Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

That's why states need an alternative form of death to fall back on. I think here in Idaho it's hanging and in Utah it's firing squad. Wouldn't that be fun.

At 3/29/04 03:16 PM, Le-Reiper wrote: Ummm from what I've seen the terrorist attack didn't effect our encomy as bad as people believe, will fine the source if I get the time after I get home from work.

I don't know how big of a part it played in making any stocks drop or anything like that but it without a doubt delayed the recovery.

At 3/29/04 02:55 PM, llIl wrote:
All through out the Clinton years, the gap between the rich and the poor grew astronomically. And now, during the second Bush years, everyone is suffering equally.

Thanks a lot, Bush.

A good comunist like yourself should be rejoicing, the class system no longer applies.

Surely you don't blame Bush for the end of the dot com boom and the terrorist attacks of September 11.

At 3/29/04 08:52 AM, Comrade_Red wrote: i agree with you there capitalism is full of shit the people, if this was true wouldn't america be flooded with millinoaires and such by now, and yet there are still the poor and the homeless and the people we do hear about getting rich were as you said the ones that we're already rich or were discovered by some rich guy. The people that did get rich by working hard in america were rare cases.

There are many examples of ordinary people working thier way to wealth in America. That said capitalism isn't about everybody becoming rich because the system would not work out. Rather people take out more or less what they put in. America may not be "flooded with millionaires" but I would be willing to bet we have more than any other country. America has the highest standard of living in the world and the only reason most of the poor are considered poor is because the US has elevated standards. The fact is our poor live better lives than the majority people in the world.

At 3/29/04 03:46 AM, llIl wrote:
Ahaha. I <3 the BeFell. Sure, he's the only one around here with a legit Bush banner, and his politics are all out of wack, but he's got the sarcasm thing down pat.

Don't forget my unsurpassed skills with MS Paint, quaint mormonism and mutilated penis.

At 3/28/04 11:21 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: Every body knows that HIV was bioengineered by THE MAN to keep the brothers down.

I take it you missed the white peoples meeting last thursday?

It's the oddest thing, I got a Mexican American roomate and suddenly the newsletter stopped comming.

Yay my 100th post!!! I was waiting to save it for something profound but then I realized where I am.

At 3/28/04 07:55 PM, canadian_dude wrote:

At 3/28/04 07:51 PM, BeFell wrote:

I could say the same thing to a white american living in a trailor park, sux to be you now shut the fuck up and get a job. lol

Exactly

This really doesn't have much to do with circumcision but I didn't see the point in starting another AIDS thread and I thought this was interesting.

http://www.fumento.com/pozaids.html

Thus, black AIDS cases outnumber white ones by ten to one, per capita. Non-white Hispanic cases outnumber those of whites 27 to one. With 15 percent of the population, blacks have about two-thirds of the cases in the "heterosexual contact category," while non-white Hispanics have more such cases than whites yet are outnumbered by whites in the U.S. population by 8 to 1. A black mother is almost 30 times more likely to give birth to a baby that develops AIDS and a non-white Hispanic mother over 70 times as likely as a white woman. Are we going to start labeling a virus "racist?"

I made a little picture to illustrate the tendencies of the HIV virus however I am somewhat puzzled that it isn't anti-semetic.

I have been wondering about something for a while: white people started taking the Native Americans' land away over 400 years ago. How long are they going to be bitching about it? Jeez you lost get a job.

The only reason there isn't much effort going into alternative fuel sources is because there is no demand for it. It isn't practical right now because oil is still releativialy cheap. If the price does indeed to go up new options will be explored with vigor and the energy industries would adjust accordingl. Also we could make our oil last longer if we could drill our own oil in the US. Screw the Caribou.

At 3/27/04 02:44 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/26/04 07:21 PM, BeFell wrote: one sided liberalism pisses them off.

Show me a few examples of this liberal propaganda.

I didn't say propaganda I just don't feel that CNN works very hard to show the other side of the issue.

That is the coolest thing I have ever seen. Thank you

Sorry for not finding this thread sooner and forcing you to have to find me.

At 3/26/04 08:29 PM, Red_Skank wrote:

At 3/26/04 08:23 PM, BeFell wrote: I was reffering to each station's individual viewership ratios.

huh wha?

Okay read slowly. Your numbers reffer to the total number of conservatives in the poll and shows which stations they prefer. The ratios I was speculating on are the ratios of conservatives compared to other veiwers watching each individual station. So I am theorizing that out of all of the people who watch Fox a higher percentage of them are conservative compared to the percentage of conservatives out of all of the people who watch CNN.

At 3/26/04 08:16 PM, Red_Skank wrote: ah ah! The first article mentioned how CNN had a larger ratio of conservative viewers...

I was reffering to each station's individual viewership ratios.

At 3/26/04 08:04 PM, ohp-kyle wrote: Aside from being a part of the Jewish religion (and this new AIDS information...), what's the point?

What if the Jews are right? It's always good to cover your bases.

At 3/26/04 07:36 PM, Red_Skank wrote:

The Program's researchers then asked where the respondents got most of their news. The findings: 80 percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of the statements, and 45 percent believed all three. Of CBS viewers, 71 percent believed one of the mistakes, and 55 percent of CNN and NBC viewers believed one of the statements.

I think this is a situation of someone drawing a conclusion about to seemingly but actually unrelated facts. The people who would like to mistakenly believe those things are conservatives who may have their judgement clouded by wishful thinking. Since thre is probably a high ratio of conservatives among Fox veiwers it would be reasonable that Fox would show more of these people. Similarily the ratio of CNN veiwers who are conservative is probably much less that of Fox so CNN would surely show less of these. Using this sound statistical observation one could argue that the above ratios do not really mean what they seam to mean.

It isn't suprising, for most cable companies CNN comes basic while Fox is usually in a more premium package. Since all the people with basic only have one option they tune to CNN to read the news crawl and turn it off quickly because the one sided liberalism pisses them off.

At 3/26/04 01:54 AM, GoldenClock wrote:
That's because everyone wanted total equality.
JAJAJ

You can't choose something if you have no knowledge of an alternative. Isn't that more or less what the book was about?

At 3/26/04 01:10 AM, Red_Skank wrote:
'Classical' Liberalism is basically the course of America throughout much of history. My interpretation of it is economic freedom - the freedom to make moola and lose it, etc. No gov't-imposed restrictions on earning teh wealth (don't confuse with laisse faire however. I don't believe the two are one and the same).

Combine that with a democractic model, and voila, you have America - a Liberal Democracy.

God damnitt I was just trying to get one little slam in on the democratic party but no... you guys have to come in with your "literal" interpitations. Okay that said thank-you I was not aware of that terminology I am wiser now because of you. Hmm that kinda hurt to say.

At 3/26/04 12:03 AM, Jlop985 wrote: No, really, economic liberalism means minimal government intervention in the economy. What Republicans and Libertarians believe in.

I don't quite trust your definition but I don't know for sure so I will let it go but anyways when I said liberal I was describing what liberals do. Democrats if you will.

At 3/25/04 11:57 PM, Red_Skank wrote:

At 3/25/04 11:52 PM, BeFell wrote:

I kind of phased out befell when he started calling everyone a jackass, but there was a group in northern Iraq, Ansar Al-Islam, which had ties to Al-Qaeda. Fox News and neo-cons everywhere insist that there was also links between Saddam and this group - and VOILA! - the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.

I am sorry if I offended you I just l am just really happy that that date is approaching. You already know my answer to all the rest.

P.S.
Do you like my brand new boxing glove?

But this is laughable, because the northern Kurds were primarily fighting for their independance from Iraq - why would Saddam fund them? Saddam had no control over northern Iraq, or he would of done something about them. Before the war, the group numbered about 300, now estimates put this one group at anywhere from 400-600. Good job US.

At 3/25/04 11:48 PM, GoldenClock wrote: Have you ever read The Giver? It's a good book. >: (

That society sucked, they couldn't even see in color.

At 3/25/04 11:48 PM, The_Someone wrote: There was one terrorist and now he's out.

Okay, there are terrorists there, but not al qaidea, and not any serious threat. Al qaidea is at the afgan borders to pakistan. Well, i'm not sure of that, but i'm rpettty sure.

now i'm in toruble...

The US has intercepted a memo that states Al Qaeda is working in Iraq to incite a civil war so the United States will not be able to reasonbly hand over power in three months. That's right three months all of you jackasses that accuse the US of imperialism.

At 3/25/04 11:39 PM, Jlop985 wrote:

At 3/25/04 11:31 PM, BeFell wrote:

That's not economic liberalism.

Eh, close enough.

At 3/25/04 11:26 PM, Jlop985 wrote: Total equality would require management too expansive by the government.

Not if the government took 100% of everyone's income, that would solve both problems in a true liberal fashion.

Hooray for my parents foresight in having me mutilated.

At 3/25/04 06:25 PM, -gOOie- wrote:

At 3/25/04 03:17 PM, BeFell wrote:

Hitler and his Nazi stormtroopers! Duh! Have you forgotten the memo to the forum that clearly stated that "all problems are linked to the German leadership from world war II"?

I think I am too new. Please don't make fun.

At 3/25/04 03:07 PM, The_Someone wrote: Wtf, they never have.
And if you're talking about Iraq thats where you are compeletely wrong. All terrorists are located between the afghanistan and pakistani border.

Terrorists are all over the world.

Pay attention to the news. What about dick clark? Did you hear what he has repeatedly said?

Why don't you watch the news are you aware of an interveiw Dick Clark gave two years ago when he praised the Bush administration for thier pre 9/11 actions on terrorism. He even went as far as saying the Bush administration adopted a stronger elimination policy on Al Qaeda while the Clinton administration only had a roll back policy.

We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq, I think everyone knows that.

Then who the hell keeps launching rockets at our troops and blowing up Iraqi civilians.

At 3/25/04 02:56 PM, The_Someone wrote: France has been victims of numerous terrorists attacks from alqaidea inculding a few that were supposed to blow up the eiffel tower and the arc de triomphe.

And they still refuse to fight terrorism?

Do you think it had anything to do with the French government making the Muslim head towel thing illegal?