Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I know what you mean. Ever since I've transcended my physical form and became pure energy, it just seems like I can't relate to anyone.

So, I'm confused here. Have we decided whether or not the BBS was created by God or if it evolved from simpler html tags and scripts?

So, does Batman deliver you the money himself? If so, tell him I want a toy train for Christmas because I've been really good this year.

Just pointing out several glaring errors.

At 7/8/08 12:40 PM, MercatorMap wrote::

OP, who freed the slaves? Not the democrats. The democrats were keeping the black man in his shackles. But you bitch about the republicans being overlords, what irony!

That's more semantics than anything. The Democrats were the Southern conservative party at the time. The party values switched over time. Saying that the Republican party has maintained the same values as it did at the time of the Civil War is ignorance or delusion of the highest order.

As for the patriot act, it is perfectly legal. Why? Because it was approved by CONGRESS. Not to mention that it was approved BY DEMOCRATS. Illegally tapped you say? Not if you aren't pulling any illegal or conspiratory crap. If you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry about the phone lines of terrorists being tapped?

Just because something passes through Congress doesn't make it legal. If Congress passed a bill saying that talking was illegal, would you consider that to be a legal piece of legislation?

Also, it was passed by nearly everyone because almost nobody read the thing before voting.

Not only that, but saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" is an affront to the exact reason we have the 4th Amendment. The British soldiers did that exact same thing. Guess what happened? We revolted. Letting the government search our property at their discretion is spitting on the faces of those who fought and died for our freedom as a nation.

The 4th Amendment protects the American people against unreasonable search and seizure. There aren't equivocations saying that we can let it slide if it means we can catch a few bad guys. In order to search a person's house, belongings, phone calls, etc, you need to go through the proper channels and get a court order. The Constitution takes precedent over anything short of a new Amendment that Congress passes.

Besides, if the government's action was legal, why are they trying to make it retroactively legal? Isn't that admission of guilt?

Why would prisoners be given a right to trial? They aren't guilty of breaking any laws, they were simply captured while fighting on the opposite side.

What are you going to try a prisoner for? The jury finds the defendant guilty of serving in the german army and impeding the progress of the American army on its way into berlin.

Right.

Enemy combatants, sure. They're considered prisoners of war, that's no problem. In conventional combat, the situation is pretty clear.

The problem is when people are brought to Guantanamo on suspicions of terrorism and held without trial. Being suspected of a crime is not good enough to be imprisoned for it. When you have enemy combatants, simply being in the enemy uniform and on the battlefield is proof. However, bringing someone up on charges of terrorism requires evidence and that means a trial.

At 7/7/08 09:32 PM, drDAK wrote: You make it sound like Sid Meier's Civilization.

And yet, they're all important deciding factors on the style of government. You can't exactly have a strong centralized government in a large nation, you need to have a system by which you govern through proxies. The system the US uses is a prime example. Of course, in the near future, given the progress of communication technology, that won't even be a concern.

It's all circumstantial, that's the point I was getting across.

The best government for what?

A city?
A state?
An association?
Multinational corporation?
Social club?

Even for a nation, what stage is it in its development? What is the culture like? What's the terrain like? How large are its borders? What kind of resources does it have? How educated is the populous? How civic? Is there civil unrest? What kind of track record do the previous heads of state have?

And yet, it goes even further. What's the breakdown of power within the national hierarchy? How far do you delegate? How much power do you grant to your governors, viceroys, counts, dukes, what-have-you? What style of government do you afford them? How do they interact with the centralized government? Is there even a centralized government? How do you decide the division of power among the territory?

There is no panacea. Government is far too delicate and specific to deal with the needs of everyone.

This is an asinine, generic, and completely unanswerable question. I think you should put more thought into your topics before you come up with something so trite and cookie-cutter.

Diversity, because rapists come in a variety of shapes, colors, and flavors.

At 7/7/08 04:49 PM, Jinzoa wrote: DNA and primeapes would disagree.

What do Pokemon have to do with this?

At 7/6/08 12:44 AM, SHIT-TANK wrote:

At 7/6/08 12:31 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: We where never attacked by the Taliban.

Not even going to reply.

He's right, actually, and not in the 9/11 conspiracy way. The US government makes no claim that the Taliban was directly responsible for what happened. We invaded because they were harboring terror cells, chiefly Al Qaeda.

Uncle Larry always did seem a little too eager to play Cops and Robbers with me.

:(

At 7/7/08 11:15 AM, JoS wrote: It is merely proof he was attempting to make nuclear weapons.

Wait, wait, wait. I really don't think the word "merely" belongs in that sentence. I'm against the war in Iraq, but dismissing the fact that Saddam did, in fact, have a nuclear program is significant.

I'm against a preemptive strike in nearly all cases, therefore, that new knowledge doesn't justify the war for me. It just says that the intelligence they gathered to make the case for their preemptive strike happened to be right. One of the big issues was whether or not Saddam had a nuclear program. It turns out that he did, end of story.

I still don't believe that it warranted an all-out war.

At 7/7/08 01:43 PM, marchohare wrote: Getting back to a much earlier and more relevant exchange:

InsertFunnyUserName: Jesus said himself that all that was null and void."

poxpower: "he never said that, in fact he believed in all that shit and said every last word of it was still valid..."

Uh, no, "InsertFunny" is right. Jesus did specifically rescind a big chunk of the Old Testament. Please see Matthew 5:38-42, then cross-reference Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21.

I am not a Christian, but unlike most Christians I have actually studied the thing.

Jesus said that the law didn't pass away. I'm taking a short work break, so I'm not going to go look it up, usually I do. Anyway, I believe that the paraphrased verse is that not one iota or serif of the law would pass away. Jesus' whole bit was that people should be held accountable to an even higher law. In fact, he even makes the claim that simply having a sexual thought about someone is the same as adultery or that being angry is tantamount to murdering your brother.

The point being that he was providing the means to allow people to live according to the law, which he had boiled into two all-inclusive, but incredibly stringent sections: Love God and love your neighbor.

At any rate, I don't put much stock into the Bible, but I am pretty read up on it. I'm into Greek and Norse mythology, too.

As for Shaggy, you kind of failed at trolling. You really did a poor job at evading the responses. You're supposed to act like you're answering them, but, in reality, you're just going off on some tangent. Restating your points which have been nailed down pretty hard is just lame. You cease to amuse me.

At 7/7/08 02:17 PM, LampFace wrote:

At 7/7/08 02:11 PM, CefyJr wrote: First off, Jew isn't a race. Thus, no racism.

Read my above post.

People can convert to Judaism. It's not a race.

Haha, I love how nonchalant the guy is about the whole thing. "Listen guys, whatever I do with my five prostitutes is my business."

He's right of course, but still, absolutely hilarious.

At 7/7/08 02:22 PM, TwistedPersonality wrote: Evolution is, in the end, a theory.

The notion that something is "just a theory" is dismissive at best and outright ignorant at worst.

There is an intensive, rigorous process that a hypothesis must undergo before it is considered to be an accepted theory.

For one, because of semantics:

At 7/7/08 12:57 PM, Potempkin wrote: Judaism isn't a race, it's a religion. So, therefore, by that logic. It is not racism, because Judaism is a religion, NOT a race.

And secondly, because this is Newgrounds. This is a site that was created around controversial flash. Just because we don't cater to your particular sensibilities doesn't mean that the site has to change. If you don't like the content, you don't have to watch it.

Furthermore, learn to take a joke. The reality is, the creator of that flash would almost certainly be against an internment or genocide of the Jewish people. The intention is not malicious; you're putting more meaning into it than there actually is and that makes you a humorless asshole.

The flash sucking is irrelevant, as this thread is about the travesty that a flash with a minuscule amount of racial humor passed.

Now, to make a brief aside: do you have any proof of what you think happened? Is there any scientific data that would suggest your claims? Are your hypotheses observable? Do your rationales boil down to a supernatural explanation?

If so, then your claims aren't science and should not be treated as such.

Wow, 90s train-wreck Pamela Anderson says to stop eating KFC?

Goddamn, it almost makes me want to start.

At 7/3/08 07:15 PM, freddorfman wrote: it takes one to know one

Jesus, crawl back into your mom's vag, I don't think you're ready to be out and about yet.

You're not politically minded. Your friends aren't either. Now, I know you and your little chums like to sit around and think you're adults because you spout off the names of political figures everyone knows, but you might want to keep the circle jerk in the clubhouse. We actually need you to cite sources and back your claim up a little better than making wild accusations you pulled out of your buddy's ass.

They grow up so fast...

You'll always be 12 in my heart. :3

At 7/2/08 01:27 PM, ILovezoms wrote: cut off the root and let the the tree die stop crime and there is no need to exucute

Woah. Why haven't we thought of that before?

To be on point, I feel like life in prison without parole is worse than a death sentence. Not only is it less expensive than the death penalty, but they don't get to take the easy way out. I'd be more afraid of being stuck in a cage for the rest of my life than being killed.

At 7/1/08 11:36 PM, Chavic wrote: It would solve prison crowding and prevent crime like the above from happening.

Looks like the people's asses are still treasure troves of information.

At 7/1/08 11:31 AM, arxarts wrote: you are mixing up terms, communism is as I described earlier, a utopia, never achievable, but socialism is what average people know as communism, and it is possible. Remember, COMMUNISM DOES NOT EQUAL SOCIALISM.

besides, capitalism has it's flaws too, recessions almost every six years?

None of those were pure capitalistic systems. By applying your logic, you can't critique capitalism because it's never been tried in its pure form. Therefore, you lose all basis for making the claim that communism is better. Neither have been tried in their pure form on a national level so I guess you aren't allowed to talk about either anymore.

At 6/30/08 09:36 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: That's not entirely true, Early imperialist Britain was pretty Capitalistic; i don't think the government intervened with ANYTHING.

Well... that's not entirely true. Adam smith never said anything about labor unions, and you could argue that government crack downs on early labor unions were a defiance of the rights of the consumers. [i don't know if one can ASSUME that anyone who buys goods is a consumer]

They were up there, but the government still regulated trade with tariffs and such. The closest a body politick has ever come to pure capitalism is early 90s Hong Kong, before they were given back to China. They're still pretty damn capitalist, but not as much.

Montel, if I may.

You need to lose that zero and get yourself a hero, gurlfren.

At 6/30/08 09:28 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: USSR, Old China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, Angola, Benin, Dem of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia.

LOLZ UR STOOPIT, THOSE WERNT POORE COMOOONASM!

Of course, all satire aside, there's never been a purely capitalist country either, so, the basketball players comment and the ridicule aside, any dumbass 13 year old "communist" can suck on that and choke.

There's never been a country ruled entirely by basketball players, either.

What's your point?

Here's the problem with the oil bullshit.

Your assumption that they're going to raise oil prices until there's a global collapse is absolutely asinine for the same reasons that pox enumerated for your mistaken Net Neutrality proposal (which isn't seriously being considered by any law making body in any form close to what you've claimed). Simply put, a global collapse is bad for business. We're talking about some of the most well-paid and experienced businessmen on the planet and you're saying they're doing the entrepreneurial equivalent of slash-and-burn farming?

Where does the money come from if there's no more global economy? What's the contingency plan? Invest heavily in salt and seashells? Don't even respond with this "well, you're right, it doesn't make sense, but they're doing it" bullshit. The sites you listed as evidence are disreputable, at best. If it doesn't make good business sense to me, an engineering major with only a rudimentary understanding of business and enterprise, then what do you think people who have made fortunes dwarfing the GDP of small countries in the field would think?

Then you make the claim that there are a select few people who would even put the business acumen of those people to shame, who are actually in control of this system. Are these people so brilliant to be able to control the global economy without anyone knowing while, at the same time, so stupid as to put into plan so fundamentally flawed that it would destroy the world economy within their own lifetimes? Even goddamn apes are smarter than that.

Here's what it boils down to:
The whole conspiracy movement is as popular as it is because the people who adhere to it seem to think that, by "knowing" these half-baked speculations, they're more enlightened than the layperson and are outwitting than the people who are trying to cover up these schemes.

You are not smarter than the people who you think are controlling the world. An organization that clandestine, powerful, and far-reaching would require genius of the highest magnitude to hold together, much less come up with Rube Goldbergian, Cobra Commander-style plots.

In reality, you are a pathetic, sad, easily-duped person who is desperately clinging to the belief that they are "in" on some kind of global secret that nobody else can understand. You see, it makes you feel like you have some purpose, that you're special.

The fact is, you aren't special. You don't have some kind of superhuman cognitive faculty that allows you to see things that nobody else can. Your points are being decimated by people who, for the most part, don't even have degrees in the field, much less degrees at all. You're gullible and desperate enough to blindly follow a creed that condemns other people for "blindly following" the conspiracy.

You're the one who needs to wake up, but you're not going to listen to reason. You're too smart and important for that.

I hear he has a platform, too.

At 6/8/08 10:39 AM, KingAdamTheGreat wrote: If he causes Obma to lose then he gona whine again saying it was Colberts fault like he did when he said Rush Limbaugh caused him to lose the Texas Primary

Obama won the Texas primary.