Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/13/08 12:12 AM, darkmaster962000 wrote: Why is it that athiests want to disprove religion so badly?Let the religious have there hope, tell me, what do you get from trying to disprove a religion and utterly SMASHING any hope that our existance is worth JACK SHIT?

I don't like the idea that only God gives people's lives meaning. That's a really depressing viewpoint to have.

On a related note, I REALLY hate the argument that, without God, there's no morality. Morality isn't doing something for a reward and not doing something to avoid punishment. Someone would have to be incredibly morally weak to feel that there's no morality without a reward and punishment system.

At 8/12/08 11:05 PM, Tiago11103 wrote: bring friends pee.

/thread

This is the safest and most illegal bet.

However, if they fire you for not submitting to a voluntary drug test, even on your probation period, I think you have some legal recourse.

The point of me bumping this is to show that I totally called Russia's military expansionism.

It's an ego trip, fuck off.

This is one of those dark periods in a country's economic development that nobody likes but is just another stepping stone towards the benefits that we enjoy.

It takes a fucking douchebag to assume that, just because we enjoy the rights and privileges of a developed nation, any other country can do it. The rights we enjoy today were the result of EXACTLY what's going on in China now. Not even a hundred years ago, we had child labor, sweatshops, and working conditions that would make a modern American turn their nose up in moral indignation, but it's because of these shitty working conditions that we were able to develop into the nation we are now.

Nobody likes what's going on over there, but China's going through the growing pains any nation has to go through to become developed. What's more, China wouldn't be going through this today if it hadn't have been for that asshole Mao who set their country back at least 50 years with detrimental and ill-advised economic plans.

If you want someone to blame for child-driven sweatshops in China in this day and age, don't blame American consumerism, blame that fuckhead Mao who drove his country into the ground.

AznWarlord brings up a lot of good and accurate points as to why we developed into this system, however, I believe the real discussion should revolve around why we're continuing it today.

The big issue is that people feel that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a "wasted vote." It's the whole idea that, if your candidate doesn't win, your vote doesn't matter. I can't stand the fact that Americans put enormous emphasis into who wins and loses that we don't understand what the hell voting is for. The INTENTION is to vote for who you like the best, not which of the two candidates that are most likely to win matches up vaguely to your beliefs.

Now, granted, if the Republican or Democrat platform appeals to you, by all means, vote on party lines; however, as AznWarlord was good to mention, they have developed to be such opposites of each other, that the American people generally align themselves as somewhere in between. It is an utter shame that nobody does the research to look for candidates or third parties that support their views better than the two established parties.

While the situation may have evolved from a polarized nation, it has continued because this country and its populace has evolved into a more apathetic nation, and it's fucking sickening.

At 8/12/08 03:04 PM, Jezuz wrote: Islam says the world should be united under Islam, so to an extent you have it right. However, it also has the same values to not kill, and goes one up to say they shouldn't go to war unless first attacked.

It's really funny, since this is the exact same reason we were fighting the Cold War. Marxism stresses the need for global communism in order for their vision to be realized. That's why the USSR and US were fighting a war by proxy, making sure that the other's economic policy didn't dominate the rest of the world. It's almost the exact same thing, except it's on the cultural front and the US citizenry is too war weary to engage it.

And before anyone criticizes harp on me "bashing Islam," think half a second. I'm drawing a parallel between an economic clash of interests and a cultural one. Communism is in direct opposition to our capitalist way of life. A Theocratic system where the rule of law stresses a hindrance on human rights in favor of absolute morality is in direct opposition to our system which stresses separation of Church and State and human rights being above all.

Then, you have the Shi'ite and Sunni thing, which is basically Mormon compared to Protestant in Christianity. There's very little difference in them, but none the less the majority (Sunni) have tensions with the minority (Shi'ite).

What's sad is that this comparison is entirely appropriate to the conflict a thousand years ago. They're incredibly violent towards the other and there's no sign of a cessation of hostility from either side, especially the Sunnis.

Religion is just a tool over there, essentially.

Not to dump on religion in general, but organized religion is a tool everywhere.

At 8/12/08 09:26 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Why do wars have to have some secret reason, like oil or expansion or imperialism? Why does there have to be a conspiracy everywhere? Sometimes things are for the reasons everyone believe they are for. Everything doesn't have to have a behind the scenes reason.

Expansionism isn't a secret reason, you fucking dumbass, it's pretty up front. This conflict is ENTIRELY about expansionism and Russia's doing almost nothing to hide that fact.

I don't even think I want to know if you thought about what you said beforehand or not.

It's never been about oil.

I've already made a thread detailing the whole conflict back in July. It's Putin grabbing up the old Soviet satellite states. This has been in the works for quite a while and Putin has been doing a brilliant job of it. This whole halt on advancement business? It's because he knows that, even in this softened world, there's so far he can push before there's an international backlash. He's done what he needs to in Georgia at the moment. The whole area is totally destabilized and needs a strong backing. Guess who can provide that?

Georgia was targeted first because of the fact that they have been in talks with NATO for years and have been looking to join. Guess who else is? The Ukraine. See, the only thing that would keep Russia from scooping up the old Soviet states is the organization that had originally formed in opposition to the Warsaw pact. Seeing as how Georgia's pretty much out of the picture, the Ukraine is going to be next, Putin has already threatened them with nuclear reprisal if they join NATO.

So, if you read the news, it's pretty obvious that the Ukraine is next based on their relationship with NATO. After that, though? Well, you'd have to be familiar with the modern history of the region. There's a pretty juicy target that Russia's been marinating for years now. Chechnya has had internal strife and Russian intervention for a while now. The international community could give a damn about them and, what's more, they already have a Russian presence. Once Russia takes care of the only countries that the rest of the world actually might give a damn about (provided they join NATO, which they'll never have a chance to), Chechnya's going to be the first to go.

Who fucking called it?

It all started with farm girls practicing their handjobs.

At 8/7/08 02:59 PM, zoolrule wrote: That's because you have so many choices, right?

This attitude is exactly why we don't have any realistic choices. I'm not voting Republican or Democrat this election. Sure, the candidate I vote for isn't going to win, but the point isn't to vote for a winner, it's to vote for who you like the best.

The very fact that most people only vote for a candidate they think is going to win is what's wrong with the system and it really shows what a shallow, vapid society we are.

I've been involved with nonprofits for a few years now. Right now, I work for an association management firm that handles the office end of several associations that do a lot of legislative and lobbying work. While I don't actively lobby, I do help shape the legislative agenda of these organizations as well as write articles (albeit sometimes under the name of my boss) for several publications to inform the respective membership bases on what's going on with issues that concern them.

Of course, these associations are all just statewide, so I'm not really doing anything federally, but state government has a lot more interaction in my life than the federal government. Ideally, though, I'd like to get more into the lobbying side and start doing some of that work. I think I'd be pretty good at it.

At 8/7/08 01:52 PM, Rigormort1s wrote: Briefcase sized nuke or dirty bomb detonated in a major city.

Which would only kill thousands. You'd need something in the high hundred thousand kilotons in order to even break a million deaths.

It's all about biological warfare. When you deal with things like nukes, you create a huge, obvious incident. Your chances of recreating it are slim to none. Spreading a plague or perpetrating a mass poisoning is as easy as infecting the water or food supply at the source. Before anybody has time to crack down, millions have already been infected and, with plagues, they continue to do the work for you.

At 8/6/08 07:06 PM, homor wrote: yes, but this is still a politicial issue, and these kind of things need to be voted on.

I don't think you understood a word I said.

Teddy Roosevelt was the greatest president this country has ever had.

Bar none. End of story.

At 8/6/08 08:38 PM, Zeistro wrote: And tell me, good sir, what is Obama's military career? Oh that's right - jack shit.

Only in America would people be foolish enough to put a man in charge of the world's most powerful military when said man himself has no military backround.

Lincoln didn't have a military background. Now, my history's a little shaky, but didn't he win a major war?

Only during an American election will retards blast a guy for being muslim while calling his pastor a whackjob.

I fucking give up.

At 8/6/08 04:09 PM, Memorize wrote: Why do the words: President George W. Bush come to mind?

There's a difference between making judgment calls and giving the American people the finger. You can obviously go to the other extreme. This is why I made that notation at the end of my post.

Can I be someone who doesn't play the same character in every movie he's in?

At 8/6/08 02:26 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Every country has innocent blood on it's hands, what's your point? And what's with this sudden "Anti-France" fetish with you, Chavic?

Well, in this case, it's a recent development. The Rwandan genocide didn't happen all that long ago and the fact that the French exacerbated the situation and has been coming down on the US for incidents that are far less damning is insane.

That and the fact that they spoke out against the Iraq War while engaged in the Food for Oil scandal really makes them hard to take seriously.

To make it clear from the start, I'm not a fan of hers, but I would like to address one of your points.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it the right decision to make. Yes, this is a democracy, but it's not a direct democracy and thank God for that. We learned from the mistakes we made in the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the whim of the people nearly drove the US into economic collapse.

We elect representatives, not to do whatever the whim of the people is, but to make judgment calls. Just because 70% of the population wants something, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do and you have to respect the right of elected officials to make tough calls like that even though it might not be a popular decision to make. The trademark of a good leader is someone who's willing to lose some face to make good decisions and the fact that our system is set up to allow that is what has allowed the United States to maintain stability for as long as it has. Being able to go against popular opinion is a necessary function of our legislators.

And please don't embarrass yourself by replying with something along the lines of "OGM, U SAYIN DEY SHUDNT LISSEN TO DA PPL?"

At 8/6/08 12:40 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: It depends how you look at it.

No, it doesn't. Calling something the same means you're looking at it in a comparative sense. By definition, it means that they don't have differences. There's a word for something that's not quite the same; we call it "similar."

Of course, even if you want to apply that word, it's so vague and watered down in context that saying "we're all similar" means absolutely nothing. My point being that it's a vapid thing to say and it brings nothing to the table other than letting me know that I should never take dark-fox seriously.

At 8/6/08 12:39 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Beliefs aren't detrimental.

The beliefs are only dangerous if they concern actions.

Beliefs about these things don't matter.

That's what he means.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want.

That makes perfect sense unless I missed something.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want, of course. However belief does happen to find its way into the realm of action on occasion. The belief that your race is superior and everyone else should die, for instance, is a dangerous belief. People have every right to believe it, of course, but that doesn't mean it's a healthy belief for someone to have, for themselves or society as a whole.

My original point being that it's perfectly valid to challenge someone's beliefs. Some beliefs are dangerous, some are just plain false, and some are just plain stupid. It's everyone's right to believe what they want, sure, but it's also everyone's right to voice their opinion about other people's beliefs. You can't have one without the other.

At any rate, I don't even know why I tried to open this to more discussion. I forgot that people only read the title, briefly scan the first post and then skim through a couple replies. Well, unless of course somebody replies to something the person said, in which case they'll go through that particular reply with a fine-tooth comb.

Either way, I'll just accept the fact that the thread is doomed to people posting their stupid, knee-jerk "lol, of course it's relevant, people still read it, har har" replies.

At 8/1/08 08:14 PM, dark-fox wrote: Im a moron because I see that arguing won't help anything? And why are you trying to disect and analyze what I write? It is what it is buddy, life isn't as complex as you want it to be.

No, because what you said is asinine.

The belief that we should accept what everyone believes is absolutely fucking dangerous. Discourse of ideas and opinions not only allows people to better understand the world around us, but the fact is, some ideas are just plain detrimental.

And I'm "dissecting" and "analyzing" what you write, because that's what this forum is for. If you don't like everyone having differing opinions and debating them and picking other people's arguments apart, then you're in the wrong place. Bubbleheaded pseudo-philosophy isn't going to help anyone.

And, for the record, we're not all the same. That's a fucking retarded thing to say.

At 8/2/08 02:11 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Obama will be getting a letter from me soon that should redefine his campaign if he actually reads it.

He's still not breaking the mold enough.

And he started wearing ties.

What the fuck.

Yeah, and instead of voting yes on the FISA Amendments Act and reauthorizing the USAPATRIOT Act, maybe he should have voted against them. You know, seeing as how he's openly spoken out against them before, even to the point of saying he would filibuster the FISA Amendments Act. I really enjoy when candidates vote to treat the entire US population as potential criminals and set themselves up to have more executive power, should they win.

Really gives me a hard-on for the way our system's set up, I tell you that.

It's interesting. Usually it's the Democrats who run self-defeating campaigns, but I never thought I'd see a Republican campaign centered around claiming that the other candidate is simply too popular. Is this really a winning strategy, honestly?

Now, I haven't worked on any major campaigns, but I've done some election work and campaigning for local issues and figures and, even at that level, you know that the way to win is to let everyone know that your issue or candidate is the one everyone's backing. People are easily swayed by public opinion and like to go with whatever rocks the boat the least. If an issue or a candidate is popular, that's the one that, most likely, is going to win.

It really seems like the Republican Party is trying to lose at this point. Kind of a switch, if you ask me.

At 8/1/08 06:06 PM, dark-fox wrote: whose hearts, minds and spirits must we crush to prove our beliefs or lack of are truth? We are all the same and this fighting won't bring us anywhere.

You're a moron. Stop trying to feign intelligence by posting pseudo-intellectual nonsense just because you think it sounds deep.

Now, on point, I feel like this discussion is gravitating a central focus, but nobody has quite posited it as such: is the Bible necessary in this day and age.

A lot of arguments on both sides seem to be revolving around this theme and I think it's kind of a given that the Bible's relevant. I mean, after all, there are over a billion Christians worldwide, of course the Bible will be relevant to political discourse. The issue is whether or not it's influence is necessary.

Hopefully this is a more heated point.

At 8/1/08 05:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nope.
Do you know the population density of that area?
I don't.
But I bet Mcdonalds does.
And if they see a market for yet another store, they have every right to open it, and every right to go out of business.

Bingo. While it is within the scope of the government to regulate business to some extent, this is really a supply and demand issue. Fast food companies don't force people to eat their products. If you don't like fast food, don't eat there. If it becomes unprofitable to have a location there, they'll move of their own accord. It really is just that simple.

At 8/1/08 09:52 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I fail to see how evolution couldn't create, eventually, it's own intelligent designer.

You mean like a species that is advanced to the point where they can manipulate their surroundings any way they see fit, even to the point of modifying plants and animals to have traits they deem favorable?

Gosh, I don't think that's possible.

It's not the government's job to babysit people. The government is not set up to tell us what's good or bad for us. A government trying to protect people from themselves is absolutely fucking asinine.

At 7/29/08 07:18 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/29/08 12:13 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Everything is relevant in someway.

Hahah, your statement isn't relevant, it's absolute.

SELF DEFEATING ARGUMENT FTW

You seem to have confused "relevant" with "relative."