Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/1/08 07:27 PM, kdlod wrote: The popularity of Scientology has been boosted so much due to massive media attention. Unfortunately a massive chunk of the population will follow celebrities to the cult(I refuse to call it a religion).

YES, EXACTLY!

The first thing that I think of when I hear about people publicly attacking the CoS is how stupid they are to think it will help! Even negative popularity attracts attention, which attracts followers.

At 2/1/08 04:17 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/1/08 04:08 PM, Corky-D wrote: I haven´t seen this thread for some time.

Could it be because you have never posted in Politics?

Hey, maybe he has some innovative political ideas...

WAIT, HE IS POSTING IN A THREAD ABOUT CARTOON PORN. ABORT, ABORT!

At 2/1/08 05:41 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Maybe you won't have to worry about punishing 18-20 year olds who're not harming anyone but themselves?

Killing yourself is a crime, but suicidal people aren't harming anyone but themselves. Neither are drug users.

However, suicide causes many complications that natural death doesn't. Drug users are just sitting around high, but drugs blur the lines of what is right and what is wrong. Alcohol has the same effects, especially on the mind, which stops growing around age 20.

I'm throwing the age argument aside to ask one simple question:

How is lowering the drinking age going to help our country?

How many Philippians (is that the term for those who live in the Philippines?) are on NG, anyways?

At 1/31/08 11:49 PM, TheMason wrote: Damn MDs.

I think I just died a little on the inside.

I find myself to be very knowledgeable in politics.

At 1/31/08 09:23 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Sorry about the rant. I understand your point, and I agree, the change happened to quickly. I think at this point if we are going to do needs based scholarships, it should be decided only by economic status.

Why not reward hardwork and the skills that people put up, rather then thier socio-economic level?

There shouldn't even be scholarships in the first place (government subsidization created the high costs of college), but the best combination of types is half-and-half between those for people who absolutely cannot afford college, but still meet any requirements and those for people who can pay for college and meet any requirements, but are so talented that they deserve a reward.

At 1/31/08 09:20 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Sorry about the rant. I understand your point, and I agree, the change happened to quickly. I think at this point if we are going to do needs based scholarships, it should be decided only by economic status.

Yes, it should. That would be truly equal, though some would beg to differ.

BTW, thanks for the intelligent response in spite of my rude behavior.

No problem! It's a real pleasure to still find people who are willing to swallow their pride.

At 1/31/08 08:46 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Are you fucking stupid? Seriously, I normally try to be respectful and argue the facts, but where the hell did you come up with that utter load of bullshit? Blacks were happy? Happy when? As sharecroppers? Being threatened with violence for looking in the direction of white women? When they were being lynched? When they weren't allowed to use the same bathrooms? When they were barred from the majority of jobs? You make it sound like the whole Civil Rights Movement was started by a few uppity ----------------s who wanted welfare. "We's sorry masta, we's shoulda dun listent to yous? We's be good".

I was talking about... well, later on. Try halfway through the 20th century.

The Civil Rights Movement was a good thing, though. It was what our country needed. The only problem was that it happened too fast, and caused trouble. Before that, the country was slowly moving towards equality. Now, we'd have to move in the opposite direction to make everyone truly equal again, because all the implements that were created to speed up the equality gave the minorities the advantage.

At 1/31/08 07:33 PM, Empanado wrote: You're full of shit! It's perfectly feasible for a straight white male to obtain a scholarship, as long as he's differently-abled, speech, sight or hearing-impaired, height-challenged or member of the so-called "little peoples", household-challenged, religiously divergent or if he holds refugee status.
Can't get a scholarship? Just become a member of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church or something.

This ridiculousness is a product of the liberal need to feel guilty. They're trying to help minorities to the point where they are actually making the whites feel inconvenienced. Sometimes they even hurt the minorities in the long run!

It was the exact same thing after the civil rights movement.
Let's look at the blacks. Before the civil rights movement, many of them lived in small communities that had a very personal feel to them. They were poor, but generally happy. Now that they have been paid money for their troubles and became dependent, those communities are gone, and the blacks just don't seem happy anymore... Or wealthy.

At 1/31/08 07:51 PM, ThewillofD wrote: To everyone who replied to this post. This is TheWillofD. I have been hacked. I did not place this post on the BBS. My account was probably accessed by my brother, 8piggiepie
I apologize to anyone that he may have offend, and I ask that no one report me or him.
I am not an anarchist. I don't know how anyone could believe in such a stupid Idea.

Being a cynic, I would bet that you're lying because everyone got pissed when you stated your opinions. It's a common psychological tactic to write of shame as a joke.

Maybe they all just wanted to see her vagina as she stepped out of the car...

again.

At 1/31/08 12:23 AM, CaptainPoncho wrote: In The Audacity of Hope, Obama says himself that one of his parents was Muslim and one was an atheist. I just can't remember which is which at the moment.

He also wrote that at the time of his birth, his father "saw no purpose in religion." I assume that he broke Muslim code by marrying an atheist and eventually became one, because his wife was not good for his faith, or he became an atheist before marrying his wife.

I'm not holding this against him. I like Obama, this is just simply a fact.

Oh, I know that.

At 1/30/08 09:41 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: You could come visit me, I'll wrap you up in a towel and force an eye dropper into your mouth to give you antibiotics, like I have to with the rats for the next three weeks.

Hey.

I love you.

I love my country.

So no, I will never leave. I won't give up on my home, my father's home, my grandfather's home.

Breaking news...

I AM REALLY SICK.

"Doctor, heal thyself."

At 1/29/08 09:45 PM, CaptainPoncho wrote: Yes, but one of his parents was a Muslim. The other was an atheist.

I would believe that they were both atheist at the time. His dad stopped believing in religion before Obama was born.

His parents would not have been able to marry if he was a Muslim and she was an atheist. Muslim-atheist marriages are strictly prohibited, whether the man or woman is an atheist.

At 1/29/08 05:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/29/08 03:29 PM, Al6200 wrote: How does John McCain know less about the economy than any of the other remaining candidates?

Lol, he's even admitted he knows less.

Bush doesn't know all that much about war, so he has advisers to help him out. Every president has his strong and weak areas.

It isn't as if not knowing too much about the economy makes someone a bad president. It would be nicer if he was a jack-of-all-trades, but that isn't the case with anyone.

I do believe that, given the current situation, an economist would be better. However, I am not limiting myself to economists, because what is really important is whether the candidate makes the best decisions, with or without help from advisers.

At 1/30/08 12:01 AM, Ravariel wrote: I'm only pro-stem cell research as a side-effect of being pro-dead babies.

Err, stem cells are only taken from women who agree to donate them and are given in vitro fertilization. The time between the fertilization and the collection of cells making up the blastocyst, the stem cells, is four to five days.

High five for not reading your basic textbook material.

At 1/29/08 06:00 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Cue Shaggy!
But wait.....
No they don't. If they do, I never saw it.

It was either CNN or one of the other non-Fox stations... I saw a thing about how the moon landing was fake, and of course, some were entertaining 9/11 conspiracy.

At 1/29/08 05:54 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Hey, maybe we should, then kids would have to find some other way to rebel.

Maybe by bringing their parents' cars around or hurting people!

Let's make everything bad legal, so that nobody is doing anything wrong ever.

Doesn't CNN entertain conspiracy theories?

Three cheers for hypocrisy!

At 1/29/08 05:26 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You know, the basis for changing a law doesn't fall under the argument of ..."Well there already doing it."

I support changing the drinking age to 14, because that's when kids start drinking.

You only need one... "He's all rhetoric and no action."

At 1/28/08 06:53 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: An 18 year old is hardly a child, and treating a 18-19-20 year old like a child when it comes to drinking alcohol really is asking for a rebellion.

I was speaking about killing the problem when the child is young by teaching them to obey the rules that are given to them in the future.

Hey, this might interest some of you.

Go to www.itunes.com and download iTunes for free. There's a section called iTunes U, where you can download free recordings of famous speeches.

Awesome.

At 1/28/08 06:20 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Yeah right. The average age a person has his/her drinking debut nowdays is 14, so odds are that once a person turns 18, he/she's already had his/her fair share of drinking.

I think the problem originates in the home, not in the law. Parents are doing bad jobs at raising kids, for the most part.

But they've got everything backwards. In my oppinion, you're too young to drive when you're 16, and getting a drivers permit in America is way too easy. In my oppinion, by the time you're 18, you're totally mature enough to drink. In fact, I think you should be allowed to vote when you're 16, you should be allowed to get into bars and drink and get your drivers licence when you're 18, and once you're 21, you should be allowed to purchase alcohol.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I like how we have it now, but it shouldn't really matter, because the big idea is easing them into adulthood. I never mentioned the fact that alcohol is terrible for a growing body, which usually stops around puberty (age 20), though.

But that's the big paradox. Having stricter rules will more often lead to kids rebelling. You need to give kids their freedom at an earlier age. Being micromanaged by your parents and by the government until you turn 21 basically reduces you to the level of a child. Having more freedom and more responsibility at a younger age promotes maturity.

A child needs to learn to obey the rules laid forth, which is why parents discipline kids.

At 1/28/08 04:23 PM, Musik-of-Anarchy wrote: As an American, I hate america because we have to pay for health care.

Say what? If it was nationalized, we'd still be paying for healthcare...

Probably more than we pay now.

At 1/28/08 07:30 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: So on paper you're considered an adult, but not in practice? That's bullshit. And assuming that ALL 18 year olds are irresponsible and immature is simply ageist.

Err, yeah. They are. Most 18-year-olds just got out of their parents' home, which is the telltale sign that they haven't had much experience with freedom.

Yeah, nobody likes having TOO much freedom.

The idea is to ease kids into it. Kids get their first privileges at 15 or 16, when they start driving. Later, they get some more at 18, such as the ability to vote. Even later, they get the privilege to drink at 21.

The problem with having strict rules about drinking, I think, is that kids will want to break those rules that much more. Kids rebel, and denying people as old as 21 to drink is just like asking for them to rebel.

That's a different story, one with more cultural ties than political ties. In recent years, families have become poorer at disciplining children when they break rules, and it's illegal for a school to truly do it. One of the saddest things that has happened to our society is the fact that children are rebelling more often. Way back when, one of the first and most important things that were learned was respect for authority.

At 1/27/08 08:07 PM, Grammer wrote: You're such a joke, no one takes you seriously

I take him seriously. He puts a lot more effort into posts than anyone else, but he could do better. He'd be more popular if he didn't pepper his arguments with insults.

Both of you aren't getting any better. Both of your behaviors are disappointing to all of the BBS. The best way to resolve this conflict would be for one of you to take the high ground and ignore the other until both of you have calmed down.

How about you don't reply to him and he will eventually stop replying to you? In a few months, you could start anew. Do you have the willpower to ignore him that long?

711Chan.org called off the Anon raids because fucks like you BROKE YOUR ANONYMITY.

So feel proud that you blew your cover and took part in the destruction of the raid.