Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/27/04 07:29 AM, Einzelgaenger wrote: yup, it happened at least once. Roger MacBride, bless his soul, voted Libertarian because Nixon was a ass-backwards Neo-Con.

So that's why Nixon won 49 states in that election (1972)?

The only thing I've heard is stronger at home, respected abroad. Although, that plan sounds too idealist.

At 7/27/04 05:17 PM, Gooie wrote: Wow, I'm really going to believe a radical right wing site.

With all information appropriately linked to sources. It has more crediblity than Moore's propoganda, which has no sources.

At 7/27/04 05:04 PM, Gooie wrote: WELL IF HE WOULD STOP FLIP FLOPPING

wait... he doesn't flip flop...

http://nojohnkerry.org/kerryhtml/flipflops.htm

I'm sure he doesn't.

At 7/27/04 05:04 PM, Red_Hot_Bakshi_Sauce wrote: This is example of the far left reaching out to the right right to prevent the centrists from getting elected?

The Democratic party is not centrist anymore. The Libermans who used to hold the power of that party are now small players in the game.

At 7/27/04 04:50 PM, Red_Hot_Bakshi_Sauce wrote: I wonder if the media will even follow the Republican National Convention. I mean, the whole world knows their agenda anyways, why exhaust yourself at covering the convention.

Why should they cover the DNC? I mean, the Democratic party has already had several months to spread Kerry's image and platform. Right? Right?

At 7/27/04 04:48 PM, Gooie wrote: Wow, that was soo not flamingly racist

I'm sorry, but when we were attacked on 9/11, we didn't cower back in fear, recall Bush, and and vote socalist.

At 7/27/04 04:02 PM, darkphantom wrote: Its pretty obvious why the republicans did that... To split the democrat vote. They know its gonna be another tight call and there gonna need to get as many votes on there side as possable... Or draw as many votes away from there primary opposition.

Splitting the vote has been a common theme in Democrat politics too. That's how Wilson won in 1912 and Clinton won in 1992.

At 7/27/04 04:01 PM, Metal69hed wrote: The Phillipines is a confusing mixture of anti-American and pro-American politics.

How is that any different than the US. BTW, I'm not suprised at all they withdrew; any country with Spanish blood turns and flees like a sissy when the threat of terror is imminent.

The best argument against the patriot act is the permission for federal courts and investigators to obtain library records for people suspected of terrorist activity. Interestingly enough, courts were allowed to do that pre-patriot act for suspected criminals; this has helped lead to the capture of many notorious criminals (including the unibomber).

People speak of the patriot act as a hinderance to liberty all the time; however, I have not heard of one case where somebody's rights were violated. Give me one example.

I heard on the news today that last night's convention received the worst ratings in broadcast history for any DNC. In one sense, that shocked me because most of the Democrat's shining stars were up on stage last night. But then again, maybe the American public is fed up with the crap that side has been spewing for months.

At 7/7/04 12:03 AM, red_skunk wrote: I'll reiterate - spanking can be useful, but only along with good parenting (obviously). We reprimand our dog, but he's still an asshole (ha).

Society needs to emphasize the part about being ready before getting knocked up, so everyone realizes what a damn chore it is.

And then spank the little bastard if he truly deserves it.

I think you've really sumed it up. Spanking is a last-resort tool that should not be forgoten by parents after all other methods fail. In reality, spanking should only be necessary for kids under 6. When bad behavior (mouthing off, stubborness, whatever) persists past that age, it means you've been too lenient and need to make some corrections in the way you've disciplined your children.

But see, it's ok for them to do that. It's not ok for us to torture prisoners.

At 6/18/04 10:03 AM, zachomis wrote:

At 6/18/04 12:03 AM, Alejandro1 wrote: I takes gasolene to produce electricity. I don't know if you'd be saving any gasolene at all.

You no longer belong in the gene pool, your stupidity overwhelms me

In addition to direct combustion for commercial uses, fossil fuels are also burned to generate most of the world's electric power. Coal-fired power plants produce 37 percent of the world's electrical power, while petroleum and natural gas generate a combined 25 percent. Since the late 1970s, however, the total proportion of fossil fuel-generated electricity has decreased worldwide from 71 to 62 percent. In 1996, 38 percent of the world's remaining electricity supply was generated by a combination of nuclear fission (17 percent), hydroelectric power (19 percent), and solar, geothermal, and other sources (2 percent).

"Fossil Fuels," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Congrats, you are a retard.

At 6/17/04 02:41 PM, -Brandon- wrote: 1) What is your education level, or year in school?

Junior year of high school.

2a) If youre in college, which one?

I'm planning on going to either Case Western Reserve University or Carnegie Mellon

2b) What is your major?

I want to major in Biomedical Engineering

3) What would you like to do as a career?

I would like to work for the Cleveland Clinic

At 6/17/04 11:58 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote: Sure, the initial costs would be more, but imagine the longterm savings from avoiding gasoline.

I takes gasolene to produce electricity. I don't know if you'd be saving any gasolene at all.

At 6/17/04 11:49 PM, SamsanMerchant wrote: Haha shouldn't he know that Asians outbrain us?

Doesn't mean they should make more than us (by us, I'm assuming you mean everyone else except for Asians.) I know a lot of Asians who are quite lazy.

At 6/17/04 10:41 PM, skullmaster wrote: usa is a world that is truly run by evil, terrible men ,men who are willing to put the business interests of themselves and others ahead of the lives of American soldiers and civilians. Men who lie and cheat and get away with it. They take boating trips with the cort judges who will be hearing cases involving them. They refuse to testify under oath while demanding that others do the same.

The UN is an organization that is truly run by evil, terrible men ,men who are willing to put the business interests of themselves and others ahead of the lives of the world's soldiers and civilians. Men who lie and cheat and get away with it. They take boating trips with the commission judges who will be hearing cases involving them. They refuse to testify under oath while demanding that others do the same.

Hey, that kinda sounds accurate.

The only income that suprised me was the asian average. I thought it was considerably less than that.

At 6/16/04 10:43 PM, Noctroler wrote: But it's not just the waiting lists that are the problem. Number of registered nurses and quality of long term care have slumped.

The lack of nurses is attributed to the salary disparity between nurses and doctors. When the salaries of nurses go up (trust me, they will in the next 5 years) more people will join the profession.

At 6/16/04 09:02 PM, Gorelax wrote: Right wing parties like the American Republicans or the Canadian Conservatives are well, kinda evil, favouring big buisness, high military spending and little to no social assistance (to make an example). Left wing parties favour social assistance, government control and administration of assets of public interest, and low military spending (aka PEACE... :P

If conservative America is so evil, favoring no social assistance, why do we have a lower unemployment rate than Canada? (US has a current 5.7%, compared to Canada's 7.7%. (Source-CIA factbook)) Our government works to create jobs for us.

BTW, low military spending does not mean peace. It means you're not taken seriously by nations stronger than you.

At 6/16/04 06:39 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: You fail to recognize that territories are won and lost in wars.

Wasn't Mexico orginally stolen by Cortes? So technically, we just took what the Spanish took first.

Mexico is a resource rich nation with an even richer culture, they simply need to collectively rebuild their country and they'll be very prosperous.

Easier said then done.

Don't all nations? I see a lot worse actions that are simply dismissed.

The US is a Christian nation, we don't believe in karma.

At 6/16/04 01:56 PM, SKUNKbrs wrote: The only thing Edwards had going for him was the southern thing. Besides that, he was unknown. And Gephardt totally lost it when all of the unions got behind Kerry or Dean.

Really? Actually, the AFL-CIO is supporting Gephardt for vice president.

"Gephardt better damn well be the pick," says an AFL-CIO lobbyist. "We've done too much for Kerry to get screwed this way. A governor from Iowa ain't going to cut it for our membership. It's been tough enough selling Kerry to some of our people."

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6698

Kerry has name recognition, and, finally, started cautiously attacking the war in Iraq. He's a veteran, which is suppose to be a big plus.

Isn't this the same man who came back from Vietnam only to join the peacenicks? I don't think his being a veteran will help him in this election.

At 6/13/04 04:03 PM, HoodedLynx wrote: 1. Ummm, our country isn't in the Middle East, we have to right to establish military bases over there only because we are a superpower

Who said we had the right? We are establishing bases to protect the well-being of our country.

2. Abortion does have somthing to do with domestic policy, scuse' me on that one, but I don't see how as I said before, placing laws on or against abortion will help the country out at all.

It will improve our country's morals. If you remove abortion, maybe people will use protection while having sex. That will also reduce the number of children born to single mothers, which is currently one of the top causes of poverty in this country.

3. see #2

My words exactly.

4. Religious charities? religous groups are private organizations, you really think that religious charities (minues things like the red cross and salvation army) are going to help anyone out? Most religous charities are spent on missionairies (sp?) going into other countries trying to spread their own religion.

Actually, religious groups do help sick people in the US. Not all of their money is spent on missionaries.

5. Environmental regulations decreased? How is that a good thing at all, remeber to talk to me when my next pet has five legs thanks to the polution and what not.

Removing some regulations will allow businesses to save money trying to make their products completely environmentally sound. Companies will begin to make more money, improving the economy.

6. Ummm, we are in a defecit remeber, how is military funding going to help the economy of our countries, or even help the economy of other countries?

"Government spending makes jobs," says Keynes. If we provide military aid to Iraq and Afganistan for the next few years, the government will be more secure, allowing for a change to a capitalist, free-market economy in those countries.

7. Free trade? you know what free trade stand for in conservative language right? it means pay the farmers 2 cents a day to work their fingers bloody so we americans can get our coffe for 50 cents less then we payed a year ago.

You do realize that our government pays farmers not to work in order to keep the price of goods up. In fact, the government buys farmers products for the exact same reason. Why do you think it costs more for a gallon of milk than it does for a gallon of gas? Heh, and we're bitching about $2 gas prices.

8. Taxes are lower? see #6

When taxes are lowered on our citizens, they are more prone to work harder, increasing our GDP. This increase in GDP, in turn, will offset the government spending.

I love how the actions of a few have come to personify the entire US military. The prisoner abuse was bad no matter how you look at it, but how could you tag the entire military and Bush with the crime?

At 6/15/04 04:14 PM, John_st_r wrote: AS A OSAMA bush is A Terrorist, in My country we call him As bushiT, because war is The only Thing he Makes As SHIT... poor Man !

Are you talking?

At 6/16/04 02:17 AM, L-Trippin wrote: For some strange reason, kerry will say anything to be president. He's isn't trustworthy. He has flip flopped on a variety of issues, and seems to change his beliefs whenever its politically expiedent to do so.

Heh, it's funny. Today, Kerry announced that he was the leader of the middle class, accusing Bush of not creating enough jobs and protecting those of our current workers; ironically, over a million jobs have been created in the past 3 months.

At 5/31/04 12:03 AM, Reform wrote: I may be taking your post wrongly, but isn't this assuming that the user is an idiot and therefore would choose to use the drug. Isn't this just accepting a sterotype?

No, I'm saying that when you choose to use pot, you want to get high, not to get a minor buzz.

At 5/30/04 11:56 PM, Reform wrote: Society would adapt without these inventions and utilities, in the process developing quite differently to the world today, man kind could work around limitations in communications and being the ingenious creaures we are, would most likely create alternative medians to counteract the lack.

If these innovations didn't exist, I'd picture the world the same way it was back in the 1920's (minus planes). Sure, we'd probably find ways to cope with society's problems; however, industrial output would not increase, leading to an increase in the cost of living with a coupled decrease in the standard of living. The rate of scientific advancement would also drop.

At 5/30/04 11:51 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Perhaps there will be a marijuana that provides the same effects as actual marijuana without any of the negative effects.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose then? I mean, if you're planning on taking marijuana, you're probably going to act like an idiot. Expect it.