Quake3World

You know, I never thought of that.

Smurfs was the first mindless, cutesy cartoon that was popular on television wasn't it?

R00k wrote:You know, I never thought of that.

Smurfs was the first mindless, cutesy cartoon that was popular on television wasn't it?

mindless? isnt that show a huge allegory representing all this class order/structure stuff (which almost any kid watching it totally missed).

i dont know if its true or not, just something i heard.

I guess I can see an allegory now that I'm looking for one, but I don't know if that's what the writers were thinking or not.

All the blues milling around performing meaningless tasks, oblivious to the way the world of bigger people worked around them - and all the female did was pick flowers and talk pretty?

I dunno, that's about all I really remember of it, I never watched it much.

warner bros great cartoons were killed the same way they are trying to kill games now. Activists complained about the slapstick violence.

Smurfs and crappy watered down bugs bunny cartoons are the legacy of that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1645699

WASHINGTON Feb 21, 2006 (AP)— President Bush said Tuesday that the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and that he would veto any congressional effort to stop it.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush told reporters who had traveled with him on Air Force One to Washington. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, `We'll treat you fairly.'"

Bush has not vetoed a single thing in the 5 years he's been in office. Now he says he'll use it to make sure this Arab company gets a contract to control our ports.

Bush's whole family is entirely too well-connected in the middle east in my opinion, and probably owes way too many favors to business associates and others over there.

It's hard for me to imagine, with all the veto-worthy things that have gone through our sieve of a political process in Washington, that Bush would veto this above all else; especially after putting his entire presidential reputation on the idea that he's the man to protect our national security and interests.

I know a lot of people think this is making a big deal out of nothing, but it would be the equivalent of letting the government of the UAE (or any country for that matter) build our fighter jets for us. It presents an opportunity for them to bypass our security measures and possibly even open backdoors through them, if they ever had any reason to do so.

It's also no real surprise that two people in Bush's administration have ties to the company in one way or another.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022206Z.shtml

fuck it let them control the ports atleast that'll be a safe place to be. No sense in attacking your own bread n butter

fucking fred quimby & tex avery were the men. best respect, foozles

Hmm it seems I might be misinformed.

I had read that the UAE actually gave material support to Atta and the gang while they were there as well as over here.
I just got around to reading Raimondo's article, and he's saying their money just went through the central bank, which is a different matter entirely.

I'm going to have to do some more reading on this to see if I can find out what's fact and misrepresentation.

For the record though, I have a problem with any country running national security-related services in our country, even if it's the UK. I know that's unrealistic in today's world-wide economy, but hey, I'm also opposed to the majority of globalized free trade ideals.

I've just always thought of national defense as THE one thing that is not negotiable, not outsource-able, and not open to free market politics. But I guess old school conservative views like that don't have any place in today's political environment.

I ain't worried... I really didn't read the thread, but apparently another "Arab" security company (or maybe the same one) has been doing security for quite some time on the west coast

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:Looney Toons was always so good at boiling complex issues down to the point where you could see both sides of a story and somehow throw a good laugh in it to boot.

Whatever happened to good cartoons?

I blame the motherfucking Smurfs. Nearly every cartoon since has been utter shit.

I just think it started getting to be to much of a liability. We picked up a Tom and Jerry dvd the other day for our daughter. It was 40 minutes of them blowing each other up with dynamite, hitting over the head with 2x4's and shooting each other in the face with shotguns. I had really never thought about it till i sat down and watched it with her for a while. I ended up shutting it off. If you think about it...its the same stuff with Elmer and Bugs, Wile and Roadrunner...etc. Classic stuff.

Tom and Jerry is plain viciousness. I never liked it

I don't like Tom and Jerry because tom's owner is a nigger.

Fucking wogs.

Dukester wrote:warner bros great cartoons were killed the same way they are trying to kill games now. Activists complained about the slapstick violence.

Smurfs and crappy watered down bugs bunny cartoons are the legacy of that.

shaft wrote:I just think it started getting to be to much of a liability. We picked up a Tom and Jerry dvd the other day for our daughter. It was 40 minutes of them blowing each other up with dynamite, hitting over the head with 2x4's and shooting each other in the face with shotguns. I had really never thought about it till i sat down and watched it with her for a while. I ended up shutting it off. If you think about it...its the same stuff with Elmer and Bugs, Wile and Roadrunner...etc. Classic stuff.

I can't make any kind of arguement here until I know how old you are and if you watched Elmer and Bugs and Tom and Jerry when you were a kid, and liked it.

phantasmagoria wrote:I don't like Tom and Jerry because tom's owner is a *****.

Fucking wogs.

eh?

Dukester, I must have missed your post? I liked em when i was a kid.
I really have no problem letting my kids watch them when they are old enough to understand the humor...its was just when my 2yr old watched it she was like "Oh no!" and "Uhhohh!" when they were beating the crap out of each other. It just sorta hit me. I never really remembered them as being so violent, and it got me thinking thats probably why you never see them on tv nowdays.

yeah, especially watching Tom and jerry when your grown is a real eye opener. They seemed much more violnet than enything the road runner did!

still, I never have hit anyone in the face with a 2x4 or blown anyone up. so for the sake of that we now have crummy cartoons.

although 2 years old is pretty young for even that, so I pretty much agree with you then.

I kind of get the same reaction when I watch The Three Stooges now. I still laugh, but now I wince when they hit each other in the head with a crowbar

phantasmagoria wrote:I don't like Tom and Jerry because tom's owner is a *****.

Fucking wogs.

shes most likely the maid
the way she kicks tom the stray cat out all the time :L
although its not very consistant cause in other episodes he has his own sleeping basket and all.

There's this:

FACTS ABOUT THE UAE
FROM THE 9/11 COMMISSION

– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the
Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear
components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers
through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not
cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.

And apparently the Emir of UAE was a hunting buddy of Bin Laden's (although several other leaders in the region seemed to as well), according to the 9/11 commission testimony.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/22/01030/7961

Still as muddled as ever though.