Don't bother starting. Hold yourself above the rest of humanity by showing not only that you have avoided partaking in a substance abuse that few others have been able to avoid, but that you have done so of your own volition, and with full knowledge of what it was from which you abstained. Believe me, the satisfaction you will derive from the knowledge that you are a more resilient person, far outweighs the comparatively minor pleasures that accompany debauchery.

Shove it down.

Ha'ing truly destroyed with words not amiss
Those cold-hearted fucks who on him did piss
Good FUNK turned around with gleam in his eye;
He stamped on their heads 'til juices ran dry.

Well, I expected as much, and I'm happy to say that my results are consistently within this range. I do believe that it's extremely important to have some degree of government intervention in the economy, but in all matters of personal freedom except guns, I believe in the government taking a hands-off approach. By the way, this site has a terrible color scheme and an even worse font choice. I mean Bauhaus 93? Seriously? In the year 2009? In the era of Web 2.0? Ugh.

Yuck. If there's one team that absolutely did not deserve to win any title, let alone World Series champion, it's the Yankees. With two or three times the budget of pretty much every other team in all of baseball, I think it's kind of ridiculous that it took nine years for this shitty team to get it together enough to do what it had already done 26 times leading up to 2000.

Also, I hope Alex Rodriguez gets the same asterisk at the end of his name as Barry Bonds did, the steroid-chugging malcontent.

I like to write but I've always found this concept of the national novel writing month to be exceedingly stupid. Why limit yourself to one month to produce a novel, when you stand to gain absolutely nothing from doing so? This contest entails no prizes besides some intangible sense of personal glory, and serves only to encourage thoughtless and quickly-scrawled work with little accompanying profoundness or originality, because it limits creativity to a 30-day box from which there is no escape if you want to "win."

If you want to write a novel, write a good one, and take your time for chrissakes. Nobody wants to read a hundred pages of your shitty stream-of-consciousness ramblings.

At 10/29/09 01:02 AM, PenguinKommando wrote:

At 10/29/09 12:59 AM, Bolo wrote: Time is money. Money is time.

Fair enough, but then why would you even be on Newgrounds?

I think if you gain intellectual stimulation from the act of posting, and by genuine stimulation I mean interaction with like-minded people under no false pretenses of who is who, then being on Newgrounds could actually be a boon to certain aspects of education. Certainly, there are aspects which it could be argued pose a threat to intellectual well-being on the site, namely some discussions on the general forum. I have seen it said that time spent on this site is inversely proportional to mental well-being, however, I do think there's something to be said for the community fostered here, no matter how bad it may seem. I am of the opinion that the shape of the curve is something closer to parabolic:

At 10/29/09 12:57 AM, PenguinKommando wrote: This analogy doesn't make sense at all. It doesn't cost anything to register, what the fuck?

Time is money. Money is time. And every second you waste posing as somebody you're not is another second less that you have to spend doing things you enjoy in the world, before you die.

The atheist's motivation stems from a general compassion for his or her own species, which because of evolution and natural selection, he or she innately wishes to protect and nurture, to cause to grow and become a visibly better or more cohesive brotherhood, which can be accomplished through the employment of ethical standards.

The idea that there needs to be some intangible "afterlife" reward in order for people to care about our present state of existence is preposterous, and little more than a veiled form of bribery, which ironically is viewed as an evil in most forms of organized religion. There is no logical reason why we should have any reason to believe that after death, one experiences consciousness -- we have never identified a single credible person who could provide any sort of evidence of this concept's truth. Yet, we do know what it's like to experience absolute lack of consciousness -- people who've experienced comas, or being knocked out by traumatic brain injury almost universally correlate the experience to a timeless, formless, dreamless, lack of any self-awareness.

Judging by the fact that death also involves a lack of brain function, it stands to reason that the most likely scenario for what occurs after death is most akin to unconsciousness; a total non-existence of thought or perception. Not black or white or any color, because we lack any thought to conceive of these concepts.

At 10/28/09 05:18 PM, ChocEliteBar wrote: I've got a feeling Home Depot is fucked on this one. I just know it.

"That's not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."

This guy has no recourse. When he signed on at Home Depot, he agreed to ALL the terms and conditions of employment, which included this no-buttons-except-company-approved-ones policy. The Home Depot is a private firm, and in the private sector, companies are allowed to make whatever distinctions and rules they want to promote a better and more cohesive work environment, provided they violate no federal laws.

Since the rule was laid out in plain English, and this guy clearly violated it, he will lose the lawsuit. This is not religious discrimination, because the employee was hired-on without any hint of religious persecution at the same rate and under the same assumptions as his fellow employees. His refusal to comply with policy that was communicated simply to him is grounds for termination of employment.

I'm glad they took it out, and I hope they start to phase that in nation-wide."Under god" is an archaic relic, a completely untrue and noninclusive statement that actually IS offensive and stupid, unlike many other complaints regarding political correctness. The state that a nation is "under god" presupposes that the only correct religion is the religion where a single omnipotent god exists, when clearly significant populations exist in the US of Polytheists, and the non-religious, who have just as much empirical evidence of the truth of their respective religions as Christians do of theirs.

If you care, say "under God" in your own damn head, where it doesn't bother anybody else in the world.

You kind of fucked up the mouth.

Let's together now, we tan-faced children, sons of wealth and power, who see in our teary-eyed futures the prospects of our predecessors' labors. Together, to the gleaming red hum of the horizon, bedecking our skins in nothing but the audacious gold of human aspiration.

Forward; Mush, my Beautiful Sons! Arise from your indecent slumber; cast aside your frivolous games, your varied perversions! For now, betwixt the rising and setting of the fair sun, is the hour of the the Ghost-rider. Have ye strength of heart sufficient to lead a behemoth, or wilt thou be confined to the dark corners of history for ignominy? Stepping not with the heavy-handed clumsiness of an unpracticed knave, he, the fair witling, lightly trods upon the belly of one mechanical beast, and seems in his wild gesticulations to direct and command the belcher-of-smoke.

Take my hand, Lovelies, and grab in one hand the sword, in the other the shield, marching swiftly in tandem, to the melodic rhythm of a Moor's potent song.

At 8/10/09 02:38 PM, Piss wrote: I think the main problem is only 30% of NGBBS frequents believe in the great Lord, or do like the good book should.

I see you, as well, believe in the great mystical word and the supreme godhead which hurries all of its wayward children beneath the sheltering cloak of darkness and caresses their supple bodies. The question does remain however: have you accepted into your life the proper one, or do you subscribe to a falsehood?

At 9/28/09 05:53 PM, Piss wrote: sickening.

I hate to say it, but Piss speaks the truth. I spent so much time working on my novel that I've lost a lot of friends, and I failed out of my college as a result. Pizza Delivery is scam to pay workers less than minimum wage, and I was possibly the worst deliveryman the world has ever known. My parents are psychologically abusive, and I have no secondary course of action to pursue in life. Every hot dog and meat patty that falls onto that grill is another sand dune in the desert of my life, another rock tied to my leg as I fall head over heels into a aqueous pit.

Here's a video of it. It's definitely "fuckin'," but as the rest of the sketch made clear, it was supposed to be "frickin'."

You guys better watch it fast, because youtube has a habit of taking down NBC-related videos with all haste.

At 9/15/09 11:53 PM, fuzzum111 wrote: God dammit you just fucked me over sideways, and properly inside out.
x.x;; *dies*

Give no credit to me, dear friend, for the exploits that have been perpetrated at the hands of the potent lord, our wondrous Thoreau, and his thick, heavy, facial adornment. 'Twas that man, and not I, who hath brought to bear the powers of seduction, and spread them across the Western kingdom.

Because the message expressed so eloquently in the masterpiece thread "Computer Partisans" seems to have gone completely over the heads of my dear, sweet, fellow BBS denizens, I have resolved to re-express that sentiment in a more explicit manner.

Bluntly, I will summarize: Computer brand choice is a matter of personal preference based on personal need, not on religious loyalty necessarily requiring all other brands to be inferior. I will now defer to a graphic, which will explain the choice, and why Computer Partisans' loyalties to specific brands do not invalidate others' choices of competing brands:

At 9/21/09 06:20 PM, Piss wrote: pics or it didn't happen? aw yeah.

You forgot to tell them what happened after I delivered your pies, nig.

At 9/19/09 10:08 PM, stafffighter wrote: Right, the Beatles didn't do anything bad other than team up with Nixon to turn a generation of people into disenfranchised drug addicts.

Well, I think we can all agree that the 1970s really was bursting to the seams with disenfranchised drug addicts. The only part we have to determine is exactly why that was. I don't allege that the Beatles were solely responsible for this, but I do believe that the optimism of their era, fostered both by them, and by the people around them, who admittedly had reasonably good intentions in creating this false perception of limitless achievement and harmony, came crashing down around society's ears when met with the cold steel of reality.

At 9/19/09 09:35 PM, Head-Full-Of-Acid wrote: i can agree with everything about your post except for the last three words; i don't know of too many bands who surprass their greatness during that generation of music; if you care to list some examples...

I don't believe any band or musician of any era truly deserves to be termed "great" by any means. A normal band is merely reflective of its contemporary culture, and reflective of those to whom it wishes to cater. Bands do not in and of themselves inspire men to do great things, to collectively alter the status quo or become something of a higher caliber. Music is merely the foil for something, an idea or person or object, that already exists in another form but is deemed to be in need of reinforcement in the popular consciousness.

At 9/19/09 09:35 PM, stafffighter wrote: Right, if it weren't for "Yellow Submarine" humanity would have explored it's own potential to the point where we'd all be levitating by now.

I never indicated that the Beatles' existence had hampered the growth of society. Merely that the creation of such a high standard as permanent civil harmony amongst the youth was bound to cause a culture shock when its truth was upended by reality. Indeed, as those youth who enjoyed the Beatles matured in the '70s, their grudging acceptance of their parents' created world was the end of the illusion of a collective interest that could be satisfied by something as simple as a band -- an illusion that had fooled those youth for so many years. The growing disaffection of the 1970s was perhaps a side effect of this realization, coupled with anger over Watergate and various public abuses. The widespread drug use of the period was certainly symptomatic.

Beatlemania was nothing more than a ploy by the music industry, made to take advantage of needy or otherwise disaffected peoples' desires to live vicariously through others who tend to exist at higher echelons of the cultural hegemony. It was a sad chapter in the history of this country, indicative of a longing of the youth to be somehow connected to a common touchstone in the face of the failings of their parents, who had dichotomized the world into two factions of right and wrong, each side considering itself, of course, to be exclusively in possession of the title "right."

The music, newspaper, and mass-media industries of the time, run by those who had so destroyed the equilibrium of the world as to render it impossible to effectively mend, sought instead to cast a rosily-tinted view of the future, of a connected, one-world group of juveniles whose enjoyments and tastes superceded cultural boundaries, and made the deep divisions of the time period, between good and bad, communist and capitalist, racist and colorblind, seem to be on the verge of disappearance with a new and more world-literate group of people assuming positions of authority.

Clearly, as history has effectively indicated, the view of reality aggressively set forth by these outlets was a fabrication meant to create a global phenomenon, not an actual awakening of the human species, as the grip of mania would seem to suggest. The pursuit of the fabrication was a self-fulfilling prophecy of its own pervasiveness, and as more media outlets covered the phenomenon, it grew in size simply because it was already a dynamo

Beatlemania is nothing less than the unrealistic hopes and dreams of millions of people, crushed by their own submissiveness to the sterile, artificial manifestation of reality presented in the form of four vaguely representative members of the generation. Millions whose belief in free will, belief in independence from permeating memes, and belief in the escape of the dystopian world which was believed to be fast-approaching, was invalidated by the nature of their enjoyment of this bizarre and unremarkable little band.

As much power as they might gain through fear and intimidation of the Afghan people, even if the US eventually decides to pull out, I doubt the Taliban regime could effectively govern the country anymore given that local tribes have seen the fruits of collaborating with American troops as opposed to Taliban insurgents (more food provisions, medicine, humanitarian aid). The weight of landmass under a military's hand is nothing when compared to the weight of an unhappy and unruly populace of the governed, who believe it is possible to attain tangible improvement. It has proven true time and time again in the course of history.

At 9/17/09 12:59 AM, SeeInTheDark wrote: Yeah, that's bullshit, and I fully expect that you entirely made it up. For the record, the 2009 AP US History test had a pass rate of 53%, one of the lower rates compared to all tests. I'm sure that (conservatively) over 95% of testers took the course. I guess you could teach yourself the material using a quality textbook and College Board, but you had better be thorough. I took an AP history exam last year- World, not United States- and review materials/test prep were not a substitute for the course.

Bolo best be trollin'.

Not at all. I used to be absolutely phenomenal at essay writing. Got a five on both English AP exams in high school, and the US History exam was easy for someone who spent any amount of time watching the History channel over the years. World History was about twenty times harder than US History, and I took World History as an AP class, only got a four on that particular exam. Most people who take the AP exams don't know or care about the material presented. I, on the other hand, did.

Believe me, it was better than Physics and World History by orders of magnitude.

At 9/16/09 10:39 PM, ghostxero wrote: people acting dumb about people that are bigger? you know the ones that ask stupid questions like..how do u get fat or is being fat a sickness? i just wanna break them like bane did batman! if ur skinny good for you, u better enjoy it cause 9 times outta 10 at some point that great metabolism that u had when u were younger will catch up to you and ull be the "fat" one while all the people u made fun of will look at you and say....awwwwww what happened? dont mistake a bigger person or a fat person for someone that is out of shape. ud be amazed at how in shape they are!

Christ, it really seems like you've got a chip on your shoulder; a real insecurity about your own physical failings and your apparent inability to correct their negative impacts on your lifestyle. So now, I suppose, it's not yourself and your own tenuous well-being that concerns you, but the impassioned critique of anyone who is less unhealthy than yourself and makes an attempt at presentability, who is solely at fault for a terrifying degradation in your own bodily function and the hygienic problems that necessarily accompany it. In acting as if on constant defense of your unwholesome way of life, you assume the fact that your situation is concrete and unchangeable, when in fact a mere taking-of-action to combat the status quo is all that would be required to alter permanently your limited outlook on life.

I never even took the class, and I got a five on the AP exam for US History. The easiest AP exam I ever took in my high school years. You can honestly not study at all and still pass that exam, given, of course, that you aren't a complete fucking idiot, or so I assume. Supreme Court case references and 19th century labor disputes are the only mildly challenging topics covered on the exam, and you could still get a five even if you answered all of those questions wrong, or left them blank. You don't need the class, buddy. All you need is the exam grade.

At 9/16/09 12:59 AM, TheShrike wrote: Get your own opinion.

You have to admit, though; Aldous Huxley isn't a bad person to quote.

In regards to the quote, I agree with Huxley's theory. Because of human intellect, we have the ability to perceive ourselves and act on level that is higher than the autonomic. This alone sets us apart permanently from other species on the planet. Within that intellect, self-awareness also promotes the perception of others as intelligent beings who act above the autonomic level, making their actions inherently unpredictable, and thus mysterious and vague. Because the only intentions we can fully and truly decipher amongst ourselves are our own, humans are creatures that exist within the plane of their own individuality.

At 9/14/09 03:29 PM, Piss wrote: It seems as though our little friend here was the only one in history able to successfully pull off the dreaded neck-beard.

"Little"? It seems as though you are fatally mistaken, my friend. To diminish the man is to alter history in a most heinous manner. To diminish the beard is to commit an act against god himself, for which reciprocation is a given, and for which clemency is not to be awarded. The diesel-powered and all-pistons-firing mechanism producing free sexual energy just beneath Henry David Thoreau's shapely chin every second of every day between July 4th, 1845 and May 6th, 1862 is perhaps the most productively efficient machine in terms that the face of the planet (and the face of Thoreau himself) has or will ever experience in the storied history of our species.

Ah, but were he to live a mere 80 years longer, he would have stopped Hitler's march before even the beginning threads of the tapestry invasion of France, and would induced from half a world away, a state of free love amongst the Nazi and Allied ranks the likes of which would have surpassed even the 1960s in terms of sheer debauchery.

At 9/14/09 03:04 AM, Lare wrote: I don't think this thread has much potential for creating discussion.

Who amongst the masses would join not with the preponderance of mankind in staring serenely at the natural creature with longing eyes, and wondering how it was tamed, but instead with the numerically-inferior detractors who would say that the construct is unremarkable? Who amongst the populace when exposed to the faint fern of a man so robustly sexual as to be legendary would not be placed in a state of shock in regards to his potency, and Thoreau-ly (Ho ho ho!) envy the man?

Methinks that in your wanton haste to dismiss the terrifyingly erotic nature of the simple whiskery rodent, you have forgotten just exactly what a blessing the touch of that fine specimen upon the skin tends to be for the good-fortuned recipient.

Hello, my friends. It has recently come to my attention that specimen so wiry and full as to inspire awe once grew on the face of 19th-century America's greatest philosopher and resident wild-man, Henry David Thoreau.

Whilst completing the seminal novel Walden, in the 1840s, Monsieur Thoreau began to incubate a great animal beneath his supple chin: a creature which we have come to know singularly as Neckbeard the Magnificent. Using his great powers of rhetoric and Trancendentalist mysticism, Thoreau domesticated the beast and began using it as a natural pheromone and aphrodisiac. Quickly becoming the most prolific sexual dynamo east of the Mississippi River, Thoreau conquered many nubile virgins and various older women who obstructed his bestial path.

Many would put Thoreau to the question, believing the bountiful beard to be a sign of deviancy -- but did those luscious whiskers ever tickle the testes of another illustrious gentleman? Good god, no! Perish the thought.

After the first blush of sin comes its indifference. Yet, who could resist the discipline of that firm-bristled brush, that beautiful animal which we call the Neckbeard?