matt1122

Alright, you're right, but there's nothing wrong with islam and there is islam in iraq. I don't think it should matter whether we are attacking an islamic state or not anyway, we are attacking iraq, who the hell cares what religion they are. You're an idiot AND arnold schwartzeneger should punch you in the face. It's not tough guy talk or machoism, its being tough - period. America is a tough country. We don't put up with stuff because we don't have to. If you have a problem with that maybe you should move to a girlfy country, like France. (Disclaimer: France is t3h suck, but no offense to the great people over there.) Let me fill you in. You suck at life. Bush retalliated against the terrorism of 9/11 by messing up Afghanistan in a huge way. Why do you think 52% of Americans are ignorant of how politics work? We elect Bush so we're ignorant. Sounds like someone thinks they are superior to everyone who voted for George W. Bush. Newsflash - you lost. Get over it. You're not better. You're worse. You're the losers. Let me sum this up for all of you. The people running this country, the most powerful country in the world, agree with me, and they know more than you do about the situation with Iraq, so I must be right. Game over. I'm done with this weak thread.

I don't care if they call themselves secular or what, there was an overwhelming (and should still be) presence of islam, so I most definitely consider it an islamic state.

Even I will admit that was a quality spelling error.

First off, let me give you my biggest award ever - you are now officially the "Biggest Liberal Media Lemming I Know." No one cares if there are direct ties with 9/11 and Iraq. The war on terrorism is a war on terrorism, not a war on the people who hurt us on 9/11, and if you think Iraq isn't a terrorist nation then maybe it's because you've only been watching the news for a few years now. Go back and watch all of the news on Iraq from the past 20 years and say that Iraq isn't a terrorist (and terrorist run) nation. Do you know what insurgency is? I think I defined insurgent a few threads back in this forum for every idiot who doesn't know. There was no insurgency because Saddam instilled an overwhelming sense of fear in his people who might think of rebelling. There certainly were some who tried and they ended up locked in Saddam's basement and tortured to death. And if you think Iraq is a non-islamic state you need to go read a book. If you think turning it into a US warzone makes it a haven (and go look up haven, too, you obviously don't know what it means, either) then you need to go read about a thousand books. Apparently you think watching the news gives you a clear view of what is going on in Iraq, but you are either watching an icnredibly biased news source or you're not even paying attention? Were you doing your pre-algebra homework while you watched? You think we are trying to take the oil? We aren't theives. We are changing Iraq, but we don't own it. It's not our oil. We aren't going to take it whether we would like to or not. The only way oil plays into this war is (1) yes it will be a better source, perhaps, if the new iraqi government decides they like us and (2) the insurgent forces have been lighting oil fields on fire in order to distract US troops from their real mission in iraq. US forces have had to spend time putting out fires which have nothing to do with the war because it is our duty as citizens of this world to protect its scarce natural resources from idiots like the insurgents who keep lighting it on fire to create a distraction. It's part of what we call "guerilla warfar" - it's the use of annoyances to fight against an army much more powerful than the army of the insurgents. We wouldn't be pumping oil though, even if it wasn't on fire, because it isn't ours. Edit: and another thing, we haven't pardoned Saudi Arabia, we're just not as worried about them for good reasons.

Sweet I was so wasted I couldn't spell. There is a plethora of reasons to go to war in Iraq. I'll give you my personal top 10, though there are probably deeper reasons I can't contemplate in my current state of mind: 10. So that Team America: World Police would be made. 9. Regime Change and to Liberate the Iraqi People from Saddams Dictatorship 8. Because Iraq has links to Al Queda. 7. To be ABSOLUTELY sure that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass distruction. Do you really want to take that risk? Would you want to have been the president who believed Saddam and allowed us or the middle east to fall under attack? One that could have been prevented if we had followed through and made ABSOLUTELY sure (because, you know, he's never lied before)? 6. To show that even though the U.N. doesn't usually enforce it's own resolutions WE WILL. 5. To show that we are going to run an ACTIVE war on terror and to stay on the offensive in that war. 4. To scare anyone else who might be interested in weapons of mass destruction, or at least make them think twice and take us more seriously than they have in the past where we used sanctions and really really mean letters as our method to prevent their spread. 3. To create a major power that supports the United States in the middle east and hopefully begin to transform a hostile region into a less hostile one. 2. To finish what we started in 1991. 1. Because we can.

Sorry that was kind of harsh - let me refrase: who cares? WMD's were only a small part of the problem in Iraq.

I thought the phrase was "freedom of speech is a double edged blade" or something like that. ;)

YAY!!!! PARRRRRTAY!

I'm hung over and there are PAW prints from RACOONS all over the hood of my NEW F*ING CAR!! MOTHER F*ERS!

I thought a private citizen can't own a gun in canadia, period.

I definitely don't think people should be drinking before they are driving though. Even if you could drink before you could drive I think they would need to keep the 0% BAC rule for minors. After driving for a while more and more responses to bad situations become second nature and require less thought because you already know what to do. If your response time is slowed you are definitely going to need that extra instinct. To answer the main question, underage drinking is not bad, the stupid things underage drinkers do are bad. As a result, people who are underage in general should not drink. You can't pick out the responsible ones and say "go ahead and drink because you're more responsible." It just wouldn't work. Otherwise I'd say that would be the way to go. Give them a lie detector test. Q1: Would you ever drink and drive? Q2: Is X number of beers too much? etc etc etc. If they are honest and pass as not being idiots they can drink unsupervised by adults once they turn 16. If they are supervised and don't leave the supervised area they may drink at the age of 12. Glass of whine with dinner, you know, that sort of thing. There's my idea.

Well, this has to be a private school (I don't know which gave it away more, the "my baby" mother or the nameof the school). This is bullshit. On one end you have the fact that the principal really shouldn't have done that. I wouldn't want my kid paraded around in a cop car wearing handcuffs, but I would take it up with the principal, not demand that he is suspended or whine about "my poor baby" or anything like that. That's lame. On the other hand I can think of a few kids in my class I'd like to see driven off in a cop car. J/K The real other hand is that even if he did something I think he shouldn't have done - 1- he didn't do anything illegal. 2- he did it with the childs best interests in mind. 3- he did it with the schools best interests in mind. 4- the kid wasn't hurt. 5- obviously nothing else was working 6- if it really was a bad thing to do the cops wouldn't have went along with it. lastly - such a thing makes the kid think he can get away with even more, because now anyone who punishes him gets stuff from mommy. PS what is a charter school? A private school you don't have to pay for? Lamer than ever.

Shh! It's a girl! Don't scare it away!

If people are like that near you it's time to move. Or kill them.

Greg's pearl was ready a long, long time ago.

Back to square one again, I just noticed complaining against insurgent. Let me look this one up for you:

Thanks greg.

naw. quit yer moanin.

So what are you guys arguing about again?

Analysis complete, .01% of the people countering here seem to know what they are talking about. Go look up terrorism. Peace out. (PS - No offense intended to anyone, just go look up terrorism.)

What is your justification for calling it a christmas party, or a christmas gift drive? Are you celebrating the birth of christ at your party? Calling it a 'Holiday' party is more accurate than calling it a christmas party, has nothing to do with being politically correct. I would call it a holiday party because I have some Jewish friends who have no interest in celebrating christmas with us, but would love to party JUST for the sake of partying. The Holidays are an excuse to party, but no one is having a true Christmas party because that would be boring. Now, the whole 'December' gift drive thing is the result of the people running that gift drive being mongrel idiots, so don't let that get to you as a politically correct kind of thing - they're just morons. This is not a politically correct issue, it simply wouldn't be true to say 'I'm having a Christmas party," because you know damned well it has stuff to do with X-mass.

I'm guessing that's how they spell it too. http://www.google.com/search?q=+The+flood+...:en-US:official I'm guessing it's from an e-mail, I see no legit sources.

Collin Farrell?

So what you are telling me is that all of the REALLLLLY smart people must live in those states at the top, we're just SOOO outnumbered by idiots that our states end up voting for idiots anyway. Sad. Really sad. Kill the morons. <-Good plan. Bush should add it to his agenda, whether he'd make the cut or not.

It was losers, I'm just stuck on that one line from I guess which one of his movies where he says "eediot" like Ren from Ren and Stimpy (which I dont' like but oh well.) That and "Youuuu son of a beech".