Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

<a>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIKFOR GW3Ig<a>

this

I have no reason to. There is no proof.

At 8/17/10 07:59 PM, EpicFail wrote:

At 8/17/10 07:28 PM, Lost-Chances wrote:
Oh, and it's pathetic that you believe in the whole "YOU'RE A MAN, ACT LIKE IT!" crap.

No, I believe more along the lines of "You're a man, don't act like you have a fucking vagina."

IMO, a persons gender shouldn't limit their personality or means of self-expression. The logic that Men shouldn't act a certain way just because women do is not comprehended by me.

The Pros/Cons of femininity in males need to be weighed fairly.

For Someone,

Pros may be:
true to self
enjoyment

Cons may be:
rejection

For you, the stereotypical actions of each gender affect the way you handle yourself, but for others, this may simply not be the case. Your personality may differ from others, and because of this, you may not favor the same things, react the same way to situations, or feel the same way. Just because you don't understand them does not mean that they can be put down as lesser than you.

You seem quite bigoted, so I just want to say:

Go Fuck Yourself.

At 8/17/10 03:30 PM, EpicFail wrote:

At 8/17/10 03:24 PM, Lost-Chances wrote:
Just quit now.

You know what else is stupid? When people take a part of a post and say that, because obviously I haven't quit as I've made the full post... That's stupid too, almost brings you down to the feminine guys level.

What's your problem? I mean, a male isn't idiotic or deserving of hatred for possessing traits that are viewed as feminine.

At 8/17/10 02:57 PM, EpicFail wrote:

At 8/17/10 02:53 PM, LaForge wrote: Like what?

A fucking genocide or some shit.

At 8/17/10 02:49 PM, Makakaov wrote: OP looks like one of those "Feminine Guys". I bet he's trollin' us.

Really?

I don't really care if they do it or not. It's no one else's business.

At 8/16/10 10:24 PM, bobsaget4life wrote:

At 8/16/10 10:17 PM, EineKaninchen wrote:

At 8/16/10 03:13 PM, bobsaget4life wrote:

Yes an existing mosque already exists. Why the need for the new one. Why the need for the insensitivity.

They're expanding it into a community center! HOW THE HELL is that insensitive!?

They did it in the NAME of their God.

That DOES NOT put their god at fault! They were not forced by their god to do such a thing! They did such OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL!

Their deity DID NOTHING.

At 8/16/10 03:13 PM, bobsaget4life wrote: It's basically the same thing as putting up a statue of Hitler in Israel. The same as opening kamikazee schools in Pearl Harbor.

I'm sorry that when I defend the people who are fighting for your right to have your dumbass opinion, you get your panties all up in a bunch. Do you not like America? Move to China, put your opinion to work there...unless you agree, with them? Go to where there is shriah law and try living as a gay person, have fun with that. See how far you get. Or if you're a girl, women don't have rights, they're less than cattle.
So re-evaluate what freedom is and decide if you want it or not.
What have you debunked?
-Mosque is being built two blocks away as a MONUMENT, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves
-Why do you think hamas is in support of it? (NY times is the source)
-They want it open on 9/11. Why do they want that? Whether or not their holiday falls on that date, it's irrelevent because if their idea is to bridge gaps, they would be extra sensitive about the subject.

So don't tell me you debunked facts. Care to share what you debunked or are you trying to make yourself sound smart.
Just because I enter a conversation about a specific topic and express my opinion on it without reading everything that has alread said, why does that mean it's wrong?
I gave fair warning that I didn't read the entire thread, and told you to get over it, so why are we not over it? Can I have factual evidence that debunks anything? Or is it just easier for you to be mean?

No! no. no, it's not, do you know why? Hitler targeted the Jewish and killed MILLIONS! dedicating a monument to him ANYWHERE is offensive!

http://www.park51.org/whynow.htm

On this page, it is stated that no firm date has been set, so can you tell me where you got the opening date for park51?

also, the mosque is not dedicated to or revolving around the 9/11 hijackers, 9/11, or ground zero, and it DOES NOT honor a murderer. Allah did not hijack those planes! THOSE MEN ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE!

A mosque ALREADY EXISTS THERE, and is merely being renovated.

The existing mosque PREDATES 9/11!

Get out of the fucking house!?

I'm sorry if I seem like a bitch, but theres got to be something to do outside of the house. Go to the beach, maybe?

At 8/7/10 12:53 PM, studmuffin7 wrote: ----------------------------------------
-------To Everyone In Favor of The Mosque----------------------------------
------------

Consider this: Your atheist brother was murdered by a zealous Christian nutjob who got away with it. Then, at the funeral, another zealous Christian nutjob puts a cross and Bible on his grave and starts praying for his hellbound soul. Don't tell me you wouldn't be furious! It is insulting and insensitive to say the least. Sure you can say not all Christians are nutjobs, but it doesn't change the fact that it is in bad taste, to say the least.

Now apply the same logic to the current situation. Lots of people lost their lives at Ground Zero at the hands of these Al Queda nutjobs. Building a mosque at or even near the site of Ground Zero is an affront to the people who died. They can say they are only interested in peace, but it is insulting, offensive, and reflective of bad judgement on the part of the New York Muslim community.

Also, why is it so necessary that they stir up so much collamity, pain, and anger? Is it absolutely imperative for them to have their mosque right there near ground zero? Can't they simply be respectful of the grieving families and build it elsewhere or just go to an existing mosque. At what point, in the quran does it say

"And yea, thou shalt smiteth them with two 747's into each a tower of infedility (and a field in Pennsylvania). And when this is done I desireth a mosque upon the site of those slain, for nowhere else in all the world is suitable for worship."

This logic shouldn't be applied to the mosque, given:

1. The person attending the funeral states that your recently deceased brother is hellbound, which is EXTREMELY disrespectful in itself,

2. The mosque is being built near, NOT ON ground zero,

3. And the purposes of the mosque do NOT revolve around ground zero.

The hypothetical attendee's actions took place at, and revolved around your brothers funeral. His were directed toward your brother and his funeral.

The mosque is not being built for activities directed toward, or revolving around, ground zero and/or 9/11.

The only connection is the close proximity. The mosque in no way affects ground zero itself, or interacts with it.

How about this:

A group of people spend time in a cafe residing in....well...wherever. One of these people happens to be your brother. Your "zealous Christian nutjobs" bomb this cafe, killing many, including your brother. Some of the victims are Christian, as well as many who are not, some time later, some completely unrelated people of the Christian faith build a place of worship six shops down the street.

Thats not nearly as bad as this guy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew s/europe/france/7771505/Video-game-fanat ic-hunts-down-and-stabs-rival-player-who -killed-character-online.html

Pan's Labyrinth

At 7/21/06 11:41 AM, jlwelch wrote: Fact #1:

To get things straight, marraige IS a Christian sacrament. The reason there are other religions is because people fell away from God and began to develop their own "gods" and so forth. Nonetheless, marraige is a sacrament of the true religion...Christianity.

You-You cant be serious. There are many religions which predate Christianity! Hinduism is quite possibly one of the worlds oldest living religions, predating Christianity by some millennia! and marriage laws date back to Hammurabi!

The use of both marriages and recorded marriage laws predate Christianity.
Marriage is a legal term of which some religious beliefs include, but these uses should not dictate what marriage is, or who it should legally apply to, given the fact that legal and religious uses are separate and should not affect the meanings of each other.

Marriage isn't simply "A Christian ceremony". The constraints and beliefs that apply to the Christian faith are not the same as the ones applied to marriage in general.

Marriage is not 'owned' by any religion or specific group, and should therefore, restrictions created by that group SHOULD NOT APPLY TO EVERYONE.

1. I enjoy it.
2. Yes
3. I don't see why it should
4. Filing, buffing, reinforcing.

I don't have AIDS. My dad taught me the dangers of sex and how to prevent getting STD's.
But like i said, i wanted the guy to have some fun with me. It wasn't like i didn't wanted it and struggled to get away, i really really wanted it.
Oh, and the guy told me he normally didn't do children, but my dad gave him so much money that he couldn't resist. And i had pretty eyes, he told me.

That is....

well....

really fucked up..

I mean, what kind of father would let their son have sex at such a young age?

I don't believe you.

CommunityChannel
AgentXPQ
Freddiew
Whatthebuckshow

At 8/3/10 02:50 PM, sweet21 wrote:

At 8/3/10 02:49 PM, Sh0T-D0wN wrote:

At 8/3/10 02:34 PM, Blaze-Heatnix wrote: Ed Edd and Eddy.

When you see it...

Ed, Edd, n' Eddy did that a lot.

Don't touch to urinal....?

I think it says "don't touch to urself"

Some Idiot argued that :
"evoloution issnt reel cause birds are boo rn as birds and berds die aas burds too"

You need to bring something to the table before you can grab anyone's attention. Nobody has a compelling reason to PM you.

Physical pain

At 8/2/10 09:51 PM, JohnEndel959 wrote: Do you ever have those times where you say something in your mind, and then you answer it like you're in regular conversation? It may be strange, but I do occasionally have conversations inside my mind. I don't hear voices. I also don't think I could be insane based on the fact that insane people don't realize they're insane. I'm not explaining it right, but what is the closest thing you Newgrounders do to insanity?

There are many different mental disorders.

I do the same as you, and I tend to speak to myself when I'm alone. I also like to play out scenarios in my head to plan out what I would do if that particular scenario were to occur.

We use all of our brain, just not at the same time.

How arrogant of them.

They are not anymore worthy of being spared then the rest.

They aren't that special.

Just because some jackass claims that their actions were in the name of another, it DOES NOT mean that the other party can be held responsible. It is the same in this case. Islam does not promote the actions of the hijackers, and should not be blamed for events of which it possessed no responsibility.

At 8/2/10 05:33 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

:No. But I am saying that it's a bit offensive to build a shrine to honor the God that drove a few madmen to kill thousands of innocent people at the site where thousands of innocent people died against their will in the name of said God.

Oh really now? "Allah" didn't tell those men to kill thousands of people. The variation of which the men followed was very extreme, and should not be taken as a representation of Islam as a whole. Men are responsible for their own actions. The hijackers chose to do this themselves. Islam was not responsible for the actions of these men. These men were, and not some deity. We shouldn't drag in some innocent faith to share the blame.

Rice

At 8/2/10 11:33 PM, Intrigued wrote:

At 8/2/10 08:05 PM, GamesArmor wrote: I hate people that don't listen to reasoning.

Like your mom? BOOYAH

"Your mum" jokes are getting kind of old, aren't they?

At 8/2/10 10:31 PM, Rude-Awakening wrote:

At 8/2/10 08:54 PM, EineKaninchen wrote: Congratulations. You could have just told her not to do that, as she was only a child, and had done this to you once. I also find it interesting that you find it fitting to still can a child a whore (as shown in the title of this thread).

Read the linked thread. Don't comment unless you know what your talking about. It shows you for what you are; uninformed and thus ignorant.

I apologize, but still, this girl, while being horribly rude, was only 10, and you should have helped her, or apologize for the pain that was inflicted upon her, even though it was not intentional. What she did was very inappropriate, but she didn't deserve to be hurt (in my mind, at least)

I feel that, while you could have been a little nicer to the girl, you didn't deserve to get hurt that badly.

At 8/2/10 07:59 PM, Rude-Awakening wrote:

At 8/2/10 07:50 PM, SteelChair wrote: She was ten!?! If she grabs your ass just blush and say thanks and walk off! Don't fuck her up!

If you let those sort of action fly then you are opening the door to more serious behaviour. I believe my actions may have, inadvertently, saved her from a life of crime.

Congratulations. You could have just told her not to do that, as she was only a child, and had done this to you once. I also find it interesting that you find it fitting to still can a child a whore (as shown in the title of this thread).