Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Woah, whats wrong with gun registry? It may have its problems, but its a first step.

Well one thing that ammuses the hell out of me is that the religious right is up in arms about this removal of the feeding tube business, saying its immoral to let a person starve, yet where the devil are they when anyone else starves to death? Why arent they protesting and petitioning congress to intervene in every case where someone is going hungry? What makes this Schiavo woman so much more important? The fact that her parents can whine and afford lawyers better than most starving people?

This is getting disgusting, as I said in my first post, I am not here to debate the validity or interpretation of the second amendment, I was enquiring from a strictly utilitarian standpoint, what purpose a gun serves. And for the mentally challenged in the crowd, when I say utilitarian, I am asking what practical purpose a gun serves, not why people feel they need them, nor for scenarios involving Hitler and how much different the world would be if the German people under the third reich had been allowed to posess guns. I want to make it very clear here, I am not wanting to debate assault weapons, or the second amendment, I am asking what practical use a gun has. Now I'm hoping many of the answers I have recieved so far were just regurgitating the 2nd amendment because those answering were too inbred or ignorant to read my question before answering, and not because no one can name a practical function that a gun serves, because I havent seen anything but references to shooting minorities, cats and organizing well regulated militias so far. Remember folks, think before you talk, and most importantly, make sure you understand the question.

First of all, my kudos go out to the few fellows that didnt understand that what the second amendment was, and thus still quoted that its in the constitution that americans have the right to keep and bear arms, I was touched by your lack of understanding of your own constitutional documents. Secondly, what purpose does target practice serve? Except to hone your abilities to shoot more accurately when you decide you have to kill someone. And hunting is less of a legitimate sport than ballet.

I read the other day that the state of Utah is taking legal action against the University of Utah because the University prohibits the presence of guns on their campus, and the inbreeding polygamists that live in Utah want that changed so the University will comply with the constitution, and allow weapons to be present on the University of Utah campus. Is it just me? Or is that taking their interpretation of the constitution too far?

I'm just curious, and I dont want answers which are simply regurgitating your 2nd amendment drivel. But what possible, arguably practical use is there for a gun outside military/police application, and why should private citizens be allowed to own them?

There certainly should be a maximum wage, or at least fair taxation for the rich, like having them pay the same rates as everyone else instead of getting breaks. However, this could never work in a democracy because no one would ever get elected if they couldnt throw money around, and human greed seems to be the driving force of the times. People wont vote for someone whose platform is based on equality and social support, as soon as you start saying words like medical care and education in an election platform, people start labelling you a communist.

What I personally cannot understand, is where Bush keeps finding money for new space programs and corporate handouts. If I were an american taxpayer, I'd be howling for blood right now for the mess Bush has gotten his country into. The deficit of the United States is obscenely large right now, and instead of biting the bullet and raising taxes, and proportionally with income of course (those who earn more money pay more tax, those who make little or no money pay significantly less tax), or even admitting to the country that he has sunk them so far into a financial hole that they are reaching up to try and touch the bottom, Bush decides to go to the moon. Can someone please tell me what, if any advantages spending billions of tax dollars to build a base on an airless rock is? Is there some legitimate reason for attempting this? or is this just more smoke in mirrors courtesy of the Bush administration to take peoples minds off of the shitty economy, and the fact that social programs are going the way of the dinosaur? I mean, until now, he had wars or terrorist attacks to distract the people, but with the death toll rising in Iraq for american forces, and the capture of Saddam failing to stop resistance, it seems Bush might need a distraction from the war too.

Another question I have about Bush's questionalbe policies, is this: If america went to war for the Iraqi people's freedom instead of the beautiful oil, then why arent the Iraqis FREE to hire whoever they want to rebuild their country? Why does it have to be a country among the supporters of the war that can get a rebuilding contract if the war was about the Iraqis being free. It seems like a paradox to me.

I am just astounded that there are people who think what Bush is doing is right, and that no one wants to believe that he goes to war and the moon so he doesnt have to spend money on frivolous things like education and healthcare, or job creation. If my tax dollars were going to fund George the 2nd's wars and moon expeditions, I'd be screaming for him to be impeached for misappropriation of funds, so why does he still have supporters?

Wow, you're my hero Judge. First of all, I dont think its up to the americans to decide who can help rebuild Iraq, i'd think that would be up to the Iraqis, and secondly, if bush went to war to free the people of Iraq and not for americas personal gain, why does he care who helps rebuild?

I have a question, now that Hussein has been captured, what makes Bush or any member of his government think that they have the right to decide where and how the trial of Hussein will be carried out, Bush went to war claiming to be doing it because Iraq was not complying with UN sanctions, so to now carry out the trial without UN influence, it makes Bush a hypocrite. I want to know who said he could go above the UN when it doesnt seem convenient for him? And why does he think after stirring up the hornets nest in Iraq, who does he think he is to hand back power in July Just because the death toll is getting too high? He should be accountable for commitments he made at the beginning about bringing peace and freedom to Iraq.

Regarding the current situation in Iraq, with the uncontrollable terror attacks, I have a question. I want to know if people think it a question of nationalism, in that the arabs dont want an American influence in the region. or if it is, as Bush says a group of individuals who do not want to lose the priveleges they enjoyed under Hussein's regime, and are simply afraid of a free world?

For those who did not understand what I mean in the title, I am referring to the way the media, and the political establishments have treated Tony Blair since the war wound down. And the wmd's in question still have to rear their ugly heads.

Certainly the war in Iraq was ugly, for all concerned, and the peace seems to be just as bad. I mean, no one should be killed by a terrorist when they go to buy a coffee on their day off. But when the soldiers, the people who suffered, and suffer still thousands of miles away from home for some old fat men in Washington. Who are playing god with the lives of the armed forces, as well as the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. And when no one in the area can not feel safe, can not go home because of extended, indefinate tours of duty, and begin grumbling about the people who were giving the orders, they are reprimanded for speaking negatively to the press, and their military careers are over. Where is freedom of speech? What kind of Government punishes anyonw who speaks out against them?

I mean, if I was a soldier serving in Iraq, away from my home and friends and family for months, fighting for my government because I believed in it, and then ending up doing patrols protecting people from Halibutron, I think I'd have some trouble believing that the war really was about freeing the people of Iraq. And i could see how I could end up speaking out against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. But all of the soldiers who spoke to the press about wanting Rumsfeld or Cheney to resign have been punished, what kind of freedom is that? How free are you when you find yourself being shot by a coffee vendor because he knows you're an American, when those responsible for the death of his family sleep in nice beds, in air conditioned houses in America? Why should anyone die for Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld? And what kind of freedom is it when you find that your lighting war has turned into another Viet-Nam situation, and you cant go home because you have to protect your country's new oil prospects?

All along, I have said that I was not an advocate of Saddam or any of his practices, however, this was not the way it should have been done, there is far too much insurgency and it may take years to clean it up and begin to get a government to work in Iraq, and the legitimate reason, the heinous crime of posessing weapons of mass destruction, has turned out to be completely false, and with the suicide of the high up British bio-hazard specialist, which could ultimately lead to the downfall of Blair's career, leads me to believe that the ringleaders of this war falsified and skewed evidence so it would say what they wanted instead of the truth, and the best the governments involved can do is back peddle and say all along that it was for the people of Iraq, and not the wmd's. But this has been bothering me for a while now, and I just want someone to tell my why this will wreck Blair's political career, whereas the real evils will still hold a chokehold on north america, and most of the world from their fearful hiding places in washington? I mean, if The three stooges really need someone to take the fall for their cock-up, why wont they man up and take responsibility for their actions?

Thank you

At 1/6/03 04:55 PM, calmius wrote: Because they're gay and marriage is for a man and woman.

Wow, you certainly summed that right up, dont you have arguments against if farther than "because their gay"? I Mean, you dont even explain why it is you dont feel that gays should marry. I am not gay, but I would like to point out one thing, how many gay rapists have you heard of?

I am not swager, as god is my witness I am not. And for christs sake jimsween, I get one good topic and you still have to dump on it.

Funny that people should find this well written or me being right, I jsut failed a paper that I wrote along the same lines.

Now lets not be hasty, I could definitely see myself committing suicide if I was forced into listening to Donnie and Murrie Osmond, bad music can kill

I am sick of people, and our lousy society. If our society and way of life were able to be personified, they would be so corpulent and decadent that it wouldnt not be able to move under its own power, it would need someone to wheel it around on a bed. If our society was a horse, we'd have to shoot it. Now people can call me a communist, or a coward, or ungrateful, but capatalist and market democracies are just as much dictatorships as the former Iraqi government, or the leaders of communist. And the most terrible part about it is that we cant see that its a dictatorship, we honestly believe that our governments are doing things in our best interests, but our governments do nothing. Capitalist and market "democracies" and just a name for what the ruling class, or the wealthy want to do today. Albiet, our dictatorship doesnt persecute us or torture us, not on an organized scale, but they dont need to. We have television and movies and alot of other things which tell us what we have to be in order to fit in. And if you think I'm wrong about that, think back to your years at elementary school, if you were different from the percieved norm, you were harassed and beaten, and if you saw anyone out of the percieved norm, you went out of your way to make them feel like their life was worth next to nothing. If You Were Too Fat, Or too smart, or too dumb, or too tall, or not wealthy enough, or different in any way from the rest of the children, they would ride your ass into the ground.

I dont think anyone gets made fun of for being overweight in sub-saharan Africa.

And third world countries, dictatorships if you will in africa, asia, and south america. Their biggest problem is that their governments are so corrupt, that very little money ever makes it to social programs to improve health, or educate, or find clean sources of water and food. And those lucky few who embezzle the country dry, why they are doing little more than living the american dream, starting out as a farmboy in rural iraq, or mozambique, or Sierra Leone. And eventually having more money, and palaces, and cars and toys than anyone could ever want. These people all got their ideas for needing wealth from north america. Before you blame Iraq or Zaire or Yemen, take a look at yourselves, the embezzlers of foreign treasuries are just trying to be more like us.

If people had enough to eat, I dont think they would feel the need to blow themselves up on an Israeli bus. If people had adequate healthcare, they wouldn no longer feel the need to fly an airplane into a building. If people had a source of clean water, and maybe a little understanding, they wouldnt feel the need to build weapons of mass destruction.

I could be wrong of course, but I'll decide that after I see Tom Cruise mastermind the bombing of the whitehouse, or a widespread biological attack. How many rich people have you seen kill themselves and others in an attempt to be heard?

Thats right, coming from a miserable little hick town on the canada-usa border, I have gotten to know the mormon church very well. Southern Alberta is infested with mormons as this is where they came after the states tried to kick them out. And for those of you not familiar with the mormon church, they are the most self absorbed, ignorant, unaware-of-the-world-around-them religious group on earth. Now I'm endangering my life while I write this, as this town is almost exclusively mormon, but it has to be said. They embody perfectly the sentiment of who-cares-what-really-happened-as-long-as-we-get-our-candy-and-time-off-wor
k. They consider themselves latter day saints, yet they contribute almost nothing to charity. And were it not for them, shows like friends and survivor would never be able to continue for want of fans. They know nothing about anything, and rather proud of it. They are the perfect embodyment of what happens when you get too caught up in materialism, and forget everything but how to get more, more, more.

Reagan, Bush Senior, Bush Junior

Today being easter sunday, I felt compelled to comment on something I've noticed about so-called religious hollidays. I am 16 years of age, and my peers know almost nothing sometimes. In talking to a friend of mine's sister today, and she is 14, she had no idea the historical reason for easter hollidays. After explaining that it was good friday when christ died on the cross, and easter sunday is when he was resurrected from the dead, she doubted me that that was the reason behind easter. A holliday that at some time in history, actually mattered to someone for reasons other than candy and time off school, has been turned into just another opportunity to gorge ourselves on chocolate, laze about unmotivatedly, and figure the holiday was cooked up as a day off when you could self indulge. I am not optimistic that if I asked any of my peers in the 16+ age range, that they would know or care anymore about the real reason of easter than the 14 year old girl. I dont ask that we discontinue easter holliday, but if we're not going to know anything about the reason why. We should change it to something like "ignorance and apathy break" it would give us time to reflect on how little we know, and how little we care.

Thank You

At 4/17/03 08:04 PM, Shangui wrote: I read in the newspaper this morning that George W. Bush did not want to go in Canada ever again while Jean Chretien is in power. Relation will be a bit shaked, but nothing alarming. Trade will go on, all will be forgotten, Americans will still make jokes about Canadians etc...

I think the following accidents are to considered in the current state of Canada/America relations:
-The conflict over wood.
-Chretien's assistant openly calling Bush a moron.

By the way, I live in Quebec (let's see if some of you know where Quebec is !)

Shaked? shaked? dont you mean shaken? I guess american literacy is as bad as those pro-education activists claim

I STARTED TIS TO STOP PEOPLE FROM ABUSING OTHERS

So you think you can somehow make people like shitty stuff just because they may have put some work into it?

PLUS HELP THE POWERLESS GET AN EVEN PLAYING FEILD

Nowhere is the playingfield even, and if your work sucks, it should be insulted and blammed, otherwise we'd have 10000000000000000 stick fight movies which are all 4k No authors or playwrights or musicians get an even playing field, they only get acceptance if it is deserved, not if its a pile of shit.

''AND WORK IS STILL WORK, EVEN IF IT SUCKS''

There is no such thing as "work" on a computer, work is a force applied over a distance, and I dont think much force is required to type and click the mouse

WE GO AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO BLAM AND GIVE ABUSIVE REVIEWS OOOOKKKKKEEEEYYYY.......!!!

Again, if there was no blamming, and no bad reviews, people would have no reason to try and get better, and the portal would just degenerate into free porn slideshows and poorly drawn stick battles

It seems to me that the Universe has to be infinite, because, physics states that all things must consist of matter, so if the universe wasn't infinite, what could exist after the matter ends?

Is ignorance characterized by the presence of uninformed ideas? or in the voicing of them?

Ok, I wanna create this thread here as in Clubs/Crews and general, I'd end up with idiots, to quote several other politics forum members, I dont want them asking me if I can prove my existence, so it seems to me that this is the best place. Any philosophy at all, whether religious, political or examining life. Enjoy, I hope this works.

Very Eloquent There Pal

Oh, and he rigged the election in Florida, I'd mention that too. Its good to have brothers in high places (Since Jeb Bush is the governor of florida)

Better than Reagan, but not as good as Clinton

Well what I want to do is start a thread devoted to Philosophy in the politics forum, and kinda keep it as one ongoing thread, like the regulars lounge thread is. Would anyone object to that?

At 4/9/03 06:08 PM, fourdaddy wrote:

At 4/9/03 06:04 PM, Shangui wrote:

wait wait wait! i got one....what if there could be a constitutional dictatorship?

There are constitutional dictatorships, there have been since about the time of the French revolutiom. Even though people have no say in government, that government can still have a set of laws and rights.

And as for the topic, communism would be great if it could work, but its part of human nature that universal equality cant work. From each according to capacity, and to each according to need cant ever work as long as there is a wealth/class system. And there will always be someone who wants to have more than the others. And I think capitalism is more a description of what the wealthy, Dictator or Democratically Elected, Sane or Insane, want to do today.

Israel has the right to defend itself.

If Israel has the right to defend itsself, then so does Iraq, but somehow, every american soldier who dies wasnt "killed in fighting" but "murdered." As well, back when Israel was brand new, they used terror tactics just as bad as that fo the arabs against both the arabs and the british.