Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Soul Calibur 54: Now with 50% more confusing plot twists.

Fuck you very much by Monty Python
Or One more minute by Weird Al

At 1/2/08 07:33 AM, NWOphenom wrote: Pokemon, Mario, Sonic, and spyro most likely will still have more games

Spyro?! Are you kidding me that series has been going way down hill ever since insomniac left it.

Ahem

Metroid Prime 95: System Errors
Metroid Prime 96: Menopause
Metal Gear Solid 45: Attack Of the Clones
Manhunt 27: We've finally figured out a way to use severed dicks as weapons
Grand Theft Auto: Earth
Hitman 32: Zombie Edition

Ratchet and Clank 87: Waiting periods
Medal of Honor: Gettysburg
Dance Dance Revolution 59: Seizure Edition.
Pong 2!

i'm trying to think of something for the hitman and burnout series but I got nothing.

Easier said then done my friend.

Rats, beaten by sirstanley.

You can figure it out with ONE question. The riddle is very old which is the only reason why I know this.

"If I asked the other guard which door led to heaven what would he say?"

It doesn't matter if you ask the liar or the honest guy this question, either way they'll point to the door leading to hell.

And now for a bit of humor

In October of 2004 some guys over the internet started a debate over whether or not Bush could win the American Revolution if he replaced George Washington. The scenario also altared history and made King George III become crazy during that period instead of later in life.

One person wrote this

"What we need to bear in mind is that for the Americans to win they need a leader with the ability to get on well with allies and maintain support among a disparate coalition of colonies with differing and often contradictory interests, and the common sense to avoid battles which he can't win. The question we need to ask is 'Does Bush possess these qualities'? Can we imagine him successfully evacuating Long Island or cooperating effectively with the French at Yorktown or maintaining the morale of his army at Valley Forge? I think we know the answer. "

I think the death penalty should be used but only in extreme circumstances, such as serial killers.

At 1/2/08 11:02 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/2/08 10:42 PM, Snakemaster-13 wrote:

Eugenics is not the same thing as abortion. I can't stress that more.

Nazi's: "Rid the world of Jews to make it a better place! We justify it because they are lesser and inferior beings who cause stife!"

Liberals: "Allow the abortion of a fetus to make irresponsible people's lives better! We justify this because a fetus is a lesser and inferior being who causes strife!"

Sounds pretty similar.

One major problem with your flawed logic is that you forgot something of critical importance.

Hitler scapegoated the Jews.

He blamed all of Germany's problems on Jews, and said they were the cause of WWII. He also demonized them saying they were evil creatures. This is how he got germany OK with the holocaust.

Now you don't see anyone doing that to fetuses now do you?

In short, you lose good sir.

At 1/4/08 03:29 PM, beck071 wrote: Also isnt george bush retireing or some shizel like that?

Most former presidents retire after they reach term limits or are voted out of office.

At 1/4/08 03:16 PM, 200monkeys wrote:

At 1/4/08 12:44 AM, FatherTime89 wrote: Oh and the event that the government will turn non-democratic IS liekly to happen (well it has a reasonable chance of happening). Like every empire and country ours will eventually collapse for one reason or another and some different kind of government will follow (what it will be is anyone's guess).

That's quite a statement, saying our country will eventually collapse and be replaced. In fact, I don't see that at all. Most countries that change governments are forced by the people for more rights. What more could you want than Democracy? That's the goal of most revolutions.

I'm of the opinion that history repeats itself. And of course there have been some revolutions that favored some new yet equally opressive form of government (Russia springs to mind). I'm also reminded of Ceaser (yes I know there's debate over whether he really was trying to be king but assuming he was and didn't get stabbed, would it have been all that difficult?) In 1000 or so years do you really think America will still be here? How about 2000? Do you really believe it will be here until the human race goes extinct?

At 1/4/08 04:15 PM, Grammer wrote: You can try to, but you can't deny reality. You don't need a 50 bullet clip to defend yourself. There is no way you can argue around that, you illogical fool.

But that's the point banning something simply because you don't NEED it is incredibly stupid and should never be used as justification for banning something.

You don't NEED the next gen consoles let's ban them.
You don't NEED those gas guzzling hummers, they're dangerous and cause global warming anyway.
You don't NEED the internet and it has all these predators and stuff on them.

Have I made my point clear?

Even Ron Paul beat Guliani, surprising though.

Grammar you act like defense, hunting, sport and crime are the ONLY reasons to own guns. Read the 2nd amendment again.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

This reveals the true intentions of the amendment. In case the government ever decides to go tyrannical the public (armed with guns) would be able to overthrow the government and restore democracy. In any tyrannical rule (including late 18th centruy Britain) the government takes whatever steps necessary to insure there could not be a successful revolt. Disarming the citizens is the most obvious one.

You may say 'but that won't happen with our government'. Well I kindly point to your earlier assertion that we should make laws based on what MIGHT happen not what is likely to happen (which is complete idiocy if you ask me).

Oh and the event that the government will turn non-democratic IS liekly to happen (well it has a reasonable chance of happening). Like every empire and country ours will eventually collapse for one reason or another and some different kind of government will follow (what it will be is anyone's guess).

At 12/30/07 09:20 AM, ForcedDj wrote: A sad day for Pakistan, its very tragic to see this happen.

If Jack fucking Thompson says that video games caused this, then he is indeed, the most retarded person on Earth and everyone would be glad when he loses his bar license forever(if he didn't lose it yet).

Not even Jack is stupid enough to believe/say that. No seriously as far as I can remember he has never even come close to the level of blaming terrorism on video games (although others (not him but other people) have suggested they could've learned to fly using MS flight sim).

Back on topic how would it damage our credibility if we go in there find and kill Osama and the Taliban without levelling the country then leave? Hasn't Bush already isolated a lot of people with 'your either with us or your against us'? Wouldn't it get rid of an annoying pest to Pakistan and maybe get them to like us more?

1st amendment overturned,
We become a theocracy
They try to start something similar to the great firewall of China (massive internet censorship)
They cancel elections indefinitely

At 12/30/07 02:05 PM, Earfetish wrote: And what happens when you've all got to fight the military and break into the whitehouse and assassinate the tyrannical president and start a new government, if you've all got muskets

I think that is precisely why they made the second amendment, because if the government wanted to suddenly become a dictatorship, it would be a LOT harder if their citizens owned assault rifles. There are some that say Bush is trying to become a tyrant, I think they are exaggerating but if he does I would like to have an assault rifle handy.

I got mine it looks pretty cool, althoug hosme of the icons tend to blend in with the background.

It's great to have a PS3.

How about you call them blunt weapons.

I'm sorry but I'll be too busy registering democrat to try to make sure Hillary Clinton doesn't get in. I'd almost prefer Dick Cheney over her.

Although if she weren't in the race I would be registering to vote for ron paul.

At 12/8/07 10:53 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 12/8/07 10:36 AM, Abele wrote: I agree, it depends on the war. If they started up the draft again for a war I didn't agree with, I'd go back to Ireland.

Because you're a pussy.

That's an attitude idiots like you would take as an excuse not to go. It wouldn't matter if the war was justified or not.

BULLCRAP!!!

If the government wants to risk MY life for their war they better have a god damn good reason to do so. Otherwise I'm gone.

If there is a draft I will flee to Canada at the earliest time possible. I'm not sure I have it in me to kill someone.

Oh and I forogt to add, my vote goes to either Barack or Paul depending on who gets the nomination.

At 12/13/07 06:14 PM, 6re9 wrote:

At 12/13/07 06:08 PM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/13/07 06:04 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 12/11/07 09:36 PM, TheBlueBullet wrote: I'm leaning towards Ron Paul. If he doesn't make it ill vote democrat.

This is what makes Ron Paul a good choice for the republican party. If he becomes the official candidate, he'll win in a landslide.

Exactly , it's either they nominate him, or they lose to the dems.

pretty much, dr. paul would destroy any dem pit against him.....................................
.....................................

Oh really? What if Bush ends the two term limit clause and bill clinton runs again. (Yes I'm well aware this likely won't happen).

At 12/13/07 08:05 PM, Truth wrote:

At 12/13/07 07:49 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: To accept that the government did 9/11 would mean accepting the "facts" that the government was able to pull off a humongous conspiracy like 9/11 then completely and epically screw up the war with Iraq as well as other issues.

Just because its hard to believe in, doesn't make it false.

Your right but it does cast doubt.

(Oh and don't try to tell me the media is paid off by the government since it criticises the government almost all the time).

Do you have any idea how American media works? Yes, the government play a part in it.

Oh really? What part, besides issuing press releases and whatnot? There have been so many issues (like Gonzales's firing of those lawyers for instance) that would have gone unnoticed by most of the public had it not been for the media dragging it out. Isn't it the nature of free press to be free of most government restraints?

To accept that the government did 9/11 would mean accepting the "facts" that the government was able to pull off a humongous conspiracy like 9/11 then completely and epically screw up the war with Iraq as well as other issues. I'm sorry but this seems very very unlikely.

Also if this had any grain of truth to it I guarantee that the media would be on it like vultures in a matter of minutes. (Oh and don't try to tell me the media is paid off by the government since it criticises the government almost all the time).

They layout looks tremendously cold. As in artic winter -24 degrees celsius cold. Oh and don't you think the writers would be a bit more creative than your avergae newgrounds user?

Ok so I found some on pages 1,2,4, and 5 on aline hominid

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/reviews /59593/1

A lot on pages 1,2, and 4 of red riding hood (Shame, I like that movie)

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/reviews /299838

On pages 1-6, 8 and 9 of dad's at work

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/reviews /386773/1

And 2 of them on page 1 of bunnykill 2.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/reviews /220999/1