Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

All extremist parties base their extreme views on actual problems, but they bring things so far that they end up creating more problems themselves by diminishing freedoms and human rights with more government intervention.

So yes, they deserve just as much shit as they get, and more. It's appalling that people actually vote for them.

At 10/23/09 11:54 PM, TheMason wrote: And why would it be so right to request that they be taken down? They are not codified as law. They do not mandate that people be a part of a religion.

If they are displayed as authoritative, though, that is definitely wrong.

They are however a part of the Western tradition that forms the basis of the intellectual traditions of our system of law. As a connection to history...I think they are appropriate.

Other parts of the Bible, perhaps, but the Ten Commandments seem a bit... commanding.

The whole point about fighting the "dread commie atheist heathen" is your strawman and has nothing to do with anything I have thus far said.

I wasn't basing that part on you, that was a bit of a joke in general. Perhaps it was misplaced.

However, Congress making a law to make people be Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Aethists, Mormons, Satanists, Masons or whatever...that I have a problem.

But even promoting these religions or lack thereof should not happen in a public place.

At 10/23/09 06:05 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: And by sports I mean wrapping our hands in thongs so we don't hurt ourselves and beat the shit out of one another.

And after that we will go sleep with our numerous wives (we are all married in a way) and then send our 5-year old children off to war.

At 10/23/09 07:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Sorry Gum, you'll have to do better than that.

Yes the first commandment is to worship one God, that is true. However, it does not have the power of law to compell a person to adopt any faith.

However, if the Ten Commandments was clearly displayed in any public place, it would rightly be requested to be taken down. Elfer pointed out that the picture in question is not really clearly the Ten Commandments and could be alluding to it as well as a number of different things. If they were clearly hung in the Supreme Court, though, they should be removed. Similarly, "In God We Trust" does not belong on our currency. We are no longer fighting the dread commie atheist heathen, so it isn't necessary propaganda in order to protect our vital bodily fluids anymore.

At 10/23/09 03:11 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Plato's Republic tells you to shake babies to comfort them, because it's just like how they are jostled in the womb.

Oh, and only eat raw things. It makes you tough.

only people who've read it will get the references

Not to mention that comfortable beds soften you, but sleeping on slabs of stone make you fit to be a ruler.

That sounds feasible, Elfer. However, if he didn't, why doesn't he prove it?

At 10/22/09 03:33 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

HE DID? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!

You do realize you're guilty of libel by saying that, right?

Senator Ellison should prove that he is not working our enemies though! Also, if Glenn Beck didn't do it, then why doesn't he deny that he, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I don't think it's true, but I feel like saying that he should prove it if he didn't.

I've seen The Seventh Seal so many times that I can quote most of the dialogue, in Swedish.

At 10/21/09 08:38 PM, Stoicish wrote: I try my best to not listen to a guy who raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Let's not distort the alleged facts, it was a young girl that he raped and murdered in 1990. We don't think he, Glenn Beck raped and murdered girl in 1990; we think he didn't. But if he didn't why wouldn't he prove he didn't?

At 10/21/09 07:27 PM, Elfer wrote: So um, as a guy who strongly supports the separation of church and state, I'm not actually too mad about that. I've previously expressed the opinion that the depiction of the ten commandments at the supreme court should probably be removed, but I now admit that this position was based on false assumptions and a lack of research effort on my part.

This is very true and good to know about the topic. Thanks for the information, and I agree with you in the subject.

At 10/21/09 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote:

I don't think your a very good american then, since the constitution clarifys the seperation of chruch and state, and these two things very clearly violate that.

Does it? Here is what the first amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or on government property does not establish a religion. It is not saying that everyone must be a Catholic or a Baptist. Hell, it doesn't even mandate that one has to be a Christian.

The Ten Commandments are a historical code of law akin to the stelles of Hammarabi. They have had an impact on civilization and the development of Western Law.

The Ten Commandments are a historical Abrahamic religious code of law. NOT a government code of law.

Therefore since their display does not mandate a religion nor oppress free exercise of differing religions...it does not go against what the Constitution says.

It directly quotes a religious passage and displays it in a governmental organization. Not to mention, one of the commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The only problem I have with him is that he still won't prove that he didn't rape and murder a young girl in 1990.

At 10/18/09 07:44 PM, Stretchysumo wrote: Platos republic sounds like an awful idea, extreme censorship, and a single man with all the power. It just wouldn't work.

It wouldn't have a single man with all the power, it would have a class of philosopher kings with all the power.

At 10/19/09 12:52 AM, Crazyhobo51 wrote: Take for example the Romans, first a representative democracy,

Hardly. The Romans had three classes, the Patricians, the Plebians, and the Slaves. The slaves made up about a majority of their population by the time that the tribunes of the plebians were fully instated, but overall only the Senators (made of Patricians) got a vote about policy, as well as the Tribunes. Think of the Tribunes as a sort of deciding factor if the vote did not have a clear majority, but other than that it hardly had any effect. So it was hardly a representative democracy. More accurate would be a representative aristocracy.

they soon starting making faulty decisions and bad judgements, forcing one brave man, Julius Caesar, to bring about the height of Roman peace, power, and prosperity by declaring himself emperor.

Also incorrect. He never declared himself emperor. According to legend, the crown was placed on his head three times but he rejected it all three times, although the crown "weighed heavier on his head each time."

Caesar was assassinated before he could proclaim himself emperor, and then a civil war happened and his nephew, Octavian, became emperor.

It is for this reason that I believe that we must have a single, all powerful ruler in order to thrive as a nation. But this leader must prove him or her self to be incorruptible, a force of justice who will govern based only on set rules.

And this is why democracy works better than dictatorships - dictatorships are based on only one person's thoughts and considerations. An incorruptible person is very hard to find, compared to a person ruthless, greedy, and ambitious enough to become a leader.

Rules that say that yes, people do have rights, and yes, we must treat people with a certain degree of compassion. But this ruler will enforce all of those rules without exception and without regard for personal gain, only the gain of the nation and its people. No longer will non-citizens have healthcare, no longer will the poor grossly leech off the wealth of the upper classes. A utopia will develop, one that we can only love.

Any thoughts?

Sounds far sillier than democracy. Also, if you want to make an argument based on historical fact, it helps to know what you are talking about.

Wow... And I thought the American far-right was bad...

I've never heard anyone say that Plato's Republic is actually something that we should do. It does have some value, though, in some of its ideas, and it's important when one considers why it was written - that is, to think of a different government type than the corrupt democracy that eventually led to the Peloponnesian War and the Greek's downfall.

Well, not to change the subject, but I was invited to come to this here crew with its fine people by a certain Mr. Patton. So I'd like to join by gauging your reaction to this:

Machiavelli was not actually sympathetic to principalities (little dictatorships), and despite writing The Prince he was actually one of the earliest modern Republicans and believed in the separation of powers a couple hundred years before Montesquieu.

Any doubts, or is this already common knowledge? I feel that he's probably one of the most misunderstood historical figures.

At 10/15/09 04:24 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 10/15/09 09:20 AM, Tancrisism wrote: New England was originally settled by religious people trying to be able to live and practice in peace and autonomy; the Chesapeake area was originally settled by a mercantilist charter.

To early for mercantilism there Tanc. If you'll recall, mercantilism wasn't a system until you get into Jean Baptiste Colbert, Louis' minister of finance.

Not true. Mercantilism was not a general system, just a pattern of overall government protectionism and control of the economy, especially to insure exports over imports.
( Actually a pretty good article. )

Now it would be fair to say that it was founded for more economical purposes than was New England, since it was done through joint stock companies looking to make a profit.

Indeed.

At 10/15/09 12:24 PM, AngyaL wrote: I think Obama doesn't have enough merits to get the Nobel Peace Prize. He only has promises after promises but very little merit, and after he got the peace prize he sends more troops to Afghanistan, what an act of peace.

I too agree that it may be a bit early to give him the prize, but I don't understand how the war in Afghanistan could serve as a deterrent. He was elected president while the country was at two wars. If he immediately pulled out, the consequences could have been (and could be) dire - remember that the Taliban was created by the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, following Russia's retreat, and that it was the "peaceful" policy of Neville Chamberlain that eventually led to World War II.

Obama is dealing with the war in Afghanistan the way he feels will solve the situation the fastest. It is very unlikely that he would start another war during his presidency, unlike many other presidents we've had.

My father is a plumber and my mother was a bookkeeper who rarely had money, so I'd be a prole.

DOWN WITH THE BORZHWA

New England was originally settled by religious people trying to be able to live and practice in peace and autonomy; the Chesapeake area was originally settled by a mercantilist charter.

Just so everyone knows, 70,000 protesters is equal to .0002% of the entire country.

Once you actually have a good math teacher too, suddenly it becomes a pleasure. I was really disappointed when I was given a low priority in my current college because of being a recent transfer and wasn't able to continue learning math. And I will probably major in political sciences or history or something, but I intend on being able to understand calculus by the end of my educational career.

She's better than most others I think. And oddly enough, she is paradoxical: the more interviews you see of her, the more attractive she gets. She's the sort of person that would be fun to hang out with as well as beautiful.

Plato once said that those who become good at math learn and do almost everything generally easier than those who don't. Math is excellent for your brain, and worth learning.

How old were you when you were taught the way/brainwashed?

At 10/9/09 05:28 AM, chiefindomer wrote: I heard Glenn Beck likes to eat babies every once in a while.

Of course no one would accuse him of that, but it seems strange that he has never said he doesn't like to eat babies. Or rape and murder a girl in 1990.

Hopefully this will make him get his ass in gear and realize that he can start fulfilling his promises now and kicking some ass like he promised to and we all hoped he would.

At 10/8/09 04:50 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: It's called trolling. Any guttersniper or lowbrow media-bully can accuse ANYone of a crime without solid proof or evidence thanks to the First Amendment. For someone like Glenn Beck who has been ravaged even worse than Sarah Palin (almost didn't think it could happen) he knows better than to feed the trolls. Feeding trolls can't make them go away. Only the silent treatment can.

Awww, poor Mr. Beck, so innocent and simply trying to inform the public of the truth behind the racism of Obama, how the Democratic Muslims are working with the terrorists, and how Democrats overall hate America and are trying to destroy the economy; spreading his slander through dishonest techniques such as the ones that the so-called trolls are mimicking.

At 10/9/09 03:27 AM, ViolentAJ wrote: Fine then, the overwhelming majority of the world and its inhabitants. This will not change anytime soon, so I am going to live accordingly and base my philosophy around this fact.

Given that you haven't responded to any of our counter-arguments, I am lead to believe it is more of a doctrine than a philosophy.