Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Yes, however you don't address the fact that God said that Moses was the only righteous one left on the earth. And I'm pretty sure the half-fallen angel, half-humans that were running around were also a little super human, too. Anyway, I think that there's too little in the Bible to support the existence of the Nephilim.

Thank you good sir, and I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Funk, I tried joining the DAG forums, but I've come across a hitch. The problem is that it asks for the NG Profile Number and I don't remember anything like that on my profile. So I checked and sure enough, I couldn't find it anywhere in my profile settings. Can you help me out here?

Saddam sure did spend money on his people. A good torture chamber isn't cheap, I bet he stocked em with only the best equipment and the finest torturers around. That'll set you back some, but nothing's too good for Saddam's citizens. In fact, even if you dissented he felt you could use some lovin too so you got to get gang raped! Hooray! Three cheers for Saddam! Why don't we just put him in power here, I think that's why we were after him so badly.

THE APOCALYPSE IS UPON US! WE HAVE A-REAPED IT UPON OURSELVES! GO AND Buh-REAK YOUR IDOLS AND RIP YOUR CLOTHES-ah IN RRRREPENTANCE!

Good stuff Funk. But you reminded me of something when you mentioned Noah. The Nephilim could not have survived the flood. The Lord said that He only preserved Noah and his family, thus there could be no such thing as two groups of humans. The water was well over the tips of the highest mountains. It also says that Noah was the only righteous man on the earth at the time, what about the Nephilim? If there had been a sinless race, then they would have been considered righteous as well.

It's pretty much 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. Neither of the viable candidates is really anything special. Both have commendable things about them, but when you get right down to it, neither one would really make an excellent president.

The voices were also well done, they're close enough to be almost geniune, but satirized enough to be hilarious.

After the first plane hit I thought it could have possibly been some horrible accident, but I kinda thought it hard to believe. The second plane kinda verified all that for me too. I remember saying that it was probably Bin Laden not 10 minutes after it happened, which was when the towers were still partially up. I was pretty proud of myself when the government thought so too, lol.

I don't think it was much more peaceful. There were always two major political factions tearing at each other's throats from the time of the Fedralists and Anti-Federalists.

It's obviously flawed, I don't see Shaft or Mr. T mentioned NotYouZ. We need a site that lists all the valid candidates. And while I don't agree with his stance on many issues, Mr. Potatohead will prove to be a formidable political force this year.

No, no, that's probably a good sign that you've pretty much seen their arguments. It's a pretty outrageous claim that isn't backed by much more than the fact that "of course you don't see it you've been brainwashed" mentality.

All your choices are a bunch of turkeys man. Me? I'm voting for Shaft. He'll bring some old school justice to the whitehouse and he's going to clean up the government like he cleaned up the streets. He's one bad mutha-

Okay, thank you for clarifying, I didn't know if I had just made that up somewhere or not.

I personally see no problem with letting Camaro allow people dig themselves a hole to bury them in, that's perfectly good debate right there. Why give people a fighting chance? Just let them flail around a lot and land the KO punch.

In Israel, you very unlikely to see a purse snatching. In fact, one of my friends who visited Israel saw someone try something and got 5 guns pulled on them. Not 22's, we're talking uzi's, rifles, the works. I'll tell you something, they have serious problems over there, but I'll bet nobody's worried about getting mugged. The only thing you gotta watch out for are people with Semtex jackets and Primacord trim strutting around and a missile hitting your village. Which have nothing to do with weapons control, unless you want to verify the point that we shouldn't be allowed to strap plastic explosives to ourselves or own helicopter gunships.

I'll just go ahead and get biblical here on that point of sodomy. In the Bible God hates the lust for a woman as much as He hates that same lust for a man. Both are considered sin. So before you bash gay people by being against the Bible, how much sex have you had outside of wedlock, and even more, how many times have you wish you've had?

It was a joke in response to sarcasm wrapped in an enigma.

I was referring to the post you were referring to reverently refer your referance to.... I agree.

Spanishfli, money never really buys you happiness. No amount of money can really fill that hole deep inside. And they die, sad, sad people with nobody in this world who loves them...

Gee and on a politics forum? Why on earth would we do that? Politics is an endless cycle. There are no purely conservative or liberal people. The groups are so general that to be completely for every single complex issue that a pure liberal of conservative is for is absolutely absurd. Even the issues they address are fairly difficult to be completely for or against. In this topic, ofr instance, gun control.

Social Security is a horrible paradox. It has been screwed over and is hopelessly corrupt now, but if you should try to reform it, then you'll be hung for trying to take those poor old people's money away from them. I have no clue how SS could be reformed at this point. I think that the only real way to fund it would be to shift funding from other things the government doesn't need so much of, or to adjust where the tax dollars go. As it stands, there is a lot of tax money going to ridiculous places. Since the government is an enormous bureacracy, it is difficult to streamline even the simplest of things. I say we just bite the bullet and completely revamp SS.

Finally a movie that presents both sides the way the present each other. Very homorous, I loved it. Most of the arguments were completely basless, and that's what makes it great.

It's part of an ongoing joke, just roll with it. And he is right that it could lead to a stronger PLO. I still don't think that means anything in the long run. Even without their respective organizations and governments, both sides are still going to be fighting each other. Whether or not they're part of some organization has never stopped them from killing each other before, it just helps them do it more efficiently.

That doesn't mean he has the power to overrule Roe v Wade, in fact, only the Supreme Court could and they're appointed for life.

I have never stated that the theory of evolution and a belief in God cannot coexist. I just said that the theory of evolution is not only just a theory, it has been all but completely disproven by modern science. With the human genome project, it was ascertained that we are not even 1% similar to apes. Wow, considering basic macroevolution theory stated that primates and humans both evolved from common ancestors, it seems like it would be closer than that. And how come all of the ancient "ape-men", always end up being nothing more than a collection of just that, ape and human bones put together, not even correctly most of the time. The jaws especially are horribly unnatural. If they ever exisisted, it's no wonder they never survived, I'm surprised they made it to adulthood without ever being able to chew correctly. There is nothing that proves macroevolution, in fact, I don't think it even has a leg to stand on anymore. People just cling to it the same way any person clings to a religion that has been disproven, how ironic. If macroevolution had occurred, there's nothing saying that it couldn't have coexisted with the idea of God, that's no problem. The problem is that it is fundamentally very unsound scientifically.

That is not to say that evolution is false. Microevolution is very much a sound scientific fact. It is verifiable that animals adapt to their surroundings. In Darwins studies, he saw a very drastic change in number of finches based on their specific advantages and the ecological surroundings from year to year. Creatures adapt and evolve, but there has never been any evidence that supports anything ever having changed from one species to another. In fact, at the end of his life Darwin was horrified that people had applied the idea of evolution to something so unfounded. He never came up with or supported macroevolution.

And I think I know the religions in the quiz reasonable well. Buddhism is the belief that striving for things leads to suffering and the way to end suffering is to simply drop all of your cares and pursuit for material things, and that, when you do, you will acheive Nirvana, the way that was practiced by Buddha was the Eight-step... something or other, it's been awhile since I learned this stuff. Taoism I'm not so sure of, I always mix it up with Shinto, but pretty much all I remember about Taoism is that they believe all life is sacred. Confuscianism was a set of ethics and morals passed down by Confucius.

He makes a solid, case. Honestly, I don't see what burrowing through an elephant has to do with manhood. I mean, maybe taking one down with your bare hands would be pretty manly. Damn, I'd like to see someone do that.

I remember watching the event as it happened. The top collapsed into rest of the tower. With tremendous unsupported weight like that and burning jet fuel to boot, it is pretty likely, at least to me, that the towers would collapse. I don't remember exactly how the other tower collapsed, I was taking notes on it as it happened, but I remember that it stood for a little while before it finally gave. The towers didn't immediately crumble when they were hit, which leads me to believe that the sheer power of the airplane impacts must have weakened their structural integrity to a great extent. I guess dozens of tons of aluminum and jet fuel will do that to a building, but I'm no architect, so this is just how I feel about it.

Right, leave the politics out of the politics forum. That's not what it's here for.

I see, so Great Britain, where guns are illegal for civilians is going to now slaughter their people like sheep, or perhaps round up all the circus clowns or something now that they've finally disarmed those radicals. And if you even begin to believe that the US is trying to faze out guns, then could you please explain to me how that works when one of the largest, I think it is only second to the AARP, or maybe more, I haven't checked, but I'm almost certain that those two groups are the biggest groups, lobbyist groups is adamantly for 2nd Amendment rights (the NRA, in case it wasn't obvious enough)? I can see how it would happen if there weren't millions of people actively supporting the right to bear arms, and if the government tried to, they would almost certainly revolt. And I posted before, that it takes 2% of a population to overthrow a government. In the case of the US, that's about 500000 people. I'm not sure of the exact figure of the NRA, but I know it's at least 3 times that. I've looked for the exact number but I can't find anything specific, could someone who knows post it?

Someone mentioned before about it being an Israeli plot, and, while it seems pretty crazy, just as crazy as our government doing it ourselves, some things are pretty congruent with that story. I'm basically tying thtings together as they come to me here, but some of the stuff makes a little sense.

First of all, if what was said was true about Israelis being evacuated before the attacks (which could probably be verified with a little research) that is a little strange.

Second, think about who were are attacking in our War on Terror. So far we have only attacked Middle Eastern countries that back, emply, or harbor terrorists. In other words, the countries that utilize the very tools often used against Israel ever since 1947. Terrorists have often been sent to Israel to incite violence since Israel became a country again, and numerous countries have sent them

Third, the Mossad is seen as one of the most effective, remorseless, and ruthless intelligence agencies in the world. They are extremely efficient, far more organized than our CIA. I would liken them to the KGB, only less of a bureacracy. Are they capable of such an action? I have no idea. They sure as hell would be intelligent enough to plan something like this, and ruthless enough to attack a friendly power simply to have their problems taken care of without getting their hands dirty.

The fact that the US looked away might be explained that Israel is backed so much, military-wise for one, by the US, and such an attack would be thought to be absurd.

However, it doesn't really tie in with Israel's particular MO. Israel has never cared much about getting their hands dirty and fighting without support. In '67, they launched a pre-emptive strike into Egypt after terrorist attacks had been perpetrated by them by the Arab nations, and even while they were ammassing an army to wipe them off the map. This earned them an arms embargo from the US and France, their two leading suppliers. Even still, they managed to fight off the defenders (it was a close call) and retaliated enough to take Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Penninsula, and the West Bank. The UN wanted them to give all the land back. Of course, Israel didn't care much for what the UN says, and continues to defy them and pretty much whoever tells them what to do.

Is it possible that Israel was behind an attack on the WTC? I think it's as likely as our government doing it, which is a slim possibility. They probably both had the capability, but I seriously doubt that either would have accepted the risks that they would have reaped for failure. For Israel, the US would not only allow them to be ravaged by the rest of the Middle East, we would have been the first ones knocking on their door. The Israeli government, especially their Mossad is ruthless, but they are highly intelligent, and know that the risk would be far too high for having the US take care of a few bad apples. Israel could have made a much easier plot to allow them to take care of the problem themselves with relative immunity.