Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/24/07 10:47 PM, Insert-Pie wrote: From the sounds of it, it's a pretty sweet deal.

Ok, as an E-1, you make how much?

Better off going to college and joining as an officer if you want to join up.

Wait, what?

You have to have education to succeed in today's world, as far as I can tell. I mean, sure, 80 years ago, you could succeed with intelligence alone, but I doubt it.

Article VI was written in 1787, not post-Civil War. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution /constitution.articlevi.html)

Uh, okey-dokey.

That's a general forum topic if I ever saw one!

It's about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes, but, naturally, outcomes must only be no lower than a base standard of living. Everyone is owed at least that.

Libraries and so forth are just examples of things that ought be equal...

The South's nullification theory had been demolished years before it ever came to light.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constituion ("This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." ) establishes the nature of the constitution as supreme.

At 7/23/07 10:59 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

It only appears to be insane to people who have an irrational fear of guns due to a societal thinking error. [guns are bad is a bad thing to think, etc.]

Gun =/= safe, given 30,000 deaths per year.

How's that sound?

That's no different than, say, the original Russian Revolution, though. Kerensky came from the middle class.

At 7/24/07 02:18 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 7/24/07 01:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: what about death by snu-snu or fluffy bunnies?

I guess it would depend...there are some people I would not want to die by snu-snu with.

The point is granted, yet assuming that the snu-snu was worthwhile, then, well, I dunno.

At 7/24/07 06:57 PM, alanoink wrote: Taking over countries, that reminds me a bit of Germany.

Crushing the rebellion of states that had legally (as in with informed consent) entered into an legally BINDING union is not illegal or wrong.

At 7/23/07 09:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You...[have] faulty logic that has been disproved with facts.

Right, and a guy who calls his AR his "baby" and references the "babies" that other people have, asking if their "babies" are going to be safe is sane...

At 7/23/07 09:48 PM, Malachy wrote: I only read all the spoilers so that I can know what to expect when my fiancee reads the copy i just paid some guy for today.

I saw it at every single freakin' store yesterday, including CV--freakin'--S. I dunno, man.

How much did you pay?

No, no, this theory has been proven. I think it was Stephen Levitt of the University of Chicago:

"Steve Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, and John Donohue, a professor of law at Stanford University, claim that women whose children would have been most likely to commit crimes as young adults instead chose to have abortions after the practice was legalised across the US in 1973."

And, hey, guess what? "It calculates that each 10% rise in terminations led to a one per cent drop in crime years later."

Historically, it was an interesting conflict. The weapons of war had changed greatly, but the war itself was not much different from the previous ones. In some ways, it reminds me of WWI.

I would certainly hope that they're honest, but, well, uh, I don't know of any socialist and/or communist celebs.

Certainly, parlor socialists are cool. It's all right for the wealthy (or anyone for that matter) to be a socialist. I see no real issue with it - it's just not viable, that's all.

I'm a big fan of the whole spoilers thing...but, uh, you know, I only like rowling because she makes money.

It's the same reason I like the Yankees over the Mets.

Anyone else shocked by some of the responses from the candidates during the YouTube debate?

I mean, that guns are some nut's "baby" shocked me...but I loved Sen. Biden's response, and I would like to say that he's 100% correct...

Anyway.

I'm a trekkie as well.

It's probably the nerdiest thing I do, aside from, perhaps, posting on the BBS

Lawl.

Entertaining, I certainly doubt it.

I'm scared for the fate of American society.

That, and animal cruelty is linked to other problems.

At 7/15/07 11:42 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um, Florida has 4th highest gun murder stat. Are you a moron?

And they're notorious for gun ownership and concealed weapons...

Connection, duh?

That is gun death rates you dishonest, fact-distorting little retard. TAKE A LOOK, Arizona and New Mexico, which you were just pretending had no problem even though they are immigrant hotspots, are in 5th place and 8th place respectively.

1. That's racist.
2. Look at the bottom of the list. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and so forth. States that have STRONG GUN RESTRICTING LAWS! THAT'S A KEY PART OF WHY THEY HAVE SO FEW GUN CRIMES.

Yes, anyone who can AFFORD A YAUGHT.

Yacht.

The UK is an Island and all of its neighbors are well-to-do countries.

Okay...and doesn't the UK have ghettoes, immigration issues, and drug issues (the last one is according to the bottom of the CIA World Factbook) just like the US? But why, oh why oh why are there less gun crimes?

Naturally, it's not all attributable to the limited access to firearms, but that is KEY.

Since when is animal fighting NOT a criminal matter?

And doesn't the NFL have a policy on suspentions for the criminal issues that their players are so notorious for?

What an, uhm, interesting way to say "hah."

What sort of band, Funk?

At 7/15/07 10:21 AM, SevenSeize wrote: Hey guys.

MEIN FÜHRER! I HAVE A PLAN!

We'll probably have more people, that's true. Um, a thread for each major candidate might not be good, but certainly an official Democratic presidential thread and an official Republican thread, as well as one for the Primaries would be cool.

And a policy thread for major announced policies?

Questions. Comments. Complaints. Orders.

I'm making sandwiches, who wants?

Full fat tuna on rye with lettuce, tomato and mustahd. Puhleeeeeeeeeeze! :)

She's too conservative. I'll cry as well, at least, if she gets elected.

At 7/15/07 08:17 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: 2) Get rid of the degree requirement entirely and just pay them less. It's not like teachers work for the money anyway.

Paying teachers less provides less qualified teachers. That's just how it is.

Argentina vs. Brazil, huh? That's worth watching!

Would you think that, if the US had been in the cup, that the only teams that would be a huge challenge were those two (argentina and Brazil)? (I'm just repeating something I'd overheard/been told).

At 7/14/07 08:05 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I think I have a winner.

Check out General.

Oh, yeah. That's a win thread.

At 7/14/07 07:29 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: Bad wording on MSN News

Lawl.

I love it when news outlets royally mess up headlines. I had a list, couldn't find it, tho.

At 7/13/07 03:01 AM, Demosthenez wrote: Just a fast question, why should a legislative body be deciding when the war is over, picking an arbitrary number when they just decide its done, no more war?

Lol, funding, K?

Seriously, it's far from stupid. The legislative body, in the case of the US, is the group of people that decides if it's worth it for the US to spend money fighting a war..