Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I know it's not really a political subject, but if you want an intelligent reply, here goes.

The existing Portal, in my opinion, serves very well for both beginning and experienced Flash artists. When a beginner has progressed in his/her skill enough to produce a fairly decent animation, it can be submitted, should get a decent score, may make the daily top 5 if it is particularly good for a beginner, and may get placed in a collection. If the artist has not progressed enough to make a good animation, then the movie gets blammed. A separate Portal for beginners would in all likelyhood just be a place where people just throw out crap.

At 2/27/03 08:21 AM, Slizor wrote:

If she was serious about being against the war, she's do something constructive to stop it.

Assassinate Bush? I can't think of many other things which would stop a war.

You aren't advocating assasination, are you?

Clearly her statement worked, or else we wouldn't be talking about it now, would we?

You could say that. However, I also think she should have gone about it in a different way. The flag represents the nation as a whole, not just Bush or the Republican Party. Such actions can be interpreted as "I hate/am against America", regardless of her intended meaning. She has a right to make a statement, but I have a right to not like her statement.

I've never understood American's obsessive patriotism, with the Pledge of Allegience and all that shite. I get the impression that like every classroom has a flag and every other public building.

It seems like that's the way it used to be, but not so much anymore. In my last couple of years of high school, we did have pledge recitations; anyone who wanted to participate could, and if you didn't want to participate, that was fine too. I don't see anything wrong with love of country.

I can't even remember the last time I saw a British or English flag. Saying that I do have an Irish flag still up in my frontroom from the World Cup.

Why is patriotism so common in the US if it isn't so much so in other countries? It doubtlessly has been encouraged by our government, and may be a product of the Cold War: "We Americans must be united through the love of our country if we want to defeat the evil Communists!" In any case, it's just a part of our culture.

At 2/27/03 03:01 AM, thedirtiestjamocan wrote: Well, if you really want to break it down, everything on this whole damn planet is just a bunch of neutrons, electrons, and protons, all in different combinations (plus a few other minor subatomic particles). Gold is the same as shit, just different combinations of the same particles. So, life is really just an abstract idea as it is just a different path of movement for certain particles. Thus, one cannot define things even more abstract such as morality and murder if life itself is not a significant concept. Living things have as much significance as nonliving things in that aspect. Thus, aborting an embryo is nothing more than moving the particles that it is made up of into a seperate lovation where they will continue to be dynamic. Nothing is really destroyed. Even if thw whole human race were to be wiped out, would it really matter? We would think so, as we are humans and self preservation is in our nature, but, broken down, a human is no different than a rock. Our existance does not effect the universe.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say... if you're saying that abortion is OK, because in the end, it doesn't affect the grand scheme of things, then, by that logic, couldn't you say that murder is OK? Morality might be an invented concept, but a world without morals would be a world where everyone just ran around, killing people and taking things. It would be every man for himself. It would be utter chaos. It might not ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things, but it does matter to us while we are here.

At 2/27/03 06:01 AM, EvilEgbert wrote: MY GOD!!! Did you fight for your country agianst the British? How old are you?
Just because your great great grantfather shot a Brit doesn't automaticly mean you should have the right to carry a gun. If that was the case than every Brit should have the right to carry a sword and a battleaxe because the Normans fought off the Saxons with them. (If I'm wrong about the Normans kicking out the Saxon please correct me but my point stays)

Our Founding Fathers™ saw the right to carry guns as a very important right. The reason: they felt that taking away guns was the first step toward tyranny, as the citizens would then not be able to fight back. They felt that the defense of the nation should be the responsibility not of a standing army, but of a militia consisting of the entirety of the armed citizens. They would defend the rights of the people and the individual states against tyranny, whether it would come from abroad or from a government that tried to trample their rights at home.

Yes, times have changed. We do have a standing army. Individual states still have National Guard units, and supporters of gun control believe that the Second Amendment only means that the states have the right to have arms for militia units, not private citizens. But still, don't you think that other nations would be reluctant to invade a country where everyone and their dog carried a weapon?

At 2/27/03 01:57 AM, karasz wrote: my rationale is no 1 vote has ever made a difference in any election...

I am also well aware in the 1876 presidential election, due to the unknowing of 20 or so electoral votes congress set up a 15 man commision, 7 dems, 7 reps and 1 ind... then the reps made the 1 ind (that was a justice on the supreme court) a state senator and the rep controlled congress voted in another rep and every questionable electoral vote went to the Rutherford B. Hayes even though Samuel J. Tilden only needed 1 electoral vote... and so the dems didnt get too pissed off Hayes said he wouldnt seek re-election. But, i mean come on, what are the odds of that happening?

I can understand why people would think their vote doesn't make much of a difference, but you could also argue that there might be a case where someone wins an election by 100 votes because 101 people didn't come to the polls because they felt their vote didn't make a difference.

The 1876 election was every bit as fucked up as the 2000 election. If I recall, the Republicans and Democrats made a deal where the Dems would allow Hayes to become president if the Republicans agreed to end reconstruction in the South. Things like that probably do produce thought that one's vote doesn't really count.

At 2/26/03 09:06 PM, Judge_MORPH wrote: the only negative comment; what is with Americas constant need to be #1 at EVERYTHING??

Yeah, Malaysia built taller buildings then anything we had ever built. However, I don't see this as building the world's tallest buildings just to beat Malaysia and reclaim the number 1 spot. I see it more as being a statement to Osama and company, saying, "You can knock us down, but we'll get right back up, stronger than ever."

At 2/26/03 08:52 PM, Evanauto wrote: sorry i dcould include a picture with the story it was bigger than the 50k limit

Could you at least post a link?

I think it's time to stop making new threads on Iraq, and limit debate to the existing ones. Maybe that way, we can have some threads on other topics. Maybe the mods can lock some of the threads (particularly the ones started by idiots who crossed over from the General board).

I can't see how the people on this board can have such strong opinions and not vote, unless they're underaged. Yes, I vote.

At 2/26/03 11:17 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote: The inspectors are making progresses now. Saddam has agreed to destroy the rockets of which he claims that the range doesn't break any rules. Give them some more time to keep searching and Saddam will maybe give in because of the threat of this war!

I did say that you could argue that they are cooperating better. Maybe the inspectors will find something. Maybe Saddam will still disarm peacefully. But I still don't trust the guy. I wouldn't put it beyond him to just destroy whatever weapons the inspectors already knew he had or what they happened to find, in order to look good in the eyes of the international community, while still hiding the bulk of his arsenal. I would feel more comfortable if he made a declaration of what weapons he has or had that more closely matches the numbers we have from intelligence, and showed us proof of their destruction. We might have been willing to give him more time, but he has time and again proven to be untrustworthy, and at some point, you just have to say, "Enough is enough."

If Saddam is out of the picture, America will rule Iraq until it thinks that the country is strong enough to stand on its own feet, that's as simple as 1+1=2. In that time America will own Iraq (at least, that's what they will think) and its oil, so they can ship it to America and make money with it there!

I don't see it that way. We've made some foreign policy blunders in the past, but I don't think any of them involved forcefully taking another nation's resources while we occupied them after a war. We probably couldn't do it without seriously angering the international community.

At 2/26/03 10:28 AM, Boco_the_Choco wrote:

At 2/26/03 06:04 AM, PreacherJ wrote: Yes, I think they should have, and I don't think it's ALL about the oil.

It certainly plays a big part, though.

It plays a VERY big part! There has almost never been a war in which the attacking party had no economic reason to start it.
Why would it be different here?

Because we don't have to go to war to get the oil. If all we wanted was the oil, then we could just lift the sanctions against Iraq and make an oil trade agreement with them. Of course, if we did that, we would be helping fund Saddam's regime, thus helping him kill his own people and helping him build more Weapons of Mass Destruction™.

I don't see this as starting a new war, but finishing an old one. Saddam was guilty of violating the treaty that ended the Gulf War. UN Resolution 1441 gave him one last chance to comply. You can make the argument that Iraq is cooperating better with the inspectors now, but he is still not fully complying with the resolution. I still think he is playing the shell game. If a nation violates a treaty that ends a war, then war resumes. Period.

Once Saddam is out of the picture, are we going to buy oil from the new Iraq? Absolutely. Does that mean that this war is about oil? No.

At 2/25/03 10:07 PM, mattymetro wrote: OK.. I had to stop by this topic for my good 2 cents...
I am vegan and all I have to say is compare your nervous system to that of an animal and ask yourself honestly (not what you were raised on) is this the right choice?

You may have a point. They have some biological similarities. However, I think that it's perfectly natural to eat meat. If it's okay for animals to eat other animals, then why is it wrong for humans to eat animals?

At 2/25/03 03:18 PM, EvilEgbert wrote: Has anyone, anyone at all considered the fact that it's a bigger step to buy a gun on the black market then in a legal shop on the corner. Especialy for a beginning criminal (someone who isn't a criminal yet but he's considering it) who doesn't own a gun yet.

here are two situations:
(without gun control)
Broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get me some money, now were can I find some easy money? I know, I'll go to Billy Bob's gun Boutique, buy myself a nice Smith & Wesson and hold up ol' mister Wongs Noodle Shop.

(with gun control)
Same broke guy: thinking "damn I'm broke, I really need to get myself some money, now where can I find some easy money? If only I could get a gun somewhere without having to contact criminals. Nah, I'd better get a decent job.

^^^^^^I'm sure that happens^^^^^^

Well, I concede that gun control laws may deter some people from buying guns, but they won't deter everybody. With gun control laws, there may be someone willing to get a gun off the black market to knock over Mr. Wong's Noodle Shop. Without gun control laws, sure, someone could go to any gun shop to get a gun to knock over Mr. Wong's Noodle Shop, except--whoops!--Mr. Wong has a gun too!

I don't think there's really much to this, other than just Blair trying to win support in Parliament. If he has support, great, if not, fine, the article said that his government doesn't need Parliament's authorization to launch military action. It would probably make him fairly unpopular, though, so maybe seeking Parliament's blessing is a good idea.

PETA is the scourge of our society. They are a bunch of radical left-wing psychos whose ultimate goal is to ban all meat. About a month ago, PETA announced a boycott against KFC in protest of their methods of raising and slaughtering chickens. Two things I want to say about this:

1. It was around dinnertime when I read this, so I decided to eat at KFC.
2. How do you boycott a place where you never eat anyway?

At 2/24/03 08:54 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Some things are good enough that they will be profitable forever. Don't you think that there should be a limit?

I was asking about what the law is, not about what it should be.

It would shatter all TV ratings records. And I agree that it would be pretty hilarious: I generally support Bush, but the one thing he is not is an orator. And of course, hearing what Saddam had to say would be a laugh riot. Personally, I would watch to see if it turned violent.

I'm not sure, but can't copyrights be extended after they expire? I can understand letting something go to public domain if the company is no longer profiting from it, but if the company still is, can't they have the copyright extended?

I think the reason you don't hear much about Osama is that there really isn't much to report about him. He's probably hiding somewhere in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, and we still have troops in the area, looking for him. If and when we find him, it will certainly make headlines, but for right now, all we are hearing about is the next target, Saddam. Rest assured, we may have turned our immediate attention to Saddam, but we have not forgotten about Osama.

I don't know if I can pick an exact date at this point. An attack this month probably could only be a unilateral action, and I think the government still maintains hope that they can get a second UN resolution passed. I think France may have delayed the war long enough to the point where attacking now may not be a good idea from a strategic standpoint (with the desert heat and all that). So it looks like they're going to get what they wanted--more time for Iraq to move forward with weapons development while they continue to play the old shell game with the inspectors. If I had to guess right now, I'd say the war will begin in October.

At 2/23/03 12:55 AM, firehead wrote: Actually, killing only saddam would be less risky than invading the whole damn country and kill the army and a lot of civilians and put out puppet government.

If you could only instate a democracy in Iraq problems would have at leats a chance of solving.

If the US put a puppet government is still a dictator since the people of Iraq won't have have a fucking word to say about it, which is as bad as having saddam gorven them.

A simple assassination would almost certainly result in another dictator coming to power. You can't just kill Saddam, leave, and expect a democracy to naturally form. There was military government for a short period in Japan after World War II, but only until we could get a democratic government set up. Then we left, and the Japanese have ruled themselves ever since. Think the same can't happen in Iraq?

At 2/23/03 05:39 PM, swayside wrote:

At 2/23/03 02:01 AM, agent66 wrote: I think instead of bearing arms we should bare some asses and get that love groove on. All I am saying...is give sex a chance.

no one wants to hear you run your moronic mouth.

From now on, if someone says something stupid, we should just probably ignore it.

I do not think of people opposed to war as un-American... just foolish.

At 2/23/03 10:48 PM, Timm wrote: most people are against bush. there have been countless peace protests all over america.

A vocal opposition does not a majority make.

i was for him at one time, but now i think hes an idiot. a lot of his ideas are skewed. i heard he said not too long ago " the UN is an ineffective organization."

I believe what he said was that the UN runs the risk of being seen as ineffective if they don't take a tougher stand on Iraq. The UN passed a resolution stating that Iraq must disarm, and they must show the world that they have disarmed. However, certain UN members *cough*France*cough* insist on allowing more time for inspections to "run their course". Translation: allowing more time for Iraq to hide their weapons before the inspectors arrive and for the inspectors to report that they found nothing. The inspectors are there to be shown the weapons and proof of their destruction, not to find them. If this isn't "ineffective", then what is?

i think deep down we all secretly wish Clinton could have run for a third term.... he was a pimp

I think that was the problem with Clinton... he thought he was a pimp, not a president. :)

At 2/22/03 08:33 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: It seems the farther you get from DC, the less support Bush seems to find.

That's just because California is on the other side of the country from DC.

Last I checked, Bush's approval rating was in the low 60s. That was a while ago, though. Bush has enjoyed high approval ratings for a while now. They were ridiculously high after 9/11, but have since slipped to a more realistic level, reflecting his policy toward Iraq as well as his domestic policies, opinions of which seem to be evenly split.

At 2/22/03 11:25 PM, Vertigo200 wrote: Oh, and by the way, I agree that Iraq's electoral sistem is bust... kinda reminds of a similar one that about 2 years ago didn't elect a president who had the (legal) majority of the votes.... humm....

No legal majority?

I will say this just one more time, and after that, the 2000 election is to NEVER AGAIN be discussed:

Bush: 271
Gore: 267

Under our electoral system, that is the only legal majority.

I wouldn't say Clinton is at fault for this, though he could have done a little more about it than just drop a couple of bombs on them to draw attention away from his impeachment proceedings.

At 2/23/03 01:50 PM, DarknessIncarnate wrote: The only reason you guys are so powerful is since you act like bullies. if you hadn't messed with Asia we'd have enough firepower from soviet union and china and N. korea to blow your whole country to timbuktu 300 times.

And you think that would be a GOOD thing? Ladies and gentlemen, this is "I hate America" at its absolute finest.

Which brings me to this question, WHY is the United States the only country with legal nukes?

How soon we forget that it was the UN and not the US that said Iraq couldn't have nukes.

At 2/23/03 11:22 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: I'm shocked that people didn't know this. Not more than a week ago, the non-aligned countries of the world (the poorer/third world countries) voted against war. 80% said war was not acceptable under ANY circumstances.

If you do the math, (the non-aligned countries make 54% of the world's population) then thats at least 2-3 BILLION people in countries against the war.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, George!

Three billion people living in countries against the war does not mean 3 billion people against the war. Besides, you need a better reason to oppose war than "not acceptable under ANY circumstances", because that is not the way the world works. As much as we want peace, there is always someone who is a threat to it. If war is necessary to deal with these people, so be it.

The only real grounds for opposition to war is to argue that inspections are working.

At 2/19/03 10:23 PM, implodinggoat wrote: The theory behind a tax cut that benefits the rich is that they own the companies that make the products we all buy and thus if their taxes are lowered they can afford to lower their prices and then the consumer price index will drop and the economy will be stimulated....this is the theory anyway sadly it doesn't always work.

Maybe, but what I've heard is that the theory is less taxes means more money circulating, which means more investing in companies, which in turn means more jobs. The reason the rich benefit the most is because they are the ones paying most of the taxes anyway. I think your theory would apply more to cutting taxes on corporations than on cutting taxes on wealthy individuals.