Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

That depends on what the miracle was and whether or not I actually witnessed it personally for me to believe.

There are a LOT of good fakes out there and the benefits of people thinking you're an all-holy deity are good enough for people to pull fake miracles (tax exemption being one of them).

How might I join this anonymous attack.

If Anonymous wins, then they'll have a huge power trip we'll never hear the end of, but we'll be rid of scientology.

But what happens if they lose?

Grammer you do realise that Jack Thompson wants those games Banned not just out of the hands of minors. He once tried to get Bully banned in Florida.

At 1/23/08 04:27 PM, Grammer wrote:
Because when something is legal there's no black market for it.

When you sell something that's legal then it's no longer selling it on the black market (idiot).

promote the general Welfare, and

Well let's see if pot is less dangerous than alcohol . . .

You don't legalize something if it's not as dangerous as something else. That's like saying we should legalize cocaine because heroine is much worse.

But alcohol is perfectly legal.

secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Aw yes, the liberty to do with your own body as you please.

Doesn't say anything about what you're talking about. They're referring to our right to privacy, not our right to take illegal substances.

It doesn't say we CAN'T smoke pot, nor does it mention privacy either. And of course there's the 9th amendment which basically says we have more rights than what is guaranteed by the constitution.

There is a HUGE difference between the drug issue and abortion.

People think we should legalize marijuana because we have a right to do whatever we want with our body. If we can do anything we want with our body, why not unfettered abortion?

Holy crap I all ready explained it to you. Are you blind? Anyway I'll say it sloooooooooowly so you can understand it. Taking drugs only directly affects you. Abortion affects you AND (now this is important so pay attention) the fetus, and whether or not the fetus has rights is HIGHLY debateable. Do you understand?

And now to tear apart the arguments.

At 1/23/08 03:14 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/23/08 01:48 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: I'm sorry? The GOVERNMENT has the right to tell me what to do with MY body? Please explain your reasoning behind that notion.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,

:establish Justice,
Has nothing to do with drugs
:insure domestic Tranquility,
i.e. peace, well let's see if we legalised pot, then some of the drug cartels would halt. Plus high people might be more peaceful.
:provide for the common defence,
Guns, an army, that's it.
:promote the general Welfare, and
Well let's see if pot is less dangerous than alcohol . . .
:secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Aw yes, the liberty to do with your own body as you please.

No, this is the same damn thing. I'm not going to take this to another thread when it applies without question to the choices you make with your body.

Fine, be a jerk. I'm still not going to debate you here. (nah nah)

Your logic applies to abortion. Whether or not you want to accept that, it's true.

There is a HUGE difference between the drug issue and abortion. You should be allowed to do anything you want with your own body, but some will (and have) argued that the fetus is also a human whose rights need to be considered. Some would say that you shouldn't be allowed to harm the body of the fetus since it cannot give permission. There's a whole slew of issues involved, NONE of which apply to drugs.

To all those who say the founding fathers wouldn't want people to own assault rifles. You couldn't be more wrong. Thomas Jefferson advocated a violent rebellion every 20 years and said

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "

Oh and yes the crime rate across the board is DOWN not up, and it has been decreasing for years now.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tabl es/viortrdtab.htm

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/hm rt.htm

At 1/21/08 03:34 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Keep the Bible, out of the constitution, period.

In fact, I'd have no problem with another armed revolution in this country if Huckabee became president and actually tried to pull some shit like that. The idea that some Baptist minister wants to change our constitution to fit HIS beliefs, that's grounds for a fucking overthrow. And I'm sure the framers of the constitution would agree.

Amen brother. In fact this is one of the main reasons (THE reason some would argue) why the second amendment exists.

Oh and of course if Huckabee won the election and tried to turn the country into a theocracy (and succeded) I would gladly grab a gun and join in on an overthrow of D.C. (it would be my patriotic duty).

Pico day seems played out an old an a Newgrounds day would just seem self-congratulating and needlessly prideful. I have a better idea. How about we take some of the collections and genres of flash movies pick one at random and that will have a day devtoed to that. For instance we can have a noir day, a goth day, ninja day, pirate day (I know there's no pirate collection but there should be) parody day, whatever. We shouldn't have to focus on the same characters over and over that gets boring.

At 1/20/08 04:31 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/19/08 12:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: In fact, the VERY FIRST Amendment in the Bill of Rights specifically forbids religious preference:

1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

--------

That would prevent it from being religiously motivated in the first place.

Not hardly. The first amendment prevented Congress from establishing a national church, or making laws which would favor a branch of Christianity over another.

This HARDLY precludes a Christian influence. The first Amendment was made because of those who fled England over the state run church. As such, that part of the 1st is Undeniably Christian in origin.

And yet it allows you to be atheist agnostic or whatever you want.

But please, pray tell, what part of the remaining sound ANYTHING like the 10 Commandments other than the fact that there's 10 of them?

The Bill of Rights was based on the idea that God granted certain rights to the people that could not be abridged by government. Among these were the right to defend oneself (2nd), the right to legal protection in court (4th-8th), the right to property (3rd and 4th),the right to speak ones opinion (1st) and the protection from government in non-specified areas (9th and 10th).

The 3rd amendment (troop quatering) was put in out of disgust over the British forcing the colonists to let british troops live in their homes. It has ABSOLUTELY no influence by church law. Oh and they based none of those God given rights on the actual Bible (want proof? consider the fact that guns didn't exist during the time of Jesus)

Our entire government is formatted on Christian beliefs. I fail to see why that is fucked up.
Other than Huckabee getting to decide...

Our government is founded on a DEMOCRACY not on Christian beliefs, that's why we have freedom of religion. In case you sitll can't find your history book, a lot of settlers in the US were escaping religious persecution. As Thomas Jefferson himself said "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. " as well as "that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;"

At 1/21/08 12:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/19/07 12:28 AM, fli wrote: It sounds like a serious movie and from what I'm precieving, such scenes aren't out of context.

Everybody poops. Never see that in a movie. Just because something is in context doesn't mean it needs to be shown graphically. There was a guy who went around with a squirt gun filled with his own semen. He'd then shoot it on underage girls faces. Shall we show that too?

Can you give me a good reason why we shouldn't? Besides knowing Hollywood there's no way in hell it would be real semen, probably just milk mixed with something.

Oh and I also forgot to mention the enormous cost of said war, and the very small amount of benefits the US will recieve (and no I do not think we went in there for oil).

At 1/17/08 04:33 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/17/08 04:23 PM, FatherTime89 wrote:

Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction and links to Al-Queda (sp?). That lie.

CIA thought he had them. British Intelligence thought he had them. As well as others.

Saddam had illegal missles. Violated several UN resolutions. Gave inaccurate/incomplete information to the UN all so he could make everyone think he had WMDs so that Iran would lay off his back. Then the sanctions would end in 2003 (some time after the invasion) so he could rebuild his Nuke Program.

FOX naturally...

And because I know people like you will instantly dismiss anything FOX says (no matter what it is), here's the supporting link:
Link

I do find it ironic that you guys will say "Why didn't Bush listen to the CIA when they said the Iraqi people wouldn't be so welcoming", yet you outright blame Bush soley for the WMD fiasco when he got that information FROM THE CIA.

Saddam himself did not have an affiliation with Al Qeada, but Al Zarqawi (former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq) was training operatives in the northern region of Iraq.

Congrats. You fit the bill of ignorance that has been so widely displayed by the anti-war crowed.

I find it so fucking humorous that you can take one line and run with it to absurd lengths to the point of putting words in my mouth (I NEVER mentioned the CIA) and assuming you know EVERY last reason why I'm anti-war. I'm not even going to touch the fact that instead of going after said camps he decides to topple Saddam (which even you admit had no links to Al Qeada. )

Perhaps lie though wasn't the best way of putting it. It's more like a false statement based on gut instinct. My main beef is this. Why the hell didn't Bush let the weapons inspectors do their damn jobs? Now that Saddam is dead and weapons of mass destruction weren't there, why the hell are we still in there. That's my beef my good friend and not what you have stupidly assumed based on one statement.

I don't think it's justified. You call him insane for hating bush and yet when he backs up his reasons you shrug them off without even a small counter argument for them.

At 1/16/08 08:27 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

At 1/16/08 08:23 PM, Musician wrote: Our national debt is higher than its ever been in all of US history. Period.

lol

I notice you don't back this up with any sources. I wonder. (Although in all honestly I'm betting that if you took inflation into account FDR had the worst national debt, after paying for his New Deal and WWII, although those seemed more justified uses of the money).

The right to privacy and the presumption of innocence

And this affected you how?

Does it have to? If he revoked the rights of gays to protest and he didn't know any gays does that mean he couldn't complain about it?

His lie didn't cost lives.

el oh el. What lie?

Saddam has weapons of Mass Destruction and links to Al-Queda (sp?). That lie.

Your just as deranged as he is. Your own personal insanities are different, but your both insane.

The fact that you call him insane and dismiss his arguments with 'I don't care' instead of actually giving some sort of counter argument says a lot. You do realize the defintion of insanity is not 'the lack of apathy'.

That reminds me, perhaps I should go watch Duck Soup again and maybe I'll get a good quote rfom groucho marx.

My persojnal favorite so far is

"In the abscence of orders go find something and kill it"

We have smart bombs. They not only find the target, they knock on the front door and pretend to be the pizza delivery guy
-Jay Leno

The quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
-George Orwell

In nuclear war all men are cremated equal.

In a world without men there would be no war. Just intense negotiations every 28 days
-Robin Williams

Better War quote from the same guy

"May God have mercy on my enemies, because I won't"

Blur-ray is jsut starting so is hd dvd (although less so). You can still stick with DVDs because none of the studios are stupid enough to cease production when so few consumers own high def players. You may have to switch eventually but by the time that happens the players will become cheaper.

Democrats - anyone but Hillary (Edwards seems liek a great choice)

Republicans - Guliani or Mccain perhaps? I'm not sure which one really, (although maybe it's because I've always been more left leaning)

when will we get our questions answered?

At 1/5/08 09:47 PM, Kazic5000 wrote:

At 1/5/08 09:27 PM, APOPHIS57 wrote: ask me a question and I'll try to answer it

heres a riddle: tthere is a crazy cat lady with a bag full of 7 cats! each cat has 7 kittens then the local dog walker comes and his dogs go bezerk and eat 5 of the cats! all togather how many limbs are there left? (this is a hard 1)

204 limbs by basic math. 7 cats each with 7 kittens. Which means eat cat counts as 8 sets of limbs (the cat and 7 kittens). 7*8 =56. Now subtract 5 to account for the dogs' dinner (51). And multiply by 4 which gives us 204.

At 1/5/08 09:44 PM, APOPHIS57 wrote:

At 1/5/08 09:32 PM, Koeberto190 wrote: What is love?

when you drug someones drink

Nice answer.

If Cinderella and Snow White got into a fight to the death who would win?
What about a large legal battle between Microsoft and Disney?

(I know the answers to both of these questions, I'm just testing you).

When will the writer's strike end?

I'd say hi, mention that he looks different in public and then ask him who he thinks will win the superbowl (just because I can).

And now for the most absurd prediction ever made,

Godwin's law will not take effect for any thread in the politics forum (except maybe this because someone will undoubtedly scream Nazi just to prove me wrong).

Barack Obama wins nomination, will choose either Al Gore, Jon Edwards, Joe Lieberman (not my idea but someone else's) or someone we've never heard of before as his running mate.

Ron Paul will not get nomination but will get more votes then most people thought.

Someone else in the republican nomination will see a great comeback and may even capture nomination (I'm thinking Fred Thompson).

Mccain will largely be ignored during attack ad season.

Gravel will not drop out of the race.

The writer's strike will end in april much to the dismay of daily show fans (like myself)

Al sharpton will NOT get too involved with the election but will cause a mini fuss when Don Imus returns (if he hasn't already).

Home will be delayed again.

There will be at least noticeable differences between the 360 and PS3 versions of GTA IV much debate will follow (most of it fanboys yelling at each other).

Hillary Clinton will fail to succefully appeal to the youth vote (seems like a given)

Jon Edwards will gain some momentum (at least enough that he's considered a major candidate and not a 'no-chance' candidate)

People believe the saying 'an eye for an eye makes the world go blind' which is why they think it's "barbaric'.

Although the saying doesn't apply to capital punishment. The saying is about you getting revenge on someone then that same person gets revenge for your revenge then you get revenge for his revenge on your revenge. Then he tries to take revenge out on you for taking revenge etc. Like I said doesn't apply to capital punishment.