Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/19/05 07:28 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Well, if you're one who believes in the Economic Boom, then yes. I dont consider Clinton as worst mainly because he didnt do anything drastic and things remained steady over his presidency.

Exactly. That is at least the minimum we should expect out of a president. Thats why I have so little tolerance for Bush, you can't make mistakes as president. Your not just a civilian, your entire life needs to be put on hold, this is your life for the next 4-8 years. As long as you try hard the country will be fine, there are plenty of people who will do the really hard work for you, and your ideals don't matter as much, because in the end it only comes down to a 5% reduction or increase in taxes and welfare.

It's like when you get a scholarship, you can't just slack off and get B's, you were given this oppourtunity, it's a privelidge, you need to get A's.

At 9/19/05 07:30 PM, SmellyCat wrote: Perfect for its time... But who paid for it? Your retirement is your problem. The New Deal was beneficial for his term, but what about after? Instead of saying people should update it, it is the president's job to look forward and see what could arise. Did he do that? If he did, it was a pretty bad job.

You are a moron, plain and simple. A president should NOT write bills thinking, 'will this apply in 50 years'. Thats just fucking dumb. Someone else can change it in 50 years if it doesnt apply. He can't be expected to assume that the next two generations would all be selfish and morons.

Clinton didn't have it. What did CLINTON do?

You don't NEED to DO anything to have economic growth, you just need to make sure you don't do anything to fuck it up or stop anything that will fuck it up.

At 9/19/05 07:22 PM, MattMan1 wrote: than why did rome fall?

Invasion, dictatorships, and most importantly it was too huge. Rome fell because it took 2 weeks to get across it. The only reason the Roman empire was able to exist in the first place was because it had a huge technological and organization advantage against it's enemies, and advantage that was lost when everyone figured out what it was doing.

At 9/19/05 07:21 PM, SmellyCat wrote: About FDR, he in no way saved America. He was a conceited president that bankrupted our nation with a useless and actually harmful New Deal and social security system. You get angry at Bush for destroying the funds? Blame FDR as well.

Bankrupted? Where has the US ever bankrupted? The New Deal cut unemployment by more than 50%, and if you look, FDR actually put very little into the national debt. FDR is not to blame for Social Security failing, FDR's Social security was perfect for its time, and needed, the problem is every president since has failed to update it.

And Clinton. What did he do? All he did was cheat on his wife. He didn't help the economy. Benefits are different than a lack of hurts.

Ah, that explains it. You're insane. Let me guess, all that economic growth Clinton had was because of Reagan.

Thats not why rome fell. Rome and America have almost nothing in common. That and the US more than 1000 years later.

Proprietary technology most likely. It's alot easier to shut the evangelical conservatives up about scientific funding when you say your doing it to get to the moon or something.

At 9/19/05 06:03 PM, bcdemon wrote: The rapidly rising cost of oil and gas production, and the dwindling supplies of fossil fuels maybe? I do believe nuclear power is cleaner than coal, of which Iran uses about 1.3 million tons a year.

Nuclear power isn't cleaner than Natural Gas, of which Iran has enough of to last itself for oh... about forever.

And at that, Nuclear power isn't clean, you have lots of radioactive waste you have to get rid of.

AND AT THAT, Nuclear power is so expensive you could easily outwiegh the polution caused by an oil plant by spending the extra money you saved on cleanup and prevention.

AND AT THAT, 1.3 million tons of coal is nothing, the US alone uses 1,100 million tons.

You know what, theres just too mcuh I could say, I could go on and on, highlighting the fact that Iran has more than enough fossil fuel to power itself forever, and could go on exporting for years and still continue to have enough to power itself forever in many different ways. And highlighting how expensive nuclear power is and that under Iranian hands it's more likely to cause a pollution problem much worse than any coal burning causes. And highlighting how countries with much less fossil fuels and much more skill don't even use nuclear power. Ect. Ect.

Wow, you're confused.

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you really not understand sarcasm? This is like the third time in the past week you haven't understood something obviously sarcastic. Either your very very dull, or your trying to make a joke at my sarcasm and just failing miserably, either way you suck.

At 9/18/05 08:09 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote: This one may seem to support your argument, until you read near the bottom:
"Last month, after Saguenay employees voted to unionize, the company announced that because the store was unprofitable, it would close in May."

I have heard this too many times to count. Because WalMart is such a large super-chain, anytime people vote to unionize, Walmart simply states that they're just as willing to close down, and rebuild in an adjacent city where they won't have to worry about those pesky human rights (honestly, some people have the nerve to want basic pay and some sort of health coverage... geez!).

Thats bullshit. You cannot blame a company because the workers are too pathetic to coordinate a unionization. Thats the reason unions exist, because if you do something alone you will be fired. If they want to succeed they have to get other stores to join them immedeatly.

In the early 1900's people were threatened with murder and violence, not the least of which bieng fired, when they unionized. But they kept working at it. Wal-mart employees just suck.

FYI, 'basic pay' and health coverage are not human rights. Never have been. There are people who don't have real human rights, you make light of thier plight when you compare thier situation to wal-mart workers.

The government NEEDS to regulate businesses, at least to some degree.

You CANNOT just simply trust businesses and corporations to be nice. Corporations will do anything for money, they would murder and rape for money if it was legal, thats why they must be regulated.

Anybody who thinks we should just trust them to play fair is a moron, plain and simple.

At 9/19/05 05:11 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Ottoman Empire shortlived? 1300-1900 is short lived to you?

Damn, you are a tough critic.

Majority of that time the 'Ottoman Empire' encompassed no more than modern day turkey. And at that, I have a hard time considering it an empire after 1700, there was little unity.

At 9/18/05 09:56 AM, bcdemon wrote: Thanx for saving me the trouble night_watch_man18. It sucks having to explain simple things like bold type to people.

Lol, okay apperantly you can't read.

At 9/19/05 04:28 PM, Elfer wrote: You know, they are really offering everyone every opportunity to show that this is a legitimate energy production plan.

I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Once it's built they can make a nuke in no time. The trick is getting the plant built. Just ask North Korea.

Come on, seriously, what are you guys five?

Oil - proved reserves: 130.8 billion bbl (2004 est.)

Natural gas - proved reserves: 26.7 trillion cu m (2004)

Economic aid - recipient: $408 million (2002 est.)

There is one question everyone who supports Iran has failed to answer. WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY WANT NUCLEAR POWER????????????????????

You don't have to be even the slightest bit smart to figure this out. Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, and incredibly dangerous, and incredily hard to do. Why would Iran be so desperate to get it? They has one of the largest oil reserves of any country, one of the largest natural gas reserves of any country, and they are one of the poorest countries. Why do we have to give them aid if they are able to waste billions of nuclear power?

BECAUSE THEY NEED IT TO MAKE NUKES!

There is no other logical reason for Iran to want to build nuclear power plants. Iran can not be trusted.

At 9/18/05 10:29 PM, bcdemon wrote: I myself am going to side with Iran, at this moment. And I have to agree with Irans prez that they do have an inalienable right to have nuclear energy.

That is incredibly dumb. Nobody has an inalienable right to anything, thats retarded. Who gave you that inalienable right? Hmmm? Obviously whoever did doesnt care enough to make sure it's yours because anyone can take it away at any time.

And beyond that its dumb on several other levels. Why would anyone have an inalienable right to nuclear power? What makes nuclear power different from, oh, say an SUV. I'm sure you don't believe the US has an inalienable right to pollute the ozone.

Also, IT'S NUCLEAR FREAKING POWER. This isn't something you fuck around with, you can't just give it to everyone because of your ideals, you can destroy the world with it. You have to be careful/

I find it unacceptable that countries like Israel keep thier nuclear abilitis under lock

and key yet Iran is supposed to open its doors just because the US 'thinks' they are trying to build a bomb.

So your solution is to give everyone the bomb. Wow, your fucking retarded.

When Israel was building it's first nuclear power plant, the US threw a fit. If you would have took even one second to check and see if the crap you were spewing was true you would have saw that. WE DONT WANT ANYONE TO HAVE NUKES! It's not like we want some people to and some not to. The more people with a nuke the greater the chance of a doomsday, but when they already have nukes there is nothing you can do about it, so you just ignore them.

Besides, aren't they allowed to be protected under the umbrella of M.A.D? Especially when the leading superpower has lebelled them part of an "axis of evil".

Hey, by that logic I deserve a nuke too. Wow your smart.

At 9/19/05 04:56 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: How is it possible so many people think Nixon is the greatest President ever?

Rising mercury levels.

I wanna say the Romans, because they had so much power even by todays standards. However, one can't ignore the fact that Rome could have crumbled at many points in it's history, it was by no means a stable empire. It was massively more rich and large and more advanced than any other state up until the day it was pillaged, which says alot, mostly that it was nearly impossible to be stable at that time.

Britains empire is overblown, almost all european countries had empires just as powerfull at that time, it wasn't hard to conquer natives.

The US is hardly an empire, it's a collection of states with maybe two small islands. Yeah alot of it isnt the original country, but the same can be said for Britain or France.

Persians are greeks and ect. weren't really empires, they were empires as of the knowledge they had of the world they had, but thats all.

Mongols and Ottomans and NAZIs weren't really much either, they were relatively short lived, and existed only through force and were never able to consolidate thier resources.

So yeah, I'm going to go with Rome.

At 9/17/05 11:37 PM, bcdemon wrote: Yeah, you misunderstood me, then you tried to tell me what I meant by it.

It's ok though, you're american, and ignorant, as I have already stated.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I understand now that you've bolded the words 'me' and 'I' for some reason. Makes perfect sense.

At 9/17/05 11:01 PM, Elfer wrote: Depends where he faces trial.

Some places in America are HARD FUCKING CORE on drug charges, so they might make him serve them consecuitvely.

I doubt it. Many judges don't even run murder charges consecutively. It is commonly considered that if you commit a series of crimes all built into the same crime. Take for example a robbery, (B&E, theft, destruction of property), you will generally get a concurrent charge.

That's why America has such a huge, bloated prison population, you know. War on drugs and all that.

Because of consecutive terms? No, because drugs are illegal. Drug dealers don't get alot of time in prison as much as they constantly go back to prison.

At 9/17/05 10:54 PM, Dulnar wrote: There is a law. It's called a contract. It was signed with the understanding that one party would pay the other party off in a certain amount of time. The second party is not allowed to ask for the full amount of money before that time comes. It's just like how a lender is not allowed to ask for their money back on your mortgage. You signed a contract that it would be paid off, with interest, in a certain amount of time and they can't break that contract because they're afraid you might not be able to pay it off.

No, I'm afraid thats not true. You can ask for it back, thats not in violation of the contract. The contract simply says you have no legal right to that money. You can ask for it back but under no cirumstances can the government force them to give it back.

Woah, hold on a sec people, hes not going to get life. He can possibly get life, but he wont, unless he gets the dumbest judge ever.

He can possibly get life because each transaction counts as narcotics selling, however, when it comes to things like that, almost any judge will make the sentences run concurrently, meaning he will only get the time for one sentence.

There is almost a 100% chance he wont serve more than one year.

At 9/17/05 07:38 PM, Dulnar wrote: Fifteen percent is a lot. And then you've got to remember that happened in our country within five years and is expected to get worse.

Yeah I guess but the debt doesnt really have much of an effect anyway. Nevertheless, the US's debt is lower than alot of countries, Germany, France, Japan for instance has like 125%.

1.9 trillion owned by foreign entities. We have a 7 trillion dollar debt. 1.9 trillion may not seem like much in comparison, but it's still a lot of money that is going to have to be paid off, with interest within the next generation.

I'm not saying the debt doesn't matter, it most certainly is a bad thing. But I'm saying it's not just a US problem. Other countries don't pay attention to it as much, the US is a more economic minded country.

And, according to law, they can't ask for their money back, but I'm almost certain that he was being facetious.

Well there isn't actually a law saying you can't ask for it back, you can, but they are under no obligation to give it back. More accurately the US if anyone has a position of power, because there is not much they can do to make us pay them.

At 9/17/05 07:12 PM, bcdemon wrote: I was under the impression people would get the gist of what I was saying. Sorry, I seem to forget about the kids on the BBS. But you're right, it is funny, funny that you make a joke out or your own misunderstanding, and then laugh at it.

Yeah, right, misunderstanding, I actually thought that was what your saying.*rolls eyes*

It's okay though, youre Canadian, you don't know any better.

At 9/17/05 06:27 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: yes i'm jealus of a country that has 7 trillion dollars + in debt thats still rising from New Orleans incedent. easy way to cripple america, all countries should ask for thier money back.

The United Kingdom is 40% of it's GDP in debt. The US isn't much more with 65%. The only reason our 7 trillion so massively outweighs your 700 billion is because were much richer than you.

And only $1,886 billion is owned by foreign entities, 36% percent of that is in the form of treasury bonds held by foreign residents, and the rest is almost entirely owned by foreign banks. And at no point can they simply 'ask for the money back' thats not how bonds or loans work.

At 9/17/05 06:32 PM, bcdemon wrote: No Mr. Simpleton. It would mean that most countries hate america because americans are ignorant.

I'm aware thats what you meant, but thats not what you wrote.

If it were, then what Befell was saying would have actually meant that the reason people hate America is because people in America are too jealous.

You see, it's a joke, at your expense, it's funny because you were trying to say Befell was ignorant but wrote it in a way that meant that you were ignorant. It's funny.

No, if you hate the government you hate the people. The people elect the government. It doesn't matter if it's only half, thats the majority of the people, and besides that, the other half would get up and do something about it if they really were pissed off.

If you hate the government you hate the people, thats how democracy works.

At 9/17/05 03:05 AM, bcdemon wrote: IGNORANCE. See above for proof.

Wouldn't that mean you hate America because you are ignorant? Hah...

At 9/15/05 07:53 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: I have to say, I was shocked by how little the people knew.

Our schools teach zero world history. A very limited amount of ancient history is taught but not world history. My school only this year started offering it as an elective.

It's hard to justify teaching even American history to a budget committee.

At 9/13/05 08:45 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The person giving the statistic should cite the source. However, it is the proof of the person rebutting the statistic to try to disprove it. There aren't any proven statements--only statements that haven't been yet disproved.

However, nationmaster, as far as I can see, hasn't offered any evidence.

Besides, the person accused of slandering is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's the burden under the law for the slandered to show that slander has taken place.

No, thats not true. Your thinking of criminal court. Slander is a civil matter, and as such the same rules don't apply. In civil court both sides must offer proof.

Controversial isn't the same thing as being incorrect or invalid.

It is when the controversy is about being incorrect or invalid.

Besides, most of the controversy I've seen regarding these statistics is not about the statistics themselves, but people using the statistics incorrectly, misunderstanding them, or falsely interpreting them.

Oftentimes yes, which would go towards the argument that people should stop citing it.

Nearly all statistics have lurking variables, margins of error, etc. Statistics can be skewed because of the methods they were calculated.

Obviously, the more knowledge you have on the background and method a statistic is calculated, the more weight you can put in to it.

Alright, I see. However, nationmaster statistics don't offer any backround information for them. So they must be taken with an even larger grain of salt. Or perhaps several grains of salt. Or even a grain of even saltier salt if possible.

Lol...

At 9/13/05 07:57 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Shouldn't that burden lie on the people who are trying to counter Nationmaster statistics to show the incorrectness if and when they are wrong?

Thats like saying the burden lies on the person being slandered to prove it is slander. The one who makes the claim needs to give the source.

C'mon, Sween. Surely you, of all people, know that the presence of bugs or misinformation doesn't completely render all information from a source incorrect?

I've yet to see one Nationmaster statistic be cited and not draw controversy.

Besides, statistics should be taken with a grain of salt, anyway, regardless of their source.

I don't see the logic in that. Explain.

Wow, people. STOP USING NATIONMASTER! Not only is it fairly new and still kinging out the bugs, it often is horribly wrong.

Rapes are actually underreported on this, I believe. The US classifies many things other countries classify as rape as 'Sexual Assault'. The US has a higher rape rate than I believe all of the developed world, but signifigantly lower than most of the third world.

Yes, the US has alot of rape, more than most of Europe, but less than almost everyone else. It still has alot considering it's GDP PPP. If the statistics were accurately presented, we could get back to debating why rather than what the statistics really are.