Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So far, however, only one side has been trying to reform and stop this, and a one-sided approach never works. We cooperation from BOTH groups on the forum rather than the recent goadings and verbal attacks by the DAG (namely Funk and nitro). I sincerely ask them to put this past them and not keep anything going.

Me: "Can I borrow some paper?"

David: "Sure, what color do you want?"

Me: "Brown, if you have it."

David: "No, I used it all up. I only have white."

Me: "Genocide!"

At 7/3/03 09:14 PM, xderangedxuncagedx wrote: FOR EVERYONE THAT HOLDS THE NOTION THAT PATRIOTISM DOESN'T LEAD TO RACISM, I SUGGEST YOU LOOK AT THE RIDICULOUS PC/DAG WAR. THE LOVE OF ONE POLITICAL GROUP LEADS TO THE BLIND HATE OF ANOTHER.

This is pathetic.

What's pathetic are these mixed analogies and comparisons.

BTW, can I call you sxlkjzljifajif, or simply the-poster-formerly-known-as-nailbomb?

At 7/3/03 07:08 PM, Newgrundling wrote: I am more bothered by man's increasing capacity to destroy himself.

Back when we only had boards with nails in them, a psychotic, derranged, or malicious individual in any given position couldn't do much damage. Now, all it takes it somebody to push a button. The non-existant margin of error and consequences thereof are staggeringly frightening, for me.

But those systems, (nuclear weapons), already exist. This potential technology is nothing more than a delivery method for conventional weapons.

If everyone wants to debate MAD, then make another topics about it.

At 7/3/03 03:24 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Yes, and it's hard to hijack a soldier. You could knock that space system out of commission if you tried hard enough, or just route it to fit your needs.

You keep making the argument that it could be "hijacked", but once again, the same could be said for nuclear missiles. Stringent security measures are what keep these weapons secure and will surely be implemented on space-based weapons, as well.

We have enough weaponry and ways of delivering destruction as it is. There is no need for yet another painfully precise way of bombing a city.

But technology is constantly advancing. You've got to move and upgrade with it, or fall behind and die.

It started in the Cold War when the USSR launched its massive Anti-American propaganda campaign and organized all the "Yankee Go Home" rallies.

At 7/3/03 01:36 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Well, in pure honesty, Fox is notorious in the media eye for being pretty right wing

And network news is notoriously left wing.

In fact, the very idea that they would give a guy like O'Reilly (Mr. Fire-and-Brim-Stones. lol.) his own show shows fairly clearly where they stand politically (overall, of course).

Thay also air Alan Colmes, a staunch leftist.

They feed off of the tragity and pain of others for the sake of ratings....

If you haven't noticed, ALL news stations do that.

At 7/3/03 12:09 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: We have two sets of world-threatening weapons right now (nukes and ICBM's). We don't need a third that possesses the ability to strike down anything at any time from space with just the push of a button.

What's the problem with it? The real application is not nuclear, because it's already covered. Conventional weapons are most likely to be the intended payload. What's the problem with this? Do you want to send fleets and bombers and soldiers to foreign lands with all of their support personnel and equipment, the costs for transporting everything and supplying everyone, then the time it takes to set up once there and the inherent danger in having people in the field. Or, we could just launch it from orbit. It's a much safer solution.

At 7/3/03 12:07 AM, nailbomb wrote: Ok, but if the History Channel has shows about history with historical viewpoints, does that not make it a channel about history?

So you're saying that Fox News is Bill O'Reilly 24 hrs. a day?

At 7/2/03 11:46 PM, nailbomb wrote: Please elaborate further.

This incident with O'Reilly is often brought up, but remember that this is only one show on an entire network. Taking an opinion about O'Reilly's show and then extrapolating it outward to cover the entire network would be flawed logic. That's like saying, because ABC sometimes shows sports, then ABC is a sports oriented channel.

Wait a minute people, you're waking this way out of context. The complaints you're making are just as valid as the complaints against nuclear weapons which the world has had for decades. Why are you complaining about this, but not about the already existing arsenals of ICBMS that exist all over the world?

Remember that O'Reilly does not equal Fox News.

At 7/2/03 07:29 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I think a lot more youths, however, would see discrimination as something stupid if they were in military service with people of other races and religions, and saw that they, too, could do the same things and achieve the same honors as that youth could.

Also a good idea.

If you understood that.

Thanks for the insult (?)

Why is this such a bad idea? Technology will inevitably advance and make these sort of things possible, and no sane country that could afford it would want to be left behind.

This will inevitably save money because we can withdraw our troops from foreign countries, and this will cause less of this 'resentment'. It's easier to be mad at an enemy that has troops around than at one who is a faceless power halfway around the globe. It's a psychological thing, really.

Besides, the world's amassed nuclear arsenal is already enough to destroy the planet several times over and can be launched from anywhere to anywhere on the globe. How are these new technologies worse?

At 7/2/03 07:20 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Think about this, though: is there anything wrong with compulsory military service? Of course, I mean if the United States were to ever make military service compulsory -- would you agree with it?

Would I agree with it? Yes, I think it would be a good idea if applied fairly and equally. I think it would do a great amount of good towards instilling some discipline and responsibility into our wayward youth.

This thread about military service, though, it's about discrimination.

At 7/2/03 03:12 PM, nailbomb wrote: Actually it's more like 50 countries.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030701_316.html

It shows you the true face of Republicans.

And yet, at the same time, you complain about the US being involved in these countries. Pick a side and stay with it because you can't have it both ways.

And why is everything a Republican plot to you? Are you just that eager or paranoid to blame everything on them?

At 7/2/03 06:44 AM, Slizor wrote: I would like to point out the reason given in the article is because the person served in the Israeli Army.

Does that really make a difference? Consider the fact that Israel has compulsory military service, as well. The much larger boycott is barring people even if they don't have any connection to the Israeli Army.

He may have commented on Austria, but the only stated "Axis-of-Evil" (silly term) countries are Iraq (under Saddam), Iran, N. Korea, Syria and Afghanistan (under Taliban).

All nations have some regrettable incidents in their past. Get over it. You can't use the past as a crutch for any sort of argument.

"Well, as you know, there was once slavery in America and now America has invaded Iraq, so....uh, yeah."

At 7/1/03 11:21 PM, nailbomb wrote: Well his grandfather was a chairman in a bank owned by Nazis so I don't think that Bush is a saint.

A) source?

B) That's a cheap shot at slander with little to no relevance.

Considering there was no independent nation of Palestine before Israel came about, their claim is a little "out of thin air". The disputed territories were formerely controlled by Jordan and Egypt.

At 7/1/03 10:22 PM, nailbomb wrote: All of the above. And my province's flag too. I still believe that patriotism spawns blind hatred for other countries or even provinces.

What about blind hatred of patriotism?

At 7/1/03 10:05 PM, BaKsHi wrote: but instead, i live in mass, and instead we have conservatives running a liberal state.

Conservatives running Massachusetts? The People's Republic of Massachusetts? That's one of the farthest left states there is.

What's disturbing is that it appears to be much more widespread than this one incident. Apparently there is a boycott of Israeli students and researchers under way in Britain.

This is another example of the hypocrisy of left-wing academia, "Discrimination is bad....unless I don't like a certain group of people, then we can call it a boycott and it's all right."

Outrage as Oxford bans student for being Israeli

At 7/1/03 08:08 PM, nailbomb wrote: Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Congress must declare war for it to be formally considered a war.

Saying that this is the only measure of war however, ignores the police actions and interventions, etc. going back to Truman and Korea.

I don't think that an international organization should have such power over a sovereign nation as to decide who they can or cannot fight. They may disapprove, but when a nation can no longer stand up for themselves without someone else's approval, then they are no longer truly a nation.

At 7/1/03 01:20 AM, nailbomb wrote: Indeed, what are the odds of 2 completely isolated nations building pyramids at roughly the same time?

It probably says something about the human mind and pattern of development.

Whether they came from completely isolated cultures, or some sort of landbridge wouldn't really make a difference as had both been isolated at the time of the pyramid building.

There's just something about that shape.

At 7/1/03 01:41 AM, BWS wrote: And get this: Jerry Springer wants to run for Senate!! If he gets elected...Ummm, I guess Ill know my vote wasnt part of it.

Hehe. The public gallery would be full of hooded KKK members, incestuous couples, overwight transsexuals, etc.

Have they evicted "Gray Out" Davis, yet? I heard about that petition that hundreds of thousands had signed asking for his removal.