Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/22/07 10:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 4/22/07 10:19 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 4/22/07 09:19 PM, JakeHero wrote:

It makes it harder for people to get help because of the social stigma, and that creates poor and homeless people.

So then it was the result of thier bad choices and inaction then?

Not always, no.

Their fault they weren't born into a richer family? To get out of their addictions they're gonna need some help most of the time.

Because obviously you can't succeed unless you were born rich in this country. So how do you explain all the rags to riches stories, or even poor people still working jobs and other means of a profession

Sometimes people get lucky, yeah, but people act as if everyone has the same chance, which they do not.

It is the government's job to help its own citizens. Libertarianism does not prohibit helping people who CONSENT to being helped. Libertarianism is about protecting individual freedoms. And I am not going to say I am a pure libertarian. Most of the time it is foolish to devote yourself to an "ism". Either way I believe in protecting individual liberties while providing help to those who need it, because government's job is to help its citizens while not acting as a parent who punishes individuals for hurting themselves, but only providing assistance when it is wanted. That's why I believe in legalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc.

It's the governments job to protect it's people's rights and thier freedoms, It isn't thier job to safeguard someone that either landed in obscurity and poverty from thier own lack of intelligence, poor choices in life and errors.

Okay, let's say someone works for a company, and is a good worker and has a home and steady job and good standard of living, okay? Then some guys higher up commit massive corporate fraud which tears the entire company, causing everyone to lose their jobs and benefits, which eventually drives the guy into homelessness. Is that a result of his own bad decisions?

MortifiedPenguins, what exactly DO you think the government's job is if it's not even to care for its individual citizens? I know you said it's not its job to intervene in Darfur, but not even to help individual citizens? What exactly is a government for then?

Plus: Politicians won't have to suck up to everyone and make bad decisions just to make sure they're re-elected.

Minus: Politicians won't have to care as much about what they do that pisses the people off because they don't have to worry about being re-elected; i.e. they can break their campaign promises without it backfiring on them next election

It's a bittersweet thing, really.

At 4/22/07 09:19 PM, JakeHero wrote: It's not the government's job to squander my tax dollars on bums because they spend all their money on their next fix.

Not all homeless people are addicted to drugs, you know that's just a stereotype. And even the ones that are- the government is helping to create that problem with the needless drug prohibition. By making drugs illegal they make more criminals by getting people involved with gangs and the mafia, and they support organized crime by giving them another way to make money (selling illegal drugs). It makes it harder for people to get help because of the social stigma, and that creates poor and homeless people.

Really, why don't those lazy homeless people just become CEOs? With the money they don't have? Oh...

Mostly, it's their fault. And for the few that are mentally ill there are institution that will treat them free of charge, but most of them just waste their money on hedonism, as I stated above, and therefore, deserve no handouts.

Their fault they weren't born into a richer family? To get out of their addictions they're gonna need some help most of the time.

It takes money to make money.

Yes, but throwing money at a problem will not only not fix it, but waste resources at the tax payer's expense. You'll readily confirming my view of you being a faux libertarian. If I remember, libertarians believe in smaller government and "everyone leaves everyone else alone" and not one that has free reign to spend our money as it pleases.

Throwing money at the problem? How is offering social help services throwing money at the problem? Helping people recover from addictions and poverty is not merely throwing money at the problem. Plus, it is not a waste of money. If you just let all these people suffer we will simply spend that money treating their injuries in a hospital and burying them when they die. It is in our interests to help the impoverished because eventually it'll bite us back.

It is the government's job to help its own citizens. Libertarianism does not prohibit helping people who CONSENT to being helped. Libertarianism is about protecting individual freedoms. And I am not going to say I am a pure libertarian. Most of the time it is foolish to devote yourself to an "ism". Either way I believe in protecting individual liberties while providing help to those who need it, because government's job is to help its citizens while not acting as a parent who punishes individuals for hurting themselves, but only providing assistance when it is wanted. That's why I believe in legalization of drugs, prostitution, abortion, etc.

Small government isn't jailing people for doing drugs, by the way.

At 4/22/07 03:55 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

This is not 1984, the government is not a social engineering project, people have to live and die with the choices they made in life.

Yeah, why didn't those lazy poor people choose to be born into a rich family where they had money to go to college? Gosh I don't know what's wrong with these people...

At 4/22/07 07:06 PM, JakeHero wrote:

Forced good will*, if the government spends my money to help people that should help themselves.

Oh no, the government is spending money to help its own citizens. Really, why don't those lazy homeless people just become CEOs? With the money they don't have? Oh...

It takes money to make money.

At 4/22/07 05:58 PM, YHWH wrote: Vote libertarian. The Communists want all your money.

Voting libertarian would be a good idea if they had any semblance of a chance of winning; to me in the United States it's more important to ensure the lesser of two evils. That said, I doubt the libertarians or communists have much of a chance in Wales either, so I'd go for the lesser of two evils there as well.

"It works great for cuba but fucked russia up."

Cuba is fucked up too. Few democratic or civil rights, high poverty, no, no, no.

By the way, I don't mean to be rude, but if you're going to call other people 13 or tell us to respond like adults, maybe you should take a little time to proofread the first post of the topic.

+5 for unnecessary use of "sports fans" XD Made me smile.

At 4/22/07 01:30 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Apparently Canada doesn't have freedom of speech any more.

Anyways, how would one prosecute an internet site, when it's the World Wide Web. You couldn't, could you?

There are libel cases here too, sometimes. And I suppose he's suing the owners of the websites. Poor Jimbo Wales!

"The hosts of the speed-of-light world of Internet blogs and interactive websites that publish anonymous commentary should be forced to pay when reputations are damaged, says a former Green Party staff member who is suing three such sites.

Google, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and openpolitics.ca, a Canadian political website based in Toronto, are being sued in Vancouver in a libel case that could change the way Internet opinion is monitored and published.

Wayne Crookes, a former campaign manager of the Green Party of Canada, said he “suffered an immense amount of frustration and emotional distress” over postings on Google's Blogspot.com, a free blog-hosting website, within an entry under his name in Wikipedia, and on openpolitics.ca, an interactive political forum set up by Michael Pilling, an Ontario and federal Green Party activist.

The lawsuit against Google was filed in British Columbia Supreme Court on April 16. It states that last summer, six anonymous defendants put libellous comments on Blogspot's The Green Compost Heap under passages labelled “Wayne Crookes” and the “Gang of Crookes.”

The suit against Wikipedia was filed on April 17. In this case, an article on Mr. Crookes written under the pseudonym of “Indyperson” repeated some of the comments that appeared on The Green Compost Heap.

The lawsuit against openpolitics.ca was made in May, 2006, and stems from postings in early 2005.

“I resent very much irresponsible statements made very recklessly. I'm determined that the people who have acted so irresponsibly will find that there are consequences,” Mr. Crookes said.

“I hope that the outcome is that people will realize they have obligations and that they will be forced to accept responsibility for their actions. The larger the organization, the greater the expectation that they will be held accountable for their actions.”

Mr. Pilling, a former research head for the Green Party of Canada, confirmed that he was preparing to defend himself vigorously.

He said he understood why Mr. Crookes was upset, but that the case had wider implications.

“It is a case that could potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court because there is very little on the books in Canadian case law with respect to libel and Internet defamation,” he said.

“As the operator of the site, I'm being held responsible for edits that were made by others either as registered users or anonymous users.

“[Mr.] Crookes seems to contend that even though pages were removed from public view or potentially defamatory words were removed from the page that [as moderator of the site], I'm still liable.”

Dermod Travis, a former communications director for the Green Party who is acting as Mr. Crookes's spokesman, said that the defendants “chose not to respond appropriately when put on notice that they [had] crossed a line.''

The American headquarters of both Google and Wikipedia declined to comment as they had not yet been served with the writ." - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20070419.wwikipedia0420/BNStory/Technol ogy/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070419.wwikipedia042 0

Here's the slashdot posting I found it from.

I hope this gets thrown out of court. What if Bush tried to sue everybody who called him an idiot?

Money money money money money... MONAY!

'TIs a shame indeed.

At 4/16/07 02:56 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/16/07 02:48 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/16/07 02:33 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 4/14/07 08:14 AM, Drakim wrote:
First of all, you can pick your own religion. Nobody is forcing you to have THIS religion.

Acually my pedigree chum some parents in high religious societies can force their religion onto their child, especially when they are in their troubling teens.

Well, yeah, but they can't enforce that when the child grows up. Thus, when you are grown up and free, you can pick to either stick with what your parents forced on you, or change to something else. Either way, it is something you choose.

Yes, getting dragged to church, having to pray and getting told at an early age that if you dont follow Gods law you are going to Hell to be tortured for the rest of existance is really giving them a choice.

Yeah. Sometimes this kind of extremism actually backfires though, as in the case of George Carlin, who was raised Catholic. And Drakim I already posted a whole bunch of links of breaches of religious freedom...

At 4/19/07 07:36 PM, Korriken wrote: sounds like american democrats to me. they held blacks in slavery, then formed the Jim Crow laws, which got shot down, and how they're screaming for equal rights for all minorities... eh, politics is a game of "who can adapt to trends" before the others do.

The parties switched ideologies, yeah. It's not the same people who are liberal now that were Dems then.

At 4/19/07 05:21 PM, zzzzd wrote: Gang Culture has been on the up in the UK for along time, Gun Crime was rising Before and After the Gun Ban. The Ban on Guns did reduce Gun Crime, But Gang Cultue and illegal Guns counteracted the statistics.

School Shootings aren't proffesionaly planned, the kids in most cases, don't know any arms dealers, They Just use there parents guns or buy them legaly down the shop.

So Allthough I agree with you that Gun Bans won't reduce some Gun Crime it will reduce these fucked up school shootings.

Also if gun laws aren't going to do anything about it. And leniant gun laws aren't to blame then tell me why the fuck America is were the majority of these school shootings take place?

So you're saying that someone who is willing to commit mass murder is going to think that illegally purchasing a firearm is too much? Just because something is banned doesn't mean that it's impossible to acquire, and without the legal purchase there is no record to go along with the purchase.

At 4/18/07 11:15 PM, Altarus wrote: Fork, the topic was originally about the media coverage of the deaths at VT as opposed to the deaths in Iraq, not about American foreign policy.

Actually, no... he posted a news story and referenced the VT shootings as a side.

At 4/18/07 11:04 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 4/18/07 10:51 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: According to current population estimates, I believe that would be over 26 trillion dollars. Also, please tell me your plan to deport 26,783,383 from their own land without regard to their own will.

You have a point...maybe you should give them mexican pesos or chinese yuan or something. Build them some houses and give them jobs.

Most countries have enough problem providing houses and jobs for their own people; it's even harder to do it in a war zone. The United States does not have an unlimited amount of money. We have plenty of slums ourselves. Not that I think we're better then Iraqis, I just don't see the money coming from anywhere... plus, we do not have the right to force everyone to move out of their homes.

The problem with that is that it seems unlikely that the dust will settle for a very long time due to all the sectarian violence. The U.S. leaving won't stop the militias from killing each other and random defenseless civilians. And whenever the U.S. does use its power to enforce the will of its government by intimidating other nations, you complain, so I don't know why you're saying that.

I complain about usa double standards. If the USA overthrew mubarak or the Sauds, i wouldn't complain at all, as they are horrible dictators. However, the usa support these people which is quite disturbing and an embarrassment to your country.

You will when the foreign "mujahideen" and local population rebels and creates a terrible war zone filled with invisible guerilla warfare, just like Iraq. The U.S. cooperates with corrupt regimes because it needs footholds in the region. It's a sad but honest truth. Unless you want to fight the entire Arab League (which would be WWIII.. or IV if you count the Cold War as III), some sort of diplomatic portals need to be open. It's sad that these dictatorships exist, but the U.N. has not been effective at putting on pressure. If the U.S. intervenes, it's told to mind it's own business, if it stays out, it is called heartless.

Vietnam was different, there were two sides and the U.S. was fighting for one of them. That was a war that the U.S. could have won.

The USA could have won this war as well, but it seems they don't want to. Either way, unless the usa puts a puppet dictator into power, Iraq is going to be a mess with or without usa troops in the country.

Iraq is going to be a mess for a while.

Good job, you took a random video out of context and used the actions of individual soldiers to somehow try to prove some untrue statement.

You think i took that video out of context? They were laughing about the child that just kept on running for the water, but failed to get it in the end. How would you interpret that video?

I would interpret that video as not enough information being given, and I think that the soldiers were not trying to be cruel, they seemed amazed at how bad it was. I agree that they shouldn't have baited him like that, but they did drop it in the end. =\ Like I said, an action of individual soldiers in a stressful war zone.

As anti-right-wing as I am, I'm not that gullible... this war is a very complicated situation and deporting the entire population isn't exactly a viable solution.

Perhaps not. Either way, when usa troops leave, Iraq is going to implode, whether you wait 5 years or 15 years, it's gotta happen. Also this is the american governments' fault, they should have left as soon as they caught saddam hussein, and none of this shit would be going on.

Well, that's what Bush the First did, because he knew if he stayed it would turn into this...

What do you think of dividing the country?

At 4/18/07 10:41 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

4. I wasn't bashing America, i was bashing your shitty policies in iraq, because they are shitty, and they are failing iraqis in that country.

They're not our policies, we didn't make them up, the higher-ups in the govt. did, and if approval ratings are any clue the majority of the U.S. doesn't agree with them.

At 4/18/07 10:33 PM, ForkRobotik wrote:

At 4/18/07 10:04 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/18/07 08:02 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Is the usa army a total piece of shit or what? They can't even protect one city in a country of only 25 million!

ok smart one, you figure out a fool proof way to spot a random face in a crowd as a terrorist and kill him without ever killing an innocent. you do that, and you will have figured out how to bring an end to the Iraq conflict. It would be easy for me as an america to walk into a mall with a bomb vest under a coat, walk into a large crowd and detonate myself, even if security guards were swarming the place.

It's not like the american and iraqi armies can stop everyone they see and search them for explosives.

I've got a way. Give everyone in Iraq a million american dollars, and send them all to the different axis of freedom countries. Iraq = peaceful desert full of oil! As a bonus, this would be cheaper than the Iraqi war that is going on right now, so americans could get a tax cut or some crap. And the "iraqi" oil could be equally divided to all countries of the world, on a GDP per capita basis. You might not like this idea though.

According to current population estimates, I believe that would be over 26 trillion dollars. Also, please tell me your plan to deport 26,783,383 from their own land without regard to their own will.

You could also leave iraq and let them sort shit out themselves, and when the dust settles, tell whoever wins that Iraq will stay one country and it will be a democracy(of their choosing-but not pseudo-one party bullshit like in Egypt). If they don't like this, tell them you will come back and fuck their shit up again. America is supposed to be some great superpower. If you sit down and say do this shit or you're going down because we have tons of resources to fuck you up, other countries will do it, unless they have nukes to stop you(like north korea).

The problem with that is that it seems unlikely that the dust will settle for a very long time due to all the sectarian violence. The U.S. leaving won't stop the militias from killing each other and random defenseless civilians. And whenever the U.S. does use its power to enforce the will of its government by intimidating other nations, you complain, so I don't know why you're saying that.

The usa army is doing the same nonsense tactics that they tried to pull in vietnam, they're playing the waiting game, running around on useless patrols, and infuriating the iraqi public with scandal after scandal. The insurgency has nothing to lose, the usa army can't win by sitting around and hoping they'll get bored. You're not dealing with ADD americans you're dealing with people that feel their country is being occupied by the great Satan himself.

Vietnam was different, there were two sides and the U.S. was fighting for one of them. That was a war that the U.S. could have won.

Also, seeing american soldiers teasing iraqi children with water is not how you win over hearts and minds.

Good job, you took a random video out of context and used the actions of individual soldiers to somehow try to prove some untrue statement.

As anti-right-wing as I am, I'm not that gullible... this war is a very complicated situation and deporting the entire population isn't exactly a viable solution.

At 4/18/07 08:30 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

It's not, it's just merciful. It tries to minimize civilian casualties. It could be like Japan in WWII and brutally massacre thousands of civilians, but that's not acceptable in this day in age (thankfully). It is dealing with an invisible enemy.

Not acceptable in this age for the U.S., rather, people seem to accept it when it happens in the Third World. :(

At 4/18/07 08:02 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Is the usa army a total piece of shit or what? They can't even protect one city in a country of only 25 million!

It's not, it's just merciful. It tries to minimize civilian casualties. It could be like Japan in WWII and brutally massacre thousands of civilians, but that's not acceptable in this day in age (thankfully). It is dealing with an invisible enemy.

At 4/17/07 11:08 PM, LordJaric wrote: My god you people don't shut up do you.

What else do people do on a BBS? Other than post?

At 4/17/07 07:14 PM, FeargusMcDuff wrote:

No guns = no gun murder
Guns = Gun murder

Nice, except

Banning guns =/= no guns

At 4/17/07 07:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/17/07 06:40 PM, FeargusMcDuff wrote: Why do you Americans get so shocked when warped kids go on shooting sprees, yet you defend the sale of guns to anyone providing they have $30?

Not all Americans are pro-gun rights. That said, I am, and I'm wondering where your logic is coming from. Do you think these killers think,
"Well, I was going to buy a gun and go on a shooting spree, but now that it's illegal for me to acquire a gun, I guess I won't do it! I mean, murdering people is one thing, but illegally acquiring a gun? I'm not doing something like THAT!"

If someone is already going to commit murder, do you really think that making it illegal to buy a gun is going to stop them from getting something already so widely sold?

At 4/17/07 04:08 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Damn straight Dem, this bitch is one LAZY motherfucker. Beggin' for money to support her crack habit, even though she's DEFINATELY capable of working. Just look at her, she's such a drag on society. I mean, she's definately young and fit enough to work, and she's OBVIOUSLY lying about being sick...

I was under the impression that it was the Republicans' job to limit social help programs.

And Jack Thompson blamed it on video games within the day.

"School shooting expert", yeah right.

At 4/17/07 05:08 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/16/07 10:33 AM, Elfer wrote: You're right, one unanswered question invalidates all fields of science.

Who knows though, MAYBE IT WAS GOD. Science does not preclude that possibility, it merely doesn't consider it.

Not true. Science doesn't exclude God, it just doesn't rely on God as a magic answer to anything that is not immediately understandable.

Well said. Science may disprove individual parts of religion to some extent, but it has not disproven the concept of God as a whole. How do you know God didn't create the universe by using the method that scientists describe?

At 4/17/07 02:36 PM, Debauchery wrote:

But look at NASA's schedules for getting to Mars...2060?! Are you shitting me? JFK wanted the moon in a decade, and you're giving yourselfs HALF A CENTURY??? China will get to the moon before we do!

More likely to buy Mars before we get to it. But aren't you the same guy who complains about increasing taxes for the people who actually can afford it? NASA has to get money from somewhere, and with the way the Bush administration hemorrhages money, it doesn't look like NASA is going to have a surplus of resources.

You forgot Jack Thompson jumping right on it in only EIGHT HOURS to blame it on videogames.

But it's the media's job to jump on stuff like this... especially if it's the largest shooting in U.S. history.

At 4/16/07 10:48 PM, LuvSally wrote:

Hey man, if your sooooo poor, why would you even consider going to a school that has $50,000 tuition?

To stop being poor for the rest of his life.

At 4/16/07 09:52 PM, Flatland wrote:

It may be a choice for a business owner to allow/ban smoking in their restaurant, but a regular civilian shouldn't have to leave an establishment because their health is in danger.

It's not the civilian's business, what right does he have to demand how the business is handled? ^_^

At 4/16/07 08:11 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote:

At 4/16/07 02:00 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: The sheer insanity of american politics makes me wonder how it is possible that americans are still dumb enough to vote dem vs republican...

Oh fork, you and your making millions of people into one group;D

No one cares. It's been done before. You are not funny bashing on Americans, almost everyone does it these day.

Agreed, not all of us want to have a two-party system, but it has such a monopoly on American politics that it's risky to spend your vote on a third party because they have no chance of winning in the big elections.