45 Forum Posts by "GreatTeal"
At 12/14/03 04:37 PM, izuamoto wrote:
:it's very hard for someone to be a dick when they don't even have one.
To continue in the same vein...
First of all, What?!
Second of all, why don't I feel some kind of euphoric joy that we've caught this man? I still feel like this was all unnecessary. How did 9-11 lead to this? Would we even be doing this if 9-11 didn't happen? If we wouldn't be, then what would Bush be doing? I just feel really confused right now. This was all supposed to just go away in 2004 with the elections...but now, everything is going to be perpetuated.
Suddenly, I'm sad.
At 11/16/03 09:35 PM, THE_HULKSTER wrote: Now if Jessica Lynch happened to be a BLACK woman, I would be willing to wager she would get her own holiday....
LIE!
Read this.
(I hope I did that right...I haven't written tags in a while)
Shoshana Johnson was a POW who is slated to receive less of a pention than Jessica Lynch, and she's black. They're NOT giving her a holiday.
I think that PC is a bit much sometimes. The whole African-American, and Chinese-American, or Canadian-American (do we have those?) things bother me. I know that its right to support diversity, but why can't we do that and call each other Americans. I don't get offended when people call me white, so I don't find it offensive to call someone black. I don't think that if I call someone black, and they are, in fact, an African-American (to be PC), that that makes me a racist or a bigot.
In my tech writing class, they teach you how to write papers that are completly void of author commentary. I was crusing through the index of my APA manual and I came across "gay men". This intregued me, so I looked it up. The appropriate phrase is no longer "homosexuals." You must now write "lesbians, gay men, and bisexual men and women."
This is what Political Correctness gives us, and I just think it's a bit much.
I think you have to look at the situations too. I don't think that Jesus would come back with a radical message like "Cut off your balls and lets get on the next comet out of here (grab your Reboks!)", or "I am Jesus Christ, let me sleep with your daughters." I think that he would come back as someone like Ghandi or Mother Theresa or someone, quietly changing the world and incorporating his teachings of salvation into his works. He's much more likely to find his true following then.
At 11/13/03 07:46 AM, Adept_Omega wrote: Originally posted in My Livejournal. Cross-posted here to address the issue of biological influences on men and women.
In summary... yes, I do feel that there are gender differences. They are so, so severely overplayed, however, that it makes me sick. They discourage the acknowledgement that the variance between individuals is much, much greater than the variance between genders. People should be hired and treated on the basis of their individuality, their personal hopes and needs, their abilities and skills, regardless of their gender identity. Reality, my friends, is androgynous. There is always a shade of grey, and we should acknowledge this fact and treat each shade of grey as its own individual, regardless of who or what it is.
I live with the knowledge that even I am a shade of grey. I can't tell my affiliation from one day to the next.
This is a brilliant arguement. Thank you for contributing this to the topic. I think this is the kind of answer that I was looking for. Not that this is really an answer; it more of a discussion. Good stuff.
At 11/5/03 01:49 PM, RedSkunk wrote:
I don't know if any real, true feminists watch shows like Dharma and Greg and Will & Grace. At least I hope not.
I wish I could say that gay men didn't watch all of these gay shows (Queer Eye..., That one Bachelor like show with all gay guys, etc.). They only give people more fuel for bashing and hurt the gay guys who are trying to get away from the stereotypes.
At 11/5/03 01:31 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: *DAG light ON*
Look people, women and men are biologically different. You can say apples and oranges are equal all day long, but which one are you going to bake into a pie?
What the fuck dude? That is the most backwards thing I've heard all year (thus far). To put that kind of generalization on men and women is retarded. You've never heard of a woman making rash decisions (including women leaders), and you've never heard of a man contemplating decisions (including blue collar workers).
I also think that this was slightly off topic. I'm not discussing women's abilities to become leaders (which have been proven in recent years), I'm discussing relationships and sex.
At 11/4/03 11:06 PM, TEH_AISE_OF_SPAIDS wrote: Wash your eyes here
I was somewhat aroused.
This may not be the most appropriate place to post this question, but I desired the more (somewhat more) intelligent answers to this question opposed to those you find in the General forum.
Li'l Kim and Christina Agurelera (as the local DJ pronounced it) asked why a man with 3 women is concidered a player or a PIMP or something, when a woman doing the same is a slut or a whore or something? Is this a true double standard, or is there more to it? Should it change?
At 10/29/03 04:52 PM, General_Patton wrote:
:I must say that I agree with you on all points except that we should not be the world's policeman. The problem is that we are the most kick-ass powerful nation on the planet. We do have somewhat of an obligation to help other oppressed peoples gain the freedoms that we have here.We also have an obligation to destroy those organizations taht have made it their mission to forcibly restrict people's rights.
I think that since we are the most powerful nation, that we should lead by an example. I know that this cliche sounds horrible and meaningless when applied to leading your personal life, but in global politics I think it is a very valuable tool. I do applaud Bush for taking Saddam out of power, just because that shows what we are capable of. Sure we can't find him, but you're looking for one man who could be anywhere in the world right now. He's not important, his ideas are.
I think that we need to look at the world as more than a battle field for political domination. Yes that is what's happening, as it seems to be the focus of the Bush II administration, but it doesn't have to be that way. The world is actually progressing to a day when everyone can coexist within a normal realm of deciency (noticed I avoided the word peace). I think we need an administration that has this kind of goal in mind. Not to turn our nation into a completely pacifist country, but not necessarily a crusading one either.
At 10/28/03 07:23 PM, punk_disease wrote: I would like to hear your opinion on America's foreign policy, please.
Ok, this is gonna be very quick as I'm almost late for class, so give me some slack if I leave some stuff out, cause I'm trying to keep it brief.
I would really like to see America take time out of fighting for everyone else and trying to be the world's savior. I don't think that's our job. Some of it is our responcibility however because we've set the ball rolling on many situations in the world, so it would be wrong for us to step out now. I think that we have far too many problems to worry about world wide policies (or start worrying about new ones at any rate). When it comes to fighting and starting wars, I think the current administration is being a little over zealous. Bush saw that the American people would be behind this, so he went for it. But he went into it with the wrong idea. I think that for him to take on world-wide terrorism is a bit much. I would rather see him focus mainly on Osama, the one who immediately wronged us, and those people who helped him wrong us.
I'm also posting in the thread on the wall being built in Israel. I think it was a misguided step for us to get involved way back when, but I can see how it happend. Many people do look to the US for protection and guidance, but they don't take it well when we make a mistake. I think that forgiveness needs to be given as much as it is expected, or at least in proportion to the expectations the world puts on us.
You know, I'm inclined to follow the rest of y'all's lead and just say "Fuck it! Let them do what they're gonna do!" and get our asses out of there. But that can't be the best solution, or the only solution. We've tried peace talks, we've tried stepping in on one side to get the other side to back down, we've tried everything short of walking into the country and putting every citizen in time-out. I don't know what to do, but this wall thing is still too bothersome for words. But maybe it's a hopeless case.
At 10/28/03 12:30 PM, Furious_Angel wrote: You're too dramatic... This wall isn't so big- if someone wants he can climb it easily. It isn't a Ghetto and it's uncomparable to it. The wall should save lifes. What can our goverment do? It has to protect its citizens.
Well the Warsaw ghetto (sorry I keep going back to that, but that's what I know) was not initially surrounded by a giant wall. It was about waist high. But then laws were passed that people couldn't cross it. Then it was built larger, and we all know how it ended up.
Surrounding a group of people with a wall to keep them contained is wrong. It doesn't matter that they keep fighting with people on the other side. This is not the solution. I don't know what is, but this is the worst way to go about it. This wall needs to be torn down.
This wall is the most horrendous thing I've ever seen. This does need to be stoped. They are essentially constructing a palestinian ghetto. If any of you haven't seen "The Pianist" you should. Then make your judgement on the wall. It's all about the Warsaw Ghetto. This is morally wrong.
I think our government does work, because we can sit here on our computers, talk about the government, complain that we aren't happy, as opposed to being frighted that for voicing our concerns we would be arrested for heresy.
Well, I'm currently at a university, but I can assure you that I'm not interested in any revolution. I'd just like to support an existing belief. I'm tired of everyone saying "Communism is a great idea. Down with capitolism" without taking a minute to see how well capitolism HAS worked. That's why I started this thread, I thought that it would be a different approach.
My favorite bumper sticker ever: Be different...CONFORM!
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that paragraphs were so scary. If I would have known this, I would have broken it up more, like everyone else does. But that still doesn't change what it says. This is a political board, and I wanted to talk about America's politics. I felt this was the best place to do that...
I'm sorry, I didn't answer the question. I don't think the bar should be lowered. I think that that rule is valid. What I don't understand is what kind of benefits does an "offical" party get. Does it only relate to election ballots, with the candidates having to list a party by their names? Or does it get into the actual voting procedures within the government?
I think you have to ask yourself (or they have to ask themselves) the reason for the three parties. Is it really necessary to have an offical third party when the people will still vote one way or the other based on their ideas? If you make people pick a side (from two) they may not always vote for the side they picked. A third party would be formed, officially or not, because you would have those who speak out against the party system, and cry out for a third "independant" party.
There seems to be a high number of naysayers on Newgrounds when it comes to America. I, like everyone else in this country, will admit its flaws, but only to a point. I believe that this country (minus the legal system, that's still a shambles) has found an excellent way to balance power, and govern its people.
We all know the checks and balances system, and hopefully many of you agree that it works and is a good idea. I think that we can all see how even a goober of a president can screw things up only to a point, because of this system. We went to war, because Bush rode a wave of anger that rippled through this country and through the government itself. Let us not forget that one of those planes hit Washington as well, and pissed our government (everyone involved) off. Now we see how members of Congress are suggesting that we back down. They are representing the wishes of their people, as many citizens now think that we need to give it a rest. I think that this whole thing works. While we have many corrupt people in Washington, not all of them are after the same things, so bills get voted down, and they pretty much mull things over enough that some things actually get accomplished.
Now on to taxes and Capitalism...In this country, when you start messing with people's money, they get pissed. In the most recent communism thread, many are saying that Capitalism made people this way. Maybe it did...but it works now. Yes we have staggering poverty and people with unheard-of riches with most people falling somewhere inbetween. I think this makes people work for something, and also give something back to the people. Those with the unheard-of riches, still want more (usually), and they have to find new ways to get it. What's one good way? Pay people to work for you. How do you get them to work for you? Teach them to do what you do. These billionaires offer tons and tons of scholorships for people who are from low income families so that they can go to school and learn the skills that this capitalist society rewards with money. Vicious cycle? If you hate capitalism, yes.
America is everyone's favorite target, because it is flawed, yet it is the most powerful country in the world. America is also hated because we even took steps to make other countries our equals (the UN General Assembly, The Security Council and the 5 permenant seats, etc.). There is also a general arrogance (especially in the current administration) about what we can and can't do. Much of it is allowed, but some goes to far...and that's when people hate us. We are an arrogant nation, with an arrogant form of government...the two biggest American flaws in my opinion (again excluding the judicial system, I just can't type all my complaints about it). I would choose this type of government, and this type of society, over any that I have encountered and studied. Others have benefits that we can't tout, but we have others that they can't.
Quoting "The Complete History of America [abridged]":
There are a lot of things we love about America, and I'd like to mention a few of them now: Sean Connery, the Beatles, and Canada.
Ok, I, who love watching television as a mind numbing activity, am the most tolerant of the media itself. But I just saw two commercials that made me scream out in agony!
First we advertise floss on a stick, from Reach. Secondly we advertise some sort of razor with 4, yes count them 4, blades from Shick (not to be out done by the Mach 3 I suppose).
What are some horrible commercials that make you retch? (see how I turned this into something about more than just my dislikes? I'm all about some universal hatred)
I am interested in person X, and it seems, through detailed examination of circumstances, that person X likes me as well. Person X has been dating person Y for a year and a half now. X and Y have had a fight and X admitted to me that dating Y is getting very tiresome. X admitted as well that the whole relationship has only persisted due to the desires of Y.
I want person X, but I don't want to start any kind of drama of stealing X from Y. What can I do? Other than just wait for it to fall apart.
Also, I don't want to be put in the position of confidant. I don't want to get to that point that X and I couldn't date because we're "close friends." This is driving me crazy. I may be asking the wrong group of people for advice, but I'm asking nonetheless.
Watch Runnaway Jury and you won't care how you feel about guns, you'll just wish you had one, so that you could either kill your self, or the projectionist at the theatre, or one of the actors in the movie, or better yet, the script writer!
It's when you take the letters of a word and spell out something else.
I directed a show a few months ago called "The Complete History of America [abridged]" and I would just like to share some of the anagrams that we used in the show...
George Washington...Gaggin' on wet horse.
Spiro Agnew...Grow a penis.
America...I can ream.
"And that's what it means to be an American...Thank you."
Oh LORD! I loved TMNT. I had the first two cartoons of them. I never had the action figures. My action figures were always He-Man and Transformers (and a few GoBots, remember them?). My friend had all kinds of TMNT stuff. He had this one game that was some sort of set that you build and you have the turtles with marbles in their stomachs and you race them down these little paths or something.
Ah, but then puberty struck and we attached a majority of them to bottle rockets and blew them up. Who needs collector's items anyway?
Yeah, I am gonna make some flash buttons, but I don't know flash to terribly well. I'm supposed to, because I work in a lab with flash in it, but I haven't been fully show the ropes yet. I may have to view the wonderful walkthroughs offered by the kind patrons of Newgrounds.com...Thanks though.
WELL I DON'T LIKE YOU!
j/k, I can see that. Thanks for the input.
I need opinions. I need to know what people think about the skeleton for my website. I hate personal websites (well, for people like myself, who don't have enough to really fill a website...) but I decided that since I'm paying all this god-forsaken tuition and getting some free webspace out of it, I might as well use it. I like designing websites, but I just don't know how to fill them. Anyway...I was bored at work and desigend the banners and front page logo and I want to get some feed back before I start filling it with insipid crap. Here it is.
