Be a Supporter!
Response to: - The Regulars Lounge Thread - Posted July 30th, 2003 in Politics

DarkBlueFlame, maybe youre just ranting some temporary feelings. I'm sure everyone feels like that sometimes. And don't take religion literally. Just realize that the
New Testament, I think, has the most info to help you live your life. And youre only 18. You will probably soon have the means to do whatever you want. Or get counseling.

Response to: I don't support the troops! Posted July 30th, 2003 in Politics

Wow. That is one long sentence.

Response to: Gay High School to open in New Yor Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

As far as animals go, homosexuality is counter-evolutionary. All adaptations in animals are designed to further their lives so they can reproduce. Homosexuality is the destruction of those characteristics. Now, with people, the weak survive because of human compassion etc, so I'm not saying that homosexuals are lesser humans. But how natural is it that homosexual animals are doomed to live without fulfilling their purpose of reproduction?

Response to: The George Bush Show 3 controversy Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

Oh and one more thing, Strike and Damndo, you both say either that most reasons have been PROVEN false, or there have been statements that ADMITTED that MOST of the reasons were false. Please explain.

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

At 7/29/03 06:46 PM, Rancorman wrote: Actually, we did boycott France, in a way, recently. I mean, liberty fries? LIBERTY FRIES?!?! Last time we changed the name of an item with a name regarding a foreign country was World War 2! As for the UN, I f we didn't need their approval or aid from them them in the first place on the war on Iraq, why the hell did we ask them?

Look, the freedom fries campaign was a joke. And its always better for war support if more countries OK it.
And I suppose the f.f. was a boycott just like the Iron
curtain was metal

Response to: - The Regulars Lounge Thread - Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

Maybe I didn't see all the conversation, but since when does posting more make your voice anymore powerful or effective? And Shrike, how long did it take you to make that media showing you made 29 posts?

Response to: The George Bush Show 3 controversy Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

At 7/29/03 06:37 PM, adrshepard wrote:

I meant to say "cover up" instead of outweigh

Response to: The George Bush Show 3 controversy Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

No. Only one piece of evidence has been proven false. Because we haven't found any doesn't mean they are not there. And don't say we should have with the troops because you don't know. I belive that Saddam had the capability to move weapons and hide them. But in any case, no one knows. You may be right. But until every place has been explored, don't jump to conclusions. And Shrike, there is more to being president than just having power. The president is supposed to be the best leader in the nation, in all qualities. He has no personal life
to hide. Regardless of what his achievements in office were, it is impossible to say that they outweigh the moral sins this man committed and that they have had no effect on the domestic and international community.

Response to: The George Bush Show 3 controversy Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

Shrike, as far as making wars for no reason, there was plenty reason for Afghanistan. And as for Iraq, is there
anything you can say in defense of Saddam and his dictatorship? Or should the strongest country in the world just stand by as he commits crimes against humanity. Read any news magazine and you will see there is reason enough, if at least for the sake of the people who were imprisoned, raped, or tortured, that this guy needed to be taken out.
BTW, as a #1 representative of a the strongest nation on Earth, Bubba Clinton should have at least upheld the morals that civilization as a whole recognizes.

Response to: Gay High School to open in New Yor Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

I also agree that the decision is up to them. This is not segregation. If it were, the gays would not be allowed to go anywhere else. Besides, what about private schools? It is safe to say that there is a generally similar population that goes to private middle and high schools.

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

At 7/29/03 04:24 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: He demands nations follow him or else they shouldn't be expecting any foreign aid for a long time. That's good old fashioned blackmail, in one sense of the term.

We don't owe them anything, we aren't breaking any contracts. We're not boycotting any uncooperative nations. It's not our fault that they need our aid. So I don't think blackmail is the correct term. And as far as the UN is concerned we have the right to go to war without their approval.

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

And I forgot to ask wtf you mean by "kick it and stuff."

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

Doesn't do anything useful? Just talks to people? He has done lots of "useful" things in his administration. I won't even go into how "useful" it has been to make sure that Al-Qaida is no where near as well equipped and powerful enough to bother us anymore. How about wiping out a brutal dictator who imprisons children, kills those who speak out against him, and has sons that rape teenage girls. And the tax cuts, which wasn't made to help the rich. You get back what you put into it, and obviously rich people pay more taxes than some poor family. Do these things fit your def. of "useful?"

Response to: How the U.S. Profits off Terror Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

Excuse me, maybe I missed something, but how are the bidders going to get money if all they need to bid is a username and a password, and do not disclose their identities?

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

I would like to know how Bush is a tyrant, JudgeMeHarshlyX. What has he done, or do you mean tyrant as in the ancient definition?

Response to: - The Regulars Lounge Thread - Posted July 29th, 2003 in Politics

Why is this string in the politics section? I can imagine what sort of repulsive images await on those two mother nazi-ing sites. Though I can't imagine anything worse than goetze.

Response to: I don't support the troops! Posted July 28th, 2003 in Politics

For one thing, Doggy Dude, it doesn't help your case at all that you're 13 and you can't spell worth monkey crap.
It sounds to me that youre just tired of all the incessant patriotic gibberish over the last two years. But it's not like the military is an extension of society. They have a job and an employer, and if they want to stay there they obey. And no, it's not the same as Hitler ordering troops to kill Jews.

Response to: Guns and their uses... Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

So I guess the next question is, if you see me mugged on the street, would you help or save your bullets in this militarized zone.

Response to: - The Regulars Lounge Thread - Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

Nice to meet you. I am Jack's post.

Response to: Gays and the Army Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

Gays are no different than anyone else. They shouldn't be punished for who they are. I'm sure that many had serious issues to deal with when they began to come out of the closet. I would think that most gays are not like the ones on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" And why doesn't anybody complain about lesbians in the army? Are there any?

Response to: Guns and their uses... Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

Wow funkbrs. Are you sure you aren't one of those people
with a gun that tells people what to do? Lighten up and stop being so paranoid. This isn't some African warzone country. And on gun regulations, rifles and handguns, I think, are justifiable, though less handguns, but no civilian should be able to legally buy automatic weapons.
They are overkill for hunting and too dangerous for anyone but the police and military to possess.

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

Not every piece of intelligence is immune to scrutiny. To say that Bush lied is inaccurate. There is no proof either way. I think there was sufficient reason
even without the Nigeria-uranium piece to go to war against Saddam. By the way, that piece is the one everyone is accusing him of lying about. And it was a single ex-ambassador that went to investigate in Nigeria.
You can look it up yourself.

Response to: - The Regulars Lounge Thread - Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

Wow. Lol. Didn't expect this much response. I was surprised that many of you replied without being coarse brutes. No, I haven't seen the boneheads that post here, and perhaps you have a point. But being right gives you no special status, especially when it relates to anonymous communication. I really only posted because I couldn't really find anything else interesting in the politics section.

Response to: - The Regulars Lounge Thread - Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

Wow. What a little pretentious prick you are, JudgemeharshX. Like wasting countless hours on an alltogether unimportant site gives you some special status. No one is exempt from the right to comment on whatever you or others say.

Response to: Bushisms? Posted July 27th, 2003 in Politics

And of course, Bush runs everything, and because some idiot investigator made inaccurate reports, or some excited speech writer put in a false claim, it has to be his fault, right?

Response to: New Site Layout Posted July 2nd, 2003 in NG News

Looks great. But about the all the pop-ups, especially the new ezine support: Do you really want your website to be affiliated with such outrageous smut? In addition, is it worth supporting Newgrounds for free when the ezine distributes your address and you get megabytes of porn spam?