Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/5/04 08:05 PM, 1_WTC_Lock wrote: But you know, there really isn't freedom in the U.S., and I don't mean by the Patriot Act. I mean by the fact that Lady Liberty remains closed

I don't have freedom because I'm not allowed to go inside a monument?

At 5/5/04 07:32 PM, RedSkvnk wrote: Really? Bush & co. is murdering political opponents now?

Yep just look at, umm, wait a minute, oh yeah I'm pulling the Ace of Spaids card out of my Iraqi Liberation card. Wait, wait, n/m they haven't killed him. I take back anything I said.

Everyone here is thinking that women don't have all the rights that men have. Sure they do, and I'll bet an attractive lady will get a job more so than a male. I'll agree on HitHair on some parts, but only on extreme feminists that blame everything on the opposite sex.

My question is, with the NAACP, NOW, and many other groups wanting equal rights, why don't they join together, because they surely make more than the majority, and actually make everything equal?

Let me answer that, because they most likely don't want to be "equal". To them and the rest of humanity being equal means having an upper hand on the other people.

People supporting Israelis, please give my reasoning to these numbers:

Palestinians killed since Sep. 29, 2000: 2,886

Israelis killed since Sep 29, 2000: 964

At 5/5/04 05:48 PM, Slizor wrote: I think it's Bush's way of saying he has a small penis, but y'know he's not good at verbalising his feelings or his elusive thoughts.

Well having a vice president named Dick probably helped his self esteem a lil bit.

At 5/3/04 06:05 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: What's the exact wording of the essay prompt?

Lol, so true so true.

The reason is the minimum price farmers can sell to pasteurizers went from $1.20 a gallon to $1.60 a gallon. This and the additional cost for fuel to actually pasteurize the milk.

If I was president I would do absolutely nothing and get paid for it. Ahh the american dream, power fame glory and money.

At 5/3/04 05:51 PM, mattpravda wrote: actually Hitler was a quarter jewish genetically, just thought you guys should know that

There are no genealogical facts behind that rumour just to let you know, only speculations.

At 5/2/04 06:31 PM, MocawOfDoom wrote: Now ice wraith insists that the un has no balls.

Well the UN has tons of hold up on anything that they do. There is also tons of debate and little action because of the setup of the UN. The UN is EXTREMELY SLOW in a lot of cases. Look at Cambodia if you will.

Notice that it says a chickenhead productions parody at the bottom.

At 5/2/04 05:12 PM, BeFell wrote: Nothing about this seems practical.

That is why the idea got dropped whenever it was proposed.

It was brought up awhile ago, basically they were thinking of ways to deter junk e-mail everyone constantly receives. The ideas they brought up was a tax and something else.

At 5/2/04 12:06 PM, JagerMaster wrote: U ARE A FUCKIN' NAZI!!!!
WE DONT RAPE NO ONE U STUPID DUMBASS!!!!
WE DESTROYED HOUSES OF TERROISTS ONLY!!!
ONLY THR GUYS THAT SUCIDE BOMBED, WE DESTROY HIS HOUSE FOR DOING IT! ON 9|11 WE WENT TO A WAR!!! SO SHUT UP, WE WONT TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!! DAMMIT THE MEDIA MADE YA ALL CRAZY!!!!
THEY EXPLODE, WE ARE ABOUT TO GO OUT OF THE COLONIES!

Woh someone needs a naptime.

But I have a question for you. If you are so open to negotiations, why are you being so hostile right now?

BTW, the reason we went into Iraq versus Israel is because Iraq has used their weapons before, maybe not nuclear, but definetely biological or chemical (Kurds).

No sir, we are a complete idiot.

You have proven this too many times already. You might want to get your split personality checked out though.

and about our bombs, WTF do u care?

what, are u afraid or something? afraid that ill blow u away? u pussy, so what if we have Atomic Weapon?

U pussy so what if we have an gun in my hand? I ain't goin to use it, I just like caressing it..

Dont tell me how much weapoms we got ^_^ i know better then u. and i even know what is the utility of those, yes, we got lots o' weapons.

You know what weapons do right?

At 4/30/04 05:47 PM, ReiperX wrote: A lot of the French I have met seem pretty nice.

I have only met 1 family of french people and their son is a compulsive stealer.

At 4/30/04 04:48 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/30/04 04:46 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: The two things mean basically the same thing in my head.

Hilarious implies actually laughing out loud. Ironic is something that is usually considered wrong, like torturing people.

Most of the ironic things I see are from comedic movies, so that is where I get the two things attached from.

The two things mean basically the same thing in my head.

Is their a certain kind of c++ u need to know for making games? and if so TELL ME WAT KIND IT IS please:)

To make the graphics, you use DirectX or OpenGL.
To make the sound, you use Directx or (I forgot the other one).
For the physics involved, you have to be really good at math and able to put that into source code.
As for your willingness to find information by yourself, I highly doubt you will be able to get anything running that even looks like a game.

DirectX and OpenGL are both libraries. I think you can use DirectX and OpenGL for multiple languages, not just C++. For that I will let you go and research that on your own.

At 4/30/04 04:21 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/30/04 04:17 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Yeah I don't support it, but think about it for a second. We invaded a country, destroyed the infrastructure, and now we are having their POW's get naked and make human pyramids. Its just hilarious to what is happening.

Yeah. For you maybe. But remember, there are real people here. Real people have their homes bombed, and real people are in those pyramids.

Yeah I realized that, and it's completely messed up what they did, but hilarious in a particular way as well. I mean 2 years ago would they think, "hmm I hope america comes and invades us so that I can make human pyramids while naked with my comrades"?

Yeah I don't support it, but think about it for a second. We invaded a country, destroyed the infrastructure, and now we are having their POW's get naked and make human pyramids. Its just hilarious to what is happening.

But the thing about that, most of the land in 3rd world countries is un-arable.

At 4/30/04 03:12 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: precisely. if capitalists didn't set up factories and stuff in poor countries, then what would they do?

subsistence farming and roaming around for meals

At 4/30/04 01:02 PM, apfelsafat wrote: 2. capitalism does not support the majority of people

Do people live their days through working, no matter what the job is? The thing is, capitalism is supporting these people in 3rd world countries. Though they might not have the most luxorious of lives, they are still making it through. But like I said earlier, the way to fight poverty is through education, not by taking money from the rich and giving to the poor, because then the rich will exploit the poor even more to gain back the money they lost.

At 4/30/04 10:36 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

2. bush does undoutebly "SUCK" as does the u.s.a all other idustrial capitsalist states if you would like to know how i would try to remedy this the first and most fundemental steps would be to try to increase awerness of the fact that countrys like america and england only exist becasue they live of third world countrys. the second step would be to employ workers from your own countrys at a fair wage there by reducing umemplyment and increaseing the circulation of money in local areas and not just in big business, then instead leaving third world countrys to die simply to start mutally beneficial organisations like coffe bean trade in south america.

Hmm, leave 3rd world countries alone. Hmm, I don't mean to sound like a prick or anything

Oops forgot to write my point on this one... my bad. But what I was going to say if the 1st world countries left the 3rd world countries, they would become even more economically devastated.

*Cracks fingers*

At 4/25/04 05:22 PM, apfelsafat wrote: i am prone to critise because i would consider myself a trotsky socialsit thinker although as you can probably tell i have taken many ideas from marx, lenon orwell. simply becasue these are logicall ways of thinking for a person who wants to better the world we live in

You know lenin actually allowed the political murder of many people? I have a source that puts that number of over 4 million. I really don't support people that used such tactics to gain support in their country. Trotsky was no angel either. But if you like them, you like them.

1. i do not only critise i am a m member of many organisations (amnesty international, sociast worker) where upon i try my hardest to make the world a better place for themyself and the people around m e.

Hmm this doesn't really correspond to what you say in #2(The criticise part).

2. bush does undoutebly "SUCK" as does the u.s.a all other idustrial capitsalist states if you would like to know how i would try to remedy this the first and most fundemental steps would be to try to increase awerness of the fact that countrys like america and england only exist becasue they live of third world countrys. the second step would be to employ workers from your own countrys at a fair wage there by reducing umemplyment and increaseing the circulation of money in local areas and not just in big business, then instead leaving third world countrys to die simply to start mutally beneficial organisations like coffe bean trade in south america.

Hmm, leave 3rd world countries alone. Hmm, I don't mean to sound like a prick or anything

3. isreal does opress there is no way around this simple fact

soulution=well lets see....umm maybe if america stoped selling isreal weapons and artilliary that would help. if you are refering to suicide bombers a an effective weapon then may have to look into the simple fact that death to cuase you enemy death is pretty desperate and goups such as hamas anf the plo have about 3% of the weopons currently in possesion by isreal thanks to the u.s.a

You are looking at the situation lopsided right now. Palestinia will get its own country eventually. It's the impatience of the palestinians and the extremists that actually revert to suicide bombings to prove their belief into what they say. There has been constant peace talks about giving Palestine its own land, but it always gets fucked up because one of the extremists decides they can't wait it out and blows themselves up at a border control. Israel oppresses to a point because they have been under constant conflict with the palestines.

One thing I don't get, before the crusades occurred(yes I'm going to go back that far into history), the muslims and jews lived together with very little conflict. The only thing the jews had to do was pay an additional tax for not being muslim and that was it. But what would happen if that happened today? Israelies and palestinians decide to create one country, in which the minority would have to pay a tax for not being the other religion. It worked back then, but international involvement would not let something like this fly today.

4 .next capitalsim and communism. capitalism "suppots billions of people" noooo if you look at that without blinkers you will planly see that capitalsim clearly supports about 1 billionth of the world and feeds of th rest. communism same thing except the percentage is even smaller as the govermeny controls the profeits. solution= devide the funds through the trade unions fairly between the people who work there by everyone betters themselves toghther.

People live their lives, people make money, people get food on the table. Capitalism IS supporting people. Maybe not so materialistically for some people, but it is working. Capitalism goes for the cheapest labor, and many jobs in the US are being outsourced to outside countries. This is allowing more economic prosperity elsewhere.

Let me tell you one thing that capitalism has that communism and socialism does not have. It has the power for people to become motivated beyond any communistic and socialistic economic system. It can increase the productivity, and repeatedly has done so. Communism and socialism doesn't give hard workers more benefits than workers that do what is told of them to do.

The solution for modern day capitalism and prosperity world wide? Education.

5. and finally capitalism destroying free thought athough i did not use those exact words i could not have put it better my self capitalsim has succesfullt over the years and still is dividing the world into to sections rich and poor this will lead to something called a totalitariam state where upon all thought is errdicated by the simple deisre to grab for money. i cant be bothered to fully go on becasue im tired for full information look for a book called 1984 is a very simple introduction to totalitariamism and its effects i read it when i was 10 so im confident you can understand it

Everything is theory of what you have just said(besides the rich and poor part, but people have been saying that for over 100 years but somehow the line between rich and poor has practically stayed the same). You want to pull more shit out of your ass and claim it as what is truly what is going to happen? I know what 1984 is about, and many saying that goes along with it like "Ignorance is strength." But what really gets me when I think about government and totalitarian states is the simple fact that people are running the government, and modern day education has pounded the ideas about rights, wrongdoings of genocides, and other things, that I highly doubt the world will go in reverse.

p.s free COMPLETE individuaal thought is an imposibilite as one can only look at both sides of a coin an make the human gudgement on wich is the better

What if the coin lands on its side?

At 4/28/04 10:19 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Well, we aren't a true "democracy." And before you all start whipping out your e-dictionaries, the term in this topic is obviously meant to be synonamous with the term "majority rule."
In that definition, America is not a democracy. In actuality, nowhere does the Constitution state that you have a right to vote for President.

It doesn't allow medicare either. Nor does it allow social security. It also doesn't really allow the president to create a budget. Your point here is?

Also, it states that electors choose the president, but it does not say that if the nominee wins the popular vote in the state that all of the electors have to pick that particular nominee. If the electors based their vote on the district that they are representing, then the votes would become a lot more even and fair. But there can be amendments to the constituion, can there not be?

Dave Barry brings up a suggestion in his book Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway. An excerpt:
" Have you ever watched auto races on television? Have you noticed that the drivers wear uniforms plastered with the logos of the companies that sponser them? Has it ever occured to you that we could do something similar with [congressional] candidates? Thats right: We could crash them into walls at 200 mph.
No, as much fun as that would be, what I'm actually proposing is that we require candidates to wear signs clearly identifying who is paying them to hold their current set of opinions."

But the problem is they don't clearly say who they support or not. They will say what they will say to get more money for their campaign and more votes.

Over 500 billion dollars when the laws become into affect around 2006

But this really isn't as much as a problem about elders as it is about non-negotiations with drug companies with the prices of their drugs.

Democracy is great, don't think that I'm going to say that it is not, but it does have a lot of failings. I will mainly point out stuff that has occurred.

I will pick on the electoral college right now. How is it possible for something to trump the popular vote in a democratic government. Really, if this is "true" democracy that we are in, then every vote should count. Just think of it this way. I will use estimated data from the 2000 election....

In florida, Bush narrowly won by less than 1000 votes, but yet he gained all 25 electoral votes. Did those 3 million votes that voted for gore just go away for a 25 points for Bush? And in Iowa, Gore only won by less than 5000, did the half million votes for Bush just perhaps disappear from the election? It just isn't right to be able to vote for something and have it truncated at the state level to be passed onto a president, which serves no state particularly and cannot run a state.

A way to change it? Base the national election for president on popular vote, not state vote.

Also I'm looking at how much money you have to have in order to run for any office nowadays. If you don't have money you can't win. But the problem here is where in the money lays. Many pharmaceutical companies and automobile makers lobby in DC. Let's see how that influenced their votes in the Senate and House. They voted not to have the gov't buy in bulk, which would've saved patients a lot of money. This helped the pharmaceutical companies to make a lot more money.

Also the gov't passed bills making tougher refinery requirements for gasoline to have cleaner air. This may not seem too much of a biggy, but this is a perfect balancing act for the politicians. They don't require the automobile industry to adopt more technologies that have been developed to clean the air before it exists the vehicle. One they get money for re-election from the automobile industry and they keep tree-huggers happy.

A way to change it? No donations are accepted. Instead you would have the gov't supply a temporary budget for these people. Also, you should instead have debates on the TV instead of commercials slandering the opponent. Either no donations or no commercial lobbying.

I'm wonderin, who actually went to the site he posted?

I agree with ReiperX on this one, there won't be a war between China and US. Anyways, the world would embargo both of these countries to stop the war. The economies of both China and US are too dependent on foreign countries in order for it to suddenly become isolated. Look at the Great Depression and what happened there, countries put tariffs on imports, slowing international trade to a halt. K, besides britain, they didn't go through the depression. Basically what I'm getting here is that the countries would suffer too much economically to wage war.

Anyways, US-Chinese relationship has been improving. After China fell to communism, the US gov't ignored the fact that China was a country. They instead talked to the Republic of China(Taiwan basically) instead of mainland china which is the People's Republic of China.