Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/12/04 03:06 AM, Spookshow wrote: I forgot to add... the whole "Anti-movie and anti-gaming part"... would NG even exist?

Newgrounds existed long before the 2000 election, Also, I have not heard much of this, tell me more about it.

I understand his point, but it is a bit exxagerated.
Chris Reeve would probably not have been able to walk again, but he may have is there had only been funding to the research of stem cells.

At 10/12/04 07:04 PM, Z17 wrote: Ya know what little research with stell cells that has been done

I can see YOU have not done any research before making this post... they are called "STEM CELLS" not "STELL CELLS".

has given us absolutely nothing. We don't even know if it's worth it to do the research.

Yes but we will after we try, with the chances of it working this high, it should definately be worth at least funding to research it.

~Z~

~Will

At 10/12/04 08:09 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Im curious, when was homosexuality considered a disease? The 70's?

I beileve it is considered a mental/sexual disease in which you have a disorder where you are forced to fall in love with a person the same sex (gender) as you. correct me if im wrong.
~Will

P.S: i cannot help myself: ITS THE SEVENTIES! TIME TO GO BACK TO THE FUTURE GUYS!

I am not gay, but i know qute a few 'queers', most of which have said before that they would love to be able to happily be married to a woman, and to be straight, the rest havnt said anything.
~Will

it depends on the author, if illwillpress or knox submitted it, chances are it would passwith a good score and possibly win an award. However, if an artist like T0MMY submitted it, it would pass, not neccassarily with a good score however. if artists like strawberry clock (cooboyman), or piconjo submitted it, then it would be treated as a normal submission.

At this time i find it approopriate to point out that legendary frog has had a submisssion blammed before.

oh I forgot to post the link to our site, it will improve soon:
www.krosork.tk

First off, Krosork is a flash team among other things that i am the hread of along with Jason. Because of some recent staff chasnges, we need more staff members.
If you currently do not belong to a flash group, post a link to a document of what you are best at (animation, artwork, comics, site design). Jason, Xeno, and I (the current staff members) will judge your work and tell you if you are good enough to get in.
I hope to see some good work,
~Will

At 10/10/04 11:29 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 10/10/04 09:07 AM, -Anthony- wrote: *Throws up* Please never say that again.

Vote John Ashcroft/Jerry Falwell in '04.

well, you got half of the future right:
Vote John Ashcroft/Nader in '04.

At 10/10/04 12:46 PM, -Gooie- wrote:

At 10/10/04 09:49 AM, red_skunk wrote: ahahahaa. This thread gets better with age, like a fine cheese.

OMG! SKUNK IS FRENCH! KILL ZE SKUNK!!!

The only things that get better with age are video games, women ( a lot of time), and wine.

Not to mention the evolution of the human race in general, but i guess we can leave that out. women, wine, and video games are always more important than the general eveolution of our species and many others, right?

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 10/10/04 11:51 AM, Hermannator wrote: Well, in order to win the elections, you need to bust the other candidate's balls on like EVERYTHING. Still, there's a chance that John Kerry noticed the stupidity of the war after voting and change his mind about going to the war on Iraq. Even if he still believes that the Iraq war is a good thing, he needs to use rhetoric in order to make the president look bad to win votes.

But that's the thing, though. Did you watch the first debate?

mmmmmuyesh...

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: It was mostly Kerry droning on about how Bush didn't have a plan, and he's going to do more than Bush did in Iraq.

He didnt say he was going to do more; he said he was going to do his best to finish it. get your facts straightened up before posting.

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: It's not that Kerry is for the war but campaigning against it--he's for the war and and supports the proliferation of it--more troops, more funding.

I dont recall him [Kerry] ever saying that he would want more troops, other than that you raise a good point.

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: What I don't get, however, is why would all the people who were against the war in Iraq vote for someone who not only voted for the war, but wants to send in even more troops and money than Bush has?

Kerry originally voted for the war most likely because he was told by the president of the united states that thhere were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and a good chance of nuclear warfare.
furthermore, Bush will need more troops and probbly more funding if Kerry will, their plans for Iraq seem kind of similiar.

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Besides, if we have to bust John Kerry's balls for voting for the war, then we should do the same for every senator who voted.

Well, shouldn't we be doing that, rather than applying a double standard?

a 'double standard'?
explain, as i have no clue waht you mean by this.

At 10/10/04 12:32 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

But like I said, rhetorics is need to win elections and that's why Bush and conservatives are only concentrating on criticizing Kerry.

That's also why Kerry and liberals are only concentrating on criticizing Bush.

exactly, and thats why noones realyl focusing on Nader, I beileve that was his point.
~Will

At 10/10/04 12:36 PM, Rainbow_Warrior wrote: Politics seems to be the only safe haven.
I believe it is a combination of the average IQ here, and the mods being really good about keeping things in check.

I know this may be off topic, but i see your point, this is the only section of the forum that most n00bs/people of lower intellegence are afraid to go to, as they do not want to find themselves flamed/banned, also, i know what you mean, the moderators of this forum are very good at what they do.
~Will

At 9/20/04 07:41 PM, BeQuanze wrote: This is actually a serious question, as after all, he was from israel, where arabs and jews alike are very dark skinned.

Very good, you supported your reasoning so far with sensible facts, A+.

At 9/20/04 07:41 PM, BeQuanze wrote: And the bible describes him as having "hair like wool", AKA, a nappy fro.

I highly doubt the afro was invented back then, so i am starting not to beileve your arguement.

At 9/20/04 07:41 PM, BeQuanze wrote:

:Considering that jesus and christianity has been used as a tool for opressing so many groups, blacks among them, wouldin't it be ironic if jesus himslf was a brother?

yes, yes it would, other than the part where you mentioned the possibility of Jesus having a `fro, this makes for a very good topic for a discussion, good job, you managed to keep your A+.
~Will

Also, for my personal beilef, I think Jesus was white, but thats just because of the multiple illustrations of him, but your arguement proves a point, i admit there is a very high chance that i may be wrong and Jesus may be a "brother" as you put it.

At 10/3/04 03:36 PM, huskyfever03 wrote: if kerry gets elected he will do nothing to help this country...

why do you think this?
give me some proof and i may beileve you.

At 10/3/04 03:36 PM, huskyfever03 wrote: he wouldnt answer any of the questions directed towards him in the 1st debate

did he not now?
thats funny, i thought i heard him answer quite a few questions, hmm... it makes one wonder if you are just saying that as to appease your own biased opinion?

At 10/3/04 03:36 PM, huskyfever03 wrote: and he will flip flop his plans once he gets in.....

Once again, give me some good, solid, proof of this other than the "OMG HE VOTED FOR IRAQ WER AND NOW HE NOT 3 IT AT ALL11!!1!!11" stereotype answer, and I may beileve you, or at least become a bit less biased.

At 10/3/04 03:36 PM, huskyfever03 wrote:

:BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004!!!

I shall end my rant like you ended yours:
KERRY/EDWARDS IN 2004!!!
~Will

At 10/10/04 12:22 PM, Original_dancer_girl wrote: Is abortion right?

in some situations, yes, but certainly not in most.

At 10/10/04 12:22 PM, Original_dancer_girl wrote: I dont think so

why?

At 10/10/04 12:22 PM, Original_dancer_girl wrote: even if you are a teenager, stupid enough not to use contraception!

i have NO idea what you meant by this, probably because i am not familiar with the word 'contraception', please tell me what it means.

At 10/10/04 12:22 PM, Original_dancer_girl wrote: I think it is murder.

Once again, Why?
you do not back up your statements with reasons why, that is the main reason why i write rants like this.
~Will

P.S: To form a post of my own and break off of my normal 'rant' post, i do beileve abortion is right, but i am not well informed on the matter, and i am not biased about it yet, if someone gives me GOOD reasons why it is wrong other than the stereotype "OMG A HUMAN IS A HUM,AN, EVEN WHEN IT DOES NOT HAVE FULLY DECVLEPEOPED BODY ET!1!!!111" post, than i may convert my beilefs about abortion.

At 10/10/04 12:21 PM, Z17 wrote: Big fat jolly guy. Played Barf in Spaceballs.

~Z~

its times like this i wish i had seen space balls <='(
~Will

At 10/10/04 12:19 PM, Hermannator wrote: Stop talking about blood! It makes me oh nauscious or something! *Turns pale and faints*

Well, veins are blue, so it must have blue blood. It's deoxygenated and is going back to the heart.

thats exactly what i was told, my memory is just a little fuzzy as i do not like the human body all that much, nor do i like to talk anbout it.

At 10/10/04 12:15 PM, Soul_Specter wrote:

At 10/10/04 12:05 PM, Will124 wrote:

i honestly wish more conservatives checked their own facts, like you do, soul specter, you are a prime example for other conserbvatives to follow, i have no commentary, everything you said was true.
~Will

thank you, i never thought anyone would acually say that to me. but i do opologize on what i said on the other thread that you started, im not sure i offended anyone or not.

there is no need to apologize, with the exception of the "democrats are closer to nazis" thread, noone in the politics forum has offended me in any way.
also, your welcome for saying that, its not that im so biased that i dont agree with every republican and i agree with every democrat, i have often wanted to write one of thos erants about a few posts i have seen from fellow liberals. Just usually people dont support/check their facts, however, in most of the posts ive seen you make, you have.
~Will

dammit Hermannator, you beat me to it.
i basically was going to say nearly exactly what Hermannator said, so i guess he saved me some time from writing another exceedingly long post.
~Will

At 10/10/04 12:12 PM, Z17 wrote:

At 10/10/04 11:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Check out Canadian Bacon too, which is also by Moore. It's not a documentary, but still it's gives a funny look on the US. And John Candy is in it, and he's cool and fat.

That's acctually the movie set that John Candy died on.

~Z~

Refresh my memory please, who was John Candy again?

At 10/7/04 07:51 PM, LightningRider wrote: Call me homophobic

ok, you homophobe, you.

At 10/7/04 07:51 PM, LightningRider wrote: but I think people should keep to themselves.

ok... so basically your saying if you have the mental disease otherwise known as being 'gay' you shouldnt be aloud to go outside? odd, i thought this was a free country.

At 10/7/04 07:51 PM, LightningRider wrote: I'm not saying gay people are all bad,

sure seems like your trying to say that to me.

At 10/7/04 07:51 PM, LightningRider wrote: , they can be great people,

yes, that must be why you said the should isolate themselves. good use of NOT being a 'flip-flopper'
/sarcasm

At 10/7/04 07:51 PM, LightningRider wrote: except for the fact that the are gay, and I think that's wrong

its not thier choice to be gay, thats like saying "WELL YOU CHOSE TO BE BLACK!" or "WELL YOU CHOSE TO BE A WOMAN!", so in short, I still have no idea WHY you think thats wrong, you didnt give very many reasons why people should think this way, and how you are not being predgidist towards a specific group of people, which is against the rules i may add.
~Will

At 10/10/04 11:57 AM, Soul_Specter wrote:

At 10/10/04 11:39 AM, Hermannator wrote:

It's quite the dark sense of humor you used. It's like saying that it won't be surprising if Bush was shot because a good deal of people disagree with him. Just like how a good deal of people disagree with Michael Moore.

yeah, i know. i dont like the guy, but i wouldnt got that far.

I know what you mean, i dont go around saying things like "dick cheney should die!1" even though i dont like him, he still deserves to live and everything.
~Will

At 10/10/04 12:02 PM, Soul_Specter wrote: really it depends on who you are.
some say it was just for oil, which i dont doubt. but i think it was for that, the suspection of saddam having WMD, and that he may have connections to Al quida. of course due to falty intellegence, saddam didnt have WMDs and he didnt have a connection, but saddam was looking into WMDs and would pay people to be suicide soldiers. the less people there are like saddam, the safer the world, but our real focus is bin laden of course.

i honestly wish more conservatives checked their own facts, like you do, soul specter, you are a prime example for other conserbvatives to follow, i have no commentary, everything you said was true.
~Will

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: Sadam was a potential threat and a MASS MURDERER.

No question on that, thats obvious.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: I don't know about you but when I last checked, he despised america, seeked out for weapons,

yes, however, he could not get his hands on any important or strong weaponry, thats why the UN inspectors did not find anything.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: tried to get rid of UN sanctions.....I wonder why he tried to get rid of those? Maybe it would be so he could START HIS WEAPONS PROGRAMS AGAIN.

he didnt try to get rid of UN sanctions in recent years, you are obviously not checking your facts or thinking much before you speak.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: Plus you can't just wait for someone to attack you to attack back.

what makes someone a terrorist is when they attack you, so technically, to the iraqis, america is just one big terrorist bully.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: This is a war on TERROR. Sadam was a TERRORIST.

yes, saddam was a terrorist, but i seriously dont consider this a war on terrorism, thats just a label they give it. Think about it, we attacked someone who didnt do anything to us without the UN`s approval.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: Just because he doesn't attack america doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist.

your right, but if he doesnt attack america, or do anything major to countries other than his own, he is not a terrorist that is considered a threat. he shouldnt be anyway.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: I just hate it when good americans get filled with Liberal propaganda.

Yea, i hate it when good people watch this 'Fox News' that you 'republicans' like so much. its like a bigger version of micheal moore, only it lis alot more and people get fired if they say anything positive about liberals, or if they support liberals in any way.

At 10/9/04 11:53 PM, Archdukechocula wrote: *BUSH04*

fine, i shall end this your way:
*KERRY04*
~Will'

P.S: Next time, think before you speak. it makes you sound more intellegent, also not just getting your facts from fox news and presidential speeches may jhelp a bit.

blood is blue, when it fuses with oxygen however it becomes red. thats when you see your veins through your skin, but your skin is not ripped open, they appear green or blue. However, some blood in the body is red, i beileve near the lungs it is a dark red, as someone else pointed out. Correct me if im wrong however.
~Will

At 10/10/04 11:36 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 10/10/04 11:25 AM, red_skunk wrote: So said John Kerry.

Indeed. He was also for the war in Iraq

he was for the war in Iraq because Bush told us saddam had the powers to make nuclear weaponry, and weapons of mass destruction.

At 10/10/04 11:36 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

:shifted against it when Dean was doing so well against it

thats because they started to realize there were no weapons with the capability of causing mass destruction, and no chance of bio-chemical warfare with Iraq.

At 10/10/04 11:36 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

:shifted back for it when Dean gave his little AAAAAAGGGAHHH!!11 schpiel,

oh, i wasnt aware he "flip-flopped" more than once, it makes one wonder if you are exxaggerating a bit to show your 'point'.....?

At 10/10/04 11:36 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: and now calls the President for doing everything wrong yet

he hasnt said Bush has done everything wrong, just most things that involve foreign policy, homeland security, and certain domestic issues.

At 10/10/04 11:36 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: yet wants to do what Bush has been doing, except to an even greater magnitude.

yes, he wants to leave instead of thousands of children behind education-wise, MILLIONS! Also, he wants top not only cut from social security, but close thr program altogether!
/sarcasm
whats that you say? you meant the war in iraq..? well then, be more specific and less vague young man.

At 10/10/04 11:36 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Not to mention that whole "I did vote for the Iraq war before I voted against it" thing.

yes, once again, he voted for it originally because we were told that Iraq had weapons with the capability to start nuclear warfare, and that saddam had 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Also, i would like to see your take on Iraq, not an exxagerated take on'OMG KERRY R FLIP FLOPPAH !111111!11!111"'.
~Will

At 10/10/04 11:25 AM, red_skunk wrote: So said John Kerry.

so said john kerry what? what post were you replying to?
please dont make posts as vague as that, i consider it spam.
~Will

At 10/10/04 11:29 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Check out Canadian Bacon too, which is also by Moore. It's not a documentary, but still it's gives a funny look on the US. And John Candy is in it, and he's cool and fat.

ive never heard of that one, thanks for suggesting it to me.

stevenherman,
because i do not want to go on yet another two post long rant in the same thread {see page one}, I have decided to do this in letter form, instead of dissecting and analyzing your post, and flaming you at each weakpoint. Now, you claim in your last post in this thread, that this thread was started as a rebuttle to a flash movie in which Bush is holding a swachtika. I simply want to put it this way, and then i will explain my reasoning: COMEDY FLASH MOVIES EXXAGERATE THE TRUTH ALL THE TIME. For example i have never seen a thread started as a rebuttle against arfenhouse, because they broke the laws of physics in their odd, yet funny parody. I have never seen a thread started simply because a political cartoon, such as those by jibJab, has offended someone in any way. If you wish to get pissed about some 1 second long thing such as bush holding a swashtika, then contact the author in hopes of a flame war. dont bother US with this senseless propoganda, chances are very low that the author of that movie even will go to this thread and change that, tjhats why you should contact him directly. I have seen quite a few political things in cartoons like that, like Kerry beoing compared to frankenstein or an insane child fucker (molester, but the words in the movie were 'fucker'). You may notice i have never started a rebuttle thread, or even post for tha matter, about these things. Its called common sense and a sense of jhumor, get some.
sincerely,
Will

Saddam was and still is an evil, evil man, and he needed to get overthrown, there is no question about that. However, our focus should have been Osama Bin Laden, but no, we had to send our troops after some guy who didnt have anything to do with 911,. and we ignored the real threat. people say it was for oil, this is probably true, i also think that Bush wanted to get the publicity, respect, and sympathy that the USA has gotten all the other times we have gone to war (with the exception of Vietnam), however, the war in Iraq has made us one of the most hated countries in the world, like it or not.

In short, this war was at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

At 10/9/04 08:50 PM, CoachDante wrote: I loved Fahrenheit 9/11, I already have Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine, and my dad gave me The Big One today, it's great!

yea, i wanna see the other documenterys by micheal moore, farenheight 9/11 was great.
~Will