Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The most harmful thing you can do to children in schools is distract people from the REAL issues they face. Not this bullshit.

At 3/7/13 09:31 PM, Luke wrote:

At 3/7/13 09:28 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Because the pop-tart kinda resembled a gun? Reach moar, seven year old real stone cold killer.
Pointing looks more violent.

Yeah, pretending to make a gun with your fingers definitely does look more violent, pointing on the other hand doesn't resemble a weapon.

Like I said earlier, the school is trying to set an example, and this kid is the scapegoat. The goal is clear, and that is to teach children that the school (or any educational facility) is not the place for weapons, whether they be pretend, drawings, toys, etc.
They're trying to enforce the idea that guns are bad and are not to be accepted in school.

image search pop tart gun.
Oh no so threatening. We have real bullies in our schools, ones that result in accidental deaths, or purposeful ones. And when those people die, the responsible parties are protected to protect the school's image, or their athletic careers.
But no you want to lay down the law on a 7 year old.

The idea is that guns are not okay, and the best way to have a child understand that a gun is not okay is to do things like this. Whether it be gun shaped pastry, or a toy gun, they're both inappropriate for school, because if they were appropriate for school, it tells children that guns are okay.

It's simple, really. I don't understand how this is "bullshit" and why it can't be justified.

Because the pop-tart kinda resembled a gun? Reach moar, seven year old real stone cold killer.
Pointing looks more violent.

Are you mental? You're seriously going to judge One Piece from what 4kids did? You do know that funimation got the rights
to that show a fucking long time ago, right?

Actually no. Like I said I stopped watching that show when I saw the first few episodes of it.

That is pretty terrible honestly. You basically approached the worst possible version of something and said "That wasn't good"

(

At 3/7/13 04:17 AM, Cyberdevil wrote: What about bathrooms with an actual bath in them?

Well, that's because public "bathrooms" are called restrooms, where is my bed?

I really hope that some of you are being sarcastic.. I want to just be a victim of WOOOSH I really do.

At 3/7/13 05:51 PM, Whoshotdabear wrote:

At 3/7/13 05:26 PM, Schizo-Sephy wrote:

At 3/7/13 05:17 PM, Whoshotdabear wrote: The internet needs censorship.

I really, really hope you're kidding.

I'm dead serious

Sites like NG would be censored.

A necessary loss.

Still think it should be censored?

I know in my heart that we need censorship to live our lives.

Please provide proof why the human being should be so dangerously fragile so the smallest things create the newest serial killers.
If everyone L2cope the world would be a better place.

At 3/7/13 05:21 PM, Kanon wrote:

At 3/7/13 05:18 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 3/7/13 05:17 PM, Whoshotdabear wrote: The internet needs censorship.

Fuck you too, buddy.

I wouldn't want to fuck that, might have aids.

Maybe even SUPER aids..

At 3/7/13 03:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/7/13 02:29 PM, MistressLillith wrote: some serious research specially when it comes to Chavez and Gadaffi.

K, mistress, enlighten us.

Well on Gadaffi it is really too early for us to tell considering the situation. But it doesn't seem better when your congress can be assaulted like, what two days ago?

At 3/7/13 03:04 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 3/7/13 11:40 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/6/13 08:47 PM, Elitistinen wrote: I bet the US forces give their chow to Iraqi kids on daily basis?

You're entering some rough territory trying to respond to a post quoting leanlifter. Consider this a friendly warning: You do not want to go there.

I heard somewhere US soldiers made Iraqi kids vomited, then made them re-consumed their own vomits again. What do you call this, my patriotic friend: post trauma disorder?

This forum is full of internet tough dicks. But not long dicks. How do you consider if I "want to go there"?

I think his point was you were going to be subjected to leftleaner if you tread that ground. No one really wants to go there.
I've heard some terrible things done by a minority represent the majority of people.
Link please on that story though, i'd like to know the legitimate source or see the footage before I form an opinion on what you have claimed happened.

I've searched several times rephrasing it each time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLgZeZriW1s
Doesn't represent the majority either, but it certainly would be closer to the truth

At 3/7/13 05:17 PM, Whoshotdabear wrote: The internet needs censorship.

Fuck you too, buddy.

At 3/7/13 11:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/7/13 02:52 AM, Ceratisa wrote: It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

Simple break down of rules here:
Non-combatant citizen on US soil = 5th Amendment and Passe Comitatus violation
Non-combatant citizen on foreign soil = 5th Amendment violation
Non-Combatant non-citizen on US soil = Passe Comitatus violation
Non-Combatant non-citizen on foreign soil = Likely Geneva (or related) Convention
Comatant on US soil = Passe Comitatus violation (unless exception triggered)
Combatant on foreign soil = no violation, so long as military force authorized by Congress.

I understand the rules just fine. I'm not sure about the point of your post unless you are just putting the information out there. I've already stated the question was about Non-combatant citizens on U.S. soil. Not my words, just the question that was asked.
Paul, who led the marathon session on the Senate floor that officially ended Thursday afternoon, said he was satisfied with a response from the Justice Department over whether the president has the authority to use a drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on U.S. soil. Attorney General Eric Holder said firmly that he did not.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/07/senate-clear s-way-for-brennan-confirmation/?hpt=hp_t1

I think demanding for clarification when it is something like this, is more important then business as usual in Washington. But that is my personal opinion based on what had previously been said.

But this all passed, he got the answer he wanted. The specific question he asked, was answered.

The only semi interesting news is N.K. right now imho. But even that has been done before, admittedly with less nuclear weapons.

Eh wish I had a sig, but I don't really have the ability to make a nice one for myself. (Bad at that stuff)

At 3/7/13 03:04 AM, Provoke wrote:

At 3/7/13 02:55 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 3/7/13 02:51 AM, Provoke wrote: This is one of the reasons the BBS has been shitty as fuck lately.
Fucking gimmick accounts.

I agree fully with circle-jerker, this bullshit isn't locked yet?

I hate to bring this up here, but I just can't this anymore. These gimmick accounts are fucking everywhere nowadays, and most mods just let them be because they find them funny for causing so much mischief; while the regulars are getting banned and leaving because of the shit that is happening. For fucks sake, do you not see this happening?!

Of course I do, that is my issue with it. This kind of bullshit can be amusing once in awhile, but what is the point when you destroy the reason people come here, or even want to support NG?

Anyway looking at his posts can see it is mindless drivel. /endresistcallingyoubynickname

At 3/7/13 02:51 AM, Provoke wrote: This is one of the reasons the BBS has been shitty as fuck lately.
Fucking gimmick accounts.

I agree fully with circle-jerker, this bullshit isn't locked yet?

At 3/7/13 01:37 AM, Warforger wrote: The part I don't get when a new technology arises is where people are frightened that it kills people. Hello, that's the point of the military, why are drone strikes in particular so much different than having a special forces? Stealth fighters? Police force? Why was the nuclear bomb such a big deal? Conventional bombing did even more damage during WWII. Likewise if we're using these standards Drone strikes are a step forward since they tend to kill less civilians than alternative forms of attack.

It isn't about killing people, it is about a violation of the 5th amendment. Drones are simply the new platform for which these assassinations can take place. Please stop distracting from the point. Only one real question was being asked, and I've already said it.

But going back to the overall premise, the government can already kill people running from the law to begin with if they resist. If for example someone is holding hostages the military would send snipers to kill him etc. etc.. How are Drone strikes different from that?

But that isn't what is being said at all Warforger. And I've already said it wasn't. I've already said THEY weren't talking about that.

At 3/6/13 10:10 PM, iamgrimreaper wrote:

At 3/6/13 09:21 PM, BumFodder wrote: 3D films are still a shit gimmick

Spy kids did it right, but that's about it.

Avatar was great in terms of 3D, the movie wasn't great itself though.

And it is over, for today. Gun violence up next.

At 3/6/13 10:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/6/13 09:46 PM, Ceratisa wrote: And on this, neither can the military according to the law.

With some exceptions, but those are very hard to trigger. (open invasion and whatnot)

Yes, but you understand what I'm saying and this isn't what they are talking about.

At 3/6/13 09:36 PM, notYert wrote: omg so offensive i have a diabetic friend you DICK

I'll one up you with I am diabetic...

At 3/6/13 08:52 PM, Warforger wrote: Rand Paul should at least filibuster the confirmation of the new Attorney General at least, the CIA can't kill American citizens on American soil.

And on this, neither can the military according to the law.

At 3/6/13 08:52 PM, Warforger wrote: He asked Obama, this John Brennan guy is just someone he takes his pain on. As far as I know the CIA can't do anything like that because it doesn't have domestic jurisdiction, so there's no way Brennan will ever be in a position to do so. I get what Rand Paul is doing is noble here but his overall agenda is just bad. He has that same idealistic Libertarian view of foreign policy as his dad. The truth for the most part is that the executive has expanded many powers and Congress has authorized it, but the Executive doesn't really utilize most of them. Rand Paul should at least filibuster the confirmation of the new Attorney General at least, the CIA can't kill American citizens on American soil.

I remember watching Rand Paul try to pass a bill to cut foreign aid, the two Senators who know their shit about foreign policy i.e. John Kerry and John McCain shot it down. I think only 6 Senators voted for it.

I understand what you are saying, and I understand this is directed more and Holder and Obama, but what he is saying is correct. The idea that our President is not willing to say he would not direct a drone strike on a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who was not currently a danger to the U.S. or her people. A person who may not even be confirmed to be plotting against the United States, may be killed on without due process.

The language of the law and Holder's interpretation just don't match
The redefined language changed imminent and threat

"Imminent threat" was redefined, and their current definition of "imminent threat" is in no way how you or I would define "imminent"

He has stated he is okay with lethal force being used on combatants or those actively endangering the U.S. its citizens. (Bullets or Drones were mentioned)
He isn't against this at all.

At 3/6/13 08:47 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 2/21/13 06:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Canadian military is nothing but a fiat force created by the wealthy in order to keep the poor in schackles.

I bet the US forces give their chow to Iraqi kids on daily basis?

I know some do, yes.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28777/rand-paul-filibuster -live-stream-senator-plans-to-talk-for-hours-during-brennan-
floor-debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/rand-paul-filibuste r_n_2819740.html

This isn't a Democrat/Republican issue, this is a constitutional issue. Killing non-combatant American citizens on U.S. soil without respecting the 5th amendment is not constitutional.

And like I said, this isn't a party issue.

This guy has been talking for nearly 8 hours?

Specifically asked about drone strikes on U.S. citizens who are not a danger to the U.S. or her people.
They didn't answer, they answered a different question that wasn't asked.

I liked the second bioshock mechanically..

At 3/6/13 03:02 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

At 3/6/13 12:51 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

How about the 16 year old american born citizen who died in Yemen because he happened to be in the wrong place?

haven't heard of this story, but it seems like an isolated incident, what are you getting at ? He should have been more cautious or protective i suppose; but whats that have to do with anything ?

An innocent US citizen has already been killed by a drone strike. (His father was killed 2 weeks previously)

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011 airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[7] Another U.S. administration official described Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. AwlakiâEUTMs son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.[7]

So our drone strikes can be ordered on places where we don't have any credible intel on who is there? Or they didn't care enough.

At 3/6/13 12:07 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

At 3/6/13 12:00 AM, Ceratisa wrote:

If you see the potential for massive abuse you should probably care before massive abuse occurs.

True I agree, but until shit happens is when you take action; and all you can do is protect yourself and others you care for (which is what we normally do anyways) but being paranoid and creating problems that aren't even there, only causes more panicky people and when people panic they act irrational

How about the 16 year old american born citizen who died in Yemen because he happened to be in the wrong place?

INB4: PC is superior

Because stating fact is bad

SNES and PS1

At 3/5/13 11:55 PM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

At 3/5/13 11:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Did he die before he did any damage?

Unfortunately no, but If I would have been there I would have bitch slapped him and told him to eat a dick and proceed to free all my Jew brothers

Well that is kind of my point. You don't really wait until it is a problem to act, history shows us sitting around and letting an aggressor for example (Hitler) decide when to stop doesn't work.

If you see the potential for massive abuse you should probably care before massive abuse occurs.

At 3/5/13 06:34 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/5/13 06:31 PM, Korriken wrote: Many things work and work well. Problem is our 'modern society' demonizes what works and glorifies what doesn't.

Like what?

I dunno what he is referring to specifically but I can point to some things that just doesn't make sense
Like the drastically different views on a single father rising a child vs single mother. (in society)