 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by emcee |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 |
| User | Post | ||
emcee Red Super Koopa                   Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I always wrote down a friend's name and number, then for their job I put down the parent company for what they worked for, like if they worked for KFC, put down Tricon Global. Although I've never actually heard of a company putting any effort into contacting personal references. I think they just like to see that section of the application filled out. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by spiroth10 And....? |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| Every application I've ever filled out, whether it was for McDonald's, Wal-Mart, or a machine shop, as always asked for references. It will normally say in plain easy to read text "fill in at least two references, excluding family". If you leave the entire section blank, they're not going to not hire you because they can't call people up and ask about you (personal references are silly anyway, who's going to put down someone who will say something bad about them?). Instead they'll not hire you because you clearly have trouble following basic instructions. (edited by emcee on 09-16-06 10:32 PM) |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Devin I think everyone here understands how averages work. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Xkeeper Yeah that was the first thing I tried. It just coverted to an escape sequence. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I wonder what it is about this thread that makes google think we'd be interested in World of Warcraft porn. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| Yeah, its been cured. You'll be fine.
That's still nasty, though. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I think the majority of the drunk/tired screwed-up posts here are either fake or purposely exaggerated. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa  Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I type like that sober. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| There seems to be two extremes for people's opinions on the terrorists' motives. The first is that they "Hate us because of our freedom", and that their ultimate goal is to spread their religion to every corner of the globe through violence (their "Jihad"). The other is that they have legitimate grievances and that their ultimate goal is to remove "Imperilistic" Western forces from the Muslim World. As Pat Buccanan puts it "They hate us because of what we do, not who we are".
I don't buy either of these arguments. Its true that the war in Iraq is probably a great recruiting tool for terrorists, but its not like terrorism didn't exist before we invaded Iraq. And maybe if we pulled all our troops out of the entire Middle East and the surrounding area, the terrorism would stop. But these few scared men hiding out in the mountains using misguided youths with bombs strapped to themselves as weapons don't speak for the entire Muslim World. Their complaints before our invasion of Afghanastan and Iraq were things like troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and the very existance of foriegn embassies. These are not legimate grievances. It's just extreme xenophobia. And its not the ideologies of the majority of the Muslim World. This is not a war between cultures. It shouldn't be a war at all. It should be about finding and bringing to justice this handful xenophobic murderers.
Its possible that everything we're being told about whats going on in the Middle East has been lies. But unless you have any real proof were being lied to its just a crackpot theory. It think the majority of those who think the government is constantly lying about everything from casualties in Iraq to whether or not 9/11 was an "inside job", don't believe that based on any real proof, but just because people tend to assume that anything that seems powerful and secretive must be up to no good. But really the government isn't that good at keeping secrets, and if there was any case to be made for these conspiracy theories, it would have been leaked to the New York Times a long time ago. Just like NSA wiretapping and secret CIA prisons. As far as whether terrorism is a big threat, well falling down the stairs may kill alot more people then terrorism, but it generally only kills one person at a time (unless there's several people on the stairs who somehow get knocked over by the first guy like bowling pins). The fact there are people who want to kill alot of people at once is something to be concerned about. Determining how much of a threat something is, is less about looking back at what has happened, and more about looking forward to what could happen. I just don't buy this false choice between our civil liberties/following international law, and our security. Things like better trained airport security, joining forces with other countries' intelligence agencies, and actually implementing the majority of the security recomendations from the 9/11 commission, would do alot more good then stupid things like, secrect prisons, torture (or "coerced interrogation"), racial profiling and warrantless wiretaping. Things that not only are rarely effective, but often make matters worse. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| Well, she doesn't know alot of basic things about computers, but she's asking questions and making an attempt to understand the answers. I think that puts her miles ahead of most of the computer illiterate people I deal with. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I think I saw this in Car and Driver a while back. They're over a million dollars a pop. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by emceeAnd not worth a cent of it considering you could easily build a faster car for not nearly as much. Well, I couldn't, but someone could. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I see some Republicans saying "We treat terrorists as combatants, while the Clinton Administration treated them as criminals, thats why Bin Laden got away", and maybe if Clinton had treated Bin Laden as a combatant he would have had authority to detain him. But he didn't, because that's not the way things were done then. But did the Bush Administration rush to change that when they took power? Did they immediately formulate a plan to capture Bin Laden? Did they even try?
It's real easy with the benefit of hindsight to say Bin Laden was big threat. But before September 11th, nobody was even talking about terrorism. Not the Democrats or the Republicans. A speech from a politician about terrorism would have been recieved like a speech about the environment, nobody cared because it didn't seem like something that effected them right at that moment. So yeah, some neocons can go on about all the terrorists that have been caught because they're "Tough on Terror". But it only took 3000 dead Americans to kick them into action. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Dr_Death16 I'm not trying to disprove your point. I agree that we could be being lied to. But I could say anything could be happening, but without proof that doesn't mean a whole lot. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bass Well, I know you said you're done with this thread, but I don't really think that means you're not going to read this so I'll reply anyway. My point wasn't that nobody knew Bin Laden was threat, the issue was knowing how much of a threat he was and using that information to make difficult decisions. Decisions that are very easy for us now after 9/11. For instance the article you linked to on Infowars says that Sudan was willing to hand over Bin Laden, but its not like they were just doing it out of the goodness of their heart, no strings attached. They wanted the oil sanctions put on them for supporting terrorism lifted in exchange. Now, today that seems like a pretty good deal knowing what Bin Laden was going to do. But the the sanction weren't just for harboring Bin Laden, or even just supporting al Qaeda, but for supporting and harboring numerous terrorists and groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas. So its not an easy decision to make to end sanctions just for turning over one guy, even if he was the leader of al Qaeda, especially if they thought Sudan might fold and stop supporting terrorism altogether. And I'm sure if the Clinton administration had taken the deal, and some other terrorist that was being harbored by Sudan attacked the US, people would be blaming Clinton because he let Sudan off the hook. Then there was the airstrike on Bin Laden's compound in Afghanistan, that apparently was called off by Janet Reno. Now we know we probably should have done it. But this was a military strike on another country during a time of peace, that would have most certainly killed 200+ women and children, with no certainy that that it would have gotten Bin Laden. That's no small decision. Especially since Bin Laden ran al Qaeda, but he wasn't al Qaeda, his death would've have likely been a huge set back for al Qaeda, but it wouldn't have destroyed it. But really this is all just politics. People like Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity know that for whatever reason, the public in general considers the Republicans to be tougher on terror. By putting all this blame on Clinton they can reinforce that idea, by saying that when a Democrat was allowed to run things terrorists were left to plot against the US. In other words, if you want to stay safe, you have to keep us in power. Then once they've stabbed with that they can really start twisting it around by saying that the problem was that Clinton was distracted by Lewinsky. And, I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. He was the president of the US, I'm sure he can multitask. The man deals with foriegn relations, meets with staff, works with lawmakers to write and pass legislation, and deals with press all on a daily basis, but apparently he just couldn't get a handle on national security because he was getting a blowjob every now and then? Come on, that's just stupid. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| Ah, ok I figured it out, it Shawn, not Shaun. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| No, it has nothing to do with presidential pardons. Congress is passing a law written by the administration that will not only allow the administration to violate the Geneva Convention in the future, it will keep them from being prosecuted for violation made in the past, before this legislation took affect. This is what happens when one party controls every branch of government. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
| I was going to sell blood plasma. But I had been working and didn't change before I went there, and the told me my shirt was too dirty. Not sure what that has to do with anything, but I was somewhat relieved. A friend of mine does it sometimes. Basically they take what resembles a hollowed out nail and stick it in your arm, then they sit you in front of a crappy Disney movie for 45 minutes or so while they drain your lifeforce.
For this you get $15 to $30, depending on your blood type. |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6322 days Last view: 6322 days |
| ||
Originally posted by drjayphd The George Orwell stuff was a bit much but I generally agreed with he said, except I don't know if just the fact that Bush was president at the time is enough to put the blame on him. But there does seem to be some very dirty politics at play. Clinton isn't even holding or running for offices and he still gets smeared. I have little doubt that Clinton really did try to get Bin Laden, or else there wouldn't have been a program in place to kill him in the first place. There just wasn't a way of doing it without considerable risk. Nobody knew at the time that they should have taken those risks, but now everybody knows, including Clinton himself, and I'm sure he feels bad about it. He got so close, but couldn't finish the job. But for people to say that the real reason he didn't do it had something to do with the Lewinski scandal is just cold. Then everyone acts so surprised when he gets angry. Clinton is being sacrificed for the Republican cause. They make Clinton look destracted by personal affairs, and limp-wristed on nation security, to make the whole Democratic Party look weak. But Clinton's actions show that he wasn't weak on national security. I seem to remember a time when he ordered the bombing of Iraq after their refusal to let in arms inspectors. He didn't try taking over the whole country, instead he focused on bombing suspected weapons plants. But the same people who supported Bush's ridiculous plan to invade Iraq after inspectors were allowed in, wouldn't support Clinton because they claimed he was just trying to take attention away from the Lewinski scandal. Now these same people are attacking Clinton, saying he was distracted from national security by the Lewinski scandal. Politics are just dirty. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by emcee |
