Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/4/07 12:48 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

I may have overexaggerated. I find it a good tool for making a point.

Your sources tend to kinda suck...I mean, the Journal of the American Medical Ass'n >>>> GunCite.

Circumcision is hygenic and so forth, but it's not a big deal (male circumcision, that is): "The National Health and Social Life Survey evidence indicates a slight benefit of circumcision but a negligible association with most outcomes." Journal of the American Medical Ass'n

That's too bad...

I was looking forward to seeing it. I probably still will, tho.

They'd better be pro-Fatah...it would be silly of them to go pro-Hamas, despite the Alan Johnston release.

Quoth the BBC: "A Canadian mother has frozen her eggs for use by her seven-year-old daughter, who is likely to become infertile."

Ethical problems? I think not. Legal? Doubtful. I mean, a source quoted by the BBC states "Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, expressed sympathy with the family, but could not support storing the mother's eggs.

She said: "The psychological welfare of the baby itself has to be the principal concern.

"Such a baby would be a sibling of the birth mother at the same time as the direct genetic offspring of the grandmother donor.

"In psychiatry we are hearing more and more of children suffering from identity problems, and specifically a condition called 'genealogical bewilderment'. Could it possibly get more bewildering than this?"

I think that's pretty silly...

I "oh snap" my mom, but she typically says: "blah blah blah ghetto blah blah rap culture blah."

And then I reply: "Mom, don't be ridiculous."

I don't believe it per se, but I don't think that it's provable that he perjured himself.

At 7/3/07 07:48 PM, Memorize wrote:

Even if you want to act stupid like Bolo and be technical saying "oral sex isn't... sex" ( I just love how the word "sex" is in there, yet not sex. PARADOX!).

But you still have obstruction of justice.

As "sex" was legally defined in the proceedings, oral sex as Clinton had it was not "sex," because it was defined in the proceedings as

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

As per that definition, oral sex is not sex because the mouth isn't included. ALSO, you have to review whether Clinton was attempting to gratify HER by recieving oral sex, so, yeah...

Common sense definitions are not common sense...for example, generational differences, etc. Plus, phone sex is certainly not sex...

Just because more gun crimes are committed by persons in illegal possession doesn't mean that guns shouldn't be restricted, because (a.) some gun crimes are committed by those who legally possess guns and (b.) if guns aren't legally owned, they can't be stolen and resold...

At 7/2/07 08:40 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 7/2/07 08:32 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Hey, a 30 is still good. According to this source (Princeton Review), a 30 on the ACT is about equal to a 1980 on the new (of 2400) SAT (or 1320-1350 on the old one), a very respectable score.

The highest I could ever get on my ACT overall (composite) was a 26. Damn math score pulling everything down. :-(

I know that feeling. When I took a practice PSAT (not the real PSAT, so it's a PPSAT), I got a 750 verbal but a 520 or something on the math.

But test scores don't tell you about your intelligence or who you are! Neither does college admissions.

At 7/2/07 09:25 PM, Malachy wrote:

...(my fiancee was in the massage program)

Aww yeeeeah?

At 7/3/07 07:22 PM, JakeHero wrote: Ravariel, do you think Clinton should of got jail time for what he did?

What did he do again?

Because he didn't perjure himself. And I'm dead serious.

Scooter is a criminal, plain and simple. Anyway, though, here's some interesting info.

At 7/3/07 07:46 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

"Assuming having guns in the home PROTECTS you from intruders...."

Of which there is no legitimate statistical evidence that they do a good job of it.

See: Journal of the American Medical Association

1. If gun control leads to less deaths, why are there no examples of a gun law being enacted and then crime dropping within a reasonable period of time.

The Brady Bill was passed in 1993, and after gun crimes peaked that year, they decreased significantly (source http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.
htm).

3. If banning guns guarantees that there are no guns in said city/state/country, why is it that, without exception, gun crimes increase in said areas?

Source?

At 7/2/07 02:08 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/2/07 09:16 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Now, while that doesn't say that less guns means less crime, it certainly implies that.

Based on what evidence, highly?

I admit that what I said was a stretch, but assuming that guns in the home raises the chance of a homicide, not having guns is certainly better.

Hey, a 30 is still good. According to this source (Princeton Review), a 30 on the ACT is about equal to a 1980 on the new (of 2400) SAT (or 1320-1350 on the old one), a very respectable score.

This really pissed me off when I saw it on the BBC. I mean, come ON, George W., Libby is a CRIMINAL, and we all know it!

At 7/1/07 10:51 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

What's interesting is that you still fail to acknowledge the fact that banning firearms wouldn't mean that those murders would have been prevented.

"guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide"

Now, while that doesn't say that less guns means less crime, it certainly implies that.

Interesting.

Remarkable.

At 7/2/07 12:32 AM, Malachy wrote: (i got 1770 on my new SAT, a 1100 on the old, a 36 on the ACT. and I wound up going to community college)

You got a 36 on the ACT? Isn't 36 a perfect score on the ACT?

Did anyone else read that from a Freudian perspective?

Lol, kidding...

But seriously, lawl.

And yet the CDC states that 55% of murders of persons under age 19 (in 2004) were committed with a firearm.

Interesting.

Punishing institutions that don't carry it out would be quite easy.

Local cops and state police go in to stores in plainclothes. They're typically adults over age 21. If they don't get carded, then the law is not being followed.

A few dozen fines and/or arrests would fix everything up.

At 7/1/07 03:23 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I love being Agnostic at these times...

<sarcasm>It seems to me that I must be complicit in acts of natural disasters! OMG I have to stop supporting the gay agenda.</sarcasm>

At 7/1/07 07:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/30/07 11:09 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Melungeon indian (which is just a menage et troi of Portugese, African Slave, and Native American Indian).

Interesting combo.

Excuse me, but M.Ds publishing public health studies in peer reviewed journals of medicine are more qualified than any of us to make any arguments.

Carding everyone is a fair and good policy. That's all there is to it.

At 7/1/07 04:43 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Not really. Hindering people's choice to smoke is a violation of their right to use their own property that they legally acquired.

Yes, really. The fundamental freedom to do what you will to your own body is not your freedom when it interferes with the bodies of others.

For example: Guns are restricted not to restrict your freedom to own one but to protect the essential liberty to life that others have.

At 7/1/07 12:34 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Dr. Strangelove is a GREAT movie.

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"

That's a good one, but I'm a big fan of the whole "we shall prevail... through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids" thing.

That was HILARIOUS!

At 6/30/07 03:13 PM, Bolo wrote:

God, I love that line. Have you seen Kubrick's other masterpieces, 2001 and A Clockwork Orange?

I've seen Dr. Strangelove, 2001 and Full Metal Jacket. If A Clockwork Orange is as good as those, well, then, I have to see it!

There is no positive impact to concealed carry or firearms ownership. We know this because of research...

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/
329/15/1084

http://jama.highwire.org/cgi/content/abstract /273/22/1759

Guns allow for crime. That's a well-established fact.

This plot certainly provides PM Brown with impetus to step up security, that's for sure.