610 Forum Posts by "bradford1"
Sure you can get better!
But I don't see why everyone's responding to your drawing without giving it any credit.
Your drawing shows at least enough technical knowledge to be used artistically.
There've been cartoons with far shittier drawing quality than what you produce.
I'd recommend getting better, but when it comes down to it you only need to use what you already know to express an interesting and relevant idea to improve your art.
At 1/20/07 01:26 AM, heathenXXII wrote: For those of you wondering what my party is (I've been acused of of both Communist and Democrat) I'm going to answer that question for you in no uncertain terms: I don't have one. I hate to say it but All the American political entities suck. Democrats haven't got any balls, Republicans are war mongering, profit based sellouts, and the Greens are hate me because I didn't vote for Nader (why would I vote for someone who's only going to get five percent of the vote?). Everyone thats left is completely insane or their platform is worse than the ones I mentioned above. I am, and am proud to be, a progresive indipendant. So please don't call me a Democrat, especialy if your useing it as an insult.
Communist and Democrat? You do know that a Democrat is on the opposite side of the political spectrum from a Communist, right? As a matter of fact, Democrats and Republicans really aren't that different when you take more radical political affiliations into context, but I won't get into that.
Even if you're an independent, your politics still can be categorized into some place based on different factors, assuming you're coherent.
A lot of crime only exists because society can be so unfair at times that the only way for some to keep their heads above the water is to break society's rules.
In America (or wherever the situation took place in besides America), it's perfectly legal to sell a drug for 10 times the production cost. This accepted action pushed the man whose wife was dying into a corner, where his only option was to break the rules.
Why then would the judge punish the man? Was the man to let his wife die because some rich asshole in a mansion wanted a couple dollars extra?
The social structure which causes crimes of this sort should be shaken up and destroyed.
At 1/20/07 02:16 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote:
I suppose they were happier under the rule of Saddam.
Read under "War Crimes"
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.h tm#warcrimes
http://www.answers.com/topic/human-rights-in-
saddam-s-iraq
What's your point?
At 1/19/07 05:45 PM, shin-tenshu wrote: So what if they were stealing wood? So what if that kid wasn't in school? It isn't our country to police.
It is our country to police, that's the problem.
Its people like that who help rise the death count of american troops. jack asses who are given any power and they think they are god. im not going to say that i hope that they get killed, but i have a feeling that they will.
We lost 20 guys yesterday. Wouldn't surprise me.
it would be ironic if those iraqies hijack a tank and crush him.
No, it would be pathetic.
As world populations grow, won't dictatorships struggle to rule everyone also? Besides, dictators cannot last forever in the age of telecommunication.
At 11/21/06 10:47 AM, Lardosama wrote: Why do we have a Democratic Republic when we could have a full Democracy?
Because full Democracy is impossible to manage on such a large scale.
We could had a more Democratic Republic, however, which allows people to directly vote on some of the bills among other things. I've been writing something about it.
So I'm thirsty tonight, right? I go to the fridge, and I picked up this weird chocolate drink. I have no idea how it got there. I've never seen this before.
So I pick up the bottle and down the whole thing. It turns out, it was this nasty chocolate beer.
Don't get me wrong, I can tolerate alcohol. But when it just sneaks up on me like that, I hate it.
Damn that tasted like milk from Hillary Clinton. Ick.
At 11/7/06 06:51 PM, GOBZGOBZ wrote:At 11/7/06 06:48 PM, Mr-Anarchy wrote: what did saddam do to america again? oh yea, NOTHING.He threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. that's pretty bad. Not to mention his evil dictatorship, and all the people he killed, whether or not it was in US or wherever.
What weapons of mass destruction?
At 11/13/06 10:41 PM, Agentfortyseven wrote: All I know is they attack us; we attack back. You just want to sit back after that well, you're just as bad as them, how would you fell if your folks died! Well their laughing in our misery! We shouldn't be protesting, what good would that do to an M-60 and a few M249's? We got to hit them hard, and fast. Preferblly at night, what ever happened to the (Stealth Bomber) from back then with the undetectable armor plating and all the rockets?! We should use that and blow up them, leave no survivors, we're going to prove as Darwin once said (The fittest of the fit will survive). or something like that. I should join the debate team.
You're being a little neanderthalish (new word)
If my folks died, I would forgive the killers; and I certainly wouldn't blame people from a country that wasn't involved in 9/11 for the attacks. You need to do your homework.
We did go in with technology like what you mentioned in Vietnam. (except for stealth bombers) I think any reasonable American learned his lesson from that fiasco. We're now in the same situation in Iraq as we once were quite recently in Vietnam.
You're opinions are totally unsupported, so don't join the debate team.
At 11/11/06 02:20 PM, peroo wrote: I am tired of people complaining about all the deaths in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Americans and especially Canadians like to over exaggerate everything, but when it comes to other places in the world we don't give a shit. Everything I’m about to say is true, and is backed up by irrefutable statistics. First of all, there are more deaths by smoking a YEAR by Americans! Then there has been in Iraq.
Nothing makes the deaths of our soldiers any more justified. The government has just wasted the lives of those people. At least the tobacco companies employ people.
Did you know that if we were using the same technology as we did in Vietnam, we'd have lost a staggering amount of men?
Did you know that there are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who've lost their lives for nothing?
My friend's cousin was shot to death in Iraq, and for nothing. Tell him what you just said right to his face and your balls will be in your throat in no time.
How arrogant are you? How can you just pretend like all of those dead kids and Iraqis are nothing just by comparing what happened in Iraq to some other conflict?
I think Bush is terrible, worse than a murderer simply because he can just waste a couple thousand men and waste six hundred thousand Iraqis and still manage to sleep at night.
At 11/13/06 05:42 PM, TheMason wrote:
So would it not make sense for the US if we want to stop the genocide to help arm the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups with AK-47s and other military hardware? I think this would strike more fear in the Janjaweed than the USMC since these groups would not have the LOAC (Law Of Armed Conflict) constraints the US military has.
Just some thoughts...well informed opinions please?
No it would not make sense:
1.) If we arm the Zaghawa and Fur, it'll prolong the war. Can't we try to work out the situation peaceably to spare more lives? I think they've gone thru enough. We could always sanction Sudan until progress is made.
2.) Two wrongs do not make a right. If we arm rebels against the Janjaweed to merely bypass the LOAC, won't that indirectly violate it? I'm morally against it, as more atrocities and war simply will not fix Darfur.
At 11/13/06 10:27 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Forgive me if I missed it, but I have yet to see someone point out the possibility that an innocent man could have his kibbles and bits removed on accident... 5 years later...oops, we had the wrong DNA evidence.... tee hee hee
Great minds think alike.
One more point to make, don't you think that rapists get raped in jail anyway? Like they need to lose their sack, that's a fucking invitation to Bubba.
At 11/10/06 09:33 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:At 11/9/06 08:17 PM, scottish-cunt wrote: Thats no good becuase did you know that castration can increase your life-span by 15 years and prevent about a dozen dieseases. I think I'd rather loose the 15 years, wouldnt you?That's even better scotrtish! more time for them to spend in jail.
Isn't the lack of a penis bad enuff?
BTW i'm not a feminist. If there were "women based crimes" based on women based hormones i'd do the same thing.
How about ripping men's testicles off? Isn't that a crime?
Also, imagine being innocent of rape but found guilty and punished anyway... wouldn't that suck to have your nards chopped off?
It's a really bad idea, that's my point.
At 11/9/06 04:44 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I beleive that anyone who commits a crime, veiwed as influenced by a male sex drive should have their genitals removed as a form of punishment (plus jail time of course). This includes rape and abuse for the most part. I dont think this way becuase i simple want criminals to no longer be able to pleasure themselfs (That too) more so, often times a males over agressive nature is caused by:
1) overactive testosterone levels
How about violence? Most rapists rape women as an act of violence.
2) weakess of brain capacity in the frontal reigon.
That's just a label on men and is entirely untrue. Many rapists rape because they were abused when they were children.
As far as i know, they'res only a solution to one of those problems.
Don't you think that removing the genetals of rapists would violate the 8th Amendment? I think that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
At 10/30/06 05:07 PM, Tancrisism wrote: This may help explain things in an easy and understandable way.
Ick, that was discusting. I always thought they were just fucked up in the head and nothing else.
Thanks to you, I'm going to lie sleepless in bed in fear of Tom Cruise jumping out of my closet (lololol south park) and stabbing me to death.
Great.
At 11/14/06 04:33 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: Americans have got to be the most arrogant people in the history of mankind.
I'm sick of hearing "We're the most powerful nation in the world," "our president is the most poweful man in the world," "our economy is the best in the world," "We have the best (insert word here)." Americans just can't stop boasting about how good they think they are.
Well maybe we just boast because we are! We are the greatest thing since sliced bread!
This is partly why they are one of the most hated and isolated nations in the world.
They only have like 3 Major Allies; UK, Australia and Canada! LOL.
Just because you're jealous doesn't mean anything. We also have the fattest people in the world, are you jealous of that too?
As for allies, we have many of them. We've supported countless dictatorships in countries our people don't know anything about in exchange for oil and or the blood of Russians.
Compare that to Germany; France, Italy, UK, Russia, Spain, etc... (all Europan nations)
So what? The Germans like chocolate, the French smell, the Italians can't drive, the English are snooty, and the Russians are just Russian!
The US might be a powerful country, but they don't have many allies... In fact they have more enemies than Allies, even China has taken a dislike to the US.
We don't need allies. We have a coalition of the willing.
The fact is that the US is just one powerful ship sailing through rough seas... And if they continue to abuse their priviledges, they will sink. They might be greater than any one country, but they're nowhere near as great as the rest of the world. They should stop acting as if they were king of the world because there is no such thing.
There is such thing as king of the world, and Chuck Norris (hence America) is clearly on top.
I'm against his execution for a couple of reasons:
1.) Sentenced right before the mid terms? Could that be a strategy? And will they execute him right before the 2008 elections?
2.) I'm aganist the death penalty.
3.) We could do better, and this is my biggest reason. It's Saddam Hussein, not just some punk we're killing here. This guy killed thousands of people, don't you think death is to kind to him? Let's not torture him or anything, at least not physically, let's get creative.
How about something symbolic. Let's put him on a tour of the world, shining world leader's shoes. Or maybe we should make him sleep with satan like in South Park.
What are everybody's ideas of a fun punishment of Saddam? Let's have fun with this at least.
At 11/4/06 12:32 PM, TightRope wrote: has anyone noticed the upsurge in commercials with people using thick eastern european accents and speaking in not just poor but goofy english?
Yes we have. They're not immigrants robbing us of our culture, they're Borat advertising a comedy movie.
At 11/4/06 12:41 PM, TightRope wrote: are you asking if you should be allowed to be spied on?
wait... arabs come into your nation... blow some buses up... and theyre allowed to stay, but thats not all, YOU, and all non arabs will be spied on. SUPER!
Are you accusing every Arab in America and England of being a terrorist? That's unreasonable suspicion fueled by intolerance. You're complaining that you would be spied on with the Arabs, as you're evidently not responsible for terrorism. But the Arabs should have a right to protest the surveilance too, as there is no reasonable evidence that links every Arab in the western world to terrorism.
At 11/3/06 07:56 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I wonder what all the Brits who criticize the US for allowing our government to "spy on" us are thinking about their previous statements. Funny how they made a stink saying that Bush is a dictator because of enacting domestic surveillance, yet Brits have had domestic spying way before we did, way before 9/11 in fact.
So we shouldn't point out Bush's shortcomings? He broke the constitution in a couple of places, and that's worth pointing out.
At 11/3/06 01:02 PM, internet-lord wrote: If you have nothing to hide it shouldnt bother you
That's just plain stupid. Searches enable the governent to go through your personal things. It's just wrong. That statement puts us one step closer to an authoritarian police state. Haven't you read 1984?
Searching people's houses is a violation of personal rights.
At 11/4/06 12:48 PM, TightRope wrote: one person is taunting her? thats it? i was harrassed at school by the entire left wing administration including a cop, a teacher said i threatened her after i turned in work blaming illegal aliens for ruining our schools. this "bi-sexual" bullshit is just a phase and what makes it worse is the far left liberal media pushing it on kids as okay.
I don't think I've ever met someone so out of touch. Cops are an American thing, many leftists are very bluntly opposed to the police. You clearly started spewing hate in some essay which blames educational problems on Mexicans (which has no evidence, nor does it even make sense.) so don't act like you're being persecuted for your beliefs.
The only actual left-wing media in America is the People's Weekly World, and a handful of bloggers and independent media. America is a right-wing country. If you were to graph American politicians, they'd all be closer to the right. There's practically no such thing as a leftist media, a liberal media maybe, but not a leftist one; So don't pretend like your some rebel to an authority which doesn't exist.
What I don't understand is why everyone keeps complaining about how the Canadians will make us leftists, rather than how we'll make the Canadians more right-wing. There are more people in America you know.
I'm against the idea. It'll come out poorly on Canada's behalf. However, if the terms are right and the cultures are semi-united in the future, I could imagine seeing a merge between the two nations.
At 11/2/06 08:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Not another ridiculous, misguided thread kicked off by an incoherent rant.
So what were you thinking when you read this cellar? "Shit, this guy has a point (no evidence, but provides a motive at least), so he must simply be misguided rather than speculating."
What he said was unlikely, but it made sense for the most part. I hate how you just insulted him because you couldn't argue with him. Why does America always have to be spotless to you? Can't we speculate?
At 10/30/06 06:39 PM, Imperator wrote:Afterall, didn't got give mankind rationality and thus if one uses this gift god "gave" them to come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist god wouldn't mind aslong as the person lived a good life.Yup. Unfortunately he also gave us Free Will, which means some people don't exercize rationality......
It's not irrational to be non-Christian, it's just different.
That's why I love JP2 so much. He did more to unite the Three religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) than his predecessors.
There are more than 3 religions dumbnuts.
He basically saw what was happening and said, "this is stupid. Why are we fighing each other when we all believe in the SAME DAMN THING?", and then (like a true MAN, and opposite of most members here who just bitch and do nothing to FIX problems) went out and brought the three closer together than they've ever been before......
He did a good job. But he didn't do much with the other religions.
Thank you for calling me stubborn for disagreeing with you. Please leave.
At 11/2/06 08:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 11/2/06 12:56 PM, BanditByte wrote:Man zzzzd had to go and say that bullshit...here it goes..At 11/2/06 12:53 PM, zzzzd wrote: America isn't really a saviour, they did alot in world war 2 but put just as much into it as most of the allied nations.Roflcopter. Better not let cellar see you type that, man, he'll tear you a new ones.
I hate the way you think. It's nothing personal. If you were English you'd go off about how England did everything in WWII.
This is thre truth: People think that American only came in towards the end, when actually the war ended BECAUSE American came in. The allies were losing miserably before the US entered with troops, even though the US was supplying almost ALL of the resources, fuel, food, weapons, ammunition, clothing, steel, vehicles, and so forth to the allies from the beginning.
Ok, ok, enough...
The other countries were doing a lot of the work. Every country in the conflict put in their absolute. My unbiased opinion is that Russia did the most, and I say this because the Russians gave more than they had, and America gave more than everyone because they had it.
It's not arrogance, its a historic fact that the US was the most significant factor in WWII, and the biggest factor in the success and prosperity of Japan, Britain, Italy, Germany and France today. But people of these countries like to pretend that this isn't true so they can maintain their misguided criticisms of the US and live under the misconception that America is a selfish, imperialistic nation that does no good in the world, when really its the exact opposite.
And I'm spent...
You basically just discredited the people of the world there, like they did nothing to build their own success. But that part is just Devil's Advocate, I do see what you mean in the first part of the paragraph.
However, America is relatively imperialist. With globalization going on, we've all got to agree to an extent that America does have imperialist aspects.
You've got to admit that America usually does humanitarian stuff the most where it helps itself more.
For example, to counter famine in Africa the US is giving the Africans grain (good). However, the grain the US gives Africa is practically all American-grown, which builds up America's economy because it is purchased in America, and it leaves Africa dependent on America (bad).
If the US purchased African-grown grain, it'd put money into the pockets of African farmers, and encourage them to grow another season of crops. In Niger, food is rather abundant, but most people cannot afford food. If the US purchased Niger-grown food, they'd give incentive of African farmers to grow more food and saturate the price of food.
The food problems in Africa would be solved more effectively if America put the starving people ahead of its own economy, maybe just a little bit.
America isn't a global vampire, but it does its share of problem-causing, so don't give it too much justice.
At 11/2/06 03:16 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:At 11/2/06 02:21 PM, MickTheChampion wrote:If you honestly think that is all America has done to the world you should probably "get fucked" yourself. The entire status quo we live in rests on American hegemony. Tell me, do you like your life? Do you like the way you live? Do you think you would like the way you live better or worse if authoritarian China took over? If authoritarian Russia took over? If authoritarian Iran took over? Do you like those mental pictures?
Why do you use scare tactics to justify what America does? Basically everytime someone points out America making a big oops you think we can just brush it off because China could be in charge. It doesn't matter what other people COULD be in power, just because America is a bit better than them doesn't mean that America doesn't have an obligation to help the world and not exploit its global economy and force its culture on others.
I personally dont. America has done lots of shit things, lots. But things can be much worse and I think that is what many of you lose sight of when you inanely bash the United States. And yes, I am talking about your stupid ass.
So you're saying that I shouldn't complain if someone takes a dollar out of my wallet just because they could've just as easily taken the whole thing? That makes no sense. America is using its power too much to its own advantage.
At 11/2/06 02:04 PM, Bexie wrote: Noam Chomsky's work is an excellent place to start.I still cannot fathom the lefts love of Noam Chonsky. The man is a linguist who likes to give his two cents on current affairs and is biased as all shit.
Maybe Chompsky is admired by Libertarian Leftists because he voices their opinions on issues. He's an educated man who's giving opinions, and if you agree with him in general, then you strengthen your own opinions through his insight. That is why.
I am guessing the bias part in the facade of intellectualism is the reason the left loves Chomsky.
So because he is an opinionated leftist his degrees are only a facade and count as nothing?
