Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/19/08 07:16 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

A more correct statement would be that gun control reduces property crime which would be true.

Ment "gun ownership reduces propery crime, which would be true".

At 9/19/08 04:23 PM, polska322 wrote: if you read the constitution it states that every man has the right to bear arms, well that has been pretty much changed to " every man has the right to bear arms... with a permit" and may soone be "everyman has a right to bear arms... except guns" and eventually someone will try to remove that right completely, so i say get rid of gun permits

So, whats your point? Because the Consitution says "right to bear arms", we should just through guns out on the street for free, let everyone, y'know, ex-cons, murderers, rapists, and shit have them? The Consituation is vague. We're supposed to interpret it logically, not take it word for word...

the reasons are: legal guns with or without permits are tracable, legal guns reduce violent crimes (would you attak someone if u knew he could blow the shit out of you?), and putting permits on guns only makes it harder to get them thus it is harder to defend yourself

Provide some kind of sourced statistic that proves legal guns reduce violent crimes. Because every single statistic on the issue of crime that I have ever seen shows the exact opposite. A more correct statement would be that gun control reduces property crime which would be true.

some arguments will probably be: guns HURT PEOPLE OHH NOO, well tough shit thats wat they are supposed to do, or guns without permits will be bought by criminals, well no criminal is fuckiong dumb enough to buy a TRACEABLE LEGAL GUN so stfu about it, and there are also reports like 80 ppl got killed by guns today, well about 40 of those are suicides which cant be helped another 20 is self defense and 10 is gangs killing other gangs wiht ILLEGAL guns which is somewat good and the rest is violent crimes wiht ILLEGAL GUNs.

Plenty of criminals buy legal guns stupid. Yah, they buy illegal guns too, but don't try and make some kind of bullshit claim that you have absolutely no proof of.

although there are some reasonable laws on guns like the age limit, the limit to what kind of weapon you can buy (no machine guns or bazookas etc.) and wat would help even more is if there wat a 20+ sentence just for having an illegal gun,

But that goes against your consitutional right, doesn't it. Are machine guns and bazookas not covered in the right to bear arms? The Consitution is subjective, your saying "well, gun control is against the consitution, but gun control on these things isn't". That's why you should use logic and facts instead of making completely subjective arguements based on a very vague part of the Consitution.

so basically not only do gun permits restrict how well we can defend ourselve but they violate a right we have as american citizens

So basically you've made a bunch of claims that have absolutely no proof behind them. I'm not even a gun control supporter, and I can tell your arguements are crap.

At 9/18/08 08:49 PM, toreyray wrote: Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama says he has the new ideas to calm America's financial meltdown and help struggling families avoid mortgage foreclosure.

And what would those be? Explain, please.

On the other side Palin could offer you 150$ for every wolf you kill

First off, where the hell did you hear that, and second off, it's Obama vs McCain, not Obama vs Palin.

Obama the only way we can solve all of our problems!

Really? Could you show us some facts about his plans to prove that?

To the topic starter, that was a great post. I agree with you absolutely 100%. Well done.

At 9/19/08 08:31 AM, dySWN wrote: The real question is, will this thread really wind up covering anything the original athiesm vs. theism thread hasn't covered already in spades?

First off, atheism vs non-atheism is about whenever or not there is a God. This thread is about if we actually need religion. The poster made it pretty clear that he doesn't want to talk about whenever God exists or not (at least in this thread).

All I see you doing is complaining about these threads, yet you never seem to participate in them. If you don't like a thread, don't post instead of bitching about it. Considering that you don't even debate in these religion threads, why is the fact there are multiple of them so bad? If you have nothing to contribute, then kindly piss off.

How has Russia's reputation been tarnished? The only countries it's been tarnished in are the West, were it was already disliked. At most, Russia has gained a lot from this. The government of the pro-Western coalition in the Ukranian government has split, with the biggest sections going over to the pro-Russian bloc. The Pro-NATO president of the Ukraine is isolated, with his former allies diminishing his power and this own party now the third biggest in the Ukrainian parliament. The Venezualians and Bolivians are looking to Russia for aid and protection, many former Soviet states are now closer than ever to Russia, and Georgia will think twice about messing with Russia again.

This is just the beginning of a new Russian resurgence, which will probably end up in "New Cold War". But it's not like this is the end of the world... Some people will be battling for influence again, get over it, don't go crying into your bomb shelters to hide out and read your Bibles, the Cold War never came to anything, neither will this...

Yah, and guess what guys, every Friday I go to the local bar to play pool John McCain, George Bush, and Dick Cheney. Cheney always wins, but he gets mad when no one wants to go hunting with him. Sarah Palin tried to get in, but Bush insisted it waz "no gurls allud".

Later, we hacked into Bill Clinton's email. He was sending Hillary some naughty stuff...

The next day I got up and smoked weed with Barack Obama.

Here, I'll post it on 4chan, then you'll HAVE to believe me!

PS: If you didn't get the memo, I think this is complete bull. I definatly needs reliable links before I believe any of this, not to mention how easy this is to fabricate? What's to stop me from making Yahoo account under the name "Sarah Palin", then sending people "controversial" emails? Yah, that's right nothing. Really, if this reveals some massive shit about Sarah Palin, it obviously fake. If it was real, it would probably be full of mundane stuff. Should this happen to be real, then shame on the person who did it, but I highly doubt the GOP vice presidential pick uses an insecure email and uses it to send important information...

Wow, how someone managed to bring racism into this is amazing... As far as I know, racism doesn't effect military effectiveness at all. But then again, the person who said Russia was racist is just as stupid... There are a bunch of neo-facist groups that are racist, yes, but do you have any evidence whatsoever that Russia is any more racist than the United States? And of course, civil rights activists disagree. If Russia is one of the most racist countries on earth because of it's racist organizations, then the US must be the most racist because of the KKK. Don't make bullshit generalizations based on a fraction of the population.

At 9/16/08 07:48 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/16/08 07:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/15/08 11:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

Yah, that's true. A governor is more similar to the office of president than that of a senator. But that doesn't mean being a governor automatically makes you a good candiate for president. My point is we should focus on the issues, not who has the most "experience".

But issues are way, way, way more important than experience. I'll vote for who I think will be the best for the country based on how well I think their platforms will work, not how much political experience they have...

Yah, but if Obama may have less experience than McCain, but if he has better positions (not saying he does) than you shouldn't vote for McCain because of his experience. I think voting on the person's character, whenever it be their personality, their charisma, or their experience is complete folly, but if you want to vote that way, be my guest.

The thing about experience shows whether or not a person can walk-the-walk. It gives an indicator of future performance. Issues are important, but remember anyone with a speechwriter and acting lessons can take a stand on issues that have been designed and focus grouped to death. That is easy.

Why, of course, but my main point remains: experience does not make a good president.

But can the candidate work across the aisle? On what programs/issues will they be able to draw upon their own knowledge to make a decision...and which programs/issues will they have to rely upon the expertise of their advisors and cabinet?

This is a good point, but I would rely hope that any candiate would rely not only on their own personal opinions, but also on the advice of the cabinet no matter how experienced they are.

All of this comes down to one question: can the candidate deliver on their stands on the issues?

Afterall, they could have the plan and platform that will save us from Social Security and Medicare/aid. But if they cannot implement their vision...then their positions on the issues are irrelevent.

I don't quite understand. An unexperienced candiate can put their visions into place as wel an experienced one, I don't really understand how this relates to experience.

Stuff.

Your initial argument basically said you've stated your argument, therefore the debate should be concluded. Which I challenged with "who are you" to make such an absolutist argument that (in its absolutist incarnation) is not really a good one. So then that brings up the question who are we to claim such surity of our positions.

Could I not say the same of you? I made an assertion, just like you did. We all have to assert our opinions for a debate to even happen. How was my opinion any more absolutist than yours? Maybe my view on this is radical, but it's hardly unmoving. Yours was no less stalwart. Maybe I used some strong language, but that's just linguistics. Once again, I apologize if you got the wrong idea.

So basically, you would withhold the truth for your own reasons. Well, that doesn't sound selfish at all... *eye rollie*.

Not to menton all the horrific atrocities that religion has caused... Religion has good elements and bad elements, but I choose the truth, even if the lie is better for by conscience. If I kill somone, then lie to myself and convince myself I didn't do it, then it certianly makes me feel a lot better, but it's still a lie. Same thing here. You can try to convince yourself and everyone else the religion is true just to make you feel better, but it's still a lie.

PS: And religion already has been disproven. We may never find evidence that God doesn't exist, but logically it's complete bullshit. God is disproven just like Santa and the Tooth Fairy: not through evidence, but through simple logical reasoning.

At 9/15/08 11:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/15/08 10:54 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/15/08 08:38 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/14/08 07:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Another stupid thread about the "experience issue". Seriously, as I've said before and I'll say again, experience doesn't mean shit. Nothing can prepare you for the job of president, so everyone needs to stop pretending they'd be a better president because of their "experience".

Ha, ha, ha! You said it so it must be so!

And likewhise, it must be important because you said it was? This can go either way.

You came across as flippantly disregarding the notion that a person's experience is unnecessary for consideration.

Furthermore, an appeal to authority when that person is an authority on the subject is legitimate.

You think your an authority on the subject. How very modest of you.

Anyway, experience does matter...even if there is no formal path to the presidency. For example there have been 17 presidents with gubernatorial experience and about 8 with senatorial experience. This is important because the structure of the governor's office very closely resembles the structure of the presidency.

Some of those presidents that had senatorial experience were some of the best. And I know this fact has been beaten to death, but Lincoln didn't have any experience when he became president.

You do not address my main point, but instead bite upon trivia. From a structural perspective, certain offices are remarkably similar to that of the presidency. In fact if you look at the last five presidents only one was not a governor and had Federal experience (Bush the Elder). You said that there was nothing to prepare someone to be president and I made the argument that being governor is a good route that many have taken.

Yah, that's true. A governor is more similar to the office of president than that of a senator. But that doesn't mean being a governor automatically makes you a good candiate for president. My point is we should focus on the issues, not who has the most "experience".

Secondly, a person who had worked on Wall Street would have relevent experience in managing fiscal policy.

Third, a person who held a command in the military has relevent experience.

True, a person does have experience in those things, but that doesn't effect whenever they'd be a good president or not. I suppose that was my real point: not really that experience is completely worthless, rather that experience doesn't make a good president. But I've already said this so many times, I won't to make it short and blunt. Sorry for any confusion.

Experience is only a piece of the pie...but to totally discard it as an important issue is folly.

But issues are way, way, way more important than experience. I'll vote for who I think will be the best for the country based on how well I think their platforms will work, not how much political experience they have...

Now just because you have served in these capacities should not be the end of the discussion. Was John McCain a competent commander? Sarah Palin a good governor? Barrack Obama competent on Wall Street...wait he opted to become rich as a "community organizer" (thereby gaining experience in things that a president will not have to deal with).

Well, that's completely subjective. I mean, a community organizer would have to "organize", wouldn't they, doesn't the president "organize" the cabinent, federal departments, budject, etc... Not saying that really important, just pointing out it subjective.

It is not really all that subjective when you look at it from a structural perspective. A community organizer is powerless and can only influence policy not legislate or craft it. But again...the question initially raised is actually a nod towards your position. Quantity matters...but so does quality. And in regards to Obama and Palin...this is a double-edged sword. It cuts the Republicans a little less because Palin is in the #2 slot rather than the #1.

Yah, but if Obama may have less experience than McCain, but if he has better positions (not saying he does) than you shouldn't vote for McCain because of his experience. I think voting on the person's character, whenever it be their personality, their charisma, or their experience is complete folly, but if you want to vote that way, be my guest.

So what does Obama really offer other than an amorphous call for "change"? Something that was easy to do...and FDR did in 1932 (and then took Hoover's policies to new levels of government intervention). When dealing with the Russians what does he bring to the table...or the Norweigans for that matter?

Well, FDR was also one of our greatest presidents (but I suppose that's subjective too, but then again most historians agree with me on that). I'll answer your question about the Russians (and Norweigans): nothing. But really, what does John McCain, other than an over-aggresive attitude?

Too bad that most economists now look upon the Hoover/FDR policies as prolonging the Great Depression. And he saddled us with Social Security (and then bankrupted it with IOUs)...which will implode the federal budget in the next twenty years. Helluva legacy.

I definatly need a source for that. According to wikipedia not many people are very critical of him, and most historians rank him as one of the top three presidents.

Sorry friend, but experience does matter...regardless of what you say.

And again, I can say "experience doesn't matter...regardless of what you say." It's a double-edged sword here buddy.

Again it comes down to an appeal to authority and how has the cred to back it up. BS, Masters and half-way through PhD in Political Science here. You're profile says student, so upon what does your argument stand?

Ah, no... First off, how do I even know your telling the truth? Don't believe everything you here over the internet buddy, for all I know you could be a prepude 13 year old kid (you could say the samething about me of course, which is why brining real-life occupations in an internet debate is pure idiocy). Secondly, even if it is true (and I believe you, don't get me wrong, but it's still a crappy arguement) how does that make you right? I'm mastering in political science right now, so really your not much more qualified, and as I said that doesn't make you automatically right. Don't try and turn the debate into some kind of pissing contest. If anything, bringing this up has only made that claim less likely due to the pure stupidity of it.

At 9/16/08 02:11 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 9/13/08 01:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote: The New Cold War thing is definatly true.

NEW EVIL ENEMIES OF THE WESTERN WORLD:

BO
LI
VIA

Fear Bolivia's navy!

Bullshit, that's not what I ment, Bolivia is no more evil than any of the Western countries. All the nations of the world are just doing what it's in their national interest. However, there is a new Cold War: the US and Russia are battling for influence. China might join in as a third contender too. But that's not evil... You completely mistunderstood my point. I'm totally against the idiots who are raging about how evil the US enemies are, but that doesn't mean there isn't a new cold war.

At 9/15/08 08:38 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/14/08 07:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Another stupid thread about the "experience issue". Seriously, as I've said before and I'll say again, experience doesn't mean shit. Nothing can prepare you for the job of president, so everyone needs to stop pretending they'd be a better president because of their "experience".

Ha, ha, ha! You said it so it must be so!

And likewhise, it must be important because you said it was? This can go either way.

Anyway, experience does matter...even if there is no formal path to the presidency. For example there have been 17 presidents with gubernatorial experience and about 8 with senatorial experience. This is important because the structure of the governor's office very closely resembles the structure of the presidency.

Some of those presidents that had senatorial experience were some of the best. And I know this fact has been beaten to death, but Lincoln didn't have any experience when he became president.

Secondly, a person who had worked on Wall Street would have relevent experience in managing fiscal policy.

Third, a person who held a command in the military has relevent experience.

True, a person does have experience in those things, but that doesn't effect whenever they'd be a good president or not. I suppose that was my real point: not really that experience is completely worthless, rather that experience doesn't make a good president. But I've already said this so many times, I won't to make it short and blunt. Sorry for any confusion.

Now just because you have served in these capacities should not be the end of the discussion. Was John McCain a competent commander? Sarah Palin a good governor? Barrack Obama competent on Wall Street...wait he opted to become rich as a "community organizer" (thereby gaining experience in things that a president will not have to deal with).

Well, that's completely subjective. I mean, a community organizer would have to "organize", wouldn't they, doesn't the president "organize" the cabinent, federal departments, budject, etc... Not saying that really important, just pointing out it subjective.

So what does Obama really offer other than an amorphous call for "change"? Something that was easy to do...and FDR did in 1932 (and then took Hoover's policies to new levels of government intervention). When dealing with the Russians what does he bring to the table...or the Norweigans for that matter?

Well, FDR was also one of our greatest presidents (but I suppose that's subjective too, but then again most historians agree with me on that). I'll answer your question about the Russians (and Norweigans): nothing. But really, what does John McCain, other than an over-aggresive attitude?

Sorry friend, but experience does matter...regardless of what you say.

And again, I can say "experience doesn't matter...regardless of what you say." It's a double-edged sword here buddy.

Arn't there a couple threads on this same topic right here on the front page? And did you just realize this now? And what is byass supposed to mean? Is it an attempt to include "ass" in the title to express your anger, cause I think it is? So many questions...

Well, if my personal experience is worth anything, it's because generally Asians don't take things so seriously. I don't think I've ever met an Asian that was seriously offended when someone made a joke about the small penis stereotype. Meanwhile, if someone made a joke about blacks being poor or stupid, they would be all over you. Really though, these are all massive generalizations. There are obviously Asians and blacks that don't conform to these stereotypes at all. But the thing about stereotypes are that they are often based in fact. Are they completely exaggerated? Yes. Are they often no longer relevant to current day? Yes. Can they sometimes be exaggerated due to prestanding bias/racism? Yes. But they still usually have some, even if it's very little, factual base. Now mind you, I still don't really like engaging in stereotyping, because they are often completely falsified because the factual base has been completely muddled in continued exaggeration, but to say stereotypes are completely untrue would be incorrect. Now mind you, Asians can be pretty racist themselves, just like everyone else.

Well, "justified" is completely subjective. The war was "justified" based on the information we had at the beginning, but that information turned out to be false. So, in truth it wasn't "justified" since I'll main justification for going in turned out to be false, but we had no way of knowing that.

At 9/15/08 09:17 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Since we're bumping this topic, I'll say that no system is perfect; not Communism, not Capitalism.

My views exactly. Believe it or not, there are things wrong with Capitalism. Of course, I choose it over the alternative, but it still has problems. Everything does.

At 9/14/08 08:57 PM, IrishChrisman wrote: Conservatives will either win a magority or close to it. Traditionals Liberals are shying away because of Dion's shaky leadership. The election is coming down to Conservatives: Gaining seats, Liberals: Trying to protect Liberal strongholds, and the NDP, Green Party and Bloc Quebecois trying to hold on.

Well, NDP and the Greens are looking to improve their seats. This is probably gone to be the NDP's best election ever. Maybe even official opposition if the Liberals screw up enough.

Another stupid thread about the "experience issue". Seriously, as I've said before and I'll say again, experience doesn't mean shit. Nothing can prepare you for the job of president, so everyone needs to stop pretending they'd be a better president because of their "experience".

Well, I assume you refer to Andrew Jackson. I really think we should replace him, he was an awful president, with the whole kill the national bank and trail of tears things. One of the Roosevelts, Teddy or FRD, would be so much better. Jefferson was real small government guy, so he was probably against the national bank too, though I'm not sure. Washington sided with the Federalists (though he hated political parties) on most issues, so he was probably for the national bank. Alexander Hamiltion was the guy who really started the movement towards getting a national bank. Not sure about Ben Franklin or Grant. So really, only one, possibly two of the people on the bills were against the national bank, and in my opinion one of them shouldn't be there.

Also, the fact that you used "Zeitgeist" and "think" in the same sentance really hurt the rest of your arguement.

Yah, really we're in the "occupation" stage. It doesn't really change the issue though...

I love it how people talk about how bad North Korea is, then say we should nuke them. Cause you know, killing millions of people will nukes makes us so much better than them, right?

At 9/14/08 01:35 AM, Lookaz wrote: THINGS THAT SHOULD BE LEGALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR WORLDWIDE

1. Prostitution
the right to engage in the act of prostitution between the times of 11:00pm to 7:00am

Agreed.

- - - - - - - - - - -
2. Marijuana
the right to trade, buy, sell, inport, export, transport locally or internationally, use, or possess any strain of the Cannabis/Hemp plants at anytime, regardless of age, sex, race, or color.

Agreed.

- - - - - - - - - - -
3. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
the right to trade, buy, sell, inport, export, transport locally or internationally, use, or possess any specified dose of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, or more comonly known as "LSD" or "Acid". However, there is an age limit to the use of such a Drug. The Age limit is 16. Operation of heavy machinery, dangerous substances, or a vehicle of any kind, may result disastorous. Therefore, a buddy system is encouraged whence an individual has used the Lysergic Acid Diethylamide.

Hm...agree, but age limit should probably be ligher, maybe 18 or 21.

- - - - - - - - - - -
4. Work Weeks
The average work week is 5 out of 7 days of the week. (Mon-Fri). However, Work weeks are to be changed to Monday to Thursday.

Why? That's pure laziness, work needs to be done to keep the economy going.

- - - - - - - - - - -
5. Curfew
The National curfew for those Ages 1-9 is 9:00pm to 4:30am. For those ages 10-12 is 10:30pm to 4:30am. For those ages 13-15 is 1:00am to 4:00am. For those ages 16 and over, no curfew is in effect.

Curfews are foolish. They are way to hard to enforce, unfair, and serve no purpose.

- - - - - - - - - - -
6. Legaly an Adult
You are legally an adult at the age of 16. Meaning the following: Right to Vote, Right to Smoke, etc. All rights of adults are given to you, however responsibilities of an adult are withheld til the age of 18. meaning, those under 18 cannot and will not ever pay taxes.

Why? I see your 16 from your profile, you can wait another 2 years. We need people to have at least a full high-school education before we give them the responsibilities and rights of an adult.

- - - - - - - - - - -
7. Smoking and Drinking Ages
The legal age to Smoke Tobacco or Cannabis/Hemp is 16. The legal drinking age also is reduced to the age of 18. Those caught breaking these fines will be granted a fine. The fines are as follows: caught smokeing Tobacco or Cannabis/Hemp under age of 12 will be fined at $50.00 to $125.00, those caught between ages of 13 to 15 smoking will not be fined, however remains illegal for them to possess or buy any sort of Tobacco or Cannabis. Also, caught drinking light liquor substances such as beer under the age of 18 results in a $25.00 to $75.00 fine, but if the liquor substances is considered hard liquor such as whiskey, rum, gin, tequila, or wine, then the fine will be increased to $75.00 to $175.00. All depending on the amount consumed or caught with.

I agree with the reduction of the legal drinking age, but tobacco and cannabis should be the same as alchohol: 18.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
8. The Womans Right to Choose
The right for a woman to undergo an abortion if she chooses. If under the age of 18, an abortion is actually incouraged.

Agreed.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
9. Rating Restrictions
The right, despite of age, to view, purchase, or in any other way be exposed to Pornographic Material, this also includes things such as, Video Games and Computer Games rated "Ao (adults only)" or "M (Mature)". As well as, no matter what age, no parent or gaurdian is needed to Films rated "R (restricted)". For that these restrictions only shield childeren and young teens from what is the real world.

Agreed. Rating should only be a guideline, we don't need to tell partents how to raise their kids.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
10. Blood Alchohol Limit
The Blood Alcohol Limit is to be increased from the current "0.0800" to "0.0900" However those under 18 have a strict Blood Alcohol Limit of ".0015".

Why?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
11. True Seperation of Church and State
The government must appease the fact that not the entire United States of America, let alone the entire Planet earth, believes the same thing. That said, crimes such as "Arson Against Church and/or Other Religous Buildings", will be treated as mere Arson. Crimes like, "Priesthood Pedofilia" will be treated as normal Pedofilia, and will be carried out as such that if proven guilty, said religous leader, that being monk, priest, magus, guru, caliph, or high scholar will be dealt with the exact same way as if it were a normal case. Also before taking the stand, puting ones hand on the bible is no longer requested.

Agreed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12. Jailing and Prison
The longest sentence one can recieve for a crime is 65 years. However, if convicted of maijor crimes such as genocide, mass homocide, or premeditated homocide will be given a life sentence of 90 years.

Hm...I don't see why. Only 65 years for a one-time rapist or murderer? I say life, but we really need to work on more effective rehabilitation programs that are longer and stricter.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
13. School and Academics (high school)
School days will commence at any time the district chooses, however, this time cannot be before 7:30am or later than 1:00pm. All school days will be 4 hours longs, half days are 2 in a half hours long, passing periods nationwide are to be at 8 minutes each, and 20 minutes before school at 14 minutes after to get to the buses. Also school days will be at a 4 day per week law. Suspension can be no longer than 1 work week, (4 days). Detension can not exceed over 3 hours, for that would entail "cruel or unusual punishment". Saturday schools, work weeks ending on thursdays naturely become friday schools. Also, any and all Mathmatical Classes, this being geomentry, algebra, math, triginomitry, or calqulous, will no longer be taught after the students 8th grade year of school.

The math thing is bull. Math is just as nessicary as any other subject. School needs to be a lot longer than you suggest. All I see here is a kid complaining about school...there's really no logical argument for this.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
14. LGBT community rights
Those of the public within the LGBT community are now given the same civil and public rights that all of America recieves, this includes Adoption, Marridge, etc. Also a non-discriminatory act will be proclaimed to say words such as "F*g", "F***ot", or "H*mo", are to have the same taboo as words such as "N***er" or "Be***r"

Agreed, exept "H*mo" isn't that bad, it's just an abberiviated form of homosexual. I think homophobia should be considered a hate crime like racism or sexism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
15. Right of Anti-Racists
The right to eliminate self-proclaimed racists on sight, this meaning, those practicing Neo-Nazism have the legallity to be shot. As well as those of the KKK, or other white, black, latino, middle eastern, or orienital supremacy. This is considered the right of Anti-Racism, and can only be carried out if the "Racist" in question is self proclaimed indefinatly.

No way, that's government sanctioned murder. We should enforce hate crime laws, but racism is just a viewpoint, even if it's wrong, and thus should not be punishable by death. That's pure anti-Freedom of Speech.

At 9/14/08 12:35 AM, EmoNarc wrote: Asking the average politico about the current state of the word, you'd witness a true tirade of passion--the oceans are risings; disease, famines, and wars plague the world; racial profiling is worse than ever. According to them, modern society is a failed product of a failed ambition. They'd say, the world has never been worse.

Who's the "average politico"? Besides the consiparacy theorists, I don't meet many people crying havoc about anything. Yah, some bad shit is going down in the world today, but I don't really think it's "worse" than any other year, decades, eras, etc...

Sometimes, I want to shout back at them. "Shut up!" I'd say in angry defiance.

Take a deep breath.

Because in actuality, we live in an era unsurpassed by any other before. The Internet allows us to spread ideas democratically in a manner that can reach millions. Modern philosophy provides us with a plethora of new thoughts, ideas, and innovations. Modern medicine makes it, truly, hard to die. The human race has never had the capabilities it has today. We live in the epitome of time. So why, then, are politicos so up in arms, in a rage, infuriated?

We live in a era of unsurpassed technology in SOME places. In the developed world perhaps, but I'd like you see you tell a poor African kid about how all these unsurpassed technologies, philosophies, and medicine that he/she will never have access too. Some people still have terrible quality of life, even in the West. 15% of Americans live below the poverty line. I doubt the person who works to support his family at Wal-Mart of McDonald's for minimiuim wage has access to all these great things your talking about.

No one cares. We do not use the great innovations at our disposal to their greatest potential. For example, when given media, instead of spreading ideas through documentaries and thoughtful pieces of art, we create movies like "Borat" (deprecated) and "High School Musical" (eww). When given the Internet, instead of spreading our ideas, we create websites like 4chan, Meatspin, and 2girls1cup. I'm not saying we live in a bad time--we're far from that--but I believe we can do so much more.

Wait, doesn't this contradict what you said before? Also, Borat is an excellent political film that suceeds in showing off the bigotry in America by opening these people up with one of their own. And High School Musical is just a kid's movie... Some people think 4chan, Meatspin, and 2girls1cup are funny. I don't agree, but they should be able to use the internet just like us.

In my opinion, it is the apathy of America that is the biggest problem we face today. (Screw global warming!) We have it good--the average politico seriously needs to calm the ef down--but modern society creates a potential completely incomparable with what we have now. My message? Do something. Get involved. Learn. Grow. Because, today, we have the ability to create little pieces of heaven on earth... literally.

The funny thing is, you talk about how great times are, then you complain about people. And these "politicos" are definatly a lot more "involved" than anyone else. Now, time is good for some people and all, but what's wrong with trying to make it even better?

At 9/13/08 08:25 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/13/08 03:31 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Meh, I think the Conservatives will win, but not a majority. Probably another Conservative minority.

The polls say otherwise.

Now they do, but I suggest you read the rest of my post.

Experience doesn't mean shit. Nothing can truely perpare you for the job of a world leader, espicially of such an important country such as the United States. That's why I don't vote on a candiate's experience, or their charisma, or their rhetoric. I vote for who is closest to me on the issues. While I'm kinda in the centre, I'm voting for Obama because I agree with him on most of the issues (though I think his economic policy needs some polishing, they'll be plenty of good advisors around). Besides that, I agree with him on pretty much everything, espicially the social issues, and to a lesser extent foreign policy and energy.

At 9/13/08 06:58 PM, adrshepard wrote: Canadians are SO cute with their little parties and issues...

Well technically I'm not Canadian, I'm a dual citizen of the US and Canada, and those little parties and issues could determine how much of Canada's energy and fresh water the US gets.

At 9/13/08 05:12 PM, MercatorMap wrote:

Yah, we all know scientology is BS, but likewhise a mysterious being who lives with a bunch of winged people in a kingdom in the sky and magically creates things, gets angry at people a lot, interacts with people a lot, but somehow is never observed anytime in the history of civilization, and has a Son who was born form a virgin who could walk on water and died then came back to life isn't all that logical either.

Heaven =/= the sky

Heaven = another plane of existence.

Nice try, but your 12 year old uninformed opinion is logic. Jesus was observed and is recorded in roman history kthnxbai.

Lol, orginally heaven was supposed to literally be in the sky, but they changed it later when they found out nothing was there. Jesus was observed, but we have no way of knowing his personality.

Not to mention that Christ never gained any money or riches during his lifetime. But L. Ron Hubbard's objective was to make money by charging for religion. Which was what he did.

Well, how do you know Christ's objective? For all you know, he could have been a greedy pig who molested little boys and got arrested by the Romans for murder or rape or something, cept his followers turned him into a martyr and made him sacred.

For all I know? This was recorded by the romans who were anti-christian during this time. It is historical fact, dipstick.

No, historical fact is that Jesus existed, whenever he's the magical son of God is what's not confirmed.

Jesus was a poor carpenter who ate bread and drank water with peasants.
L Ron Hubbard ate filet mignon with celebrities on his privately owned Yacht.

You have no proof Jesus was poor, other than a book written by his followers which could have been complete lies. Jesus could have been a seflish criminal for all you know.

Historical documentary not provided by the bible is proof enough. L Ron's own supporters admitted the crap that they have done to him.

Which confirms Jesus was real, but none of his characteristics. And I know L. Ron is a dick and scientology.

You are making shit up now. Why don't you stop trying to logically argue with me and pull the flying spaghetti monster out of your ass like your type usually do?

"Your type". Well, arn't you just so smart :P

So, which one sounds more valid? Seriously? One who would be killed for the benefit of all? Or one who would kill and destroy others for his own benefit?

Niether, they both sound pretty fucking ridiculous to me. And Scientology has been a lot more peaceful than Christianity to me.

Scientology has only been around for about 60 years. Christianity is peaceful. They can't help it if people who have gone out for glory said it was in the name of Jesus when it was only for themselves.

The Crusades, the Inquistion, as yes, such peace.

Sir, you sound pretty fucking ridiculous. Your lack of education and logical thought is hilarious.

Lol, thank you for proving my point :P.

At 9/13/08 04:19 PM, Saruman200 wrote:
Niether, they both sound pretty fucking ridiculous to me. And Scientology has been a lot more peaceful than Christianity to me.

The "to me" on the end was a typo, ignore it. Sorry for double post.

At 9/13/08 03:51 PM, MercatorMap wrote:

At 9/13/08 03:23 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/13/08 03:10 PM, MercatorMap wrote:

At 9/13/08 07:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'd love to see those moronic Christians like grammer come in here and apply their bullshit "YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT LOL" logic to Scientology.

Excuse me sir, but that stab at Christianity was uncalled for. Please, do learn to grow up and not hold grudges.

Only little boys and bitches are allowed to have grudges.

He's right though. And I don't see how that's a grudge, he made a good point.

Christians can critize scientology all they want (and they do critize it), but it's logic is no better than theirs. Scientology is no more likely than Christianity. And as SadisticMonkey pointed out, the whole "You can't disaprove it!" logic is the only thing that defends both. But of course, you can prove it either, so why believe it. If it's impossible to prove or disprove, then shouldn't you be on the side that has evidence and logic behind it (the atheist side).

You can disprove scientology.

1. Aliens who travel across the universe would have much more advanced weaponry than hydrogen bombs.

2. They would be flying much more advanced craft than craft that appear similar to DC-8's

3. If a soul is not a body, then how the fuck could a soul listen to or watch a movie?

Yah, we all know scientology is BS, but likewhise a mysterious being who lives with a bunch of winged people in a kingdom in the sky and magically creates things, gets angry at people a lot, interacts with people a lot, but somehow is never observed anytime in the history of civilization, and has a Son who was born form a virgin who could walk on water and died then came back to life isn't all that logical either.

Not to mention that Christ never gained any money or riches during his lifetime. But L. Ron Hubbard's objective was to make money by charging for religion. Which was what he did.

Well, how do you know Christ's objective? For all you know, he could have been a greedy pig who molested little boys and got arrested by the Romans for murder or rape or something, cept his followers turned him into a martyr and made him sacred.

Jesus was a poor carpenter who ate bread and drank water with peasants.
L Ron Hubbard ate filet mignon with celebrities on his privately owned Yacht.

You have no proof Jesus was poor, other than a book written by his followers which could have been complete lies. Jesus could have been a seflish criminal for all you know.

So, which one sounds more valid? Seriously? One who would be killed for the benefit of all? Or one who would kill and destroy others for his own benefit?

Niether, they both sound pretty fucking ridiculous to me. And Scientology has been a lot more peaceful than Christianity to me.

At 9/13/08 03:30 PM, PineappleWinnie wrote:

At 9/13/08 01:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/13/08 02:14 AM, Oblivia wrote:

At 9/12/08 07:35 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: You'd forgive Mr Chavez for not thinking of the United States on friendly terms since they did support a coup against his democratically elected government...

The locals wouldn't have complained if the US did.

Uh, no... He has a 80% approval rating and he's democratically elected. Your completely ignorant of what the "locals" want.

Adolf Hitler was also democratically elected and had a 95% approval rate, and he did what he considered to be the best for Germany. But everyone (Russians included) keep insisting that Hitler was a tyrant. Never mind that the Americans and the British brutally bombarded German cities (Dresde), never mind that Soviet forces raped and killed German women by the end of the war.

Okay...your point is? Your still wrong when you said that the locals wouldn't have minded if Chavez was overthrown. We all know about Dresde too, and that rape and murder occured during the Soviet invasion of Germany, but do you have any proof that any of this was on a greater scale than what had happened in previous war, aswell as by the Germans during that war.

Hitler had a 95% approval rate, you faggots.

Well, I'd like a link for that assertion please. We all know Hitler was well liked. And calling us faggots reveals you to be the immature little kid you are.

And Saddam Hussein had a 100% approval rate.

Bullshit, I definatly need a link for that.

Why don't you defend them so dearly?

Well, we're not talking about them anyway. And your comparing Hitler and Hussein, too men who killed anyone that opposed them, gassed their own people, and invaded neighboring countries, to Hugo Chavez, who hasn't oppressed his people, hasn't executed anyone, and hasn't invaded any other countries.

Also, if you so much hate capitalism that you can't even tolerate its existance, please:

Who said I hate capitalism?

1. Move to Cuba or North Korea.

Well, I've been to Cuba, but I hear North Korea's a real shithole so no thanks.

2. Don't wear Adidas / Nike / Abercrombie.

Well, I don't.

3. Don't drink Coke / 7up / Dr. pepper / etc.

I don't drink those either, I hate carbonated drinks.

4. Don't bother trying to buy a house or appartment of your own ever in your entire lives, private property is stealing.

Huh, what?

5. If you have a car, get rid of it. Someone pooerer than you may need it instead.

Well, that would be pretty kind, but I'm not that nice.

6. Don't buy any of these stupid candies (M&Ms, Oreos, etc), they support capitalism

Lol, I really think you are a little kid. The few things that come to your mind are: sport shoes, pop, and candy...

7. If you go travelling around the World, don't use any airline company (except maybe Cubana or Aeroflot), and NEVER go to any hotel at all.

Lol, this is related to communism how?

8. NEVER offer any women any money or any gift or anything to get her closer to you. Thats called prostitution, and Batista supported it (never mind that prostitution still exists in USA and Europe as well, both USA and Europe should have a leader like Fidel Castro, now that I think of it, so prostitution is gone)

Well, I don't give woman money or gifts so they'll becoem closer to me, I'm not that desperate.

9. Never open any bank account anywhere (well, maybe in Russia). Does't matter if it is only to put 50 dollars in it. Don't do it, if you do it, you are a fucking capitalist.

Well, I don't mind being a capitalist.

10. Tell your girl / woman to wear a veil. If she refuses to do it, beat her to death. If you don't, you are a capitalist.

Lol, that's Muslim not communist you dumbass.

Seriously, folks, if you fall into any of the above categories, don't go around talking shit about capitalism, because you are somehow contributing with it as well.

Good thing I haven't talked shit about capitalism.

Most people in Venezuela (and I know it, I have many friends in there and even visited it once) like to wear Adidas, drink coke, browse the Internet, eat Oreos. Venezuelan military men also like to buy 4x4 American SUVs, such as Cherokee, Hummers, etc. If they so much hate the USA, they ALL should get rid of it all. I mean, why not drive Russian cars instead? They can always go buy Lada and Volgas. Why buy a Chevrolet or Ford or Toyota if you can buy a GAZ-31105 Volga?

Well, I've visted Venezuela twice, and know met people there aswell. I don't see your point. Yah, they use American stuff, doesn't mean they don't support Chavez... By the way, Russia is capitalist you dumbass.

Don't have any clue of what the hell I'm talking about? Then you are more capitalistic than what you thought...

No, because your a stupidass. And I do think I'm pretty capitalistic, so /shrug.