| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| CrazyMax
173th Post
 
Regular Customer
   
|  "Re(1):ho yeah!"
, posted Sat 15 Feb 19:09
quote:
Dude.. virtually every illegal buisnes funds terrorism in some way.
don't even get me started on this subject. you have no idea how fucking pissed i get when i see those "you buy drugs, you help get little girls killed" commercials on tv. they don't give you all the information
nearly everything, not just illegal business funds, support terrorism
terrorists don't just get their funds from illegal stuff. many have legitimate businesses to support their operations as well. your clothes, your computer, your food, your house, almost everything is somehow connected to terrorists
don't wanna support terrorism? go dig a hole somewhere and die there
EDIT:
i just realized how hostile my tone was. i wasn't directing my anger at anyone here in particular. i just sincerely hate this subject
now please excuse me while i go strangle one of the writers of those "truth" commercials
I understand your tone. Those commericials have become the latest club used to get people to behave and not use drugs. The so called 'war on drugs' was a joke, so why not try patriotism.
It's a known fact that many charities have willingly and unwittingly supported terrorists groups. Whether it was the IRA to South African ones, to the Hezbollah.
The desire by some to use patriotism to get their way ( I am not naming anyone, cause I don't want to start any other discussions ) is getting rather hard to swallow. What annoys me is the inability of some to see the irony. The same way some want to use patriotism, is getting similar to the way others use religon to recruit terrorists.
Those 'Truth' ads also make me wince. They seem so incredibly close, if not completely like libel. I have never smoked and I find them obnoxoius. Jeez, sometimes you can see the wholes in their arguements and they trudge those ads with great sanctimony.
Especially the one about the CEO of the cigarette company who testified about not knowing cigarettes cause cancer. Then they bring up a memo from like 30 years earlier that says they do. I don't know if you've worked for a big company, but half the time they can't find a memo from last month, let alone know of one from 30 years ago. Crap! Do you know what your company did 10 years ago? Did he really know about cigarettes causing cancer? Probably. Then again so did the smokers. I dunno, those ads just bug the hell out of me.
|
| Grave
180th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(1):ho yeah!" , posted Sat 15 Feb 20:28
quote:
i just realized how hostile my tone was. i wasn't directing my anger at anyone here in particular. i just sincerely hate this subject
now please excuse me while i go strangle one of the writers of those "truth" commercials
"truth" commercials make me want to drop rocks on my head. So do "_____: my anti-drug" commercials. So with my friend filming, I made a "pot: the anti-drug" commercial. I need to get him to upload it to his website again. That, and Resident Evil 4. Our movies are most excellent, and though we've never been in a painful live-action version of Metal Gear or Cowboy Bebop, we've embarassed ourselves enough for the sake of "film." I think Streets of Rage is next.
But yeah. I'm tired of "_____ funds terrorism, so stop doing it." It's really heavy-handed and kind of ridiculous, when you stop and think about it. Like JJJ said, there's not a whole lot you CAN do if you're gonna be that anal about it, to think about where your money might be going EVERY TIME you do some little thing.
But I'm tired of pretty much every commercial who tries to ram their point home with ridiculous stuff. Smoking pot is not going to make you run over little girls, and it doesn't make you talk about how hot your sister is either. Smoking it in a bathroom stall will probably get you busted, but I don't see what these ads are doing.
I remember seeing an article talking about how "the truth"'s campagin was actually getting more kids to try cigarettes who wouldn't care otherwise. No wonder tobacco companies fund youth anti-smoking campaigns. Best advertising they ever had!
|
| Undead Fred
182th Post
Regular Customer
| "commonknowledge.com" , posted Sat 15 Feb 20:52
quote:
"truth" commercials make me want to drop rocks on my head. So do "_____: my anti-drug" commercials. So with my friend filming, I made a "pot: the anti-drug" commercial. I need to get him to upload it to his website again. That, and Resident Evil 4. Our movies are most excellent, and though we've never been in a painful live-action version of Metal Gear or Cowboy Bebop, we've embarassed ourselves enough for the sake of "film." I think Streets of Rage is next.
But yeah. I'm tired of "_____ funds terrorism, so stop doing it." It's really heavy-handed and kind of ridiculous, when you stop and think about it. Like JJJ said, there's not a whole lot you CAN do if you're gonna be that anal about it, to think about where your money might be going EVERY TIME you do some little thing.
But I'm tired of pretty much every commercial who tries to ram their point home with ridiculous stuff. Smoking pot is not going to make you run over little girls, and it doesn't make you talk about how hot your sister is either. Smoking it in a bathroom stall will probably get you busted, but I don't see what these ads are doing.
I remember seeing an article talking about how "the truth"'s campagin was actually getting more kids to try cigarettes who wouldn't care otherwise. No wonder tobacco companies fund youth anti-smoking campaigns. Best advertising they ever had!
The opening post reminded me of this picture I saw a long time ago that said something like, "When you download MP3's, you are supporting COMMUNISM" with Komrade Red behind some kid with headphones at a computer.
As for Truth.com, I had made a fake ad banner a while back. I don't smoke either, but those ads piss me off. The fact that they act like the whole "cigarettes are bad for you" is some big secret kills me.
Hey look! I finally made a stupid tag!
|
| sabo10 326th Post
Bronze Customer
 
| "Re(4):ho yeah!" , posted Sun 16 Feb 14:31
The dictator’s mouthpiece Tareq Aziz headed home to beautiful Iraq today, his primary mission accomplished after being granted an audience with the pope. But at least one public figure in Rome showed some spine: Rome Mayor Snubs Aziz After Anti-Israel Comment. Mayor Walter Veltroni, who was due to meet Aziz Sunday morning before the Iraqi left Italy to return to Baghdad, delivered the news in a stern letter. "I'm writing to inform you that I find myself obliged to cancel our meeting," Veltroni wrote, according to a copy of the letter sent to Reuters. "The reason is because of your refusal to answer a question posed to you by an Israeli journalist at a news conference held at the Foreign Press Association (on Friday)," it continued. "Rome, Mr. deputy prime minister, has always had absolute respect for dialogue and the civil exchange of ideas, not to mention, obviously, freedom of opinion and free access to information," the center-left mayor wrote. "I cannot accept that a public figure like yourself, the representative of another country, can set a veto and discriminate against someone, denying them the right to express themselves, no matter what position they may represent." It was Friday, after his meeting with the pope, that Aziz gave a news conference at the Foreign Press Association. For more than half an hour, he took questions from more than a dozen journalists and gave fairly full answers. But when a correspondent for Israeli newspaper Maariv stood up and asked whether, in the case of war, Iraq intended to attack Israel, Aziz responded: "When I came to this press conference, it was not in my agenda to answer questions by the Israeli media. Sorry." From a Birmingham UK newspaper, here’s a nasty story about a neo-Nazi “intellectual” who has discovered kindred spirits in radical Islam: Midland Nazi turns to Islam. Midland-based David Myatt, 51, was the political guru behind white supremacist group Combat 18 and has been the leading hardline Nazi intellectual in Britain since the 1960s. Now the self-confessed Pagan and Adolf Hitler worshipper hails al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden as his inspiration and praises the World Trade Center attacks as acts of heroism. Writing under various pseudo-nyms, including his Islamic name Abdul Aziz, the thrice-married Physics graduate has posted messages on Islamic religious websites supporting suicide missions and urging young Muslims to take up Jihad. He is also believed to be the author of several anti-semitic and anti-West articles entitled 'The Crusader War Against Islam and The Zionist Quest for World Domination', written under the name Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt. The guy is a complete wacko who also belonged to a Satanic cult that was alleged to have practiced human sacrifice. But all of this is no problem for the lovely crew at Finsbury Park mosque: Sheikh Omar Bakri, leader of the extremist Al Muhajiroun organisation, said: "When you become a Muslim you start afresh with a clean slate so it does not matter what views he held before. "I am very keen to meet up with him as we both share a lot in common and I am sure he can help the Islamic cause." Dancing on the edge of the sword today, the Saudi Arabian defense minister told Saudi troops not to worry, that the kingdom is free of Western influence. "All the accusations you hear and read against the kingdom on such matters are not true. And you know that your country, which is ruled by Islam, cannot and has not in the past submitted to such influence," acting defence minister Prince Abdul-Rahman bin Abdul-Aziz told troops at King Faisal airbase. The prince said Saudi Arabia, where thousands of American troops are stationed, planned to boost its national armed forces in the future to better defend itself. Defend itself against whom? This comes immediately after another Saudi prince called for Arab troops to be deployed in Iraq. "We call on all the Arabs to make this demand, and we call on the noble Arab leaders to make this demand a reality," Prince Sultan bin Turki said in a statement issued in Geneva and faxed to The Associated Press in Dubai. The prince did not spell out the role an Arab force would play in Iraq, but he said it would help keep the peace and prevent civil unrest. "The Arabs should not wait. The Arab people should be the main player in resolving this case, rather than have the colonial solution be imposed on us," the prince said in his statement.
http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/7482 /
|
| Porcellino
96th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(5):ho yeah!" , posted Sun 16 Feb 16:48
quote:
The dictator’s mouthpiece Tareq Aziz headed home to beautiful Iraq today, his primary mission accomplished after being granted an audience (....insert bible-sized text here :P .....)colonial solution be imposed on us," the prince said in his statement.
United States, United Kingdom, Irak, Italy, North Korea,Spain, France, Russia, Israel, China, Germany, El Vaticano, Turkey, Palestine, Iran, Egypt....number of countries involved or attached to this conflict is growing day after day.
Godthanks I am not a prophet but what NOW is happening has alredy happended.
Twice.
Tobanaibutaha...tadanobutada....
|
| RugalBernstein 3511th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
    
    
   
| "Re(6):ho yeah!" , posted Sun 16 Feb 18:13
quote:
United States, United Kingdom, Irak, Italy, North Korea,Spain, France, Russia, Israel, China, Germany, El Vaticano, Turkey, Palestine, Iran, Egypt....number of countries involved or attached to this conflict is growing day after day.
Godthanks I am not a prophet but what NOW is happening has alredy happended.
Twice.
You forget that there's a situation in North Korea, too. T_T
Bad times ahead.
Best site EVER: Link Here
|
| Porcellino
97th Post
Occasional Customer
|  "Re(4):Sigh... u_uU"
, posted Mon 17 Feb 01:13
quote:
I know what this war would mean economically for many, and that's what I'm precisely against: Sacrifice human lives for @#$%& money, no matter how much [/qupte]
I agree. Absolutely.
quote:
It's actually a myth that war benefits an economy
IMO that statement is half-true. War for the sake of War just creates a mirage of economy boost (Example: Germany, after A.Hitler's election, had the 100% of its ppl with a job. A job in the military industry, the one that was absorbing almost all the budget).
But this war has a meaning. I think BUsh is wrong but I can understand their acts. The nation under its control is strongly lacking of petrol, internal production (same as '40s) cant support nowadays demmands (5 times the old demmand). Many countries tied to petrol production like Russia, Turkey,Irak adjacent ones and many more know this. This is a so-called worldwide conflict of interests. Iraq production is this war's prize. Having control on petrol price would boost seriously 15 nations economy (and Bush interests). We can remember what happened when some non-OPEP petrol producers decided to raise prices to 500%. The whole world is still recovering from that. Bush knows it.
(Note: Im not trying to explain the situation to anyone. Im sure that everybody here understand it better than me...^_^;)
quote:
You forget that there's a situation in North Korea, too. T_T
No, I didn't o_O. I mentioned it too :D
Thx for replying!
Tobanaibutaha...tadanobutada....
|
| Rugalbernstein 3517th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(5):Sigh... u_uU" , posted Mon 17 Feb 09:44:
quote:
IMO that statement is half-true. War for the sake of War just creates a mirage of economy boost (Example: Germany, after A.Hitler's election, had the 100% of its ppl with a job. A job in the military industry, the one that was absorbing almost all the budget).
I wasn't applying my statement to this war in particular. It just happens to be a pet peeve of mine when people blindly claim " WAR IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!! " without actually looking at the historical aspects. This whole myth started because of post WW 2 America, which was virtually untouched by the war.
quote:
But this war has a meaning. I think BUsh is wrong but I can understand their acts. The nation under its control is strongly lacking of petrol, internal production (same as '40s) cant support nowadays demmands (5 times the old demmand). Many countries tied to petrol production like Russia, Turkey,Irak adjacent ones and many more know this. This is a so-called worldwide conflict of interests. Iraq production is this war's prize. Having control on petrol price would boost seriously 15 nations economy (and Bush interests). We can remember what happened when some non-OPEP petrol producers decided to raise prices to 500%. The whole world is still recovering from that. Bush knows it.
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is still perfectly capable of self support when it comes to oil; there are still massive untapped oil fields in the United States. Russia also has the potential to become the world's single largest oil producer; if the U.S. government had any sense, they'd be trying to make deals with Russia in this respect instead of attacking Iraq for oil ( which is the same rumour as always... remember the rumours of oil in the Gulf of Tonkin? Ha ha ha.. )
Best site EVER: Link Here
[this message was edited by Rugalbernstein on Mon 17 Feb 09:45] |
| Porcellino
104th Post
Regular Customer
| "Re(6):Sigh... u_uU" , posted Mon 17 Feb 10:23
quote:
I wasn't applying my statement to this war in particular. It just happens to be a pet peeve of mine when people blindly claim " WAR IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!! " without actually looking at the historical aspects. This whole myth started because of post WW 2 America, which was virtually untouched by the war.
Yes, I think youre right. But not only that. Germany's example is easy to port to any country who is confronting an inmediate war. Full employment, lack of imports and external debts create a mirage of a recovering economy.
Winning a war, like America did after WW2, have lots of economical motivations (sanctions, influences, and so)(wich are not mirages, IMO)
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, the United States is still perfectly capable of self support when it comes to oil; there are still massive untapped oil fields in the United States. Russia also has the potential to become the world's single largest oil producer; if the U.S. government had any sense, they'd be trying to make deals with Russia in this respect instead of attacking Iraq for oil ( which is the same rumour as always... remember the rumours of oil in the Gulf of Tonkin? Ha ha ha.. )
Of course, America is a very rich continent but maybe It's too expensive to exploit those resources. Iraq is 'floating above a petrol bubble', obtaining it is very cheap.
As you said Russia has that potential. In fact Russia is involved in a multi-sided negotiation about tolerate or not UE's attacks over Iraq. This way Russia would obtain the white-card to finally get rid of Its Chechenian terrorism problem (I think our presindent, JM Aznar, has similar ideas...since we have an internal terrorists nest here). Becoming one of the US's petrol provider is part of that agreement (US will also invest lots of money in modernize Russian petrol industry)
<<remember the rumours of oil in the Gulf of Tonkin? Ha ha ha.. >> No ^^ no idea, explain please.
The offtopic continues :D hope noone mind...Its very interesting talking about this with ppl from US (You, Rugal, are north american, dont you?)
:)
Tobanaibutaha...tadanobutada....
|
| RugalBernstein 3520th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
| "Re(8):Sigh... u_uU" , posted Mon 17 Feb 11:22:
I'm familiar with the situation in Russia. As for Crazymike's response, this makes a lot of sense; I didn't really keep cost in mind. I figure that if gets to be enough of an emergency, they'd tap that oil supply regardless, although that's only my decision, which is probably why I'm not a leader. BTW, Porcellino, no, I'm not an American. :D
Edit: Oh, yeah, Porcellino, a bunch of people claimed there was oil in the Gulf of Tonkin that was motivating the U.S. action in Vietnam, back in the day. I don't think that theory is even really brought up anymore, because it was pretty much a load of hot air.
Best site EVER: Link Here
[this message was edited by RugalBernstein on Mon 17 Feb 11:28] |
| Sensenic 336th Post
Bronze Customer
| "Re(9):Sigh... u_uU" , posted Mon 17 Feb 12:40
quote:
I'm familiar with the situation in Russia. As for Crazymike's response, this makes a lot of sense; I didn't really keep cost in mind. I figure that if gets to be enough of an emergency, they'd tap that oil supply regardless, although that's only my decision, which is probably why I'm not a leader. BTW, Porcellino, no, I'm not an American. :D
Edit: Oh, yeah, Porcellino, a bunch of people claimed there was oil in the Gulf of Tonkin that was motivating the U.S. action in Vietnam, back in the day. I don't think that theory is even really brought up anymore, because it was pretty much a load of hot air.
According to what I've heard & read, US would want to take the oil from middle east leaving its own for another reason apart from costs. They would be getting and using the oil from there now, while keeping their own as a reserve, so when oil finishes, the US still would have many barrels in stock to avoid crisis. And to sell, as necessary as it will become if the combustible situation doesn't change....
And there's another economical reason barely mentioned anywhere: weapons. Wars are good for testing and then selling them. For exapmle, in this case they wanna test this "goldeneyey" microwave bombs that would destroy all electrical and electronical devices leaving buildings and people (theorically) intact.
Himawari chan ain't she cute?
Amigo Jesú' que siempre va' detrá' der Hachí'
-Profesor Palomino-
|
|
|
"ho yeah!" 
"Sigh... u_uU" 
