Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If NS is going to be used it would have to have a very slow introduction into society. Presenting it in a High school "job fair" enviroment would be a good start. Showing people their options then giving them a choice of service.

The gains for the individuals as stated above I agree with but the monetary part could be a problem. Maybe contract work for the different services? That won't work completely or at all of some of the services, but for some of the more labor or special skill intensive that could be a real boon.

Say a landscaping or engineering firm is going to miss a deadline and will begin to lose money? They call an NS branch to send extra labor to keep them on track for a small cut of the contract profits. A nursing home is short on caregivers? They call an NS branch to fill in until they get more employees, giving the government the orginal wages for that slot.

I dunno, maybe Im rambling...thoughts?

At 8/31/05 07:34 AM, BobDoUrden wrote: hehe Raise your hand if you've ever taken a dumb survey/test in a mall or at school and you purposely put retarded answers.

Moi!

Sure that doesn't excuse everybody but it'd prolly lower the 1-8 to 1-6

Man, to much drinking... I meant 1-5 to 1-3...

hehe Raise your hand if you've ever taken a dumb survey/test in a mall or at school and you purposely put retarded answers.

Moi!

Sure that doesn't excuse everybody but it'd prolly lower the 1-8 to 1-6

Well, you could also look at it from the other side. Its also peoples right to disagree with gay unions.

At 12/30/04 08:36 AM, FeatherSnake wrote:

By the way, isn't USA the only remaining super power?

It could be argued that china has reached or is close to reaching super power status

At 12/28/04 10:26 PM, bambi_206 wrote: Do you mean very few, or like tiny men running around wiht M-16's?

Just a little correction - They use Kalashnikov AK-47s not M-16s. Okay, continue debate ;)

At 12/28/04 03:49 AM, I7-I2-E-I7-I7 wrote:

do you think with the heavily increased global militarization in recent years (..also considering that climate change threatens wide starvation potentially leading to anarchy and war) that this is a likely event, and if so, when?

I feel that global militarization could be a key to preventing wars and nuclear strikes. If all the big players of the world had detachments of men and material scattered around the world within anothers borders I think that would be a good way to disuade those nations from taking action. At least for the reason of destroying those detachments if nukes went flying.

If anything, personnel from many countries would get a chance to mingle and learn about each other and possibly put to rest stereotypes. ahh anyway, maybe thats a little to far fetched

At 12/28/04 06:08 AM, Zloto wrote:

At 12/27/04 03:41 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Exactly! ive checked on this issue a bit, and discovered that most countries that are in danger of being hit by a tsunami have alarm systems against it.The problem is, the countries that were hit are poor, so they didn't install that system.
but still, US systems tracked the quake- they couldve warned all the countries, even if they didnt know exactly where the tsunami might hit.

I'm sure more countries that just the U.S. tracked it, so it falls abit on just about every developed nation to warn their neighbors.

Though worst is what happened in Somalia- the tsunami had to have taken at least 6-7 hours to reach the shores there- couldn't have they been warned.
I at least hope that this disaster will trigger safety regulations for next time. problem is, safety regulations cost money, something none of the countries hit will be able to afford, esp after the economical price of this disaster.

Another issue is that if the countries in question are bad enough off that they can't afford the early warning systems, then there could be a chance that they don't have the means to communicate a warning given by another nation to all its people

Aw god, just ignore my last one...shoulda read the article...gah sorry

Just speculating here but a government has a bureacracy and there is a chance that something like this could have gotten lost in the paper shuffle until this time that the issue was brought up. I have a little experience in paper pushing and even lower level government (town and county) have problems like this. Usually until it someone files a true complaint.

At 12/28/04 11:09 AM, bcdemon wrote: Ok, let me get this straight, Reagan is/was allowed to support terrorists groups? I thought america was dead against all terrorists and thier actions? Ohhhhh, sorry, I forgot the US double standard thingy. Ya know, Saudi Arabia.

Well, Reagan's little side deals did cause a bit of a scandal. Also, although it doesn't matter much, his buisness with said groups happened before the whole War on Terror era.

At 12/28/04 01:41 PM, ReiperX wrote:

<am I the only person on this board that at least tries to give all of the congressmen and the president their proper respect by typing out their title?>

For me its more a matter of expedient typing than respect. Also, I think that people don't even think about it when they type(then again there could be some people that do it on purpose).

At 12/28/04 10:52 AM, D2KVirus wrote:

Oh, wait, that's right - they're hired killers, aren't they? I keep forgetting that.

Hah awesome, I feel like a true-blue merc now...hired killer...hehe

At 12/26/04 08:27 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote:

With Pleasure.
You see we have all these evangelists in America, who kill in the name of Jesus, kill abortionists, kill homosexuals and try to keep races out of thier churches. They have they same type of people in the middle east with one twist, they do the exact same thing in the name of Allah instead of Jesus. When we look at the religious extremists in the middle east, we label them as terrorists, sinners, and assholes. We don't bare the fact that all the SUV drivers support terrorism by filling thier gas tanks up with all that Afganhi/Iraqi/Lybian oil.
That's my 5 cent.

Well, I dunno, some religious extremists in the middle east also believe in honor killings (like when a daughter marries out of the religon or has an affair and are killed by their family). Also, there are the bombings and such that are the trademark of middle eastern extremists. I haven't seen nearly as many Christian extremists do that as I've seen Islamic.

I may be wrong here, but does Afganistan have oil?

At 12/26/04 02:17 PM, Maus wrote: Let's not forget that Friedman lived over there for a number of years, and his view is a little more applicable than many of the pundits that jabber with only the knowledge of what the wire tells them.

Here, here!

Heh I love these military terms that people create and use that no one from the military has idea of.

Thank you though.

At 12/25/04 06:33 PM, Evil_Alex37 wrote: One thing is for sure.
Islamic Middle Eastern extremists, are much better that Christian American religous extremists.

Can you explain that at all?

At 12/26/04 11:36 AM, ohp-kyle wrote:

I just can't see Iraq as being about spreading democracy, especially when it was planned in the late 90's by the 'neoconservatives' who are trying to obtain 'full spectrum dominance'.

I thought he was doing good until he started bashing Europeans. One question though, what do you mean by "full spectrum dominance"?

At 12/25/04 01:04 AM, afliXion wrote:

At 12/25/04 12:34 AM, Maus wrote:

At 12/25/04 12:08 AM, afliXion wrote: There is a big difference between 'thinking' it and 'doing' it.

There are Christians that murder doctors. There are Christians that kill black people. There are Christians that beat their wives.

links? sources? proof??

There was a big stink on the news a few years back when a well known abortionist was gunned down outside his clinic by diehard fundementalists. Though I don't have the inclination to look, im sure if you went through the news archives on cnn.com they'd have some stuff about it.

Also the KKK is are all about being good white christians

I'd like too, but having all that reading (your links) is hard to comphrend for me in one sitting, takes me awhile. Think you could give us a synopsis of that info?

Merry X-mas, watch out for reindeer poo

At 12/24/04 03:14 PM, Maus wrote: Hamad Karzai's ultimate goal is to replace the tribal factions with a unified military. He is not pandering to warlords.

Unfortunately, he has to be really careful. Alot of the warlords and tribal leaders still have alot of power. He can't just go and boot 'em out or there would be a big risk of rebellion.

At 12/24/04 04:23 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

At 12/24/04 03:57 PM, Hermannator wrote:

I would say, "Well, geez, where was you rebellious and hostile attitude when Saddam was in power?"

Interesting, my response would be, "Well what the fuck do you want me to do about it?"

Usually if you sympathize with them you can get a free luncheon outta them. They wait until your mouth is full then they really let you have it.

I dunno, I think China could give more than a run for the U.S.

Body count is a large factor in determining military might.

Hey thanks, maybe ill give it a shot. It'll be tough for me though, If it doesn't have large explosions, swords, sharks or cat-girls.

hmm the U.S. doesn't have any history involving cat-girls does it?

Yeah, its sorta hard to keep them straight sometimes.

Was it Clinton that went to a foreign country and said he was happy to be there, but said the the wrong name?

At 12/24/04 11:56 AM, Rooster349 wrote: Slizor, I wrote a post just for you and other history revisionists on this board called, "What REALLY happened in Chile, 1973." You'll see that the US did nothing to stage a coup against Allende. We only funded parties in opposition to him, hoping that they would be democratically elected and the country could go back to normal.

Hey, I got a question.
"History Revisionist" maybe I'm a bit slow (heh maybe) but what are you implying when you say that?

Good stuff. You go girl.

Now, if I could find something to debunk the whole Batista-Cuba hehe

At 12/24/04 11:47 AM, Slizor wrote:

To assign purpose to actions is a very hard thing to do. Does the US Army mean to kill civilians? They may officially say they don't but you never know.

I disagree, its pretty easy to say "Hey guys, We're here to help these guys out, win hearts & minds and to kill/capture insurgents."

Heh yeah, its true! Sometimes we like to pile into a five ton and go a-huntin' us some Hoji! YEEHAW!
Seriously though, the U.S. army (and any military organization for that matter) is based on discipline and control. When were given a set of rules of engagement were told not to harm civilians...end of story.

Unfortunately(erm sic? sorry just woke up heh) break downs do occur. Like that whole prison disaster. The commander didn't keep account of her soldiers and they ran wild.

Err sorry, im digressing and rambling. Ill leave it at that.

"It is heartening to see a ruling established clearly in the law, with a transparent and due process, before a fair and impartial court," the company said.

heh It doesn't seem to bother Yukos much