quote:

---

ji·had also []je·had[/b] Pronunciation Key (j-häd)
n.
1. A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
2. A crusade or struggle: “The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke” (Fortune).

[Arabic jihd, from jahada, to strive. See ghd in Semitic Roots.]

---

Jyhad: A cool card game

---
And you know what Hell is, folks. It's Andy Gibb, singing 'Shadowdancing' for aeons and aeons...

Mikey, that's not from the Koran, that's from the dictionary. You..you do understand they are two different books right? Oh man, this explains a lot.

The Jihadists don't base their actions on dictionary definitions, Mikey. It seems a little ridiculous I even have to explain this.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

That's funny. I mean, since the Koran's jihad advocates destruction of all non-muslims, your proselytizing to the rest of us totally makes sense now. You're right, they aren't rebelling at all. They chop heads off of Americans for fun all the time, not just because we're in their country or anything.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

You said only a small percentage of the insurgents would support the beheadings. What, on earth, you base this on, no one knows. I do know that of those who support Jihad, they texts they base their Jihad "rules of engagements on" (the ones which somehow justify suicide, which somehow justify attacks on civilians) are used to justify the beheadings.

And since you are just making things up, why don't you bend over and stick a news article in your ass:

Arabs Split Over 'Legitimacy' of Iraq Beheadings

quote:

---

Several Arabs, however, said the United States and its allies were ultimately to blame for the hostage-taking because of the occupation and offensives that kill scores of Iraqis.

"It's savage revenge rather than execution," said Jordanian political analyst Adnan Abu Odeh. "While there are those who are disgusted, a certain percentage no doubt feel vindicated because of the killings they see by the Americans in Iraq."

Many said they deplored the killing of fellow Arabs and Asians who seek work in Iraq for better pay, but some said the occupation of Iraq justified the killing of Westerners.

Zerrouk Slimani, a Tunisian school teacher, said nobody should regret the killing of Westerners. "When dozens of Palestinians are dead or 50 killed in Iraq, few in the West condemn these assassinations," he explained.

Umm Mohammed, a Yemeni housewife, said her heart went out to families of hostages but that Iraqis were justified in resorting to such measures while fighting the world's mightiest army.

---

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Makk, I fail to see the relevance of that article. I never said the method of beheading was effective. I also never said it was right, justified, or anything else of a positive nature.

I am constantly and consistently amazed as to how you so self-righteously blast through arguments left and right, like that good old bull in the China shop, ignorant of the fact that no one made any such argument in the first place.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

You're the one making things up this time, Mikey. He was clearly attacking your assertion that we shouldn't tar all the jihadists with the same brush as the beheaders (though I don't see why we shouldn't: anyone who fits the description "jihadist", i.e. someone who kills people because they think it'll get them to fairy la-la land, is irredeemably evil, even if you seem to believe otherwise). So it is relevant that there's considerable support for the beheaders in the Middle East.

And here's more evidence of support:

Muslim outrage over killings found lacking

You're right Mikey, it must only be a small percentage, maybe 20 people, who support the beheadings.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

You may be right about the war not reaching 200 billion yet. In actuality it's close to 137 billion according to this website: http://costofwar.com/
Your wrong about me getting my quotes from an anit-Bush book and making up figures. I got my 200 billion from Kerry ad's and other tv spots. It's also been reported on several websites. So you saying I pulled my quotes from anti-Bush ad's and making up figures is you making an assumption. You have accused people of making assumptions before and you are now making one yourself. It's kool people make mistakes;) I know I do. I believe the website I just reported is closer to the truth. So I guess I was off about 63 billion and some change. You were off close to 37 billion so I guess we both need to do a little fact checking;) In all reality all the sites I came across who disputed Kerry's 200 billion estimate said we will reach the 200 billion (some even say twice as much) some time next year. Anyway 138 billion is still too much for a war based on false allegations. At least in my opinion;)

To see how unemployment now compares to the Clinton era check this site out: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=186379

Read that report from top to bottom. Anyways what does the Clinton era have to do with now? Your just trying to take the focus off Bush.

I never said the government can create jobs. What can be done is establishing programs that will give people the skills to obtain higher paying jobs, easier access and lower rates for student loans, tax breaks for the poor and middle class (not the rich), raising taxes on companies that outsource (or higher tariffs when their products come back to the US for sale), incentives for entrepeneurs (better tax breaks), and doing something about companies like Wal-Mart who make large profits and pay their employies crap (at the same time Wal-Mart usualy drives local stores out of business).I'm just throwing out some ideas.

You still haven't showed me proof.

I haven't heard any good arguments on how Saddam Hussein is more dangerous to America (a country that was never attacked by Saddam or Iraq) than Osama bin Laden. I believe that Saddam help fund terror attacks against Israel, but so did many of the countries in the Mid-East. Including among the anti-Israel countries are our (and Bush's) best friends the Saudis (I believe 15 of the terrorists on the 3 planes that attacked on 9/11 were Saudis). Osama bin Laden help fund and provide logistics for the terrorist attacks on 9/11 (not to mention several other terrorist attacks in the 90's). What did Saddam do to America that can compare to that? It's ridiculous to even consider Saddam to be more dangerous to America than Osama bin Laden.

Once again trying to make someone who doesn't agree with your views seem sympathetic/aligned with the enemy. That seems to be a favorite tactic of yours.

---
Get Your War On

Kerry's "Top 10 Bush Tax Proposals" are:

10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.

9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.

8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.

7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.

6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.

5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.

4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa (Heinz Kerry) to cover the whole damn thing.

3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.

2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future.

---
Get Your War On

On the tax issue... Why are we giving special bonuses per child? What kind of insanity is that? You get a special $400 tax break because you have 4 kids and are a burden on society because you can't even take care of the little fuckers. Whatever happened to positive reenforcment? Under current law, people will have three kids just to get that stupid tax break. What a load of bullshit. I say we give $100 break to families with 2 kids, $300 to families with one kid. That'll encourage this rampant breeding to stop, rather than making people think it's alright to have 6 kids. This isn't 1820, families don't need 5 kids to take care of the farm anymore.

As for the "tax breaks for the rich", what exactly is the cutoff line for "rich" as opposed to "not rich", what's the number? $20,000? $100,000?

And finally, we need to cut back on expenditures while we're going all crazy with the idea of increasing taxes on anyone. Sure, taxes help fund the country, but what else is it funding? We need complete finance reform in this country before we see any real "surplus". Our prisons are filled with pot smokers, hackers, and other nonviolent people (though I don't think that sexual fiends should ever be let out. Let 'em lose their genitals). Our school system is falling in ruins due to unions demanding more and more money. Our politicians scrape in millions of dollars for their limos and $1,000 a plate dinners. Is any of this shit needed? Do we really have to have all these expenditures? People constantly say we need to abolish welfare, and take away any free healthcare. Bull. If doctors wouldn't charge so damn much, lawyers weren't so sue happy on malpractice claims, and parents didn't sue their goddamn schools because some kid got harassed by another kid, we'd have plenty of money. Welfare is a good thing, to an extent. It helps people stay above water when they are threatened by the failing economy. But the fact is, if we got rid of this debt, and created more jobs, as well as eliminating all the damn extra kids coming into this world every damn day, we might see almost no need for welfare! This country's future is possible, but people need to work toward it. No amount of legislation will make people good, but it can help protect them when others aren't so good.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I beleive Kerry's definition of the rich is people making more than $200,000 a year.

---
...Trot and Cap'n Bill were free from anxiety and care. Button-Bright never worried about anything. The Scarecrow, not being able to sleep, looked out of the window and tried to count the stars.

That should teach you a lesson, Kronic. Kerry is also wrong about the cost of war figure. The best I can tell he has just flat out made up that number. Kerry has nothing better to do than lie about the war in Iraq to try to get elected.

You said unemployment was extremely bad. During the Clinton years the economy was considered to be going well by the media establishment. Now, with similar unemployment figures, the media establishment is decrying a weak economy. That is why it is relevant.

You bring up a lot of tax breaks as ideas. I agree that tax breaks will help people. You are obviously thinking rightly. However you imply that we are taxed more as a result of the war. That is not the case.

You still haven't showed me proof.

Debating the point that the defense department has sitting plans for war is like debating the statement that the NSA sweeps electronic communications. You're an idiot for arguing this point and I will let you keep bringing it up again and again as a testimony to your ignorance.

There's a difference between the states themselves sponsoring the terror acts and organizations within carrying out the attacks. I agree that in the last few years the disntiction seems to be disappearing.

Saudis being among the hijackers no more proves Saudi Arabia enabled the attack than it does an American born citizen being found in a terror training camp proving America is behind the terror effort. Your conclusions are idiotic.

I think Saddam was potentially more dangerous.

I strongly disagree.

And your second post really does prove your earlier quotes about Bush weren't biased at all! ;)

DragonXero:

You're an idiot. It costs a lot more to raise a child than the tax break. You pay a lot more taxes because you have a child also (sales tax and etc.)

I don't think you have much of a real-world grasp on anything else you bring up either. Hacking is a drain on the economy and you need a deterrent to someone deciding to cause millions of dollars of damage just to empower themselves. Funding the illegal drug industry is likewise a drain on the economy. Blaming doctors for "charging so much" is uneducated. Do you know how much it costs to go to medical school? Do you know how much malpractice insurance costs (thanks to, as you bring up, sue-happy lawyers and a legal system that doesn't to anything to make that attitude difficult)?

Politicians having $1000 dinners? Do you mean fundraisers? What are you talking about and how are fundraisers taking money out of public coffers?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Rummy says he wants an Iraq...

Sound like what America should try to be! Where do I sign up for some of that these days?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Isn't this what the Bushy's are trying to do in November in America?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Finally! Retaliation for that damn Moonshadow song running through my head!

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

DragonXero:

You're an idiot. It costs a lot more to raise a child than the tax break. You pay a lot more taxes because you have a child also (sales tax and etc.)

---

It's much less of a drain to have criminals locked up instead of running free, and also by having real deterrents to crimes.

That's why the penalties are so high. Some idiot can author a virus and cause millions of dollars in damage just for some kind of recognition. You need a disincentive to stop an act which can be relatively easy to carry out anonymously.

You say I need to be educated on hackers. This is society's education to hackers. You break laws, you go to jail. Welcome to America.

It doesn't matter what they intend to do. Drunk drivers don't intend to commit vehicular homicide.

Untrue. There are many peripheral crimes associated with drug use (and other "victimless crimes") such as prostitution and gambling. There are more consequences to the actions you suggest than simply less money spent on drug law enforcement.

It's not just fair, they have to. And when you are in the hospital because you need a brain tumor removed, do you want the best and the brightest person (lured by the promise of high pay for hard work) or whoever they could find for 40 thousand a year?

And you need car insurance to drive.

Oh I don't know. When politicians are taking their inflated salaries to these fundraisers and spending it all on some other politician buddy of theirs.

Huh? What? Fundraisers raise funds for campaign. A politican's salary doesn't go far, so again I say I don't think you know what you are talking about.

To run for re-election.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

"Real deterrents to crimes", like what? How is locking a druggie in a cell for two years going to deter him from committing crimes the day he gets out?

quote:

---

That's why the penalties are so high. Some idiot can author a virus and cause millions of dollars in damage just for some kind of recognition. You need a disincentive to stop an act which can be relatively easy to carry out anonymously.

You say I need to be educated on hackers. This is society's education to hackers. You break laws, you go to jail. Welcome to America.

---

This is the problem here. I am really, truly, and wholeheartedly NOT a fan of John Kerry. But people whose rhetoric strikes such a similar tone to MaKK's are the loudest advocates of George W. Bush.

I was frustrated in 2000 when Bush "won", because I knew I didn't want Bush in the white house. I knew Gore was no safe bet, but he was definitely to the left of Bush. If he would only keep his wife away from the music industry...

Bush is bad, plain and simple. Kerry may be as well, but I will probably be voting for Kerry, because he deserves a chance over George W. Bush. Bush had his chance, which was most definitely gained in a shady-ass way. Kerry hasn't fucked it up yet, which is why he will probably have my vote.

Also, people like MaKK aren't Bush apologists. They don't apologize for Bush in any way.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

A "deterrent" "deters" someone from comitting a crime. It's not a "deterrent" after you get caught doing the crime. I'm sure spending time in prison, though, would be a deterrent to future crimes to anyone with sense enough to not want to go back.

If they haven't broken a law then they shouldn't be charged.

You were talking about people charged with crimes related to hacking. I agree that if they have committed no crime, they should not go to jail.

But if I'm stupid enough to break into a building a leave a note for security about how better to secure their building, and I get caught doing so, then I'm stupid enough to go to jail.

I was say that, like gambling and prostitution, drug use creates related crime. I didn't say the related crimes were gambling and prostitution. Related crimes might be buglary, racketering, or murder.

I'm sorry, this is just too insane to even bother questioning.

Then maybe you do have a brain tumor. Go get checked out.

Another one of your inane comparisons. One is a factor of economics coming into play, being forced to pay insane fees just to make sure you don't die because the doctors can't operate on you without insurance.

You can go to the emergency room without insurance.

What do you mean "a politician's salary doesn't go far"?

A senator makes the same as a president, I think $200,000 a year.

No it's not you paying for it. That's why it's called a "fund raiser".

quote:

---

quote:

---

To run for re-election.

---

Brilliant deduction. Maybe if they actually stuck to the issues and worked on their election/re-election without all that support they wouldn't be pandering to those they got money from! Oh, wait, that would be unamerican.

---

Really? That's funny. I was only aware of Michael Moore's "Lie Machine" in the last year or so, and MoveOn.org has only recently gained a lot of press.

As far as I know, FOX has been operating for years, even BEFORE the Bush administration and its propaganda arms.

By the way, where is your proof that MoveOn.org is a "lie machine"?

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

George Soros (not even an American) has stated his intentions to disrupt American democracy by influencing the election as much as he can against Bush. He started move on dot org. What more information do you need?

You can't take what your own ilk are and have been dishing out. It's hilarious.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

All his thin excuses are apologies for Bushy behavior. They just act brash and pretend they aren't.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet