Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/21/08 04:45 PM, Cornbucket wrote: Do they even really exist outside of theory?

Hm...

Is there really such a thing as the "right to life"? I can surmise what the religious folk might already think, so what about the non-religious or anti-religious folk? Do you think that there is something outside of human affairs that grants us (or just living things in general) "rights" as we commonly think of them? Or is ANY talk about "rights" just humanity's own feeble attempt at insulating itself from the law of the jungle... the dog-eat-dog, might-is-right world that exists just outside of civilization's borders?

I really don't think that we are born with some fundamental rights. I reject the ideal of a universial "right and wrong", thus I believe that the only purpose of the law should be to keep order, not to enforce some moral code. Laws should be based on human behaviour, not what a certain group of people claim is right and wrong. That's called Polovitism, or something like that, I believe.

We all have a general idea of what we WANT for ourselves... but can any of us claim to be entitled to these things? How so? Who owes it to us? Is the fact of the matter simply, we are entitled to NOTHING at all, not even existence itself? It would seem so. Any unearned privilege granted to us, whether it's by a cosmic Being or cosmic coincidence, seems to be just that -- something unearned, to be given or taken-away as randomly as the breeze blows.

Again, I agree. We can't claim to be entitled to anything. But we're humans, so if we have to make rules to make life better, then those become "rights", and thus society grants them to all it's citizens. However, the driving force behind these rules should be how to improve people's lives, not what some people believe is morality and ethics.

If there is no inherent right to life then it surely follows that there is also no right to a life devoid of suffering, and by extension, no inherent rights for free speech or property, material OR intellectual.

Yes, but as I said, those things are good for people and good for society, thus they should be in the law. But just because something is in the law, does not make it some infallible God-given right that your are entitled too forever. Society gave these rights to you, and it can take them away just as easily. Thus, because something is in the law, that does not mean it should be there forever.

When someone tells me, "You have no right to be offended," that is, that I have no right to feel violated in response to a hurtful idea, would it really be THAT different for me to respond "You have no right to say OUCH," whilst caving their head in with a brick? That is, they have no right to feel physically violated in response to a hurtful assault? If people don't have a right to not have their feelings hurt, surely it follows that they also don't have a right to not have their bodies hurt. They're practically one-in-the-same anyways, your feelings and your body. So... if you say you DO have the right to offend people, then certainly I must also have the right to assault people. What does it matter if one attack cuts beneath the surface and the other attack cuts the surface itself? In both instances there is a purposeful trespass against another individual... but since there is no inherent right to a life without suffering anyway, both are A-OKAY, correct?

This is were I disagree. There's a difference between verbally attacking someone and physically attacking someone. Physically attacking somone causes harm. It hurts there body, and their nervous system says so. You are scientifically causing damage to them, and thus are being detrimental to them, and society as a whole. When you verbally attack someone, your are causing them no real damage. They may feel bad, yes, but that is not real damage, because it differs from person to person. I could call one guy a fuckhead, and he wouldn't care, but then I call another guy fuckhead and he gets all sad. But not matter what, if I shoot both of them in the head, they both react the same: they die. So really, if it's possible not to be offended by a verbal attack, then it's really the person's own fault if there offended by it. Your really hurting them, or hurting society, it's them who's hurting themselves. That's why the law allows people to have free speech, but not to assault someone: in reality, only one really does true harm.

It's a Darwinian thing. Society exists to make itself and the people who live in better. It's survival. Expecting more of society is stupid and unnessicary, and will ultimately hurt the society. Because beliefs and views change, but survival lives forever.

Not sure if this was really what you were asking, but I did my best :P.

At 10/22/08 05:05 PM, aninjaman wrote: Teachers saying who they vote for is fine and even wearing Obama t-shirts but letting bias seep into their work is what annoys me. I go to a very liberal school and it happens.

My views exactly. Nothing wrong with showing your politcal views, but if you let it interfere with the education they are supposed to be providing, then we have a problem.

At 10/21/08 07:28 PM, zoolrule wrote:
Kill all Jews
-- Average Arab in 1870's-1940's's.

Kill all Israelis
--Average Arab in 1948's-now.

I will kill every single Israeli and drive them of with my holy spirit and jihad, and if not me, my children will. ALLAH ACHBAR.
-- Average Palestinian

BOOM.
-- His children.

Wait a minute here, explain to me how "Israeli Aparthide" is racist, but this isn't...

At 10/21/08 06:55 PM, DuMarquisX wrote: And by the way, not that it REALLY matters, but, do you really think Obama has full democratic support. I mean, really, do you think the racist Union boomers are really going to check "Obama" come voting time? If there's one thing the people in this country have carried proudly, its bigotry.

And this is a good thing? So we should all be against Obama because you think he's going to lose because of racism. How fucked up is that logic?

At 10/21/08 05:56 PM, DuMarquisX wrote: Recently, Obama's smooth talk and hints at racism have propelled him to the front of the polls. Obviously, this guy is a good talker. But can he deal?

What hints at racism do you refer? Has Obama himself actually made any claims of racism, or just his supporters? I need proof.

He sided with the Dems 97% of the time in Congress, regardless of where he stood on the issues.

Have you read every single bill he voted yes on? If not, how do you know that any of them conflicted with his stances on the issues? Again, proof would be nice.

He doesn't have a backbone, and likes to resort to cliches to muddle McCain's stance.

And McCain hasn't resorted to cliches at all, right? *rolls eyes* It's poltics, Obama is no worse than anyone else.

Sure, McCain referred to him as "that one", but he obviously wasn't trying to be blatantly racist.

And has Obama himself every suggested it was racist?

No candidate who has been in office for over a quarter-decade would try that ploy. Wow, it's easy to forget that Obama referred to Palin as similar to a "pig in lipstick". That's DEFINITELY not offensive.

When did this happen. I mean, I heard about a time were he called McCain's policy (on energy I believe, not sure) a "pig in lipstick", but that can't be what your talking about, considering Palin wasn't even referenced in said speech. However, I guess she wears lipstick, thus it must be a attack against her! Obama's secret sexism exposed!

Come on, he's only been a Senator for FOUR FREAKIN' YEARS. No one remembers this, but I remember when it was headlines four years ago that a black man had won the Senate in Illinois, someone named Barack. It's like handing a four year old the wheels to a car, and giving him a beer cap to boot.

Wait a minute here, weren't you complaining about how Obama apparently resorts to cliches...Am I the only one seeing irony here?

Yeah, McCain is slightly annoying. But do we really want to slide down the path to pacifism, and become increasingly simpathetic to radical Muslims (Islam is still an undecided issue about Obama, due to his parentage having Islamic ties).

Prove he is sympathetic to radical Muslims. Also, just because your parents are something, doesn't mean you are. My parents are Christians, doesn't stop me from being an atheist. Richard Dawkins parents were Christians too. Karl Marx's parents were Jewish.

What do you REALLY know about Obama, other than the cutesy stuff about his mom. Honestly, I have a heard ZERO about his dad. He's definitely hiding something.

I don't know much about Obama's family, and that's a good thing. Again, just because your parents are something, doesn't mean you are. If you want to hear about Obama's dad, and what a deadbeat he was, or that he was a Muslim-turned-Atheist, fine. Then I say that McCain's extramartial affairs and Palin's pregnant daughter are fair game. Good thing Obama said candiate's family are off-limits, because McCain and Palin have way shadier pasts then either Obama or Biden.

At 10/20/08 01:13 AM, areagle wrote: That's BS. Its all a bunch of propaganda against the republican party because they cant get anything else against them.

Of course, anything against your party is obviously biased propaganda. Everyone knows the Republicans are flawless, right?

Read the rest of the article. Its told by an older woman, and when she tried it, it stayed on Obama.

So? Obviously they can't switch all the votes to McCain, but they can switch some. Just because not everyone has the problem, doesn't mean it's not a problem. We already know the Republicans cheated and in 2000 and 2004, why not now? (and the Democrats have cheated too, such as in 1960)

Though, if you read some more, you can find articles about Obama's voting record in Illinois. He pushed a bill to allow the killing of already born babies if they were accidentally spared during an abortion. I'm pretty sure that's worse then a bunch of Democrats saying that there voting machines weren't working... Wow.

Prove it. I need sources, and I need to see sources that prove that was what the bill was actually about. It's real easy to lie about what's in a bill. Look at the McCain ads about Obama wanting sex education from kindergardeners. Turns out, that bill was about teaching kindergardeners about sexual abuse and molestation, and that you shouldn't let adults touch you in certain places. That's hardly "comphrensive sex education".

I also read something about him owing 1,200 dollar in income taxes, and that he's not an undecided voter either, he's a registered Republican who decided to vote McCain long ago. Not the average American if you ask me. Source.

I'm a social liberal, but when it comes to economics I have liberatarian leanings. Seriously though, Conservapedia and Liberapedia can't really be compared. Conservapedia is ment as a legitimate encyclopedia, while Liberapedia is ment as an over-the-top parody of Conservapedia from the other side, hence the "The so-called experts at Conservapedia have an article on X" on every page, taken from Unclyopedia, a parody of wikipedia.

At 10/19/08 05:54 PM, springheeledjack wrote: the thing which was said about the pure world and such, is what i meant. alot of posting can go on whilst writing a message.

Just a tip, in the top right corner of a post, there's a button that says "Reply and Quote". If you click it, you can reply to someone who said something days ago, even if there are 50 posts inbetween yours and the one your replying too.

You might of already known this, but I figured you would have used it if you did. Cheers.

At 10/19/08 05:52 PM, springheeledjack wrote: This reminds me of why i hate hippies. Sure, peace is nice, but pacifism is not. What good does your support do if all you do is sit around and wait for the feds to come get you. What Im trying to say is: If you wont fight for your cause, youre kind of useless.

Fighting for your cause with peaceful protest is just as effective, or perhaps even more effective, than fighting with violent rioting. Think Ghandi. Who was more succesful, Ghandi, or the Hindu and Muslim radicals who attacked the British.

Fat lot of good peace did us during Nam huh? The war just went on cus nobody was willing to storm the white house and manually impeach Nixon, just because it wasnt the peaceful thing to do.

Um...Nixon was against Vietnam. He was the one who pulled out. It was LBJ who started the war (though we had been helping the South Vietnamese since Eisenhower). Also, the hippies weren't really "peaceful". There were plenty of violent ones. I suggest you look up the 1968 Democratic National Convention Riots. And storming the white house to forcefully remove the president from power is definatly not the way to go. That leads on to a slippery slope my friend.

At 10/14/08 04:51 PM, JoS wrote: If you go to university I am sure you have heard of some group advertising meetings for a group about the "Israeli Apartheid" .

I would never use term, it's extremely stupid, but still, not racist.

hell I am sure most of us have heard this term before. However, am I the only one who finds this to be racist and bigoted?

Well, first off, Jewish and Isreali arn't races, there a religion and a nationality respectively. Second, while the term "Israeli Apartheid" is stupid and anyone who says it is obviouly ignoring the facts, that doesn't make them racist. Critizing a country's policy is not racist. And even if they're only critizing the Israeli Jews, I still don't think it makes them a anti-Semite. I can critize America for not having gay marriage, and it doesn't make me racist against Americans. And really, I'm only critizing American Christians, but I'm still not anti-American or anti-Christian. Critizing a certain aspect of something does not mean you hate that something. Third, while there is no such thing as an "Israeli Apartheid", that doesn't mean Israel is completely immune form criticism. It does have some pretty fucked up policies towards Arabs, but nothing on the level of the apartheid. Regardless, critizing Israel is hardly racism.

At 10/19/08 05:11 PM, springheeledjack wrote: Im interested in hearing everyones opinions on this topic. Controversial, oooooooooohhh. I say it should be legalised. If people bring up the health concerns, alchohol: destroys liver and brain cells, cigarettes: do cause cancer, no matter what the tobacco conglomerates say about inconclusive evidence. If youre worried about an overdose, you have to smoke a hell of alot of weed to die from it, or even get sick. You drink too much alchohol and you die or at least get alchohol poisoning, smoke too many cigarettes, or breath in too much second hand smoke: lung and throat complications, illnesses, etc. I say that if weed isnt legalised that alchohol and cigarettes should be made illegal. It seems only just, does it not?

Okay, while I agree Marijuana should be legalized, I don't like you reasoning. You basically just gave a bunch of reasons that alchohol and tobacco are bad, and hardly said anything about weed itself.

I think weed should be legalized because 1. It is pretty harmless. It's really hard to OD on weed, and as long as your not driving or operating heavy machinery, I don't see you causing major harm to yourself or others. Thus, we should have laws similar to alchohol laws: legal, but with restrictions. 2. Prohibition doesn't work. The war on drugs is a giant waste of money, because it's near impossible to stop everyone from smoking weed. It's one of those stupid fake wars, like the war on terror. You can try all you want, but these things are always gonna be there.
3. If weed was legalized, it would be a lot easier to regulate. The government could check manage what type of weed people were getting way better than they can now, and it would prevent organized crime. Why go to gangs for your weed, if they can sell it at normal, liscensed, law-abiding stores?

This election was such as a waste of time and money. No one really gained. The Conservatives wanted a majority, they didn't get one. Sure, they ALMOST got a majority, but that doesn't mean shit, because they still have to compromise and work with at least one of the other parties to get there bills passed. The Liberals got their second worst showing in history, and this is the end for poor Dion. The NDP were talking big about being a major politcal force. They may have increased seats, but no official oppostion, so they're really no more a legitimate alternative than they were before. The Bloc lost a couple seats and lost some popular support aswell. The Greens wanted to be a major federal party, and they didn't even win a seat. Who profited from this election: no one, that's who. And guess who's fault it is: Harper's. He broke his own election law to have this worthless election, and we've lost valuable time and money because of it.

At 10/18/08 11:48 AM, Cooldsunshine wrote: Hello everyone.

Hello there.

I am a U0 student in Science (well, here in quebec technically I am not in university but I'm in the equivalent of the first year).

Okay.

Recently, I've been pondering the efficacity of our educationnal system, how it teaches, and whether or not it would indeed educate its students in order to give them the all-around tools required to live their life happily. Which should be the schools' goal, right?

Well, that depends on the level of education pre-university, I would say we should be teaching kids how to live there everyday lives, and the facts and skills that are needed to survive. Once we get to university, that's when youths are allowed to specialize, and learn specific tools for a career of their choice (or multiple ones).

My reflexion has brought me to see that in fact, education today is simply terrible, helping to get a diploma that will get you a job alright, but that is it.

Well, that's generally what university is for: getting you a job. As I said, general, everyday things that apply to all careers should be taught earlier.

Let me develop. There is many ideas to be considered. The topics I would like to discuss are :
- The skills school encourages its students to use and their utility in real life

Hm...well form my personal experience, I can say that schools are rather inept at teaching some of the basic life skills, instead focusing on specialized things. That's what university is for: teaching you about working in a specialized career. As I've already mentioned, earlier schools should teach you general life skills (in an ideal world).

But, here's the catch: they don't. Note, everything I say here is from personal experience (there arn't many statistics that have to do with issue, so I would imagine you have to base most of you knowledge on personal experience, when it comes to this topic). So, anyway, elmentary-high schools are the flawed ones if you ask me. Universities do there job, though of course some are underfunded, yadayadayada, but the basic theory of what they are supposed to be doing is intact.

However, in the earlier grades, they drift off course. In elementary and high schools, you should be learning how to live everyday life, but that isn't true today. For instance, in my high school, I was required to take a year of Physics. Besides the basic material, which was already covered in earlier, more general science courses, Physics is pretty useless in everyday life. Of course, the counter-arguement is that it prepares you for university, and if you are going to be a scientist or whatever, you may need. But think about it: shouldn't you be learning those limited subjects when you in university, instead of when you in high school? If we have to make university longer and high school shorter, I'm game, but you should only be learning about material that is only relevant to certain careers in university, not in earlier schools.

- A complete education or specialised? Do we want the student to be a well all around human or a productive person?

As I said, complete in elementary, middle, and high, and specialised in university. Then you end up both.

- Should we consider the group with the average person or considerate everyone's different rythm?

Well, I think gifted students should challenged, but most schools already have programs that allow those with higher levels of intelligence to go ahead of the average student.

- Should we let one's natural curiosity guide his or her studies?

Yes, I suppose so. To expand on your question, I think we should allow students who are only interested in a certain subject or career specialize in that career, but we shouldn't force specialized information on all the students.

I want to hear from you guys. Tell me what you think of the educationnal system. I'll provide with my point of view after I get a couple of answers ;)

Okeedokee then.

At 10/17/08 08:59 PM, qmzp wrote: You fucking pricks, just because you're all Obama fan-boys doesn't mean you should thumbs-up EVERYTHING he does.

Your right, there's no way we actually don't mind this, we're just defending it because Obama does it. It's obvious that everyone that disagrees with you must have a hidden motive...

I'm a Mcain supporter and disagree with Mcain on lots of things.

Well, I'm a Obama supporter and I disagree with Obama on lots things, but not this.

You shouldn't have ads on something you paid 60$ to enjoy.

People pay money to have TV and get the newspaper, and there are still ads in those. Just ignore them, it's not a big deal...

On a car game...maybe. But imagine you're playing Fable or something, and you see a giant billboard with Obama's face plastered on it.

I highly doubt that will ever happen, and if it did I would agree with you.

That totally ruins the experience. At least on TV, when annoying Obama ads come up you can change the channel.

And if there are ads in video games, you can not look at them. Normally, the right stick is used to change the view. Use it well. Unless it's really big, which in the examples it isn't, it doesnt' effect gameplay at all.

At 10/16/08 10:53 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 10/16/08 09:59 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

Why so? Why is advertising in video games any worse than advertising in any other medium?

Ads aren't. Political ones are.

And why are political ads different then other ads?

I really would prefer politcs stayed out of video games as well.

I prefer it too. I'm just made my opinions loud.

Well, that's were we differ. Just because I dislike, it doesn't mean I'm against it. I may not like it, but I don't think it's wrong. I would prefer to ads at all in video games, but since they don't really effect my gameplay experience, it doesn't really matter, and hell, those ads helped fund the making of the game, so why not?

but we live with them. How is this any different?

Expectations play a role, as well as politics and video games clashing.

How? I still don't see how a politcal ad hurts a video game.

Why? There all sorts of ads at sports events, all over the sidelines, why is a poltical one so different? And in the case we are discussing, there are politcal ads on billboards all over the place, so this really doesn't hurt the authenticity.

Gatorade, airlines, TV shows. That's all fine. Politics is another thing. I don't want political ads at Dodger stadium, nor on FIFA. Especially when playing some futball in "Spain".

Okay, I apologize, I didn't quite understand. I was talking about the raising game you provided a pic of, not FIFA. Yah, that does kinda wreck the authenticity a bit, but I really don't find it that bad.

Because of a billboard in the game? Explain how this decreased the quality of gameplay at all, please?

The pic was in some racing game. I'm talking about FIFA. I did not take that pic.

Okay, now I understand a lot better.

Prove it. Prove there is a bias.

I hope this is a joke.

Nope, I just like like my assumptions with facts on the side.

Again, prove it. Just because those individuals are bad, doesn't mean all bad inviduals are democrats.

I don't believe I made that assumption. I used anecdotal evidence to support a claim that I see democrats using less ethical practices.

And I used anecdotal evidence to support a claim that Republicans use the similar, perhaps worse, unethical practices. You said "unfavorable" inviduals tend to lean democratic. I exaggerated a bit, but that was what it sounded like you were saying.

Okay, but I wonder, if it was a McCain or Barr ad, would you have got so outraged. You may still have not liked it, but considering the whole "Obamarama" or whatever you mentioned, I assume you were worried about the whole "Obama is developing so much popularity he is a dictator OMG" craze. But whatever, maybe I'm just halluncinating... That crap is so popular nowadays, I get suspicious :P

I said I'd be more outraged which led me to even discussing the whole non partisan registration handing out Obama swag. I said this saying that in my own experience, I have less respect for the democratic party. Because I have more respect for republicans, I have higher expectations. If McCain put an ad in my FIFA, I would be more outraged, still would have made this thread, and would have stated that republicans lost a shit load of credibility from me.

Okay then. But I disagree that democrats are less worthy of your respect, but that's a different issue I suppose.

It's me hating political ads in my video games. Obamarama just started in what I hope won't be a trend.

Hm...okay then. I still don't see the harm in getting excited about a certain candiate though, but again, I suppose that's a different issue.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the media. The Commission on Presidential Debates requires a candiate to be polling above 15% to participate in the debates. The media has no say, only the CPD does. Not allowing third-party candiates to debate is completely lawful.

At 10/16/08 09:36 PM, n64kid wrote:
That's not the point. It's unethical in a new way. This is similar unethical behavior that's been around, yes, but in a new medium. One that I feel should not cater to politics.

Why so? Why is advertising in video games any worse than advertising in any other medium?

We have a representative democracy, and not a direct one for this very reason. But the point is that politics should stay out of video games. I've had no problem with Nike and Adidas in my games, but I have one with Obama, and would have one with McCain or Barr, for that matter.

I really would prefer politcs stayed out of video games as well. A year ago or so, I was playing World of Warcraft, and some people organized some Ron Paul Rally on the server. I got pissed, because all these people all gathered in one place, creating lag and crashing the server every hour or so. But they have that right. Just like Obama has the right to campaign in video games, as do McCain and Barr. However, there's a difference between my example and the topic at hand, because in my WoW example, it was actually damaging to my play experience. Here, it's just cosmetics, the game isn't ruined cause there's a sign that says "Obama". I hate the annoying TV poltical ads too, but we live with them. How is this any different?

Do you read what I say? I don't see them as reality, I don't take them seriously. It's the inconsistency of reality with video games that gets to me. Keep political ads out of FIFA is all I'm saying.

Why? There all sorts of ads at sports events, all over the sidelines, why is a poltical one so different? And in the case we are discussing, there are politcal ads on billboards all over the place, so this really doesn't hurt the authenticity.

Thank you, you've admitted you don't like them either. I'm just far more outraged than you. However I bought the game before this happened, and plan to buy the alternative to EA games in the future.

Because of a billboard in the game? Explain how this decreased the quality of gameplay at all, please?

I've never seen a non partisan registration giving out republican swag. Perhaps you are out of touch with how biased everything is towards liberalism?

Prove it. Prove there is a bias.

1) I don't like republicans in general much either.
2) It is the individual, yes, but I've seen more "unfavorable" individuals lean towards the democratic party. The problem is that Wisconsin allows non partisan voting in primaries, and when non partisan registrations give out buttons/bumperstickers/pins/pens etc saying Unite the Country: Obama/Biden.

Again, prove it. Just because those individuals are bad, doesn't mean all bad inviduals are democrats. Um...Karl Rove anyone? What about keeping minority voters at home in Florida during the 2000 election, simply because there name sounded similar to felon's names? Sounds pretty unsavory to me...

3) I'd have a problem if any candidate advertised on video games.

Okay, but I wonder, if it was a McCain or Barr ad, would you have got so outraged. You may still have not liked it, but considering the whole "Obamarama" or whatever you mentioned, I assume you were worried about the whole "Obama is developing so much popularity he is a dictator OMG" craze. But whatever, maybe I'm just halluncinating... That crap is so popular nowadays, I get suspicious :P

At 10/16/08 03:49 AM, n64kid wrote: http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/10/15/gam ing-gets-political-obama-ads-appear-in-e a-games/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct /15/uselections2008-barackobama-technolo gy
http://gigaom.com/2008/10/13/confirmed-o bama-is-campaigning-on-xbox-360/

Obamarama at a new low, or is it genius?

Well, I tend to think it's a good idea. Who plays video games? Young people. Who doesn't vote? Young people. How do you get these young people to vote? Get them interested in the politcal process, and I don't see how ads in a video games are any worse than other forms of ads.

I think it's disgusting that the Obama campaign target specifically gamers who aren't tuned in to watch political commercials.

Well, as I mentioned, gamers are probably one of worst demographics when it comes to voting, so why not?

How commercial oriented must America be for political ads to apepar in video games?

Where have you been the last 20 years? America is pretty fucking commercial oriented.

To keep this thread from going off in some tangent, it's about whether you like this move by Obama, or if you think he went too far. I feel like it's another blow to American culture, and dignity. What do you think?

I don't see the issue here. Capitalism's a bitch. If this is a blow to American culture, then American culture has already been beat to death over the last 10-20 years.

At 10/16/08 04:51 AM, DJ-Keen wrote: I'm goddamn tired of people freaking out because they think Obama is a muslim. Every time someone says he's a muslim, 10 people seem to absorb it, believe it, and spread it.

Agreed.

I recently read a bulletin on myspace, posted by a best friend of mine, I was kinda pissed that she reads some crap and doesn't research Obama one bit. I really need to find a way to get this through her head.

Seriously, don't be her best friend anymore, the stupidity might rub off on you...

She posted this:
------------------------------------
Do you remember?

1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.

2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.

3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.

4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.

5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.

6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.

7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists.

( remember the pilot of this flight was from Richmond , MO )

8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.

9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.

10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.

11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.

12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.

13.

In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists

Okay, you've proved that male Muslim extremists have done bad stuff, but that doesn't equal all Muslims, and since Obama isn't a Muslim, how does this relate to him.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling!

Yah, because we have super laser eyes that can see which Muslims are extremists and which ones arn't, right? Sorry, but if we are going to profile, we have to profile on race, which is wrong.

They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Well, they already do...so try again.

According to The Book of Revelations:

Which is a giant heap of bullshit.

The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.

And he will declare himself Christ...and why are we using the Bible to justify not voting for someone, it's all bullshit anyway...

And Now:
For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America .. A Male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremist) and in his 40's.

Uh...Obama is not of Muslim descent. Even if his father was Muslim, that doesn't mean Obama has Muslim descent. Last I checked, Obama isn't Arab.

Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason ???

Lol, the irony here is killing me.

I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama...

Of course he's "unknown" to you, you havent' even bothered to research him...

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.

Yes, because a stupid chain message on the internet by an obvious stupidass like yourself is really gonna sway them...

As the writer of the award winning story 'Forest Gump' so aptly put it,

'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'

You fit perfectly here then...

Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet..do it!

Why? If I really wanted to spread the "Obama is the anti-christ" message, I would use a better chain message then this. There all bullshit, but this one doesn't even carpet-bomb you with links to radical right-wing websites as sources for the bullshit, so it's inferiour to the other flaming bullshit heaps.

or again. . . just delete if you disagree.
----------------------------------------
-----------

TOTAL CRAP. I replied with this:
----------------------------------------
-------
If anything, this only proves that the Islamic culture is a hunk of crap.

He's half black, half white. His black father was from Kenya, in Africa.

Thanks to his step-father, he was forced to go to a Muslim school in Jakarta until he was in 5th grade. As a ten year old, he moved back to Honolulu, Hawaii, to continue his education in the United States.

Once again, I am not trying to spark an argument with you. I just do not understand how people have drilled it into eachother's heads that this man is a Muslim. Living overseas for a short period of time as a child, does not make one a Muslim.

This guy spent most of his life in Hawaii and Illinois. The rest is cited from Wikipedia:

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr., a black Kenyan of Nyang'oma Kogelo, Siaya District, Kenya, and Ann Dunham, a white American from Wichita, Kansas.[2] His parents met while attending the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was a foreign student.[3] They separated when he was two years old and later divorced.[4] Obama's father returned to Kenya and saw his son only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982.[5] After her divorce, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, and the family moved to Soetoro's home country of Indonesia in 1967, where Obama attended local schools in Jakarta until he was ten years old. He then returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents while attending Punahou School from the fifth grade in 1971 until his graduation from high school in 1979.[6] Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972 for several years and then back to Indonesia for her fieldwork. She died of ovarian cancer in 1995.[7]
---------------------------------------

I applaud you sir.

So there you go, people.

just google Barack Obama and click the fucking wikipedia link. It isn't that hard.

I'm losing faith in humanity.

Me too, me too...

At 10/23/07 10:31 PM, jAk88 wrote: Gay, black, female Muslim communist president?

Your thoughts.

Gay: I wish, but probably not
Black: Yes, Obama is winning
Female: Yah, Palin/Hillary, women can be succesful in politcs
Muslim: Probably not, but I don't see why they're any worse than Christians
Communist: Uh...no, no failed ideology here

At 10/10/08 12:20 AM, PineappleWinnie wrote:

At 10/7/08 06:44 PM, Saruman200 wrote:
Please read the BBS rules. I quote, under the OTHER RULES, which may result in a ban:

"Posting excessively in a language other than English for the sole purpose of excluding the majority of the users."

Gotta post in english buddy.

Reminds me ofhow racist Americans can get to be. You pretty much bashed the Venezuelan guy. I guess this is why I am not coming around here often anymore. Tired of USA racism. I won't go nuts like Contipec has done, but I still see the World being on one side and the USA on another side. We can't fool ourselves. The World and the USA will never really become friends. Not even if Obama wins, issues are beyond what he or anyone could actually solve.

Well, actually I'm technically not American, as I am a dual citizen of both Canada and the US. Secondly, I was pointing out a break in the forum rules, that was not "bashing him". If I had won't to bash him, I would have personally attacked him, or insulted his country, called my country and language superiour or something like that. And if you have read any of my other posts, you would know I hardly am an American nationalist...

This one was a true draw I think. The first presidential debate was supposed to be a draw, but it was edge: Obama. This one though, I couldn't find a candiate that did better. On substance, they both said some pretty intelligent things, but I think Obama statements were a tad bit more detailed. McCain did way better than he did in the other debate, and he wiped Obama out on a few questions. He seemed much more comfortable in the town-hall format, unlike Obama who seemed a bit nervous, though not especially notably so. Both took some firm jabs at the other, but I felt McCain's hit more. They both waved off and almost ignored each others attacks, except for Obama who replied to them briefly before getting back to promoting himself. Neither of them appeared ruffled by any of the attacks made against them. In terms of the actual debate, it was a draw, but a draw means a win for Obama. He did exactly what he needs to do: play it cautious until election day. If he doesn't slip up, he'll be in the Oval Office in a few months time. Meanwhile, McCain is swinging about in the dark, trying to get "his friends" to vote for him, but he or his running mate have been unable to really break out and get there message across anymore than the Obama campaign has, which is bad news for McCain. I don't see this debate changing the polls very much, though it seems most people thought Obama had won, and apparently people didn't like the "that one" comment. McCain really needs to win the last debate so he can salvage anything from these contests, but he's already gone through his two specialties, foreign policy and the town-hall format, so I don't think he has anything big to bring to the final debate. But we'll just have to see.

At 10/7/08 10:42 PM, ErYoYo wrote: i sorry then Saruman

i will remember that next time

That's alright. It wasn't really a big deal, but I do like to know what people are saying :P, so I brought it up. Cheers!

At 10/7/08 07:02 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 10/7/08 06:44 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 10/7/08 02:13 PM, ErYoYo wrote:
y Der-Lowe recuerda que Brasil es un pais con casi 4 veces la poblacion de Argentina y el crime alla es mas rudo que en Argentina. En Venezuela creo que muere mas gente por el crimen o "hampa" que en Argentina.

Please read the BBS rules. I quote, under the OTHER RULES, which may result in a ban:

"Posting excessively in a language other than English for the sole purpose of excluding the majority of the users."

Gotta post in english buddy.

"Posting excessively in a language other than English"

Less than half of his post was in Spanish, most of it was in English. He wasn't posting excessively in Spanish... he wasn't trying to exclude people.

Now, should I link to the threads where you've broken BBS rules or...?

I consider an entire paragraph excessive, but that's just me. The point is, the majority of users here don't speak Spanish, and due to the other half the post being in English, he can obviously speak English, why post that in Spanish for any other reason then to exclude those who don't speak Spanish?

And I make no claim that I have never broken a BBS rule. I've broken plenty, and I've been banned for it. But that doesn't mean I can't point out a break in the rules when I see one. Same thing with you.

And by the way, you haven't contributed anything to the actual discussion so far, so would the post you just made count as "Harassing other users by having a continuous negative or bitter attitude towards them.", considering that you made no post relevant to the actual topic, instead you solely critized me in a negative and possibly bitter manner. We can play this game all day, or we can stop and get back on topic. I'll let you decide.

At 10/7/08 02:13 PM, ErYoYo wrote:
y Der-Lowe recuerda que Brasil es un pais con casi 4 veces la poblacion de Argentina y el crime alla es mas rudo que en Argentina. En Venezuela creo que muere mas gente por el crimen o "hampa" que en Argentina.

Please read the BBS rules. I quote, under the OTHER RULES, which may result in a ban:

"Posting excessively in a language other than English for the sole purpose of excluding the majority of the users."

Gotta post in english buddy.

At 10/6/08 06:59 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:
I'd say that they can influence Africa, and have a defensive stance against the US, Europe, and China.

True. But that still doesn't mean they won't be in anyone's sphere of influence.

The Economist phails.

Prove it.

Development indexes are based on the data I have provided; a ranking that shows that Brazil has reached a better level of development is either biased, or has a statistical problem of some sort, and has obviously been made with no knowledge of either country.

How so? Sorry buddy, but your not smarter than the people behind that survey.

It's like saying that Portugal is more developed than Spain.

*Shrug* If a international team of experts decides it is, I'm inclined to believe them over you.

and Brazil is less corrupt than Argentina.

That might be the case.

Okay then. So you said Brazil and Venezuela were the most corrupt ones in Mecroseur. Venezuela, yes, Brazil no.

I wasn't talking about being influential, but level of development; Brazil is obviously much more influential than Argentina, since it is much bigger and has 5 times the population of Argentina.

Okay then. We are talking about influence here though.

Not in a specific case (as is the signing of international ftas), since it works as such.

Well, we're talking influence here, not really specific cases. Considering Mecroseur has no unified foreign or defense policy, or even economic policy, you treat it as one nation in the current topic is foolish.

I did not say that Mercosur was a place of low crime rates; brazil has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. I was saying that Mercosur countries rarely enter wars, ergo, they don't worry about their military much.

But you orginally said "we are peaceful nations". This is not true, at least compared to the rest of the world Mercosur is no more peaceful. That was the point I was trying to make.

The US rushed it with the arms race; the USSR did not have the economic strength to be up to the challenge, and spent too much in military, even making its citizens starve.

That helped too, but was after the rushing of the US, and as a consequence of it.

The USSR may not have had the economic strength to keep up with the US, but that wasn't the reason it collapsed. It could have gone on for another few decades had Gorbachev not rushed his reforms.

Indeed.

Too me, living in the country is a bad thing for you arguement. That creates bias.

Of Course not, I only said it wasn't prone to wars; it has many serious social problems, which do indeed cause internal security problems.

No you said "we are quite peaceful nations". Nations with internal security problems are hardly peaceful, and as far as I know, the Mecrosur haven't joined in any less wars than the majority of the world. Obviously Africa and the Middle East are exceptions, but I wouldn't really compare Mecrosur to them.

A stance which I disagree with, for the reasons I have already said.

Well, you've almost focused entirely on economics, which are only part of the equation. The fact is, Russia and China are not only finanicially stronger than any Latin American nation, they also have much more politcal influence and military power, and thus more hard and soft power to exercise.

Very well.

Well okeedokee then.

Haven't they already proved it's genetic? But whatever, logically it must be. So what, do you just wake up one day and go "Hm...I'll think I'll be gay today"? Not that simple. You can't really help who you feel sexually attracted too. If some strait guy says he turned gay, chances are he was gay or bisexual all along. If being gay was a choice, then I doubt we would have many gays. No offense to any gay people, but being strait is so much easier, and if you could control who you were attracted too, why not pick the easy way out?

Well, I went too Middle School in the US, and they required us to take a year of US history. Then in High School we were supposed to take another year of US history and a year of World History. European History was also an optional course. But I moved to Canada for high school, and we took World History, Economics, Government, but no Canadian History, cause apprently they'd already done it in Middle School. So I don't really think US education is any more self-centered than the education of other countries. Could be different than Europe I suppose. Most Europeans I met know more about US history and politcs than the average American (in my personal experience), but I'm not sure. However, I believe that it's probably like that in all countries. Your living in that country, the majority of people in the class will be citizens of that country, so it seems pratical to have a greater focus on that country.

It all depends how we're defining cyber-bullying. If we're defining it as: The continuation of bullying online, spreading rumors about people online etc..., you know, how kids get on Myspace or Facebook and spread rumors about each other, or send other people they don't like threatening messages and all. That, I can understand making illegal. Now, I think that's an extreme course of action, but I guess it could be considered harassment.

However, if we are going to use cyber-bullying as any form of "bullying" on the internet, even if you've never met the person and there just sending you flaming PMs because you dared to have a different views than them on the NG politics board (you people know who you are), then that's just stupid. How are they gonna regulate that? And who cares? There not actually doing you any physical harm, and it won't effect you in real life, so what's the point?