Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

On the subject of Malaysia, it's too bad that separation of church and state isn't enforced there. I think freedom of and from religion is one of our fundamental rights (such as freedom of speech). I'm glad that most First World nations have it protected in their constitution, it's too bad Malaysia doesn't.

Didn't mean to get too frantic (I was typing fast!) in my last post. I'd like to correct that I said "Killing all Jews is the official policy of Hamas". To be honest I'm not too well versed on Hamas official policy, that was a flawed statement. However I would point out that they do advocate violent anti-Semitism; at least they do on their Al Aqsa TV station. (You might remember the pro-militant Mickey Mouse-type thing). I also said "the State of Israel just wants to protect its own people." I'd like to acknowledge that like pretty much every country, Israel has its own levels of political corruption, but you gotta remember that with the position Israel is in it does need to defend itself, and that it is a contradiction to defend whatever hostilities are brought against Israel but then get mad when Israel fights back against militants. That doesn't mean it should use the same tactics that terrorists like Hamas use, but collateral damage and mistakes do happen, and you should not fault the entire state of Israel for the actions of some certain soldiers.

Mathaeus, just because the right-wing extremists are usually wrong doesn't mean we have to oppose them just for the sake of diagreeing with them. Sparda may say some stupid things but that doesn't mean he might have picked up one thing that the right-wingers have right. (Albeit for the wrong reasons, usually) Being pro-Israel is one of the few things they do have right. War crimes happen in every war; the actions of certain specific Israeli soldiers do not justify the hatred of the entire state of Israel and its people. Hamas and other groups are much more menacing than Israel. Hamas's official policy is to kill ALL JEWS. It's not about stealing land, they just want to destroy Israel because it allows Jews to have an equal place in society. In the non-Palestinian authority regions of Israel Arabs and Jews can live side by side with no problems, but it is the hate-mongering Islamist extremists who break every treaty and ceasefire they are offered and continue to extend the cycle of violence who should be fought against, not the State of Israel which is just trying to protect its people. It may make its fair share of poor decisions in handling the conflict but this does not mean that the PLO or any of its hateful Islamist anti-peace groups are any better. The Palestinian Authority could be just as free as the rest of Israel (Israel even has a better freedom of the press ranking with reporters without borders than the United States) if the PLO did not keep igniting anti-Semitic violence which kills innocent Palestinians and Israelis. On purpose! They are terrorists, killing civilians is their OFFICIAL POLICY. That is wrong. Continuing the cycle of violence is WRONG. The PLO is WRONG. Israel, stolen land or not (it's not) is a legitimate, democratic state with freedoms found nowhere else in the middle east. For the PLO to destroy that just so they can start another state under Sharia law and oppress women and Jews is WRONG. There are enough oppressive Islamic regimes. For there to say there cannot be a state that is Jewish that doesn't even enforce Jewish law while there are so many states that are officially Islamic and enforce Islamic law is HYPOCRISY.

When the BRITISH Mandate of Palestine was given the 1948 U.N. Partition Plan that gave Israel only a tiny piece of land, it was not good enough for some arab states' leaders. Instead they started a war to make sure that Jews could never be equal in the society they live in. This conflict is born out of anti-Semitism. There were Jews living in Palestine too, they didn't "steal" the land any more than Syria or Jordan did.Come on. What good can come out of the PLO destroying Israel? Look at how far the state has come, it is a developed first world nation. Letting the PLO destroy it will only turn it into a powderkeg like Lebanon. Israel has its problems like any state, and does unjust things like any state, but the PLO is not making it any better. In fact, they are causing the injustice by disrupting peace and continuing to force Israel to take drastic measures it would not otherwise have to take. Do you really think violence is better? Violence is not necessary here. Look at how free the rest of Israel is? Why? Because the PLO does not cause so much chaos there! Chaos like the kind the PLO brings oppression. The PLO is working against its name; Palestine WOULD be liberated if they just allowed there to be peace. But nope, breaking every ceasefire and murdering innocent Israeli civilians, then hiding behind your own and causing more of your own to get killed kind of prevents that.

To conclude: Israel has made its own mistakes, but the PLO helps create these terrible incidents by preventing peace using its terroristic tactics and inciting anti-Semitic hatred. Jews and Arabs can live side-by-side in Israel; let there be peace so it can be the same in Gaza in the West Bank by stopping the PLO from continuing the hatred and violence and let there be a democratic free state, not another one ruled by corrupt anti-Semites and Sharia law so people of all faiths can be treated as equals.

There can and will continue to be debate because many religious extremists don't want to look at those facts, and they want to continue to enforce their religion on the rest of us. :\ Thanks for the facts though buddy. :D

At 5/29/07 06:56 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: oh yes by protesting the goverment that has held our country since the fore fathers created it? that is unpatriotic.

Protesting the government is not unpatriotic. The right to protest is part of what the USA was founded on. Now you may have heard the quote "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." (often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, but it is not). But hey, why listen to me? How about we hear what the founding fathers had to say about the government?

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then." - Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"- Benjamin Franklin

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams

" believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations
." - James Madison

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad. " - James Madison

It is a way too common misconception that the Founding Fathers would have wanted the government to restrict liberty like this. They encouraged and wanted people to protest the government and were very much against a huge wide-encompassing government that would cause citizens' to give up their rights to privacy and expression. But here you are complaining because a woman, her ideals aside, decided to exercise her rights supported by the Constitution AND Founding Fathers to tell the government that she did not agree with what was going on. Cindy Sheehan certainly wasn't right about anything but apparently you too have quite the misconception on what constitutes being pro-American as well.

The Founding Fathers found protesting the government to be VERY patriotic, and saying that it isn't when we have a government that was founded by people who wanted us to exercise that right seems very ironic to me.

Morality. Right and wrong, good and evil. To me, I find it hard to rightfully describe anybody as being an evil person. Many people later regret their actions, but everyone has their own (borrowed or not) ideas about right and wrong. If someone regrets doing something they considered to be wrong, how can they be evil if they realize that doing wrong was bad and that was something they didn't want to happen? If someone doesn't regret doing something you think is bad, how can they considered be evil when they simply did not know any better? Even someone who claims that they want to do evil and that evil is their path, how can they be evil when what they call is evil is what they think is right?

I think it is matter of enlightenment and ignorance. Hurting people for doing what you think is wrong just because you did not like what they did and not to prevent further wrong... it just doesn't really seem logical.

At 5/23/07 11:52 PM, Empanado wrote: flammable content

I can see the lawsuit forming now.

At 5/23/07 11:32 PM, jAk88 wrote: Diversity is fine. Multiculturalism is killing America. The idea that different cultures can co-exist in a country is absurd and has never worked. America has one culture, and that is a culture of America, not a culture of Hispanic and America, or even more than that.

Canada is a perfect example of where multiculturalism doesn't work. Even now, half of the population of Quebec wants to seperate from Canada, weakening the country.

Your ideas are dangerous to the livelihood of a nation. We were not ment to be multicultural.

??? I'd like to see some statistics on that Quebec separatism statement. I heard from a friend in Montreal it was closer to 35%, not too far away from the American population that still supports Bush. :) So let's not say that Quebec is about to go into open rebellion.

And how can you call a country that was colonized by people from all across Europe non-multicultural? Add all the descendent's of African slaves, Chinese immigrants, Native Americans and other various immigrants, and I'd have to say that the culture of the U.S. is predominantly created by the mixing of various foreign cultures. (In addition to what Native American influence is left,)

At 5/23/07 11:33 PM, jAk88 wrote: So? We colonized this continent, made it our own, made our own culture, and that is the culture of America. We cannot have two cultures co-existing in one nation. They all fail.

American culture is based on the blending of multiple cultures. Remember the "melting pot" thing?

What I'd like to see is immigration reform so it would be easier for those who want to get across the border to do so legally and without breaking whatever financial stability they have left. The Western world is seeing a lot of population decline, we're not China yet; there are plenty of places that could use a few extra people.

At 5/23/07 11:37 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 5/23/07 11:28 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: I want to create my own personal jet stream wherever I go!

fire extinguisher

I think that would have an adverse effect on the flying using burning jet fuel part.

At 5/23/07 11:13 PM, Empanado wrote:

At 5/23/07 10:29 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Does that mean if I keep posting we'll jump forward in time? :D How do we act once we get to the 2008th page? Can you tell me the future, oh wise man?

flying cars

Finally. I'm still waiting for the jetpacks though. Come on, they've been telling us about it for more than half-a century, I want to create my own personal jet stream wherever I go!

The U.S. government can't stop you from celebrating Hitler day, but that doesn't mean that those of us who, you know, have a fair bit of disagreement with a guy who ordered the murder of over 6 million people don't have the right NOT to celebrate either.

At 5/23/07 10:03 PM, Elfer wrote: If you can't taste and can't see, your face was probably blown off in some sort of accident, therefore a civic holiday is meaningless to you.

Or you could be Stevie Wonder with a cold.

Oh man, I just noticed this guy was a nazi.

And if you nazis are really so much more oppressed than the homosexuals and non-white people you preach hate against, why was David Duke allowed to run for public office. And win?

At 5/23/07 09:17 PM, reviewer-general wrote: And in honor of this being the 2007th page in this, the 2007th year AD, I decree that this page be dominated by infighting, external conflict, and high gas prices.

*thunks down gavel*

;

Does that mean if I keep posting we'll jump forward in time? :D How do we act once we get to the 2008th page? Can you tell me the future, oh wise man?

I don't have to go to those websites to tell you, "um....yeah". Of course the U.S. funded "mujahideen", the "mujahideen" were fighting Hussein/the Soviets. Most of us know that there are plenty of corrupt fellows higher up, and guess what? That includes the U.K. The way I look at it is, "Yeah, the Western world has a lot of political corruption, but it's still not as bad as the rest of the world."

Just because something sucks doesn't mean the other things suck less.

I mean, you could be choosing between food that's slightly too old, and food that's made out of feces. One is bad but that doesn't change the fact that the other is worse.

And please don't let Dante bother you, I think this is just where he lets off steam. As much as you might consider somebody like him to be a stereotypical American most of us are much closer to the center. Bush's approval ratings are below 40% after all.

It's true that the U.S. funded a lot of shady characters to fight the Soviets, but I think most of it was to prevent Soviet expansion... let's face it, we're probably a lot better off with a number of terrorists attacking us then in the middle of a war with an overgrown Soviet Union. Not to say a lot of the funding wasn't the result of rampant political corruption, 'o course. But most nations have rampant political corruption these days, and the states under Sharia law are definitely no exception.

At 5/3/07 07:39 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: That's fucking sad. Most Americans are getting news through a show that isn't even made to inform, but rather create politically-biased humor for the pure source of entertaining people who are already liberal, and swaying the impressionable mind of people who aren't.

For shame.

I highly doubt most people who watch satires like that are using it as their only source of news. It's not like watching Jackass, it's political satire, and if you really want to understand that you're gonna already have to be somewhat informed.

Anyways, better liberal satire than conservative hypocrisy. Limbaugh went on tirades against drug users, then they find out he's been popping more pills than Andy Dick... poor guy. The Daily Show isn't very far left though, Jon Stewart's a smart guy. He's buddies with McCain. :) He's got some knowledge of the borderline between blind devotion to a political ideology and common sense.

At 5/1/07 11:49 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/1/07 02:38 PM, OptiPrime wrote: I got into an argument with someone the other day about the War effort in Iraq, and they came to the conclusion that if you don't support the Allies, you support the terrorists. And quite frankly, that's a crock of shit.

It's actually fairly close to the truth when you look at today's liberals.

Come on, that's like saying all of today's conservatives are like Pat Robertson. How many liberals do you actually know who support the insurgency? Those are far on the extreme end in the U.S. Dems here don't want the terrorists to win, they are just opposed to the war and the reasons for fighting it, and while some of their plans for it may be a bit shaky, their intent is not for the terrorists to win.

Personally I think GW went to Iraq for the wrong reasons, and regardless of how fuck-hopeless the situation is, not setting a deadline is the same as sitting behind his desk twiddling his thumbs,

And setting a timeline against the Military's wishes (cause, you know, what does the military know anyway right?) is so much better.

While I'm not so sure that a timeline is the best idea (some good arguments against it posted here), you should keep in mind that the military is under the control of the Executive Branch, so it is not surprising that their official position would be that of the President's.

At 5/1/07 01:26 PM, Tal-con wrote:

I don't drive, and I never see picketers in Sparta, New Jersey, so I wouldn't know about that.

Sparta, New Jersey? I bet your city had a great time when "300" came out. :)

I think that this guy has the wrong perception of the "liberal" media. This sounds more like something about commercialism, not liberalism.

"In 1964, Israel began withdrawing water from the Jordan River for its National Water Carrier. The following year, the Arab states began construction of the Headwater Diversion Plan, which, once completed, would divert the waters of the Banias Stream so that the water would not enter Israel, and the Sea of Galilee, but rather flow into a dam at Mukhaiba for Jordan and Syria, and divert the waters of the Hasbani into the Litani, in Lebanon. The diversion works would have reduced the installed capacity of Israel's carrier by about 35%, and Israel's overall water supply by about 11%.[4] The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) attacked the diversion works in Syria in March, May, and August of 1965, perpetuating a prolonged chain of border violence that linked directly to the events leading to war.[6]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War)

Sounds like they had a reason to fight.

"Chaim Herzog,

On June 19, 1967, the National Unity Government [of Israel] voted unanimously to return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace agreements. The Golans would have to be demilitarized and special arrangement would be negotiated for the Straits of Tiran. The government also resolved to open negotiations with King Hussein of Jordan regarding the Eastern border.[92]

The Israeli decision was to be conveyed to the Arab nations by the United States. The US was informed of the decision, but not that it was to transmit it. There is no evidence of receipt from Egypt or Syria, and some historians claim that they may have never received the offer.[93]

Later, the Khartoum Arab Summit resolved that there would be "no peace, no recognition and no negotiation with Israel." However, as Avraham Sela notes, the Khartoum conference effectively marked a shift in the perception of the conflict by the Arab states away from one centered on the question of Israel's legitimacy toward one focusing on territories and boundaries and this was underpinned on November 22 when Egypt and Jordan accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.[94]"

And they offered to give the land back, but nooooo, they wouldn't negotiate. Sounds to me like these countries discarded these lands when they refused to negotiate at first. Plus, they agreed to the ceasefire, which did not include Israel giving the land back, so it also sounds like they conceded the land.

Honestly, Israel is a tiny peace of land, and whenever it actually wins territory in a war of THEIR aggression they even complain about that. Just makes the extremism and anti-semitism more evident.

Another piece of evidence: " Syria, aligned with the Soviet bloc, began sponsoring guerrilla raids on Israel in the early 60s as part of its "people's war of liberation", designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Ba'ath Party.[5]" (wikipedia) (Yes, I know I'm citing wikipedia as a source, if you can disprove the sources it cites that works)

I think we're all pretty sure that these nations were already aggressive towards Israel...

I don't think we can judge how we should send aid to an entire continent. It must be dealt with in a case by case basis. There are some places where aid will help. and other places where the aid won't help. One of the biggest problems is that in the poorest places the government is sometimes too corrupt to even send all the aid that it is given to the people. There are many places ravaged where people may have been able to survive before. Those people have to rely on aid packages because they can't grow food anymore. If there's a bad season, many people could die, and that's the way it is in many places. Africa needs more social help programs but with the governments being corrupt as they are it's hard to get the money to the people who actually need it.

At 4/29/07 10:25 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 4/29/07 10:21 PM, Gunter45 wrote: That's why I watermarked it.

That's why I didn't use it.

And that's why we are here on this Pale Blue Dot.

At 4/29/07 10:17 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I decided to go ahead and make my own baby carriage sig. I haven't made a sig in a while and I had a really good idea so I ran with it, what do you guys think?

Morbid but funny.

I was going to do one that was going to be "Badly edited pictures" then "My sense of humor" but meh.

Ahmudi, I don't think everything Israel does is good, and I don't think everything Arabs do is bad. Atrocities always happen in wars and they're usually the fault of individual soldiers who went over the edge. However in the case of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other extremist groups this is official policy.

I don't think Israel is perfect, but I do think that having a democratic nation with civil liberties is much better than another oppressive regime under Sharia law. What I would like to see in Palestine is peace, I don't want the Palestinian or Lebanese people to be eradicated, I'd much rather see a peaceful relationship between the nations. But I do understand that when extremist groups initiate even more violence, Israel has a right to defend its own country. They're not perfect but they're certainly better than having extremists who want to murder as many Jews as they can in power. If a two-state solution is achievable, that's fine because it will at least stop the violence (for the time being).

Notice how they're terror suspects. Anybody ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

I think that giving aid to Africa should be dealt with on a country-to-country basis, it's kind of hard to judge a very diverse continent with diverse economic conditions like that without going into more detail.

At 4/29/07 07:54 PM, Ahmudi wrote:

At 4/29/07 07:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Ahmudi, you don't see women covering their whole bodies often because Brazil isn't under Sharia law. Take a look at Yemen and you'll see it's pretty different.

dude im talking whe i was in lebanon, and when i traveled to arabic countries !!! Only in few countries the Sharia laws are used !!! ( its BraSil, not BraZil) In brasil girls go out nearly naked !!!

The English spelling is "Brazil". The Portugese spelling is "Brasil". On the subject of English, exclamation points aren't necessary for every sentence, they aren't a space away from the end, and unless you're yelling really loud, you don't need three of them for every sentence. Also, im has an apostrophe between the i and the m. The first word of every sentence is capitalized, and the word "I" is capitalized. So are the names of countries. Also, Arabic refers to the language; these countries would be referred to as the "Arab" countries. There should be an "a" in between "in" and "few". "Only in a few countries the Sharia laws are used" is bad sentence structuring, and it should be "The Sharia laws are used in only a few countries" or "Only a few countries are the Sharia laws used." There should be a comma after "Dude". Oh, and you misspelled "when".

:) No offense, but maybe you shouldn't pick at my English usage. Which Arab countries did you travel to, though? Some of them do follow Sharia very strictly but I suppose a few are more liberal.

Ahmudi, you don't see women covering their whole bodies often because Brazil isn't under Sharia law. Take a look at Yemen and you'll see it's pretty different.

The Palestinian people are being deceived to believe that Israel is their enemy, that all Jews are their enemy. They are being exploited to the use of the anti-Semitic extremists. When many Palestinians see their own people being killed, they naturally want to hate Israel because of it. But the truth of the matter is, their sons and daughters would not have had to have been killed like that if the extremists worked for peace instead of the destruction of the Jewish people. What is preventing Arabs and Jews from living in peace in the Palestinian Authority is the extremists refusal to accept that Israel is defending itself from the Arab countries that have tried to destroy it many times, and when they cannot destroy it themselves they exploit their own people to make it look as if Israel hates them. Jews do not all hate Arabs. In the part of Israel that is not the Palestinian Authority, they live side by side in a land where both people are free to practice their religions in peace. Extremists want to break that peace by exploiting people for their own ends and destroying the only functioning relatively free nation in the Middle East because it allows Jews to be equals and it does not enforce the religion of Islam on everyone who lives there. Don't advocate the destruction of Israel, advocate peace in the land, so that both Arabs and Jews are free to live as they wish without extremists interfering by creating totally unnecessary wars.

Regardless of the history behind the conflict (which I'm fairly sure favors Israel), I think it's a bit more wise to keep the only functioning democratic nation with civil rights in the Middle East as opposed to letting another theocracy under Sharia law with no rights prop up. It is possible that a two-state solution might work for this situation, just to stop the violence, but we're not going to see that until terrorist organizations stop purposefully attacking Israel's civilian in addition to military population and therefore pushing the peace process back and back as Israel has to enact stricter laws and more occupation just to protect its own people. Less Palestinians would die if more Palestinian terrorists didn't have a problem with massacring their own people just to prove a point. When israel is faced with causing a number of civilian casualties in addition to militant casualties (it can't avoid them because of where the militants decide to hide) as opposed to just letting its own people be killed, it's going to fight for its own population. The anti-Semitic intolerant terrorists are to blame for the oppression of the Palestinian people, not Israel. Don't blame Israel when it fires back at Hamas and civilians die, blame Hamas for hiding in civillian areas and preventing the continuance of the peace process.

Because shared prison cells where you have quite a possibility of getting anally raped on a regular basis, have no rights, can't leave with worse food than in school cafeterias are "comfy little hotel rooms." I don't think that we should let all criminals just run free but I think that many people who try to be so hard on crime have no idea what a real prison is like.

Good thing you and that epic biker dude and everybody else didn't get hurt, Potentate. I hear it's like time slows when stuff like that happens.