Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/24/06 09:40 PM, defactoidZERO wrote: At 10/24/06 09:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote

Lol, new's flash, government ends potential poverty by shooting homeless people in da streets.

Well, yeah. They're called the LAPD.

yeh cause we know how the lapd trains people to be racists, rather then let them decide what to think through prior policing experiences.

At 10/24/06 09:33 PM, TheThing wrote:

At 10/24/06 08:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Do you know what happens when you drop a 50 pound weight cause you want to run over to pick up a 500 pound one.

You hurt your foot.

but sometimes that 50 pound weight isnt what your body wants to lift. if you can lift the 500 pounds, that 50 pounds is pointless. plus that 50 pound weight is destroying your body, turning it against itself and attacking the brain (or lack there of)

iraq was a failer because WE SAY SO. not because the soldiers are losing moral, not because the iraq's are losing moral, because the people who give you the information you use in your debate, TELL YOU, WE LOST.

no one even asks soldiers what they're veiw on the iraq war is, cindy sheen doesn't count, she's not a soldier, she's one mother, out of the many others who dont have a voice on tv.

If bush pulls out of iraq, insurgents will get a clear signal, they now have a better chance of taking back the country, a very small percent percent, of the 20 percent of iraq's who are against the war out of 100, are the only people that the american left cares about, because they're the ones who get americans angry, and push their buttons the way liberals want them to.

Ever consider what liberals would say about bush after we pull out (if we pull out before the time is right) and the iraqi democracy fails

That bastard george bush wasn't doing the job in iraq, he was a coward who payed to much attention to our smear campain instead of doing the job, he shouldn't have pulled out of iraq.

And magically, america forgets how much FOR liberals were the imediate withdrawl. And suddenly, everyone's opinion changes. (liberals do it all the time, but no one in "high places" points it out"

Ex:

- Kerry pro war in democratic primary, anti war election
- Hillary anti immigration pre immigration dispute, hillary pro immigration post immigration dispute

We also have the double standard:

- Bush is evil, bush is the devil As opposed to the anger formed when somone calls islamic terrorists, fascists.

- Liberals extreme beleif in high taxes for all rich people, except for... guess who? representatives in congress and in the supreme court, WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED.

-And those are the two biggies in that category. There are a serveral others, like about harry reed's real estate scandal (when liberals found out, they pulled out something they had acess to, but waited for use of....) the incredible foley scandal. (pardon my spelling, i'm typing really fast, i want to go to bed)

At 10/24/06 09:33 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 10/24/06 09:26 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Why is americas pop-culture so annoying?

You dont like it is why.
Obviously if you enjoyed it, it wouldnt be annoying.

there are a variety of reasons america became so... violent and sexual.

Became? We already where, or atleast we were violent.

You think that in 1820 america had a devorce rate of 70%? a Rape count in the millions? Sexual adds in the streets? 13 year old girls getting pregant before even getting married? yes, america still had crime, althought it was alot lower due to lower population. Back in the 1880s, a person could get in trouble with the police for simply cursing at somone (once, i'm not talking about like, a veral assault) Crimes commited back then were for much smaller things people back then probably couldn't even comprehend the idea of a cerial killer, let alone a sociopath.

a marketer can use the humans attraction to sexual thoughs by incorporating sexual themes in shows, movies, ads, etc.

Why are you acting like your talking to a child.

I'm hoping that through explaining things in small steps, people wont poke holes in my "debate"

But america isn't a very devout nation, over all. There are devout beleivers in america, but they're really seen as racists,

No their not, since when was a man who worshipped god every day believed to be racist?

For hundreds of years, racism and religon walked hand in hand.

- People in the south worshipped god every day, they were racists (i'm not talking present day, i'm talking from the first slaves, to 1950)

- the Holocaust was, although mostly a political situation, also a religous one.

- ever heard of the white mans burden, it was once thought, that it was the respociblity of white christians to go into other nations and take them over, then spread their beleifs unwillingly.

(Christians now-er-day's are a little bit smarter, they use more peacfull aproaches to convert people , charity, rallies, seminars, book sales, etc.)

like some americans could back in the early to mid 1950's,

News flash, a lot people in the 50's had a hard life and didnt have time to memorize scripture.

my parents were born in the 1950/60s. Like many kinds their age, they went to catholic school, they could cite the beatudes, various bible stories, as well as dozens of prayers. City people were the first to start diluting their religon due to more important things, like money issues. But religon still had a grip with todays, more devout christians.

There was a lot more, but your simply repeating something everyone has asked.

The answer, thats how culture works.

your annoying. i will now use my thermal detonator to blow you up. beep..... beep..... beep.. beep. beep beepbeepbeepbeep BOOOOOOOM :D

At 10/19/06 07:27 PM, cheerleader87 wrote: i'm still against abortion, and it's murder!!

Can a democrat, or a liberal, please explain something to me. I dont want any conservatives ruining the moment:

Liberals are supposed to be very compassionate twards the lower class, (According to the new york times, which is never ever every wrong, ever)

I'm rather confused, liberal democrats think that abortion is a good way to prevent a potential life from being raised in a home that cant take care of them (I'm not going to start harping on this idea, there are good points to this, and bad points too, i dont care about attacking leftists for there opinion) , or sent to an adoption agency. However, they strongly beleive that the poor should be aided by the government, and NEVER given up on, what-so-ever. I mean, i'm sure both the left and the right agree that it's absurd to even think of solving the solution to poverty, by "aborting" the homeless and the poor, who are already out of their mother's womb. Lol, new's flash, government ends potential poverty by shooting homeless people in da streets.

Am i... missing something here?

ok, common question, i now realise the only way to get my point across at another thread it to make my own since no one seems to respond to my posts.

Why is americas pop-culture so annoying? well first of all, it seems to me that people have no respect for a way of life until it becomes old. as the saying goes, dont speak ill of the dead. now, there are a variety of reasons america became so... violent and sexual.

We're fucking animals!:

Yes, beleive it or not, we're animals, not in the sense of being pigs or wolfs, in the sense that we're built in to be attracted to the concept of all things sexual. A male peacock with big feathers will attract female peacocks, a woman with big breasts is going to attract horny men, it works that way for most animals, it's pre-installed as soon as we're created.

now, to continue, This has to do with a term we all know, sex sells... When open sexual discussion is perceived as a socially acceptable manner, right or wrong, a marketer can use the humans attraction to sexual thoughs by incorporating sexual themes in shows, movies, ads, etc.

And suddenly, we're not as alert to "stay clean" as the generation prior to us, and so on so forth.

This really began in the 1920's, but we're always been weak when it comes to ignoring the heavy demands of our gonads.

We're an agnostic society:

Most religons preach chastity, more with the women then the men, but of course (in my opinion) a good christian should beleive that both men and women should care more about love, and family duties then sex. But we're not what some would consider good christians, For those of us who are not christian, that doesn't automatically mean they're to blame for americas cultural transition, Even though they dont practice christian beleifs, most non christians, prior to the civil rights movement, would either have to pratice their religon in private and act like a christian, or suffer religous intollerance. But as i said, most religons preach chasity.

But america isn't a very devout nation, over all. There are devout beleivers in america, but they're really seen as racists, and extremists who are 100 years out of date.

To get back to the point, we're pretty diluted when it comes to religon, most christian americans will tell you they beleive in jesus and the like, but most cant cite the bible like some americans could back in the early to mid 1950's, nor did they go to church every sunday, nor did they engage in active prayer and so forth. people, i'm NOT condemming america becuase they're not devout in their religon, they have the right to think and act the way they want, (to an extent) but the loss in religous interestest played a HUGE role in americas cultural transition.

Anyone who studies world history will tell you how important the upanishads and the vedas became to people of the indus river valley in the late neolithic era, with asyrians (NOT NAZIS for those of you who are thick skulled) Fear of the wrath of nature plus that, and the connection to the gods these people beleived in, caused them to start caring more about religon, and of course, through religon, caring more about family values, in a manner that is, even today, in many countries, the norm.

finally, music. Jazz was probably the first all american form of music, even thought it's origin comes from europeans + african americans. I'm not acusing african americans of being the slayers of christianity, nor am i implimenting that they are responcible for women being raped, or gang violence, etc.

To continue, jazz, following, i think it was rock and roll, then disco, and then finally pop. You can see the trend, if you listen to the lyrics. Most music in the early age didn't rhyme, infact, most music didn't even have lyrics. Opra was usually one of 2 things, comedy, or tragety, (and sometimes pure romance) But as time went on in the 20th century, music became more sexual, if you think i'm lieing, just go to www.singinfish.com, and listen to some jazz, then some rock and roll, then some disco (along with the other forms of music that, some of which, are popular to this day), the music get's more sexual. Today, music is getting so sexual, i wouldn't be surprized if they started putting parental ratings on music, pg 13, R, X, XXX, etc. etc.

just... listen to the music, they're almost hypontizing you:

- sex is good, sex is good
- Ghetto power, poverty is "in"
- Drink up, light up.

Etc. Some modern music is passionate, it has always been that way, but the line between them grows wider.

I'm done speaking now, and what i'm about to say may offend some.

Is it me, or do i find that the most sexual of music is performed by african americans / hispanics, maybe it's just me.

At 10/21/06 10:51 AM, JoS wrote: During the Cold War the US always warned that they had to prevent the Red Army from coming. The Red Army was supposedly going to invade every country and eventually take them over. In fact this is the opposite. During the Cold War the USSR only used their army 5 times. Germany, Czech., Hungary, Afganistan and one other which escapes me at the moment (I want to say Cuba, but its actually debated whether any Soviet troops or missles ever set foot in Cuba, only that silos were built but not armed).

Meanwhile the US used their military by some estimates 200 times during the Cold War. Here are just a few examples of military invasions during the COld War

Korea
Vietnam
Libya
Dominican Republic
Grenada
Lebanon
Laos
Iran
Cambodia
Panama

So who was really out for world domination during the Cold War?

And you'lll notice, that not a single one of them is under the united state's control.
What you call an invasion, i call a liberation. They mean the exact same thing to 2 different people,

Do you know what happens when you drop a 50 pound weight cause you want to run over to pick up a 500 pound one.

You hurt your foot.

At 10/22/06 07:48 AM, LolOutLoud wrote: In the future... When we will have created robots that will be able to do anything a human does. Communism will have to take-over democracy.

Yes, and soon we shall talk through our anus instead of our mouth because it's more socially acceptable....

on another note:

We will still need people to maintain the robots, diganos them, robots cant take care of themselfs, and if you invent a robot that can take care of itself, what's going to take care of that robot.

Scientists can make organic molecules, but they're still unsure as to how to get them to work on their own

The same applies to robots.

ANUS!!!

At 10/21/06 09:38 PM, mofomojo wrote: I think a parliamentary democracy - or even better - a direct democracy works better.

Switzerland is a good - and perhaps - the only model of this. That place is honestly some kind of political utopia.

They know what they're doing, they know why they're doing it and they know the effects of what they do. Of course, they've recieved heat for their non-partisanship in their banks and the security of it. But for the most part, they're neutral and pacifist.

They're nobody's bitch. And nobody's their bitch. That's the way life should be.

Switzerland's system works because of their countries world veiw. It wouldn't work well in other countries because it would be to hard to adapt.

The main reason electorial vote's were made is because of voting paterns, and vote melving. Here's a picture of a map of the 2000 election.

http://www.lostadam.../electoral-small.png

If you asked a kid who do you think won the election just jugduing by the map, they'd say that red won. (GWB) You consider how close the elction was, and then look at the map. how gore got most of his votes from small, yet largly populated areas. Where bush got his votes from the less populated areas.

Canada has the same
problemhttp://www.macleans...ics/06CANADA_ MAP.gif

btw, in canada

red: liberal
Blue: conservative

People in cities just TEND to lean to the left, and visa versa. Of course this was the opposite in the 1800's, especially when the republicans were in full swing around 1850+. Democrats had a very very hard time getting into office because the north was so much more populated then they were (even with the electorial college)

of course if we had a law signed that forced people to even themselfs out in populations across the states (6 million people per state X 50 gets you americas pop.)
We could to a popular vote to all fairness, because everyone's vote is equal, and there is no geographical swing. But we cant do that, new york and california and texas will always be the most important states. With the electorial college, polititions are "forced" to put more care into the states that really have "no say". (or atleast they should, but in most cases, they focus on swing states, usually in the mid west)

Mr. Ill, is currently facing an economic crises in his country. His economic programs are failing, and the only strong thing in his country is the military, (Which makes sense, since it IS a communistic dictatorship, (Consider russia under stalin))

Therefore, the united states guesses that he is attempgint to aquire wealth by selling weapons to people who need it. Does the united states need nukes? well... not really, since we have our own, can make our own, and ontop of that, it's not like nukes are usefull against terrorists. (unless you plan on blowing up millions of women and childeren pointlessly) On the other hand, they are very usefull to terrorists, since they dont care if they blow up civies, or military men, and they hardly care about other muslims, since they beleive their death will result in their rewarding afterlife.

Terrorists would be optimal customers in the sale of WMD's. And juding by the state of korea's economy, i'm sure they would be optimal sellers.

Must he preface everything?

This is a statement to explain to people that the average person know's next to nothing about the texts in the bible. Yet the feel obligated to bash it whenever they like. It seems to me that the bible is the only religous text that is being stomped on latly, even though, any historian would tell you that the bible is basically a combination of many other stories in many other religous texts, like greek mythology: Eve Vs. The story of pandora. Gilgamesh Vs. Genesis. Yet, people consider those texts sacred, why? cause no one but historians cares about them anymore?

Why do americans hate the british:

We hate the british?... wow i had no idea.

Computers were designed for... COMPUTING. Unlike humans, computers have the ability to store electrical signals within other devices. However this can only be acheived by programing the information into the computer. Computers dont have the ability to self program to the ultimatum that we do. Computers will tell you that 1 + 1 = 2, because we programed them to do so. And every single time you ask the computer what one plus one is, they will give you the same answer unless they are programmed for a different one. This is how they work, humans weren't designed to work for anyone but themselfs, this is why they have the natural ability to harvest information through the senses through chemical and electrical signals created by different parts of the body.

So far, i consider computers to be 2 dimentional, almost like a grid. You give it a question, it gives you an answer. And both things must always be the same for a computer to get the right answer, for example if somone programed a computer to answer, yes, every time somone asked it (on the keyboard) are you stupid? if you asked it, are you fupid instead of stupid, they wont be able to answer.

I cant even fathom the type of technology that would be required to bring the 3rd dimention to computers, allowing them to do what we do, judge the enviorment, and then, using internal knowledge, make a decision.

Liberals / democrats state that christianity is just as bad as islam because they have more against christians then they do muslims.

I get the feeling that liberals dislike christians mainly because of their oppositionistic stance against:

- EMBRYONIC Stem cell research

(Important thing to recognize that very few christians dont want stem cell research at all. They're afraid scientists will ignore all other options of harvesting stem cells [Imbillical cord / bone marrow] and go straight for embryos, which partially makes sense since i asume, that embryonic stem cells are easier to harvest. (especially if they plan on cloning embyros, then disecting them)_ )_)

- Abortion / late abortion

Most moderate christians really only care about late abortion since a more then before living thing is being killed. But more devout christians deeply beleive that once XY and XX make contact, the soul immediatly is manifested in the body. It's really hard to argue with faith, since there's no proof for or against the existance of souls (Since there's really no way to proove something that isn't supposed to be seen, heard, but felt, exists) Killing the 'life form' anywhere in eutero is just as bad as any other stage, just as bad as killing another human being. TO THEM.

So you have 2 things that christians are really in a grind over, that liberals are really exited to see be put in place as long term and expansive institutions. And christians stand in the way, that would get anyone angry.

However, i deeply beleive that liberals have no right to call the christian church bad because of the things it did 500 years ago. Now, let me explain, christian issues and muslim issues are almost exact opposites, the christian churches, for many many years had leaders who were corrupted, they wanted to be more powerful then kings, (which is where toppence for penense was invented) They tricked their followers into digging themselfs into a hell hole.

Muslims on the other hand are quite the opposite, muslims as small groups find themselfs adapting more hatefull beleifs, manifested over several years of pointless war over a cup that never existed, as well as discrimination. (We learn in history that when violence is fired at something, it bounces back. (even if you kill off every single muslim)

damn.. i have to go, i'll write more later. Cya.

- PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW BETTER. people back then thought the earth was flat, the sun orbits the earth, and clouds are heaven. They didn't have half of the proliferated morals as well as scientific knowledge we have today. Most christians can safetly stand back alone and say that they would never support that kind of violence.

At 10/14/06 05:25 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote: Goddamn that pisses me off. The Secret Service has no right to do that to someone. It's called freedom of speech, and it's being taken away from us. I will not be suprised if they jail a grade-schooler for saying in "Bush needs to die" in D.C.

Snake, people have been saying bush needs to die all over the world? what makes what one kid say's even remotly signinfigant.

(unless of course he's wearing a big jacket with wires sticking out, then i'd be afraid)