Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/29/09 09:31 AM, danwolves wrote: I live in South East England so pretty much no decent movies have ever been made there. The most famous one close to me would probably be some of "The Other Boleyn Girl" was filmed at Dover Castle, which is pretty near to me.

Dude, Quadrophenia. The ending, and most memorable scene, takes place in Dover.

Jaws was filmed on Martha's Vineyard.

At 7/29/09 01:43 PM, KidneyThief wrote: I would imagine one would have to pay for the services beforehand. If people go beyond what they pay for, issue bans. I imagine there may be contracts too, so it would remain a legal issue regardless if it was counted as rape.

Mistreating a hooker would be a lot easier to keep track of if they documented their suitors and the workers. Hookers are a common target of murderers and thrill killers; they would be much more difficult targets if their work was legitimized.

At 7/27/09 01:11 AM, bcdemon wrote: Well if the INFORMATION contained in those links is true, then so be it. Like the information contained in the links I provided, I checked other places, most of it seems to be correct. If it's wrong, then please show me. That and one of the other links I gave was from a very proud Jew, and his information seemed to be correct aswell. I offered links from both ends of the spectrum.

Well, it is true that a lot of people who own things happen to be Jewish, but the sites intentionally neglect people like Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who owns a shitload of media sources around the world.

Actually I believe I said it was Moses, and if he was a jew, then so be it.

How was he the first terrorist ever? The Jewish insurrection was not the first.

Someone wonders about the "Jews own everything" stereotype, you'll be there to support it.

If you actually read my initial post, you would see that I gave absolutely ZERO opinion on the subject, I just posted some links about the subject because nobody had done that yet.

Obama has a Jew in his office, you wont miss the chance to say he is a Zionist terrorist.

Actually I said he was the son of a Zionist terrorist, which is a FACT.

Ahmadinejad is a cool guy isn't he? He just want Israel to be dismantled, not destroyed. By your words.

It was Ahmadinejad that articulated what he meant in an interview. That and there is a wiki section on the issue aswell. So it wasn't my words, it was his.

YOU ARE A FUCKING JOKE.

Don't worry, I find you hilarious too.

At 7/26/09 02:40 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Seeing bcdemon and zoolrule clash could be viewed as a privilege: here are two obscenely bigoted humans, both on opposing sides.

What exactly did I say that would lead you to think I was obscenely bigoted?

Perhaps that was unfair, but you must admit that providing conspiracy theorist/anti-Semitic links does not look good (on the side of one it said something like, "WHY THE ILLUMINATI KILLED MICHAEL JACKSON). And I'm not sure why you are pushing the point so far; it's either to play the devil's advocate or because you actually believe that the Jews somehow are conspiring.

At 7/25/09 10:45 AM, black-father wrote:

At 7/25/09 07:42 AM, IceFireMudDragon wrote: 80 - 110 degrees. At night atleast it drops down to maybe 60 degrees IF I'M LUCKY.

do you call this hot??

at night in dubai it is ~95 degrees and in the morning, it is an average of 118 degrees

For both you and the person in CA/Arizona who think that they know heat, in Vietnam it's humid heat. Humid heat feels so much hotter and uncomfortable than dry heat.

75 feels like 90, and then when it is a dry, hot day, 100 feels like 80 (humid).

So Obama is to leave every thought, idea, and action beside as he is considering health care reform? This point is flawed.

Also, indeed, he probably shouldn't have gotten involved. People sometimes say their opinions out loud, though, and the omnipotent media loves a scandal; recording every fleeting thought expressed in words from the mouth of the president is a perfect way to possibly land one.

However, he's going to have a beer with the professor and the Sgt. who arrested him, so it should fizzle out after that.

At 7/26/09 09:20 PM, JoS wrote: Why do the prostitutes have to be checked for disease? That only protects the Johns. Why not check the Johns for disease to better protect the sex workers?

An interesting point. I suppose that for it all to work they would have to be able to confirm that they are clean too; however, the prostitutes should still be checked, since it is they who are performing the commodity.

After all, food regulation provides that the food is safe to be consumed; sex regulation should be no different with their method of consumption.

At 7/26/09 02:47 PM, zoolrule wrote: Good to know you see fighting antisemitism as obscenely bigoted. Opposing sides ah? One side of hate and stereotypes, another side against them. Trying to be neutral on that issue really isn't a good thing.

Fighting anti-Semitism is one thing. I have read quite a few of your comments about Arabs and Muslims to know the way you feel about them.

Being neutral is one thing; attempting to know all the facts is another.

Seeing bcdemon and zoolrule clash could be viewed as a privilege: here are two obscenely bigoted humans, both on opposing sides.

I don't see it as a privilege though.

At 7/24/09 09:57 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: but the jews were there inheritly 2000 some years even before the start of islam. the muslims dont own anything they just spread there religion by the sword. and muslims are no where by nice.

He's a troll, stop arguing with him, and also, you know nothing about Islam or Muslims, so Masterzakk, about Islam Dante is also a troll.

At 7/26/09 06:07 AM, AapoJoki wrote: I don't live in the US, but in my opinion the right to your own private sex life should be protected by the constitution. It's a more important right than gun ownership anyway. (Of course, this right would exclude all non-consensual acts and acts with children.)

The thing is, prostitution is not merely "one's private sex life". It's a commodity to be bought or sold, a labor source. The purpose of having two different levels of government, that is, the State level and the Federal level, is so that the people of the unique communities of each state can regulate what is to be legal according to their own morality.

They have no right to eliminate anyone's rights, or they should have no right to but given what is happening with gay marriage they certainly have the ability at times, but they should be able to decide things such as the legality of prostitution, the age one may become a prostitute, the drinking age, etc etc.

I don't have to like everything that people do inside their bedrooms, but it's none of my business to forbid them, unless someone's rights are being violated.

But yeah, if there's a federal ban on prostitution, a good way to start would be lifting it.

Exactly. My main point is that the federal ban must be lifted and the ability to legalize prostitution must, at least at first, be granted solely to the states. Perhaps the federal government can move on from there, but for things like this it isn't unfair to leave the authority to legalize and illegalize to the states.

At 7/25/09 07:19 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 7/25/09 06:36 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It should be legal, but only in places that vote to allow it, that's only fair.

Why should I have to ask the voters' permission to have sex with someone?

The way I see it, a fair way to start would be to remove the federal ban of prostitution and leave it open to the states.

Similarly, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act should be repealed and drinking age should be left open to the states, as well as the federal prohibition of marijuana; they should have clauses, though, which state something to the effect of: In the case of a state's legalization of marijuana, a federal tax of such and such percentage will be applied.

At 7/17/09 09:48 AM, Proteas wrote: What's pathetic is... you don't for a second think we're smart enough to see what your doing.

Not to mention that he isn't smart enough to even be able to attempt to understand our arguments.

Sad.

At 7/17/09 07:53 AM, DizzeeRascal wrote: From a moral standpoint, whilst I do think some crimes do merit death, the possibility of the killing of an innocent dying for a crime they didn't commit is far too high a risk to have to ever take.

Exactly, and that is where the difficulty of the death penalty comes in. I'd rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man be behind bars, or die because of something he did not do.

About the idea of governments being able to kill, I ask: what about war? It still baffles me that killing in war can be seen as a different kind of killing.

At 7/16/09 09:36 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Social sciences (and just knowing) states the fact that there is a huge possiblity that retarded parents will give retarded off spring.

You sad "bad" parents, not retarded parents.

Also my case here is that we should kill the child (I'll give it about 5 or so years to see it actually is retarded rather than just a slow learner). To help the parents from taking care of something that society and themselves don't love.

Have you ever spent time with a retarded person, or a deformed person, or someone with something like cerebral palsy? It would do you some good. You'd find they are people just like everyone else; cerebral palsy especially - this is a perfectly developed human brain trapped within a non-responsive and chaotic body. These people have as much a right to live as you or I.

Political Idealogies =/= retarded no matter what people will think

That is only according to your ideology, though.

Do you see how unpractical this sort of thing is?

Explain this "moral standpoint".

"don't kill, steal, lie, and such"

So you'd kill so that you can fulfill the moral standpoint of not killing?

To some a man was resurrected and will one day come back to lead the zombie apocalypse.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Of course. Relevance?

Djhives.blogspot.com is where I got it from.

Propaganda websites are usually good sources of information.

Your half right half wrong. Having killing the aids victims will no longer bring up aids and other diseases thus stopping them.

But diseases form randomly, you see? AIDS won't exist anymore, but something else will take its place. That's how the natural world that you love citing for this argument works.

Oh really now? Tell me what I should "experience" that I haven't known so far?

Human interaction would be a good start.

At 7/16/09 09:10 PM, Masterzakk wrote: The act of keeping diseased people and the like from giving birth and killing them can help our people evolve.

Hmm...

Pretty much everyone agrees with me whenever two stupid people get together and have children they will have a retarded child. Science supports this ideallogy.

Please show me the scientific basis that you got this from. Many retarded people are born from perfectly healthy, intelligent parents.

Bad parenting is a problem, for sure, but to kill bad, or as you said, stupid parents serves as a problem because how do we define who is stupid? Stupidity itself is entirely subjective. I would say that any parent who allows their children to watch Sean Hannity is a stupid, irresponsible parent, but many parents who allow their children to watch Sean Hannity would probably consider me stupid.

From a moral standpoint I cannot see how it is bad for us to kill the weak because it helps keep humanity strong.

Explain this "moral standpoint".

To some people this is a necassary "evil"

To some a man was resurrected and will one day come back to lead the zombie apocalypse.

(evil means live so be evil).

I did not know that we defined words by their backwards spelling. Good to know.

Thus if we kill the weak and the sick (people with aids and other diseases) our blood will be clean (not pure) and can normally resist diseases.

While I agree that there should be some way to be able to make AIDS, for instance, more detectable, given the overall attachment we feel towards other human beings, killing them is not a good idea. Also, other diseases and such would spring up.

Would you like to add something to this standpoint or give another opionion on it? I would love to know.

I think you need to experience a bit more of the world, kid.

At 6/28/09 04:17 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: LOL @ all the people who think they can make a difference.

This is a ridiculous statement. Anyone CAN make a difference. It's highly unlikely that they will, but anyone can. Even the tiniest things can make a difference.

At 7/15/09 10:12 AM, digitalboola wrote: However, since that will not happen for decades, the population of Asia will continue to rise steadily, especially that of Southeast Asia, India, and Pakistan, whereas China, Korea, and Japan will have stable or declining populations. Africa's population is exploding currently and will continue to until they have reached a substantial level of development.

Ah, I was talking about the developed world, especially the US and Britain, where the news magazine is centered. I would have given the reason for it if I remembered it, but...

According to the Economist, the population will naturally continue to rise and then begin a steady decline.

At 7/13/09 08:50 PM, DizzeeRascal wrote: Only 15% of American forces were deployed in the Eastern theatre of war. Most of the remaining 85% went to Western Europe.

Your point?

The first major impact the Americans had on the war was probably the Italy campaign, and to a lesser extent the war in North Africa. However, when you look at the numbers of troops deployed in Western Europe, even on D-Day, which many (wrongly) attribute, as primarily an American operation

Perhaps they attribute it as such because it was largely planned and organized by the Americans and led by the American general Eisenhower, who was declared the "Supreme Allied Commander".

over half the forces were non US.

According to this note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_O verlord#cite_note-0 there were 1,452,000 by July 25th, and 812,000 of them were American; this is more than half the total numbers at that point.

With the war in Russia reaching the turning point by January 1942. By the time the invasion of Italy had begun, the Russians had launched their great offensive.

No, that was 1943, around the time of the battle of Kursk.

Even without the American aid in the campaign in Italy, the war in the East would surely have ended the war sooner or later. I think your prediction of the war going on decades to be wrong. Rather I'd say at most another 2-3 years, as by that point the German army was in very bad shape and was essentially fighting a defensive war from then on.

Did you not read when I mentioned: In this hypothetical scenario, given the uncontrollable juggernaut that was Japan, without the US almost single-handedly destroying their power and their minds never turning to the central Pacific islands under American control, they very likely would have turned to Russia, especially due to the even still questionable Russian control of the islands north of them, such as Sakhalin. Their temporary peace treaty would have been easily annulled, and they probably would have put more effort into fighting the Soviets, rather than simply quitting after the Battle of Khalkhin Gol.

So no, without American assistance things would have been very unclear.

At 7/13/09 12:05 PM, C-Doodlez-Man wrote: Thats just a very few of the deaths and accidents in the history of the family. What do you think about the Kennedys or the idea of thme having some sort of curse?

I think that the Kennedies should stay away from Martha's Vineyard (my hometown/homeisland). It was here (on Chappaquiddick) that Ted Kennedy killed the girl, which, by the way, anyone who knows Chappaquiddick knows that there is no way one could have mistaken the road he drove her off of from a regular road; and it was flying here that JFK Jr. died.

Now we just have to get rid of the O'Nassis clan so we can get our beaches back.

At 7/12/09 10:11 PM, Madmongul wrote: In all reality, throughout our entire history genocides have been commited just face it. Hitler and his Reich just happens to be the latest major genocide so he takes the blame until another deranged pshyco comes along that is.

I agree that other genocides have been committed, but the Nazis' was the most systematic, thorough, and efficient.

At 7/12/09 08:51 PM, Vielwerth wrote: It's good to be proud of your country. It's healthy hobby to have.

This I don't agree with. I'm happy with the life I've lived, but the idea of being "proud of one's country" makes absolutely no sense. I did nothing except, by chance, was born here in order to be American. It took no great achievement of mine, no trials... Merely I was born in the political boundaries drawn up by men and declared "The United States of America" by history. Your Wales/Britain is the same.

There is nothing to be proud of.

Not to mention that, just like there are positives about the actions of every country, every single country has committed horrible atrocities. Sweden, Switzerland, Poland... no country is free from horrible acts. Britain and the United States are especially not, as both of them have behaved like empires either now or in the past.

In order to take into consideration any aspect of something positive about your country and then to feel pride about it, you must take into consideration the bad. So you, as a Brit, must remember that, while your country did make great strides in technology, influence, and culture, it also committed the firebombing of Dresden, the colonization of India, the massacres of the native populations of every indigenous people it came across (which my country also has some claim to this guilt, especially due to Andrew Jackson)... The list goes on and on.

There is nothing to be proud of about the accidental occurrence of being born in a political tool that is the nation-state.

At 7/12/09 08:34 PM, Vielwerth wrote: Can you genuinely say that if the US didn't intervene (which is technically incorrect as Germany DECLARED WAR ON the United States), Britain "would be toast"? We don't know what would have happened, because it didn't.

I'm no nationalist, but I'll take a shot at this for fun's sake.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if the US didn't enter on the UK's side, the UK would still not have been invaded, and would have ultimately won the war along with Russia (remember that Barbarossa started before the US became involed), with the help of the Commonwealth.

Hmm.

Germany was never in a realistic position to invade. They didn't destroy the RAF, they had no navy to speak of

They had plenty of U-boats, so that's not quite true.

and their armed forces lacked any amphibious capability. The British army actually carried out war games in the 70's to determine what would have happened if the Germans invaded in 1940 or 1941.

1940 or 1941. The fact that you mention those dates is key.

4. As a result, the original wave was completely cut off from their supply lines, with the British Army and Air Force in front of the them, and the guns of the Royal Navy behind them. Doomed to failure, the entire invasion force surrendered by the end of the week.

The problem is that you aren't acknowledging the implications of an absolutely German-occupied Europe. If Germany controlled France, Norway (which required an amphibious invasion, I will add), Sweden (neutral to begin with), Russia, things would have been quite different for the British.

And, about Russia, the fight there did not turn for the worst for Germany until 1943; by that time they were quite bogged down with the combined Allied destruction of their forces in North Africa and the recent invasion and destruction of Fascist Italy. If it wasn't for the American presence of the manpower boost and the minds of Generals Patton and Eisenhower, the Italian invasion may have taken a different turn. This would have freed up other soldiers to fight in Russia.

Not to mention that if, in this bizarre hypothetical scenario, Japan never went to war with the United States and thus did not focus their energies in the east islands, they would very likely have gone to war with Russia after the peace treaty expired, just like Russia had planned to with them in reality days before the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually, if Japan never had plans to go to war with the United States, it's even more probable that they would have allowed the scuffle with Russia to turn into a full-fledged war, especially due to the long debated Sakhalin area.

If Russia wasn't as great a threat, they would have an immensely combined force and would have been able to completely surround the British Isles with greater ease. Their industrial capacity would have been enormous by 1944.

This is the most likely scenario had Hitler invaded. So let's assume that if he actually did, he failed (according to the above).

No, your "according to the above" takes place in 1941. This does not make sense in the current argument, as if the United States did not join, the effect of the American presence in the war would only be noticed by as late as 1943, 44, or 45.

The American-less Allies will eventually win, as they are liberating countries, not invading them. But it'll be a long hard struggle, with many, many setbacks. The war may even stretch into the 50's before it is won.

Maybe even 60's or 70's, with your theory. Or maybe not for a hundred years or so, with Hitler's dream fulfilled.

It is possible that Pearl Habour may not have happened

It is necessary for this to be true in order to imagine the United States not joining WW2. And Roosevelt didn't plan Pearl Harbor, but he definitely allowed it to happen.

or that the Americans, tinged with isolationism, send out peace feelers to Japan after a short war to avenge and regain their losses.

You do not understand the American mentality, I think. This could never happen if we are attacked in our own land. For your theory to work in this case, you'd have to imagine an alternate world where Americans aren't haughty and proud, but timid and meek.

Germany will be unlikely to obtain it first, as their attempts were constantly hampered by bombing, raids by commandos, and the fact that it was the least developed out of all the powers (except Japan) and the British knew the important details about it.

Of course, but it's unlikely for Britain to obtain one either if it became completely blockaded by Germany.

It is plausible that Britain could be the first to obtain a crude atomic bomb, (AKA Tube Alloys, which in real life was eventually intergrated into the Manhattan Project) but it would probably take until the 50's before a working model could be produced, as Britain didn't have the advantage of the American economy or a country complete undisturbed by bombing raids from enemy aircraft.

So, in conclusion, if America didn't enter the war, it is likely that Britain would have survived and won it, along with her daughters of Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand,

I'd also like to point out that the combined efforts of all the Commonwealth states does not equal even 25% of the effort of the United States. Australia and New Zealand, also, without the United States' effort in the Pacific (which was definitely where the bulk of the American forces were focused), may have fallen to the Japanese army, as Britain was hardly in any state to help them.

At 7/12/09 08:00 PM, Codename46 wrote:

I'm sorry, but anarchy would only catapult the world into another Dark Age.

While full-fledged anarchy would indeed be undesirable, keeping government intervention in the free market and in social lives is still desirable.

I'm assuming you meant "undesirable".

The main problem I have with the idea of lassez-faire is that there has never, ever been an absolutely free market. If there is even the tiniest, seemingly insignificant bit of government intervention, the idea of free market fails. And this country, sad as it is, was founded with laws regulating the market that are as old as the constitution, some older.

Before any 6th grader comes in and tries to tell me how a free market leads to monopolies like Monsanto and Microsoft, it's usually government in bed with corporations, and corporations having influence in politics (e.g KBR, Monsanto) that leads to monopolies and kills competition.

Right, but because there has never really been a free market, attempting to limit government restrictions in one area while they are still abundant in other areas helps produce the great monopolies that, for instance, the US saw during the latter half of the 19th century until the union movement in the early 20th.

At 7/12/09 07:14 PM, Kev-o wrote: The Spanish Anarchists didn't seem to have much of a problem doing it back in '36, but I appreciate your snobbery.

They are an awful example of successful anarchy, though, as they did not last more than... what... six months? That might be an overstatement.

In general I agree with your overall point, but in the case of burqas I do not think I do. Banning the most hardcore and harmful aspects of a religion while still maintaining the religion's practices otherwise to be practiced seems, if it is in actuality what is happening, an overall reasonable decision.

Choice: Forum mod.

I would be very happy to be a mod. Most of the time, I put effort in my posts to try to keep them thoughtful. I've been around for a while, too, and know the goings-on pretty well.

I currently spend most of my time on the politics forum and am pretty well acquainted with them over there, but the general forum is my old home.

Schedule-wise: If I were chosen to be a mod, I would definitely create more time to be on the forums than I am now. I would have more incentive, to, after all. Not to mention I am about to move into an apartment in San Francisco and will desperately need a job (California has a horrible unemployment rate), and I am still a student. So the night time on weekdays would be a likely time for me to be on, and perhaps some mornings and afternoons, or lazy weekends. Again, though, if I was a mod I would make time to be on more.

At 7/6/09 07:20 PM, Ledgey wrote: Sorry, I either totally misread your point or I'm zoning out.

Either way, I apologise.

No big deal.

At 7/1/09 12:02 AM, TimeLordX wrote: They tried this cap-n-trade, green energy stuff in spain and they now have 18% unemployment as a result. This bill is a very bad idea.

Weird, they didn't try it in the US and now we have a 10% unemployment rate as a result.

It's great how correlation does not necessarily mean causation.