Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The only complaint I'll accept about a gay pride parade is "dammit, I can't cross Market Street now!"

Pretty much anything Jim Gaffigan says...

"This is more watery than water... It's got a water kick to it."

(talking about bottled water)

At 7/14/04 03:36 PM, DarkLich wrote: There are no good political parties in Canada, nor are there any good political candidates.

The entire election system in Canada sucks.

ooh, look at this...
the US Republican committee has shown up to pay respect to our neighbors to the north!

Canada is damn cool, and if you dont like it, go back to your west Florida mud farm for all I care.

Maybe these instances are times where the homosexual community collectively comes out of hiding and says, "I'm gay, and proud of it. If you don't like it, fuck you."

I think it's a chance for them to show who they really are before returning to anonymous people back in everyday life.

At 7/14/04 12:00 PM, Spookshow wrote: The Interceptor is an OTV (OVER TACTICAL VEST) it is desgined to have things attached to it, The military does not go for concealbility the go for the maximum amount of movement with stopping power at the lowest cost . The Interpceptor can stop many AK-47 rounds, as well as holding a groin, neck and throat protector, MOLLE, ALICE and other pouches and equipment.

Ok so that rules out the thoery of poor armor, but still, read the bill, you do not know what else is in there. The bill could have given all of the soldiers a massive pay cut in order to pay for it...

Mine is June the 25th and I want women

At 7/13/04 10:59 PM, TabooTongue wrote: How many are there and what does each on look like or have in it (or any other information on them)?

Well, last time I went to Alabama, there was a lot of mud...

My hell would be having to sit through a never ending math lecture about vector equations in R3... Makes me wanna kill...

At 7/13/04 11:25 PM, Neeks14 wrote: ok this might get banned and everything, but what do you guys excpet from girls, i know mostly heads, blowjobs, sexing, and all that stuff, i mean i don't think there is a guy who doesn't but what else? i mean like personality or what??

A nice meatloaf dinner every friday...
And head

At 5/23/04 02:49 PM, Gooie wrote:

At 5/23/04 04:47 AM, yenny8a wrote: FOR Mother RUSSIA

Russia isn't communist anymore

China is, though

Nope, China is only communist by name... China is now a free market economy...

At 11/30/03 12:17 PM, CRAPMASTER2000 wrote: EQUAL SHARE FOR EVERYONE! COMUNISM OWNS!

Ugh, I grow tired of explaining this to you BBs users...

But I feel I must... again...

Equal share for everyone is NOT a communist doctrine. It is a socialist doctrine (communism and socialism are not the same, in fact they are very different.)

Communism is a form of economic governing where all of the economy is run from the central government.

Socialism is a form of social governing where the government provides for everyone equally and wholly.

Yes most modern day communism integrate the two. But that has less to do with communism than it does with the state of the nations that communism is dealing with. Most every single nation that communism came to power in was a very poor, heavily rural, and very unequally distributed nations. Thus the middle class either forced the government to be socialist, or the government became socialist to win the people.

This better clear it up for ya, cause I'm not gonna say it again.

At 7/14/04 02:32 AM, ApocalypseClock wrote:

None of the most recent presidents have actually had much power at all. Many presiddents have gotten a good rep because of what they've done, when in fact it was going to happen no matter WHAT president was in office.

I beg to differ young one...
In the recent, oooh, 60-70 years the president's power has grown enormously. With new concepts, like executive privilage, executive mandate, and police action, the president has become more and more free to do what they wish and not have to bother with congress. Although this isn't entirely a bad thing. Take for example, the line-item veto, which I so very approve of (if used properly.) But the president's ability to send troops where ever he so wishes without anyone else to stop him is one of the things I do not like. Yes many things that happen while the president is in office would have ahppened anyways. Like 9-11 say if Gore was in office and it happened the nation would have so quickly and blindly and zealously glommed onto every word he said jsut like they did Bush. And yes much of the economic growth during the Clinton period was gonig to happen anyways, but where those jobs went, how many jobs were created and how the goverment finally started becoming economically responsible were largely effects of what he did in office, not outside events.

So your statement that presidents have no power is not true.

At 7/14/04 02:15 AM, ApocalypseClock wrote:

We had many reasons to go to war. Saddam was a tyrant.

Yes he was, but look at all of the other tyrants in the world... If we were really on a mission to "cleanse" the world of evil eladers we would be in more than just Iraq right now... This was not because he was an evil man...

Killing people and rigging elections, also he was linked to the Al-Queda.

Haha, stop it, haha you're killing me!
Seriously now, Al Queda is a fundamentalist Muslim group, and Saddam was a secular leader, why the hell would they be bedbuddies with Saddam when they have the Saudis who have a muslim government, who can give more support than Iraq could because they have more money, and who coudl do it under the US radar (or at least without the US doing anythnig about it.)

Just because Bush says so do not mean it's true. Yes, it could be true, but it's very unlikely.

At 7/14/04 01:56 AM, LiNkInPaRk16 wrote: If they were throwing them at people who they knew to be jewish maybe. But by saying it is automaticlly a hate crime agaisnt jews is a stereotype. Plus they were little kids. They probably dont even know that people would see it as a hate crime. They probably don't even know what a hate crime is.

They may not be old enough to know what a hate crime is, but as long as they have parents they are old enough to commit one... You'd be surprised at some of the flat out bigotted shit that parents teach their kids at a very young age...

At 7/12/04 11:33 PM, KirbyMan wrote: What did the US get out of the war in Iraq? Right Now, it being for oil sounds good for me. Don't give me anything obvious because I can shut it down immediatly.

I wish it was truly for oil, cause if it really were gas wouldn't cost 2.17 a gallon...

wait... yes it would, fuckin oil companies, they always fuck the northwest.

At 7/13/04 05:14 PM, ghost_soldier wrote: i have no idea who i will vote for for presadent. all i know is that i think both guys are are compleet and utter retards. give me some help here.

Ok, go study what either candidate says and make a choice.

If you think that both candidates are saying complete and utter BS go to their party's platforms and see what they say. The party platforms are a fairly good predictor of how candidates will vote.

At 7/13/04 05:36 AM, Spookshow wrote: Granted but Kerry has been in office LONG enough to have seen the problem as it was brewing. I mean as part of the foreign relations committe and a former serviceman shoudn't of he had the foresight to see our men NEEDED protection?

How much do you know about the bill and the circumstances of the bill?

Hows about you provide me with the bill write up and all of the reports on the bill and Kerry's written objection to tht bill, and then we'll discuss it.

Who knows, maybe congress could have been shafting the soldiers by giving them shitty and inefficient armor instead of a better choice, and shooting down the bill was the only way for Kerry to keep them from getting overrated underachieving armor? Maybe there was a porkbarrel section in there that gave West Virginia (random pick) 200 million dollars to build a golden pine tree or some bullshit. That shit happens, and if that was the case I applaud any politican who is willnig to put their carrer on the line to keep pork barrel shit from happening.

From what I heard, the federal relief for the 1994 LA earthquake had a 200mil fund for building a Pennsylvania highway...

Don't always trust what the news, and especially, the opposing candidate's slime artists tell you.

At 7/13/04 04:12 PM, KirbyMan wrote:

At 7/13/04 03:06 AM, Stresskillingme wrote:

At 7/13/04 02:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Americans only learn about America and a slight bit of other coutries in lower education.

That is what I thought, also it is the reson many forginers dislike the US, Americans don't get forced to learn about other culturs like in Canada.

In my case that isn't true. In middle school alone I learned about. Mexico, China, Japan, and India, and most of South Eastern Europe. Though in high school most foreign culture classes became optional.

Do you really remember what they taught you about the rest of the world in middle school?

I had global history my freshman year, and I don't remember shiot, and all that I do remember, I have come to realize that it was so overgeneralized that it is just flat out wrong...

Those symbosl are masonic symbols and are there because the early leaders of our government were heavily Masonic.

The reason many republicans are pushing for a constitutional amendment as opposed to leaving it to the states, is because they know that if one state allows it, it essentially becomes recognized by the entire country. The full faith and credit clause (Article IV section 1) states that any legal document recognized in one state must be recognized in all others. So if Massachusetts was to legfalize gay marriage people from all states could come to Mass and get a license that would have to be recognized by their own state. In one of Clinton's sadder moments, he passed the DOMA, or Defense Of Marriage Act, which in esscense says that for the case of homosexual marriages the constitution does not apply. I see this becoming a big battlefield when the Amendment is finally put away. And hopefully the supreme court will put the constitution in front of any personal views it has to uphold the laws of the nation.

The previous two posters are a very small exception, or they og to private schools. Americans only learn about America and a slight bit of other coutries in lower education. Yes my freshman class went over world history, but it was so vague and inaccuarate, I might as well have skipped it everyday. We have about 1 class a year telling us how good our country is and we're lucky to get 2 classes in our entire lower schooling, all 12 years of it, about other countries.
It isn't until college that Americans acctually learn real knowledge of other countries. And by real knowledge I mean that they learn from credible sources and not from the spoonfed, censored, biased, etc. crap from the nightly news.
And even then most college students don't end up taking courses relating to other countries... If it weren't for my interest in history and Asian cultures, I probably wouldn't be learning anything about other cultures.

At 7/12/04 08:32 PM, Izuamoto wrote: he's being promoted to 2nd lieutenant just because he's in a band? i find that hard to believe, though if you say so...

No seriously, they do do it...
They tried to pitch it in my college's band. They also said that certain instruments would get up to $15K bonusses just for joining with their high rank. They really want military band members.

At 7/12/04 09:51 PM, The_Bacon_Jesus wrote:
Yes, hockey is important

I'd totally have to agree, been watchin it for years, and if it didn't cost so damn much, I'd be playing it...

18 in Quebec, which is conveniantly right across the river from me

Well, us Pacific coast Americans don't travel to Quebec too often... It'd just be easier (and cheaper) to have some 21 year old by us alcohol...

But I like Canada, Vancouver is a really cool city, if it weren't for all of the paperwork and red tape and shit, I'd probably go live there for a year or two.

At 7/12/04 08:22 PM, ParodyBoy0192 wrote: Jeez. Hitler was a psychotic bastard! Doesn't ANYBODY see that yet?

Her little boy, don't you EVER doubt what your told by your teachers and the media? Yeah, I think everyone here will say what he did was bad, but we are thinking hypothetically and counter factually here. Two words... "what if?" Come on, don't be so anal on here.

All the most west coast Americans know about Canada is...

Hockey (news about hockey is the only news about Canada we ever see...)

The drinking age is 19 and not 21

And whistler is a good place to ski

I know a little more about Canada, but not much. I guess our media is too busy kissing our country's ass to realize that there are other countries right next to us.

At 7/12/04 04:28 PM, 36noir wrote: Personally, I'd rather stick with the standard cuss words though.

Amen

After reading several encylopedic definitions, I have come to the conclusion that Keyneyian and lasseiz faire politics are not opposites. Communism and lasseiz faire are opposite, whereas keynesian politics are a middle ground (may not be exact middle, but middle nonetheless) between the two.

With this now cleared up, I am a proponent of Keynesianism. I think that government shoudl let the business do their own thing to an extent. an extent that does not harm the consumer or does not harm the government. I agree with one (not all, just this one) theory of Karl Marx. This theory is that whomever controls the economy controls the government. And with Keyesianist poltics/economics we can keep that down to at least a comfortable level.

In other words I would prefer a nice symbiotic relationship where the government and business coexist. The government lets business do what they wish, and the business follows certain rules set to prrevent wild changes in the economy and to protect the customers and people of the nation.

At 7/12/04 03:59 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Which model do you think is better for the United States? I personally believe it is Laissez-faire because I don't believe government is the solution to an economies problems

I'm sorry, but I seem to hasve forgotten exactly what keynesian economics was, could you refresh my memory please?

I'll say the same to the people who oppose stem cell research as I do to the people who oppose animal testing (with the tenses changed for obvious reasons)...

I bet many of your relatives will benefit from these advances and cure coming from this study, so just shut up. Unless you want your posterity to go through the painfull effects of cancer and so on...

At 7/12/04 03:11 AM, NotAffiliatedWith wrote: Its probably true because that building couldnt fall down that easily and it was covered up because who do you think planted the bombs the goverment in my opinon.

Yes it could. The WTC was built to withstand a planecrash from a 707. Yes 767s are much bigger than their little brothers, but the size the plane and the pure crash into the WTC wouldn't have brought it down. It was the enourmously hot explosion that resulted from have a full tank of jet fuel ignite. This melted many key inner joints. The WTC's main support came from the outer skeleton of the building and it was holding up until... Until the fire began to melt the inner joints and the floors began to fall on top of each other creating enourmous force on an already beat up exoskelton, and once it started to give the fate of the WTC had been sealed. It was built to withstand a plane lost in the fog, not a fully loaded jet fuel bomb.

Although I do not know whether there were bombs inside of the WTC, I highly doubt it (firefighters could have easily mistaken small inner explosions resulting from fire stress in a modern skyscraper, which at this magnitude the firefighters would have had no experience with..), I am just trying to prove the the building most likely died from the single blow of the airplanes hitting it.