Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/31/05 09:18 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Yea, because I'm sure they just left shotguns and pipebombs on the top of their dressers, and on their bedroom floors.

Did you see thier video tape? They had alot of guns.

Not to mention, that it's not simply that they hid the guns. The parents had seen things many times, on one occasion the father found a homemade bomb. The parents were just stupid.

At 7/31/05 09:12 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Oh, so, are you parents 'bad people' because they didn't snoop into your life to the point of finding out all your secrets?

Giving your kids privacy does not mean never seeing inside thier room or knowing what they are doing.

At 7/31/05 09:01 PM, madzakk wrote: Which would cause themselves great economic harm. Why would you want to destroy your greatest trading partner, leaving them with nothing except the world's largest nuclear arsenal! They won't do it; a strong American economy means money in their pocket!

Yeah, but under that logic nobody would ever go to war because your better off trading with them. Just because they will be harmed in the process doesn't mean they wont do it. Besides, when it comes to Saudi Arabia and China, often the blackmailing involves us keeping the dictators in power, and dictators are often more content in staying in power than keeping thier country strong.

Don't all books of religion really preach terrorism?

If you do bad you'll go to a firey hell.. hmm...

At 7/31/05 08:51 PM, madzakk wrote: Elaborate, plz.

Treasury bonds. At any point in time they could release billions of dollars of American currency on to the market, causing the value of the dollar to plummet.

The kids were mentally ill, I figured that was obvious.

And if there was one thing that made them mentally ill, it would be obvious. But as far as I can see there isn't, so it had to be everything.

America is blackmailed every day by Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia. It's nothing new.

At 7/31/05 03:57 AM, BigBlueBalls wrote: This was just one stupid judge who made this decision

I believe in extradition hearings Canada uses several judges. Or perhaps that is only the hearings involving possible death penalties.

At 7/27/05 07:15 AM, fenrus1989 wrote: he could still set off explosives if he's subdued and not dead. they have him pinned down but if he had a bomb he could have still set it off.

Only if the bomb was in his teeth.

And at that, why would he have waited to set off the bomb if he had it somehwere on himself?

I wonder how different this would be if it was the leader of the NRA selling guns to Canadians.

Not to say the two are the same, but you canadians have no ground to bitch. If you can sell marijuana seeds, we can sell assault weapons.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana, and smoking marijuana illegally, but if we were to allow trade barriers to be disobeyed a pandoras box would be opened.

At 7/31/05 12:03 AM, _FLAGG wrote: I'm not trying to get that touchy-feely, with you.
Let's just have some quick sex, instead.

Stop, you're making the pedophilia hentai tentacle rape topic profane.

At 7/30/05 11:58 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Oh...well...it turns out I wasn't listening.
My deepest apologies, about that.

Do we have to hug now?

At 7/30/05 11:41 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Pffft. You're picking and choosing what to call 'morals'.
Murder is tied to morals just as closely as homosexuality is.
Almost everything is affected, or formed, from morals..as much as those self-righteous, morality-despising folks from the left hate it.

Your not listening, I'm not saying those things don't have to do with morals. I know they do. I'm saying they don't have to. You can make an argument for why they should be illegal without bringing up morals.

But you can't when it comes to something like this, the only real argument for this is that it is morally wrong.

At 7/30/05 11:31 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Wait, wait.
Murder, theft, and rape has no connection with morality?

They do, but you can make an argument for illegalizing them without morals being involved. Thats my point.

At 7/30/05 08:21 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: I thought legislation outlawing theft, murder and rape has worked.

How is that legislating morality? Thats just making laws to protect people from direct harm. It doesn't have to have any connection to morals.

You should, only by knowing where "morality" and "acceptability" meet. Theft, murder and rape are not acceptable, while imaginative artistic pornography for fetished individuals, is.

I disagree. In those cases you aren't legislating morality. Your legislating to protect people from harm. Nobody is harmed in underage hentai, therefor the only reason for such a law is to enforce morals on people.

At 7/30/05 03:56 PM, Empanado wrote: Oh come on, it's the simplest thing in the world. Doctor "You don't know psychiatry" witnesses a Hieros Gamos and is saved by a hooker whom he previously saved. The hooker is found dead later. He comes back to his house and spills the beans to his wife, but in the end it doesn't matter, because he was dreaming the whole thing. Moron.

Ohhh.... so thats what it sounds like when the doves cry.

No... no.... nevermind. I'm sorry.... I hate myself.

At 7/30/05 09:53 AM, darknezz1 wrote: Wrong, morality is already being legislated.

And it has never worked.

But really, I should have said you shouldn't.

At 7/29/05 02:34 PM, Empanado wrote: That's a valid opinion, but I just think that this time he sucked in such a way that there was a vague chance of someone, somewhere in this plane of reality, who didn't think he sucked.

Well I hear Jesus loves everyone so maybe you're right.

By the way, I just never understood why he started cryin' like a fat baby who sucks at acting when he saw the mask lying next to his supa-hot wife.

Thats the only part you didn't understand?

The first time I saw it I had to google it to try to figure out what happened. It's a conspiracy involving Venice and operas and Chinese people... at least thats how I understood it.

At 7/30/05 08:07 AM, dELta_Luca wrote: i said fusion, not nucleur fission

I wasn't claiming that you were talking about nuclear power. I was showing you a real life example of a self-sustaining power source that costs money (more than most power does at that).

At 7/30/05 01:36 AM, ScrollButtons wrote: I agree with you that there can be no harm in the act of creating hentai in most situations, however consider if the character was modeled after a real life child. Would it not be wrong to sexualize that character as it is an image of a child?

Who are we to say what another person should think?

Also, you have to consider the effect on the viewer. Half of the reason child pornography is illegal is to keep people from developing sexual urges towards underage people. Hentai may not depict real life people, but the characters could be seen as underage and have the same effect as child pornography.

No scientific evidence exists to prove that pronography, or child pornography for that matter, makes one more inclined to molest children. Besides, if they are developing sexual urges towards children that easily, they would have developed them without porn too.

Yeah but you have to pay for maintainence and such.

A nuclear plant technically powers itself, the majority of the cost is not to purify the uranium but rather to keep the plant from melting down.

It is a FACT that you have to add data in order to get the Hot Coffee mod.

If you were to hack the Sims so that it looked like they were having sex, all you would be doing is adding data.

The only difference is the amount of data.

So what, are we going to set an minumum amount of kb that has to be added to turn something into porn? No. Thats dumb, and every single congressman should know this.

No they shouldn't.

The only reason child porn should be illegal is because there is a sexual assault involved in making the porn itself.

You can't legislate morality.

At 7/29/05 09:43 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Im curious, if a veto is overturned, does that trigger an election.

Nope.

At 7/29/05 03:32 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Hey, as long as they use already aborted fetuses, im fine. Altho i think stem cell research is a complete waste of time.

What kind of scientific knowledge are you basing this off of?

At 7/29/05 11:26 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 7/29/05 04:09 AM, Jimsween wrote:

You can't sue someone with a coincidence as your argument.

duh, that's not the point, the point is that she admits to it.

Even if she admits to cursing him, that doesn't prove the curse did anything. That is where the burden of proof really lies.

See, if you have something bad, and someone says its their fault and takes the blame for it, then where's the problem? You got your culprit. Its a wrap. A WRAP.

Because the point isn't just to compensate one for thier losses but also to punish someone for thier actions.

fie on your laws and your decence and your logic.
Where's your heart son? Where's your HEART?

I'm sorry I dont speak canadian.

At 7/29/05 08:15 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: so you're going to invade Europe straight from the US. ok. ok.

The distance between the US and Europe is much closer than the distance between the US and Iwo Jima, or even Hawaii and Iwo Jima for that matter.

At 7/29/05 06:40 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Because in the actual scenario their only options are really, really bad defeat and bad defeat. So of course they opted for the lesser option because it was the best one they had. Hitler still wouldn't have surrendered, and the Volkssturm and all that still would have been created. So considering that surrender was not an option, they would have fought just as hard against the Americans.

I still don't get it. They were willing to surrender when given the options of a bad ending and a really bad ending, they would still have those if it was just the Americans, the bad ending being surrendering and the really bad being fighting to the death. Besides, Htler was dead then anyway.

Which was because the Americans were also fighting Imperial Japan, which still would have been a problem for them. A bigger one in fact, because the British would not be available in either theatre of war. The Germans would be able to mobilize more troops faster, and the Americans would not be able to create as much devastation with their air force, assuming they got air superiority at all without Britain and Russia fighting Germany.

No, we still only had a fraction of our forces on both fronts. The problem was our ranks were swelling faster then we could ship people out.

At 7/28/05 10:51 PM, Empanado wrote: Stanley Kubrick. He was a freakin' genius. Why, you say? Because he managed to direct a film in which Tom Cruise didn't suck.

I beg to differ, Tom Cruise did in fact suck in that movie.

Unless he was supposed to just stare off blankly with his jaw dropped through half of the film, then hes really good.

At 7/29/05 03:30 AM, Thorfalcon wrote:

Um, no it didn't, that's pure fanatsy. Ask the australians.

Except that.... Oh shit! Proof!... man, facts are hard on liberals, aren't they?

It ends every year during the fall. And then comes back the next year.

If you took even one second to look at the same link you posted you would see that. God I hate people from the General forum.