Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'd never seen rotten.com before. And I just looked at it now. Uh, gross? But funny, especially the world's youngest KKK member, and this was just sad...:

Jul 24 1998

Russell E. Weston Jr., who believed Navy Seals were hiding in his cornfield, kills two cops and wounds a civilian with a .38 at the U.S. Capitol building. It is later revealed that Weston is a schizophrenic who stopped taking his medication. Two days prior to the Capitol shooting, at his grandmother's insistence, Weston shot and killed his family's 25 cats because they had fleas.

At 7/24/06 09:30 PM, red_skunk wrote:

Just because some people might have good intentions or not enjoy breast-feeding, it's still harming the infant

Did you know that the Nazis encouraged breast feeding!? They did! And guess what? The North Koreans do TOO! It's anti-feminist for babies to suck on breasts! It's demeaning women as feeding machines!

At 7/23/06 08:51 PM, ReiperX wrote: My shop had two homosexuals in it when I was in the Marines. One of which was my roomate, I knew about it but could care less. He got out with an honorable discharge, was an expert on the rifle line every year. He could PT better than half the shop, I was one of the few people that could keep pace with him on a 12 mile run. Great guy.

The 2nd one he was discharged because him being gay came out in the open. He was a great guy too and it shouldn't have happened to him. He was a great Marine as well.

And sorry, like others have said if you think someone is going to be checking out your ass in combat you are mistaken. From the people I know that were in combat their only concerns were survival, mission accompolishment, and the survival of their fellow soldiers. Doesn't matter if you like the guys or not you're all on the same team when rounds are comming from down range.

Reiper. Thank you for your enlightening commentary. It's probably the only valid 1st person commentary I've heard on this issue. It's quite good to hear that people in the military have had positive experiences with homosexual comrades.

And damn true: No one is going to be looking at your ass under fire. What kind of homophobe would think that?

At 7/24/06 09:21 PM, red_skunk wrote: Go ahead and vote Libertarian. See who cares.

Damn true. Voting for a third party? Absolutely useless. Voting Republican? Fascist. Voting for the Democrats? A safeER choice.

It's a question of whether my nation's interests would really be served. If my country is fighting to help another group of people, usually I'll support it.

For example:

WWII. Justified. Why? We helped the UK, USSR, Polish resistance and Free French against the Nazi juggernaut. Saved lots of lives and secured freedom for many.

Philippine-American War? Not so justified. Naturally.

At 7/24/06 10:50 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote:

igloos are quite warm.

That's why being frozen to death in something that insulates so well would be scary. It's NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE, ergo, it's scary. At least, to me. But to others, meh, that might not be the reason.

At 7/3/06 07:43 PM, F-8-L-E-T wrote: Coruption comes from people who have a privilege to do shit to ordinary people..

Exactly, like religious extremists of all shapes sizes and colors, and fascists. Especially those two.

Look-

Liberalism is the SOUL of the party. Our core values are liberal:

1. Protecting civil liberties
2. Ensuring progressive taxation
3. Ensuring quality education for all
4. Making sure the poor and elderly have healthcare
5. Making sure the elderly have their Social Security
6. Keeping our country safe from domestic and foreign threats (guns included)
7. Ensuring EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL (ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY, REFERENDA ASIDE. What if a referenda said that Muslims couldn't worship? Is that legal? No. Naturally, it's not constitutional, and neither is discrimination against homosexuals.)

And so on and so forth. But Pandar, what is it that you don't like about liberalism? Classical liberalism, that is?

It's interesting, though. Anyone else heard about that "Bodies" exhibit that they had in NY a long while back? South Street Seaport, I think it was.

Anyway-

I'm leaving for Israel in about 2 weeks and I'm writing a piece for my school paper (starting up quite soon...) about it. I'll be sure to post it, as well as another piece I'm working on.

No problem.

A few handy sites for anti-gunners:

BradyCampaign.org
VPC.org
And for a laugh- NRA.org
As well as http://www.nra-kkk.org/

At 7/23/06 07:31 PM, Der_Pandar wrote: I've got a question for the pro-marriage people:

The state and federal governments are running record long-term debt and short-term deficit.

I understand your point, but this is not relevant. Just because the government can't pay it for anyone doesn't mean that homosexuals should be excluded from those who won't get money.

Pandar! I'm ashamed! You said I post maturely! Meanie!

*blows raspberry*

But seriously-

It's quite important for all of us, especially those of us in the younger set, to recognize that we ought to regard being allowed to use the forums as a privellige and at least attempt to make some sense when we post.

That TJ Max story was the most fucked up sales story I've ever heard. Lol, at least the "rich" lady had justifiable reason to hit the black lady. I could only imaging how much the black lady could have sued for!

At 7/23/06 12:15 PM, DarthTomato wrote:

At 7/23/06 11:37 AM, HighlyIllogical wrote: It's just kind of silly to me how many peple expect to defend themselves with guns.

some people just like to be prepared.

Prepared? Yeah, no.

1. Any civillian who expects to fight off an oppressive government is deluded. The British Home Guard auxiliary was only intended to hold off the Nazis for a few weeks at most, and THEY were specially prepared. How would a bunch of hicks with rifles do? Not so well against a few armed US soldiers.

2. "For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every
self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related
shootings." Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the
home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.

And that's ALL.

At 7/23/06 01:18 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

Nowhere does that state that gun ownership was intended exclusively for use by militia.

US v. Miller does, though. And, naturally, the Supreme Court is the final Constitutional ARBITER. So, your thoughts and ideas are not constitutionally accurate.

DADT is a homophobic policy. Israel lets gay enlisted and officers serve, so why don't we? Israel's got much more dire problems, and anyone - Christian, Druze, Muslim, Jewish, straight, gay, male or female - can/has to serve.

At 7/22/06 02:51 PM, Der_Pandar wrote:

Now, I'm not going to chide the government for trying to make a quick buck on their surplus, but doesn't it seem silly to criticize me for owning a .50 caliber rifle now that the government is selling off airline tracking radios and military-grade body armor that should have been destroyed?

They've been doing this for years. But, anyway, no it's not silly. Civillians ought to be chastised too. It's quite irrelevant how YOU own a .50 cal just because the government is selling military equipment off. This doesn't get you off the hook :)

The government's sale of weapons is fine, but selling it to certain people or to groups that aren't released? That's a little much. The US selling more weapons to Israel made the front page of the NY Times yesterday, yet we sell weapons to the Saudis and many don't know.

Gay marriage doesn't have to be sanctioned by religious authorities. Civil marriage is the REAL issue. If the government can discriminate, then something is SERIOUSLY WRONG here.

Wait, seven, you went to a public school in the US and they did that?

That's not right.

"It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol--black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation's involvement [511] in Vietnam--was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible.

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend." Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749."

-Tinker v. Des Moines

The Lebanese government is ineffectual. Hezbollah has too much sway, and, through Hezbollah, Syria has power. And through Syria, Iran has power. All of that is bad. Give the Lebanese control over their own country, and there will be peace. Make the Afghanistan strategy work.

At 7/23/06 12:15 AM, Der_Pandar wrote:

And if you're killing people, gun rights supporters aren't going to rally behind you. They're responsible, legal, licensed gun owners who don't cheer the misuse of weapons any more than a soldier would cheer one of his partners going on a murder spree during furlough.

Pandar-

That's quite true. I don't know MANY gun owners, but I know a few. They're law abiding people who like to (a.) shoot at a range and (b.) go hunting. They don't keep weapons for self protection. They lock them up in a huge safe. It's just kind of silly to me how many peple expect to defend themselves with guns.

At 7/22/06 09:59 PM, o_r_i_g_i_n_a_l wrote: Any must sees on the west and east coasts that preferably, are not full of tourists (i'm planning my trip to avoid all major tourist hotspots) ?

Everything that's good has tourists, at least, SOME tourists. You've got to see, of course, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and Boston on the East Coast, and San Fransisco, LA and Seattle on the West Coast.

Any city is going to have a lot of tourists. It's just a matter of WHEN and where you go in the city.

I'm feeling quite ok. It's a good thing that Israel's invading. Hezbollah will be PUSHED OUT!

At 1/23/03 08:28 PM, Bush_is_a_moron wrote: i recentlly heard on the news that a high school student was expelled for wearing her hair in dred locks to school.

Is this a private school? If so, they are allowed to do what they want.

If it is a public school, then they've got to abide by the Tinker standard, which essentially states as long as there's no "material substantial" disruption, you can do what you want.

FTW.

Pro-peace is the best way to be, but, remember, peace isn't feasible until Israel has security. If the terrorists would stop, just as ISrael has made peace initatives (leaving Gaza, for one, but that was also too much $), then Israel would stop protecting itself.

At 7/22/06 08:58 PM, Wes_is_king wrote: This is the same as if a terrorist from Canada went into the states, kidnapped an American cop and drove back to Canada and the US retaliated by bombing the shit out of Canadian cities.

I don't really think so. It's more like if a Canadian terrorist group had launched missiles at New York City and port cities as well as Miami, and then we said: "stop it," but did nothing. Then, a patrol of soldiers is kidnapped and we bomb Canadian military facilities as well as their known guerilla forces' locations in cities. Then the Canadians say: "HEY! Don't attack our 'civillians!'"

This is like how the American forces are in Afghanistan, destroying whole villages because of a rumour that a suspected terrorist is in town, but that's another rant.

Since when does that HAPPEN!?

In both cases, however, there's justification. The US had the responsibility to invade Afghanistan, and Israel has the responsibility to invade Lebanon.

At 7/22/06 07:21 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

and most of that is likely to be non-coding anyway.

I would say that well over 90% of DNA is non-coding, so, uh, yeah. But of coding segments, we share quite a bit. But not enough for it to be "incest."

Taken aback? Lol, I bet.

It's so funny to me how liberals are stereotyped as being pro-terror, when so many of us support Israel. I just don't get it. I'm an Israel supporter, but I hate Bush. It ought not be incongruous.

I just wonder why it is this way?!

I'd beat her up for that one, but also for this one.

She is a wealthy WASP, and yet she claims to be from the heartland. Yeah, she's from the heartland. Bluebloodville, CT, New Canaan. Hell, it's still half-restricted!

Soon enough, hopefully, I'll be able to see everything that I'd watch on TV on the intarweb.

Hopefully.

PLEEEEEASE!!