Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but walmasrt does make you take piss tests if you wantt to work for them so does the army, construction companies etc how sis that wrong??

good christ, wal mart takes itself seriously down there. while i understand why it would be zero tolerance for welfare (not that they don't get chances, but that you should be using zero drugs), what the hells up with it everywhere else; i'd fail all their drug tests, and not because i'm using on the job (or before).

but that's off topic and simply befuddling.

At 1 hour ago, stafffighter wrote: And why does posting make me want circus peanuts?

because you are an elephant.

or you don't have allergies and know the true glory of nuts. lol.

feudalism, thats pretty offensive.

unless you're the king; then its awesome.

At 1/31/12 04:15 PM, Scrotaculous wrote: ...Or do you just use drugs to get fucked up still.

i use it to ace essays; take that lack of motivation!

...nevermind that i don't do most of them :P

At 1/26/12 10:30 PM, bgraybr wrote: ...

can't respond now, but i plan to do so (lol, butt-sex).

though i wonder if this needs its own sexy thread for such a sexy topic [without just being a homosexuality thread], or since we've got multiple arguments we can each claim the other's is stupid and keep it here :P

At 1/26/12 05:59 AM, Zultra wrote: 1) The European cultures that are in the US don't have a violent attitude towards each other as they are very similar,

balls; for over half a century Italians and other Southern Europeans were considered black and treated as such in North America.

At 1/24/12 07:59 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 1/24/12 07:27 PM, SolInvictus wrote: to be fair, homosexuality is kind of a new thing;

I'm pretty sure homosexuality has existed since beginning of humanity, if not the beginning of life on Earth. I figure it's probably older than humankind, considering it naturally occurs in animals.

should have specified that they didn't see it as a distinct practice or lifestyle. if you could stick it in there, all is well (but not the mouth).

so ya, does that make our sexual categories dumb arguments? yay topic!

At 1/24/12 07:19 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: This ain't the Bronze Age, dude. Homophobia is pretty archaic, I must say. In this day and age, you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking like that.

to be fair, homosexuality is kind of a new thing; the Romans and Greeks had no problem with the man on man fun, but that didn't mean they liked men.

...who put what in who was more important than who was what gender

At 1/23/12 02:42 PM, Zultra wrote: Religious intolerance? I am a Atheist.

religious intolerance? i'm a zionist!

ya i'm being an arse, but hopefully that illustrated how you just dodged the issue.

At 1/23/12 01:47 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

2) Rome, at the end of the empire the Romans in Rome, they where Germanic.

What is this I don't even... Dude what? The Romans spread themselves too thin and collapsed under the weight of their own success because of it, what does being Germanic have to do with that?

i hope he isn't saying the Germans are bad, cause if so hes going to be super disappointed by who did the nasty with who during Britain's creation.

well i'm glad no one here is having a censorship fit that megaupload is down, but the rest of the world's (or maybe just its loudest and lulziest) position that this is an example of evil gov censorship has me befuddled.

At 1/20/12 03:07 PM, WallofYawn wrote: On the other hand, they are a giant fucking rat basically, and I wouldn't eat a giant fucking rat.

they look like it, but looking like a rodent doesn't mean a lack of delicious.

could kangaroos be a less methane producing steak?

At 1/16/12 03:05 PM, adrshepard wrote: ...

meh, some people seem intensely focused on the "we don't negotiate with so-and-so" rhetoric of the issue; the thing is we've always negotiated with terrorists, hostage takers, etc... but the intent of such discussions is always to have them stand down without conflict. i don't see the difference with this situation, either in approach or expected outcomes.

At 1/13/12 02:52 PM, adrshepard wrote: And Jared Loughner had reasons for shooting Giffords and all those other people. Everyone has "reasons." It's usually pretty obvious which ones are defensible and which simply mask hatred and malice.

in a thread discussing the feasibility of negotiations i figured i had been clear enough in expressing that Al Qaeda does have some sound political demands and thus the possibility for negotiations as opposed to the simple "kill all the infidel" as presented in the OP, which would give no grounds for discussion. at no point was there any intent to present these reasons as points of righteousness for their cause, and i also expressed my doubts that all, or most, issues could be successfully addressed by means of negotiations.

At 1/12/12 06:33 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Then there are enemies like al-Qaeda and the Taliban: those who fight with you simply because you exist.

meh, Osama did have political reasons for fighting the US such as having them remove their troops from Saudi Arabia.

...of course those troops didn't get there by means of invasion, but its a slightly more concrete reason then 'fuck you America'

At 12/31/11 03:10 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: In actuality they're cocksuckers and anyone rallying to them is next in line.

oo thats it, degrade me like i've been bad. so, so bad.

quick, put that cigarette out on my nipple!

strange that no one mentioned that we generally celebrate two holidays in December, Christmas and New Years, which is why i find "happy holidays" more than appropriate.

At 1/6/12 02:21 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Why do you get called a liberal when you call the bail-outs anti free market?

thats probably a more apt example of hypocrisy than the pics on the previous page.

suggestions on better techniques are not an accusation of hypocrisy.

At 12/18/11 11:11 PM, Korriken wrote: yeah, the fucker's dead.

from article: "Kim suffered 'great mental and physical strain' while on a train during a 'field guidance tour,; North Korea's state-run KCNA news agency reported."
hehe, bunga-bunga.

also; ewwww

At 12/16/11 10:09 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: So why would you justify carrying a knife?

any number of tooling related reasons such as cutting, prying, (un)screwing, sharpening a pencil, etc... and thats what you can do with a blade alone, think about all the fun that can be had with a multi-tool like the one i always have one me.

not to mention the closed knife would likely make a better weapon than the blade seeing as it doesn't lock open. in short, stupid law is stupid.

At 12/15/11 06:37 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: The time to fight is now.

the world really needs to stop using the face of a guy whose claim to fame was attempting to depose a Protestant monarchy and replace it with a Catholic one. i can't say i've seen many symbols of freedom more asinine than the one you posted.

omgs it was a graphic novel; that changes everything.

At 12/14/11 10:21 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: If the bill passes. I want to see huge boycotts of the supporting companies (making them bleed red ink is the only thing they'll understand), protests, everything.

boycotts because someone is fucking with our entertainment but not for taking down the huge corporations everyone is supposedly getting screwed by.
well done world, there will be no police state or crack-down, just corn syrup and reality tv.

in Soviet Russia...

At 12/14/11 05:00 PM, Adam-Beilgard wrote: Maybe this

how dare the videos don't work! i was promised adorableness.

so do we have any agreed upon facts, or perceived external stimuli, that we can utilize in a discussion on the OWS topic?

At 12/13/11 10:52 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Not the first time people took a legitimate religion/ holy day and commercialised the hell out of it. your concerns can be summed up with this cartoon.

ooo, maybe this isn't the place, but i've been waiting for someone to bring up a few of those quotes with their (liberal?) "intended" meanings. but since we're not talking bout that i'm just gonna say some of those should fall more into the redneck understanding of Jesus.

render unto Caesar has so little to do with the separation of Church and state (beyond the fact that the state is stupid)

At 12/10/11 07:01 AM, MsRukia wrote: The definition of what truth is relies evidently on the perception of an individual.

is everyone in taking the same damn class that just about every thread has devolved into a relativist clusterfuck at the same time?

grumble, grumble, grumble...

At 12/10/11 10:52 AM, HolyKonni wrote: It's a shame really. He should be locked up for good.

i'd have a hard time imagining they would let him out so long as he still thinks hes a commander of the knights templar.

At 12/8/11 10:19 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: are there any academic arguments against gay marriage that don't boil down to either tradition, the holy book that not everyone believes in or "ewwwwww"?

i had read some revolving mostly around how its easier to spread disease and that repeated gayness slowly destroys your exit-only regions.

At 12/3/11 07:57 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Impact of OWS on politicians.

When you say OWS is useless and they bring no solution, think again.

but it just sounds like they're trying to learn how to put on a prettier face rather than do things differently.

also, what about the liberals, i thought this was a bipartisan anti-corruption smack-down?
...or an example of small steps?