Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't know, do you live in an American high-school drama?

I'll sell you my account.

At 8/19/08 08:27 AM, Apophic wrote: Our opening ceremony is just going to be some guy throwing confetti in the air and making firework sound effects. It's going to be great!.

And stabbing. Lot's of stabbing.

I don't why anyone is acting shocked. Maybe you're getting sucked in by the sensationalism of the reportage.

Of course Poland will become a candidate for attack, it's an essentially bordering country that will be harbouring nuclear missiles for a state that Russia could likely come into conflict with. It's the way NMD inevitably works. Why would anyone expect Russia's stance to be any different? Nato's isn't.

Lol @ linking to The Sun. The single worst newspaper on the planet.

Of course Poland would be the first target should a conflict break out. Imagine if Russia placed a missile defence system in Mexico to protect it's allies from a non-specific threat in South America. The US wouldn't accept it and neither should Russia have to. The "defence system" is a ridiculously provocative move from the US. Fucking idiots.

It was ridiculous. I was all like WTF M8?! and shit.

Fair play. That's about as balanced and level-headed as you can expect from a citizen of either Georgia or Russia. I'd be surprised if CNN didn't cut it to fit in with their "DEMOCRATIC GEORGIA GOOD! EVIL FASCIST RUSKIES BAD!" editorial line they're currently pushing though.

Funny how the fact that the US and UK backed a Georgian veto of a Russian UN motion to stop all violence has never been mentioned in the mainstream media.

I thought it was pretty obvious. As were the computerised fireworks.

At 8/12/08 11:05 AM, Britkid wrote: China's manufactured success.

lmao. christ.

At 8/11/08 04:48 PM, Britkid wrote: If the South Ossetians want to split from Georgia, I think this should be allowed. But never as part of Russia. There is also no excuse for the tactics that the Russian military has been using.

But South Ossetians want to join up with North Ossetia, which is part of Russia.

And really the initial Georgian attack is just as reprehensible as the Russian response. It was an indiscriminate attack on, as Saakashvili so often likes to point out, Georgia's own citizens.

What Georgia did is the equivalent of smacking someone much bigger than you in the face then going "OMG OK I call a truce!"

Also worth noting that we should be just as dubious about any Georgian claims as were are of Russian ones:

Georgian officials said Russian troops had moved out of South Ossetia into Georgia proper, occupying the city of Gori while Georgian troops were retreating to the capital.

But US defense officials said they were unable to corroborate the Georgian claims.

"We don't see anything that supports they are in Gori," said a defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't know why the Georgians are saying that."

"That assessment is ongoing," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=
080811222408.40e5p19r&show_article=1

Don't slaughter de facto Russian civilians then you silly billys.

It's one of the worst performing schools in England and has the looks to match...

So let me get this right:

Georgia has bombed the fuck out of a part of the country which largely operates independently and where the local population is extremely pro-Russia and hold Russian passports, and in doing so has killed thousands of innocent civilians.

The Russians are cunts but I don't know how anyone can defend Georgia here, this is disgusting stuff. Surely the Russians had no choice but to move in? They're indiscriminately bombing people here.

As well as being utterly deplorable, this is bafflingly stupid stuff from the Saakashvili regime.

At 8/8/08 07:43 AM, penis-plant wrote: Maybe hey just act upset but actually like it.

I don't think this will stand up in court.

They don't fuck about when it comes to ceremonies, these commies types.

Shame the BBC commentators are so poo.

She specialises in fashionable pop-politics for hipster dicks.

Both countries are quite gay tbh.

"It is hot though..."

Doesn't really work due to the all-pervasive nature of American culture tbh tbf soz.

McCain went on a tour of the Middle East and Europe too.

It's not Obama's fault that people don't want to turn out in their thousands to listen to some monotone old cunt spout bullshit right wing rhetoric as opposed to a charismatic brother spouting bullshit liberal rhetoric.

I don't even think he's a smoker, but he's got an addiction to "sizzurp", a drink mainly made up of prescription cough medicine which has been the cause of death of quite a few Southern rappers, and will probably be the death of Weezy too.

I thought exactly the same thing regarding the EU.

By all accounts his whereabouts have always been well known, but his pals in the mafia have prevented anyone from doing anything.

I'd love to do her up the bum.

At 7/18/08 08:50 PM, Proteas wrote: That's what the implication was; white people have nothing to be proud of in being white when viewed against recent history.

Yeah...I'm not seeing the mention of guilt. Flogging a dead horse, here.

What outrage? Where were the 12 dozen topics about it on the bbs? Where the riots in the streets over it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? My example disproved the viewpoint that "nobody says a damn thing" about Louis Farahkan, no? That he is viewed upon with disdain by the mainstream?

Yes? No?

That being black is not something to be ashamed of, it does not make you inferior etc. This is necessary because the opposite was drilled into their heads for the past couple of centuries up until very recently.

Then your viewpoint is in clear conflict with itself. If pride over skin color is illogical because you neither choose it or the heritage and culture than goes along with it, then allowing black people to continue with pride over their skin color and heritage is illogical as well. You're allowing them a free pass for something they didn't choose to be or partake in simply because it fits your politically correct viewpoint.

How am I "allowing" them, for goodness sake? All I've said is that the Black Pride movement is more legitimate than any white pride one, and that it was probably necessary to rebuild the collective confidence in that particular group, as it would be in any collection of people that were oppressed because of a particular attribute. The aim of "black pride" is to try and correct a negative stereotype, "white pride" is, of course, very different.

There's an outright refusal from you to take into account any outside factors that have affected the situation.

Gosh, that's awfully immature.

And the "purty little head" comment wasn't?

Nah.

Hispanics are the largest growing minority group in the United States, outpacing every other ethnic minority, blacks included. It's not a stretch of the imagination to say that they may one day equal or outnumber whites in America.

What exactly is going to happen to all those little minority special interest groups that rail on whitey on a daily basis when whitey becomes the minority?

When this wholly unlikely and completely hypothetical situation comes to fruition they're going to hypothetically storm the White House and hypothetically enslave the white race.

Obviously.

At 7/18/08 07:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/18/08 06:55 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: Feeling that a showing of "white pride" is needed, when looked upon against the back drop of the US being dominated in every area by white people looks fairly retarded.

.... really now? So I'm supposed to feel guilty because I'm white, because of something I didn't do or choose to be?

Eh? When did I mention guilt? Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying the exact opposite - you shouldn't feel guilt or pride.

Not it's not, the man calls for the downfall of white people on a regular basis and blasts us as being evil heartless bastards. If he was white and saying that about blacks you would lump him in with KKK and other such racist groups. Obama wasn't even mentioned in this topic.

I do lump him in with racist groups, actually. Again, don't make up my views for me.

And I mentioned the Obama situation to disprove the point that "nobody says a damn thing about him". Which is patently untrue, as the outrage over the Obama endorsement proves.

If that's the case, then why should black people of today be allowed to be proud of being black, when they themselves played no part in any achievements made by people who happened to have the same skin colour as them?

Christ, I never said they were! What I did say is that the Black Pride movement (which is more of an Afro-American movement, really), has more of an air of legitimacy because of the oppression they faced purely on the grounds of their race, and goes some way to "legitimising" (ugly phrase in this context, I know) being black. That being black is not something to be ashamed of, it does not make you inferior etc. This is necessary because the opposite was drilled into their heads for the past couple of centuries up until very recently.

White Americans do not need this because they have never faced mass oppression on the grounds of their race, and have and continue to be economically, socially and politically successful as a whole.

I find it amazing you can't see the blatant differences between the two.

You were dropped on your head as a child, weren't you?

Gosh, that's awfully immature.

USATODAY; 39 Million make Hispanics the largest single minority in the United States, up 9.8% in 2003 from the 2000 census and comprising 13% of the nation's population.

Perhaps YOU'RE the delusional one here.

Lmao. This is ludicrous.

What does this prove? How does this combat any of the points I made? How does this make me delusional?

Cheers.

At 7/18/08 04:08 PM, Proteas wrote: Now, I wanna ask you people something; what is wrong with white pride? Now when I say "White Pride" I am not talking about Neo-Nazis, that's a little extreme. I'm just talking about your average white person who is happy that he's white. What the hell is wrong with that?

There's a difference between being happy/grateful that you're white and being "proud". I'm grateful that I'm white in the sense that if I wasn't, life would almost definitely be harder for me through no fault of my own.

It's important to make that distinction, because you go on to confuse it throughout the rest of the post.

There's a big difference between being proud of being white and being a white supremacist. It's the same thing with black people; everybody was big into the "Black Pride" and everybody was like "I'm black and I'm proud." And that's all well and good, but then you have people like Farrakahn who are practically black supremacists and nobody says a damn thing about him.

The Black Pride movement is more legitimate because African-Americans have been institutionally discriminated against purely because of their race in fairly recent history. It was accepted that black people were inferior, lesser human beings, something had to address this.

Feeling that a showing of "white pride" is needed, when looked upon against the back drop of the US being dominated in every area by white people looks fairly retarded.

And the Louis Farrakahn point is rubbish, there would have been outrage had Obama accepted his endorsement because he's such as controversial and often despised figure.

So in my opinion, if somebody's white and they're happy with it, leave them alone. It seems every othe race on the face of the planet can have a day soley dedicated to their heritage. Look, you've got the Italian Heritage Festival, the Polish Day Festival, The Saint Patrick Irish Day, the Peurto Rican Day Parade, the Nova Scotia Cookie Festival, Russian Roulette Day... everybody has their own day, and Black people have a whole month dedicated to black history.

lol. Look up "race" in the dictionary.

Where's the White Parade? I would like to see a White Parade. Some kind of white pride parade where a bunch of people get together and say "You know what? I'm glad that I'm white." And like I said, I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazi Swastika waving jackasses. I'm talking about regular generic folks who are happy to be white. That's all. There's nothing racist about having pride in being white.

To actually be proud of being white is daft though. You played no part in any achievements made by people who happened to have the same skin colour as you.

And there are plenty of white pride movements in any case, it just so happens that these attract a lot of racists (probably just a coincidence, eh?).

And frankly? The way I look at it, white people are fast becoming the minority. So when minorities such as hispanics and blacks actually outnumber white folks in sheer population numbers, I expect to see Affirmative Action for white people. I want to see certain slots in colleges and businesses soley reserved for white people. Because when the tables turn in the population numbers, blacks are going to go nutts once white people are like "I can't get a job in this predominantly black company." How many white people do see work at "The Source" magazine? How many white people do see work at "Death Row" records? How many white people do you see being the financial advisor to the NAACP?

It doesn't really matter how you look at it, to say white people are "fast becoming a minority" is a scaremongering tactic based on lies and largely employed by racist groups (The BNP in Britain are a fan of it). The figures simply don't back it up.

The US will always be a predominantly white country. US politics will always be dominated by white people. US business will always be dominated by white people.

Don't you worry your purty little blonde head about it.

At 7/15/08 01:42 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
I've already made a point of this, but I guess you didn't bother reading the thread.

It doesn't really matter whether I pick you up on your earlier post or this one.

In 2006, Paris was nearly ripped apart in riots spurned by the culture clash between the French and Muslim cultures. Now, whether or not either side is at fault is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the tension in France can still be cut with a knife. With such a culture clash that could erupt into even more widespread riots at the slightest provocation, France has every right to side with its own culture.

Given that, France has every right to deny citizenship to people who are unwilling to even attempt assimilating.

Paris was far from being "nearly ripped apart" by the 2005 riots, and any current tensions (which are obviously very real) do not mean Paris is "on the brink of collapse". It's such a needlessly sensationalist comment to make. Obviously there was huge damage but only something like 1 casualty, and representing it as simply a "culture clash" is disingenuous or ignorant, there's ALWAYS going to be conflict when any minority is ghettoised, plagued by unemployment and feels that they face discrimination. There were very few Islamic factors involved - largely social. It was lot's of pissed off, poverty-stricken young men being dicks and fighting with police, it's not as if it was an attack on secularism for goodness' sake.

But anyway, France is still granting plenty of citizenships to young Muslim men, i.e the demographic actually involved in the riots, whilst denying this woman mainly on dubious gender equality lines which are flimsy at best. That is the point I was actually getting at.

At 7/15/08 11:48 AM, Gunter45 wrote: If Paris had been on the brink of collapse due to an outbreak of chicken pox, I would agree with that decision.

Paris is on the brink of collapse due to veiled Muslim women then, is it?

At 7/14/08 05:18 PM, poxpower wrote: if you ask them "what does your book tell you to do when someone tries to leave Islam?" they will just try to change the subject because they know as well as we do that it's not a matter of "interpretation".

Or they could quote verses such as:

Let the disbelievers enjoy life and let false hope beguile them. They will come to know! (Al-Hijr 15:2-3)

There is no compulsion in religion. (2:257)

Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (Al-Kahf 18:29)

And talk about how the death penalty is never actually prescribed for apostasy in the Quran. Yeah, they could do that.

For someone who constantly tells people to "read the fucking book", you'd do well to take your own advice.

I mean shit, I think organised religion is teh gay, but criticising it on false grounds through wilful ignorance is just retarded.