Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i think it was theshrike that said it best...

marijuania was made by god
beer was made by man

who do u trust???

i have a question...

1) about hydrogen/fusion cars... what happens if u get into an accident???

jimsween... what would u do if u were incharge???

and everyone that has posted or will post will have flaws in their post... is it really worth going through everyones posts and pointing it out???

me... i know exactly how to fix the world for the better...

unfortunately it involves pissing off every other human being on the face of the planet...

damn skippy

At 4/23/03 11:26 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Pat Buchanan or John McCain would've made better Presidents than Bush, but Bush has done an excellent job.

wow... never heard someone say they would like a moderate republican, a conservative republican, and an ultra-conservative republican... although i havent heard of any issues buchanan deals with so that ultra-conservative may be misquided...

At 4/23/03 10:11 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 4/23/03 10:02 PM, karasz wrote:

At 4/23/03 08:31 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

i do enjoy a debate but i also pick my battles... and on an un-winnable battle i wont take it...

you dont get prizes for winning around here, just for fighting for your views.

debating someone that says they hate democrats about democrats is useless and a waste of time... it would turn into nothing but well which one is worse?

the answer: ALL political parties are bad

ok here is the deal... you are elected as top executive of ur country... NOW remember what kind of government you have (no changing the USA into an dictatorship and other stuff like that...)

the legislative branch is split evenly 50-50 lib/conserv

how would you go about running the country... NOW keep in mind that politics is politics so if ur idea is too radical (kiling all muslims, circumventing the constitution entirely, replacing legislature with muppets, ), it will get shot down...

im just curious to see how some people calling for the destruction of welfare will go about doing it...

At 4/23/03 08:31 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: hey look guys! partisan bickering! both of you need to be antipartisan like me, then you can have any opinion you want, and because you will never, ever win, you can always claim you have all the best ideas. Its the best of both worlds!!

HA, im unaffiliated... so take mr. partisan bickering... i was just curious as to why he hates democrats... thats all

like the other guy said they never have good ideas... OK fine that is why he ahtes democrats... i can move on...

i do enjoy a debate but i also pick my battles... and on an un-winnable battle i wont take it...

At 4/23/03 11:29 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: I think within the next 20 years pot will be legal in the US.

not going to happen, as long as conservatives are as strong as they are... (not bad mouthing conservatives but they are more likely to be against marijuania than the hippy libs are... )

The government will then take control of its production and issue licenses, age limits and probably tax it more than tobacco and liquor.

well duh... thats what the govt does, find something tax it spend the money...

At 4/23/03 10:34 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: It is just a new damn law to tap into your life completely if they ever wanted to. We have no control. Shouldn't citizens be able to vote on things like that?

u do... next november vote for people that are against the patriot act...

or bitch and moan as ur govt is watching u through ur smoke detectors... i dont give afuck

At 4/23/03 03:48 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

At 4/23/03 03:20 AM, OSC wrote:
And we wouldn't want it to come down to political opinion on a political board, now do we?

that's not what i mean, some issues can be discussed logically without ultimately boiling down to that. just not something like "why don't you like democrates"

the question why dont u like democrats cant be discussed logically?

i unerstand what u mean though, 1 person says they like killing babies, another person says republicans want to control how we have sex... thus creating a never-ending cycle of stupid-ness

At 4/23/03 03:53 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/22/03 09:39 PM, karasz wrote: everyone thinks its easy to shoot off a nuclear weapon... its not, i think the process takes at least 12 people... for the sheer fact that 1 of those people will think twice before nukes are used...

come on... everything in the US is set up so noone has THAT much power...

A Nuclear Weapon needs to be cleared by two people. Thats it.

care to explain where this came from??? in the US the prez, and one other senior cabinet person has to authorize it... then the military person that carries the 'football' (briefcase that can launch nukes...)around with them they get authorization from a 3rd person not involved in the decision to launch... THEN 2 guys have to turn their keys... then everything has to check out...

so right there is 5 people...

If a Nuclear missile is seen headed towards the UK (for example) though, then Nukes get launched Automatically. A computer will work out from where the Nuke was launched and send Hundreds to the offending city. Its automatic and nobody can stop it once it starts. The only snag is that the whole world ends up bombed.

yeah and since everyone knows this, odds are leaders are less likely to use nukes... although nobody ever expected these terrorist groups to have them...

At 4/23/03 02:38 AM, fourdaddy wrote: being 'mentally ill' should not disqualify you from receiving a death sentence.

damn right it shouldnt... if ur smart enough to kill someone ur smart enough to get gassed/lethally injected/ whatever the fuck they do to kill people...

At 4/23/03 02:32 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote:

At 4/23/03 02:10 AM, karasz wrote: 2nd amendment= shoot people that wanna kick ur ass for talking shit...

The 2nd amendment was put into place so that we would have a militia (defined as: "the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service"), capable of defending ourselves in times of need. It focuses more on maintaining a "well regulated" militia for war times than for every slack-jawed country bumpkin to hang a pair of antlers over their fireplace. I guess your comment could still be vaild if you say it as the right to protect your nation from external and internal forces that threaten your home.

first it was just a joke... second i do hold the 2nd amendment to mean that the populous stays armed SO as to deter the govt from turning the US into a dictatorship... granted its probably not going to happen, but im not going to risk it...

At 4/23/03 02:32 AM, fourdaddy wrote:

At 4/23/03 02:13 AM, karasz wrote:

why do you need to be mad at someone? if you can see that it was necessary, then you have no need to be mad

no real reason... just like blaming people for the worlds problems...

At 4/23/03 12:39 AM, karasz wrote: no... u answered the question about kennedy...

care to answer y u hate democrats?

never mind i figured it out...

it would be no different if gore was prez, all the libs would be saying 'well if bush had won, he'd be crying underneath the desk at the oval office crying for his daddy...'

after a day thinking about it...

At 4/21/03 04:55 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 4/21/03 04:06 PM, karasz wrote: if the US is entitled to Iraqi oil after the war... THAT MEANS THE WAR WAS FOR OIL...

By your logic, an american solider taking a watch off a dead iraqi soldier would make it "A WAR FOR TIME PIECES."

first off touche... best fucking reply to 'the war is for oil' accusation ever... kudos

But I'll ignore that little inconsistency for now, and just say: when have I ever said oil was not a justified reason for war?

yeah, i did a quick search and found nothing... so shut up...

damn good reply though...

At 4/23/03 01:46 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I think the average anarchist sees that the current governmental systems are too complex for the average person to understand, and therfore craves a simpler system where understanding the world is a simple as understand the average human being.

so anarchists are about the dumbening down of politics?

A successful anarchy depends on a strong cultural heritage, and a general agreement to common values universally.

yeah that has a chance to ever happen

However, the common anarchist also realizes that these values ARE IN FACT LAWS.

anarchists using laws... im pretty sure they would be libertarians... seriously check out their platform, they all about the govt not doing much more than defending the borders...

therefore the use of these values in government is semiredundant. this means that governments are only the second line of defense against injustice, the first being morals.

well if we start living in a 'morals-rule' world, im killing a lot of people...

True anarchists are generally strongly moral people, although those morals might not be the same morals non anarchists would agree to.

morals is where the things get tricky...

the need for government arises when cultures of different morals merge and collide.

welcome to america

When these basic cultural morals are brought into question, chaos ensues. there fore the average anarchist only wants more freedom from complex and redundant laws, and not a pure anarchy.

oh... so basically this whole post thingy im doing is pointless and just a waste of time in hopes that i get tired and go to sleep... well thanks alot FUNKbrs...

At 4/23/03 02:04 AM, fourdaddy wrote:

At 4/23/03 01:58 AM, karasz wrote: and i still blame oppenheimer and einstein for developing the a-bomb... bastards

the bomb saved lives too. if it werent for the extreme power of it, japan would not have caved, and there would have been a ground assault. japanese people are so rooted in the quest for honor that every last one of them would have fought to the death to keep out the americans (it is actually documented that they were ordered to do so). they all would have died anyway, and there would have been american lives lost too.

i am well aware of all of this...

the manhattan project? totally necessary

i know it was necessary... but since THEY built it... who am i suppose to be mad at??? truman for using it, them for building it, hitler for thinking about having one, stalin for wanting one, OR japan for not rolling over and dieing like they shouldve...

also there is the idea that the russians would have come and helped the US invade japan... which wouldve meant a split japan... and the US didnt want that, hence the usage of the bomb...

At 4/23/03 01:59 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: you have to admit, it really kicks ass to live in a country where you can talk all the shit you want, and if anyone tries to kick your ass for it, you can shoot them.

sadly kids that is exactly Y the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did...

1st amendment= talk shit
2nd amendment= shoot people that wanna kick ur ass for talking shit...

... 'the land of the free... and the home of the brave'

At 4/23/03 01:51 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 4/22/03 09:39 PM, karasz wrote: ok but when has nukes ever been used???

hiroshima and nagasaki. may God forgive us .

yeah but i answered the question in my post, right after the question marks...

and i still blame oppenheimer and einstein for developing the a-bomb... bastards

At 4/23/03 01:48 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 4/22/03 04:28 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

Death is the most extreme penalty anyone can face,

I don't think that's true for everyone. I'd much rather be killed than many other things. To be honest, when I hear about murder cases, I always like to hear the person convicted get life in prison, instead of the death penalty. Why? Because death is a release, while life in prison is years and years of solitude, sitting in a cell, staring at a wall, left with nothing but your thoughts, and a room full of inmates who haven't seen the stars in years. THAT, my friend, is a punishment worse than death's release.

did anyone ever read that short story about a millionaire that bets like a million bucks to someone to stay locked up in solitary confinement for a year and the 'prisoner' is given great food, any book to read BUT is not allowed any human contact at all... and then after the time is almost up the 'prisoner' writes a note saying he's going to escape from the prison the day before the time is up because he realized how useless money is????

At 4/23/03 01:40 AM, KWAS71KCK wrote: good greif, most of you are a bunch of whiners. if only REAL people ran the world and not a whole bunch of greedy assclowns who THINK they know what the world should be run like

wait a minute... ur calling us whiners, then whining about the way the world is...

makes sense to me

At 4/23/03 01:30 AM, ichbincow wrote: did you even vote KARAZ?....bottom line is if your not registered to vote and you have not voted---STFU..your chance for your opinion is to vote.

well sorry im not registered... and even if i was registered i wouldnt vote cuz im at school in RI and i live in PA... why make uninformed votes? thats the reason we have the not best person for the job as presidents... (well since 1972 anyway thats when the presidential nominations were re-vamped... )

AND i think voting doesnt matter... lets not forget i ahve the freedom to NOT vote and complain... u may not like it but i dont care...

no... u answered the question about kennedy...

care to answer y u hate democrats?

FLY GUYS all the way...

although part of me wants to see tampa bay, minnesota OR anaheim win it all

BUT PHILLY WILL WIN

At 4/22/03 08:39 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: It's obvious you've never had to deal with women.

hysterical....

dna should count in court... it frees the innocent and makes the guilty rot

to answer the original question... NO

the US is a world power and will continue to flaunt all of its power everywhere until that changes...

so america will go too far when it begins its downfall... whenever that may be

wow the son of a president that lost cuz the economy sucked is going to keep an economist considered a big reason to why the economy was riding high a couple years ago...

amazing...

did anyone actually doubt bush would pass on greenspan for fed chairman?

cuz im sure if bush said 'im going to appoint someone else' the markets wouldve fell...

really no surprise at all

At 4/23/03 12:02 AM, alejandro1 wrote: how do you think Jessie Ventura got in office?

one drunks joke turned governor of a state...