Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/25/07 12:56 PM, EKublai wrote: I understand why George W. Bush would do this, considering he was speaking to a hostile audience , but did anyone else feel the least bit of disgust when announced all of the "heroes"

I think you complete misunderstood the point of that part of his speech because you are filtering through your opinion of Bush. The point of introducing those "heroes" was to create a positive atmosphere and create the feeling that America does have great things-- it was a morale and emotional appeal tactic. There was nothing nefarious about it, as you propose.

I also think having Dikembe Mutumbo at the address, a guy who originally immigrated from The Republic of the Congo, confused his speech on immigration when he said how great it was to see "that some of the people that have left their homeland, and then give back so generously, are American Citizens"

There is absolutely nothing confused about that. Bush proposed a Work Program for legal foreigners and highlighted a positive, legal immigrant. What he refused to accept was illegal immigrants, people who do not benefit our country but instead try to cheat our rules. The point was to contrast his positive view of legal immigrant against his negative view of illegal immigrants.

But other than those few moments, I thought he spoke quite eloquently for being among a Democratic Majority, and I also enjoyed the Democratic Response, corny though it may have been, stated the Democratic agenda quite clearly with power and force, yet also with humility.

*cough* I wonder what your bias is?

At 1/24/07 10:12 PM, AdamRice wrote: That's kinda broad, to me that translates into: I want to do nothing.
Why can't he be more specific.

Becuase he's speaking an entire year worth of material in a 45 minute speech when other topics are taking the spotlight and he has to work with Congress before he can create any solid plans.

At 1/24/07 01:06 PM, CourtesyFlush wrote: yeah, im surprised he mentioned anything about global warming, i thought he didnt care about the future. still not sold about the continuation in Iraq; he didnt explain enough about that. just mentioned people or nations who agreed with him

As far as I've seen, he's never been one of hte Anti-Global Warming people; he has always tried to push alternate fuels and similar things heavily, but he has rejected plans such as the Kyoto Treaty to simply cripple our current systems to "deal" with the problem. Note that many of the countries who did sign that treaty are now considering qutting becuase of the damage it is doing.

The Iraq plan didn't get as much attention because he already introduced the idea in full detail in an independent speech earlier this month. The State of the Union simply wasn't the place to provide more details.

Yes, humans are selfish- as they should be. Your first concern should always be your own health and protection because you are no good to anyone else dead! It is not evil or somehow sinful to be concerned with yourself, your own wellbeing, and your own life. That is how it should be.

You fall into the class of what I call "Humanist Cynics." You believe the worst you possibly can about humans because you don't have your priorities in the proper order and do not understand why certain things are the way they are. Concern for others should be commended, yes, and active disregard for others discouraged, but concern for self should be accpted as a necessary, neither evil nor good, necessity.

At 1/22/07 03:57 AM, Imperator wrote:

For that reason, no God does not have the power to "bend" logic-- it's impossible because logic can not be acted upon in that manner.

We can also apply the "move the universe" equation to this and thus, "bend" logic. Logic itself will not have changed, but the surrounding drives behind logic will make it appear "bent".

Put on someone else's pair of glasses to experience this. Have the objects actually changed, or has the universe around them changed?

With someone else's pair of glasses, nothing has changed, only your own view is distorted and warped. It is impossible to "bend" logic-- it is not something you can act upon in any way because it is a set of definitions. If God were to alter it in any way, it would be a permanent change of a definition, not a possible temporary thing. There is nothing more to the issue: God can't "bend" logic because logic can't be "bent"-- only misunderstood and misapplied.

Well now you're asking us to solve math problems by slitting our wrists. If you don't offer the proper tools, of course it's not going to work. Pose the challenge in a different logic system, and we may have different answers. Again, perception and interpretation.

But isn't that the point of the impossible? No tool can help you do it because it isn't possible! Sure, you can cheat and lie to make it appear that you did it, an illusion, but you still can't do the impossible-- for a reason.

Politics would be screwed if logic couldn't be bent.

Lying and propaganda avoid logic entirely.

At 1/18/07 06:28 PM, Grammer wrote: You can call it w/e you want, but it only makes sense that an all-powerful God has the power to bend anything. Just because you can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it can't happen.

My ability to comprehend the subject has nothing to do with it. While God may be omnipotent, you can't do something for which no course of action exists. Logic is an artificial construction, akin to a definition; static concepts can not be bent. They can be changed at the initial point of definition, but never bent or temporarily altered.

For that reason, no God does not have the power to "bend" logic-- it's impossible because logic can not be acted upon in that manner.

To the OP: While your logic is fairly consistant,

Hahaha, no it's not, it's got more holes than cheddar cheese. Why can't you see it?

Cheddar cheese? It may help you to know that cheddar cheese has no visible holes. His logic is fairly accurate, but the weakness is that his agrument relies on the inability of anyone to think of a method, but the lack of a response is not proof that no method exists.

At 1/18/07 02:56 PM, Grammer wrote: He can do anything, even bend the rules of logic and human understanding as we know it.

Bull. That's called an "escape route" for someone with a complete unsupportable position. Nothing can "bend" logic-- either it fits or it doesn't. There's none of this "humans can't know god's logic" or "god can alter logic" crap, it's just logical or not.

To the OP: While your logic is fairly consistant, your choice of action is not necessarily good. It is possible to argue that "existance" doesn't apply to God one way or another, so existing or not is irrelevant. Alternatively, it may be possible for God to cease to exist, such as if he jumped forward in time one second-- for that one instant he did not exist, but then he returned to our existance.

At 1/17/07 12:56 PM, elkrobber wrote: It's wrong in the same way as giving your baby a tattoo, or the prospect of designer babies.

Wrong in the same way as curing your child of retardation, making sure it is born with four limbs, preventing it from having AIDS, or making sure it has a healthy brain?

These things are not wrong. Fixing defects is a long mile from designing new "better" features. You're right, parents don't have the right to decide this issue at all. They are obligated to fix the problems-- they can't decide to allow a child to be born maimed, retarded, or otherwised damaged when a cure is available.

At 1/15/07 04:21 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well most societies from our hunter-gatherer ancestors to recent empires and todays military work on these principals because the group will help you live whereas working on your own won't get you far.

The Group is not responsible for any success you make. The Group is an artificial construct when the community extends beyond a few dozen people. While individuals can specialize and trade, it is the Individual which makes decisions, creates interactions, and succeeds. The artificial concept of The Group just makes the socializing between Individuals seem more permanent.

At 1/15/07 02:03 PM, Sir-S-Of-ROFL wrote: Should a parent have the right to choose what their child turns out as?

Yes. They choose how a child eats, what the child does, where the child lives, where the child learns, what religion the child is taught, and what information the child can receive. I'm pretty damn sure parents have the right to control how their child develops.

At 1/15/07 03:39 AM, Kenzu wrote: Communism killed no one.
Socialism neither.

So you're telling me that the millions who died during the USSR famines because their Communistic infratstructure failed (due to inherent flaws in the system) don't count?

That's just bull, man. Communism and Socialism both are responsible for a huge number of deaths for reasons such as revolutions, famines, wars against Capitalism, and forceful maintanence of Communism.

Saddam was executed fairly and under the Iraqi court system. The United States and Americans were not involved in his actual execution and had no say in the matter, only the Iraqis did. They decided he needed to be executed, so he was. End of story.

At 1/15/07 08:52 AM, tawc wrote: The fact Is think how hard it was for america to try an keep control in a small third world country, how the fuck does cellardoor think the US can take over the world.

The only reason you think the US is having trouble keeping control of Iraq is because you've been brainwashed by propaganda from the media. The US is not having any trouble keeping control of Iraq-- what we can't achieve is tranquility in the region. We can't stop the petty fighting, but there is absolutely no threat at all to our ability to control the region.

Also, the Korean and Vietnam Wars should be considered in a much more complex way than you have. Both were fought against "false" enemies-- we fought the North Koreans, but we were really fighting the Chinese and Russians as well. Especially in Vietnam, the US was attempting not to fight a war while fighting a war, since they didn't want another world war. Defensive, hands-tied wars like that are never winnable, and invading Vietnam was an idiotic choice (S. Korea was not, for other reasons).

At 1/13/07 11:43 PM, Culpeo wrote: if we are the world leader, why arent at our full capabilaties?

I think the reason is simple: why would we want to own the rest of the world? It would strain our resources and strength to time and occupy the entire world militarily when we can already do so effectively economically. Iraq is a demonstration of the difficulties inherent in attempting to occupy a hostile country. Americans in general simply don't want to own more countires; our imperial days have been behind us since we gave most of our territories independence.

However, the reasons why we don't want control of more countries breaks into four categories:
A) The country sucks and is undesirable (i.e. Mexico, Cuba, Congo);
B) We consider the country our friend already and do not wish to fight them (i.e. Canada, Britain, Japan);
C) We control the country economically and benefit from that arrangement (i.e. the Middle East);
D) It is not worthwhile to waste the effort of invading the country (i.e. China, Russia, Antartica);

At 1/14/07 03:25 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: Your numbers are a bit off... WAY more than 4% of the USA's population uses it. In fact, about the number for the amount of people in the USA who have tried it stands at about 39%.

I might believe that 39% as "tried it in their lifetime" but not "used in the last year."

At 1/13/07 04:50 PM, YHWH wrote: Ni66er was banned, Draconias.

As if that isn't already effectively banned in America?

At 1/14/07 02:10 AM, Ravariel wrote: (we STILL don't really know how they built those pyramids) while the "white man" was still wearing furr and hanging out in caves up north.

First of all, we do know how the pyramids were built and have known for several decades. The Egyptians used dirt ramps and rolled stones on logs to create the pyramids. Their manpower came from farmers after harvest season.

And no, "white man" was not still at the caveman era at that point. You're off by about fifty thousand years.

At 1/14/07 11:07 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Now if they launch 2000 nuclear bombs & all of them go off, I just bet that's going to help with global warming.
We won't see any snow for years.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Nuclear bombs cause nuclear winter. We'd see snow for TOO many years if enough nukes went off.

At 1/13/07 04:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: In all honesty, I actually have no idea where I stand on this issue. I have always been torn about possible genetic engineering of humans... the question about whether it's right for us to decide for someone else what his or here mental/physical/sexual characteristics might be.

Form what I understand, the prevailing view of how homosexuality is introduced during pregnancy is when the mother's immune system attacks the child, damaging its development. Direct evidence has been found for this occurring, but not for a gene or any other heritable characteristic. Considering that situation, it is entirely just for doctors to prevent the mother from injuring the child and damaging its development.

So wait, which word exactly was banned?

Black? Negro? African-Norwegian? The N. pejorative?

A. America is a male-dominated society, which leads to many reasons for the conflict with gays: hetero males do not want any other men to be attracted to them; hetero males do not want to observe men interacting sexually; most hetero men are disgusted by anal sex; the metrosexual culture is severaly in conflict with the hetero male culture; and homosexuality has come to respresent weakness among men.

This set of reasons contributes to the primarily male reaction against gays, and also is reflected in male attitudes toward gays in general (gay men are disgusting, gay/bi women are cheered on).

B. Americans have fairly firm views on how the world should operate. Our religion and our common sense tell us how sex should happen. Gays are a deviation, a disturbance in the American worldview, and are in conflict with the American Dream. They are "unnatural" and "in need of a cure" because they break the basic social rules of our society and try to change the way we live into something to suit themselves (Gay Marrage).

This set of reasons explains another major chunk of the reactions against gays. They are a deviation to many people, who do not which to support anything which doesn't fit. This is the same reason why "Outsiders" are often harassed or fought with.

C. The political proponents of Gays are often reviled. They have general attitudes which people disagree with, so those same people will react negatively against Gays as well.

This usually applies to people who argue against the supporters of Gay Marriage, who dislike radical liberals, and in general believe that our society is not a craphole that must be totally reformed with welfare and universal healthcare and communism.

That's some reasons for you.

Begoner, what you are completely omitting is some of the key information that they found in one or two recent raids. Top Iranian generals have been caught colluding with top Shi'ite leaders on specific plans to attack American forces. Iran has already committed an Act of War on the United States-- the focus of this raid was additional information.

Iran knows they can't afford to go to war with us, and if they try to protest this action they will be dragged into a fight they can't possibly win, and we will be in the right internationally. We're tired of letting terrorists and enemies hide behind laws and innocents, so we acted.

At 1/12/07 06:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: but putting the group before the self does not mean that society is communist. many society embraced this ideology since the community was needed to help support each other, an individual would not be able to acquire enough goods for him to survive outside the group. i was not trying to make an argument for communism, rather a point against the self-centered nature of our society.

How many of them really put the group before the individual? In almost every case, the individual is part of the group for his or her own benefit, not the group's benefit. Communism carries Group-First ideology from just a dangerous tool of control to a complete economic system-- the dictatorships that result are practically inherent in the system. Communism is flawed because Group-First ideology is not appropriate for that use.

Begoner is... right.

Wow. Anyways, unemployment (0 income) is a bad enough situation already. It is an absurd idea to try to force them into physically-demanding, entrapping jobs just because you (as a politician) want to look better.

WHile I do agree that prisons have become too comfortable and should be stripped down further to save taxpayer money and to free up money to reduce the overcrowding, I disagree about the death penalty.

I feel that the death penalty is used far too lightly in many cases and many people are too eager to throw it out as a punishment, but the death penalty is still necessary. A single man raping and then killing a child is not worthy of the death penalty. Not even close. A serial murder/rapist who tortures the victims for several hours beforehand is worthy of the death penalty. The DP should be reserved for criminals who are so heinous, so vile, that rehabilitation is completely impossible-- when only their removal from this world can wipe the stain away.

However, criminals like that do exist, so the death penalty must exist as well. It is overused, but necessary.

On a side note, the "it's inhumane" argument is foolish; we are willing to send thousands of innocent youth into wars where they are killed, and we respect and honor them, so why is it unreasonable to kill the vile in a non-heroic way? If we refuse to kill the worst criminals, we put our own ideals to shame.

At 1/10/07 04:01 PM, Begoner wrote: The US is a country with extremely limited social mobility;

That's simply not true. While the mobility between middle class and upper class is fairly limited, the one between middle and lower class is not.

At 1/9/07 02:00 PM, Spackerchip wrote: Its the true traits that drive people away from communism and to other less extreme ways of living.

In the context of my post, my statement meant that humans traits (in particular, "greed") are not the primary reason why Communism is unworkable. Regardless of what all those stupid cynics say, "greed" is not an important factor-- freedom of choice, independent thought, self-improvement, and dedication are important factors though, and the human traits which truly chafe against Communism the most.

If I hate living in poverty and wish to improve my life, that is not greed, but it is that desire which destroys Communism the quickest, especially as it begins to collapse due to the flaws of the system itself.

At 1/5/07 12:55 PM, HogWashSoup wrote: its a proven myth, and it doesnt take much. as shown on mythbusters and proof from my uncle. had 2 poppy seed muffins and showed positive on the test.

As proven false on Mythbusters. Also, two muffins is not enough to register. Your uncle probably was using opium-- the drug tests simply aren't that sensitive and the stuff goes through your system too quickly.

At 1/8/07 07:15 PM, MightyMightyKirk wrote: Communism is great on paper, but doesn't work because of human greed.

At 1/8/07 08:46 PM, CyanClock wrote: Unfortunately, no one has experienced Communism because of the leaders' greed.

At 1/9/07 09:36 AM, The-Gus wrote: it's not, it's just been poorly implemented.

This is the exact foolishness that I was just arguing against earlier. Communism itslef sucks. It's not human traits, it's not a lack of "true" Communism, it's not poor implementation. The system itself is unstable, unreliable, and inherently flawed.

At 1/8/07 07:15 PM, SolInvictus wrote: many cultures hold the idea that the group is more important and they've been doing fine for thousands of years. the popularity of focusing on the individual has really only caught on in the modern western world.

All of those cultures have supported that ideal as a way to control the masses. If you teach them to value the group, you can con them into self-sacrifice and make them accept your "justice" and leadership. However, it is also worth mentioning that Nationalism, the primary "group-think" power behind Communism, also only arose recently in the modern Western world, after individualism became a refined philosophy. Even before then, however, Individualism has been the default philosophy in every civilization in the world; the martyr for the group has traditionally been few and far between.

Communism violates that basic ideal by demanding that you feed everyone else (regardless of everything) and then feed yourself. That's how you get 10 million starving people and a surplus of food lying around. Communism is a mirage-- if the seemingly blind idealists actually took a look at the details, they'd realize the absurdity of a Communist system.

At 1/8/07 07:46 AM, Kenzu wrote: Communism is a paradise and therefore it is VERY GOOD.
Socialism might be not as good, but it is much easier achievable.

What most Pro-Communism people simply never seem to understand is that Communism itself is the problem. It is not a good idea, not a good system, and the flaw lies in Communism itself, not human nature or implementation.

Communism is based on ignorant ideology that ignores all aspects of the individual in favor of a "perfect group." It seeks to eliminate personal freedom, independent thought, self-improvement, personal success, and inter-personal competition, all for the sake of the group.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong-- the individual is even more important than the group, and Communism completely fails to take this into account. This is the root of Communism's failure, and the reason it will continue to fail every single time anyone tries to implement it. It's not "evil human nature" or "poor methods" that have made Communism perform so badly, it is the flaws of the system itself.