Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/21/04 09:33 PM, lunchbxpat wrote: sixteen year olds can be executed because if you kill someone at sixteen, you are fully aware of the value of human life.(or, at least, you should be)

Then you should be fully aware of the country that you live in because by golly look you have been living in it for 16 years! Honestly though, how can a government take taxes away from somebody but not give them a voice in the government? It just isn't right. How can a person that is a bum of society getting welfare able to vote when they are the burden of tax payers? (Because I already know your going to say this one thing, people who go through schooling get paid more, so that means more taxes for the government)

As for most 16 year olds not working, that is not how it is like in my area. Almost all of them are looking for jobs or are actually working at ones.

I have a question for you. I am fully aware of everything that is occuring. I know how the federal government works. I know the topics that the candidates are supporting and how they have voted in the past in congress(if applicaple b/c Bush never really was a senator or represanative). I know how the capitalist system works. I know the constitution and the Bill of Rights. But yet I am not able to vote because I am under 18. I am probably going to make a smarter decision than most people that are going to vote because all they know is the side that CNN or MSNBC gives them, and don't analyze what else could occur because of what happens. They don't think about what the government can and should be, only about very minute differences about topics that only pertain to a small part about the government. They care about safety and a well-being for children, when they are creating certain systems that are un-constutional and un-ethical to do so(FCC's censorship and wire-tapping, respectively). So why if I am fresh and aware of what America can be is so overshadowed by people that are voting that vote only for what they want it to be? A candidate says more money for elderly healthcare, he gets votes. A candidate says lower taxes, he gets votes. A candidate promises peace and prosperity, he will get votes. But why isn't anyone going for nationwide healthcare supported by a federal sales tax on non-necissities? Maybe because its too liberal and too socialistic? Maybe the majority doesn't want more taxes, but want better healthcare, so the federal government will cut into other areas; besides the military and national defense because we are in such a horrible war against terrorism we need it so much. What would the other areas be? The majority of voters would not think of that, they only care for what they will receive.

I think myself and Dr Arbitrary are coming from a different view point than everybody else, but I will be talking only on my behalf, of course. Whenever people say segregation they often think about schooling. What I think we are talking about is cultures that are currently in a feud and are killing each other. What do we do when that happens? Uniformity? Fuck no, that's just retarded. After a fight do you ask the person who you just fought with if he'd like some supper? Maybe in lalla world, but not in most places that fighting occurs. Segregation is a temporary solution, but not a permament one. It is best to stop something and then create a solution than it is to allow an atrocity to keep occuring and make up a solution.

Why keep the anti-trust laws? To prevent a monopoly causing a particular company from controlling the majority of the market, thus causing them to have the ability to control the prices which is bad for the consumer. What is bad for the consumer is bad for the economy because we are in a consumer society.

But temporarily it can stop the fighting. Just think of what could've happened in Rwanda if the Hutus and Tutsis were segregated. I'm thinking that bodies wouldn't have floated into Lake Victoria if you get my drift.

At 4/19/04 04:04 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I'm not saying that we should segregate everyone, but in some instances, it's the best way to keep people from genociding eachother. I think that it's a good idea in places where there are already established hatreds and racial tension.

Segregation is a good temporary solution, but not a good final solution. Like you said it does stop genocides from occuring.

Oh, and that guy who's in my class that everone hates, we hate him because he's a backstabbing asshole, so he doesn't have fun with it, he just tattles whenever anyone makes the slightest mistake.

Ooh, well no one likes those kinds of people

At 4/19/04 03:37 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

At 4/19/04 03:20 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: For anyone that commits a racial crime they have to live with and through the lives of the people that they attacked.

I don't understand.

Basically like adopting a person into a family. Except the family is of a different race.

There's a guy in my class that everyone hates, outside of class we sometimes bitch about him, but usually we just do other stuff. It's when we have to look at him and listen to him talk and work with him that the real tensions develop.

I wonder if this person already knows he is an outcast so he has fun with it. Probably not. That is one person though, it's like saying Micheal Jackson is like a black, err, white person.

Actually, there's a few square miles of town in Phoenix called 'the square' it has the highest racial diversity in the entire city. It also has it's own police station, just for that tiny area.

Because they aren't really living with each other. They are merely mixed in a bowl and told to fight it out. With that area you could probably say, "Yeah the blacks live over there" or "The mexicans live down the block." If a black person was mandated by the state to spend time and get to know a mexican and their lives and family, their ideas would likely change. But it'd probably change back when the black person gets back to his group. It's all about humanizing the other side. If a person could care less about another person, then hatred is easy to come by. But if the person knows the other side, then he will think, "If I kill him, what will happen to his wife, mother, and child?"

At 4/18/04 12:49 PM, Dirdmister wrote:

At 4/18/04 10:43 AM, Ravens_Grin wrote: What are they doing now to help Iraq? Nothing.

Thats becaus they have been against the war since the start.
Why is the US any better?
here are some of the look backs at what the US has done:

1980's: US trains Osama Bin LAden and other terrorists to kill Soviets...CIA gives them $3 billion.

The Soviets were invading that's why. It was called the cold war.

1982: US provides billions in aid to Sadam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians...meanwhile in 1983 the White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraq's.

Iraq was more open to westward sides, so we chose Iraq instead of Iran because of the potential for a trading partner. This hope suddenly ended with the invasion of Kuwait.

1991:US enters Iraq

Iraq invaded Kuwait.

1991-present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis...UN estimates 500,000 Iraq children killed from bombing and sanctions.

Strange, the sanctions were put on by the UN as well. That is very strange. But wait, didn't the UN give approval of the Gulf War before entering? Because I don't feel that you know exactly what happened during those turbulent years, let me explain.

Iraq coming out of an expensive and costly war with Iran, which neither side officially won, was deeply in debt. Their neighbors to the south, though smaller in size, had a lot more oil than Iraq, so Iraq invaded due to economical reasons. US fearing an invasion of Saudi Arabia, an ally for the US in the middle east, sent troops to Saudi Arabia. The total number was around 290-300,000 troops. This was called "Desert Shield" if you want to look it up. Iraq continued its build up near Kuwait, which meant an imminent invasion of Saudi Arabia was bound to happen. So the US went to the UN seeking allies for the war and an approval from the UN security council. Bush got the approval and went to congress to get approval from there. Then the US declared war on Iraq, attacking until Kuwait was free. The US signed a cease-fire before they could arrive at Baghdad.

US really know how to handle situations huh?

I wasn't talking about the US. The US wasn't created to make world peace and harmony. The UN was.

:Forgot

2000-1 : US gives Taliban ruled Afganistan $245 million in "aid".

The Taliban was doing a dam good job on the drug war, so that was probably what that was about.

Sept 11 2001 : Osama uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people!

I thought the people on the planes were trained in flight school down in South Carolina or Florida? You might want to check your sources on that.

Why porn is bad and violence is good? Because of the story of the stork. That would be hard on lil children when they find out that their parents lied to them about where babies come from...

Actually I was thinking on the contrary. For anyone that commits a racial crime they have to live with and through the lives of the people that they attacked. It's the simple thinking that if you are pissed at someone and you never talk to them, then it will only get amplified if you are always surrounded by people disliking a certain group. But if you get to know and live with the other group then you will understand and think that they are just like you. The US is a good example for both of these actually. In many large cities that you have to coincide with almost every race, there is very little racism. But if you live in a small town with multiple races, there is a good chance that the people will become polarized and start a conflict between the races.

The UN is becoming less and less responsive these days. It has all of these things about being a humanitarism, but what have they prevented? Nothing. What happened when Rwanda ignited into a civil war? Nothing, all they did was pull out while the genocide was occuring. What did the UN do when there was substantial evidence against Pol Pot's crime against humanity in Cambodia? Nothing.

What are they doing now to help Iraq? Nothing. Leave your grudges behind, what happened happened. If people are suffering you should help them.

So what is that, some 2-3 million deaths that the UN could've prevented or convicted more people on killings? Probably so. As a organization for peace and international laws, it has been failing it's duties since it was created.

The UN is always against becoming involved, if you haven't got that from what I have been saying, even if becoming involved is the best option.

A theory explains how and why something happens while a law simply states what happens. It's that easy folks.

Dirdmister, this just proves your idiocy.

Another truth, everyone is a human being. This includes communists, terrorists, homosexuals, rednecks. Every single one has a mind capable of thinking and rationals based on their experiences.

Yeah in the states, tabloids usually equal to titles like "Batboy is spotted!" and "I saw hell!" kind of papers.

At 4/9/04 07:41 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote:

At 4/9/04 02:18 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Don't be silly, Skunk, we dont want to tax corporations! They make jobs* and help the economy**.

i do pray to god you are being sarcastic bum. because otherwise id have to asume you work for those nazis, and thats not a good thing

You need to read his footnotes....

Hey I'm pretty good at math. I'm kinda accelerated about 3 years beyond my peers, so that's not bad. I can basically answer any question up to some parts of Calculus.

AIM id: butterballlz

So Fiend, basically war begins at someone being jealous about someones, umm, cheese. I see...

Now think about this a minute. Because Country B wanted cheese, even though they were going along fine with their mold, they started a massive onslaught of conflicts between multiple nations. Wouldn't it have been easier for Country A to give up the cheese a little bit to accomodate Country B's want for it? In return Country B could do something for Country A because if Country B only gets the cheese and doesn't do anything in return, they're going to want more and more cheese. Also Country A will probably not give the cheese if Country B will only reap the benefits from it.

But yeah the answer that you gave me is basically what happens most of the time that causes war and hostilities.

There are alternatives to war, but war can't be avoidable without thinking in the future. A person's ego about the nation is not always a good thing. Nationalism is what binds a population and seperates the world.

At 4/7/04 03:24 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 4/6/04 10:17 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: I will give $50 for anyone to rationalize to going to war. It has to be rationalization from both sides, not from just one.

Defense.

And that can apply to any two sides.

Do I get a cookie?

How can 2 groups both be on the defense? Doesn't one side need to be the aggressor and the other side the defender? One can't both be defending because then it'd end up in a stalemate with neither side attacking.

But to the first reply, yeah this is about war in general.

I will give $50 for anyone to rationalize to going to war. It has to be rationalization from both sides, not from just one.

....

.

(the $50 I don't have so I can't give it)

..

..

..

(but answer the question still plz)

....

..

Solution:
No funding for any sports or activities. It's a university not a football team nor a drum squad.

If students want these activities, they should provide the money through fundraisers. Also any red tape for donations should be dropped for athletics and extracurricular(sp?) activities.

At 4/6/04 08:04 PM, Mexican_American wrote: Eventually it will cause kids just not to go to school. It's a GREAT idea, charge the hell out of the poor population and continue the supression.

Dude, more likely they will protect lower income families like yourself. But honestly I don't see many low income families that have students will allow their children to slack off or be late to school. They will instead want a better future for their children. This may not be the case in some situations, but in most cases I believe it is.

As for the supression, the way to beat them is to beat the supressors at their own game by becoming an excellent student and getting straight A's. Then when your boss of a company you can tell the people to fuck off, or better yet fire them for negligence and laziness. There are 2 things you shouldn't do right now. Be pissed so that you can't think straight and forget that people are screwing you over.

The thing about fair tax, what would happen if everyone decides to save their money instead of spending it?

But yeah a source would be nice....

Le-Reiper I'm sure there will be safeguards put into place for low income families. For instance they already get free or reduced lunches in my area. As for the effectiveness of this, it probably wouldn't be too much for rich areas, but will have an impact on middle income and lower income families.

For a sec I thought this was an April fools joke, but that was 5 days ago. As for the implication, I think it would work rather well because most students don't want to go to school but if you charge them money for arriving late, the people that don't want to go won't go.

At 4/3/04 04:58 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote:

At 4/3/04 04:55 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

Then wouldn't you say the FCC is getting too much power from it's original purpose to just assign frequencies?

yes its geting more power but at the same time congress aparently thinks that it is nessasary to give it that power.

So that's where the problem is at, Congress.

At 4/3/04 12:05 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote: the reason why there starting to regulate cable is because congress passed new bills giving the FCC the right to regulate cable and dont ask me why they did it because i dont know, the ingeneral has little or no ability to raise there own fines it has to be done though congress all there power has been given to them through congerss also.

Then wouldn't you say the FCC is getting too much power from it's original purpose to just assign frequencies?

And Cable isn't even through the open air!

At 4/3/04 12:38 AM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote: the station was to make work like xm there would be no regulation because eventhough its transmited via open air waves it is only acessable if you pay a montly fee to keep your transponder signal active thus making it so that not anyone with just an xm radio can listion to the signal you also need to pay to activate it and the mothly fees.

K, then why is the FCC trying to be able to regulate cable? You pay a monthly fee for that but don't you still have to follow regulations?

At 4/1/04 11:13 PM, _Thanatopsis_ wrote: becaause the waves are broadcast through the air it enters in to public space and public domain, which makes it in the gov's eyes public property and free to regulation. the other reason why it is concidered public is that if you buy a $5 radio you can for no extra charge listion to what i passed through the air, its the same idea as public roads you provide your own car but becasue there is no money to pay to get your car on the road it is open to anyone.

So if an ammonia train crashes and tons of ammonia leak out into the public area, the ammonia becomes public property? Same concept.