Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

(Continued from above)

Egypt succeeded in sending troops in force across the Suez Canal to the east bank before being halted by Israeli troops. Toward the end of the fighting, the Israelis managed to send their own troops across the Suez Canal to the west bank, encircling Egypt's Third Army on the east bank and clearing a path to Cairo. They also drove the Syrians even further back toward Damascus. A cease-fire called for by the UN Security Council on Oct. 22 and 23 went into effect shortly thereafter. Attempts at Peace In Dec., 1973, the first Arab-Israeli peace conference opened in Geneva, Switzerland, under UN auspices. An agreement to disengage Israeli and Egyptian forces was reached in Jan., 1974, largely through the shuttle diplomacy mediation of U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Israeli troops withdrew several miles into the Sinai, a UN buffer zone was established, and Egyptian forces reoccupied the east bank of the Suez Canal and a small, adjoining strip of land in the Sinai. A similar agreement between Israel and Syria was achieved in May, 1974, again through the efforts of Kissinger. Under its terms, Israeli forces evacuated the Syrian lands captured in the 1973 war (while continuing to hold most of the territory conquered in 1967, such as the Golan Heights) and a UN buffer zone was created. Golda Meir resigned and was succeeded (1974) by Yitzhak Rabin, who formed a coalition government. In 1977, the Likud party under the leadership of Menachem Begin defeated the Labor party for the first time in Israeli elections. As prime minister, Begin strongly supported the development of Jewish settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories and opposed Palestinian sovereignty. Egypt began peace initiatives with Israel in late 1977, when Egyptian President Sadat visited Jerusalem. A year later, with the help of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, terms of peace between Egypt and Israel were negotiated at Camp David, Md. (see Camp David Accords). A formal treaty, signed on Mar. 26, 1979, in Washington, D.C., granted full recognition of Israel by Egypt, opened trade relations between the two countries, returned the Sinai to Egyptian control (completed in 1982), and limited Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai. The 1980s to the Present Israeli troops briefly invaded (1979) Lebanon in an unsuccessful attempt to eliminate Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) bases and forces used in raids on N Israel. On June 6, 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in a second attempt. Israeli troops advanced to Beirut and surrounded the western part of the city, which housed PLO headquarters, and a siege ensued. Israeli troops began a gradual move out of Lebanon (completed in 1985) after PLO forces withdrew from Beirut. A 6-mi (10-km) deep security zone within S Lebanon was established to protect N Israeli settlements. Begin had been returned to office in 1981, but he resigned in 1983 and was replaced by Likud's Yitzhak Shamir. Undecisive majorities in the 1984 elections led to a sharing of the prime ministership by Shamir and Shimon Peres of the Labor party. Shamir, who regained sole prime ministership after the 1988 elections, strongly upheld the policy of increased Jewish settlement in the occupied territories. Large numbers of emigrants from Ethiopia and, primarily, the Soviet Union increased Israel's population by nearly 10% in three years (1989-92), leading to increased unemployment and a lack of housing. In Dec., 1987, a popular Arab uprising (Intifada) began against Israeli rule in the occupied territories. During the Persian Gulf War in early 1991, Israel suffered Iraqi missile attacks, as Iraq unsuccessfully attempted to disrupt the allied coalition and widen the war. Peace talks between Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation began in Aug., 1991. Rabin reentered the political scene in 1992, becoming prime minister after the defeat of the Likud party and the establishment of a Labor-led coalition. He pursued Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, in which significant progress was made.

(Continued below)

You truly believe all this, don't you?

What happened is that Jews began to move into Palestine during the British mandate and began to try to set up their own state. This was militantly opposed by their Arab neighbors, they simply HATE Jews. They are pure and simple, Hitler-esque anti-semites. They've been taught that all their lives and they grow knowing nothing about Jews excpe that they are evil, dirty horrible people that must be exterminated and driven into the sea. This is preached daily in mosques across the Arab world.

Here's a little history lesson devoid of your Arafat-like rhetoric:

Beginnings of the Israeli State The state of Israel is the culmination of nearly a century of activity in Zionism. Following World War I, Great Britain received (1922) Palestine as a mandate from the League of Nations. The struggle by Jews for a Jewish state in Palestine had begun in the late 19th cent. and had become quite active by the 1930s and 40s. The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem. The General Assembly adopted the recommendations on Nov. 29, 1947. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it. As the British began to withdraw early in 1948, Arabs and Jews prepared for war. On May 14, 1948, when the British high commissioner for Palestine departed, the state of Israel was proclaimed at Tel Aviv. Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq invaded Israel, as most Palestinian Arabs fled from Jewish territory. By the time armistice agreements were reached (Jan., 1949), Israel had increased its holdings by about one-half. Jordan annexed the Arab-held area adjoining its territory, and Egypt occupied a coastal strip in the southwest, including Gaza.

(Egypt and other Arab nations actually OCCUPIED Palestine first!)

A government was formed at Tel Aviv, with Chaim Weizmann as president and David Ben-Gurion as prime minister. The capital was moved (Dec., 1949) to Jerusalem to strengthen Israel's claim to that city. Following the Lausanne Conference of 1949, Israel allowed the return of 150,000 Arab refugees, mostly to reunite families. One major aim of the government was to gather in all Jews who wished to immigrate to Israel. This led to the 1950 Law of the Return, which provided for free and automatic citizenship for all immigrant Jews. Border incidents with Egypt, Syria, and Jordan continued. Trouble in the Gaza area reached new heights in the mid-1950s despite UN intervention, and in 1956, Egyptian President Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. On Oct. 29, 1956, Israel made a preemptive attack on Egyptian territory and within a few days had conquered the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula, while Britain and France invaded the area of the Suez Canal. Israel eventually yielded to strong pressure from the United States, the USSR, and the United Nations and removed its troops from Sinai in Nov., 1956, and from Gaza by Mar., 1957, as UN forces were sent to the Sinai and Gaza to keep peace between Egypt and Israel. Through this war, Israel succeeded in keeping open its shipping lanes via Elat and the Gulf of Aqaba to the Red Sea. In 1962, Israel became the scene of the celebrated trial of Adolf Eichmann. In 1963, Ben-Gurion resigned as prime minister and was succeeded in that office by Levi Eshkol. Eshkol had to cope with increased guerrilla incursions into Israel from Syria and the shelling of Israeli villages by the Syrian army from the Golan Heights.

In May, 1967, Nasser mobilized the Egyptian army in Sinai. The UN then acceded to his demand to withdraw from the Israeli-Egyptian border, where it had been stationed since 1956. Egypt next blockaded the Israeli port of Elat (on the Gulf of Aqaba) by closing the Strait of Tiran. On June 5, 1967, Israel struck against Egypt and Syria; Jordan subsequently attacked Israel. In six days, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the West Bank and Arab sector of E Jerusalem (both under Jordanian rule), thereby giving the conflict the name of the Six-Day War. Israel unified the Arab and Israeli sectors of Jerusalem, and Arab guerrillas stepped up their incursions, operating largely from Jordan. After Eshkol's death in 1969, Golda Meir became prime minister. There followed an inconclusive period when there was neither peace nor war in the area. On Oct. 6, 1973, on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli positions in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Other Arab states sent contingents of soldiers to aid in the attack on Israel.

(The question is, why are they trying so hard to eliminate Israel? Why are they bent on exterminating them? Israel never did anything to them other than defend itself from it's very first weeks as a nation when it was immediately attacked. Why do they want to kill them? Pure hatred.)

(Continued below)

At 6/24/02 11:39 PM, Fettered wrote: Why dont people attack socialist values? Because they are the same values every decent person holds. Nobody, on the right or the left, is against giving to the poor or being charitable. That would make them retarded. Everybody feels for the downtrodden and frowns upon others who take advantage of them. The problem with socialism is that its a perversion of these values. Socialism is a religion to a large amount leftists, whether they are aware of it or not, as surely as chrisitianity or whatever is to a vast majority of conservatives. Both systems are for being charitable and giving ot the poor. Being nice to people. The distinguishing difference is that with orginized religion there is a personal choice involved in the matter, unlike socialist governments. If you go to church, you have a choice whether or not you want to put money in the donation basket or pay tithing or whatnot. Under socialism hat choice is taken away and you are FORCED to become good and love your neighbor. Leftists seek to take away free agency, and force everyone under point of a gun to accept their morality as the only acceptable one. Thats why nobody attacks sosialist ideals, its because on 95 % of them everyone would agree. Its just at the point where compulsion takes over free choice, or liberty you might call it, that people shy away from the left.
Thats why everyone attacks old socialist regimes that have fallen, because its all about compelling others to comply that the nations show their fatal weakness.

Ahh, truth... So refreshing...

Yes, socialism is great... In principle.

Yes, socialism is the solution... In principle.

And yes, socialism is better than cpaitalism... In principle.

But guess what? "In principle" doesn't work in the real world, and neither does large scale socialism.

At 6/23/02 11:37 PM, Paul138 wrote:

At 6/22/02 06:59 PM, Artichoke wrote: Paul, I liked reading your comparison on governments to the Universe. I've been reading about this kind of stuff lately and I was wondering if you have any good links that speak about the inevitable end of the universe.

Funny thing is, I just picked up the facts on the Discovery Channel and I made up the theories on my own. Some of it as I was going along. I don't really read up on shit like that. It's easy to make theories about the universe if you have an imagination and a way with logic. That's partically why I like astrology. Possibilities are endless. But it is truly undeniable that the universe will end.

If I could live forever, I would see the colliding of the galaxys. That's the greatest clash imaginable.

The universe will never truly end. It will condense into one final, ultimate singularity point, the "Omega Point," which will contain all matter and energy in the universe, just like the "Alpha Point" that exploded in the Big Bang.

If you are interedted in this and how it validates monotheistic religion in a scientific manner, read Frank J. Tipler's, The Physics of Immortality. It's a fascinating book that explains many things without resorting to the mumbo-jumbo of philosophers, which I personally find quite annoying at times. Tipler, a respected professor of mathematical physics is clear and scientific in his approach, being careful to calculate and support all that he says.

At 6/22/02 12:37 PM, dagger_happy wrote:
He wanted to reduce the amount of oil created (most of which is exported to the USA) so that more investment could go towards industry that would actually help the people of Venezuela instead of the plutocrats. That was why he was so popular with the working class majority. That is why the generals and conservative elites - possibly helped by the CIA - showed a disregard for democracy and carried out their coup.

Or, he wanted to decrease supply, thereby running up the price so that he sould skim the money off for himself, being a nationalized industry now, and all at the country's economy, like so many socialist despots before have done.

And there is absolutely no evidence that the CIA had anything to do with it. You are just slanting the facts with your own personal bias to blame everything on the CIA, so that "big, bad America" had a hand in it. In fact, we didn't.

At 6/21/02 06:47 AM, Reaper-n wrote:

At 6/18/02 09:35 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/18/02 03:05 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Also, I think dressing Female cops like hookers and baiting people is constitutionally wrong and should not be allowed...

Why should it not be allowed? Those people are just made because they got caught. Did the police force you to commit the crime? No, they just introduced a potentially criminal situation and the person committed a crime.

I belive in the UK we have laws against this. "entrapment" laws disallow the police from baiting ppl like this.
for example the police cannot try and sell ppl drugs and then arrest them when they go to make the purchase because they entraped and mislead them. the same applies with prostitution. i'm not sure if the US have any such laws.

How is this unfair? You tried to buy drugs, and that is against the law. It doesn't matter if the drugs were false and the "dealer" was really an undercover cop. You tried to buy them and are guilty of attempted narcotics possesion. How are you not guilty of this? How is it unfair?

At 6/18/02 02:45 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: At 5/27/02 06:21 AM, pzyker wrote: anyone who has read 1984 (george orwell) must have noticed that we are on the way to having the ministry of love/peace etc. to keep us stupid/ignorant and completely midnless... true communism must be the only theorietical way to escape this hideous totalitarianism which threatens to strangle the life out of humanity.

Americans are not being kept ignorant, They chose to live that way. Yes, Anything that gets in the way of Billy Yanks double cheese burgers and SUV is evil. Anyone who dares raise the gas prices over 3 dollars must die. TO Billy Yank, Isreal is good, Why? Well, He dosent know, But America supports it, So it must be good!

Americans have no desire to enlighten themselves (Well, Most of them anyway)They like their life the way it is. The Information is there,but it wont be there for long Because of Asscroft's Morality Squad corraling everything that says "GUNPOWDER CAN BLOW UP!" and convinentley deleting it. Have you ever played Metal Gear Solid 2? You know how Arsenal Gear was being used to control the worlds information flow?
Well, That is exactly what the gov't is doing now, Except they arent using giant walking death tanks. Anyone who dares oppose them is a "terrorist" I was nearley expelled from school because I dont support Isreal. They said I was a "terrorist in breeding" because I think Isreal has no right to exist. I wouldnt doubt it if Asscroft has some lackeys watching this site right now. Anyway, Americans dont want to be educated. They like their world of igonrance and urban legends. Communisim is no escape. It has never worked before, But then again, Representitive democracy has never worked, either. Within 10 years, all the indsutrialized world will be ruled by the UN. The UN is the world's de facto government right now, But when it becomes de jure, Then the shit really starts. The first thing done by the USSR when it invaded a nation was to take the peoples guns so they couldn't fight back. The UN is against private gun ownership. And another thing, You dont get elected to be in the UN. To be in, you must affirm your loyalty to their essentially Marxist goals. Yes, Soon, We will see 1 communist world ran by the UN. Sounds like fun, eh?

In that case, launch the Von Neumann probes, I'm getting out of here...

At 6/18/02 03:05 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Also, I think dressing Female cops like hookers and baiting people is constitutionally wrong and should not be allowed...

Why should it not be allowed? Those people are just made because they got caught. Did the police force you to commit the crime? No, they just introduced a potentially criminal situation and the person committed a crime.

At 6/17/02 09:21 PM, Paul138 wrote:

At 6/15/02 11:07 AM, Slizor wrote:

At 6/14/02 03:13 AM, Paul138 wrote: Anarchy would be a great way to live. The only problem is that everyone would have to be smart, and figure things out for themselves. That's not gonna happen with us being us. Plus you got all these little wannabe facists running around, like Silzor.

Strange, how you try and stigmatise me with the actions of the far right that are conjured up y the word "facist". In fact, it's quite totalitarian in it's own way. Facist is now deemed as something bad, everything you don't understand, or donn't like, you deem facist to make other not like it.

Hey, that's an opinion, alright? If I were really facist, I'd be preaching that I was better than everyone. I have the right to like and dislike something, and if I don't understand it, I leave it alone. I understand that you believe that in capitalism, everyone that's poor stays that way.

Once again, the common misunderstanding of capitalism. Capitalism is not about screwing the poor, it's about individuality. I am not respinsible for you and you are not responsible for me. You're poor, ok, not my fault. If I want to help you and feel charitable I will, but the governemnt has no right to pick my pocket to pay you for something you never earned. Capitalism is simply about earning your own way and managing yourself what is yours rather than appointing a council of bureaucrats to organize mass theft.

Socialism is about trying to create a false quality that does not and cannot exist. Life is not fair, get over it. Unfortunantly, socialism wrongly thinks it can try to fix this and so it robs Peter to pay Paul and in the end nobody wins, the poor never truly get what the government steals "for them," because it gets siphoned off in bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption and the wealthier people get mugged at lawyer-point.

"Capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism is the equal distibution of poverty."
-Anonymous

At 6/16/02 05:51 PM, bungled_girl wrote:

"I bent my wookie"-Ralph Wiggum.

ha ha ha, simpson's rule:)

True. True.

"Careful Smithers! That sponge has corners you know."
-Mr. Burns

At 6/16/02 06:44 PM, Slizor wrote:

South America got people like Pinochet and Peron.

Yeah, I mean who was Pinochet installed by again?

He wasn't installed at all. He led a military coup in September of 1973.

At 6/15/02 11:02 AM, Slizor wrote:

At 6/15/02 05:03 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 6/14/02 11:52 PM, FAT_MAN2k1 wrote: why is north america rich, and south america poor?

South America was exploited by greedy dictators.

Yeah, the North Americans. Making the North Americans...undemocratic.

Reaching for the tired and old, "Blame it on America" tactic.

The reason they're poor is that for years they were controlled by Europe and then when they finally rebelled, the revolutions were betrayed by greedy men among their own leaders. Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the others had scruples and a love for their country, thus America started off on the right foot. South America got people like Pinochet and Peron.

Many South Americans have been duped into the "Blame it on America" cult as well. When the "president" of Venezuela was forced to resign from office they tried to blame it on a CIA conspiracy. In fact, he was forced out by his own generals and staff because he was so far left that he tried to nationalize the oil industry and very nearly wrecked Venezuela's economy. They told him it was "time to go" and he "got the point."

At 6/15/02 11:17 AM, Slizor wrote:

Throw in a little human nature and you get unimaginable chaos. This is why I hate people in general.

Any half-bit Anarchist knows that Human nature doesn't exist. Der!

Here somes the human nature thing again. It, in fact, does exist. It is the natural human tendancies and "common threads" and lines of thinking refined from animal instincts over millions of years of evolution. This is why, all over the world, in isolated cultures and societies, there have been many common developments and cultural traits. Why do people all over the world strive to succeed, to get ahead? It is the fulfillment of basic animal desires, to surivive and pass on one's genes. That is the basis of evolution.

You argue society is the primary shaping factor and this is once again the "nature vs. nurture" argument. I am arguing that human nature is part of both. It is shaped by the common genetic material that all of us possess simply because we are human and partly by the fact that we are raised in a societal environment. It doesn't matter where in the world or what culture, the basic foundations of society are the same. Safety in numbers, the need of human fellowship and the simple herd instinct. Were these created by society? No, they created society and they are some of the elements of human nature.

BTW, have you ever heard of Carl Jung?

At 6/15/02 02:35 AM, Calderon500 wrote:

At 6/15/02 01:33 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: http://www.sheltered-life.com/blam/armory.htm

just LOOK at that page... you guys seriously have no lives. you're NOT flying planes, and you're NOT driving tanks... you're going around voting "0" on movies just because you're greedy assholes who want "blams"... a valueless total which amounts to nothing in your life.

Might I also add that your opinion on the art-work in the armory has no revelevence unless you can create something of equal or greater value.

Also: Note that I'm a light voter, not a dark one, and yet I still partake in these blam runs. I have blammed 37 (?) movies that 25, 50, 75, and/or 100 people thought it was crap. If I was some greedy asshole, I would have a dark aura with little to no blams on my account for I would be attacking any movie I have seen. But since I'm a light Aura, that can only mean that I give higher scores then the norm.

If you would like me to explain how the auras work, that might make it a bit easier to understand.

At 6/15/02 01:33 AM, Thorfalcon wrote: http://www.sheltered-life.com/blam/armory.htm

just LOOK at that page... you guys seriously have no lives. you're NOT flying planes, and you're NOT driving tanks... you're going around voting "0" on movies just because you're greedy assholes who want "blams"... a valueless total which amounts to nothing in your life.

Define "life." Do you watch TV or go to the movies or read books or play any sort of game or sports? By your reasoning those too must be "pointless" distractions from "life," whatever you are claiming that to be.

At 6/14/02 11:22 PM, Russian_dogg wrote: anyone read karl marxist famous theory's?

if you don't know him he's the guy who wrote the first theory's of communism...da Kapital...

in capitalism the boss of the company owns the company and dosen't share the profit equaly, real communism not total control like most of you think is where the people own the whole company....they get paid exactly the same and they do the same job together...

Real communism is where money dosen't exist because humans don't need....
money is only a system to divide people from the rich and the poor

That would be nice, if only communism worked...

Question: Why should the boss share equally? It's his/her company.

At 6/14/02 11:52 PM, FAT_MAN2k1 wrote: why is north america rich, and south america poor?

North America kept to it's democratic system and South America was exploited by greedy dictators.

"No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

-Monty Python

At 6/12/02 10:23 PM, GameboyCC wrote:

At 5/30/02 06:31 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: The parents are probably at fault but they'll never admit it. They'll intead look to the "almighty inanimate object" to place the blame on.

People are always looking for something that takes the blame off them. They scream about how it's the fault of TV and video games. Y'know what? One of my favorite games is Grand Theft Auto 3, I like to watch that show "The Shield", I listen to System of a Down, my favorite comic book character is the Punisher, My favorite movies include Training Day and the Godfather, and I've never killed anybody!!!

I agree.

I believe that a stable family with two parents of opposite sexes is required to properly raise a child with the highest percentage of success, (success being that the child actually goes and creates a decent life rather than becoming a criminal or pot-smoking, crack sniffing, drug dealing junkie).

So, let me get this straight. If a woman gets a divorce from her husband who beat her, cheated on her, and abused controlled substances, then her child would automatically become a druggie and a criminal? Maybe video games do cause murder after all... Dude, you're buying in to tired old stereotypes. Try actually finding some evidence of that.

No, i don't mean marriage at any cost. If it is abusive, it should result in divorce. What I am complaining against are marriages where neither side is "abusive" per se, but there is constant distrust, disagreement and/or adultery. The child only becomes caught in the middle as a pawn of both parents.

It's worked in the past and the biggest problem in society today is the breakdown of the nuclear family. I'm not saying that one-parent families are necessarily bad, but simply that there is a higher chance of the kid taking a turn for the worse.

Oh no! I have one parent! I better go shoot the president! Why? Because my parents divorced! Oh no! Oh no! Sure, it was probably done in my best interest, but now I have a higher risk of being a serial killer! Aaaaaahhh!!!

No. I am just saying that infants and young children would probably be better off with a mother and a father. You simply need a balance of male and female views as well as a real parent rather than a figurehead in the evenings and daycare or a nanny in the day.

Can I ask you something? Do you believe spanking a child is okay?

In some instances yes. There is a line between punishment and abuse that some have crossed and made the practice disreputable. The child should be old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. This whole concept of establishing "friendship" with your child has sort of gone too far. You're not their friend, you're their parent and you can't "reason" with a five year old, they simply do not understand. Physical punishment is clear and direct.

At 6/12/02 08:33 PM, erik505 wrote:

At 6/6/02 08:08 AM, frello wrote: put your 10 movies

Instead i'd rather ask a question.

What is: "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail" and why is it so popular?

I've never even heard of it.

It is, in my opinion, the funniest movie ever made. Monty Python was a group of six or seven British comedians in the 70's that did a sort of British Saturday Night Live, except even more strange and outrageous. They also did a few movies, the "Quest for the Holy Grail" being the most popular.

It's a very irreverent comedy about King Arthur's search for the Holy Grail. They encounter the Knights Who Say 'Ni!', the French, a pyromaniac sorcerer named Tim, the Killer Rabbit (a white, fluffy bunny that rips out the throats of about twenty knights), the Black Knight and the now famous (or infamous), Bridge of Death, which has been parodied many, many times.

In one scene Arthur fights the Black Knight and dismembers both his arms The Knight keeps fighting saying:

Black Knight: Have at you!
Arthur: You are indeed brave, sir knight, but the fight is mine.
Black Knight: Oh, had enough eh?
Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!
Black Knight: Yes I have.
Arthur: Look!
Black Knight: Just a flesh wound!

Or then there's the recuring joke about the swallows and coconuts. Too many great scenes to recall. A must rent for anybody.

Post your quotes here, any subject, any person.

In no particular order:

1) 2001: A Space Odyssey
2) Gallipoli
3) Thirteen Days
4) Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail
5) Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)
6) Raising Arizona
7) Murphy's War
8) Good Morning Vietnam
9) Bandits
10) The Right Stuff

At 6/10/02 08:37 PM, StalkerJosh wrote:

At 6/10/02 08:32 PM, implodinggoat wrote: I just went on Vacation for the past week. Was I UOTD while I was gone or did anything interesting happen?

Oh yea you were, and you were featured on the front page as user of the week. Tom gave away free NG t-shirts, hell froze over, Wade got a haircut, Valz became a normal woman, Shrapnel took off his Paper Bag, just any normal week.

Aaaahhhhhhh!! It's the return of the NG Liar's Club!

No, I don't mean UK politics are a joke, I mean this is a joke about politics.

-------------------------------------------------------

What Is Politics?

Son: Dad, I have to do a special report for school. Can I ask you a question?
Father: Sure, son. What's the question?
Son: What is politics?
Father: Well, let's take our home for example. I am the wage earner, so let's call me “Tony Blair.” Your mother is the administrator of money, so we'll call her “Gordon Brown.” We take care of your needs, so we'll call you “the People.” We'll call the maid “the Working Class,” and your baby brother we can call “the Future.” Do you understand, son?
Son: I'm not really sure, Dad. I'll have to think about it.

That night, awakened by his baby brother's crying, the boy went to see what was wrong. Discovering that the baby had seriously soiled his diaper, the boy went to his parents' room and found his mother sound asleep. He went to the maid's room where, peeking through the keyhole, he saw his father in bed with the maid. The boy's knocking went totally unheeded by his father and the maid, so the boy returned to his room and went back to sleep. The next morning he reported to his father.
Son: Dad, now I think I understand what politics is.
Father: Good, son! Can you explain it to me in your own words?
Son: Well, dad, while Tony Blair is screwing the Working Class, Gordon Brown is sound asleep, the People are being completely ignored and the Future is full of shit.
-------------------------------------------------------

At 6/6/02 01:09 AM, HAQnSPITT wrote:

At 6/5/02 12:55 AM, gothic_princess wrote: I'm gonna get some piercings done for my birthday thats coming up and I wanna get maybe an eyebrow and a lip I have a septum. Whats better to get done. Does anyone have a piercing besides their ears?

I have nothing pierced, including my ears. This is pretty uncommon for an American female.
Bodily Alterations aren’t too spiffy.

I don't know why people get body piercings. Ears are all right, but personally, I think the others (navel, lip, tongue, etc), just look tacky and awkward. Just my opinion.

At 6/6/02 12:24 AM, crimedogg25 wrote: I was wondering what is used to calculate a members popularity. Does anyone know or is it a mystical secret?

Because "The Man" says so!

At 6/4/02 10:20 PM, Radam wrote:
Hey, now, this isn't the political forum. Let's not get into anything meaningful here. Either talk about guns, post pictures of neat guns, answer my initial question or get out. Yeah!

Sure.

At 6/4/02 10:06 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Here's an interesting story:

(He even used my method, sorta...)

Man In Dress Attacks Machine

Note: I didn't write this story, nor did I witness it.

(Just don't want to be confused with the real author.)

Here's an interesting story:

(He even used my method, sorta...)

Man In Dress Attacks Machine

At 6/4/02 03:40 PM, Jewish_Christ wrote:

At 6/4/02 01:51 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: I prefer bigger guns:

you know, if we took all the money wasted on guns, bombs, armenent, fighter planes, all weapons of war from all the countries in the world, PUT DOWN THE WEAPONS, we'd have enough money to feed and clothe Everyone, not a SINGLE person un accounted for, we'd also be travelling in space...
and some stuff
yeah

Yes, IF we lived a perfect world. Unfortunantly, the world is not perfect. It is quite often a brutal, cruel place and there is undeniably great evil in the world. Until there is not evil loses it place in the minds of people, (i.e. just about never), we will need those guns and soldiers willing to use them. War is an inseperable part of humanity. One person in my history class suggested, "Why don't they just fight all wars with paint ball guns?" I almost laughed out loud at that. As my teacher responded, "Would you give up your house, your possesions, your country, your family or your life over to someone who won a large paintball match? Of course not. Wars are fought over real things and therefore they must be fought with real weapons that take real lives."

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns...And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall."

-Col. Jessep (Jack Nicholson), A Few Good Men

Also, if it weren't for many wartime inventions, (i.e. radar, sonar, ballistic missiles, etc), we wouldn't be traveling in space at all. War brings out both the best and the worst in humanity.