Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/apr/9/soy_research_update.htm

Apparently, soy, which PETA, (I hear the Vegetarian Libertation Group is planning on attacking their base) promotes heavily, is actually UNHEALTHY. Read it and weep, you dirty vegans, you.

At 5/19/01 10:04 PM, Crystal_Chrome wrote: I am not going to even BEGIN to express what i think of this...but this site can. Its not that I'm lazy, but I believe this site can explain to you this problem. So here it is...

http://www.globalexchange.org/ftaa/topten.html

Most of those listed really haven't been linked to the FTAA. I can say that, since I started posting here, the forum has become 12x more popular. Does that mean that I caused it to become 12x more popular?

The Democrats are trying to delay/ruin the Tax Cut. The cut STILL hasn't been passed, because a grand total of 46 (maybe 47) admendments have been proposed and declined.

Again, and again, and again, they keep proposing more and more admendments, each one going down in flames. This is extremely frustrating. I am sure they have hired many people to sit there and propose amendments.

At 5/18/01 04:47 PM, Slizor wrote: You did not find out that democracy was flawed, you pointed out that it has the ability to suffer abuse, likewise with communism, Do you have any political theory/ideaology that it isn't possible to abuse?

There is no such thing. However, multiple REPRESENTING the people, and who knows what he is doing, is far better than the public ruling themselves.

Anyway, you yourself said that:

People vote.
People stupid.
Therefore, Democracy Stupid.

Or something along the lines of that.

At 5/18/01 04:44 PM, Slizor wrote:

I blame the CPUSA.

yes lets blame a party that aren't in power or are near power

Very well. I blame the Libertarians along with the CPUSA. Oh, might as well go along with the Greens and the Reforms too.

At 5/15/01 12:15 PM, Slizor wrote:

The point was about mob rule, not Communism.

Then why have you posted this on a topic about communism?

Because you said that Communism was more Democratic than Democracy. Than I pointed out that Democracy is flawed. So, by using standard deduction, one finds that Communism is flawed.

At 5/18/01 11:54 AM, Slizor wrote: I was gonna call this post "ineffuctual politics" then I realised it sounded too strange for some people to look at and I wasn't sure about the spelling of ineffuctual.

Anyways In my history lesson today we were looking at the nazi econemy(sp) and we have been studying nazi germany, anyways for all of Hitlers bad points he actually got things done! Nowadays we see very little change in the econemy or in life. I blame the politicians.

I blame the CPUSA.

At 5/14/01 11:29 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote:

The mob will take away rights from the minority.

They hate Communists? Solved! Anyone who supports Communism is shot.

This is under communism idiot

The point was about mob rule, not Communism.

They hate other religions? Solved! Anyone who supports other religions is shot.

They don't have religion under communism idiot

See above.

They hate other races? They hate oral sex? You get the picture. Anything that fits in with the mainstream picture will be made law.

First they need to get it a subject to be voted on

and when they do?

At 5/13/01 01:54 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 5/6/01 09:09 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Despite what communism is portraited(sp??) as, it is actually more democratic than democracy. Democracy is the voice of the people, right? Well in communism people SHOULD be allowed to vote on everyting( The problem is though, that when the USSR was made they were still in the war, then they had to fight the whites and the allies, so they had to have wartime communism but before that could end Stalin took over so we were screwed)

Democracy is flat-out stupid, because the people don't study, know, or give a flying fuck about government. They let the media decide.

Let me take note that the US is not a democracy but a democratic republic. I think it was best at about when Washington left office. He said 1)Not to form parties and 2) Not to mingle in European affairs.

Well, we all know what happened within a year.

Actually, we mingled in European affairs, because it is within our interest that other countries become capitalist and begin trading with us.

:Bugger wrote this for some odd reason:

Mos: Your defintion of mob rule is increadably stupid. The "mob" will not throw away indivual rights because they themselves are indivuals, where as monarchs can grant themselves certain rights a "mob" cannot distance themselves from what they are.

Here comes the clue bus, stopping at 123 BUGGER street!

The mob will take away rights from the minority.

They hate Communists? Solved! Anyone who supports Communism is shot.

They hate other religions? Solved! Anyone who supports other religions is shot.

They hate other races? They hate oral sex? You get the picture. Anything that fits in with the mainstream picture will be made law.

At 5/13/01 01:51 AM, KaneOfNod wrote:

At 5/10/01 09:33 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: From the June 2001 issue of Mademoiselle-

(from page 95)

Charisma (Think Julia Roberts)

Damn word-mingling bitch, she actually used the dictionary to attack the Republican party. Her stupid fans will all become liberal.

The irony is that Democrat is just above "Demon."

At 5/9/01 08:25 AM, Pantomime_Horse wrote:

At 5/9/01 08:15 AM, NOFX wrote:
there are these things called wormholes, which is a tear in time (the fourth dimension) i believe. these take great energy to open up. i think nuclear bombs rip wormholes into the fourth dimension when they explode or something... so energy equal to about that would be needed. of course, this type of energy will be harnessable (new word) in the future i believe, but not yet so it is not possible. anyway, if we can exist in the 5th dimension (which we haven't tried yet), then we could pass through these wormholes (which are rips in time). by ripping time, we can go from one place to another, without any time passing. so we would have to minipulate where these wormholes open on both ends according to where you'd like to go.

i'm kinda shaky on this subject... but i don't think we'd vaporize each other and send the information to be built again. that has the possibilities for great error. and what would rebuilt you? you'd also need all the materials to build people in that machine (because last time a checked, you can't reproduce a human out of plain air), hence inefficient. because in these wormholes, you would never change your body around in any way. you'd just go one place to another.

Wormholes are not to do with teleporting, Wormholes are more or less 2 blackholes that are joined together, they are very unstable, in any case you need a vehicle to travel through those, ie: Starship, a wormhole can't transport you places within the same solar system & also with a wormhole you don't actually know where the other side goes.

Actually, a wormhole is a blackhole and a whitehole joined together. Theoriodically, you fall into the black hole and pop out the white hole. Of course, that would never happen, since whiteholes can not happen in nature.

At 5/8/01 12:17 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: LET THE TOPIC DIE!
lets just all step away from it, then Mos can start another crazy american thread

Go collapse on yourself, Commie.

At 5/9/01 11:31 AM, Typhoon-X wrote: Last night, when I opened up Napster, it offered an upgrade to Version 2.0 beta 10, so i figured they might have cleaned up a few bugs, and downloaded it. WORST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE!!!!

Now, I have recently given up looking for music on Napster, as it is almost impossible to find. But I still like to use the Internal MP3 player and playlist to listen to music. NAPSTER BETA 10, though, does not even allow you to access or listen to ALL copyrighted MP3's on your hard drive!!!! I opened up BEta 10 and had only 60 songs out of 790 in my playlist!!! Plus, in Preferences, it seems as though Napster is going to begin trying to delete MP3's off your hard drive while you are online!!!! This is bullshit!!!

Napster has already basically closed its doors, and beta 10 is merely another way to completely shut out the Napster community!!!! DON'T DOWNLOAD IT!

Fortunately I went on Google and typed in Napster v. 2.0 beta 9.6, and some Spanish site had it for download, so I was able to listen to ALL my MP3's again.

Just thought I'd like to let you guys know.

-TyphoonX

Suckers, I still have beta 5, and have never, ever, upgraded, or even used Napster! (Except when I wanted to get a couple of non-copywrited songs I wanted. Like, "High Hopes." Doris Day foreva)

Need to last a few more weeks so you can see, "Banned in the USA?" Want your rollercoaster life to never end? The answer is easy!

Alex Chiu's immortality rings! YOU CAN LIVE FOREVER!!

For more information, you must go to www.mosowns.cjb.net

Trust me, you will be happy! You will say, "Holy shit, I am INVINCIBLE!"

Just click it. Please. I love you.

At 5/5/01 02:13 AM, shorbe wrote: The stupidity of these surveys never ceases to amaze me. These shows are by their very nature fictional. I don't see that they have any obligation to be accurate about anything. They're just supposed to be funny. If people laugh, that's what they want. They want people to relate in a loose sort of way.

If people want accuracy, they'll watch a documentary or read a book.

That having been said, portraying most minorities as being really successful, etc simply isn't accurate. If people really want accuracy, they'll show that a) most minorities aren't rich, and don't have great jobs, and b) rich, successful whites associate with...wait for it...rich, successful whites.

All this comes back to viewer audience and thus, money. Television programmes make their money from advertising mainly. Who has the most disposable income in America? White people. Middle to upper class, suburban, educated, well employed white people. Therefore, logically, advertising companies are going to pitch to such audiences. To attract such audiences, TV stations have to cater to them. Thus, they'll make shows about, well...middle to upper class, suburban, educated, well employed white people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that.

Of course, there may be a niche audience for minorities, but why would a major network risk losing the bread and butter by showing minorities? That's why perhaps the time is right for a "black" station. How many white people are going to tune into an all black show, or even a show with an even distribution of blacks? None of course. They don't have black friends. All their friends are like the characters on Friends, which is why that show is so popular.

Yet another example of where PC misses the boat entirely.

shorbe

There are a lot of black-only shows, and that always annoys me. It seems like the black-only shows have 100% of the main characters black, while only 1% of the guest characters are white. They AVOID casting white actors/actresses.

At least in shows where the cast is predominantly white, they have plenty of black characters. (The exception of this would have to be the Simpsons, where the entire cast is yellow, rather than black and/or white.)

At 5/6/01 09:09 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Despite what communism is portraited(sp??) as, it is actually more democratic than democracy. Democracy is the voice of the people, right? Well in communism people SHOULD be allowed to vote on everyting

...which leads to mob rule.

The will of the mob can be just as tyranical as the will of a monarch. Both can lead to individual rights being thrown in the trash.

At 5/6/01 04:27 PM, P-Chan wrote:

At 5/6/01 12:41 AM, Mos wrote: The United States was recently voted off of the U.N. Human Rights Commision, which it helped found.

I find it incredibly stupid that they were voted off. Besides the fact that they are better about human rights than most countries (like Iraq), among the countries who replaced the US were:

Sudan
Uganda
Sierra
Leone
Togo

Some who were elected last year:

Syria
Algeria
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam


Maybe it's just me, or doesn't that completely eliminate the point of the stupid thing if everyone on it hits their own citizens with nerve gas anyway?

Uh. Before we start bashing anyone, I think it would be nice to see some explainations as to why they got kicked off.

Anyone? Articles?

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/04/un.us.chinareax/index.html

Oh, and I just found this site. Part of the vast Capitalism Magazine network.

www.unisevil.com

At 5/6/01 05:25 PM, NOFX wrote:

At 5/6/01 05:09 PM, P-Chan wrote: I've heard this from multiple sources... people are using Dyslexia as an explaination for the President's behaviour.

Does anyone else find this to be a rather unusual excuse for the actions of the highest office in the world?

For one thing, dyslexia is something that *I think* is usually first diagnosed in childhood. (Is this whole dyslexia thing for Bush new)? Cuz if it is, that would sound awfully stange.

Also, so what if he is dyslexic? Does that make his actions any better?

I can't see how this would be good for his image either... Rather than just having an "eccentric" speech-inept president, we now have one who has been diagnosed by the medical profession as having a disability.

I don't know the whole background behind this story... so I might be misinterpreting something. If anyone else knows anything about Bush's dyslexia... by all means comment.

dyslexia is disorder for flipping things around right?

well i've never been dyslexic, but as of late (about half a year or so), i've been becoming dyslexic. i've been saying words in reverse order and flipping numbers such as 21 into 12 when i write them. that is dyslexic correct? i kinda developed it, and i stutter in real life when i get excited. i can see where Bush comes from...

bush is our first president with a disorder...

...besides a certain other president, who couldn't walk at all. ($0.50 to anyone who names him)

At 5/1/01 12:40 PM, P-Chan wrote: That's insane. It's way too much benefit too far too few people. And it's not even life threatening surgery either!

This money could have gone to something useful, like the vaccination of 100's of people of something...

How on earth could a bill like this even get proposed?

It was proposed by those scheming Liberals, I tell you!

At 5/5/01 06:14 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: I think the poli. Bbs is crap at the mo(oh yes mo!) but I'll get on with some commie posts soon. U[ the rebellion!

Then I will make this warning:

THE NEXT COMMIE THAT ENTERS THIS BOARD DIES.

The United States was recently voted off of the U.N. Human Rights Commision, which it helped found.

I find it incredibly stupid that they were voted off. Besides the fact that they are better about human rights than most countries (like Iraq), among the countries who replaced the US were:

Sudan
Uganda
Sierra
Leone
Togo

Some who were elected last year:

Syria
Algeria
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Vietnam

Maybe it's just me, or doesn't that completely eliminate the point of the stupid thing if everyone on it hits their own citizens with nerve gas anyway?

At 4/30/01 04:36 PM, Pico wrote: Is it just me or does this new program suck? Its just your average Sit-com topics except it has a few president jokes. Har har.

You completely missed the point. It isn't supposed to be an traditional comedy. It is basically mocking sitcoms, where they laugh at all of the wrong things and put the main character into crazy situations!

At 4/28/01 08:22 AM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: That still isn't socialism

socialism n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry

At 4/27/01 06:33 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: How many of you here worry about money?
How many of you enjoy your job, for your job?
Would any of you here actually like to not have to worry about money and enjoy your job? Would you prefer to work in a small close knit company instead of a massive faceless company?

We could have life without money, then we'd have barter. Of course, there was a reason that was abolished many, many years ago.

At 4/27/01 06:11 PM, Bugger_all_99 wrote: Now the first thing we have to take into consideration of this "source" is who and why it was written, oh wait it appeared on a capitlist website, hmmm maybe that would make that slightly biased....
What the fuck has that got to do with socialism?!?! Hmm maybe big buisness made socialism mean something else but as far as I've heard that ain't nothing to do with fucking socialism
(up the communists!!!)

It's arguing against the minimum price put upon Americans by the federal Government.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2001/april/jj_milk.htm

The price you pay for a gallon of milk is not determined by competition and the free market.
Socialism Does Milk Good?
By Jeff Jacoby (April 25, 2001)

[CAPITALISMMAGAZINE.COM] Socialism is dead in the former Soviet Union, but if you live in New England, it is alive and well in your grocer's dairy case. The price you pay for a gallon of milk is not determined by competition and the free market. It is set instead by a cartel called the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, which was created for the explicit purpose of overcharging New England consumers in order to make rich dairy farmers richer.

That is not, of course, how the compact describes itself. It claims to be in the business of keeping local dairy farms from going under and of ensuring a steady supply of milk. And how does it achieve these admirable goals? By artificially hiking the price of milk and using the extra money to subsidize dairy farmers.

If this strikes you as government price-fixing, corporate welfare, and hopeless economics, you're not alone. Individuals and organizations across the political spectrum -- from the very liberal Thomas Birmingham, president of the Massachusetts Senate, to the conservative Beacon Hill Institute, a Suffolk University think tank -- have called for ending this sour milk-pricing system. It's a call worth heeding.

Federal regulators have been setting minimum prices for most of the milk sold in the United States since the Depression. By means of a bureaucratic device known as marketing orders, dairy companies are effectively forced to buy milk from local farmers, with payment determined by a convoluted formula based on -- no joke -- how far they are from Eau Claire, Wis. A Boston creamery might prefer to buy milk from a Midwestern dairy farm, paying less and sharing the savings with its customers. The law says it may not.

The Northeast Dairy Compact takes this bizarre federal scheme and makes it even worse. While milk prices in other parts of the country can rise and fall with supply and demand, the compact guarantees dairy farmers a high price for their milk no matter what. Milk processors in New England have been forced to pay about 20 cents per gallon more than processors elsewhere. That surtax gets passed on to consumers, which is why milk costs more in Boston and Hartford than it does almost anywhere else.

Defenders of dairy socialism laud this highly regressive rip-off, which transfers money from families that have a lot of children to families that have a lot of cows. In language that sounds like it was adapted from a Khrushchev-era Five-Year Plan, the compact's Web site brazenly declares that "the ability of the states to regulate milk prices collectively, rather than individually, is in the public interest."

A 1996 federal statute authorized the compact in response to the supposed "crisis" of dairy farms going out of business. Unless this decline were reversed, Congress was told, local supplies of milk would dry up, precious open space would be lost, and a lifestyle rich in tradition -- dairy farming -- would be gone forever.

Most of this was nonsense, beginning with the notion that dairy farming was in danger of disappearing. To be sure, the number of farms with milk cows has steadily shrunk -- there were 4.7 million of them in 1940; fewer than 140,000 in 1996. The number of milk cows has likewise been dropping -- from 23.6 million in 1940 to just 9.4 million in 1996.

But these numbers simply reflect the fact that dairy farming, like all farming, has become dazzlingly productive. Despite the 60 percent plunge in the number of dairy cows since 1940, US milk production has skyrocketed from 109 billion pounds per year to more than 160 billion pounds. Fewer farmers, milking fewer cows, are producing more milk than ever before.

Family farms have been shutting down. But that too is a function of modern agriculture. Dairying today depends on economies of scale. Mom-and-pop farms are easy to romanticize, but they require a grueling amount of work and don't make much money. They are vanishing not because milk is underpriced, but because they represent an obsolete and uncompetitive way of providing milk to consumers. Making families overpay for milk isn't going to change reality.

In any case, if the dairy compact was supposed to save small farms, it has proven a bust. Between 1995 and 1997 -- the two years before the compact began its price-jacking -- 34 Massachusetts dairy farms and 117 in Vermont went out of business. In the first two years after the compact kicked in, farm losses totaled 44 in Massachusetts and 153 in Vermont. Not only didn't the compact stop dairy farms from dying, it didn't even slow the rate of death.

The reason is that revenue from the milk surtax is divvied up according to milk production. Bigger farms produce far more milk than the mom-and-pop operations, and so get far more money. Small farms receive only a few thousand dollars a year, not nearly enough to make them economically viable. Yet they are the ones that are failing: Farms with herds of 50 or fewer cows account for three out of every four dairy farms lost in New England.

To date, New Englanders have paid $100 million more for milk than they would have if the compact had never been formed. By far the largest share, $45 million, has come from Massachusetts consumers. Of that, a mere $6 million has been retained by Massachusetts farmers. The rest has gone out of state, mostly to big-time dairy operations in Vermont and New York.

[In May 2000] the Massachusetts Senate voted to get the Bay State out of this sucker's deal. The House of Representatives ought to waste no time getting on board. Politicians often hear that their constituents are getting milked. Here is a chance for them to do something about it.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.)

At 4/27/01 03:50 PM, Vero993 wrote:

The people who are against free trade are idjits. End of story.

you're an idiot. end of story.

Gore's tax cut was smaller, and went mostly to the people in the bottom 50%. Most of which PAY NO TAXES AT ALL. Gore's plan means: Same amount of money for the Government, while boosting his popularity.

I am in that bottom 50% and I pay taxes out the ass. the equivalent of two full pays went to the fucking man because i, as the american tax payer making less than 20,000 a year have to fund the government. If you ask me, Bill Gates can afford it a hell of a lot easier than i can.

I just remembered something - oh yes, CLINTON raised taxes in the first god damn place.

Also, it should be noted that by proportion, the lower brackets recieve a bigger tax cut that the ones in the higher bracket.

what planet are you on? the biggest tax cut, proportionately, when to the richest 15%.

http://www.probe.org/docs/c-taxcut4.html

7) He has a DUI conviction. HE DROVE DRUNK. If he had killed anyone, there is no way he would've been elected. But people turn a blind eye to this for some reason...

Woohoo, big deal. Things change.

My sister died because of some drunk asshole. Big deal, right?

Hurrah for using sympathy to win an argument!

A lot of people do odd things in college. Fuck, it's like an tradition. It's the past. Get over it.

At 4/26/01 08:30 PM, kurten wrote: I don't see anything wrong with oppressing those who would want to oppress others. And you try to argue a Nazi out of his beliefs.

A person has a right to his views.
A person is allowed to assemble with people with similar views.

Now, add "Nazi" to that sentence. All of a sudden, it's completely false and wrong? You can't just say, "I don't like this group," and take away their freedom! Because, ironically, thats exactly what the Nazis did.

They, for example, exactly enjoy the company of Jews. So, they stripped them of their freedom, and killed them.

At 4/21/01 10:39 PM, kurten wrote: Please people, don't add another post if it's just repeating what I'm about to say.

I don't like GWB because:

1) Bush did not win the majority of votes

Welcome to a Democratic-Republic.

2) Some people finished counting the votes in Florida, even though the results didn't matter. It turns out Gore won Florida.

Nope, Bush won by 1,333 votes or something like that. The ones that proclaimed Gore the winner automatically made all of the overvotes votes for Gore.

3) Bush originally tried to stop a plan to lower arsenic levels to repay the water companies who helped fund his campaign. He backed down ONLY after he got a lot of heat, and saw that everyone realized he was a corporate tool.

You forgot something. George W. Bush is Republican. Republicans want an economy that is less regulated. (Which is why the DOJ is no longer the Government's pitbull.)

4) He wants to DRILL FOR OIL IN NATIONAL PARKS.

Which has been done before.

5) He supports the FTA (that's what the protests in Quebec are all about)

The people who are against free trade are idjits. End of story.

6) The tax cuts are his attempt to get popular support. And if anyone would look at the tax cuts, the rich people are screwing over the poor. It's extremely unfair. I can't believe you fell for it. Basically, he's paying you to like him.

Both candidates wanted tax cuts. The different is:

Gore's tax cut was smaller, and went mostly to the people in the bottom 50%. Most of which PAY NO TAXES AT ALL. Gore's plan means: Same amount of money for the Government, while boosting his popularity.

Also, it should be noted that by proportion, the lower brackets recieve a bigger tax cut that the ones in the higher bracket.

7) He has a DUI conviction. HE DROVE DRUNK. If he had killed anyone, there is no way he would've been elected. But people turn a blind eye to this for some reason...

Woohoo, big deal. Things change.

8) He's a moron. He says things that don't make sense, and he uses words that aren't words. I want a smart man in office.

Dyslexia.

Anything else to add? I'm sure everyone on this board will have something.