Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/30/11 05:55 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Ugh, you're an idiot.

Have you ever heard the concept that sometimes radical ideas make better discussion topics than actual policy? If Perdue's stunt highlights how Congressman are governing to get elected, then maybe we can craft a reasonable way to fix this problem.

We need to get rid of comgress, as well as the constitution. Oh, and elections too.

senators and representatives ... selfish interests of the majority.

Ha! If you think that Congress cares about the majority you have got to be craay.

At 9/30/11 08:22 AM, morefngdbs wrote: When someone provides a link backing up what they say.

That's not how you use links. Good debators and scholars use debates to supplement their arguments. They state their arguement and why, then they provide links, sources, as places to go learn more. You, on the other hand, make general arguments and use the links to make up your argument. From now on, you should at least paraphrase what's in the link and make the link further reading.

Yes, there are certain times where I brush off links. When I see a poster consistently using one source without a lick of other sources, especially when that source is known for being very stilted, I don't bother. There are three types of links, primary sources, straight secondary sources, and opinions. The vast majority of NGers pass off the latter as if they were primary sources, and yes YOU do this. Next time, if you're trying to prove a point don't give me opinions, either give me primary sources, or actual unbiased sources, such as ecyclopedias. If that doesn't exist a variety of sources often serves as a second best.

You say i am lazy for not looknig at your links. I say your lazy for not telling us your argument up front. I mean imagine trying to read a court opinion that doesn't state the law, and instead keeps on sending you back cases to find that law. That's nothing less than a collossal waste of time.

The US Constitution is avaialable to anyone who wants to read it.

And I have read it. More thoroughly than most, whish is why I am challenging you to provide me the reasons that the Fed is unconstitutional.

THat ,for example, FDR set in motion the confiscation of gold in the hands of normal American citizens ...that goes against the US Constitution. ~ without due process of law~ which means the President didn't have the authority to issue that decree.

How so? What exactly about the Fed did this? Also, how does this not fit within the area of eminent domain?

One of my links quotes that...but that's too much trouble for you to read through.

I am not arguing with your link. I am arguing with you. Use the link to support your argument, not to make your argument.

If the states had control black people wouldn't be able to stay at hotels in Georgia and freight trucks would have to pay to drive through the state of Iowa.

Face it. States are irrational, stupid and are only out to serve their own interests, seemingly enjoying doing so at the expense of other states.

At 9/29/11 08:51 PM, Famas wrote: No, because in the context of western society, the word 'rape' is loaded with the undertones of female marginalization, and in commonplace use is not a gender neutral term.

Well, seeing as rape is definied by msot criminal statutes as requiring sexual intercourse...

Great. Let's teach a bunch of immature and anger prone students who are likely to fight, HOW to fight...

Great idea. But this is would likely have too many initial bad side effects to actually justify its use.

At 9/28/11 09:25 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Founding fathers=Theists
In God we trust=Theist, not actually religious
A belief in a creator isn't religious. Saying hey, a guy made all of us, doesn't make a religion.

But that may promote monotheism over polytheism, atheism, and agnosticim (and any other isms that qualify)

At 9/28/11 08:40 PM, Proteas wrote: Well, that all depends... does having "In God We Trust" force you to believe or follow any particular monotheistic religion?

Would promoting a religious belief be akin to establishing a religious belief? That is a better question to ask. The First Amendment deals with the establishment of religion, not the forced belief of a religion. Seems like you're placing the bar much higher than it really is.

At 9/28/11 06:11 PM, thegarbear14 wrote: So i'd never think us citizens would be the coolest...

I think many people here are putting way too much in the word "cool"

I would seriously doubt that when people answered this poll they though coll was a synonym for any of the following words:

Civilized; likeable; friendly; humble; quiet; orderly; empathetic; and so on

I am pretty sure this poll is limited to American pop culture and American bravado. Many countries admire the style, and our shoot from the hip attitude toward life, but they resent many other quailities about us, namely our shoot from the hip attitude toward the rest of the world.

At 9/28/11 03:56 PM, The-universe wrote: Well, if you're going to use overly vague archaic statements and try to correlate them with enormously complicated fields of research, then you don't even deserve structured sentences.

I think you're misunderstanding the power of faith. Just because someone makes a conclusion that may sound mildly absurd, doesn't make them flat out wrong. They have crafted a system that allows them to believe what they want, thus answering the questions we don't have answers to, while still being able to accept the answers that we have found.

At 9/28/11 03:57 PM, Malachy wrote: Then again, you always hear about members taking bold stances and working together for the greater good after they've decided to retire or they have lost a primary and drop out of the election so perhaps what would really get them to start working again is to kick them out at the next election no matter what.

Perhaps a limit to 2 terms and a chane of the seniority system that exists in the cham bers and comittees. Perhaps we could change them to a 2 year lottery, or appoint them based on a skill and experience basis.

What we have got now has become too politicized to be effective. We've got two political parties that control enough of the power to stall and stop ideas, but not enough of the power to ramrod things through. If we were to have three parties with none going over 40%, then no party alone would have the power to unilaterally block things, and our system would have to rely on coalitions and compromise to determine what is best. I predict in that case, the nature of having to compromise would definitely benefit the people overall. Alas, we can only wish...

At 9/28/11 03:37 PM, Malachy wrote: I don't see how that will solve any problems - the main issue with the current Congress is that they aren't doing their job. If anything the upcoming election offers the possibility of voting out members of Congress who stalling the system.

Good counterpoint. I didn't think of that angle. However, I do think that a good break from the pressures and pulls of the election might give our politicians the gusto to break from the "campaign governance" to actual governance.

North Carolina Governor, Bev Perdue has proposed that we suspend the next election so that Congress can focus on the real issues.

Do you think this is a good idea or a simple waste of time? Is the next election getting in the way of governing? On a more extreme note, should the entire election system be altered to avoid this perceived problem?

At 9/28/11 03:09 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Answering him is like pissing into a strong wind, yeah, your bladder is no longer uncomfortable but now you've got the problem of being uncomfortably covered in piss.

Strange, you have just described the sense of arguing with you. I mean, this thread was about the includion of a religious statement on the Dollar bill and you somehow brought up the Reserve. If you're going to make a broad assertion of something's constitutionality, or lack thereof, back it up. Do it in your own words too.

When it comes to bringing something to the table, I am asking you to state the source of your argument so I can have something to bring.

At 9/28/11 12:49 PM, Hybridization wrote: This statement suggests you are unwilling to learn and/or are too lazy to do so -

I was actually asking him to not be lazy. He often will toss out links and then say HA! as if he won, but hadn't said anything. I am asking him to come straight out and say why it is unconstitutional. I want to hear it from dbs, not from some site whose sole goal is to rail on how bad the reserve is.

What is wrong with wanting someone to stand up for their own arguments in their own words?

At 9/28/11 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Federal Reserve Act, was invoked..which is illegal under the US constitution

Alright. I'll bite. Tell me exactly how it is unconstitutional, and don't waste my time with biased links. Say it yourself.

At 9/28/11 10:30 AM, SolInvictus wrote: we shouldn't have helped Japan after the earthquake because we were still providing aid in Haiti.

... or, you know, we can do multiple things at once.

A better example would be not helping Japan or Haiti at all, but doing everything we can to ensure that candles don't exist in homes.

I am not arguing that Atheists can't do more than one thing. I am arguing that ALL Atheists are doing is this di minimus crap that helps no one and actually creates more hurdles to stop the big problems.

At 9/28/11 01:29 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Also, Cam, I'm getting just a wee bit tired of this very weak argument you keep making for keeping the status qou on stuff like this. Acting like it's somehow hard to deal with these issues, and there is so much better stuff to work on. Unfortunately for that argument it's actually remarkably easy to fix this, and near impossible to fix some of the larger abuses and injustices when it comes to religion and religious systems.

Let's turn this on its face.

You say try to fix these things because it's easy. I. and the vast majority of Americans, see this "easy" target as nothing more than nitpicking. It becomes really hard to take an activist group seriously when all they do is fight over symbols here and there, but seem to let actual religious discrimination and hatred go unchecked. I see this as a sign of weakness. Instead of galvanizing to fight a real problem, the Atheist community sits back and pokes and prods at these little things.

Also, when it comes to Christians, the erasure of these little symbols becomes the "erasing of God" and thus turns them against Atheists, moreso than they already would be (from apathy the dislike to hatred). If the Atheists actually focused on the real religious injustices, such as work discrimination, community discrimination, prayers in school, creationism in school, and left the little things alone then the Atheists wouldn't have so many enemies.

The more I see these tired and futile attempts/calls to remove "God" from certian things, the more I begin to believe that the Atheist community is just creating a ruckus to get attention, and intentionaly provoking a reaction from religions. If the Atheists were joined by a large group of another religion on this matter, say Hindus, then maybe they would carry some credibility, but the fact that so many groups who are not Christian and do not fall under "God" are silent and accepting of the status quo, it makes me think Atheists are rocking the boat just to rock the boat. Now I don't mind rocking the boat, but I only tolerate it when there's a purpose.

Trust me, my family has experienced first hand harm because of the the things I just mentioned, yet has not felt any harm from the inclusion of the word "God" on the Dollar, or in the Pledge of Allegiance.

At 9/27/11 11:46 PM, orangebomb wrote: 1.} Were you either bullied as a kid, was a bully, or neither?

I guess a little. I was always too large to get much bullying, and too bullheaded to really recognize that which was directed at me.

2.} Do you think that this issue is sensationalized by the media?

To an extent, yes.

3.} Should the schools deal with this problem, and/or does the government have to get involved at any level?

To the extent that schools are part of/serve the function of the government they should handle it. The whole hands off approach is really bad. Experiences in dealing with DV show that the punishment of both sides serves to help no one.

4.} If this was such a big issue now, why did no one bring this up 10, 20, 30 years ago?

This issue did exists 2 years ago. The children of the later GenX and after have to deal with so many different issues and pressures than their predecessors. Also, the willingness for society to recognize and be open about things like this has increased.

5.} Is this just a product of our society going soft, or is there an underlying issue that we don't know about bullying?

I think ti has mroe to do with college. Unlike the 1970s where, unless you were aiming for Harvard, you could get into whatever college you wanted so long as you had the money and weren't flat out stupid. Now, admission to colleges of good repute is so much mroe difficult and dependent on things much earlier than before. Teenagers are essentially being told that high school is their future. This is true in academics. (I can still remember missing a single assignment that kept me back from the highest math all the way through college, in 6th grade!) This message has leaked into social structure, where young people believe that if they are misfits in high school, they will be misfits for the rest of their lives. If they're worthless and bullied in school, they will be worthless and bullied in real life. We as a society have not done enough to dispell this complete myth.

We are asking so much of our current adolescents that we fail to see the pressure we are putting on them.

At 9/27/11 09:26 PM, 7SinisterSanwiches wrote: Elaborate a little on that. I've come to believe It's the other way around.

It's much harder for a woman to get a high level job.

Women are expected to be like men, but different at the same time

Rape victims are initially considered to be lying.

And so on.

At 9/27/11 09:23 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Except for the part where I've clearly never heard that, and from what I'm finding in a quick search, that's looking like a total fabrication or misunderstanding on your part.

More of a reflection of the absurdity spending time on this subject, when there are much more serious religious issues to tackle.

At 9/27/11 09:12 PM, dude451 wrote: Given that metaphor, the situation would be more like your great-grandmother's property to widen the street, and when you were born they felt bad about it, so they gave everyone that looks like you some money because they feel guilty.

So are you trying to gtell me that the Indian assistance runs on a philosophy like:
"Our grandparents took land from a few red people, so let's give them all moneys!"

Really?

Do you even know what you are talking about? (NO)

GOD stands for "Good Old Days".

So the bills are actually celebrating our past. Don't sound unconstitutional to me.

At 9/27/11 08:13 PM, dude451 wrote: If we want true racial equality then we have to stop giving special treatment to certain ethnicities, no matter what our ancestors did to their ancestors.

So if you own a house, and the government takes away part of your property to widen the street you shouldn't be paid?

It's your fat lazy ass' fault for getting your land taken away.

At 9/27/11 07:58 PM, 7SinisterSanwiches wrote: Women get pampered by the system. They KNOW society treats them better than men and they tend to exploit it. Modern Day Feminism is worse than satan, I swear. -.-

If only this were true. Too bad men still get it 100 time sbetter than women in almost everything.

The petition for Palestinian statehood represents a critical bargaining chip for the west.

The West can use veto power of Pelstine as a bargaining chip to get the Arabic League on board with things such as terrorism.

Don't even think of bringing up DC v. Heller as a legitimate opinion here. Anyone who has actually analyzed Scalia's opinion knows that it was nothing other than a load.

At 9/26/11 01:26 PM, satanbrain wrote: Which do not exist to claim it anymore. We are the earliest nation to own it and thus it is ours. We have never given it up and so no other nation can own it. We were exiled from israel, we didn't "leave" it behind.

This whole "who was there first" argument is a load of crap. Frankly, very few countries, especially major countries, can claim they were there first.

The issue is that we have an Established Israel in there now and many areas that Isarel openly admits or occupied territories. All of these "ancestral rights" arguments can go by the wayside. In the disputed areas who most deserves it based on current populations, recent military and political history, and economic concerns.

Focus only on the current issues, as focusing on the distant past will only further the current stalemate.

At 9/26/11 01:02 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: Quotes

All of these women have how much political power? As much as my foot?

Seriously, when male politicians say things like "Women are baby making machines" to come back with some fringe crazie swho have no power and claiming that as reverse oppression is just spurious.

At 9/26/11 08:59 AM, Reiewer wrote: Men have abused their powers for as long as they started to evolve into humans! It's time for women to rise!

If only this were the sentiment of actual women. Too bad this "super-ultra man-hater" is just a boogeyman.

At 9/26/11 08:57 AM, Reiewer wrote: Having a cross in there would seem to generalize that all of America is Christian, and I think that is unfair.

Not necessarily. The way in which it is displayed has a very strong effect on whether this is the case. iF it is display as one of many artifacts of the attack, then it doesn't really serve as what you're fearing. However, if it is placed in a prominent manner then it does exactly what you fear.