Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

To tell you the truth there would be most likely mass chaos and panic in most places. From there on out there would most likely be food wars and fresh water wars. A LOT of people would die, but technically it would all come back down to survival of the fittest. If you cant get youre own food you starve.

OK first of all i can understand some of the outrage of this specific video game. I mean when it first came out it was basically meant to be something totally new and downright outrageous and started a whole new genre of games that had the shooting and killing while being stylish at the same time built in. ((Which i personally think is awesome.))

But honestly the idea of trying to ban it or just put it up to 18 instead of 17 is ridiculous. I mean think about it. If it was already at M which is ESRB rated 17+ so that means the outraged parent who is watching their kid screw some hooker in real time would be angry. But the fact of the matter is that its the parents own fault for buying it and not paying attention to the rating. The M rating is put there for a reason and also. The kid would want to see this porn if they go as far to download a mod that enables it. I

All in all its the ignorant parents fault for not paying attention the ESRB which was origianlly put there for THEM because they cant expect the parents to know every game. It was originally set up FOR THE PARENTS so they could limit the amount of suggestive content or violence their children WHICH THEY ARE BUYING THE GAME FOR are being exposed to.

Honestly this whole "Struggle against extremists" is just a way for the government to make the public feel more safe about what is going on the middle east. This new name is not only a political facade to show that they are actually progressing. ((Because of course if they change the name 3 times they must be getting somewhere. ::sarcasm::))

It is to protect those people who do not have people in the military, fighting on the front lines, of the word "war". As the webster dictionary puts it (2) : a period of such armed conflict. When people think war people think guns, explosions, and death. This is all bad for the government if people are dying because that upsets many. Hence the movement of many of the current acts of capital hill. If they make it into a "struggle" as far as the common american knows everything is fine and dandy over seas.

When i was much younger, 4 to be exact, i was enrolled in a private school that had a pool and a non-mandatory swimming class after school on thursdays. Im not quite sure what it was costing the school to kepp that pool but i can say with some certainty i that i probabbly woulnt know how to swim today, for lack of facilites. And i do agree that swimming is a very neccesary skill.

Its totally true that the Govenment can get a surplus of money but as soon as that happens everyone scrambles for it and its just spent away and back into debt. Surplus is a rare thing nowadays and i fear that it will never be again.

I can understand where you are coming from and yes there are a few select politicians that at some point i had wanted to have them cease living but a day to celebrate murder would be no laughing matter, no matter how dumb our politicians are.

At 6/11/05 06:14 PM, darkmage8 wrote:

At 6/11/05 12:01 AM, LegendaryPancake wrote:

I can grasp it, and a world without any religion is lost.

I sort of agree. I can say with some certainty that many people from which i have unfortunately met have, to put it lightly, scared me with their brainwashed ideals about god that they have been raised on. I bring this group of people up to show my agreement in part. These people have been raised on this religion some more than others. But, to have this all come crashing down on them that what they have believed and thought to be true since they were but a tot, is a lie , would serisouly put a lot of people in asluyms. At least this is my theory that the world since built up on religion to this point would, yes, come crashing down without it.

Im sorry but i was just looking over a few history texts this past week and i wondered to myself is America really that different from a republic or is it just a new form of democracy?

People we can be going back and forth about whos better Ann or Mike for all of time. If we bring it to a liberal/ conservative arguement i am sure we will be here for even LONGER than the end of time. Lets just drop this huh?

You know, FLAGG has a point. Not only are we sitting here debating a useless subject about left/right wing extremists and whether or not they are all idiots. We ourseleves are being extremists by not being open to any one elses comments. Once we take sides in a more or less lucid way in which we cannot be shaken from our positions in any way. And would probabbly die before we do. By having all this namecalling which im sure would not happen in real life to just anyone from anywhere we are becoming extremists, like Ann Coulter and Mike Moore, which is what most of us ((take out acutual "extremists")) dont want to be seen as or be at all.

But all of this "Fuck Bush, he's a nazi" and "Fuck Clinton, he's a pussy" shit gets soooo old. I'm a conservative and voted for Bush both times. He is my president and although I don't agree with everything that he's done, I still support him.

I was never a Clinton fan, and believe that he was too overrated, but you won't hear me hurling half-assed, moronic, immature insults.

For God's sake, have some respect for the office. Have some respect for those around you. Nobody's always right and nobody's always wrong. Est modus in rebus.

I agree whole heartedly. Personally i think that Bush is an idiot but whatever he does i shall support him in because he is the President, you know the commander in cheif, the dude who flies around in the plane with United States of America prinited on it. Whether any of us like it or not we should support our leader and quite frankly we are in no position ((unless otherwise stated with a political office)) to make a change in our favor no matter who we are. The grand majoirity of us are just your regular Americans who have no way of getting a voice in politics, above a dinner arguement.

And just a little somthing from me, Coulter and Moore can go fuck themselves. I dont need them imposing points of view that i might or might not have just because i call myself a liberial, conservative, democrate or a liberal. All in all Ann Coulter and Mike Moore give the lot of us a bad name regardless of political party.

Honestly there chaos theory sounds like to me that its just a lazy excuse for everything thats wrong in the world. Look up "Lazziez Faire".

Dude this person it seriously messed up if he thinks that Harry Potter if gay propaganda. All he was doing is reffering to other stories. Each story is different!

Its been a fact fromt the dawn of recorded history that all empires fail for one reason or another. Its just a fact that humans cannot live together as one whole. There will always be someone disagreeing. Why do you think there are wars in the first place?
If there will be this utopia as you are suggesting will be founded by the UN there will be rebellion. And before you know it the Empire of the UN will not be able to control all territories at once. ((I.E. America and England.)) You are just going to have another revolution of your hands. No matter what way you look at it there is always going to be bloodshed somewhere, utopia or not.

Well to what idealistic crap would this amount to?
A better world just because of the UN would unite all?
The UN would not be able to unite anyone because as soon as it got its own military power the world would end up sucking up to the UN. No one likes to give up their own choices so that someone else can make them. After that i wouldnt be surprised if the UN broke into its own liitle country since it would be the reason for being "uniting the world" unders ITS regulations.
The internet is none of the UNs buisness and a tax on it would be impractical. Its the same as trying to make a universal currency. You have to have all the countries in agreement if thats how the UN truly works.
\ And besides what if a country doesnt like the regulations the UN puts out and is ready to enforce with its own army. Are we going to have ((insert country name here)) fighting against the UN? tIt would only apply to small countries who dont have an army to begin with. A country like the US or Russia would not listen to them because if the UN were to enforce whatever they regulated I.e the internet) and the US or another superpower didnt like it you would have that country's army conquer the UN's and then they would try to take control. Countries just dont give up an outlet for power like that.
Then what? The other countries rise up because they dont want to be shoved around by the country in control of the UN. Before you know it you have another WWIII.
The internet is none of the UN's business and it would be wrong if they tried to profit from it.

Honestly with all the things that have been going on in the government that we dont know about i wouldnt be surprised if they were holding back a cure. Anyway what you were talking about with the chemo stocks, they would just be stocks in the drug companies and just more money for the HMO's and their friends in the white house.

Yeah he can still be a republican and i think he has the right idea. When one party holds supreme power it lures those who are acutually trying to do something honest are corrupted by their party's supreme power. This guy has the right idea.

At 2/20/05 11:54 AM, justiceDAK wrote: FAIL. We outlawed murder, so people are going to murder anyway, we should legalize murder!!!

Dak to point out your fault in facts, yes we did outlaw murder and GUESS WHAT there are THOUSANDS of murders every year! And by the way abortion is not outlawed so obviously SOMEONE out there doesnt care about your opinion. I agree with you to some extent, abortion is wrong after 3 months when the fetus takes on some form of humanioiod being. Before that all you have is a series of tissue.

((p.s. in direct response to your post i take it you are against the death penalty as well.))

Ummm Euro thats the point of hitting rock bottom that i hope many of the people here are trying to evade.
But anyway its for sure that there are aspects of the government that are shady but i mean its with any other government that they would want to keep their subjects ignorant.
A population of uneducated dumbasses who live for monster truck derbys ((no matter how fun they are)) is just what any government would want. An easy to rule population as opposed to a population of polictically apt people who would know enough call out what the government does immoral or whatever.
Politics has always had its immoral side ever since governments were acutally widely accepted.
Those in power want to stay in power and will do anything to keep their position.

First of all the church shows that it has a need to control just by looking at the preists ((omit sexual acts), The Catholic church does not allow catholic preists to marry, WHY? They need to have total control over those who ration out their theocracy. Having a woman in the house would just be another source of opinion that would promote free thought and skew the control.

oh yeah its logically sound, that all the gays or pedophiles or whatnot would flock to the church.
1. They are in constant contact with other males who are guarenteed to not be hedero if anything at all.
2. They are placed in a postition of abusive power where they can lord themselves over a community.
3. They ARE in contact with minor males ((altar boys)) ((DUH!))

(((this is coming from a catholic whos father is personally involved in the church)) ((im converting to something else ppls))
(( ^.^))

Honestly i think the last post is correct. Whether or not you are pro ((insert sexual politic word here)), people are going to do what they want when they want. And then all you pro-life people out there are saying "ok what if outlaw it". Unless it becomes a national law people are just going to keep doing it. If it does become a law you are just going to end up with a bunch of disfunctional families and very disturbed children who end up killing themselves because they were told they werent wanted when they were born.
So honestly it doesnt really matter what happens here. People are going to do what they want whether or not any of you think any form of birth control is immoral.

The real frekin scary part is not only are we going to invade Iran, ((For oil duh!)) Bush said "our mission is to bring democracy to the world"
Does this mean we are going to end up invading the rest of the middle east so that we can spread our "democracy" is more like a govermental monarchy.
All hail the empire of america! ((sarcastic))

The whole Iraq thing is way out of hand anyway and DUH we are going to be in there for a long time. We put outselves there and we cant pull out or else it will make our precious democracy ((sarcasm)) look bad.
Oh yeah and chances are we are going to end up attacking Iran for more oil even though north Korea is waving WMDs in our face and have actually ADMITTED to having them we go for middle eastern countries that MIGHT have WMDs. Goes to show how much we really care about weapons that could wipe out a few million people in a matter of seconds. With this kind of government movenment you start to question the way things are going to turn out because the way they are now, this is going to become an oppessive empire.

Its simple, human nature is self-destructive even back to the dawn of recordable history there have been wars. Most of which have been due to some ruler of one country just for some reason or another going out and deciding that he doesnt like the rest of the world and he should be best. Even from our childhood we are told that we are the best. We are constantly reassured by parents and sheltered from the real horrors of society. With this mindset ideas clash as one who thinks hes the best starts to talk to another.
Now of course we are trying to protect the young ones from any tramatic influences but the world is a tramatic place and either way we are just going to end up killing each other.

And just to clarify, there can exist no such thing as "masculine sexism", because men are the powerful group. Women can't oppress the men, as would be implied by the use of the term "sexism".

Not exactly so, the actual opression of men as you agreed with me a in previous posts is beginning and this new form of opression will not be of physical dominance; it will be of judical dominance.

And i am not sexist in any way i like to think. To rephrase AGAIN i meant that if women did not use their sexual appeal as some do and instead used their credibility in their choice field a male employer would not feel sympathy for another male becuase it would be simply put that the woman had the better credientials, and strictly speaking would be more valuable in the workplace. ,
Please try to read my posts from my perspective, and i do not appreciate being called sexist.

Ok, whoa there, brother. So, are you saying that, because of women's sexual appeal only, they are actually getting MORE jobs then men? Because that's ridiculous. And, furthermore, you downright and blatenly made the statement "If women didn't use their (sexual) priviligde and appeal, they would not exist in the workplace."
Do you realize how fucking sexist that sounds?

::

I can understand how that might have been taken wrongly but i meant that masucline sexism would not exist had not many women used their sexual appeal to gain acess to the buisness world or scare the employer with accusations of sexism. I meant nothing of the woman being non-existant.((sry if that offended you it was worded incorrectly))

Meh think what you like because its really a two sided coin.

I can understand all of these things are signifigant but if they do ban these games then our parents are just going to get them for us unless ((ill shoot myself if this is ever true)) your parents are christian activists who get their jollies off jesus.

This what you are arguing is an age old question but honestly it is a fact of opinion. If you male you are convinced that males are better ir female just the opposite. You cant really decide one against the other becuase the other gender in both cases dont really know what they are talking about (ie: who has better orgasms)

First off i would like to say that the violence against women is almost completley crap. ((excuse the context: strictly USA)) i can understand the uprising to rape and sexual assualt is really violence but what about the violence twords men? If there is any kind of violence you hear of it is most likely inbetween two men killling each other. Now when a woman gets involved it becomes a whole different matter that unless she started it the men are to blame until the details come out of the woodwork in court.
To tell you the truth the most discriminated gender/ racial category is the white male. Seriously hear me out, try getting into college being a normal white guy. It is a fact ((it was on the news ppl)) that students of other races or genders get extra points in college applications as opposed to white males. Why is this: the colleges are afraid of being called racist, or sexist. THey would much rather give them a few extra points than have to go through court and spend all the money to prove that the student is just not up to par to their standards.
Also what Bambi and Damien where arguing over that a woman has to ability to use her sexual "appeal" to get to the top of the hill. Men do not have such privilges and why do you think that corporations supposedly ((this is not backed so it is sheer assumption on my part)) hire males more?
It is simple. There are so many women that are getting to the top that the males are left behind and due to the fact that the vast majority of buisnesses are run by a male figure that , that man feels some amount of sympathy for his "fellow man". This leads also to the idea of masculine busniess sexism. Which if the women didnt use their priviliges as some do; would not exist!