At 3/29/04 02:49 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:
2. I have a Constitutional right to vote for President.
... At any time, the legislature in say, Alabama, could choose the electors themselves, without any input from the people...

Sure, but they'd be promptly voted out next election if they did do something like that. One would think.

At 5/13/03 12:07 AM, APOCALYPSHIT wrote: NOne,...I dislike baseball

i just dont understand it...fut ball soccer its much better thats a real sport!!

From the American Heritige Dictionary:
sport
1a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
3. An active pastime; recreation.

Both are "real sports".

Sheesh.

At 5/12/03 10:18 PM, merc_insanity wrote:

At 5/12/03 10:10 PM, TheNewAuk_defiant wrote: http://sluggy.net/beta_forums/viewtopic.php?t=10537

how far does that thing really go?

I don't know. After about 12, I just stopped.

At 5/12/03 10:29 PM, Keyser_Soze wrote:

At 5/12/03 07:00 PM, Picos_enemy wrote: What team do you root for?

The Cubs!

Bwahahaha!

Just kidding! They suck ass.

You don't read the newspaper much, doya, hoss?

NL Central - 9:00 PM PST, 5/12/3
Team--W--L---%---GB
CHC 21 16 .568 -
HOU 20 18 .526 1.5
STL 18 17 .514 2.0
CIN 19 19 .500 2.5
PIT 15 23 .395 6.5
MIL 13 25 .342 8.5

I'm a Cubs fan.

Geez, it has been so long since I have been on this board... I've gone to a better one...so, you guys finaly came around and got moderators, huh?

Nifty.

http://sluggy.net/beta_forums/viewtopic.php?t=10537

Must everyone be a "leftist" or a "rightist"? I think about the issue at hand, and form an opion based on my information. If I get new information, I might change my opinion. Where am I on the vaunted political spectrum? I don't know. I don't know...

I want to sing independent song
to hunt without one mentor
scream in the cool city mist
's frontier enough
'm so weak, so complacent
I want to sing independent song
all I produce are words and turds

At 2/14/03 02:30 PM, PUNKER99 wrote: i think the gov. is screwing up big time!goddamn iraqis(no im not racist!bush is gonna get us all nuked!

Give evidence to support your views. Doing elsewise makes you look stupid.

"I hate quotations."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

At 2/10/03 05:03 PM, utopio wrote: yes, comunism is good.

but what is the finally of the comunist state that marx wanted?
marx sayed that after the proletary dictation the state will no hve to stay. the finall prupose of the marxism is the abolition of the state, ¡thats anarchy!

That's the theory, sure, but would that work? It seems to me that a just few agressive people could quite easily break any system of peaceful anarchy. People do whatever they wanted with a small amount of force, taking advantage of the fact that there is no state police force. The only ways I think you could stop them is by a greater force. That's the only thing that can stop anyone determined to wreak whatever havoc they are commited to wreak. So it seems to me that a peaceful anarchy wouldn't stay like that very long. Either a government would be formed to stop the criminals, or the thing would degenerate into a chaotic, non-peaceful anarchy.

At 2/10/03 07:16 AM, Ted_Easton wrote:

At 2/9/03 05:48 PM, TheNewAuk_defiant wrote:

. Though no government is perfect...

Exactly what you said. "No government is perfect".
As in, it's perfect to have no government.

(I'm not an anarchist, I'm just stirring up debate)

Let me rephrase that.
"There is no perfect government."'

There.

At 2/8/03 11:12 AM, utopio wrote: hi ho. i´m a spanish guy and my mind is so diferent that yours. first, I think that anarchy is the best govern mode. i considere that you thinks that anarchy is the same that chaos (this is an stupid idea).
finally i think that you are an incult and an stupid guy because you don´t know nothing about anarchy. ¿have you read kropotkin or bakunin or something about anarchy? ok. shut up

I've posted the dictionary definition of "anarchy" in this topic, and frankly, it IS chaos. Could you plese explain the non-chaotic government depicted in the works of Kropotkin and Bakunin for the less-well-informed of us?

At 2/9/03 05:31 PM, ifuckbecky wrote: if you think about it, communism is the best medium of government we could have. everyone would be equal, and rich old bastards wouldnt just keep getting more money while the rest of us get less. it would keep the cost of living low, and unlike anarchy we wouldnt have to fear for our lives over the few fucked up individuals who would take advantage of a lawless society.

anyone agree?

In theory, yes. But it doesn't really work out that way. Real life communist states tend to end up as one-party totalitarian regemes before long. Read up on, say, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, for more.

an·ar·chy
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. an·ar·chies
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

There's the definition. Anarchy is not a political system. It's the lack of one. Though no government is perfect, how is anarchy preferable? It IS chaos, assuming we're using the correct definition. Under the lack of a government (that is, under anarachy) anyone can do anything they want, unless someone else stops them, because there's no government in place to stop them. Chaos. Lawlessness. There's no police, no public services at all, not to mention no organized national military to protect the land from foreign invaders. I don't understand. How can any intelligent, ethical person prefer anarchy as a "form of government"?

At 2/3/03 10:24 AM, johnkozz wrote: WHo ever thought this one up couldn't face the facts that there really is no heaven or hell. Mankind created it and started to believe in it, even though its all one big lie.

Bah! There's no way to really PROVE it either way, since the only people who know the answer, or don't know the answer, because they no longer have any sort of conciousness, are dead. Some people have faith, though, and hell, what's wrong with that?

At 2/6/03 06:17 PM, Payne_Mage wrote: Topics like these make me embarrassed to be male...

Been there. People are stupid. Guys, girls... there's a lot of stupid people out there...

you certainly did
but I did not see your post about character map when I ....about character map, I was doing it because he replied to my post so I was simply replying to his

...

Explain it again.

At 1/2/03 03:23 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 12/31/02 03:04 PM, TheNewAuk wrote:

At 12/31/02 03:28 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: I couldn't give a fuck what people do as long as it doesn't affect me or society. They can have all the rights they want, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt though.

Do you even read your own posts? You just flatly contradicted yourself in a single sentance! "All the rights they want but shouldn't be allowed to adopt"? What is that supposed to mean?!

Adoption affects someone else, the child. Gays are entitled to do whatever they want with themselves "They can have all the rights THEY want." But there lifestyle should not affect others or society. Placing a child in the care gays will affect that child. Got it?

Who says their life-style should not affect society. They're citizens, aren't they? And a child who grows up with gay "parents" won't necsasarily grow up to be gay, just as gay people could very well have straight parents.

At 1/4/03 12:53 AM, HeinousDude wrote: It seems to me that people in the politics forum is more.... mature. You guys seem to use less meaningless profanities and discuss issues with good manners. How old is everyone? (too lazy to check myself)

15, and this thread is pointless.

At 1/6/03 08:08 PM, Jazz_Mazter wrote: You have a point Scaletail, but I find it sort of moot when I didn't say anything about you and your sexual habbits or desires. Personally, I too, can't stand small children. But what I have outlined for you sort of points to one thing "life exists to LIVE." Nothing more, and unless life is procreating, then it's not going to live for very long. :)

Yes, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE has to procreate. Homosexuality isn't very common, you know. And the world population is growing exponentionally all the time as it is.

At 1/6/03 07:17 PM, Jazz_Mazter wrote: Simply by being gay you violate the very mandate of life, which is to live, populate, expand, and repopulate. That is nature, thus adversly, gay is not natural.

Who says everything has to be "natural"? Democracy isn't natural. Niether is money. Niether are clothes. A great many things are unnatural, but that doesn't make necsasarily them wrong, does it? Also: if everybody reproduces and populates the Earth, which is already pretty populated, won't a many of them just starve anyway? There's only so much food.

Gays can't have kids. They can adopt them, but that's screwed up too because then the kids will grow up screwed up in an unhealthy environment.

That's why gay marriage should nto be allowed.

They also should not be allowed to adopt kids.

That's just using your personal definition of "unhealthy enviroment." The universe does not revolve around you.

At 1/6/03 06:57 PM, Jazz_Mazter wrote: What about educating students about evolution? While it doesn't outright state that there is no God, but how many relgions does it violate? More than how many it advocates, I can tell you that.

I believe evolution should be taught, as a theory.

At 12/30/02 03:32 AM, IamGod666 wrote:

At 12/27/02 10:11 AM, Freakapotimus wrote:

At 12/27/02 05:14 AM, IamGod666 wrote: as an agnostic, no, y the fuck should religion be in school, when it shouldnt even exist. damnit, y cant i not respect other peoples believes when people dont respect i am aethiest.

I don't understand: are you atheist or agnostic?

both. they are really too close to each other to be different.

What do you mean? Atheism is the belief that there is NO god, while being agnostic is the equivelent of saying "I don't know if there is a God or not." They are very different things.

Saddam's not going to use nuclear (if he has them) or chemical weapons on the U.S. If the U.S. does attack, and Saddam is close do being removed from power, he could very well not hesitate at all to use these weapons. Saddam should be removed from power, but can it be done without catastrophic consequences?

At 1/6/03 11:44 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Most arguments against legalization of cannabis center on studies that show that it is harmful.

I think that if that is a rational reason we should accept the ...

I don't quite follow your logic there...

Here's a few to start:
Slizor, Swayside (maybe, the arguments are so emotional sometimes though), ThenewAuk...

Yes!

At 1/2/03 02:46 PM, FormidableFoe wrote: Traffic Rank for rotten.com: 462
Traffic Rank for davezdyrko.com: 558,085
!Traffic Rank for newgrounds.com: 1,044!

Huh? We must Save Newgrounds!!! Are you in, or not?
C'mon, join up! We gotta publicize Newgrounds more, or else it will die!

where did you get those stats? I'd be intrested in seeing a list...

A simpler way to ask this question would have been, "What religon do you belong to?" When it comes to higher truths or the lack thereof, it's all faith.