I've recently started using "Neoplanet" as my main web browser, and I love it. However, watching flash submissions can get annoying... the popup is never scaled correctly and the verticle scroll bar is always there.... If you don't mind this hitch, I'd suggest giving it a try!

At 7/9/05 12:22 AM, Popsycle wrote: So...
Whats the worst name on NG do you think?

Any name that shows pride in being a democrat.

Also, I hate that Flak- kid... That's right punk, I know where you work... you better watch out! hehe

1024x768 here. Why do some of you feel the need to act like god because you can read font smaller than a pinhead on a screen larger than New York City. Screen size is simply preference and what you are used to... not a symbol of your coolness. Stop acting like little children please.

Oh and very good idea Freak.

Thanks!

I've searched for a way to display one image out of a set at random when the frame loads, but most tuturials on this use php or external directories.

If I have graphic symbols "1","2", and "3" in the library... what AS would allow either 1, 2, or 3 to show up on the screen at random at position "x" and "y"?

Any help is appreciated

At 1/13/05 09:57 PM, RiftMaster wrote: I'd hit it.

Haha, nicely done my good man!

Mrs. Toodle-pip is obviously a joke.. stop welcoming "her".

HaHa, I think this person shall be a productive member on newgrounds... lol. First the Tsunami, then all those land slides and floods, and now THIS. Anyone else see a possible connection? (Please, for the love of god, do not start some kind of 'lets raise money for the victims and forget about all the poverty in America' fundraisers). This person is amazing, simply Amazing.

Help me get an ipod, and get one of your own. However, I urge that only responcible people above 18 years old follow the link, as I don't want to get any flak from underage people using parent's credit cards. Once you finish everything, you get a link of your own to send people and have them sign up, giving you your free ipod.

Please go here and sign up.
http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=9229373

You don't need to click "yes" for any of the questions on the survey, but you do need to sign up for one of the provided companies. Don't give your credit card information unless you trust the company. Thanks if you do sign up.

At 8/16/04 10:21 PM, Lord_Humungus wrote: So many people think as long as they tithe and try to make the world a "more Godly place" by FORCING non-believers to follow their rules and morality...they think they need to band together to do big high-profile things....
If christians everywhere would just concentrate more on BEING christians rater than MAKING christians,the world would be better!

Hey I feel for you, but a part of "being" christian is spreading the word of god and teaching others to respect jesus. If you believe us and convert or if you hate us and spit on us, that's your decision.

And just for clarification, I am very interested in politics, as I am a staunch Republican. (It may be hard to believe, but Republicans sometimes DO respect other cultures and other people. I know, take a bit to grasp that concept : )

Since you called me out, I am Roman Catholic. However, I fail to see the importance in this matter on newgrounds. I understand that you may want to confirm that you are not along on this site, but please keep in mind that no matter what we call ourselves, we all have the basic beliefs. No cheating, No stealing, No harm, No "overly" evil actions.

We are all good people, and that is what matters. You may enjoy watching a flash or playing a game that has violence, but that does not mean you enjoy physical or emotional harm. You may like playing dress up games or watching madness, but we are not perverts or violent people. Its a site to have fun at, so don't get carried away with sectioning ourselves off from each other. Remember, there is no harm in stating your belief, but we need to try to give room to those who are of a different religion or of no religion.

At 7/19/04 07:56 PM, CI-Lain wrote: Griffen master it can be clearly seen as afording people the rights they allready have. As was disscussed earlier Amendment XIV clearly gives homosexuals the right to equal treatment of (and therefore under) the law. This means that marriage, being something considerably part of "the law", constitutional aught be afforded to them. So it is affording them a right that they allredy have.

Yes, I agree that homosexuals have all the rights we have. However, there is no right to be recognized as a "homosexual" status or to be married under that status.

want more proof. On so many occasions bans of any sort of homosexul marriage have been found to be unconstitutional. That says to me that they have the constitutional right to have a marriage or that it unconstitutional for our government to prevent it.

A ban on homosexual marrages is unconstitutional, however, homosexual marrages are not granted in the Constitution, so it is not allowed even without a ban. I have studied the Constitution for 2 years, and I have yet to notice any such right that may allow anyone the status of married as homosexuals, nor have i encountered any law in the constitution
prohibiting the aquisation of such a status. Therefore, it is a matter left to the States and thier individual legislation, which has thus far been swaying agaisnt allowing such a status. This is a fight for rights, not for protection of rights yet again.

Secondly. Lets assume your right, for the sake of another arguement. Everyone else excluding homosexuals and polygamists are afforded a certain level of rights. By denying these groups the rights your are seting them below the average citizen. That is wrong. And when we look back in history we see this is something that has allways plagued our nation but luckily has been overcome many times. Such as the countless misstreatment of african-americans. Treating Women as second class citizens if even treating them as citizens. And most other ethnic minorities have suffered under us aswell.

Homosexuals and Polygamists are allowed the same level of rights. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just as the rest of the population. NO ONE has the right to marry homosexually, it just so happens that homosexuals wish to obtain this right. Even though i do not want the right to marry another man, It is still presently not given to me by either the constitution nor the State inwhich i live.

SO if you are right what we all really need to say is we are trying to give homosexuals a right they do not have, is it any better ? NO!! it is worse. If they dont have the right then it is by far worse than fighting for a right they allready have.

Yes, I am saying they don't have that right and they are fighting FOR rights, not for PROTECTION of rights. Also, yes it is by far a worse fight and a larger issue.

At 7/19/04 08:33 PM, 36noir wrote: You do realize that someone can still file a lawsuit against you if they can proove that you refused to serve them based on reasons of discrimination and/or multiple other reasons, correct? So that's not exactly a good example.

Yes but I would win on the grounds that one cannot force me to sell my product to someone whom i do not wish to sell to. I never mentioned any reasons, and it would be ignorant of you to assume a reason. Just because you want to buy it does not mean I must sell it to you.

:Our country was split into two long before homosexual's demanded that they be granted marriage like hetrosexual couples are. Perhaps you should take a Civics class.

I have studied American history in school for 3 years now and my teacher was with the AP US history testing for 30+ years. Trust me, Homosexuality is only resently a big issue.

At 7/19/04 02:23 AM, 36noir wrote: What if it wasn't just the military the disallowed "lefties"? Would you accept being considered unworthy even though you possibly could hold as much power as someone right handed?

The point is if the military did not want me there, I would attempt to first see the fact that I could be somehow less effective before i attempt to flame the government for "denying constitutional rights" that really don't exist. It's the military's right, and if I don't like it, tough luck.

At 7/19/04 02:23 AM, 36noir wrote: If that were really how the military was then everyone enlisted would most likely (and theorotically) be a white, straight, Christian male and probably posessing of over a higher standard IQ (let me tell you what, I have seen some dumb kids in the Air Force so you can't say they do look at IQ). Thus, everyone is not the same.

I did not say that everyone was the same. Also, the military must feel that tensions between gender, race, and IQ are not as deprimental as Homosexuality is TODAY. It is true these were all at one point in time a major issue, but as of now Homosexuality is one of the most urgent issues.

You still didn't answer me on the argument you made using "vs. tradition". I take it that you've failed to conclude your reasoning with feasible explanation against my comparison because you can't? Thus, I end everyone that "tradition" doesn't support the argument against gay rights, including gay marriages, etc. etc.

I did not notice you had made a question about my statement on Tradition. IF you would be so kind as to restate it or qoute it, I will surely reply if you wish.

There is no law that gives gays the right to marry nor is there any law prohibiting marrage. It is (on a different level) similar to the fact that if I own a store, I have the right to not serve you, regardless of the fact that you think I should. It is the same in marrage, if the government feels you should not be married, then you are stuck. There's no law saying "Homosexuals can be married". Thus, I plead for you all to quit saying "denied constitutional rights". It is not denied, it simply is non-existant. You want homosexuals to GAIN certain rights, not be allowed to express their existing rights.

Martial law can only be declaired when there is massive uprisings or an emergency. I think people know when either one occures.

And that reason is because the Military uses the idea of similarity and sameness to operate. Everyone is the same and everyone shares the same ideas and basic morals, which eliminates all tension. It would be hazardous to allow in people who will bring about bad tension that can effect the performance of the soldiers.

I am left handed, and I can seriously say. If the military told me I cannot serve because of my lefthandedness, I would have no problem, because it would open a spot for someone who will efficiently and effectively serve.

However, I do not attempt to make a connection between those groups. I simply am saying that the military sees homosexuals as not ideal soldiers. Does that mean a single parent cannot shoot a rifle? does that mean a criminal cannot honorable serve his country if need be? They have the physical ability, but the military sees a reason not to allow them in.

Dear IllustriousPotentate,

I am no longer going to respond to your posts on this topic. You have not presented any idea passed "Constitutional Rights" that do not exist. Also, you have taken it upon yourself to insult me and label me as such things as "coward" and "homophobe", which are things I do not take kindly to. You have moved beyond arguement and into insult. I know that you are passionate about the subject, and I can respect that. But you show me no respect as a person, nor do you critically analyze my ideas before you attempt to refute them.

I wish you obtain that which you seek in your political agenda. However, you do need a change in attitude and merit before that can be achieved.

Sincerely,
Griffenmaster

I'm not going to respond to the comment about women, as the focus is on homosexuality.

I've actaully done research on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Believe it or not, there is no "right" to serve in the military. However, there is no law prohibiting the military from not allow any person it deem's unfit the ability to serve. In English, the Military can legaly tell homosexuals that they cannot serve.

The military does not allow single parents, criminals, or mentally disabled people to serve aswell. Homosexuals can not serve the same as these other groups. If homosexuals where to be allowed into service, then any person who wanted should theoretically be allowed due to the fact that homosexuals can and they demand equality.

At 7/19/04 01:20 AM, theburningliberal wrote:

The country split because the south was afraid Lincoln would abolish slavery... which of course he had no intention of doing until it became necessary to give Yankee soldiers something to fight for... And as a result, he won the Civil War, and began the Reconstruction process.

I agree with you except I must point out one thing. He issued the immancipation proclamation as a moral booster for abolitionists, but most Union soldiers wanted to keep the union together, regardless of slaves. Lincoln himself stated "If I could free the slaves and preserve the union, I would. If i could preserve the union without freeing a single slave, I would."

At 7/19/04 01:04 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

No, we are left with nothing but people's personal beliefs being forced upon others vs. people's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Are you not attempting to force me to change my views and allow you to change my government and my society? Do you not wish to force me to pay my taxes, taxes that I know will go towards giving homosexuals economic benifits? You want to force me to accept homosexuality as legal, while I simply want you to drop the issue and prevent change. I am not forcing you to deal with anything that you do not already have to deal with. Homosexual marrages are not legal, and if they remain so then there is no force involved.

I must admit i dont agree with that law. (i would have replied sooner had i not used up a whoping 4 replies in 30 mins)

again, you act as though there IS a law. I cannot stress enough the fact that they are not being denied. They are not married, thus the do not recieve breaks. In order to get married, there needs to be a law that allows Homosexual marrage, which as it stands there is no such law. Since there is no such law, they are not being denied any protection of rights given by a law.

One last refutation, Homosexuals can marry, but it must be with a spose of the opposite sex. Also, there is no right to marry the same sex, but you cannot say "Just because heteros can, why can't homos?". Just because the president has power, why do i not? Just because the US government has nukes, why can't i? Do you see that the arguement on that basis does not work?

We have hit the dead end in this arguement my friend. We are left with nothing but belief and tradition vs. society. There is no right and wrong in this arguement, and that is why we continue to argue. However, I wish you did not mention rights as much, because they are given EVERY EVERY EVERY EVERY EVERY EVERY EVERY right except those that deal with marrage.

I'd like to address your statement for a moment. It is true that china was taken over, but the main point of arguement was if China was a superpower. Also, Europeans did not addopt it, they used it as an ingrediant to make GUNS, which the chinese adopted! Thus, Europeans are credited with the discovery of guns. And lastly, China was a super power from the B.C. until the Mongolians invaded. Even then, Mongolian ruled China was a superpower.

Mistake "wether or not to accept it" (please omit the ending "or not")

it is not simply my believe, but it is a principle in the society. Homosexuality is not traditionally a part of our society, and the battle rages over wether or not to accept it or not. The issue extends beyond religion into personal beliefs and wehter or not you wish to keep to the old ways or to be revolutionary (no not in a military way) in your thinking.

At 7/19/04 12:41 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

:Consider, during his presidency the country went into Civil War

You must consider that the country had been swaying towards war since Taylor, several presidents before Lincoln. Also, there were a series of fail compromises between the north and south dating as far back as the 1700's. Lincoln was a Republican, which was a very new and radical party, which the south felt threatened by. The south warned of leaving the union if Lincoln was voted into office, which is exactly what the people did. It was not his fault, but he did bring it back together and took steps to prevent any further weaking of the union, such as taking steps to rebuild the south and mend open wounds.