, at
9:08 AM
It speaks for itself, what you hear is up to you.
Always assume nothing.
Always question everyting.
Always believe in something,
just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
9:08 AM
I still say neutralist party agenda. I mean, c'mon. Neutral! We'd be like Sweden! Or is that Switzerland? Awwww screw it.
Jon Stewart couldn't play himself cause he can't act worth shit. His words not mine.
By , at
10:13 AM
Neutral? Wouldn't that be a Canadian trademark? You know, nice, polite, doesn't complain or get involved in an arguement? Plus, what does the average American actually know about either Sweeden or Canada? A good idea, but it'll never fly in the good ol' U.S of A; the best country in the world, as long as you don't know anything else about the other ones...
Also, in the unlikely event that it ever comes to pass, lets not give every household in America an M-16... Oh, wait, they can buy them legally now, can't they? Uh, nevermind... (retreats to secret shelter in Canadian Rockies to wait until they run out of ammo.)
By , at
12:31 PM
Switzerland is the one that's famous for its neutrality, avoiding both world wars completely.
Person is smart. People are stupid. (Men in Black referense, heh.) The "Average American" is pretty sensible, has some historical knowledge, knows a good bit about other countries, perhaps even touring a few while on vacation if that counts for anything.
Unfortunately, when everyone gets thrown together in a sort-of organized USA, they tend to skip the thought processes and cling to the conclussions that have been given to them. They tend to trust that whatever is being fed to the masses is correct, unable to summon the creativity to pick it apart because of how incomprehensible world politics seems.
This can go both ways. Half of America is "pro-government" and completely trusts that the current administration is thinking everything out. The other half of America leans in the opposite direction, thinking that the current administration is incompetant, deceitful, and aggressive in every way. Then there's me, the only voice of reason in all- oops, I said that out loud.
Anyway, you can choose to be skeptical. You can choose to be trusting. You can choose to be stubborn. You can choose to be arguementative. But probably, the best thing of all is to be creative. Discussing new and different ideas from time to time is healthier for everyone than dwelling on the same old stubborn issues.
By , at
4:26 PM
You're both wrong. Sweden has be historically neutral too. (one fucking e for christ sake, it's not Sweeeeeden). Anyway, Sweden was not involved in World War II (they played their own part, don't get me wrong, but they didn't send their army to fight the Nasis.) Also, they have had a socialist government for a while and were more friendly with the USSR during the cold war. So, yes, they have been historically neutral, they just aren't as famous for it.
I'm sorry, all of you people who bitch about Americans not knowing about your country, but it's not our fault that you can't help but be exposed to US culture everyday. The US is just one country, it's easy to learn about and pretty much the most important foreign country to learn about. Then there are more than 200 other nations and they are all pretty much equally relivant to the US. Should Americans be expected to know everything about every nation? It's like asking a famous actor that you like to remember your name. It's not fair, but your countries cause it just as much as the US does.
So, try not to hold us to a double standard and if you care to explain about your own country, feel free to. Then you're actually helping and not just complaining.
-Gabe
By , at
8:28 PM
Why are you guys even talking about Sweden in the first place? I'm pretty sure that was the french flag in the video.
I think a movie with Don Knots as Bush would be pretty hilarious.
-Gabe
By , at
8:38 PM
Actually, we (Canada) were only neutral during Iraq and Vietnam. We have troops in Afghanistan and we had troops in Korea, the first gulf war, both World Wars.
By , at
9:17 PM
Hey, Whats the big deal with explaining who was neutral? We all know that the Swiss remained neutral in both World Wars. I think the poster was making fun of Dubya, who got Sweden and Switzerland confused. And when someone politely corrected him, he remained adamant that Sweden was the country that remained neutral during the war and had no real army. Because I know that someone will bring up, although it has no bearing on my point, yes, the Swiss do have a capable home guard, but they do not have military.
By , at
10:09 PM
Lol, no one in Europe has much of an army... but, yeah, I know what you're talking about. Sweden does have a military, what with the SAAB fighter planes and all.
Sweden did stay out of both wars (i'm not sure about world war I though...)
-Gabe
By , at
4:08 AM
Compared to the USA, no one has much of a military. Also, America is the only recognized superpower, and I think some Americans let that go to their head. Let's face it, pride in your nation is good, but anyone who says that all other nations suck is just being belligerent and ignorant. Visiting a nation is one thing. Travel agencies usually only make sure that when you tour a country, that you only see the good stuff, right? Ever see a tour bus in the ghetto? Just because you've visited a foreign country doesn't mean that you really know what it is like to live there. Ever lived in Canada? They have national pride, sure. They have an well-disciplined army that represents their country well as a part of the U.N forces in places like Bosnia and Afganistan, even if it is only a small one. Yes, hockey is big, too, and we miss it dearly. However, our winters are not as bad as everyone seems to think. Oh, and if anyone wants to see how REAL idiots run a country, come up here for a week and watch our news the whole time.
By , at
5:05 AM
Regarding the M-16 reference, am I the only one that's pissed off that I can legally own a handgun in my state (Michigan), but I can't buy, carry, or use a !@#$ing stun gun? I mean, c'mon. It's non-lethal!
Bah
By , at
6:08 PM
From Michigan, huh? I'm from there too. I live in korea right now though.
Anyway, I disagree with the statement that pride in your nation is a good thing. Pride is bad. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, it's odd that so many conservatives think pride in your nation is a good thing. It's not like your nation makes you a better or worse person, so why the fuck would you be proud of it or not? So what if your country is a super power, does it make you a super power? If your nation has a displined military, does it make you displined?
-Gabe
By , at
3:32 AM
To Gabe at 3:32 -
Just meant to say that no nation is perfect and that while you can be proud of some things it does or represents, don't make the mistake of thinking that nothing is wrong, or just ignoring or denying anything you don't like. Americans are recognized the world over for their love of, and/or their pride in their nation. Just remember two things: First, love can be blind, and second, pride commeth before a fall...
By , at
7:59 PM
That is what I said. Why are your repeating myself?
By , at
3:37 AM
Wasn't Russia a superpower at one point not so long ago? I seem to remember something to that effect... Didn't they go into a war in that very region of the world that the global community at large disapproved of? Didn't it end up dumping their economy into the toilet? Of course, that's nothing like the vastly effective war on terror that America is now waging, is it? Billion-dollar deficits are good for the economy, aren't they? In soviet Russia, a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a truly wise man learns from other people's mistakes. (Someone fameous said that once, but I doubt anyone remembers who it was...) George Bush does not think he has made any mistakes. So if he is not a smart man, or a wise man, then what is he? Well, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...
By , at
6:52 AM
South Korea of course? I hear that guy up north is a wee bit crazy...
By , at
6:59 AM
Soviet Union was a superpower, not Russia. Russia now is just one of the few nations in the world capable of ending all life on the planet at a touch of a big red scary button, that's all.
Soviet Union fell apart years before the First and Second Chechen wars, so your cause and effect assessment is wrong. And both of these wars took place in just one province, they don't affect Russian economy or world economy in any significant way - unlike the war in Iraq.
There just isn't as much oil in Chechnya. However, the nature of confrontation is similar: what the American generals have called 'asymmetrical' combat environment, if I remember correctly. It's when an organized, conventional military is forced to deal with guerillas and terrorists using hit-and-run tactics, while the civilian populace is offering support to the guerillas and blame everything on the guys in uniform. Not very fair to the 'big guys'.
By , at
2:56 PM
Actually, the war I think he was refering to was when the USSR kept trying to conquer Afghanistan, who was successfully defending themselves with a group of "Freedom Fighters" featuring Bin Laden. The FF's guerilla tactics worked effectively against the Soviets and proved that a smaller, mobile force can strike out against a large superpower and win. Well, with a little help from our C.I.A. of course. Those Afghanis lived in caves for chrissakes, they could never have pulled it together without some covert training and weapons supplies.
God the US needs to stop doing things that bite us in the butt later.
Yeah, you're totally off base... You're talking about Afganistan. Comparing the Soviet invasion and the US invasion is a fallacy too. The US fucking crushed Afganistan with little difficulty (not just the US though) and it was widly popular with other nations at the time.
I've noticed that a lot of people have said Afganistan is like really hard to conquer, but they aren't really. Alexander did it without much trouble too.
Yes, Al Quida (if that's how it's spelt) was originally a registration organization for the foreign freedom fighters in Afganistan. People were dying there and they didn't know who to contact to tell them, so, Al Quida (which means "the base") was setup to inform families of thier son's death (or daughter, i'm sure at least one woman died). After the Soviet Union pulled out it translated into a terror network easily.
Yes, the US does lots of stuff that bites it in the ass later. Although, I don't think Bin Laden had much to do with the creation of the Taliban.
-Gabe
By , at
4:41 AM
'Al Qaeda' if the good people at CNN.com are correct.
- Infamous 370
By , at
3:08 PM
Why is it that whenever someone uses to word 'freedom' nowadays, it means somebody's about to die?
By , at
3:20 PM
Why is it that whenever someone uses to word 'freedom' nowadays, it means somebody's about to die? Freedom indeed...
By , at
3:20 PM
I blame the internet
By , at
4:43 AM
Who wants to lay blame for what is wrong with everything with me!?!?
I blame the schools for teaching ONLY creationism OR evolution as FACT when they really need to be presented as independant IDEAS. Let the kids decide which is better: an invisible man in the sky, or a theory that does not always fit what we find...
I blame the gouvernment for misleading the people and for misrepresenting the people to the world. A president should be unbaised and willing to listen to all valid POV's, then decide if he still has the right idea or not. But I'm beating a dead horse here, and as certain presidents have demonstrated time and again, that really does no good.
I blame parents who rely on television as a babysitter. When they do not pay attention to what their children are watching, they suddenly get pissed about something they catch out of the corner of their eye and start a shitstorm. They're only passing-off their responsiblies onto others, all just to avoid the 'inconvenience' of having to actually spend time with their kids.
I blame the gun companies for profiting from the deaths and the paranoia of good, honest people.
I blame the cigarette companies for profiting from a product that increases everyone's vulnerability to cancer. It steals years off of your life and it has stolen my fiancee's ability to bear children and to lead a healthy, normal life.
I blame doctors who do not care enough about their job to properly diagnose a patient with cancer or other diseases. My fiancee was nearly choked to death by the tumor in her neck before anything was done, and she was only thirteen at the time.
I blame people who treat homosexuals as less than human by voting not to allow them to marry in their home states and beyond. I despise them for their unfounded anger, bigotry and hate directed towards their fellow countrymen who are otherwise proud to be American.
I blame the woman who had a problem with teens at a local high-school cross-dressing as a fun, annual tradition because she thought it could turn them into transvestites and homosexuals. I had my first drink years ago, but I am not an alcoholic today, nor do I ever expect to become one just because I indulge on occasion.
I blame any idiot senator who thinks that gay teachers should not be allowed to practice their trade.
I blame any school that won't allow students of the same sex to go to the bathroom more than one at a time because of a 'rampant problem' with homosexuality.
I blame anyone who elected 'the gouvernator' to office and anyone pushing to amend the law that says that citizens born in a foreign country cannot be elected to presidential office just so he can run. It is a good idea being pushed for the wrong person: Celebs should never be allowed to run for office because the electoral process is supposed to be an example of democracy in action, not a popularity contest.
I blame anyone who read the 'patriot act' and thought it was a good idea.
I blame anyone who didn't read it and voted for it anyway.
I blame the assholes who came up with it.
I blame our society for setting impossible standards of beauty for teenaged girls to follow.
I blame anyone who's narcissistic enough to believe in and preach these standards to others.
I blame guys my age for thinking with their dicks.
I blame any woman who gratifies them.
I blame anyone who's ever taken a human life in cold blood.
I blame anyone who thinks that any decent infantryman over in Iraq is proud to kill anyone for any reason.
I blame any of them that ARE proud of that.
I blame anyone who's so woefully blissful and blind to all of this and more...
And I blame myself, for any of my personal flaws, for being powerless to do anything about any of it, and for wasting the time of anyone who took the time to read this.
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
8:13 AM
Dude, guns are great, so are gun companies...
Dude, not everyone who thinks gays shouldn't get married are hateful... That's a pretty dumb thing to say. If fact, if you look at your believes, I think that it's impossible for you to believe in it too. That's probably why you rely on such an emotional aurgument for it.
I still blame the Internet.
-Gabe
By , at
7:44 AM
Then why depribe somebody of the right to marry whoever they choose? How is it fair? Let's try some more practical arguements on the subject then, and I'm open to any you might have.
I've said before that people already marry for to get the tax breaks for various reasons, and this probably wouldn't change if homosexuals were given the right. So this is not a practical reason to ban gay marriage, because everyone already takes advantage of the existing system for various reasons, ethical or not.
I don't know, we've got the ethical dilemma of being unfair to a certain group of people, or disobeying a certain existing set of social standards or religious beliefs. I know life isn't supposed to be fair all of the time, because if it were, we wouldn't have to make this kind of choice. Ignorance, old habits, faith and ethics aside, is there really a practical arguement against gay marriage?
Guns are cool, I'll agree. Idiots with guns, not so cool. Plus I still don't see any practical reason why we need Tec-9's or MAC-10's. Pistols for protection? Fine. Shotguns and rifles for hunting? Fine. Assault weapons in the hands of civilians? Not fine. Really not fucking fine! I'm still pissed about Bush letting the ban on assault weapons expire, and I'll probably be elected before he ever lifts a finger to renew it. Whatever happened to tazers and MASE? Isn't it much more fun to watch the dirtbag burglar twitch and squirm on your living room floor without them getting blood all over it? Guns are cool. Non-lethal weapons are really fucking cool, dude.
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not blindly, and just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
4:50 PM
The fifth ammendment has little to do with protecting yourself from bugerlers and more to do with being a check against government oppression. Civilians should be allowed to have the tools to overthrown their own government if neccisary.
Anyway, like I said, I don't care either way about gay marriage, and I'd agree that it's probably not fair that gays get married. Also, it's not as big of an issue for as many people as the media makes it out to be. The problem, as I see it, is that far too many gays or hollywood bozos have decided to make the gay lifestyle seem more important than what it is. Gays are fearful of a bias that wouldn't exsist without the high-profile of gay-life and right-wingers and are threatened by something that isn't really threating.
It's not fair, but it not fair in many more ways than just marriage.
Again, my point is this. If you think that gay marriage should be allowed, then you must believe that a great deal of many other things that have only social tradition backing them should be allowed... That's my core aurgument. Gay marriage is a big deal in a social history thing. This is a practical aurgument and you haven't addressed it at all.
I don't care though.
By , at
6:01 AM
Uh, gouvernment opression? Dude, this ain't pilgrims, redcoats, cowboys and indians no more. You saying that you can see a radical militia marching on the Whitehouse with the way the country is now, in this modern time? That amendment was written for a different world in a different time, and now it's just unessissary.
Besides, if the gouvernment really did get that out of control, the people would fight it regardless of what it says on an old piece of paper. And now that you mention it, aren't WE, the people supposed to be in charge in the end? By the people, for the people and of the people? Isn't that democracy? It's our job to make sure the gouvernment doesn't get out of control, that's why we have elections. That's why we set up this system in the first place, so we wouldn't ever have to overthrow the gouvernment at any point. If we get a dickhead or a moron in charge, it's because we fucked up and because half of the country doesn't vote or care anyways.
The whole problem is that we teach kids at an early age how to use guns and that if you have one, you're cool. We glorify guns, but we hardly teach any of the responsibility that goes with it. Commone sense would be the ultimate gun control, but we're just not that bright, are we?
Yes, I think the social standards for homosexuals need to change because it's unfair and has no practical arguement against it. As for other things that only have a social 'tradition' backing them, can you provide a good example? It's not a very convincing arguement until you support it. As for mine, the double standard for 'all men created equal' makes us all look like shithead hypocrites on this issue. It's a violation of their civil liberties, pure and simple, and this bullshit has no real reason to continue any longer.
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
7:12 AM
It's not a realic from another time. Yes, people would overthrow the government regardless of what is written on paper, but without guns they don't have the means to do so. So, the most likely outcome of a people overthrowing a government without their own guns is a rapid succession of military dictators. Governments that want to take the people's ability to defend themsevles generally should be feared, because it is a government that cannot stand to allow other people to have power.... even theoretical power.
Keep in mind what you're saying of relics from a different era is really dangerous. The entire Bill of Rights was created in that same era. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with gun control, except that the US government is based on the constitution and banning guns is unconstiutional. If you want to make laws that violate the constitution, then you have to admend it. So, it's really two fold: I don't think the constitution should be changed in that regard, but I most certainly think that laws should not be created that violate it without it being changed. You can't pick and choose. If it really was made in a different time and not needed anymore then wouldn't the constistution have been changed a long time ago?
This, I'm sure, relates to a great deal of admendments that you don't care to see subverted by a government that considers the constitution be mearly suggestions from a quaint era.
As for gay marriage, it's too fast. People need to get used to the idea. If people push it like assholes, then there will be a backlash (like there is now.) I guess this is more advice than a moral stance. The gay rights movement is going about it stupidly and with little regard for differing opinions. They are basically saying, fuck what other people think, we're going to do this anyway and fuck trying to win people over. It's been mostly in your face tactics or petty whining. That's not going to get the movement anywhere. Speaking of democracy, it was in democratic elections that gay marriage was banned in 11 states... Overwhelmingly in most cases. All the judges (who married gays) had to do to prevent this from happening was say, "whoops." and then wait.
-Gabe
By , at
7:57 PM
I'd just like to say that I like "Infamous 370's" comments. :D
By 
The Tall Man, at
6:01 PM
We didn't have machine guns when the constitution was written, and I'm not even sure if we had decent revolvers... I didn't say to touch the constitution as a whole, or ban guns altogether. I'd just like to see the types of guns that the people are alowed to have restricted. Handguns for personal protection and shotguns and rifles for hunting are fine. We wouldn't even need to do that if we could just control our itchy trigger fingers, but with a death toll of just over ten thousand a year from guns in the states, it's clear that we aren't responsible enough. Haven't less Americans been killed over in Iraq, a highly unstable warzone at the moment? Tell me that this isn't an obvious and serious problem? Oh, and this does not take into account all of those injured, disfiured, or permanently disabled by guns in either case, by the way.
As for pushing gay rights too fast, fine, but as we saw during the elections, we still have a long way too go before it becomes completely socially acceptable. Having a gay pride day as a national holiday would be a great way to mark the achievement once it has been reached. Let's get rid of the weird costumes in the parade, though, clowns are creepy enough without the leather chaps... Until then, whether you think it is coming on too fast or not, the issue will continue to be pushed more and more.
As for the immorality of homosexuality in the eyes of God, let me present you with a hypothetical arguement. Say a homosexual gets cancer, and the doctors give them a fifty-fifty chance of survival. If God was really against homosexuality, wouldn't God let this person die? God loves us all, and hate is a human idea.
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
10:00 AM
Yeah, I agree, god doesn't hate gays. God doesn't hate anyone. He loves murderers too. Yes, we're all equally loved in the eyes of god.
Anyway, you're basing your statistic of 10,000 dead from guns a year on god only knows what. Also, very few of them are caused by machine guns and your statistic includes i'm sure includes police shooting people, because I'm sure you took it from Bowling for Columbine... and even that stat was gun injuries not deaths. You don't know what you're talking about. We didn't have machine guns then, but people could still own weapons of equal power of the government. It's the right to bear arms. Arms was meant in the military sense. You never addressed my comment about how your ideas subvert the constiution. You're obviously buying into someone else's idea. Just come back with something original and I might respect your opinion, but if it's someone else's I've already slaughter every opinion I've heard on the subject.
-Gabe
By , at
5:22 AM
You asked a silly question. Doctors that give out 50-50 odds of death are really just throwing out arbitrary numbers, they don't know the real odds. Secondly, there would be no way to know whether god had anything to do with the death of the person or not (outside of that god does everything, so, to be honest, there's no way to know that god has ever done anything ever. Also, god is involved in and idea that is in direct opposition to determinism (fate), so, the person's destiny would already be known to god and thus he wouldn't really have a choice, or would he. The point is that its pointless to guess what god does or doesn't do.)
You'd be better off saying "if there were a coins flipped and heads a homosexual dies and tails he/she lives, wouldn't there be more gays dead than left alive at the end of the day if god really hates gays." Of course, you didn't ask that question because it has no relivance to anything and would show the obscure nature of your question. It also would not appeal to emotion in the same way the question you posted would.
But logical flaws aside, no, I don't believe god would kill someone for being gay in your impossible 50/50 life or death situation. There are several reasons, but one would be that god does not punish all sinners with immediate death and all people are sinners anyway. Not that I profess to know what god is thinking nor to I know whether he exsists or not.
It's a silly question and it leads me to believe that you're assuming things about me that I haven't said and I don't believe. If you care to make progress on your believes then you should advoid the trap of becoming offended when dissimular views are presented to you. Although, from what I've read your views on gay marriage and gay rights are not incompatiable with my own views and I'm not sure why you would pursue such a negative and defensive line of conversation with me.
-Gabe
By , at
8:35 AM
yeah, the grammar and spelling kind of sucked on that post
By , at
8:37 AM
I got the stat from a site that lists the top preventable causes of death among Americans. Various cancers and heart disease mostly round out the list...
Michael Moore didn't present his sources for many of those stats, so I don't take them seriously. He is also profiting from a series of sensless trageties, cheap sensationalism, and the paranoia of the average person. It's bullshit, and you know how I feel about bullshit...
I'm not suggestable enough to fall for that poorly presented piece of propaganda, and I have never 'bought in' or 'sold out' to anything. The film did little to nothing at all to influence my views on anything, and don't assume that everyone who has watched it shares the views of the director. I watched it because it was one of the only things in the store that I hadn't seen yet, and only because I could get it half-off with another movie... To be honest, I want those two hours and my $2.50 back...
You're right, we can't just subvert the constitution, but we also can't make gun owners more individually and personally responsible, can we? I love how we bitch and complain about having our rights and want nothing to do with the responsibilities that go with them. Once again, more bullshit...
Also, I remembered using the word 'hypothetical' in my arguement, so it was just as pointless to shoot it down as it was for me to write it, because it wasn't serious to begin with. I won't presume to know anything about you, and I'm sorry if you feel I have, but then, you just made some unfair assumptions about me, didn't you? That sound you hear is your own credibility being shot down and crashing next to the smouldering remains of my own...
Oh, and even my grammar isn't perfect, so whether it was you or someone else that said it sucked in your last post, I really don't care.
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not me.
- Infamous 370
By , at
9:33 AM
Enjoying 370's posts, here. Also, as for the American bashing near the top, realize half the country agrees with you on some/many specific points and despises Bush, but presenting it to them as though they're idiots is going to make them turn away from you. Understand who your allies are and work with them...as for the rest who don't, we have a unique opportunity in the Internet to reach out and communicate, that we haven't had in years past.
A gently stated reminder, and simply my .02.
By , at
11:50 AM
Right, it's easy to agree that gun owners should be more responsible and I don't really think that personal protection is a valid reason to carry around a an AK-47, but it's still ok to own one under the constituion. Rules for carrying guns are up for grabs though, although, I think hunting would be something that is constitionally protected (although, hunting laws in various states allows for unconstitutional search and seisure.)
So, what the debate is really about is whether or not restricting the sale of assualt weapons violates the constitution. If you think it does (and I think it's hard not to see it that way, without destroying the majority of the rest of the constitution), then you have two paths: You can either try to make gun owners more reponsible (like the NRA tries to) or you can push for a change in the constitution.
As a side note, I think Ashcroft should be put on trial for treason. The US government is based on the constution and he's subverted it for personal and political gain (subverting the constituion = attempting to overthrow the government)... If I do that, I go to prison for a long time or am killed. This is the dangerous direction that the US government is going. Less and less people consider the constituion to be the basis for law, but rather pass off respect to whatever tool of the party is in power at the time.
-Gabe
By , at
7:47 PM
Ashcroft being tried for treason? If only we lived in a country that still held politicians accountable for their actions...
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not me, and not the gouvernment's press machine.
- Infamous 370
By , at
10:00 PM
I can only assume that Ashcroft left to lead some sort of wacky shadow government... possibly lead by wookies or something like that.
Have you noticed that "Ashcroft" seems to be a name without any sort of national origin... like it was made up by some hack mystery writer.
-Gabe
By , at
5:11 AM
I assume it's German or a bastardized spelling of a Dutch name... (because if it were really Dutch, it would be spelled Aasshkrrojkffzt) or something like that.
-Gabe
By , at
5:15 AM
Can we ignore his constitutional rights if we find him guilty, then? It only seems fitting... I suggest a rather elaborate setup involving a slow-burning candle, a long section of rope, and a vat of boiling oil... We could call it a 'Freedom Fry'! Don't look so offended, you know you like the idea and you know it'd get great ratings in this sick fucking world!
Start doing this and more to a few asshole politicians and you'd see some improvements in the way the survivors do things pretty damned quick. Wait, 'survivors'? I smell a new spin on our favorite reality show...
By , at
5:28 AM
Leading some wacky shadow gouvernment? Wasn't that what he was doing these last four years?
Always assume nothing.
Always question everything.
Always believe in something,
just not me or guys with fake-sounding names.
- Infamous 370
By , at
4:39 PM
The day ashcroft gets tried for treson is the day kerry does as well. If you know what I'm talking about you are the same conspiracy theorist. If you do not understand then please, become a conspiracy theorist.
By , at
4:42 PM
Why is it that whenever someone uses the word 'treason' nowadays, the accused prick always gets off scott-free?
By , at
7:18 PM
My statement has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. I think any politition that passes a law or proposes a law that is unconstitutional should be put on trail for treason.
I guess that would include Kerry as well, but most of the current government as well, but Ashcroft is the worst offender.
By , at
7:45 PM
There goes another one...
By , at
7:43 AM
if Ashcroft gets tried for treason, so should Heraldo (forgive the spelling, but i dont respect the man enough to worry about it. He was drawing maps in the sand for the Saddam Loyalists at the beginning of the Iraq war. He was marking out were he thought our troops would be!!! your telling me THATS not treason? If so, you dont know the meaning of the word.
By , at
10:02 PM
News archives | March 2004 | April 2004 | May 2004 | June 2004 | July 2004 | August 2004 | September 2004 | October 2004 | November 2004 | December 2004 | January 2005 | February 2005 | March 2005 | April 2005 | May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | August 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | June 2006 | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008