Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well I guess I was bored a little while ago on google so I typed 'failure' and clicked "I'm feeling lucky." I thought it probably would've brought me to something about a space program or what not. It instead took me to George W. Bush's biography on the White House's webpage. Coincidence? I think not.

Many say that the Pledge of Allegiance in America should have no 'god' in it. I agree fully with these people. A seperation of church and state is at stake here if we don't remove the 'under god' saying. It wasn't there when it was created in 1892. It shouldn't be there today. The 'under god' saying wasn't put into the pledge until after 1954. So for a full 62 years it wasn't there. It was only added because Knights of Columbus, an all guy religious group, campaigned to Congress to add them. It is now the 49th year since it was added. How can religious people claim that it is too far into our heritage that we can't change 'under god.' For fucks sake, they changed our heritage to something that is unconstitutional.

Let me put the original Pledge of Allegiance as written by Francis Bellamy in 1892.

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Oyster Clock, shut up and go to school.

At 12/20/03 10:16 AM, Touchstone wrote: If you americans reelect Bush, there will surely be a 'next'. Being a French-Canadian myself, we have feared an American takeover of Quebec for some time now since we provide power to most of new-england.

I see that as childish fears. Sure America bought Alaska hoping that Canada would succede into America but we wouldn't do such a thing to an ally. One thing it would hurt us economically since America and Canada are big time traders. It would also hurt Canada economically as well. I've heard of Quebecians (sp?) wanting their independence from Canada, but I have never heard of any fears that America was going to take over Quebec. Your fears are baseless, instead you should fear the english-canadians in your province that don't want their own country. That is if you are one of the radicalists up their seeking independence.

At 12/19/03 07:40 PM, Oyster_Clock wrote:

At 12/18/03 10:02 PM, Dagodevas wrote: a few France-based companies who should be questioned for selling weapons to Iraq.

And even if they where how gives a fuck eny way????!!!!!! USA has WMD, Britain has WMD, Russa has WMD, China has WMD, Japan has WMD, Korea has WMD, and Germany has WMD so why the hell can't Iraq have WMD????!!!!! If Iran attacked Iraq one day Iraq would be defenceless!!!!

I believe it was a UN resolution that stated that Iraq cannot research WMD's because of their aggression towards Kuwait. Not to mention Saddam attacked Kuwait for the oil. As well as that, one of Saddam's relatives ordered the gassing of Kurdish towns in the north counting numerous lives and thousands of spontaneous abortions. Did the world actually want a regime that did these things to have WMD's? Does the world want anyone to have WMD's?

If I received ultimate power, I would get rid of my power.

At 12/17/03 06:44 PM, Judge_Dredd wrote: didn't America invent the internet, ..err, EVERYTHING!??

I thought it was Al Gore that invented the internet.

Anyways, this is a good idea. Sure people will have the same general ideas about stuff, but it will get rid of the "Bush sux0rs mi latte" kind of topics. There are many conflicting views even inside a political party. Hell, political parties aren't even functional anymore, but it gives the people an idea on what they should expect from a certain group. That is what people end up doing. The masses want things to be simplified. They want views on a certain topic that impacts their life and simplify this into a group of people that want it, like political parties. It is just a mere convenience so that people don't have to become overwhelmed into politics. Though you guys probably disagree without that idea.

At 12/14/03 11:47 PM, RedSkunk wrote: woot! pay up!

Do you accept payments in Yen?

At 12/14/03 09:58 PM, stafffighter wrote: There is the oil, oil is highly flammable, we might have to take all of that from them. After planting english language centers, christian churches and a starbucks of course.

How could you forget McDonald's? Seriously, how?

Alright, i'm the bookie, who wants to bet the first anti-bush post in here?

It's $10 a bet

1) .5:1 payout to someone that bets that someone already typed one-
2) 1:1 payout for next 10 minutes
3) 2:1 payout for 11-30 minutes
4) 50:1 payout for 30 minutes to 24 hours
5) 1*10^50:1 payout for never

At 12/14/03 05:48 PM, Matrixguy200 wrote: 4) Tie him up in a straight jacket and throw him into a empty room and play some jewish music in maxium volume.

Now I can't beat that one but I have a few suggestions

1) Get an electric shocker so whenever he gets an erection he gets shocked and then put him in a room with 20 naked Juggies.
2) Have him in a water dunking thingy mabobber in Alaska.
3) Make him marry Marona Bobbit (sp?)

At 12/8/03 11:41 AM, Reverse wrote:

At 8/3/03 09:04 PM, goTricE9989 wrote: gay marriage is jst wrong. there is a reason why there is a man and a woman and that is the way it is supposed to be. u don't see any gay animals and humans should be that way too.

That is not true, there is homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom. They even made a TV show about it. Why do you have to choose to be with a women?

Would anyoner like to volunteer to index this entire topic, all 581 posts? It seems that ideas and such are becoming redundant and etc...

At 12/7/03 04:27 PM, JesusCyborg wrote:

At 12/7/03 03:30 PM, Slizor wrote: They are not anti-Capitalist, they are anti (if anti is to be used) free trade Capitalism. Unfettered Capitalism. Please learn what a system is before proclaiming it great.

What what WHAT???!!1 I don't know what your definition of capitalism is but you should share it because I know what capitalism is. It is nothing but a system in which you may not use force against your fellow man, and those who do are punished by loss of that right in a just manner. This law of capitalism is global applying to the government, other governments, corporations, groups, and all people.

JesusCyborg, you are a dam idiot. Do you know what tariffs are? You don't? That's ashame. 'Free trade' is not necesarily a good thing when involving countries in different developmental states. Sure you can say broadly that capitalism is the production and distrubution of goods in a free market. Who is to define that market? The different markets are in the different countries. The trading among countries is controlled by the WTO, that is if the country decides to join them.

"A is A" means nothing, it is not an absolute truth. "A" is an abstract idea and does not actually exist, it is an idea made up by humans, it has nothing to do with nature.

Ugh. If you are going to refute something you should know what it means. "A is A" is Aristotle's law of identity. When I say "A is A" I imply this entire law. Things are what they are. Reality has a definate nature. The background of this post is grey. It can not be blue at the same time. You can mix the grey with blue or you can change it to blue but then it will have a different identity. A is A. A can not be A and B at the same time. Reality exists independent of our conciousness. You can think A is B but it will still be A. You can believe that A or an object in nature doesn't actually exist but it won't change a thing.

If 2=1, then 1=1, then anything equals anything. What is your point? A can be A at the same time A is B. So let me put your logic into biology. An organ can't be a tissue at the same time. Tissues can't be a cells at the same time. And who is to say the color I see is the color you see? What if what I call purple is in all actuality what you call red? White is one color everyone sees the same since it contains all of the lights within it. Grey is a weaker white since the eyes can detect the intensity of a light source, and humans decipher it as grey. Since white is all one color and grey is just a weaker intensity of white, then how can blue not be a part of grey?

(For the 2=1, 1=1 part)
Given X=1
Given X=Y
X^2=XY (Multiply both sides by X)
X^2-Y^2=XY-Y^2 (Subtract both sides by Y^2)
(X+Y) (X-Y) = Y (X-Y) (Factor both sides)
X+Y=Y (Divide both sides by (X-Y)
1+1=1 (Substitute 1 into the equation)(Y=1 by the transitive property)
2=1 Wallah!

At 12/8/03 03:27 PM, TheShrike wrote: As for the rest of this... I won't even bother. (I can anticipate the response from the religious right, and it isn't worth my time.)

Times are changing on newgrounds. New faces with new ideas. There hasn't been many rightest religious people advocating for or against the "under god" part of the constitution.

For myself, there is nothing wrong with the pledge of allegiance. But to others, especially the other 4(maybe 3 if Allah=Christianity's God) major religions of the world, there is something wrong with it. They don't want to feel that they must love god to love the country. The Pledge should be changed back to what it was. It gives the power of the word 'indivisible' to the country instead of god, which is what this country needs. Unity.

At 12/7/03 03:23 PM, dosdragos wrote: Affirmative Actoin is a good idea but it just turns out seeming like racism.

That is correct. Anything deciding one person's race to another is racism. A black person getting into a better school than an asian that has better credentials is pretty messed up. Today, we have to be politaccally correct, don't we? We can't say anything about blacks, because if we say something about 'color' it's automatic racism. When will we as a society grow up and finally realize what our enemy is, racism. It is the cause of many wars and conflicts.

At 12/3/03 10:32 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: . Anybody here wanna come out and state that N. Korea has the military power to fight a succesful war against USA, and actually back it up with hard solid facts?

North Korea r0xors that's why. They have China right behind them with a gazillion people.

But seriously, the US should not go to war with any country for awhile with Bush leading the attack. The international countries are not happy with Bush right now. If North Korea does test a nuclear weapon then we should surround North Korea, suffocating their supplies. If people start to starve, send them to a humanitarian camp in Japan.

I like his decreased spending, getting rid of the national debt, staying in a relative peace with peace, and not messing around with tariffs threatening the economy.

Too much nationalism can lead to horrible things. Remember Hitler and the Third Reich?

At 11/29/03 06:04 PM, theredgoatee wrote: this seems strikingly simmilar to globalization (sp)

You spelt the big word right, but not the little one.

It seems to me that anything that gets in the way of the American dream is illegal or immoral. People are too quick to defend the ideas of other people or too quick to attack the ideas of other people by just going with what the majority of the people would do. Being PC is not what people should practice. Also, if your not PC then people misinterpret what you are trying to say. Like in one of my other topics, I wrote something about how the artists had the power to alter society and how they are altering it for the worse, but others misinterpreted as myself wanting to get rid of free speech. This only in part probably because I didn't write it how other's would've wrote it. It wasn't fully politically correct. But anyways, being PC is something the masses feel they need to practice. Being PC is just a, like you said, weakening tool. It does nothing to further on the conflict between sexes, races, nor ethnicity. It only makes people know the difference. To be used as a tool, you only need to have a severe conflict that stereotyes a certain race, sex, or ethnicity. Remember what happened after 9-11 with all of the anti-arabian people?

Anyways, I forgot what the movie is called. It might be Judge Dredd, but I'm not sure. It's the one with the freezing of the one Rocky person, right?

It's just that there have been constantly less and less percent of people that vote compared to the population. Every adult that I know doesn't vote, except for one, which is my social studies teacher. I'm not sure if it's time or if it's patience that these people don't have that don't vote. Yes, in a democratic state, everyone should vote. It seems to me we are becoming less and less democratic with the political parties ruining the effectiveness of the power of the Senate and House of Represanatives, and less people voting to make politicians change their views to the new majority.

Ooh that's some bad news. Out of 320,000 people living in my district, only 45,000 people voted. That's only 14% of the population that voted.

At 11/27/03 08:06 PM, Dagodevas wrote: Nobody, huh? At least you're all honest.

Us Americans have the go big or go home motto imbedded in our brains. We don't care about our local government until something doesn't work that well. If I can remember, most of the positions in my district didn't even have competition. There was only 1 politician that was running per each office spot. But honestly, I can't remember who ran, it's pointless because it was only, like I said, 1 person per position that was running.

From feudalism to mercantilism there has been great changes. The idea of nationality and nationalism started with mercantilism. Mercantilism started the colonization of Americas. Then along came the free market system with the coming of the industrial revolution, which is the economic system we still use today. It's not going to stay in it's current state, even though it may last for a long time. Something is going to change, maybe something unforeseeable, maybe something planned. What is the next step of the type of economy?

I am saying, at a young age you mimick what you see. Hell that's how everyone learned how to read. It's not going to make a smarter society, it's just going to allow the children whenever they reach, let's say 10, to make their own decisions and opinions. If they see sex on TV and finally say it's great, then so be it. If they see it on TV and say, "WTF is this?" then that is their opinion that has been formulated. All I am suggesting is making sure stuff like that won't get into the hands of little children. If you didn't read my first post about the sex bracelet, then you need to understand that is what caused me to make this topic. It's not fault to anybody except for the society itself to let things like this to be easily handed to minors. Minors tend to become enfatuated into one thing or another. Whether this be Power Rangers, Music, or sports. The next few decades seem to me like they are going to become the here's $40 dollars, go do what you want decade. Parents aren't stepping up, coorporations are lowering their morals, music has been lowering their morals. Parents are having a hard time today parenting their children since both parents are usually working or they are divorced and one has to provide for themselves for the child. It's all coming together to make a big pile of dog shit.

And once again, I'll reiterate what I asked, "Is Free Speech a good thing?" Is it alright to have children to be in the presence of a rapper that glorifies the life of a thug and and glorifies sex? Are parents to blame? Are rappers to blame? Is the society to blame? Are the coorporations that put these things on the air to blame? Is it the whole system itself that is to blame?

Who is to say what is harmful to children and what is not?

Base it on law if you'd like. Drug usage, illegal; violence, illegal;sex with a minor, illegal; date rape, illegal.

there is no way to prove that an increase in what is shown on television directly increased std's or pregnancy

Prove to me it doesn't and I will be happy.

free speech or free expression could only only spiral down to a society where free speech is no longer allowed or is restriced.

Free speech is restricted actually today. You can't go in a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!" nor can you go onto a plane and say "Bomb!" I don't want free speech or expression to be limited to the masses, I only want some form of censorship so that children can make their own decision when the time comes to be instead of being influenced by some other force. This may include the message of no pre-marital sex so that until they reach an age when they can understand what that sort of stuff is and what can result of it, they won't know about it or can only speculate.

I hate being misunderstood. I am not against free speech, hell I'm exercising the thing right now. All I am saying is you shouldn't say or do everything in which you are lawfully given to. I can't go down the street and call a black man a n!gger because I have the gosh darn golly right to because of my first amendment in the constitution. It's about morals rather then what is legally correct. It's how people say and do affect people's emotions, and in the end how they react to a stimuli. It's how someone that sees a super model and says she wants to be like her, and she becomes anorexic or belimic. It's neither the model's nor the anorexic girls fault, it's the system itself that the society has put into place. It's about how people wearing almost nothing in an artist's video influences how people's thoughts and opinions are made. It's how a constant influence from some wide range of places come from, with no check in it's place to counter act most of the stuff. Being mormon is not viewed as popular, so people won't migrate to that. Being like a music video person can be viewed as being popular, so people will more likely go towards that. It's all about people trying to get ahead. Also it's like the media, it's fucked up in its current state. Almost all of the news is about a celebrity or a sex scandal. If you want to continue on your train of thought that free speech doesn't influence these things, then be my guest. Without free speech, we wouldn't be here today. I'm gracious for that. I just don't want to see in a couple years the media and entertainment to not have any morals. The best news coverage comes as a prize of other's humility. There is a price to pay for everything that is said and done, whether it be a good or bad thing. A check needs to be put in place for the children to not let them be able to be to receive readily things that are not suitable for them. The V-chip was a good idea, until most of the stuff on MTV came out as TV-PG.

Also, I don't believe freedom and responsibity are antithesis of each other. They are intertwined together, like Yin and Yang. A part of freedom in responsibility and a part of responsibility in freedom.

At 11/25/03 10:01 PM, Taxman2A wrote: And you think taking away the right of free speech will cause people to stop sleeping with eachother? I'm not sure how the two are correlated.

I never said anything about taking away free speech. All I said is, "Is free speech such a good thing?"

Let's get crazy and just flat out say that your allegation is correct, and letting "rapper x" talk about bitches and hoes actually does cause an increase in teen sex. What would you propose as an alternative to this? Government regulated rap? Perhaps we should outlaw art and have everyone study pamphlets on personal hygiene with their newly found free time? Would this really stop teens from having sex?

Up until a couple years ago, teens having sex was a no-no and looked down upon. Now ever since the media and such have glorified it, the rate that teens are having sex are at a much greater rate. The people that are influencing the youth today need to realize what they are doing, ie rappers. There should be something in check to make sure that children are not able to be influence by something at a young age whenever they can't determine things on their own and are still mimmicking others. The V-chip was a good idea, but then again half of the stuff on MTV is rated pg which has a lot of sexual themes from rap artists.

Another thing, my sister was tutoring elementary students, and one of the girls had a "Sex Bracelet" on in which whoever broke the bracelet she'd have to have sex with. Mind you she is only 8 years old.

I sincerely hope that the truth that inspired this story has been significantly distorted. But even if there is such an 8 year old out there today-- is it really the musician's fault that she is like that? I would argue that this eight year old is the victim of her cultural surroundings.

It is the artists that influence the cultural surroundings in this day and age. For instance, punk has influenced and created a new social group, the goths. And also, I am not distorting the facts, the girl was a 4th grader.

Perhaps because it is an oxymoron. I think you meant to say that with privilege comes responsibility.

Or could I have meant that freedoms come responsibilites to make sure you don't infringe the freedoms and human rights of others?

The person that wanted some of those bracelets, just go to the store and get some really small rubber bands and stretch them out until they can easily break. Then don't forget to color them!

Is free speech really that good for a nation? I know that free speech has helped people become aware of oppression like during the Civil Rights Movement, but look at the current day society. I know that free speech is good for news and such, but is free speech so good in entertainment? One can legally say whatever they want except in certain circumstances (Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) but is it the best for the nation? There is an increased sex rate, which can or can't be a good thing, increased violence, and increased drug usage. With the increased sex rate comes increase the amount of either babies or abortions. Also with the increased sex rate comes STD's. Many of this is coming from musicians freedom of speech. I'm not bashing all musicians in general, but ones that have deconstructive and degrading thoughts in violence, sex, and drugs are the ones that I'm hitting hard against. Like many of rap music has degrading music against women. Also, I'd like to point out one rap musician that actually tries to increase people's awareness of things, DMX. Another thing, my sister was tutoring elementary students, and one of the girls had a "Sex Bracelet" on in which whoever broke the bracelet she'd have to have sex with. Mind you she is only 8 years old. With freedoms comes responsibility, people are failing to realize that. Also, many musicians advocate violence. Violence to cops, to people they hate, against things in the daily life, and objects that are in the way. Since when has the a good portion of Americans been listening to this? In a highly influential position, like a musician, you shouldn't say or do things that will further degrade society. If you want to see the power in which you have by degrading society, be my guest, but consequences will come to the nation as a whole.

There has been a further downward spiral of voters. This number is almost at it's all time low. Who is to blame for this? Failure of time? Media showing news constantly on entertainment(Micheal Jackson news coverage vs. Medicare news coverage)? That everyone is a conservative creating no reason to vote?

Since I'm wanting to finish typing this soon, I'm going to skip the drug part, if needed I will write it down later.

At 11/25/03 05:24 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Of course, if you invest in high deductibles the money is rolling back to you.

So it's another bill by the rich Republicans so that they can get a deductible and a better quality of life when they retire instead of not as lucky individuals? That's messed up....

Peter90688, nice try in modifying a reply posts from Funk to prove a point.