Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/6/08 02:21 AM, Imperator wrote: Should be interesting to see what the dems do.

Hopefully the party of "no ideas" pulls out some good from this all.

I thought Republicans were the party of no ideas and Dems were the party of bad ideas.

Since everyone's very VERY opinionated (read: Blindsighted idiots) on the issue, I think it's beneficial to look at it in absolutes.

It's well known most of the world wanted Obama. Regardless of reasons, is it not safe to say our reputation in the world has gone up simply as a result of Obama winning the election?

Possibly although it may have gone up if any democrat won and it'll probably go up the day Bush leaves office.

Obama was elected by the people, and the preliminaries look like there are no discrepencies in this; there were no "cheaters" here folks. Does this not mean all the conspiracies were wrong?

Personally I think they were more prophecies of doom (which are also almost always wrong) than conspiracies.

Obama's got no real history. Regardless, we're looking at something legitimately NEW here.

And most importantly, for all the other moron posts:

THIS IS AMERICA. Neither utopia nor disaster will beset us over the next 4 years. Rome was neither built in a day, nor destroyed in one. So stop acting like this is the greatest thing ever, or the disaster of the modern world and end of America.

Neither will happen.

Aye, please refer back to my golden rules (they apply to most of life as well).

Animals are sentient. You're thinking what if there was another species we could speak with.

I wonder what it would be like if that species looked nothing like a human

Perhaps humand and that species would produce an animal that couldn't mate with anything. That'd be an odd society indeed.

At 11/5/08 11:47 PM, epicmaster13 wrote:

At 11/5/08 11:24 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

At 11/5/08 10:51 PM, LookUpChauncey wrote: I don't get it. If you guys really dislike blind faith, extremists, intolerance, etc., why don't you just say you don't like these things? You know as well as I do that these aren't limited to religion.

Religion encourages blind faith, yes it's not the only thing that does so but still it's a valid criticism

You just ride on someone's personal achievement, call it science, and say you believe in it, and anything that doesn't directly adhere to "science" is an attack on it. Isn't this extremism? Isn't this intolerance? Isn't this blind faith? I've been saying it a lot, but I still think some of you are just hypocrites.

That is blind faith and not science.
Saying your explanation can't possibly be wrong isn't scientific. That's why we call everything theories, because there's a possibility that someone will discover something new that will force us to change the theories, or throw them out completely.

Science is based on observation and evidence. If it doesn't come from that it mostly likely isn't science.

Christianity isn't blind faith, at least to me, Christianity is the most logical of all mentalities looking at the evidence and what I've seen and heard. right now I'm reading a book called Evidence That Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. The book discusses evidence supporting Christianity. An interesting note is that when he started to research to write the book he was trying with everything in him to Disprove Christianity. In the process he actually found logical evidence Supporting Christianity. it's really good material so far, I'm not all the way through but I know people who've read it and it is strongly recommended.

Can he show evidence that the Bible was written by God and not man?
Can he give evidence of Noah (proving the flood does not count) or Moses?
Can he give evidence that there is a God?

Although if you're going to go with books you should sample both sides. I've heard some good things about God is not great, and the god delusional.

And if I were to take a stab at his evidence he's showing that historical events talked about in the Bible really happened. That's not proof that the bible is 100% accurate or that the rest of it isn't fiction.

Uh we let couples who can''t have children marry so why not gays?

Also lesbians can be artificially inseminated.

At 11/6/08 02:01 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 11/6/08 12:39 AM, DirtySyko wrote:

At 11/5/08 11:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Because it directly affects gay people whereas it doesn't affect the guy who feels he has the right to dictate how two human beings, who are not harming anybody and both consenting, live their lives.

Your arguments against me were terribly flawed.

And it directly affects that person because two gay people marrying is a direct violation of his religious beliefs. You let gay people off the hook for caring about nothing other than the right to marriage and yet have utter disdain for a person who has strong conviction in his religious beliefs? The economy is tanking, there's a war, there's millions starving to death while we eat ourselves to death and yet it is the priority of a gay person to see that they get to see through their marriage. That's not at all selfish is it.

Nobody gets to use their religious beliefs to deprive other people of liberties. Besides you have to let something completely unrelated to you affect your religion so it's your fault. Although by banning gay marriage you affect all the religions that want to marry gays.

So tell me why should your 'religious beliefs' (read excuse for controlling society) prevail?

We don't have disdain on those with strong beliefs, only those who try to force their beliefs on everyone else.

But hell let's make your unproven beliefs (religion) be the law of the land for everyone under the guise of tolerating your religion. That's not selfish at all is it?

At 11/5/08 11:56 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/5/08 11:10 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Oh come on everyone regardless of party likes to make scapegoats for complicated issues.

Then, does that mean it's ok that I do it now? Tit for tat?

It's not Ok for anyone to do because it distracts us from what could be the real problems. Plus I'm freaking sick of video games getting blamed for everything and that falls under that category.

But I wish people would stop pretending that their party isn't guilty of it in some way.

Well, let's hope the current Supreme Court members don't die in the next 4-8 years, so that he can't appoint psychotic liberal judges who can eventually overturn that SCOTUS ruling.

I'm hoping Obama puts in some Supreme Court Justices because it's possible some big things might be coming their way. Although truth be told I wish libertarians ran the supreme court but oh well. Oh and I don't think he can overturn it that easily.

That ruling covered a few areas that would make it illegal for Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress to pass many of the gun control measures Obama and Biden have both supported. I guess all they'd have to do is get the Supreme Court under their thumb as well. If liberals controlled all three branches of the government, goodbye 2nd Amendment.

Conservatives ran all 3 branches for a while and roe v. wade wasn't overturned. I think you are a bit pessimistic about this.

And if we get new threats we start stockpiling our military. When it's peace time and we're not in something like the Cold War then the need for a overly large military isn't so great.

It doesn't work that way. Modern warfare isn't just about stockpiling, it's about cutting edge technology and information that takes decades and enormous amounts of money to develop. You can't just immediately build up your military after years of allowing everyone else to catch up.

Point taken.

At 11/6/08 01:02 AM, n64kid wrote:

At 11/6/08 12:40 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Prop8 was overturned. The people clearly know what I'm talking about dirtysyko =).

Source? People are fighting it but the majority spoke.
How is this different than bitter republicans trying to overturn the election? McCain lost, but some people are pissed so he beats Obama?

Laws that take away the rights of the minority have been overturned before (lots of times actually). See we have things that protect minorities from having their rights taken away (and by minorities I mean the 49% or less that want to keep their rights).

An election is different, it doesn't take away rights it's just an election.

At 11/5/08 11:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 11/5/08 10:56 PM, DirtySyko wrote:

The common line I've heard from people who strongly oppose gay marriage, which is only a few I've spoken with in real life, say: "First we let gays get married, next people want to marry animals."

At that point I really wanted to express how two people have given consent to one another, whereas an animal doesn't have that ability, but I kept my mouth shut, because I figured if anybody is stupid enough to make a comment that asinine then they don't really deserve to be spoken with intelligently.

What if an animal could consent? Who are you to judge an animal and deem it inferior to a human?

Are you a freaking PETA member or something?

:If an Jane was intelligent enough to fetch, play dead and sit on command and if Jane was intelligent enough to recognize when a threatening person was intruding onto his property to warn Bob than who are you to say that Jane isn't entitled to a union with Bob?

None of those things qualify as consent to a union. We have no way of telling whether or not Jane is giving consent.

:She shows more loyalty to Bob than most couples do to each other so who are we to judge and say that it's wrong, just because she's of another species?

We're talking about something that can't give consent. Not to mention what if they got divorced can dogs legally own property ... anywhere or all the other burdens of marriage and divorce.

As far as what I said in the other thread: I think it's ludicrous for people to try and intervene in the lives of others if it doesn't cause direct harm to someone,

Exactly and why intervene in the life of Bob and Jane? They love each other and look after each other,

Prove Jane loves Bob.

:why do you oppose their right to happiness? It's not as if their marriage would affect you in anyway.

It wouldn't but I'm worried about Jane, how do we not know that Bob isn't lying when he says 'Jane really loves me' or more importantly 'Jane wants to marry me'.

and religious beliefs or not, I do not respect people who oppose gay marriage. There are bigger, more important issues to worry about, so if you spend your time living as a Fred Phelps jockey it may be high time to do a bit of self reflection.

And on a much more serious note what about gay people? You say you don't respect people who are opposed to gay marriage because there are bigger issues to worry about and yet you don't complain about gay people for whom this is is their primary or god forbid only issue they're concerned about when voting. Why the double standards?

No comment it is a double standard although I don't know if he has that double standard.

It would need to be able to speak a human language and not be brain dead to give consent.

At 11/5/08 10:51 PM, LookUpChauncey wrote: I don't get it. If you guys really dislike blind faith, extremists, intolerance, etc., why don't you just say you don't like these things? You know as well as I do that these aren't limited to religion.

Religion encourages blind faith, yes it's not the only thing that does so but still it's a valid criticism

You just ride on someone's personal achievement, call it science, and say you believe in it, and anything that doesn't directly adhere to "science" is an attack on it. Isn't this extremism? Isn't this intolerance? Isn't this blind faith? I've been saying it a lot, but I still think some of you are just hypocrites.

That is blind faith and not science.
Saying your explanation can't possibly be wrong isn't scientific. That's why we call everything theories, because there's a possibility that someone will discover something new that will force us to change the theories, or throw them out completely.

Science is based on observation and evidence. If it doesn't come from that it mostly likely isn't science.

At 11/5/08 10:53 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Oh yeah I'm an idiot I skipped ahead.

1. Interracial
2. Gay
3. Polygamy
4. Children
5. Animals
6. Inanimate Objects

And that my friends is a rap.

As said before if it gets to four it'll be for 16 or 17 year olds and that's it.

Animals and inanimate objects can't give consent so it'll never happen.

At 11/5/08 09:27 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: In fact, maybe I'll use a little reverse psychology on liberals. Listening to them complain and blame every single problem in the world and in their own lives on Bush made me realize that it has got to be convenient and fun to do that. I could have a great time.

Oh come on everyone regardless of party likes to make scapegoats for complicated issues.

At 11/5/08 07:27 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Regardless of who you voted for, you should all quit complaining about Obama because he won fair and square through the democratic system that we all cherish so much.

I'd say that the biggest reason he won is because the media electioneered his victory.

How so? I would mention Fox News's 'terrorist fist jab' but that seems like a cheap shot.

And Obama has had so much hype over so little real substance and so much arbitrary nonsense, there is absolutely no way he's humanly possible of even fulfilling a fraction of what he has promised.

That's why I follow these two golden rules of following campaigns.

1. Don't believe the hype.
2. It's all hype.

You're right something hyped that much can't realistically live up to expectations.

The mainstream media is still in his boat. They are entirely liberal and pro-democrat. They will be incredibly forgiving of an Obama administration's mistakes.

I don't think they're THAT biased. I think they'll tolerate maybe two large mistakes from Obama and that's it (and not big mistakes like a bad war, or not showing up after a hurricane for a while, or a sex scandal).

If Obama does manage to keep his promise of taxing the wealthy more heavily, than that will mean more money in the pockets of the average citizen.

No.

It will mean more money in the pockets of the government. And even if poorer people get wealth redistributed to them via tax handouts, it's going to create a dependency issue. The poor will be dependent on the government, people will be discouraged from succeeding because of government handouts that encourage dependence, and penalties against people who create their own wealth.

Penalties for people who make their own wealth? Well I guess you could call it that but the amount of wealth they'll have left is probably enough encouragement for people to succeed. I'm inclined to agree with the rest but I think the handouts do some good.

I choose to take a moderate stance on gun control. I don't believe in an "all or nothing" approach to anything.

Well, the thing is that Obama's stance is worse than that. He pretends that he supports the 2nd Amendment, but his interpretation is that it only applies to hunters and militiamen. He doesn't believe in an individual right to own and bear firearms in self-defense. He doesn't believe that people deserve to own tactical and defensive weapons.

This is the one thing I found (without researching too much) that I really don't like about Obama. I'm glad the Supreme Court overturned the D.C. ban before he got into office.

This is in direct contradiction to the historical context of the right to bear arms.

And I tend to realize that the 2nd Amendment is a timeless, effective right that must be preserved in order to preserve all the other freedoms we have.

Well, I disagree. I don't believe it's timeless or effective, and I certainly don't believe that drawing a line on the availability of guns infringes upon "all the other freedoms we have"

In my opinion, the day the 2nd Amendment is officially revoked, is the day that the American experiment is officially fucking over.

"The day the second amendment and the right to bear arms is taken away is the day I grab as much guns as I can and shoot anyone who tries to take them away from me."

Someone else's words not mine, but I think a large riot would be appropriate if they tried to ban guns.

An revocation of any of the foundational rights of our country means that any other right can be taken away as well from that point on. It will be a spiral development. It would mean the constitution no longer means shit. The absence of the 2nd amendment would mean that the government crossed that threshold where they've acquired so much power that nothing and nobody could take it back. Thus preventing the American people from wielding the real power. Any possible future tyrant or oppressive movement could get away with just about anything; using both the previous nullification of such an important right as a pretext for continuing to take away rights, as well as having a population that could no longer defend itself, either from the government or from a foreign power.

Thus compromising the foundation of the country, by making us both vulnerable to and completely dependent on our government.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I hold, say, my freedom of speech closer to my heart than my right to bear arms

And I believe that without the Right to Bear Arms, the right to Freedom of Speech would depend solely on the mercy of a government and not the power of the people. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing in the hands of the people to make sure the government keeps all the others of the Bill of Rights.

THIS is the reason why I think gun control shouldn't exist. You deserve a standing ovation. I value free speech more myself but I realise you might need guns to prevent people from taking it away in a desperate power grab.

And even then, Clinton did oversee a major decline in our military power.

Obama plans (or rather, says he plans) to get us out of war. If we're going to be fighting less, it makes sense that we'd fund more important issues, correct?

No, because maintaining a military that can meet future threats is the most important issue there is. Cutting funding from important, albeit expensive, weapons programs is a huge fucking mistake even if it's under the premise that the money would go to social programs.

And if we get new threats we start stockpiling our military. When it's peace time and we're not in something like the Cold War then the need for a overly large military isn't so great.

But it depends, will he behave like he did in the Illinois state legislature and Congress, or will he behave like he did in his campaign for president? To suggest the later would be naive.

Who's to say? Maybe the fella learned something

Wait, you're suggesting that he learned something and changed his politics WHILE he was running for President? So he started running for President as a liberal, but actually sincerely became more centrist in the process?

Why not? Maybe he did learn something, perhaps not from campaigning but jsut during the time between then and now. Altohugh you shouldn't be too optimistic.

No next comes polyamory. A union between more than two people.

My argument was that there was so many rules and statements in the Bible that we ignore that it seems stupid to put so much faith into those lines that say homosexuality is a sin.

An example being the section in leviticus that says you shouldn't eat pigs (as well as others). Leviticus 11:7

In the court case Ginsberg vs. New York, the court ruled that there was sufficient evidence that porn harmed children to allow states to ban porn from children.

I haven't seen the evidence though.

But yeah that's why places get to ban porn.

Science is not a religion.
Why do you think they call everything a theory (including gravity)? Because it might be proven wrong in the future.

Science works a lot like the court system where they examine evidence and use that to come to a conclusion. The only difference is that
a. science doesn't really accept purely anecdotal evidence on it's own.
b. trials end, a scientific theory keeps changes as we gather more info.

and that's it.

Religion is basically 'this book is correct, anything that contradicts this book must be incorrect'.

If you find some solid evidence that contradicts a scientific theory they won't instantly reject it they'd judge it on it's own merits.

Oh I forogt to add I hate blind faith in anything whether it be a political philosophy or a belief. So yeah that part I don't like about religion.

I do not hate religion per se it's people who shove their beliefs down everyone's throat that I hate.

I used to go to a church, the priest there was really nice, and very friendly and so was the pastor, I've moved to a new state but last I heard of him he was getting involved in some youth center to help out troubled kids or something like that.

These are the types of people I like, those who try change the world for the better, give to charity, feed the hungry etc. etc. I'm not sure if they would still organize or be as big if they didn't have religion to bring them together, although I bet that they would still be willing to do all that.

But then there's those assholes who try to turn the entire country or world into a Jesus/Muhammad/whatever approved fun land or something like that where Christian law, as they interpret it is the law of the land. Those are the people I hate, they live in their own little world and if someone dares disagrees with them then they're heretics or satan in disguise or sinful or destined to hell. They can't contemplate the simple idea that

a. they might be wrong
b. with that in mind it would be illogical and unwise to force everyone to believe what they believe.

Or to put it in a phrase borrowed from Mad
'You're a large Christian lobbying group that has tons of money, what do you do with it? Feed the hungry, house the homeless or start a several million dollar smear campaign against homosexuals.'

So yeah I hate anyone who says something should be banned from everyone primarily because their God doesn't allow it.

At 10/29/08 11:43 AM, milinko959 wrote: Your arguments are valid, but redistributing wealth is still socialism.

Socialism is the complete control of the economy by the government, it is not simply redistributing wealth.

" Is it sexist to still call them man hours and at this point would that matter?"

It's still common tongue is it not?

At 10/29/08 04:07 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/29/08 03:37 PM, polym wrote: there's a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE

Yes, yes there is. And freedom is a priviledge, not a right.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It Basically says that if a government takes away too much freedom that the people have a right to try to change it or destroy it and start anew.

And these are coming from the people who founded this country.

I'm sorry that I haven't read the whole topic but just thought I'd throw this in.

Slavery is very inefficient, first off slaves have no motivation they don't work as hard as regular employees and of course you have to make sure your slaves can't run away. Really all in all it's more cost effective to hire people out for cheap.

At 10/24/08 09:39 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 10/21/08 03:51 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

Criminalizing pot is stupid, takes away our liberties and enforcing it is a waste of money. End of story.

Enforcing it is a waste of money because the punishment is so weak. There's an idea that being tried overseas to prevent recurring cases of drug trafficking. Turns out, its 100% effective!

You're suggesting that we execute drug dealers? Wow that seems a little extreme don't you think? But even if, we still have to waste money finding prosecuting and punsiihing the bad guys. That doesn't even begin to take into the account the money the government could gain from taxes if it were legal. So no matter what we do it would still waste money.

Oh and telling people to move because they don't like the laws of the land is dumb. Doesn't democracy exist so we can change the government to suit our liking?

Rule of the majority. I somehow don't think that 51% of Americans are potheads. Why change the law for 2%? thats rule of the minority and is not democratic.

Because the majority has no right to take away the rights of the minority. That's one of the reasons why we have the bill of rights, to ensure 51% don't take away the rights of everyone else (and yes I know it never mentions drugs). Oh and if only 20% of the people drank alcohol would you want it banned?

Wouldn't it be better if we stayed here and tried to change U.S. for the better.

define better.

It's a subjective term, but I don't think people should leave everytime they seriosuly disagree with public policy. They didn't give us the right to protest the government for no reason.

I believe that we should try to help really depressed people to the point where they don't want to commit suicide. But failing that if they want to die, let them.

Lots of things fuck with your head, like alcohol for instance. It doesn't make any sense for alcohol to be legal and weed not to be.

At 10/21/08 01:50 PM, oicwatudidthar wrote: The day the legalise the herb is the day that noone can be arsed to do anything and society collapses.

A lot of people got drunk the day prohibition ended and society didn't collapse, what makes you think it'll be different with pot?

At 10/21/08 12:11 PM, Rose-Vampire wrote: Just move to holland and stop complaining. Drugs are bad. Smoking kills ya. end of story.

Criminalizing pot is stupid, takes away our liberties and enforcing it is a waste of money. End of story.

Oh and telling people to move because they don't like the laws of the land is dumb. Doesn't democracy exist so we can change the government to suit our liking? Wouldn't it be better if we stayed here and tried to change U.S. for the better.

I like the way we (hypothetically) have free speech here. The main exceptions to free speech are threatening someone, causing a panic or slander and libel (which is straight out bullshit, i.e. if I seriously told everyone you ate puppies and tried to kill your neighbor I'd get in trouble). Although they also have don't tell people they should try to overthrow their government which I don't agree with as much (and they also have obscenity laws, and the FCC both of which are bullshit).

Oh here you can have a Nazi rally just as long as it doesn't turn violen t or you start threatening to kill people.

Why is everyone debating this issue anyway? It's been how long since Roe v. Wade? And have you pro-lifers gotten it overturned yet?

Although if we're going to be overturning Supreme Court cases my vote goes to F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation.

The anti-Holocaust Denial bill is a bad joke. Any bill that attempts to legislate what people may think or believe is evil demonic scum, and a disgrace to any place that wants to call itself free.