Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/25/09 09:20 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

Would the "genetic" material necessary for such feelings become "the drug."

In a technical sense, yes; but it could only be scene as the source of it and not a substance being abused. So without that connection to drug world it would be hard to pass any legislation against, basically, people. Could you imagine if a bill got passed banning an entire group of people, and not a faceless drug?

Think, Bioshock. If it became apparent that genetic engineering was being abused on a personal level, how could the government not step in?

They could regulate it to licensed professionals, but you have to remember this nation has borders. Other countries are even less likely to pass against something like this. People could simply leave on vacation and come back with the surgery already done. Then what do you do? It would be another pointless and un-fightable "Drug War." The only step latter to legislation against this would be a grass roots religious movement shunning the "surgery." Even that would be an underdog. Its just too hypothetical, taboo and controversial to get that detailed about it.

At 2/24/09 08:14 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Therein lies the dilemma, Nit, if we invent something that goes above and beyond the law, will the law change to be for or against it?

Man, if you could make someone able to feel that way on demand, there would be no drug market what so ever. No need for such laws. Time would do away with the rest.

At 2/24/09 02:00 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: So you're saying that if I genetically engineered myself to be stoned all the time, or better yet, so that I could fly with bird-like wings, it would be natural? (in your opinion)

Natural in the sense that you are not dependent on any other thing than yourself to do such things. Like i said before, drugs are only the means to become "stoned." Furthermore, I am personal witness to placebo drugs having the same effect as normal drugs. Thus purposing that drugs are all in our heads, partially anyways. But identical legislation has been passed for "look-alike drugs." But if you could somehow induce such feelings without even a placebo you go above any law. For if someone was to pass legislation against your ways it would be discriminatory.

Another way to look at this is how our laws are articulated and used. There is no law that prohibits you from being high, unless you are behind a wheel but that is another story entirely. All of our laws are based around possession of the illicit substance. So therefore, if you could make a human able to feel "high" without a substance than there is no law prohibiting that.

Now i do not believe this to be natural. Genetic engineering, in my mind, is playing god and shouldn't be toyed with.

At 2/23/09 11:33 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Another question:

If genetic manipulation becomes common place in the future, do you think it will be seen as drug abuse, (one could alter their genetic code so that their body itself made them high if they so chose to, I suppose. Among other things.)

That is to say, what role do you think technology plays in the concept of what we deem legal and illegal in our society.

No, most drugs are merely the methods used to induce the flow of brain juices like serotonin(This stuff is basically liquid conscientiousness) and dopamine. Our body naturally produces these things, but drugs enhance that. if you found a way to naturally induce it, it would not be drug abuse. there would require no drug to abuse.

The problem with this question is it should be immediately answered by the idea of democracy. If the public majority favors legalization, it should be so. This question, ironically, is an example of the fallacy of democracy. Im just saying, legislation (in a just and static government) should reflect the majority public opinion.

All that aside, It would be the simple bill-on-capital-hill approach. Nothing fancy like claiming medical reasons for any said drug. (ex.) Cocaine was used in eye surgery until 1999. Medical Marijuana has been becoming more and more of a joke. In fact my home state, Montana, is passing legislation that would highly decrease the medical requirements for a receiving marijuana license, and furthering the amount of plants from only 6 plants to 6 mature and 8 immature plants. Source. But if the public wanted it in mass this would be pointless. All that would need to be done is simply apply the bill, maybe it would get tweaked a bit in committee as everything does. But by and large it wouldn't be that hard of a task, IF the public was entirely behind it. But you have to remember, do you really want your drugs in the hands of the government???

In my opinion, every drug (except pot) had a chance at freedom and somehow fucked it up. And guess who exploited them to illegalization, the white man. Ya good ole whitey got so hung up on pushing them onto minorities, that when they finally saw the backlash of drug addiction they quickly severed the ties and left the minorities with the blame. Eventually the hatred for the addiction, and alot of racism, got the drug banned. So i still don't see how we would not instantly do the same with all drugs. Exploiting them for a great amount of money, and once the backlash comes; quickly get out of the game and point the blame. And i couldn't imagine the backlash since all of the drugs that have been invented since then. Then we'd just be back where we are now.

Oh yeah, pot totally got banned by religious reformist of the progressive era and the rope trust!!!!

I think there is a Churchill quote that goes something like 'Democracy is the worst possible form of government, but its the only viable choice we have.' For some reason i have always founds solace in that quote when questioning the validity and worth-whileness of democracy. Im sure some race of super beings from another planet is looking at our governments like they are a zoo. But until every person's individual opinion is equally heard and acted on in a reasonable form, not to mention this must be done on every issue in any person's concern. Because ignoring that issue would render your "state" flawed like all the other forms of government. You see, until we all ascend out of stupidity and free ourselves from so many stereotypes, vices, and many other superficial problems; we are completely unable to cooperate in such a manor.

At 12/18/08 01:17 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Calm down.

1. No countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons that can reach the CONUS.

It's not the middle eastern countries that i'm worried about. It is the ensuing world war that could eradicate us. Who knows what powerful U.S. enemies the Iranians might team up with, or who might hate us more if we launch nukes on Iran.

2. From 1945 until 1996 there was a nuclear weapon tested about every 9 days, these went up to 50,000 KT

Ya, but in theory it is possible to demolish the world as we know it with a little over 20 well placed nukes. IN THEORY this would ignite the atmosphere and destroy us all. And its not like those tests had no lasting effects, hence why we stopped them.

3. Don't be scared of nuclear weapons, with their cost, MADD, and lack of a good delivery system, you shouldn't lose sleep over them.

First off, MAD is the exact thing that Clinton is suggesting. And exactly the same thing I'm opposing. and feelings on such can be read above. All i'm saying is we've spent 40 years on the eve of destruction, why would we want that tension once more? How many times have we seen how easy it was to make a dirty bomb. How hard would it be for terrorists to plant a few nuclear strapped explosives around Israel and detonate them? and cost is hardly seeming like a deterrent

Biological weapons is what you should worry about.

War in general is a worry.

At 12/17/08 05:36 PM, zoolrule wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCR bk
Enjoy, retard.

Wow. some babel that we all have heard from many muslim nations. If that is even what he is saying, it doesn't surprise me. and my argument is still valid against this. If the U.S. got out of Israel, our standing in muslim communities would no doubt be higher. This doesn't spell the end for the U.S. Just a tool of tyrannical oppression. Give them something to hate with a passion and they won't notice the shortcomings in their own nation and rights. (sound familiar anyone?)

And even if it wasn't for this video, US is the most powerful nation in the world. "With great power comes great responsibility", Small-mindedness is the most idiotic, destructive approach in the fucking world.

Thank you for that spider-man quote. Great wisdom there. But what is power? and how do you define the responsibility that different amounts of power has? That quote has moral connections, but is vague in the details. You can't just say that because we are the super power we have to rush to the aid of every nation that is threatened, and we certainly not done anything to that measure. We just pick out the most profitable and "save" them. To us, you aren't worth "saving" unless you can pay out.

Everyone are scared of Nuclear Iran, but everyone are also scared of doing anything. Especially the hypocrite Europeans.

No. Everyone ARE scared of your nasty grammar. But you can't justify a nuclear retaliation in any way. It only takes steps toward Armageddon. Like Obama said, diplomacy is the answer, if not, not talking certainly isn't helping.

Ok, I'm officially starting a new petition against the state and every business in the country. I want women's bathrooms open to all who wish to enter. Why should I be denied just because I have a penis?

At 12/13/08 04:53 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 12/12/08 08:39 PM, Nitroglys wrote:

Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed :"nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me.

I can't believe that this isn't already a standing agreement. If someone nukes Israel, I can't imagine any US response other than a nuclear strike. It's inconceiveable that we would stop at anything less.

Ya, only because of we grossly over-fund and support them, when at this point they can basically stand on their own. The reason i brought it up is to question the validity of such an engagement with another country in that region. It is obvious that there is no intentions by Arabian nations to go about with their intolerance and anti-antisemitism peacefully, so why should we damn ourselves to prolonged engagement and now nuclear annihilation?

That Obama would announce this agreement is basically a white flag to the Iranians, because it shows he is willing to consider a situation where Iran would have nuclear weapons. He can't very well make this pledge and claim that a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable. It's a "game-changer," as he put it, a clear loss of relative American power in the region, and Obama can flail about impotently with his disciplined, tough diplomacy as long as he wants for what it will acheive.

I can't believe you are suggesting that war in Iran is the only alternative. I am really close to saying fuck Jews and fuck Israel. America has no standing in that country or even that region, trying to create such a foothold has cost too many lives and too much money. No matter how righteous it is to save the land of the Jews, I think it is important that they defend their land and not us. Israel is as dead to me as the Aral sea. The day you see America send its men to die in the name of the Jewish state is the day i will leave this nation. I'm done fighting other people's wars.

At 12/13/08 12:23 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: What terrorism? Israeli terrorism? If you and I are standing on different sides of whether Israel has the right to exist then we're not going to agree on this

You are completely right. That issue can be slanted and skewed to either angle.

Before we get into the missile shit, Israel has tried to lift sanctions several times only to have more rockets get launched, so again I see the aggresion on the side of the palestinians, though I agree its not fair to those palestinians in gaza who haven't done anything. But those gazians need to take responsibility for the people in their territory.

Hell man if mankind could achieve what you just theorized, there would be no war.

Yeah, there are some pretty crazy Zionists, but by and large the Israeli government has been making attempts through its court system to punish them as well and to protect the more moderate Israeli's within their country (Jew & non jew, Zionist & non zionist alike)

Again, if there were achieving what you suggest it wouldn't exist. Not with the military might we have armed them with. If they couldn't suppress the movement, it would be an embarrassment for the U.S. military, CIA, NSA and countless other organizations and national leauges. If Israel wanted it gone, they could make it happen.

As far as strike first, I would assume that you mean at Iran, which I would say is seperate from the zionist issue as zionists care about zion (Israel) and any attack on Iran would be against nuclear weapons only. They did it to Iraq with France's support last time and no one had a problem with it.

True, but, as stated before, the existance and might of the movement in itself could suggest sympathies high up in the chain of command. And shit like those kind of bombings is what gets us in trouble for funding them. Whats to say they wouldn't do the exact same thing to Iran if they conceive such technology. Then where would we stand?

Eh, Isreal consistantly improves on our technology. Stopping traid with them & the flow of information wouldn't be good for either of us. As for the global police. I agree I don't like it, but we still help some people, probably more than we hurt. As for isolationism, I'd rather not go there because then we'd have to turn our lense for the rest of the world back on us. What happens to our military then? We'd be less stable as an isolationist country and we couldn't exist with our current industries in that fashion either.

I do not agree that any improvement whatsoever on weapons of destruction is needed. I see no connection between military power and Imperialism. Which is what we could be categorized as, at least in the sociological and governmental aspects. And the American military does not rely on constant conflict to hone their skill. In the virtual age you don't even have to leave a building anymore for proper training in any military situation. Not to mention the fact that we are by far the strongest military on the face of the planet. We don't need any improvement.

Yes, and we'll need at least as many troops there as we have in Iraq and we'll have to maintain a stable border between them and Pakistan and get Pakistan in control of its western border. Good goals, but idealistic ones.

Not necceisarily. If you wanted eradication of all taliban influence, then you would require a comprable force. But if you are just looking to pull this anarchical 3rd world country into modern civilization, you would only require a minute number of soliders in comparison. They need to be seen in the streets in order to bring the justice and protection needed to protect growing infastructure in Afghanistan. For Christ's sake they don't even have electricity 90% of the time there. And it isn't even thought of if you live outside of the urban areas. We owe a huge debt to that country, if any country.

Because if we don't the war happens closer to home and eventually we lose by ceding all territory.

But what if the opposition of a war we started grew homegrown sympathy in our country. Fuck man we could be over thrown from within. Or, what if being such global police about everything ignited a conflict with a country that is terribly innocent of the crimes we accuse it of (Iraq). Proposals like this just open the doors for that crazy sympathizer to launch one missile and subsequently the world blows itself up.

It was decided a long time ago that the best foreign policy was to tie a brick to the gas petal and take off the stearing wheel.

Har. Please, So i can laugh harder, quote and source that.

If we don't make the threat does it make it more or less likely that Iran will actually attack?

Or it just makes them push it faster, or even redirect the missile. Maybe even make powerful allies like North Korea and Russia and create a legion of doom.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the nuclear threat means more than using the nuclear bomb because quite fankly we probably won't do it. All conflicts now occur in such a way as to make the "agressor" look like the agressor before you attack them. We live in a PR war now where information is the right to do what you want to do. I'm not saying specutively that my answer is correct, I'm saying its a possibility.

BS. We won't back down once we make a statement like that. I can't think of one time we have done something in that nature.

Its entirely impossible to predict what will happen in a nuclear war, but the U.S. won't remove the nuclear threat from its foreign relations policty because right now that's the only thing that really makes countries listen. Our forces are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can't stretch them to Iran too, so we say "we won't even deal with you, we'll just remove you from the equation"

So are you saying this move is a way for the Obama administration to remove Iran from the map? Really? That goes against all of his speeches about Iran. Btw the person that made this statement was quoting a source who said Hillary Clinton said it.

Its not to say its morally right, but it may be the best worst thing we can do. Threats are unfortunately needed because holding out a carrot hasn't worked. Iran already said it wouldn't work.

I don't understand the carrot analogy. But where was the diplomacy Obama was talking about. He hasn't even hit the first of his 100 days and his cabinet is hanging nukes over Iran's head. Lunacy i say.

At 12/12/08 09:50 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Israel has been a pretty unwavering supporter of us and they have the strongest military in the region. It isn't that surprising that we like them and support them. Aside from that, Iran has an anti-american stance, so by saying "we'll level your country," it's an attempt to keep Iran from doing anything by making them nervous and at the same time it means our ally is safe. Iran is probably about the only nation america would bomb off the map though I do agree it would be a travesty.

Ok, but you are missing the part before they were an unwavering supporter. We had interests in them from since Israeli conception. We have funded and armed many levels of the Israeli army, even making the 6 day war possible (a war that threatened Israeli existence). I mean without us these guys would probably be a cockroach on the business end of an Islamic countries boot. Yes the measure is to invoke some sort of fear, but by only threatening Iran don't you think it somewhat condones the terrorism coming out of Israel?

The final thing is that Israel isn't threatening to do anything to Iran, neglecting removing nuclear capabilities from Iran. Yes, that's a bit of a threat, but the idea is that Iran wants Israel gone, Israel wants Iran not to be threatening and would probably rather just have piece. If you're going to pick between the two, Israel appears to have the higher ground (just on those terms given our policies)

I don't know what rock you have been sleeping under, but you need to roll out from under it. Since the birth of Israel there has been grass roots Zionist groups willing to die for their cause. Yes we know the radical Muslim community hates the Israelites, but the Israelites hate them too.We forget about their history, checkered with terrorism.And some say that Israel will pull the trigger first.

Plus, Israel's a democracy and we feel the obligation to protect the little guy cause that's what america does, and Israel is pretty tiny even for the punch it can pack.

I still shun the fact that we have been labeled global police. I believe isolationism was a lot better for our economy and global image. And i don't think wholeheartedly helping Israel involves trading nuclear secrets.

He said he would reduce forces in Iraq, but wanted to increase them in Afghanistan. Even if you just look at that statement he made no promise to leave the middle east and I doubt any viable candidate for president would.

Ya, but increasing them in Afghanistan is hardly the task and solider requirement as the fighting force in Iraq right now. And I do feel bad for Afghanistan. We have been fucking with them for decades now. Hell they are beyond third world right now, and that is a bad reputation for a U.S. liberated country. We fucked up there.

America doesn't claim to be nuetral and we don't like Iran. We won't publicly support an Israeli strike, but privately the CIA is probably willing to help them and it would be in our interests if Israel took out Iran's nuclear arms.

I foresee a U.S. supported Israeli operation that sought to seek and deystroy "suspected" nuclear sites going array and blowing the lid off the whole situation. Iran freaks and pushes the button. We sense it and retaliate. Israel fires what it has and probably gets fired back upon by Pakistan. Who knows what North Korea would do. Russia could go either way when facing global annihilation. It is just another fucked up cold war situation. Why would we willingly put ourselves in that situation.

It's not eminent, but its definately out there.

Has Iran not threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Is there not some pre-exisiting tension between the two countries. It is ludarcris to think that nothing will come of this. And even stupider to cry out, before a threat has been made, and make a statement of nuclear retaliation.

So, given that option which do you want?

That was a very large speculation. Interesting, but a speculation none the less. But the thing is there is no option. Even in your hypothetical world. If any middle eastern country launches a nuke at each other or another country, the region will instantly go into turmoil. Who will win or not is completely in the air, unless the U.S. would intervene and nuke the fuck out of Iran. With one support like that it won't be too hard for us to wipe out another relation from an Islamic nuclear power. Once it comes to nukes old treaties and deals mean nothing and once allies can turn into an enemy.

:Haaretz, quoting an unnamed source, said the Obama administration would pledge under the proposed :"nuclear umbrella" to respond to any Iranian strike on Israel with a "devastating U.S. nuclear response."

I don't know about anyone else, but this is some pretty heavy shit to me. I have never seen a viable reason for U.S. involvement with Israeli affairs, at least now that they are an upright and standing nuclear power.

It is obvious we have some kind of special interest in the stake they have there, but why put up the charade. And of all people i wouldn't believe it would be the Obama administration damning us to such involvement with a travesty, especially when he campaigned on a promise to get us out of the middle east.

With the withering tensions between Iran and Israel, it is a matter of time before either one pushes the button. And what would happen if Israel shot first. Why are they free from the threat. If they wanted this embargo to work they should hold both countries responsible for their actions. Doing that just makes the side-taking so obvious. Despite what you hear on national news, Iran has made public their intentions to retaliate to Israeli attacks.

I am really disturbed about this development. I hope someone in New grounds can give me some solace in this world, and console me into believing the end of the world isn't so eminent.source

At 12/3/08 03:56 PM, TheMason wrote: 98% of Casualties are Civilian
Where is the data and methodology this non-partisan (but probably ideological) think-tank used to come up with this statistic? Also, who are the worst offenders when it comes to the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs? This would be an important question to ask.

Well a simple wiki search will show you that the 98% statistic they are using is from the recent use of cluster bombs in Geneva.Source
20 years is a long time to wait. . Also,In my thinking, any collateral damage is too much. In this era of smart bombs we should have no need for these weapons of mass destruction. Hell, show me a battle field that demands there use. You can't find one. So why not just get rid of them. They've obviously out lived our use for them. It isnt a matter of who the worst offender is in this, it is who are the innocent people who are now dead.

Also cluster bombs do have legitimate uses in war. They are highly effective at damagining runways which means we do not have to target people to take out a country's Air Force.

When have we had that necessity recently? and why couldnt that be replaced by a few key placed missiles?

So perhaps the answer is not an all out ban, but rather a treaty outlining just when and where these weapons can be used.

No, there is enough trouble following the Geneva convention as is. And the Iraq war is evident in showing that the government can find a way to legitimize their cause in any way.

I know that many major cities in the U.S. operate a program for giving clean needles out to addicts. Plus many treatment facilities offer a cleaner form of heroin to ween patients off the drug. Methadone is a popular drug outside the medical community as well. So in a way we have this instated already; Switzerland has just taken the real version of heroin rather than the pill version. You can say what you will about the decency of this program, but the fact remains that none of these addicts will stop using without similar programs. Heroin is physically addicting. Heavy users could never go cold turkey without dying. It's a messy situation with double sides to it. You can't deprive these people of proper treatment, but with as big a problem as Switzerland has you can;t fix it without encouraging it.

God this is exactly the kind of consumerism that is going to end the world. People willing to ignore a life for the best gift. When will we see that Christmas and American consumption has gone too far? I mean if people aren't gonna take better precautions when stampeding through the doors, then these workers deserve hazard pay for running the risk of being trampled.

Yes, in logic this makes no sense as there are far more dangers associated with sex than with porn. This standard is classically attributed to the hardcore evangelicals and generation after generation of social conservatism of Anglo-Saxon households and communities. Now while America the two are athe same age restriction; I still believe porn's age restrictions should be set at a lower age, and distributed with condoms to high school teens.

Easy. I bet Pakistani branch of the Taliban. They've been reigniting that old flame and trying to cut parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan into their own purely Islamic state.

Ya it is sad people egged him on, but what about his right to take his own life. I mean if he really wanted to be dead, why deny him the pleasure? Why make him spend another second in this god forsaken world? Its hard not to be depressed with the current state of things, let alone college life. God i can't take it anymore...its over for me...bluuuggghhh....

At 11/22/08 10:30 AM, Korriken wrote

Of course, I listened to his speeches. when He was in front of a teleprompter, he spoke like a narrator in a movie. Without it, you heard "I uhh uhh believe in uhh uhh change. uhh Bush ruined our uhh economy uhh we need to uhh uhh uhh get uhh back on the uhh right track and uhh spead the wealth around because uhh the poor uhhh uhh need our uhh help" He also made many MANY MANY Gaffs when he wasn't aided by his teleprompter, for instance the whole "I've been in 57 states 2 more to go" yeah. This man to me isn't genuine.

Name one presidental cantidate to run without the use of a teleprompter. And im sorry, but to me all of this seems like hearsay without a source.

He also named Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Not only does he hire on a bunch of Clinton's old lackeys, he hires on Hillary herself into what is probably the 2nd most powerful position in the government. Hillary Clinton, the person who rode his ass all the way through the primaries, saying his ideas are naive and basically calling him an idiot, is now secretary of state. So now Obama has a Clinton and a pile of Clinton lackeys in his cabinet.

Ok, political ideology 101. When you are a president as unexperienced as Obama, you surround yourself with people highly educated in the fields you lack. This president just happens to have many of the same policies, so it just makes sense to hire back Clinton's staff. And did you see Obama's attack ads on her. thats just politics. Really the surprise is that he extended the offer. And im not sure if she even accepted it offically yet. Whether you think the Clinton staff is ussuccessful is an arguement in and of itself.

so my question is, where is all this change he promised? Where is the bipartisanship he promised? All of the bills I've been hearing about them wanting to pass into law have been very left leaning.

Um. He isn't president yet. By default some bills are left leaning, just as some bills are right leaning in a republican congress. That is just how it works. But the bipartisanship he promises can not be called into question yet. He still has like 60 days until inauguration.

Also, why hasn't Obama called for a press conference to say that he isn't gonna impose his taxes while the economy is doing bad? Does he intend to jack up the taxes on the rich while the economy is crap? also why doesn't he step out and tell the EPA to shove the methane tax up their own asses with the economy doing poorly? New taxes are always passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. who are the consumers? Simple, its US! the "poor and middle class" that won't be taxed to death under the Obama administration.

Please make a reasonable and coherent statement out of that. The super rich need taxed. The EPA can do whatever the fuck they want to do as long as its in conservation of the environment. There is a difference in taxes and marginal costs. Taxes are legislation passed by government which the proceeds go to...government. Higher prices on goods are a result of the cost of production and distribution of the company's good(marginal cost) is increased, and that inconveince is therefore passed onto the consumer.

Change? I don't see it. Matter of fact my change jar is already empty, I can only imagine what's gonna happen to us in the next several years.

What worse can happen? Really? The only thing that we can hope for is a moderate president, which if Obama had any ambition of running for a second term he will be, who has enough dreams to pass a few peices of Rooseveltian legislation to save the american people before the democrats start goin for eachother's necks.

Ok so not only is anarchy a human inpossiblity, it has also damned its own movements to failure beacuse you can never have an anarchy party/group/organiztion. That is an oxymoron.

Cutting-edge method to further strengthen the connection between the public and the president,...
Or Obama's latest ace up the sleave for winning over the american people so he can bring even more evil to the world...
Nah, I think its great he will be getting to know America more. I just can't wait for AskObama.com. Instant Obama wisdom at your fingertips.

From a purely economic standpoint, they are putting money into the market. I say, good going. If these idiots want to arm themselves to the teeth, let 'em do it. Hell atleast the gun market will be flourishing. And the subsequent sale of all those recreational firearms would increase the rate of accidental, sucicidal, and probably domestic violence. Hospitals, Surgeons, Mortitions, Funeral Homes, and you know the ammunition sales will be through the roof. The death market will hit record highs. In fact, they are jumping the gun on this; just last month an 8 year old shot himself with an Uzi. I don't really have a stance on the gun legislation. I dont plan on ever owning a gun though. But we shouldn't even take that into account. Just think about the fact that a president elect actucally effectively influenced the gun market. Did anyone see the southpark last wednesday? That makes me laugh. We love guns too much, and are too paranoid of change.

No I dont think Palin had any negative impact on the general populas, excluding those moderate nobodies in Washington like Joe Liberman who actually sympathise with the McCain cause. From the books, Palin is a shining example of the conservitive model. His ability to capture a broad range of supporters ranging from the classical conservative to the neo-conservitive and even the guys in the middle of the aisle. More importantly, Palin's connservitive influence brought the backing of much more of the RNC's support. Arguably, saving him some face in the election results. And there is the unknown factor he had with the hillary supporters. Personally im split on whether or not it had a significant effect. Overall, i believe she did more good than bad for the doomed-from-the-start election of McCain.

At 9/22/08 02:33 AM, ForkRobotik wrote:

The reason that female soldier was imprisoned wasn't because she pretended to shoot off some guy's wang, it was because she stuck the end of a broom up his ass and videotaped it. Congress got to see the tape, and then they sealed it away while the media glossed over what actually happened, telling about the minor warcrimes committed.

No no no. This is what im talking about...
" an Iraqi woman in her 70s had been harnessed and ridden like a donkey""Well, I think there is a direct line that run from Secretary Rumsfeld to Abu Ghraib"

At 9/18/08 09:31 PM, T-N-T wrote: I am going to be completely honest, Antiabortion.

I don't care if the woman got raped, but I would rather see the mother give birth to the child and be sent to the adoption center and have the woman beat the crap out of the rapist, than have the women have the abortion. It is not right for the child.

Other wise, if it will kill both the mother and the child, then that would be absolutely necessary.

WOW. someone needs to have a vagina. I hope you get raped. Just to experience the act. No love is there. what kind of child should be created in such a way?

At 9/21/08 04:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: Or he will just kill you and everyone you care about. Passive resistance and civil disobedience only work in societies that care about the direct suffering of those they indirectly oppress. In societies that don't care, passive "love" is met with violence and quickly quelched. Notice how it took 5 years of war to end slavery in the US.

Yes, in a way, i believe you. as a human race we will never be able to see others as individuals and respect them as such. We will always generalize and catorgrise people in such a way that makes it easy to connect emotions to them. Hate and love are the most easily. Maybe being able to set aside our differences will be the next step in evolution.

The original poster is still confused, though, because he is interpreting the intent to cause violence as the end result of some individualized judgment. It's not. Most times it's a case of "us" vs. "them," and this isn't always a bad thing.

Yes again, but every hatred must be accompanied my a face, a place of origin, a country. You cant dissmiss a man beacuse he hates another for such a thing. We are only human. Some great examples are the Isralelis and Palestinians. Those two will never get together in peace. And if we see such, like i said, it will be a great step in humainty. Hatred of another for irrational feelings goes back far in human history. It will take a long time to un write it.

personally. i think its a fake. Too good, ha. They wouldn't let shit like this leak. The Abu graib scandal was to side track from what was really going on there. You didnt really believe that naked pyramids were the worst that was going on. This is just gold, too good.

At 9/17/08 07:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Yes, because 20 guys with Iraqi escorts can be depended on to search hundreds of thousands of square miles for WMD's and never be fooled or deceived. How many times were they expelled over the years since the Gulf War? How many times were they refused entry to certain facilities? The whole strategy of special inspector seals and proof of wmd destruction depended entirely on Saddam's cooperation and our faith that he wasn't holding anything back.

You know, one thing that always interested me was. If saddam had WMDs, why didnt he use them? Hell he has nothing to lose, and like he cares what the world thinks. He already gassed the kurds. Why is it beyond him to use these weapons? and if we pre-empted him to the point of rendering them useless, why didnt we find any in the rubble?

At 9/17/08 07:26 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 9/17/08 03:05 PM, Nitroglys wrote: Proof She is a sick person

i like how they use the wolf culling as proof she doesn't care about the environment despite the fact it is being done to help moose and caribou populations. nicely done.
that website reeks so much of filthy hippy, its unbelievable.

I know for a fact that the same wolves she is killing are trying to be saved by my states government(montana). Its not ethical or humanitarian to play god in such a way. Even to help another species. She has corrupt views, end of story. She is too far right for me.

O and please link to the site with info on the caribou saving.

And if she is so concerned with saving the caribou why would she promote drilling in the wildlife terrain. The alaska oil pipeline already screwed up the caribou migration.