Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

google the gimp, and use that

me.

At 3/4/05 03:38 AM, Jimmy_Kimmell wrote:
I agree with you 100%. It's smarter to take the protection point to make blamming easier in the future.

Or saving more shit flash in the future. Don't you see what you're saying here? Corrupt voters don't deserve insane VP if they use it to save a flash that, submitted by any other person/group, would otherwise be blammed. Do you understand?

At 2/23/05 07:11 PM, RoboFrog wrote: What i hate about these radical conservitives is that they are suposedly pro life but then they go ahead and say they are pro gun and pro war talk about contridiction of belifs

What i hate about these radical liberals is that they are suposedly anti life but then they go ahead and say they are anti gun and anti war talk about contridiction of belifs

At 2/23/05 06:07 PM, TehBanStick wrote:

At 2/23/05 05:21 PM, He_Who_Never_Was wrote: Hillary Duff, Lindsy Lohan,

No, they both are ugly as fuck
Olsen Twins.
hmmm, 3-ways are good

WTF?

The Olsen twins look more like a rare breed of chihuahua.

Hillary Duff is definitely bon0rific, but Lindsay Lohan . . .

OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap
fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapahhhhhhhhhh

At 2/23/05 03:10 PM, night_watch_man18 wrote:
Tell me Lazy_Drunk... did you wake up one day and -make- the decision to be straight, or did it just come naturally to you? I would assume that you naturally were attracted to the opposite sex (considering that I don't think you are gay, given that you seem to be fighting against homosexuals).

First, how the fuck am I "fighting against homosexuals"? This is why I have a short temper with folks who like to pidgeonhole with serious intent.

Actually, I was forced to think about my sexuality when one of my friends confessed he would like to have a sexual relationship with me when I was in high school. So yes, I would say I consciously choose to be straight, because I know I'll always have the choice, if I want, to sex up a woman, or a man.

Sure, you could pretend that you're gay if you REALLY wanted to, but it wouldn't feel natural, would it.

That's a whole 'nother argument, what feeling "natural" is.

Homosexuals feel the exact same way as you do believe it or not... they just simply feel more comfortable in the company of the same gender sexually.

Why are you addressing me in a condescending manner? I understand where / what some people feel comfortable doing / being.

Whether or not they truly have freedom of choice shouldn't even be a question.

There is no 'solid' explanation for it yet. What is apparent though, is that most (if not all) homosexuals do not choose to be gay, they simply are.

^See above^

So far, from what our scientific community knows, most of our behaviours are a mixture of both nature and nurture. Sexuality however, seems to stem from a deep biological urge... it is then assumed that homosexuality also comes from this, not only from the evidence we have so far, but from the testimonials of many homosexuals... they have always just felt this way.

There are testimonials that go both ways, pardon the pun. Yes, behaviorial science is grounded in nature and nurture. Sexuality can be considered the same, having grounds in both. However, I will almost always put my money on nurture when it comes to serious human decisions, like sexuality. I believe in a homosexual scenerio, nurture is stronger than nature; you are not bound by innate cravings for the same sex as much as you freely decide whether homosexuality is 'right' for you.

Humans seek pleasure and avoid pain. Weighing these out, you make a conscious decision in whatever you do. Unless you just coast through life unaware of yourself and your surroundings.

So, you would blah blah blah the same as everyone else.

You're pulling this out of your ass. Please refrain.

How about you focus your disdain or hatred to more plausable causes, such as some of the true injustices in the world.

You're reading into my psyche a little too boldly. So kindly fuck off; you don't know me.

And yes, I voted Bush.

(This is all under the assumption that you hate or dislike gays... if I was wrong, then I apologize for making that assumption

You made the decision to post that shit knowing the consequences. Trying to sift it into your argument about whether or not gays choose to be gay insults me.

But I forgive you.

I'm a hick.
Here's the BG... i'm too dumb for a screenshot

At 2/23/05 01:02 PM, TheDreamer1 wrote: :

At 2/23/05 01:08 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

The one that I really want to talk about is the being born gay/deciding to be gay topic. One is born gay, he or she never decided to be gay.

The last one is the idea about homosexuality being a brain disease/Gene mutation/abnormality/chemical imbalance, whatever you want to call it. Until every scientist can tell me that it is indeed because of one of those reasons, then I refuse to believe it.

Wouldn't being born gay automatically imply there is a genetic and/or chemical difference that is causal to preferring homosexuality to heterosexuality?

If you are born gay, as you claim, how else could you accredit this revelation if not through scientific explanations?

In case there is any confusion is the last few quotes, I was pointing out the absurdity of not accepting scientific opinion unless all scientists came to a unanimous conclusion (ignorant in and of itself).

He addresses a few things "homosexuality being a brain disease/ Gene mutation/ abnormality/ chemical imbalance"

That's a tricky term. Genes can be considered chemicals, and something that isn't chemically "normal" (a homosexuality gene), could be considered an imbalance.

It seems contradictory to me.

At 2/23/05 01:25 PM, RBS13 wrote:
yes, but is this genetic difference a disease or defect? i think not. i think for it to truely be a defect it would cripple the person's ability to live and support him or herself. no gay person is dumber cuz they are gay. no gay person can't walk, or talk because they are gay.

And would these people who cannot support themselves, or walk, or talk, be labelled as diseased or defected?

so, yea, of course it's in your genes if you don't ahve a choice, but just because the gene is different doesnt' make it a disease.

I'd like to bring about the point of the handicapped that you've mentioned above. Since it is possible to become handicapped / crippled after birth, is it then feasible to assume that homosexuals indeed can choose to be gay after their genetic codes have already been determined? And if this is true, what's to say that a majority of homosexuals don't consciously choose to be gay?

but is my gene now diseased for defective because it's different from his? no.

I'm not arguing it's diseased, I clearly stated there would merely be a difference if the premise of being born gay is inherently true.

At 2/23/05 10:09 AM, bcdemon wrote:
ROFL, I hope our language never even come close to resembling that.

What's that aboot, eh?

Wouldn't being born gay automatically imply there is a genetic and/or chemical difference that is causal to preferring homosexuality to heterosexuality?

If you are born gay, as you claim, how else could you accredit this revelation if not through scientific explanations?

Zang! Who is that, stalking on the desert! It is Lazy Drunk, hands clutching two hardened pitas! He roars apocalyptically:

"I'm going to fuck you in such an unsafe manner, the Earth will spin twice as fast!!!"

omg, i r teh pwn

Historically, I'd have to go with Julius Caesar. Fucking guy was a genius, with his conquering the world 'n' shit.

Present day would need to be Wade Fulp, for making for many of our lives entertaining.

At 2/23/05 05:11 AM, Kwadjo wrote: Lefties stand of for the good of all man, meaning we take away from those who want everything for themselves.

Are you implying that if you aren't a "lefty", you must want everything for yourself?

At 2/23/05 05:06 AM, eatyourmumshead wrote: What is your favourite kind of meat? >:(

Besides man-pole?

Well, freshly killed deer tenderloins, of course! yum, fresh animal.

someone's attempting to clone bedn also....

late night the trolls come out in droves, eh?

At 2/23/05 03:09 AM, Snozzwang wrote: 3 guys got expelled from my school recently for sending 'white power' to all the Chinese students at our school with email.

How ask yourself this: would they been expelled had they sent e-mails to all the white students proclaiming "cracker die"?

If you answered 'no', then break down what the students essentially did. They caused fear and unrest in other students. That in itself is grounds to be expelled. The fact that they chose to target a specific nationality of students shouldn't overshadow their basic wrongdoing in the first place.

Not if some white guy shoots a black guy randomly, more if some white guy shoots a black guy because he is black, it makes the crime serrious, dont you think?

No, it doesn't. Read what the others posted on premeditation.

If I may suggest something to the sig maker:

Maybe use the background color of the forums for the bg color of the sigs? This way, it'll really blend in.

At 2/23/05 01:17 AM, awkward_silence wrote:
I've been chocked. I chocked on a piece of meat (sexual inuendo not intended). I was eating at a stakehouse with my family and I took a piece that was too big and didn't chew it enough.

I dunno about the rest of y'alls, but I always thought choking on something was natural selection at its best.

*shrugs*

At 2/23/05 12:44 AM, gothkid358 wrote: ME

real name: Wilbur Smith
height: 4'6
age: 10
weight: 76
rank: 1 light
Special Move: Rainbow Kick (iono)

*recovers from OsAmA's ass whooping*

I call the lil guy.

<LD> hey kid, gimme your lolly.
<WS> No! My lolly!
<LD> *eye poke*
<WS> Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!1oneoneone
<LD> *Wallows in his bloated self-esteem*

At 2/22/05 07:01 PM, LamboFactor wrote: Who would win in a fight and why:

P-Bot or A-Bot?

P-Bot

jonthomson or Dobio?

Dude, Dobio sells bombs. Dobio.

Ozcar or Shrapnel?

I would have to say Ozcar, solely for his "were you willing for. . ." line.

Gooch or Ozamarama?

Hmm, I can't even picture it.

liljim or Shok?

OMFg liljim would tear Shok's head off, eat his soul and ban him from NG.

Finally one that has been disputed before:

Tom or Wade?

buttsecks?

At 2/22/05 10:24 PM, OsAmARaMa wrote: Who dare takes me on?

OsAmARaMa
Age: 23
Height: 5' 9"
Weight: 160lbs
Rank: 11 Light
Position: BBS Mod
Special Powers: Mind reader / tamperer.

I'll challange the mythical OsAmARaMa

-LazyDrunk-
Age: 18
Height: 5'11"
Weight: 215
Rank: 8 Light
Position: Any way you want it toots :)
Special Powers: Double-jointed thumbs . . . of doom.

At 2/22/05 06:41 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote:
There are 100,000,000 other people in the U.S. who want/are trying to overturn abortion.

But they didn't participate in the foremost Supreme trial and subsequent decision.

This is irrelevant. Even if it was, discuss it in the other thread.

So if it's irrelevant, like you say, why would he want to hamper the other thread with it?

At 2/21/05 07:21 AM, D_R_P wrote:

At 2/21/05 07:08 AM, -Anthony- wrote:
If that individual was deliberatly trying to cause this person to stress out, and it ended up killing her. I would've charged him with manslaughter one.

Now the lines are starting to blur. Continuing would lead us into a case by case basis of "if if if" and a bunch of conflicting opinions about a decision that should be left up to a judge.

No, this would continue on to "do rapists rape women intentionally, knowing the consequences of their actions?"

If so, then intentionally doing anything that would lead to loss of life would be prosecutable.

But I seriously doubt someone would rape a woman with the intent to force a miscarriage through excessive stress. Yes, it is possible, but that wasn't really the initial question.

I still think a violent rape could cause a miscarriage (earlier trimesters). I'm too lazy to find a source, but I'll put forth the effort if I need to.

At 2/22/05 06:03 PM, TokyoDisciple wrote:
Also idiot when you take or put too much oxygen in skin it changes color.

I was talking about blood and oxydization.

n00b

</end>

At 2/22/05 06:00 PM, TokyoDisciple wrote:
When blood in oxydized it turns red. From its bluish .. when you take oxygen AWAY from blood what happens.. think before you post. Last time I checked thats changing its atmosphere.

And when skin is exposed to radiation, it instantateously changes black.

You missed the point twit.

At 2/22/05 05:43 PM, BonusStage wrote: Never, ever, ever . . . ever, call a girl easy

Heh

E-Z

[syn: light, loose, promiscuous, sluttish, wanton]

At 2/22/05 05:52 PM, TokyoAngel wrote:

:just like blood color blood changes with its atmosphere.. son.

Not just like blood. Blood 'changes color' when oxydized. It doesn't change to a slightly lighter or darker hue depending on how much oxygen it receives. Comparing blood to skin pigmentation is moronic at best.

And your rant about "racism" sucks too.

Pike yourself.

At 2/22/05 05:47 PM, JJAGoodfella wrote: Can someone please explain to me what this letter is? It tells me its required by law that I register for something? It this some kind of backdoor draft?

It is the draft. Register before 6 months or face prison time.

At 2/22/05 05:43 PM, BonusStage wrote: Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, call a girl easy, not as a joke, or ... if she is :o

It ends up as something you can NEVER be forgiven for, trust me

You shouldn't need to be told that . . .