Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I still don't understand why you have the pillsbury doughboy in your sig.

I would like to introduce you a new friend that most of you don't know. His name is "Mr. Period", some people call him "dot". He is this:[.]
His function is to let us know when it's okay to breathe.

Oh well. Thanks, i guess.

At 4/25/04 05:22 PM, apfelsafat wrote: i am prone to critise because i would consider myself a trotsky socialsit thinker although as you can probably tell i have taken many ideas from marx, lenon orwell. simply becasue these are logicall ways of thinking for a person who wants to better the world we live in

"You can probably tell"? How? What ideas?

1. i do not only critise i am a m member of many organisations (amnesty international, sociast worker) where upon i try my hardest to make the world a better place for themyself and the people around m e.

Well, i didn't know you could be a member of Amnesty International or a Socialist worker at 16, how can i join?

At 4/25/04 04:19 PM, imdisturbed wrote: yes you posted 2 absolutly useless similarities the only good one is friendly fire

What, you thought that the U.S. decided to pull the troops out of 'Nam because of the friendly fire or the casualties? Last time i checked, it was mo' like about the public opinion, so i don't think those two things are "useless". And if you think that this is the biggest "post-Cold War" war (i think) that the U.S. has been in, they may get a point comparing it to 'Nam. Not in the casualties OR the importance, sure, but on the context. In fact, i don't think people compare it to 'Nam because of the war itself, but because of the effects it will have.

At 4/25/04 04:43 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote:

Ridiculous!!

[stuff]

First, at the late 1800, before the jewish people started settlements in the region, it was already populated by more than half a million arabs, 24,000 jews and 80,000 christians. These settlements were majorly unsignificant compared to the region given to the jewish people after the WWII. Gandhi said in 1938: "Palestine belongs to the arabs in the same sense that France belongs to the French and Britain to the British. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Juwes into the nation of the Arabs. A Jewish born in France is as much of a French as a Christian born in France."
Second, even if you're right, that doesn't justify by any means the violations to human rights comitted recently by Israel, that are always covered by the government of the U.S. (Not that this either justifies crimes commited by palestinian extremists)
I hate to repeat something that has been said over and over again, but the U.S. must stop helping blindly Israel and Sharon.

At 4/23/04 09:19 PM, NoHitHair wrote: Just wondering - if any of you could have any politician as president, who would you want?

Either
Soledad Alvear or Michelle Bachelet (God, she looks ugly on that pic). Whomever of them runs for the presidency.

...Oh, you mean president of the U.S.? Well, i guess it would be... i don't know, that black guy?

well, there are a lot of cruel jokes about the holocaust, for example:
- What's the difference between bread and a jew?
- The bread doesn't scream when it's put into the oven.

- How do you put 500 jews inside a Ferrari?
- On the ashtray...

Etc.
But they aren't that much either, most of the jew jokes encourage the stereotype of jews being greedy bastards, quite the same as arab jokes do. But probably that's just here in Chile, given the fact that is one of the countries with the largest palestinian colonies.

At 4/24/04 06:13 PM, Adun wrote: what a fucking racist..

Bands like adcd would probably sound really shitty to people who didnt grow up with it.

I think it's a great band, but the voice of the vocalist is too squeaky. And i heard that they were doing the same at Guantanamo, but with Metallica, so i'm not that surprised.

At 4/18/04 10:29 PM, Jlop985 wrote: No. The opposite is true. Kim Jong-Il is a nutjob, and will not hesitate to push the big red button if he should desire to do so. Saddam, while a power-hungry megalomaniac dictator, would have the sense to not use nukes, and committing national suicide.

Well, while Kim Jong IS a nutjob, i'm pretty sure that Saddam was quite gah-dah too. I mean, look at the goddamn bastard.

Saddam = Definitely not sane

Bleh. When the nuke explodes, we're all going to die the same.

At 4/18/04 08:41 PM, PumpkinBreadMuffin wrote:

At 4/18/04 08:20 PM, Adun wrote:
Have you seen "downsize this!" by the same guy?

how do you "see" a book? maybe you are talking about Roger and Me, but downsize this was a book

Well, the other day i was passing by a book shop and i saw some books, y'know, with my eyes. That counts as 'see' doesn't it? I mean, when you read you are seeing the book, aren't you?

Oh, and about the movie, yup, it's quite biased although the overall point isn't that affected by it. I mean, the "standard" number of chileans killed on the 1973-1989 dictatorship is around 3000-3500 and not 5000, but does that make it more "acceptable"? I think not.

Good thing that we moved at the right time, then.

Socialism is indeed a good way of running a country, altough in fact it does look like it's better for small, not very rich nations. Altho, i think that's mainly because there still isn't any "big" country that has turned itself to a relevant socialist (not communist) level. I'm looking forward to see what's going on in Spain now with this socialist goverment. I believe that a moderate, relatively slow change towards democratic socialism would be the best for most nations, including America. But, that would need agreement of all the 'powerful' political parties to reach that goal on a long period, and i don't think that's going to happen. Oh well.

Well, from a certain point of view Anarchy would be awesome, but it's just not feasible at all to happen. At least true Communism could get to work half decently after some thousands of years of human evolution, but nah, Anarchy is truly impossible. It would be like eating a burrito, just without the.. the whole burrito!

At 4/13/04 02:54 AM, TuRbanNatoR wrote: Uselly im friends with rich kids so when i goto the house i can beat em up and steal some stuffand they only live like 5 blocks away from me but in this Case all the people who hate us only have rocks and dont have enough supplies to turn Toyotas into boats!

I think you get enough with those cubans on their floating cars. And sure, politics and external affairs are based in "you have more money than me. I hate you."

At 4/11/04 05:02 PM, RotesStinktier wrote: Also, should be noted that I know that the specific iq of any prez is pretty pointless, and that it obviously doesn't dictate how well he'll lead, etc.

Does that mean that i can say that he's a dumbass anyways? Because, i want to, y'know.

At 4/11/04 04:31 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

At 4/11/04 04:18 PM, Empanado wrote: I Think the ape one might be right, but it'd had to be a very smart ape. Bush's 91 isn't so low, i think it fits into "normal" anyways. Clinton's surely wrong. I give him 120, tops. (I think normal rates from 90-110 or a bit wider)

I was under the impression that IQ's in the double digits, especially low 90's, were considered mild retardation or such. And Bush is very much average.

Average?...heeeheh... uh, i mean, no, i'm pretty sure 90 is still normal. It means you're quite a dumbass, but you still don't count as a retard. I think i read somewhere that the average IQ of the world population is quite below 100. At first i also tough, "Hey, 100 is 100, so it must be the average." But it's not. Oh well.

At 4/11/04 04:20 PM, air_boy75 wrote: I know this has nothign to do with polotics but weird als parents died yesterday. So i just wanted to give a lilt ribute to wierd al and all his hard work. God bless him!

Who's weird Al? It's not Al Gore right? Because he's kinda weird....

At 4/9/04 03:28 PM, RotesStinktier wrote:

At 4/9/04 02:53 PM, air_boy75 wrote: I'm not sure if thsi is true but i read up that george bush's iq is 91 . On the site i read it up on it said an ape got an iq of 90. Bill clinton had 176 iq.

You can't believe everything you read. Those numbers are bullshit. Besides the ape one. That might be right. Now sure about apes.

I Think the ape one might be right, but it'd had to be a very smart ape. Bush's 91 isn't so low, i think it fits into "normal" anyways. Clinton's surely wrong. I give him 120, tops. (I think normal rates from 90-110 or a bit wider)

And about the actual topic, it's hated very much, trust me. I'm not saying it's good that the US are hated, but it's what's happenin'. I hate the government, but not the (whole) people. As in any country, the mob of dumb and relatively ignorant people overcomes the population of smart and/or nice people, the problem is that the world cares a lot more about the US's dumb people than other countries's, because hey, it's the leading power.

I tought at first i place that i should feel pity for these guys that don't realize that it's a freakin' joke, but i changed my mind and i think it's hilarating. Haha.

At 4/11/04 02:33 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/10/04 10:26 PM, Empanado wrote: explanation for war

Now THAT is brilliant. True to the letter.

???

Uh... thanks, i... guess?

At 4/10/04 09:54 PM, Adun wrote: Oh yea and if they fuck goats, is it any better for the southern americans to fuck sheep and pigs?

Hey! I tought it was a fat chick!

Anywaaay... Well, it's not like this thread has a point, so i'll just shut the hell up. But i'll give a summary of the Irak story just to inform a bit to you guys:
-Iran is a friend of the US at the Cold War.
-Next day, they're evil. Rawr.
-The US need a jolly good fellow. Saddam, you're in.
-Irak gets a little little bit well, let's say, fucked by Saddam, so the US just shuts the hell up about it for some years.
-Then, Saddam thinks he can beat everybody's asses, so he builds some WOMD and attacks Kuwait, a country that nobody gave a shit about at all except oil.
-The US, bold protector of the free world and freedom and freeness and freedom fries, starts the whole Gulf War. Yay.
-USA kicks Saddam's ass, but in the middle of the way they forget what the hell they were doing at the first place, so they just raise up some sanctions that fuck Irak even more. Yay again.
-Then after 9/11, Mr. George W. Bush is enlightened by the magnificent and brilliant reality: Iraqis are also arabs AND Muslims, so they MUST be linked with Al-Qaeda. Let's bomb'em, guys.
-So, they kick Saddam's ass. Again. More and more Yays.
-Saddam runs into a hole.
-Saddam is taken away from the hole.
-Irak is free! Hooray! Now the US can take their oil and put some McDonalds in there! Woohoo!
-The iraqis are pissed off and start killing people. But hey, it's a democracy now, so who the hell cares. Nobody will care after 1 or 2 years anyway, just like it happened with Af... Afghan...how was it called again? Y'know, that country that the US fucked up and didn't even care to say "sorry, shit happens"?

At 3/29/04 09:53 PM, The_Someone wrote: Stuff

Hey, i have a funny idea. What if you check the last few posts he's done, so you can realize it was all FUCKING SARCASM?! A j-o-k-e.

At 3/19/04 08:31 PM, Locke666 wrote: Ok I have offically decided to abandon this subject to all you "Evil nazi commie terrorists" My god, I was screaming about crusades for christianity and calling people terrorists and none of you people even had an inkling that this was a satire.

Eh, uh, i already knew it. I was just trying to confirm that...you...knew it? Oh well whatever.
The sad thing about this is that there ARE certain persons who think like that, and not as a satire. For example, altough it's a bit late already, check Mr. Turbannator's last Politics posts. People like him scare me.

At 3/19/04 05:09 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Sorry, i got lost in the middle of the blabbing between you and those other guts. What are we arguing about again? And what side is each one of you at?

Whether or not the government does, and will continue to lie to us. I say yes, Bum says no.

Funny, i tought it was about the spanish elections. Oh well.

At 3/19/04 05:01 PM, Jimsween wrote: Things

Sorry, i got lost in the middle of the blabbing between you and those other guts. What are we arguing about again? And what side is each one of you at?

At 3/18/04 08:29 PM, Locke666 wrote: There can never be enough laws against evil nazi commie terrorists like you!

AND, the cold war is over. And if you're there to free all those people, why haven't you sent any significant aid to Afganisthan yet? Why is it still on ruins? Just a question, i'm not an "evil nazi commie terrorist". Just a democratic chilean socialist.

At 3/18/04 08:29 PM, Locke666 wrote: Stuff

Dude, you're on Mein Kampf now or what?
By the way, Muslims are already on God's side. It's just that the arabian word for 'God' is "Allah".
I HOPE that you ARE being sarcastic now.

At 3/11/04 04:59 AM, TheMason wrote: I think I'll keep my capitalistic health system and actually have medicine progress than to turn it over to the socialists!

What do you people HAVE against socialists!!?