Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/5/04 11:11 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I'm not arguing that voting is more active than writing a legislator, but it should be considered spectatorial.:

Correction. I meant to say, voting should not be considered spectatorial. Misedit on my part.

At 4/5/04 10:52 PM, Izuamoto wrote: if the people pay less tax the governement has less funding, period. :

There's always such a thing as a spending cut. And so what if social security goes bankrupt? It's going to under the current system!

Moreover, I've never gotten a straight answer to the question as to why the government requires me to invest money into Social Security, money that I could invest elsewhere with far greater stability and returns.

I would hardly call Bush responsible for 9/11. He did not perpetrate the act; he can only be indicted for failure to prevent the act, and if you're gonna do that, you might as well include Clinton his share of the blame, as he failed do anything significant after the 1993 WTC bombings, the East Africa embassy bombings, and the USS Cole.

However, it's easy to go back and say what should have been done in hindsight. But it is impossible for any president, Rep. or Dem. to counter every threat faced by this country, especially when quelling one threat can result in the resergence of another.
Odds are, 9/11 would have occured had Gore been in office, had Nader been in office, or even if Pat Buchanan had been in office.

Why get freaked out? There's nothing you can do about it.

Sure you can be killed by surprise terror attacks. But you can also be killed by/in: lightning, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blizzards, earthquakes, volcanoes, fires, smoke inhalation, falling trees, falling power lines, collapsing buildings, collapsing bridges, collapsing tunnels, collapsing mineshafts, airplane crashes, car crashes, boat crashes, train crashes, blimp crashes, Segway crashes, bicycle crashes, bus crashes, ferry crashes, hot air balloon crashes, monorail crashes, parade float crashes, roller coaster crashes, boat sinkings, submarine sinkings, murderers, kidnappers, rapists, brutal police, riots, military police, equipment malfunction, machinery malfunction, wardrobe malfunction, bungee cord malfunction, air bag malfunction, falling off a cliff, falling into a canyon, falling into a shaft, falling into a hole, falling onto a bed of spikes, falling out of bed, falling into quicksand, falling into tar pits, being bit by snakes, being stung by scorpions, being stung by bees, being stung by ants, being stung by various other poisonous animals, ingesting poison, ingesting biohazards, sharing needles, unprotected sex, bullets, shells, grenades, land mines, cannon, conventional bombs, napalm, neutron bombs, atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, thermonuclear war, asteroids, meteors, comets, extraterrestrials, the boogeyman, Bigfoot, werewolves, vampires, vampire bats, ghosts, falling out of bed, falling asleep at the wheel, overdosing on drugs, drinking and driving, walking on the highwire, being bit by sharks, being a witch, being a heretic, fist fights, boxing matches, highsticking, hard checks, bean balls, running bulls, race car crashes, suicide, homicide, genocide, rabid animals, SARS, anthrax, the swine flu, heart attacks, illnesses, spontaneous combustion, and many more!

Plus cancer.

You don't seem to be freaked out about any of those, yet you are much more likely to die in some of the aforementioned manners than in suprise terrorist attacks. Don't sweat it. Worrying about it only makes the threat appear larger.

At 4/5/04 10:43 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/5/04 10:38 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I fail to see how contacting a legislator can be more active and involved than voting.

Because you're contacting him, and telling him of an issue that is important to you. You're expressing your opinion.

What do most people do when they vote? Vote their party. How active is that?

You also speak with your vote. If you're against what a candidate stands for, voting against him performs activity against his opinion as well as lets him know that there are people out there that don't take his stand. For many a politician, winning in a close election is more of a wake up call than receiving letters.

Plus, when you vote on a referendum, you are much more active than in contacting your representative. When you vote for referendums, you are actually making policy, rather than advising others how to make it.

And unlike bumper stickers and website posts, voting is not a complacent activity. Bumper stickers require no maintainance. With bumper stickers, etc. you can maintain and express your views without political activity. Heck, I still see Dukakis stickers from time to time. Voting, however, requires maintainance. You have to make a concerted effort to go to the polls to vote and maintain your views.

I'm not arguing that voting is more active than writing a legislator, but it should be considered spectatorial.

At 4/5/04 10:39 PM, JMHX_DeLux wrote:

This kind of action, while small, has a profound effect on the way things work.

Not only that, it shows that you can reach your governments, especially on a local level. People complain about government doing nothing, but the people do nothing to stimulate the government.

It took one person to dispatch a government to fix a road sign.
It might take ten people to dispatch a government to fix a pothole.
It might take 100 people to dispatch a government to put up speed bumps in a neighborhood.
It might take 1000 people to dispatch a government to put up a stop light at a dangerous intersection.
It might take 10000 people to dispatch a government to widen a bottlenecked road.
It might take 100000 people to dispatch a government to make better traffic patterns.
It might take 1000000 people to dispatch a government to rethink its transportation policy.

It seems like it gets harder to enact change the higher up the governmental hierarchy you go, and its true. But that's only because it takes more people voicing their opinions, not that it's harder work to do. I could e-mail President Bush with a stand on an issue with the same amount of effort as I e-mailed my local DOT.

Keep in mind that there is already a backing for most major views. They just need your support. You might be the very 1 that raises their 9 to a 10, their 99 to 100, their 999 to 1000, so on. Don't be the nail that lost the war.

I fail to see how contacting a legislator can be more active and involved than voting.

And who's to say we don't do anything except groan on NG?
I'm sure a great majority of us have participated somehow in the political process in a more active manner than just groaning or putting bumper stickers on cars.

Myself, for example, this week I e-mailed my local DOT about an incorrect sign on a local street. They had missigned a local street as "West Ga 120 Loop". Thanks to my e-mail, the sign has been removed!

At 4/5/04 02:50 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 4/5/04 01:45 PM, River_Warden wrote: Seriously though, just another plan to allow those that can, to skip out, while those who either cannot or don't know enough to continue to fund the economy.

I don't think River_Warden is describing how little taxes the rich pay in terms of percentage. I think this is more about sending income overseas in the form of offshore investments, where it cannot be reached by the IRS. He's probably trying to say that rather than shipping income offshore, they'll be making their purchases offshore instead.

No problem. With any system, I'm sure that there are kinks in the Fair Tax proposal. I've not done too much in-depth research on it, but overall it appears to be a much better plan than our current system.

However, there is one issue that I'm concerned about--e-commerce. Obviously, with the availability of the internet today, it would be easy to get around such sales taxes, unless they were incorporated on to internet sales.

Hmm...

At 4/5/04 01:45 PM, River_Warden wrote: And I strongly support anyone who wishes to openly pay so much tax; By all means, pay and pay some more loyal consumer. It certainly reduces the amount I feel guilty about not contributing to society.

It's actually less tax, since there would be no personal or corporate income tax.

Note to self - redirect offshore banking and private company shares into offshore food and perishables logistics company to fulfill sudden surge of Tax Evaders looking for foreign consumables

Note to self - prepare financial systems for an influx of investments; as there is no income tax to have to pay on investment returns, IRA's, saving accounts, stock, etc. would be tax free. We're talking Swiss-like savings here.

What do you mean, reelected? He wasn't elected in 2000, if I do recall.

A bill is being considered in Congress that would do away with the income-based tax system and replace it with one based on sales tax.

Under the proposal, there would be a flat sales tax of 23% on all purchases. Reimbursements would occur for food and clothing and other necessities to a certain extent.

www.fairtax.org for more info.

What's your opinion? I'm strongly for it.

At 4/4/04 12:48 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:

I believe that if we're going to kill people, we should do it in the most painless way possible. See, I have empathy for the entire human race, not just those who happen to be born in the same country as I.

That's a very honorable belief.

I feel the same way to an extent. I don't understand why one would need to drop napalm bombs or use chemical and nuclear and biological weapons when conventional weapons can do the job. But generally, the more lives we try to save, the more casualties we take. Whichever weapon can create the lowest number of combined casualties, but still get the job done, is the one we should use.

At 4/4/04 12:52 AM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote:

Im sure they declared war on Britian/Canada in 1812

You're right. Upon further review, it was the War of 1812, not the Mexican War as I had thought.

I wonder what relevance the otherwise unnotable Mexican War had that it lurks around in my subconsciousness? Hmm...

No, I really mean the Mexican War. When the U.S. invaded Mexico (unlike the other way around, like it is now :) ). Jefferson Davis and Whitfield Scott were among the participants.

If you don't remember reading about it, don't worry. It's nothing important--kinda like the War of Jenkins Ear or the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

No, they don't even deserve to die. But in wars, people have to. But the attacker has no obligation to kill without "cruel and unusual" punishment. Any way you look at it, it's all the same result, death. And the dead feel no pain.

The United States has only declared war four times.

World War II
World War I
The Spanish-American War
The Mexican War.

No shit, sherlock. Name one military action that didn't result in casualties!

The word is "they're", not "there." Get a grasp of the English language. It helps your credibility.

And what does it matter which is more painful?

If we were arguing about methods of excuting criminals, then it might be relevant.

At 4/4/04 12:17 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:

So.. This isn't an ideal world, so we shouldn't even try to minimize the impact of our wars of aggression? The world might not be ideal, but surely we could stop dropping fiery death from above.

Hey, I don't have a problem with not using napalm.

At 4/4/04 12:18 AM, ryan789oya wrote: all i know is people are gettin killed and for what some dumb ass oil , AHHHH HELL NO! ,

For the last time, it ain't about the oil. So all you know isn't much.

Recipe for instant anarchy:

1 medium country
100,000 troops
275,000,000 impatient people
3 tons explosives
assorted munitions.

Mix in bowl, allow to ferment(approximately 1 year). When the impatient people start to emit gas, remove troops from mixture. Stir rapidly, pulverize.

Serves death.

At 4/3/04 11:55 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: Many of those serving were not supporters of Hussien. Did they deserve a death like that? Simply for being unlucky citizens in Iraq?

There's a price to pay for freedom. I know that many did not want to serve Saddam. And no, they did not deserve to die. But there is a price for freedom.
We lost a great many a person fighting for freedom. We've lost civilians, we've lost soldiers. Other countries have fought for freedom, other countries have lost civilians and soldiers. In an ideal world, we could precisely take out the enemy with no civilians, no G.I. Joe's being killed. Heck, in an ideal world, there wouldn't be a need for war. But it isn't an ideal world. We're human. We're innacurate.

At 4/3/04 11:33 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 11:21 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: You're trying to put the military using napalm in a bombing at the same moral ground as a mob burning humanitarian aid workers, and it's just not gonna wash.

It's not? I say it is. Who knows how many people we burned alive while using this substance? At least they had the courtesy to shoot the four civilians before burning them.

You're right, who knows! Your source only can only cite one instance of the use of napalm in the Iraq war. Your source states that it was dropped on military targets. You tangentially relate that there were conscripts and children in the army. Your argument is non sequitur. We dropped napalm on the Iraq army. There are children in the Iraqi army. However, it does not follow that we dropped napalm on children.

You do not know, nor can you consisively prove, that children in Iraq were hit by napalm bombs.

The premise of not shooting or attacking children is based on that child's innocence and vulnerability. Once that mantra is removed, and that child is in a position to kill Americans, he is no longer afforded the moral immunity that protects him.

Why is it okay to bemoan and be outrage at the loss of a civilian life that was unintentionally caused, but it is all right that a civilian can be brutally murdered.

Ok, maybe they are 12. But those aren't Xbox controllers, those are AK-47's they're wielding. And just because they're 12 doesn't mean they can't shoot at you.

At 4/3/04 11:11 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 10:52 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Because we were dropping the napalm bombs on enemy military positions that were trying to kill American soldiers, not civilian employees trying to deliver food, nor did we take the already burned corpses and butcher them, and throw their limbs over power lines.

An army full of conscripts forced to join? An army full of children?

We had the draft too (granted, dodging it didn't mean an a death sentence), and it's not like these "child" troops are 7 or 12 or something. In most states, these "children" could be charged as an adult for crimes.

It's an army ne'ertheless. You're trying to put the military using napalm in a bombing on a military target that was or was not occupied by conscripted and/or/nor underaged troops at the same moral ground as a mob burning humanitarian aid workers, and it's just not gonna wash.

Hey, back in 1945 the Germans were drafting children into service as well, some as young as 15! Why didn't we just stop attacking them?

Because we were dropping the napalm bombs on enemy military positions that were trying to kill American soldiers, not civilian employees trying to deliver food, nor did we take the already burned corpses and butcher them, and throw their limbs over power lines.

At 4/3/04 09:42 PM, saterday wrote: Because Bush dosent give a carp about him
cause ny didnt vote 4 him

He doesn't give a trout, either.

Is it lesbianism? Is it humpin' corpses for fun and profit? Is it weird? I don't know, but we can surely rule out a typo!!

Ah, I see. I know what unemployment is.
Again, I just clicked on the wrong link. Sorry. I stand corrected.

At least I tried to use actual statistics, though, unlike that 1.5 million "estimate" implodable tried to pass off.