Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

To all the people who say the government is to incompetent to run a business, our government is a business you pay it in exchange for services just like any other business. Are you honestly telling me that the government can't do anything right? Maybe you're right there, but come on they had to have done something right.

And it's not like we would actually have congress & the senate run a business, if the government socialized a business , the CEO & board of directors of said company would be determined by either vote, or appointment by the highest office. SO you'd only be asking your representatives to make a few decisions on the business not much different than what shareholders of corporation do, in fact possibly better in the sense that there is no such thing as a morale corporation, every corporation has one purpose , to get the most money for their investors as possible, if the government ran a business that would most likely not be the only goal of said business.

At 5/23/09 06:38 PM, Proteas wrote:

None of this pushes personal responsibility on the man on either participant in a sexual act. Yeah, it's available, yeah, it's talked about... but what incentive is there to get birth control? You can go to any public health department NOW and get a bag full of free condoms if you want (or so I'm told), but how many people actually know and take advantage of that fact?

Not any public health department, such programs are common but the condoms are incredibly cheap, so they break pretty easy & lets just say I don't trust bored people with access to safety pins.
However if&when a male daily oral contraceptive it would give equal responsibility.

At 5/23/09 07:46 PM, ThunderboltLegion wrote: stuff

We don't define whether a human is alive or not on the same basis we do life in general, if you shot me in the head causing all brain function to cease theoretically you could be charged with murder even if my body is still functioning, the reasoning being that I as a individual no longer exist & all that's left is an empty (living) body.

At 5/23/09 10:25 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: I consider myself pro-life but i do believe abortions are necessary in cases when the mother's life is in danger because of the baby or possibly rape if that excuse wont be abused. otherwise i think the baby should be put up for adoption after it can be released from the hospital

One question, do you intend to adopt?
I ask because I know people whom were raised by the state I think most of them would have been better off never existing (& I won't even go into the people I know who went through failed/repeat adoptions)(& yes I don't think human life begins at conception).

At 5/24/09 02:03 AM, BigFuzzyKitten wrote:

At 5/24/09 01:19 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: he cannot simply make us all good

if he is not omnipotent, then why call him god?

To Christians god is/was capable of making us all good but god granted us freewill, so I guess he's bound by social contract .

I think the OP has misstated himself or vastly underestimated the range of concepts behind "god", the reasons provided only give you reason not to believe in the judao-christian god or view of said god.
I know one thing for certain about god if he does exist he is something mankind is incapable of understanding.

I'm not going to advocate socialism, I believe that a capitalism with socialist institutions is a better alternative, there are some good government businesses, the U.S. Post office would be a good example

At 5/23/09 06:13 AM, fli wrote:

Seems to me the only way to curb abortion is, one, advocate abstinence and safe-sex practices, two, making birth control free and easily accessible, three, provide the emergency morning-after-pill, and four... lessen the stigmatization of certain pregnancies. After all, a lot of these pregnancies are from these girls who are supposed to be raised good Christian gals who vote Red. So they're forced to go secretive...

That would be the most effective way, to reduce unwanted pregnancy, so I agree completely

Maybe if we didn't embarrass them into getting abortions...

At 5/23/09 06:45 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 5/23/09 06:13 AM, fli wrote: We don't ban murder-- we penalize it.
Although, you could arguee effectivly that by penalizing murderers that we ban murder, but he situation between manslaughter and abortion prove too dissimilar to say that the law bans murder.

I wasn't really interested in attacking the right of abortion, cause I am pro-choice myself.

It's just that i still thing that an argument as 'you can't ban it, because people do it anyway' is stupid, because everything that is illegal (thus banned) will surely have people doing it anyway. sothe argument would also advocate other criminal activities to become legal.

That argument doesn't work on the basis that there is no major moral down side to murder being illegal, there are however severe repercussions for criminalizing abortions.

Real men can wear pink.

At 5/18/09 07:22 PM, fatape wrote:

again this exact same arguement could just as easily be applied to the women.

"don't wanna some douche to leave you? don't have sex"

What, since when does depriving someone of sex make them stay with you?

so basicly for some arbitrary reason she is given the complete power over the situation and none of the reponseibility if she chooses so.Do you not see the huge potential for abuse in this situation.

The reason isn't arbitrary, the woman is the host to the (parasite) fetus so whether they choose to abort it is there decision, & women do have to take a share in the responsibility.

At 5/19/09 04:11 PM, ReiperX wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/05/
19/human.ancestor/index.html

Basically if this turns out to be a true transitional species it should help squash some of the anti-evolutionists that like to point out that there are no transitional fossils.

You know they will just say " It's not a transitional form, it's fully formed" right
We already have transitional fossils & that's there aurgument against those.

I believe we should have child support, I just have two problems
One, equal rights, a child's father should be able to have the child 1/2 the time if he so chooses & if he does so choose he should not have to pay child support.
And two, if you pay child support you should only have to pay to support the child not the mother but usually if you're made to pay child support you will have to pay to support the mother. In my opinion all the money spent on child support should go to the child & nothing else.

And just one thing that as a man pisses me off is I've known a few women say something like this "I'm just going to stay with him till the baby's born then I'll ditch him & get child support." now tell me that's not messed up?

At 5/17/09 11:55 AM, SonicSheep wrote: So far, i'm the only one in this thread who DOESN'T have the right to bear arms.

Its a founding principle of the US. However the fault with the 2nd amendment is that its not very specific what constitues 'arms'. Pistols are all well and good, but why anyone would want and or need an assualt rifle is beyond me.

You are correct that the 2nd amendment doesn't define what is an arm, it is my belief that at the time our founding fathers meant all weapons, being unable to foresee the awesome weapons that would come. As for why we would want assault rifles, well let's put it this way to my understanding your democracy was given to you, well ours had to be taken by force, the founders of our country were smart enough to realize that the common people do not follow politics & may be a little (very) stupid,(this is the reason for our 'electoral college' system) if you create a democracy the people will inevitably hand it over to some horrible regime (it will happen someday) & thus the reason why we shouldn't outlaw 'assault' weapons is because we may have to protect ourselves from ourselves. That and as I said before the difference between a hunting rifle & an assault rifle is largely cosmetic, with the exception of fully automatic weapons for which you have to acquire a special license , which well not terribly restricted is quite a pain in the ass.

Another reason we don't ban assault weapons is we don't really see the point as assault weapons are used in less than one percent of all gun crime.

Knife crimes a problem we have here in the UK, but we cant very BAN knives now can we...
However, despite what gun activists tell you. Guns aren't as easy to come by as people seem to think in my country. Sure if you live in a rough part of london or any other big city, its possible. However you need to know the right people, and then theres cost which means that standard, down on there luck criminals wont be able to get them, save for stealing.

I'm sure that's true but I believe you underestimate the American ingenuitive spirit, we may not be the smartest people around but we sure are a crafty bunch, & believe me all it takes to make an illegal gun is a machine shop & a reason. Truthfully if we did ban all guns I don't believe it would be that difficult to acquire one here, bullets on the other hand would be a bigger problem.

I agree with you on this one. However you still get the lunatics/ suicidal criminals, who either don't care or dont realise the danger, and will go for a shoot up anyway.

That's very true but these people would commit the crime either way at least with law abiding people owning guns someone could theoretically stop them.

I'd be willing to bet a slim majority of Americans (myself included) have never even handled a firearm,
But there are legitimate reasons for wanting firearms not designed for hunting to be legal,

First; (I only say first because I fully support our constitution) Is the second amendment, states you have a right to bear arms, arms means weapons, a weapon is something used to kill other people not to hunt animals.

Second; criminals will always be able to get guns, crime is what they do so making owning a gun a crime doesn't deter them, It does reduce availability but that doesn't mean people won't get guns. In addition criminals who can't get guns will still use other weapons knives for instance, which I may point out are actually more lethal than guns, (bullets are hot so they cauterize the wound)

Third; criminals are less likely to commit a crime if they believe there is a high risk of injury or death, so people having guns can be seen as a crime deterrent.

And finally; with the exception of handguns most guns are designed for hunting & as anyone who's ever researched the now expired assault weapons ban will tell you the difference between a hunting rifle & a military weapon is mostly cosmetic.

Personally I don't care about your race , sexual orientation, religious/ political views, if & when shit hits the fan , if you & I are shooting in the same direction, well then that's all I need to know.

nutmeg+oregano= possessed serial killer hand.

At 5/13/09 04:09 PM, newsome wrote:

You know, I'm actually surprised that people can get addicted to caffeine. I guess taking so much on a daily basis could get to you. Your body adapts to the caffeine you take, and if you were to cut down on caffeine, it would cause problems.

So by getting over this problem would be cutting out little amounts everyday?

Cut your intake no more than 1/2 every month, otherwise withdrawl symptoms can get pretty bad, oh & you might want to stock up on aspirin (making sure it doesn't have caffeine in it).

You'r best bets are to have it sent to a freinds house or see if you can pick it up at the office,

Unless, do you think your would your parents open someone elses package sent Care Of to you?

At 5/11/09 04:10 PM, zephiran wrote:

At 5/11/09 02:20 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote: If I said something that offended you and you hit me you committed a hate crime.
You in rage and anger hit me thus hate crime.

I don´t think your interpretation of hate crime is entirely correct, I´m not even sure you defined hate correctly to begin with. I´d define the situation you described as a crime committed in a split second decision, an "impulse crime" if you will. Yes, there probably is a better term for it, but I just can´t find it among the vast mess and grey goo that constitutes the linguistic archive portion of my brain.

I believe that LynchedJohNNY's point is that hate crime laws are in a sense hypocritical, they imply that committing a crime for one reason is worse than committing the same crime for a different reason. Or for that matter if you commit a crime out of hate regardless of the reason why you hate the person it is still a "hate" crime. The crude but most succinct way of putting this is "What difference does it make if you torched his house 'cause he called you a queer or because he was queer?" ( I kinda lean this way a bit)

...............Stuff....................

........

I have no idea about your court system either but in the states intent is important in establishing what crime has been committed , we have varying degrees of most severe crimes and limits on what the penalty can be based on what degree the crime is, typically the judge who presides over the case determines the sentence within the range provided or it is determined by a plea bargain , I'm pretty sure most legal systems in the developed world function in a somewhat similar manner, Hate crime laws attach a much more severe penalty to the crime based on the reason one committed the crime. So ya, I believe your understanding is correct.

In short, provided my reasoning isn´t flawed, separate legislation for crimes that fall under the cathegory of hate-fueled offense is unnecessary, since the offender would already receive harsher punishment due to the fact that this person´s intentions were clear - this person intended to harm, possibly even excessively so.

Hope I didn´t commit any gargantuan faults there. I spent roughly an hour typing this, and I thought real hard too! Someone give me an internet!

Nope, no fallacies that I see, you have made a very sound & well thought out argument.

We should cure deafness in my opinion that is if the individual (or their guardian if to young) wants to be cured. Ya I can understand that deaf people have their own subculture & all but deafness IS most definitely a disability, to be unable to hear is a disadvantage to those that can hear, If I hear some one yell "Get out of the way!", I get out of the way, if you couldn't hear warning of impending danger that puts you at a great disadvantage to those that can.

Besides the lose of a subculture really doesn't mean all that much to me considering how many civilizations have been completely wiped out by now, cultures inevitably die off or evolve into a new culture so I really don't care if humanity losses one.

At 5/11/09 03:18 AM, Jon-86 wrote: I'm sorry for the off topicness but do you guys say Quba or Kuba. I say it as Quba but heard you guys in the states say it a Kuba :)

Usually we say it que-ba but either way is good.

We should definitely have relations w/ Cuba they are our neighbor & to be on unfriendly terms with a country so close to us is a very bad situation.

Shotgun+ rail gun + tank

I don't even know how to describe the carnage.

I was just wondering what every ones opinion is on hate crime laws ?

I'm pretty sure everyone knows what hate crime laws are but just in case, Hate crime laws increase the punishment for a crime if the act was motivated by a hatred of a protected group, Groups are typically recognized on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.

At 5/1/09 06:00 AM, KitsuneNoir wrote: I feel so great knowing that a dance that started in my area, is now hated world wide.

The shuffle has ben around since at least the 1920's.
Besides trust me you don't want a dance from your generation ending up becoming a worldwide sensation, my generation still has to live with the shame of the macarena.

At 4/30/09 08:55 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 4/30/09 08:51 PM, Millo90 wrote: 3 The police make to much money off busting people.

That makes no sense. The police lose money and time with all the resources they pour into combating drugs.

It depends on which department, in many major cities the drug task forces have a negative cost on the budget , the are able to do so by siezing any & all property related to drug deals, this includes but is not limited to any monies earned, any vehicles used to transport, any real estate used to grow & of course anything purchased by with the profits from drug dealing, realze that one does not have to be convicted to have there property siezed only be unable to prove that it was not acquired by illegal means, this is a rather fucked up policy as it sifts burden of proof to the owner & not the state.

At 3/23/09 08:14 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Hmm, marihuana not harmfull...

Might depend from person to person, but my GF has been living with someone who did marihuana sometimes and she told me that he became rather unpleasant after smoking his roofies.

Never heard of anyone else becoming really weird after blowing his load.

roofies? If he was doing roofies then he would become weird, roofie = ruhipnol not marijuana, but that being said the only weird things I've noticed from people whom engage in this practice are laughter & sedation, I don't see how those things are all to unpleasant, ya some guy laughing his ass off for no reason can be annoying but not all that bad.

Whoa, did Nixon just just say something positive toward communism?

The biggest disadvantage communism has is a lack of competition, in a communism all businesses & property are owned by the government making for a monopoly controlled by government bureaucrats & thus holds back technological progress.

oh & FYI socialism dictates one is paid an equal amount based on effort or work put in. Though no one knows how to formulate the amount of effort someone has put in Which is another major problem.
All being said though communism has one great advantage & that is , No one starves to death in a communism(ideally).

At 4/22/09 04:31 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote:

true. If it is legal, than there is no way any shop keeper or cashier would sell it to your kids. I am still concerned about bullshit corperations adding chemicals to make it addicting, though. It's already addicting on it's own!

You are aware of the existence of additive free tobacco products right? Sure some companies would add chemicals to there product but many would sell additive & preservative free , in the end it would be up to the consumer whether they get additive free cannabis or cannabis with a shit ton of chemicals added to it.

At 4/22/09 03:10 AM, afuckingname wrote: it should and will stay illegal, i would never want my children to inhale that crap!

So you prefer a system were the people who sell it are in no way obligated not to sell to a minor?

At 4/22/09 08:20 AM, afuckingname wrote:
doesn't do much, we need tougher laws, and to eradicate this plant

How do you intend to eradicate a plant that grows on six continents? And literally is a weed?
Beside what will tougher laws accomplish (unless we have Singapore style laws) all you do is create a higher profit margin for those who sell it every time you bust a dealer. And fill our prisons with nonviolent offenders.

At 4/21/09 11:58 PM, Tancrisism wrote:
The problem is that it being illegal has made it difficult to test, so we don't honestly know for sure whether it causes cancer. Not to mention that many people who have smoked marijuana and gotten lung cancer have also smoked other things, such as tobacco.

True but most studies incorporate tobacco , I was just saying that a link has yet to be established, & your right there isn't enough data to make a statement either way at the moment, I will state that I have looked at a few studies on cannabis effect on lung cancer most indicate a slight or no increase in those who smoke cannabis but not cigarettes while some studies have shown a lower risk (in comparison to the the none smoking anything control group) smokers of cigarettes only always have the highest rate of cancer, while the people who smoke both tend to have much lower rates of cancer than those who smoke cigarettes only but still have a higher risk for cancer than the group that smoked cannabis only.
But at the moment further study is most definitely needed to draw any form of conclusion

But ruling it out completely as not causing cancer seems a bit more hopeful than realistic.

I'm not ruling it out I'm just saying that most of the current data shows little or no correlation between marijuana use & lung cancer, so saying it does cause lung cancer is jumping the gun a bit.

All that being said the second hand smoke argument is kind of (incredibly) stupid, treat it like most areas regard tobacco & you remove that problem.

I do hope you realize that wasn't my argument, or the following one:

People who are worried about paying fro medical care is like wise stupid, How much more medical care does a pot head need?

I was referring to someone else's points awhile ago on this thread, I wasn't referring to any thing you said, you never made such a ridicules argument. (At least that I have seen.)

At 4/21/09 06:18 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 4/21/09 06:13 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: With marijuana, second hand smoke is not much of a problem because it is not cancerous smoke, like cigarettes and (maybe) cigars. You can not get cancer by smoking marijuana.

While I advocate the legalization of marijuana, I find this extremely difficult to believe - most studies seem to have pointed to marijuana smoke containing carcinogens.

All studies have shown marijuana to show carcinogens but you make an illogical assumption there, a carcinogen is a substance that has been shown that it can cause cancer though that does not necessarily mean it will, for example aspartame is a carcinogen but no link has been established between humans consuming aspartame & developing cancer. The same can be said for marijuana, some believe this may be because marijuana could contain chemicals that stop cells from absorbing certain carcinogens or could even have cancer fighting properties, or it could be due to the fact that most people who smoke marijuana don't smoke it often.

All that being said the second hand smoke argument is kind of (incredibly) stupid, treat it like most areas regard tobacco & you remove that problem.

People who are worried about paying fro medical care is like wise stupid, How much more medical care does a pot head need? At most they need $40 more for antibiotics to treat bronchitis every couple of years & usually not even that. And how much money could be collected from them, certainly more than forty bucks a year.

I can't believe this shit!
Taking a DNA sample for being detained you d just be arrested for something, that is so fucking insane what country are we in? Fuck the country I once thought we were is gone or maybe it was never there in the first place.