Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/25/14 09:07 AM, Mrdie wrote: I have permission to scan two more books from the same publisher: one covering the period 1789-1824, and another which is a biography of Joseph Weydemeyer, one of the earliest propagators of Marxism in the USA, a colonel in the Union Army during the Civil War, and a friend of Marx and Engels.

Could you do me a favor and drop me a PM with a scan or contact info for said publisher? I'm not saying you're not telling the truth, but we just have to make sure that the site is protected and that we are very much on firm ground that the publisher understands what you're doing and won't seek to come after Tom Fulp for infringement.

At 6/25/14 08:22 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: words are just words unless they imply actions will follow.

Actions have followed though, cash registers have been ringing since the moment the Redskins put out merchandise. You can't act like "it's just a word with no consequence" and guess what? If they change the name to something less offensive (which I'm sure they will while still keeping most of the branding intact) the cash registers will still ring.

Where was the rush to defend the Washington Bullets before they became the Wizards? No one seemed upset, and the team still has it's fan and makes money.

How about the Houston Colt 45's who then became the Astros?

Teams change names all the time. Either because the franchise moves, or because times change and what was acceptable at their founding isn't as acceptable later. It happens, it doesn't kill them, so I don't understand why there's so much upset over a team being told to change a name that holds offense for a certain ethnic group to something that isn't (there's still some good options out there that they probably wouldn't even need to change the logo to use)? I don't get it, I just don't.

At 6/24/14 02:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote: A) I didn't even know he responded

So you not reading your own thread is supposed to be a valid excuse? Since when?

B) His post confirms what i said, so there's no point in conflicting or debating with him

It actually doesn't, but I guess reading comprehension happens to other people.

C) i try to avoid him either way, because he tends to just spout unsourced indoctrinated myths....he's a bible thumper, but his bible is liberalism. I learned years ago that people like this don't really deserve to be responded to, because if you do,...it's kind of like smashing your head against a brickwall.

I disagree with everything you just said as I personally find him to be one of the more fair, intelligent, and non-biased posters on these boards. This just comes off like a bunch of excuses to try and make it look like you weren't ducking him because he made you look foolish. You're better bet would have been to ignore me right along with him because that would have been better then throwing this weak shit up.

At 6/18/14 08:42 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Trolling the other teams in order to piss off Dan Snyder is...well...kinda awesome. So, obviously, this was meant to force the team's hand.

Clearly, and while I think Snyder is an egotistical dick and would love to fight this (probably why the trademark office pre-empted him and simply removed the protection of the mark) he really has to face simple economic reality: He needs to rename his team, and re-register that new name as quickly as possible to get back on track. Let's not forget that he can't operate that franchise in a vacuum, because of the licensing deals and all else, the rest of the league is going to be up his ass double quick to either swallow it and change, or be removed because he's putting his ego ahead of good business.

I'd also like to submit this as proof that while it is true that many Native Americans do NOT find the term "Redskins" offensive (some even use it as the name of their school teams), you can still find a significant amount that do. So any thought that this is somehow a "minority" or a "white guilt" or a "bleeding heart liberal" only type issue are just simply mistaken.

At 6/22/14 02:02 AM, LemonCrush wrote: No, no and no.

I love how you picked the easy target here and completely bypassed Feoric. :)

At 6/12/14 07:21 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: flush em out and wipe them, we did it in the beginning of Iraq why not now?

Because we bombed strategic targets then, we are not looking at that here. The only way to truly quell this shit storm is basically to pick one side, and then slaughter the other. These guys do not want to live in peace nor will they. Now, since we are obviously not going to do that, it seems pointless to me to waste more time, money, and lives trying to keep up the delusion that there's another path other then wholesale genocide.

RIGHT. lets see we pretty much instigated the arab spring,

Huh? How did we do that? That seemed to me to be populist uprisings based on a youth culture that had gotten it's hands on information on how they're governments were screwing them.

destabilized Syria (which that fucktard Obama wanted to give weapons to rebels which had ties to Al Qaeda, Libya Iraq and afghanistan.

Cept he didn't, and again, Syria is in open revolt with no pushing from anyone.

We Lead NATO....

We are NOT however a unilaterally functioning power and we work in harmony with those other interests. The other things you've mentioned are extremely unpopular, and ineffective tactics that need to be ended. Something that only the most arch-of Conservatives are still trying to justify.

they won't turn on for doing a simple clearing of a enemy controlled town thats practically ruined already.Even if it causes some collateral damage in the form of a already half fucked city and some civilians

They certainly will if we go in there and bomb the crap out of the place unilaterally. This is just the reality of the world today, and I'm so very sick of people like you who don't want to understand that coming in here and squatting on threads where the adults are trying to have a discussion/

please that whole sub region is fucked besides Israel and the UAE they are perfect examples of western adoption in the middle east,

If one ignores the racism and second class citizenship that undesirable elements are given...

but the majority of the region is still stuck culturally by their dumbass religion, if they figured out westernizing would make them advance in every facet they would but they can't because of corrupted governments and extremists like this. and you can't bargin with crazy the only stratedegy for it is wiping it out.

Agreed. There is no other way then wiping out whole tribes and groups of people. Essentially picking the one we like best and killing off the rest. SINCE WE WON'T EVER DO THAT, I fail to see the point in continuing to stick our nose in and waste our resources and human lives trying to act like we can somehow find a less extreme solution. That's why we need to get out of that region as much as humanly (and economically) possible.

At 6/11/14 07:22 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki say otherwise.

Japan has a WAY different mindset then the countries we're discussing. You can't apply a blanket policy to all situations. This has been the downfall of American policy in the middle east, we assume they WANT what we're selling them despite their repeated refusal to buy in.

Oh you don't have the balls for a nuclear attack?

It's not about balls, this is why people like you only get one post from me then I'm done. You have NO CLUE I'm sure about the long range damage of nuclear fall out and what it does to the populations who are exposed. Do some research before you talk about having the "balls for a nuclear attack". Of course, even if you don't personally care about such things because it's happening to "other people" then think about all the ramifications for you and yours that'll get rained down on America's head should they go that route.

At 6/11/14 01:51 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: the place is already destroyed just target the remaining stragglers.

Bomb the place strategies haven't worked because the only way "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" works is if you well, shoot 'em all. Which we won't be doing because then the other Western powers will turn on us. It's about time we simply admitted we don't understand that region, we can't impose Western ideals into it and we focus more on a strategy of containment on extremists and garbage then regime change and endless bombings and such. It doesn't work, it just leads to black markets, crime, and more recruits for Al Qaieda and others to strike back at us with.

At 6/11/14 06:12 AM, Creek wrote: If you are an anti-semitic person, would you hate the Jewish country? The answer is yes.

That is true.

Anybody saying there is no anti-semitism involved in hating Israel is wrong, or is anti-semitic and denies it.

That starts out as true, then becomes a leap and a con but you hope nobody notices that part because the first part of it is true. It IS wrong to say that no one who dislikes Israel has an anti-semetic leaning, there are some who do. But it is WRONG to say that only an anti-semite hates Israel. Israel does a lot to prove it dislikes it's neighbors, and even the non-jewish parts of it's own population. It also plays the anti-semitism card way to hard and way too often, trying to deflect all criticism or disagreement as anti-semitic (remember when they said the Catholic Church was anti-semitic simply because they don't believe that God promised Israel to the Jews?).

I explained my reasons for why boycotting Israel is anti-semitic.

You did, and they're bullshit and built on the fallacy that many Israeli's tout whenever criticized "all criticism is anti-semetic, it can't possibly be anything we've done questionable because we've been persecuted forever and God promised us this land".

And forget the word and it's implications, "Anti-semitic" is just the term we use for anti-Jewish.

No, you don't just change what a word means or it's implications simply because it's inconvenient to your points. That's intellectually dishonest.

Happy birthday to one of our favorite mods, the real life inspiration for the character of Brock Sampson. The man, the myth, the legend, Stafffighter.

There now...you have your thread...my family better still be alive you son of a bitch...

Also whoever sucks up best gets a free modship...well, not really.

At 6/3/14 02:48 PM, Feoric wrote: They'd have to have a supermajority to have the bare minimum required for a conviction, assuming they wouldn't be filing the impeachment proceedings just for show.

I see this as more something that will be used during the primaries to try and swipe seats on the grounds that Obama is soft on terror, and therefore so is his party. Possible they may even try to run on the idea of America needing to give them that supermajority so they can then file and get the conviction. That scenario seems unlikely to me though since you're making a promise that may be impossible to keep since you're not only promising to initiate proceedings, but you're also promising an outcome. You don't get either of those things going your way, you can be very very damaged the next time the mid terms come around.

Insect, everybody else. Play nicely or I'll shut this down. This was borderline trollish and unacceptable to begin with and now with the flameing it's beginning to cross the border. Not sure if it can be salvaged but...I like to give it a chance and a warning before clamping down.

Warning given, more flames and insults and shit and this is done.

At 5/30/14 02:23 PM, InsectGadget wrote: Fucking thank you.

He was clearly being sarcastic dude....

Shitty source....totally starting this topic in another off topic, borderline trolly way...yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and end this one before it gets typically ugly (though maybe worse this time since it's clearly your biggest miss ever on an OP).

At 5/28/14 01:34 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I use to play MAA on Playdom.com, but then the site shut down. I no longer play that game.

Yeah lots of people got hosed on that, I was always a FB player and never saw the need to convert....really glad I had made that decision :)

Here's a rule refresher from page 1 for those who may have been curious (and honestly since this repost of the group was 08, I kind of forgot some of it myself). This clarifies both what is considered appropriate for discussion and the guidelines for spoilers:

Now for the general house rules:
1. All NG BBS rules apply, and since I'm a mod, you can expect a bloody swift kick in the ass if you break 'em.

2. Debate is good, I love debate, spirited debate is also great. Flameing, name calling, and making somebody's general enjoyment of a topic is not. Not everyone likes the same things, it's a fact of life. Not everyone also has the same knowledge of minutae and continuity or story detail, that's fine too. Be respectful of your fellow members, as long as they aren't being disruptive or derailing the topic, there's no reason to treat them badly. Failure to comply will result in your expulsion from the fun (and we all know that's no idle threat from someone like me :D).

3. Please try to be respectful about spoilers. Many many folks like to read or enjoy something fresh without knowing what's coming up next. If, say for example you've just read the newest issue of Buffy the day it came out, please post *SPOILER WARNING/ALERT/FUCKIFYOUDON'TWANTTOKNOWWHAT'SGONNAHAPPENSTOPREADINGNOW!!!* before discussing plot details. A spoiler warning shall remain in effect for at least two days after the work has hit (so let's say Wednesday and Thursday, since Wednesday is usually new comic day if you're buying from a DM store supplied by Diamond, and by Friday it's all fair game).

I realize I forgot to make it clear that movies, tv, and even games based on comics properties are fair game as well, I guess I made the mistake of assuming it was implied. I'm making it clear that is the case now :).

Back to Avengers Alliance for me...

At 5/19/14 05:54 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I have always been a big X-men fan. Is it okay to discuss comic book films here?

Yes, but anything new, IE X-Men Days of Future Past I would prefer you try to tread very carefully around any sort of spoilers, especially on this first weekend of release. Something like Captain America which has been out for months I'd call fair game because while I'm sure there's people who may not have seen it for whatever reason, at some point the whole "I don't want spoilers!" thing loses water if you're posting in a thread like this and the dame thing has been out for like 3 months. The majority can't be held back for you.

speaking of which, saw Days on Friday and for anyone whos a fan of the X-films, I highly recommend it. I think they told a great story, they did away with elements of Last Stand that didn't work, and now leave the franchise feeling somewhat "fresh" and full of some really interesting possibilities again.

At 5/21/14 10:06 AM, TheMaster wrote: There's also this, someone got a hold of a dark match before Main Event between Sami Zayn and Adrian Neville. I guess they were filming it to check the cameras were set up properly or something, and someone nabbed a copy somehow.

WWE films EVERYTHING. They even film house shows. They've always done that, first as an idea towards potential video release (if you're my age, you remember the old Coliseum Home Video releases, which were usually culled from house show matches with commentary dubbed over them), and now in the age of the network it's more important then ever to have all of their content archived somewhere and somehow.

At 5/17/14 10:51 PM, satanbrain wrote: Can you let Saudi Arabia?

Yeah, they have tons of oil and are assholes that will be nice to us and help us with the other assholes. Which is always why when american pols stand up and say "we have to stand up for human rights in the middle east!" I laugh and then get very very angry because of all the countries we ignore the atrocities of because they have something we want or need from them.

At 5/17/14 01:14 AM, TheKlown wrote: The Terrorists are winning,

Define "winning". Because last I checked, Al Qaieda is in tatters and most terrorist organizations are on the run and disorganized. The only successful ones are independent operators who slip through the radar.

because we allow them to win.

Yes...because we aren't spending fuck loads to kill them off...

We allow them to treat Women like shit, and we allow them to Murder Women without any consequences.

IT'S A SOVEREIGN NATION!!! For fucks sake, it isn't in anybody's best interest to declare war every time you don't like something somebody is doing. It won't change them, they think this shit is perfectly acceptable and short of a fucking genocide where you wipe the region clean of every living soul in it, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THIS BEHAVIOR!!! You cannot beat it out of them, it is what it is. That's not to say that I don't find it horrid or I'm not outraged, I am. But I'm also realistic and I realize we simply CANNOT force our values into cultures that want no truck with it.

We are doing the same exact thing we did before World War II.

Aaaand the ignorance continues. Our foreign policy is NOTHING like prior to WW2, if you honestly believe that, you paid zero attention in school.

We ignore all the Horrors in the world and hope they go away.

Do you live under a rock? Do you? Do you know HOW much fucking military intervention we've done in just the last 12 years? Two wars and occupations (which continue), military strikes and support. We did strikes and support for most of the 90's prior to that.

Millions of people are dying, children and women because of our selfishness.

Appeals to emotion on top of flat out stupidity do nothing.

We think because we were fortunate to be born in a Country where we actually have some type of Freedom that we should forget about the people that aren't fortunate to have been born in USA.

My God you sound like the worst Hawk bumper sticker I've ever seen...

At 5/17/14 01:04 AM, TheKlown wrote: What if that was your Mother, Daughter, or Girlfriend? Besides our Military could easily crush Sudan with ease. It's time for the right people to be running Sudan and obviously the right people aren't in charge.

That's not how this shit works and I love how folks like you will flip shit on this or any other President or Congress who spends tons of money on domestic policy, but when it comes time for a foreign military adventure (no matter how needless) you're all for it because frankly...you don't understand what you're talking about, you don't understand the politics, the morass that comes from toppling a government, or how ultimately pointless doing so in a region like that is.

In short, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and it really makes me sad and want to cry that your vote counts in the same elections I vote in.

Congratulations, you proved what everyone already knew:

Racism is everywhere.

Please for the love of God stop with these failed "gotcha" topics already...

At 4/17/14 10:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as allowing him to avoid prison, this would set dangerous precedent.

The last time anything like this happened in Missouri was 1912. In that case, the convicted man was set free

Precedent is set. I'd also like to point out this:

He made no effort to conceal his identity or whereabouts. Anderson paid taxes and traffic tickets, renewed his driver's license and registered his businesses.

I'm failing to see where Anderson is really at fault here. Yes, you can absolutely make the case that if he was TRULY an upstanding citizen, he would have reported. But clearly here THE STATE had ample opportunity to fix the situation had they chosen to do so. They did not. Also there's a precedent for letting it go, it's obvious this guy was not a repeat offender, that he HAS changed, he HAS become of value to the community. I say commute the damn sentence, the precedent is already in place to do it, so just do it. To lock this guy up and try to make him pay now would be a crime that would negatively affect innocents (his family) far more then the original crime affected that Burger King or the guy who worked there.

At 4/17/14 06:20 AM, InsectGadget wrote: I don't like what it's doing,

What is it "doing" according to you?

I don't like gay "Culture"

Please define what you mean by "culture" and what about it you don't like?

And being honest, you're all pretty big bigots.

Some people are, yes. But all of us? That's just a nasty generalization. I vehemently disagree with your views, especially because they sound like the kind of ill-formed, rarely actually thought about kind of opinions held by those who hang out in groups that simply reinforce those same ideas (ex. "I don't like gay marriage fellas" everyone else says "yeah, that stuff is bad).

I mean, you're assume because I don't support gay marriage that I'm an Overly-Religious troll. To me, that's Prejudice.

I don't assume you're an overly religious troll. I don't actually think you've displayed the behavior of a troll really so I tend to agree that tag has been misapplied. I'm not sure if your view is spawned by your religious beliefs so I couldn't say. In short, I need more information from you before I judge. If you're willing to play ball with that, great, lets have a discussion. If not, good day to you :)

Rape is bad, you shouldn't do rape. Mmmkay.

Jokes aside, yeah, rape is a crime for a reason...especially on kids. Doesn't matter if the person or persons think they "want it" it's a damaging, messed up experience and as others have said....shouldn't matter the situation or the circumstance, it's a crime for a reason.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1361611

This actually is current, covers everything that's being discussed here, and is still on the first page.

Still here, still banning, planning to do it for a long time to come. Sorry haters....not really.

At 4/3/14 12:17 AM, TheKlown wrote: Anthony Perkins was proof that being straight, gay or bi-sexual is a choice.

One exception does not prove the rule. Some people are confused about their sexuality and mislabel themselves. Many "recovery" centers have actually begun giving up trying to convert gays because they've found it actually ISN'T a choice. Why would someone choose to put up with all the crap gays do?

Personally, I'm over the "gotcha" tricks, the "who's a bigger dick?" and all that. It's like looking up at the sky and acting like stating the color is blue is some kind of revelation. It isn't, we all know it is, just like we all know that politics breaks down like schmucks with sports teams they refuse to see a flaw in.

At 3/29/14 04:58 PM, InsectGadget wrote: It sort of destroys the purpose of Marriage,

The purpose of the legal construct of Marriage is to confer various rights and protections to those entering into the contract. Please, explain to me how gay marriage "sort of destroys" this purpose?

not only that but it contradicts the bible.

So what? England is not a theocracy, the bible and the church do not control and rule the government. This argument continues to be ridiculous and beside the point.

You know, the fact that the place they're being married in is built for the reading of bibles really stresses that point.

People can get married legally with no church ceremony. My parents did it, friends of mine have done it. Church service is NOT required for a legal marriage.

It also turns something which is horribly morally wrong into a civil right.

Bullshit bigotry is fun.

Now before you pull the whole "u bigot" shit,

No, there is no before that. You ARE prejudiced. you ARE a bigot.

"The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it"

What moron pulled that shit out of their ass?