Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ok, now I see it.

So what happens when George Bush goes back in time in his Halliburton-sponsored time machine and prohibits gay marriage?

Ok, then maybe my numbers aren't even unemployment rates. What are they? I don't know! They're on the BLS site though! Here:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.ht
Click on the link at the right under "Change in Unemployment Level".
Set data range from 1993-2004.

At 4/3/04 09:51 PM, Izuamoto wrote: elizabeth gallup married jane hemingway, who was born almost a hundred years after she died? or is there something i over looked?

Must be. I can't find those anywhere.

At 4/3/04 08:48 PM, implodable wrote: an article here says that 9-11 hadn't actually happened. Pretty interesting stuff, i'm skeptical, but interesting nonetheless.

There's also an article here that says that Princess Diana's dog planned the plot to murder her. But that doesn't mean it's real.

At 4/3/04 09:13 PM, implodable wrote:

You really don't get it. Politics and religion DONT mix, and don't talk about grammar, really, this is poitics.

If they don't mix why the fuck is ghostmint talking about president Bush's religion? Why is it acceptable for him to make statements on it, but it is totally against the rules to call him out on that. If they don't mix, why is ghostmint able to get out shots about Bush is stupid because he has problems on his speeches, but it is against the rules to call him out on his problems? :

Besides, what do you know?
:Falusha is more of a idea than an organization, and thus cannot be taken out.:
Fallujah is a fucking city, you retard. If you had even the most miniscule of current events knowledge, you would know that.
:1.5 million deaths, actually majority was civilians.:
11,000 at most, you moron.
Until you get some actual knowledge and can actually contribute something, STFU.

At 4/3/04 09:16 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 09:09 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: But the records still show a 2+ million net decrease in the unemployment rolls during the Bush presidency.

No they don't. Check out the historical ten year average of unemployment rates:
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/Su...bers&series_id=LNS14000000

Just look at the graph. The unemployment numbers bottomed out during 2000, at high 3's, and have risen since then.

You're right. I upon further review, I found I was clicking on the wrong link. It's actually
2,000,000 net job losses under Bush
3,000,000 net job gains under Clinton.

My mistake.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

It's the number of unemployed, actually. My mistake. But the records still show a 2+ million net decrease in the unemployment rolls during the Bush presidency. The 182,000 additions to the unemployment rolls explain why the unemployment increased slightly this month from 5.6% to 5.7%.

If no jobs have been created in the Bush administration, however, where have all these people found work?

At 4/3/04 07:06 PM, Locke666 wrote:

Bush Clinton

# of wars 2 0:
What about Kosovo? Somalia?

# of american soldiers killed

thousands 100 or so in regional conflicts:
<1000 for Bush, <100 for Clinton

# of sex scandals 0 1:

No argument

# of military service record scandals

1 0:
Bush: not so much a scandal. Accusation made by a group. Evidence to the contrary given. Accusation dropped.
Clinton: Used student exemption to get out of Vietnam, went to Britain. Many others did as well.
My count 0 0

# of jobs lost millions none:

Wrong. There has been a net creation of jobs under the Bush administration.
From the Bureau of Labor Statistics (each number represents the number of job losses or gains in a month, in thousands):
Year
2001 356 75 64 138 -47 254 102 474 94 572 297 271
2002 -165 58 94 300 -181 -13 16 -65 -66 94 202 133
2003 -270 153 -62 280 158 288 -197 -119 37 -169 -144 -255
2004 -101 -127 182
A net creation of approx. 2,711,000 jobs.
Under Clinton's:
1993 232 -142 -127 54 39 -28 -191 -167 -49 36 -208 -65
1994 153 -47 -113 -139 -416 12 19 -13 -199 -102 -257 -145
1995 145 -188 -34 492 -215 -3 100 -43 -6 -150 98 -3
1996 68 -178 5 97 8 -328 242 -455 97 52 205 17
1997 -95 -56 -102 -127 -218 144 -144 -47 48 -202 -146 168
1998 -108 -62 116 -481 106 165 47 -80 121 -20 -180 -68
1999 -56 135 -328 221 -208 155 74 -187 77 -137 -62 -63
2000 45 155 -123 -247 275 -110 101 112 -230 -91 103 -2
A net loss of approx. 3,452,000 jobs.

# of deficits created 1 0 # of surpluses created 0 1:

There was a deficit in 7 budgets in Clinton's term and 2 of Bush's,
There was a surplus in 1 of each (2000, Clinton, 2001, Bush.)

# of questionable elections:
1 0:

No argument.

# of countries liberated:
2 0:

No argument.

# of econimies "liberated":
1 0:

No argument.

# of tax cuts:
a lot not many:

More like 1 0.

# of tax cuts to non rich people

not many not many:
Bush's was an equal, across the board tax cut; rich people got more money because they pay more money.

% of world that hates us
100% 10%:

More like 30% 40%. America has never really been liked amongst the int'l community.

Now I admit that clinton isnt kerry but in a party system you're really voting for a party not a person.:

Pretty true, with minor exceptions.
:No offense to our current president but do you really think he could run the country on his own. The canidates are just figureheads for their parties. All of them are. :
Not really, they're more like puppets for their parties.

:So if you cant decide who to vote for I would reccomend Kerry. :
No. Anybody, even Al Sharpton. Not Kerry.

:He may not be a great guy:
Truer words have never been spoken.

:but if you want to do stuff like get a job:
Net job increases under Bush...Net job decreases under Clinton...

:or not get drafted in another war:
No one was drafted in these two!

or travel outside the country without getting mugged by pissed off frenchies:
You weren't able to do that before Bush was elected...

:I'd go with the democrats. However I have heard from fox news that if elected kerry will eat your babies but i think thats a small price to pay.:
Fox News usually isn't very reliable. He won't eat your babies. He'll just amputate their legs.

I didn't say anything about the validity of the intelligence, now did I?

Ok, people. It is now safe to stop this topic.
We all agree we're against racism. Point noted.
We all agree Pizzawhatever should be banned. He is banned.
Further conversation on this topic would be rather like beating a dead horse. So, unless you actually enjoy beating dead horses, we can safely allow Pizzajerk's moment in the spotlight to creep down into the murky wastepit that is "no new replies since your last visit."

One problem with that, right now, we are the government in Iraq. And we can't just leave ourselves alone, now can we?

At 4/3/04 06:01 PM, RoteStinktier wrote:

At 4/3/04 05:56 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Why do we allow the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence in Iraq's case, but not with Osama?

The weapons of mass destruction don't issue videos or sound bites of themselves calling for the destruction of the infidels..

Yes, we have evidence of Osama bin Laden being alive. We also had evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq.

As for both though, we have yet to find them. We do not know the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden at this time. He may not be alive at this time. We do not know the whereabouts of WMD's. They may not be present at this time.

However, people are saying that there were no WMD's just because we can't find any. But the absence of evidence so far is not evidence that there are none now, nor is it evidence that there were none when we were planning to enter Iraq. It's like a murder weapon; just because the DA does not have the murder weapon doesn't mean that the defendant didn't do the murder, it's just that they can't say what the defendant did the murder with.

We have evidence that ObL was alive after 9/11. However, we have no evidence to suggest that he is alive now.

Pretending to be a devout christian[proper nouns should be capitalized], or a devout anything [insert comma] for that matter [insert comma] is the biggest case of fraudulent preeching [misspelled, should be "preaching"] i ["i" should be capitalized] have ever heard. The only thing he is devoted to is capitalism, and once in a while he will throw in a religious refference[misspelled, should be "reference"] for good measure, since christianity [proper nouns should be capitalized] is the most populous [poor usage; should be "common" or synonym thereof, not a word related to the number of people living in an area] religion in America, and in the world [insert comma] but thats [requires apostrophe between the "t" and "s"] because of americas [capitalize proper nouns; add an apostrophe between "a" and "s"] overwhelming per portion[the word is proportion, not "per portion"; America comprises approx. 4.5% of the world's population, not an "overwhelming" proprtion] .

How dare you consider yourself to be an authority on what a person's innermost beliefs are. You don't even know the person, you've never met him, but you think you're possibly gifted enough to determine one's religious relationships with their God using only what other people have said and what you seen on TV.

Its [contraction, needs an apostrophe between "t" and "s"]really easy to kill innocents over seas["overseas" is one word] when when [delete double word] you cant [contraction, insert apostrophe between "n" and "t"]put a face to them, but one day his negligent war mongering will come back and bite him in the ass. How ignorant of you to support such a crook, your[incorrect; should be "you're", the contraction of "you are", rather than the possessive form of the word "you"] the same type of delusional conservative that says Michael Moore spliced sound bites of bush[proper nouns are capitalized; should be in the possessive form] speeches to make him look bad, well he didnt[insert apostrophe between "n" and "t"] have to and thats [insert apostrophe between "t" and "s"]simply not true, he makes himself look bad quite fine all on his own[run-on sentence].

Oh, Bush is stupid because he uses poor grammar and pronunciation in his speeches, eh? You definitely have the high ground on the matter of grammar, huh?
Oh, how dare we support anyone with facts when we can just take what Michael Moore says as the all mighty truth with out any fact checking?

A vote for bush [proper nouns are capitalized]is a vote for murder. fucker[sentence fragment]

Oh, but it's okay to be associated with a murderer whothe North Vietnamese general in the Vietnam War has credited the U.S. loss in that war?
Oh, it's okay to be associated with someone in cahoots with Jane Fonda, who produced propaganda for the North Vietnamese, and allowed AMERICAN soldiers to be killed when they wouldn't appear in that propaganda???

If that's the case, I'd rather vote for someone who murders other murderers rather than AMERICANS.

Oh, I forgot </sarcasm>.

I know there's no oil in Afghanistan. I was just using hyperbole to dress up my main sarcasm and point. People have no problem with saying that we haven't captured bin Laden yet in Afghanistan, even though we have no visual confirmations that he's there. Yet, with Iraq's WMD's, they'll say nothing but "Bush lied. There weren't any WMD's, if there were, why haven't we found them yet?"
Why do we allow the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence in Iraq's case, but not with Osama?

And before I'm derided for throwing this topic off course, how do we know Osama's even alive??

Hmm...we can't find bin Laden. That's probably because he did not exist...this whole war in Afghanistan is just for oil... Bush lied...Bush picked and chose his intelligence to support the war, there were people all along saying bin Laden didn't do it, bin Laden was not in Afghanistan. It's just a scheme to get Halliburton rich...we acted unilaterally...etc., etc.

I heard about this. I was shocked and upset at first. Now I've seen the video. Now I'm disgusted and furious.

I don't care why the fuck we went into Iraq. I don't care if it was for WMD, to oust Saddam, free Iraqis, for oil, whatever I don't care. But the fact is, a majority of Iraqis think that their lives are better and will be better, and that's the important thing, because in the long term, they will have to live with the results of this war.

But for that 17% of those people in Iraq that support these attacks on American troops and civilians, they can go to hell.

These contractors were delivering food. Nourishment. Food to Iraqi civilians, which is a whole lot more than that shithead Saddam did for them, which is a whole lot more than those shitheads at the UN did for them with that phony oil for food sanction. These contractors were not fighting against any Iraqis, they were helping them. I don't care if they were Americans. These contractors didn't shoot anybody. They didn't kill anybody. We don't even know if they were even for the war. But they try to help someone, but they are massacred and their corpses tormented.

The people that did this are evil, and do not deserve to live. No amount of torture, no way of death can ever avenge what these sons of bitches did. Clearly, if they had the chance to do so, you know these bastards would do the same damn thing to us. And why anybody sane would be against killing these murderers you could rationally persuade someone irrational enough to do a heinous act like this that they shouldn't terrorise people.

There are people like this that want to kill Americans. We should kill them. We might be wrong, they might be wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. But it will certainly keep our asses from being killed.

At 4/1/04 10:15 PM, RoteStinktier wrote: It's political radio. It's not exactly suppose to have explosions or flashing lights.

No, but it would be really, really cool if it did.

"Average" Americans don't often listen to political radio commentary, do they?

I'm not so sure about that. I've heard average, even below average, Americans sometimes comment on the Rush Limbaugh show et. al.

I listen to a pretty good bit of talk radio, Neal Boortz, Rush Limbaugh etc. Not so much because I agree with their views (Boortz, maybe 55-60% of the time, Rush maybe 30-35% percent of the time, and so far, maybe 25-30% of the time with this, but it's kinda early to really tell), but because it is much more stimulating than listen to the banter that music radio has become. And there's just this certain something about Air America that makes it less entertaining than my other fare. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.

I've had a chance to listen to it and I've two observations:

1. It's not as liberal as I thought it would be.
My first impression of it would be "Bush lied. Bush lied. The War on Iraq failed. Bush lied. Kerry rocks! Vote Kerry! Vote Kerry!"
It's actually less liberal than I expected.

2. It's boring. And it's not the ideology. It's just not very entertaining in my opinion. It's almost like some sort of round table college politics discussion or something. I don't have a short attention span, but I kept fighting the urge to hit stop and just listen to music instead. And if I feel that way, I can only imagine how the average American, with attention span of approx. .02 seconds, will switch the channel.

In order for something to be obsolete, it either has to be replaced by something else or fail to serve any purpose. Obviously, unless something catastrophic happens, like an economic collapse or something, at least one form of currency will have a purpose. And it can't be replaced by something else, you can't make something obsolete by replacing it with nothing?

So y'all have pretty much have it backwards. An ecomonomic armageddon would cause obsolete currency, never the other wa around.

At 4/1/04 06:58 PM, second_sun wrote: i have two religious questions that can stump any christian fanatic.

1) if god really has a plan, which is what you people say when someone gets murdered, how does he justify sending that person who commited the murder to hell, if he was just a pawn in god's sick little plan?

First, at least in the Baptist demonational viewpoint, to which I subscribe, man doesn't go to hell just because he has sinned, but because he has not been forgiven for that sin, by accepting salvation in the form of Jesus Christ as Savior. Upon accepting salvation, anyone who has done anything can go into heaven. Anyone who hasn't accepted salvation is condemned to hell, regardless of how righteous they've lived their lives. "Though all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," salvation cleanses the sin and allows an individual to enter heaven.

2) if god really hates incest, then what did adam and eve's children do? weren't they both guys? what about after noah's ark? are all humans and animals the retarded product of incest?

I can't cite any scripture showing where God "hates" incest. I can only find "Be fruitful and multiply". It doesn't say how. But just because God might not hate it doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and procreate with my hideous relatives.
Alabamians seem to have no problems, though.

At 4/1/04 05:47 PM, PlugDude wrote:

but to work as one we need to educate people about these small or big important matters, and one way to educate like this is through example.

Again, it is impossible to for all the peoples of the world to work as one; it won't happen; it can't happen.

And indeed, peedee, surely you wouldn't argue with my proposition that the world would be better off if more people could take things a little less seriously--sniff the roses, be kind to your neighbors, etc. Studies have shown that an easy-come easy-go attitude prolongs your life; stress kills. You can stop a war by protesting, but you'll never stop all wars. So stop stressing over things you can't change. Protest the war in Iraq if you like--you might end it. But no amount of protesting you, or anyone else, can do will ever bring everlasting peace nor prevent the end of mankind.

There's a corner in Winslow, AZ waiting for you.

At 4/1/04 02:52 PM, peedee wrote: once again, you say there is no hope. a goal is unatainable. bullshit. anything can be done. if everyone helped, it would happen, wheatehr you think so or not. and tyo say doing the good things is pointless, well thast just foolish.

That's the fallacy of your argument. "If everybody..."

The problem is, everybody won't. Regardless of the issue, it is impossible for everyone to agree on it.
You could say that killing babies by throwing them in lava pits should be illegal. Somewhere, someone will disagree.

You could say that we will die of a nuclear holocaust if war does not stop. But somewhere, some people will continue to fight.

Again, you can do good things. You can make your life better! You can make your children's life better! Again, you can do all sorts of great things in the short term! But utopia and global peace and global equality can never occur. Say there are two sides to each issue, getting all 6 billion plus people to agree is like flipping a quarter 6 billion times and getting 6 billion tails. And that's just one issue! Divide 1/6,000,000,000 by the number of issues! It's impossible.

If you can possibly think that humankind will survive forever, you're naive.

At 4/1/04 01:51 AM, RoteStinktier wrote:

Should the U.S. actively fund and train the Columbia military to combat illegal drug trafficking? To combat leftist guerrillas? Should the U.S. demand the dismantling of right-wing paramilitary groups? Should the U.S. demand the Columbian government to look in to and to end human rights abuses at the hands of the military, as well as the gov't sanctioned paramilitary units?

No. Solve, or at the least, illeviate the drug problem by legalizing drugs. Obviously, there wouldn't be much of a demand for trafficked drugs if they can be grown in stores here.

Second Question: No, there are reasons the UN exists, and one of them is to stop and/or investigate human rights abuses.
The US really has no business in the affair, as there is no imminent threat to the US.

See the War on Terror--success or failure topic. I've posted the results of a BBC poll there. The people pictured above are not in the majority.

War on Al-Qaida: A+

The terrorists have said it themselves!! The swift action taken by Bush et. al. in Afghanistan prevented another 9/11 like attack on the Library Tower in L.A. and the Sears Tower in Chicago!!

" But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American reaction to the September 11 attacks.
"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the run," Mohammed [Khalid Shaikh, planner of the 9/11 attack] , is quoted as saying.
Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they continued to use Internet chat rooms. "
Click here for the link.
and here...
Google search on the topic...
And to think what would have happened if those opposed to the war in Afganistan had had their way. Two more buildings destroyed, and countless more lives....

The war on Iraq, kinda a different story. There's been some progress made, and most attacks against Americans have been made by outside terrorists and Saddam loyalists, and have started to target more Iraqis than Americans. The attack in Fallujah is an exception. People just bother to see the pictures, and failed to note that Fallujah is a hot spot for Anti-Americanism.
When you look at the poll numbers released by the BBC on the 16th though, they tell a different story. A slight majority do not support coalition forces, but only 17% think that any violence towards them is acceptable, which is much smaller than perceived or is presented. (39% support the coalition.) A majority think their lives are better since the war and a even larger majority think their lives will continue to get better. Whether or not it has made America safer, we'll have to wait and see. It's not just a total anarchist state, and people that kill and and attack Americans are not in the majority. Grade: C.
<See the poll results>

Just a little side note: A lot has been made about how allegedly little progress has been made in Iraq. California is roughly the size of Iraq. We invaded California in 1849, and there's still Anti-Americanism, gun battles, explosions, riots and looting there! :)

Granted, there's nothing wrong with trying to improve your offsping's standing in life. Again, you can make short term progress in the short run. It is possible to stop pollution here or a war there. You can even slow down the descent of the world's decline. However, it is impossible to create a utopia or end war for future generations' sake, and any effort to do so is just destined to fail.

Besides, peedee, who's to say there'll be any future generations to improve life for? Humanity as we know it could be wiped out at any time. Even tomorrow. And the odds increase significantly with time elapsed.

It's neither nihilistic or selfish to live your life to the fullest and make the most out of it rather than sacrifice your time, money, and effort on trying to achieve an unobtainable goal.

If you like to protest wars, stage hunger marches, etc, it's up to you. But you shouldn't let yourself worry trying to bring world peace.

At 3/31/04 02:25 PM, peedee wrote:

At 3/31/04 02:04 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

My picking up litter on the side of the road just cleans up that litter, it doesn't prevent litter from happening.

but people learn from example. people wont litter, or they will pick it up as well.

On the contrary, people will litter more and feel less guilty about it because someone is taking care of it. Besides people only notice the litter, not the absence of any.

My protesting war lets people know people are against it, but it's not going to stop it.

cant really argue, but if enough of the populus protests, eventually it may be heard...:

Undoubtful. Disputes are disputes, and saying "War is not the answer" is not providing any solution to resolving the dispute.

Me giving $5 to feed the poor feeds one child, but it doesn't solve the problems as to why the children are hungry in the protest.

which means you just saved a childs life. if everyone did this, more and more people woukd be saved:

Yes, but it still doesn't solve the underlying problem. Regardless of how many children you save, there will still be more children being born in to hunger.

All you can due is treat the symptoms; the problems with the world are a terminal disease.

thats a harsh view on life...:

Unfortunately, it's true, though.
CATS said it best:
"You are on the way to destruction."
"You have no chance to survive make your time."

The world is gonna go to hell in a handbasket eventually regardless of what you do, so it's best to enjoy yourself while you're around rather than worrying about trying to fix problems no one can fix.

Because protesting, etc. is all a moot effort.

My picking up litter on the side of the road just cleans up that litter, it doesn't prevent litter from happening.

My protesting war lets people know people are against it, but it's not going to stop it.

Me giving $5 to feed the poor feeds one child, but it doesn't solve the problems as to why the children are hungry in the protest.

All you can due is treat the symptoms; the problems with the world are a terminal disease.

Nice movie.

I'm a clothespin Bush supporter.

I have no problem with the deportation of illegals and monitoring of visa applicants' stat. I feel there is a reason tohave suspicion of someone who is here on a student visa yet not attending courses.

But, I am against all of the provisions that that curtail personal liberty in the name of security. E-mail tapping, sneak and peak searches, wherein the government can search, then not inform you of that search until 60 days after, etc. are a travesty to the Constitution.

"Live free or die."
"Give me liberty or give me death."

At 3/31/04 12:49 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The people in a village vote to decide to John Doe.

The people in a village decide to lynch John Doe, I mean. Misedited that sentence.

Addendum: And though no tangible vote may be taken on the lynching, they do vote with their actions.
If someone says, "Let's go lynch John Doe", everyone who supports the proposal votes by going with the instigator and participating in the lynching.