Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'd take this more seriously if medical marijuana wasn't a big fucking joke. I know a guy who got medical marijuana prescribed for allergies, for example.

Maybe it would be more legitimate if they'd prescribe pills and not plants, which is how medicine is supposed to be. Think about Opium. Sure, you can smoke the plant and get high, but you can also engineer life-saving painkillers from it. If marijuana really is a legitimate medicine, I want to see it made into pills and I want to see more double-blind studies proving its effectiveness, not personal anecdotes.

It isn't so much libertarian as it is old-school Republican. Remember, the small-government, lower spending Republicans have been dead since Goldwater.

I miss human interaction. Drinking alone forever scares me. I don't pop in enough, but I love you guys, and I read the things you post.

At 7/10/10 11:53 AM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Here's a side view. Guess what this will become? ;)

Edible

At 7/7/10 12:27 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 7/7/10 03:12 AM, Christopherr wrote:

Oh, also hello. I won't come back again for a long while.

Why do you come in here and get our hopes up and then break our hearts into tiny little pieces?????

Also I didn't stop loving any of you, I've been outta town and then my kitty cat died and I'm a little pussy so I've been all emo and eating ice cream and stuff.

Here's some pancakes. Hope you're all doing okay.

Alright, alright. I admit, I was very drunk last night. I actually woke up with my almost empty bottle duct taped to my hand. That is right, I fucking taped the bottle to my hand. The kicker is that I still was drunk. The hangover didn't come until I was driving to work. Fuck yeah, no cutting today, just consultations. My internal clock is awesome.

And I did not converse with anything as far as my memory goes. Maybe the bottle a little. I blame the World Cup for my behavior. If you'd stop calling it football I'd be fine again.

So, to conclude, I had no idea what I was saying, but I'll hang around for now. For you.

At 7/7/10 09:34 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 7/7/10 03:12 AM, Christopherr wrote: Does sitting alone on a work night drinking straight from a bottle of J&B Rare make me an alcoholic or can hallucinations technically be counted as people?

;;;
Only if in conversing with them they converse back .

Fuck.

Does sitting alone on a work night drinking straight from a bottle of J&B Rare make me an alcoholic or can hallucinations technically be counted as people?

Oh, also hello. I won't come back again for a long while.

At 7/7/10 02:15 AM, Gorgonof wrote: Rednecks with hunting rifles want to storm the white house? I'm so scared.

Our government was set up to be mostly democratic so that it can change hands without bloodshed, that's probably as close as we'll ever get to a coup.

The most democratic government we ever had was when it was under control of said "rednecks". Easy on the redneck bashing, Andrew Jackson will posthumously murder you.

Obviously, as long as my child can pick up a TV remote while I'm not in the room and flip through channels, I am pro-censorship.

Aside from protecting children, enforcing a little decency is fine. Nobody needs to be swearing like a sailor on public TV channels--we have less-censored premium channels for that. If you can't voice something in a non-profane manner, you fail at speaking. It makes no sense to have uncensored nudity on TV, either. What does either one accomplish in the way of transmitting concepts? Jack shit.

With that, I suggest that the freedom of speech does not lie within the meansof the speech, but instead within the ideasof the speech. It's one thing to keep people from swearing, because an idea can be conveyed without it, but a completely different thing to keep people from voicing opinions.

Imagine what O'Reilly would be like with no media censorship. Yeah.

At 12/1/09 11:59 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Obviously, ideally I'd prefer everyone to have such a mindset. What are some other ways that we as society could go about affecting such a responsibility that the Dalai Lama speaks of?

Raising our kids right. All the new parenting techniques are fucking up our future generations to be more xenophobic and overly cautious of people strange to them. I mean, we don't let our children play unsupervised, we don't let them trick-or-treat unsupervised, we teach them all about "stranger danger." It's breeding a nation of cowards, and it takes some courage and initiative to help others.

Unfortunately, everyone is more than willing to spend money while only few are willing to spend real effort.

I believe that the point isn't just to give financial aid, but to have honest empathy for people in need, which means that one must do so of his own free will.

How would spending tax dollars serve that end?

At 10/4/09 08:11 PM, AapoJoki wrote: I think Israel often uses excessive, disproportionate amount of force to counter relatively small threats, causing unforgivable amounts of "collateral damage" on the civilian population.

Well, Israel has its back against the wall as a shining gem of democracy and Western culture in the middle of an area that rejects Western culture... I understand why they don't want to take chances.

Why do we send doctors through a bunch of useless classes (read: all classes) before medical school?

I dunno, maybe it has something to do with academic rigor and weeding out kids.

At 9/27/09 03:13 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 9/23/09 03:25 AM, fli wrote: Jesus had friends who were tax collectors...
Jesus collected taxes too... (although, in form of charity of course.)

Unrelated nitpicking, Jesus never accepted money for his services, to my knowledge.

Shit, forgot to post a separate comment with that last post:

The way the original Christian church was set up was that there were rich people and poor people within the church, but should anyone NEED anything, the others would all help as best they could, including the rich. There's no sin at all in having a lot of money--the sin associated with it falls under greed and pride.

Money comes with responsibilities.

At 9/23/09 03:25 AM, fli wrote: Jesus had friends who were tax collectors...
Jesus collected taxes too... (although, in form of charity of course.)

Unrelated nitpicking, Jesus never accepted money for his services, to my knowledge.

Apparently their voters don't seem to mind.

Well, shit, guys, what have I been thinking?

Let's all just be funemployed!

At 8/18/09 10:02 PM, Kajio wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:54 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:46 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 8/18/09 09:45 PM, Christopherr wrote: Haha, I'm going to come live on the land you want to live on.

So am I, we can have orgy!

can I koin becausethats what happens in anarchism no rules so I can do what I want and nothing can stop me.

I have a gun.

Just because the government can't stop it doesn't mean that no one can.

The implicit message being that you believe in the ownership of property. What happens when your gun isn't enough to defend your land rights that wouldn't really exist anyways? A group of guys with more guns will just take it away. What if you get a group of people to defend your land? Well, then other groups will get bigger as well. What happens when the groups grow and grow? You eventually have established governments. Anarchy is such a pipe dream.

Haha, I'm going to come live on the land you want to live on.

It's Waterworld for polar bears.

At 6/29/09 09:35 PM, KidneyThief wrote:

At 6/29/09 09:17 PM, Korriken wrote: they have declared that they will be firing a missile at american territory. that alone is an act of war. turning north korea into a smoldering heap of refuse isn't bullying. its protecting one's own territory.

That's like saying blasting a person who kicked in your front door is cold blooded murder.

We know North Korea can't hit Hawaii. Your analogy is poor, North Korea hasn't kicked in our front door so to speak. They made a threat, and an empty one at that. I'm also pretty sure that killing someone who threatened to kick in your door is murder.

They said they're going to try, that's enough justification. Your analogy belittles the situation. We're talking about a country that just probablywon't be able to but still is threatening to hit the US with a missile that would kill many thousands of people. Thousands of people in your country.

If intelligence is correct, the new missile has a range of 4,000 km, but given the right wind conditions, it could easily hit Hawaii and possibly even the mainland. http://www.speroforum.com/a/19666/Iran--
North-Korea-Partners-threatening-America

But, speaking with respect to North Korean intentions, if we know the missiles are not powerful enough to make it to the US every time, we should wait for proper weather conditions (those minimizing missile range) and preemptively strike Korea. If we wait, we can be sure that they will develop a longer-range missile, and we can be sure that they will use that one, too. We could end this with minimal US casualties (possibly none) now, or we could end it with more US deaths later, those are our options.

At 6/29/09 08:28 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 6/29/09 07:41 PM, Christopherr wrote: The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical).

but so do adults.

I've always liked to think that kids are most susceptible to it, though. Check out #20 on this fact list: http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/c ommstud/freespeech/cont/cases/chitobacco two.html

At 6/29/09 08:19 AM, zendahl wrote: I have yet to see an ad that markets flavored tobacco let alone one that markets it to kids. Flavored tobacco is something you see sitting behind the counter and decide to buy. on top of that most places like gas stations and grocery stores don't carry flavored tobacco product (except cigars) and what they do carry are in similar packaging to the regular stuff with only the words being diferent.

I really hope you're joking. Companies are making new types of flavored cigarettes with new boxes and even names (see link below), and they're advertised and sold in nearly every gas station in my town. Get with the program.

How is this being marketed to children?

This would be because it's not legal to advertise towards children, but only in the obvious manner. The next best thing for them was making their cigarette ads look cool and original (because kids fall for things that look cool instead of things that are actually practical). Take, for example, the new flavor ball cigarettes, which are just flavored cigarettes with a slightly different delivery mechanism: http://www.cscoutjapan.com/en/wp-content /uploads/2008/07/camel-crush-kool-boost.
jpg

Never mind that about half of all smokers start as minors and that tobacco advertisers have had a history of marketing towards young people (ex. the Marlboro Man), making kids a really enticing marketing base.

I have a better idea. If we want to keep our kids from smoking why don't we show them a little respect and stop acting like they are too retarded to be able to tell that flavored tobaco isn't candy? Treating them like idiots is going to hurt thier self esteem and low self esteem is one of the real reasons kids start smoking. Kids are smarter than todays society gives them credit for.

Who tells kids that flavored tobacco is candy?

It's not uncommon for a Jehovah parent to refuse medical treatment on the basis that God is magically going to cure them (never mind that He gave them doctors to do that). However, while the state recognizes the constitutional right of the parent, they also have to act in the interest of the kid. What I'm saying is, the kid, being too young to understand the faith that was shoved on him by his parents, deserves not to be killed by his said faith, just because his parents want it.

Saving lives > Constitution.

At 6/27/09 03:30 PM, xKore wrote:

At 6/27/09 07:33 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: As for sexuality, especially for sexuality, the issue can be raised whether a man can force their partner into acts of sexuality. I mean, you are together for that reason, so you can no longer rape your partner, right? Wrong. Even in relationships the partner who refuses sex etc.

What? From my perspective, it is generally the case that this is common sense. Maybe in less civilized regions like Africa and the Middle East, and maybe small pockets of society, but you seem to be generalizing that our civilized society is like this, when from my point of view, it's totally the opposite. I think nowadays, women are respected more than ever.

Don't confuse equal treatment with respect. Victorian era women were generally seen as "pure" and "clean" creatures, unlike modern women.

But, as far as Muslim countries go, women have gained VAST amounts of respect with the rise of Western influence.

I lost all hope for PETA a loooooong time ago.

Oh, just because it's funny, here's PETA recommending breast milk be used in your ice cream.

In the Deep South, ma'am carries a much higher connotation... Anyone know where he's from?

If I want a new car, could I buy a shitty clunker for %500 and save myself $4,000?

At 6/18/09 01:16 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/17/09 05:57 PM, Christopherr wrote: If I wanted to sell my car, I could just tool with it to give it shitty mileage... then get free money. Lower the air pressure in my tires, tune the engine poorly, add weight to the car, make the electric appliances use more juice, etc.

How would the law work around that?

It's for a trade-in. You could get $4500 in credit towards a more fuel-efficient car, but if you were getting decent mileage in the first place, your car was probably worth more anyway.

HAH! Lots of crappy cars get good mileage. That's not very relevant though, I'm just noting that the idea leaves a LOT of room for abuse.

If I wanted to sell my car, I could just tool with it to give it shitty mileage... then get free money. Lower the air pressure in my tires, tune the engine poorly, add weight to the car, make the electric appliances use more juice, etc.

How would the law work around that?

At 5/19/09 08:18 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 5/19/09 08:10 PM, svenisgod wrote: i dont understand why not.
i mean they can fight just as good as the next person.

yeah when its over the last piece of the new line of designer clothing.

I'm pretty sure that the type of gay dudes who join the military are not flamers.

Not all gay men are effeminate. My best friend as a child was gay, and I never would've known had he not told me, for example. Think Spartans, not queens.