Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/24/09 02:46 AM, mrgreg846 wrote: That's pretty fucking easy if you've taken any history course in High School or even Junior High. He'd be an artist or an author, or both maybe.

Erm no. His art was turned down, and his writing was terrible. He was good at speaking in public though, and a decent soldier.

At 9/17/09 07:57 AM, Elfer wrote: Did you hear that Brazil lives under an opressive socialist regime? It's America's duty to liberate the people.

Too true. Epic satire.

I agree. As a left winger who strongly stands in favour of free speech (and typically in favour of almost anything to do remotely with freedom, being the liberal commie red media man that i am) I am shocked by the suppression being mounted on the back of race. no man or woman should stand for it.

At 9/15/09 07:33 AM, PhyroDragon wrote:

At 9/7/09 12:03 AM, Dawnslayer wrote: Hitler applied to an art college first, after which he was rejected (apparently for not creating "true" art),

Ironically his art wasn't even half bad.

Yes, but notice how the buildings are perfect, and the people only half make sense. Now gasp and widen youre eyes.

For you have looked through the skull of Hitler.

OH FUCK OH FUCK OH FUCK SORRY SHAGGY WRONG THREAD WRONG THREAD DEAR GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE?!?!?!? FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK SORRYSORRYSORRY SORYY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORYY SORRY SORY SORRY SORRY I CONCED YOU HAVE A VALID POINT FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK

At 9/13/09 04:47 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Hmm, well how much it mighthave been changed doesn't really matter does it since there is no way to know if it was, we know that Jesus was a real person and that there was a prophesy n all that based on historic documents eye witness accounts from the time written elsewhere, so we know there is accuracy.

Something more important I'd say is how it is being changed now, people are being lead to think muslims are all evil terrorists, ect,ect, things like "thou shall not kill" changed to thou shall not murder meaning in some cases it is right to kill people which slowly takes away morality....
Well if anyone has anything to add that would be nice, my neck is starting to hurt 8(

Yes. How about join in the argument or get the fuck out. This thread isn't about religious or irreligious propaganda, its about lulzing at how much a genocidal maniac sucked.

Although in the case of Moses there isn't much difference.

If anyone has anything to add to THAT that would be nice.

At 9/11/09 11:35 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 9/11/09 03:51 AM, FlamingDuckStudios wrote: Any thoughts?

Instead of billions of some sort of proto-jew.

That and the need to disagree among mankind having accelerated this several hundred fold. Even the different tribes under Moses already disagreed and killed each other.

Other Mohammed saw it coming:

"Thus who cite scripture when they know it is not scripture"

Surah 2 or 3. I'm not entirely sure.

Oh, and MC Devlin said it too.

Shout outs to Devlin!

At 9/7/09 12:15 AM, Grubby wrote: I heard he aspired to become and artist or architect,

He tried to get into the main art school of Vienna, but he was better at drawing buildings then people. He was enthusiastic at the idea of architecture, until he was told he had flunked the necessary qualifications in high school despite his schools consistent objection.

though his exemplary military actions displays his bravery.

And survival skill! Not many 40 somethings can take a job with an average lifespan of 15 seconds (army messenger) and survive for the inevitable promotion and iron cross. Or survive a DIRECT HIT ON THEIR TRENCH. I think he would be an angry version of Houdini! Or....

...The jerk high school dropout ex jock? It seems laughable, but take away the uniform and that's exactly what he was. Goebells would be marketing DeutschFlakes or whatever, Himmler would just be a little weedy racist. And Einstein and Freud would have led comfortable existences. And we may have never known the atom bomb.

And all the time Hitler's scraping a living in his military police job writing air headed schemes making scorned advances at his half nephew, whilst Neville Chamberlain get's a second term as prime minister.

Oh, and no NHS.

This isnt going to take off for a tragic reason: We all agree. Even worse, though we know we can't change it because of neo-con assholes and prejudiced preconception. Britain and America both. I doubt court action would be too serious though, so I'll get right too it! ;D

And better, harder and stronger.

At 7/31/09 02:22 PM, nukyew2 wrote: I'm messing with sound effects and I've come across a problem that I can't seem to find help for.

I have Audacity, Adobe Audition 3.0, and Adobe Soundbooth, so I have plenty of sound editing tools.

Is there a way to edit a sound and make it gradually louder? Like a Crescendo? Also, is there a way to make it gradually faster? Like just an steady increase in Tempo? Making it louder and louder, faster and faster.

You can do this with most freeware. Even garageband allows you to crescendo. Making something faster thats a different issue. Unless you got any e-DJ software or anything designed to alter pitch or sound, your stuck making louds of copies of a track with different tempoes.

Good luck man, hope someone knows more about this then me.

At 7/21/09 11:40 PM, DiaLady wrote: It was a joke.

"It"? What "it"? Historic arguments? The bible? God? Or the very recent thread?

THAT was a joke!

You= lucky bastard! ENJOY MAN! :P

At 6/19/09 04:56 AM, fli wrote: This, I got to say for Dante, who --for some unknown reason-- says that the 14th Admendment wouldn't allow gays to marry because he's playing Devil's Advocate:

I can play Devil's Advocate too.

I think this could well be the best post on the entire thread ^.^

At 6/16/09 10:00 PM, fatape wrote: I fully support gay marrage,

but why not incest marrage? or polygamy? (not just multiple wives but multiple hsubands as well)

if all partys are the age of majority and consenting then they should be allowed to enter any scocial contract they want.

or are people perpetualy scared of freedom.

I agree, although they are all difficult issues, but I definitely believe they have the right to do whatever they damn well please, although the issue of perpetually suffering children from incest makes things SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED!%Pr

At 6/7/09 11:10 AM, evil-clown-12 wrote: Since people with faith believe they have eternity to do all the things they want to do, they are less likely to make the most of the 70 or so years they actually have. Whereas atheists believe that when we die we're gone for good, so have to enjoy life while we can.

70? I'm not making it past 50 mate!

Whatever happened to M.A.D?

At 6/15/09 01:46 PM, BrianEtrius wrote::

Why should they see a psychiatrist? Is there something wrong with them? Can you back up your claim?

Couldn't agree more.

At 6/11/09 01:18 PM, BestNameEver wrote: I would read it, I have always had a strong thirst for knowledge, Whatever i would read though, like everything else i would keep in mind that it could be wrong, But bottom line, Yes i would read it. Because no matter what I always want to know the truth; It's better something being there and knowing it, Then something being there and denying it is.

I hate to say it, but youre braver than me. Id probably spend a few months just toying with the the book after sheepishly buying it. Then I'd read it all. And cry.

At 6/7/09 10:50 AM, Ericho wrote: What exactly does a person have to gain from atheism? I keep hearing about bad things people will lose if they don't follow religion (extremism in the world), but there is anything good that an atheist could do that a religious person could do? I mean, by gaining religion you get hope and joy and by losing it, you can lose that (along with extremism, yes I know), but with atheism you have nothing really positive to gain.

Not at all. I might be in a minority but since I lost my faith, I've been more intrigued, more in awe, more stunned by what mankind has achieved as nothing more than a speck of electrically charged organic matter, clinging onto the shreds of objectivity we can find in logic.

At 6/9/09 07:49 PM, RussianGiant wrote:

plus, there is a difference between people of the same gender having sex and people of the same gender together at a wedding don't you think?

What's the real difference? Why should one be legal and the other not?

At 6/9/09 11:46 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Also, Italy is apparently high ranked.
I tought all they stood for were chatting up women and being macho.

Thats where you're wrong. "Acting macho"? Italy actually has the most equal employment between men and women! Also recent studies found women no longer prefer Italians or the Spanish (don't blame them). However, if you're judging by their prime minister, I DO NOT BLAME YOU!

UK: 11th.

Take THAT Peru!

But seriously, IQ doesn't matter that much. I mean I have an IQ of 161-

Just thought I'd mention it, why do you ask?

- and take it from me, the "smartest" kids are usually both socially awkward, and are only getting slightly above average grades.

Not me though.

I r Jesusausarus.

At 6/8/09 02:16 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I seen this photo on the net & I thought about this thread.
But you all know the religiously mind twisted will really hate it & because of that, the rebuttal(s) should be great !

I was just browsing, saw the picture/ post and thought: "That's a really good point. Th rebbutal(s) SHOULD be great."

So I got in on the action.

At 5/31/09 04:41 PM, darknessdweller wrote: Then dig up some dirt on him that'll get him fired!!

I don't see how defacing his suit will help.

At 5/31/09 09:57 PM, TheEnergyParasite wrote: not necessarily, just because one thinks it creepy, it might be because its unusual, or because of some fear derived from one's life. just because its creepy doesnt mean it isnt alright.

Exactly, I mean if humanity made laws against everything we find creepy, I think there would have been a spider genocide by now.

Not me though.

I love spiders!

At 5/31/09 04:50 PM, RussianGiant wrote: i dont oppose gay sex but gay marriage seems just creepy to me....

OH NOES! FAGZ0RS GETTIN TEH MARRIAGES! CRE3PY SHIT!

Oh, wait it isn't. And we're not twelve anymore, so there's no need to be an immature self justifying.....

....wait for it....

....dumbass.

At 5/31/09 09:58 AM, GeoPowa wrote: Aww man...now where am I going to get laid??

Hahaha, Korea maybe?

At 5/31/09 02:43 AM, Ranger2 wrote: And I thought bullies were only students.

The history of NGBBS is a living example of where the teachers can become (for a brief period) students with more bully power.

At 5/21/09 01:52 PM, triplenoob wrote: are you retarded? Dude this topic has been viewed like... hum.. yesterday?

MY LEVELS BIGGER THAN YOURES!

At 5/21/09 02:11 PM, skyraider wrote: It does work fine. Now people found a new morality - or resurrected an old one, if you stubbornly cling to that position - and want to invent a right. Instead of inventing a right, we should make marriage a private matter.

When will you admit an institution designed to satisfy the people and doesn't isn't "alright"?

And no, you wouldn't have to rewrite other laws. Just have the civic organization draw up a legal contract for marriage and have the government enforce that. Easy said, easy done. No licenses involved.

Alright, I agree on the whole secular marital institution thingy.

If I suddenly decide that it is OK to do something that used to be widely considered immoral, are you now a bigot if you refuse to codify a "right" to do such a thing into law? No...

*Sigh*
This debate was inevitable.
OK...
You are definitely a bigot if you hold prejudices and expect others to act on those prejudices, and refuse to allow someone whom you hold these prejudices upon the same rights as someone whom you do not, given that the criteria for your prejudice is based not in logic or in a want to make the world universally a better place. Whether EVERYONE used to be bigots or not is a different matter.

That said, I can definitely feel some sympathy for those with bigoted morales nothing more than the product of a different generation.