Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Have you heard about that French actress, Bridgette Bardot, that is getting a bunch of hate mail from South Koreans because she criticizes their practice of eating dogs.

I'm just wondering, Is she just an animal rights activist or is she vegetarian. If she's vegetarian, then I can understand her position, but if she eats meat, then she is pretty hypocritical. Why don't we eat dogs? In the west it's just a cultural thing and I personally wouldn't consider eating one, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Unless you're opposed to eating meat in general, then you really have no point. Dog meat is just like any other meat. What's the big difference that makes dogs special? Is it because we keep them as pets? That may be reason enough to some but do we not also keep fish?

Who knows, maybe dog tastes like chicken?

In only a few easy steps:

1) Beat on machine and rock it until it falls over, crushing you to the ground.

2) Cry for help.

3) Paramedics arrive, (hopefully).

4) Hospital stay.

5) Use others feelings of sympathy to get the vending machine item free from them.

I prefer bigger guns:

Not all Christians are tha way, though. I am Christian, yet I also believe in science. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. The universe's approximate age is 20 billion years, (I think). The "seven days" of creation mentioned in Genesis is probably representative of this. Some parts of the Bible were probably written metaphorically so eleventh century peseants and such could understand it. If you told them, "God created the world through a comlicated twenty billion year process where he set up the initial singularity, (Alpha Point), conditions such a universe conducive to intelligent life would develop over a process of chaos and random selection resulting in evolution of intelligent, rational lifeforms," they would probably scratch their heads, strain their brains and then promptly ignore it, going back to tending their meager farms.

God is not some mystical being. He is the sum total of all science, the universe taken as a whole. More of a hyper-intelligent AI that takes up all reality, possibly spanning into parallel realities and universes if the MWI interpretation of quantum theory is correct. He processes not with electrons and metal circuits, but with all matter and energy in the universe. He "exists", or rather comes together as a whole at the Omega Point, as predicted by Dr. Frank Tipler, the renowned physicist. He exists at the c-boundary, the final singularity of the universe, aka the Omega Point.

There is actually some biblial evidence to support this. In Exodus, (I think), Moses asks God who he is and in the English translation, he replies, "I am who I am." but this is an incorrect translation, misinterpreted rather. In the original Hewbrew, he replies, "I am who I will be," implying that he doesn't exist yet. He operates backwards from the end of the universe via reverse causality. We have a very limited view of time, yet this would mean nothing to him. Why should it flow forwards? Because that is how we perceive it? That type of view is mere arrogance on our part.

God of course refers to himself in Revelation as "the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last." There is more meaning in this passage than meets the eye. God, being the sum total of the universe would be completely together at only two times, the Alpha and Omega points, the first and last points of the universe. The Alpha is what exploded in the "Big Bang" and the Omega is what it will all condense to ina sort of "Big Crunch." There is still some debate to the end of the universe but I am beginning to believe more and more in the Omega Point approach. It all makes sense.

In the Bible we are constantly refered to as the "Children of God." This makes sense if God is the universe itself. We, being matter and energy, would be a part of the whole, a part of God, subcomponents of the overall machine. Gid being on a hyper-intelligent level could in no way relate to us directly. He would have to create subprograms, of a sort, to relate to us. Jesus and all the various angels might just be those subprograms.

Read Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality for his reasonings on this view of God and religion. It's some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever read, (and he proves his arguments with real math too!)

At 6/2/02 09:25 PM, theredgoatee wrote:

At 4/29/02 12:08 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: True.

What you said is true for Communism and Socialism...

I know that there are poor people in America, some are just low-income and some are truly, low-down dirt poor. I also know that there are some rich and extremely rich people in America. I recognize these facts, so don't try to point them out to me later. Ok, now that I've got that straight, let me continue.

I agree that capitalism, if taken to an unhealthy extreme, can be very bad, just like any political extreme. I do agree, that a balance must be found, but I don't think that a society composed of dueling ideologies is the answer.

Now let's step back for a moment and look at the root of the problem, "Why are the poor, poor in the first place?" That is the core issue. It is easy to look at America, a society with some very rich people in it, and say, "Obviously, the rich have exploited and are exploiting the poor." Although there may be isolated instances of this, I do not believe that this is the overall case. The world is not a "black-and-white" bi-polar world where Rich=exploitation and Poor=oppressed, or Socialism=Good and Capitalism=Bad. Nothing is so simple.

Getting back to the original question, "Why are the poor how they are," I will attempt to provide some concise reasons that, I believe, fit most cases:

First of all, they were probably born and raised poor. They most likely did not receive a quality education and most likely had domestic problems at home that further disrupted their childhood. The root of poverty is not some greedy industrialist, it is the breakdown of the coherent family and a constructive, positice childhood. To break the "cycle of poverty," all people need is a decent education. If you have a good education, you can get a good job. If you get a good job, then you can earn money. If you earn money and LIVE RESPONSIBLY,(i.e. saving your money and living decently, not blowing it on drugs or gambling), then you will not be poor.

The next question is this, "How do we go about providing a good education?" And by a good education, I don't just mean school, I mean an education in life as well as in academics. If you're on crack, skipping school and running away from your alcoholic abusive parents, then you aren't getting a good education. We need to win the "war on drugs," as they only exacerbate the problem, pouring gasoline on the flames. Then we need actual family values again. Most people today don't care for them or have become so cynical that they discount them as nothing more than an artificial illusion of past generations. They aren't. I've seen them work and we need them. What we need is that "M" word that everyone dreads, Morality. Most of you probably discredit it as nothing more than personal choice, and on some points it is somewhat of a personal choice, but there are very critical common denominators. It's worked for past generations and it's what we need more than ever now. Then we need improved schools. I reccomend paying teachers more. They're an important part of community, and right now they're in short supply, mainly because not many that are qualified want to work for that small of an amount of money, so they get people that aren't qualified and can't get a job elsewhere. We do need some government spending increases, but not in the wanton way that it is administered today, where they simply dump in money and hold up some sort of artififial accountability standard. They need increased action and accountability on the community level. Big government is nice for handling big things, but they should give local citizens more control on local matters. Once we improved the schools and improve the social background for impoverished children, they problem will fix itself based on each individual acting on his own best interest, the very basis of capitalism.

The key to all of this is Individual Responsibility. Big government cannot handle your life for you, yet so many today want it to. They feel that they are "entitled" to something. The truth is this, Society and the government owes you NOTHING! You want to succeed, you've got to take it upon your own shoulders to do it. Government can take steps to clear the way, as I have described above, but ultimately it is you that must take it upon yourself. Some people will not do this and will remain poor, but do not be mistaken, this is not the fault of the rich.

At 6/2/02 02:18 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

You see, this is the type of double standard that I hate. If you're going to argue with the past, then fine, do so. But when Brits complain about America world influence, I should be able to point out Britain's quite ruthless past. Either let the past be the past or not. No double standards, please.

Certainly. Nuclear war would probably not be looming in India and Pakistan if it wasn't for the arrogant imperialism of Britain. This has resulted in the division of the once tolerant nation into two vehemently hostile countries. I'm happy to criticise Britain too, or the "West" as a whole, but the issue of Cuba pertains to the US, and the US only.

I certainly don't agree with the Bautista regime and America's support of it. It was mainly led by organized crime that had corrupted many levels of government. Today, the mob is on a much weaker footing and doesn't levy any where near the amount of power that it once had. The past is the past.

But the US governemnt is still following the same line regards to Cuba that was devised in the "past" - with the exception of trying to assassinate Castro, of course. Anyway, if you want to stay in the present, then where is the trade embargo for China? It has committed many more brutal crimes against its people than Cuba. The Tianimen square massacre is the most famous of recent years, but political dissidents are imprisoned and persecuted on a daily basis. Even philosophical dissidents, who wish to practise their religion, are not tolerated. However, China is prepared to play economic ball with the West, trading, running an essentially capitalist economy and allowing our businesses to invest in their cheap labour pool. Ergo, no sanctions.

Very true, but China has more supporters and lobbyers in Congress. It certainly isn't fair, but that's how it works.

At 6/1/02 08:35 AM, dagger_happy wrote:
I'm not totally blaming America for all this and I am not a fervent supporter of Cuba, but the current USA policy towards the island helps no one and punishes the Cubans who are being persecuted which causes you to punish them in the first place... People were cautiously optimistic about Castro when he first swept to power and stated "we are not Communists" and it was his Socialist actions of nationalising industry etc which started to polarise the two nations. The USA has supported countless regimes that were far from democratic - remember the guy who came before Castro?

I do agree that the embargo is too harsh. If we opened up Cuba to trade we could certainly show them why capitalism is better. "Yes, Papa Castro tells you to live the socialist dream in your tin shack making a dollar a week, or you could see how your exile brothers have fared under a capitalist system." It doesn't take a genius to figure out who's living better.

Subsidize his tyranny? Indeed not. Whereas you were quite happy to exploit Batista's bloody, corrupt regime; a playground for the rich. Where was the trade embargo for him? Well, he was capitalist, so that's a different matter entirely...

You see, this is the type of double standard that I hate. If you're going to argue with the past, then fine, do so. But when Brits complain about America world influence, I should be able to point out Britain's quite ruthless past. Either let the past be the past or not. No double standards, please.

I certainly don't agree with the Bautista regime and America's support of it. It was mainly led by organized crime that had corrupted many levels of government. Today, the mob is on a much weaker footing and doesn't levy any where near the amount of power that it once had. The past is the past.

At 6/1/02 11:53 PM, rosswait wrote: I hope they hurry up and launch the nukes. Once we finally have a limited nuclear war everyone will realize how bad it is and stop all this craziness.

They both realize that they don't have enough nukes each for total annihilation so I don't think it will really come to nuclear war. Believe me, nobody needs to be taught a lesson in nuclear war. It is well known that it truly is M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction). Two excellent lines from Dr. Strangelove sum it up, somewhat.

[Turgidson advocates a further nuclear attack to prevent a Soviet response to Ripper's attack.]
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

[After learning of the Doomsday Machine]
President Merkin Muffley: But this is absolute madness, Ambassador! Why should you *build* such a thing?
Ambassador de Sadesky: There were those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. At the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we had been spending on defense in a single year. The deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

Here's another:

At 5/31/02 02:56 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Remember what I said about the US's harassment being half the cause of human rights abuses in Cuba?

Nothing like some faulty "blame everything on the US," reasoning. First, know that the US is the problem, whatever the situation, the US is the problem. Then look for facts to fit the theory, don't be afraid to bend them, just fit the theory.

I agree that the embargo is a little harsh but how does that make us responsible for what Castro does? Last time I checked they were an independent country that made their own decisions. Whatever Castro does is on his hands. You argue nationalistic feeling, but wouldn't that make Cuba more unified in solidarity behind Castro? Human rights abuses in Cuba come from the fact that he's a tin-pot socialist dictator that has ruled with an iron hand from day one of his regime.

Even if we deny them our money, they certainly get enough money from Europe. All those European tourists are financing his human rights abusing regime! At least we took the principled way out and have refused to subsidize his tyranny.

I am pro-life but not in the sense that I want the government to ban it. I would urge terminal patients not to give up, but if they really want to end it, it's their choice. As a Christian I disagree with suicide or euthanasia. I realize that this means nothing to you, but it is my personal justification for my views.

At 5/31/02 03:23 PM, dagger_happy wrote: I guess people aren't interested in nuclear war if it doesn't include them...

My sympathies lie with India who have lost thousands of civilians to fanatatics from Pakistan making illegal incursions into the Indian side of Kashmir. Suicide bombings etc don't help Pakistan's argument either. Having said that though, Musharraf is in a damned difficult position; running a country half-filled with fanatics, particularly with the influx from Afghanistan has put him on a tightrope. People don't seem to realise that the Cuban missile crisis is nothing compared to this. India and Pakistan are already shelling each other, killing even more civilians every day. Huge armies mass in Kashmir, although India is significantly bigger in population and armed forces. This doesn't really matter though because both sides have nukes. Can't they just throw their religion to one side for a second and think about what their doing?

I agree that they should stop, but I don't think religion is the foremost reason here, although it certainly plays a major role. This is just an old-fashioned land dispute.

Shine on you Crazy Diamond
--Pink Floyd

Remember when you were young,
You shone like the sun.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Now there's a look in your eyes,
Like black holes in the sky.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
You were caught on the crossfire
Of childhood and stardom,
Blown on the steel breeze.
Come on you target for faraway laughter,
Come on you stranger, you legend, you martyr, and shine!

You reached for the secret too soon,
You cried for the moon.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Threatened by shadows at night,
And exposed in the light.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Well you wore out your welcome
With random percision,
Rode on the steel breeze.
Come on you raver, you seer of visions,
Come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!

Nobody knows where you are,
How near or how far.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Pile on many more layers
And I'll be joining you there.
Shine on you crazy diamond.
And we'll bask in the shadow
Of yesterday's triumph,
And sail on the steel breeze.
Come on you boy child,
You winner and loser,
Come on you miner for truth and delusion, and shine!

Not a BBS one, but I think it's hilarious. Three movies, one big coincidence. Or a practcal joke from a theater employee.

At 5/30/02 09:42 AM, erik505 wrote:

At 5/30/02 04:05 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Wow! I am User of the Day!

Congratulations. But how do you get to be User of the Day? By getting in the top five?

It's random.

At 5/30/02 05:59 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

At 5/28/02 01:40 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Mommy and Daddy's "little angels" can do no wrong. Little Timmy massacres a dozen of his classmates, "Well, he must have been under some bad influence." You do the crime, you do the time.

"Bad influence." Heh, yeah, like them. If parents can give their children a stable, sincere, loving environment, then they ought to grow up into responsible, morally enlightened people. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a serial killer/paedophile etc who didn't have a severely disturbed childhood. Of course, this does not absolve them of guilt, since we all have free will, but it does help explain the misery that is the human condition, which we just can't seem to evolve out of. Its not the cartoon Little Timmy's watching that affects him; its the mother who storms in, turns it off and starts taking out her frustration on him, never showing any affection; its the father who comes home and beats him, teaching him the valuable lesson that those who are bigger, stronger and violent, win. The child is the father of the man.

Exactly, I agree. 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. 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). 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.

Wow! I am User of the Day!

In the face of vicious oppression and persecution, Strawberry Clock makes a bold stand:

At 5/28/02 04:10 AM, Slizor wrote:

"No free elections?" How so? We often do not elect the right people, but they are fairly elected.If you want to see some unfair, rigged elections, I can point you to some African and South American countries that are really "fair."

There are only two possible parties which hold enormous wealth to spend on advertising, buying out papers, etc. Then there is the whole last election thing.

So they advertise themselves. That's a good thing. They all promote their message and the intelligent voter will make an informed choice. There is a little too much political mudslinging, but I don't think that it is too much of a problem. This is certainly better than the wonderful one party socialist system where evryone "agrees" and "gets along." Nobody would dare speak out saying something unpopular, would they? Oh, of course not, because everyone "agrees" and "gets along" so well, heh heh...

As for the 2000 election, it was messy, but fortunantly the law was finally upheld by the Supreme Court. All those that have pointed to the fact that Bush's brother was governor are only trying to make scandal where there is none. Jeb Bush did nothing. He knew people would point fingers at him and he took special care not to interfere with a thing. Gore tried to keep recounting until he won, even counting the so-called "dimpled chads," in clear violation of the law and common sense. If your were going to vote for somebody, would you barely tap the card or make sure you punch it out? Gore tried to create votes for him where there were none, all in the name of "interpreting voter intent." Meanwhile, his lawyers worked to throw out thousands of overseas and Armed Forces votes that clearly supported Bush. His lawyers were even seen high-fiving and slapping each other on the back after one such hearing that discounted thousands of soldiers votes, "A win's a win," they said. I'm not making this stuff up, it's all too true. Eventually the Supreme Court enforced the law. The fact that several recounts by independent organizations and journalist groups have been done since, and all uphold Bush as the rightful winner, should put to rest by any doubts. If even the leftist-biased mainstream media can find Bush the winner, he is.

(The vote, county by county. Red = Bush, Blue = Gore)

At 5/29/02 10:09 AM, Reaper-n wrote: Here you have made a brilliant point.

When someone has nothing left to live for and is in so much pain or suffering that they have no real quality of life, They should be allowed to choose to die.

You could kill yourself and be done with it but if you are too weak or otherwise unable to kill yourself then assisted suicide should be allowed.

With a consented, signed document which has been witnessed and checked by doctors and lawyers a person should be allowed to end their life.

As for the Pro-lifers they are just sick, twisted individuals, "hmm pro-lifers who murder doctors. Isn't that a little bit ironic? "We're pro life and we'll kill your ass"" (Adapted from bill hicks Rant in e-minor)

You're confusing two differnet issues here. Abortion and Euthanasia are not the same, and all pro-lifers are not some sort of murderous fanatics. I am pro-life but I certainly don't think abortion doctors should be murdered, imprisoned maybe, but not murdered. Don't confuse the actions of a few with the views and beliefs of the many. That's like saying all muslims are suicide bombers because a few of them do it. Is that what you're trying to say?

And no, Jesus did not kill himself. It sould be sort of hard hanging from a piece of wood with your feet and hands nailed and/or tied up. They stabbed him to ensure that he was dead.

At 5/29/02 12:50 PM, z3n wrote: To me, the most annoying part of our present capitalist society (in America) is corporate spam, otherwise known as advertising. Everywhere I go, it's billboard, commercials, and ads. It's all being crammed down my throat and while I've learned to leaf past all the pages of ads in a magazine, while I've learned to scroll past ad banners on websites and kill of pop-up windows, while I turn of the commercials on the radio and put a CD in the player, while I use the remote to change channels on the TV (remember when cable was supposed to be advertising free?), while screen my phonecalls to avoid telemarketers, they are employing new techniques.

I don't think corporations are evil, but I do think they they all attempt to eat up market share in order to control people's access to a resource so that they can gouge the consumer (most of the time monopolies fail because someone always wants to bust into a rich market).

No, as long as the United States can keep the concepts of the Constitution golden, it will remain a great place to live and succeed (if that is your goal). The first amendment limits the of the government and it's ability to tread upon the rights to the individual. The U.S. constitution is ingenious. The concepts of Marxism cannot be argued with in theory, but when you understand human nature, a free market representative democracy in a system as such constructed by the U.S. constitution will prevail over attempts at socialism and communism every time. People do not want to work for the "greater good". Sure it sounds nice, and people can be motivated by it for a while, but working your fingers to the bone with soil deep under your fingernails just to hand all your harvest to the government so you can stand in breadline for hours will quickly kill your motivation.

The slow and meticulous work of democrats to weave socialism into our goverment DESPITE our constitution will eventually cause the end of America as we have known it.

Most people don't know that there was no federal income tax before World War 2 (except for a temporary measure once previous). The income tax as instituted to help fund the war effort. It was never removed. Now it it used to fund the beurocratic socialistic behemoth programs. It is the federal goverments first priority to provide for the safety and security of it's people from threats both foreign and domestic. It is not the governments duty to give handouts to people. That is the responsiblity to family, freinds, neighbors, churches, charitable organizaitons, and most importantly, one's self.

That is exactly what the conservative position is all about. The government is not responsible for helping people. Sounds cruel but what responsiblity do they have? Why? It is the responsibility of the individual.

As for the income tax, they actually have no legal right to do it. It is something that people just accept and the myth that it is lawful and mandatory have become so widespread that to say otherwise is considered very strange. One lawyer who actually knows the law and knows that they have no legal basis for this simply refuses and even writes books to help others do the same. He was of course audited for back taxes. He went to the audit and when they asked for his records he told them that he wouldn't turn them over unless they could produce some proof that they had the authority to do this, one scrap of solid legal proof. They couldn't, and he left without paying a dollar.

For example, there was a tax finally repealed recently that had been in place for over a century, it was a small phone tax initiated to finance the Spanish-American War, a war that had been over for nearly 100 years! It's repealment was fervently opposed by Democrats who cited all the social programs that drew on this tax for funds. Excuse me! The tax had a specific purpose, should have been used for that prupose and then immediately repealed once it's purpose was fulfilled, but instead they start tacking things on to it and once you pass a tax, it's nearly impossible to remove it.

I'm not even sure if they've finally eliminated the death tax. That was a particularly bad one, meant to "redistribute wealth," one of those "wonderful" leftist ideas of the 60's and 70's. Instead of redistributing money from the rich to the poor, it robbed and blinsided the middles class, the small businessman, the family farm and the family owned business. Say you own a small convenience store, you've worked hard to run and manage it and it provides a pretty good income. Every year, though, the government takes 1/3 of your profits, the rest you save and invest in stocks, when you retire and sell those stocks, the government takes 1/3 of those profits too! Then you die and leave the store to your son, he has to pay another 30-40% on his inheritance from his father. By now, the son can't afford to keep the store and is forced to sell. It is probably then picked up by some large company or franchise or just goes abandoned.

Take for example, a product being produced, say a chair. The company imports wood and materials and of course pays import taxes on those. It then assembles the parts in a building for which property taxes must be paid. The workers are paid 9 dollars an hour, even though they only get 6 since the government takes 1/3. The company must raise the price to adjust for the taxes. The chair is sold to a retail store which must pay tax on the purchase. Now the store must raise the price again so that they can make money over the taxes. Now they sell it to you, and guess what? You pay sales tax, plus the extra money in the price that had to be raised to compensate for all the taxes tacked on along the way! Then you take it home to your house which you are paying property tax on, which you pay with your income which you pay income tax on. These are not even all the applicable taxes involved, by the time you buy your chair, it's been taxed a dozen times along the way!

Is this fair? Who is really making money here?

The government, that's who.

At 5/29/02 01:30 AM, Clock_Doctor wrote:
Explain to me how am I a racist. I alraedy told you why KABOOM! is racist, you didn't get it, so now I am gonna explain it to you in CAPS. IF YOU ZOOM IN TO SEE THE FACES OF PEOPLE IN KABOOM, YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE DRAWN TO REPRESENT DIFFERENT RACES. THE BOMBER HAS DARKER SKIN AND A CERTAIN SHAPE OF NOSE THAT MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE AN ARAB. THE VICTIMS ARE LIGHTER SKINNED AND LOOK LIKE JEWS. GET IT?

Ummm, could the skin colors be realism? Think about it, how many white Arab suicide bombers are there. Ummmm, none?

At 5/29/02 01:43 AM, Clock_Doctor wrote: Belows is pasted definition of the word RACISM from www.dictionary.com

rac·ism
n.
1) The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2) Discrimination or prejudice based on race.



I partially agree on number 1 definition above, so that must mean I am a racist. All people have different genetic code that predetermines temperament, aggressiveness, shyness, and physical appearance as well as many more traits. It is universally agreed by biological psychologists that 60% of human behavior comes from genes and it is fair to assume that some ethnic groups share genetic code and therefore common traits. I cannot point out any single race because I have not statistical data to proove anything.

From a sociocultural viewpoint I can say that Afro-Americans are mainly more agressive than any other minority group. That maybe cause by a variety of reasons, the way people treat them or they way their brains work, There is no proof to state 100% answer.

This is what the Nazi's based their theories of racial superiority on, the concept of "eugenics" and that the highest race were the "Arayans" and the lowest were Jews, gypsies and the so-called "negroids." Don't go too far down that path:

(A mass grave at the Belsen concentration camp:)

At 5/29/02 01:49 AM, Poodgie wrote:

At 5/28/02 05:58 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/28/02 04:10 AM, mooseboy84 wrote: legalize it and drugs. most women are prositutes already. they may not be on a street conrner, but they use sex to get what they want. why do all women want rich men? do you think that donald trump would be dating supermodels if he was a plumber? women use there pussies as a weapon to get what they want.

Thank you for your sexist views.

hOQS HTAT SECxist? ghe isnt as wong as you thinkd!

Please speak in sentences using real words, preferably English words.

In the words of Douglas Adams:

"The meaning of life is..............42!"

If you don't know what this means then you need to read The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

At 5/28/02 05:42 PM, Slizor wrote:

Marxist communism was a good theory but it is impossible to put into pracitse,

Why?
(1984 is not an attack on Communism, more Stalinist regimes)

The ideal form of government is a benevolent dictatorship with a lessaiz fair economy (probably mispelled, please excuse). No haggling in any form of Congress or lawmaking body or any fragile Marxist practices. The dictator would wield absolute power to overstep any obstacles to an effecient and fair country. The problem is finding the benevolent dictator, as most that take absolute power are mad or extremely egotistcal.

Maybe I should try? A small island nation, a few thousand troops, hmmmm... I could set up an Amazon Pay Pal account for donations to finance the mercenaries.

At 5/28/02 04:10 AM, mooseboy84 wrote: legalize it and drugs. most women are prositutes already. they may not be on a street conrner, but they use sex to get what they want. why do all women want rich men? do you think that donald trump would be dating supermodels if he was a plumber? women use there pussies as a weapon to get what they want.

Thank you for your sexist views.

*Bump*

Hey, I noticed that Biseor.com is now sort of active. It has an Under Construction page set up there.

At 5/26/02 02:10 PM, bungled_girl wrote:

It's never anyone's fault except for the almighty inanimate object!

See, that's the way i see it too...well, i mean that i agree with your sarcastic comment. Violence in video games and on television don't encourage kids to go out and to dreadful things to other people. If they're so fucked up that they'd let things like that influence them, they shouldn't be allowed to play with other kids in any place but a cozy room with padded walls. That whole theory came from middle aged bitching mothers who have nothing better to do that to try to fuck up the lives of us normal people, just because their children didn't develop the way they wanted them to. Fuck off and start thinking logically!!!!
-Sharlene

Very perceptive. I call it "Baby-On-Board-ism," after those yellow Baby On Board stickers people put on their cars. It's the whole attitude that their children are somehow special and perfect and that they, Mommy and Daddy's "little angels" can do no wrong. Little Timmy massacres a dozen of his classmates, "Well, he must have been under some bad influence." You do the crime, you do the time.

At 5/26/02 06:23 PM, dagger_happy wrote: Y'know, commander, if you're looking to initiate a moral crusade, Newgrounds is hardly the conventional place to start!

I know that...