Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/27/08 09:17 PM, Elfer wrote: There's something unsettling about ordering six textbooks from the US and one from India all at the same time and having the one from India arrive first.

India has found out that baby blood is a better Airplane fuel.

At 8/27/08 05:13 PM, Jezuz wrote: Two words, and one acronym: C.I.A. assassination plot.

He shows his face in public far too frequently. He would be an easy target for a trained sniper.

CIA hasn't had a really succesfull track record of assassination attempts.

Simple answer: nothing.

Let the country run it's course, we all know there's going to be a uprising, cou, revolution whatever. Eventually, in a week, month, year or decade there's going to be a changing of government and that is when America goes in.

We go in an a humanitarian mission, with the international community, help establish a democratic country and leave.

And especcially let the people of Zimbabwe choice thier own futures.

At 8/27/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/26/08 10:14 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But there is no individual. Your arguing Platoism here, the ideal individual, the concieved notion of the individual. Yet each individual is different, so can there be a uniform individual. Anatomically yes, mentally no.

Typo: So there can be no uniform individual instead of so there can be a uniform individual.

At 8/26/08 10:14 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:19 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

So someone thinks that adapting to something that happened and moving on isn't healthy? Then something's wrong with that person

Why? Because your morals and mind, influenced by the status quo of society say so.

Yet the Ancient Greeks or Romans would feel that this man inadequatly defended himself and should feel shame and shouldn't forgot that shame, the morals of thier people. Are they any more wrong?

So humans having knowable feelings, expereinces that relate to others or even the very base of empathy are all contrary to the existance of the individual?

If one takes a side in the argument in the state of nature, yes.

Once again, i'm not denieing the existance of the individual. I'm saying that what individuals faced then and what they face now are simular and, while built upon, they remain true.

But there is no individual. Your arguing Platoism here, the ideal individual, the concieved notion of the individual. Yet each individual is different, so can there be a uniform individual. Anatomically yes, mentally no.

This is what I'm attacking, you've built up an ideal or uniform individual when there is none.

At 8/26/08 09:29 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 8/26/08 09:08 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

While your statement is clearly disputable, what I say that that law should be derogated, for it is impossible to enforce it.
And ridiculous laws have a greater negative effect on the system, to my mind.

I quite agree that negative and ridiculus laws do have the negative effect on the society as a whole. But if thier is a system set up where one can change those laws in a democratic and fair practice, and where those laws reflect the will of the people, then change of those laws should be taken in a legal and democratic way.

And if there is no system to do that, well that a whole other topic.

Mortified Penguins, maybe the greatest admirer of Adam Smith in the BBS, defending communist dictatorships?
The Apocalypse is near.

Not so much defending, the simple action of putting the wall up was idiocy, just setting the record straight somewhat.

Wouldn't this all depend on what a person viewed as "healthy" or the pre concieved view as "health" before and after whatever concieved event.

For example, a man gets mugged in the city street and is now afraid of his life and is uncomfortable in large society. Eventually he regains his sense of "normalcy", copes with his attack and moves back into regular society.

For a person who considered overcoming a challenge to be a healthy reaction then, this is a return to the percieved healthy.

But what happens if somebody doesn't view it as a healthy reaction or a return to the concieved perception of healthy. What if somebody sees how he dealt with this situation and percieves it as unhealthy and different then what the pre norm is. Would not that be a change, if only to that one person?

Your arguing on a society's views and inputs and the effects of man adaptability. Yet, in the singular, society is made up of all different individuals with all differing goals and views, so to say there is a singular uniform view of "healthy" that never changes is to this view of the individual, uncredible.

So yes, if a single person is changed. If a single person is affected and differed, then there is a change of moralities.

At 8/26/08 09:26 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 8/25/08 11:12 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/25/08 10:25 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/25/08 09:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

Yes, because enforcing the law brutally has always worked; look at East Germany!

It's the punishment that deters crime, but the likelyhood that the law will be enforced.

If you a law and it is not enforced to it's full legal potential, whats the point of having the law. Any transgression of the said law is a blight upon society and a corruption of the legal system.

And to be fair, East Germany didn't enforce the law brutality 100% of the time. The fall of the wall and the actions that happened around it would prove that.

At 8/19/08 01:24 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/19/08 01:16 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

No, it doesn't. It chronically underperforms compared to other countries, and Public schools consistently perform worse then public schools despite spending way more money.

True on the national level of course, mainly because federal funds don't get tied to the students and there is a tie up in voucher programs.

But also, it's varries on the state to state basis.

One of the few things that I can say with pride from my state (Massachusetts) is that we actually have a good education system. Not because of money(well sort of) but the organisation around it. It's not an emptiless hole to throw green in.

At 8/25/08 11:11 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 8/25/08 10:20 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

Vin Diesel was taken out fairly early in the film.

But he played a fairly awesome part.

Any one watching the Democratic convention?

I watched my "wonderfull state senator" do his little presentation.

I'm still suprised how no one in my state has pushed to have him removed on medical reasons.
But then again, he is a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

I guess it's to much to ask for that and to actually have a serious competition over John Kerry's senate seat.

At least this November, one of my votes will actually be meaningfull.

At 8/25/08 10:25 PM, fli wrote:

At 8/25/08 09:06 PM, HogWashSoup wrote:

What will the martian aliens call us?
"Illegal Aliens?"

They won't be able to call us anything, they'll either not exist or be dead.

One or the other.

And for Europe, just like any other country, you have laws and your job is to enforce those laws.
Deport them back to where they came from, or make them swim or send them to Eastern Europe whatever.

0 possiblility of winning, an even more miniscule one to actually recieving an electoral vote, a questionable platform, ideas so far radical that no one is actually going to put any faith into.

If your going to push for the ideas, why not try to do it the Ron Paul way. Work within an established organisation that actually has financial funds and name brand recognition to actually have a chance to establish your ideals and to promote a grassroots takeover.

The same idea of the rise of Conservatism in the late 1970's in the Republican party. You pick your fights and your likelyhood of actually getting something out of it. Not wasting time and energy on a lost cause.

That more then likely they would have never gotten into the facility to even shoot him.

This just sounds like your usual delusional erratic assassin wannabe

At 8/25/08 02:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 8/25/08 01:47 PM, Elfer wrote:

Meh, I'll buy better swimwear grants a couple hundredths of a second.

But not over a second

Well, when the race is decided by tenths of a second or hundreths of a second, it's impact is felt.

The only swimming I've actually liked is the endurance ones, the ones where you can see the people dying during a mile and a half swim. Triatholons for examples.

When they start adding in more relevant games to the olympics, start getting rid of the bullshit ones (honestly, synchronized diving, handball, a trampoline team what the fuck) get rid of the corruption to the scores, the rules, the referre's then I'll start giving a shit.

At 8/24/08 10:13 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: TBH lincoln was pretty unscrupulous, and IMO. And it's entirely possible that obama could be less of a jerk than Lincoln was. Suspending Habeas Corpus and putting political dissidents in jail. As well as Ordering attacks on Civilian targets in order to win the civil war. And don't quote me on this, but i'm fairly certain that Lincoln did not beleive whites had equal status with blacks, he only opposed slavery. At hindsight, Lincolns godliness seems about as inflated as Obama's saintlyhood.

Actually, to be fair one point: Lincoln did have the constitutional right to supsend Habeus corpus.

But still the point still stands, how low of a sense of humility does one have to do this crap. I mean, it would be the equal of McCain going up in a powdered wig or wooden teeth.

At 8/24/08 09:36 PM, Musician wrote: I have yet to see my question answered.

Nobody cares.

What I find quite funny is that people are willing to compare Obama to one of the greatest Presidents of all time who had to deal with an acutal crisis that would make anything now a days look like childsplay. Apparently humility is not a popular virtue any more.

And the fact that Obama is prostituting whatever meaningfull symbols and memoires of Lincoln that we know for his own political gain just goes right along with that. I swear to god his next step is going to be living in a log cabin for all of november until the election.

How are you talking about Fable 2(yes It looks beatifull and I also want it) when the Prince of RPG (the King of course being the Baldurs Gate series for PC made by Black Isle and Bioware) comes out on October 28.

Sevensieze knows whats what, Fallout 3 the continuation from Fallout 1 and 2 is coming out, and I'm prepping for that.

You can only spend so much time in Junk Town killing off a mutant army before it tires you out.

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Because as we all know, defending US actions in a war is the equivallent of shooting civilians.

Thank You, when I rewrite Dante's Inferno, I'll be reminded to put defenders of military action on a lower level of hell then any other sin.

When Jesus got killed in Passion of the Christ.

That person laughing in the theatre that you were in.

Yeah, that was me.

At 8/22/08 06:31 PM, SolInvictus wrote: would you like
to send
your coloured cousins
home again,
my friend,
all you have to do is follow.

I was wondering when someone would bring up Waiting for the Worms

At 8/22/08 08:14 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Big math hurts my head. I get nervous when the math starts getting into letters.

Yes, variables are a bitch.

I should have it easy this semester: English 101, Quantitative Reasoning, Marine Biology, Economics 101 and International Relations.

At 8/21/08 02:55 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/20/08 10:18 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

A business, not an employee.

Well, couldn't they simply get another employee that also works at the fertility clinic that is also trained in this skill to do it?

Except if he doesn't think the procedure should be done at ALL. Helping you "sin" is just as bad as being the one to do it themselves.

Then get the secretary to do it, it doesn't matter if it's the doctor that refers the patient or the janitor from down the hall.

Just get someone from inside the clinic to refer to another practictioner.

She turned me into a newt.

A Newt?

I got better.

You know it had to be said.

But for my own two sense, yes this is pretty bigoted and scary and I feel that the Principal should be removed because of it.

At 8/21/08 08:30 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:33 PM, fli wrote: What does this tell about men?

That we've known the truth all along; all it takes is a good orgasm to make a woman shut the hell up.

The problem, as we have all seen in one of the greatest movies, is when to know when there faking it.

At 8/20/08 10:10 PM, Zack wrote:

At 8/20/08 09:33 PM, Legionnaire-X wrote: Straight edge kids have their heads up their asses.

Straight-edge kids like living long, healthy lives.

Because people who have sex outside marraige and touch alchohol will die at the age of 52.

Of course, thats why Mick Jagger is still alive.

I've always been under the impression that if it's a non emergency procedure, shouldn't a business have the right to refuse service (face it people, fertility clinics are a business just like any other hospital or medical group) to anyone.

Of course, this also clashes with all those fun little anti-discrimation laws that we have.

Couldn't we simply have a way to mediate the problem. The said doctor that doesn't want to perform the procedure can refer the patient to someone that will.

His morals are secure, patient gets what there paying for.

Problem solved.

354.97.

The total price for five books(two used, try to get more used, couldn't) for one semester at a State College (repeat state)

Fuck, by the way this is going I'm going to broke by Christmas.

At 7/29/08 08:38 PM, fli wrote:

Some days are hazzy... but not because of fog. But because of the pollution that being swept into San Jose.

Maybe people should just stop eating refried beans?

At 7/28/08 07:35 PM, Proteas wrote:

but now I am resigned to the idea, and hope that MAYBE I'll be able to stand back afterwards and say "I told you so" should he get the reality check/ass kicking he so desperately needs.

Likewise if he loses any teeth you can keep that as the sober moment memento of his idiocy. But regardless, it can't really be that much of a UFC match if he's that drunk.

I mean, yes both will be violent brawls, but there's a difference from a drunken fight and a more coherent fight.