Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I should probably add that the song in NewbieX1337's movie is the FUCKING NAZI PARTY ANTHEM

How do their flashes pass and not get whistles? They're a bunch of fucking nazis, especially 7Descent or whatever (all of his Duck Division movies have some sort of nazi propoganda in them)

• 
  [DD] Heil Hitler Hentai!! by 7Decent

  Click to view.

  Type

  Movie

  Rated

  Adults Only

and this:

• 
  [DD] FUCK newgrounds!!!! by NewbineX1337

  Click to view.

  Type

  Movie

  Rated

  Adults Only

How does this shit pass?

otherwise he wouldn't have tried to stop people from finding out about LordZeebmork's evil plans!!!!!

LordZeebmork must be stopped!!

and use that to create a botnet and take over the world!!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/legion_of_te h/index.php?showtopic=78

quote:

every time you run it, it yeeks 200 new accounts and mass fives or zeros a movie that you specify

we'll control the portal

near-perfect scores

think about it

no more weebl movies
no more foamy movies
no more awesome movies
no more stickfight movies
no more sprite movies

it scans the portal for anything I don't like and automatically votes zero on it with enough accounts to get it blammed

eventually I'll get it to vote zero on everything not submitted by a LoD member and we'll control the portal

newgrounds will run out of new movies, the userbase will leave, the advertisers will quit, and they'll have to shut down

and with newgrounds down the only place for people to go will be the portal that I set up to replace it, which, of course, will stick a trojan on the computer of anyone who goes to it

with that trojan, I can set up a botnet and use it to advertise the site enough to make its popularity skyrocket and add more zombie comps to my botnet

we'll be bigger than the storm botnet

eventually we can ddos every site we don't like to hell (including all of the competition to our portal, ehehe) and after a while we can unleash a flood of packets big enough to slow down the framework of the internet itself and maybe even destroy it completely

the economies of most major countries will collapse and we'll be able to unite all of the people under one flag

the flag of the legion of doom

with me as the dictator and you as my assistants

holy fuck I'm a genius

----

what can we do to stop this evil monster?!?

go back to first grade english class you brainless meatsack

I tried to play this game, but it never loaded. I left it open for a few minutes after Firefox said the page was done loading, and nothing ever showed up.

Is there some way to get it to load?

At 2/27/06 11:58 PM, jlwelch wrote: Perhaps you should be more specific about what the plan actually is. Human Rights is a pretty broad glittering generality...most likely it is a plan which, in laman's terms, says America please give more money to poor so us EU peeps don't have to.

Instead of just dashing off some knee-jerk response bashing the UN and defending America, why don't you actually take the 3 seconds to run a quick google search on the issue. THe proposal called for the formation of a 30 member Human Rights Council, with some powers regarding the enforcement of international human rights doctrine. Thank you very much, have a good day.

At 2/27/06 09:57 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/27/06 09:41 PM, Velocitom wrote: If a statistic showed there was more white doctors than black doctors does that mean white people are more effecient when it comes to health?

If more black men are executed by the state than white men, does that mean the death penalty is racist?

No, it means that more black men, although it may be caused by socioeconomic factors caused by racism in the past or present, commit capital offences that white men do.

Frankly, if this is true, it would probably be a far more effective anti-terrorism policy than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If we were to eliminate poverty and ignorance worldwide, terrorism, and much war for that matter, would come to an end, since terrorists thrive in hungry, stupid, and downtrodden populations. 40 billion dollars is a small proportion of our anual budget, and if spent on providing for the world, it would be money well spent

(Reuters) "The United States on Monday rejected a draft resolution for a new U.N. Human Rights Council as unacceptable unless negotiations were reopened, a move supporters fear might sink the entire plan....A new rights council was a key demand of world leaders at a U.N. summit in September, with an original draft stronger than Eliasson's compromise resolution. But this was watered down by opponents of the rights council after Bolton submitted hundreds of amendments on a variety of subjects."

Could somebody please enlighten me as to why we don't want an improved UN human rights council, and why our ambassador to the UN tried to immediately sink a proposal that is supported by most countries (that aren't currently putting their citizens in secret prisons and torturing them) as well as "a dozen Nobel Peace Prize laureates and most human rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International?"

At 2/15/06 10:32 PM, daniel_breaden wrote: This is one of those marmite topics, love it or hate it?

i love it 'cos i'm asthema*cough*tic

sucks to your asmar piggy!

wait, that doesn't mak sense, cuz then mexico would become part of teh US and the 2 billion would go back to us.

At 2/15/06 10:44 PM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:43 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: I <3 the twirly mustache.

Shut up and bring back the old posters who made sense. >:(

Hmph, somebody's angsty this evening.

At 2/15/06 10:49 PM, redskvnk wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:45 PM, AccessCode wrote: That's pretty queer.

You'll like it.

AcessCode! Come out of the closet!

At 2/15/06 10:29 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Wait... you're supposed to wash your hair with special soap?

I look better with clothes on.

I <3 the twirly mustache.

At 2/15/06 10:30 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:12 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: My fault. Let me reiterate. That is just becuase of the changing nature of the constitution.

I get what you're saying, but I disagree wit the premise that the nature of the Constitution changes. Times change, principles do not.

I misrepresented my views if you think i said the nature of the document changes. Our interpretation of the document, the way in which we read it changes, and trying to read it as if we were living in 1783 will get us nowhere.

Privacy to kill babies? It's fake. It's nonsense. Sovereignty explicitly belongs to the states or the people on this issue.

a. abortion isn't killing babies.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

zzzzzzzzz

b. Even if you were talking about eating infants, it is a constitutional precident that the it is not within the government's power to intrude on people's lawful activities.

Yeah, but who decides what is lawful? The people should have the right to decide whether this highly contested practice should be legal in their respective state.

But that leads to the slippery slope where if we set the precident that there is no inherent right to privacy we will soon find states outlawing things as innucous as eating chicken etc. There are certain behaviors and activities that the federal government ought to protect people's rights to.

Men have spent lifetimes arguing about this signe issue. Why don't we just drop it right here.

Fine

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Sort of agree with you, but what he said is nothing compared to the average over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrat in Washington. I don't think he should be censured.

True, but imo, the overall demeanor of politicians on both sides of the aisle has gone downhill. I can name both Democrats and Republicans who make cruel mockery of the decorum of their offices.

No argument there. As rude and as alienating as Scalia is (he's famous for it) at least he's giving some support for his argument rather than baselessly calling his opposition evil.

Agreed.

At 2/15/06 10:15 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 2/15/06 10:15 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: shut yo mouth before i shut it with a rock, ho!

cock*

There... fixed.

awww, thanks

shut yo mouth before i shut it with a rock, ho!

At 2/15/06 09:55 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:43 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote: It is pretty much an accepted fact among constitutional scholars that the first amendment applies to all expression, and not just the forms explicetly enumerated in the amendment.

False. Child porn is not a Constitutionally-protected expression. Neither is obscenity.

My fault. Let me reiterate. That is just becuase of the changing nature of the constitution. Depending on who is in the Supreme Court and who is in the Justice Department, the line of what is protected by the first amendment and what is not is an ever shifting boundry. There are no hard and fast exceptions to free speach, only what the people who are currently interpreting the constitution think.

The right to privacy is often called a 'penumbral right,' in other words, a right that is implied by explicetly enumerated cluses in the constitution, namely, the first and fourth amendments.

Privacy to kill babies? It's fake. It's nonsense. Sovereignty explicitly belongs to the states or the people on this issue.

a. abortion isn't killing babies. b. Even if you were talking about eating infants, it is a constitutional precident that the it is not within the government's power to intrude on people's lawful activities. If i'm killing young children, the police can go get a search warrent, thank you very much. It is very much a federal issue, people have the right to privacy.

And AcessCode:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It talks about well regulated militias -- this was really a states rights clause that was talking about how the state governments, as well as teh federal government, would be allowed to have armed forces, and since people would have to provide their own weapons in those days, this amendment was to keep congress from infringing on the states' rights to have a militia, this wasn't meant as a personal liberty at all.

Then how come it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? It refers both to the state's right to a militia and the individual's right to arms. I agree with you in the sense that the states have sovereignty on the issue of gun control, but the federal government should quit its overzealous quest to ban weapons and leave it to the states.

I mean, there is no black and white on this, and we're getting into a dead-end constitutional semantics debate here. You say that the amendment was a dual pronged measure to both give the people of the United States the right to bear arms and the states to have militias. I say that the 'right of the people' part of the amendment was just a means to the end of protecting states' rights, and the rights of individuals to keep arms is not centeral to the amendment. Men have spent lifetimes arguing about this signe issue. Why don't we just drop it right here.

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Sort of agree with you, but what he said is nothing compared to the average over-the-top rhetoric of the Democrat in Washington. I don't think he should be censured.

True, but imo, the overall demeanor of politicians on both sides of the aisle has gone downhill. I can name both Democrats and Republicans who make cruel mockery of the decorum of their offices.

More kids means more unemployed little vandals sapping the state welfare system. More gay guys means more highly paid designers who are spending hundreds of dollars on nice clothes and K-Y Jelly.

At 2/15/06 09:51 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I like to grab the smallest ball I can and chuck it down the lane as hard as I can sometimes, it does wonders for getting the aggression out.

Except when it lands hard on the alley and splinters the wood and then the bowling alley operator gets mighty angry and pulls a sawn-off shotgun out from under the counter and blows your girlfriends' innards out all over the floor.

At 2/15/06 09:51 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:49 PM, Montgomery_Scott wrote:

1. Buy a US history textbook.

How 'bout you re-read.

5. Realize that mr. amendment number two reffers to the rights of states, not individuals.

yet it clearly says people.

See, I like things simple.

haha, simplicity, how lovely. But in all seriousness, AcessCode and Elfer, you need to look beyond the simple language of the amendment and examine the context in which it was added to the constitution. It was people who were saying 'The federal government is stealing our states' rights' who got this amendment added to the constitution, not people who were saying 'the federal government is stealing our guns.'

At 2/15/06 09:45 PM, AccessCode wrote:

At 2/15/06 09:30 PM, redskvnk wrote:

Then stop trying to twist the meaning of it around. READ IT LIKE IT'S WRITTEN.

A well regulated malitia, being neccessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms, shall not be infringed.

1. Buy a US history textbook.
2. Turn to the section about the drafting of the constitution
3. Read about how the Anti-Federalists opposed the constitution because it weakened states' rights in favor of a strong national government.
4. Read how the Bill of Rights corrected these states' rights issues, in part by allowing the states to have militias with the second amendment.
5. Realize that mr. amendment number two reffers to the rights of states, not individuals.

At 2/15/06 09:36 PM, redskvnk wrote: I don't bowl.

You pinko commie canadian crippled negro homosexual bastard.

At 2/15/06 02:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

Example; the first Amendment. It guarentees freedom of speech, which is defined as "The faculty or act of speaking. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words," so on and so forth. It refers to the act of vocalizing your thoughts through speech. How then can one define the act of flag burning as "speech?" It's an act, not a vocalization.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It is pretty much an accepted fact among constitutional scholars that the first amendment applies to all expression, and not just the forms explicetly enumerated in the amendment.

In the 1970's, Texas' abortion laws were overturned in Roe versus Wade because the higher courts decided abortion was constitutional under the right to privacy clause of the constitution. There is no such thing as a right to privacy claus in the U.S. Constitution!

The right to privacy is often called a 'penumbral right,' in other words, a right that is implied by explicetly enumerated cluses in the constitution, namely, the first and fourth amendments.

And AcessCode:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It talks about well regulated militias -- this was really a states rights clause that was talking about how the state governments, as well as teh federal government, would be allowed to have armed forces, and since people would have to provide their own weapons in those days, this amendment was to keep congress from infringing on the states' rights to have a militia, this wasn't meant as a personal liberty at all.

And about Scalia, he shoudl be censured. Calling your opponents idiots is ok if you are like Bill O' Riley or Al Franken. Not if you are a Justice of the supreme court. He brings disgrace to the seat that he holds.

Well, considering that with the next two decades whites will be a minority in this country, yes, there will be a non-white president pretty damn soon.

somebody get this child out of here.

Well, way to replicate the policies of the Jim Crow South. Forced segrigation will never work in any way, shape, or form for several reasons:

1) interratial violence will rise, since seperation or races breeds ignorance about each other, and ignorance breeds violence.

2) The race that is in power will undobutably discriminate against the races that aren't pulling the strings in favor of their own race

But need I even argue aganist this madness? I think anybody posessing a head on their shoulders should realize that this is a fucked up idea.

GOOD SWEET FUCKIGN MOTHER OF LORD JESUS@!!! Bakshi and skunk switched names@11! Its kinda sad because i only just noticed.

At 2/8/06 10:30 PM, ironmaiden233 wrote: this topic is 4 months late

amen