Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This whole thing smacks of wild innacuracy and/or creative editing to me. Did anyone else notice the big red credibility warning, or the fact that the article is connected indirectly to a story that first broke on ThinkProgress (a website in part dedicated to staining Republican credibility)?

At 10/11/09 10:24 PM, pr0ded wrote: being misinformed is fun

How very civil of you...

At 10/11/09 07:49 PM, pr0ded wrote: and i forgot, flashbacks are very rare and probably exaggerated

I'm disinclined to believe that, given my personal experience with former druggies.

sort of like HPPD(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halluc inogen_persisting_perception_disorder), if it persisted, then at what level of perception in that experience does it stay at?

so if i had a flashback it would be, moving walls, can hear things clearer, basically raised sensory acuity

but im aware of it being a subjective experience and read about people seeing odd things

Coincidentally, most police departments in the country won't even take a recruit who has experimented with hallucinogens for this very reason.

i guess you didn't read my explanation of why its illegal or you just ignore it as bs

I was unaware you had "explained" it in the first place, so no I didn't.

At 10/11/09 08:48 PM, Thedoctar wrote: 1. if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent
2. if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good
3. if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?

-Epicurus

and if God is niether willing and able, why call him God?

This I have to say, is a very good argument against the existence of God. So religious people, then why is there evil??

It's also an argument repeated dogmatically by atheists since ancient times, and refuted just as often as similarly old arguments in favor of religion. I'd like to see something actually new and innovative, not tired talking points.

At 10/2/09 08:25 AM, fatape wrote: obama isn't a liberal he is a mild conserveitive .

LOL wut?

At 10/11/09 05:23 PM, MaidenHeaven wrote: There really isn't a point to some drugs being illegal. From person experience, mushrooms and weed aren't even bad.

Had to stop you there. Weed is one thing, but the fact that hallucinogens like shrooms have the chance to cause flashbacks at random intervals down the road does not speak well for their legalization. I would hate to see what would happen if we had guys in the armed forces or law enforcement suddenly seeing pink elephants and zombies all over the place...

At 10/10/09 04:08 AM, awkward-silence wrote: That's one aspect of a more extreme globalist ideology. I think that one world government will happen in the next couple hundred years (not necesarry a government like we think of the fed, but a body like U.N. with just a little more authority).

I kinda doubt that, but I suppose it's really up to debate. Maybe we'll get some sort of charismatic leader or worldwide crisis to prompt it - there's know way of seeing that coming.

When I said globalism is a good thing I was pointing to things tied to globalism like the recongnition of and concern for global common spacem, (ex. ozone, oceans, things that come about with the revelations of the fish tank theory). That is an affect of globalism and the concern for and desire to preserve these are also of a globalist mindframe.(Let's not forget foreign aid and disaster relief).

As human being, we have only just recently started seeing ourselves as part of a larger picture in terms of human society and do have a lot of maturing to do before any of the more "radical" globalist idea's are even attempted to be implemented. However, the more moderate idea's are a positive and a neccessity.

I guess I can see that line of reasoning, although I still don't think that a single governing body for the world is the way to go to address such issues. Living in a relatively small city in a relatively unpopulated state, I've seen first hand what happens when you put such a vast distance (both culturally and physically) between the people and their government - you wind up with tone-deaf ideologues dictating policies that may work for most other places, but fail to address the issues of local life properly.

I would argue that, if we want to address issues that face the world as a whole, a diplomatic meeting of nations would probably work better than a global governing body with the force of law and authority; the leaders of each member nation, having a closer connection to the realities of life at home, would be able to make better decisions for their citizens as individuals following certain tenets set forth by the council, as opposed to unilateral group governance. The UN came close to accomplishing this, but its moved so far from it's original purpose as a meeting of the diplomatic minds that it may as well be an object lesson in corruption.

At 10/10/09 11:30 AM, Elfer wrote: It's also worth noting that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, not a different thing.

I've never understood where this talking point came from. It seems to me that, but the very nature of the fact that agnostics are either noncommittal on the issue or simply believe that He/She/It is unknowable, agnosticism walks a middle road between athieism and theism. If God does not have a chance of existing in the mind of an agnostic, then why would they bother to add that he's unknowable - nothingness is pretty easy to understand when you get right down to it.

At 10/10/09 08:59 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 10/10/09 03:41 AM, dySWN wrote: How again is this any less cruel than shooting them in the head and calling it a day?

It makes sense when you realize that, for the most part, 'cruel an unusual' translates to 'noisy and messy'.

So... use a silenced bullet and a backstop painted blood red?

And I still say that the whole situation was funny as hell.

Unless it happens to one of us, yeah.

So now we're giving out Nobel Peace Prizes for good intentions?

At 10/10/09 03:41 AM, awkward-silence wrote: No globalism is a good thing and an neccessary inevitability. Globalization is a bad thing.

Prove it. Why should people be asked to ignore their own national sovereignty when there are nations in the world that would be pleased as punch to take advantage of them once they did? Globalism sounds good on paper, but somehow I think that humanity isn't evolved or altruistic enough to make it work as a foreign policy.

At 10/8/09 11:15 PM, michelinman wrote: All your solutions fall under the category of cruel and unusual. It's not like it's hard to find a vein. It takes a day or two of practice and you're good. This is just one of those rare cases.

Funny - I've had doctors miss the vein in my arm, and supposedly they've had years of practice.

How again is this any less cruel than shooting them in the head and calling it a day?

I'm noticing that the article states that men like that have more sexual affairs. They take this and assume that this means that women must really enjoy that kind of man, but really there could be any number of possible explanations for that trend. What if it's just because those guys have no qualms with hurting others to get their jollies?

At 10/5/09 02:33 PM, poxpower wrote: Let me know what you think ( i.e. how obviously right I am )

Sorry, but that sounds like an enormous waste of government monies to me. We have more pressing concerns at the moment - for example, the fact that we'll all be a lot thinner from starvation anyways if we don't get this economy under control.

Do not know if trolled?

At 10/6/09 05:21 PM, icezizim wrote: a lot of people are just like any normal person you would meet, but one thing, they use a substance that doesn't harm anyone else to feel good.

Law of unintended consequences, etc.

At 10/4/09 06:45 PM, ohbombuh wrote:

At 10/4/09 03:03 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: As far as the law goes, incest is incest. It doesn't matter if it's gay or straight.

I was hoping for more independent thought. If the law was always correct, we wouldn't need such complex government organizations designed to change and update laws.

To be fair, though, the law must be applied equally to all citizens - if straight people cannot have sex with their relatives, why should homosexuals be given special dispensation to do so in the eyes of the law (practicalities notwithstanding)? If people are going to push for equal rights under the law, then they should be prepared to deal with equal liabilities under the law - otherwise, we've simply switched the polarity on legal discrimination.

Also, sorry for the double post.

At 10/4/09 05:57 PM, fli wrote: There is no law regarding incest other than MARRIAGE... meaning... you may have sex with your relatives (but not marry them.)

This is not true - both literally (many states explicitly mention incest, which would be, by the very definition of the word, the sexual component of such a relationship) and in spirit (if it were permissible, then the laws against marrying close relatives would never have come about, would they?).

At 9/27/09 01:29 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 9/19/09 07:58 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 9/19/09 04:00 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 9/19/09 02:10 PM, Korriken wrote: You say its not a valid argument, many would beg to differ. You don't even name countries where the 'free' health system is working so wonderfully.

What about mine? (Norway) Or the neighboring country? (Sweden)

I think it works better because there's no immigrants in Sweden.

-.-

And since Obama has already specified Illegal Immigrants will not be allowed free healthcare then it won't be a problem there either. Also IIRC, Obama was going to take money out of parts of the healthcare system which are inefficent money from it to pay for the new system.

Politicians specify a lot of things. How, pray tell, do they intend to exclude illegal immigrants when none of the bills have clauses for checking for citizenship or for enforcement of the rule; and any amendments that would do so are immediately shot down by Democrats in committee?

I don't understand whhy people wouldn't want to spend there money on other people's healthcare when there fine with paying for homeless shelters, highway's bridges and my favorite military, you'd rather pay for someone to die then for someone to live?

You can run a first-world country without universal healthcare (after all, we're doing it right now). The same can't be said for highways, bridges, or the military - at least, not for very long.

Actually, the new Healthcare system has the potential to help the economy, with more appliccants coming in for health issues more docters would be admitted, and with endorseement from colleges then bam job increase.

I can't tell what you're trying to say here.

I still don't see why people support this, but then turn around and scoff at the idea of expanding into space at some point instead. Science can get us there - there just needs to be the will and the funding to put in the research it takes - and we would reap the secondary benefits of that research all the way to the point where the goal of colonizing Mars or the Moon becomes reality. But hey, it's not like the human race is famous for pushing the limits of habitable environments or anything, right?

And, of course, the minute I show up in a religion-based thread, people forget that I advocate all that and act like I'm some sort of anti-science zealot for believing in my own particular brand of invisible sky-daddy. To each his own, I guess.

/rant

At 9/14/09 11:01 PM, fli wrote: I don't think Bush was an evil man, but he was a gullible man surrounded by CORRUPT people.

Sounds like par for the course in Washingon. Where's the town's namesake when you need him?

At 9/23/09 12:38 AM, Mast3rMind wrote: England seems to being doing fine under a Monarch followed by Japan.

Didn't Japan's last emperor with any real political power let his own imperialist ambitions drag his people into a war that ended with nuclear annihilation? Not exactly a shining example of functioning monarchy, I dare say. And I should hope we're not talking about the same English monarchy that led to the US becoming a democracy in the first place...

Ironically (at least within the context of your own argument), both countries now vote for Prime Ministers and/or other officials to handle most of the political decisions, making them closer to representative democracy than you might think.

At 9/23/09 02:36 AM, Stoicish wrote: 21And they said unto Him, "Caesar's." Then said He unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

I guess the real trick nowadays is defining the dividing line between the two...

At 9/23/09, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 9/23/09, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 9/23/09, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 9/23/09, RightWingGamer wrote:

Wow, this is devolving quickly. At what point did this go from being about our personal policy wants to a barrage of uninformed talking points clashing against eachother?

At 9/22/09 11:23 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 9/22/09 11:14 PM, Korriken wrote: Also, if the option begins to flounder, like everything else the government runs,

I'm so tired of hearing this fallacy.

I'm so tired of people misusing the word "fallacy."

At 9/18/09 06:38 PM, Drakim wrote:
So freaking what!? It's not like the US has to carbon copy your system along with it's mistakes!

Maybe so, but those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it. We shouldn't assume that it's going to be exactly the same, but I honestly don't think that the goobers that actually wrote the bill learned anything useful from looking at our neighbors - otherwise, we would be seeing something completely different on the table.

At 9/11/09 09:12 AM, FC-Thun-Fan wrote:

At 9/11/09 08:58 AM, Proteas wrote: Nice topic

Didn't see that. Then again it is from 2005, so I think it's fair enough to bring it up again.

I'm pretty sure we rehash (no pun intended) this entire debate once every couple months or so..,

I would ruthlessly slash excess from the government.

Every federal bureau not specifically deliniated in the Constitution would have would get one hour of my time to tell me why the country needs them; obviously important organizations, such as the FDA and FBI, would be exempt from this. Then, if the bureaucracies couldn't do that, I'd cut their entire budget and send it somewhere more productive.

I would also make it a stated goal to veto every last bill that cannot fund itself in such a way as to be deficit neutral, and strongly lean on Congress to eliminate pork-barrel spending. I really want to cut taxes, but we need to get our national debt under control first.

At 9/20/09 11:33 AM, VinnyXY wrote: We also shrink people down to the size of an atom so we can learn even more about it which is also a violation of God's will.

LOLWUT?

I wonder how long it will take before the backlash becomes too much for the Dems to handle.

Also, is it bad that I got the joke so quickly?

Well, he helped us remove Saddam and started the drive to end the Taliban's iron grip on Afghanistan. While I disagree with his methods for doing so, he did keep us safe from further attacks after 9/11. And, at the very least, he was consistent and entertaining.