Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/9/14 06:16 PM, Tankdown wrote:

At 1/9/14 06:45 AM, Cyberdevil wrote: I wish radio was free to broadcast for everyone.

Granted, now there's interference on every channel.

I wish for a death ray.

Granted, but it breaks.

I wish to be the 3,000th responder to this thread!

At 1/9/14 01:48 PM, Saen wrote: You either understand the process of evolution or you don't, no one, certainly not any scientist is interested in whether or not you "believe in" evolution. Commencing the release of rednecks.

So by that logic, since I don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I don't believe that it's true.

Love your response by the way, "commencing the release of rednecks," as if you're so superior to them.

Let's take a look at your wonderful research.

th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2013/257/5/a/colonialism_imperialism_world_map_by_saint_tepes-d6hs9h8.png

It's a list of different empires and the United States. So what?

www.mitchellteachers.org/WorldHistory/AncientRome/Images/MapRomeEmpireAtHeight.jpg

Mr. Mitchell's middle school class is a scholarly source?

https://www.google.hr/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=666&q=us+bases+around+the+world&oq=us+bases&gs_l=img.1.0.0l10.1311.3448.0.4836.8.8.0.0.0.0.141.872.3j5.8.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..0.8.872.JLp1e1-W1vI#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=F2nje75Mq6vg9M%253A%3Bg6xyhUZUt6oB1M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%252Fimagenes_sociopol%252Fsociop139.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bibliotecapleyades.net%252Fsociopolitica%252Fsociopol_globalmilitarism58.htm%3B1130%3B1032

A poorly-made image showing countries with a US military presence…strange, it says that there are no US military troops in the UK or Germany (which there are) and that China and Russia both have a US military presence. Wow, I didn't know that Putin and Jinping allowed US bases on their soil!

thetruthiseverywhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/media-brainwash.jpg

A picture from somebody's WordPress blog. Well, if someone writes it in a blog, it must be true!

At 1/8/14 11:22 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: it's a waste of resources and money for a hard cop book of any kind now in days LOL.

Where do you do your research, leanlifter1? Based on your hatred of propaganda I better see some darn scholarly and neutral places. And don't even think of naming any authors because according to you books are obsolete.

I hear a whole lot that the US population is brainwashed to believe that the United States is superior to the savage, savage rest of the world, and that our government is perfectly flawless. I hear just as much that every single American (except a select few who are "freethinkers") believe wholeheartedly this propaganda.

I have to ask, having lived in the US all my life, where is all this said propaganda?

Excusing certain news sites like Fox or MSNBC which don't even pretend to be fair and balanced, on the whole what I hear in the media is either neutral towards the US or downright critical of the government.

Edward Snowden has been portrayed as freedom fighter by some US news stations, and others tend to portray him in a more neutral light; admitting that while what he did didn't help the US it does raise some troubling questions about the NSA.

Oh, and the NSA, major news companies like ABC, NBC, and CNN have all been reporting about how the NSA is coming under new fire and that a federal judge recently ruled that parts of it are illegal and need to stop. Why would news sources that supposedly do nothing but praise the Almighty United States even cover this?

Nobody is saying that Iraq War was a success or that Afghanistan is progressing smoothly. All I hear about those two wars are about how they are such quagmires and how it's terrible we even are in there in the first place. Why would a propaganda machine say nothing else but that everything there is fine and peachy?

And it's not just the news media, but movies too. Hollywood this past year must have had some serious boners about the White House being burnt down, like with White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen. Robocop is coming out, and based off of the trailer it's because the US government screwed up by intentionally killing a cop. Django and 12 Years a Slave certainly don't portray the US government or White Americans in a pretty light. Even Man of Steel, the movie about the superhero who fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way (phrase not used since Christopher Reeve's movies) makes an enemy of the US government by shooting down a satellite.

I'm not arguing the converse: that US media is really an anti-American propaganda machine. I'm saying that to generalize an entire country by assuming that every single American is brainwashed by pro-US propaganda is stupid. There's nothing wrong with being patriotic and loving the United States as long as we recognize that it, like every country, has dark spots in its past. I don't blame anybody for loving their country, and if someone in France or Canada or Zimbabwe or Mali were to say "I love my country and I think it's #1" I'd understand that.

Frankly, I think those who make sweeping generalizations about how the US media is nothing but a bunch of pro-American propaganda have been listening to some propaganda themselves.

At 1/5/14 01:05 PM, AJ wrote: Lincoln adapted to the change, and continually called for what the American people were calling for, whether that was to continue the institution of slavery, or abolition. A lot of people in his position are dead set in their ways, and refuse to challenge their values. Lincoln put his beliefs behind and tried to focus on doing what the American people wanted while preserving the union. That's pretty admirable.

True, and Lincoln got so much crap from abolitionists. A lot of the things he's known for, like the Emancipation Proclamation, were very middle-of-the road. He knew darn well that a lot of Northerners weren't ready to accept emancipation, and he wanted to keep the border states. Throughout the whole war there were people like Thaddeus Stevens shouting that Lincoln wasn't going far enough in emancipation, or copperheads who said Lincoln was an out of control radical. While he probably wanted slavery to be abolished all along, he was smart enough to keep stating that this primary goal was to preserve the Union.

At 1/3/14 03:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Let me guess, you have NEVER been to a courthouse, have you? You talk as if you're an expert, yet you are armcharing from a different place in the world. I HAVE taken part in court cases and hearings, and I can definitely tell you that no bank is in control. Politics in the US may have suspect backing and motivation, but the courts are almost always very solid in how they base their opinions and rulings.

Camarohusky, you're arguing with facts and experience. Unfortunately the people you're arguing against are driven by emotion and prejudice. The US Congress could pass a law declaring that 1 + 1 = 2 and there will be people shouting in opposition.

At 1/1/14 10:33 AM, Fim wrote: One of the weirdest things I ever learned was that apparently in the US every kid in school has to pledge allegiance to the flag and country every morning. To someone who's not from the states that is really scary.

Half the kids don't even say the pledge. It's available for those who want to but it's not like you get in trouble if you don't.

At 1/3/14 03:41 AM, venturequestlord wrote: Just goes to show, that even the people of this country are such narrow minded as you...

You are just as brainwashed as the people who believe that America has done no wrong. Extremists like yourself are the real narrow-minded people. How about you do some actual research on this country instead of reading pamphlets online that tell you only what you want to hear.

And what about the history of your country? Every country has skeletons in their closet. Let's talk about those too, shall we?

This is not so much a call to re-evaluate history as it is some angry guy ranting about the US. Yawn.

At 12/30/13 02:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Who or what say's the Qur'an is an opposition LOL. The American way is built on the Violent removal of anyone that get's in the way of it's interests.

Then please provide links of US troops and police marching into schools and libraries and mosques to burn the Quran. Otherwise, keep this debate civil and don't start insulting groups you know nothing about.

Yes, all the time, you moron.

Well, that begs the question, should hate speech be banned?

At 12/28/13 02:52 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Science is the best process we currently have to explain natural phenomena in the environment we are in. Empirical knowledge is what the scientific method produce's. Money is not empirical knowledge. Money is a middle man that can be removed for better efficiency and understanding of meaning in the physical world around us.

Let's get into specifics here. If money is making it harder for us to understand the physical world, why is it used? It was created because people often did not have the natural resources to trade. Someone may say that their mule is worth 20 bananas, but what if you don't own a banana tree or can't trade for it? Money is used to facilitate trade and make getting natural resources easier. Money's existence is based off of the fact that we need natural resources to survive. Saying money makes understanding the need for resources harder is like saying calculators make math more difficult because you're not using your fingers.

At 12/27/13 05:27 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

The Laws of Nature does not give to hoots about Human made money, economics and politics which in and of itself is a man made imaginary manifestation and not actual Physical reality. Not saying things could not be worse but there is much better systems than using money to ultimately control people. Monetary econ will fail just like is has every other time in history.

All right, please explain to me when monetary economics failed in history. Enlighten Cameronhusky and me about a state or society that that reverted back to a barter system and ended up so much better off without this silly thing called "economics."

And I don't know if this is the path you were heading down, but don't give us this "end fiat money, bring back the gold standard," garbage. Because gold's intrinsic value is artificial (you can't eat it, wear it, or live in it) just like dollar bills. So you can't say that an economy where people use gold follows the laws of nature.

At 12/26/13 01:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

God knows that capitalism is far from perfect,

God is an ideal created by Human's and is completely up for debate and a matter of opinion which is why it's best to stay away from it when arguing semantics and politics. But yes Capitalism is far from perfect. Today we are very very far away from a Capitalist economy in North America though.

He was using a figure of speech. He was not testifying G-d's opinion.

We could definitely use some more socialism, and people on the right may disagree, which is fine, but capitalism is still pretty damned good at what it purports to do: create wealth.

You can't create wealth you can rather just create something with the resources and technological know how we have at the given moment in time.

What do creating resources and technological know how lead to. Maybe, I don't know, wealth? You don't see Zuckerburg or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (when he was alive) starving.

Lapis, when i say that the military is a modernizing and secularizing force, I don't mean that they had a continuous program since 2010 to secularize and modernize Egypt further. They weren't aiming for a religion-free state. They were rather focusing on preserving power and the status quo. Few leaders do what they do for an agenda or belief that is bigger than themselves. The military does what they do because they believe it will preserve their power.

At 12/25/13 04:54 PM, lapis wrote:

At 12/25/13 04:03 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

Systems may change over the course of several decades. Nasser was clearly a reformer, who pushed through a bunch of reforms like, for example, the nationalisation of the religious endownments (waqf) system in 1952 and the expulsion of clerics from judicial courts in 1955. He brought the scholars of the al-Azhar to their knees, trying to turn their institution into a force of modernisation. Sadat on the other hand used was equally concerned about the left wing of his party and gradually decreased pressure on both the al-Azhar and Islamists to use his new Islamic credentials to attack liberal and leftist opponents. Sadat even amended Egypt's previously secular constitution, which from that moment on stipulated that Sharia was to be the primary source of all legislation. Mubarak and his military have basically continued Sadat's strategy: holding on to power first, and if that means cozying up with political Islam, so be it. There has not been a serious secularising force in Egypt since Nasser.

True, but the military in 2010 didn't have much more to secularize, they just had to keep the status quo. And now the Egyptian military has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group and will not allow candidates to run.

They backed the coup, and, despite warnings that this would come back to haunt them, they still announced that they would not oppose a military presidential candidate three months ago and vowed their support for Egypt's new (military) constitution only three weeks ago. They definitely can be wooed, and I don't think they have a lot of international ambitions at the moment.

How was Hitler a secularising force? What was there to secularise?

He cut the power of the church in Germany. I'm not using him as an example to say "Hitler was a secularizer, therefore secularization is bad." I'm simply saying that just because a ruler secularizes does not mean he is liberal.

This is at risk of turning into semantics. Can you explain what kind of secularising, modernising reforms you were expecting from the Egyptian military?

I was not expecting any serious reforms, but to restore it to the 2010 status quo. The military was popular and at its peak of power under Mubarak.

At 12/25/13 03:35 PM, Slacker013 wrote:

I wish NewgroundsMike was actually NewgroundsMichelle!

Granted, and you're her sex slave.

I wish for peace in the world.

At 12/25/13 11:11 AM, lapis wrote:

At 12/24/13 11:47 PM, Ranger2 wrote: The Egyptian military is a modernizing, secularizing force,

Atatürk and Nasser were modernising, secularising forces. The Egyptian military on the other hand is a conservative, reactionary force that controls 5-40% of the Egyptian economy and wants to keep it that way.

Nasser came into power through the military. Mubarak ruled under the system Nasser created. The same army that Nasser created is still in power.

The Muslim Brotherhood was starting to pose a threat to their economic interests so they disposed of it. But I don't really expect any liberal reforms from the military; they'll use any credit they have the Salafis to clamp down on dissent first before they anger them by reducing the role of religion (that is, Islam) in the state and Egyptian society.

Are you saying the Salafis are giving credibility to the same military that signed a peace agreement with Israel, helped blockade Gaza, and help the West fight the War on Terror? The military is now clamping down on the Muslim Brotherhood, looks to me like they're trying to reduce the role of religion in Egypt.

A pity too, because Egypt really needs reform (especially birth control) for the country to at least partially get out of the mess it's currently in.

You're confusing secularizing and modernizing with liberal. Hitler was a secularizing and modernizing force. So were Mao and Stalin. Secularization, modernization, and liberalization go together very well, but they are not by any means a package deal.

At 12/25/13 03:14 AM, BurningJesus wrote:

Excuse me but the Mormon bible says Jesus was white and the conservatives who are on a mission to make the bible more conservative plan to explicitly state him being white.

Call them out on that, but don't connect it to "Merry Christmas," or the War on Christmas.

As of a few minutes ago, USAF jets were escorting Santa over Dallas to make sure he safely delivers presents while in US Airspace. NORAD doesn't send out jets for imaginary things.

I'm getting sick of this. Not only of those who think that anyone who says Happy Holidays is a heretic who should be burnt at the stake, but those like BurningJesus who set up straw men and assume that Jews are Uncle Toms who need to be protected from the big bad "Merry Christmas"-saying evil Christians. Or those who make the assumption that those who say Merry Christmas all think Jesus was of European descent and can't stand the thought of someone with skin darker than sandpaper.

So I will say this to those who insist that saying Merry Christmas to a Jew is anti-Semitism - You don't need to walk on eggshells around me. I don't care one bit about the manger scene in your backyard. And you don't need to apologize to me for forgetting to say Happy Holidays.

At 12/24/13 03:01 AM, Warforger wrote: It's hard to tell. The Muslims Brotherhood has been the most credible, if not the only credible, alternative to the secular dictatorships of the Arab countries, they were in the fight against them the longest and have stood the most steadfast in their face. In fact the first and main enemy of Islamic Fundamentalists are these Socialist dictators like Al-Assad, Saddam Hussein, Mubarak etc..

You're right, it's hard to tell. The military coup against Morsi was an example of this. The Egyptian military is a modernizing, secularizing force, and while their takeover may be considered a victory against Islamism, (moderate or radical) it delegitimizes Islamism as a democratic force.

The coup does represent the still powerful secular sentiment in Egypt, but it may turn the Islamists more hardline. Morsi was battling hardliners in his own party, as well as people who thought he was too radical. I believe had Morsi retaken power from the military and reinstalled himself as President after the coup, he would have cracked down on the military and any secularizing influences. We'd see a new, radical Morsi.

So while Islamic democrats like Morsi may at first seem the most credible besides the secular socialist dictators we're used to, I think if they were to retake power we'd see a different branch in power. The irony is that the coup, in an attempt to curb what they saw as radical Islamism, may have actually fueled its fire.

At 12/21/13 08:57 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

It is entirely possible that without the Islamic groups backing it up (against secular government) the movement could very well have been DOA or a minor protest that would have died out shortly after it began.

Not entirely. Last spring I wrote a research paper on the beginning of the Arab Spring in Egypt. When everyone was protesting Mubarak in Tahrir Square, the Muslim Brotherhood sent out a memo to its members involved in the riots, saying "if you're going to protest, keep your rhetoric about fighting for Egypt and the Egyptian nationalism. Don't use overtly Islamic imagery or words to make your point."

On an unrelated note but still funnily enough, my paper focused on what Morsi's election meant for relations between the US, Egypt, and Islamist groups in the Middle East. Two weeks after I turned it in, Morsi was ousted, and my paper became obsolete, thankfully after it was graded.

At 12/20/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'd actually venture to say that without the US invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring may have never occurred, and if it did, it likely wouldn't be as strong.

Much of the populist sentiment that fueled the uprisings came from the grassroot Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood. If the US had not invaded Iraq, it is highly likely these groups wouldn't be as powerful, and definitely wouldn;t be as populist. The rallying cry of "get the US invaders out of Iraq" brought many fence sitters toward such groups and ten laters morphed into a major player in the Arab Spring.

But then why did it take so long for it to occur, and when the United States was withdrawing from Iraq? The major reason the revolts happened was because of economics.
Also, this may explain revolts in Egypt but not Syria or Libya. If this was prompted by anti-US sentiment, how does this explain what happened to Gaddafi and al-Assad?

Furthermore, much of the Arab Spring recieved a great deal of support from the US. This support largely went against old US allies in favor of the people. Why would the US turn its back on strong long time allies? Because The US desperately needed a PR face lift in the region to counter the bad image (and terrorist motivating image) the Iraq war created. Without the "win the people" mindset that was largely a result of the Iraq war, it is highly concievable the US wouldn't have aided in Libya and would have supported Mubarak.

What you say is self-defeating. The Arab Spring was caused by anger against US intervention, but then you say that had we not invaded Iraq we would have helped Mubarak against a rebellion that you just said would not happen.

Still, a very interesting proposal.

Capitalist and socialist are not defined identities. Saying "I'm capitalist/socialist" is like going to the doctor and saying "I'm sick." It can range anywhere from a cold to terminal cancer. The United States is capitalist compared to many European countries, but very socialist compared to Somalia or Afghanistan. China is more socialist than the US but it is more capitalist than North Korea.

If you are going to say capitalism is evil, be specific. How capitalistic are you talking? Absolute capitalism has never been practiced by any state. The United States was never 100% capitalist at any point in its history. If you are saying that the American system is evil, well then you are criticizing socialism too, because our system is mixed: part capitalist, part socialist. The only defining measurement is the ratio between the two.

What would an Iraq where Saddam never had been ousted look like today?

Let's assume that the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and the other coalition forces had never invaded Iraq, nor any of the sanctions on Saddam's regime had been substantially changed, nor any of Iraq's alliances had changed since early March 2003, meaning that it would still be hostile towards Iran and Saudi Arabia.

With the Arab Spring hurtling throughout the Arab World, how do you think Saddam would have fared? Would Saddam's regime be overthrown like in Egypt or Libya? Would he crush any opposition and have his rule remain stable? Would he end up like fellow Ba'athist al-Assad, stuck in a raging civil war?

While I believe that 2003-2011 would have seen continued political repression and stability, I think that at the very least, massive anti-Saddam protests would be going on in Iraq today. His system of secular Arab socialism was comparable to Mubarak's, Gaddafi's, and al-Assad's in term of domestic and economic affairs.

Arguments that Saddam would be able to get a handle on the protestors:
Despite heavy UN sanctions, two no-fly zones, and two massively damaging wars (Iran-Iraq war, Gulf War) Saddam until 2003 managed to stay very securely in power. His army and secret police were very effective and stamping out any dissention.

Arguments that Saddam would not be able to get a handle on the protestors:
With a Sunni minority rule, Kurdish problems in the north, and the fact that it was bordered by two hostile states (that could easily fund/arm/aid rebels,) and the fact that it had few powerful allies (Russia probably wouldn't have come to Saddam's aid like it did to al-Assad,) Saddam most likely would have been on his own.

So what do you think? Had we not taken out Saddam, what would Iraq look like today? Would it be better, worse, or the same as it is today?

At 11/26/13 03:33 PM, DOGOGBYN wrote:

:My sisters were born premature, I bet pro-choicers would have had qualms about killing them.

I was born two months premature, so by your logic I have the grounds to stand my beliefs about abortion. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-death. It means that the option of abortion must be available, not that every first born will be aborted in accordance with Pharoah's laws.

At 12/20/13 05:03 PM, Xiicubed wrote: Exploitation of the environment

Environmental degradation is the erosion of the natural environment through the depletion of resources, the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife. Today, developed nations consume more than 85% of the world’s resources, and are the largest contributors to environmental degradation. The exploitation of the environment through unsustainable extraction of raw materials, along with intensive agriculture, mining, deforestation, fossil fuel burning, and pollution of air and water have severely degraded many of the planet’s ecosystems. With the rise in world population, and the spread of consumer culture, environmental degradation is becoming an ever-increasing concern.

Ever notice how animals living in the wild don't live nearly as comfortably as you do? If you want to stop using natural resources, that's absolutely fine, but acknowledge the fact that it will cause food prices to go up, as well as other amenities and comforts to become more difficult to get. Your computer that you are using to type this most likely gets its electricity from coal or nuclear power. Your clothes are made in sweatshops from cut down forests. It's all about tradeoffs and practicality.

Exploitation of animals

Every year 10 billion animals are slaughtered for food in the United States in industrial factory farming. These animals are treated as mere commodities for food production – hardly as living beings with a capacity to suffer. Animal cruelty is rampant on factory farms, and indeed seems to be part of a production process. Animals are crammed together in vast numbers, undergo painful mutilations, and are pumped with hormones to grow unnaturally fast and large. This is all done in the name of profit maximization - producing the most meat, eggs and dairy for the least expense. And if that’s not enough, consider the following facts:

I get the whole idea that processed food isn't great. And yeah, genetically modified food isn't natural. But you know what is natural? Starving to death. GMOs have stopped famines, and inorganic medicines have led to medical cures. No, it's not perfect but writing off what many would call progress as unnatural is narrow-minded.

Exploitation of workers

Though exploitation of workers is widespread, it is most severe where people have few alternatives. Those who are most desperate - migrant workers, street children, or rural women in developing countries – are also usually those who are most heavily exploited. In many places around the world people choose to work long hours, for appallingly low wages and in unsafe conditions because it is their only alternative to starvation. Here are a few facts on worker exploitation:

Where are your sources? Better yet, where are your answers? A bad job is better than no job. It's not an ideal world but to say that we must do away with capitalism or blame one exclusive evil is childish. There are so many bigger issues here that you are ignoring by simply pointing your finger at capitalism and saying "you're the villain!
Of course the problems you talk about are real. But you have no clue about their complexity or even the consequences of what you think should be done would mean. It's easy to hate what you call capitalism as a producer but as a consumer I'm sure it has worked out well for you.
I think you copy-pasted this from somewhere. This reads like an encyclopedia rather than a thought-out argument.