Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I am, in fact, not "shittin" you or anybody. Unlike some on this post, I don't need to use profanity to make a point.
1. Last time I checked, Lebanon was a sovreign state, not under the control of anyone other than perhaps their own government, which is headed by president Emile Lahoud, a Maronite Christian.
2. No one started any racist anything until you brought it up in your last post.
3. Israelis, other than the British/American drive for a Jewish homeland, have no real claim to the land they now occupy, be it in Bethlehem, The West Bank or the Gaza Strip.
4. Israel is an aggressive nation, following the U.S. Policy of bomb people first, ask questions later. That's why military service is compulsory.
5. Of course the U.N. Charter doesn't mean anything; the U.S. makes a point of violating it every chance it gets.
Just because you're an American doesn't mean you're right.

I'm not sure that I agree with you. I don't think it overturns it at all... I think it reaffirms it. And, while it may be protected to call someone a faggot in a newspaper, very few newspapers would print it because, in our slightly skewed society loaded with double standards, that would amount to libel and defamation, which are definitely not protected.

"Hate Speech" is not expressly forbidden in the first amendment Freedom of Speech clause; but, it's not expressly protected, either.

According to mass media law, the following types of speech are and can be prohibited:
fighting words: material or speech intended to incite anger or racial hatred. An example of this is the Skokie case where a group of Nazis wished to stage a protest in Skokie, Ill.

-hate speech: The Supreme Court ruled in the early 1940s that racial slurs and derrogatory slang for racial minorities ws not protected. An example: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. Also, the 1990 court decision, RAV v. St. Paul, where judges ruled that displaying a burning cross or an image of a swastika, or any other picture or writing that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment of others."
In the same case, Justice Scalia wrote, "Those who wish to use fighting words in connection with other ideas to express hostility .. on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality are not protected" under freedom of expression.

I would argue that the Reverand's actions amount to fighting words and are not protected speech, under those guidelines.

At 10/7/03 11:13 PM, darthknight878176 wrote: The UN charter doesn't mean shit. The terrorist nations (Syria, Libya, Etc.) are on the goddamn councils. Not to mention the European bastards never support Israel. The only true supporters Israel has are the US and Australia. Nobody else gives a fuck about Israel.

They can finally defend themselves and I say that we not only let them, but we help them.

First, Those countries are only known as "Terrorist" countries because the United States President declared them to be, in his all-powerful wisdom.
Second, the reason the "European Bastards" don't support the country is Israel's own history. RE: the six days war, 1967.
If Britain and the United States hadn't stepped in in 1948 and said, "Let's create a Jewish Homeland on territory we took from the Muslims," the middle east wouldn't be having have the problems it has today.
True, there would still be the general run-of-the-mill tensions caused by having the holiest of holy lands of three major world religions located in the same damn place, but the Palestinians, at least, wouldn't have such a greivance.
Third, military service is compulsory in Israel. They can defend themselves, and don't need the already over-budget, overextended farm boys from arkansas and oklahoma helping them out.
and finally, did anyone notice in the official statement from israel, the country said it would "Seek out terrorists whereever they may be" or something to that effect. Does that sound familiar to anyone else?

actually, I was under the impression that anarchists don't vote because to vote requires two basic understandings:
1) that you accept that the government is legitimate;
and 2) that you believe that, through the act of voting, you acknowledge the authority over you by said government.
now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the central tenets of anarchy to disavow all government? THAT's why anarchists don't vote....

Just an observation, all of the people who posted to this thread thus far are male.

The debate is never going to end. Conservatives and the religious right will never change their views, and liberals won't change theirs, either. It's very, very unlikely that simply reading an internet post, essay, web site, pamphlet, poster or sign will ever change someone's mind or opinions about this topic. Abortion, I think, is one of those concepts in life that you will only be able to form a stance on until you are directly confronted with the harsh realities of it.

It all comes down to the pussification of Americans. Someone out there decided it was a bad idea to make anyone feel bad... god forbid they change the channel or something... so therefore, everyone is denied the right to see, hear, or experience the "bad thing" that hurt someone's ickle feewings.

i'm going to weigh in and say that it's a really cool idea for a movie....
But hey, with all the millions of dollars Americans spend every year on Pyschic readings, phone calls and tarot cards, it's something that makes an interesting commentary on the traits of people.
There is no one out there who wouldn't love to know what the future has in store for them. Everyone wants to believe that some magic event is waiting just beyond the horizon, and their life will change forever. It's the whole get-something-for-nothing deal; rather than work hard for advancement at our current job or acquire new training, we want to win the lottery. Rather than try to find out what is attractive about ourselves and what can be improved, we wait for Mr. or Ms. Right to come along and sweep us off our feet.

One of the interesting facets of the abortion debate is the way pro-choice/liberals and pro-life/conservatives view the solution to the question.

There are many liberals who speak openly against abortion; the difference between pro-life liberals and conservatives is the pro-life liberals may not choose to have an abortion themselves, but they are less likely to pass a law banning others from doing so. If a conservative sees something as "morally" wrong, then a law must be passed to save everyone's soul, not just the people who agree with their position.

When calling for a "moral" answer, whose set of morals are you going to use? You can't say, "Judeo-christian" morals; that would be tantamount to establishing an official religion. You could look at greco-roman morals; in ancient times, abortions and the killing of infants was considered acceptable, if not honorable. Who is to say, of all the moral sets and religions in the world, which is correct? I know I certainly can't.

And lets face it, how many people out there are willing to adopt? Especially if a child is handicapped, a minority or otherwise non-healthy and white?

Yes, there are many kind-hearted people out there who realize that every child in an orphanage deserves a chance, regardless of race, presence of disability or color. But overwhelmingly, these people are in a minority.

When it comes to the center of the "When does life begin" issue, even our current laws take an inconsistent approach. In many states, it is a counted as a double homicide to kill a pregnant woman and her fetus. It is also, in some states, considered murder to beat a pregnant woman and cause the death (miscarriage) of the fetus.

And yet, in these same states, it is legal to have an abortion.

I think the center of the debate revolves around the right of the woman. If a woman doesn't want the child she carries, nothing will change her mind. And life for that child will be miserable, regardless of whether or not, if carried to term, the woman decides to give him up to adoption or not.

Naked boobies are aparently very, very, naughty things that tend to pander to people's purient interest. As for the double standard, yeah, I know, it sucks. But what can you do about it? Calmly walk up to a person wearing a "Men Suck" teeshirt and explain to them that their clothing is offensive, could you please go home and change? Right. All you can really do is suck it up, ignore it and hope society matures in about 30 years.
The same thing goes for girls who wear teeshirts and necklaces with "Bitch" written in flowery, sparkly letters....

At 9/2/03 01:07 PM, fourdaddy wrote: in my opinion, women do not have a place in every brach of the armed forces. female army rangers? seals? that would be too terrifying for any of the opposition, well, at least for a few days every month...

Coments like this and you ask if there's a need for the ERA?
There is no true equality between men and women. Men are paid more for the same amount of work, get better jobs and have fewer allowances made when they screw up.
Being a woman in a professional field has a double whammy attached to it: 1) you're a woman, and therefore you have to work doubly hard to make sure everything you do is top-notch work or someone is bound to say, "She can't handle that job, she's just a woman" or 2) "It must be that time of the month, we can't depend on her for that task"

A terrorist is anyone of fanatical views who seeks to oppose his or her way of life onto another person/people, especially one who uses fear to acheive their goals.

In that sense, many, many people and many, many countries fall into the realm of terrorism. The problem arises when political organizations try to lump all of their opposition into one nice, neat little package, call it "terr-ah" and proceed to bomb every last moving thing within a 100-mile radius...

you know what gets me: the police blotter items you read about people stealing $2, $3, worth of gas. If I'm going to run the risk of getting arrested for stealing something, it had better be good. Like a whole tank of gas; at today's prices, thats what, $20, $25?

I never started reading the NYTimes until the jayson blair thing went down. After that, I was drawn to it like watching a train wreck or something. All credibility issues aside, they do have a good style of writing, and have a knack for explaining complex issues and political subtleties to backwater hicks like me.

As for other media, I absolutely hate watching television. There isn't a single network/station that doesn't have its own agenda. The new drive in journalism is the "people" story - hook the reader in to a story by telling the story of a little guy affected by the topic. For example, in my area the police recently were involved in a beating, which was caught on tape by the arrestee's wife. Now, regardless of wether or not the arrestee deserved it for resisting arrest and swallowing his drugs, one of the local papers went and lead the story with an exclusive interview with the guy's wife. She, of course, sobbing and crying about how her husband was really innocent in all this, how all he'd done was run a stop sign. the fact that the guy had swallowed a baggie full of crack and refused to cooperate with the police, plus had a criminal history longer than my arm, never figured into the story until halfway down the column.

Does anyone else see stuff like this happening?

well, we're not all fascist pigs. but thanks any for the first post. it's a nice voice of reason in all this insanity.

Shut up.

I'm not even going to dignify this babbling with a response.

Just shut up.

persons = personal bodies, i.e that's why the fourth amendment is known as the 'unreasonable search and siezure" amendment. Also, this right prevents arrests without due cause.An 'effect' is a personal belonging or property. i.e. the government can't take your land, house or car just because they dont like your viewpoints.

I dont think this amendment will help you too much with cameras in schools because schools are public forums that are technically owned by the government. the same thing goes for lockers; the government built them, or paid for them to be built, and is just letting you use the locker during your time in school.

I know i sound like a stuffed shirt legal conservative, but i'm not.

If you think lockers and cameras in schools are bad, wait until you're in college and the RA's have a right to enter your dorm room anytime they damn well please , and the residence halls all have cameras watching every room that is not a dorm room or bathroom. that really sucks, but there's nothing we can do about it.

People who knock capitalism are usually stupid, lazy, or both.

I'm not stupid. I'm not lazy. But I hate capitalism. Why? because it doesn't work as a meritocracy. I can tell you that people definitely not always paid based on what they do - they generally are paid based on who they know and who they're related to. It's more of a nespotic than a merit-based system.

Does this mean that I chafe under capitalist rule, refuse to work or pay taxes? no. But i do realize that while capitalism may not be the best economic system out there, it is one of the better systems as far as protecting the few remaining personal liberties.

I've found that the Abby Hoffman method works really well in small groups: i.e. college kids who live in the same dorm or apartment complex. for those who haven't a clue what i'm talking about, read "steal this book.'

would i enjoy a world without money? sure. but that world without money just doesn't work as a post-industrial society. the world without money would also have to be a world without computers, brand name clothing (which i also don't get) and SUV's. (which, by the way, are all things i don't own :) )

It's something to dream about though. and until the revolution, broke ass college students like myself can just form small communes and bide their time.

The people who are against free trade are idjits. End of story.

you're an idiot. end of story.

Gore's tax cut was smaller, and went mostly to the people in the bottom 50%. Most of which PAY NO TAXES AT ALL. Gore's plan means: Same amount of money for the Government, while boosting his popularity.

I am in that bottom 50% and I pay taxes out the ass. the equivalent of two full pays went to the fucking man because i, as the american tax payer making less than 20,000 a year have to fund the government. If you ask me, Bill Gates can afford it a hell of a lot easier than i can.

Also, it should be noted that by proportion, the lower brackets recieve a bigger tax cut that the ones in the higher bracket.

what planet are you on? the biggest tax cut, proportionately, when to the richest 15%.

7) He has a DUI conviction. HE DROVE DRUNK. If he had killed anyone, there is no way he would've been elected. But people turn a blind eye to this for some reason...

Woohoo, big deal. Things change.

My sister died because of some drunk asshole. Big deal, right?

Furthermore, think of the cost of running such a system.

Well, as Louisiana is bilingual, as is the better part of Florida, i think the rest of this rich ass country would get along just fine. Not to mention Belgium, Switzerland, and just about every european country that deals just fine with multi-lingual peoples.

:Sure, lots of people speak Spanish. If we allow them to take the test in a language other than English, then we have to let anyone and everyone do so.

why not? even though i'm a french major, and my future partner is a spanish teacher, i dont necessary want to fill out my marriage certificate in another language.

Is each testing centre going to have one hundred different translators on site in case someone wants to take their test in Swahili, Urduk, or Estonian?

Why not? translated exams really are not all that expensive. Anyway in my state, you have to schedule to take these exams. there would be plenty of time to ensure the proper language exams are available.

The reason for having an official language is so that everyone can communicate and understand each other, as well as for simplicity. It would be silly to get rid of that.

The USA doesn't have an 'official' language, for the same reason there is no 'official' religion.
By having an official language, you are, in essence, saying that all other languages and manners of thought are inferior to a particular tongue.

english doesn't make any sense. it has too many irregular verbs, and for most complex grammatical structures, borrows from french, latin, german, italian, and spanish.

also, most traffic signs are non-textual. in the event that the sign does have text on it, they're all shaped differently. You needn't be able to read english in order to understand english or american traffic signs, and you don't need to be able to read english to be able to drive an american car . do you read japanese or german, for all of you driving foreign cars?

In other news, the fact that a private citizen can't sue the government is utter bullshit. do we, as americans, have any rights left?

alright, i need to stop ranting.

do you ever think that whites are slighly more likely to be assholes than black people?

Please. generalizing a group's behavior because of your life experiences isn't racist, it's ignorance. I appreciate the fact that you admit you're a racist. But you haven't met all the black people in the world. You can't say "blacks are ruder than whites" until you meet and interact every single last person on the planet. Then, maybe, you can make this assumption. Personality traits, such as violence, alcholism, rudeness, and drug abuse are not related to ethnic/ratial backgrounds; they are related to individual people, their experiences, and their values.

i am an advocate of free speech and the first amendment. As a journalist, i pretty much have to be (spare the jokes, please). I hate racism and organized violence of any sort.

But i do know that once congress got into the habit of limiting speech and expression, that would be the end of freedom as we know it. Sites like newgrounds where we have these jolly political debates would be over, gone, done, erased. If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.

The best thing to do in response to organizations like that: Get a group of people together that think like you do and create your own anti-hate group. I know it sounds cheesy, but if assholes have a right to publish their views, then so do you.

People need to wake up , because election 2000 is all over with . I do not see why people still reject G.W.B .

First of all, when I woke up this morning, i was still in the USA and Mexico hadn't taken over yet. I think that if I can't at least elect my own president, then i damn well still have a right to criticize his rich white ass, whether my views are based in my reality or in yours. I seriously beleive it's the only right americans have left.

:He has not made any radical changes ,
Exactly. This country needs radical change. Look around you man! People are rioting in the streets over race relations; gangs rule the inner cities; and 20 percent of the nation's children live in poverty. I'm not even going to get into the whole health care thing.

:He is cutting taxes so people's money will be worth something when they do get a pay check .
Did you see the newsbyte where some analyst drove up to a press conference with a sports car and a muffler? I'll be able to afford that muffler with bush's precious tax cut. You'll be able to afford the whole damn car. Also, have you been following the whole trigger mechanism issue? it will be a miracle if that damn tax cut ever goes into affect, even if it does pass congress.

:I'm pretty sure he will do a great job during his term .

He has done nothing. He is a puppet president. I'm not sure who's running the country at the current moment, probably Dick Cheney. I do know that it's not "dubya"

On a side note, it's great to see intelligent debate here (not necessarily mine)..... keep it up.

Correction.
That movie was made by Taiwanese director.
China doesn't like Taiwan.
Re-draw your conclusions.

i know... i was just quoting from the article.... I enjoyed the movie .......

i like dennis miller's take on bush's handling of the spy plane incident last night....

he's letting everybody else take care of it so if the situation were to escalate, he could always blame someone else.....

this article, "Sorry? You want sorry? We'll give you sorry!" ran on Washingtonpost.com April 13. It's hilarious.

"..........We sympathize with your need to translate any and all portions of this letter as you see fit, even if it means turning the phrase "we did nothing wrong and wish you weren't so paranoid" into "we prostrate ourselves before your mightiness and beseech your forgiveness."

We are very, very, very sorry that "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" did not win Best Picture........"

fulltext: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13404-2001Apr12.html

The electoral college is a huge conspiracy. Did you know that in most states, the governor allows the dominant political party of the state to select the electoral college delegates? It was designed from allowing any one area of the country to become too powerful. But if you ask me, it doesn't work at all. How a clear popular vote victory of a couple hundred thousand could be overturned by 400 votes in Florida is an example of 'the strong democratic foundations of our country" is beyond me. Also, did you know that no where in the constitution does it give the american people the right to vote for their president? Check it out. It gives the right to vote for congress reps and local officials, but not the right to vote for the president.

just out of curiosity, how did you get it to flush? I mean, whenever i take a dump like that, it usually clogs and i have to get out industrial strength Drano and the toilet snake.......

okay, here' s my beef on Our Fearless Leader (the not-so-honorable and not-overly-educated GW Bush).

for a president who puts so much emphasis on education, he seems to have slipped through the cracks a bit himself. If that's how the well-to-do in Texas fare, lord have mercy on the public school kids. Second, It's totally obvious that he is controlled by someone, be it congress, the republican party, or his father. if america wanted a strong leader, they should have elected a commander in chief, not a puppet in chief. His speech writers know to put small words in his speeches so the rest of the country doesn't get a clue too quickly. and a few final points. What other president could have managed to set back political and diplomatic discussions with the entire continent of Asia back by about 50 years in four months in office?

to end my rant: L'Express (france) ran an editorial peice about GWB with the following headline: Moins idiot qu'utile (Less stupid than usefull).

Damn, I'm glad i didn't vote for him. I'm thinking about moving to Canada. Think they'd take me?