Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ouch. I see how it is.

At 4/26/10 12:07 PM, Vegeton wrote: Gay people are not zombies with a hunger for penis.

No, I'm pretty sure we are...

THEY are.

I said they. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

At 1/14/09 07:45 PM, Samen wrote: If you just got back and are already perky, and further more, if you even remembered it, than it wasn't THAT great.

I don't know dude. Apparently it had everything and rocked.

At 1/14/09 09:23 PM, LordBeta2 wrote: ...who'll put a straw into his coca-cola cup and drink it until its only ice cubes, then they will get a refill at the register. Then they'll realize that they're candy supply is dangerously low, so they'll buy more.

You're killing my boner.

Sounds to me like there's going to be a bunch of overweight, middle-aged dudes in the theater who'll be enjoying their popcorn a little too much.

...who'll be buttering their own popcorn.
...who'll be putting a little relish on their dog.
...who'll be putting a little relish on their dog.
...who'll be masturbating while thinking about having sex with Hannah Montana.

Honestly, there's no end to theater puns with this.

At 1/14/09 09:11 PM, Proottalfain wrote: I'm actually thinking about moving to Germany after my studies. So any attempt to insult my country is vain.

I'll be sure to inform Joseph T Ramirez, III, Esq.

At 1/14/09 09:11 PM, pointydagger wrote: You're just pretty anal.
BUT, LUCKILY FOR YOU.........
I am to.

Alright, but no gay stuff, okay? I'm only into purely hetero man-on-man, sausage-to-ass-to-mouth-to-sausage-to-pe nis action.

At 1/14/09 09:13 PM, ThoseSneakyFrench wrote: "Those sneaky french!"

-ThoseSneakyFrench

I'll allow this.

I was actually considering saying something about people who sign their posts. And not just because it's the cool thing to do.

Pro-tip: It's never the cool thing to do. God can see you.

At 1/14/09 08:53 PM, Proottalfain wrote: Well eat your goddamn soup before it colds out.
*where the fuck is the hyphen key on a French canadian keyboard*PA

"It's next to the key that gets you out of that shitty fucking region in a frozen wasteland of a country.

You Godless heathen asshole."

-Joseph T Ramirez III, Esq.

God, what a dick.

holy shit, see what I did there?

Does it bother anyone else when people attribute quotes to themselves? Granted, I haven't been on the BBS in a while, but I already notice people having quotes in their sigs that are mediocre, at best, and sure enough, there's some abbreviation of their nick right under it, next to a stylish little hyphen.

Yeah, whatever, it's just some little thing, but it's the idea behind it, especially on a forum, that makes me seriously wonder about these people and whether or not they're aware their shit stinks. You're already posting, which means we're actively READING one of your notable little quotables. There's a reason why you don't have to sign off on those. Your name is already right next to it. Guess what your name is also right next to? A signature with a stupid, rehashed phrase in quotations that, inexplicably, has your name underneath that, as well.

Or do I enjoy gay and/or nongay buttsex with other dudes?
We all know why you, yes you, clicked on this topic, discuss either.

Oh, and I don't like it when soup cools and it gets that film on top of it. Fucking gross.

At 1/14/09 08:24 PM, yinyangman wrote: Okay.... so that was it.

Still, I thought she deserved better treatment.

Fuck off. No, really.

Getting handcuffed isn't poor treatment, the cop did everything right. Then again, you didn't care from the start. You posted an article and expected everyone else to get pissed off at a policeman's actions where the girl didn't EVEN get bruised.

What's more, when someone gets upset at the person who actuallymishandled the situation, you call him a troll.

Learn to look at things objectively before you bleat "VICTIM" like that bitch of a mom that thinks everyone owes her because her daughter isn't what she'd hoped for.

At 1/14/09 08:15 AM, jakobhummelen wrote: I think a better way would be to buy some shares into your bank and try to get what you want changed discussed on the shareholders' meeting (or lobby for it).

That's the premise behind a credit union. By banking with a credit union, you actually have partial ownership of that particular financial institution. Going further, they're nonprofit organizations. So, what you have here, is a financial institution that you partially own and is held more accountable to better lending practices and more charitable work.

And, hell, if you don't like that, they generally give you better rates than banks and you also get dividends.

At 1/13/09 06:07 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/13/09 05:40 PM, fli wrote:
Civilian cameras have a certain way to keep in line with the truth, and be the bane of the law enforcement.

And yet when the government wants to moniter your every move you somehow find fault with that too.

At 1/14/09 04:37 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/14/09 04:02 AM, fli wrote:

I don't hardly consider someone... just--being there-- who so happens to have a cell phone with a camera... at the right place at the right time... being on par with something like... the Patriot Act, which could essentially give the government the ability to track you down with a satellite in outer space for 24/7!

Right, giving us the means and the additude to watch each other is much more economical.

This whole back and forth bothers me.

Keeping a close eye on your government is absolutely essential. It offends me, on a fundamental level, for you to equate civic responsibility with the government keeping tabs on its citizens.

Scrutinizing police action isn't "watching each other," it's watching the government. Having the means to protect yourself with hard evidence against egregious breaches of power, like what this police officer did, is a fucking amazing right to have. I have no problems with an active citizenry that holds its government accountable with hard, documented evidence.

At 1/14/09 06:33 PM, SevenSeize wrote: If you take age out of the equation, you could also refer to bosses and secretaries, doctors and patients, officers and enlisted people, etc. etc. Tons of people in higher positions use that power to manipulate or take advantage of others. It's wrong in that aspect, age aside.

To me, teacher-student relationships are especially wrong because a teacher is often similar to a parent in that the student is looking for guidance and direction. However, I am a teacher, so I am predispositioned to feel strong negativity toward women or men who commit such acts.

But, you see, that's just a minor point of it. Taking advantage of people who don't even fully understand sex or how their bodies work is so much more wrong.

Yes, the abuse of power is, for the most part, a no-no, but at least adults know what's going on and have a firm grasp on it. What's more, they have the judgment to know what is and what isn't appropriate (or should, rather). If a person in an authority position is making unwanted advances or using their power for sexual gain, then there are myriad outlets to chose from to handle that situation. You have no business in the workforce if you're too naive not to know your rights as an employee.

Going even further, teachers having sex with developing boys is also wrong if the boys don't feel pressured. I can't imagine every incident like this is as one-sided as a boss/employee scenario. And yet, even still, it's a predatory act by the teacher to take advantage of a kid whose hormones are completely overriding their better judgment.

For the record, I completely agree with your points and I'm not discounting a lick of it, I'm just putting my two cents on the perspective of it.

Seriously? In an age of tasers and bean bag bullets and tear gas, you're giving the police flak about handcuffs?

If you've ever been in handcuffs, you'd know that, unless they're way too tight, which I'm guessing isn't the case or she'd have cuts on her wrists (and seeing as how "almost bruising" made the top of the list of injuries), they're kind of uncomfortable, at their worst. Know what else is uncomfortable? A cop assigned to holding the kid down by force. That's basically the other alternative. My assumption is that this is somebody's precious little angel and everyone who looks at them funny needs to pay for damages.

Seriously, "almost bruised?" Give me a fucking break. This news story is softer than that parent's head.

I like to think they go on magical adventures learning about how government works around Washington with the help of anthropomorphic, talking animals.

At 1/8/09 11:30 AM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Actually, it's more like:
"Hm, we've got thousands of reports of a animal living at the top of the mountain and breathing fire, maybe we should go check it out."

Oh, sorry, you're right. Cryptozoologists are to scientists what tabloids are to actual journalism.

Thanks for the clarification.

At 1/7/09 08:04 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I disagree. I hate relationships. It simply involves wasting money on gifts and lying through your teeth in attempts to get someone to sleep with you. I prefer to skip that and just pick someone up and fuck them. I don't want to deal with anyone's emotional shit. I don't want to hear about anyone's problems. I don't want to pay for a dinner that I would waste on small talk. I don't want to have to remember someone's name. I don't want the risk of getting married. I don't want the risk of having to stay with someone if they get pregnant. I want to just fuck em and leave.

You disagree because you're living vicariously through the sexual conquests of your e-persona.

Face it, you have no clue what a real relationship is other than what bad comedians on shitty sitcoms say because you've never even been close to being in one.

At 1/6/09 08:21 PM, Al6200 wrote: But I think that the wave of the future is politicians saying that they will give people loads of huge tax cuts, and then not do it. In fact, I bet that Obama won't create any tax cuts (which is the right thing to do, because giving away money would be idiotic given our circumstances).

What a glorious future the 1980s will be.

At 1/6/09 05:31 PM, zendahl wrote: By that definition an archeologist is not a scientist either.

You do realize that archeologists do a lot more than dig up dinosaur bones, right? Carbon dating, determining the climate, dietary habits, habitat, and all the other environmental factors of their finds is pretty damn scientific if you actually knew the methods and didn't assume that they all sat around at a table and conjectured. They don't just say "Oh man, wouldn't it be cool if this animal totally, like, lived on top of a mountain and breathed fire? Totally awesome!" and then call it a day.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that's what cryptozoologists think.

It all boils down to the method. I don't care what you study, you're not a scientist if you don't set up a scientific method. The problem with ghost hunters and cryptozoologists is that you never see them with control groups or any kind of substantiated evidence. A scientist does not look at a blurry photograph and assume it's a new species of animal nor do they take static and white noise to be evidence of the supernatural. Science does not conform the facts to the beliefs, not good science anyway. Anyone who tries shouldn't try to pass themselves off as a scientist. The fact is, I have yet to find a cryptozoologist or ghost hunter with any rational method to their studies.

(Seriously, why do EMFs mean ghosts? Who the fuck decided that?)

I've said, even before Russia took military action in Georgia, that Russia had its sights on the Ukraine next. Why? It's simple. Russia wants to be the big kid on the block and that's going to be difficult, if not impossible, if NATO gains a foothold in the region.Georgia was in talks about a NATO membership, unsuccessfully, but they were building a case for themselves.

Now, guess who else is looking to join? The fucking Ukraine. Russia's already threatened the Ukraine over its talks with NATO. It's not a rational leap to assume that this move is an attempt to destabilize the Ukraine. Russia is in de facto control of much of Eastern and, to a good extent, Western Europe's energy supply. As a world society that's wholly dependent on electricity and fuel, Russia has some pretty weighty leverage when it decides to put the screws to one of its neighbors.

We saw what happened with Chechnya and Georgia. Russia's going to bring the Ukraine to its knees, with or without military involvement.

At 1/6/09 04:13 PM, aninjaman wrote: Its not like it makes a huge difference on the child's life.

We don't live in the Middle Ages. I haven't cleaned an uncircumsized penis, so I can't say I have first-hand knowledge, so to speak, but I can't see how it's some difficult process. If you're a dirty bastard, you're going to get a urinary tract infection, cut or uncut.

At 1/6/09 12:01 PM, RaharuHaruha wrote: I'm supposed to know what the Californian propositions were? I don't live in California. And how is reading a book going to help me know that?

Then don't have a fucking opinion on the matter. Do you go into theoretical physics classes and fire your mouth off?

At 1/6/09 07:16 AM, Tancrisism wrote: California is such a huge state with such a large array of constituents that everyone thinks that the money should be spent their way. Then add the democratic Propositions into the mix where the constituents (the demos) get to directly vote for what they would like the money to be spent on, and before you know it you have a deficit.

Schwarzenegger has been fighting against deficit spending for some time, but to no avail.

And consequently, he's going to catch all the blame from ignorant people who have better things to do than actually read up on what they're talking about.

What I'm worried about is that this isn't a new trend. You've absolutely hit to the core of the problem, but it's not a Californian problem, it's an American problem. Nobody gets involved in anything anymore. Working for an association management firm, I can notice the trends in membership decline in many associations across the board. The only associations, and, luckily, some of my major clients, really only see membership growth for events where membership is included in the cost.

This is intricately related to why people, more and more, ask for government assistance. Everyone wants to feel like their voice is being heard and their needs are being met in their government. Associations and membership organizations serve that exact purpose and that purpose only. Yes, they fight for representation and get public funding, but the important thing is that they actually do a lot of work and provide services that people, more and more, are expecting their government to pay for.

It's no surprise, then, that with a growing number of civically apathetic people who still have demands and expectations of their government are going to just demand more money and services when those very services could be taken care of if people actually took some fucking stock in their community.

At 1/3/09 06:44 PM, CSanimations wrote: But now the word is being used as an insult, and so now is, in my opinion, unsuitable in any situation.
Words more exceptable are things like 'learning disability'. It's a bit more of a mouthful, but I do my best to use that, or any other similar sort of phrase.

Words like "dumb" and "lame," which are both acceptable insults in today's society, started out the same way. The meaning has been taken out of context to imply stupidity.

Why isn't there an outrage over the usage of those words? Because they're different? Maybe it's that they're basically the exact same thing, but they've been in use for so long to a point where they're viewed as harmless and that people are fucking retarded. Banning a word from usage to stop the intent and behavior behind it is trying to cure a disease by treating the symptoms and then being surprised and confused as to why the symptoms keep returning.

Besides, how do the people who want to see this word banished even plan on having anyong enforcing it? Jesus the fucking carpenter, it's like a bunch of people who don't like to drink anyway promising each other to stay sober and then saying "Hey, this is cool and 100% effective, lets go to the bar and have everyone in it promise to stop to drinking, too! We'll end drinking for good!"

I understand that you're only really speaking for yourself, but I'm just using your post as a jumping off point to provide relevant discussion material.

I'm glad to see Newgrounds is full of such swingin' young bachelors. It's sure changed from the forums I used to visit where the majority of you were bitter, angsty teens and tweens with almost no concept of how to attract women or what they wanted. Frankly, I'm surprised all of your multiple partners give you much time to post between orgies.

At 10/17/08 01:16 AM, n64kid wrote: You're missing the point of this thread. Pox changes his reasons behind why he boycotts Kosher foods which is just plain ignorance. Specifically for Poxpower, because the intent is based off false, outdated science and not modern science, it must be retarded.

In the meantime, you made a comparison that was totally off. I said that in your case, there is an ethical issue. Kosher products are win-win, and there is no negative to pox as a consumer. The ends not only justify the means, but he acts like the kashrut process has not updated with the times. There is no reason for him to boycott this.

No, I believe you've missed the point.

Part of the proceeds of kosher food goes to support a religion. Pox doesn't agree with that. He removes his involvement from that by refusing to buy kosher products.

The larger issue is simple. If someone doesn't agree with a business' practices, then you don't buy their products. It's not necessarily an issue of product quality, it's about which businesses you support. If I was against outsourcing, I wouldn't buy Nike shoes, for instance. Not because their product isn't good or because it's too expensive, but simply because I have an issue with how they conduct business.

Pox doesn't like the way companies that market kosher products conduct business (hiring a rabbi to make sure their products meet religious standards, many of which he believes are arbitrary).

I fail to see how this isn't the core of the issue. Seriously, fuck whether or not it drives the price up, fuck the health benefits, fuck the quality. That's not the issue, that's all extraneous. If it happens to drive the cost up, then whatever, that's just another reason. His whole point from beginning to end is that part of the proceeds from HIS purchases go directly to funding a religion he doesn't support.

This isn't complicated.

I'm arguing that pox's reasons for a boycott are null. He's doing it anyways for reasons that change back and forth every post or so. He's against money going to religious causes, then says that it's not scientific and only scientific processes should be awarded with money.

Being against religious causes and being for scientific processes aren't mutually exclusive in the least. You're aware of that, right?

Actually, you need to get a fucking clue. Boycotts involve morals, ethics, costs, quality etc, not a fucking crusade against religion getting fractions of pennies on the dollar which go back to good causes. Why are you fixated thinking that I have some confusion when you can't see that Pox can be very nutty sometimes?

I made a very short post of how you compared a win-win scenario with slave labor and you go off the deep end. What the fuck is wrong with you anyways?

Pox is ethically opposed to funding religion. Therefore, purchasing kosher food isn't a win-win for him, is it?

Also, I believe I made it very clear that kosher food and slave labor was very different. I was very explicit when I said that I was providing a backdrop for how a boycott works. It's a very cut and dry example and I believe it illustrated the point well. You're the one who claimed I was making a comparison between slave labor and kosher food. I simply talked about how I went about a boycott and provided parallels to how it's exactly the same as how Pox is going about it.

I don't like the way Nestle conducts business. I don't buy their products.

Pox doesn't like the way companies who market food as kosher conduct business. He doesn't buy their products.

Please don't twist my words around when I've already made myself pretty explicit. It's obvious you're trying to make my post about something it's quite obviously not about and setting that up as some kind of strawman. Do you really need something to argue about that badly?

At 10/16/08 11:57 PM, n64kid wrote: Whether the reasoning is superstition is stupid if the food you get is cheaper, more sanitary, pure substance (less bugs in ), healthier, and more ethical.
Slave labor is a trade-off of ethics for lower cost. Kosher has no trade-off except for an organization making money which seems to give it back to Jews and non-Jews through community service.
One is win-win, one's a trade-off.

The thing is, Pox won't accept that anything done for religious causes cannot be noble.

Christ, are you daft? I JUST explained what a boycott was and you ignored it in favor of pointing out how my comparison is a little different. A point I made MYSELF. What the hell are you arguing? Kosher food isn't slave labor? Who's arguing that they're the same?

Do yourself a favor and get the fuck out. I explained the whole idea behind a boycott to you explicitly and you're still scratching your head and rambling about slave labor.

Is now a bad time to say that I don't buy Nestle products because they use child slave labor?

Should I expect everyone to yell at me about how that makes the price go down? I'm confused here. I mean, I'm refusing to buy something because I don't like the principle behind what goes into the product. What the hell does price have to do with it? Fact is, no matter how cheap they make the shit, I'm still paying some guy's salary to work these kids half to death.

Yeah, the principle's different, paying for slave labor and paying for someone else's superstition isn't the same, but how come nobody can grasp the idea of a goddamn boycott?

Are you all fucking stupid?

At 10/16/08 02:38 PM, aninjaman wrote: My idea was that the government censors the news the brokers get.

Right. That's the government committing fraud.

That's called fraud.