Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/24/09 05:36 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
It's a lot easier for me to forgive Latino's large crime rates when they at least have the decency to get fucking jobs. But no, I don't like illegals; the fact that they can get jobs, however, is RATHER telling.

A Rather Glaring Rebuttal

I wonder what else you are. Has your hatred consumed you? Or are there things yet to be salvaged? Can you right now, comprehend and except a reality in which you are entirely, completely, wrong? Or does your warped reality run to deep to disengage from your psyche Your mindset is false: You must realize that you cannot berate, or forgive, an entire people. You must react to and judge individuals, and make no assumptions or generalizations. You may convince youself that you are right and righteous, fighting to save you race. But your not fighting, you're running. You run from everyone and anyone who treated you with derision, who looked down upon you. Or maybe you want companionship? Camaraderie? Salve for yeasr of emotional wounds? You may be with fellows now, but you are still alone. People like you can't bond, because Hatred is indiscriminate. And I truly can't imagine there's much enlighting discourse. If your alone now, and you don't change, that's all you'll ever be.

I know I may sound condescending, but there are certainly other ways to deal with your problems. Don't project your misery onto others. Lift them up, and redeem yourself in your own eyes.

At 3/10/09 04:20 PM, Patton3 wrote:
I try not to listen to anyone, anymore, who only presents one side of the story. So, I don't listen to AM rodio, FOX, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. I do, however, enjoy listening to Bob Schieffer and wn.com.

I know for a fact that the New York Times has an editorial section that represents both Democratic and Republican Views. If you want a highly comprehensive, unbiased news source, then go back and check out the Times.

The jobs that illegals take are generally ones that are undesirable to Americans. Illegals take them because they pay more then better quality jobs do in Mexico (or wherever). Trust me, your friends are not having jobs taken away from them.

Also, the fact that you are equating the incompetent workers who messed up your precious stucco to all illegal immigrants is simple idiotic.

At 5/29/08 01:15 AM, hocusPokus wrote: I can't beleive how soft we are on illegal immigrants! To summarize they get to come here, take up social services, schools, hospitals, that stuff. They get welfare and medicare, and yet they dont pay a dime in taxes! Hardworking citizens pay for their 6 kids!

Screw amnesty we should find a way to keep our cheap labor BUT be able to tax them

First of all YOU take up social services. I'm sure you don't work, so you contribute virtually nothing in return. The illegal immigrants are currently more valuable to society than you are, because the vast majority of them are productive, albeit illegal, residents of the United States. And no, they don't get welfare and Medicare, because they are not citizens. For a person who even has an opinion on this subject, you are clearly utterly clueless as to its particulars. In addition, adult males with families are generally illegally entering the U.S. for a specific purpose: to support their families. The money they earn here may seem utterly trivial to us, but it is usually worth far more in there home country. Now, I'm not naive. I know there are drug smugglers and criminals who often enter the U.S. illegally, and likely make up a significant percentage of illegal immigrants.

Please, try to have a general understanding of a topic before you post about it.

Their is no accurate, reliable way to test whether video games cause increased aggression, and it is really the parents responsibility to decide what is right for their children.

I've never encountered any modern stereotype portraying children as stupid and dirty. And age is everything regarding intellect. A young child is not mentally or emotionally developed enough to handle the hardships of life. You may think YOU are, but you are not. You clearly have much developing to do. Those who are wizened among us, who act respectfully and appropriately, deserve and merit our respect. Even if they've done nothing significant in their life, they deserve it, because you would want respect when you reach their age. If they've worked hard and accepted the life that chance gave them, then they deserve respect. If you want respect, you must give it.

Anarchy is a state of complete absence of government, a total power vacuum. True communism is the absence of social classes, and the complete freedom of all goods to be distributed to those who need them. True communism would inevitably descend into chaos and anarchy, as people would take advantage of the system and want more power and control for themselves. Capitalism would ensue on small scales, because now there is not enough of everything for everybody. People now need something to give something. It would become a semi-anarchy, with warring factions, which would likely become a totalitarian state or republic when, eventually, a person or group seizes total control. Communism also relies on complete availability of all necessary goods, if the state doesn't produce them, they must obtain them. Their fellow countries are likely not all communist, so they must BUY the goods they lack. Of course, they could just print money without disseminating it, but that would mean the currency is worthless, because it represents no economic activity. They wouldn't be able to purchase anything from anyone else. So in the end, the system is incompatible with the rest of the world.

I understand the reasoning behind this idea. And I didn't say it was wrong.

At 5/16/08 04:56 PM, zoolrules wrote::

Maybe there was really a Jewish holyday at that day, and Muslims intentionally did it in that day? (In case what you said is true).

There wasn't.

Scientology is actually quite different from the three major ancient monotheistic faiths in that it was not created by several groups of historic people who really didn't know better and attributed many coincidentally associated, seemingly miraculous events to an omnipotent and benevolent God. L. Ron Hubbard was a man who lived in the second half of the 20th century and was not thought to be clinically insane. He wrote speculative science fiction. He also clearly had an overactive imagination, and decided to make some money from his fantasies by duping the foolish and gullible people he found around him. It is increasingly clear that the Church Of Scientology is not a selfless entity dedicated to the improvement of humanity. The expensive membership costs and auditing sessions along with the church's tax exempt status do certainly mean that their are millions of dollars at stake. Corruption in the church's ranks is all but inevitable.

Here is all you need to know about Scientology as a religion: Information
Here are facts relating to some of the controversies surrounding Scientology: Information

I think the real problem with Kleinhans "argument" is that he doesn't actually understand what Communism is, and why it can never be truly realized.

Huh. That's completely counterintuitive.

Barack Obama is definitely the most genuine and honest of the three presidential candidates. His politics are deeply rooted from his early days in Chicago, and he is not reducing himself to lowbrow pandering like Clinton.

I'd just like to say to Troubles, Barack Obama has publicly denounced and severed all ties with his ex-pastor.

This is an interesting proposition, but the amount of collateral damage and deaths that would result make it almost impossible to implement. The government cannot allow it's tax paying citizens to just gradually kill themselves. There are people who would turn to or try drugs (and thus become addicted) but don't because it is illegal. People would never support this proposition because it involves the governmental abandoning of hundreds of thousands of people. Also, their really are no harmless drugs. Weed is definitely not harmless, it has the same effects as smoking, prolonged use leads to cancer, heart disease, skin problems, tooth decay, gingivitis, halitosis, emphysema, asthma and general bodily decay.

Here is some valid, peer reviewed, scientifically sound information about Marijuana use: NIDA

However, your proposal is very compelling, and is really something to think about. It is good to see that people have genuinely intelligent ideas for making our society a better place.

Alright, that was 16 posts until the name of Hitler was invoked. Thread self destruction initiated. Also, Cellardoor, why are you comparing women who get abortions to Hitler?

Abortion is not a from of murder, it is taking what is essentially a parasitic entity and terminating it. 87% of all abortions occur during the first trimester of pregnancy. The baby is not sentient or conscious at this point, and is largely similar to all other Mammalian fetuses. Would be parent(s) have their fetus aborted generally because the circumstances pertaining to its birth were non consensual, or the situation in which it would be born would be dangerous or neglectful. In addition, if childbirth has the potential to seriously injure or kill the mother, this is also grounds for an abortion.

Here are some facts about abortion: Guttmacher Institute

Genetically modified crops and animals are a very great advancement, increasing nutritional value and resilience in natural plant and other organisms is a good step toward solving famine in many parts of the world. Here is an example of an innovative genetic alteration in a vital staple crop: Flood Resistant Rice

I don't think that is racist, that is just being fed up. It is fine to be against people who are just ignorant dumb asses. However, this is not entirely their fault as they are living in a society that, as a whole, doesn't really give a shit about it's most underprivileged and poorest members. They naturally grew to disrespect authority and side with the gang lifestyle. It is really a result of the circumstances that they grew up with, that they act like they do. What ethnicity are the school administrators?

There appears to be some reports that conflict with your claim that China has superceded the U.S. in Greenhouse Gas emissions: The New York Times/International Energy Agency

Actually, my mistake, the U.S. did sign it, but has no intention to ratify.

At 5/6/08 12:34 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/5/08 11:48 PM, G-Locked wrote:

Unfortunately, it has proven almost unenforceable.......and the United States, the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in the world, didn't sign it. Maybe they should annul it. Even if they don't, it really won't matter either way. Without the United States, it was probably doomed from the start.

Please...

Stop.

In that case the United States is still a close second. I stated that the Protocol was most likely doomed to fail, because at the time it was made official, the U.S. emitted more Greenhouse Gases than most of the countries in the world combined. It still does. And, the United States has the infrastructure and practical technical know how to effectively reduce emissions. But it didn't sign or ratify the treaty, so there isn't even the semblance of a major official effort to do so. If the U.S. doesn't pitch in, then all the emissions reductions achieved by other countries and entities, the EU for example, will be mostly nullified. That's why I said that. Also, stop what?

Actually, the information I have used to try to prove my case has mostly been from sources outside school. Unfortunately, In my science class they don't often get into the relevance of scientific matters to real world issues, so the majority of what I know about this subject comes from outside media sources.

I understand proponents of Global Warming have research goals and parameters they must follow to receive funding, and continue their research. They have financial incentives to keep their positions on scientific concepts. But climatologists and meteorologists, the people who have clout in the argument, have a lot to gain by siding with oil companies. They can be paid thousands of dollars to act as consultants and advisers in legal disputes and in other mediums as well. Example: Exxon Mobile I also realize that the possible effects of global warming are highly varied and science has not found what will ultimately happen. And I mostly agree, Kyoto is fairly unrealistic. However, scrapping it would have no real effect, and even if completing the guidelines for the protocol is impossible, It still serves as a set of positive official goals. It shows that initially, at least, the international community was willing to do something about climate change. Unfortunately, it has proven almost unenforceable.......and the United States, the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in the world, didn't sign it. Maybe they should annul it. Even if they don't, it really won't matter either way. Without the United States, it was probably doomed from the start.

The core of science is logic. Our species has emitted billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air. Greenhouse Gases promote increased atmospheric warming. Thus, we are partially responsible for any climate alterations occurring, as we have introduced factors that effect the climate.

Honestly, neither of us are climatologists. We are not official sources on this issue. Just understand that this debate is so full of competing interests and ulterior motives that I am more liable to trust the scientists who support Global Warming, because they have no major fiscal incentives to do so.

Wow, our society is morally bankrupt.

Furthermore, humans are not the only ones to alter the landscape. Many of these: Termite
Built This: Termite Cathedral

In addition, Flamingtroller, do not let this happen to you: What happened to the last guy who posted a similar topic. These topics rarely generate any interesting or creative posts and they are very repetitive, and generally ill conceived.

At 5/1/08 10:32 PM, literate wrote: animals have a way of life that works, we have a way of life that works (unfortuantly we also evolved into greedy bastards, so thats not entirely true). The point it, why does an ant need to reason, it doesnt, so it never picked it up

Exactly.

At 5/3/08 04:00 AM, bobomajo wrote:

At 5/2/08 07:42 PM, G-Locked wrote: This is because that the people who do so are submitting to primitive, base feelings

A caveman would not kill an animal for no reason, doing so submits them to being sub-primitive.

How do you know what a caveman would do? And also, huh? The main reason a caveman, or any animal, would not just randomly kill another animal, is the incredible expenditure of energy required to do so. To successfully pursue, immobilize and kill prey and spend the time and energy required, there must be a good reason for it. Namely, an assurance of net energy gain.