Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/24/11 10:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 4/24/11 09:06 AM, B151 wrote: Because she was definately acting slutty and had it coming right?

No, because she put herself in a bad situation.

The man who lives in a bad neighbourhood should expect to have his house broken into, because he put himself in a bad situation?

The cyclist who rides with traffic should expect to fight for their life after being clipped and ran over, because they put themself in a bad situation?

The woman who becomes intoxicated at a party should expect to get raped, because she put herself in a bad situation?

Crime is not the victims fault. Insinuating that someone 'asked for it' or contributed to their own becoming a victim is backwards thinking that the civilized world has been struggling to escape for years now.

Go away fool.

Never so long as you try to dismiss me so easily.

At 4/24/11 04:37 AM, WolvenBear wrote: The girl puts herself in a bad situation by falling asleep in a drunken frat boy party. The victim of senseless crime is a victim from the word go. Whereas, at least, we can look at the drunk rape victim and use it as a lesson to other girls,

Because she was definately acting slutty and had it coming right?

If you're found innocent, please feel free to sue the school and your work.

There is precedent in case law that protects you from dismissal from allegations.

With the school, unless they cite the reason for your expulsion as the safety of the accusers, go after them right away.

Also, your original accuser was heresay, but because it was in goodfaith, there is probably no chance to have it discredited.

At 3/1/11 11:19 PM, MegamanZero360 wrote:

At 3/1/11 11:11 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

This IS helping our society. Us people who aren't in "the government" have to have open eyes too. As soon as you start hiding shit from your people, then what are we going to know? We are going to be ignorant, and blind to what is happening outside of our city. Most people don't know whats happening in the world, they just live in their little bubble, but to the people who wanna know what is going on need to know, and have the right to know.

Actually, things like Wikileaks arguably don't help society. The whole operation, the gathered cables, is centred on people within the intelligence fields, within government agencies, who are/were pro-openess advocates.

But when you have something like this come in that attaches a name to these people, it drives them underground because it has exposed them, because it has exploded in their face. Far fewer people are now willing to share what they know, or advocate for more transperancy because of the way Wikileaks has blown up in the media and demonized people.

As an aside, this idea that the "Goverment" is completely responsible for hiding information from it's people is ludicrous. You, the citizen, is the benefactor of government. THEY are responsible to YOU. If they are able to "hide" something from you, it's only because you were complicit in letting them do it.

At 3/1/11 01:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

I wonder if we will ever run out of demand. At this point the Bourgeois will no longer be capable of sustaining their profit, which leads to pressure on workers wages and vivalarevolution

You're never really goign to run out of 'demand'. Demand is a pressure, not a stream (voltage v. Current).
If the demand for an item ever decreased to unsustainability of a buisness model, like hell you're going to see movement to other services/goods where demand potential exists (These bourgeois afterall would have the capital to back this up), profit and demand curves don't tolerate sudden change, there's always a slope.

Shift would, while pressuring wages, eventually return them to a tolerable level.

At 3/1/11 01:04 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:21 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/1/11 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't forget who gives corporations tax breaks for outsourcing... Or who advocates for a lower minimum wage... Or right to work laws...

shining example. let's see some links proving your claims.

Laws created to protect property are only designed to defend the Bourgeois.

Holla to Karl Marx.

Yes, let's just forget the fact that Marx advocates for killing the Bourgeois and the poor who defend their system. No one suffers there at all.

At 2/3/11 07:25 AM, Shade wrote:

At 2/3/11 06:33 AM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: I feel sorry for America, you have so many idiots in your country.

See, that's what I despise aboot Canadians, "idiots in your country". No we don't have a ny fucking idiots in Canada, no sir, Stephen Harper isn't stupid at all.

You have to give him the fact that he's a brilliant tactician though.

At 10/4/09 05:40 PM, misterchees0 wrote: How would you write 100?

1.E2

or 10?

1.E1

or 100000000?

1.E8

[ETC]

At 2/2/11 10:06 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

At 2/2/11 10:00 PM, B151 wrote:

At 2/2/11 09:52 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: They fail to mention how during the cold war that they call "a fight for freedom for all people in the world" (I've actually heard it called that) The US supported dictatorships.... ,and Uzbekistan

*and South Korea

Not quite sure about that one, but I definitely forgot south Vietnam.

South Korea is a bit of an iffy one. The American supported canidate was given enormous leeway in a democratic election. He imprisoned politcal rivals, pressured groups out of existence, that sort of thing. It was a democratic election, with only one party.

At 2/2/11 09:52 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: They fail to mention how during the cold war that they call "a fight for freedom for all people in the world" (I've actually heard it called that) The US supported dictatorships.... ,and Uzbekistan

*and South Korea

Actually the reason why Dr.'s are so uppity about the flu is because H1N1 is ridiciously close to the Spanish flu (by perhaps literally one genetic marker). The very same flue that (conservatively) killed 60 million people.

At 2/1/11 06:03 PM, aquaticmole wrote:

At 2/1/11 05:58 PM, Timmy wrote: explain your constitutional rights to him

he live in Canada, he doesn't have those rights, silly.

Yes he does, twit.

Abstitence only education is the only type that schools are given funding for. You want things to be different? Stop being complicit in the way education is funded, that it's "good enough", and do something about it.

y = mx +b is not a little thing in the context of the mathmatics course you are taking, it's the fundamental basis.

If you're only looking for help the day before an exam, you deserve the mark you get.

At 1/20/11 06:22 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/20/11 06:13 PM, B151 wrote:

Right. That is the only event and it is the most influential (No way could it be WW2)

The causes of WW2 are deelpy rooted within the framework of WWI, the unresolved issues and problems that emerged from WWI are pretty much 100% direct cause WWII. So, yes, it is the event.

At 1/20/11 02:43 PM, yonokowhat wrote: mods, lock this thread

Its fucking 2011, World war 1 and 2 is OVER so lets stop being cunts and shut up and focus on the current war with the terroists in the middle east and post it IN THE FUCKING politcics forum thank you jesus.

You're an idiot. World War 1 is the event in human history to end all events. It's the reason you are where you are and why the world is in the state it's in.

This isn't a political debate, it's a historical debate, kindly STFU&GB2/B/

Unfortunately, history can't really be compartmentalized like that. Think of WWI as a a set of rounds within the match, not the match itself.

At 1/19/11 02:22 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 1/19/11 02:15 PM, B151 wrote: What did they win? The largest death toll in human history? A complete and utter collapse of economies? Wow, great victory.

That, some land, and some money.

Yes, because things are going so well in Iraq right now.

Right now? Yes. Things are better there now then they have been in years.

Yeah, I was off the mark there, but it's just so fashionable to dig at the campaign.

Just because the aftermath of war is bad, doesn't mean that Germany didn't lose WWI.

I never tried to say Germany didn't lose. What I'm trying to do here is expand to the possibility (nigh fact) that there was no winner in WWI. You have to know that WWI is, for all intents in purposes, the framing event in human history upon which everything else has come.
You can't really say that they won land because the land was decimated, because parts of it they willingly gave back to Hitler when he asked for it, and by 1948, wanted to reunite Germany.

You can't say they won money, because the treaty of versailles was so heavy handed in crippled Germany's already fragile economy. Countries that were due reparations saw mere fractions of what they were accorded, and in most cases forgave the debt.

Following that, the US was so over extended that it triggered an economic collapse which served as the framework for WWII.

There was no real winner from WWI, sure you can get a massive patriotic hard on for the allies and say since the treaty didn't carve out their countries, they won. But the fact is that 6 empire sized nations went in to WWI, and only 2 came out in such a state as to not even be called an empire.

At 1/19/11 02:13 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 1/19/11 02:08 PM, B151 wrote:

At 1/19/11 02:06 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 1/19/11 02:03 PM, B151 wrote: I'd hate to burst your bubble, but that was in effect what happened.

Not really. Germany surrendered. Most would call that losing.

Yes, but there isn't always a victor in war. Germany was not conquered in WWI, both sides just agreed to stop fighting, and under that agreement Germany was carved up for reparations.

I would call that losing. Territory was also taken from Germany, as well as they had to downsize their military. Just because the country isn't conquered doesn't mean you didn't win.

What did they win? The largest death toll in human history? A complete and utter collapse of economies? Wow, great victory.

Look at operation desert storm. We took down Iraq, but we didn't conquer it. We just pushed Sadam out of Kuwait and set up some military restrictions.

Yes, because things are going so well in Iraq right now.

At 1/19/11 02:06 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 1/19/11 02:03 PM, B151 wrote: I'd hate to burst your bubble, but that was in effect what happened.

Not really. Germany surrendered. Most would call that losing.

Yes, but there isn't always a victor in war. Germany was not conquered in WWI, both sides just agreed to stop fighting, and under that agreement Germany was carved up for reparations.

At 1/19/11 11:41 AM, IncendiaryProduction wrote: The allies and imperial forces were at a standstill with no chance of advance on either side. If America didn't step in, they were just gonna keep killing each other until each side just gave up and agreed on a mutual end to the conflict.

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but that was in effect what happened.

At 1/18/11 10:35 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: At 1/18/11 09:52 PM, B151 wrote::
Stop just stop, your toing to embarass your self.

lol

First, why was there a magazine in the gun? Why was that magazine loaded?

To keep the weapon in a ready condition.

Ready to do what? maybe, FIRE IT?? If he had it to just show his fucking friends than it shouldn't have been in a ready-to-fire state

Why the friend assumption?

And why was the gun so ready to fire that it went off by merely hitting the ground?

If you grossly mishandle a firearm, or you drop it, safety or not - it will fire. Remember that the round is activated by the shock of the hammer, dropping the weapon or mishandling it in a certain fashion will fire the round.

Obviously, but then again why did it have rounds in it Einstein?

Like I said, to keep the weapon in a ready condition. It's hard to fire air at someone who's trying to shank you.

That guy wanted someone dead. He would haveto be lame in the head to actually load, prep and carry that gun around without the intention of shooting it in the first place. Fucking disgusting man.

You don't really know that do you? Learn 2 read thread? No motive is mentioned in article, suggestions are offered vis a vis why one would carry a weapon into that particular school, your assumption that carrying a weapon is automatically intent to kill is not only false, it's 'fucking disgusting man.'

Of course carrying a weapon isn't immediate intention to kill, but maybe you don't realize some obvious facts. He shouldn't have had the weapon in the first place because it is illegal for both his age

Excerpt: %u2022A minor may not possess a handgun except with written permission or under the supervision of a parent or guardian.

%u2022A minor under 16 may not possess a handgun, unless they are accompanied by their parent or guardian while participating in a legal recreation activity involving firearms or has written permission to participate in such activities.

%u2022A minor under 16 may not possess live ammunition except with the written permission or under the supervision of a parent or guardian, or while going to or from an organized lawful recreational or competitive shooting activity or lawful hunting activity.

-Brief Synopsis of California Fire Arm Laws
QED, Legal for age.

and that it was on the premises of a school.

Again: %u2022A person who reasonably believes that he or his property is in immediate danger and the weapon must be carried for "preservation."

-Brief Synopsis of California Fire Arm Laws

Just because you think it is illegal, does not make it.

You don't want to ever carry around a weapon with a loaded clip in it

Yes, yes you do. Police do it all the time. Also, no special exemption exists just because they're peace officers. If you want to effectively use your weapon for self defence, you keep it loaded.

and you should never have a weapon on you if you don't know how to care for it. This kid obviously wanted to do someone harm.

I'm sorry but loaded gun equating to obvious intent just does not equate given what little additional evidence there is. Given some testimony in this thread, it is just as likely it was a defensive weapon or , to take a page out of your argument, to show it to a friend for shits and giggles.

What other reason is there for carrying a gun onto school grounds, with a loaded clip? If he just wanted to show his friends, why not at his house, if he just wanted to show his school friends, why bring a loaded clip??? You don't.

Live fire demonstration. Check out how those pop bottles fly.

You do so if you plan on doing bad things. This little fuck just got very unlucky and ended up expending his bullets on people he didn't want to. Don't underestimate children. Their minds work in fucked up ways.

Obviously, since you've assumed automatic intent.

At 1/18/11 08:00 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: I call bullshit. That gun was gonna go off that day with or without that accident. If that gun hadn't had gone off by accident when it did it would have been used on somebody on purpose. Nobody could be stupid enough to actually carry a gun into school and disregard every possible safety precaution on that gun.

Did you read the thread or did you just deside to try and preach?

First, why was there a magazine in the gun? Why was that magazine loaded?

To keep the weapon in a ready condition.

Why was the safety off in the first place?

You don't know that the safety was off.

And why was the gun so ready to fire that it went off by merely hitting the ground?

If you grossly mishandle a firearm, or you drop it, safety or not - it will fire. Remember that the round is activated by the shock of the hammer, dropping the weapon or mishandling it in a certain fashion will fire the round.

That guy wanted someone dead. He would haveto be lame in the head to actually load, prep and carry that gun around without the intention of shooting it in the first place. Fucking disgusting man.

You don't really know that do you? Learn 2 read thread? No motive is mentioned in article, suggestions are offered vis a vis why one would carry a weapon into that particular school, your assumption that carrying a weapon is automatically intent to kill is not only false, it's 'fucking disgusting man.'

At 1/4/11 06:40 PM, MisterWonderful wrote: don't say hooters i hate that place,hate sports, hate drinking i MIGHT get a job if you think of something good enough for me

A job that's good enough for you? You entitled piece of shit.

At 12/23/10 09:52 AM, Nintendoobsessed wrote: The worst day of my life was when my parents told me Santa wasn't real. I cried nearly all night. My life was ruined. But they still expect me to believe in Jeusus!!! what kind of crap is this???

TROLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.