Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Tsk, I have to choose between the furry and the gay guy?

Guess I'm going for the gay guy, then. :D

At 10/29/04 05:32 PM, Hermannator wrote:

At 10/29/04 05:29 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: I'm away for two weeks, and the place hasn't stopped being a complete retardathon yet.
Some things never change.

You should have posted this picture along with your post.

Mmmm... how about this?

Amen. Straight-ticket voting is a thoughtless submission to extremist beliefs. It is a thousand times more important to vote on issues and ablities rather than party.

At 5/15/04 02:44 PM, bakomusha wrote: religon is a plage and should end. people are afraid of the truth.that we only exist to mindlasly pass on one D.N.A. and only thares so thats why we craeted hate as a way to justify our blood lust.

In which case, I'm willing to bet you're going off of the big bang theory and evolution.

The mathematical inconsistancies and improbabilities of evolution set aside, I would like to ask a simple question --

Why did the ultra-compact ball of matter that exploded in the 'big bang' exsist to begin with?

At 5/14/04 10:19 PM, SpoiledRotten wrote:
Well good to hear that some religions are a bit more friendly to other, then some.

Actually, the vast majority of Eastern religions I've come across are extremely open minded, accepting, and tolerant. Where the intersexed are condemned in Christian sects, they are respected or even valued in Eastern culture.
Many Eastern religions have adopted Jesus as a holy figure. Many of them reason this on the grounds that he was a very spiritually inclined person, certainly respectable and worthy of their time, whereas if you were to present Mohammed and his words to Christians, they would reject them all outright.

It's somewhat disappointing how the religion of the oppressed became the religion of the oppressor, a slow and most undesirable mutation of the Christian church brought about by fundamentalist sects and the wealthy and powerful elite in the Middle Ages.

And although your particular sect of christianity is focused on peace, it is still not enough to create a better picture for the face of so called "religion"

Actually, you may be surprised. Certainly, the most outspoken sects are the most negative ones. Through a little research, there can be found some nice examples of Christian or Christian-related organizations that are working for a higher cause.

Still, it is rather aggrevating, I can understand how you'd feel that way.

Er... hate to correct you on this, but almost all Federal agencies are created by the Executive branch simply because one person cannot oversee everything in the country at once.

The IRS is part of the Treasury department, which is part of the Executive branch. The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security (Formerly part of the Department of Transportation).

Some others you mentioned, such as the FDIC, are actually independent agencies that have been created by Congress. It's not really a fourth branch so much as it is an institution that was (necessarily) separated from the others. Hell, if George W Bush could control the Fed, the American dollar's value would go the way of Mexico's.

My personal favorite is the Judicial Branch. As life-appointed officials, the supreme court is least likely to succumb to demands from special interest groups (who play a tremendous role in the election process that both the president and Congress go through), and be able to make sound ruling without fear of 'alienating their voters', as many members in Congress fear they will do if they vote a certain way.

Also, it seems that the Court system has been the primary driving force of human rights issues. When the president and Congress won't stand up to issues such as segregation, the Supreme Court will.

It also helps to keep things balanced. We are all aware that FDR passed a number of federal programs, but what most people don't know is that he had much, much more liberal programs proposed that were struck down by the Supreme Court. With this in place, it prevents the country from slanting too heavily to the right or the left. I certainly think it's a good system.

At 5/12/04 09:16 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: I think the US gov't runs not with three branches but as a branch with two twigs on it. The branch is the executive and the twigs are the Judicial and congress. If the branch doesnt like what the twig says it justs changes the constitution.

*Snrk!*

Well... technically, Congress is needed to ammend the constitution...

... and evidently, the Judicial branch has been able to hammer people like Nixon when they try to abuse their power.

I personally think that's a bit cynical. ^^;

At 5/12/04 09:05 PM, second_sun wrote: let's invade antarctica now, and take control of their ice cream market, but we'll tell the masses that the penguins have wmd's.

I have a better idea.

Let's tap into America's emergency Vanilla Reserves, sell it off to big corperations at outrageously low prices in order to inflate business, and pocket the money that is made off of this illegal transaction.

Oh, wait... looks like the Republicans already beat me to it.

You just can't beat those guys when it comes to corperate scandal! =\

I was wondering, out of sheer curiousity...

What is your favorite branch of the US government?

A quick review for those who need to brush up on the branches of our government:

Legislative Branch: Congress. Made up of representatives of each state. "Writes the law"

Executive Branch: Presidency & Executive Agencies. An elected official who manages agencies such as the Coast Guard and DMV. "Enforces the law"

Judicial Branch: Federal Court System, Supreme Court. Judges appointed for long terms who preside over conflicts in the system and makes rulings. "Interprets the law"

Which branch is your favorite? And, more specifically, why?

I would be interested in joining, if you don't mind. I may not be a big fan of clubs, but this is most certainly a club I can support. =)

When a flash is submitted to the portal, it ender the "Under Judgement" phase.

A flash that is Under Judgement has a hidden score. People will watch the movie and vote on it.

If the flash is below a certain score at 200 votes, it is deleted. Anybody who voted 1 or 0 on this movie is rewarded with a blam point.

A flash that is above or at that same score when 200 votes have been casted on it will remain in the portal. This entry is considered "saved". Anybody who voted from a 2 to a 5 on it when it was under judgement is rewarded with a save point.

I dunno if Vietnam and Iraq are that similar. Certainly, they're both unpopular... Vietnam was a 10 year war that took countless American lives in an extremely hazardous environment, and the enemy resorted to ruthless tactics. I'm sure you've heard all the horror stories about kids being strapped with explosives and such, so I won't bother with those.

That's the only thing I'm not sure I agree with. The other five... yeah, definitely. =)

At 4/29/04 09:17 PM, sk8erguy_173 wrote:

At 4/29/04 09:13 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: Another thought... what if married/dating/partnering couples switched bodies with each other? That could lead to some... interesting... results.

especially with the young attractive girls that marry ugly guys for money.

HAH! That would teach them a lesson. Justice! Ouch. ^^

At 4/29/04 09:01 PM, FatherVenom wrote:
What's wrong with long haired males and short haired females?

Absolutely nothing. Actually, I think both look really neat, especially when the guys have this really thick mane of hair. I've heard girls like that too. ^^

:Anyway, all women wear male clothing at least once in a while so why wouldn't they continue to do so when they're men?

Most do, but what about those really valley-girl types, who wear excessively effeminate clothing? That, and waist sizes might not fit right, so you'd probably see a lot of guys wearing tight pants for a while...

:And men could just go on wearing what they always wear, ok so they would have to change their undergarments. That would be hilarious. Watching a new woman go into Victoria's Secret for the first time. They would be so embarrased... I would hope.

If you still found women attractive, it could be rather entertaining. You could put on a little show for yourself... and then sell it on the web. Or not.

As I was reading down the page I also wondered about marriages. I mean they still work, but what if either one of their new bodies is totally gross? That would suck.

Another thought... what if married/dating/partnering couples switched bodies with each other? That could lead to some... interesting... results.

I feel sorry for the guy who switches bodies with his wife and then finds out the next day that she's been cheating on him with another guy when he comes over. ^^

Also, what about hair and nails and such? If hair length didn't change, we would see a lot of long haired men and short haired women running around. Crossdressing while they do so.

... that would be too fun to see. Hee hee hee...

Depends. Brain structures are also different between heterosexuals and homosexuals, according to some studies. Would they go from a gay-mind to a lesbian-mind, or a gay-mind to a 'normal woman' mind?

Whatever the case is, I'm sure it won't phase bisexuals...

"Oh, look... we're lesbians now. Who would've ever thought?"
"Who cares? Let's have sex!"
"Sounds good!"

What I would do might depend of if it would ever change back or not. One thought that does creep me out though... what about married couples? Man, things would get really messed up...

... I just realized... all the girls who turned into guys... unless they wear their father's clothes or a brother's clothes, or had a tomboyish wardrobe, they'd have to crossdress until they could get guy clothes. Now -that- would be amusing. ^^

At 4/9/04 07:43 AM, bombkangaroo wrote: because people want all sorts of stupid shit. if you justify something entirely by desire then you open up the flood gates for all sorts of retarded legislation.


but their marriage will be unproductive. they will not produce children, and will not be contributing the pool of future tax payers.

love is an emotion that has become a successful trait of human beings because it facilitates sexual intimacy, which in turn facilitates procreation. people do it, and keep doing it because the ability to love is a successful genetic trait. love, therefore, exists to facilitate procreation. as such it is not a valid excuse for homosexual marriage.

I will agree with you on these conditions:

1) You support an immediate nullification of all celibate, heterosexual unions across the entire United States of America and the illegalization of celibate marriage for the future to come.

2) You support the nullification of all infertile marriages, and that marriages become nullified if a man or woman chooses to undergo self-fertilizing operations in order to prevent unwanted child birth.

3) You support a ban on the selling of condoms and other safe-sex products to married couples, thereby preventing ungodly, childless marriages.

Until I hear you firmly advocating all of these positions, I'm quite afraid you'll come off as a hypocrite. Good day.

At 4/8/04 09:24 PM, bombkangaroo wrote: interestingly straight men cannot marry men, likewise straight women cannot marry women, regardless of sexual orientation.

was that intended as an insult? interesting, that's usually a sign of not having a worthwhile argument.

Ahh, but here is where your argument falls apart: Gender.

If it is truely "equal all across the board", then each and every individual has the exact same set of rights as the last, regardless of their status, right?

Let us say there is a man named Bob. Bob is perfect in every way.

As it stands, Jill can marry Bob. Jill has Bob marriage rights. Jill has the right to enter wedlock with Bob.

In a 100% indescriminate society, every person would have the exact same rights that Jill has. That means that everybody would have the right to marry Bob, regardless of whether they were black, white, man, woman, handicapped, tall, or short.

Now I ask you -- is this the case?

No, it is not. Joe has no right to marry Bob. Jill has a right that Joe does not have.

At which point we hear the argument that separate rights can be equal -- isn't that what we heard during the conservative opposition to the desegregation movement? It was clearly defined in Brown VS Board of Education that separate is inherently inequal. Hence, by the literal definition, the institution of marriage is sexist. A woman lacks a man's right to marry a woman, a man lacks a woman's right to marry a man.

Nice try, though.

Why is it that I always get such a knee-jerk reaction from everyone else when I try to use the word "androgynous" to describe something or someone? It's typically a very fast, negative reaction with an uneasy undertone, and I simply don't understand what's so bad about it. If anything, I find it rather appealing -- are people that afraid to think of gender as a duality rather than a dichotamy?

For the record, different dictionaries use different definitions that have pretty substantial meanings. I'm going off the common meaning -- "Possessing both male and female traits" (IE: Being compassionate is perceived as a "feminine" trait, whereas being intelligent is perceived as a "masculine" trait. A person who is both compassionate and intelligent could be described as having an "androgynous" mind.)

Why does that word evoke such a negative reaction from people? Is it just because I live in a small, fundamentalist conservative suburb? I'm confused here.

At 3/18/04 07:49 PM, greeniemachinie wrote:

At 3/18/04 07:30 PM, Adept_Omega wrote: Stuff

I agree that the world in general is improving.

Regarding civil unions, it is possible that they would grant the same rights as marriage. As long as this is true, I fully support them. Marriage does have a religious meaning to many as a union between a man and a woman.

I agree that if civil unions had the exact same rights, it wouldn't be a big deal -- at that point, it's really just a name difference. Boo hoo. Sadly, the Defense of Marriage Act keeps this from being a reality, leaving us with two options -- either destroy it and replace it with legislation that will enable equal rights for civil unions, or simply extend the definition of marriage to include LGBT unions. I'd do either, really. So long as we stop this kind of family warfare and ensure equal benefits, it's fine by me.

Bad path? I'd say we're headed down the right path, but right wing reactionaries and ultra-conservative fundamentalists are attempting to blast apart our resolve every step of the way. I mean, honestly, the only reason we're so up to our necks in terrorism and war conflicts is because Bush and his cronies couldn't still their itchy trigger fingers.

I certainly don't see how you consider giving couples potentially life-saving rights is ever a bad thing -- civil unions and common law can be challenged and defeated by homophobic families, including the right to choose extremely important medical decisions when a partner is not able. There are some families who have taken their superior authority (due to the two partners being strangers under the law, even if they've lived together 50+ years) and making medical decisions that were flagrantly against the best interests of the patient as a means of getting back. Then they seize the property, sell it at a ridiculously low value, and leave the other partner bankrupt, homeless, and widowed. Civil unions cannot stop this -- only marriage has the strength in benefits to prevent these ungodly (and yet all too common) scenes from happening. How is it moral to say that's alright? Because they're gay? Nobody deserves to go through that hell. That's obnoxious.

What else has happened recently? Banning of partial birth abortions -- I'm sure you'd agree that was a moral step forward, if my impression of you as a social conservative is in the least bit correct.

Morality is all relative. I certainly think we are far, far beyond our state of living 150 years ago. Slaves, wife beating, rampant warfare, public hanging, rampant and unbridled hatred, naziesquely enforced gender roles... while it tends to waver, I think we're on the right road.

At 3/18/04 06:09 PM, K-BOB wrote:

At 3/12/04 06:05 PM, meowmix_deliveryman wrote:

At 3/12/04 01:43 AM, Popeofdope wrote: anti-gay things.

So people choose to be gay?

Yes infact YA'LL do. I mean your not seriosly expect us to belive that your born gay. well are murders born to be murderers, are airplane piolts born to be pilots. I have to tell you that you CHOOSE to be what you are and if you belive im wrong you are an idiot.

Oh brother, not you people.

Let's get this over as soon as possible, mm'kay?

Just tell me this -- when did you make the conscious decision to find the opposite sex attractive?

Let me take your argument to the opposite extreme. When did you learn to be hungry because your stomache had too little content? "Oops! I died again! Next time I better choose to feel hungry before dying from malnutrition!"

When did you choose to be groggy in the morning? "I think I'll make myself incoherent and half-asleep because I didn't get enough rest!"

The concept that biology has no effect on our condition is absolutely absurd. Obviously, body chemicals do have an influence on how we percieve the world, or else products such as drugs and alcohol wouldn't exsist. And it has been shown, time and time again, that arousal is very biological in nature. There are drugs and medicines to increase arousal, there are drugs and medicines to inhibit it, and science has shown that different interests in regards to arousal have genetic roots.

So no, it's not really all that similar to an occupation.

At 3/17/04 10:35 PM, Locke666 wrote:

At 3/17/04 10:29 PM, Jlop985 wrote: I used to like Bush (believe it or not I'm Republican), but over the course of his presidency I started to realize that he is a terrible president

How can you call yourself a republican and yet not support the republican presidency. The United States is at war and we have to give the president our full and unnering support for this time of crisis. In previous conflicts people like you were thrown in jail for dissenting like this. I think its a sign of our presidents leniency that he has not yet cracked down on liberal dogmatists like you!

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be satire or flagrant idiocy, but given the state of our culture in America, I am going to have to assume the latter.

There is a world of difference, in my mind, between a conservative and a Republican. A true, honest-to-God conservative...
- Supports the status quo
- Favors supply side economics (Belief that giving money to business and the wealthy will stimulate the economy)
- Is big on fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget
- Is for smaller, less powerful government

Now, up until relatively recent history, the Republican party has been a good reflection of that. However, that was when the infamous 'fundamentalist Christian takeover' took place. The result? Republicans, formerly moderate conservatives, have slid way off to the right. Consider those points of conservatism. How well has Bush adhered to the conservative idealogy?

- Status Quo: Bush granted illegal aliens full rights of US citizens, which I would consider to be radically against the status quo. While it's true that he's been for the status quo in his opposition to gay marriage, a true conservative would never grant aliens their rights as Bush did. Even some liberals find that radical of him.

- Supply Side Economics: This is the one thing Bush has actually adhered to, giving big tax breaks to business and the wealthy.

- Fiscal Responsibility: Bush has run the largest federal deficit in America's entire history. At the same time, he slashed revinues back by cutting taxes all across the board. While a conservative might not favor taxes, they certainly don't fall under the irresponsible-teenager-throwing-the-cost-of-everything-on-their-credit-card
-and-becoming-massively-in-debt syndrome. Clinton, by comparassion, had such a healthy federal budget he ended up with a federal surplus which he used to help pay down the federal debt. In some regards, Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush was.

- Smaller Govenrment: In addition to passing perhaps the most radical act ever to sweep through Congress, the Patriot Act, Bush ended up adding a department to his presidential cabinet. The government now has more involvement in people's lives than it used to, and is much more centralized than American government has traditionally been for the past several decades. Definitely at odds with conservative idealogy here.

In short, I don't believe Republicans are true conservatives today, but merely puppets of special interest groups and big business.

I believe that what the original poster meant to say was "I am a conservative" rather than "I am a republican", because honestly, we have seen a rise in the independent (as in non-partisan) voter in recent years, which to me, is a good thing. Less and less straight ticket voting (ballots with all members of one political party selected) is occuring, and candidates are being judged more for their merit than their party. This is a good thing, and I hope it continues, especially if it drives Bush out of office. Go Kerry!

Well, I'm finally back... wow, did this really get to 13 pages?

I think that it is man's best recollection of events transpiring between the divine and the secular, though it was still subject to the personal bias of the writers and cultures of the time the individual texts were formed. (IE: Paul was notoriously sexist and homophobic -- nearly all the New Testament anti-gay and anti-feminist texts are Paulian.) I believe there is a great degree of truth, but it should not be worshipped as though God himself had written it. This is why I believe fundamentalism to be a form of idolatry -- worshipping words in a book rather than God, feeling that God's true intent and will can actually be reduced to something we are capable of comprehending. I feel it's very belittling of God to assume His words can be expressed in such a contrived system without error, in my opinion.

At 2/10/04 05:28 PM, red_skunk wrote: In the case of education, ie: Michigan University, income is also a factor. 20 points for "socio-economic disadvantage." I believe that inherent wealth advantages are only one part of the overall equation, underlying racism and biotry being the other large problem that affirmative action attempts to resolve.

I believe that affirmative action does more to rationalize racism and bigotry than it does to debunk it. It may have been useful shortly after the civil rights movement, where conservative employers were lashing back at minorities by denying them jobs for obnoxious reasons. This whiplash has since died down, and virtually disappeared. Affirmative action simply makes it remain a deciding factor.

Since socio-economic disadvantage is on there, racial classification is purely a matter of opinion, as opposed to a poorness-correction demograph. Opportunity is based off of what I am able to attend based off of how much I have available to me -- appearance in no way determines that.

At 2/9/04 02:27 PM, red_skunk wrote: Look at it this way: Blacks, on average, go to poorer public schools much more than whites. Whites are far more likely to go to private schools. They are also likely to take their SATs two, three, or four times, and keeping the best score. Now you've got some black kid, who was brought up through the public school system, only took his SATs once. Say the black kid gets marginally lower scores, both on his SATs and his GPA, like you said. Now: in this situation, do you think his marginally lower scores mean shit? I personally don't.

You bring up a good point... however, unfortunately, in doing so, you debunk your own case.

How so? You state that the true motive is based off of family/regional income and, therefor, based off of inherent wealth advantages. In my opinion -- if the true, honest motive were opportunity, it would be based off of family income, not skin color.

What are you going to say to poor little white Timmy who grew up in the same conditions? "Oh, I'm sorry, Timmy... you look too much like the rich kids, so you don't count."

If these are the true motives, then the system needs to change to reflect that. Please remember that equality is a double-edged sword -- If you want the advantages of equality, then you must pay the prices of it as well.

This is such utter bullshit. Blacks are sentenced much harsher than whites. This is utter bullshit. I don't give a shit what anecdotal evidence you can pull out of your ass.

Statistically speaking, you're right. I don't get what stoner's getting at here, other than maybe having a personal counterexample. Even so, there are always exceptions to generalities.

I wrote a long winded rant on affirmative action once in my Livejournal... let's see if I can find it.

At 2/9/04 12:31 PM, Kyle_22 wrote: This posts are all nice, but they all seem to be based on the existence of a fictional character.

I don't believe in the planet Pluto.

I have never seen it, tasted it, heard it, smelled it, felt it. I have never met anyone who has been there. Seeing is believing, and as I have never seen Pluto, I cannot believe it exists. In fact, IMO, faith in Pluto's existence is the very epoch of ignorance. Only silly and superstitious people believe in Pluto.

The only evidence of Pluto's existence are from photos, and they were most definitely doctored.

Can't you people understand that belief in Pluto is just like believing in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not against Pluto believers in general, I'm just against those Pluto believers that insist that they are RIGHT about the existence of Pluto and I am WRONG! As far as I'm concerned, take your astonomy-thumping, solar system-pushing beliefs somewhere else.

~ Note to the stupid: This is satirical, not literal. If you don't know what satire is, you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place.