Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/11/04 07:32 PM, -gOOie- wrote: People who don't want to vote don't deserve to vote. They should be sent to another country where they have no voting rights whatsoever.

Right... you're in this country yeah, and there's a General Election coming up: There are two parties.

1) The US Communist party - Hardliners, for control of all Media and Economy to a tee. No freedoms allowed.
2) The Nazi Party. Great, but only if you aren't black, a jew, catholic, gay, a gypsy, unemployed...

Would you forgive someone for not voting either way here?

At 3/12/04 12:12 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Would you forgive someone for not voting either way here?

No. They just have to pick the lesser of two evils.

i hate Bush, so I'll vote for Kerry...i dont approve of Kerry on many things....but if he takes Edwards as his runnin' mate he'll be redeemed in mine eyes

At 3/11/04 08:27 PM, WelcomeToLife wrote: If you don't believe me, check out the selective service website, and search the congress website for the bill. I'm sorry, I don't have the URL for the bills anymore so a little looking will be required.

If your not ready to present actual PROOF of you claims, then quite fearmongering and shut the fuck up.

At 3/9/04 05:10 PM, Slizor wrote: There are plenty of third parties....where voting for them does nothing. What is the point in expressing your view if it is not heard?

Thats the exact reason why third parties have no power, if everyone voted for the party that agreed with them, then we wouldn't have a two party system.

the two party system isn't working

At 3/14/04 05:13 PM, -gOOie- wrote: the two party system isn't working

That would depend on your view of working.

And it's better than having a system where the party whips are so strict that the reps have ball gags and spreader bars on and are forced to sit down when they pee.

At 3/14/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:13 PM, -gOOie- wrote: the two party system isn't working

That would depend on your view of working.

And it's better than having a system where the party whips are so strict that the reps have ball gags and spreader bars on and are forced to sit down when they pee.

We should have a monarchy... wait... *thinks about the state of the union and the patriot acts* nevermind, we have it already

At 3/14/04 05:55 PM, -gOOie- wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:13 PM, -gOOie- wrote: the two party system isn't working

That would depend on your view of working.

And it's better than having a system where the party whips are so strict that the reps have ball gags and spreader bars on and are forced to sit down when they pee.

We should have a monarchy... wait... *thinks about the state of the union and the patriot acts* nevermind, we have it already

First of all, Monarchy is a government type, it has little or nothing to do with personal freedoms, a Monarchy could very well be more free than a democracy. Second, has any part of the patriot act effected anyone you know? Third, the state of the union? What does that have to do with anything?

At 3/14/04 06:02 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:55 PM, -gOOie- wrote: We should have a monarchy... wait... *thinks about the state of the union and the patriot acts* nevermind, we have it already

First of all, Monarchy is a government type, it has little or nothing to do with personal freedoms, a Monarchy could very well be more free than a democracy. Second, has any part of the patriot act effected anyone you know? Third, the state of the union? What does that have to do with anything?

I don't see much difference between a monarchy and a democracy if you ask me. Short of the fact that one has a public figurehead for ceremonies and purposes of tradition.

At 3/14/04 06:02 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:55 PM, -gOOie- wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:26 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 3/14/04 05:13 PM, -gOOie- wrote: the two party system isn't working

That would depend on your view of working.

And it's better than having a system where the party whips are so strict that the reps have ball gags and spreader bars on and are forced to sit down when they pee.

We should have a monarchy... wait... *thinks about the state of the union and the patriot acts* nevermind, we have it already

First of all, Monarchy is a government type, it has little or nothing to do with personal freedoms, a Monarchy could very well be more free than a democracy. Second, has any part of the patriot act effected anyone you know? Third, the state of the union? What does that have to do with anything?

State of the union refering to the condition of our nation as a whole at this time. Yes, my uncle was affected by the patriot acts, as a matter of fact. Because of the Bush administration, we have very few personal freedoms, especially pre-World Trade attacks.

At 3/14/04 08:11 PM, -gOOie- wrote:

State of the union refering to the condition of our nation as a whole at this time.

What does that have to do with Monarchy?

Yes, my uncle was affected by the patriot acts,

I highly doubt that.

as a matter of fact. Because of the Bush administration, we have very few personal freedoms, especially pre-World Trade attacks.

My ass. The only thing that could possibly effect any of us is the 72 hour holding period.

At 3/14/04 08:10 PM, Proteas wrote: I don't see much difference between a monarchy and a democracy if you ask me. Short of the fact that one has a public figurehead for ceremonies and purposes of tradition.

Your thinking of a whole different thing. England isn't a monarchy now, it is referred to as a constitutional monarchy, but it's really more of a democratic-republic. A Monarchy is actually when one person has control over the country, and thier claim to the throne is supposedly "divine right".

At 3/14/04 08:31 PM, Jimsween wrote: Your thinking of a whole different thing. England isn't a monarchy now, it is referred to as a constitutional monarchy, but it's really more of a democratic-republic. A Monarchy is actually when one person has control over the country, and thier claim to the throne is supposedly "divine right".

the British Royal Family is only the figurehead for that nation. they have no REAL power. Except that their rich....just look at Buckingham Palace! and Windsor Castle! and the Green-at-Belfast!

At 3/15/04 12:43 AM, The_Tormentor wrote: the British Royal Family is only the figurehead for that nation. they have no REAL power. Except that their rich....just look at Buckingham Palace! and Windsor Castle! and the Green-at-Belfast!

And England is no longer a Monarchy, but back before thier parliament took power, they were.

At 3/14/04 12:28 PM, -gOOie- wrote: No. They just have to pick the lesser of two evils.

Evil Communists or Evil Facists... Damn... the choice is so hard...

At 3/15/04 05:40 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/14/04 12:28 PM, -gOOie- wrote: No. They just have to pick the lesser of two evils.

Evil Communists or Evil Facists... Damn... the choice is so hard...

You certainly like to throw those words around alot.

At 3/14/04 02:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/11/04 08:27 PM, WelcomeToLife wrote: If you don't believe me, check out the selective service website, and search the congress website for the bill. I'm sorry, I don't have the URL for the bills anymore so a little looking will be required.

If your not ready to present actual PROOF of you claims, then quite fearmongering and shut the fuck up.

go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and under "Search Bill Text 108th Congress (2003-2004)" type "S. 89" next to bill number and click "search"

happy lazyass? or is that still a little too much to do?