Gah, sunova ... I apologize profusely for the double post, but I realized I made some mistakes in typing the code up here (and I don't want people to get the wrong idea). Here's what it really looks like in the flash movie:

(Frame 1 of root movie)
colors = "none";
stop();
(Buttons)
on (release) {
set(colors, "red");
}
(There are two more buttons, which set the variable 'colors' to "yellow" and "blue," respectively. And of course, there's an obligatory 'play' button.)
(Frame 2 of root movie)
stop();
(There is also a button one can click on to advance to the next frame, but the main thing here is the symbol that's SUPPOSED to respond to changes in the variable, which is shown below:)
(Symbol Supposed To Be Affected By Actionscript)
(Frame 1 of symbol)
(The symbol is of course a movie clip.)
if (colors == "red") {
gotoAndPlay(2);
} else if (colors == "yellow"){
gotoAndPlay(3);
} else if (colors == "blue"){
gotoAndPlay(4);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(1);
}
(Frame 2 of symbol)
if (colors == "none") {
gotoAndPlay(1);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(2);
}
(Frame 3 of symbol)
if (colors == "none") {
gotoAndPlay(1);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(3);
}
(Frame 4 of symbol)
if (colors == "none") {
gotoAndPlay(1);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(4);
}
(Frame 3 of root movie)
stop();
colors = "none";
(And of course, one final button leading back to the beginning.)

Again, much apologies for double posting.

Wow, I didn't know people hated tweening so much.

With my third project I've become fully aware of the limitations motion tweening imposes, but prior to that I was a complete sucker for it.

On the other hand, one of my other projects, I've tried to avoid fbf entirely, replacing it with shape tweening. By hand.

Am I insane? Most likely!

Okay, I've tried looking up tutorials for this, but've found nothing; and I can't seem to find anyone who has information relative to what I'm attempting.

I'm trying to create a script that allows the user to set a variable with multiple options; over the course of the movie, related movie clips listen for the variable and its varied states, then change what frame they display based on this.

This is how I've got it in a small test animation, but it's not working:

(Frame 1 of root movie)
colors = "none";
stop();
(Buttons)
on (release) {
set(colors, "red");
}
(There are two more buttons, which set the variable 'colors' to "yellow" and "blue," respectively. And of course, there's an obligatory 'play' button.)
(Frame 2 of root movie)
stop();
(Symbol Supposed To Be Affected By Actionscript)
(Frame 1 of Symbol)
(The symbol is of course a movie clip.)
if (colors == "red") {
gotoAndPlay(2);
} else if (colors == "yellow"){
gotoAndPlay(3);
} else if (colors == "blue"){
gotoAndPlay(4);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(1);
}
(Frame 2 of Symbol)
if (colors == "none") {
gotoAndPlay(1);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(2);
}
(Frame 3 of Symbol)
if (colors == "none") {
gotoAndPlay(1);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(3);
}
(Frame 4 of Symbol)
if (colors == "none") {
gotoAndPlay(1);
} else {
gotoAndPlay(4);
}
(Frame 2 of root movie)
stop();
colors = "none";
(And of course, one final button leading back to the beginning.)

When tested in flash, the symbol doesn't seem to pick up the variable. It just plays and loops endlessly as if it had no scripting at all.

What'm I doing wrong here? Or is there an easier way to do this?

(If you're curious, the ultimate objective of this is to make a subtitles system that will work in progressive scenes)

I felt "Iraqi Freedom" was justified even if the WMD case was flimsier than bubblewrap. Here's my reasoning.

o) I've been wanting to see Saddam go for a while. As has been mentioned, he is pretty damn brutal, and even though U.N. sanctions didn't help the quality of life in Iraq much, he amassed most of the nation's wealth for himself leaving his people in poverty. And then there's all the stories about Ba'athist brutality - killing people for the hell of it, the gassing of the Kurds...

I really felt that we should have taken him out back in Desert Storm.

This is a chance to try and bring the nation of Iraq out of a rule of suffering from the Ba`athists. Of course, the insurgents who want to either return Ba'athist rule, leave Iraq in a bloody civil war, or put Iraq in a religious state like Iran aren't helping ...

o) We pretty much know now that there are no WMDs in Iraq and apparently, they didn't have a WMD program. However, Saddam did intentionally put up a facade, pretending he had WMDs. Apparently one of his aides confided this to interrogators, saying that Saddam believed that if he could make the U.S. believe he had WMDs, they'd leave him alone (ironic, eh?).

So he was trying to make it look like he had WMDs, intentionally defying UN weapons inspectors instead of cooperating. As Bush pointed out, that's in violation of a U.N. resolution passed to keep Iraq in line. "You don't cooperate with our inspectors and we'll kick your ass over a teakettle."

Granted, Bush had the U.S. and its "coliation of the willing" act without U.N. blessings (especially since France, Germany, and Russia were determined to stop any action in Iraq), so the justification of this part is debatable.

I don't know what to say, really. Reconstruction of countries has worked before - need I mention Japan? (U.S. General MacArthur instated a benevolent military control of the country afer it surrendered) I don't think we have a MacArthur to deal with Iraq and its many people ... that and, as far as I know, there wasn't that many insurgencies or rebellions against the U.S. authorities in Japan.

For those that agree with the reasons I supported the war, but didn't support the war themselves, let's look at a different option; an assasination of Saddam Hussein without a full scale invasion.

If the CIA used an assasination attempt to remove Saddie Hussie, it would have left a power vaccum that would have been filled through blood - and most likely, Iraq would be left with someone as bad or worse than Saddam's Ba`athist government.

And if we left Iraq alone, the people would still be suffering with no hope of change. At least now, if the insurgencies don't win and the Iraq government succeeds, they have a brighter future.

Is war itself justified? That depends on the reason. If your people were facing genocide from an enemy, oh hell yeah, I'd say war is justified; you have nothing to lose, seeind as if you just let the enemy take you over, you'd die in a purging.

I don't feel that wars over resources aren't really justified, though. *waits for someone to say that Iraqi Freedom was really about the oil*

Hm, well, I checked to make sure the words I was using had the correct definition.

Nationalism, perhaps, wasn't the best word to use (I keep getting different defintions from different sources). Chauvinism is more accurate to what I was describing.

I am aware that all nations will act primarily out of its own interest. It's self-preservation.

As for what country I feel is the best in the world... Well, I don't see it in terms like that. I am an American, I am proud of what I am. I love my country and I would defend it and what it stands for, to the death if I had to. (Note I said my country, not my government! There are cases where a patriot will fight against his country's government to defend his country)

Well... the best way to describe my feelings on this would be to quote Stephen Decatur: "Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but still our Country, right or wrong."

Oh, and before I write off this thread, I got one more thing to say to you, D2K.

You claim that my labeling you prejudiced is just a buzzword and then (in obvious sarcasm) say "My, how RATIONAL you are." Obviously, it's an attempt on your part to question my wits.

So, let's do a little test.

In the context of my arguments here, prejudice is defined as "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."

I'd say you are quite hostile to Americans; your posts regarding American citizens are thick with sarcastic jabs at their intelligence, such as this gem here:

Easy - it's what I've been calling Rational American Thinking for
some time. The person isn't just incorrect, oh no, they're either:
A. An idiot.
B. A Communist.
C. Osama bin-Laden's buttboy.

Right, so we have laid down this much. Now, most people probably do not consider hatred or hostility towards people of another nation to be prejudice, but it is. People of one nationality or another are just groups of people, much like those divided by ethnicity, or religion, or social choices.

However, to make a point, let's take all references to Americans from your posts and replace them with another group.

Easy - it's what I've been calling Rational Black Thinking for
some time.

Another whining Rational Black Thinker is bitching about
Michael Moore, making a complete ass out of himself in doing so,
and reminding us that there's more idiots ( ... ) in the black
community than any other

What the fucking hell is "the straight dope"? A heterosexual moron? Oh, right, that'd be 98% of blacks, then...

I think most people would agree that statements like this would be rather prejudiced. I don't think many people would tolerate such remarks being made.

Groan about it and make counteraccusations all you want, but I think this puts your remark and your attitude towards Americans in perspective, does it not?

You just keep that in mind, bud. I believe it shouldn't be any more right to be hostile, hateful, or contemptuous of persons simply because they're of a particular nationality.

Aaaand that's all I've got to say on this.

At 6/10/04 08:40 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Seriously, though. It's natural to feel that the country you live in is the best country in the world. However, there's other ways to show it than by dragging down other nations with little minutae such as this.

There is nothing wrong with patriotism (a love of country).

There IS something wrong with hyperpatriotism/nationalism (a belief that your country, its people, its culture and its government are superior to other nations or the whole world (and often coupled by a belief that foreigners are inferior sub-humans in some way)).

Unfortunately the world has decided to believe that patriotism and nationalism are the same thing. They're not.

At 6/10/04 07:08 PM, the_mind wrote: We know when we are being guided wrong just like the rest of the world, not like America where if it goes against what some texan half wit thinks it must be a communist take over bid or sadam hussian might behind it.

*applauds* Beautiful. You've done an awesome job of stereotyping 300 million people and labeling them all meatheads.

You probably didn't pay attention to the fact that there were Americans who DID protest against invading Iraq, or that there are many Americans who don't want Bush in next term. I'm one of the latter, by the way.

I'm getting fuggin' sick of these people who stand on their Pedistal of Arrogance and proclaim that they are better than "ignorant/stupid/(insert snyonym here)" Americans.

At 6/10/04 10:19 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 6/9/04 12:50 PM, mabzie wrote: i hope michial moore dies. that faT BASTARD, HE GETS FUCKING FaTER EVERY WEEK. pluse all hees dooing is trying to take away our rights

You are a sad, sad little boy, aren't you?

Now, please explain how he's trying to take away your rights in 2,500 words. With capitals and lower case in the right places, if you don't mind.

My apologies for making an observation on mabzie's crude post, but I think he is referring to "Bowling" taking aim at the NRA and gun violence in the U.S.

Given mabzie seems to be a gun enthusiast, judging from is signature.

At 6/10/04 10:11 AM, D2KVirus wrote stuff.

No, this forum. Jeez, READ (note bold and underline there).

Uh, okay. Yeah. Whatever. My comment and the meaning behind that comment went right over your head, it seems.

Would you stop with the buzzwords (which are all so predictible) please? Prejudice? It would help if people stopped proving me right, you know. Again, go through this thread for a few choice soundbites, then casually click a few on this forum.

Heh. 'Prejudice' is a buzzword? I'll refrain from using it if you refrain from using 'Rational.'

So, lemme get this straight ... because of a handful of idiots on the internet, you think you are proven right that 300 million Americans are meatheads. Fuggin' swell there, D2K.

Apparently, I hate ALL Americans now. My, how RATIONAL you must be if you think this.

What the fucking hell is "the straight dope"? A heterosexual moron? Oh, right, that'd be 98% of Middle America, then...

< sarcasm > Oh, geez ... *sob* I'm so sorry for labeling you a hateful person when I clearly didn't have any evidence of it! *sob* You only look down your nose at 98% percent of Middle America. Geez, man, I'm so, so, sorry. *sob* I guess you aren't prejudiced at all, huh? < / scarcasm >

You see, there's where the probelms will set in,. because he'd have to skip over a lot of material, evidence, facts, logic...

That's only if you disregard all the debate over whether or not all that material, evidence, facts and logic are fabricated or spun...

What - people that do it are FUCKING MORONS. How is that negated? Show your working for that one, please.

Damn, I knew I should have added a followup post clarifying that statement. I knew you'd pounce on that one.

Alright, clarification. Your attempt to attach the label of "moron" to the director in that instance is baseless. Yes, people who bitch about a movie they haven't seen are muddled. And yes, IF the director was making his film solely about Farenheit 9/11, it would be rather idiotic. However, he is not; he is focusing on Moore in general.

Seen them all or read them all. Wait, are your sterotyping? Have you noticed a direct corrolation between Moore baiting and his Oscar speech? Were you put on this planet to try my sanity?

Hmmm...

< D2KVirus > HAH! He mentioned "Bowling!" He obviously hates Moore because of the Oscar acceptance speech! What a rational thinking American!

That's what your comment looks like in my eyes, D2K.

How's this - I never have heard Moore's oscar speech, nor read a transcript. My dislike for Moore comes from the amount of spin and deception that is in his work - and the fact that, despite all this, he won an award for it.

At 6/9/04 08:31 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Syas who?

*runs out side*
*grabs a rock and squeezes*

One day I will do it.

*squeezes more*

No no no! That's not a rock, that's a Rock Puppy, an endangered species --

*CRUNCH*

... ;_; Well, there's your blood.

As far as Reagan's funeral, yeah, it was very grand - traditional. Seeing as he was a president who was (for better or for worse) very well liked by the American public, I suppose it was inly fitting for him to get a funeral like this. My parents don't recall anything this grandoise for Nixon.

I ... does anyone get why everyone was applauding during the funeral?

I hate to double post, but there's no edit feature here, so...

At 6/9/04 06:24 PM, ThrillKill wrote:

At 6/9/04 06:18 PM, l04f wrote: Man..You guys really know your history..

How long has it been since you have gotten outside?

I learned all of this in high school four years ago. Mind you, I'm Canadian, and we tend to look at things from a larger perspective than other countries, noteably America.

You think that, eh? I'm an American. I was in International Baccelaureate History during high school.

If that isn't a wide perspective, I dunno what is. Now, would you mind dropping your veiled jabs at me and my countrymen? : /

At 6/9/04 06:15 PM, ThrillKill wrote... stuff. Which I'm replying to in whole.

Firstly, as far as I can tell, the American military wasn't built up before we got involved in the game. So, Nazi Germany was probably way above us, until Pearl Harbor got us involved - then the volunteers came flooding in, the heavy industry was retooled for war, and what not.

A common thing for most foreigners (at least from *my* view) to attack U.S. integrity with is, as you just did, say "you yanks sure took your time getting into the war." Keep in mind that the United States prior to Pearl Harbor was heavily split over going to war. Charles Lindbergh, if I recall, was one of many Americans trying to keep the U.S. out of the fight in Europe. Many believed that the U.S. could fortify itself, if Nazi Germany ever decided to invade, and sucessfully defend itself.

Had Theodore Roosevelt led the U.S. into a war earlier, before Pearl Harbor, the effects at home would have been analagous to the unrest and battles over opinion during Vietnam, and now. In other words, I doubt the U.S. would have been nearly as helpful if people were not galvanized into supporting military resopnse.

Why? There was disillusion after World War I. Many bitter Americans wanted to stay out of the fighting, so that we would not be the suckers again.

The U.S. had to be attacked before it could be persuaded to join in the war. Some conspiracy theories say that Theodore Roosevelt knew this, and either conspired with the Japanese government to have Pearl Harbor attacked, or new the attack would happen and purposely made sure the base was not informed.

Second, you're not giving France enough due credit. They didn't have a fighting chance for a reason, and it's not because the Blitzkreg was so devastating as to crush any form of fortification. When invading France, they didn't attack the Maginot Line at all - they went in through Belgium, ignoring that country's pleas to be neutral. France didn't build up on the Belgium border, or at least not as they did on the one facing Germany. So, the Nazis just struck France's achilles' heel.

Finally, when facing Nazi Germany, I don't think any one of the Allies could have stayed out without the war ending in a Nazi victory. I think you were trying to say the same thing.

I do agree that if the U.S. stayed out completely, everyone would have lost. Best case scenario for us Americans, if Nazi Germany invaded our shores, would be a stalemate; as I said earlier, we weren't built up. I also doubt we could have repelled a homeland invasion and a war at sea against the Japanese Empire successfully.

The thing is - for me, a lot of people just don't seem to appreciate the fact we helped out. I get this feeling constantly - that the assistance we Americans gave in terms of blood and steel wasn't even toilet paper for their ass. Maybe some Americans feel who say "We saved your asses in WWII!" mean it as a reactionary response to that. I don't know.

How long has it been since you have gotten outside?

Just yesterday..

Mick_the_champion wrote:

Britain was an evil imperialistic bourgeois nation, it invented the concentration camp.

Have no illusions about Britain. And don't get me started on that Northern Ireland issue......

John_st_r wrote:

Flesh_shredder wrote:

No, I wont cry to my "mommy".

Stupid Americans changing our language.

Yeah, I Agree Moron !
Americans Are bastards As you biG Asshole !
LOL, Kill Them All !

For fuck's sake ...

It's a goddamn hate circus.

Hey, John, heads up - you're here orgasming over the thought of killing the entire United States - you're here, on Newgrounds, which is a website created and run by fuckin' Americans.

I'm guessing you're not a troll and are a real fan of Newgrounds, but I might be going out on a limb there.

'Cause, y'know, it's really asinine to be a fan of something, and then go to that something's community enjoying the thought of purging the world of "American Ass hOles" ... which would include the creators of the thing you're a fan of.

At 6/9/04 12:59 PM, The_King_of_Wolves wrote: Somehow I wish this topic got locked. I think any intelligent input has been exhausted.

I wanna tape shut the two blockheads' mouths up there; y'know, megaknight and mabzie. They'll make people like D2KVirus feel justified in being prejudiced against Americans. x_o;

Fun Facts About America;

Did you know America spends more than 300$ billion on keeping their military grip over the world. When only 273$ billion is needed to build global wellfere.

GOD BLESS MY TOE!

Wanna know how to cut down on that? Pull out of our agreements to provide military cover for Japan, South Korea, hell - other places which don't come to mind as of yet. We provide defense for too many places - or as you call it, an imperalistic military grip.

They ought to stand on their own. After this latest attempt at regime change, I think we should just close down all overseas military bases, pull out and just keep the U.S. armed forces to territories and the states.

I'm tired of this anti-American hatred.

I don't even see why the hell we're in South Korea anymore. A large percentage of the South Korean population hates Americans to the point they'll harass Austrailians and Canadians because they often look/act close enough to be considered one. Not to mention that many would slit an American's throat if they were given the chance to.

Most of the ROK want to re-unify with North Korea, anyway; so shit, why are we there still?

:Well if you don't like it, LEAVE!!! God, I've wanted to use that on someone for a while...

Cute. Have you been hanging around the AOL news forums or something?

... By the way, before you say anything about AOL being America Online, AOL is used by people of many nationalities. Before the invasion of Iraq started I looked at some of the topics and saw a whole lot of stupid, low-brow shit (coupled with incredibly mind-numbing arrogance) being flung from one side to the other. French, Americans, Brits, Germans, all goin' at it.

Easy - it's what I've been calling Rational American Thinking for
some time. The person isn't just incorrect, oh no, they're either:
A. An idiot.
B. A Communist.
C. Osama bin-Laden's buttboy.

Hey, prejudice can be bad for your health.

I know you're hooked, man, it's addictive to be an asshole and treat others based on stereotypes, but it does nothing for you in the long run. Do us all a favor and drop the BS.

Your contempt, prejudice and hatred for all Americans is showing through quite clearly. I don't know about you, but I know MANY rational Americans who don't think along those lines. Again, you're just believing in stereotypes.

Furthermore, Moore has put out a lot of other works other than Farenheit 9/11. I mean, we all know him for "Bowling for Coulimbine," practically.

:Wilson says his documentary tries to point out the biases behind
:Moore films such as "Bowling" and the highly
:anticipated "Fahrenheit 9/11," which will be released June 25
:and which Wilson has not seen.

(Note the bold and underline there, D2K)

From what I can tell, "Michael Moore Hates America" is not focusing merely on the aforementioned movie. How can it, when it isn't even out yet?

In short, the guy wants to bitch about ALL of what Moore does, not just a movie that practically no one has had a chance to see since the release is still half a month away.

In that light, your spiel about people bitching before products are released is largely negated.

Strange nobody seemed to bear a grudge against Moore before that, isn't it?

I can't speak for others, but my dislike for him started once I read about the straight dope behind many of what Moore put into his films like "Bowling." Beforehand I was skeptical of the movie, anyway.

At 6/8/04 09:54 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 6/4/04 09:29 PM, _Wraith_ wrote:

At 6/4/04 08:40 PM, ANGRY_HATE wrote: I guess they forgot those other 29 to 499 000 protesters.

Welcome to CNN, one of many of the biased American Media. "We've got almost 10 different nes sources, but they all say the same thing!"

Thats not CNN, thats "News24.com". Seriouly... what the hell is wrong with you?

Yeah... As far as I can tell, News24 is a SOUTH AFRICAN news source.

At 6/8/04 06:04 PM, -theFUNK- wrote: I think the trick is not expecting them to speak english (although many do) and not trying to compare France to the US.

Yeah, the old "When in Rome" rule. Any tourist or visitor going to another country that does not speak the same language as them expecting the people of that country to speak in the tourist or visitor's language is a dumbass.

At 6/8/04 09:48 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

At 6/7/04 12:28 PM, Thelonius wrote:

Oh look - a key quote right here that should be noted in bold, preferably with neon lights. Maybe the article should read:

"Another whining Rational American Thinker is bitching about Michael Moore, making a complete ass out of himself in doing so, and reminding us that there's more idiots per square foot in the US than any other continent."

Great, now a film with the old "If you don't like it, LEAVE" rhetoric. Just what we all need, eh?

Uh... right, whatever. I'm personally getting sick of people endlessly saying that the U.S. harbors more undesirables (or is made up of nothing but undesirables) than anywhere else in the world.

I don't see where you're getting this "If you don't like it, LEAVE" tone from the guy's aims. Perhaps you could specify, for all I see is the guy just wants to show that Moore is not the Jesus many people think he is.

Then again, you seem to party to Moore's works ... Perhaps you see any sort of opposition as "whining" and "evidence that Americans are ignorant hicks?" I really hope that ain't so, but I see hints of it. "Oh look, someone wants to expose Moore, typical of those idiot Americans."

At 6/8/04 08:01 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Human scum comes in all shapes, sizes, locations, colors, and creeds. It sucks that those in power choose to fuel their political agendas by putting the blame on a whole group of people as opposed to the few actually-guilty individuals from that group.

"Crusade" means the exact same thing as "jihad". : \

Yeah.

Hating Muslims and calling them all terrorists is like hating Americans and calling them "fat ignorant lazy arrogant imperalist fucks," or hating the French and calling them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," or hating Canadians and calling them "pot-smoking igloo hicks."

In other words... it's all complete bullshit to think that way. People in the U.S. who are stereotyping all Muslims and Arabs under the terrorist thing because Bin Laden and Al-Qaida are among the most immediate, visible and well-known in the their minds.

At 6/8/04 06:44 AM, gem1 wrote: HA, Fine, you go deal with them. People feel this way for a reason! It's called reality!

It's called "looking at only the most visible members of a group." Your 'reality' doesn't apply to the entire subject.

At 6/8/04 06:08 AM, Solnari wrote: This is the same reason I don't bother fixing my car currently it's simply not worth it to drive. I work in a gas station and even with my discount it's not worth it, but I am one of the lucky ones I live in wisconsin where our government has began to refine their Urban planning so I can bike to work everyday.

Gas here is currently 2.09

Hell, if you ask me, driving a car isn't all that worth it even IF gas prices were 50 cents a gallon.

I mean, you gotta shell out an assload of money to buy a car.

And unless you don't want to get plastered with a hunk of cheese in your ass, you have to get insurance, too - which is costly, and often tends to get even MORE costly depending on the circumstances ...

And, of course, gas and maitenence.

But like you noted, and as others noted, public transportation isn't well developed in the U.S. we're also far more spread out than other countries, I feel, and given the "American love affair with the automobilke," that all combines into the reason why people bitch.

Like I said, I need a Brit to confirm for me what it's like over here in the U.K., but I have a feeling that since things are not nearly as far, people see no need to drive everywhere (or as that one guy said, just use public transportation ... double deckarz~ ). Since they're not driving everywhere, they don't pay for gas as much, even though it's astronomically high by American standards.

I dunno, it seems to me that driving is far more important to Americans than it is in other countries. I'd have to at least get confirmation from a Brit - how important is driving to people over there?

Given that people use their cars everywhere they go - and given that, at least out here in the Texas/Oklahoma border, things are rural/suburban sprawl, it'd take forever to walk or even bike anywhere. Things aren't "crammed in."

Well, for all the anti-American hatred that pours out of France, I don't hate back. I know not all French have a problem with us, but there are varying degrees of contempt, hate, prejudice or simple dislike that I've encountered. Some that I've encountered think that Americans are a lower lfe form - regarded me with arrogance and thought my views and opinions a sign of ignorance.

In other words, I've encountered a lot of chauvunism/nationalism under a French flag. The world loves associating "meathead-ism" with Americans, and only Americans, and that ain't fair - not when I've found Pat Buchanans of every nationality ... Canadian, Swedish, British, French ...

But yeah. I try to (try, mind you - I'm not always successful) judge people individually, and not let preconceptions based on their nation or otherwise get in the way. If I dislike someone, it's not because they're French, more likely because they're a prick.

That's me, though... there's plenty of people out there - American and otherwise - who need to learn to drop this stereotyping bullshit.

Y'mean having the European powers rise to dominance again?

Not a bad thing, mind you.

From a historical standpoint I didn't ever think that the various cultures of Europe would unify into a solid entity. Alliances, yes, but it looks like ya'll're headed into a fusion of one nation, perhaps an analogy of the U.S. as it was in its first years.

Guess two devastating wars that have permanently stunted the growth and development of the continent can change things ...

As far as I can tell you Brits, well ... I don't know what I can tell you. I always thought of the United Kingdom as a potent world power in its own right, with no need to join in a union with other nations. I will honestly frown the day the U.K. loses its identity.

'Cuz that's the thing here. When the U.S. was formed, the individual colonies had only existed for so long; there were cultural divisions, yes, but not established enough for any single colony to oppose losing its own ... uh, "body" to merge into something homogenous that would control its people.

So no one was really uncomfortable with it (at least until soon after), at least, enough to not want to add themselves to the union.

Europe, though, you guys have had cultures and nations that have evolved and developed for centuries. You've got an established identity, a way things are done, that you're comfortable with. Like you say, by merging with the rest of the EU you'll have the EU government telling you what to do - as they will do with all other member provinces.

So I dunno. If you guys cherish your independence, then the EU is a bad thing, but for the other individual countries ... hm.

I've said a whole lot of nothing, haven't I? :P

At 5/22/04 03:35 PM, angelicbutterfly wrote: why would they want to make the photo's in the first place

cuz American soldiers are sick basturds

why would they do something like this in the first place

American soldiers are prejustice, rasism, crazy, idiots, murderers of life and environment,

(...)

I'm Canadian

Well, gee. I find this pretty insulting. I can tell you first hand that your remark is 100% bullshit; I know quite a few soldiers who are good natured and nice people ... on top of this, I'm an Air Force brat (son of an American soldier). My dad sure as hell ain't "prejustice, rasism, crazy, idiots, murderers of life and environment."

And neither are many guys I know.

Do American soldiers who are "prejustice, rasism, crazy, idiots, murderers of life and environment" exist? No doubt (I've seen a few who are 25 and act like they should be in high school), but to label the entire American armed forces "prejustice, rasism, crazy, idiots, murderers of life and environment" bespeaks of your
own hypocritical prejudice and hatred for Americans.

American soldiers are humans, just like you. Sorry to burst your bubble there, I can tell you were enjoying the fantasy of American soldiers being winged demons from hell serving Great White Satan Bush's cause.

At 6/7/04 06:04 AM, Ignignot-Lies wrote: Nothing says "Intelligent debate to be found here!" like bad sentence structure in the thread title!

This is just a slightly modified "bush sucks" topic that turned into a "attack teh newb!!1" topic.

Then let's turn it around, shall we?

I personally am unsure who to vote for. I'm stuck between either voting Libertarian (Aaron Russo) or Kerry ... I'm leaning towards Aaron, but I don't know enough of what Kerry is promising or what he may do in office (as far as lies, being wishywashy, etc.). I'm not voting for Bush by any means; the corporate favoritism is turning me off.

If Kerry's going to continue lowering corporate taxes, though, I'm not sure what to think...

So, anyone got any sites that clearly list what Kerry is for (or, what Kerry may do to screwusall over)?

At 6/5/04 11:11 PM, Gooie wrote:

At 6/5/04 02:20 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm not asking wether or not we should believe them, I'm asking why their protest is considered relevant when Roman citizens don't effect anything as far as who is in charge of this country.

and I'm saying it is because they are smarter than us and American's are retarted.

Uh ... yeah, right. Refresh my memory, someone, but were they protesting Bushie's election back in 2000? Or his nomination? Or did they start protesting AFTER he was already in office? I don't recall.

Point is though, just because they are demonstrating against someone or something they don't like doesn't make them "1000000000x" smarter than another group of human beings that live across the Atlantic. People do that here, too.

Sheesh, is this stereotype of all Americans being brainless so ingrained as to be hardwired into Americans themselves? (Which is pretty sad, by the way.)

Yeah, see, this is my thing... Michael Moore, as far as I can tell, does heavily edit his documentaries and there has been controversy that some of the stuff he has done was completely made up.

What pisses me off about this is that he won an oscar for it. Aren't documentaries s'posed to be, y'know, the straight dope?

The other thing that gets to me is how loved he is around the world. I can't count how many times I've been told by someone outside of the U.S. to listen to the "gospel of Michael Moore" (and Noah Chomsky for that matter) because he, apparently, is the only American who is intelligent.

Darn, and, I thought I had some gray matter of my own in this here skill'o'mine. :(

Seriously, for all I've seen of Moore, it's a little sickening to see him get treatment from other countries that are usually reserved for high level diplomats; and how earnestly so many people around the world believe him (as in, they think he's saying the truth without any twists and fabrications ... or "artistic edits," if you prefer those semantics).

I'd like to say Moore has a gift for making people believe what he wants them to believe, but... I think he's just saying what people want to hear (i.e. that the United States and its people are sub-human, or what have you).