Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/2/02 06:30 AM, Slizor wrote:

Or you could do it like Europe where you have a billion little special interest parties and you have to build a coalition to get anybody elected. Then as soon as you do anything that angers part of the coalition it falls apart and you get a vote of no confidence and new elections. Just look at Italy if you want a perfect example.

See, it just shows your ignorance, this is basically your argument, Proportional representation = Political instability(this is pretty much true) Italy = Proportional Representation, Italy = Europe, therefore Europe = Political Instability.

I said Italy was a perfect example, not what I based my entire view on. You're an expert at taking comments out of context. I know that Italy doesn't equal Europe, what I'm saying is that many European countries are not the most politically stable places. They're not unstable in terms of revoltions but in the fact that they can't keep long terms governments in office.

At 3/2/02 11:21 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 2/27/02 04:43 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 2/27/02 01:30 PM, Slizor wrote:

Third, although a fetus is technically non-sentient it is different than the cow because it will develop into a person, a sentient thinking being that deserves a chance at life.

So it's immoral to kill a human fetus, but not to kill an "animal" fetus?

I've already said this, an animal is a non-sentient life form that we feed on. A human fetus is the seed of intelligence that should be given a chance to have the life that sentient, intelligent creatures have. Please read before posting.

Animals are indeed sentient, I guess you need to be told what sentient means since you seem to be going off Star Trek definition, Sentient means capable of interperating & responding to one's surroundings, by this definition even plants are Sentient but a fetus is not, like I said before I don't agree with abortion for just any old reason but there are definite situations I have already covered(which you seem to be avoiding) in which abortion is justified & the woman's rite.

Pure semantics. Maybe I've misused the word but what I mean is thinking, rational, intelligent beings capable of higher thought and self-consciousness.

At 3/2/02 06:12 AM, Slizor wrote: Ah, I see your point now! Things with different DNA are different, like twins.....oh wait.

That is taken out of context. Twins can be identical, formed from a split zygote but they are seperate and they're not identical to either one of their parents. My assertion still holds true.

Another "harmless", "unarmed", Palestinian kid.

At 3/2/02 07:35 AM, Slizor wrote:

Source it! >:D

"According to figures provided by Minister of the Interior [18 Jews were killed in 1981-82 by Terrorists]. In contrast, we have killed about a thousand terrorists in 1982, and caused the loss of life of thousands of inhabitants of an enemy country"

Aluf Hareven of the Van Leer Institute
"The total number of Israelis killed in all acts of terror since 1967(to 1984) is 282, less than the number killed by Israel's air terrorists in Beirut on July 17-8 1981, in "retaliation" after a PLO response to Israeli bombing that broke the cease fire."

Noam Chomsky, "ateful Triangle"

The book I was talking about... and yes, it's accurate (Leon Uris was the author, it's definately true).

Don't take this as an insult.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/examskills/biasedsourcesrev1.shtml

This leads to some sort of kids website about the USSR. How is this relevant?

I would also suggest Biseor and 25 look at this. It's basic, but they, more than anyone else, need it.

yway, just read it to find out. Just started today and I'm up to page 50 in about 1 hour... can't stop reading it, it's great. Just pick up a copy, you'll like it.

Thanks, I'll see about that.

By the way, Slizor, here's some more "harmless" Palestinian kids. Check my last few posts on the first page for more.

At 3/1/02 01:49 PM, Slizor wrote:

So encouraging little kids to martyr themselves and men to strap explosives to themselves and blow up women and children, is that civilized? Ambushing 73 year old ladies on the highway with machine gun fire and grenades, firing mortars into towns and settlements, is that civilised? At least the Israelis shoot at people who have guns.

Did I ever say that the Palestienians were civilised? No. And the Israelis don't just shoot at people with guns...
"I was with a small group of women priests, supported by Christian Aid, visiting different places and people on both sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. To my English eyes, the very sight of soldiers with machine guns on either side of us was unnerving; then we spotted five boys, probably about 13 years old, throwing occasional stones at the Israeli soldiers ahead of us. We stood and watched from our position in the crowd, secretly admiring their nerve if not their accuracy. One of the soldiers had clearly had enough and aimed his gun at them. He can't shoot, we thought; they're unarmed and they're only boys.

But he did. He took aim and fired directly at them. They scattered, and for a moment we thought one of them had been hit. Not content with this result, the soldier climbed up on to one of the concrete posts, clearly visible against the sky, and took slow aim and fired again, and again."

Some of those "harmless", supposedly unarmed Palestinian children are not always so hamrless or unarmed.

May 9, 2001 - Israel awoke once again this morning to horrific news, this time of the double murder of two 8th-grade boys outside their eastern Gush Etzion community of Tekoa. The two, Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ishran, set off yesterday morning to "clear their heads," in the words of a Tekoa resident; they went to the Haritun area in Tekoa's "back yard," some 300 meters from the most outlying house. They did not inform their parents, and only after dark, when they did not come home from school at the regular time, did searches begin. Their bodies, with severe signs of violence, were found in one of the nearby caves early this morning.

Haritun is a popular spot for hikers from all over Israel. A classmate of the murdered boys later said, "They told me two days ago that they were planning to go to Haritun; I didn't even think to tell them not to go, because it's a common [place to go]..." Many Tekoa children said they would continue to hike there.

Gush Etzion Regional Council head Sha'ul Goldstein said today, "All these questions about whether they went with permission or without permission - it's all irrelevant!…" He warned, "The residents' fuse is very short… We will respond; we will strike back at those who strike at us. I am against hitting the innocent Palestinian population - but there is no such thing, because they are all incited by the PA in the media and the school textbooks to murder Jews... Two boys happen upon some Arabs, who did not plan this murder in advance, but were rather treated to a constant dose of incitement to hatred and murder... We demand that the government shut down the Palestinian media, which incessantly broadcasts incitement to hatred and murder..."

The double funeral set out from Tekoa late this afternoon, and was scheduled to make its first stop at the Gush Etzion intersection, where eulogies were to be delivered. From there, the mourners will part ways: Kobi Mandell will be buried in Kfar Etzion, and Yosef Ishran will be buried in Har HaMenuchot in Jerusalem.

The IDF entered a PA police station near Tekoa this afternoon and arrested over 20 Arab suspects. Palestinians near Tekoa stole a herd of 100 goats from a Jewish shepherd in the area; some of those arrested admitted to stealing the herd. The army has closed off exits from the area, in an attempt to catch the murderers. The preliminary investigation has shown that the boys were murdered yesterday afternoon; the boys fought with their killers, but were overcome and cruelly stoned and stabbed to death.

February 27, 2002 - Gad Rejwan, 34, of Jerusalem, was shot and killed by one of his Palestinian employees in a factory in the Atarot industrial area, north of Jerusalem. The industrial area lies just south of Ramallah, within Jerusalem city limits. The Palestinian, who had worked at the factory for several years and had no record of labor disputes with Rejwan, part-owner of the Rejwan coffee factory. Early Wednesday morning he walked into the employer's office and shot him twice in the head at close range, then fled the scene. Two Fatah groups issued a joint statement taking responsibility for the murder.

Gad Rejwan was buried in Jerusalem. He leaves behind his parents, Alfred and Margalit, two brothers and a sister, his wife Maya, and their 7-year-old daughter Ann.

January 17, 2002 - On Thursday night, a terrorist entered the David Palace hall on Weizmann Avenue in Hadera and began spraying the 180 guests celebrating the bat-mitzva of 12-year-old Nina Kardashova with automatic gunfire. The terrorist, who also carried grenades, was pushed outside by guests and killed by police who quickly arrived at the scene.

March 26, 2001 - March 26, 2001 Terrorist gunfire kills one and injures one in Hebron. At about 5:00 this afternoon an Arab sniper shot and killed a 10 month old baby girl, Shalhevet Techiya Pass, and wounded her father, Yitzhak Pass, with two bullets in the legs. They were shot at the entrance to the Avraham Avinu neighborhood. The baby was in the mother's arms at the time of the shooting and was hit in the head. Emergency medical teams arrived immediately. The father was treated and evacuated to hospital. The doctors were not able to save the baby.

At 3/1/02 07:13 PM, Slizor wrote:

I totally agree. Why do we have to all be dichotomised as one belief or the other? I can see the faults in both points of view. As cynics would say, Dictatorship gives you one choice of leadership, Democracy gives you two.

No no, Democracy gives you one choice of leadership, but two choices of leaders.

Or you could do it like Europe where you have a billion little special interest parties and you have to build a coalition to get anybody elected. Then as soon as you do anything that angers part of the coalition it falls apart and you get a vote of no confidence and new elections. Just look at Italy if you want a perfect example.

So basically what he's saying is that industry is becoming more consolidated into larger more efficient companies and imperialism causes wars.

This is all at least partially true but, so what? He is writing about things nearly a century ago and conflict between great empires hasn't arisen yet, (probably between US and China next.) Right now the conflict is between the empire and the metaphorical barbarians, terrorists. Empires go through cycles of history. We, the USA are practically the new Rome. We're the dominant power and the "great empire" of the present day. Just as Rome was threatened by barbarian invasion, that is less advanced, opporunistic forces, so we are also threatened by terrorism that at the current moment may not take down the empire but it is a threat.

In essence, Lenin's writings are dated, although they will eventually become relevant again in a few centuries. Also, just FYI, socialism/communism doesn't work. It's been tried more than a few times and is probably the most disasterous social experiment ever. All hail Emperor Bush!

At 3/1/02 05:24 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

The church has reformed since then.

It's God's business. He knows.
That's the exact type of attitude that is corrupting and degrading this country.

You don't seem to be getting the message: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD - THEREFORE, HOW CAN HE HAVE ANY RELEVANCE IN MY MORAL CODE? Talk about an unsupportable argument, how can you justify blind belief in your religion?

*There are hundreds... thousands of Gods in the world. How do you know you have the right one? If you were brought up in Pakistan you would have been given a Muslim upbringing, a Japananese upbringing might have been Buhdist. Less than a fifth of the world, and falling, are Christians - does that mean at least 80% are going to hell?
*What evidence do you have to believe in God? The Bible has no authority since it is no more than a book, like the Koran, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy and The Hobbit. There is no evidence, just blind, irrational "faith".
*(The age old question) If God exists then why does he let "bad" things happen? Josef Stalin was a complete Arsehole all his life, killing more people than the Nazis and continuously organising paranoid purges. A vile man. Yet, he lived to a ripe old age without any challenges to his power. Where is God in that? People talk about the "miracle" of their spouse surviving a car accident, but they fail to address the gravest horrors of the world that God simply watches happen. Why can't you just accept the random, unguided nature of our existence?

If there was no evil, how would you discern the good? Deus vult, Deus vobiscum.

At 3/1/02 06:45 PM, Slizor wrote:

Until the egg is fertilized it is not a seperate enitity because the sperm are entirely part of your body

So it's not seperate here because it's part of your body

When it is fertilized it, then and only then, is it seperate life, a new being identical to neither one of you and therefore a new entity.

But it is seperate her because it is different to you? While still being part of your body.....

While it is unfertilized, the egg is just a cell in your body. After fertilization, the egg is still in your body but it is not you, the DNA is different, by definition it is a different being, its genetic code doesn't match yours so how can you claim it is just one of your cells? It has become unique and special, the seed of human life.

At 3/1/02 01:27 PM, Slizor wrote:

As for the phrase, it does make sense. It means that good intentions often are a weak rationalization for what is wrong. People try to cover up by saying that they had good intentions. As for disagreements on morality, I think we can agree on this, murder is immoral and should be stopped.

Abortion is not murder, why? Because it is part of another person, like a liver. If someone wants to fuck their liver up by drinking all the time, who am I to stop them? Now, you say that a fetues has a chance of sentient life, well so does an egg, are you going to jail every woman who has a period? It is the woman's body, and therefore the woman's choice, not the governments. Jesus, I tell you, these right wingers, can't make up their minds, we want the government, we don't want the government, jesus!

I've already answered this.

No, it's not. You have to draw the line at some point. Until the egg is fertilized it is not a seperate enitity because the sperm are entirely part of your body but when one joins with an egg it is new entity, a hybrid of your two DNA strands. When it is fertilized it, then and only then, is it seperate life, a new being identical to neither one of you and therefore a new entity.

EYE ON THE MEDIA: The Truth Behind Palestinian Broadcasts
By Andrea Levin

(January 27) - CNN reporter Rula Amin's zealous pro-Palestinian bias was conspicuous once again on January 19.

Recounting Israeli destruction of several floors of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation in Ramallah, in the wake of the Palestinian murder of Jewish guests at a bat mitzva in Hadera, she presented only angry, distraught Arab speakers denouncing Israel. (The radio arm of the PBC resumed broadcasting almost immediately from another locale and the main headquarters of the television division located in Gaza was untouched, permitting most of its programs to continue.)

Amin's only nod to Israeli views was a perfunctory: "Israel says the Voice of Palestine is used by the Palestinian Authority for incitement against Israel and Israelis." She quickly added: "Palestinian officials say they only report what Israel does."

Amin omitted mention of even one example of the incendiary content Israelis have long protested.

Indeed, among the most disastrous developments in the pursuit of peace between Israelis and Palestinians must surely be counted the creation of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation. Established in the early years of Oslo, both the television and radio arms soon became potent vehicles for amplifying anti-Israel propaganda in a way that had not been possible previously.

From the outset, PA television has offered sinister fare. One 1998 Palestinian children’s series presented sweet-faced little girls singing songs about becoming suicide bombers and drenching the ground with blood in the march to Jerusalem.

Against a backdrop of Disney figures, teachers
exclaimed "Bravo, bravo!" to those most ardently pledging themselves to violence. Declarations of devotion to martyrdom and extolling of past terrorist killers of Israelis were commonplace.

More recently, as Palestinian negotiators at Camp David moved toward abandoning peace talks in the summer of 2000, PA television turned to graphic images of old intifada clashes and funerals. Martial music accompanied inflammatory footage.

With the outbreak of rioting in September 2000, Palestinian broadcasting continued to stoke violence. A news story by USA Today's Jack Kelley about the Voice of Palestine radio described in dramatic fashion agitated VOP radio reports claiming Israel was bombing and killing children in Bethlehem.

Yet on visiting that town, all was quiet.

Similar fraudulent reports charged "settlers" were "shooting Palestinian women" in Hebron, where no such violence had occurred. In Nablus Israeli troops were alleged to be "burning homes" – where, again, no such thing was happening.

One report, according to Kelley, even claimed "hundreds of jets and helicopters are taking off from the aircraft carrier belonging to the criminal occupation force." Israel has no aircraft carriers. PA television has regularly delivered as well incendiary Friday sermons by religious leaders. One day after the Ramallah lynching of two Israelis, Ahmad Abu Halabiya, a member of the PA-appointed Fatwa Council, called on listeners to find and butcher Jews "no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them."

One week after the Dolphinarium bombing on June 1, 2001 in Tel Aviv in which 21 people, mainly young girls, were killed, PA television carried the sermon of Sheik Ibrahim Al-Madhi. He said: "Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah; blessings to whoever raided for the sake of Allah; blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons' and plunged into the midst of the Jews, crying 'Allahu Akbar...'" In July, a Friday sermon on PA TV exhorted Palestinians to train their children in the "love of Jihad for the sake of Allah and the love of fighting for the sake of Allah." Sheik Ibrahim Al-Madhi told his audience that "local" Jews not from other countries, and Christians, could live as "Dhimmis" among the Muslims – as unequal, subordinate peoples.

In August on PA television, Sheik Isma'il Aal Ghadwan admonished listeners to seek martyrdom, holding up as a model those who offered their own mutilated bodies as tokens of sacrifice. He said: "The sacrifice of convoys of martyrs [will continue] until Allah grants us victory very soon.

The willingness for sacrifice and for death we see amongst those who were cast by Allah into a war with the Jews, should not come at all as a surprise..." (All translations are from MEMRI, Middle East Media Research Institute.)

One Palestinian broadcast that made news in 2001 on American television was that containing, in the words of NBC correspondent Martin Fletcher, a "commercial" for child martyrdom. In vivid re-enactments, Palestinian boys and girls were shown how to put down their "toys" and pick up rocks and follow the path of martyrs. In the video, paradise awaiting after death is depicted as an inviting, green, sunlit meadow where friends meet and play.

That CNN – and many other media outlets – should report Israeli attacks against PA broadcasting structures without so much as a mention of the vile hatred emanating from its airwaves, poisoning the lives of Palestinians and Israelis alike, is testimony to the determination of some outlets to purvey a distorted, anti-Israel image of the conflict no matter how divorced their coverage may be from the conflict’s realities.

At 2/17/02 05:35 PM, Slizor wrote:

The Israelis retaliate, they don't make pre-emptive attacks. And when they do they attack PLO milita and security forces. People that are guilty and can fight back. They don't go and slaughter kids in the street, they attack and arrest those responsible. Israel's taken enough from them and if they eventually have to kick all Palestinians out to stop the bombings and protect their own citizens, then they certainly have a right to. They have to take this matter into their own hands because Arafat doesn't truly want peace. He's turned down reasonable peace offers in the past.

I forgot that sending planes to go bomb the Palestinians is civilised. "There is no civility in war"

So encouraging little kids to martyr themselves and men to strap explosives to themselves and blow up women and children, is that civilized? Ambushing 73 year old ladies on the highway with machine gun fire and grenades, firing mortars into towns and settlements, is that civilised? At least the Israelis shoot at people who have guns.

Does anyone even have a comment on the original topic post? You know they're true, that's why nobody can present evidence against them.

At 2/28/02 06:26 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

I don't think many would disagree with Christian morality, to sum it up:

And God spoke all these words saying...

1) You shall have no other gods besides Me.

2) You shall not make for yourselves an idol...

3) You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain...

4) Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

5) Honor your father and your mother...

6) You shall not murder.

7) You shall not commit adultery.

8) You shall not steal.

9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10) You shall not covet...

(Excerpted from Exodus 20:1-17)

Oh, they wouldn't would they?

1]Well Non-Christians may have some trouble with this one.
2]Hey, I thought we were free to worship whatever we liked! But then again, no one expects the Spanish inquisition...

The church has reformed since then.

3]Fuck you, Jesus! Check out my movie, Bible Belt man!
4]Why should it be holy if I don't believe in God?
5]So, no incest basically.
6]Fair enough.
7]That's none of anybody's business but the peeps who do it.

It's God's business. He knows.

8]Sure.
9]I can handle that.
10]OK, I'll relieve my sexual frustrations through rape instead, shall I?

No, you won't.

No, the ten commandments do not provide an all-encompassing morality. MY morality is do as thou wilt as long as it does not hurt others. That's it. "Love thy neighbour", remember? No, I am not a Christian,as you will probably have detected, so why should "loving God" come into my moral code?

That's the exact type of attitude that is corrupting and degrading this country.

At 2/28/02 07:06 PM, Len_Mystic wrote:

At 2/26/02 09:28 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

Canada doesn't even have a clear culture. When do you ever say, "Hey, lets go get some Canadian food for dinner."

I agree with your statement but dont take your quotes from bad movies

That was a hilarious movie. If you want some better quotes:

Audaces fortuna iuvat - Fortune favors the bold.

Veritas simplex oratio est - The language of truth is simple.

Deus vult - "God wills it." - Battle cry of the First Crusade

"You must pay for conformity. All goes well as long as you run with conformists. But you, who are honest men in other particulars, know that there is alive somewhere a man whose honesty reaches to this point also, that he shall not kneel to false gods, and, on the day when you meet him, you sink into the class of counterfeits."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

"The proverb warns that 'you should not bite the hand that feeds you.' but maybe you should, if it prevents you from feeding your self."
-Thomas Szasz

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
-Oscar Wilde

"If I had three hundred men who feared nothing but God, hated nothing but sin, and were determined to know nothing among men but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, I would set the world on fire."
-John Wesley

At 2/28/02 06:56 PM, dagger_happy wrote:

I am not suggesting that raped victims should be forced to carry a baby that was forced on them. In that case, abortion might be justified. I've said this before.

As for, the "Well, we may as well make it clean for them argument." that's like giving needles to addicts so that, "At least it will be clean." Some liberals have proposed this, but in net effect you're condoning the habit even if your intentions are good. Remember, "Good intentions pave the road to hell."

I'm being realistic. I don't care for your superior morality that looks squeaky clean in the eyes of the law but has butchered women crawling around the streets, leaving a trail of blood from the backstreet abortionist. There is no hell, and that quote is absurdly contradictory in any case. Who cares if the law is "moral", when everyone has a different concept of what the word means? There is nothing you can do to stop the desperate women having abortions, so why even bother to argue against it? There is a simple choice between accepting the tainted world as it is and trying to make the best of it; and striving for utopian apsirations (which others may find dystopian) and causing just as much pain in the process. Besides, if a new law was passed in the vein that you suggest, then surely a woman could come along to a clinic and claim to have been raped. Rape is notoriously hard to prove or disprove, so surely this presents a gaping loophole.

I do see your point and it is valid to a degree. But as to "who cares if the law is moral", the answer is, moral people do. I don't pretend to have "superior morals", I'm as flawed as any of us but when there is a flagrant violation of all that is right you can't just turn a blind eye and there is no way in my mind that I can argue for abortion. If women go to a "back-alley abortionist" that's their choice that they make with their own lives. When a law is just, such as an anti-abortion law would be, then when people break it, the fault is not in the hands of the legislators. If you commit fraud, is it the government's fault that you get arrested? Judging by your reasoning you could say, "They made the laws so therefore when people break them, it's their fault for making it illegal." That negates the whole purpose of laws. You can't decide not stand up for morality and life just because some would do it anyway. That's their fault.

As for the phrase, it does make sense. It means that good intentions often are a weak rationalization for what is wrong. People try to cover up by saying that they had good intentions. As for disagreements on morality, I think we can agree on this, murder is immoral and should be stopped.

At 2/28/02 06:06 PM, dagger_happy wrote:
Nice pic. As I said before, I find abortion just as repellant as you do, but the fact remains that there will always be women who want abortions and - come hell or highwater - will get them. The only difference will be who is performing the procedure: a doctor in a clean environment or some quack who could easily kill the woman. You CANNOT make it go away - maybe you could reduce the ease of getting an abortion - but such practices have always existed and they always will.

As for, "it's the woman's and her husband's responsibility" argument, what about if she had been raped? Why should she have to bear 9 months of agonizing pain and nausea to have the baby of her attacker??? Why should she have his baby? Indeed, what kind of a future does any unwanted child have? Basically, I dislike the concept of abortion, but one way or another, it will always be with us. You say never to accept the lesser of two evils, but the only way I can see abortion being totally purged from society is a police state. And who wants to live in one of those?

I am not suggesting that raped victims should be forced to carry a baby that was forced on them. In that case, abortion might be justified. I've said this before.

As for, the "Well, we may as well make it clean for them argument." that's like giving needles to addicts so that, "At least it will be clean." Some liberals have proposed this, but in net effect you're condoning the habit even if your intentions are good. Remember, "Good intentions pave the road to hell."

At 2/28/02 01:13 PM, Slizor wrote:

They're tenets of conservatism, and they are very true.

If that is what conservatism is built on then it is a very shaky structure indeed.

Shaky? It is liberalism that is shaky. It relies on double standards, hype, distorted facts, slander and outright lies. The statements above spell out the core of conservatism. Challenge any one of them, they're true.

At 2/28/02 08:14 AM, Reaper-n wrote: I question everything christian, Morality, Belief. I question the church, i question being told what is right and what is wrong. Morality should not come from what is written in some aincent story book(aka the bible) Morality is about what is right and wrong for humanity. But then Morality is also subjective so that's just my view. Many will disagree with it but I wont tell them they will burn in hell because they have different views. As the church is so good at doing

If you question everything then what do you believe in? As for morality being "dictated" by the Bible, it's not. It's dictated by God. The Bible may not be true, word for word, I believe there is some interpretation involved, but the message is clear.

At 2/28/02 04:10 PM, Len_Mystic wrote:

At 2/26/02 01:05 AM, VA7DAS wrote:

At 2/25/02 09:56 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Until The Revolution I'm Republican but my ideal state is anarco-capitalism. It'll keep the liberals from running our life. In summary:

I'm an Anarco-capitalistic conservative.

You dumb-ass the true definition of anarcy is communism without the leaders. A fundemental belief of the right wing, this is text book definition here, is that man is essentialy "evil" and that society needs laws to esure he is good. Where as liberalism believes man is essentialy "good" and that criminals can be reabilatated. Anarchy has no laws and no structer. Conservatism needs laws and Capitalism needs structer. There go you gotta lay off the pills or whatever the fuck your on. Maybe you should go read a book on the matter?

what the hell are you talking about anarchist revlolutionist are as far left as you get and so is communism and a true textbook answer is the absensce of government

Anarchy is fundamentally different than socialism. It preaches individualism, making decisions as an individual. Socialism is all about being part of the group, the mindless herd, it preaches lots of hierarchical structure. Anarchy is the opposite.

Read your history too. The anarchists were originally part of the so called "International," the socialist congress of the late 19th to early 20th centuries. They broke with them and left the congress because they had so many disagreements. Anarchy denounces mindless socialism/communism, THINK FOR YOURSELF!

At 2/28/02 06:02 AM, cableshaft wrote:

At 2/26/02 09:23 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Republicans want more than anything, less government involvement in your life.

And that's why they want prayers in school, abortion made illegal, censorship of sex, etc.

Of course, liberals are just as bad, if not worse, in this area, but conservatives still love Big Brother pushing in on things that aren't any of their business in the first place.

Prayers in school? They want to make voluntary prayer available to students of any faith. Abortion they wish to stop because it is murder and immoral, read my abortion post for my arguments on that cause I'm not gonna take the time to post them all here. Censorship of sex? They support family values and morality but not encroachment of free speech. If you want to see that look at the left, all the student activists on colleges shouting down and repressing any conservative speaker, I've seen it. You try to say something that makes since like, "The war against terrorism is justified." and they attack you.

At 2/28/02 04:48 AM, HarryParachute wrote: If abortion is murder...
...then a blowjob is cannibalism on an epic scale.

*Stares at Commander's abortion image hungrily*

Get...in...my...belly.

No, it's not. You have to draw the line at some point. Until the egg is fertilized it is not a seperate enitity because the sperm are entirely part of your body but when one joins with an egg it is new entity, a hybrid of your two DNA strands. When it is fertilized it, then and only then, is it seperate life, a new being identical to neither one of you and therefore a new entity.

At 2/28/02 01:59 PM, Slizor wrote:

I've already said this, an animal is a non-sentient life form that we feed on. A human fetus is the seed of intelligence that should be given a chance to have the life that sentient, intelligent creatures have. Please read before posting.

But who are you to judge what is sentient and what is non-sentient?

Cows are lower life forms that we feed on. Unless you're a cannibal you don't feed on human fetuses. Cows are not intelligent, self aware beings. You don't see cows doing calculus out in the field. They eat, sleep, excrete and reproduce. A human fetus is the start of a sentient intelligent creature that is self aware. It should be given a chance to develop.

At 2/27/02 10:51 PM, Falconrath wrote: I've been wondering that myself.
Some guy once sent out a rumor that Strawberry is actually Tom Fulp, but I doubt that.

I am StrawberryClock! Wait, ummm, no, I'm not, really. Strawberry either:

A) Has changed to an alias account to avoid flaming and blamming.

B) Is actually a high placed NG staff member (Tom or Wade?)

C) Has gotten so sick of NG that he has left for good.

D) Strawberry is actually posing as another one of the Clock Crew.

Start the Inquistition! We'll find him out.

At 2/21/02 06:43 PM, VA7DAS wrote:

At 2/21/02 01:04 AM, beware_of_doug wrote: Call me crazy, but when is Fascism left-wing? I thought that the Nazis tried to EXTERMINATE communists and left wingers.

Even though the Nazis were the "National Socialists," I thought it was righty. Oh well, I could be wrong.

FOR THE LAsT TIME FACISM IS RIGHT WING.
Go here
http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=18118&;page=3
and look at the second to lst topic on the page

You people. I suppose if a duck called himself a dog you say it was a dog. Before you say fascism is on the left look a little closer into facist policies. Facism is has right wing agenda under the guise of scocalism.

With fascism you get all the oppression of an absolute dictatorship combined with a little bit of socialistic madness.