At 6/8/09 08:30 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 6/8/09 08:25 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Civil disobedience is awesome. Good on him, standing up for what he believe in.Yes. Because smoking pot is just as important as racial equality and the dominion of a foriegn superpower over a native people.
I guess that bitch Rosa Parks and that asshole Mahatma Gandhi got what they deserved too.
I say we declare this young hero a political prisoner and hold rallies in his honor. I'll right the protest song "All we are saying is reorginize complex legal structures because I'm sick of getting inconvienenced on the way to a party!"
Marijuana legalization is pretty important. In addition to the obvious effects, there are economic effects aswell. Think of the revenue generated by taxation on marijuana. What about the thousands of people put in prison for something as minor as having weed? It's a big issue. Maybe not as big as civil rights or the British occupation of India, but what the kid did was just like what Rosa Parks and Mahatma Gandhi did: he broke the law, a rather stupid and wrong law, to make a point and help his cause, and he took the fallout for it. The issues the three were fighting against were different, but their actions were the same and in the same spirit.
Civil disobedience is awesome. Good on him, standing up for what he believe in.
At 6/8/09 08:15 PM, Korriken wrote: I've said it before I'll say it again.
HE BROKE THE CURRENT LAWS! HE DESERVES HIS PUNISHMENT!
I don't care why he did it. The law is just that, the LAW. If a law is a bad law, repeal it. until then, enforce it.
just because you don't agree with a law does not give the right to break the law.
If you could break the law on the grounds you don't agree with it, then law would have no meaning and would be completely unenforceable.
The stupid punk got what he deserves.
I guess that bitch Rosa Parks and that asshole Mahatma Gandhi got what they deserved too.
At 6/8/09 07:35 PM, Proteas wrote:
At 6/8/09 09:35 AM, Saruman200 wrote: Your not always right, your arguements are not without flaw. Get over yourself.I never claimed my arguments were flawless. I also never shrugged and gave a "Gee whiz, that's a tough one" answer to any questions posed me, the way you just did in responding to me.
You said that you had "one hell of" an arguement, and implied that I would be unable to argue against it. That sounds awful arrogant to me.
10,000 Scientific minds, billions of euros, co-operation from organizations and governments spanning who knows how many borders, all for nothing so far, and it yet may be decades before we find out nothing significant from the LHC. So I ask you again; If the Higgs Boson Particle cannot be shown to exist, why should people believe in it? If it didn't create the Universe, then what did?
It can be shown to exist. You don't need to actually see something to be shown it exists. Complex equations and theories by noted scientists have shown the possibly of the Higgs Boson Particle, obviously enough evidence that to warrent the LHC being built. Where are the equations and scientific evidence that God might exist?
Or do you honestly expect me to believe that "it might not exist here on earth" as a valid answer that does not make your argument guilty under your own citation of Russel's Teapot?
Russell's teapot is the idea that just because something with no proof can not be disproven, it is still illogical to believe it. The Higgs Boson, meanwhile, can be backed up by massive theoretical evidence threw scientific equations and the like, and is in the process, threw the LHC, of being completely proven to exist. God? Not so much.
Isn't it interesting how when two Americans get arrested and put in these awful camps, everyone goes apeshit and starts talking about military action, diplomatic visits, and Navy Seals, but when all the the thousands of North Koreans are being arrested and no doubt facing even worse treatment, no one seems to care? Why are two Americans worth a Navy Seal team, but not 2,000 North Koreans?
At 6/8/09 11:22 AM, Memorize wrote:At 6/8/09 09:50 AM, Saruman200 wrote:By whom? Some people think life only begins at birth. Others think it begins at the moment the sperm meets egg. There is no universal definition of when life begins.But that's retarded considering a fetus has no physical/mental changes from 5 minutes before or after birth.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's what a lot of people believe.
No, he's crazy because HE SHOT SOMEBODY! Please refrain from using rude comments, it's not civil.So how would this be different than a doctor performing late term abortions when the fetus can feel pain and has mental capacity?
I don't know, as I said I'm against third trimester abortions. But some people arn't. When life begins is a belief, and people don't deserve to be killed because of their beliefs.
Considering that people are overwhelmingly against late term abortions and that the fetus has every characteristic of what is to be considered a person under today's liberal definition: How is that different?
Most people are against late term abortions, yes, but not all. Simply because most people believe something does not make it correct.
If someone believes that life begins only at birth (as I think Dr. Tiller did), what makes a late term abortion different then a first or second trimester abortion?Because there are no physical or mental changes 5 minutes before or after.
Generally, when were talking about abortions we talk in terms of weeks or months before birth, not five minutes.
How can a doctor be charged with murder when he suffocates/kills the newborn fetus after it survived a botched abortion proceedure?
Because after birth, a baby is universally accepted as alive. Prior to birth, definition of when life begins is varied throughtout the population.
Not to mention pre-mature births where the fetus is capable of living outside the mother. So how is his "vision" consistant at all?
Maybe it isn't. Maybe pro-life people should have debated him about it, instead of defending the man who shot him?
No, this is what the scientific definition of life is:Moron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Defini tions
Having cells is only one of 7 points. It says "The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena". I figure a fetus maybe fits about half of those.
It is the smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living.
Wikipedia is retarded anyway. It's using a different context of "life". Considering that according to biology a cell is "living" then obviously it's "life".
The article I linked to is well-sourced with links to scientists who support that 7 point view of life. Who said that a cell is living. "Smallest unit of an organism that is classified as living." =/= Living. All that means is that it is the smallest unit that makes up a living organism, not that it is itself alive.
If it weren't then I would call it very misleading since we even label its "life-cycle".
Stars have "life-cycles" too. Nowadays, life-cycle rarely refers only to living things.
Besides, the definition of a cell comes directly out of my biology book which calls it the smallest unit of what is considered "alive".
Again, being the smallest unit of something that is alive does not mean that it is alive itself.
At 6/7/09 10:50 PM, Memorize wrote:At 6/7/09 07:35 PM, Saruman200 wrote:So, what your saying is, if someone has different morals than you and a different belief of when life starts, they should be killed?Considering he's killing a fetus that would be viable outside the womb...
As a result, it's no different than murder since by that time, the fetus is considered a person.
Fascinating, isn't it? Since, after all, the rules of what constitutes a fetus to be a person (ie. trimesters) are from liberals.
By whom? Some people think life only begins at birth. Others think it begins at the moment the sperm meets egg. There is no universal definition of when life begins.
Why is Dr. Tiller a crazy person? Because he believes something different then you?So what about the guy who killed Tiller?
He was crazy, right? You would certainly agree with that, right?
Oh but... he believes something different than you. You intollerant prick.
No, he's crazy because HE SHOT SOMEBODY! Please refrain from using rude comments, it's not civil.
I was unaware that the law stated that life begins at conception. As far as I can see, Dr. Tiller believed that life began at birth, thus what he was doing was not murder in his eyes, and in the eyes of half the population.What part of LATE TERM ABORTIONS do you not understand?
If someone believes that life begins only at birth (as I think Dr. Tiller did), what makes a late term abortion different then a first or second trimester abortion?
Scientific definition of what is alive: A CELL
While you believe that life begins at conception, science doesn't really back up either belief, because there is no scientific definition of "life". Thus, you can't really declare that your view is completely correct, because it is a moral, not a legal issue.
What is a fetus made up of? CELLS
Under scientific rule a fetus is alive by that very definition.
Congrats on not knowing scientific terms.
No, this is what the scientific definition of life is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Defini tions
Having cells is only one of 7 points. It says "The consensus is that life is a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following phenomena". I figure a fetus maybe fits about half of those.
Personally, I'm against third trimester abortions. I wouldn't want my girlfriend or sister, or any woman I know to get one, but I just don't believe in forcing my moral view on others.
At 6/7/09 10:06 PM, Proteas wrote:
At 6/7/09 08:58 PM, Saruman200 wrote:The reason the LHC exists is because scientists determined there was adequete evidence to suggest that this particle could exist and have existed in the past.That's my entire point; it's taken that much concerted intellectual effort to recreate something that supposedly existed on it's own. Science has backed itself into a corner with this now, because the whole idea of how our universe came into being currently relies on a situation that is almost scientifically impossible to replicate, which makes me ask; if all the scientists and all the cash in the world can't reproduce this event, what could have caused this event in the first place, then?
Scientists can't replicate a lot of stuff. We're only human. Just because we have to replicate it, that does not mean it can't have happened on it's own. All it means is that the conditions for it to happen on it's own don't currently occur on earth.
Which is more likely, scientifically speaking; the possibility of a God or other higher power existing, or all of this shit happening on it's own for no apparent reason (itself a scientific impossibility, last time I checked)?
The second one. Scientifically, everything happens as a result of complex forces in the universe. Force of gravity, force of motion, etc... There are thousands upon thousands. However, these forces and the things they effect don't really happen for a "reason" or a "purpose". It's just kinda the way the universe has developed. I'm not really a scientist, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that the forces that effect our universe have no goal.
How is this supposed to make it hard for me to justify my disbelief in God?Because you can't discount the existence of a higher power now; to do so would be intellectually dishonest.
I can't discount the existence of a higher power because I never explictly stated that a higher power does not exist. I said that given the evidence (none) I choose not to believe. It's very arrogant to suggest that anyone who does not agree with you must be "intellectually dishonest". Your not always right, your arguements are not without flaw. Get over yourself.
At 6/7/09 07:57 PM, Proteas wrote:
At 6/7/09 07:26 PM, Saruman200 wrote: So? They're hypocrites then. Being able to do these things without fear is an advantage of being an atheist.Fear of what? Retribution?
Listen to 2:35 through 3:05, which applies to all Christians, not just Catholics.
First off, Carlos Mencia is a comedian, not a priest. I wouldn't really listen to him if I was looking for information about religion. Just because they can ask for forgiveness, doesn't mean it's not a sin. According to the bible it is.
Russell's teapot.To which I answer; The Hadron Collider. A total cost of EU3.2-6.4 billion, sits underneath at least three different European countries, and has a team of over 10,000 different scientists working on it, all to try and recreate something that supposedly happened on it's own in search of a particle that;s so perfect that it hasn't been found yet.
Wrap your head around that one.
I'm not sure you understand. The reason the LHC exists is because scientists determined there was adequete evidence to suggest that this particle could exist and have existed in the past. I cease to see such persuasive evidence that God exists.
It shows that, scientifically speaking, none of this happened on it's own. Now I'm not going to sit here and claim God or Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it, but I'll let my point stand; Saruman now has one HELL of a point to argue against in order to justify his disbelief.
So because none of this happened on it's own, the logical view is to say it was a magical force? What? How is this supposed to make it hard for me to justify my disbelief in God?
At 6/3/09 09:58 PM, bgraybr wrote:Note: This is just some idea that a fifteen-year-old thought up.Why not ban weapons? Because things will eventually end up like this (yes, the articles about 4 years old but it's still relevant).
The difference is, knives and rope have other purposes. Guns/weapons are created for only one purpose: to kill. I'm not really a proponent of gun control, but this arguement is just stupid.
This made me think, 100 years from now are we going to be eating our food with plastic spoons? Are we going to ban all rope and sting to prevent strangling? Maybe people will decide to condition us against violence and we'll end up with a "Brave New World" like scenario. Sure we'd be safe, but have no freedom to even think independently. Do you think the movement will get that extreme? Or does it sound like a conspiracy theory to you?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. That's a massive jump from gun control.
I consider myself a moderate on this issue. Generally, I have no problem with people owning guns. It works against criminals. However, criminals can also use guns against civilians. If we were able to destroy all guns in our country, that would be awesome. You wouldn't have to worry about getting shot. If everyone owned guns, that would be just as awesome. You wouldn't have to worry about getting shot either, because you can shoot the guy. A good example of a country were gun ownership works is Switzerland. Because guns are universially accepted, crime rates are low. But it's hard to get everyone to accept guns in a large country like the US. So, more gun control is probably a good idea to reduce gun crime.
At 5/31/09 08:43 PM, Memorize wrote: He did get what he deserved since he was performing late term abortions for any reason.
So, what your saying is, if someone has different morals than you and a different belief of when life starts, they should be killed?
Although the rationale behind his attacker makes about as much sense as comparing an apple to a planet. "He's a murderer and kills! ...So I'll kill him back."
It doesn't exactly help his cause.
But, all this is is a crazy person who killed another crazy person.
Why is Dr. Tiller a crazy person? Because he believes something different then you?
However I bet that won't stop the pro-abortion people (even on this forum) posting about the hypocrisy of the attacker while neglecting any mention to Tiller himself who, by law, is also guilty of murder.
I was unaware that the law stated that life begins at conception. As far as I can see, Dr. Tiller believed that life began at birth, thus what he was doing was not murder in his eyes, and in the eyes of half the population.
While you believe that life begins at conception, science doesn't really back up either belief, because there is no scientific definition of "life". Thus, you can't really declare that your view is completely correct, because it is a moral, not a legal issue.
At 6/7/09 07:05 PM, Proteas wrote:
At 6/7/09 06:24 PM, Saruman200 wrote: First off, there are some things atheists can do that religious people can't, having sex before marriage being oneI hate to break this to you, but Religious people do a LOT of things that they aren't supposed to do, sex before marriage being one of them. They are human, afterall.
So? They're hypocrites then. Being able to do these things without fear is an advantage of being an atheist.
I don't believe in God because there are no facts to prove his existence, not because I have anything to gain from it.And uh... what facts disprove his existence, or are you merely taking his non-existence as a matter of faith?
Did I ever say that facts disprove his existence? I said no facts prove his existence. I have no reason to believe something with no facts that back it up. The absense of proof means that rationally you should not believe in God. Russell's teapot.
At 2/24/09 01:55 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
The fact is, white Americans are under attack by blacks. Through a joint venture by blacks and neo-liberal thought police, we live in a system in which anyone who dares commit the thoughtcrime of independent and rational thinking is instantly held under public scrutiny and crushed.
It's pretty vain to suggest that your opinion is the only rational one. Also, if your view was really correct, wouldn't it hold up to scrutiny?
We have been methodically and militaristically brainwashed with the stern mantra that "Racism is bad". Racism is a cardinal sin, and a man who is deemed racist by society as a whole can see his life and lively hood destroyed by it. And with this weapon, this ability to render anyone an "untouchable", the blacks have slowly been crushing anyone who doesn't bow down to our black masters. They understand that it is absolutely imperative for a white man to avoid being labeled racist, and use the threat of such a label to dominate us. If we do not hand the presidency of the United States over to an unqualified black man, we are "racist". If we do not fire our white employees and hire unqualified black employees in their place, we are "racist". If we do not expel white students to make room for dumb black students, we are racist.
Have you ever considered that there is such a thing as a qualified, intelligent black person?
If the police DARE arrest black criminals or hold them accountable for their crimes, they are racist.
Minorities, especially blacks make up a disportionate percent of the prison population, so this is factually incorrect.
If we EVER dare to disrespect or insult an almighty black man, no matter what the reason, we are racist. If we are ever stupid enough to commit a crime against a black man, we are racist, and can look forward to seeing our penalties and sentences doubled do to the audacity we showed in attacking our dark masters. If we do not give them their own colleges, holidays, months, and channels, we are racist; if we ask for our own race-exclusive college in return, we are thrown into jail for violating anti-segregation laws. If refusing to put blacks on a higher level then me and others like me makes me racist, then I am a racist.
Equal level =/= higher level.
But it goes beyond that; beyond a mere level of what's morally right or wrong. The issue of race is an issue of life or death. According to scientific reports,non-whites commit a dangerous amount of violent crime in this country.
That is because they tend to live in lower income settings, and people in lower income settings, regardless of race are more likely to commit crimes. They live in these lower income settings in large part because of centuries of oppression by whites. Just because a greater percent of minorities commit crimes, that does not mean that all minority people commit crimes.
Yet more and more, we see that a black man is LESS likely to be held accountable for his crimes then a white man; police, ever dreadful of the incurable wounds a "racist" tag will deal to his reputation, would rather let violent men go free then risk the stigma associated with doing his god damned job. Blacks are responsible for 50% of all the murders in this country, despite being a small minority of the population; that's 8,000 dead bodies a year. 8,000 men, woman, and children that don't have to be dead. But what happens if I ever DARE to bring that statistic up, if I ever DARE try to solve this issue so I no longer have to see 8,000 corpses every single year? I am labeled a racist. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the extent of the black mans need to dominate us.
See above, about minority populations in prisons. Your assertations are ungrounded.
You can make the claim "they aren't ALL criminals, they aren't ALL guilty for those murders", and that's true. But they are ALL worthless pieces of shit that brands ANYONE who DARES point out the bloody, violent truth about them a "racist". They don't care about the people their fellow blacks kill, they care about their position at the top. When they see someone pointing out the TRUTH about 8,000 innocent victims, their response isn't "That's HORRIBLE, 8,000 people!" It's "How can I sweep this under the rug? How can I ruin the reputation of the person trying to bring this information to light?". The blacks response is the same as the response of the U.S Military after the Mai Lai massacre, when it was revealed U.S soldiers had illegally murdered innocent civilians for their own amusement.
Blacks who resort to crime =/= all blacks
And this is where the white race needs to take the blame. We have allowed the weakest of our members, the "liberals" (they disgrace the term) who are willing slaves to the black man, who have more loyalty to political correctness then to their fellow man, to hold us down and cripple us. As a minority, our black oppressors are only as powerful as we majority whites allow them to be. They are so loyal to political correctness, to the idea that to be white is to be a subhuman piece of shit, that they would uphold their ideals of "equality" even if it means sweeping those 8,000 bodies under the rug. They'd rather see a white man killed a black man, a white child raped by a black adult, and they'd rather let those horrendous crimes go unpunished, then risk not being a loyal, brain washed follower of Big Brotha'. Besides; if they DARE to even CONSIDER saying that it's BAD to kill and rape, they too my be branded with the "racist" title...
White people kill and rape too. Maybe a greater percent of those crime are carred out by black men, but a greater percent of prison inmates are black aswell, so I see not bias in the system here.
Yes, we are under attack. So far our ability to defend ourselves has been crippled by sabotage inside our own race, but the time when we have the guts to stand up for ourselves is drawing near. More and more, white people are growing tired of the double standards, tired of always having to bow down. Tired of being called crackers, with no way to respond. Tired of being fired and expelled to make room for undeserving black to take our spots. Most most of all, we're just tired. We're just sick, and we are tired.
Yes, white people are clearly getting ready to rise up. Which would explain why so many of them voted for a black man for president.
I'm inclined to believe your a troll, but a lot of other people seem to be seriously responding to your post, so I guess I will too.
At 6/6/09 02:27 PM, EpicFail wrote:
Now that the US has a new Government sort of thing, they want people to love the President and all that, so what they're doing is they created this fake sickness that is said to kill lots of people, they make up fake death tolls, because it's not like people are going to ask everybody in the world if they had a family member die from Swine Flu.
So, within time, I believe the Government is going to release a 'cure' for this fake sickness, so that everybody loves the new Government.
Ask the families of those who died from swine flu, especially in Mexico. I think they would beg to differ.
Why not? The OAS has housed plenty of other dictatorships, such as Augusto Pinochet's in Chile or Jorge Rafael Videla's in Argentina, why not Cuba. On the greater topic of US policy towards Cuba, we trade will plenty of totalitarian regimes like China, Cuba is no different.
At 6/7/09 10:50 AM, Ericho wrote: What exactly does a person have to gain from atheism? I keep hearing about bad things people will lose if they don't follow religion (extremism in the world), but there is anything good that an atheist could do that a religious person could do? I mean, by gaining religion you get hope and joy and by losing it, you can lose that (along with extremism, yes I know), but with atheism you have nothing really positive to gain.
First off, there are some things atheists can do that religious people can't, having sex before marriage being one. However, it's not really about gain. It's about truth. For example, Santa Claus. Santa Claus is awesome. He bring you presents that you want for free, no strings attached. Problem is, he's not real. It sucks ass when you learn Santa Claus was really just your parents. We have nothing to gain from not believing in Santa Claus, it was WAY better when he thought he existed. But, he doesn't exist. It's tough shit, but it's the truth. It's the same concept. Atheists believe God doesn't exist, so we don't believe in him. It has nothing to do with us gaining anything from it.
But let's assume for a minute that God DOES exist. Is that really a good thing? People seem to think it is. Even atheists like to say that they only don't believe in God because belief in him is irrational, but it won't be bad if he exists. I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person who finds the idea of a judgemental cosmic dictator watching me every second and controlled everything that effects my life, and when I die he gets to judge whenever or not I get to live in paradise, or suffer for all eternity kinda disturbing. For all this talk of God being benevolent, he's seems pretty fucked up to me. He flooded the whole world and killed everything except two of every species. Nowadays, we call stuff like that genocide. He tortures everyone who doesn't agree with him, which is called totalitarianism here on Earth. I don't recall every voting for God, so he's clearly not democratic. Why would anyone want God to exist? He sounds like an asshole, based on most mainstream religious teachings.
I don't believe in God because there are no facts to prove his existence, not because I have anything to gain from it. In addition, I honestly hope he doesn't exist. That's good enough for me to justfiy not believing in him.
At 11/16/08 11:43 PM, Masterzakk wrote: These are MY ideas on how to make america better if you disagree then I say Agree to disagree and point out flaws in my logic if you want. This will be short and sweet.
1. Censorship: Censorship should be annihilated unless under special reasons only. Ratings will be much less stricted because the only things that censorship do is allow immature parents to use the TV as baby sitting rather than teaching their kids about sex, love, resposibilty (ect.ect.)
Okay, I agree.
2. Annihilation of religion: Religion should be annihilated because atheism is the only real answer to everything and if everyone was atheist then we would all be smart and we would all agree on how fucking stupid theism is. This means ALL religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Judiasm, Paganism, Theistic Satanism and Wicca. Practiciing religion will give you a misdeminor or 10 years in jail. Parodys and mocking religious figures are incouraged by the state.
I'm an atheist but being religious does not automatically mean you are dumb. Religion is one aspect of someone's life, and is not connected to intelligence. Do I believe atheism is a smarter theory than theism? Yes, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are smart and all theists are dumb.
3. Legalization of certain drugs to the responcible: People who are responcible are allowed to smoke weed, use LCD, and drink alcholol. Banning of tobacco will make the world better because there is no high and it is dangerous.
How do we define who is "responsible" hint hint IQ is a really bad way. Banning tobacco is dumb aswell, weed, LSD and alchohol are dangerous too. However, I do think weed should be legalized. Your body, you can fuck it up all you want.
4. Ethnocenterism: Only certian people should breed. Race isn't included just the smart vs. the morons. Atheist cannot marry a theist and vice versa. Also people with an IQ of less than 80 percent are too be killed in any way shape or form by the time of 10 if they don't improve.
...no comment
5. Brothels: Street prostitution is still illegal but government brothels are funded and supported especally in war (i.e. like the romans did).
Okay, I agree.
6. Allowing guns to everyone supported by the government.
What?
7. Government: Replacing Americas Democracy with a fascist meritocracy. Destroying any form of inferior sheeple governments such as Communism, Democracy, Socialism.
I'm starting to think this is satire, if it's not then wow...
8. Speech: Everyone has a right to freedom of speech however but their actions are moderated. So basicly you can say the holocaust doesn't happen (supported by the government) and you will not get hurt.
Lol, that's a paradox. FREEDOM of speech means everyone can say whatever they want, unmoderated by the government.
9. War: IQ under 110 can and sometimes will be forced into war. Those whom are favored by the government unless they are speciallist in war are not to be consired with war. Unintelects are pawns of the elite and they are to be abuse.
IQ is not the only way of measuring intelligence. Also, that severly depletes the workforce, because most people "intelligent" people are not manual labourers.
These are a few examples on what I think will make America better. Comment and even if you deny my form of government you know I am right (unless your stupid of course).
Wow, that was the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. I think your the stupid one, and to use your own arguement against you, you shouldn't be allowed to breed, it'll pollute the gene pool.
At 11/17/08 03:52 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: These are the people that are bitching about equal rights, and they attack an old woman's freedom of speech by knocking her cross out of her hands and stomping it, shout and point in her face, and force her to leave their "peaceful" protest.
Well, she's a dumbfuck. What did she expect, going to a protest tolding a symbol that represents something that caused these people to lose rights. That's like going to a rally against segregation wearing a KKK uniform.
Yes the clip is from Fox News. I could not find a single other national station that aired this story. Just imagine if that was a pro religion group, and someone knocked a gay pride sign out of a homosexual's hand. It would have made top story on every other "news" network.
Would they? Who gives a fuck if someone knocks something out of someone's hand. In high school, people used to knock each other's books out of their hands all the time, you don't see it making national news do you?
Open your eyes. Christ how lame beating on a old woman.
I don't see how knocking something out of someone's hand qualifies as "beating on them". Also, that old lady was doing something stupid, and she got what she deserved. If it had been a young man doing the same thing, I doubt we would have even heard about it. But because it's an old lady that got something knocked out of her hand, it's now a matter of public concern, since old ladies geting yelled at is more potent imagery to portray gay people are evil violent law-breakers.
At 11/14/08 09:40 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Israel, would you tear it down?
Personally, I would. I'm sick of hearing about people with posters saying "Israel is the Fourth Reich." or "Ohmert = Hitler" or showing a picture of the Nazi flag and the Israeli one.
If I saw a poster like that at school, I'd tear it down.
If it's racist BS like that, then hell yes I would tear it down. But if it's simply pointing out legitimate concerns about the things that are wrong with Israel (and there are things wrong with Israel) then I leave it up. Being against Israel does not mean you are racist.
At 11/1/08 01:30 AM, Chavic wrote: Not according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs, which is a Nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization in Washington, DC, conducting scientific studies of the news and entertainment media.
Center for Media and Public Affairs is self-proclaimed nonpartisan, but it recieves funding primarily from conservative sources, and has been critized by other watchdog groups and media sources.
I am the greatest person that ever lived. According to your logic, because I said that about myself it is now true.
According to a recent study, "Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain..."
"Reflected positively" is completely relative. It's not like at the end of each report they go, "Obama rules!" or "McCain rules!", thus whenever a report is positive or negative is completely subjective. I watch Fox and see massive bias, but you may watch Fox and see none. As I said, it's completely subjective.
"Meanwhile...Fox News Channel's "Special Report" with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters..."
So for all those naysayers who claim that there is no media bias, or that claim Fox is so "slanted", here you go.
The article can be found in its entirety HERE
I don't think anyone is claiming there is no media bias. I just don't think there is some overwhelming left-wing bias. I see left-wing bias in some sources (ex. MSNBC) and right-wing bias in others (ex.FOX). Bias exists, but it's not only in one direction.
At 10/27/08 06:24 PM, CBP wrote: I don't think they should ban it. It is a pitiful excuse for a news network, no denying that, but banning it would inhibit freedom of speech, and even though they are misguided uninformed dumbasses, they are Americans with freedom of speech.
My thoughts exactly. We all know Fox News is bullshit, even most Republicans admit it, but that doesn't mean it should be banned...
At 10/26/08 03:03 AM, jedi-master wrote:At 10/26/08 02:58 AM, Mast3rMind wrote: From one brother to another brother, I must concur heavily. Republicans haven't had it good with black people since 50's on to the mid 60's.You know what's really ironic about that? The republic party was created by anti-slavery activists who's main goal was to abolish slavery of black people. It's true,look it up from any trustable source,like wikipedia. Well trustable most of the time anyway.
Yes, but they started to turn Democratic in the 40s when Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, which helped lower-income people such as the majority of African Americans. The turn was complete in the 60s when LBJ had Great Society and civil rights. Both parties have done a lot of stuff for minorities, so anyone who tries to turn this thread into another pissing contest about who the supposed racist party is, well, fuck off.
At 10/25/08 06:55 AM, TheMason wrote: I think the Republicans are probably going to recover from this quite easily. In 2010 the Democrats will have had four years of legislative control and two years of executive control. If things are not getting better, they are not going to make significant gains in the mid-term elections. If the Democrats still control both Congress and the Presidency in 2012...and things are not better expect Obama to be a one-termer. In fact the Americanists in my department think that whoever is elected this year will be a one-termer.
So I think losing this year is actually good for the Republican party. If we slide into a depression then fault will go to the Democrats (afterall it is very easy to show where fault can be shared with Clinton and market forces).
Who gets blamed for the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover. Thing is, Hoover was only pres at the very beginning of the Depression. Roosevelt was president for the majority of the depression, but we still blame Hoover (and I'm not saying we shouldn't). The same thing will happen here me thinks. Bush was president at the beginning of this crisis, so just because Obama may be president for the worse of it, doesn't nessicarily mean he's going to get the blame. I'm a sceptical to the bullshit historians who say Roosevelt lengthened the Great Depression, but it's not like the instant he got in every became all shiny again. The guy who starts the shit usually gets blamed. And we all know Roosevelt was hardly a one-termer...
However, I don't think will be a lasting burden for the Republicans. Let's look at another historical example: Watergate. People lost trust in the Republicans and they were forced to build there party from the ground up. The next election they lost, but 4 years later one of their most popular presidents, Ronald Reagan was elected. We might see some short term problems for the Republicans (I guess 4-8 years of Obama), but they'll probably end up rebounding.
If 2012 were today the serious candidates would be:
Huckabee (shudder)
Romney
Palin
Hm...I don't see Palin in there. If she and McCain lose now, then she's probably done as a national candiate. People will remember how she was a liability to McCain. Replace her with Jindal and I think that would be the most realistic list of people who are important NOW. There may be new faces that rise in between now and 2012.
But it is too far in the future to worry about that. In fact the whole economic/business vs. social conservative is kinda hard to tell. People are not as much anti-business as they are anti-bailout (two different things)...and if Obama's government-centric solutions cause them to loose their private sector jobs then social issues will not matter in 2010 or 2012 just as they do not currently matter in 2008.
Well, that all depends on how well Obama does. If he doesn't do well, I agree with you. But he could do well, and in that case the Republicans will go back to their bible-beating social conservatism to seem more in-touch with Americans than the supposed elitist black guy. But as you said, too far in the future to really tell.
At 10/25/08 01:27 AM, Ranger2 wrote: I'm a Northerner, and when we learn about the Civil War it was "we, the Union, freed the slaves, the South was evil and wanted slaves so we killed them, Abe Lincoln was a saint, and Robert E. Lee was a hateful racist slave owner."
Well, slavery was only one issue. There was tariffs, state rights, and a bunch of other stuff that caused substanial rifts between North and South. And really, the South wasn't all about slaves. Only like a third of white males in the South even owned slaves, and those were the rich ones who hardly did any fighting. So why did the other two thirds fight? They thought they were defending their tradition and their way of life from the North. Abe Lincoln was a pretty good president, but some people don't like him because of his authoritarian political leanings. As for Robert E. Lee, he was against slavery. He just couldn't bear fighting against his home state of Virginia, which was in the Confederacy.
We learn that the cause of the war was slavery.
As I said, there was a lot more than that.
That's what you get from a Northern public school.
Well, I went through 6-8 grade in Texas, the Southern state you'll find, and it was way more in-depth. We learned a little more about the other causes. Abe Lincoln was still made out to be a saint, but Lee was given fairer treatment.
But what about you Newgroundsers from "Dixie"?
I'm not from the South, but as I said I went to school there for three years.
What do you learn about the Civil War?
Dang, I'm answering all your questions earlier.
Different name?
What do you mean by that?
Different views?
Meh, a little more indepth, but the message was still the same: Lincoln=saint, South=bad.
What do you learn, Southerners, that we in the North do not about the Civil War?
Ha, again, I already answered this one earlier. I guess I'm just ahead of myself. :P
At 10/23/08 11:14 PM, Blamitality wrote: I thought about a couple questions/statements. Just wanted to see everyone's general opinions. If it's too condensed for one thread alone, or they've all been individually been done before and it slipped by me, my apologies.
1. Brits, as an example, come out to the US for surgery. However, isn't it also true that Americans are now going to India and China in droves for much cheaper operations? This theoretically shows that Americans might not have the best health care in the world after all.
Who said America has the best healthcare in the world? It's already been established it doesn't (and if your interested to know who has the best, it's France, by WHO rankings of course). However, cheaper does not equal better. Chinese and Indian healthcare is probably worse than American healthcare.
2. Nuclear Energy - while I'm for it, many argue that there's only about sixty years' worth of Uranium-235 to be used. Is this true? Wouldn't it thusly mean that a sixteen Billion dollar plant isn't worth the cost, despite how cheap and relatively safe it is?
I'm not sure. I'm for nuclear energy, but I'm also for wind and solar.
2.5. Wind and Solar are unreliable as fuck.
Not really a question, but I'm pretty sure this is bull. While it's true there not as efficient as nuclear power, I'm pretty sure their cheaper. Unreliable though? Maybe not. I'm no expert on this stuff.
3. For God's sakes, shouldn't America be home from Iraq already?
Well, this one doesn't really have a right or wrong answer, so I won't bother giving my opinion, so this thread doesn't turn into another leave vs stay in Iraq one.
4. With China rapidly making the transition to superpower, what steps should be taken?
Well, there's really little we can do to stop China (or Russia) from becoming a superpower. Anything we try to do to stop them will just end up hurting us just as much.
5. The fact that many Americans don't have Health Insurance is a fallacy; you can go to any hospital in the United States and receive defaulted care. However, many Liberals still insist upon some form of Universal Health Care, however. Logically, doesn't this imply that everyone will probably get the same universally shitty healthcare if we commit to such a project?
Yes, but then they have to pay, which could bankrupt them. That's the point of insurance: the pay fro that shit. And considering that most Western nations with universial healthcare have better healthcare than the US, it's hardly shitty.
6. I believe in dedicating money to trying to reform our shitty public Education system - the bureaucracy in LAUSD (Los Angeles Unified School District) needs to be whittled down a bit. However, one made the argument "So because it's shitty, we shouldn't try to dedicate more money to it? The more input, the more output you will receive!"
Well, how else to solve the situation? Dedicate money to reform the system, not to mention the fact that so many of the problems are caused by underfunding in the first place. You can't solve a problem if you just ignore it.
At 10/23/08 09:56 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
See, if you're arguing from the equal rights point of view, that preventing gays from being married is a violation of their rights, this would have to then be applied across the board. How many people who support gay marriage want absolute marriage freedom? If marriage laws discriminate against homosexual couples, then doesn't that mean they also discriminate against polygamists or people who want to get married in threesomes? Wouldn't marriage have to accommodate everyone of every kind of relationship?
You assume all gay marriage supporters are against polygamy and threesomes. I see no problem with polygamy if they have consent.
At 10/23/08 09:49 PM, troubles1 wrote: Obamma has been caught in lie after lie after lie,
And McCain hasn't?
his response is always I was not aware of them being like that, or I was not there,
I need proof for these claims.
he has NO experience other than being a community organizer and throwing a good BBQ for the people of Cabrini Green..
Pfff...your right, that whole thing with the Senate is a sham. Also, Lincoln.
HOW makes him able to leed US in world affairs is beyond me. his own VP is saying he does not have what it takes.
During the primary campaign. It happens. Nice job buying into the McCain bullshit.
people should not Vote for him because he is Black but they are they should vote because he is the best choice ,
And they arn't? Bullshit assumption is fail.
how on earth he can say I am against water boarding terrorists because its inhuman but partial birth abortions is ok,
Because partial birth abortions are humane, considering fetuses arn't human, as opposed to water-boarding.
he even want to kill babies that have been born if the mother tried to abort them by starving the Baby to death.
I need proof of this.
he has made many racist remarks ,
Prove it.
surrounded himself with criminals and terrorists
Prove it.
and continues to make promises that sound good yet he can not explain how he wants to get them done.
And McCain hasn't?
I am truly worried for our country if he is elected.
And I am truely worried for our country if you can vote.
At 10/23/08 09:35 PM, mangostenmaster wrote: I believe this is a list of the good cultures:
1:Spaniard
2:Morrocan
3:Jewish
4:French
Okay.
5:Uk and Ireland +USA and Canada
Pfff... Ireland really isn't like that the UK, US, and Canada culturally.
6:Most other nations in europe.
Wow, that was a really silly lumping together. Can't really compare Norway and Italy and say they have the same culture...
7:Japanese
8:Korean
Okay.
9:Southeast asian and chinese
Southeast Asia is very culturally different from China.
10: African, eastern and northern asian + indian cultures +buddhism, most of asia
How the fuck did you figure this lumping out.
11:most russian and Czech
This is probably better as "Slavic" but they're all pretty different.
12: Brazil, argentina and the rest of the south american nations ex: venezuela and bolivia
I presume you mean Latin American, and why are Venezuela and Bolivia excluded. There very culturally similar to the rest of Latin America.
12: Tolerant islamic nations (Turkey and Albany)
I presume by "Albany" you mean "Albania", but how do we determine "tolerant" islamic nations.
13:Even poland and romanians are on this list. barely
If your going to lump Czech and Russian cultures together, then you better put these guys with them as Slavic cultures.
14: Ethiopia
Okay.
At risk cultures:
1:Tatar
2: Hungary. (One of the most antisemetic and racist groups in europe)
Hm...I don't know much about the subject, but this sounds like a bullshit stereotype to me.
3: lower moderate to mildly fundamental Islam
Again, how do you determine this. And Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, and not just the tolerant types, so it's definatly not at risk.
4: Indonesia and Malaysia
What? Indonesia and Malaysia are doing fine.
5: Lebanese ( moderate)
Wouldn't that go under one of the "Islamic" categories?
6: Greek
Why is Greek in danger?
7: Dubai and some other moderate islamic.
Again, why are these in danger?
8: Bolivia and venezuela
Why are they different from the rest of Latin American, and Bolivia and Venezuela are improving their world standing, so their certainly not "in danger".
Critical condition:
1: Somali
Okay.
2: Extreme fundamental muslim.
Again, world's fastest growing religion.
3: Extinct cultures to an extant.
Okay.
Sorry buddy, not a very good list in my view.
At 10/23/08 08:31 PM, jedi-master wrote: I am actually a prop 8 propenent. And before you or anyone else for that matter start to use the "h" word on me,"homophobe",I'll argue my reason here.
Okay, I'll wait to call you homophobe till after I read your arguements, not before. Happy :P.
Do you not see the basis of their argument? In masachussetts,gay marriage is allowed there,and,they apparently taught gay marriage to 2nd graders.
Your right. We shouldn't acknowlege homosexuality exists. It'll be better of if we just try to cover-up, be real hush-hush about it's existence. Guess what though! If 2nd graderss know about strait marriage, then why can't they know about gay marriage. After all, if your not a homophobe, then shouldn't you believe that gay and strait people are all equal? Why should their marriage be any different?
Now that doesn't spell out red-flag to you sir? I think it should. They're basically saying that if it happened there,then it'll definitely happen here.
Why should that spell out red-flag to me? Teaching kids about something that exists, is legal, and is equal to other similar things doesn't alarm me in the slightest.
I don't hate homosexuals at all,but I very strongly disagree with their lifestyle,and if I had kids running up to me after school saying,"Look daddy! I learned that I can marry other boys,even though I'm a boy!",that would definitely be disturbing to me.
Wait a minute here. You say you don't hate them and your not a homophobe, but you disagree with their lifestyle (whatever that is...being gay isn't a lifestyle, it's a sexual urge that you have no control over). And what's wrong with a kids knowing he has a choice?
Now one may be inclined to state the classic argument," What they do is their own business,and they are not pressing their lifestyle on anyone",when in fact,the media is liberal and everyone knows it,this country is turning liberal quickly,and the gay lifestyle does get pressed on us all the time through subliminal messaging.
Pfff...bullshit. Provide proof for this "subliminal messaging" (and I don't think you really know what that means).
However,I can't exactly back up my last statement at this hour with any viable links to statistics
I could have guessed...
and whatnot,I stand here,firmly believing that Proposition 8 would be the right choice.
For no good reason?
Actually,California's ban on same-sex marriage was overturned by some judges in the state,even though voters elected against proposition 22,which was almost a decade ago,which detailed an opposite meaning to propostion * now,which would have,had it passed,legalize same-sex marriage.
"A decade ago". A decade is a long time, people change.
But voters turned it down. All of a sudden,the judges ruled against that,which went completely against the rules of democracy,and overturned the ban.
If the majority voted to legalize murder, would you be pissed if the judges turned it down? The majority is not always right.
To reiterate my position on prop 8,I firmly support it in all of its entirety. I respect your opinion on this matter,and I only ask that you respect my opinion on this issue.
I'll respect your opinion if you provide something to back it up.
At 10/23/08 07:57 PM, fli wrote:Ok. I'll vote be sure to vote on this,prop "9",you speak of. ;)
Vote no on 9.
Lol, typo...deal with it.
And know to make good on my previous statement: homophobe.
At 1/23/08 06:12 PM, ps2gamer72450 wrote: Who thinks we should use the Atomic Bomb on the Middle East and just end the bullshit.
Atomic bombs: outdated. Middle East: region, not country.
Yes there are inoccent people over there who would be harmed. But is it the minority? Or the majority?
Um...that would depend on the country, and how you define "innocent". I bet a massive majority have never engaged in terrorist activity. Maybe a majority of the pop doesn't like the US, but that doesn't really make them "guilty" of anything so...
We rebuilt that country once, we should destroy it this time.
Wait, what? Why? Why would you destroy their country, which would only suceed in getting the entire fucking world pissed at us, not to mention everyone inside this country with an IQ over 40.
But, nope, we're rebuilding them back to attack status.
Um...you do realize that they were never at "attack status" because they never had the capacity to perform an attack on the US, right. We're the ones that attacked them...
This post is so made of fail it's unbelievable.
At 10/22/08 07:36 PM, Al6200 wrote: What do you think is the future of the Republican party? With their reputation tarnished, and their ranks split by the economic crisis (Republicans were the bulk of the opposition to the bailout), who and what will they unite around in the future?
Well, I'm a Democrat, but I know the Democrats were just as responsible for the economic crisis as the Republicans (Fannie and Freddie) but I think the public for the most part blames it on the Republicans, so I suppose your right.
Who will the Republicans run in the 2012 and 2016 elections if McCain loses this one? Who do you think they should run? What issues do you think they should focus on?
I think predicting who they will run 4-8 years later is a little silly. Do you think anyone predicted "Oh the Democratic candiate next election will be a young black guy form Illinois" in 2004 or 2000. I doubt it, and I doubt almost equally they would have predicted McCain. We could see new faces, old comebacks, or anything else.
As for who they should run, that's another big what if. It depends on what the conditions are. If we're still in a economic downturn, or a recession, or even a depression, then they should focus on the economy and try to blame it on the Dems, and president Obama (we are prosuming Obama wins, right) who won't have improved anything.
But if we're not, then they should focus on what they usually do: hot button social issues. That's what wins them most elections. And they should know it. Think, social issues have played big parts in the last two elections, and the Republicans won. But in this election, they've been almost ignored, and in all likelyhood the GOP will lose. The book What happened to Kansas? makes a good point along those lines.
Now to answer my own questions:
I think the future of the Republican party will probably fall to people like Mike Huckabee and Bobby Jindal. As much as I hate to say it, the anti-business attitude that exists today will make it quite difficult for someone like Mitt Romney to be successful. We've already seen the Republican's populist side in their opposition to the bailout bill, and I think that they're going to continue to act that way so as to differentiate themselves from Bush's Republicans.
Meh, Mitt Romney was my favorite to win the GOP nomination this year, but I agree with you, they need some hardcore social conservatives like Huckabee and Jindal, but not nessicarily them exactly. Could be any social conservative.
As far as issues, I think that the Republicans are going to be very socially conservative, but moderate on some economic issues. Fair Tax is probably going to become more central, and I suspect that the Republicans will move away from free trade positions too.
Well, they don't nessicarily have to be moderate economically to be successful, they just don't have to focus on the economy. People will look at the issues that the major parties want to focus them the election on. How many people have told you there voting for McCain/Obama because of their positions on social issues? Not many I bet. Most will say economic issues, less foreign policy, and hardly any social issues.
In 2012 (all assuming McCain loses) I think it's going to be Mike Huckabee. If he loses to Obama then I think the Republicans will run Jindal in 2016.
Meh...again, I think giving names are silly. Better just give characteristics. Both those guys could have faded from the politcal scene. But I suppose that it could happen. George McGovern lost the Democratic nomination in 68, but came back and got it in 72 (but he wasn't very successful, he only won Mass.).
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
