Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/25/05 12:09 AM, RedScorpion wrote: I really hate this reasoning. Its like the bully who beats up the kid who won't give him his lunch money. So far there is just disputes and you're already thinking about war.

Because the Canadian government is thinking about causing an economic depression in the United States. It's not a bully beating up a kid who wont give him his lunch money, that would imply we are taking something, we just want to be able to buy it.

FIne, Tariffs on american goods it is. It's just direspectful when the US won't listen the the proper committee for these matters.

The US isn't just one man, it's 100 Senators and 435 represenatives too. It's not so easy to get them all to listen to the proper committee, it's much easier to get them to listen by seeing that Canada is issuing tarrifs themselves.

Because we should compare Canada and the US as such. And thats invasion, 1941, when the world was already involved in the war. Britain, and the US was allied with Russia too...

The US and Britain were not allied until after Russia was attacked. Russia had a nonaggression pact with Germany, and Germany disobeyed it. Thats the comparison I'm making.

At 10/24/05 11:31 PM, RedScorpion wrote: Man, if these are the times where we are invaded for being politically correct, then armaggedon is surely coming.

Politically correct isn't the right phrase at all. That means when you use non offensive terms.

Both NAFTA and the WTO have ruled in our favour and declared the tariffs illegal; Mexico supports Canada in this; The money isn't even being returned to employees or customers - that 5 billion dollars is being split up between 5 lumber companies. NO ONE is profiting from the tariffs, not even the american public, only the rich executives who want to line their pockets :|

Well, thats not entirely true, I'm sure a few thousand American softwood lumber workers are benefitting.

However, thats beside the point, it's not a matter of right or wrong. If Canada imposes an embargo upon us, then we would be within reason to invade them in order to secure the economic security of our country.

It's more logical to pay the 5 billion, but it's also more logical for Canada to just impose tarrifs on American goods as if NAFTA didn't exist. Usually when a treaty is broken, and the breaker makes no attempt to reverse this, then you just forget the treaty, you don't complain about it.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union the Soviets attacked back, they didn't consult the Leauge of Nations.

At 10/24/05 07:51 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: I'm really annoyed that other arab countries did not do nothing while their fellow muslim country, Iraq gets invaded by their sworn enemy(next to israel). Notably Iran and Saudi Arabia

I'm really annoyed by flies. They're all flying around and stuff, it's annoying. Am I right or what?

I don't believe the US would need any excuse to invade Canada at that point. That was the same reason Japan attacked the US, trade embargo.

I can't say Europe would be too happy, but they wouldn't do anything because they aren't able, and I don't see them being too happy if Canada places an embargo either, since the damage to the US economy would hit Europe just as bad if not worse.

But this is all hypothetical, in reality Canada could not under any circumstances place an embargo, it would only mean an outcome ten times worse for Canada.

At 10/24/05 04:42 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: Thats wat the Canadian government had been trying to convince them to do but the US seemed stubborn so Canada started using oil and gas as leverage.

Why would you have to convince us for you to issue tarrifs? It's your government, you do that.

Seems to me like a much better way to handle this would have been to just issue tarrifs back.

At 10/23/05 01:08 PM, bcdemon wrote: Mazen Dana shot dead while filming near Abu Ghraib, the soldiers mistook a camara for a gun.?.?. Doods at the Palestine Hotel, the guy at the Al Jazeera office. Like I said along time ago, you're either targetting these journalist, or your soldiers are complete fucking morons.

The stinger looks almost exactly like a camera.

Part of it was that Tito had almost complete control over the country when he died, what was left was a group of people who had no idea what to do.

I'm curious, how is a depression 'cured' by prayer or spirituality any different than a depression 'cured' by prescription drugs, or even illegal drugs or alcohol?

Tito wasn't communist nor did he practice communism in its 'true form' in his country. He was a socialist, very much like one you would find in any country around the world today.

The reason for the prosper of Yugoslavia is almost wholly due to Tito, with a good leader, any system can prosper, espescially with a good leader who has ultimate control. Not to say it was a bad system, just that Tito was a good guy.

At 10/22/05 01:30 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I don't think this is an act of politicizing anything. I'm part of the pro-life crowd and I find this sort of behavior strange beyond belief. And we all know that the left thinks this is action is even stranger, just because they hate Santorum. I don't see how this sort of action could help him in anything. I think this is just the action of a man slightly deranged from grief.

Did you read the last few lines? He was clearly making a statement about abortion by doing it, or at least that one one of the side goals.

Well, I think we all need to step back and put it into perspective for a bit. His baby did just die and he is obviously emotionally distressed, and as much as we like to hold our politicians to a higher standard that really not feasable or neccesary.

However, I am disgusted that he would try to politicize the death of his baby.

At 10/19/05 05:47 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: No it isn't dopey. We've had this argument before. You think it's involuntary servitude or some bull like that, neglecting the fact that it's ultimately the woman's choice to put herself in this position of "involuntary servitude" by consenting to sex (most of the time). But the words "abortion" never come up.

We had this argument before, and it degenerated into you just repeatedly calling me wrong and eventually you quit posting. And the phrase is indentured servitude, which specifically applies when consent is given.

However, the 10th Amendment clearly states that issues not covered in the Constitution directly are up to the states or the people through Representative Government.

It nowhere says directly. And it doesn't even state that it all, it says 'powers not delegated' not 'issues not covered'.

If only issues directly covered were protected by the constitution, then it would be full of loopholes. Free speech wouldn't apply to anything written or typed. Religions could be taxed. And the government could search your property as long as it wasn't a house.

One could argue it, but it's not in the Constitution. That's the whole point. Just like one could argue (weakly, I might add) that abortion is mentioned in the Constitution in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Weakly? No, I'm afraid not, those are perfectly legitimate arguments, used by supreme court members as with many judges and lawyers. I guess they are weak in the same sense it's weak to say that the equal protection claus abolishes slavery.

If the government shouldn't intervene in abortion or gay marriage, why should it intervene via progressive taxation and transfer payments?

Because abortion is in the constitution?

At 10/19/05 04:52 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: You typed that didn't you? From what you typed I get the impression that you think that the Germans didn't hate hitler,that there wasn't a little thing called the GERMAN RESITANCE that fought against hitler and becuase they didn't get rid of him they all supported him and therefore the war.

Saying the Germans did not hate Hitler is not at all the same as saying that no germans hated Hitler. It's a generalization.

And as for resistance movements, there were little. The only ones that really resisted were some small communist ones. And there was an assasination plot near the end of the war by a group of German aristocrats, but thats pretty much it.

If that's not what you meant then bloody well make yourself clearer. But even if I did interpret what ou said incorrectly you still said that the GErmans deserved to get what happened to them becuase they elected Hitler...which is still an idiotic thing to say in my opinion.

If you elect a party and a man who state openly state that they will invade other countries in order to gain living space and will 'purify' the race, you must be held responsible when they do exactly that.

As far as I'm aware Germany didn't declare war on America at all( at leats not untill they had allied themselves with BRitian France etc). America got involved in WW2 after pearl harbour. They joined on the side of the allies cause they were opposed to Japan.

Nope, Germany declared war on America, December 11th, 1941.

And the fatc that the actual reaosns for the wars differ doesn't matter. The fact still remains that using the logic that you implied (or I thoguht you were implying if I am indeed mistakne about what you meant) that all of America should be held responsible for the war in iraq ven if they did oppose it.

Hardly the same thing for reasons stated above.

What I was trying to do was correct you on something that, when disscussing the holocaust and Hitler, is pretty damn important. If Hitler hadn't viewed the Jews as a race then he probably wouldn't have persecuted them as much as they wouldn't have fitted in with his ideas of Social Darwinism as thye wouldn't have been at the bototm of the food chain(for lack of a better term).

Then he would have just persecuted the Hebrews.....

And if you don't want people to make mistakes with what you sya then bloody well be blatant. If you mean Hebrew then say it. Stop Pussy footing around and stop assuming that everyone will automatically know what you mean when you use a word in a certain context.

I never said that the jews were a race, nor did I say jews. I said it was murder fueled by racism. I never said racism against jews.

At 10/19/05 04:18 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I'm sorry but that is the biggest load of horse crap I have ever heard. You can not say that just because the German people elcted Hitler to power that they were all Nazis. Nor can you say just becaus ethye didn't get rid of him means that they all supported him. The logic in that is so flawed it make sme want to be sick.

I never said that at all, so your point is moot.

By your logic they are all in favour of it and its justified if another plane goes flying into a sky scraper becuase you attacked a middle eastern counry.

Thats not at all the same. Germany declared war on America to take it over and exterminate its minorities and provide more room for Germans. The US never tried to take over Iraq, all actions can be thought of as in good faith.

The Jews are not a race of peoples...unless your'e Hitler or one of his supporters that is.

Nice one, call me a nazi, real mature. Anyone with a brain can assume I meant hebrew, and not the religion.

At 10/19/05 12:58 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: That would be 15 to 20 million folks who want in the US right now, plus hundreds of thousands more after they find out that we have a brand new "everyone gets in policy."

That's too many people for my liking.

I doubt it, wheres your sources on this?

And at that, so? Just because you have an irrational fear of immigrants doesn't mean laws should be made to stop them. We had open immigration for years and its what made our country great.

At 10/19/05 03:05 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: You're twisting the true situation. Slaves did not screw over anybody, rather, the majority at the Constitutional Convention denied the minority (slaves) any sovereignty at all, unless you count 3/5 of a person and no vote as sovereignty. The majority of the slave population did not represent the majority of America as a whole, hence it was another example of the majority screwing over the minority.

There was no vote on the slavery issue so the way your looking at it is wrong. Therefore the voting rights of the whites and lack of them of the blacks is irrelevent. It's not meant to directly relate to democracy, just the situation of majority screwing over the minority.

I was referring to the redistribution of wealth and the massive federal government. And we tax some rich people more than the Middle class but the richest are taxed way more. The lowest income brackets don't even have to pay income taxes.

In that sense I guess we are 'screwing them over more'. But your still blowing it out of proportion. The richest person in America still only has a 7% higher tax rate than someone making 70k a year, and only 10% higher than someone making 30k a year. And the lowest income 'brackets' (the one, I asumme?) is below 7,000 dollars a year.

There's a lot of things you liberals hold near and dear that aren't in the bill of rights or the Constitution for that matter. Like abortion, gay marriage etc. And we've already established that you think that those things should not be for the public to decide.

Abortion is in the constitution. A few times I might add. Even the supreme court knows that.

And gay marriage is a case of the republican majority screwing over a minority, so that irrelevent. And one could easily argue that gay marriage is indeed mentioned in the fourteenth amendment.

At 10/19/05 12:40 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Perhaps they are both right. Why should the majority, in any case, have the power to screw over the minority?

Depends on the school of though. On one hand you can say because that is what democracy is and it is the rule of law. And on the other hand you can justify every insance with a logical argument as to why the screwing them over is not a bad thing but rather a good thing.

The latter is a better way to approach things, because the former can be abused. One could say why should the majority slave population of the south in 1850 be allowed to screw over the minority Southern plantation owners by freeing themselves and thus causing the slave owners to lose thousands of dollars of property.

It's better not to generalize in such a way.

Note that this is theoretical. In the US the majority can screw over the minority because the Constitution allows for it in certain instances, even though we screw people over far more than we did back in the early days of it.

Alot of black people would disagree with that. We tax the rich 6% more than the middle class, and we tax the poor 15% less. Not a big deal at all.

The question is: what things should be decided by majority rule, and what things should be off-limits?

The things in the bill of rights.

At 10/19/05 11:13 AM, gussiejives wrote: The German people didn't support the Nazi regime, at least not by the middle of the war. My grandfather was drafted into the Luftwaffe and he HATED the Nazis. You really need to make the distinction between the people and its government because Nazi Germany wasn't a democracy. The soldiers' purpose was to fight the war whether they believed in it or not. The people of Dresden were not soldiers, they were not Nazis, at least not by choice. They should not have been punished for Hitler's crimes.

They put Hitler in power just like everyone else. And no, the Germans did not hate Hitler, espescially by the middle of the war, if they really did they would have had many opportunities to kill him when he was in public places but they never did. And at that, changing your mind only when you start to lose the war, doesn't make the Germans any more innocent.

Dresden, Tokyo, London and Berlin were all about military targets. Dresden just happened to have a huge amount of collateral damage associated with civilian deaths. The Doolittle raids of Tokyo were about destroying the munitions factories. The Battle of Britain was meant to eliminate the RAF by bombing airfields, but Goering chose to bomb civilian targets because he was a moron.

None of those were military targets. They were all strategic, meant to attack factories and lower the moral of the civilian populace. Only maybe Berlin could be considered at all tactical.

As for the holocaust, yes it was horrific murder of 6 million innocent people and it was a war crime. But the killing of Dresden's population is no different. 6 million, 130 000, the crime is the same. 9/11 was just as terrible, but there is no reason to make it more dramatic than it really was.

It is completely different. The holocaust was a genocide, it was an unprovoked murder, fueled by racism. The bombing of Dresden was a stategic strike against a major city of a country that declared war against us.

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to get rid of the lottery. Theres room enough for everyone.

I wish the government would tell me what to think......

No current organization is fit to gaurantee the security of the world. We need something completely new if anything, everything else was made for other things and you can't try to make something

I think one of the main problems is that there would be too much disagreement, with each individual country being able to do things on thier own, there is still disagreement, but at least there is some progress, but if we all have to agree in order to get things done we will never get them done.

At 10/18/05 02:29 AM, bcdemon wrote: Among innocent bystanders.

Who hopefully have guns too.

Besides, why would one Chav go after another one if they all have guns, why not go after everyone else, who doesn't have a gun?

Because chavs are dumb. Gangs only fight with eachother. Riots just make conditions worse. Insurgents in Iraq attack thier own country.

At 10/18/05 05:53 PM, mats_88 wrote: But what bothers me a bit is how you concern about other counties. Hurrikane Katrina was a disaster, it's true. But ehat about this recent earthquake in Pakistan? Nobody writes thinks about it anymore. Okay, 30,000 pakistani aren't THAT much causalities. They're just Pakistani.

We talked about that Sri Lanka thing forever though. It's not that we aren't sympathetic, but that many disasters in a row, and with one right before happening to us, is just tedious. It's perfectly normal not to care as much.

But what wonders me a bit was the media rumbles about the 11th September. Yeah, I know that it was a terroristical attack. And every victim is tragic, really. But I do not understand why everywhere in the world there was such a great rumble! Hm, I guess that's something about the twin towers.

Because that one was murder, a murder always causes more of a stir than a death from natural causes.

But if the US start an attack against any country, there isn't so much attention. Remember Sudan 1998? I bet you don't. There was a pharmacy factory opened in Sudan. It could have produced loads of medication for middle africa. But, for some wicked reason (money, I guess?) america assumed a factory for biological and chemical weapons. And boom, a "preventorial strike" against this factory of evil followed. F-16 (they're cool. really) bombed the whole place down. 800 deaths. After that, the UN sent some scientists to investigate the ruins and search for waepons. And guess what they foun? Right. Nothing. Ooops, bad luck for Sudan. Well, shit happens.

Why would you automatically assume it was for money? Theres absolutely no evidence to suggest that. It's much more likely that it was simply a mistake upon the part of the CIA. Either that or the factory was at some point used for VX but wasn't at the time of the bombing (which would explain the soil samples. Either way the only real mistake the government made was recklessness, which could easily be excused by the fact that it was a retaliation strike.

Nevertheless, the strike killed 225, not 800.

Do you know Dresden? Maybe you do. And maybe you've learned in History of the glorious bomber attack against Hitler-Germany. How much victims did they tell you? 35,00? 40,000? At least I have been told so in history. And the reasons for that attack: To lower the morality of the German people. Yeah, this bombing was really necessary. I mean, look at the facts! Dresden was a threat! A hospital city to care for wounded and homeless families! and don't tell me shit, the industry was somewhere else in the underground!

Why is Dresden any worse than Tokyo? Or Berlin? Or London? None of those were really about military value. The fact is, the German people supported the NAZI regime, the German people were the enemy. Yes they were civilians, but they were by no means innocent.

Could the war have been won without it? Yes. Could it have made the war shorter? Yes. Could it have saved the lives of Americans? Yes.

If it saved only 1,000 Allied soldiers, it was justified.

I know that the Germans did horrible cimes to the civilians in the East of Europe and I'm sooo glad that they catched most of the responsible assholes. But it's an IMPUDANCE to ignore the crimes the Aliies did to the German people!!!

What crimes? The German people started the war.

Holocaust? awww.... yeah... well.... 1,000,000 victims?

10 million.

9/11 hhmmmm wait.... 900 victims?

3,000.

At 10/17/05 10:41 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Look, if the egg is fertilized, and the baby is not allowed to live due to an outside drug, it's an abortion. The Birth control Pill's primary method of making sure the baby is not born is suppressing the ovulation process.

As is the morning after pill's. The morning after pill is just a large enough dose of the birth control pill that it will kick in immedeatly, thats the only difference. The primary function is still to stop the ovulation process.

Even if the morning-after pill does the same, the assumption is that ovulation has already taken place and it's trying to prevent the fertilized egg from planting itself.

Why is that the assumption? You do realize ovulation only really lasts a day or so.

If the baby dies the same way from birth control pills, than it's the same deal: aborted human life.

It doesn't always, but it does some of the time, equally for both pills I can only assume. So you have no basis to claim the morning after pill is any more abortion than the normal pill is.

What I said ("The morning after pill is an abortion pill") was correct. I already know that you have no problem with abortion, so whatever.

Even without birth control, around 70% of all fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterine wall. It's not all that unnatural, it would seem rather, that your perception of what is human life is all wrong.

At 10/17/05 05:03 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: You're wrong. The birth control pill primarily works to suppress ovulation by displacing a hormone that makes the woman's body think that it's pregnant.

Primarily, but that doesn't happen much of the time. Which is when the secondary function, which is the exact same function of the morning after pill, kicks in. It stops the egg from attaching to the uterine lining.

The Morning after pill takes a fertilized egg and makes sure that it has no chance to survive by embedding itself into the uterine lining. Since the egg is fertilized and you are destroying the egg, it is an abortion.

Actually, the morning after pill works in the exact same way is the pill, which your own source said if you would have read it. It's primary function is also to stop the release of an egg (something you may not know about women, they do this thing called ovulation, there isn't always an egg ready), it's simply a higher dose so it kicks in faster than the pill. Thats really the only difference between the two.

At 10/17/05 07:25 PM, bcdemon wrote: Yank logic, so silly.

Then they shoot eachother.

At 10/17/05 04:49 PM, LEMITUDE wrote: no offense, but i fail to see your logic... i'd rather have more chavs than more murders.

Hey, I'm just trying to help. I never said it would be easy.

At 10/17/05 04:38 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: And pimps.

I'm just trying to come up with a solution, not give them a shopping list.

At 10/17/05 04:27 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: Waitasecond. Doesn't he run the risk of falling into another category? Like 'Amish'? You need to give the boy more structure than that!

You're right. Wear black but don't wear a bonnet.