Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Nationalism is fucking retarded. Where you are born isn't something you choose or something you work for, so why be proud of it? While I am happy I was born in a rich Western nation, that doesn't mean I believe that my country (countries actually) are any better than other countries. WWI, WWII, and many other wars happened because of nationalism. Nationalism has no benefits. It can only cause war, injustice, and racism. And how do you know pulling out of Iraq would be a victory of radical Islam and cause more attacks? For all you know, they could be grateful that we pulled out and never attack again. Predicting the future and proclaiming victories in fake wars like the War on Terror is just as stupid as nationalism.

Just because she was a good governor of Alaska, doesn't mean she'll be a good vice president (or president). I hate all this stuff about who's more qualified to be vice president. There's no way of knowing whenever someone will be a good or bad president or VP. That's why I vote for who lines up with me more on the issues, not because they're more experienced or a good governor. However, I agree all this stuff about her personal life is complete bullshit. The media should stay out of people's lives.

The world was supposed to end on the dawning of the new millenium (Y2K) but guess what, it didn't. When the atomic bomb was invented, people thought the world would end. Guess what, it didn't. During the Cuban Missle Crisis, people thought the world would end. Guess what, it didn't. People thought the world would end on 6/6/06. Guess what, it didn't. People think the world will end on 2012. Guess what, it won't. People think the world will end because the scientific experiment your talking about. Guess what, it won't.

If she's a good vice president, I don't give a fuck about her person life. Those bastards at the media should stop screwing around in people's personal lives for their shitty little scoops. I wonder how they would like it...

At 9/2/08 11:46 AM, Saruman200 wrote:
Saying there is no causational link between Christianity and homophobia is like saying there is no causational link between Nazism and anti-Semetism. Homophobia is part of Christianity, Christianity sole source, the Bible, is clearly against homosexuality.

Sorry for the double post, but I left out a word. Newgrounds needs an edit button...

At 9/2/08 02:19 AM, Imperator wrote:

However, also due to the Christian majority, the majority of homophobes would be Christian.

Then it's also just as logical to assume the majority of "homophobes" would be white.

That's completely logical...

Stop beating around the bush, and say what you actually want to say.
Then I can show you why you're misconstruing the data to fit your opinions.

That's all verifiable data. Completely true. No doubt about. It is not in any way shape of form misconstructed. By denying my post your saying that Christians don't form a majority of the Western population, that the Abrahamic religions arn't fundamentally against homosexuality, and that homophobia stems from religion: all are perfectly verifiable facts. Your trying to find a supposed hidden message in the perfectly testable facts "to fit your opinions" about me.

At 9/2/08 11:07 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 9/2/08 10:03 AM, Earfetish wrote:
Surely if you're Christian you're more likely to be anti-gay? You'd be talking bollocks to say anything different - certain denominations of Christianity are entirely anti-gay and the 'secular left' is entirely pro-gay.

Well at least Earfetish stepped up to say what was necessary. I'm surprised no one had the balls just to say "Christianity causes homophobia".

Maybe because we didn't want to offend anyone?

Answer:
Not necessarily. Correlation does not imply a causation. You're presuming the entirety of people against gays do so out of hate, ideally instilled in a Christian background.

But anti-gay problems are universal. Japan has anti-gay problems too, stemming not from Christianity, but a general tendency to homogenize their nation. Their problems with foreigners and "buraku" stem from the same tendency towards homogeneity.

Yes, homogeneity is a cause of homophobia aswell. But so is Abrahamic religion. It's a simple fact of any test or experiment: multiple variables can effect the end result. While Christianity is not the only cause, it is a cause. Just because there are multiple possible causes, it does not make each individual cause any less of a cause (I've said cause a lot :P).

The fact that entire denominations are anti-gay again doesn't fit. They're anti-gay first and a Christian denomination second. There are anti-gay gangs as well. But the fact that they're a gang doesn't preclude them to being anti-gay, in the same way being Christian doesn't preclude one to being anti-gay.

Not really. Many anti-gay denominations are also anti-Abortion, anti-stem cell research, so on. They are a Christian denomination first, and anti-gay second, because their homophobia stems from their identity as a radical Christian denomination.

The "secular left" is also only true of the USA. Again, not indicative of the real issue. You're assuming a nay stance on things like gay marriage are due to their religion, when in fact it could be an issue of state vs federal rights to make such a decision.

And it is true of Canada, Europe, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia. The issue is not US-centric. By talking about state vs federal rights you make it a very US-centric issue. The issue of gay marriage exists outside of the US aswell. Even in Canada, one of the few nations were gay marriage is completely legal, there is still homophobia. And the majority of these anti-gay marriage politicians come from the most religious areas. Quebec is one the least religious areas of Canada, and there is seldom an anti-gay politician (or person for that matter) that comes from Quebec. Likewhise, so many anti-gay American politicians come from the Bible Belt.

Point is, the onus is on y'all to show that there is a direct causational link between Christianity and homophobia. Correlation does not imply it, as it's just as safe to say you're more likely to be a homophobe if you're white, based on the same demographics (and ignoring the same problems with such a conclusion).

But being white is not a doctrine: it's a genetical trait. Christianity is a doctrine and an anti-gay doctrine. It clearly states "homosexuals are an abomination" and that they will burn in hell for the sin of gay sex. Saying there is causational link between Christianity and homophobia is like saying there is no causational link between Nazism and anti-Semetism. Homophobia is part of Christianity, Christianity sole source, the Bible, is clearly against homosexuality.

In fact, any comprehensive look at the situation will show the issue's more complicated than that.

Of course, there are thousands of factors that may cause homophobia. But Christianity is by far one of the biggest and strongest.

At 8/20/08 07:34 PM, Saruman200 wrote:
Science will never be able to disapprove or religion because people are stubborn and hate being wrong. Religion used to deny that Earth revolves around the sun and that the Earth is round. When the evidence become overwhelming they finally admitted it, but in the end they read through the bible and found "hay, look, a theistic metaphor. The bible was right all along." This will happen with evolution and the big bang eventually too.

Theistic metaphors are hardly accurate however. The people who find these things find them because they specfically look for anything that might hint as some kind of metaphor. When you already have a certain view in your head before you read something, your going to come up with the conculsion you want. Say someone has never heard of George Orwell or Animal Farm. I could tell them George Orwell is a renowned kid's writer, and they would read Animal Farm and determine it's a story about some pigs that take over a farm. If I tell them George Orwell wrote that book as a criticism of Soviet Communism, they'll see the metaphors right away.

In the end theistic metaphors are crap, and really, all religion has to prove it's theory is a book. A book that could have been written by anybody. They believe it's true because the authors are claimed disiples of Jesus. But if I tell a naive person J. K. Rowling is a visionary prophet, they just might believe Hoggwarts is real. So, which is more true, the Bible or Harry Potter? I mean, Religious people may say "God works in mysterious ways", but doesn't Harry Potter explain that there are magic invisibility spells or something that Muggles can't see the wizard world? It really isn't that different. Harry Potter's explanations are just as believable as the Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or any other religious text) if you go into it with the right mindset. In the end, there is not suitable explanation for religious belief other than faith in a single book or scroll.

This post, by me, awhile back, explains why theistic metaphors are stupid and unreliable. Have fun.
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
.....

At 8/31/08 03:00 AM, TehBoss wrote: America, is a military empire.

No, it's not. A military empire would based it's power on it's military alone. America has a strong economy, and cultural and political soft power aswell.

We are relying on pure military force to solve our countrys problems, and wastin millions in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Actually, try billions. And we have 250 Military Bases outside the US.

Okay, but why not? We have the resources, we're just using them, like any other country would do.

And now, since dumbass bush sent so many people into Iraq, we are paying for the'r ammunition, weapons, armor, and uniforms and helmet. We are also spending millions, and billions on the Fighter Jets, Helicopters, and Tanks. Iraq, well, is a waste of time.

That's expected in a war.

If the Saddam loyalists want to kill the other people, ITS NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM. If we want to solve out problem, we should've Evacuated all troops from Iraq right after we found Saddam. And sent more to Afghanistan, and Pakistan where the Al Queda actually is. We are wasting out time in iraq. Afghanistan, we are getting absolutely NOWHERE because THERE ARE LIKE, 4 SOLDIERS IN THERE! WTF. Send MORE.

There's a lot more than 4 soldiers in Afghanistan. You bash America for only using military power, but you say we should send more troops to Afghanistan. Your post contradicts.

There is Indeed the Insurgency problem in Iraq, but is it really our problem. No. We DO NOT NEED TO BE THERE. Obama or Mcain better shitting evacuare the SOldiers. If i was president, I would order a citizen and soldier evacuation from Iraq's capital, Baghdad, and then Nuke that shit. After the radiation clears up, we send the citizens back. Iraq has to solve its own problems.

Lolz, you say America is a military empire, but your solution is to nuke the capital. And what's the point of nuking the capital after you've evacuated all the citizens and soldiers. All your doing is destroying those people's homes. And after your done, you send them back. Send them back to what? A completely destroyied city with no living trees or animals, tried up water and no housing. It makes so much sense!

And about Russia and Georgia. JUST BECAUSE ANOTHER COUNTRY INVADES ANOTHER DOESNT MEAN THE US ARMY NEED TO GO IN. DOES IT. I hear that Georgia and Russia were already at war, and ordered a ceace fire for 3 months, supposevly, Russia broke the ceace fire treaty, and proceeded to invade.

Uh, no, one of that is correct. First off, the US Army didn't go in. Second off, the ceasefire was signed after Russia invaded, and technically no one broke it...

AND NOW, THE US... IS YET AGAIN.. INTERFEREING WITH OTHERS' PROBLEMS. SERIOUSLY! The US has been in 8 Wars over the past 100 years. THATS ALOT OF FUCKING WAR. World War 1, World War 2, The Korean War, The Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Cold War,and the War on Terror. Well, We started the Korean AND Vietnam wars BY FUCKING INTERFERING WITH PROBLEMS OF OTHER COUNTRYS.

WWI: The US was attacked first.
WWII: The US was attacked first
The Korean War: The US was defending an ally. It was in the US best interests.
The Vietname War: The US was defending an ally. It was in the US best interests.
The Gulf War: The US was defending an ally. It was in the US best interests.
The Iraq War: Was in the US best interests.
The Cold War: Not a real war.
The War on Terror: Not a real war.

If two sides of a country are fighting, let japan do Shit. WHY DOES THE US FUCKING DO THIS?!? The Cold War was a fucking waste of time, first of all, we didn't even shoot a russian, lol. And then the Iraq war, as i've said before, is now a fucking waste of time.

Japan attacked the US, America is obligated to defend itself. The Cold War wasn't a real war.

Why do we get into so many wars?! DON'T OUR COUNTRYS LEADERS KNOW THAT IT MAKES US LOOK BAD!?!? NO, THEY GO OFF AND POLICE THE FUCKING WORLD. Ok, we lost 2 damn buildings, not a whole city. Other places like Chernobl and Pripyat have been ravaged and nobody can live ther for another 98 Years.

Chernobyl was a plant, not a city, the city was called something else. Plus, it was an accident, not an attack: completely different situation.

We lost 2 buildings and a couple thousands live. I understand that people are mad, but do we have to start a fucking war? Actually 2 wars? NO. No war. We dont need war, a CONFLICT. not a war.

Conflict is basically the same as war... What else should we have done? Nothing? Not retalliated at all?

I hate my country, and would rather live somewhere else right now.. Even Canada.. But since so many people hate the US so very very much. It makes all of us look bad. YES EVERYONE. I hate the US. Hopefully our new president will fix all this shit, or AT LEAST APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE SHIT WE'VE DONE. The US is an Empire, and a Republic. Anything far from a Democracy. Democratic countrys DONT HAVE WAR. Take France, or germany. Since WWII, they've been at peace. Why not the US? Seriously. We are a Republic, and an Empire. Tell me your views on the US, and all the shit they've done.

Germany was completely divided after WWII, it couldn't have had a war. Since it reunited, it has participated in Afghanistan. And France has been at war since WWII: The Sinia War, The Algerian War, the Gulf War, and the War in Afghanistan. Also, if you consider the Cold War and the War on Terror as wars (as you do), both France and Germany were involved in those.

At 9/1/08 02:29 AM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote: actually most of the general public hates gays because humans are naturally homophobic in general.

Where did you come up with this idea? Homophobia is a personality trait like racism or sexism, it's not like everyone is born homophobic, it all has to do with you upbringing. If your brought up on the bible, which says homosexuals will burn in hell, unless you disown those teachings later in life, your going to be homophobic. If your brought up with the idea that all people are equal, than your not going to hold a prejudice against gays. Note: When I say "brought up", I don't just mean raised by your parents, peer pressure, influence from school, church, etc... counts aswell. That's simple logic. As for the rest of you posts, you couldn't have done that in one post could you?

At 8/29/08 04:43 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
Or muslims, hindus, buddhists, or rednecks (although most rednecks would be christian too, I guess... at least in some way).

Actually, Hindus, Buddhists, and all the other Eastern religions arn't fundamentally against homosexuality.

At 8/29/08 09:54 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/29/08 10:03 AM, Saruman200 wrote: The fact is, the bible says homosexuality is a sin punishable by burning in hell for all enternity. So while most Christians arn't homophobes, most homophobes are Christians.

Would LOVE to see the demographics you got that conclusion from.

Of the major religions of the world, only the Abrahamic religions are fundamentally homophobic. Christianity is the biggest Abrahamic religion. If we're talking about the Western world(which I assume we are, as I ever much doubt anyone from the Muslim world is posting here), Christianity forms an absolute majority of the population. Thus, we can reasonably assume, based on logic, that the due to Christianity's large population, not all of them can be homophobic. However, also due to the Christian majority, the majority of homophobes would be Christian.

At 8/29/08 05:59 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 8/29/08 09:51 AM, Saruman200 wrote: I'm American (well, half)

American isn't an ethnicity.

I know. It's an nationality. And I'm half that nationality. Dual citizenship. Canada and America combined to make me.

Go ahead, be my guest. I won't be joining you, but hell, diversity can't be so bad, can it.

While states should be able to make their own descions on issues relevant to that state/province/territory/district/etc, I don't see why complex national issues should be handed down from the federal level to the state/province/territory/district/etc level. Federalism is good in some cases, but too much of a good thing is usually a bad thing.

At 8/29/08 01:45 PM, NHT123 wrote:

At 8/29/08 01:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Obama may not have achieved anything politically, but neither did some of our best presidents, such Lincoln, JFK, and FDR (and Washington, if we're talking about "achieving anything politically").

JFK had the Bay of pigs fiasco and really did a whole lot about Veitnam *rolls eyes* Lincoln was nearly a Dictator (Yes I know he was republican) and FDR held more terms then he should have.

Historians, who actually know what they're talking about rate Lincoln as the best president, FDR as second or third (nternchanging with Washington. And the US only entered Vietnam with actual combat brigades in 1965, two years after JFK was killed. However, military advisors had been there to help South Vietnam since the presidency of Dwight D. Einshower.

Micheal Moore get's way too much crap for nothing. Believe it or not, his movies are based on facts. Do they cherrypick those facts? Yes. Are they manipulative? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, making movies that are at least somewhat based on facts is better than what he could be doing: making stupid statements over the radio like all those other dumbass political commentators.

Not at all he makes many assertions which are not true. For instance he said that Saddam never made threats against other nations; but what the fuck was Kewait all about? He twists facts, makes up things, manipulates and places imagry that is not directly tied in order to make an unfounded opinion. It is not even a fair attempt at a reasonable discussion.

True. But, it's better than the Ann Coultour-style alternative.

That movie was complete bullshit. Just because someone has a different political view than you doesn't mean they are evil or stupid... Both conservatives and liberals can be smart, good kind people. That guy is an idiot and all he does is make conservatives look like what he makes liberals out to be.

Its talking about the "MODERN" liberal ideology and says nothing about the liberals who are actually informed. Actually it is refering to the vast majority of idiots who support Obama in the first place. It isn't refering to the smarter ones.

"Modern" liberal ideology is basically all liberals. This would be different than Classical Liberalism, which is essentially modern libertarianism.

Media bias is there, but there's a much conservative bias as their is liberal bias. The media is flows with opinions of the people. It changes directions like the wind, one minute to the left, another to the right. So don't bother complaining, main-stream media isn't a good source for anything controversial anyway.

Bullshit, where is the media coverage for Mcain? This is simply not true, otherwise Mcain would get just as much coverage as Obama and he doesn't have a tenth of that. It is a strawman argument and is full of shit.

I said you where right when you said that currently Obama gets more coverage than McCain. Your right.

At 8/29/08 12:29 PM, NHT123 wrote: Before you flame me hear me out; the bias can be proven by exactly how much attention Obama has had. The modern Liberal ideology has driven people to almost elect a man who has not been on record of ever achieving anything politically. His campaign is full of empty rhetoric and his typical supporter (which stretches into Canada and beyond) only know his slogan "Change and hope" I ask Change and hope for what?

Obama may not have achieved anything politically, but neither did some of our best presidents, such Lincoln, JFK, and FDR (and Washington, if we're talking about "achieving anything politically").

More credible less Liberal Democratic candidates were passed up to elect a man whose main desirable attribute is the fact that he is African American. If he was completely white he would not have received the same amount of attention that he is. Now conservative media outlets are obvious. Fox News although the most fiscally conservative is one of only a few examples out of the vast mainstream of media.

Did you know that John Mcain was a media darling before when he took on the polemic of the republicans and decided to be more liberal then the vast majority of his republican running mates? The media started to hype him up as he was the most liberal running force in the Republican Party; Although Mcain as not a bad choice at all. John Mcain has all but been ignored, when was the last time you heard something about Mcain? Obama had all the media attention when he went through his European Tirade.

True.

And in fact you can see about how bullshit movies (Not even worth calling documentaries) like Fahrenheit 9-11 and Sicko got so much attention even though both of them are about as factual as the Hollywood remake of 300. "Super Size Me" is another great example, when Morgan Spurlock attempts to exonerate all the obese from what they obviously did to themselves. Mc Donald's is not forcing anyone to eat their products, and they fully acknowledge that eating their product is harmful like the tobacco companies acknowledge that smoking is harmful. But why did Micheal Moore rise to such fame making crap movies? Because of the attention he got from the media.

Micheal Moore get's way too much crap for nothing. Believe it or not, his movies are based on facts. Do they cherrypick those facts? Yes. Are they manipulative? Yes. As far as I'm concerned, making movies that are at least somewhat based on facts is better than what he could be doing: making stupid statements over the radio like all those other dumbass political commentators.

And before you say anything further, hear this man out; although he is a political comedian he actually gives some serious well thought-out explanations of today's liberal society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ -c

That movie was complete bullshit. Just because someone has a different political view than you doesn't mean they are evil or stupid... Both conservatives and liberals can be smart, good kind people. That guy is an idiot and all he does is make conservatives look like what he makes liberals out to be.

Media bias is there, but there's a much conservative bias as their is liberal bias. The media is flows with opinions of the people. It changes directions like the wind, one minute to the left, another to the right. So don't bother complaining, main-stream media isn't a good source for anything controversial anyway.

At 8/29/08 11:52 AM, MrHero17 wrote: I think it's a stupid move on Mccains part, her only use as a VP is possibly getting him more votes, nothing wrong with her per say(except that firing someone becuase he wouldn;t fire his brother or w/e scandal) but she's really inexperienced. I mean as an actual VP WTF dose she bring to the table?

Election wise this is a good move. But I agree. McCain's old, what if he dies in office (very real possibility)? What will she do? She has absolutely no foreign policy experience. But, that's what vice presidents do: help the president get elected, and take over if he dies. Obviously Cheney is a big exeption, but most vice presidents don't do that much. FDR didn't even invite Harry Truman to cabinet meetings.

At 8/29/08 10:58 AM, Diederick wrote:

At 8/28/08 06:32 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Well, having children learn about all relgions from an early age seems like a good idea, but banning them from going to church till 10? That's the parents choice. Instead, have public schools teach children about being accepting of all relgions and teaching them about all the major faiths and beliefs, including atheism, so they have a more open view. We shouldn't stop families for practicing there freedom of relgion however.

Atheism is not a belief or faith, it is a lack thereof (or freedom from it, if you will).

My main concern is that young children are bound to a religion, which belittles their human potential. If people want to be free to practice their religion, let them. But don't make others the victim of it.

Atheism could be considered a "belief". The belief there is no God. W/e. Who cares, don't get yourself caught on some words, look at the bigger picture. Otherwhise, I agree, but banning children from going to church isn't the right way. That's pure censorship of freedom of religion. We can teach children the right way, but we can't force them and their parents to comply.

I find the title of this thread funny. He picked a female women, as opposed to a male woman, right? :P. I also find it funny that each campaign has an old experienced washington insider (McCain, Biden) and a inexperienced history maker (Obama, Palin)

I think this is a pretty good choice. It'll stop all those Obama supporters from yelling about a historic election, and she'll bring in suburban moms and social conservatives, that may have been suspicious about McCain before, to the ticket. He'll also be able to wave off the idea his is a campaign of Washington insiders. Problem is, he takes away a lot of the oppurtunity to bash Obama's inexperience, because even Obama is way more experienced than Palin. Another problem is name recognition. Not many people outside of Alaska know about her.

As a Alaska maverick, the McCain campaign will be able to say they are a campaign of mavericks.

I dislike all this stuff about her having a baby with down syndrome. It's so sexist. If a man was running with a down syndroime baby, no one would care. But because she's a women she's expected to take of the baby at the same time as being VP.

At 8/29/08 10:51 AM, Saruman200 wrote:

And, if Republicans nominate Sarah Palin for vice president, it'll be another historic convention, though I think Mitt Romney is more likely.

Maybe not, just visited CNN.com after that post, they report McCain has picked Sarah Palin! Looks like we're in for a historic election, not matter who wins!

At 8/29/08 10:35 AM, Xcyper33 wrote: Obama's democratic convention wasn't just amazing. But he drew out the most crowds of any president before him, had New York city people coming outside there houses to watch him at the square, united the party, inspired SO much people, became the 1st black person as head of the democratic debate, AND laid out a SOLID plan for his presidency. He DEFINATELY has my vote.

It's going to be hard for MCain's convention to top a historical mark in history.

True. Obama's speech was well done, as was those of both Clintons. I didn't watch Joe Biden's. There were some let downs. The keynote wasn't very good, and somehow I can't stop thinking of Dennis Kucinich jumping around the stage like a wild man yelling "wake up America!". Silly alien abductee. The Republicans will probably top the board in attacks. The Democrats need to go on the offensive more if they want to win. The RNC's keynote, delivered by Rudy Giuliani, will probably be better than Mark Warner's speech. And, if Republicans nominate Sarah Palin for vice president, it'll be another historic convention, though I think Mitt Romney is more likely.

At 8/29/08 12:14 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/28/08 10:50 PM, NickDaPwner wrote:

At 8/28/08 06:32 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Instead, have public schools teach children about being accepting of all relgions and teaching them about all the major faiths and beliefs, including atheism, so they have a more open view. We shouldn't stop families for practicing there freedom of relgion however.

a post in this thread that isn't complete ignorance and dumbfuckery??

i must be seeing things

Sorry but I don't want my child learning about god and religion in the school that my tax dollars pay for. He will learn enough about it at home to make an informed decision when he is ready to do so. But brainwashing them from such an early age is criminal

So, schools should just ignore that relgion exists? I'm an atheist, but in order to stop "brainwashing", we need to teach them to be accepting. I'm not saying we should read from the Bible, just say, well there's Christinity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, so on. Give them the definitions of each. If they know about all religions, there more likely to accepting of them all, and more likely to become an atheist once they learn about religion from a reletively unbiased source.

The fact is, the bible says homosexuality is a sin punishable by burning in hell for all enternity. So while most Christians arn't homophobes, most homophobes are Christians.

At 1/23/08 06:03 PM, HarryFeltersnach wrote: The Dollar "Holocaust"

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=051_12011 02858

so what does everyone think of the impending economic doom facing america

I highly doubt it. As much as the media likes to say it, it's not a recession. Recession: two negative quarters of GDP growth. That has happened yet (unless anything has changed since I last read on the subject). Don't listen to the doom-sayers and fear-mongers.

"the land of the free!"

Oh sweet irony. That's stupid though. I'm American (well, half) and who cares. It's a song. If I have to piss during America's theme song, I deserve to be allowed too.

At 8/29/08 12:30 AM, Memorize wrote:
Yeah, and I suppose China isn't the world's #1 polluter.

How childish. Nice attempt to change the subject to some pissing contest absolutely unrelated to the topic at hand, but all you've done is proved your immaturity and discreditted anything slightly intelligent you might have said...well done!

At 8/28/08 07:21 PM, Neo-Confederate wrote: FUCK China.

No one other than Jews will buy it.

Lol, your certainly tolerant arn't you. But then again, with a name like that, what could I expect?

The 1860s called, they want their town idiot back! The Union kicked the Confederacy's ass, deal with it.

At 8/28/08 07:17 PM, Proteas wrote:
Because guns outnumber people in this country 4 to 1 and getting rid of them all would be fucking impossible? Because there's a dubious sounding clause (to some) in the second amendment that states "Shall not be infringed" which has been supported by the government in practice for the last 225 years and recently upheld by the Supreme Court, thereby cementing it's legal status as a fundamental right in the U.S.?

I agree, getting rid of guns would be impossible. I was simply saying it's stupid to say that just because someone doesn't like a US law they should be forced to move out of the country just because they like that country's view on a single law better. As for the Consitution, it's not perfect you know. People need to stop pretending that. It has flaws, just like everything else. It's a great document yes, but not perfect, which is why the founding fathers included an amendment system, because unlike many people today, they realized times would change and laws would need to change with it. Of course, in present day we take the easy way out and let the Supreme Court do everything, instead of considering amendments in the federal and state congresses, we let 9 people decide everything. Not that the Supreme Court is bad, but we lose it far too much. The amendment system is there for a reason people.

At 8/28/08 06:37 PM, Memorize wrote:
Hence why I said: "Slippery Slope"

And whichever story version is "more true", it doesn't matter.

It wouldn't even matter if he didn't leave the crime scene (illegal), it would still be manslaughter because he was 'in control' of the vehicle and drove it over, resulting in the death of another.

ie. manslaughter.

When you drive poorly and kill the passenger... sure thing.

How did he drive poorly? In the middle of the night, on a narrow bridge, in a area he had never been to, while he didn't know where he was going, and he tried to break and the car slid off...

I really had a hard time holding back my laughter on that one.

Either selection would be a change from Bush, and not every Republican is like each other, just like how every democrat isn't either.

Funny how you say "generalize" then go on with "change from republicans".

That wasn't a generalization. If Barack Obama becomes president, the president will be from a different political party. That's all I said. That's a fact. Did I ever say John McCain was the same as George Bush, other than the same political party?

Love it.

I think it's hilarious how the Republicans can choose THE Republican Candidate who is the LEAST like Bush... and they still call it a "Bush 3rd Term".

Considering I never called it Bush 3rd Term, I agree.

Well, McCain or Ron Paul anyway.

Way to obviously dodge that one.

Yah, that's change. Once again, that's a fact. A verifiable fact. By the way, just because I defend Ted Kennedy, doesn't mean I'm a liberal or that I support Barack Obama. Cause I'm neither. I'm an independent on the fence. Just because I defend someone who's devoted a life-time of work to this country, doesn't mean I share that person's political views. Unfortunatly, life isn't that simple. It is (Gasp!) possible to respect people from both parties.

Well, having children learn about all relgions from an early age seems like a good idea, but banning them from going to church till 10? That's the parents choice. Instead, have public schools teach children about being accepting of all relgions and teaching them about all the major faiths and beliefs, including atheism, so they have a more open view. We shouldn't stop families for practicing there freedom of relgion however.

Well, I guess the party needs funding... But seriously, I guess if you want to go, you have to walk...

At 8/28/08 02:29 PM, Memorize wrote:
I had no idea that manslaughter was "personal" now.

I don't see how it was manslaughter. Kennedy was lost, and it has never been confirmed he was drunk. That is just wild speculation, and has never been verified by anyone who was at the party that Kennedy was leaving when the event happened. As for Kennedy "waiting" to call the authorities, he had to swim over a channel and walk a couple miles back to the building the party was held at, afterwords he could do little more than collapse on the bed. His friends said he was highly emotionally disturbed. That is completely understandable.

You know, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim; all really good politicians. A murderer can be a really good politician. A rapist can be a really good politician. A child molester can be a really good politician.

And that has anything to do with Ted Kennedy or the Chappaquiddick incident? Getting into a car crash is hardly murder, rape, or child molestation.

But are we going to elect them? Not really. And I find highly unlikely people are going to label those as "private life". Although that seems to apply to Kennedy.

I don't see how getting into a car crash is anything more than private life...

It's such a slippery slope argument. And all it does is prove how far liberals will go to defend any politician with a (D) next to their name. That's why I find it funny how Obama and his supporters want and believe in "change" when he's being endorsed and spoken about by THE most far left and OLD politicians of our day... who all pretty much lost as well.

Nice generalization, but I'm an independent... And that doesn't effect his message of "change". Change from Bush, change from a Republican president.

All done at the Convention.

He wants change and transparency while not taking any money from lobbyists? He slams McCain for being part of Washington for so long.

Yet he picks Biden, who has been in Washington longer than McCain, and whose son is a lobbyist who Obama sought 3.4 million dollars previously.

Change... please...

Since both Joe Biden and Barack Obama differ from George Bush on most issues, it means there will be change if he takes office...