Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/23/09 10:14 AM, nathanallenpinard wrote: Which part are you referring to? The posters of Neda around the city?

No, the government attempting to suppress her story. What a stupid move. If they were smart, they would attempt to propaganda it into seeming like the protesters did it.

Do they really think moves like this will help their cause?

At 6/22/09 02:20 PM, Xybrik wrote: How else then? I am not being sarcastic. What else defines one as a Christian.

A lot of people simply follow the teachings of Jesus, but do not believe he is some sort of demigod/god. Like I said before.

They are more true Christians than those who believe he is God and that only by believing in him are you a good Christian, in my eyes.

He said in the video he wasn't sure if Christ was God. Roman Catholics believe that Christ is God. His words, not mine.

Which video? But if so, fair enough.

At 6/22/09 01:31 PM, HecticCircleCrap wrote: Gee, I wonder why America thinks they win all the wars...

Continue..? I don't see the connection.

At 6/22/09 12:05 PM, HecticCircleCrap wrote:

At 6/22/09 12:00 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I wouldn't say that all public schools are innocent though. In the US at least, unless you take higher level classes, they generally glorify the US far more than is due.

You're right. Teachers are stuck in the world of fiction in that they think America won WWII (LOLZ WE SET THEM UP DA BOMB SO WE WINZ LOL), and my 5th grade Social Studies teacher revealed to us how explicit the Trail of Tears and pre-Civil War was.

Being intentionally dense is always awesome.

Until I took an AP history class, they made the dropping of the atomic bombs out to be the only option, throughout the cold war era they did not mention anything about all of the nasty invasions we did and democratic governments we overthrew... In World War II they do not mention some Allied war crimes committed, such as that of the firebombing of Dresden. For the Mexican-American War, they merely say it happened and we won, they do not display adequately how there was very little cause except the US' belligerence.

I could go on.

At 6/21/09 11:31 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Hey, thanks for proving my point guys, I appreciate it.

'Twas my post's point. Thanks for pointing it out, I appreciate it.

At 6/21/09 11:31 PM, Xybrik wrote: What defines you as a Christian is believing that Christ was actually God.

Not necessarily.

I am not using the term "Christian" as a bland term to describe moral superiority. The bible says you are saved by your faith in Christ alone, not by your works or good deeds.

The Bible is only one way to follow the teachings of Jesus, though.

If that faith is true, than your works should back that up. IF not, then not. I am not saying O'Reilly is a worse or better person than anyone else. I am merely stating he is not a Christian because he does not believe that Christ was God.

He doesn't? He's Roman Catholic.

At 6/22/09 12:07 AM, HecticCircleCrap wrote: Both of you are right. A brainwashing example is religion, and a learning example is anything you were taught in a public school.

I wouldn't say that all public schools are innocent though. In the US at least, unless you take higher level classes, they generally glorify the US far more than is due.

At 6/21/09 08:20 PM, HecticCircleCrap wrote: "Being fed the same things over and over" Isn't brainwashing, it's redundancy.

This isn't necessarily true. One of the key aspects to brainwashing is repetition.

At 6/21/09 10:55 PM, Xybrik wrote:

At 6/21/09 10:50 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Oh pffft. everyone got a different definition of what a "true christian" is, it dosen,t mean anything.

Well, usually one has to be sure that Christ was God to be considered a Christian.

I'd say he's right. I would say that those who follow the ideals that Jesus preached are more "true Christian" than those who believe that he's some mystical demi-god.

At 6/21/09 06:57 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I might get a little off topic here or be misinterpreting your post but bear with me;

You either do one or both. It is a good point, though, regardless of how little it has to do with what I was saying.

People like Glenn Beck, Bill O' Reilly and Olberman are not news casters. Get it through your skull. THEY ARE NEWS COMMENTATORS. All they offer is their opinion on certain issues.

It's well in and through my skull. I still view them as obnoxious propagandists who are disgustingly partisan and only help the system clog.

They are about as newsworthy as Jon Stewart or Colbert.

Far, far less newsworthy than those two, I feel.

At 6/21/09 12:14 PM, DiaLady wrote: The moral/ethical labels we place on "consequences" has no bearing on the factual poli-theoretical state of governance.

How so?

At 6/21/09 11:08 AM, SouthAsian wrote: The real problem isn't even Ahmedinjejad, he's just a puppet.It's those Ayatollahs alwayss stirring religious zeal into the social mix, they are a cancer.

They are also a key part of the Iranian government.

The government is a Theocracy. It is led by a "Supreme Leader", who is the religious leader and has almost limitless power. The Supreme Leader is chosen by some oligarchs in a council.

The president has very limited power and is mainly domestic. His purpose is mostly practical, in administering the government.

At 6/21/09 10:16 AM, Tancrisism wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/!!!

Woops... I would copy/paste that. It has links to their stuff from it though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/!!!

He looks like a Silent Hill monster...

Leave it to the Icelanders...

Hell yeah! And I want to be a dominant Welsh family again. Fuck William the First...

At 6/20/09 11:16 PM, Jesus-Owns-X wrote:

At 6/20/09 11:15 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The first thing I'd recommend is to look at other philosophies and ideas than those found in the Bible.

I don't actually look at or follow any of those.

Where did you get the idea that i did?

Jesus doesn't own?

I've become better (believe it or not) at developing points and ideas due to the Politics Forum.

I've met a few good people that I still keep in contact with, although I've been slacking there lately.

It's a decent community, I agree.

The first thing I'd recommend is to look at other philosophies and ideas than those found in the Bible.

At 6/20/09 10:16 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Louisiana for the occasional fat lady who flashes on Mardi Gras...

The South for... well... too many reasons to count.

At 6/20/09 05:04 PM, SolInvictus wrote: and as for NK, the same thing happens every once in a while with them.

Protests? When and where?

To respond to the whole CIA thing - I find this somewhat unlikely. Just because the media is paying particular attention to Iran doesn't mean that we are directly involved in the situation.

Think about it: The media wants one thing, and one thing alone: to "sell papers", as the soon to be archaic saying goes. The more attention they get and the more "papers" they sell, the more happy they are.

What country has repeatedly stood up against US pressure since starting their nuclear program? What country has repeatedly been reported on, and is now extremely well known by even the most illiterate of Americans?

The media are so excited about the protests in Iran because it gives them an opportunity to make quite a bit of money. This is like a field day for them:

They get to report about protests against a totalitarian/pseudo-democratic theocracy (which is what Iran is - read some details about how their government works) in support of a reformist presidential candidate. Supporting democracy, Check.

They get to report about protests in a country that people know about and have worried about because of nuclear weapons and possible terrorist support. Conjuring aged fear-mongering to infer potential relief of it, Check.

They get to report about protests specifically against Ahmadinejad, who himself has been belligerent against the United States' own belligerent world police policy. Nationalism, Check.

It's perfect for them. The CIA is an unnecessary and overly imaginative detail.

At 6/20/09 04:38 PM, Contipec wrote: How do we know that it isn't the CIA posting these in order to manipulate public opinion?

Do you not believe that there are protests in Iran?

At 6/20/09 12:54 AM, Contipec wrote: however it has been proven that everything submitted by the Venezuelan opposition / Cuban exiles is bullshit and false claims.

Has been proven?

This is where it becomes obvious that you are hopelessly biased.

And to be honest, it isn't any different with Iranian people.

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, are NOT reliable sources of information. Any 12 year old or any old woman can write wathever lies / inaccuracies comes to their minds.

This is true too. However, the Iranian media is also not reliable since the government has been censoring various forums of it. So where do you go to? Obviously you need a blend.

At 6/19/09 07:38 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/19/09 07:17 PM, Tancrisism wrote: This isn't a unique thing, though. I forget, wasn't it John Paul II who apologized to Galileo for blacklisting him and not allowing him to continue his research?

Did that include paying Galileo's descendants? Because I think that's really what's at issue here. I don't think there's anything wrong with verbal apology or whatever...although we already did that when we amancipated slaves and fought to make sure any nation ending in "states of America" would have to follow that rule. Why should we now be handing money to people who were in no way wronged? Their ancestors who were slaves are all gone now, spending is already nuts, why are we adding to it?

And I quote from the link provided above:

"A disclaimer tacked on at the end said nothing in the resolution authorizes or supports reparations for slavery."

Nothing in the resolution authorizes or supports reparations for slavery.

A lot of people in this thread are talking about reparations - this isn't the topic. The only thing being done here is a formal and official apology. It may seem strange and unnecessary, and it may well be, but don't worry about us paying anyone in this case.

This isn't a unique thing, though. I forget, wasn't it John Paul II who apologized to Galileo for blacklisting him and not allowing him to continue his research?

We've got it backwards too in our censorship. Why is sexuality so feared while gruesome violence is shown frequently on 7-O'clock TV?

At 6/19/09 06:00 AM, TheMason wrote: You know, I'm pretty cynical about the media in general. While I consider myself a conservative libertarian, I don't like Fox News (okay, Glenn Beck is a guilty pleasure of mine). Nor do I like MSNBC.

I really hope it's a very guilty pleasure. Glenn Beck is just as bad as the worst of them.

But now news is all about entertainment. Bill O'Reilly shouts because that's what gets the ratings. Keith Olberman is just as bad. It is about spinning things to one party or another.

I agree completely.

I haven't watched much of Rachel Madow...but what I have seen she's not that bad.

I don't like her either.

At 6/18/09 05:21 PM, kolbarten wrote: A movie that I reccomend, besides City of God, is The Elite Squad.

My ex-girlfriend loved that movie, and said that it was 1000 times better than City of God. I highly doubt this is true, since City of God was great, but I would like to see it.

I thought somewhat strange that no one has mentioned Rodrigo Santoro as a Brazillian celebrity, since he appeared on the second Charlie's Angels

Which was a fucking awful movie.

(in which he didn't spoke) (in which he barely spoke) (in which nobody recognized him).

Perhaps these reasons added to the fact that no one knew who he was, not to mention where he was from.

Once again, thanks to everyone that helped.

Sure.

Strange, I recall being taught about personal freedoms in my Government and American History classes. I went to schools in 3 different states and about 5 or 6 different towns, so I get the feeling that this might be true in more than one place.