Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/31/03 11:31 AM, TheShrike wrote: I agree. But I guess I like pain... excruciating pain. The terrible pain of watching a movie containing a stick with yellow scribbles around it yelling "HammmeeeeKammeeee" from start to finish.

You're a masochist? OMG, get some help, man! There is still hope for you yet! ;)

I usually make the effort to watch the whole thing before voting.

At 5/23/03 01:57 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: People go to jail for killing people. What gives the government the right to kill people without facing any punishment? There are tons of alternatives like being more careful who gets sent to prison and sending home inmates that are reformed so that there is enough space.

I would say the right to protect the citizens of that government. By the way, how can you be more careful? Do you think that the problem also lies in the judicial system as well?

Question:

Is there a point to this thread or are we simply ranting now?

At 5/23/03 08:58 PM, Jiperly wrote: Virus, theres been more than one- plenty all around, but on American soil theres been 3 major ones on American soil- the Sept. 11th incident, the 1993 car bombing at the WTC, and the Unibomber.

Don't forget the bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Georgia. :(

I believe there is an overreaction to the terrorist threat or at least at certain times such as when the US government suggested citizens to buy duct tape and metal sheeting in case of a terrorist attacks (I guess the next step would be that the government will ask the public to start building their own fall-out shelters again -_-*) More often than not, I think that the US is coming to terms that they are not invincible to attack. The amount of uneasiness in the air might be similar to what was felt during some of the Cold War years.

I had spam. That and a pot of sweet corn, 2 biscuits, a handful of potato chips, pieces of pineapple and strawberries, some grapes, 2 slices of whole wheat bread, a few glasses of water and some cereal with milk and blueberries.

I would say that if judged by today's standards, some of these flashes would be blammed. I think that some of these old flashes are kept to show the natural progression of flash over time. What would be acceptable two years ago is probably vastly different from today. I like the second pic better.

I would like to die from exhaustion by having sex with numerous super models in bed. ;)

That or die on the toliet (just like Elvis...ahh now that's the death for me!)

And then Harry Potter and all his wizard friends went straight to Hell for practicing witchcraft!
-Ned Flanders (The Simpsons)

At 5/8/03 01:13 AM, karasz wrote: well lets not forget, nato was created to stop the soviet threat, and there is no soviet threat anymore... so what is the purpose of NATO??? europe seems to be a much safer place than 10 years ago (i know about the bosnia crisis, and kosovo) but the intellectuals are focusing on asia, and the mideast as that seems to be the next important place and will continue to be for at least 15 years... then who knows...

The only "threat" that NATO could possibly concentrate on would be the threat of terrorism (but isn't terrorism always a possible threat? ;) )
NATO should be kept if not for defense against threats that may come but just as a sign of goodwill between the European nations involved and the US.
One question above all: Can't we all just get along?

I would think Clinton would have to be the most misunderstood presidents of all time. No doubt should there be in anyone's mind that Clinton did obstructed justice during all the sex scandals and trials. But people will probably forget that his administration worked toward improving civil rights and the poor. "Under Clinton, poverty among black Americans had dropped to its lowest level in American history, homeownership among blacks had risen to its highest, black enrollment in colleges had increased from 48 to 59 percent from 1992 to 1997, and black median income had risen almost 15 percent. Moreover, the income of the poorest fifth of Americans had grown at a 5.4 percent annual rate, compared to 3.9 percent for the top fifth." (from Sidney Blumenthal's "The Clinton Wars") What's more amazing is that the people who went the hardest on Clinton (no pun intended) were later revealed to have some dirty secrets in their own private life that like Clinton's, they prefered to keep private (Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, Newt Gringrich). I like this quote by Bill Kristol. I think it says it all about the difference between Republicans and Democrats (if there is any difference at all ;) ):
"I'm not at all convinced it helps Clinton to have the Burton and Chenoweth stories come out. Republicans have old-fashioned extramarital affairs with other adults. Those really are moral lapses that are private and more easily forgiven and very different from taking advantage of a young person who works for you when you're president."

You can always count on a Republican for some good old-fashioned vice! ;)

When I look back on the Clinton sex scandals, all I can see is that it was another game of politics between Democrats and Republicans trying to one-up each other always. Imagine if Clinton did resign or was removed from office because of the sex scandals. That would really put a dent in the image of the Democratic party for decades to come. The last time someone that was nearly of high office like the president resigned was Nixon VP Spiro Agnew's resignation in the 70's which lead to Gerald Ford to become president rather unexpectedly.

At 4/30/03 02:46 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: people who say reagan didn't know what he was doing say so because they don't know anything he did. he clearly knew exactly what he was doing

Well what did he do? ;)

At 4/30/03 02:24 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: Music is possiblly the most important subject I do.

Anything involving the fine arts is important. It can enrich our mind and inspire it to do great things.

Personally, the state should put education on the top 3 list to concentrate on. The federal gov't should just close down that waste of money, the Education Department (just one big beaurcracy, that's all), and just give states additional grants for education purposes.

At 4/30/03 02:21 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/30/03 12:40 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Word Association is dead!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Where did Word Accociation go?

It died! It died and went to Hell!
Hell.
Heaven.
Twinkies.
Baked goods.
Food.
Nourishment.
Water.
Life.

Hell->Life It's amazing what one word can lead to!

At 4/29/03 11:59 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Reagan really had no clue what in the hell he was doing. *sigh*

Well I could ask you to prove your statement but then you could ask me to prove a counter-argument to your point then it would be a battle of put up or shut up so....@_@

Oh why the hell not? What proof do you have that Regan was already senile by the time he got into office?

When our future generations look back on the war on Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people from the cruel grasp of the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, one question will be asked: What was the reason for the US to invade Iraq after over 10 years since the first Gulf War?

Was it because of the US government's belief that Saddam held weapons of mass destruction and UN inspectors were cast as incompetent and vaguely unAmerican buffoons for not finding any? Well according to this speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/iraq/20030319-17.html), Bush said at the beginning of the war that the reason for invading Iraq was destroying WMD:
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."
But is that REAL reason?
Now it isn't.
"President Bush on Thursday suggested for the first time that the United States may not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" (http://www.latimes.com/news/na...r-weapons25apr25,1,16404.story (you have to register to see it))

No weapons of mass destruction?! What could've possibly happened? Could Saddam have possibly moved his weapons across the Iraqi desert without detection from US satellites capable of reading "large newspaper headlines from space?" (http://www.latimes.com/news/pr...pacewar24apr24,1,4605071.story)
Could Saddam possibly have destroyed all those weapons and actually followed UN orders to disarm in order to make the US look bad?! Oh perish the thought!
But if WMD was not the reason for invasion and liberation, what was?
9/11. (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/US/globalshow_030425.html)
YES! It was 9/11 that caused everything! It was 9/11 that convinced the US that they must absolutely flex its muscle to put those towelheads in their place! Remember that when your children and grandchildren ask you what started the war, you can proudly tell them it was 9/11, not our "belief" that Saddam had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction to convince the legality of our actions to the UN.

At 4/25/03 09:33 PM, jimsween wrote: And duringthe chernoble nuclear accident some scientists in America got report of high nuclear activity but didint report it quite yet, instead they waited until they had more imformation. If they had reported it it could have very well put the world into nuclear war.

How would that happen?

At 4/25/03 08:48 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Peace, love and beers.

And hopefully plenty of it! Good luck to you on your plan! Maybe you will make DAG work after all.

At 4/25/03 06:13 PM, Slizor wrote: Ah, the American version of history. The tide was turning in WW1 before the US entered and in WW2 France would have been "liberated" eventually, even if it didn't involve America.

Eventually yes. But the US speeded things up a bit and took care of the Japanese in the Pacific.

At 4/25/03 07:16 PM, jimsween wrote: Hmmm.... why am I not in it? *rage building*

I don't know. What I do know is that...I'm in it!

Ohh my little Paint creation...you have done the next step and became immortal in the Halls of Newgrounds. lol

Well I just saw Panik's movie and I'm so happy I can hardly contain myself. I'm in a Newgrounds movie and there was nothing bad associated with it. More than I can hope for. ;)

I think I'll watch it again.

At 4/25/03 05:22 PM, jimsween wrote:

If you havent noticed, we are a capitalist society.

The US? No, we're not a completely capitalist society. There are government agencies and federal and state laws that regulate business practices and policies. A true capitalist society would be laissez-faire where businesses can do whatever it damn well pleases. We are a socialist-capitalist society.

At 4/25/03 11:07 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: What if you shoot your friend with his parents' gun by accident because the weed impaired your judgement?

You'd feel pretty stupid then, wouldn't you?

I would be wondering how they found the parents' gun in the first place. I've seen that one commercial about the high kid and the gun. It's funny because the message it is sending is not anti-drug but gun-control.

At 4/12/03 11:20 PM, implodinggoat wrote: And before you go say, "But he was so great with the economy" you must remember that it was Clinton's economic policy that allowed the stockmarket to get very overvalued. Near the end of the Clinton administration there were reports that the Dow which was over 12000 should in fact be valued no higher than 9000, but Clinton didn't gove a damn because the levee didn't break until he left office.

I just recently checked out a book from the campus library entitled "It's Still the Economy, Stupid: George W. Bush, the GOP's CEO." When I first saw this book, I thought it was going to be nothing more than Democrat propaganda blowing out every page...well it's true but it does back its statements with evidence and sources. The author is Paul Begala, formerly a counselor to the former president Clinton (figures). It basically praises the Clinton administration for its economic policies while demonizing Reagan's, Sr's and Jr's administration (If you didn't see that coming, you must be blind).

If I had to choose a person to replace Bush I would say John McCain or Colin Powell.

At 4/24/03 07:43 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: The French only lost so many soldiors because the wr was fought in France, because it was closest to Germany. If the war was fought in the UK, you can bet we would have taken the most casualties.

It was a factor, yes. However, heavy French casualities occured more often by poor planning (caught completely by surprise when Germany went through Belgium to get to France, their plans depended more on the fighting spirit of the solider and the underestimation of Germany's reserve troops quickly defeated France's attack into Germany) and inefficient weaponry.

France lost over 1 million soliders during WWI. Only Russia had a higher # of dead soliders than France. France has fought a war, Nemmy. They're just not that good at it.

Back to the topic, if and only IF the US lost the war, the US would have a lot of egg on its face then.

At 4/23/03 02:55 AM, karasz wrote: first it was just a joke... second i do hold the 2nd amendment to mean that the populous stays armed SO as to deter the govt from turning the US into a dictatorship... granted its probably not going to happen, but im not going to risk it...

Oh I know it was a joke but I just felt like clearing things up like that.

At 4/20/03 08:46 PM, karasz wrote:

At 4/20/03 10:38 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote: Do former jobs in areas of other than politics or law not qualify people for office?

yes... CRACK HOAR, Pimp, prosititute, mob boss... those kinds of thingsyes...

lol Yeah, tt's kinda hard for ex-pimps like Clinton to gain political stature with a tarnished record like that.

At 4/23/03 01:48 AM, Taxman2A wrote: I don't think that's true for everyone. I'd much rather be killed than many other things. To be honest, when I hear about murder cases, I always like to hear the person convicted get life in prison, instead of the death penalty. Why? Because death is a release, while life in prison is years and years of solitude, sitting in a cell, staring at a wall, left with nothing but your thoughts, and a room full of inmates who haven't seen the stars in years. THAT, my friend, is a punishment worse than death's release.

Very true. Some murderers who were given life sentences such as Ted Bundy abhorred being locked away in prison and would much rather die than waste away in a cell.

At 4/23/03 02:10 AM, karasz wrote: 2nd amendment= shoot people that wanna kick ur ass for talking shit...

The 2nd amendment was put into place so that we would have a militia (defined as: "the whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service"), capable of defending ourselves in times of need. It focuses more on maintaining a "well regulated" militia for war times than for every slack-jawed country bumpkin to hang a pair of antlers over their fireplace. I guess your comment could still be vaild if you say it as the right to protect your nation from external and internal forces that threaten your home.