Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/30/05 12:17 PM, Crimson_Edge wrote:

At 7/30/05 12:03 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: It's stupid.

Well, we are going to a lake for it... where we are going to swim and what not... not to mention that it primarily consists of guys.

Plus it's a BBQ.

Well, that's better than most. +2 additional points if there will be alcohol involved.

At 7/30/05 11:57 AM, _Twone_ wrote: I saw that on the news. Planet X is REAL!

Good. Now we just need to go there and claim it in the name of Earth.

This looks like a job for DUCK DODGERS IN THE 24TH AND 1/2 CENTURY!]

I didn't realize Marvin the Martian was Japanese

Hey, it could be worse. It could be a baby thunderstorm, or even a baby hurricane.

OMG its raining babies

Anyway, LIST/NAME YOUR EXPERIENCES WITH THE SHOWERING OF UNBORN BABIES WITH GIFTS OF RANDOM AFFECTION.

It's stupid. It would be much better just, instead of hosting a party for a bunch of women to sit around and oogle at every present and go OOOHHH ITS SO CUTE!!!11 ^_^, while the men are forced to sit inside and hold back their gags, to just have everyone get the kid a savings bond. That way, they won't out grow it, it's sure to fit, sure to work, and if the baby gets aborted or whatever, the parents can still use it.

At 7/30/05 11:11 AM, GameCubeFreak2004 wrote: I had BBQ wings form a local pizza pace for breakfast. Does that count?

I threw up the pizza I had last night this morning, then re ate it. Does that count?

My favorites (in no particular order):

http://whatyousayayb.ytmnd.com/
http://johnpauliirealdeath.ytmnd.com/
http://realtetris.ytmnd.com/
http://nineeleventetris.ytmnd.com/
http://countryormario.ytmnd.com/
http://defectiveoshi.ytmnd.com/
http://bushpimp.ytmnd.com/
http://h4x0r5.ytmnd.com/
http://mgsalert.ytmnd.com/
http://moskautranslated.ytmnd.com/
http://googlefoundca..nsandiego.ytmnd.com/

http://google8bitmaps.ytmnd.com/
http://mortalkhaaaaanbat.ytmnd.com/
http://socialistrevolution.ytmnd.com/
http://harrypotterisruined.ytmnd.com/
http://conandeath.ytmnd.com/
http://blockjesus.ytmnd.com/
http://ninjaworksit.ytmnd.com/
http://conagahnim.ytmnd.com/
http://paperclipsnap..umbledore.ytmnd.com/

http://steamsteamlol.ytmnd.com/
http://do-the-emo.ytmnd.com/
http://legoescher.ytmnd.com/
http://priceisrightyodel.ytmnd.com/
http://jesusdies.ytmnd.com/
http://whatisstooge.ytmnd.com/
http://kerry-joker.ytmnd.com/
http://ekibymelotsaggin.ytmnd.com/
http://internetgoeso..harddrive.ytmnd.com/

http://gojesusgo.ytmnd.com/
http://long.ytmnd.com/
http://keeponhorsing.ytmnd.com/
http://stollemyiceclimber.ytmnd.com/
http://hitleronice.ytmnd.com/
http://popefissionmailed.ytmnd.com/
http://c-hcantina.ytmnd.com/
http://garfieldytmnd3.ytmnd.com/ (and http://garfieldytmnd2.ytmnd.com/ and http://garfieldytmnd1.ytmnd.com/ and http://garfieldytmnd4.ytmnd.com/)
http://metalgearstella.ytmnd.com/
http://gorespirit.ytmnd.com/
http://zangiefpride.ytmnd.com/
http://bobrosspaints.ytmnd.com/
http://ravetard.ytmnd.com/

That's great, Tom. I really enjoy the game!

BTW, I doubt anybody really reads replies to NG News, but Tom and John from the Behemoth are going to be doing a live call-in show tomorrow on http://www.chatterboxgameshow.com/

They've also discovered a gaseous orb, roughly about three times the size of Jupiter, rotating on it's axis at the center of the solar system.

At 7/28/05 07:07 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: But I dont got any room to talk, I had to go to Georgia >: (

What part of Georgia? What's wrong with Georgia? Unless, you're referring to the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, then I would agree with you.

ANGRY FAISES >:( >:[ >:{

At 7/28/05 08:56 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: As a side note I actually emailed Wade to have my lvl set back to 1 but he chanegd his mind at the last second realizing if he did it for me others would start asking too. Maybe one day I will try again.

You weren't the guy they made the NG News post about, were you?

At 7/27/05 07:49 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: the Fox News Analist is....
....Well known racist....
...MARK FERMAN!

What? How is Mark Furman a racist?

And again, what does it matter that Bill O'Reilly has a journalism degree or not, since he's not a journalist?

Don't forget Wade's alternate account's alias--RedDakota.

At 7/27/05 06:10 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: So theirs no way to pull up statistics on this to prove it eather way is what your saying

so the only way to test it is to try it here

If you possibly even remotely consider that it is a good idea to try to change the entire societal structure and views towards sex solely for the purpose of testing a hypothesis based on non-existant statistics, you are badly, badly mistaken.

At 7/27/05 06:07 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: most peps dont hire you unless your lucky enough to go to collage AND have previous expereance which is unfair to thise entering the job maket because naturally they have no expereance

Luck is nothing more than being prepared for an opportunity when an opportunity arises. People who go to college have made the proper decisions that have prepared themselves for it. Those that don't have made improper decisions.
I had to drop out of college because I couldn't afford it. Whose fault is that? Mine. I didn't make the proper decisions to adequately fund my college education.

Everyone, when they are born, has the potential to become the most successful human being ever. Those that do become successful do so because they have made and selected their decisions carefully, investing, taking calculated risks, working into the nights and on the weekends, working harder than everyone around them. Those that do not have made poor decisions, like dropping out, squandering their money, becoming complacent, and thinking that other people are the cause of their situation, rather than them.

At 7/27/05 06:00 AM, TheReveiwer wrote:

At 7/27/05 05:56 AM, -Illustrious- wrote:

At 7/27/05 05:54 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: and in this day and age getting a job is way eaiser said then done

You believe everybody is created equal, right?

well yes every race gender religion and sexual orintation is created equel

Well, good then. That means everyone is just as capable of getting and holding down a job as anybody else, then. They're just as equally able to become successful as anybody else.

At 7/27/05 05:54 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: and in this day and age getting a job is way eaiser said then done

You believe everybody is created equal, right?

At 7/27/05 05:39 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: So I probibly should just up and switch partys but a big family of democrats the kenedys their rich but how often do the give tot he poor?

Who gives a shit? It's his money, he's earned it, it's none of your business. If poor people want money, they should get a job and work for it instead of you forcing people to take hard earned money and give to them.

At 7/27/05 05:38 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: But my therory it's a great one!

probibly their wasnt any rape cases there

Actually, it's a piece of shit. Show me the rape statistics for these tribes. If they're lower than the U.S., then you'll be right.

It's your theory, now back it up.

We all are under that taboo--but few of us are rapists. Why? The taboo surrounding sex has nothing to do with rape.

Rape is caused by individuals who cannot control their sexual urges enough, so they feel the need to seek sex through force if they cannot obtain it any other way.

If people could have sex anytime, anywhere, there would still be rapes, because the same people that rape now would still not be able to control their sexual urges.

At 7/27/05 05:21 AM, TheReveiwer wrote:

At 7/27/05 12:08 AM, The_Darklands wrote:

At 7/27/05 12:03 AM, NothingSpecial wrote:

You are a liberal theres no way in hell you are republican because you do not believe in anything the republicans believe.

You dont have the smallest fucking clue what your political party is based on. Sadly people like you are ruining what the party used to stand for.

Aberham Lincoln faught to free and protect people who really coudlnt do it themselves

he confronted the rich gave freedom didnt pass the patriot act he cared for equality and freedom alla round

and *Gasp* he was a republican

Yes, but that was 140 years ago. Many things have changed since then.

In my veiw true republicans hate censorship want a seperate church and state despise any injustice directed at the people dont care of your rich or poor because everyones equel

a Conservitive is pritty much the opposite

What's the opposite of a conservative? Liberal. If you hold views opposite of conservative views, you hold liberal views. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

but unfortunately at some point these pricks infected my party

Yeah, decades ago.

I'm not a "LIberal" I'm a Republican and you and that moroin who is standing for the hyproctitical Rush are Conservitives NOT TRUE REPUBLICANS

Republicanism is what ever the majority of Republicans define it. Obviously, the majority of Republicans are conservatives.
The only moron here is you, clinging and supporting to the Republican Party when in your views are completely opposite of the modern party's platform.
It's stupid to say that you've always been a Republican and that its the party that's switched views on you, when in fact the Republican party has been made up of conservatives for decades before you were even born.

As a general rule, cats do land on their feet, when their jump or leap doesn't run into interference.

Had the baby gate not been in the way, the cat would have assuredly landed on its feet.

At 7/27/05 12:47 AM, DontTouchMe wrote: I just feel that if a debate is expected to go anywhere, you fuckers need to take it easy, acknowledge, compare, and listen. Not many people do this anymore, which is why I expect to see a moronic, non-sensicle arguement within each topic.

If adult, highly paid political pundits who make a living debating such things can't even do this, what makes you a site full of people ages 15-30 can do it?

And you don't win debates by going, "oh, I agree". If you want to learn something from the debate, you take it easy, acknowledge, compare, and listen. If you are trying to win a debate, you present your side as loudly and as strongly as you can.

Anybody who believes they are superior than most people because they are considered intelligent are neither superior nor intelligent.

Jeremy sounds like the kinda guy that would get beat up by a mass group of jocks at my school, if he acted that snobbish there.

At 7/27/05 12:33 AM, NothingSpecial wrote: Wait through clean heterosexual sex or perverted heterosexual sex? I think rarely the average heterosexual will get Gay Bowl Syndrome. But its more common in homosexuals then heterosexuals. Look at statistics. What was the old names then? Becuase you know it is a plague and really only homosexuals get it.

Gay Bowel Syndrome is nothing more than a cocktail of diseases such as syphilis, gonhorrea, herpes, etc. Anybody who participates in unmonogamous, unprotected sex with an individual is at an equal risk to get one of these diseases, regardless of the gender of either person or their sexual preference.

Like I said earlier, it's nothing but a special term created to make homosexuality seem more risky and dangerous than what it is.

On the flipside, mutual monogamous, protected sex with a uninfected partner is just as safe regardless of whether it's performed by homo- or heterosexuals.

At 7/27/05 12:27 AM, NothingSpecial wrote: They are trying to prevent it from being shown in school at all. Christianity at the most. They want nothing to do with Christiand and our God.

Again, do you have an example of where the ACLU is trying to deny individuals their right to practice and express their religion in school?

I think they would rather have Allah because thats the one they seem to support more! They ever help approved a Pro-Muslim school Cirriculum.

When?

Eh eh eh.. Not people ... Homosexuals.

Whoa...are you saying that homosexuals aren't people, or are subhuman?

eh.. its so much a religious and political issue rather than a unconstitutional issue.

No, it's Constitutional. Stop trying to shimmy out of it. How does granting homosexual people rights affect your Constitutional rights, and/or your right to life, liberty, and property?

Microsoft hahaha thats funny! Bill Gates commiting treason and funding terrorist attacks to destroy his materials and kill is customers! YES there is so much truth to it! The middle east hates us! They hate you they hate me 2/3 of the world hate us! Why is it so hard to immagine that the OIL companies in the middle east fund terrorists?

It's not hard to imagine. But you still haven't shown that they are. You've just said that they have lots of money, and they might be using that money to fund terrorists. You, Sean, and Rush, among others, are just speculating, unless you can prove a link.

It is a logical point of view... your wasn't... heheh mircrosoft killing its customers. As the great Stewie Griffin would say "HA!"

All I did was replace "Middle East oil companies" with "Microsoft". The logic itself didn't change. Both are just speculation, unless a link is shown for either.

Oh and the Activist Judges. They don't so much as disregard the constitution.. they make laws also. "Liberal activist judges make law, as opposed to interpreting it. They ignore the plain meaning of texts to invent new rights. Superimposing their moral views onto their legal reasoning, they brazenly advance the cause of the fringe liberal elites in the culture wars." - Definition of an Activist Judge.
Please please please correct me if im wrong.. but who is supposed to be making the laws and who should not be making the laws? Isn't it unconstitutional for the Judges to be doing this?

Can you name one law created by a judge? Can you give an example of one of these activist judges?

At 7/26/05 11:56 PM, NothingSpecial wrote: Gay Bowel Syndrome.

Gay Bowel Syndrome is nothing more than any other combination of STD's one could recieve if they had heterosexual sex. The only trait about it that is confined to homosexuality is the fact people come up with a new name for it and try to pass it off as some plague that only homosexuals can get.

At 7/25/05 08:17 PM, _carnie_ wrote: I guess my question is when did we become so intolerant of intolerance? When was a law passed that required me to be like everyone, praising everyone's differences? Isn't tolerate the root word of toleration?

Yes, but aren't you being intolerant to the people who are intolerant to your intolerance to tolerant people? Or to summarize, you don't want to be disliked for disliking a group of people.

But a private citizen seem to no longer be able to dislike anyone different than themselves. Does this make any sense?

Yes, and you have every right to dislike anybody else you please. But that goes for every one else to, and they have every right to dislike you for your intolerance.

If you have a strong enough belief, though, it shouldn't matter what other people think.

At 7/26/05 11:21 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: YOu know I just prefer to keep my posts short and sweet because unlike you guys I dont like to hear myself talk

Me neither. That's why I'm not talking right now.

the ACLU does a few things right

1. they support gay marrage
2. they are for the speration of church and state
3. their against the patriot act
4. their the only fair and balanced groupt hat remains

I'm not asking what the ACLU does. I'm asking NothingSpecial what Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh say they do.

as far as Rush goes
the definition of drug abiuse is misusing drugs drugs both of the legal and illigal variety and last time I checked both were treated the same or simmular int he courts Rush abused them and he preaches against people who do so he's a hyprocrite

So? We've all done hypocritical things in our life. That doesn't mean our opinions become instantly invalid when we do a hypocritical act.

Orily lies about giving the last word ((he never does)

treats his guests like crap pretneds teir cowards for not showing up ((probibly to avoid being treated like crap))

It's his show, he can do whatever he desires and whatever Fox will let him. Obviously, there's plenty of people out there that don't have a problem with him doing that, or else they wouldn't tune in.

probily doesnt have a journalism degree

Why would he need one? He's not a journalist. He doesn't report news.

At 7/26/05 11:28 PM, NothingSpecial wrote: Gladly!
Activist judges are judges who do not operate by the constitution. They judge by what they feel is right.

Can you give an example of a case where the Constitution was disregarded while the judge judged by their conscience?

Freedom to express religion which the ACLU is so moderatly doing. Christianity is a big one. They want nothing more than god out of the school system

It shouldn't be in the school system in the first place. Are they trying to prevent people from being able to practice their religion in school, which would violate the first amendment? If so, you have an example? Or are they trying to prevent the government from sanctioning religion and/or participating in it, which is a violation of church and state?

and public places and replace it with Allah!

I haven't heard of any instances of the ACLU supporting the construction of Koran monuments.

The ACLU? Glad you asked. If you watch the news you will see them fighting for freedom of religion with these Christian cases and such. The ten commandments for example.

Again, I've heard no cases of the ACLU trying to prevent individuals from practicing or expressing their religion. What I have heard is the ACLU trying to prevent government institutions from practicing or expressing religion.

BUT! The ACLU is putting programs into school to help the tolerance of homosexuality. Forcing Gay/Straight alliances in neighborhoods. Make homosexuality marriage reconized.

So? How do gay people getting married and people being tolerant towards gays affect any of your Constitutional rights, or your basic rights to life, liberty, and property?

World news? I thought this was interesting. In london they are talking about putting cameras everywhere. Like those futuristic movies...ALot like half life 2 except the cameras are stationary.

Actually, the British have utilized a far more extensive network of public cameras than the U.S. has for years. An expansion of the system is to be expected in the wake of a terrorist attacks.

The Middle East oil companies might be funding terroristic attacks. They have the money to do it. As long as we buy oil from the middle east the middle east will keep funding the terrorists.

Bill Gates might be funding terrorist attacks. He has the money to do it. If we keep buying Microsoft products, we will keep funding the terrorists.

A very logical point of view I would say. not one I would hear from the 'News'

No, because it's not news--it's speculation, and would be poor journalism unless there was an actual proven link between the oil companies and terrorists. Until that link is shown, it's merely non-sequitur speculation.

At 7/26/05 11:14 PM, NothingSpecial wrote: *sigh*
Fine you watch you News and call Rush and Sean idiots.
All they try to do is help and I have no idea why you guys hate them so much.

See above. They're okay to listen to, but don't be so closed minded about other opinions.

They explain what activist judges do. They explain what rights are being taken away from you and which rights arn't. They explain what the Aclu is doing and they also explain the world news. Tell me do you know what an activist judge does? Does the news ever tell you that?

They do, huh? Well then, as a listener to these people that explain these things,

What do activist judges do?
What rights are being taken away from you? Which aren't?
What is the ACLU doing?
What is the world news?

At 7/26/05 11:03 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: just looka t the people whos upport Orily to see those who dont make intellegent decicions

Oh, shut up. While there may not be anybody in this one topic on this one board on this one forum on this one site at this moment, I can assure you that he has tens of thousands of people that can explain their support and agreement with O'Reilly. Many of them could probably support their position for O'Reilly much, much better than the way you've presented your position against him.

For someone who has nothing to debate about the appropriateness and correctness of O'Reilly's opinions other than to call him a "doushbag" [sic] and to call people who like him stupid, you don't have much room to talk.

At 7/26/05 10:53 PM, GorillaUnit485 wrote:

At 7/26/05 10:49 PM, -Illustrious- wrote:

Besides, Fox News's slogan is "We Report. You Decide."

Doesn't that piss you off though? I mean obviously that's not taking place.

What? Of course it is. Some people take the news and commentary Fox delivers, and decides the validity and context of it, and compare it with other news and commentary. Others just take the commentary and news reported and decide that since it sounds okay to them, it's absuredly correct.

They report, their viewers decide. It's just that a lot of times, their viewers don't make very intelligent decisions.

At 7/26/05 10:39 PM, CI-Lain wrote:

At 7/26/05 10:31 PM, -Illustrious- wrote:

At 7/26/05 10:19 PM, TheReveiwer wrote: I aghree witht hat but the whole fair and balanced thing is false advertising

No it isn't. 'Fair and balanced' is a relative term. There's no way to measure the fairness or balance in a definite matter, so there's no way you can legally say it's false advertising.

Well there is actually one way. If you could provide proof that the corporation was infact attempting to make things unfair and unbalance then it would seem to be false advertising. If you could prove through memos or meeting witness and the like that the corporation had and pushed the intent of making things unfair and unbalanced then the suit might just work. But your right it would be a tough case, easier won in the court of public opinion.

No, for the same reason. What people deem fair and balanced, or unfair and unbalanced, is entirely subject to people's opinion. Even if you had a memo from Fox executives directing the network to become unfair and unbalanced by hiring 95% conservative employees, people could still believe that to be fair and balanced in their opinions.

If Fox News claimed to have a higher number of political pundits appearing on their shows than any other network, you could then claim false advertising if, say, CNN had more pundits, because this can be verified by facts and quantitative measurement. But not on the basis of a slogan that has a definition subject to the viewers opinion. Even then though, you would still have a whale of a time demonstrating how it had an adverse refect on your life, liberty, or property.

Besides, Fox News's slogan is "We Report. You Decide."