Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I am having a issue maybe someone can resolve. I found a dungeon with demands and other usable materials, the problem is there is lava everywhere and it is difficult to maneuver around. There is water around but it does not work the best to remove blocks because then I have to deal with obsidian, which is a pain to remove. I have thought about using buckets, but that also is to time consuming.
Any suggestions?

Also, does anyone know or own a good server worth playing on?

You wonder what the world would look like without government control? Simple, It would be chaos. As it had been in the past when a nation switches powers so drastically. It is not a stable way of allow a nation to be. For starters, you would have to assume with no laws or government or law enforcement, that people would function on a moral basis and not be temped to steal, kill, ect. Human nature (greed) would kick in and you would be dealing with the same issues as before. But now on a tenfold because you relinquished any law enforcement that could help. It is a nice idea, having people able to function with out government, but it is completely unrealistic.

He took his time because it was such a absurd request in the first place. At the time instead of dealing with people questioning his origins of birth, he was trying to focus on relevant things. Like the economy.

At 4/29/11 02:35 AM, Saren wrote: The Republican party and the Tea party have a right to question and they are actually being very noble people in doing this (even though they have done stupid things before I agree). This is very serious and the government is being extremely slack in not helping out with this and getting this sorted out because this could be a serious offense and Obama needs to be caught if he's pulling shit like this.

Can I ask why Obama needed to go through this is the first place? Why hasn't other politician have to validate their birth?

Hopefully once and for all, this will shut birthers up now that they have no means to support their argument. It is ridiculous that it even had to get to the point in where he had to show it in the first place.

At 4/2/11 12:16 AM, moglog wrote: personally I think It's a good Idea for multiple reasons first off it would get rid of aids, How you may ask?
well you see, if you are a virgin until you are married and you partner is a virgin till married then there is no way there could be a sexually transmitted disease between the two. if everyone followed this then AIDS would simply be impossible and if someone who already has AIDS were to get married and giver his?her partner the ailment then assuming they are not having adulatory the AIDS could no longer spread.
Another good reason is that if a relationship seriously relies on sex to hold together than not much of a relationship there at all anyway.

Mog, If you choose abstinence for yourself that is fine. But by what means do you or the government have in saying it has to be the choice for everyone when there are safe ways of having intimacy while avoid risks of STDs and pregnancy?

At 3/30/11 06:21 AM, TehJonneh wrote: A politician running for a place on Alaska's Judicial Council, Don Haase, is running under the campaign of illegalizing pre-marital sex. Not only that, he also believes that adultery should be considered a crime. The Young Turks's Acknowledgement of Don Haase.

Now, I can understand adultery being considered a crime if the couple is legally bound to each other (married, civil union, etc.) and one of them goes off and cheats on the other. You would HAVE to have some sort of contract proving that you two are a couple in the first place for this to work, however. And the issue still pretty iffy/vague. But on the illegalizing pre-marital sex? Now, I find that to be just plain ridiculous. I mean, seriously? All of America is NOT the Catholic Church. And what about the people that are together, but don't feel like getting married or united? I know of such a couple. Nice couple who've been living together for about 20-something years, and they aren't legally bound to each other. So every time they had sex, it would be illegal? And the list of problems that this creates goes on.

I'm curious to hear your opinions about it. Especially if you're for illegalizing pre-marital sex. Becuase I'd love to see someone try to defend that.

Why would it matter what to consenting adults do in the privacy of there own homes? Sounds really invasive, even in regards to cheating and adultery. Legally, as the OP mentioned, the two marriage people are able to have as open of a relationship as they want. It is up to the individuals to decide the boundaries and what is acceptable for their marriage, not the gov

Sure, but don't expect a high productions of the hundreds of things produces in factory lines. You can lower your expectancy for quality as well.

I understand your statement about lack of jobs and such. But our society is so reliant on these items and the size they are being produced, is it really worth creating more jobs over? Wouldn't it be in fact easier to create new jobs?

At 1/29/11 07:38 PM, Korriken wrote: so basically Jim Moran told an arab news network that the GOP gains from midterms were because the nation is a bunch of racists that don't want to be governed by an African American.

if that were the case he would have never been elected in the first place. the GOP gains.. well, it suppose it depends on who you ask as to why they got elected.

Of course, according to a lot of democrats, the reason could not POSSIBLY be because the constituents are getting pissed off at the democrats, for whatever reason they are pissed.

eh, maybe when he comes up for reelection the racist bastards can elect a republican to take his place as well. i mean seriously, politics are bad enough without shitheads like Moran constantly playing the whole "racists and rich jews" theme.

Though their is some racism and other foul play done in politics to get a advancement ( Glenn Beck for example). I do not believe that is why we (the Democrats) lost the recent elections was because we were strong enough to fight back in some cases. We let the GOP say a lot and gain control while sat in the corner without defending ourselves.

Back again to you point, though racism is used with some tea party lobbyist, GOP spokespeople etc, it would be a mistake of me to generalize everyone on the right with these cases. I think a majority have a practical concern and thence disapprove of what the President is doing without race being involved.

At 1/28/11 11:54 PM, TasmanianDevil wrote: What made all of that stuff where all of the matter in the universe was and than all of a sudden exploded in a big bang?

Because I can't think of anything really.

The theory has issues granted, but it still seems to be the most practical answer out there aside from a deity who got bored one day.. Poof.. we are in existence. Creationism takes more assumptions, faith, etc then believing in something that perhaps may have some facts right but has issues explaining the others.

Most protestants I have encountered are pro life.

At 11/17/10 11:36 PM, Korriken wrote: Palin running again? I hope not. the media had a field day with her once. they'll just do it again.

"she doesn't speak like an elitist snob, and has experience doing things other than being a politician! On top of that, she can hunt! she must be stupid!"

Making anyone who is a normal person look like an idiot is simple if you got enough people working towards it... of course making Obama look like an incompetent leader was as easy as him getting elected.

She does it ( making her self seem incompetent) all on her own, from her side stepping questions, to her consistently switching topics and making obscure comments. She makes it clear, she has no idea how to respond to the questions given.

Obama won't have such a fantastically easy time getting reelected. Now that people have seen him in action, compounded with the loss of his rockstar image, he's gonna catch hell, especially if the new republicans in congress do well and don't give Obama anything to point at and yell "see? this is what will happen if you don't reelect me!"

Obama had quite a mess to clean up after the Bush administration, Everyone expects it to be done immediately regardless that our congress has difficulty coming to any census about issues. I think he could have done more but I do not blame him for it.

Even if he does get elected, if more republicans get in, he's finished anyway.... at least for 2 years. Not much will get to his desk that he won't veto. the government will be deadlocked til the next midterms and if the republicans aren't brushed aside, he's still screwed.

This is why he has been having to comprise what his plans to some kind of median to something both parties can agree on.

At 11/18/10 04:41 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

However, I understand: It's easy to sit at home behind your computer and post horrible things on the Internet, knowing that you will always be anonymous. You will be proving my point about you even more if your response to this is attacking me. I suggest you give your reasons on why you do not care for Sarah Palin.

Agreed. :D

You failed to mention that it was on the day the school was grieving the loss of 5 students ( gay) who took their own lives.

Palin simply is not qualified for any position of office. She is highly unqualified and uneducated on our legal and political policies. Honestly, I would be surprised if she even makes it to the Republican Primaries.

A woman's choice is her own. If she feels it is necessary to have the abortion and handles the situation in a well thought responsible manner. I am supportive of woman's rights if these cafeterias are met. What upsets me is people who feel the obligation and the authority to tell a women what she can and can not do with her body. Regardless of whether or not you believe this embryonic life has meaning ( though it is still has no heart beat and it is illegal to go to one after 8 months) what gives any religious or political group any power over a woman's body?

At 2/14/10 09:58 AM, AlexMcGreagor wrote: Sorry for no spaces in the topic, I wouldn't have space to put what I wanted there with spaces. Anyway put your opinion and please back it up with good evidence, I don't want stuff like "well" or "terribly".

Islam in this time and age has to be one of the mos misunderstood beleif systems. Radicals in Afgan and Iran have tainted the religion into a dogmatic regiem. In where, young minds are corrupted by power and manipulation to manifest to large numbers to do the biddings of these twisted individual leaders. I have read part of the Quara'n, and frankly, the teachings counterdict the action these groups justify actions by.
It is not even like this is the first time religious has been misrepresented by groups who pick though the doctrine to find laws,teachings, scripture etc. to use to justify there own deed. In fact, with enough space I would be able to list when and how someone has done this for every large religious beleif.
In no way in this response to I approve of these action carried out by extreme Islmists. I do how ever hope people will be able to look into something ( what ever it may be) before passing judgement.

At 2/14/10 12:16 AM, poxpower wrote: So we live in a "free" society, which means people expect to have the right to make any choices they want. But it also means that whenever we have "chosen" something, we can be blamed for it.

Take cigarettes for instance. People will say that you should have the right to smoke. But if you do smoke, it's your choice and you're the only one to blame.

Or food. You're an idiot if all you eat is pizza. But people understand that you have the right to do that so they blame you for doing it.

But let's take it further. Would you blame a company for making an unsafe car, or would you blame the person for buying it? After all, companies have the right to make shit cars and you should have the right to buy them!

Now back to food. Most people don't know how unsafe eating shit food is. They know it's bad and makes you fat, but they don't realize they're literally killing themselves.

So who's to blame? Them?
What if I sold you a sandwich with a turd in it, and you ate it? Why blame me, wasn't it up to you to do your research on how much poo was in your sandwich?

What I'm getting at here is that we all lose out when you make people free to do and get anything. No one has the time to become an expert in enough things to guarantee what they're doing / using is safe or optimal.

More choice is not more freedom. That's been demonstrated again and again. The more choices people have, the worse off they are in general since they don't have the time to make the right decisions on anything.
Cars, clothes, food, hobbies etc.

So once again: where does the blame really begin? Are people to blame for, say, being fat lumbering pieces of shit, or can you blame the fast food industry for supplying a terrible cheap choice in an environment full of people who don't have a clue?

You're examples are rather hazy. With your over all thought though I will say this, People should have sense enough to know how to be responsible with there free will. Understand circumstances and make adult decisions to better themselves. If a person eats juke food, of course they have themselves to blame. Any medical research dated from the 1960's and on could tell you that we shouldn't have a high carb or fat diet.
With the car dealer example, this is faulty because we have within our legal system a code of ethics that outlaws misrepresentation and fraud. Which would put the blame on the dealer.

At 2/8/09 01:26 PM, superperson101 wrote: If you remove all things christian-related, including, but not limited to: praying, crosses etc. Then that means that all things related to religion should be removed. That means no no getting on the floor and praying to allah, only the theory of evolution, no statues, no turbans, no bibles (satanic, christian, book of morman), etc. Also, did you hear about the judge that said national atheist day is April 1st?! I think that is funny as hell.

First off may I ask if this is involving what is happening in Spain right now with the removal of religious icons from schools?
Secondly, Even though I doubt my voice will be heard I will post my opinion. Religion and school and government serve there own purpose in society and should remain seperate to now allow one to overtake the other and distorting what it once was. Even though I am an Atheist I do respect religion and see it as a way to provide a set of a code of ethics for some people. Granted I realize it is far from the only way of having a moral bases it still provides that to some, As well religion creates a sense of belonging and brings people joy. Personally, I see nothing that gives me the right to take that away from certian people.
Religion as free to practice people are allowed on their own time, lacks any sort of documented evidence supporting the claims made and has several flaws within itself, One reason I feel it serves no purpose in school or government. Aswell if a person is to take religion and create in it a general use of it in situations that do not involve a private organization, The people are trying ot make it as if the one set of beliefs reflect that of a whole of the group and the standards hold true for all, In this day in age that would be foolish to believe that it fits for all and it would be discrimanating to all sets of beliefs.
Secularism is needed ( in groups that impact the general public, not excluding anyone from practicing) if we are ever going to grow as a nation.

At 2/2/09 02:34 PM, debobbins wrote: Its because its just weird i wouldnt want it if i were the kid. 2 women maybe but 2 blokes you would get ripped. You might think id be the one doing the ripping but im not that bad would just think its weird but at the end of the day how many school kids are gonna see that as normal.

Gay couples will not effect the childs pyschy or cause the child to become a homosexual themselves. These are stupid stereotypes created by homophobic people to try and spread these to create others to disapprove and follow their standings on homosexuality. Gay couples are just as capable of showing the love and compassion needed to create a health enviroment then hetrosexual couples. It is based on the people themselves and how they go about raising the child with disapline and attention given to the child as appose to something as trival as their gender.

At 2/4/09 07:33 PM, Mugabe wrote: Atheism is a mental illness and they must be locked up.

How intolerant and stereotypical for you to say that. Religious veiws are a small factor of live that are in the grand skeem of things small. Everyone has their own veiw and are entitled to them. I personally am an Atheist and feel no need for religious ties or the need to follow a set deity. But I do respect others beliefs enough to see some benifits having religion in peoples lives can have, And I would not do anything to compromise that. My point in all of this is this , Religion is a matter of opinon and their are a maltatude of different belief systems making it impossible to say that one is correct and the other is not, What we can do though is to grant the person religious freedom and humbly respect others ideals.

At 2/4/09 07:33 PM, Patton3 wrote: I honestly want to know what you think, so post whether you would say yes, you do want it, ar no, you don't. If you're not clear on what Universal Healthcare is, try this link.

Also, please elaborate on why you think one way or another. I'm not forcing you to do so, just it will help your case out, you know?

I feel that our current system we have established is flawed ( The United States) in which we have giving to much power to these private insurane companies that can maipulate the prices how ever they please. Health care should not be excluded to the wealthy but should be avalible to all needing of it. Free health care has been used sucessfully with several countries without any economic drop and a created a lower mortality rate, With our current economy the way it is, I would think that it would be hard at first to afford all of the expences but once we are in a better place we definently need to look further into it.

At 1/26/09 01:27 AM, Davoo wrote: I think one of the big things that anti-obama people are saying now is the old he's-a-socialist routine. Honestly, it's slowly becoming a lot easier to believe...let alone that it seemed likely to begin with.

But that's not the point right now, the point is, if he WAS a socialist (which I'm not saying he is...or isn't) would you oppose that? Or would you like that?

Not at all, If I remember right wasnt it Palin who said she took money from the wealthy and distributed it all throughout Alaska?

At 1/23/09 10:20 AM, Zonked wrote: Hi !

I'm french, and I think that american health care system is simply stupid and totally absurd. Why ? because societies specialised in "health care" don't help people to heal, they just take them money and denies every asked refunds !

In france, our health care belongs to the state, and it works very good !

People who say that french, canadian and england health care system is bad make me laugh, american system is based on money, not on people's health... Health care private societies just scam people : "we heal you if you're not sick" could be their creed...

That's why I have hope in barack obama. Maybe he will change that stupid system...
Bye.

P.S : if you find my english worst, that's normal, as said at the beginning of the text, I'm french.

Zonked, I am an American citizen, And like you I appose the health system we have. Currently, our health care system is mandated by these huge insurance corperations who with this power given by "Dubya" can create a flawed system thats only goal is to make as much profit as possible. I feel a universal heath care is need so the poor and the weak will be allowed the chance they deserve of having the same health care as anyone else. By having universal health care we will not fall subject to socalism like the Mc Cain campain wanted us to believe. ( Keep in mind early in the campain Palin made mention of distributing the wealth in Alaska to all). I feel it is benifituary and our only solution if we ever want to healthcare we desperately need,

At 12/29/08 09:08 PM, poxpower wrote: If you oppose it, then presumably you have already been born, in which case: why do you care? No one will abort you.

The reason we don't allow crimes is so we're not the victim. But no one who's alive today will ever be the victim of an abortion.

I win, checkmate.

Pox, I am pro womans rights. Abortion, Though I support it shouldn't be done causually without a care or out of negligants. It is a decession the WOMAN make in according to how having a child will impact her life, For some women, Have a child would be devestating. It cost thousands of dollers and quite a amount of time to raise a child. Completely compromising any ambitions or dreams. Also, For any women who had to experence the horrific event of rape, she would be reminded everyday if by somechance she was impreganated through the action.( seeing how the man is enough of a monster to do such a act to the women, I highly doubt anyone willing to do this will be sypathetic and not allow the chance). If a women wants to keep the child for what ever that is her buisness, But no one, is intitled to enforce what they think the womens best intrest is onto her, It is her choice,

At 1/23/09 10:42 AM, thegamer12346 wrote: I forgot which state but it southern middle states, the law is that in school u must spend 30 second silent prayer. I think some athiest is sewing the school or something because of it. WHAy do YOU th1nk

Thegamer, Legally a school can not hold this accountable or make it manditory. Organized religion has absolutely no place in our school systems. I am an Atheist, But I am sure people who do not hold the ideologies that this school potrays would agree. Everyone is entitled to hold so religious princible, our society should accomedate this for everyone not only the majority. Religion again hold no place in school or government.