Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/19/03 01:10 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: nah, I pretty much hate all yallz pompous asses. I try to bring the unabashed evil side of things to the fore, and that requires the stanislovsky method.

well whenever u wanna bring somethin, step up to the big boy table...

big boy table? probably shouldve been adult table...

At 4/19/03 01:03 AM, Shogunner696965 wrote: After long years of rules and "hold it in"'s,Civilians finally get to do what they want, like rob, kill, and some other crazy crap.

just because they are free doesnt mean they live in anarchy...

democracy means freedom through laws... which is kinda odd

At 4/18/03 11:44 PM, implodinggoat wrote: There never will be a communist nation either because true communism is a fool's dream. The closest you will ever get on a wide scale is the USSR and as I have said on many occasions the results of that experiment are quite obvious. If people want to voluntarily join a communist commune then that's fine but forcing the citizens of a nation into a system that so maliscously limits a person's mobility and freedom over thei own life is little better than fascism.

but a fascist govt isnt a communist govt... and just remember there has never been a MARXIST communist nation... only Leninist/Stalinist communist nations... remember that always...

Yeah there are a lot of religous types in congress. Its not like the law is ever enforced anyway so I don't see how it matters. Comparing that to fascism is mindless hyperbole. You feel oppressed because you don't know what true opression is.

fascism is the govt telling u what u can and cannot do... having a law that says u cant have sex this way only that way isnt that oppressive?

if its not enforced then Y have the law?

im a straight white guy in the 18-49 year old range... i never will know what oppression is...

If the electoral college was put in place to assure that the people didn't have total say over who was president then explain to me the motive of this?

One would imagine that having an electoral college would limit the influence of major population centers like NYC to a degree thus making it harder for the supposedly corrupt framers of the constitution to control the election process.

exactly... shouldnt every 1 vote in NYC count as the same as those in Miami, or Dallas? i dont have the actual numbers but u get my point right?

And as for the point about the senators being elected by the state legislature one should remember that the congress was elected by the populous.

how can it be a representative congress if only 1 is directly elected by the people?

In addition the state legislature that elected these senators was like wise elected by the populous.

do we want a govt that is indirectly elected by the people...

not that it really matters since the constitution changed this... ill look for something else wrong with the constitution that is more relevant...

If you really wanted to make a point about how supposedly unjust america was then you should point out the fact that only white male land owners could vote in the early days of the country. However if you do so you should also remember that at the time we were the only democratic nation on Earth so I guess that sort of sucks the punch out of any statement you could make about how unjust you feel America was in it's early days.

well thats exactly y i didnt make the point...

The brilliance of the constitution is that it can be ammended to change with the times. A creation as signifigant and glorius as democracy is bound to need a little fine tuning.

but the constitution makes the persons vote in NYC mean less than that of Boston

At 4/18/03 11:06 PM, MadMax501 wrote: I just want to say that anything I say where it seems like I'm "mad" or angry in politics is my way of debating. I see a lot of fierce discussions, because in truth, politics can cause a lot of strong emotion. I hope most of you feel the same way I do, as politics is not something that should make us newgrounders look hatefully upon one another.

im pretty sure everyone has the same view that u do, the only time any of us gets angry is when people use irrational facts, make up stuff, or are just jackasses like the guy posting then typing SPAM in the post...

At 4/18/03 08:18 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

-ronald reagan (iran-contra, aids epidemic)

how was aids reagans fault?

his idleness while it was becoming an epidemic didnt help...

granted it wouldnt have stopped it, but would have given the medical community at least 6 years of development...

At 4/18/03 10:55 PM, MadMax501 wrote: The Chinese government would never attack us. Our buisness relations with them are incredibly important for thier economy.

i never said attack... but a new super power= a new threat... and they are in the waiting area for that title...

In Korea, we were fighting them, now they're our trade partners.

we cut off trade with NORTH korea in jun 2001, and now they are bitching and moaning... and they still have a nuke aimed at seattle...

although u say nothing about al qaeda and anti-american sentiment

At 4/18/03 08:59 PM, implodinggoat wrote: Communists are mindless fools who care nothing for freedom and are perfectly willing to let the government rule their lives.

also there has never been a truly communist nation... the soviet union/north korea are dictatorial communist nations, china is a strange mixture of dictatorial govt with a set free market economy, very strange combo to say the least...

also the FASCISTS the same people that are telling others what they can and cannot do in bed? ie people in 13 states saying sodomy is illegal...

Some of them may be nice people, but as far as politics go they are idiots for not realizing the corruption inherent in the system.

there is corruption inherent in every system...

the US electoral college is set solely to make sure the people dont have total say in who is the president... also when the constitution was written the senators were elected by the state legislature... very democratic isnt it

would this kid have been better off never living through this or being aborted?

'we are driving the infidel american army back from baghdad' <explosion><people rioting after becoming free>

- AL QAEDA and other terrorist groups (im well aware that this says countries BUT no COUNTRY hit up the towers)

- North Korea- they still got a nuke or 2 aimed at us, and although i think its still just for attention, saying bye bye to seattle is a bit too much to risk... LA i can do without though

- China- 1 billion people, huge army, once the new leader is ready to develop the countries outside interest... WHOA nelly, welcome ladies and gentleman to Cold War 2...

- worldwide anti-american sentiment- more anti-americans the worse the world gets for america...

At 4/18/03 09:22 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: thanks for reading my other post, but lets remember the un stopped the first bush from catching sadam, and we all know where that led (I hope thats a good enough example)

ACTUALLY the UN resolution that the first coalition used against Saddam was only to rid Kuwait of the Iraqi army... had Bush gone in any farther he would have been in violation of the UN... ya know... the same reason we went into Iraq this time for, violating the UN...

does anyone else's brain HURT while trying to figure this out?

At 4/18/03 05:24 PM, Disposable_Chameleon wrote: Isn't it kind of ironic that these protesters clog the streets and public areas prevent possible fire, or medical services form working effeciently?

true... but i dont get the link from emergency personnell being effecient to this...

They're letting thier ideals get in the way of the fact that Iraqi people are dying right now.

anyway... nobody said keep saddam... except for a couple morons... BUT the vast majority of protestors didnt... just like the vast majority of pro-war people arent redneck wife beaters...

At 4/18/03 05:57 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: 4. Oh hell, I'll go ahead and throw Clinton in. His domestic policy admittedly wasn't TOO bad (though a Republican congress helped keep him in line there),

regardless of the congress the prez sets the debate on the hill...

but I can't say much about a guy who only fought terrorism whenever it would help distract from his personal scandals, and even then he put in minimal effort (one or two cruise missiles, and then go home).

ok, got a question for both u and NemesisZ... its 1998 and Clinton says the guy responsible for the Kenya/Tanzania (pretty sure that was where the second one was) embassy bombings were caused by this Osama bin Laden guy... Do you support the Democrat gunning for war against a guy the vast majority DOESNT know about?

cuz honestly no president is going to start a war for no reason before 9-11... without that, the US would not be in Iraq, and wouldnt be yellin bout syria...

At 4/18/03 03:49 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: How about we list the worst Presidents now?

In no order:

Clinton
Carter
Fillmore
LBJ
Truman

care to explain why they were the worst prez???

my list
-james buchanan (did nothing at all)
-andrew johnson (made prez weak until TR took over)
-ulysses s grant (spent more time drinking whiskey and smoking cigars)
-herbert hoover (prez when depression came and didnt do much to help)
-jfk (too many fucking nukes)
-lbj (great society bad idea, vietnam bad idea)
-gerald ford (pardoned nixon)
-ronald reagan (iran-contra, aids epidemic)
-clinton (pardoned everyone, and the lieing under oath thing)
-W bush (economy still sucks, i dislike the amount of war, regardless of it being good for the people there or not...)

At 4/18/03 02:17 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 4/18/03 02:01 AM, karasz wrote: woah... nobody on this forum has expressed the god's honest truth bout the first amendment being a 2 way street more than me...

Not complaining about you, just protestors. How did anyone flame you?

sorry sometimes i get this thing stuck in my head where the world revolves around me and i take things said as they are about me...

At 4/18/03 02:23 PM, FlattusMaximus wrote: Hippie pascifists are idiots.
The only reason most of them do it is to be "cool".
When politics fail, The ONLY way to sort things out is war. I can't see why some people fail to see that.

because it leaves the question of WHO says when politics fails???

At 4/18/03 12:19 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: personally, I think that while the US is in charge of installing a new government now, it will become too much of a hassle because of anti-american sentiment.

but if the idea works then the anti-american sentiment wont have a leg to stand on since we turned a vicious totalatarian govt into a prospering democracy... OR it will fail and turn IRAQ into IRAQ under Saddam 2...

If were smart, we would turn Iraq over to a muslim country, and claim we are not capable of installing a government in a culture we do not understand. This way we can look generous and respectful without getting assloads of our soldiers killed.

and give up their vote in OPEC??? yeah right, the govt set up will be in control for quite some time...

of course we would have to give up the oil interests, but supposedly thats not why we were there anyway.

of course not, we were to do uh... oh yeah get them into OPEC so the iraqi people can live in happiness like the people in saudi arabia

At 4/18/03 01:41 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: A war against Syria will destroy the UN. I look forward to it.

if the UN collapses the US will lose influence...

think about all the aid the US gives to countries, that wouldnt be allowed anymore cuz the bills would have to pass congress to give them the money... THEN of course the people would find out that all this money is being spent on other countries and the opponents of the guys in charge would say 'we should use this money to fix the US' thus causing the US to become less influential... THEN the anti-US sentiment really takes effect...

besides the US would never allow the UN to be destroyed... the prez cant go against teh UN all the time... eventually the american people will dislike the wars being fought and say something about it... like around when the prez challenger says the war is taking money away from medicare and social security... and all the old people say well fuck that... GIMME MY CHECK...

Well then the question comes what about the palestinians?

At 4/17/03 09:11 PM, mr_trivia wrote: I'm not sure if the Iraqi people would know how to run a democracy.

well it depends on who u listen to in the political thought process of the world... and based on what do u not think the iraqi people are ready for democracy?

All Muslim nations have been dictatorships

Turkey, its a democracy, that kills Kurds, but a democracy none the less...

and Muslim is an Arabic word meaning "One who submits".

im pretty sure that it means 'submit to Allah' cuz that is there god...

If you were told to run a representative government after generations of being told to submit to a dictator, wouldn't you have trouble adjusting?

no, as long as the constitution provides them with the ability to speak freely and protest which is funny cuz some sunni muslims protested the I[raqi] N[ational] C[ongress] ya know the group of guys that have been living in the US and Europe and never has been voted on by the people to represent the Iraqi people... i love democracy

i love this world...

At 4/18/03 12:53 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: His foreign policy with china and the USSR paved the way for the end of the cold war. That cancels out all of his scandals.

regardless he will always be known as the watergate guy...

At 4/18/03 02:55 AM, Wolverine090 wrote: Michael Moore is a comunist bastard that needs to go back to russia or hell or whatever shit hole he came out of!!!!!

how come oh wise and powerful Oz?

At 4/18/03 02:47 AM, Curtisman5000 wrote: i'm hungry god DAMNIT!!!!

im all for people posting at the politics forum and stuff... but FUCKING be relevant...

At 4/18/03 02:45 AM, Curtisman5000 wrote: im a citizen and

also a moron

At 4/18/03 01:56 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: 11/11 Doesn't matter though because there are plenty of people that get here ilegally with extended visas

or marry a citizen...

also the real test is written so im sure its a lot harder than that quiz...

At 11/12/02 11:32 PM, ThyWatcher wrote: Ok, Kev_Dawg, yeah, you're right, about Nostradamus, he was a genious, and almost everything of his has or is coming true... Saddam probably isn't the third.. it's probably the people who follow in his footsteps.

actually only like 1/3 tops of his predictions have come true... and most of them have to do with the end times...

Oh, and for whoever said whatever about not attacking Saudi Arabia or whatever cuz of it's oil... we do have alaska you know... Japan could just buy from Saudi and we use our own if we went to war, not a problem...

alaska doesnt have enough oil to sustain the US for long, the estimates are either 6 months OR 25 years... and there is only 1 way to find out

anyway, back to the reason I'm typing this, If Armeggedon doesn't come in this generation (with Bush being pres) then it will probably come with mine (highschoolers of today being the president) because in American Government we have a game we play called Politico, there are the three branches of the gov, and you are the gov for 12 weeks. There are two classes playing right now, over 50% of my class wants to attack the other class because they heard a rumor that said, "The other class will attack" which is what the other class wishes to do, YET, the other class has half the money of my class, and without money you can't buy ships and missiles. So if we bought one ship, we wouldn't even have enough money for a nuke, which is practically what is needed to win a war in politico... therefore, my class is probably going to dwindle their money, attacking a class for no reason what-so-ever. We'll all end up using our money, and it'll show how unexperienced in any negotiations/political speakings are.

well you guys are a bunch of high schoolers... give them a break i mean hell, they are stupid, and just searching for the easy way out that way they dont have to think... also how many of them want to be in politics? and the inexperience will subside with experience later in life... OR we will just have to take care of them before they become a problem

My class even admitted to hating homosexual MEN because they kiss in public, while homoesexual WOMEN are exempt because they are girls... the girls of my class, included the women in the hate though. If you can seriously hate a group of people because you need someone to take the place of blacks (just using blacks as an example, I mean no disrespect), then that's pretty sad... I mean... to seriously try and strip a homosexual of their rights simply because they don't like the same people you do...

well this depends on the type of school, where it is and such... those things all matter into how the kids think...

To put it short: My class is trigger-happy and unintelligent in any politico matter.

yeah pretty much... but they are just highschoolers... remember that

Now, my class is just 30 people of the world... but still, if 30 preps think alike... and most preps do, then think of how the rest of the world of my age is thinking right now. If they become the government, we're all doomed. My suggestion, move to Australia, no wars there, least, not yet. (if you don't know what a prep is, it's a person who is in a clique of friends and plays sports like football and basketball, a jock).

they are just preps, in high school... and dont have to deal with the way politics work... yet... just wait til CHASE the vote kicks off, then WHOA man, 18-25 yr olds voting... itll be a grand ole time...

At 4/16/03 12:33 PM, Morextremist wrote: I bet Nostradamus didn't predict this

'and the drunken dope shall flee'
'running away to save his innoncence'
'but alas he is in trouble'
'for bubba will have his way'

century 9 quantraint 13

thats just a joke by the way... dont need another innernet hoax out there

At 4/18/03 01:52 AM, NJDeadzone wrote: i knew this website was evil...because Bin Laden is reading this post right now while playing UN Weapons Inspector.

what in the hell are u talking about?

At 4/18/03 01:47 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: We're not arguing that they don't have a right to protest, we're arguing the issue that they're protesting. The First Amendment goes both ways, not just for the peace protestors. They've got a right to protest and I've got a right to express my disagreement with them. These peace people love to talk about their first amendment rights, but when someone reminds them that it's a two-way street, they get all defensive. When they disagree, it's free speech. When others disagree with them, it's oppression and persecution.

woah... nobody on this forum has expressed the god's honest truth bout the first amendment being a 2 way street more than me...

personally i dont see the point to protesting, other than wasting time and making everyone look like a moron...

and just remember both sides are complaining bout the other side protesting...

(this is just a generalization)

anti-war says: unjust war, war for oil, fighting an illegitimate govt with an illegitimate govt

pro-war says: by protesting the war you dont support the troops, you support saddam and not the US, if u dont like what we are doing LEAVE

so in conclusion both sides are stupid for complaining, and despite both sides having good arguements they are flawed since the vast majority on both sides dont know what the fuck is going on in the world...

also i dont feel like dealing with anyone trying to flame me by calling their view stupid, so im not responding to flame posts... unless its just really fucking stupid, then as an intelligent human being i must respond and disprove anything said...

At 4/17/03 11:42 PM, kittie_cross wrote: Quick question concerning the sexist views of our society: Why is that when a guy talks and brags about sex and shagging as many women as possible, he is congraduated and praised by his peers. BUT when a gal talks about having sex (even if it's only with one person, as opposed to multiple), she is looked down upon and called a whore/slut/call girl??

no way to actually know...

and really dont care... odds are its not going to change...