Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

wow I can't believe that's not a joke...I'd check out blackpeopleloveus.com

that site is great

there are not people trained in colleges to be politicians...a politician is just a member of a community who decides they can fairly represent the people (or we hope that's why they run)

all people need to express their needs through the officials they elect, because whatever action the government takes affects them. I think right now, a lot of people aren't voting because they feel like neither democrats nor republicans represent their best interests.

At 4/19/04 08:00 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote: you're forgetting the main issue here. The corruptness of a multiparty system stems from interparty competition. Agendas are denied soley for the purpose of defacing another party, and pressed only to please vocal minorities who take advantage of the fractured power structure.

In a one party system, there is no real power in being corrupt. Decisions are not made soley for public relations, rather, they are made for the purpose they should be made: for the good of the people.

how can you gaurentee the decisions are being made for the good of the people when only one political view is being represented?

At 4/19/04 07:48 PM, snapper0505 wrote: you have to keep in consideration, the only reason the economy stayed up while clinton was pres, was because it was left over from the raegen years.

no....actually one of the reasons gb senior lost the re-election is because the economy began to slump in 1991....

yeah but the white only groups are private orginizations, not government insitutions...sure I can't go to a lot of golf clubs because I'm Jewish, but I respect that as a private group, they can disclude me. I'm not a big fan of golf anyhows...hehe

Have any of you ever even freakin' had a conversation with a black person?
Maybe you'd understand why black people are so angry at the socio-economic condition they face if you SAT DOWN AND LISTENED! My school is very ethnically diverse, and I find it humorous that people that know so little of a situation feel confident when commenting on it.

Feeling scared around black people that they'll jump you? That IS racism.
Go think to yourself....if your ethnic group had 3 times the unemployment rate as others, years less life expectancy, earned less money....I could go on and on. It's time to face the facts. Blacks were enslaved in our this land for hundreds of years. They became free...so let's give them 40 acres and a mule....let's pay them less, let's prohibit them from getting an education....You can't just free people and expect that all of a sudden they'll become docters, lawyers....

Fact is Black people have little power proportionate to their population..Why? Because we refused to let them succeed, and now they're overwhelmed with hundreds of years of oppression. From one poor generation to the next....Is the situation improving? Yes. Should we help? Yes.

At 4/18/04 04:42 AM, FatherVenom wrote: You've got to realize that these societies are very good at holding grudges. This conflict has been going on with varying degrees of intensity since Genesis 16 when Abram, later know as Abraham the father of Issac, had his first born son Ishmael with his wife's servant at his wife's request. Ishmael's children became the Palestinans and so to this day the Israelis, who feel they are the descendants of Issac who inherited the land, and the Palestinians, who feel that the land should have been given to Ishmael, the first born, even though God told Abram to get rid of Ishmael and the servant.

Granted there's more to it than that, but those are the roots.

sorry but I gotta disagree...as a Jew with family in Israel I think you're basing your arguement far too much on religion. The Palestinians had no hatred towards the Jews until the British took their land (Israel), and even after the tension was not as great as it is today. Not until the israeli war of 1967 when Palestine was taken control of by the Israeli's did the real animosity start. This hatred would have existed whether or not the land was taken by Jews. Religion has become another reason to fight, but not the reason why the conflict began. No one likes to be pushed from their homeland...particularly when those same people come 15 years and assume control of the land you were re-located to

BTW Palestine was taken as a buffer zone after Israel was attacked by numerous Arab nations...once in the late 60's and again in the early 70's. Although these wars were started because of the primary religion of the inhabitants in Israel is Judaism, the Palestian-British/Israeli conflict began under different pretensces

ARRRG.....Segregation is forced seperation ok????!!! There is no such thing as seperate but equal! Whoever controlled this seperation of ethnic groups would ultimately punish one group or another! There is NOTHING positive about seperating groups of people! It only serves to alienate and seperate! Splitting people apart for such reasons has NEVER done any good!

I don't really like either of them, but considering my fervent hatred of religious right conservatives I'd have to say bush

you face a lot of jail time for desertion, and those military prisons are scary

if you join the army you put yourself at a certain risk to go to war.....

At 4/18/04 06:20 PM, Jlop985 wrote: A one-party system, like, say, the Soviet Union, or China, or Nazi Germany? One-party states are known to crush dissent, and even in tamer one- party states like Mexico and Japan, the people have less of a say.

Eliminating all parties is one of the first steps a totalitarian government makes....what I'm argueing in this topic for is choice, and our political condition now doesn't suite me!

At 4/19/04 06:22 PM, BWS wrote: I feel that a lot of it is based on intelligence. The division of educated people and non-educated people is very obvious. Now, let me ask this: is it wrong, right, or arbitrary?

arbitrary...of course most people who are alike are naturally going to prefer to be with one another, as long as it's not forced, this topic is moot

At 4/18/04 11:02 AM, JudgeSKVNK wrote:
POINT 3!!!!! This thread is REALLY on a roll tonight, eh? One party system, voting priviledges only for the "educated", and mandatory state funded "education".

It's almost too good!

actually, I don't believe that a one party system would solve our problems, and nor would giving voting rights only to the educated. We already have mandatory state funded educations, but what I want is nationally funded schools...

I think libertarians have far too much faith that people won't abuse their rights. A lot of people are greedy, and have little self control....

You enjoy repeating yourself? It's interesting how our history tells of our forefathers fighting for a say in parliament (and with the amount of people living in the U.S. colonies at the time, wouldn't have meant anything...maybe we would have gotten 1 or 2 representatives)

So perhaps people have forgotten the importance of expressing their ideology through politicians, or maybe they feel politicians no longer adequetly express their views. In any case, I have neither the sagacity or the tenacious nature to question others fickle ways. It is easy to express an opinion, but far more arduous to impress that idea upon someone.

the only solution I know is to attack the root of this problem...the lack of education

At 4/17/04 05:29 PM, EefOofTheBeefBoof wrote: Hey now, I don't mean to get mad about nobody responding to my post, but this is a topic that pertains to everybodies fate, so you should have something to say about it. Big and small things seem to go unnoticed.

you're explanation was convoluded, and far too prolix

I don't view polygamy as evil or anything, but this sure would make the situation all the more confusing

At 4/16/04 10:43 PM, JudgeSKVNK wrote:

Or maybe people would actually research candidates before voting on them, and take initiative on who they elect. After all, how much MORE can voter turnout plummet?

yeah, but it would eliminate a lot of people from running for public office...Bill Clinton couldn't have run without the backing of the democratic party, he needed their support to raise money etc...Bush on the other hand incredibly rich anyways so...

At 4/16/04 07:24 PM, RedSkvnk wrote:

At 4/16/04 06:26 PM, i_want_to_explode wrote: Can they be classed in the "right state of mind" to make the descion? Modern law says no.

Yes. If they can't vote, I don't imagine they should be able to choose to commit suicide.

I'd agree with that

At 4/16/04 08:00 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: No no no. Keep the parties. Make reforms to the system!

The vast majority of every population every where does not care overly about politics. Parties are a good way for poeple to 'roughly guess' at a politican's platform - if a politican is running as a dem, and the voter is a dem, then the politican will probably be adequate enough.

Without parties, voter turnout would plummet, and the entire electoral process would be dominated by the rich and the well-known.

I've spoken to friends many times about that

and bumcheekcity.....From what my brothers told me a lot of the conservatives in the uk also talk about redispersing power and giving it back to the royal family....any truth to this? It's so distant from American politics.

Your Results:
1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info
2. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (91%) Click here for info
3. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (88%) Click here for info
4. Green Party Candidate (85%) Click here for info
5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (85%) Click here for info
6. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (84%) Click here for info
7. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (82%) Click here for info
8. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (81%) Click here for info
9. Socialist Candidate (79%) Click here for info
10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (79%) Click here for info
11. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (69%) Click here for info
12. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (51%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (49%) Click here for info
14. Libertarian Candidate (25%) Click here for info
15. Bush, President George W. - Republican (15%) Click here for info
16. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (15%) Click here for info
17. Constitution Party Candidate

hmmm I was really surprised how much I agree with Clark and Kucinich...the others however, were expected

At 4/16/04 04:54 PM, Jimsween wrote: Oh my god, that is sooo... wow

Has it ever occured to you that countries have thier own problems to care about? Unless somebody gives them something, they have no reason to care either way on the war, they much rather like to focus on things like.... staying alive.

good point....the u.s. has a fairly large army (500,000 with reserves) that's equipped incredibly well

there are so many disputes occurring as we speak, and you probably won't hear about it

I think my social studies that there are 20 or 30 other wars going on as we speak....20-30 mobilizing countries....that's a lot of fighting

why can't members of the royal family

also, how many parties in the uk are considered to have a good deal of power? British people I've spoken to have given me the impression it's more than 2

I took a bioethics class this year and dr kervorkian said that all the people that had cancer that considered euthenasia ultimately decided against it

if someone is terminally ill (not with a mental problem, then it would be improper), and a docter approves them for euthenasia, after which it is taken care of in an authorized medical facility, I think it's fine.

this is someone's choice...they're doing no harm to others
in bioethics it's called non-malificence

hmmmm there aren't 300,000 u.s. soldiers in iraq and not 45,000 uk soldiers there either. Is this for all "coalition forces" or for just Iraq. If the statistics are for soldiers in iraq the info's wrong

At 4/16/04 01:31 AM, Bob_Dylan wrote:

At 4/15/04 08:47 PM, American_Outlaw_Star wrote: .. MODERATE LIBERAL

thats kinda odd that was one of the few peices of legislation i actually agreed with. Its the view of giving the people of the world an opportunity to live anywhere. Oh and on what you said, unemployment eh....kids not getting jobs, well most jobs offered in the US are in the service sector. I doubt to many illegal immigrants will get those, so quit the bitching. Really they arent taking your job, on that note what gives you more freedom to work than they. They can't work on the table as an illegal immigrant because on the table requires paying taxes, and you know what you need to pay taxes, a social security number. I think they should take in way more immigrants to the us. And try to force businesses to pay illegal immigrants and "americans" the same wages. that would be interesting. Anyway, i think both choices suck, but i dont care to much anymore, I might have just resigned to the fact that the US will always be run poorly.

ok I'm pretty liberal but you need to understand a couple things. No socialist reforms can be made with constant population influxes. If you ever want a national health care program, or education system, we can't have to keep spending more and more money on people that have recently arrived! There simply isn't enough money!

Second of all, if you read the New York Times article on the legislation, you'd know that many of the illegal immigrants who sign up to be a citizen must give their adress etc. It's more likely their visa will expire before they can become a citizan, and then they'll be deported. It's tricky shit, and unless the immigrant hispanic population realizes this, a lot of people will be screwed over! There's a large hispanic population in my school, some of which speak little or no english. I'm not saying we need to kick out people who already live here, I just think that if we really want better living conditions, we need to stop so many people from immigrating here!

Take after 9/11 for example. People are actually stupid enough to protest going to war to oust the Taliban and ObL. Well, it wasn't so much that they protested--protests are a necessary check on government. Instead, it is what they said.

"War is not the answer!" Then what is the answer? Until they can provide answers, they need to shut up. What were we supposed to do? Beg Osama pretty please with sugar on top to turn himself in? Send the police after him?

"No blood for oil!" I saw this several times during the War on Terror protests. Last time I checked, Afghanistan was not a major oil refining country, now was it?

there were no protests like that for Afghanistan!!! Blood for oil came about right before we attacked Iraq! Where the hell have you been?????? In New York, the only anti war protests were for Iraq! You're mixing up different issues! My god, read a newspaper!

At 4/16/04 11:49 AM, Izuamoto wrote: there are people who are called "furries" who believe they are animals trapped in human bodies. i knew a kid who went to school in a kangaroo suit and hopped everywhere and insisted he was a kangaroo. i'm not making this up, and he got picked on a lot. why is his problem a joke and an insult to people who have gender identity issues? spanishfli, you condemn people for being intolerant and yet, here you make light of another disorder, so similar in nature (if you don't believe me look it up, this is a real disorder)

Probably because the "furries" stuff is far less common, and goes beyond the idea of even being a human! That's a BIT more radical!

yo we got more than 2 parties its just that the other parties arent as big and as well heard of....like the green party is one i know of

ok....read what I write god damn it! I said 2 parties that mean anything! Only 2 parties in the u.s.a. really have power!

but third party candidates only get a tiny percentage of the vote....the most sucessful third party candidiate in recent history is Ross Perot, who got something like 19%, but didn't win one state. Those votes were taken mostly from republican pary members...Ralph Nader got about 3 or 4% last election, enough to swing the vote, but not a vast amount of Americans. The splits you're talking about really don't exist, and that's the problem....