Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a well made documentary, and it does dig up a lot of truth, but there's a lot of it that is spun and it also leaves a lot of other information out. Basically, it's a political tool to influence the upcoming election (note how it was released on an election year). I don't agree with that. A documentary should explore all sides of the issue, Fahrenheit 9/11 was too one-sided for me.

Well played Gooie, I tricked my dad into getting me a GeForce3 once, that was back when they were cool though. A gig is pretty standard now isn't? I used to be big on modding, but now that I'm at college, money is a precious commodity I don't have, *sigh* to be financially dependant on my parents again...

Didn't bother to read the ENTIRE post, seeing as how that might require me going to a mountain and living in solitude for a couple years, but seriously.

Macroevolution as a scientific theory is almost completely unfounded and has logical holes the size of Roseanne in it. It has been said that anything that has a probability of 1/ 10 to the 50th power is so likely to not occur on the cosmic scale (given the approximate age of the universe, which is some odd billion years old) that it is negligable, now, may I remind you, that 1 / 10 to the 50th is a 1 preceded by 50 zeros, THAT is quite a small number. Now the probability of evolution is something to the order of 1 / 10 to the 192nd power, which is almost 4 times more unlikely than even being considered to be possibly on the verge of ever happening and that's even almost impossible. It's possible in mathematical terms, but it sure as hell isn't plausible in any sense of the word.

Secondly, the prescence of a Supreme Being of any sort (not specifically the Biblical God) is almost completely accepted by the scientific community. At first, the Big Bang Theory seemed to suggest otherwise, until it proved that some Prime Mover had to exist. At the time when the universe was a singular particle of infinate mass, scientists have concluded that a Prime Mover had to have been the catalyst, as the Big Bang Theory would never have occured without some sort of an outward catalyst, and when the entire universe is wrapped up in a ball smaller than an atom, then it stands to reason that it was the work of some Supreme Being or Power. Personally, I believe in God, and I also believe the Bible, but, unlike a lot of people who believe in something blindly (evolution is a big one), I have a lot of solid evidence that supports my belief and I have found nothing to suggest the opposite.

A socialist would side more towards liberalism because liberals tend to favor more government intervention and programs and the like and socialism is when the government owns a majority of businesses and basically runs almost the entire private sector. In fact, America is a little socialist now. The FDA is a socialist organization, so are the organizations that regulate business practices, and let's not forget the Federal Reserve, which is a bank that is partly owned by the government. So just how socialist are you then? If you aren't extreme left wing liberal, then I'm pretty sure you're communist, not socialist, if you even know the difference.

Wraith, you were raised right. If you like Queen and Zeppelin, I'm also gonna go ahead and recommend some more good stuff. Jimi Hendrix (My absolute favorite ever), Guns n Roses, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Aerosmith, and some AC/DC. All good stuff.

On the Hanson note: Of course they suck, pop music sucks in general. I really hate saying this, but pop music is just one big selling out session. I say I hate saying it, because I hate the phrase "selling out." It just grates on my nerves to hear people saying it all the time about the most ridiculous stuff. In this case it is the absolute truth. What we have is a bunch of people with no artistic integrity and no talent belting out something they didn't even write to a tune they were told to sing. It's not music, it's karaoke night. I'm just glad that there was a time when music was awesome, and the people who sang their songs, for the most part, also wrote the words to it. And the guitar solos absolutely rocked. If anyone wants to hear some wicked solos, check out Slash and Jimi Hendrix, those are two of the best guitarists ever.

At 7/18/04 04:56 PM, CelticPikey wrote: CelticPikey: r u sad in the pants now?

I had a good laugh with that one, good stuff. What an idiot, people like that aren't just noobs, they're also just plain stupid.

Getting the student version is a great deal. The only place I know how to get a student version from where I am is from the University Campus Computer Store, and it's only available for University students, luckily I qualify, but other people aren't so lucky. It sounds like general jackassery to flaunt the fact that you own a legit copy, though. I miss the days when people who had morals didn't wave them around like sticks. I miss the days when I thought those days ever existed, too.

UH OH, SPAGHETTI O'S!!!

A lot of people tend to believe things that they are constantly told by others, for instance Bush is an idiot. A lot of people say it, and thus people start to believe it, even though it is far from the truth. I can't remember the exact saying but it goes something along the lines of: "Tell people a big enough lie enough times and they'll believe it." I think it's the same deal with Canada. There are a lot of Canada sucks jokes out there, and so I guess there's some people who start believing it.

Okay, I have some irony for everyone. I find it a little odd and disconcerting that a lot of people have said something along the lines of "Those sick kids, they have no right to hurt things, they should be hurt." Now I KNOW a lot of people who say that ALSO believe that 2 wrongs don't make a right or violence is never the solution, or something naive like that. Therefore, I find it odd, disconcerting, blah blah blah, that you seem to think that it is disgusting and totally inhumane to hurt a bird, but beating up and ripping the arms off of boys seems to be justifiable and reasonable. Don't get me wrong, what those boys did is kind of disturbing, but I don't think they should get worked over with a hose just because they got bored and did something gross. Then again, a lot of people I've seen on these forums never really care much for hipocracy unless someone else is doing it. Oh well, guess it's just one of those things.

The man show has gone really downhill since they switched hosts. My favorite is a toss-up between Family Guy and Chappelle's Show. Who can forget classics like "Heh heh heh heh, a woman driving, that's adorable." or "Hold my drink, b****. I'm Rick James, b****"

Wow, some people, I'm telling you... With over a one billion dollar bounty on his head (perhaps higher, last time I checked it was close to a billion), do you really think that people aren't hard at work trying to find Osama? The news media has largely forgotten about it because any story that takes over a year is "boring" and "too long." In this age of the 3 second attention span, it seems like it's taking forever to get Osama. In actuality, this is a very reasonable amount of time to find somebody with extensive connections in a mountainous country. I believe that he's still in Afghanistan, but he could be in any number of places. He's absolutely bankin after all. As long as he's on the FBI's most wanted list, they're going to be assigning massive amounts of resources to finding him.

Of course the economy was prospering, it was overheating. The tech boom greatly resembled the stock market boom in the late 20s and you know how that ended up (for those of you who don't, it was the Great Depression). When W Bush got into office, the economy needed to be cooled down, so the Fed raised interest rates to pop the high tech bubble, causing a brief period of inflation. Either way, the Fed has much more to do with the economy than the president, and the Fed chairman has been the same since 92 (Greenspan). All the same, Bush has made sound economic policies that are well in keeping with basic economic policy. When you are in a recession, which occurred after the Fed raised interest rates, the thing to do is increase government spending and cut taxes, which is exactly what Bush did. The war in Iraq provided an enormous outlet for government spending, which is not to say that it only started as a means to jumpstart our economy, to suggest such a thing is absurd politically. Government spending fills the gap that is left by a lack of consumer and investment spending, and cutting taxes allows people to have more income to put into the economy. Now that these things have occurred, the economy is looking more and more robust. the Dow Jones is well over 10000, a very healthy number. So before you criticize anybody's economic policies, it would be good to have at least a fundamental understanding of economics, or maybe even a good grasp of economic indicators.

It's a little of both, and that's what I was getting at. It's a completely unnecessary thing to say and the ONLY reason anybody would say it would be to cause a panic.

We have free speech in a lot of ways, but there are things that nobody should have the right to say. It was mentioned earlier in this thread (I forget who, sorry about that) that "nobody has the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." It is altogether dangerous and irresponsible to create a panic in a crowded space of any sort. There is no reason anyone should do such a thing and revoking that ability infringes on nobody's freedom negatively. I also believe that inciting a riot is in the grey area, dark grey. While we were founded by revolutionists, and it is one of our fundamental rights as a citizen to rebel, it is not a civil action to stir up a mob to commit random, mindless destruction. In some cases a riot may be the most effective way to send a message, but 9 times out of 10, it's just one person feeding a mob mentality. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but it's not the same as saying whatever the hell you please just because you feel like it. It's hard to tell where to draw the line, and if anybody honestly believes that they could rewrite the laws to make them so that it would be better for everyone, then they're either one of the most brilliant minds of our time, or they're just fooling themselves. Laws have very little to do with right and wrong anymore, they deal with the spectrum in between. Constitutional law especially. The Constitution was written to be ambiguous so that it could adapt to a rapidly changing society, so it's really tough to say how much regulation is necessary and Constitutional at a given time. That's what the Supreme Court is for.

I lean towards conservatism, but I really don't like any views that are too far left or right. Once you go too far in any direction in the political spectrum, it gets extremely easy to generalize and stereotype.

The Bay of Pigs invasion was a result of hating Castro, so that's circular. It all goes back to the Cold War, where Communism was a threat to the well being of the world from America's standpoint. Mainly Soviet Russia, as that was the bulwark of the "Communist Empire" so to speak. Cuba was seen as a Communist outpost knocking on our door. The Cuban Missile Crisis didn't help things when the potential threat of havig medium-range ballistic missiles in Cuba was breathing down out neck. So basically, we don't like Castro because of history, Communism, and because he's an absolute dictator. I don't have specifics on anything Castro has done either, but I believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so there might be some stuff you could find.

Good points. Exactly what I was talking about for China. In order to become a majr economic power then it must make some changes. And it has been and is continuing to do so. I think it will become a viable economic player soon.

As far as India is concerned, I was merely taking about pure industrial potential. Of course it won't live up to its full potential, not many things do, it still has a huge leg up on many nations. All of the outsourcing from American computer industries is sending an enormous number of jobs to India. Nowhere near enough to satisfy their enormous population, but it is still a lot of jobs. Now, the rule of competition applies for workers as well. Indian companies are able to hire extremely qualified personel for cheaper than dirt because there are so many people who need jobs. As India continues to grow, this will be a hindrance if they decide to have programs, like in America, that take care of poverty-stricken citizens. And as far as I know, they don't. So, there is no money wasted on people who don't have jobs (and I use wasted from a purely from an economic standpoint, and not socially). Thus, their corporations are able to make enormous profits. The only problem is that the largest part of any economy is the consumer sector, in America, it account for hundreds of billions of dollars in GDP. Therefore, in order to boost their GDP, things have to change in India as well. And it appears that might be a little farther off. But with limited space in India, it might become like Japan in that people sleep in little boxes for a bunch of money.

The Federal Reserve is not exclusively owned by private corporations. The way it was set up was to be a hybrid public/private institution. The 12 banks you're talking about are the 12 member banks that are not in Europe, but are in different regions of the US. There are 7 chairpeople that are in the private sphere, and 5 that are in the public sphere. This is so that the government still has control and a way to oversee operations while it is operated and run like a bank, which it is. In effect, the Fed is a bank for all the other banks. And I've always believed that power grows from the barrel of a gun, and the government holds the biggest gun around.

Bingo mabzie, even with all these "horror stories" of what Americans are doing to the people of Iraq, you NEVER hear about a soldier raping an Iraqi, much less being ordered to do it on a regular basis, which is also less than being ordered to dust whole villages with chemical munitions. I'm really sick of hearing about how America is commiting atrocities in Iraq. The prisoner abuse scandal aside (which was absolutely deplorable, but it was only a handful of US soldiers), I have hears nothing about the willful torturing and murdering of helpless innocents. Iraq, on the hand, has no reservations about doing horrible, disgusting things to the prisoners they capture. I mean if they do horrendous things to their own citizens, imagine what they've been doing to the Americans who have been unlucky enough to be captured. If I were like you, bumcheekcity, and only worried about what happened to one of the country's citizens, I would save my pity for the American prisoners, but it's just because I care more about the people who have to suffer more pain and torture, I don't want to speak for you.

It is a travesty what is happening, I agree. That's usually the way it works with government, though. Something happens and they take measures that are too far and end up trying to compensate later with measures that are too far the other way. It seems to me that what's happening here is the government is afraid that if it appears to be too open and too willing to let anyone in, then the actual terrorists will come in, and to an extent that's true. The pre-9/11 border security was a joke, and it's a surprise that we didn't see more internation terrorism occuring in America. Now, in order to deal with open borders, what they're doing is pretty much closing them off in a paranoid fashion where everybody is a terrorist until proven otherwise (exaggerated a lot, but it conveys the point). I'm not too worried about it, but of course, if things do get out of control, I could always hang out in Mexico.

Government agencies, by nature, are inefficient and wasteful, which is why communism is doomed to economic collapse. This is a case in point. Why is there so much more interest in Castro? Because Cuba has been on unfriendly relations with the US longer and thus has mountains of existing paperwork that hasn't gotten cut through yet. I'm willing to bet it has something to do with a financial policy started in the 60's or something.

I'm reminded of the introduction to the Guns n Roses song Civil War. "What we have here is... failure to communicate. Some men you... just can't reach. So you have what we had here last week; which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men."

I think that about sums it up. Reasoning and talking a problem out is all well and good when both sides are willing to reason. However, when you have people like Hitler, Mussolini, and in keeping with the general trend of this thread, Hussein, that is not a viable option. When such a case happens, a country has to make a choice. War is a horrible, awful thing. However, is the cost worth the benefit? In World Wars 1 and 2, all of Europe was on the brink of collapse. Until the Americans entered both wars (late due to isolationist tendencies) Germany was doing as it pleased, it's war machine marched all throughout Europe without a great deal of opposition. In WW1, when pretty much every country in western Europe had fallen to the Germans except Britain was when the US decided to join in and take care of the German attacks. In WW2, Germany was running rampant again, especially with their revolutionary new Blitzkreig tactics. Again, the US joined in and stopped the Germans. Now, you tell me, was the cost of going to war, especially in such gruesome and horrible wars as WW1 and WW2 worth saving Europe?

Sometimes war is necessary. No reasonable person wants war, it's a dirty, foul, and deadly tool. I sincerely hope that one day there will be no need for war, but as long as unreasonable people run nation-states then there will always be a need for armed combat. If there's anything worth caring about, it's worth fighting for. And the well being of people worldwide is something we should all care about. If there is a threat to the well being of the world stage, and that threat will not listen to reason, then it is the responsibility of a superpower, such as the US, to resolve the situation.

I see, so the fear of getting raped and tortured at a whim is preferable?

Extra-sloppy, oh man, I almost busted a gut on that one. Burn. I agree, you need to shut your cock holster, you're basically digging yourself into a hole here.

Or when she has so many STD's she's considered a hazardous waste dump.

"If there's one thing, one thing, that history has taught us, it's that you can kill anyone." Michael Corleone (Al Pacino), Godfather 2.

Guns n Roses - Civil War

Nutritionists say that it's best to eat a bunch of little meals all throughout the day. I really don't care what these people have to say, so I just go ahead and eat my three squares a day.

Good Lord, I hate it when ugly chicks think they're something special. And from what you say, she doesn't even have a personality. I'm not psychiatrist, but I'd go ahead and recommend suicide.