Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/25/09 06:54 PM, Korriken wrote: Cheney/Jindal? wow. you beat me several times over in the crazy department. the democratic party would have a spontaneous media orgy if they ever saw that ticket.

Heh, thought you might get a kick out of that. At least it isn't as crazy as:

2016: The Paul/Kucinich ticket surprises everyone by taking the Libertarian nomination and the White House.

2010: Democrats lose some of their majority in the houses and (by now) have not changed the political complexion of the supreme court. Not sure if they lose the majority completely, but all signs point to yes if they keep droning on about the "death" of the Republicans (and thus repeat the mistakes made by them not two decades before)
2012: Obama narrowly wins a second term against a Cheny/Jindal ticket
2016: The pendulum finishes its swing, and the Republicans are swept to power only to mistakenly claim the "death" of the Democrats - and the return swing begins.

At 5/24/09 06:45 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Im not arguing for or against any of those things. I'm simply pointing out that in many facets of our society, the taking of human life is acceptable and sometimes even encouraged. So defining a fetus as 'human' or 'non-human' is kind of moot. Even if one proves that a fetus is not only a homo-sapien but also a 'person, it doesn't diminish one's right to abortion. Like it or not.

I disagree - in all other cases, we seek to find proper justification before we consign a living human being to death without penalty of law. Why should a fetus, if determined to be a human life, be any different in cases where the fetus does not threaten the life of the woman? Self-defense or the protection of others are all valid, but not many of the reasons that abortions are performed.

At 5/23/09 03:21 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 5/22/09 09:43 PM, zoke wrote: Dont hold your breath. He has yet to show any economic knowledge, or simply the ability to make a decision without crashing the stock market.

Furthermore, the recession itself is likely a few weeks or a couple months away from being finished, according to the professor who is on the BCDC of the National Bureau of Economic Analysis, which determines the exact starting and ending points for recessions.

Given the fact that the vast majority of the stimulus bull won't take effect until after most experts projected the recession would already be over doesn't really say much for Obama's money management skills - even ignoring the fact that his interventionist policies with car companies will pretty much ruin the industry and force manufacturers to make cars that won't sell well in the US market, and that the CBO is projecting a several trillion dollar deficit as a result of his actions in merely three months of presidency.

At 5/23/09 08:58 AM, thedo12 wrote: Some stuff

I'm noticing a distinct lack of rationale here. You aren't going to convince anyone if all you say is "yes", "no", and "you're stupid lol".

At 5/21/09 05:52 AM, goulashsoup wrote: 1.great
2.good
3.i dont fucking give a shit
4.ughhh
5.fuck!

I'd say I'm a 4. I don't like his political leanings, his lack of experience, and apparent inability to stick with a position for any length of time; I am, however, willing to listen to what he has to say and take his ideas on an issue-by-issue basis on the off chance he'll surprise me with something innovative.

At 5/22/09 04:48 PM, aninjaman wrote: Also if sexual molestation was something the army worried about then they wouldn't let women in the army.

I was under the impression that they had separate barracks for that purpose.

At 5/22/09 05:25 PM, JadeTheAssassin wrote: Keep that in mind when you got a lot in your mouth to say.

Did you intend for that to be a pun within the context of this thread? I mean, maybe I just have a juvenile sense of humor, but I couldn't help but laugh at the phrasing.

At 5/21/09 04:58 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Actually, i would love to here some europian, belgia, white people jokes.

This is what redneck and inbreeding jokes are for.

For example:
A redneck living in Arkansas goes to the doctor and asks him for a vasectomy. The doctor asks him why, to which the redneck replies that he already has twelve kids and his cousin-wife will leave him if he forces her to have another. However, the redneck doesn't want to pay a lot for the procedure.

So, thinking quickly, the doctor tells him to put a cherry bomb in a tuna can, hold it to his ear, and count to ten. So the redneck does this. When he gets to five, he has to stick the tuna can between his legs to free up the other five fingers...

You could always just construct the DMV out of glass...

yeah, maybe it isn't that funny.

At 5/22/09 12:18 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote: If you don't want to get an abortion, don't get one. Simple as that. Hence the name Pro-choice instead of Pro-compulsory-eradication-of-every-sing le-unborn-fetus-conceived. it's your choice whether or mot you want to have an abortion. If abortions are legal, then everybody wins.

The problem is not that people think that abortion is compulsory, but that some people see the potential for overuse of the procedure for frivolous purposes if it isn't restricted, or see the government's lack of controls on the matter as an implicit endorsement of what they believe to be the murder of innocent children. Combine that in with the question of whether or not government health benefits should pay for the procedure (using taxpayer moneys to fund what a new majority of taxpayers do not agree with in many cases), and you have a political issue on your hands.

Same goes for same-sex marriages, if a government refused to allow same-sex marriages to preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, then that government would be making a decision based on the assumption that God is real, which would defeat the purpose of a secular state, albeit a secular state that insists on calling itself 'one nation under God'.

I'm not seeing how this applies to the issue of abortion...

At 5/22/09 07:56 AM, Drakim wrote: I've come to the realization that people seem to expect more of atheist in many things. It's as if we all knew that atheists are much smarter than the general public and should thus "know better".

Think about it. If an atheist actually started bothering people on the street about the non-existance of God, or knocking on people's doors during dinnertime to tell them about the wonders of a godless universe, he would surely be despised and called a militant atheist. Yet, isn't that common practice among many religious people? I'm not saying that doing such things are wrong (indeed, I am very for the marketplace of ideas), but, it's seems to me that people accept this much more when done for religion, as if we are all thinking "we have to be soft on those poor idiots, they don't know better".

Really? Most people I know either make fun of people going door to door "selling" religion, or simply flat-out deny them the time of day and close the door in their faces. People don't seem to like door-to-door tactics unless delicious cookies or charity is involved.

At 5/21/09 03:50 AM, SonicSheep wrote: In the UK, the common man and woman would be unable to purchase a gun. The only way a normal person can use a gun is to join a licensed gun club, and then they are only allowed to use the gun at the clubs firing range, which keeps all of the guns the people were using, securely locked away.

That's a funny example to give, considering that the average UK citizen can't even visit the bathroom without the government knowing about it.

At 5/20/09 06:48 AM, zendahl wrote: And before you start claiming that it's not racism, tell me why I've never heard one complaint about Canadian immigrants? Why are the anti-immigrant warriors not screaming about building a wall to protect our northern border? Why do we not have armed men in jeeps patroling the line in Montana?

Well, for starters, Canada isn't famous for its gangs, drug cartels, and rampant poverty leading to worker migration.

At 5/19/09 08:22 PM, Kev-o wrote:

At 5/19/09 05:48 PM, dySWN wrote: You seem to be missing the "illegal" part to "illegal immigration." Few rational people would be vocally opposed to immigration that follows the correct legal avenues; the problems arise when people come across our borders illegally, with no documentation or forewarning.

How can a person be illegal? Doesn't that idea seem immoral and ridiculous?

The illegality in the issue concerning illegal immigrants derives not from the individual inasmuch as it does from his or her actions - a burglar is not "illegal", but the act of burglary is. In the case of illegal immigration, you simply swap "burglar" with "non-citizen" and "burglary" with "trespassing".

As for the whole flap about the subject being immoral, I would continue the analogy by saying that we still prosecute burglars for breaking the law; we have rules in this country, and we're all expected to follow them within reason.

You seem to be missing the "illegal" part to "illegal immigration." Few rational people would be vocally opposed to immigration that follows the correct legal avenues; the problems arise when people come across our borders illegally, with no documentation or forewarning.

As for your facts, let's see some specific links to the studies that confirm them. Just throwing out a list of names at the bottom of your paragraph doesn't count as giving credit where credit is due.

At 5/17/09 08:43 PM, fatape wrote:

At 5/17/09 08:24 PM, dySWN wrote:
It's not so much about punishment as it is about doing your due diligence to make sure that your offspring receive the best upbringing possible. Ensuring that children grow up well-adjusted is a parent's responsibility - one that both mother and father should share.

so the father has no other job in raising kid's then to bring home the bacon?

missingthepoint.jpg

That would be outside the scope of this thread, don't you think?

I bring up abortion to prove a point that women have a choice in the matter, men don't.

Not having a choice in the matter doesn't change the fact that, if the mother chooses to keep it, the child represents you both in genetics and in personality. How does it make you look if you let your son or daughter grow up without fatherly guidance?

I know better than to try bringing up the moral aspect of the issue on this forum, but in practical terms people would be justified in calling a man a deadbeat if he just leaves his kids hanging.

and Im fine with that as long as I don't have to pay for your decision's.

It was obviously the man's decision as well. After all, half the DNA involved got there through his actions.

At 5/17/09 02:31 PM, fatape wrote:

At 5/17/09 02:23 PM, dySWN wrote: I'm sorry, but IMHO part of being a mature man is taking responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. Guys who don't bother to stick around to take care of their children give the rest of us a bad name.

so becuase I make one mistake I should be punished for the next 18 years of my life?

It's not so much about punishment as it is about doing your due diligence to make sure that your offspring receive the best upbringing possible. Ensuring that children grow up well-adjusted is a parent's responsibility - one that both mother and father should share.

not to mention fact there is such thing as abortion.

That would be outside the scope of this thread, don't you think?

At 5/17/09 08:13 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/17/09 08:01 PM, dySWN wrote: No. I never said it was justified. I simply said that war is an inevitable part of human behavior.

I think with the civilisation of modern technology and living in a hygiene society I think we can assume our 'nature' is ever altering.

Technology hasn't changed the presence of jealousy or the need to have clean food and drink to survive. Since wars can often be boiled down to conflict over needed (or wanted) items or territory, I'm not seeing how technology will help us here.

At 5/17/09 05:40 PM, Brick-top wrote: So you're saying war is justified because our ancestors in a world of extreme survival with lower intellect and rational thinking without the luxuries we have did it on a far smaller scale?

No. I never said it was justified. I simply said that war is an inevitable part of human behavior.

That said, there can be times when it can be justified in the face of extenuating circumstances. I doubt most rational people would disagree with the fact that Hitler needed to be stopped, and that just about the only way to do so was with war.

At 5/17/09 11:28 AM, Brick-top wrote:

At 5/16/09 11:32 PM, dySWN wrote: Welcome to the human condition.

Yep, because everyone is a mass murderer.

No, but we have been killing each other with war since before we could stand erect. Hell, our simian ancestors horribly maimed one another on a daily basis over mates and territory; the only difference between now and then is that we often find ourselves looking for justification before we do so.

At 5/17/09 04:31 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/17/09 03:54 AM, TheFarseer wrote: Well if your openly gay, that can make your fellow same-sex squad members uncomfortable(especially in showers) and wouldn't be able to function properly as a group.

I would feel uncomfortable with Catholic squad members, does that mean they shouldn't be allowed in the military?

Unless they're gay, at least the discomfort you would be feeling wouldn't be the fear of unwanted sexual advances.

I'm sorry, but IMHO part of being a mature man is taking responsibility for the consequences of your own actions. Guys who don't bother to stick around to take care of their children give the rest of us a bad name.

At 5/16/09 11:32 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote:

At 5/16/09 05:38 PM, Al6200 wrote: Poll: More Americans Identify as Pro-Life

It's weird, my position on this has always been pro-choice, until I saw a clip of how they perform an abortion. It's really bad. They have to like crush the skull of the infant in order to get it out, and it looks like a regular baby. So that made me sick to my stomach.

So now, I'm in the middle. I think that an abortion within like the first few weeks of contraception is acceptable. But once it gets to the point where it actually looks like a young child, it's going to far. At that point you have to let the thing live.

Such a controversial topic, almost everyone I know is 50/50

poll surprises me

While I can see where you're coming from, can you clarify it in terms that don't boil down to an appeal to emotion? Typically, it takes more to get your point across about an issue than saying that the alternative is "icky". Frankly, I don't see much difference between a child in the first trimester and the first trimester plus one or two days. When would you consider the defining point of the pregnancy to be, beyond the aesthetic properties of the fetus?

At 5/16/09 08:45 PM, Brick-top wrote: War or even trying to cause harm to others for their own personal gain is not only unnecessary, damaging but it's also fairly pathetic.

Welcome to the human condition.

At 5/15/09 05:06 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 5/14/09 06:59 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 5/14/09 06:41 PM, Patton3 wrote: A senator, congressman, etc. is not a government beurocrat and would not be the sort of person actually sorting out funds, contacting doctors, etc. It would instead be many lower level gov. employees sorting through the grunt work. Not our re-election oriented elected officials.

In other words, someone even less accountable to public opinion than the congressmen who put them there. That's a huge step up.

These will obviously be people qualified to work with such matters, maybe people changing over from our current private health system to a new government run one. And of course as with any new course of action or beurocracy set up by the government, there will probably be a bit of a hectic switch over, some low-level scandals, etc. Just bumps in the road to hammer out. However, with the most competent administration in a while, not saying much I realize, I think these can be kept to a minimum.

You're not really addressing the problem here, just repeating what you said before. Can you provide any hard evidence that such an appointment wouldn't be any more corruption-ridden than every other one has been?

Saying someone you don't like did something doesn't suddenly make that thing more worth doing. It was a fallacious argument -but at the time I didn't know how to phrase that best, so I settled for an analogy.

True, but I was just making a little light-hearted humor. Those two presidencies weren't exactly shining moments in our recent history.

Maybe I'm just missing the joke. After all, after four years of the "b-b-b but Bush!" argument being bandied about, I've just kinda gotten jaded to it.

At 5/15/09 04:42 PM, Farafor wrote: I kinda disagree.
Didn't Bush screwed up America?

Because it only takes one man to fuck up two centuries of progress and growth, right?

At 5/14/09 06:41 PM, Patton3 wrote: A senator, congressman, etc. is not a government beurocrat and would not be the sort of person actually sorting out funds, contacting doctors, etc. It would instead be many lower level gov. employees sorting through the grunt work. Not our re-election oriented elected officials.

In other words, someone even less accountable to public opinion than the congressmen who put them there. That's a huge step up.

Note that the two president's who most vehemently protested universal healthcare were Nixon and the most recent Bush.

Bush didn't cheat on his wife. Does that mean you should cheat on yours?

I see the Bill reference, but...how does this pertain?

Saying someone you don't like did something doesn't suddenly make that thing more worth doing. It was a fallacious argument -but at the time I didn't know how to phrase that best, so I settled for an analogy.

At 5/13/09 11:56 PM, fli wrote: Gays can have kids... in fact, many are raising families...
It's not a genetic hinderance at all...

They just choose to raise the kids in a loving family with their partner... who so happens to be the same sex.
Gays do have many options in how they want a family.

Adoption doesn't pass genes, you know.

Links or it didn't happen.