Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

A theocracy?

Yes, because they seem to work so well. Iran anyone?

Besides, what advanteges does a theocracy have over a democracy? Other then a society that is more religious (a trait that can be negative), what is there to gain? "Morals"? Morals don't automatically equal religion and vice versa. For example, the Spanish Inquisition.

At 2/15/05 09:11 PM, King_Hammurabi wrote:
I find it kind of sad that they are screwing themselves over. I suppose some people really are more concerned about "moral values" than their own economic well-being. This is why I view the religious policies of the Republicans as a sort of mild form of oppressive brainwashing. I think it's completely unethical for Republicans to screw over so many people by convincing them with their "moral agenda."

True. I think at least quite a few Americans vote for Conservatives based on a percieved "Christian morality" of the Republicans.

And the Republicans are doing everything they can to convey this image. The sad thing is that many American voters only have a vague idea over politics and tend to vote Republican becasue of a perceived morality.

Also, the Republicans are much more effective at persuading the masses. (Ex: The majority of America still believes the Liberals, if voted, will increase taxation with little to no basis.)

At 2/15/05 08:47 PM, afliXion wrote:

At 2/15/05 08:33 PM, King_Hammurabi wrote:

At 2/15/05 08:30 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

economic interests by voting Republican simply on the basis of "moral values."

Whats wrong with having moral values? I don't mind religion in politics. America chould be a theocracy.

Religion doesn't automatically equal moral values.

The Crusades come to mind.

Pretty funny. But...seriously, pretending to be Christian fundies just isin't that funny anymore.

Probably becasue everyone and thier mom has done it already.

At 2/15/05 06:34 PM, Proteas wrote:
Saddam Hussein is a sadistic madman, even if he didn't have weapons he still was a danger to his people.

And since when does America care about other people?

Now, imagine one of these things going off in our country just because we started directly threatening action against North Korea. I think you'll get the idea, as to why we haven't done a whole lot about NK lately.

I agree on this. Threatning countries that have WMD is retarded because well...they have fuckin WMD(exactly why America hasn't gone after China, Life After Death) although, North Korea hasn't been proven to have WMD...

At 2/10/05 08:33 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 2/10/05 08:28 PM, SD90 wrote: Yeah, but at least they can agree what station to pick on.

"Pick on"? What happened to truth? But wouldn't that be moral to tell the truth? Which is related to religon??????!

...Wow. Smoking weed isin't very religious man. Can you at least attempt to explain what the hell you mean by that?

If the majority of the media is indeed liberal like you have so far :accused them of being, wouldn't it stand to reason that most people :agree with a liberal point of view?

:: No, FOX has the highest ratings out of all major news networks fool.

...But does it have a larger rating then all the major news networks combined?

"...O MY GOD! MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS BEIN VIOLATED! :CENSORSHIP!"

OMG!! FOX=Teh Devel!!

Good young one. You learn well. Let's go protest cow abuse now. And Wal Mart. :)

Dr.Dak. Nice to see you improving from calling your opponents SUper Dorks.

yeah. But I still get pissed off from people who have no sources.

Wow. Must suck getting pissed off at yourself.

At 2/10/05 08:21 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 2/10/05 07:44 PM, SD90 wrote:

Way to turn this whole reaction into a raving liberal mud-slinging-fest again. You partisan whore.

Its what I do best. :)

"RISE BROTEHRESS! CRUSH THE GLOBOLIZATION." :O

Seriously, way to attack liberals by calling them whores. You whore.

At 2/10/05 08:12 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 2/10/05 07:51 PM, SD90 wrote: If you agree that most media is liberal (or since the people in the thread have basically labeled every major media source as liberal with little to no proof)

Kinda like liberals and FOX huh?

Yeah, but at least they can agree what station to pick on. You guys so far have just declared every major news source liberal...with like little proof.

and if we can agree that media exists to sell itself to the people (EX: Showing a point of view that most people agree with) then at the very least this shows the majority of America have pro-liberal views.

Yeah, 48% is a majority now? Maybe to them thar' educated leeberals.

If the majority of the media is indeed liberal like you have so far accused them of being, wouldn't it stand to reason that most people agree with a liberal point of view? So, your "facts" are pointing out that despite voting for Republicans, most Americans share liberal views since manistream media channels are all "Liberal Scumbags". Yer educateeerd Consermativves.

Or that Conservatives are too poor/uneducated to make their own damn major news stations and stop bitching about the liberal media.

Or maybe you can stop bitching too? O.O

"...O MY GOD! MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS BEIN VIOLATED! CENSORSHIP!"

Dr.Dak. Nice to see you improving from calling your opponents SUper Dorks.

1.Halo 2. Fun game. If you can look past the millions HL2 fanboys screaming "OMFG HALO 2 IS THE OVERATED PEICE OF CRAPPP!!!".

2.GTA:SA...fun if you like beating random people. And shooting them.

3.HL2...wtf? I hear all this good shit about it. Nerds jackin off to the game. I play it and wonder why the hell people think this is the best thing since like getting laid. Still a hell of a good game though.

If you agree that most media is liberal (or since the people in the thread have basically labeled every major media source as liberal with little to no proof) and if we can agree that media exists to sell itself to the people (EX: Showing a point of view that most people agree with) then at the very least this shows the majority of America have pro-liberal views. Or that Conservatives are too poor/uneducated to make their own damn major news stations and stop bitching about the liberal media.

At 2/10/05 05:48 PM, drDAK wrote: There are so many bastards and jerk-offs today it's like everything reaches a new low everyday (Newgrounds!). So, I was reading Hannity's new book (No one seems suprised) and I found this story in the first chapter (My version, no copyright violations):

So this woman felt she wanted to commit suicide one day (I'm so casual about things) and she's teetering back and forth on the edge of a bridge located near Seattle and deciding whether or not to jump off. It looked high from her view, but so did the world.

Then, after traffic begins slowing down due to cops halting the flow to try stopping the twenty-six-year-old from killing herself, the travelers get impatient. Hence, a few bastards shout to the woman:
"Jump, bitch! Jump!"
She then jumps off the bridge and narrowly misses her death.

Is it me or is the world just looking out for "number one"?

Wow. Humanity's getting overpopulated and if some attention seeking dumbasses die, good for them. If she wants to take her life, then why fuckin teeter off a fuckin bridge? That's like " HEY LOOK PEOPLE! I'M GOIN TO SUICIDE! HOPE I GET ON THE NEWS."

And as good ol asshole Stalin put it..."One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." How many children die from starvation every day? How many children dying from starvation get a whole story printed in some weird fucked up conservative book?

"Number one". Becasue morality is always associated with religion.

Oh sweet sweet Jesus cometh thou holyth body for we art fucked. /excessive asskissing.

At 2/8/05 03:24 PM, Proteas wrote:
With that in mind, Congressional Republicans took steps this month to make sure that working Americans, not federal bureaucrats, get to spend the money. The Financial Freedom Act of 1999, passed by the House and Senate, returns $792 billion of the $3 trillion surplus to you, preventing it from being spent on more government.

And if Democrats get their way it will be spent. While the Financial Freedom Act returns $792 billion of the surplus over 10 years, President Clinton's plan increases spending by $937 billion! On top of that his plan actually raises taxes!

Washington's Surplus is your money, By U.S. Rep. John Hostettler, August 18, 1999

That's written by a Republican. Any independant sources you got? Becasue Republican/Democrat sites are always bashing thier opponents without much evidence. Give me a credible source and I might believe it.

At 2/6/05 10:40 PM, drDAK wrote:

At 2/6/05 04:22 PM, SD90 wrote: they get exiled. (I.E Thrown off the island attached to something real heavy.)

Yes, if they got exiled that would be thrown out by a group of people working for a cause to better the rest of the community or the people.... being called, A GOVERNMENT!!!!

Them getting exiled doesn't nesscesarily mean gouvernment. Just some pissed people. Of course there is gonna be basic shit like if a murderer is on the island, based on survival instincts (like not getting fuckin killed by a bloodthirsty asshole), the community as a whole can assess him as a threat and throw him/her off. Simple.

Besides, only a dumbass would murder. Everything is free, all the resources and everything so there is no real motive for murder. If we got a rapist/murederer...guess where he/she goes?

I don't.

And seriously it makes little to no difference. I'm not anti-religion and "Fight against the machine" crap, but I just choose not to worship something I don't truly beleive in.

Some of the prayers are funny though. Its like the writers tried to stuff as much asskissing as possible in a few lines.

At 2/6/05 05:00 PM, Rancorman wrote: I think us Americans make too big of a deal of what's on TV. In many parts of Europe, nudity is much less taboo in the media. Their children don't seem to be screwed up in the head because of it. We make such a big deal of nudity. If we were more used to that type of thing, the media wouldn't obsess over every freakin' nipple slip. We'd be used to it.

Exactly. Kinda like how kids have gotten used to seeing people getting shot on TV so if Janet Jackson faked getting shot, no one would care.

Mostly because of the Church and its percieved morality, sexuality is under wraps because its thought of as something wrong. Its been like that in the States for like...centuries.

At 2/6/05 04:27 PM, drDAK wrote:
"Normal" meaning a public school. I will never send my kid to the public school system, God forbid I ever do.

Public School Education System=Terrible
Terrible=Something to Copy???

I go to a private school. And in 7th grade we were swearing like fuckin hell.

Might want to uh...check on your kid there man.

By the way...the reason why TV is so strict is becasue of American society. I mean, little kids crying when they see a boob kinda thing. but of course, people shooting other people are okay. Its different for every society. For example, France is permissive of sexual content but restricts violence.

I'd kill everyone else by cracking thier neck and eat thier corpses.

Then elect myself dictator for life.

Then find some random coconuts and eat them once the meat ran out.

Gouvernment and food solved.

Seriously though...I'd rather a sort of anarchy since there is only 40 people, so you know everyone and trust them. There's practiacally no weapons. Everything is free. If shit happens becasue some asshole kills someone (for no fuckin reason...), they get exiled. (I.E Thrown off the island attached to something real heavy.)

Go Pats! :)

I have like...50 bucks on this game and the Pats.

At 2/4/05 05:12 PM, Draconias wrote: I believe there is a number 5 that you forgot.

5. Bush has been completely honest about his reasons for asking us :to go to war, but a large portion of the population is too poorly :informed or too biased against him to aceept those reasons.

Translation: Everything agaisnt Bush is WRONG! STFU! STFU! STFU!

a. Fight the terrorist groups who had fled from Afghanistan and were :preparing for another major battle in Iraq.

The terrorist groups that came there as a direct result of the American Declaration of War. Ironic isin't it? You bred more terrorists and gave Osama a new proporganda source. Way to fight them terrorists. This doesn't even count as a damn reason becasue it is a by-product of the war itself if it did indeed occur and becasue you have no proof whatsoever.

:It is an indisputable fact now that Saddam was working with several :dozen terrorist groups to set up a network of links and organize for a :guerrilla war in Iraq. We know this because we "asked" the terrorists :and they told us.

I'm guessing you have access to CLASSIFIED FBI/CIA documents do you? How do you know this is what happened?

b. Start a revolution in the Middle East to (hopefully) remove most of :the dictatorships, spread democracy, and stabilize the region. This :would also serve to completely flush out the terrorists and remove :any further threats involving WMDs, bombs, missiles, etc.

Wooo! Way to go. Because the whole world wants democracy and capatalism.

Note: Forced democracy. That's kinda hypocrtical there don't you think? And why reverse your policy for one country? Usually when the USA goes into a country , they remove the democratically elected leader and replace him/her with a dictator. (Refer to Iran) So, why are you starting this trend now? Your PR people getting smart all of a sudden or something? Or maybe, you had to think of a new reason becasue the general public began to wonder what the hell we're doing down there anyway. And come to think it, since when did revolutions bring stability? (Refer to French, Russian, hell, anyone).

c. Remove Saddam, an ass who refused to comply with the world powers. We (UN) gave him ten years and atleast 14 warnings. He still refused to comply with the rules everyone else has to follow. The only UN country who did not give us a vote of confidence for attacking Saddam was France. If you didn't know, there has been a major investigation for the past 13 months now in the UN about the fact that many heads of countries, including France (the prime minister, his son, and several dozen major politicians), Russia, and China were being paid bribes in a massive scandal involving millions of dollars in the Food for Oil program. So it isn't suprising that France didn't give us a vote of confidence, but everyone else in the UN agreed that Saddam needed an ass-whooping.

A) The USA is an ass that doesn't comply with world regulations. The UN would give it warnings if it wasn't busy asskissing it. And the USA refuses to acknoledge rules held by the international community placing it in the ranks of China and Iraq. So both countries are pretty damn similar. So if you endorse the same attitude as Iraq, why attack it? Seriously, a lot of dictators are "asses" and if your definition of ass is as follows then the USA is an "ass". So why attack Iraq? Among the dozens of dictatorships (most of them USA-endorse or created) why attack Iraq? Becasue Saddam is an ass? Sorry man. You need something I like to call "logic". You might want to check out Saudi Arabia too while you're at it.

And after all this talk about him being an ass, you only got yourselves to blame. Who gave Saddam his WMD? His funding? His power?

d. Protect ourselves. We did not know what kind of threat Saddam was. We did know he hated us and wanted to attack us (from his own words). We also now know that he was also playing a trick on the world because he has been bluffing about having nuclear weapons for the past dozen years so that no one would invade him (note that before he began this bluff, Iraq was invaded by neighboring countries atleast three times, but after he began this bluff, no one invaded, not even the US until now). Also, according to the words of many of the main terrorist leaders, they wanted America to come fight them in Iraq and they would provoke us through any means necessary to get a bloody fight.

Uh...the USA's been bluffing about nukes too (they have real ones, but they serve no real purpose except for protection and a kick in the ass of any rogue country). See, its what we call a protective umbrella so no one invades you. A lot of countries do it. America, China, Isreal. Why do the have such massive stocks of atomic bombs? Becasue they want to intimidate their possible opponents. Which is exactly what Iraq was doing.

And a lot of people hate the US and want to attack it. LIKE OSAMA BIN LADEN. But hey, if you can't find him, maybe its becasue you've sent most of the troops to Iraq. Think about it.

e. Change the world. It is a simple reason, but an undercurrent in most modern american desires (both politically and culturally). We want to change the world and make it better.

1) You need the world (or at least the majority of it) to suffer to maintain your quality of life since it is so wasteful.

2) One America is enough. Seriously. If there were more the world would run out of ressources so fuckin fast.

3) Make it better? Wow. Good job so far. Besides, what Americans think is better doesn't nesscesarily jibe with the rest of the world.

Hell, you guys came up with Backstreet Boys and thought it was "cool" and shit like that. THE WORLD SUFFERS!

Those are the reasons I'll support. #5 all the way! I don't need your :biased crap reasons, all of which essentially say, "Bush is an idiot," :"Bush is a greedy bastard," and "Bush is a bastard liar."

Hey, I don't need your biased crap reasons which essantialy say: I'm running out of bullshit.

At 2/5/05 11:15 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:
In the 1600's a document was signed in Europe seperating church from state (similar to the magna carta stating no man was above the law, same idea). Why have no European societies adopted same sex marriage for that 400 years even though church and state were officially seperated. It was at the end of the 40 year war I believe where they made states in europe, rather than lone kingdoms will illdefined borders.

1) Uh...ya have a link?

2) Separation of Church and State is a pile of bullshit, especially in like the 1600s. Of course the Church had a massive impact on the State, since most, if not all of European society in the 1600s, strictly believed in the Church's policy and beliefs. Kings, queens...everyone.

Even if there was a king in favor of legalising homosexuality, the Church would probably like accuse him of heresy or something along the lines. Even if they were" officialy" seperated, the Church had a vast amount of power in the State, since it controlled the masses and the nobles.

At 2/5/05 11:08 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

That involved no religion.

Many of those traditions are derived from religion or have become a religion. And many societies banned homosexuality cause of religion.

At 2/5/05 10:04 PM, fastbow wrote:
Anyway, the "ittelectuals" are not being punished. If they were, why dfo we still have Christian colleges? Why are Bill oReilley, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh still on the air?

Uh...becasue only the intellectuals are being punished?

Apparently it has something to do with the changing of the emphasis of marriage from procreation to just a way to show your affection or love for another person, thus changing the whole point of marriage. But like...wouldn't that make infertile couples against marriage?

Whatever. The anti-gays have to actually come up with shit that doesn't involve religion in some way and the pro-gays need to stop bashing the fuck out of anti-gays.

Just my opinion though.

At 2/5/05 04:05 PM, RoboFrog wrote: We are turning in to communist China during the rule of Mow Ztedong.

:Then Intulletuals were punished and they country was ruled by a specific elite.

Intulletuals punished? You got nothing to worry about there.

BTW...if I wanted to hear this crap I'd go to a conspiracy site. At least they have better spelling.

At 1/16/05 05:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/16/05 12:57 PM, SD90 wrote: The length or caliber of a gun is directly equivalent to the insecurities of the person bearing it.

Ever tried going after an Elk with a slingshot?

Yeah. It's hella fun.

Oh that's right, bigger targets require bigger ammo.

Yeah, because every gun owner uses a gun to hunt. And, big fat targets don't really exist in America. There's like nothing bigger then a fuckin bear(which could probably get put down by like a .22 cal) except for the fat people. Lots of them to shoot. :)

It's like...look at me, I got a big gun. Bitch.

Look at me, I can fire one shot and you won't be walking away from it.

Ohh. That's so hard to do. CAN'T PULL...TRIGGER!>_<

Take away the gun and we'll see who's tougher. Bitch. :)

The length or caliber of a gun is directly equivalent to the insecurities of the person bearing it.

It's like...look at me, I got a big gun. Bitch.

At 1/15/05 12:15 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 1/15/05 12:10 PM, SD90 wrote: It worked. It's all over the fuckin dumbass media who probably have run out of crap to talk about the tsunami.

Wonder what would happen if I wore a swastika and went to Isreal? :D

You would die.

The question is...how? :)

Maybe I'll wear an "I luv mein Reich" shirt.

Come to think of it...this might make a good noob trap. "Nazis are cool and fun. :D"

It worked. It's all over the fuckin dumbass media who probably have run out of crap to talk about the tsunami.

Wonder what would happen if I wore a swastika and went to Isreal? :D

At 1/14/05 09:47 PM, Proteas wrote:
How do you propose we go about getting them to tell us what they know, if they know anything at all? Put Playboy posters on the wall?

Uh...I'd say putting Playboy posters on the wall and then taking them off would be better. Just me.

And seriously...we all sit here talking about the OMFG torture, but does anyone give a flying fuck bout the tortured people except to use them to accuse the opposite party of torture?

At 1/14/05 05:42 PM, cheshirepus wrote:

At 1/14/05 05:35 PM, SD90 wrote: The liberals suddenely caring about Iraq is kinda funny though. Where were you like...5 years ago? 10 years ago?

They sure as hell weren't busting into their homes, leaving their businesses unlocked to be looted, torturing their prisoners, bombing their cities, and leaving the country open to rampant terrorism.

Neither were the Conservatives.

Why care about the suffering of the Iraqis now, when you didn't give a shit when it was actually fuckin happening?

Does it have something to do with the fact that the war's being led by a Republican president? Why aren't liberals dobuting the war in Kosovo? Maybe...hell, just maybe, because the pres was a Democrat?