Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It is not possible or wise to mix religion with science. Many mythologies deal with water being the source of life, world wide... Greeks, Aztecs, Indians, etc... have their water myths, each conveying a message that life begins in water.

The problem with religion is that there is something inside of us that wants proof. We will never truly have it. But it doesn't mean you don't have to stop believing in something. Mythology is not an untruth, just a word to encompass the unknown that connects humanity.

In the words of the existential Albert Cadmus, the believe in anything is a "leap of faith" that you have to do blindly. If you think about it, to believe God is the most irrational thing people could do since there is no true proof. But this world is irrational because people die. So go a head believe what you want. Just don't try to make sense of something that will never have clear cut evidence or proof.

At 4/8/04 03:50 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: featuring various stars that can't get work anywhere else.

The movie was pretty damn good. It followed the book almost perfectly. I think that Fraiser guy, Kelsey something... did the voice of Snowball. It was a very intelligent movie. I havent seen it for so long but I think my only complaint was that they didn't add on Beasts of England song. I loved it and think it is a perfect "substitute" for a lazy person who doesn't want to see it. A famous book deserves famous stars... it is not some "desperate attempt" movie for Hollywood stars.

I have read it many times. I must have done at least 9 papers on it. First encountered it during my 10th grade in High School, several times in my English class in community college, in my history class, physcology, and other times I can't even remember.

It is a very classic story about human nature. Funny, I was just re-reading it the other day and thought about how it reflects politics just right now.. I think I'll re-read it tonight before I go to bed...

Another good classic from Orwell is 1984. I would read that ahead of time and talk about it with people before hand. I'm sure you will read this in your English class if you haven't done so yet.

A few more good literature that you should read because you will encounter it in English classes in the future: Lord of the Flies, Fahrenheit 451 (a personal favorite), Power of Myth, The Stranger. Lysistrata isn't something you find in English (normally), most likely in Drama, but it's funny, and about war. Here's the story: woman want to end a silly war that the men insist on fighting, and so they swear off from sex until the men cave in and make peace. SOOO FUNNY... You just have to see it to really appreciate it.

At 4/7/04 05:47 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/7/04 02:44 AM, spanishfli wrote: Not going to be in the news... If you ever have a chance to talk to a Mexican whose from the southern part of Mexico, they are most likely to know something about it. I hate to say it, but I have no physical evidence to post up other then that it's my word

How did you get to know it?

My family on my father's side are from Mexico City. And many of my cousins travel to the southern end of Mexico for thier type of work (I don't know what they work as other then that they travel all over to Mexico and to Oregon.) My uncle is a journalist who has done a lot of work about the gurilla war in that area during the early 90s and he got the chance to live there. A Mexican woman in my Saturday English 1C class isn't from that area, but she got to live there for 5 years and got to see things first hand. She was the one who told me the native slogan: Coca Cola the Heavenly Drink...

You don't have to take my word for it. I don't think nobody should accept anything without proof, but for me, knowing how Mexico is and I have no reason to not trust my family, I accept it. This is something that won't be reported until, I don't know, 20/20 gets there... This issue is still taboo right now. Not all Mexicans will know about it, especially the more Northern parts.

At 4/5/04 12:19 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/5/04 12:09 AM, spanishfli wrote: I've finally decided whom to vote. Good arguments (although some were pretty dumb) but at least it's got me the point where I needed to be... Thanks all...

Do you have prince albert in a can?

I guess you can say that... I do hope you know what I mean...

Not going to be in the news... If you ever have a chance to talk to a Mexican whose from the southern part of Mexico, they are most likely to know something about it. I hate to say it, but I have no physical evidence to post up other then that it's my word, but I'm sure this info could be verified if one is willing to look for it.

At 4/5/04 01:51 AM, Solrs007 wrote: I believe that Capitalism is a good thing. The lazy people who don't want to work hard or go to school and get prepared with a good education stay on the bottom. While the hard working and smart people scale to the top. How much more fair do you we want to get. Any ideas?

Oh yes, I agree. Damn those lazy children in those 3rd world countries... And they expect a break! God forbid... The problem is Capitalism does NOT equal to the "American Dream". The problem with Capitalism is that the LAZY gets RICH and HARD WORKERS gets more POOR. How hard do you believe Andrew Carnegie or Rockefeller had to work? Not very hard because everyone else were working hard for them.

It would be a good idea to get the amount of money for the amounth of effort is put in... That's what the "American Dream" is suppose to be about... work hard, and you get the things you deserve... but Capitalism is not that. Capitalism is about getting as filfthy rich while trying to be the laziest as possible.

For example, the WTO, whom I consider as Capitalists although they've never called themselves that, are perhaps the most evil people in the world, although some good has come out of them. In Combodia, girls from ages 14 to their adult hood work from 5 o'clock in the morning to 2 o'clock in the night in sweat shops that doesn't have bathrooms. And WTO don't care about it as long it doesn't occur in American soils with its labor laws... In can't remember where but I believe that in China a man set himself on fire rather then complying to the WTO. Already over worked, his last message was that he was better off dead then living from the wages he got from farming under the WTO...

Yes, I do not like Capitalism. It is a revolting thing. And I have another story to share, one about Coca Cola.

Although Coca Cola isn't suppose to be a Capitalist, it behaves like one beyond in American soils. On America, Coca Cola has to comply with labor laws, but in other countries whose laws are not has strict as American laws... it is another thing.

In Mexico, there is a state called Chapas. And there are real natives there who don't speak Spanish, the official language of Mexico. Now these natives don't have a word for Coca Cola. And they are hard workers, very good people, but as a whole, they lack intelligence and thus are suseptible to the "modern" world.

Well back in the 1950s or 60s, Coca Cola wanted a way to market to these natives. But how does one translate, "Drink Coca Cola" in a rare language that the Aztecs spoke? So they did their homework, and they made up a translation. I think it was more or less this: Coca Cola, the heavenly drink... Now these natives are quite a bit malnurished, especially with the turmoil that has happened over there. And when they get a drink of Coca Cola, all that sugar in it makes them feel full of energy and life. The sugar rush makes them feel good and better.

So foward to the future, these natives are spending tons of money on Coca Cola. They believe it's healthy because they feel better when they drink it. And these natives actually think that this is a drink from God... literally. I mean, that's its slogan: Coca Cola, the heavenly drink... And these natives have integrated Coca Cola into their religion. Shaman's use it, sprinkle it on the heads of babies if they're sick, give it the sick. Coca Cola in Mexico is aware of this, but they don't care. At the same time, Coca Cola factories pollute their land... This Capitalist behavior is plan wrong, and that's why Capitilsm is a revolting concept.

"Would you like to pl-pl-play???" Oh my god, each page I go I get pop ups! Is there a way that I can "buy" my way in and avoid those pop ups altogether? I have never bought anything from pop ups, no Viagra, spy cams, computers, magazines, whatever... But I would buy a membership that excludes ALL pop ups.

The problem with Capitalism is that it works for just a few people. Although I say we as Americans have given up the Capitalist spirit, Capitalism was never a good thing as a whole.

Imagine businesses were allowed to make their own rules: 14 hour days with no breaks, no bathrooms because they don't have to comply any regulations, guzzling up resources, treating workers in any fashion... Just read Sinclair's "The Jungle".

Just like what the other poster said... greed prevents this from working... I think human nature in general prevents it from working.

Communism isn't that bad of a concept. But it has never worked, and I believe it never will. Communistic ideas do work pretty well such as job unions, pension, public schools, libraries, concept of "equality for all"... in general, anything to benefit people as a whole.

When I visited Cuba on a Canadian passport, I got to see communism first hand. Terrible. When I got there, a lady was begging me to buy food for her and her family if she did a "service" for me. I declined her "service" and told her to let me spend a day with her family. Got lots of food and went with her.

The government just gives them enough to barely sustain. Otherwise they are malnurished. They get a certain amount of milk, certain amount of meat, and a certain amount of bread, but it's not enough. And they're not allowed to get anymore because Cuba is affraid of being "unfair" if people got more or less... Technically, Castro isn't even a leader, according to her. She said he's suppose to be equal to everyone in Cuba, although it seems to me that Castro isn't as hungry as her.

Although I've meet a few Cubans whom loved Communism, but they were governmental folk.

Many Cubans wanted the ability to work and save money, but they can't because they're all suppose to be equal according to their Communist eddict.

You know what's happening if you hear Howard Stern. I'm a faithful listener for 5 years.

I think that Clear Channel are two face. First they profit from Howard's wild antics, then say its indecent and try to get away from not paying.

People are trying their hardest to censor him, mostly Christian faith based organizations.

It's a choice of flipping to Howard's show. You can do it and not do it. It's the same thing with any channel. I choose not to hear the hateful and downright disgusting stuff from Jerry Fawell, yet I believe he shouldn't be censored.

And if we do ban Howard, we might as well get rid of the rest of the crude like 700 Club. It would only be fair.

I've finally decided whom to vote. Good arguments (although some were pretty dumb) but at least it's got me the point where I needed to be... Thanks all...

Does this look like match.com to you?

Whatever...

Oh yeah, another thing you won't hear in public text books: Right before The Mexican War, Americans soilders stormed in Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City. Why? I don't know...I don't know much about it other then that the only people inside the old castle were young cadets ages 13 - 19 training to be soilders. They are called Los Niños Heroes (Heroic Children). As Americans tried to capture the castle (I can't find a motivation for why other then for greed), the kids wrapped Mexican flags around them, and jumped out of the castle and plunged to their deaths rather then being captured and tortured for just training to be cadets. When Bill Clinton placed a wreath on the statue erected for them, he gained a lot of favor from the Mexicans. That's why a lot of Mexicans tended to harbor less hostile feelings for Clinton then most other American presidents (other then Harry Truman... but I won't explain or else I'll be de-railing from the subject)

At 4/4/04 05:46 AM, spanishfli wrote:

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, Locke666 wrote: The mexican war? You sure you dont mean the spanish american war by that one, or are you refering to when Mexico fought texas (which was an independent country at the time).

Yes, it was formally call The Mexican American War (I've seen at times just as Mexican War), right after when James Polk declared, more or less, "American blood has been spilled on American soil." But the fact was that American blood was shed on Mexican soil... I'm sure you can find lots of stuff on the net, just make sure to make "Nueces River" right after James Polk's name. This type of info won't be found in public American text books unless you go into Latino history classes at your community college, college, university or private university. You would be lucky enough to find more then 2 paragraphs about this subject in public text books. This is one of America's taboos...

Well, I could be wrong, but I was fairly sure we actually declared war at vietnam or at least korea. Oh well, unlike today we were dragged kicking and screaming into all those wars except for the spanish american war but that was sort of the whole isolationist no touchee the western hemisphere thing. These days we seem to be jumping into them. What happened to the good old. Its their problem, let them deal with it?

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, Locke666 wrote: The mexican war? You sure you dont mean the spanish american war by that one, or are you refering to when Mexico fought texas (which was an independent country at the time).

Yes, it was formally call The Mexican American War (I've seen at times just as Mexican War), right after when James Polk declared, more or less, "American blood has been spilled on American soil." But the fact was that American blood was shed on Mexican soil... I'm sure you can find lots of stuff on the net, just make sure to make "Nueces River" right after James Polk's name. This type of info won't be found in public American text books unless you go into Latino history classes at your community college, college, university or private university. You would be lucky enough to find more then 2 paragraphs about this subject in public text books. This is one of America's taboos...

Well, I could be wrong, but I was fairly sure we actually declared war at vietnam or at least korea. Oh well, unlike today we were dragged kicking and screaming into all those wars except for the spanish american war but that was sort of the whole isolationist no touchee the western hemisphere thing. These days we seem to be jumping into them. What happened to the good old. Its their problem, let them deal with it?

I believe I have a handsome face with an attractive body, more or less. I'm a hefty sized guy, but I have a whole lot of muscle on me. It works to my advantage. A lot of girls like my thickness... Good light olive complexion, big round eyes, black hair and with the vampire "v" hairline. Good kissing lips... My only complaint would be my Mexican nose, although it does suit my features pretty well. But I think what makes people more attracted to me is my personality. I'm a good listener and talker, and I'm nice to all people I know. Here's my picture, you determine if I got a nice face.

At 4/3/04 04:16 AM, JesusCyborg wrote:

At 4/3/04 04:05 AM, spanishfli wrote: 1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq? (My friend over there would like to know too) I know people are going to say, "to look for the weapons of mass destruction!" But I need to know more clear cut. Why didn't we go after Korea when they're more of a threat? Invading Iraq when Afghanistan was the country that perpetuated the 911 events is like invading Mexico... Doesn't make sense. Anyone able to sum up the arguments?

I'll answer one. Saddam is an evil dictator who killed millions. He was weak, after all his troops surrendered to a cnn news crew once. Taking him out sends a powerful message to people like Kim.

MY AMERICAN friend, a soilder in the Marins, is in Iraq. He has no idea why he's fighting over there because he says this war is pointless. He's very upset on the fact that when people where destroying museums with priceless pieces of history, we were protecting oil. This makes me think as well... If we are really out there to get an evil dictator, why haven't we even considered Korea? The threat is more bigger as there is actual evidence.

Your Iraqian friend isn't happy with the fact that Saddam is out of power? What a goofball.

Hello,

First off, let me say that I'm not a political person. But I'm a person who likes to study and try to make wise choices.

Right now I've decided to to vote for Bush, although I'm not too sure whom I'm going to vote, although I'm leaning towards one person whom I won't reveal.

Before I say, end game, I need to know just a little bit about Bush's decisions.

1.) I thought we were looking for Osama bin Ladin in Afghanistan. How in the world did we end up in Iraq? (My friend over there would like to know too) I know people are going to say, "to look for the weapons of mass destruction!" But I need to know more clear cut. Why didn't we go after Korea when they're more of a threat? Invading Iraq when Afghanistan was the country that perpetuated the 911 events is like invading Mexico... Doesn't make sense. Anyone able to sum up the arguments?

2.) Why are there so many scrupulous events in Bush's history? First it was, did he actually win, or didn't he win. Then it was: why Florida, his brother's state... And latter on it was, did he serve, or did he not serve... and then there's this thing: Did Bush know 911 before hand, or did he not? I think that's way too many discretions in his political history, which makes me very suspicious. Did Bush really pass Harvard by himself the hard way by doing work, or did daddy's friends pass him because he was president's son?

3.) Does Bush have a Christian agenda? I feel so, but I don't have any evidence. But I trust my feelings enough.

4.) How was Bush connected with Enron? I keep hearing this, although I don't see the connection.

Okay, that's my questions for now.

What I meant to say that I understand the laws pertaining female mutilation of genitals as being one thing, but the peircing of it as being something very different.

That's what I meant to say.

My first post. Hey all... Well this is stupid. The law is getting way to personal by butting in the lives of people as of late. I have a prince albert I love the damn thing (women and some men love it more) I call it Lord of the Rings. I don't think much people can call their thingy that name...

Who cares if somebody seeks to do this procedure... it's not the country's bee's wax to care. I have been with a girl who had her hood pierced. It was very intresting. I gives a guy something to play. She never had an orgasm before the thing and now she gets at least two...

I can understand mutilation done to girls... but genital piercings are another thing.