Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This a funny spin on a popular anti-drug commercial

Nick and Norm think it over

At 5/22/03 02:47 PM, Perseph0ne6 wrote:
Have you seen these new commercials?!?

This mindless fucking propaganda drives me crazy. Why are people taking up a idiotic fight against pot?

My favorite is the one where two teenagers pull up to a fast food joint in their car. They order something like 50 cheeseburgers, then realize they're poor, and then thoughtlessly speed into the street hitting a girl on a bike.

This is obviously ridiculous and it is just enforcing old myths about pot. It uses shock advertising, but it doesn't really give the facts about pot. After smoking pot, I don't order illogical amounts of food. Pot cannot dismiss rational, no matter how much is smoked.

At 5/20/03 11:41 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: They do, however, degrade society and promote illegal activity. Drugs take control of people's lives and prevent them from being productive members of their community. They are a danger to public health, safety and sanity.

I'm all for individual choice, but when something is dangerous to a community as a whole, then it must be banned.

The same could be said for TV or computers. That is, they can have addictive qualities, they can prevent production within people, they can interfere with mental health and sanity. The last one may need to be clarified. There are studies that constant TV and computer use can stir up A.D.D., eye problems, and clutters up mental thought patterns. It may seem illogical to compare a device like the TV to a drug, but to some people it really is as bad as say an addiction to Heroin.

Anyway, my point is that they can do these things, but they are accepted. Drugs can advocate illegal activities, but this is because they are misused, and as long as it is illegal and sold on the black market it will continue to do so, as well as support criminals.

I am not for people taking drugs in an unsupervised, uncontrolled environment, because I agree that it may free that individual of rules this society has come to embrace. Still, as my above post goes into greater detail on, drugs when properly used have benefits for the individual and the society of that individual.

I too think drugs should be legal. I have often asked myself the same questions "Why are drugs illegal?" "Why should the government have say in what a person decides to injest?"

First off, I think that drugs are illegal, in the US at least, out of misunderstanding and fear. For most people, they only get one side of the story, the government's. Their stand is that "drugs are bad" and that they'll ruin your life, but they never detail the effects. I think this is because drug prohibition has very few legs to stand on. As a result of this vague and one-sided commercialism, people don't know anything about drugs. A person I know didn't want to take marijuana. He turned it down whenever it was offered. We presented the facts, but he abstained, and we stopped asking him. A few monthes later, someone else offered him ecstacy and he took it without so much of a second guess or an ounce of researching the effects. People like this are more common than you think. Disinformation and lack of proper information are really distorting people's outlook on drugs.

Drugs should be legalized. It is a moral decision and doesn't affect the government. Under controlled conditions, the drug only affects the person that decided to take it. Why is this negatively desired by the US? The person should have that right.

I seriously think that drugs will be a useful tool in the future. Drugs can give different perspectives to life and offers insights within. It has been documented that drugs like LSD have changed people's lives around for the better. It can produce a sense of well-being that lasts long after the drug. People have been able to stand up to and overcome their hardships, and they are the better for it. If this effect could be harnessed, I'm sure it'd help humanity. I'm sure this all sounds far-fetched and the ramblings of a hippie buddhist asshole, but such events have happened, and after looking at it logically, I'm sure anyone can see potential in it. If anyone wants to read more on this there is "The Beyond within" and any Timothy Leary book. I highly recommend the first title.

This is a clip from the Daily show that I'm sure the political forum will enjoy. The prepresidential Bush debates the presidential Bush.

rtsp://st21g1.services.att-idns.net/v1/494/1742/2597/dailyshow/stewart/jon_
7131_300.rm

At 5/14/03 05:01 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

I believe Anti-Bush Admisistrationism is often mistaken for Anti-Americanism, by both parties.

This is very true. However, anti-bush is directly increasing anti-americanism. After bush is out of office, hopefully sooner than later, there will still be hatred for the US radiating from all the other countries of the world. The damage is done, and just because there's a new executive of the nation, people aren't going to forget what happened. The Anti-Bush attitudes could easily cultivate into a harsh Anti-Americanism.

I feel real bad for the successor to Bush, it'll be a nightmare for whoever that is. They will decide if this new world order will stick, and whether or not the US will opposite the majority of the world. For this reason I'm seriously hoping for a Democrat, but I haven't seen a potential candidate yet that would be able to have that workload dumped on their narrow sholders.

I know this has been talked about in the past, but I'm mostly interested in the effects in other countries, and things have changed slightly if you read the current article I posted.

Have you Americans noticed the drop in oil prices lately? A station near my house in Dumont, NJ went down a whole 15 cents/gallon. Also, Dick Cheney's former company was handed the government contracts dealing with the Iraqi oil fields. He was the chief executive of Halliburton oil, the company that was given the deal, and I assure you he has stock in it. Keep in mind, this is after they said that exact company wouldn't receive the deal.

I was wondering what people thought about this issue. There was a lot of talk about if the war was being fought over oil in the begining, so I thought it was only right to talk about the past-war undergoings with it. Also, I really want to know if the oil prices have changed in other countries around the world.

For further facts:

This deals with the current Cheney undergoings
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6405143%255E401,00.html

This is a 2000 article with Cheney misusing his political powers in past wars.
http://www.sfbg.com/reality/04.html

At 5/6/03 02:53 PM, Slizor wrote: Studies have actually shown that if you have school starting at like 10am...more people attend! Ain't that something?

I always try avoid scheduling classes before 10 am. When I have an 8 O'clock, its too much of a struggle to stay awake, and I learn more when I'm rested.

I am in college now, and I've noticed that a person's education level is partially related to what state or even what part of New Jersey they are from. I've taken Spanish for 4 years, and I was able to hold conversations on a trip to Mexico. My friend also had 4 years of Spanish, but he says they didn't get much further than conjugating simple verbs.

The American Education System is uneven. An obvious point, but I feel there is too much of a gap between my education and someone from South Jersey. I'm guessing this is because the US sets the standards and doesn't enforce them. My school was strict on completing the set syllabi for its classes. My friend should have had more training in Spanish than what was offered to him at that level. We were both on the honors track of Spanish, but I came out with more than him. I'm sure this is the case for other courses as well as other school systems.

After that long winded explaination, all I'm trying to say is that the American Education would work better if they enforced that the teacher meet the designated schedule for each of their classes. This is only one fault I saw with it, but I feel it is the most menacing.

I don't know what you are trying to say either. Its seems like a translation from one languange to another, where it is done word for word, and not by the actual meaning of the original message.

At 4/6/03 04:04 PM, Nightshadeplus wrote: True. You can tell that these guys read off teleprompters. It's scripted.

I don't know. It may be, but comics usually are pretty witty. Quinn is at least pretty sharp.

At 4/4/03 09:38 AM, fourdaddy wrote: you mean to tell me that he was talking and somebody understood what he said?

well, ill be damned

Haha. I know what you mean. When he sings everything meshes together into a blur.

That's fine if people leave the concert. Anyone that has the limelight should take advantage of expressing their war views where applicable. Anyone who doesn't is just a comfort seeker that wishes not to disturb people's thoughts, or take chances.

If you're going to fight for your convictions, you are certainly going to adquire enemies.

- Einstein
- Thoreau
- Gandhi (Don't follow his thoughts, but I respect him)

At 4/3/03 11:39 AM, implodinggoat wrote:
That part isn't left out of the movie. Don't you remember the last shot of the movie? When he says "I was cured all righ."?

Yes, he did get over the sickness in the movie, but in the book there is a chapter after that part. It was banned in the American print at first, so that might be why it isn't in the movie, but there was more to it.

At 4/1/03 02:19 AM, Raptorman wrote:

At 4/1/03 12:09 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: That is wrong in just so many ways.

What's really disturbs me is that this man is a professor at one of our nation's most prestigious universities. This is a man claims that the government of the United States is racist and white supremacist.

I've found that great scholars don't necessarily make great people. After all, the unabomber graduated first in his class from some Ivy league school, I don't feel like looking it up. From my experience, people with Masters degrees are more down to earth than Ph.d holders.

Yeah, but in the later chapters of the book, Alex over comes the sickness. This was omitted by the movie. However, Saddam would be incapable of any violent act. But, if that was all we did to remove the dictator, another military savoy individual would take over the dictatorship.

I always wondered how well the therapy would work in reality.

At 3/30/03 09:55 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 3/30/03 09:53 PM, VasIndustries wrote: Did you read my post?

I think it's pretty obvious I didn't, which is why I made a vague joke instead of mention anything you said.

Ok, you turned my rhetorical question into a joke, by putting it out of context. Very clever.

I didn't get an analysis of my theory, so I'm going to take that as you can't dispute it, but I'd like to know why you're so confident that trickle down economics works.

At 3/30/03 09:45 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Let me translate this into racist terms acceptable on internet forums:

Rather than give money to poor people who spend it on crack, Bush is giving it to all big companies who build shit, whcih gives money to other big companies, eventually trickling down to consumers who buy things other than drugs.

That should explain it fairly well.

Trickle down economics. Sure, I understand this well.
I don't think this practice works well in war time. Did you read my post? People are holding their money. Going in on investments now are very tricky and people aren't doing the spending they need to. Even if businesses were to expand, though they probably won't, the consumers, poor crack heads as you put it, aren't doing the purchasing needed to help out a stressing economy.

At 3/30/03 09:34 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Economics is a complicated business, but the basic element to fiscal policy is this:

To expand output, you spend money and lower taxes, which is precisely what bush is doing.

In full output economies, this will cause inflation, in recessionary economies, it works wonders.

I've taken studies in economics, and I know people whose job it is to predict the future of the economy. I'm not sure what your expertise in ecomics is, but I don't think things will get better for a while. Nobody was spending money before, and now even less people are taking chances with it. Bush Sr. was a wartime president with much of the country behind his war policy, at lot more than presently. However, one reason for his 1 term presidency was the economy.

At 3/30/03 09:10 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: He will be re-elected, the democrats are too afraid of losing further senate influence to let anyone run for president other than the b-team (dean, edwards).

I haven't been following who of the Democrats are going for the ticket, but you're probably right about them keeping as many senators in the senate as possible.

However, it seems like the economy will become much worse before it gets better, and that's a big factor when it comes to an incumbent getting re-elected. Also, Bush has a lot of people that are still mad about his electorial college, even with it being such a long time ago. Also, most anti-war sentiment will vote against him.

I think he will get re-elected if the war continues till voting time comes around, and it very well could. If the war is still going on, people will vote for him out of fear of changing the head-of-state in such a situation.

I really wonder now who the Democrats can put up against him. Even though I feel Bush's chances aren't too high, its going to be a tough battle for that canditate.

Nice link find.

You always hear about a few civilian deaths here and there, but I didn't think it was up that far yet. Still, it is small in comparison to other wars.

At 3/30/03 09:00 PM, Newgrundling wrote: The war's outcome and events will determine much of this, so the question cannot really be answered yet.

Yeah, a lot depends on how the war ends off. Though, I still stand by my prediction that he will not be re-elected.

I have heard of this before, and I thought that there were more so I looked it up. http://www.flc7.com/news/bush%20curse.html

Its quite the coincidence, but it may have been broken with Reagan surviving the attempt.

Maxim is a quality magazine. I don't know if any of those pull-outs will get as famous as the poster girls of WW2, but I'm sure it'll cheer US troops up.

Thank you. I'm anti-war, but I'm not anti-america. In fact, I'm what some call an original patriot. Basically, I whole-heartedly believe in what the constitution says, and I try to live accordingly. It is my right as an American to think that the war isn't necessary. See, a democracy doesn't mean everyone agrees, so the "If you don't like it, get out" attitude is unacceptable, as well as un-american. However, more and more people seem to subscribe to that theory. Plenty can be found on this board alone, but it is wide spread.

Anyone who thinks that you need to follow the ideas of their leader is clearly a sheep, determinably against american ideals, and willingly brainless.

I hope you all realize that if 9/11 hadn't occured, this war would never have happened. It wouldn't have gotten backing from anyone, and I wonder too if it was on W's adgenda before 9/11. Other than this "War on Terrorism", there's no reason to attack Iraq. They've been dormant for all the years following the Gulf war, but now they're a threat apparently. Notice that not a single chemical warfare plant or anything of the sorts has been found stocked. Iraq has been fighting back well, but its been all conventional weapons. If anything, this war provokes terrorist attacks on America. I know a lot of you people thrive on GI JOE, spread Democracy, kill the commies, fight for freedom attitude, but this is an unwarrented premeditated strike.

When "W" tries to liberate the REALLY oppressed peoples in South America and Africa, places that have little economic gain for the US, then I'll believe that the intentions and reasoning are legit. But that's never going to happen, and even if he tried to make it happen, it would have no support from the American public. Because what happened in El Mozote? and what is the "School of the Americas"... they don't know. Saddam is a big name and has been made out to be the worst dictator currently, but I can think of several others that are equal or worse.

Do you think the "war on terrorism" stops at Iraq? Because there are 100s of terrorist groups.

Maybe Bush will be seen as the great leader you all think he is, but I doubt he'll be re-elected, and further more he will be downplayed in US history books as many failures have, bay of pigs, 1812, etc.

At 3/22/03 08:43 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/22/03 08:38 PM, VasIndustries wrote:

Until then, nobody is right,

that is never true in politics. if there are two directly conflicting opinions, one of them HAS to be wrong (or at least more so than the other)

Of course one side is right while the other is wrong, but its only speculation right now. Bush and his advisors know the answer(what they expect to gain from the war), but nobody else does. After the war it will be more obvious what there was to gain, and if they horde the oil, I and others are right. If they let Iraq dispurse it to whoever they want, then you're right.

and there is really no more reason to debate it.

so you're moot?

I'm not moot, but the subject is. I'm just sick of debating it.

At 3/22/03 12:38 PM, swayside wrote:

At 3/22/03 12:33 PM, Das_Gaylien wrote: ...after all those are the folks who tried to kill my dad, quote George Bush.

no, you idiot. that's a quote from judgemeharshx.

No, Bush did say it. Attempted patricide: Yet another reason to send others to fight.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/

This has been debated too much, but I think the oil fields that were suppling France and others will become mostly Americas. We can only just wait till the end of the war to see what happens. Until then, nobody is right, and there is really no more reason to debate it.

Of course it is possible to find some protestors that don't know jack shit, just as there are pro-war supporters that don't know anything.

If anyone tried to rouse up a pro-war rally, I'm sure there wouldn't be a 100th of protestors in rallies in February.

Yeah, its pretty bad. But, the worst thing I ever saw similar to this was a baby pagent. Not a normal one however, this took place in the deep south, and they had different ages for competition, the youngest being 2 monthes - 6 monthes. The mothers of these children would put make-up and whorish clothes on them. In many cases, false teeth were put in. It was terrible. Baby girls were competing against their will so their moms could pull in some extra cash. Some of the older girls, ~ 3yrs old, would flirt with the judges, AND CASUALLY BEND OVER IN FRONT OF THEM. No Joke. They did a special on it on HBO once, but I missed it.

Being an adult is nice and all, but don't rush out of being a kid.