Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

For those of you who are familiar with Dr. Tiller's practices then you shouldn't be surprised he's being charged. For those of you who aren't, well I'll explain; Tiller is a doctor in the state of Kansas that has made millions of dollars performing late term abortions. You'll ask "I thought abortion was legal nationally, what's the beef?" True, Roe vs Wade made first trimestor abortions legal(from my knowledge) nationwide, however, states do maintain the autonomy to decide whether or not they allow second and third term abortions.

The beef is that Kansas has outlawed the practice of late term abortion, which Tiller has practiced over years without regard. So he's being charged on this offense. A pervision in Kansas makes it legal to perform a third term abortion if two indepedent doctors concur that if the birth process goes onward that it could deal irrevocable damage to the mother, which is another field Tiller is being charged with. Tiller has frequently listed off Ann Kristen Neuhas as an indepedent doctor, who is actually a financial acquiantance of his.

Tiller's crimes have gotten so much plublicity that even the Democrat Attourney General of Kanas, Paul Morrison has brought up 19 charges against Dr. Tiller.

I know alot of you assholes out there support infanticide, so don't pelt me with your bullshit about "a woman's right" when the state explicitly outlaws late term abortions.

Here's a link to one story http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp ?ARTICLE_ID=56167

At 7/10/07 04:06 PM, alanoink wrote: I'm a Christian. But this is definitely not the way to go about this. Create a thread yelling at atheists. Good job.

The person who created this thread is a neo-pagan. So I don't think he's trying to convert anyone, just stating a common truth about crybaby atheists.

At 7/10/07 03:56 PM, SlithVampir wrote: He's not intellegent because he dosen't have the leadership to adequately cope with a natural disaster, no less perform a counter-insurgency.

Does a high IQ count as intelligence?

This thread generated many lols. Cellardoor and Grammer are entertaining individuals. We even got Canas in on the action.

At 7/8/07 01:12 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Most, if not all, the above listed problems could easily be overcome with pooled resources,

Raw materials can't overcome cultural hostility.

or god forbid, a change of policy in the west so that Africa didn't get screwed over.

As you know from Occident's political system, such reforms aren't likely and any one that gain notable consideration don't go into effect for a while. Africa simply has too many things working against them, in my opinion.

Removing structural readjustment on the nations that have defaulted on their loans would allow a lot of the poorer African nations to put money where it's needed,

Nations that default on their loans lose all credibility, even though I don't think it's a critical bane, it's still causes many problems. These nations don't have money to place. Their economies are virtually imploded, and where would they gain the necessary amount of finances?

such Education and health, which are what they need to develop,

So you want them to morph from an thirdworld, estranged government to one that provides all these services seen in industrialized nations? I can understand universal education, since it's easily implimented, but health would require and outside source like relief aid.

as its kind of hard to have a successful economy when most of your population is struck down either by Aids, dying from Malaria, and other such diseases, or lacks the education needed to compete in the modern world.

Midieval Europe seemed to do fine with merchants, despite all the illnesses like the black death, red death, dysentery, blood poisoning etc, but HIV is preventable. The problem is more a cultural one than a political one, which is why they don't all use condoms. I think the International Red Cross has been pretty good educating them, but they see condoms as undermining their masculinity.

And Communist? I can find info on 7 nations in Africa that have been communist at some point, but at present, are not considered so. So where you get this from is beyond me. explain please.

I should of stuck my foot in my mouth for this. Part, I concur, they're not officially communist. What I should of said is still have many prevailing elements of it, especially permeating from the helm of South Africa led by Nelson Mandela and his cohorts.

Slith, you never did reply to my rebuttal about assault rifles a few pages ago. And I was enjoying that debate because no one said "Ur a big stoopidfase."

I like germans more than I like russians. I also like pie more than cake.

I say we help if we get exclusive trading rights and other such perks. Money ain't free.

Anyone notice how all these dictatorships are typically leftwing when it comes to economics?

At 7/9/07 04:33 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Sure Jake, but here in America we have a wonderful little document called the Bill of Rights.

Uh-huh

In this Bill of Rights is something called the 8th Amendment, which prevents cruel and unusual punishment.

Yep

So, dick-chopping is not an option here.

Apparently you didn't read my post thoroughly and took my comparison to more extreme forms of punishment to what I would want done here, instead of disspell the illusion this prison is harsh.

But thanks for playing!!

thanks for being a condescending dickhead.

That's how a prison should be runned. In third world countries ifd you complain they chop your dick off and wave it in your face.

I don't think english should be the official language, but I also don't think the government shoiuld cater toward people who don't speak it.

At 7/8/07 10:29 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: fuck darfur jake what do you think Africa doesnt have any benefits for us except diamonds but thats south africa

Betcha Africa could make quite the sum of money for shipping exotic game for us to hunt.

Not only are alot of those statements crazy, but quite true.

The reason this union wouldn't work is for the reasons listed above, plus(despite what many ignorant socialist say) alot of African nations are under communist rule, this would cause economic stagnation and Africa isn't exactly the bastion of civic prosperity.

At 7/6/07 02:44 PM, trojanhippie wrote: Hopefully that never happens.

Yeah, because America would pwn every other world power.

At 7/6/07 01:25 AM, ForkRobotik wrote: Also, americans are so stupid.

If this is so what does that make canadians, uber retarded?

At 7/6/07 01:33 PM, Comrade-Snail wrote: Communism isn't a tyrannical government on first...

Everytime it's been attempted it has ALWAYS turned out that way.

People made it that way...

No, communism itself is just a shitty ideology that won't work eitherway.

I don't have a communistic site so I don't use a privately owned webpage...

Newgrounds is privately owned. Tell you what, why don't you and all these other motherfuckers follow what you preach? If you truly were communist/socialist you shouldn't be on here, considering the computer is made in sweatshops? Why don't you and all your pinko bodies stop using the internet and take the money saved to feed some starving kids instead of buying capitalist products and services, eh?

And I'm no unskilled worker either nor am I to lazy to work.

Right, because every skilled worker likes the idea of being paid equal regardless. So I doubt you are.

I'm communist because I totally agree with the idea of equality and I believe the ideas behind communism are better then other forms of government.

No, you're a communist because of stupidity, laziness, and your failure to understand economics.

Sure I've heard how it was in the Sovjet Union,

It would be a problem if you didn't.

that wasn't fun,

No, the USSR was the greatest folly of mankind.

but most of the people there wheren't that happy with capitalism either (and that was the workerclass yes).

Um, at least they weren't being shipped too the Gulags and 109 million people weren't murdered by the government.

In the sovjet union there wasn't true equality to,

There's no such thing as equality because not everyone is equal. Some people are better or more valuable than others.

for there where those communist partyfreaks who just made them the rich ones by surpressing the workerclass.

Sounds like they were more communist than you and every other person that posted in this thread. At least those guys didn't buy into capitalism by partaking in it.

So don't say I don't know nothing about the wrong side of communism, but you should learn from the mistakes 'nyways.

Why should I learn mistakes from a system that will never work? It's unrealistic and just idiotic. People that believe in communism are as brain dead as people that believe creationism.

And how strange would you folk look when suddenly every powerfull place went into women hands??

I don't see how this has to do with anything, but if these women are qualified and best for the job then do it. Capitalism adaptability and continual optimance makes it superior to every other economic system.

Anyways things go as they go everybody his own ideas and thoughts,

Not in a communist state where the people are the property of the government.

I'm not judging people upon it and if you do, then it is you whos going to the hell whom your talking about.

Communists aren't aloud to talk about religion! Shouldn't your precious KGB be coming to lynch you for dissent?

You believe in what you say, otherwise you wouldn't say...

If you live in Europe(I'm not going to bother checking your profile) be a communist, infact, I hope you convince everyone in your little country to be communists. This way America will maintain economic supremacy because communism is economic suicide and only leads to civic implosions. So really, being a communist makes you an enabler of capitalist countries. :)

I don't think anyone should try and defend Bush anymore.

At 7/5/07 09:51 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And Bush wanted likewise.

Who gives a shit what he wanted? Fuck him in the ear.

I've been informed that the Fairness Doctrine was defeated the same day the Amnesty Immigration Bill Teddy Drunkard Kennedy wanted.

At 7/4/07 02:26 AM, Ravariel wrote: All joking aside, I'm torn. He did the crime. But he never should have been brought in front of the Grand Jury or asked about Lewinsky in the first place.

Well if you phrase that way it's exactly the same way for Scooter. Valerie Plame was famous for being in the CIA, Vanity Fair did a piece on it, as Memorize said, they'd talk everyone's hear off that listened to the fact she was CIA. No one was ever convicted of revealing Plame's covert status. So why should of Scooter even been questioned about it? See where I'm getting at?

Because legality and morality/emotions are two separate things. And equating them is intellectually dishonest.

But I'm not sexually cheating on my wife according to the Clinton asswimps. So why should she be getting mad for getting a bj?

At 7/5/07 05:08 PM, Sarai wrote: In the US.

*rolls eyes*

Communism, you have to experience it to rate it.

They're alot of dumbshits here that don't realize the magnitude a tyrannical government has until they've experienced. The funny thing is these commies, who abhor capitalism, are using a privately owned website, runned on a corporate server, being streamed on a corporate made computer. These idiots only like communism because they like the idea of not having to work much or no one surpassing them because they're unskilled workers.

Heard about a case where some guy bought one of those mobile trailers. Right after he bought it he was driving down the highway and decided that he wanted a cup of coffee, so he sets it on autopilot/driver and goes into the back to make his cup of coffee, while doing this, the trailer crashes. Later, he sues the manufactures because they didn't elaborate on what autopilot does, that it merely mean it'll stay on the current path and not actually steer the trailer for him. Long story short, this moron actuallys wins the case.

I don't know about you guys, but hearing this makes me wish for human exstinction. It's mind-blogging how unequal some people are intellectually, all the way to the most brilliant scientist, to the dumbass that tried to iron a shirt while still wearing it.

At 7/3/07 01:06 PM, RedGlare wrote: "Jesus looked into the man's heart and saw something that was keeping him from becoming a follower.

Uh-huh

Jesus told him that he still lacked one thing; he must sell the things he owned and give the money to the poor.

And this supports socialism how?

Then he would have treasure in heaven, and he could follow Jesus.

Seems to me Jesus was testing the fella to see if he was a sincere follower of Christ.

The young man's face fell and he sadly went away because he had great riches that he would not part with.

And he failed the test, apparently.

After the young man left, Jesus talked to his disciples about how hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "It is easier", he said, "for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,"

You obviously don't quite grasp ancient asiatic linguists. By rich, it could mean what you're implying or he's prideful. By selling his goods, he would be a member of the poorer class, something his pride would not let him do. This is further hinted in the Beattitudes of the New Testament of how doomed the rich in spirit are.

And Jesus is God incarnate so i think he knows alittle more about what God likes

Considering commies want to abolish the name of God I'm pretty sure God doesn't like commies and doesn't give two shits when one is killed by a capitalist.

or are you somesort of Scientologist?

I don't belong to any organized religion.

At 7/4/07 11:35 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: stuff

I can't really tell if you're being facetious, but if not some of this shit is ridiculous. Please set me straight whether or not you're joking.

At 6/28/07 03:22 PM, tawc wrote: You do know that in no way Britain Brutally ruled America.

Yeah you did. You had an asshole Parliament and an even bigger asshole king that the americas were their personal property, despite the fact most of the colonies were not royal ones

The American colonists were the most well of, best treated, lowest taxed in the whole of the empire... Even BRTIAIN.

Let's see, that's because America offered new skilled labor for skilled workers, more natural resources, more agriculture and many more factors, all of which were due to American self-help. Not some distant king or its politicaly system, infact, the portion you mention that americans had it better than most British citizns confirms it.

Your founding fathers were just a bunch of fat anglican slave owning bastards who wanted to skip there taxes.

Why the fuck should they and we be taxed when we're not given representation in government? Your assemblies were making decisions about us without us even partaking in the legislative actions. Infact, all we wanted to was being represented, it was Great Britain creed and elitism that pushed us to revolution and England paid for her creed with the blood of her soldiers, colonies, and international credibility.

Even in the American war of independence Britain treated the colonists well.

Britain had no business even making decisions on behalf of the colonists.

Compare America to somewhere like Ireland where whenever they had a rebellion, britian went around killing everyone. America had it so easy.

Contrasting one form of tyranny with another harsher ones does not make the latter look any better.

And went on to actually contribuate a large amount of troops in the battle of britain, which really did make a difference unlike americas lucky 7.

You would of lost WW2 without American intervention.

And are now much richer than the British.

Monarchy tends to hinder economics.

Seriously mate, we couldn't give a shit about how you won your war of independence.

You give enough of a shit to respond to it.

Because many countrys have lost rebellions, Britains lost alot, and the American one was most certainly not the most amazing one.

Bullshit. At one point every soldier in the Continental Army had only SEVEN bullets to spare per battle. Most of these soldiers were farmers and factory workers that had never seen a musket.

A thread like this begs the question is a circumcized penis like the Phantom of the Masked Opera? In his sketch, Richard Jenni drew he comparison, and I think he may be on to something. That's why they cause so much problems during puperty......for revenge!

At 7/4/07 12:45 AM, Ravariel wrote: Obviously not. Otherwise we wouldn't have seatbelt laws.

Hey, at least with seatbelts in place people with beneficial DNA can pass it. :/

2nd post

Not really, we've been bombing iraq from a decade before the iraq war.

What the fuck do you mean "Not really?" Bombing bunkers without these arms is like trying to take out a Soviet Tank with an M16.

And maybe if we actually knew anywhere in specific where a threat was we could kill him instead of hundreds of innocent people.

Well you've obviously never heard of a smart-bomb. Can't say I'm surprised, nor are you familiar with the protocols of the Air Force or Navy pilots when it comes to ubiquitous areas of innocents.

You know all i hear on the history channel is how this rocket can hit within 3 meters of it's target. why couldn't those be useful.

I really wish TheMason were here to set straight your utterly devoid mind of military strategem.

Well they kinda hated us before we invaded,

Right, and they were justified in their attack on 9/11?

but they really didnt like it when we took over their country.

And we didn't like it when they attacked us first.

sounds like a good enough reason to hate/kill us. And you cant say that iraq hasn't become a proving ground for terrorist.

So terrorist have your blessing to kill Americans?

They flock from surrounding countries just to get a chance to kill an american.

Islam is a problem, not the arab themselves.

We are hurting ourselves by trying to "help" ourselves.

Your brilliant military strategy would encompass sitting around waiting for the terrorist to attack because if we act offensively we could piss off the savages in the Middle-East.

in other words us being iraq is only making it easier to kill us. we are in turn helping them.

Because killing them is helping them? Basically, all you've done is confirmed every stereotype I plastered on liberals when it comes to terrorism. Fuck, every leftwinger that tried to debunk what I said also proved this.