Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

does anyone realize this thread is over 3 years old?

At 7/8/04 05:06 PM, MikeFulp wrote:

At 7/8/04 05:05 PM, RyanFulp wrote: hobos are who they are for doing nothing to change their lives for the better. Sucks to be them. Let them pump my gas, okay? how about that? At least most hobos in the US speak english...

That's because the Spanish stole their jobs!

first, i don't know what to say about that spanish thing. that's just ignorant. it's the MEXICANS. in anycase, bums have magazine for bums ie. streetwise in Chicago. also i give cards from job placement agencies to the bums in my neighborhood. problem is they're still here after all this time. you can't help someone who can't help themselves.

bottom line. the life and opportunity they give their children is well worth the struggles and hardships they endure now. in a way it is an ends justifies means arguement.

the real question is can you look at yourself having sex if, say, you took pictures or recorded yourself on video.

At 5/20/04 10:05 PM, Brown_Hat wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...9/ap_on_go_co/hastert_mccain_2

"All we're called upon to do is not spend our nation into bankruptcy while our soldiers risk their lives. I fondly remember a time when real Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility."

wars are always good to get us out of economic recessions. productivity rises due to the need for supplies abroad feeding the private sector eventually trickling down to the point where companies need more workers to fill demand leading to an rising of jobs thereby leading to more spending by those people as the cycle continues onward.

there is a catch to all this. the spending by the government catches up and taxes need to be raised. look at 1991 and Bush Sr. having to eat his lips when he raised taxes due to his lack of foresite with PGW1. so the system works.

as for sending in sacrificial lambs to the slaughter, that's pure bull manure. as abstract as it may be, they are fighting for an ideal. as we all know from history things like that never work ie. the Cold War and the fight against communism with Vietnam and Korea. this time it is for the American way of life. that and the US is/was pissed because of 9/11.

what does Iraq have to do with Osama bin Laden? probably nothing, but they follow same suit as a rogue nation is concerned. finding artillery shells with sarin in it should be enough. lucky for the US and the world Saddam didn't go nuclear or effectively use his more unconventional weapons on the troops in Iraq.

most importantly, however, is the fight for the American way of life. that is a noble thing to sacrifice your life for if you choose so. no matter how much anyone gripes, the US may be the best place in the world to live in bar none. this is coming from personal experience living in several countries myself.

The Republican Party has gone completely insane as of late. If McCain ran this year as an Independant, does anyone think he'd stand a chance?

the GOP is doing what they always have done. in fact it is almost carbon copy of a decade ago. as for McCain, i respect the man and the more moderate part of the GOP, but he would fail miserably if he ran as an independent. he knows this which is probably why he hasn't abandoned ship yet. i do believe that a 3rd party will come of this more moderate Republican wing. it usually takes a century for a new party to arise, and the country is ripe for a new stand.

At 4/23/04 04:15 PM, Slizor wrote: How exactly? I don't think MAD is gone, just the Cold War tension.

MAD was the essence of the Cold War. there is no direct threat against the US so MAD is gone. the only country to even hint a threat of strike are the North Koreans, but that technology is yet unproven.

also, to answer the orginal question, the way to stablize the world, as of right now, is having the US as a policing state. the UN, as stated before, would rather delegate to the US to handle any situation but with a greater length or time due to debate and voting by the Security Council.

but the issue will come about with imperialization which, i believe, is a load of duck manure. the problem with imperialization is the indefinite occupying and direct control of a sovereign state. take Japan for instance. a sovereign, independent, state that had been occupied and controlled, but is now an equal to the US in stature. imperialist? no. just spreading the ideals and beliefs of democracy and free trade.

At 4/21/04 06:12 PM, BeFell wrote: I think you might be thinking in too worse case scenario terms. North Korea having nukes a much bigger threat to China than a stable democracy. The only way we will ever invade North Korea is if they actually use their nukes, and since they would be the first to strike the world would unite against them. China would not risk the international consequences of supporting a country that preemptively struck with nuclear weapons. North Korea doesn't have the technology to wage a decent nuclear war so the resulting war would be relatively short.

the only way the US will invade North Korea is if they invade its southern neighbor. the nukes are there for fear factor to dare the US to deploy into the region as they have rockets, albeit untested, that can hit US soil. hitting, say, San Francisco will instantly kill millions and, arguably, start California's slide into the ocean from the San Andreas on west. all that death and destruction for what?

as for picking sides based upon the invasion theory, China will directly or indirectly support the North regardless. the closest neighbor to China, Russia, may also follow suit. three countries with nuclear power. if all the movement in North Korea like expelling UN inspectors and equipment, and flying a missle over Japan isn't enough to see that they might start an invasion i don't see what is.

if the argument of the DMZ comes up, keep in mind Seoul is 20 miles from the DMZ. well within range of artillery. and they will soften the earth first. that's about 20 million people dead or homeless in a matter of days. and you can never tell what a guy that loves Daffy Duck will do.

At 4/21/04 07:36 PM, Adun wrote: Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. Him and Bin Laiden hated each other. Saddam was ok with what isreal was doing to all of the palastinians while bin liaded hated the fuck out of it. Its just the USA scapegoating terrorism like hitler scapegoated jews.

terrorist, terrorist, muslim, terrorist, freedom, terrorist, kill dictator, terrorist!

The USA had the iraq war planned before 9/11.

wow. you're right about Saddam having nothing to do with terrorism. directly. but what we have here is a relatively unstable, unfriendly nation that, at the last minute, could either deploy or sell his weapons to the highest bidder. and Saddam felt for the plight of the Palestinians. if you remember, which you probably weren't born for or were 2 years old, Saddam sent SCUDS over to Israel.

and you're right about the US planning an invasion of Iraq before 9/11. and North Korea, and Cuba. the generals in the Pentagon have a lot on their palettes.

At 4/21/04 07:47 PM, Adun wrote: oh yea and a THIRD thing..

With how they call WMD what they are, it just sounds more evil and makes the enemy sound worse. Like calling rebels insurgents and terrorists.

ok we won't call them WMD. we'll call them flesh eating virus bomb, or chemical bomb, or the "i hope i die of the blast because otherwise i'm going to suffocate" bomb. your pick.

At 4/22/04 12:46 PM, Dirdmister wrote:

At 4/21/04 04:43 PM, mysecondstar wrote: the link is with future attacks. it's no secret Saddam doesn't like the US. it's also no secret that at one point Saddam had WMD. if you put 2 and 2 together you find that Saddam may sell his WMD to al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups willing to prove a point. if i were the US, i would be scared the WMD aren't there. that means they've been sold off.

No-one likes the US besides the US !
It was nothing to do with future attacks it was to do with greedy Bush and his oil fetish!

uh. uh. no one likes the US besides the US. ok. and why does it have nothing to do with future attacks and more to do with oil again now?

At 4/21/04 05:17 PM, subpar wrote: Ben Franklin again? Ben Franklin was a genius, he should be on our dollar bill. Move George Washington to wherever.

well, he's on the 100. a more prestigous bill.

At 4/21/04 05:08 PM, subpar wrote: WTF is the patriot act, really?

All I know is people hate it, and I have a basic idea what it is, but I don't know the details.

in a nutshell, giving up privacy and rights for national security.

Ben Franklin said it best. "Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free."

what, in your opinion, is a cruddy president?

At 4/21/04 04:59 PM, subpar wrote: I've just heard shit about Saddam selling weapons to terrorists. But he'd just as soon launch them at himself. That's all.

why would you say that? i guess my arguement is the enemy of my enemy is my friend. what reason would an Islamic fundamentalist have for attacking another Islamic-based country?

At 4/21/04 04:54 PM, subpar wrote: Yeah, but he wouldn't sell them to terrorists. Why would a mean dictator trust backstabbing terrorists?

i don't get what you're trying to prove with this statement.

At 4/21/04 04:47 PM, subpar wrote:

At 4/21/04 04:43 PM, mysecondstar wrote: that means they've been sold off.

More likely hidden in the desert, in some random godforsaken spot where we'll never look.

i'm sure all the war drumming prior to the invasion of Iraq would be enough for Saddam to go, "uh oh". so before anything could happen, i would sell off the things the US said i had to make them look stupid. not bury them and pretend to scratch my head. in a years time the US has found nothing. the country is roughly the size of California. it may be a little big, but time will come when there is no place else to hide.

At 4/21/04 04:30 PM, subpar wrote: A lot of people seem to link Iraq and it's supposed WMD, and especially Saddam Hussein, with the 9/11 attacks.

Bullshit?

Anyway, do you think it was because we went so quickly and stupidly from finding Al Qaeda to warring with Iraq? I don't know why people think Saddam Hussein is a terrorist, I really don't. He's just a former dictator, and apparently he's not that bad compared to Stalin.

I laughed when I heard he was hiding in a fucking hole.

the link is with future attacks. it's no secret Saddam doesn't like the US. it's also no secret that at one point Saddam had WMD. if you put 2 and 2 together you find that Saddam may sell his WMD to al Qaeda or any other terrorist groups willing to prove a point. if i were the US, i would be scared the WMD aren't there. that means they've been sold off.

At 4/21/04 04:17 PM, subpar wrote: But still the main point of this post in words that everyone can understand: nukes are ghey.

let's put this into perspective. it is human nature to be better than everyone else. just like a gang banger with a gun, you don't mess with the US. if the US were doing something horribly evil it would be scary. but on the whole the US does very humanitarian things, or things that are deemed righteous in the Free World ie. spreading democracy. to take on such a great responsibility as this you need some leverage.

if, for instance, Canada proclaims that it wanted to set forth and spread democracy in the Middle East the entire world will laugh. how? with what army? ha ha. but when the US says it all of a sudden oh shit, the US is coming.

now the arguement of imperialism comes in. Japan is a sovereign nation last i checked. who established their government? the US. is Japan a pawn of the US? i think not. will the US eventually leave Iraq, for example? eventually. but not until the job is done. was the conflict in Iraq for control of oil? BS. in that case Kuwait would flood us with it for saving their sovereignty in 1991.

really though, being 17 and having a child is tough. in all aspects you are still a kid and having a kid when you're still a kid is a conflict in interests. you want to go out, for instance, but you need to take care of the baby. you aren't settled and established financially like you might more likely be at 25. but if love were the issue, it wouldn't really matter. it's everyone's own perogative to have a child or not.

At 4/20/04 07:05 PM, subpar wrote: The USA is a fucking hypocrite. "No, you can't have WMD, only we can. Because we think you're involved with terrorism just because you're Muslim. Good thing we're mostly Christians, now we can build up our arsenal without protest..."

wow. just wow. for the sake of arguement North Korea, an atheist and communist country, have nukes and the US doesn't like it. Pakistan, an Islamic country, has nukes but the US is neutral about the idea.

now for the real stuff. as i said before, the US can't be hypocrites if my statement above is true, which it is. and the US doesn't like the idea of nukes for everyone because a country not to friendly to the US would either launch or sell their weapons to terrorists, for instance, to attack US soil. as far as national security is concerned, that is a big no no.

I think the U.N. needs to fight to ban the flying motherfuckers once and for all. If there is going to be an apocalypse, it's going to be nukes making it happen unless something changes. If there's a world war three, it won't be a war. It will just be a missile launching contest. Fire as many missiles as you can before the approaching one hits you. If there's a world war three, every single person on earth will die, or be horribly mutated and then barf up their guts on the sidewalk.

nukes are weapons of mass talk. take the Cold War for instance. the US and the former USSR would have to be inept to volley missles at each other. but it does make for big talk and even bigger bravado when you have missles in military parades down Red Square. no soverign nation will ever fire nukes at one another. that's just bad negotiating.

which leads to my first point terrorists don't have a place to invade or destroy. for them to fire a nuke is to get their message across that they can instill terror. that would be the only reason for any nuclear device to go off in the world.

as for WW3, the more feasible way for that to happen is in North Korea. why? because of the close proximity of China. the last thing China wants is a democratic country to be on it's border. that would isolate the country even more than it is now. so, if the US were to invade NK, a repeat of the Korean Conflict may ensue but this time with two nuclear powers head to head. then people will start picking sides. and when that happens, there will be a problem.

At 4/21/04 03:51 PM, subpar wrote: That 18 thing is bullcrap.

If two people were dating for years, and one was a day older than the other, one would be 18 and the other would be 17. OgM, PEDIFOYLE!!!

at that point, if they'd been going out for years, the parents would probably know and it wouldn't even be an issue.

At 4/18/04 04:08 PM, TheGooie wrote: So what's the big issue with rape when you're one year apart? I really fail to see the big picture on that. Anyone care to enlighten me?

technicalities. nothing more. you really can't press it unless the younger party's parents wanted to. the arguement is that they are older and should be more responsible and act accordingly. but other than that, it's pretty silly.

At 4/17/04 01:16 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote: is it actualy illegal for people under 18 to have sex (both of them under 18) or is it just greatly looked down apon?

every state law in the US is different. for instance the age of consent in Illinois is 17 where other states may be 16 or 18. but the fact of the matter is that whether or not it is legal nothing will come of it.

what it would boil down to is that if two 16 year olds have sex and one of the fathers caught them he could, technically, sue the other parents if they knew and condoned their relationship sexually. for instance a 33 year old man can marry and/or have sex with a 15 year old if the parents of the 15 year old allowed it (one of the arguements behind the R. Kelly cases for instance). but it draws a fine line if both parents didn't know and didn't want it to happen.

as for being looked down upon, hell yes. being 16 and having a child is stupid and irresponsible in this day and age. and being a parent, you have to take care of the baby, not your idiot 16 year old. i've seen plenty of teenaged parents in Chicago. they are all over the place. i can't go a eat Vietnamese food without seeing at least 2 couples with 2 year olds running around and they can't be any older than 17. not saying Vietnamese people are more or less responsible than any other races or nationality, but those anti-drug commercials with the girl, the parents, and a pregnancy test.

there are just some stupid people out there and they are breeding. FAST and EARLY. that is the whole rational behind teaching sexual education in 5th or 6th grade. because in 2-3 years they are probably not doing to want a baby, but may be presented with a choice to have sex or not, and they will probably choose to have it. so, at least, if they know that condoms are a good idea if you don't want a kid, at least they have the knowledge because you'd be surprised how oblivious some people are about birth control.

At 4/8/04 02:16 AM, snozzberry_clock wrote: In all honesty, I'm afraid your election prediction may be right. One of Bush's former aids came forward quite recently and said that on 9/11, Bush ordered his advisors to "find the Iraq link", showing he had the intent to start the war at his first chance. Let's face it, he wants his revenge on the man who tried to kill his father.

i forget the name of the advisor, but it is the intent of the administration, namely Dr. Rice, to dispute him. and it really bothers me that i can't remember the guy's name, but he has been in all the papers a few weeks ago.

wasabi?

good to see some good people still here

i am confused as to what your problem is.

At 4/7/04 11:41 PM, MadMax501 wrote: I've found it increasingly frustrating that we only have 2 parties (that mean anything) in the u.s. Many other democraticly elected nations have many parties, which may cause some chaos when making laws, but more fairly represents the different groups of people that reside in the country. I feel that neither democrats nor republicans represent my view, and it's irritating me beyond belief...I'd like to know all your opinions on this matter.

status quo my friend. the bicameral elections are due to country wanting to maintain the status quo. the Libertarians were close to adding themselves and getting real government funding as a "real" party but they barely missed it. so don't blame government for doing what they do. blame to people for not hitting the polls.

At 4/8/04 01:21 AM, snozzberry_clock wrote: because I believe that Bush lied to the face of each and every American citizen when he insisted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

the information was based upon the information given to him from his own cabinet and joint cheifs of staff. as much as i love Bush for his simplemindedness, he can't fathom very many things beside simple ideas ie. revenge as in the Afghan war against the Taliban and al Qaeda. Iraq was the brain child of the hawks in Washington.

that being all said, it will be a repeat of the last election with Bush edging out Kerry.

must be eisenhower and his brainchild the interstate highways and the subsequent ushering in of the automobile in every household in america.

well, well, well. glad to see there are some familiar faces still here.