487 Forum Posts by "OpIvy420"
Why do people still bring this up? There really isn't a rash of flag burning going on in this country. There might have been in the 60s, but protests have evolved since then. I went to 80% of the anti-war marches in San Francisco, probably the place you'd most expect to see something like that going down, and never saw anyone burning anything. If they want to, let them. But it seems like kind of a weird thing to still be debating.
Who the fuck cares what happened to Osama Bin Laden? Al-Queda is a massive network of loosely connected terrorist cells. They have no strategic leader. Even if we capture bin Laden and execute him live on Fox, it's not going to stop a guy from strapping a bomb to his chest and walking into the middle of Times Square.
That's why a war on terrorism is unwinnable. You can capture all the leaders you want, but if 19 guys with box cutters are able to blow up two 1400 story office buildings and kill over 3000 people, then you're going to have to round up and arrest every single man, woman, and child with an allegiance to Al-Queda. And that's no easy task, seeing as how terrorists don't wear uniforms, and we can't see into their minds. And terrorists aren't just Middle Easterners, and I'm not saying that just to be politically correct. Timothy McVeigh was about as white as you can get, yet he orchestrated a deadly terrorist attack in Oklaholma City.
The only way to completely wipe terrorism from the globe, is simply, to kill everybody. And if we give America enough time, that's exactly what its going to do.
Skinhead punk has its roots in non-racist ska, but in today's modern world, it does signify racism. I mean, somebody probably walked around wearing a white sheet before the 19th century, but that doesn't mean it's cool to go around today dressed as a Klansman.
Plus, the word "Oi" is fucking hella dumb. I've never heard a good song other than Rancid's "Alleyways and Avenues" with Oi in it. What the hell does that shit even mean?
Also, regarding the modern state of punk, Good Charlotte does suck ass. Punk bands should have a message. The Clash did, the Sex Pistols did, Operation Ivy definately did, but they have yet to make any political statements beyond "school sucks" and "rich people complain too much". Also they believe in God. They suck. So do all those other Green Day wannabes with names with random words followed by numbers like Blink182 and Sum 41. The only bands still playing good punk rock are Rancid and Leftover Crack.
You know - if you wanted to completely avoid any risk of contracting AIDS, you could cut off the entire penis. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. But if you don't want to cut part of your body with a knife, you could try not having sex if you're that afraid of AIDS, or wearing a condom, or just stop having sex with people who have AIDS...
...and whoever disputed the claim that sex isn't better with a foreskin, here's proof from a legitimate source: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp10102003.shtml
"I'm tired of taking the regular AIDS test, man. Now I do the roundabout AIDS test. I call up my friend Steve, and say, 'Hey Steve, do you anyone who has AIDS?' and he says, 'Naw.' And I say, 'Cool. Cause you know me.'"
Mitch Hedberg
At 3/3/04 01:14 AM, MKII wrote: does anyone find it ironic that guns enabled us to fight a revolution against the British for the freedom to discuss whether to ban guns or not?
India also had to fight for their independence from the British, and they were able to attain it without using any guns. Ever heard of Ghandi? Non-violent protest? America wouldn't be under British rule today even if we hadn't killed thousands of English people to "be free".
RANKING
1. North America (unilateral ass kickings for everyone)
2. Europe (lots of pretty strong powers)
3. Asia (the Chinese military is probably the only match for the U.S.)
4. South America (weak, but covered by the Monroe Doctrine)
5. Africa (huge AIDS epidemic, massive WorldBank debts)
6. Australia/Oceania (save for the elite Micronesian military, not much military strength, but WWII proved that the territory is still difficult to wage war in)
7. Antarctica (those ten guys in a weather station aren't going to be able to hold off the 102nd airborne for too long)
At 3/2/04 08:05 PM, 70TA wrote: HAHAHAHAHA! NO MORE TEARS, GOOIE!
I don't want to add fuel to the flame war, but didn't you use that same comeback (ripped from Maddox's "Bill O'Reilly Is A Big Blubbering Vagina" article) in your last post?
70TA, guns kill more Americans every year than homosexuality and terrorism (your two main concerns) combined. Pretty much everyone, except pasty shitty poetry-writing goths, can agree that death is bad. And going by the Bush Doctrine that "bad things and bad and must be destroyed by force", shouldn't we eliminate weapons from this planet? They have no practical purpose other than ending the lives of humans and animals.
And if you just quote this post and write "no more tears, fag", then... well, I don't know if it's possible to lose any more respect for you than I already have, but I'll try to find a way.
At 2/29/04 11:06 PM, racistonurass88 wrote: everyone who believes in same sex mariages are way out of line the next thing you know they will be backing child molesters and people who like having sex with animals its the same thing only other perverts will accept this kind of thing as long as rational thinking humans in this country keep voteing we will not have to worry about these kind of thing hapening .....88
Explain to me how two consenting humans of the same gender having sex is "the same thing" as raping a child or an animal?
Why does anyone care what happened to him? Why are people focused more on an old man on dialysis who's probably dead then the Saudi Arabian government, who killed over 3,000 Americans on September 11th?
This was a fucking masterpiece? It was two hours of a guy getting tortured. The anti-Semetic charge is bullshit, there really wasn't anything in this movie about religion at all. All it is, it's just Jesus getting his shit fucked up. Unless you're into hardcore sado-masochism, or you really, really hate Jesus, don't see this.
At 2/27/04 11:14 PM, 70TA wrote: Well it looks like that big fat nasty carpet munchin cow Rosie O'Donnell got married. God, what a fat piece of shit. And of course she was flappin her fat gums about my leader. She sucks.
So people shouldn't be able to get married because they're fat? How many fucking restrictions do you authoritarians want on marriage? Why is this even a controversy? Christian Fundementalists are always pressuring straight couples to get married before they start boning, but if a gay couple willingly wants to get married, it's a horrible, unthinkable travesty.
"The only reason my wife and I got married was because it was something gay people couldn't do!"
Steven Colbert
"The military, marriage... why do these gay people want to get into our worst institutions?"
The Onion
At 2/22/04 04:34 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Is there any chance Nadar will get any kind of substantial votes?
Not this year. Bush is even more polarizing then he was when he was campaigning in 2000. People either want to keep him in the White House, or do whatever it takes to get him out, even if that means voting for a moderate conservative like Kerry. I would have voted for him in 2000, because I didn't know how awful Bush was going to be, and Gore was even farther to the right then Kerry, but this year, I'm going to vote for whoever can get Bush out of power. In the words of Jesse Michaels: "We got to stop this war!"
The right to bear arms is archaic, something written at a time when arms consisted of muskets that took minutes to fire a single shot, and armed citizentry was a necessity due to the fact that the United States didn't have an army at the time.
If they were aware that 300 years later, the word "arms" could potentially mean things like rocket launchers, flamethrowers, assault rifles, and nuclear missiles, the framers of the Constitution may have given some thought to making the Second Amendment so broadly worded. Guns kill people. Yes, people kill people, but guns help them kill more people.
The "Gol durn it, we need guns so we can go huntin' " NRA crowd doesn't seem to realize that they are creating a market for high-powered, extremely accurate, and lethal weapons that can easily end up the hands of people who's targets don't have antlers. And whoever's been saying that if someone is armed, then they can't fall victim to an oppressive government, well, just look at 70TA.
At 2/19/04 09:19 PM, JTHM4 wrote: I've been thinking alot about the influence of music on people and I thought about the people blameing hardcore music for the colimbine shooting.
It's hardcore they're blaming now? First it was Marilyn Manson, then it was gangsta rap, now they're blaming fucking Leftover Crack for the shooting? The Columbine kids were into industrial techno! When are people going to get that through their heads?
This is going on just across the bridge from me, and it was really suprising. I always considered Gavin Newsom to be a very moderate, almost conservative Democrat, I never expected him to do something as cool this. Does anyone know if these marriages actually count as legal unions, or if they're just a publicity stunt?
You have to make a choice. Do you unquestioningly believe in some mystical diety and eliminate anything from your life that may lead to it not sucking on the off-chance that when you die you might get to live up in the clouds, or do you live your life doing what you want knowing that there is the remote possibility you might end up getting poked with pitchforks by dudes with horns?
And I have no problem with people believing in their god(s), it's their life, but if they try and force others by law to believe in the same thing they do, then that's just as bad as white supremacy or male supremacy.
I thought Bush's policy about making drug testing madatory in public schools was incredibly hypocritical. I mean, this is a guy who did cocaine and got wasted all through college, then he turns around and wants to get kids suspended or expelled for testing positive for weed. Also, that spot about how we have to eliminate "activist" judges who believe in gay rights, something that is going to seem as basic as civil rights 20 years from now, really pissed me off.
Other than that, the rest of the speech was pretty basic Republican bullshit, nothing unexpected.
If my vote decided the Iowa Caucus, it would be Kucinich all the way. Unfortunately, people are stupid, so it will probably be Dean or Kerry.
Anyone who favors entertainment or volume over facts cannot be trusted as a reliable source for news and information. Bowling For Columbine was a great film, I really enjoyed it, I saw it the first night it came out. I love that scene where they're interviewing the kid about what causes school violence, and he points to some jock and says "That guy". But I would not base my political ideology on the views expressed by Michael Moore. Nor would I on the views expressed by any other entertainment/non-fiction source, such as The Daily Show, newsmax.com, or the Fox News Channel. If something's interesting, it's probably not true. If something's boring, it's probably true.
"Go To Sleep" by Radiohead contains the lines:
We don't want a monster taking over
Take turns and tie 'em down
We don't want the loonies taking over
Take turns and tie 'em down
which is a reference to the fear of extremism (right wing or left wing) that is so prevelant in modern politics.
At 1/15/04 08:52 PM, JesusCyborg wrote: it's good that you liberals are watching bill because you can see him crush the leaders of your funny movements in the no spin zone.
Kind of like that time that he told that kid who lost his dad in the World Trade Center attacks to "Shut up" and cut off his mic because he was about to state the fact that the United States supported the Moshahadins (didn't come close to spelling that right) in Afghanistan in the 1980s?
At 1/14/04 04:17 PM, JamsterBoyo wrote: Do you think that people who follow religions that do not agree with evolution should be forced to learn about it?
All through high school, I never agreed with the quadratic formula, and yet I was still forced to learn about it. I did not agree ideologically with playing organized sports either, and yet I was forced to take P.E. If you refute evolution as a fact, you refute all of science. If evolution does not exist, then the carbon dating of fossils to being millions of years old cannot be accurate (since the world is only 5,000 years old, apparently). If evolution does not exist, then the science of genetics must also be false, because humans share a massive percantage of biological traits with other primates.
I'm not saying that you should renounce Christianity, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the Bible for saying the world was created in 7 days (at the time it was written, people also believed the world was flat and that it revolved around the sun). I'm just saying that portions of the Bible are merely hyperbole, used to illustrate the greater points and lessons of your religion. If you believe in every word of it and say that all else is false, then you are making the concious decision to be ignorant.
At 1/15/04 05:48 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Sorry, but just to interject, isn't American TV all privatrely owned, or am I getting mixed up?
Well, there's PBS, that's publicly owned, but it doesn't have anything worth watching except Frontline. It's mostly just British sit-coms from the 70s. C-SPAN, I think, is owned by the government, and is basically just live video of the Senate voting on shit. Other than that, it's all privately owned.
20 years from now, the whole thing will seem ridiculous. 60 years ago there was a huge contraversy over using the word "damn" in Gone With the Wind. 50 years ago, you couldn't show married couples sleeping in the same bed. 20 years ago, you could be prosecuted for having foul language in music (see the Jello Biafra Frankenchrist trial for future reference). Restrictions have gradually been lifted as time passes, and will continue to be lifted. By 2050, little kids will be watching hardcore porn instead of cartoons on Saturday mornings.
At 11/19/03 06:10 PM, Peter90688 wrote: This is wut i think, if u rape sum1, you should have your dick cut off, and get life in jail. Same wit pedaphiles. Then u sit in jail for the rest of ur life without a dick. But wit girls....i dont know....rip their overies out or sumthing.
You're stupid, and I don't like you.
If the government lowers itself to the level of the criminal, then they have no more right to prosecute murderers then... I don't know. Someone help me with a good analogy. I'm tired.
At 1/14/04 06:58 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: But the real question is; are you black or just trying really, really hard?
Is it that hard to believe that black people are posting in the Newgrounds politics forum? It's not like it's that hard to figure out what he's saying.
I'm with you, H-Dawg. Sharon's a biatch. The Israelis shouldn't be allowed to have a monopoly over the Holy Land just because their religion is more acceptable to the United States.
At 1/11/04 05:56 PM, 70TA wrote: Hey queerbait, that would be up your field. Now go back to doing something latenly homo erotic. Alright?
How could you do something latently homoerotic? I could see how a person would be capable of doing something latently homosexual (like hunting, playing football, or describing in graphic detail the many sinful practices homosexuals engage in), but homoerotic? Let's look it up.
la·tent adj.
Present or potential but not evident or active: latent talent.
ho·mo·e·rot·ic adj.
Of or concerning homosexual love and desire.
Tending to arouse such desire.
Unless you're fucking somebody in the ass without evidently or actively fucking them in the ass, you can't be latently homoerotic. Sorry.
At 1/11/04 04:44 PM, 70TA wrote: Did you know that plants need bad air to make good air? If there wasn't any exhaust, alot of trees would die. I'm gladly providing alot of exhaust for the trees to eat up.
Of course. That's why there weren't any trees before the Industrial Revolution.
At 1/7/04 01:23 AM, Dagodevas wrote: I most certainly hope you caught the symbolism in what Quiche said because that was a pretty lame reply to it.
No, I picked up on the reference. I'm just kind of tired of every single thing George W. Bush's administration does being compared to either 1984 or Hitler. I'm not defending Bush at all. I'm just saying we could be a little bit more creative.
At 1/7/04 04:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: an armed combatant! He didn't put his hands up and surrender. No, he went for his gun again. The soldiers didn't just shoot him outright. They gave him a chance, but he chose to resist. The soldiers were probably cheering because they managed to repel an enemy attack. Cheering has always been a part of battle. The soldiers did nothing wrong.
The man was writhing on the ground, already wounded. He was no possible threat to the Americans. This was just inhuman, sadistic torture.
