Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Sounds like doomsaying and drama baiting to me. If there's one thing that human beings do well, it's adapt to changes in the local environment.

At 7/9/09 10:33 PM, mikailus wrote: Another reason is because most conservatives have realized there is no intellectual grounds for their beliefs.

Hate to stop you there, but it's usually bad for one's credibility to argue that the "other guys" don't have intellectual grounds for their beliefs without either providing evidence or taking a good, hard look in the mirror first.

At 6/27/09 12:27 PM, DrunkDemon wrote:

At 6/26/09 11:49 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: ...Do you have a point to make or this just some rant? Plus, I think that the forum members will berate you about your lack of knowledge about Republicans in power. Especially since you spelled "Palin" wrong.

My point is that some people are so biased that they think someone is right just because of what side they're on, and that this should stop. Anyway, you're probably just pointing out spelling flaws because you can't come up with an actual argument.

To be fair, spelling and grammar are very important to making a persuasive argument; it's hard to take someone seriously when they've just thrown down a run-on sentence that sounds like it came out of Larry the Cable Guy.

At 6/26/09 01:38 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: It's just affecting big business. It's not going to heavily affect the normal population, just the big factories that spew out this stuff.

You mean, those big factories that we buy all our products from?

Well, I'm sure glad that they intend to HAMMER out our financial woes; I'm getting really SICKLE of all the gloom and doom on the news.

At 6/25/09 04:31 PM, simonshragna wrote: @Victory Racism isn't just against minorities, it is against all minorities existing in a certain area, in this case it's about the muslims in the world.
And BTW minorities means also people who don't have much money or something.

You mean, except for the fact that the concept even has race in the name, and that we already have other, better words to describe discrimination based on nation or creed?

At 6/25/09 05:52 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 6/25/09 05:24 PM, Yorik wrote: I think they should quit STALIN and hop right on that.

Right, guys?

Yeah, they should quit STALIN and show us their MARKS.

Did somebody say Cruschev?

The big difference is that the other places weren't close to getting nuclear weapons they could use (Cuban missile crisis notwithstanding) or trying to be attention whores like Amadinnerjacket.

At 6/24/09 01:06 AM, Frank-The-Hedgehog wrote: Being incapable finance wise to raise a children and being a bad parent is almost synonymous with having bad genes in a lot of cases, look at the people who are making the most kids today and you will know that there are still a lot of people, mainly from the lowest level in our society are having the most childens, from trailer trashes in America, to uneducated, disease-ridden Africans creating uneducated, disease-ridden babies.

I am not just aiming at the baby boomers in the 50's, I am aiming at the people today.

Dude, you just keep digging that hole you've gotten yourself into deeper and deeper, don't you? I especially like the part with the implied class warfare - it's like you've gone the extra mile in making our counterarguments for us.

At 6/18/09 12:16 PM, fatape wrote:

At 6/16/09 10:38 PM, dySWN wrote:

Incest brings out flaws in the gene pool,

as long as they don't have kids this is irrelevent.

it just makes things that much simpler.

so we should deny people rights becuase it's simpler ?

See previous post...

Because everyone who disagrees with you is against freedom, amirite?

im referring to people who would make something illegal becuase they find it gross or disgusting ,

Of course, though, most people seem to assume that this category encompasses all people opposed to gay marriage.

At 6/17/09 02:40 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/16/09 10:38 PM, dySWN wrote: A lot of the time, these are more matters of logistics. Incest brings out flaws in the gene pool,

No one said incestual marriages had to involve children. Just getting the legal benefits of marriage.

Face it - if someone is the kind of person to marry their near relatives, they're probably within a demographic that likes to have kids. I'm sure a statistic somewhere can bear this out further.

and issues such as inheritance and consent become major issues when more than one spouse at the same time become involved (imagine trying to figure out what to do if a guy gets in a near-fatal crash, and half his wives want to pull the plug against the wishes of the other half). There's a good reason to keep marriage between two people - it just makes things that much simpler.

Is that a real reason to oppose anything? You don't think polygamist couples can work these thing out beforehand?
"Sure you all love each other and wan't to get married but is just so complicated. So no getting married."

Not in isolated circumstances, but on a national or even state scale it makes the paperwork untenable for the government.

There are better arguments, though, I'll admit. Polygamy leaves men without the affluence to attract more than one wife at a marked, and unnecessary, social disadvantage; with only so many women around, many guys would end up alone because the rich guy down the street (with no real advantage other than wealth to pass down to the next generation) takes up all the available mates.
Do we really want a bunch of lonely, horny guys roaming around?

A second argument against gender-netural polygamy could be made centering around the idea that having to share mates is a less than ideal position in the view of most people, even if they my voice opinions to the contrary. I won't really get into the specifics of that one, other than to point out how jealous people can get with their particular favorite mate.

Because everyone who disagrees with you is against freedom, amirite?

Just people that disagree about extending marriage to all those that deserve it.

Deserve it, you say? I thought you were arguing that marriage was a right, as opposed to a privilege (where concepts like "deserving" would come into play). If I were a real radical, I'd probably infer that you were implying something by that.

At 6/16/09 10:00 PM, fatape wrote: I fully support gay marrage,

but why not incest marrage? or polygamy? (not just multiple wives but multiple hsubands as well)

if all partys are the age of majority and consenting then they should be allowed to enter any scocial contract they want.

A lot of the time, these are more matters of logistics. Incest brings out flaws in the gene pool, and issues such as inheritance and consent become major issues when more than one spouse at the same time become involved (imagine trying to figure out what to do if a guy gets in a near-fatal crash, and half his wives want to pull the plug against the wishes of the other half). There's a good reason to keep marriage between two people - it just makes things that much simpler.

or are people perpetualy scared of freedom.

Because everyone who disagrees with you is against freedom, amirite?

At 6/16/09 07:18 PM, Dekagaru wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinio n/16tue1.html

I cannot believe I supported this guy. This hurts... really hurts... Sometimes I really hate my country.. and wish I could leave.

Congratulations on realizing what the rest of us had known since day one - Obama doesn't consider the issue a priority unless it has to do with the economy or health care.

At 6/12/09 12:44 AM, satanbrain wrote: go away you anti-Semitic.

I take it you're missing the obvious satire here.

At 6/8/09 10:54 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Sorry to hear about that, but I guess what you just said is a big reason why atheism will never be popular, ever.

Somehow I suspect that has more to do with the the more outspoken atheists than the lack of hope for an afterlife. You know, the Richard Dawkins types who think that atheism raises them above us little folk. It's a classic example of a few loud mouth-breathers messing up the public image of an otherwise generally palatable ideology.

At 6/7/09 02:50 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: lol now now its not there fault there state is fucked I blame its liberal ways personally.

It's funny because it's true.

At 6/7/09 02:41 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: They are one in the same. If you oppose gay marriage you are a homophobe.

Some of us believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all - gay or straight - and therefore technically can honestly not be homophobic while opposing gay marriage. Others oppose gay marriage in the sense that they espouse the idea that the government should give civil unions to any two people who want one and reserve the "marriage" moniker for any other ceremony that the pair may perform to cement the bond (my personal stance, BTW), and therefore would oppose gay marriage more on lexical grounds than on principle.

The short version:
Your premise is fallacious. Please try again.

Seriously, California - this is why we can't have nice things.

Also why your citizens keep moving over here to the great state of Nevada, where we don't do retarded things like this and then wonder why the budget isn't balanced.

At 6/6/09 02:27 PM, EpicFail wrote:

The name says it all...

How exactly do they plan on illegalizing my hands and feet?

At 6/3/09 03:49 PM, AapoJoki wrote: One could argue that all religion is child abuse to begin with. Some just go further than others.

Oh boy, here we go again...

"On April 16, 2008, NASA News Release 08-103 reaffirmed that its estimation of a 1 in 45,000 chance of impact in 2036 remains valid." (Wiki)

Enjoy your fear of the highly improbable.

At 6/2/09 06:54 PM, Brick-top wrote: chinese

ninja

DOHOHOHOHOHO

At 6/1/09 12:34 AM, Sysko wrote: This may sound a bit cliche, and I'm not saying I support abortion or am a "pro-choice" guy, but it's a dirty job, and unfortunately, someone has to do it.

To be fair, in almost all cases, abortion is not a necessary procedure. If every doctor forgot how to perform abortions tomorrow, the resulting loss of life would be minimal; it's hard to say that "someone has to do it" when the number of abortions performed out of necessity are vastly outnumbered by the number of them performed for, more or less, convenience.

If a deformed white guy who raised himself from poverty in the Appalachians said the same thing, I can guarantee that the media would bury him, even though his experiences would have been quite similar (discrimination, fighting for economic and social survival, etc). And rightly so. Race shouldn't even be at issue in the selection of a supreme court justice - only qualifications and impartiality.

At 5/31/09 04:52 PM, RussianGiant wrote: well... those who oppose gay marriage aren't Hippocratic since gay and lesbian sex isnt gay or lesbian marriage.

Hippocratic

I think the word you're looking for is "hypocritical". Gay marriage doesn't have a lot to do with doctors - unless you're talking about gay doctors or something like that.

Also, huh?

At 5/30/09 12:35 PM, poxpower wrote: In fact that's pretty much what you're doing when you argue with 100% of religious people because, like I said, they live in la-la land and about 99% of them are fucking plain old vanilla-flavored dumb when it comes to articulating their ideas.

Cool story bro. Too bad it's fiction by your own standards unless you can provide evidence.

At 5/28/09 10:42 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: The good news is, the Republican people who think the government can step on whomever they wish are also the religious people who claim to value life. So of course they already are obligated to pretend to care, and use their self appointed power to intervene.

You seem to be confusing the last group of Republicans in power with all Republicans. Many of us still believe fervently, as Regan did, that the government should stay out of the people's lives when not needed. Please make a note of it.

The people who actually DO care about life, of course, are the Democrats.

Caring about life...

Yeah, not seeing how this fits with an ideology that supports abortion. Or, for that matter, what political partisanship has to do with the issue at hand at all.

This may be relevant to the discussion at hand. Somehow, I doubt Obama is going to do much about this beyond strongly worded letters and such, although I don't think we should take this sitting down.

At 5/26/09 10:04 PM, CBP wrote: I would like to point something else out about the whole immigrants taking American jobs thing, and that is that when did that start to matter? In this new age of globalization, should we not be worried about jobs for humans as a whole?

As individuals? That would depend on personal moral proclivities.

As a nation? No - the US government exists to forward the interests and well-being of US citizens. Otherwise, why would we ever submit to governance if not for the promise that those to whom we give power will act on our behalf?

People who think that they are entitled to an American job simply because they were fortunate enough to be born here are the adult equivalent of a spoiled child. So turn off the Lou Dobbs, and start thinking of yourself as a person first, and an American second.