Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/30/04 11:45 AM, antiklaus wrote:
Actually, he was right. 3,000 died in the WTC - but an additional 290,000 died due to crippling economic conditions around the world due to starvation. And while G Bush only is partly to blame, as are all members of the WTO, they are to blame.

Did you realize, that if we spent all the resources that were used to sell us stuff we dont want or need in this country (ie Ads) on the American people, not a single person would be homeless or hungry?

If we took half of our military buget and pumped it into our people's welfare, NOONE would be required to work more than 20 hours a week to pay their bills?

so I stand by the (probably - I'll admit misquoted) number.

I've seen numbers somewhere that showed that if each country would combine their annual military budget, we could feed the planet for 10 years, or something like that. I'll go check again. Makes you think anyway. If we weren't so paranoiac maybe we wouldn't have so many problems on this planet...

I agree with most of what you said, except for the left thing. I know a lot of lefties that are federalists. Many sparatists may be lefties, but their is no evident link between the two.

err.... You know, most of the people in the industrialize world corespond to the definition you've just given. Most people wear american cloths and watch american TV and movies, and listen to American music. That has no link whatsoever with separatists.

And they don't bash minorities, since english canadians are way more than french candians, so their bashing a majority here. I'm not separatist, but theirr are valid and cultural reasons for separation, I just don't agree with them, but I respect them. Wailing a bunch of insult at people doesn't accomplish anything, try to understand their point of view.

Separatists feel betrayed because they have been left out by the rest of Canada to often, and some even hold the grudge against the French or the English for leaving them/trying to assimilate them. It's to protect their culture and have the freedom to rule things as they see fit. Remember that in Canadian history, it's the french canadians that were always being bashed on, well most of the time.

I love Canada and I wouldn't want Québec to leave it for any of those reason, but I can understand why somebody would be angry. I think the situation of french canadian has improved enough to just make peace and move on.

At 6/29/04 06:49 PM, j00bie wrote:

At 6/29/04 05:30 PM, Shangui wrote: stuff

yea, but i was just doing "IF" stuff, IF this were to happen, this COULD happen.

and the Liberals and BQ may make an alliance, seeing as the past 3 liberal Prime Ministers (Trudeau, Chretien, Martin) all originated as rich lawyers from Quebec.

Then again, Duceppe bad his campain on how the Liberals did a rotten job, so he can't join them now, and he said he wouldn't. We'll have a great political 4 years, finally some change and some fighting in the chamber... its been a long time... a very long time...

You wan't to know the real problem of this forum ? It's not the fact it "wastes brain power", it's the way politics are usually debated. How many times have I read more insults than content in a post. I don't post often, but sometimes I just don't do it because I know I'm just gonna be told things like:

"youre a n00b"
"your opinion is wrong (but I have nothing to prove that it is wrong)"
"Youre a 15 years old moron (which I'm not, I'm an adult)"
etc...

And most of the time I see two things: Liberal bitching Conservatives and vice-versa, and debates that finishes in a small talk with two persons who know each other about an unrelated topic. True, sometimes it is two people just fighting each other, quoting each other like crazy with no development.

This forum would be much better if its participants had more respect. That's what I'm trying to do, even though sometimes it's hard when your being insulted by someone who thinks he knows everything.

At 6/29/04 05:18 PM, j00bie wrote: Ken Dryden (Former Toronto Maple Leafs Guy) is in power.

This election was tight, if the Liberals and NDP join up, theyll have exactly 50% of the seats.
If the Conservatives and the Bloc join up, theyll have 50% of the seats, -1.

The independent who got in has a lot of power in the government minority, he could make the tie 50/50 each is he went with the Con/BQ, or break the tie if he went with the Lib/NDP.

well that's funny, BQ will never, NEVER ally with the conservatives, the BQ is to the left and they hate the conservative. Duceppe says he will support laws that go with the will of the Quebekers, which, as he claims, include the Kyoto protocol (which conservatives wished to break), more privilieges to provinces (i.e: Québec) and other stuff I can't think of right now. As for the NPD/Liberal alliance, that is also false, Jack Layton denied all allusions to such an alliance and he will do like Gilles Duceppe and go with laws that are in accordance with his political agenda. You'd have more chance seeing a BQ/NPD alliance, but it ain't gonna happen kid !

Fact is, a war on terrorism only brings up more terrorism because the terrorist are fighting back because their country is invaded and they have no real army. The problem is that no government tries to see why they have been attacked, they just jump to conclusion and attack, making things worse.

"Peace cannot be achieved by war, only by understanding"
- Albert Einstein

They all claim to have the truth, but in the end, none of them are objective enough to even begin to glance at what might be near a possible lead to the truth. We'll never know for sure, and somewhat I think it might be better that way...

I've just watch the trailer though, and something hits me. They don't seem to really talk about the same thing. One says America is great, and the other tries to find flaws, which have to exist. So are they really opposing each other ? A little perhaps, but in the end, I never heard Michael Moore say "I hate America", he simply said some things were not right, and I have to side with him beccause their are no perfect nations. Both movie might say facts, both movie must defenitively hide or modify facts to serve their cause, but from the trailer I don't see a direct opposition other than the title and the way he describes Michael Moore.

Things are neither black or white, only shades of grey, and both film makers failed to grasp that concept... sad...

Nothing can be accomplished or build by division, but I have some separatist friends. Some do have good reasons, but they can't convince me, others, are just plain dumb when they debate that point. Like one of my friends told me he wanted Québec to separate to "Have another french speaking country and get rid of the english canadians"

What kind of stupid statement is that ? What he doesn't understand is that even if we separate, we surrounded by english speaking person, so it would not protect us from slowly speaking more english than french. I say speak both, can't hurt ya, and it will allow you to go to any french or english speaking country in the world and order a beer, and in te end, isn't it what we all want ? (joke)

To conclued, Le Québec c'est bien comme c'est, alors on reste dans un Canada uni ! (Quebec is fine like it is, so let's remain in a united Canada)

Vive le bilinguisme (I don't traduce, get a dictionnary :P)

HO NO ! Not WMD ! Here is a list of countries who own such weapons:

USA
Canada
France (they went for bio weapon)
Russia
North Korea
etc...

And guess what ! George W. Bush just changed America's policy on nuclear attacks. Now America gives itself the permission to lunch a nuclear attack first ! So why would other country want a nuke... mmh... let me think... maybe to have a fighting chance ? Face the facts, almost anybody with money can build a nuke, or almost any other WMD. Stop trying to blame cother countries for things you do. If this whole WMD thing had any credibility, all the "free" country would get rid of their arsenal first, but this won't happen right ?

P.S: You should watch dr.Strange Love ! Hillarious movie about the cold war and WMD made by Stanley Kubrick.

A good move for Al Quaeda would be to kill Osama and bun his corpse. That way Bush would never find him and they would have small victory, at the cost of their leader, but does it really matter ? Another american hater will take the place, their are more and more.

Yep, truly a golden age for terrorists around the world...

Alright, I think I might have said things the wrong way, so here I go again:

That very nasty secret will never be reveiled to us, people of the world that are not in direct link with the people who organized that whole thing.

Happy now ? I said americans because you are the ones who would really benefit from the truth. As for the words of "wise man from the north" I tell you that their are as many possibilities as you can imagine, but I'm sure the real truth as not been told yet on TV.

Have a nice day and be happy.

Well... I would have liked a minority conservative government even though I did not vote for them. Stephen Harper can be dangerous for Canada, but with a minority government, he could do less damage and more good, like destroying the gun registry program, which engulfs even more money than the sponsership thing as we speak (but Chretien is a master at making people forget about things, with Martin, we would still talk about it)

Martin is not suited to be PM, he showed us that he can only talk and talk, making a fool of himself. We need a PM that can stand up and act. Martin is simply to soft, he looks scared to move, he has to be bold, if chit happens, at least he would have had the guts to go to the bottom of things and go with his convictions.

As for Layton, I could see him as an official opposition, but with the US this close and the way Canada runs, his views are too much to the left, and it scares most people. HE wants to give us everything, but we all know that he wouldn't have the money. Result ? Higher Taxes ! Think about it, if you pay less taxes, but you have less fre services, those services might cost you a little more, but you would only pay for it when you need it, instead of paying all the time for everyone else. Some things should be free, and most of them are right now, like most medical related stuff, but too much means paying taxes for others and I'm against that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually to the left, and I've even been told to be Marxist, but the marxist dream cannot be achieved right now, and maybe never, because of the nature of man and the way global economy works. This has to be a planetary thing, or it will never work, well, I'm off subject, so bye now !

Alright, I'll try to start you for real with a long boring speech on Bush's work and why he should not be allowed in the White House anymore:

First, here are a few reasons that I don't think are valid, and why, you may argue on that to !

1- Being a C student: Does it really matter if he was not the greatest student in school ? Some people are very brilliant and have good ideas, but are just not fitted for school, but he passed so who cares.

2- Any crap about his spoken english, it's just not a reason. He may look ridiculous, but that doesn't make him a bad president.

Now, reaswons that do matter:

1- Having attacked Afghanistan with a massive force which destroyed most of the country, killing more innocents than true culprits only to leave the country to fend for itself in total chaos to put the attention away from Bin Laden, who is still on the loose.

2- Attacking Iraq and changing reason for it every 3 weeks, and still changing as we speak. He also lied about WMD and Saddam's link to Al Quaeda. How can a broken country, with economic embargo on almost every thing, that can't import even the simplest of medecine can produce WMD when their are inspectors IN the country ? Come on... Truth is, American policies in Iraq killed more Iraqui in 5 years than Saddam in his whole reing, but America is the good guy. (In my opinion, its just two bad guys fighting each other with the population in between)

3- He simply can't run a country. He spends to much on things that are not important, like the war in Iraq, that provoked even more anger towards the USA making the probabilities of terrorist attacks even higher than before.

Well, that's about it. Feel free to blast through my opinions, it was made for that, have fun, and let's stop talking about iPods and unrelated stuff, because I will go back on topics that do talk about Bush, even though you ban me.

Lies ? Maybe, but not entirely, that's for sure. I'll believe Michael Moore before Bush anytime. 9/11 hides a very nasty secret, but it will never be revealed to you, people of America.

As for patriotism, is it really that important ? You know, I believe it is much more important to be happy in life than to be patriotic. Anyway, that term is way overused, I've seen over 20 definitions of that term, and all of them are suited to justify one man's position.

I go by this standard: Love yourself before your country. I might also add, get all the information you can and filter it AFTER.

The past of a president doesn't really matter, it's the action he takes as a president that really tells us if he is a good president. For Bush, it doesn't matter if he has a good past and a great education, the fact is he made too many mistakes for a president and failed in covering them up. The results are global hate of America and Bush loosing all credibility.

As for Kerry, I'm not sure about all those sources, but I'm sure not all of it is true or false, their is always a little glimpse of truth in a rumor... but since he has never been president, we cannot judge him on his actions as one, however, we know that Bush is capable of too much damage, so I'll have to remain with Kerry.

By the way, this may not be Bush's fault, altough indirectly it is for sure, but the mass murders caused by "collateral damage" cannot be forgiven. They are human beings to even though they don't live in America. 9/11 made how many deads ? 2000 ? 3000 top ? That's the body count for civilians killed in a single Afghan village. Now ask yourself why the world hates America.

Have a nice day.

P.S: If Bush remains in the White House, he can and probably will go trigger happy on his infamous "Axis of Evil". Ho, and as another note, How can this man compare is stupid war to WW2 ?

Alright... I've read all this topic, and I've laughed a lot, but I've seen some good points on both side. I'll have to remain against Bush though, because he should have taken cared of America's problems one at a time.

First: The terrorist attack of 9/11 happened, of course, solving that is the first preocupation, but the whole thing finishes in a confusing mass of lies, conspiracy theories and false facts, so no developement there.

Second: Bush attacks Afghanistan to catch Ousama, he fails in doing that, but he gets the Talibans out.

Third: For reasons that are ever-changing, Bush atttacks Irak. The first effect of this attack is to remove the attention from Afghanistan which is slowly becoming a failure. The attack on Irak makes America the most hated country on the planet... well... even more than before, 'cause America was never all that popular in the middle east... well... in most of the east for that matter.

Now, during all that happened, America suffered from many economical scandals that made its economy go down the drain (come on, Canadian dollar almost hit the 80 cents because american economy was so bad (yes, their is a link in case you were wondering))

What is left to say on Bush ? Well I think he is not to blame for all, because I believe most of his decisions are based on what the people around him tells him to do.

As for the statement on Farenheit 9/11, I've heard that the die hard Bush fans won't change their minds with the movy, That anti-Bush won't be even more Anti-Bush, but that those that are between the two might go with the anti-Bush. It is clear that the 9/11 terrorist attack hides a very nasty and unplleasing reality about America, but is it related to Bush directly ? We'll never know...

I tried to remain polite and objective (I know I failed on being objective), but these are the facts as I see them. I think Kerry will do a better job, but I guess we'll see, since analysts are saying Kerry will be the next president... but they might be wrong...

Well, just in, we'll have a Liberal government...

Personnaly, my ideas on each government are:

Conservative: Too dangerous, Stephen Harper is too closed minded and to the right. Preston Manning was worse, but Stephen Harper is no saint. Good thing they are not in power.

Liberal: Martin is just not a good leader, so our future is bound to be full of scandals and bad decision made by a fool who can't stand up and act. He can only talk, never acts, which is sad. But like I said before, it is almost impossible to get rid of the Liberals... so close...

Bloc Québécois: Waste of vote. A bloc cannot access power, it can only be official opposition at best. They are only bent on making the gap between french and english larger, helping and supporting only french canadians. Ducepe made a good campain, but I'm still not voting for someone who shows up at a federal election with a provincial range.

NPD: Jack Layton seems alright, but his view are simply not applicable all at the same time. He should be more gradual. He'll never be in power anyway, seeing how the left is usually mistreated in this part of the world. Only center-left is tolerated, so too bad for Jack.

Green: Well... nature does need help right now, but if they have one seat I'll be very surprised. Ho well, instead of cancelling your vote, you can give it to nature...

Blue (Labatt) : I d'ont know if they show their ads in english canada, but they are very funny ! Vote for the fun ! Vote Blue ! Seriously, a lot of people I know will be adding a place to check on their card to vote blue... but I think it's stupid, might as well not vote.

Well... that's about it. results right now...

BQ: 53
Liberal: 141
Conservative: 85
NPD: 22
Other: 1

(possibilities)

At 2/2/04 01:37 PM, JesusCyborg wrote:

At 2/2/04 07:44 AM, Shangui wrote: Giving this prize to George W. Bush is almost like giving it to Adolf Hitler, then again that is only my opinion.

i think you need to stop being such a selfish jerk and realize George W. Bush cares about a hundred times more about world peace than you do. He put his career on the line, put himself up to global criticism just to remove an evil dictator and make the world a better place not only in Iraq but here too.

Let me clarify a few things. We are talking about a nobel prize for PEACE. What is the opposite of peace ? WAR. I did not meant Bush and Hitler were the same, I meant they both started a WAR which breaks peace. In theory, it is impossible to win a nobel prize for PEACE by starting a WAR., no matter the motivations or the results.

Ho and for the "Saddam is a mass murderer" thing, I didn't say it was a bad thing to remove him from power, but that the means were not good. In 5 years, american politics in Iraq have killed more than Saddam in all his reing. Of course, this is not all Bush's fault, but he did not help correct that situation by starting a war.

I read the paper this morning and for the second time I saw an article about George W. Bush and Tony Blair being nominated for the nobel prize of peace. Is it me or something is horribly wrong with that? Why give a nobel prize for peace to people who started a WAR! If they win, I guess the nobel commity will have their mailbox filled with complained and possibly rigged packages...

Giving this prize to George W. Bush is almost like giving it to Adolf Hitler, then again that is only my opinion.

The fees go up because we live in a capitalist system where we have to live with A: inflation and B: greedyness. Fortunatly, where I live attending university is cheaper (Canada). The governement froze the fees long ago, but now they are talking about raising the fees again. I just hope I can clear out of college and university before the raise begins.

Here are my thoughts on communism:

Communism would be the best system in the world only if the following circumstances would come into being:

1- All the countries in the world become communist.

2- The world stops revolving around money. The reason communism destroys initiative is because in a capitalist system people work for money. We should work because it is our passion or simply to participate in our society. I know some jobs are not very popular, but if we stop overconsumption we dont have to work that much.

3- The governement model changes. the ones that administrate the communist state should not be the ones that write the laws.

4- Along with the communist economy, their should be social laws, unlike Bolchevism (Not sure of spelling), the system used in USSR.

5- It should be democratic.

6- It cannot work if built on a survival economy like seen in Africa or any of the country that tried communism before and failed. It must be built on a strong infrastructure. Ironicaly, that kind of infrastructure can only be built by capitalism.

Now that you've read that, you probably laughed your ass of thinking all those beautiful things are impossible, and you would be quite right. The thing is, human kind is too easily corrupted, tempted and down right selfish to accomplish anything that could get even close to that utopia.

The closest thing we can do is a slightly left oriented governement. Any other form of socialism is immediatly destroyed by economical sanctions or invasion commissioned by the rich and powerful, which are not always americans unlike most people would think, just most of the time.

I used to believe in communism, but I lost that dream when I lost faith in humanity...

At 2/1/04 12:54 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/1/04 12:20 PM, Shangui wrote: ...but how many Iraqi, afghans and other human beings died because of Bush's politics?

Try looking here...

Thanks for the site, I'll bookmark it.

Canada's army is just fine. Our soldiers are very well trained in very tough conditions (damn canadian winter!) but our equipement is out of date. Fortunnatly, the only thing our soldiers do is pile up bags of sand during flood, go to other countries to keep peace and do parades when asked. truth is, can you call a mission a peace keeping mission when you do it pointing a C-7 at the head of the population ?

I've seen canadian troops lately in Sherbrooke, my hometown. They were training for a mission in Afganistan, and Sherbrooke is a mountainous area. Results ? The embassy escape training was a success, but the cave resce simulation failed and they had to collapse the cave. Ho well, nobody's perfect.

The sad thing is he has no consideration for human lives out of american ones. All the news talk about is the number of american soldiers that die every day, but how many Iraqi, afghans and other human beings died because of Bush's politics? Most of them were innocents, but I guess living near terrorists is reason enough to die for George W. Bush, or perhaps he just doesn't care about non-americans...

I think capitalism is transitory state that stayed too long : At first, it help build societies and create technologies that are now vital. Over the years however, capitalism created a mountain of problems : It destroyed most of the environnement by encouraging waste and giving means of exploiting ressources at a phenomenal rate, it created a lot of social problems that are now incrusted in mankind like greed, it also contributed in a lot of wars simply to get more ressources.

Capitalism is bound to crumble on itself because it will meet physical restrains : the planet will not be able to support wasteful capitalism anymore. Communism is, in my opinion, the best alternative : Capitalism built the infrastructures and now we can instigate a stable communism and try to save the little that is left of our planet.

Unfortunatly, the switch to communism will be hard, because capitalism (yet again) made people greedy and plagued mankind. Everybody wantss to be superior and have everything for himself. Scientists agree, the planet can sustain mankind, but we'll have to make some drastic changes in our way of life. We should all do our part right now : walk a little for a change instead of using your planet-busting SUV to go to work, recycle, quit buying one-use items ... etc

I think most of the people on newgrounds are from occidental nations that are quite rich, but have you ever stop to think what is the cost of your way of life ? you should all think about it.

At 7/9/03 03:02 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote:

:I think that it's pretty clear now, if for nothing more than the utter lack of WMD's and the slowly leaking knowledge that the evidence we used -- while wrong -- was used many times, especially during the State of the Union...it's pretty clear that the United States entered this war for just as much, if not more of its own benefit than the people of Iraq, who are now still at lower electricity, medication, food, and water levels than pre-war.

What would you expect ? Bush has a wierd way of helping people. I'm sure all the people of Iraq were grateful that the US military bombed their houses and killed their friends and relative. The only reason Bush ever had to attack Saddam was gaining control of Iraq and it's ressources. He didnt care for the Iraqi people or WMDs, he simply needed an excuse. Between you and me, if his only problem was Saddam, he could have sent a sniper long ago to kill him.

Against- from Canada

When oil runs out in middle east, Their finaly might be peace back their. America will stop trying to gain control (indirectly) of the region, same goes for most of the other nations that wanted that place for oil.

When oil will completely run out, we'll have no choice but to use hydrogene powered cars. Something you might have not consider, is that without oil, you can kiss new plastic goodbye. Guess it'll force us to recycle the one we have.

I can say I look forward to the day oil runs out, because it will force humanity to be more ecologic and economy will be based on something else than oil. Most of our environnemental problems are also because we use too much oil.

At 7/7/03 12:03 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Is that could or couldn't care less?

couldn't, sorry for the mistake.