Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/10/02 08:08 PM, MarijuanaClock wrote: Naw, we did that at the clock crew political forums, and now all people do is post idiotic human interest stories. All the real issues will be washed away by shotty journalism and sensationalism.

Isn't the CC forum named "Current Events and Philosophy"? The "philosophy" part or something like that may be why you get the human interest stories. If you keep "Politics" as the main part of the name, then maybe you can avoid that. Maybe the CC should include the word "Politics" in the name of their forum.

Throwing rocks at our troops does not exactly qualify as "peaceful demonstration". The troops were provoked, so maybe I can understand a little bit. That being said, they shouldn't have gone so far as to actually fire on the crowd. Some people, though, seem to want to use this to show that we are not merciful liberators, but harsh occupiers. The individuals, and them alone, are responsible for this. It is not US military policy.

I also believe that these protestors are still a minority.

At 5/1/03 09:46 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: The sand will shift.
Force from all directions.
Rending the desert.

Now, I just made that one up and asked about 20 people what it meant, claiming it to be Nostradamus. A little less than half said "Iraq War, what a genius." Some said the earthquake in Pakistan a few days ago. Some said the earthquake in Arkansas. A few said Afghanistan.

It's easy to take what you want from words.

That's just what I was about to say. Nostradamus' prophecies are vague and are open to different interpretations. Given a major event that just happened, there's a pretty good chance that one could find words that Nostradamus said, and see that they could be interpreted to "foretell" the event that just happened. Nostradamus made so many prophecies that many events that actually happened, such as the rise of Hitler and WWII, have been interpreted to be the meanings of some of them. You just have to take them for what you will.

At 4/30/03 10:20 PM, el_foka wrote: Where's this rant? I'm curious. Also, there is some doubt to his guilt... otherwise the topic wouldn't be a dead one.

See the topic "Education Funding: A Debate" for my previous comments about the Oklahoma education system. As for McVeigh's guilt, the man admitted it. I can only think of two reasons why a man would lie by saying he's guilty:

1. He's trying to protect someone else (a definite possibility).

2. He's certifiably insane (also a definite possibility).

But that being said, I am pretty convinced of his guilt. He claimed that he was acting alone, so it's definitely possible that he was protecting others who may have been involved. But I think he was guilty.

Not really much you can do about it now. McVeigh is already dead, and there really isn't much debate about his guilt.

Can't say how this would affect Terry Nichols, but it's probably best that you not get me started on that anyway. I've already ranted once today on the Oklahoma state government wasting money that could be better spent on education, and I don't need to do it again. Let it just be said that with our education system in the dire straits that it is, the state shouldn't be wasting money on a second Nichols trial that serves no purpose other than to get the death penalty for the man.

At 4/30/03 02:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: The first casualty in war is always truth. And I dont know if 'liberating' the IOraqui people from Saddam was the greater good. Try telling that to the thousands of kids lying in hospital with burn marks all over their body and no parents because a bomb flew into their house while they were asleep.

Yes, it was for the greater good. You put "liberating" in quote marks, implying that it is not what we have done, as if they were better off under Saddam. For every one civilian that we accidentaly killed, there are who knows how many that Saddam intentionally killed. Tell the families of those who Saddam killed that what we did was not for the greater good. Also tell it to those who are exercising their new-found freedom by speaking freely or going on religious pilgrimages that were previously banned. Even tell it to those who are protesting continued American presence. They might not want us to stick around, but you can bet that they're glad that Saddam is gone.

And why are people already so willing to conclude that the administration lied? I wouldn't put it above any politician to lie, but nothing has been proven one way or the other. Have patience.

Congratulations, Judge, you just put me into "Rant on the Oklahoma State Government" mode.

Ladies, gentlemen, and NemesisZ, the education system of the great state of Oklahoma is very, very broke. Teacher salaries are among the worst in the nation, and the mass exodus of teachers to Texas has pretty much become an annual event here. Colleges are looking to raise tuition, which will affect me because my grades were not good enough this year to keep my scholarship. I am currently living at home and attending the University of Central Oklahoma, but sometime, when I can get the cash together, I want to transfer to Oklahoma State. Obviously, increased tuition rates make it that much harder.

And what has our wonderful state government done to solve these problems? In the past, absolutely nothing. Why spend money on education when you can spend it to finally put a dome on our domeless Capitol building?

In order to finally solve this education problem, our new governor, Brad Henry, has proposed a sure-fire method of raising money for our schools: a lottery! Woo-hoo!

But, alas, the overly religious zealots that seem to make up the Republican delegation in our wonderful state legislature refuse to support a lottery, saying that it "doesn't glorify God." Well, my brother said it best when he said, "Roads don't glorify God either, but we have them."

Finally, the state legislature hammered out a bill to authorize our governor to put the lottery question to a vote of the people. But they refused to pass an amendment to the bill specifically setting aside money made from the lottery to pay for education (which is a problem that has plagued lotteries in other states). This has effectively delayed a vote on the question until next year. Hooray for the Oklahoma State Legislature and the fundamentalist Oklahoma Republicans! Yay!

I am a registered Republican, but only because I support the Republicans on a national level. On the state level, they're really pissing me off.

Only three more years until I can move to Texas... only three more years until I can move to Texas...

At 4/26/03 02:05 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: I challenge anyone here to say that he is an intelligent manAND have proof to back it up. Or, if you think hes a moron, like i do, please share it with us.

First of all, I agree that people need to stop posting topics like this. Add something new to the debate, and quit posting new topics saying "OMG Bush is teh sux0rz!"

That being said, I will answer this loser's challenge, if only to put the question of Bush's intelligence to rest once and for all.

Bush holds degrees from Yale and Harvard, two of our nation's finest educational institutions. One may argue, "But Bush was an average high school student, and got into Yale as a legacy!" Maybe so. But once you're there, you have to do the work just like everyone else. And did I mention that Bush is the first president to hold a master's degree?

The basis for the misconception some people have that Bush is not intelligent seems to be the way he talks. For crying out loud! He's a Texan! Texans have that kind of accent! And he's not an eloquent speaker. Big f'n deal. That doesn't mean a damn thing. It's not a sign of a lack of intelligence. There are lots of intelligent people who aren't great speakers.

Bush has had a good education, and he has lots of intelligent people around him. He is not the moron that some people seem to think he is, and he has help. Give the man a break. Just because you disagree with him does not make him stupid.

At 4/27/03 11:26 PM, Rydia_Lockheart wrote:

At 4/27/03 04:55 PM, mr_trivia wrote: I'm pretty sure kids in Montana can get a driver's license at the age of 14 1/2.

States with low population density such as Montana usually do have 14 1/2 as the age limit.

Hell, from what I understand, Montana doesn't even have a formal speed limit on its highways.

Nice to know that some states still give licenses at 16. Oklahoma still does, and there is currently no movement to change it. Good thing too, since if they tried to change it right now, I'd be upset that they were doing something other than trying to fix the broke education system.

I am so moving to Texas after I graduate from college...

At 4/28/03 07:58 AM, Veggiemeal wrote:

At 4/25/03 09:37 PM, DamienK wrote: Plus there was the little episode in the 90's about oohhh juust trying to
TAKE OVER KUWAIT!!!!

Than why didn't they kick his ass in the 90's hm?

We kicked his ass out of Kuwait, and should have gone into Iraq then. But the UN chickened out as usual...

Also, as proof of their devastation, after the death of Saddam, the people of Iraq rejoiced (or looted if you wanna be cynical about it). They danced in the streets and tore down the statue of Saddam, as well as stole all of his mortal possesions.

Those people you saw cheering were a minority. Bagdad has millions of inhabitants, and you only saw a few hundred cheering around the statue. It was just a little propaganda Scene of the yanks.

Oh, so now the majority of the people of Iraq LIKED Saddam? Maybe only a few hundred were jubilantly dancing in the streets, looting and tearing down statues, but on the whole, it is most likely that the rest of the people, while remaining calm and silent, were still glad to be rid of him. I don't think anyone can say what the majority of the people in Baghdad or the rest of Iraq think.

Now is if that wasn't enough, the Iraqi people did something else. Think back to what our goal was in this war. We wanted to remove Saddam from power and bring democracy to Iraq.

If you really believe that, you're the most naive fucking person i've ever met.

...
Still won't get over the "war for oil" theory, huh? Let me make something clear. Our stated goals for this war were to eliminate a potential threat to world security (namely Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction) and to bring freedom to the Iraqi people. Both objectives acheived. Saddam is out of power (and possibly dead), and someone who is out of power can't possibly use weapons of mass destruction, right? And I do believe we're getting closer to finding the weapons. And the people are using their new-found freedom to do many things, including making religious pilgrimages that were banned before. And of course, some are even protesting our presence (which doesn't bother me at all; once the new government is set up and all of our post-war objectives have been acheived, we will be getting out and letting the Iraqis run their own country). You can argue all you want that the administration's true intentions were different, but you cannot deny that our stated objectives have been acheived.

Let me make this as clear as possible...

It may take a long time, but we will find both Osama and Saddam.

Just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean we're not looking. There are tons of places for them to hide. But we're still looking, and we're getting closer. It may not be too much longer.

Crap, I accidentally hit enter before I was finished.

But as I was saying, addicts need help, not to be thrown in jail. At the very least, these drugs need to be decriminalized.

Jeez... anti-drug commercials can be so irritating.

Yes, there are some drugs that can really fuck you up. Yes, people get addicted to them, and yes, people die from them. These drugs are a problem, but outlawing them is not the answer. Addicts

As usual, the media is overreacting. I can't say I'm too worried about a disease that thus far has only 4,000 reported cases worldwide and only about a 4% fatality rate.

If the disease continues to spread, and gets to be a problem here in the States, I might be a little worried, but it has by no means reached epidemic proportions yet. Should something be done to stop the spread of the disease? Yes. Am I worried? No.

At 4/24/03 11:29 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: It is like I feel that people ignore the big picture when it comes to 9/11. Bush planned out his venture as president long before he was even elected. It is impossible to blindly ignore the fact that he has taken measures to ensure his reelection. I hate Bush but I have reasons for it, I am not ignorantly stating my opinion. When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn’t tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind’s late brother was an investor in the president’s former oil business in Texas. He also hasn’t leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks.

You are nuts. Plain and simple. There are those who don't like Bush. There are those who don't like his domestic policy. There are those who didn't like his handling of the Iraq situation. But you seem to be, either directly or indirectly, accusing Bush of responsibility for 9/11. I personally find that to be insulting. Politicians do a number of shady things, but to suggest such a thing just... I don't know. You just need to have your head examined. Tell me the source of your "facts" (although I doubt it's a very reputable one).

Well, I would legalize weed, and replace affirmative action with laws requiring absolutely blind hiring/admissions policies (don't put the race question on the application, and hire strictly by qualifications). I'd try to reduce dependence on foreign oil by encouraging the development of alternative sources as well as increasing domestic oil production. On economic issues, I'd be pretty conservative, with tax cuts and a general lazzeiz-faire(sp?) approach (but with tax breaks and such for the aforementioned development of alternative energy). And foreign policy... well, let's just say, "and the War on Terror™ continues!" I'd listen to what other countries had to say, but in the end, I'd assert this country's status as a sovereign nation rather than let other countries tell us what to do. It might piss some people off, but sometimes doing the right thing pisses people off, as it did with Iraq.

A few things...

Q. What if we lost?

A. Well, we've already won, so it's not that important, but a loss would probably be an embarrassment to this country on a level not seen since Vietnam.

Q. Why is there still so much media coverage on Iraq?

A. Because there's still work left to do in Iraq. Saddam is gone, but we have to stabilize the country, keep Shi'ite extremists from getting out of hand, establish a democratic government, etc. I don't know about the UK, but here in the States the media is already starting to shift some of the focus to other things (SARS, a completely random murder case in California, etc.) All I can really say is that if you don't like it, don't watch it.

I clicked on the link, and I don't think it's a Flash game. I don't think he made it, for that matter. Not much else to be said, except...

Jeez, it took forever to get to page 18, but it didn't take long to get to page 19...

Incidentally, it seems like no one responds to anything I have to say anymore...

Hehehehehehe...

A world without the Weekly World News just wouldn't be as good.

Well, the number of tests that UK students take doesn't seem to be that much greater than the number that US students take, and I never really had a problem with all of those tests.

But then again, the individual states are pretty much in control of how many of these tests a student will take, and it seems like Oklahoma requires lots and lots of testing (judging by the number of tests that I took). How much testing is required by other states, and does it approach the level of testing in the UK? Maybe we can get some answers here.

At 4/21/03 01:21 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: We want to stop men with guns on planes, so we put men with guns on planes.

Good logic there.

I think you may have been being sarcastic, but actually, yes, putting people with guns on planes will stop people with guns on planes. Obviously, safety training should be required, but I think most pilots can be trusted with guns.

This one is easy--Alan Greenspan.

Who else can affect the economy with his mood?

At 4/20/03 08:10 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Weird... Nobody mentioned Bush yet....

That's probably because most people here think it's too early to pass judgement on Bush, good or bad.

Worst Presidents... copied and pasted from the Best Presidents thread, because the topic of worst Presidents came up in there:

1. LBJ (bet you can't guess why!)
2. William Henry Harrison (ran under no platform whatsoever, was going to be a puppet for the Whig party leadership, turned election into a circus, caught pneumonia while making an overly long inauguration speech, and proceeded to die in 30 days)
3. Grant (great general, but his cabinet was one of the most corrupt ever, and he did nothing about it)
4. Oh hell, I'll go ahead and throw Clinton in. His domestic policy admittedly wasn't TOO bad (though a Republican congress helped keep him in line there), but I can't say much about a guy who only fought terrorism whenever it would help distract from his personal scandals, and even then he put in minimal effort (one or two cruise missiles, and then go home).

At 4/19/03 11:31 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: The final goal of freedom-fighting is to gain freedom and to alert people to your cause. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. I am sure they would prefer peace too, but they have dug themselves into a hole and cant get out, so they turn to terrorism/freedom-fighting to make their point.

Alright, listen up. The phrase that I get pissed off the most from hearing is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Freedom fighters don't kill innocent people. Terrorists do. End of story.

The goal of TERRORISM (not freedom-fighting) is to instill fear into the target, so that the target will cave to the terrorists' demands. In the case of most Middle Eastern terrorists, such demands would include the US not interfering in the affairs of the region, the withdrawal of the Israelis from occupied lands, etc. As worthy objectives as these may be, they can never justify the killing of innocent people.

At 4/20/03 04:18 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Is it just me or is Page 17 dragging on forever?

I guess people just aren't posting in this thread as much since the Snooble forum opened, if that's what you mean. I know I haven't.

We took down the regime. Getting the man is something that should be done, but rebuilding the country should be the top priority.

I do question the sanity of Kim Jong Il to a degree, but I think that he has quite brilliantly taken advantage of the current situation in Iraq, noting that he is currently not a top priority and thus doing what he can to get as many concessions as possible. I wonder about the moves he's made this week ("Yeah, we'll agree to your terms for talks. Oh, by the way, we're reprocessing fuel rods!"). It's like he's flashing the peace sign with one hand while giving us the finger with the other.

Let me clarify a few things.

Lincoln did express his opposition to the institution of slavery (though he did not support political equality for blacks). But, at least initially, that was not what the Civil War was about. The Civil War started with several sectional differences between North and South (one of which, of course, was slavery). Because of Lincoln's anti-slavery views, Southern states did not even put his name on the ballot for the election of 1860. Yet, he still won the election with the support of only the Northern states. This was the final outrage for the Southern states, who proceeded to secede from the Union. Lincoln, who was initially motivated by the need to preserve the Union, started building an army to crush the Rebellion, which the South saw as an act of aggression. Then came Fort Sumter. Later on, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a purely strategic move. He saw preserving the Union as the top priority, and he once said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing the slaves, he would, and if he could preserve the Union by keeping slavery alive, he would.

So, the argument that Lincoln was a bad president for invading the South to free the slaves right away is pretty much incorrect.

At 4/19/03 11:28 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: PC members, why are we responding to this topic?

Ooh, can I go ahead and post the pic?