Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I might add that Leonardo da Vinci was threatened with death if he didn't meet the deadline for the completion of the Sistine Chapel.

Michaelangelo and Boticelli painted the Sistine Chapel, Leonardo Da Vinci had nothing to do with it.

Yet another example of the bloodthirsty crazyness of the Catholic Church.

This is the issue though: It is the founding principle of Democratic Countries (especially the US) that the citizens of a country should be more powerful and more fearsome than their respective governments. If citizens of a country have no means to defend themselves and aren't allowed to own guns, then what is there to prevent their governments from imposing oppressive rule or commiting genocide?

I was planning to do a leading question, but I can't be arsed waiting for a response. No "democratic country" was founded on a principle that the "citizens blah blah blah". Firstly, a large number of "democratic countries" do not have a codified constitution and it would be hard to call them "founded" at any particular point. Secondly, of those with a codified constitution I don't think many give their people the right to have arms. Thirdly, the US, when founded with whatever bloody amendment it is, was not a democratic county. Fourthly, even with the amendment (2?) a principle is subject to interpretation.

In conclusion, you are talking bollocks. Oh, and the answer to your question is democratic accountability.

See? You can't beat an asshole if you are decent. You are criticizing the USA government for being an asshole with its foes, while its foes doesn't abide by any rule whatsoever.
I know it sucks, but its how reality currently presents itself right now. Guy 1 was decent, but he lost. Guy 2 is the one who gives the orders now. Do you want to be decent?

There's a world of difference between being decent and not fighting when someone attacks you. In fact, your example is so ridiculously simple I think I'll stop writing.

Slizor out.

Not too many decades ago, believers weren't even allowed to read the Bible.

How many decades ago?

Two points:
Why does no-one ever look at the role of Catholicism in South American Independence and anti-dictator movements?
Confessing all your sins and being forgiven for them is pretty sweet. It's like "you can be bad, that's part of free will. But you won't go to hell if you're sorry you were bad." It's like a night of drinking without a hangover!

LMAO!!! Begoner has no fucking idea who I am.
He thinks because of my post count, I'm a forum newbie.

Aren't you?

On a different note: I do believe I'm sober.

I still remember the day. I came home from school and everyone was just watching the news reporting 100'000 dead with the repeated footage of the plane going into the building. I was shocked then, but the sheer scale of the human deathtoll that just kept on mounting as the days went by afterwards. It was also so forcefully put forward by the days following the greatest tragedy the world has ever known. In these days nothing else tragic in the world happened, the world seemed to have stopped on its axis as the world tried to come to grips with losing such a huge percentage of its number.

A shocking terrible day that will be remembered for evermore due to its distressing waste of human life.

It's really not worth trying to debate Global Warming because the corporations/media/politicans have produced a wealth of distorted scientific evidence to try and fight against environmental policies on that front. What people forget is that environmental policies can be justified on other grounds.

Does anyone seriously think that pollution is a good thing for the environment?

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

It is rare that statistics are directly comparable.

'nuff said,

It is a documented fact that Jesus was born to a Jewish family because he was born in Bethlehem, which at the time was a Jewish community.

And the Jews came from Egypt....which was part of Africa (coming back to someone saying he was African.)

Anyways, a better question would be "Where is Europe?" because it seems to me to be a made-up continent. Unlike all the others which are mostly seperate land masses, Europe seems to be a political continent.

No point in debating statecraft then. Glad we cleared that up. Everyone go back to your business, drop all the debate, we're fine here.

I didn't say there was always no point, but it is god-awfully boring. If you do this for pleasure then there truely is no point.

No, inalienable does NOT mean irrevokable. It simply means that EVERYONE is born with these rights.

No....no it doesn't.

http://dictionary.re..search?q=inalienable

http://dictionary.re..able&x=0&y=0

God slipped on some potato peelings while making dinner for himself. He's in a coma and things don't look good. Thanks for reminding me, dickwad.

Might I point out that this area of politics has been covered quite comprehensively by political scientists. And, unless you are about to set up a state, it is a very very dry area.

*walks off grumbling about political science*

The daily mail is probably the most reliable one there

The answer to your question is in that sentence.

Bourbon
Congratulations! You're 116 proof, with specific scores in beer (120) , wine (50), and liquor (104).
Screw all that namby-pamby chick stuff, you're going straight for the bottle and a shot glass! It'll take more than a few shots of Wild Turkey or 99 Bananas before you start seeing pink elephants. You know how to handle your alcohol, and yourself at parties.

Considering I'm British and the test is weighted towards cocktails, wine and spirits (i.e. Jack_Ma_Hogoff 125 proof, (40 beer, 66 wine, 86 liquor) or fredjustfred 144 proof, (60 beer, 100 wine, 121 liquor)), I'm fairly impressed. John Adams is a beer, right?

Beat you to the punch.

Pfft, you may have got to the punch first but I got to the beer.

I could be an Irish American......if I lived in America. My family is (brackets is their job)

Grandpa (lawyer's clerk) English
Great-grandpa (carpenter) English
Great-grandma (Carpenter's wife) English
Grandma(Miner's Daughter) Welsh
Great-grandpa (miner) Welsh
Great-grandma (miner's wife) Welsh
Great-great Grandpa (miner) Welsh
Great-great Grandma (miner's wife) Welsh
Grandpa (Peasant) Irish
Great-grandpa (peasant) Irish
Great-grandma (peasant) Irish
Great-great-grandpa (peasant) Irish
Great-great-grandma (peasant) Irish
Great-great-great-grandpa (peasant) Irish
Great-great-greatgrandma (peasant) Irish
Grandma (Peasant) Irish
Great-grandpa (peasant) Irish
Great-grandma (peasant) Irish
Great-great-grandpa (peasant) Irish
Great-great-grandma (peasant) Irish
Great-great-great grandpa (peasant) Irish
Great-great-great grandma (peasant) Irish

I think that's pretty much correct. My family have lived boring lives over the centuries, easy to trace though.

When a person views pornography, they only see the sexual side of the woman; Nothing more than physical attributes are depicted. One cannot decipher from watching a women having sex whether or not she is a good daughter to her parents or is generous in giving back to society (financially). This same idea is carried on to the minds of the women gazers who look at an attractive lady and imagine her bare, not even thinking of what a wonderful, caring lady she might be.Fine, NOW IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG. :)

When a person views a TV sitcom starring a woman, they only see the acting side of the woman; Nothing more than her acting attributes are shown. One cannot decipher from watching a women acting whether or not she is a good daughter to her parents or is generous in giving back to society (financially). This same idea is carried on to the minds of the women gazers who look at an actress and imagine her next movie, not even thinking of what a wonderful, caring lady she might be.Fine, NOW IT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG. :)

My response, summed up briefly, is "So?".

I disagree.

What? Did you expect a better reasoned argument in response to "it's just plain wrong"?

You notice how no one claims to be Welsh-American?

Who wants to be Welsh? They're just Irish that couldn't swim (away from the English.)

http://www.frontpage..Article.asp?ID=19016

Fucking hell. That woman is one stupid shit. Apparently an "Expert on the Middle East" who has sod all qualifications. All she does is present a ridiculously one-sided account of Lebanese affairs.

Taking sides with Begoner here, can anyone show me some examples of Democratic (or any other significant party) candidates campaigning for the "nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy"? The nationalisation of any services? Anything vaguely similar?

At 8/8/06 12:07 PM, red_skunk wrote: This first round of apartment hunting has gone less than spectacular. Why do people not believe me when I say I'm not an asshole college student?

They probably do believe you when you say you're not a college student.....

It is a made-up place/concept/ethnicity. Show me any evidence of an independent Palestinian culture separate from that of the Arab cultures and I'll show you a liar.

All Nationalities (and the majority of the concept of "ethnicity") are/is made-up. "American" is a great example - the people don't all speak the same language, they are spread over a huge area of land, most don't even have the same cultural values......yet they consider themselves a people.

Okay, let's say, hypothetically, that a white man and his familly, felt sick of living in a multicultural society, and decided to settle somewhere where only whites would be allowed. HE gathers his friends and their famillies and they head off to Utah, they build houses, irrgate water, etc. soon more white people come and the town becomes quite successful, but, when a mexican man attempts to enter, the head of the town blocks him from entrance and explains the situation while some members of the town shout racial slurs at him. THey are subsequently arrested for a hate crime.

Is that justice?

Why do you need the rest of the blurb? I don't understand how the start of the example has any bearing on how just their actions are. Please explain.

Hmm...I wonder if other things have been doctored, like Lebanese casualty reports.

You may be onto something there. Israel's relentless bombing of civilian areas is sure to have killed more people then the news stations claim.

I managed to do both before I was 18 (postal ballots are just made for electoral fraud.) Voting is a big load of crap, what difference can you make in a system that is a)so big and b) institutionally biased?

Think about this: you can only vote every 4 or so years (depending on where you live, what elections there, what the constitution says, etc, etc) but you can drink every night......until you run out of money/die/destroy your liver and live a half-life. Drinking all the way.

No, it's not. It used to have some standing before the behavioural revolution in the 1950s and before the continual erosion of the US's left wing meant that "[you] are all liberals now". Your moralist whinging is a common theory in the US, but the people who do it I wouldn't describe as academics.

Academics are left wing. There's not a single person of any merit who denies this. In fact, by most left wingers it's taken as a sign of pride.

No, Academics are viewed as left-wing. Whether they are or not is a matter of perspective.

At 7/31/06 01:17 PM, Slizor wrote: The problem is not that Americans reject structuralist thinking - I, myself, reject a large amount of it - but the problem is instead they do not discuss it. Politics has moved onto post-material concerns and ways of understanding without having dealt with material concerns. The agenda in US politics is elite-led.

Oh please, don't even try to console yourself by pretending that NO ONE in America talks about how the poor remain poor.

Please first understand when it is appropriate to use words before using them (console, hah.) And then try to understand that I am not talking about "how the poor remain poor" but the effects of low levels of economic well being.

Your theries are harly new.

I never presented them in such a way to give you any indictation that I thought they were.

None of this is absent in American discusssion. Hell, a lot of it is the CENTER of discussion, tho we focus it around race.

No, it is absent. There we go....simple statement as an argument. I would suggest that since you seem unaware of what I was writing about that you are a poor judge of its prescence.

It always annoys me when someone says the same old bs then claims it's a "taboo" subject in America.

I did not use the word "taboo", that would suggest that it is socially unacceptable to talk about it. If you were to have understood my points (or maybe even what "taboo" means) you would have seen that I said the US sphere of political debate and its political spectrum are disfigured. Political debate has moved on to other concerns - the environment, race, international affairs, large moral questions - with the result that simple bread and butter politics have disappeared from the political radar. Poverty is never the issue, it is only ever looked at through post-material lenses.

Is it okay to download songs from people who are dead?

By telling individuals that their life depends almost entirely on their social class, you're taking away their responsibility and preparing the poor for failure in a system that no one wants to change because it's the best.

"Now lets not get confused here and deny individual free will and say everything is determined by social class." A quote from Slizor, his first post on this topic.

Just because we reject your class-based rehash of Marxism doesn't mean that you should hold that against us: it's actually a good thing that most Americans reject this tripe.

Ah, so you appear to have come round to both my positions. Firstly that the debate had not actually covered what I was talking about and secondly that it is absent in most American circles.

The problem is not that Americans reject structuralist thinking - I, myself, reject a large amount of it - but the problem is instead they do not discuss it. Politics has moved onto post-material concerns and ways of understanding without having dealt with material concerns. The agenda in US politics is elite-led.

I'm tired of stupid, ignorant Europeans pretending that they know about our positions whether they be in academia or Washington. Fuck you.

And I never tire of pointing out where debates are deficient and where bullshit rules.