Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What you need to do in retaliation is get this t-shirt; wear it but don't say anything. Here

The best option would to rar all of the files and then use bittorrent if you are sending to multiple people or use aim's direct connect if it's just directly to one person. With bittorrent you have to make your own tracker and stuff, but that shouldn't be too hard

I have figured a great way for homosexuals to make gay marriage legal. Create a religion that promotes homosexuals and does gay marriages. It'll push the system, and it will go all the way to the supreme court. I just have an odd feeling the supreme court would rule in favor of the homosexual religion and say that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional due to the precedents put in place that seperate church and state.

Well on google.com they have on the front page a link to how you can help on this disaster. I donated 50 bucks to the UN Food Programme already.

I'm sorry about your friend, I'm sure he was inland enough so that he wasn't affected by the tsunamis a lot.

The 243 billion dollar number straight from the horse's mouth.

Just something to think about That was for the year 2003

Now for the year 2002 and the contributions from it...
2002, it's a powerpoint so you'll have to look through it

So, once again, religion increased the most with a 2.11 billion dollar difference. The closest one related to this was with health, which I believe would be the American Red Cross. Not that it's a problem or anything that religion is getting more donations then anybody else, they do put it to good use occasionally.

At 12/28/04 11:15 PM, commanderkai wrote: But why does the US have to pay for all of it? There are other rich nations out there.

We don't, he is not saying that we should pay for all of it. He is merely saying that the contributions that we are putting into this catastrophe is way way too low. I'm agreeing with him.

Maybe, maybe not. If everybody in Canada and the US donates just one dollar, The Red Cross would have about $335 million, now let's say of we all donated $10, we would have over $3 billion, never underestimate people's generousity

We'll see if what you say will come true. I highly doubt it though.

I'm wondering, what if something on the scale of this happened in the US? Let's say a 9.0 eathquake hits near LA and California literally splits off. Will the federal government have enough money in it's back pocket to help them? Or will we just go further and further into the ballooning debt? Economically, the Bush Administration is pushing the federal budget so hard that we cannot use federal money for emergency causes. Yes there is a state government, but lately the state government has become way too weak to actually help adequately in a crisis.

A compatibilty OS? Maybe do something like an entirely java based program compilings(like mozilla, adobe, those kind of programs) and then on the different machine types you can use c++ to optimize it and make your own virtual machine so that it's a tadbit faster.

wouldn't you want it to be i--?

At 12/18/04 12:46 PM, Maus wrote: Find me a state that allows the abortion of 8 month old babies in utero. Oh wait, you can't.

Still the general populous doesn't think like that.

I haven't been here for a long time, but what the hell happened to BCC?

Discussion question, if you don't like them click back...

What do you feel the current events will have on the topic of abortion? The recent slaying of an 8 month pregnant lady in order for the culprit to receive the lady's fetus, which the fetus survived, as well as the recent Laci Peterson case which counted the fetus as a child, how could these cases have an impact on people's rights for an abortion? What are the social ramifications that will come frome these events?

I wouldn't support any type of war if they'd do something like that. What I would do is have the legislature immediately request the UN to impose embargo's on the nation that would do such a stupid thing as allow adult-children sexual relationships.

At 12/16/04 11:29 PM, CountPoopoo wrote:

At 12/16/04 11:24 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: Minority. That is the worst thing a government can do, and that is tending to a minority group.

From now on all 18 year old Males from Plymouth, MA cannot marry or have children because we they're a minority. Oh yeah, and negroes. Why are they still here?

I don't know, what ever happend to the plan to send them back to Africa? I thought that's what Liberia was there for.

At 12/16/04 10:01 PM, SPQRI3 wrote: groups like NAMBLA and the EGALE are pushing to lower the age of consent for anal sex.

I could've sworn you could consent at any age, and the government can do little to what occurs in the bedroom. Read literally but still abstractly to what I say.

This is thanks to the idea that the Canadian government cannot "discriminate" upon their sexual preferences.

Why should the government be able to select mating rituals?

Currently at the age of 18, anal sex consent is possibly going to be lowered to 16 and even 14. This is a sign of what is coming.

What? Government allowing the people to choose their own lives? That can't possibly happen! Burn them, burn them all!

Since nationwide sodomite marriages are being allowed in Canada, the scum of the Earth, and the wierdest of the wierd are going to push to have their "rights" be given to them.

I think you're very fucking weird. So for that reason, I'm not going to allow the following things to occur to you:
1. You will not receive head from a blonde chick.
2. The ladies that you have sex with must have their breasts hang down to at least 1 foot from where it normally should be at(Grandma titties).
3. Anal sex is far out of the question sir, don't even think about it.

Like what has been said before, with Canada's current rulings, what is stopping them now? Where is this line drawn.

Not only is unbelievable that Canada's heterosexual consent age is 14, but for anal sex. This is sick. These people who are pushing for these rulings are pedophiles and nothing more.

You were 14 once, you wanted to have sex while 14 probably as well. So why would a 60 year old legislator man/woman prohibit something that a group of peope want because some people think that it is sick? I don't see how any more years after puberty that it is sick or not sick to have sex. The body is ready.

They are worth less than the dirt on my shoe and only wish to prey on children.

Evidence?

You cannot possibly tell anyone that 14 is old enough for a person to make up their own mind on their sexuality considering they are influenced so easily into what others tell them.

So how about someone else makes their mind up for them? Like how about a 72 year old congressman? I think I like the sound of that.

This is where we are headed, a world full of pedophiles and homosexuals. Where a person can marry their dog because you would be discriminating against them if it weren't allowed.

Gotta love the slippery slope excuse, used in too many topics.

I thank God that America has not turned into the homo loving country that Canada is. I thank God we will never have a nation wide acceptance of pedophilia and/or gay marriage.

Yeah your right. I am glad that America isn't a n!gger loving country, because man, those blacks really do harm to the nation.

America is a wise nation and I don't plan on letting our society become the shit that Canada has allowed their's to.

Wise up then and read the law Pedophiles cannot touch a 14 year old.

At 12/14/04 10:55 AM, ohp-kyle wrote: A two party system tends to polarize...

I wrote about that, it's in my paper in the some topic on here.... I'll repost it because people bitched about me bolding it...

Look up Duverger's Law, it's quite an interesting law that shows why we have a 2 party system.

Purpose of back up... hmmm.... why don't you just use alcohol 120% and make your own backups? I think I know why....

At 12/11/04 02:25 PM, TheShrike wrote: Why don't we have a stronger third party?

Look up Duverger's Law. Read the bold, ugly looking stuff for my solution to this problem.

At 12/11/04 12:29 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: My eyes hurt from lack of paragraphs and teh fact it is all in bold. I got to the elastic part and my eye burst.

It was copied and pasted straight from a word document, I thought the tabs would carry over from it, but it did not.

Oh this reminds me that I should throw my english essay into this little topic so here it goes:

Democracy can be a great thing, or at least for the majority. Even if this majority is barely a majority. In the last couple elections, the nation has continually been polarized into 2 different parties. Luckily, this constant strain on the nation has been counteracted by many wars and potential wars. America has stayed united through the Cold War, the conflicts with Iraq over the 90’s, and 9/11. One day, these external uniting factors will not be there, and there will be a huge dividing event. When this occurs, the populace will be divided if there isn’t some action today to eliminate the factors that are polarizing the nation. One way to eliminate this would be limiting the power of the political parties by altering the voting system. The power would be more in the hands of the people. They would not be bound to choose between 2 candidates that might not reflect their views.
If you look closely at the 2 political parties, you can tell that inside each of them there are 3 different kinds of people; a moderate, conservative, and a liberal. A conservative Democrat and a liberal Republican are practically the same, so in reality there are 5 different political factions, formed into 2 different groups. In an election, you are often downsized into selecting 2 out of the 5 possible political factions. Often the choice is easy, stay with the party that you’ve been selecting. They have some of your beliefs in comparison with the other party, so why not?
You can easily see from the last election why this is not plausible. The nation will be divided after every single election. Like a rubber band that is constantly stretched to its breaking point in back, it becomes brittle. In order for the nation to survive, these polarizing factors must be eliminated. Madison originally wrote about factions and possible ways to get rid of them in the Federalist Papers. One was to eliminate the factions completely through force. Another way was to limit the effects of the factions (Madison). This last way is the way that I am going about.
Let’s go into a hypothetical situation. How about we have 2 main candidates, Candidate A and Candidate B, both are a part of two separate, large parties. Also, we have Candidate C on the side. Now Candidate A and B are completely different from each other. People that support Candidate A severely hate Candidate B and vice versa. So 50% of the nation would then severely hate Candidate A, and 45% would hate Candidate B. Candidate C is a middle ground, both groups would easily accept him as head of an office, although they would rather have their candidate in office. In today’s voting system, putting a vote towards Candidate C, an independent, would be wasting your vote. He would never have a chance because of too many straight-ballot votes. To say that it is a flaw in the system would be ludicrous. It is more of a flaw in humans. We want to see what we support succeed, even if it means that we ignore some negative aspects of our choices.
So how do we fix this mess? Easy, change the system to adapt to the environment it has been put in. The voting systems for this are endless. There is the Instant-Runoff Voting System. In this system you will never waste your vote. Basically it is run in rounds, if your first choice did not get enough votes to get into the second round, your second choice for a candidate will become your vote. This would happen until a candidate reaches a majority. This by far is the most successful one that would limit the polarity factors after an election because it allows the freedom of voting for third parties. This preferential voting system, the Instant Runoff Voting System, is not anything new either. It has been in use for over 80 years in Australia (Carr)! To say that this system would not work would just be plain stupid and irrational.
The nation needs to cleanse itself. Old ways need to change to better benefit society. Voices need to be louder and not be carried behind two lethargic beasts. It’s time to step up and unite America. It will not last any longer in constant cycles of tension caused by the two-sided elections.

Eh, I could've done better on it. I did it late at night and crunched a lot of stuff in.

At 12/7/04 11:16 PM, BigDRanch wrote:

At 12/7/04 10:26 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote:

However, with the proper stressors applied (all money gone, family to feed, etc) even the most moral person will steal.

and just where did you get that from. i think that is a load of crap, there are plenty of people out htere who will not resort to criminal acts. myself included.

BigDRanch, you're new here so I'll cut you some slack. I basically quote to what the person said. Read the entire topic before going to the last comment because half of the time what you are going to argue about is already argued. This time on the other hand, you would've realized I was just quoting someone.

At 12/7/04 10:16 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: I fail to see how welfare affects his argument, considering he's describing crime as a form of insanity, which I think is fairly accurate.

However, with the proper stressors applied (all money gone, family to feed, etc) even the most moral person will steal.

You are confusing something that does not need to be confused. It is possible to create an infinite amount of points between two points, but these points will not change. They are definite, and will never change until a new situation arises. Therefore it is possible to derive the average velocity by doing the formula of average velocity equals distance divided by time. Distance is the difference between the two points.

No where in this formula of velocity, which is the common notion of motion in respect to an object, is it plausible to include the value of infinity.

usamajour, please repeat after me. WELFARE. Ok, let's say it together now. W-E-L-F-A-R-E.

At 12/7/04 03:18 AM, -poxpower- wrote: Computers will comprehend us the day we give them the information, simple as that. Its been demonstrated that we can build a computer program that would learn on its own :o So yes, given time and technology, its perfecty plausible to affirmate that one day, we will be able to create a computer than can "understand" us as much as we understand ourselves, and could even best us.
Your computer analogy is completely flawed.

Has it every crossed your mind that possibly God did not create us to understand him? Proves your rebunking theory wrong...

At 12/6/04 12:32 AM, -poxpower- wrote: Pain exists. That's a fact. When you squeeze my balls, there is pain,and pain is an ABSOLUTE BAD.
Why would God create this?

Then why do people that have a defect that they cannot sense pain have horrible lives? They often get severe burns, broken legs, and other medical things that would've been prevented with a sense of pain. We know that humans are fragile objects, and as such they should be able to defend themselves and know when there lives are at sake through other ways besides sight and sound. There is a thing called adrenaline in which the body will sense very little pain when it is necesary to survive or an increase in stimuluses occur.

I don't like to push my religious beliefs on people, so I don't constantly refer to god, so I avoided it as much as possible.

FUNKBrs, I think the punishment is not only to punish the guilty, but also to deter people from committing a crime. Believe it or not, the thought of possibly going to jail deters people from committing a crime!

At 12/5/04 05:08 PM, Thelonius wrote:

At 12/5/04 03:52 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: Exactly my point. If the black stars didn't emit some kind of energy then the entire universe would be in the forms of black holes.

It sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. However, I may not understand exactly what you mean. You said in the beginning was just a black star. Where did these black holes suddenly come from?

What I'm presuming is that the universe has always been here and that the universe is in a constant loop. Time to me is an inherit property like temperature is. The change in time thus is caused by the interactions between the large bodies.

I usually go off on a tangent whenever I'm thinking, but it helps give different views on things, even if they might be wrong.

That does not work. For example... what is infinity - 1? Infinity. No number exists that can be defined as near-infinite.

Ok, how about this... The distance one object can get towards the fringe of the universe is directly related to its force in the given direction. A really large number would result in going pretty far towards it.

I wasn't downlplaying string theory. I was downplaying my hypothesis.

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

It's ok.

black holes dammit, black holes. Ahh that was a good ignoramous statement I made. black stars= black holes.

At 12/5/04 12:34 PM, Thelonius wrote:

At 12/5/04 12:07 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: If a black star continiously absorbs energy, then where does all of this energy eventually go?

How does a black star continuously absorb energy when there is nothing to absorb?

Exactly my point. If the black stars didn't emit some kind of energy then the entire universe would be in the forms of black holes.

Describe the term "near infinity" to me.

A very fucking large number.

String theorists=theory
What I'm saying=hypothesis which with more data and calculations could become a theory.

Please do not downplay string theory like that. For over twenty years the greatest minds on Earth have been doing extensive research on the subject and have come to these conclusions. If your hypothesis conflicts with string theory, quantum mechanics, and special relativity then it may need revising.

I wasn't downlplaying string theory. I was downplaying my hypothesis.

Ok just a quick quiestion.

Why would God be of a certain sex? What is he reproducing with? (He is used because it is used for a person with an indefinite sex, uknown sex, or unspecified sex.)