Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/20/08 11:13 AM, poxpower wrote: Yay.
Answer these for fun.

1. A man was wrongfully put in jail. He escapes, which is against the law. They catch him and the next day he is proven innocent.
What should they do with him?

Answer: Let him off the hook, and pay him for the lost time he spent in jail, Maybe dock some of the normal costs off to make up for the escape.

2. A man is wrongfully committed to a death sentence. While he's about to be executed, he defends himself somehow, killing the executioner and delays the sentence just long enough to be proven innocent.
Should he be charged with anything?

Answer:No, because the death sentance is wrong in the first place, and killing in self-defense isn't against the law.

3. A scientist creates a perfect copy of a human bit by bit using non-organic parts and nanotechnology ( or whatever ). Does that scientist own the creation? Could he enslave it? Or did he just create a free being equal to himself?

Answer: If it's a perfect copy of a human being, shouldn't it have human rights. He should treat it like a child, as that's what it basically is, a new human.

4.If a person is in a situation where he could save 5 people if he kills one, and everyone knows that he did indeed kill the guy but saved the 5, should he be charged with murder? What if he didn't kill the person, causing the death of 5?
What if he doesn't kill the person, the 5 people die, and then the person he was supposed to kill dies too?

Taking one life to save many is not a bad thing. However, this would depend a lot on situation. If he didn't really have to kill the guy, he just assumed he did, that a different story.

yay

This is gonna be a close election. I think that electorial map thing is stupid, no one can predict that this early, but you have to admit Obama's lead is shrinking. I still think Obama has better chances however. As much as all the talk is about how close they are, Obama has the lead, and it doesn't matter if you win my .00001% or 80%, you still win.

Being that I'm a dual Canadian-American citizen, I can say Canadian taxes arn't all that much higher, sometimes ever lower. This is because, while Americans don't have expensive programs like Universial Healthcare, funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan costs more than Universial Healthcare ever will. Not to mention America has a massive national debt to countries like China and India.

But now to my views on taxes. I think taxes should fluctate with the market. If everything is fine and dandy, taxes should be low. However, my all logic the US should have really high taxes right now, due to the wars and debt. When the market is like it is now, all low taxes will do is create more debt, and thus drive taxes up in the future to pay for that debt. All tax cuts are doing is actually causing more taxes.

At 8/19/08 10:24 PM, Korriken wrote: while russia is "technically' democratic, its well known that Putin is a defacto dictator and has his hand controlling his little puppet. whoever replaces medvedev will also be Putin's puppet. considering the fact that the new 'leader' of russia was chosen by one person, putin himself, I can hardly call that a democracy. "Yeah sure we have elections, but uhh, only the person I personally choose can be elected."

last time I check, Iraq did a similar thing with Saddam, and look what happened to him.

Russia is a full-blown democracy. While Putin's United Russia party pretty much controls the thing, that because everyone their loves it. People still vote for other parties, like the communist party. Don't confuse a democracy were everyone supports one party with a dictatorship.

The Democratic National Convention is coming soon, with the Republicans shortly after. Both candiatess will be expected to pick a running mate before then. On that topic, I have six questions (three of each candiate). Of both Obama and McCain, who do you want to be the vice presidential nominee, who do you think is the best nominee for the campaign, and who do you think will the nominee. My views:

Obama:
1.Who I hope will be the running mate? Hillary Clinton. I was a supporter of Clinton during the primaries, and since she dropped out have been drifting back and forth between McCain and Obama. If she is chosen as the vice presidential nominee I would definatly drift to Obama's camp. However, I doubt this will happen due to the fierce rivalry developed during the campaign, and many people don't trust Clinton.

2. Who do I think is the best choice for running mate? Joe Biden. He has the foreign policy experience Obama needs, good name recognition, and the ability to pull in older and more moderate Democratic voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries. However, Biden has said he "is not the man".

3. Who do I think he will pick as running mate? Kathleen Sebelius. She fits with Obama's message of change, could bring in woman voters who supported Hillary. However, she doesn't have the foreign policy experience. Not the ideal running mate, but the most likely one.

McCain:
1.Who I hope will be the running mate? Joe Lieberman. I like Lieberman for his readiness to critize both parties. He would fit with McCain's "maverick" style, but concerns about McCain being too left-wing will probably discourage him for picking a former Democrat.

2. Who do I think is the best choice for running mate? Mitt Romney. He has the right-wing appeal McCain wants, the economic experience and fund-raising ability he need, and could help bring in battleground states like Michigan.

3. Who do I think he will pick as running mate? Mitt Romney, for the above reasons.

Now, who do you think each candiate will choose, who would you like them to choose, and who do you think is the best choice?

I vote on person not party. I've voted Democrat in every election I'v voted in so far (2000 and 2004), but that doesn't mean I'm a Democrat. I considered both candiates, and I'm not ashamed I've never voted for Bush. This year I'm considering both the candiates aswell, and I like them both a lot. I'm leaning towards Obama right now, but after the recent debate I'm starting to second guess that.

Cause they think it's their God given right. The "Holy Land" is the birthplace of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, so each religion thinks God wants them to kill all the others and take it for themselves. The Christians did in the Crusades, the Muslims took it in the Muslim Conquest, and now the Jews have it. Religion makes people to do funny things. And while it is true Israel is not a extremely religious country, it was founded on religion and religious people control it.

At 8/18/08 01:29 AM, PieGraphGlock wrote: I'm not just being an asshole when I say this, but I actually think that Bob Barr has a good chance of winning this race. With the general public continuing to be more dissatisfied with the major candidates, someone with a real vision for America like Barr could step up and surprise everyone.

He's polling at 6%. While that's pretty respectable for a third party candiate, there's pretty much no way he can win unless both McCain and Obama really screw up(and I mean big time).

First off, it wasn't a real debate, just two candiates answering the same questions. They weren't even answering them at the same time. I don't think John McCain really did better. Considering it was at a church and it was quite obvious what the moderator's political views were, it was much easier for McCain to answer the questions and get a good reception. Considering the circumstances Obama did pretty well. However, I think less of Obama after this one because he was pandering to the religious right, but considering I'm an atheist I don't think I really represent the majority of America.

At 6/19/08 03:24 PM, PieGraphGlock wrote: He's running for President of the United States under the Libertarian Party. He represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He was a republican for the longesst time, until he realized that his party was abandoning its original theme of smaller government and more personal rights.

Give me an example of when the Republican Party has been in favor of more personal rights. Smaller government, yes, but since it's founding in the 1850s it's always been the party advocating more control over personal rights (not directed as a slander against Republicans, it's just a fact). The closest it came to this was during Lincoln, but he was more liberal than libertarian.

He was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia (1986-90), and served as President of Southeastern Legal Foundation (1990-91). He was an official with the CIA from 1971-78. Besides his experience, he's a terrific guy personally and is a real straight-talker, unlike a certain presidential candidate (you know who you are, you flip-flopper).

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

What makes Bob Barr any more of a "terrific guy" or "straight-talker". I find it funny you call McCain (or Obama, but I think your talking about McCain) a flip-flopper. Bob Barr has flipped flopped on a lot of issues (his party for one), including abortion, gay marriage, and pretty much every other social issue you can name to fit in with his new party. I don't want you to get the idea I hate Bob Barr, but there are better arguments in favor of him than this.

Heard of MAD? A nuclear war won't happen. At most, a small scale conventional war. There's already a topic on this however.

The world was supposed to end at the turn of the century and on 06/06/2006 too. Got any more bright ideas?

If possible, genetic mutation would be a fundamentally good thing. It could be used to end mental retardation, autism, and other genetic disablities. I can also understand changing, say, gender or some other trait. And I think it would be good to allow people to select favorable traits. This would end a lot of intolerance towards people who have lower intellect or strength. However, the area would get murky when we start to go farther, into things that arn't clearly "right" or "wrong". For instance, I hardly think many people would argue against making a fetus smarter or stronger, but what about if parents wish to change the babies race or sexuality? Consider, a black couple may want to make their baby white so he/she wouldn't have to deal with racism and perhaps have a better future, but some might interpret that as saying being white is "right" and being black is "wrong". For another example, a couple might want their baby to be straight instead of homosexual. That might not make many homosexuals very happy, seeing as this would seem to be saying homosexuality is an inferior trait. The real question, I think, is where do we draw the line?

I'm against any type of censorship law, but if a library chooses to ban a certain book, they should be aloud too. Not that I agree with it. If you ban Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto than doesn't that mean you have to ban any type of opinion book or editorial?

I agree Bob Barr isn't a real libertarian, but he has better chances than Ron Paul (which isn't saying much) because he's an ex-conservative Republican, which makes him more appealing to the mainstream, espicially some conservatives who may be dissatisfied with McCain. He's polling at a respectable 6%, pretty good for a third party and higher than Ralph Nader. The Libertarian party has been gaining more speed and becoming mainstream. While this might seem like a good thing for Libertarians, as it becomes a bigger party it gains big party characteristics, such as picking a candiate that can win, not one that really represents it's views.

As it appears now Obama is winning. He leads the popular vote, somewhere between 2% and 6%. All he needs in the Kerry states plus a couple more, such as Indiana, Florida, Iowa, or Ohio, most of which he is winning in. However, this is all based on the polls, and some people speculate that people might be lieing to the pollsters because they don't want to admit they won't vote for a black man. However, Obama still has better chances than McCain I think.

I suggest you read a bit more about the Russia-Georgia conflict. Russia is completely justified in what they're/were doing. So, no, there not digging themselves a hole at all. There rebuilding their influence. This whole thing is a GOOD thing for Russia.

At 8/16/08 03:34 PM, DeIirium wrote: Gay is simply used as an insult because it´s offensive to straight people.

It shouldn't be, it's not a bad thing and it's not there fault either.

At 8/16/08 03:37 PM, Al6200 wrote:

::

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co mmons/6/66/Butterfly_large.jpg

They don't look that difficult to me...

If your 80 years old and pratically blind it is.

I think it's stupid that only one group should get a disclaimer like this. If I search for "black" or "Muslim" shouldn't I get the same message? This will only fuel discrimination and cause people of lower intelligence to go "OMG Favoritism towards teh Jews, Zionist conspiracy!"

I think it's stupid to use "Gay" as an insult. That implies that "gay" is a bad thing. Unfortunatly, for some reason homophobia seems to be allowed more than other kinds of prejudice. If I call some a "Jew" for doing something cheap, I'm labeled a racist, but if I call someone "gay" it's fine. If someone is pissed about something and they say "that so gay" I always ask, "How is that homosexual?". They proceed to explain how they were not literally calling the thing or person gay, they were just using gay in place of something like "stupid". Then I ask, how is being "gay" the same as being "stupid". See what I mean? By calling something or someone "gay" because you don't like it your revealing yourself as a homophobe.

The orgins of this conflict go back to the founding to the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin for some reason decided to divide Ossetia, which has long been it's own land prior to that, between Russia (North Ossetia) and Georgia (South Ossetia). When the USSR fell, the two respective countries retained the land given to them under the Russian and Georgia SSRs. Obviously, Ossetians weren't happy about this, and since Ossetia was a Russian ally before the 1920s and 1930s, and has a long history of violence with Georgia, most in South Ossetia favored breaking off from Georgia and joining Russia. There was a civil war in the early 90s, during which South Ossetia achieved de facto independence. Russia moved in as a peacekeeping force. The peacekeepers gave the South Ossetians to ensure they would be safe from further Georgian aggression. However, the Rose Revolution ousted the Georgian leader who put the ceasefire in place. The current Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, took over. One of his pledges was to regain South Ossetia and another breakaway province, Abkhazia. The recent conflict was rekindled when Georgia bombarded South Ossetia with aritllery killing around a thousand civilians, then moved in with the army. Many of the dead South Ossetians carried Russian passports, and 10 Russian peacekeepers were killed in the attack. Russia moved in under the jurisdiction they were protecting there citizens. They pushed the Georgians out of South Ossetia and bombed Georgian military bases outside of South Ossetia. A French brokered peace treaty was reached, but South Ossetian and Abkazian irrelgulars are still attacking Georgian troops. Russian and Georgian military action has halted however.

Sure, what the hell.

If you think Obama is a Muslim and that being Muslim is a bad thing, your obviously an idiot and not worth my time. Moreover, you further emphasize your idiocy by telling everyone about who your going to vote for/not vote for, like I care. Your not that important, your vote isn't gonna influence mine.

To all the people who think Medvedev is a puppit of Putin, think again. Medvedev will go along with Putin on foreign policy, but there's a general consensus among scholors that Medvedev is much less autocratic that Putin domestically. Medvedev favors greater indvidual rights than Putin. Putin is really popular however, there was no way Medvedev couldn't have appointed him without getting a sure-fire ticket out of the presidency.

She could of hired someone to mow her lawn. If it was a breeding ground for snakes and rats, than they're definatly justified in telling her to mow it. She just a stupid, cheap, old miser if you ask me. Tough shit if she loses some money. I don't see why people are bringing up the Constitution either. Last I checked, it doesn't say anything about how overgrown your lawn can be...

At 8/15/08 09:33 PM, tritiumnitrate wrote:

At 8/15/08 09:01 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a old-fashioned paper ballet. Seriously, it's not hard to mark an X in a box.

Yea, unless you're a thousand and Pat Buchanan is a centimetre away from Al Gore and you haven't gotten your prescription changed since your IRA started running low and you got a tax hike.

I'm assuming your refering to the 2000 Election Controversy, those where butterfly ballets, not traditional X in the box style ballets. The hole you had to punch was basically on the line between two candiates, no one knew which of the two they were casting their vote for. Watch the HBO movie Recount, it explains it quite well. The problem wasn't with standard paper ballets.

I view the idea of "swearing" stupid. What makes those words so much worse than any other words?

At 8/15/08 09:15 PM, Dsmano wrote: Personally I think we need to work more on our economy, ignore mass media, and strengthen relations will other countries that we have had a bad past with. Its 2008, not 1942.

I think everyone wants to do this, they just can't agree how.

At 8/15/08 09:05 PM, Dsmano wrote:

At 8/15/08 08:55 PM, Creek wrote: Actually there still is a reason to be worried.

Iran IS a problem, but it hasn't the nukes to reach America, but it does Israel. I am confident that Israel, with their incredible military power, will soon quickly take Iran like they ddi with Egypt, America will soon follow. Neither Russia nor China have any alliance with Iran, in fact, the Russians have been fighting Arabic countries for a looong time. Still, I don't think it will happen. I think it is a threat, but it won't happen. it never has and never will. I am talking about the Georgia conflict, terrorism IS a threat. And I don't see how going against the Qur'an's writings on why you shouldn't kill innocent people is, 'Allah's will' either.

Iran doesn't have nukes at all. They are suspected to be developing nuclear power. That's a long way from having nuclear bombs. They don't even have nuclear power yet, and they could stop there. The worrying thing is that once they have nuclear power they'll use it to create bombs. People seem to forget that Israel already has nukes. They would be able to defend themselves should Iran get nuclear bombs, not to mention they have a much better military, though Iran has the biggest army in the world in total troops (China wins in active troops however).