief and so is Bush.

Quote:

Alex do you live in the USA? Have you ever been to the USA? I have for 10 years. I came here with nothing except my dad, and he came here with nothing except me. Right now I am in my 3rd year at the City University, I am allready doing part-time work worth of $2,000 dollars per WEEK."

I dont have to eat shit to know it tastes bad. I can tell it by the smell...
As I said before, in order to have a succesfull life in USA you have to be either rich or smart. Obviously you are smart as you are doing so well. But do you really think that its alright that almost third of your society lives in poverty? After all your country is "the most successfull in the history of the human civilization". How can that be?

Quote:

All your trivia falls short because it means: nothing. I've been from one ghetto to the other, I have lived in the biggest metropolises (New York City) to the smallest towns (Palisades Park, NJ -- 15,000 people), and I can tell you that America is truly the land of the free, and the home of the brave."

Free you say? Please define me what you think means word "free" or "freedom". IMHO freedom means that you at least have a freedom for your own body. You can get jail for as harmless thing as smoking weed. And you dont have a chance to do abortion, even if you got pregnant in rape. Many books are sencored in USA, FBI has a right to know what kind of literature you read by accessing to your library accounts (makes kinda nostalgic about USSR, no?). If you can tell me what free/freedom has to do with those, I'll be more than happy to know.

Quote:

Infrastructure of USA is as rotten as USSR's in good ol' days" This statement is really funny. I have lived in both USA for 10 years, and in USSR for 10 years (I am right now 2 months short of my 20th birthday). My parents have lived in USSR all their lives. You are Russian, no? I am sure you have lived na rodnoi zemle. All I can tell you without offending you is that that statement is really, really funny. And untrue. "LOL"....

Yes I'm russian I've lived 10 years in USSR, and I also remember how facinated people were about America when they opened the borders. Do you know why? Peolpe had become "materealits to the bone" as a result of poverty which was quite common. And when they saw how things were in USA they were totally blinded with "American material comfort", the kind of comfort they were dreaming about their whole life. So it was kinda hard not to like "the American way". I see you as one of those people. (Surprised?)

Quote:

Concerning elections of Florida. What question do you have? Bush won Florida because he had more votes than Gore. They counted them by hand. This has happened about 5 or 6 times before in US history (i've outlined them in an earlier post of mine). Any more questions? I am happy to answer them, even though im "tm of US Corporation" (whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean... "LOL")

Oh, that's the story... I'm so bored in pasting "random trivia from the book of some fundamentally liberal person" (which is very good reason to ignore everything I say). So if you could step down to my level of stupidity, even if its hard, and read "Stupid White Men".

[quote]
Do you not realise that America, as the sole world power -- the biggest (on an average, by 50x times) producer of goods -- will also be the biggest polluter?  In order to make goods, you have to have electricity, converting factories, etc.  This all makes pollution.  So, you say it pulled out the protocol on global warming (which, by the way, is a FARCE made up by scientists just so they can have more grants) because "it can do what it wants?"

Uh..  First of all let me take you up on that -- "Yes."  United States is a sovereign country, the most successfull in the history of the human civilization, so YES it can do what it wants.[/quote]

And still you dare to wonder why some people hate USA. BTW how do you define the most successfull? Is it the 21% GDP of the world or that do you use some kind of other meters? And by the way even if it is a bit early to tell if global warming is true or false, do you really think its worth taking a chance?

[quote]
But the real reason why it pulled out is simply because it CANNOT fulfill the requirements of the Kyoto protocol -- as a direct *consequence* of it making, on the average, fifty times as many goods as any other country![/quote]

Oh, I understand it now. The most important thing in the world is producing goods instead of securing the world from pollution. I'll repeat some of the issues I listed last time in hope they will reach your brain this time:

-Cut funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%
-Cut funding research for research into cleaner, more efficiend cars and trucks by 28% 
-Revoked rules strenghtening the power of government to deny contracts to companies that violate federal laws, environmental laws and workplace safety standarts
-Cut half a billion(!) dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency budget
-Abandoned his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, a major contributor to global warming

If Bush (or whoever does things for him) had a slightest will to improve environmental situation, they at least wouldnt to things listed above. It's not that they CANNOT fulfill the requirements of Kyoto protocol, they just DONT WANT to, as it would mean less income from oil. I'm quite sure that USA wouldnt fall apart financially if they had Protocol signed. If they had will for improving miles/gallon ratio for new cars, they would do it. Japanese can do it, so why not big almighty USA?

[quote]
Here are some examples where Clinton did NOT have brains:
Under Clinton, Military secrets ended up in China.
Under Clinton, that same China laundered money for Clintons reelection campaign (hmmm...)
Under Clinton, "dispatched to hold illegal fundraisers at Buddhist temples, where he collected money from dozens of nuns who--despite having taken vows of poverty--each managed to produce a $5,000 check for Clinton's re-election. His top fundraiser, Terry McAuliffe, the current head of the aforementioned DNC, made $18,000,000 from a $100,000 investment in Global Crossing, now bankrupt and under investigation for shady government contracts during the Clinton Administration. "
Under Clinton, on 19 of 20 occasions where ENRON asked the Clinton Administration to underwrite foreign loans, the administration said yes, to the sum total of $2 billion dollars.
Under Clinton we had way too many Presidential pardons to drug-runners and tax cheaters.
Under Clinton we had Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the perjury scandal, etc etc etc.
And again, "During the Clinton Administration, there were 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S. which left over 415 dead and 6,500 injured"
And you, Alex, Are telling me that Clinton had more Brains???  Maybe thats not such a good thing, if all those brains did were increase the size of his bank account and his home furnuture.  (I bet you don't remember when he sold White House furniture for himself when his 2nd term was done...)"

Clinton was a Democrat piece of shit that got lucky because the Economic Cycle -- which has NOTHING to do with the Presidential Cabinet -- was on the up-swing.

If you mention Clinton as being better than Bush in the future, I'm simply going to laugh.  At you.
[/quote]

Yes, yes and yes. But if you read my last post really close, you can find that I said:

"I dont say that Clinton was any good" dunno if you noticed it, and contunued with "but at least he had brains" which you apparently did notice.

Clinton fucked up a whole lot of things and in most of them he got a loads of money as a result. But that has nothing to do with being without brains. He was a dirty thief and so is Bush.

[quote]
Alex do you live in the USA?  Have you ever been to the USA?  I have for 10 years.  I came here with nothing except my dad, and he came here with nothing except me.  Right now I am in my 3rd year at the City University, I am allready doing part-time work worth of $2,000 dollars per WEEK."
[/quote]

I dont have to eat shit to know it tastes bad. I can tell it by the smell...
As I said before, in order to have a succesfull life in USA you have to be either rich or smart. Obviously you are smart as you are doing so well. But do you really think that its alright that almost third of your society lives in poverty? After all your country is "the most successfull in the history of the human civilization". How can that be?

[quote]
All your trivia falls short because it means: nothing.  I've been from one ghetto to the other, I have lived in the biggest metropolises (New York City) to the smallest towns (Palisades Park, NJ -- 15,000 people), and I can tell you that America is truly the land of the free, and the home of the brave."
[/quote]

Free you say? Please define me what you think means word "free" or "freedom". IMHO freedom means that you at least have a freedom for your own body. You can get jail for as harmless thing as smoking weed. And you dont have a chance to do abortion, even if you got pregnant in rape. Many books are sencored in USA, FBI has a right to know what kind of literature you read by accessing to your library accounts (makes kinda nostalgic about USSR, no?). If you can tell me what free/freedom has to do with those, I'll be more than happy to know.

[quote]
Infrastructure of USA is as rotten as USSR's in good ol' days"  This statement is really funny.  I have lived in both USA for 10 years, and in USSR for 10 years (I am right now 2 months short of my 20th birthday).  My parents have lived in USSR all their lives.  You are Russian, no?  I am sure you have lived na rodnoi zemle.  All I can tell you without offending you is that that statement is really, really funny.  And untrue.  "LOL"....
[/quote]

Yes I'm russian I've lived 10 years in USSR, and I also remember how facinated people were about America when they opened the borders. Do you know why? Peolpe had become "materealits to the bone" as a result of poverty which was quite common. And when they saw how things were in USA they were totally blinded with "American material comfort", the kind of comfort they were dreaming about their whole life. So it was kinda hard not to like "the American way". I see you as one of those people. (Surprised?)

[quote]
Concerning elections of Florida.  What question do you have?  Bush won Florida because he had more votes than Gore.  They counted them by hand.  This has happened about 5 or 6 times before in US history (i've outlined them in an earlier post of mine).  Any more questions?  I am happy to answer them, even though im "tm of US Corporation" (whatever the fuck thats supposed to mean...  "LOL")[/quote]

Oh, that's the story... I'm so bored in pasting "random trivia from the book of some fundamentally liberal person" (which is very good reason to ignore everything I say). So if you could step down to my level of stupidity, even if its hard, and read "Stupid White Men".

Orbs

2003-09-19 06:34:55 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

Ever heard about school bombings in USA?

What I see from Alex, and finally from you, Orbs, is a utopian outlook of mind. I SHARE THIS OUTLOOK -- but only in Hope, not in my expectance of it in Reality.

I *KNOW* that utopia cannot happen -- it did not happen in USSR, did it

and why does those kind of events events always(99%) happen in the USA?

Orbs

2003-09-19 06:39:24 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

As long as ppl keep opinions like yours it's utopean. Cuz the ones with "the other" opinion are to fair, welmannered etc to eliminate the opposition. Its like the weedsmokers vs the beerdrinkers the beerdrinkers have the big mouth and are aggressive the weedsmokers think,relax think again then are like we probably can work it out....But they always get overscreamed by the alcoholics...

Kay

Edit history:

Kay: 2003-09-20 02:13:19 am

2003-09-20 02:01:01 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Well, not to put too fine a point on it;

More oil = lower prizes = more consumation = more pollution = A shittier world to live in.

Btw, when I wrote that post about Clinton, I was drunk, so that was just a provocation. But hey, it doesn't really matter how smart an American president is, right? Clinton supposedly has a pretty high IQ I recall, and Bush is just a redneck hillbilly who cant tell his left foot from the other left. Point is that they're all puppets. They have advisors left and right typing their speeches and manufacturing their opinions. They're just a front, that's all.

The presidential election is all about how much money you got backing the campaign. Seems people in the US will swallow anything they get, as long as it's in their face 24/7.

About pollution. Quite frankly I don't give a damn about it. I will be dead before the environment turns hostile. And I don't believe in reincarnation or religion of any kind, so I don't have time to ponder stuff that might happen after I'm dead. But that may change in the future. I have read that scientists estimate that by 2050 they will have found a way to make people immortal by regenerating all cells in the body synthetically...So here's to living past 80! =)

And about making friends and enemies as Lodis briefly mentioned. I don't really care what people think of my opinions. Alot of people disagree with me in many aspects, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like them. I'd never let something as trivial as a political dispute come between me and my friends. I'd simply back off instead, lulling them into believing they are actually right, when of course they aren't *cough*. Hehh...right.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it;

More oil = lower prizes = more consumation = more pollution = A shittier world to live in.

Btw, when I wrote that post about Clinton, I was drunk, so that was just a provocation. But hey, it doesn't really matter how smart an American president is, right? Clinton supposedly has a pretty high IQ I recall, and Bush is just a redneck hillbilly who cant tell his left foot from the other left. Point is that they're all puppets. They have advisors left and right typing their speeches and manufacturing their opinions. They're just a front, that's all.

The presidential election is all about how much money you got backing the campaign. Seems people in the US will swallow anything they get, as long as it's in their face 24/7.

About pollution. Quite frankly I don't give a damn about it. I will be dead before the environment turns hostile. And I don't believe in reincarnation or religion of any kind, so I don't have time to ponder stuff that might happen after I'm dead. But that may change in the future. I have read that scientists estimate that by 2050 they will have found a way to make people immortal by regenerating all cells in the body synthetically...So here's to living past 80! =)

And about making friends and enemies as Lodis briefly mentioned. I don't really care what people think of my opinions. Alot of people disagree with me in many aspects, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like them. I'd never let something as trivial as a political dispute come between me and my friends. I'd simply back off instead, lulling them into believing they are actually right, when of course they aren't *cough*. Hehh...right.

phil

2003-09-20 07:40:00 pm

Huhae

Quote:

They have advisors left and right typing their speeches and manufacturing their opinions. They're just a front, that's all.

The presidential election is all about how much money you got backing the campaign. Seems people in the US will swallow anything they get, as long as it's in their face 24/7.

yup!

In the end i've proven my point (see my original post) and don't feel like wasting any more time on this post going over banal ideologies on which we all obviously differ.

Martin

2003-09-21 12:50:49 pm

>Martin obviously doesn't like reading. But that's ok, this forum has a neat quote option so I can repeat myself again and again and again.....

phil I can't understand many of the clinton points your trying to make... And I have little time to sit down and throughly read them -- running to class.. Could you rephrase yourself a little clearer please? Thanks..

Fucking hipocrite.

phil

2003-09-21 09:33:43 pm

Huhae

Wow. I was genuinly running low on time and a statement such as "More oil = lower prizes = more consumation = more pollution = A shittier world to live in. " contains so much within it that you can't make any silly assumptions.

Like I could have assumed that he doesn't know about the decline of oil production and is simply ignorant of facts. Or I could have assumed he is siding on me with the OPEC oil-choke issue. Or I could have assumed he doesnt care and is just wasting my time, because later on he says "i dont care about pollution..." Either way I would have to write a totally different reply to him, and I had no time to write all three or four possible replies, ok?

So: instead I did NOT flame him (like you and some other fuck are flaming me), but asked him if he could elaborate on his stance.

Suck my dick martin. You're an awesome NQ speedrunner, but you can also suck my dick. Sad

alex

2003-09-24 03:42:23 pm

Here's something intresting:

http://www.yazka.com/yliluonnollista/911/marrs.htm

Orbs

2003-09-24 11:29:51 pm

tja, het is verorberen en verorberd worden

nice food

phil

2003-09-27 04:58:29 pm

Huhae

"This new war might well be compared to the failed War on Drugs and the nearly forgotten War on Poverty. No clear victory has yet been achieved over the misuse of drugs or the ravages of poverty within our own nation. Our prisons are overflowing with drug offenders with no appreciable lessening of either demand or supply and our basic civil rights have been badly mauled.

Just like those failed campaigns, the War on Terrorism for the foreseeable future will set us all on a costly course of restrictions on individual freedom, ever more centralized authority and omnipresent fear. "

For me, this is just another reminder of Utopia's fate. But what can you do?

The rest of that site's blather is unfounded, full of one-sided analogies, of inapplicable quotes, and alltogether lies.