Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

haha, Clinton truely is a jackass.

Ah, I like how liberals like to follow like sheep on arrogantly believe that radical islam is just as dangerous as mainstream christianity.

*sniff* It really brings a tear to my eye knowing how people can be so stupid.

At 9/25/06 07:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

Why stoop to name calling? How much experience have you had dealing with either type of extremists? How much have you studied scholarly sources, statistics and census data? I've been studying and dealing with them since 1993. I have the practical and academic experience. The fact that you have reduced yourself to name calling indicates the level of ignorance you possess on this topic.

*sigh* you people just can't keep your sentances short can you?
Well, considering the fact that my family has been around the entire globe...

name calling is a lot like spelling. You can have the most horrid grammar and still get your point across.

Do I need to spell it out for you? If you firbomb a 400-600 year structure housing a bunch of nuns or monks you can easily kill more people than a suicide bomber on a bus. The point is my example can be directly correlated and compared to suicide bombing. Wait a second...didn't Eric Rudolf bomb abortion clinics in the name of God?

And how many people did he kill? And isn't he just one man? You seem to forget I said that I already know there are extremist christians. So what are you trying to tell me?

You would be surprised, the number of true extremist believers are about the same.

No, not really. There are quite a bit the numbers aren't the same.

As for reading correctly I read and write on the 12th grade level (the top of the measurable scale) and on the same level as the Harvard Law Review. If there was a misunderstanding it was due to your inability to present a cogent argument through the written word.

I don't care about your writing skill. What you did was add words to my reply to this thread. Then I explained it to you, and apparently you still don't seem to get it. I was writing about how ironic and hypocratical is was for extremists to go on suicide missions against other... muslims.

This thread about how the self proclaimed "non extremists" acted just over a few misinterpreted words. And no, i'm not saying that all muslims are like that, hell I have a friend who's a muslim.

Yeah, I do have something against Christianity overall. I have something against the way they are trying to mandate and legislate their belief structures. Abortion, drinking prohibitions, stem cell/cloning restrictions, creationism as science (as oppossed to teaching it as a philosophy or theology class), and support of a militaristic regime in the ME based on an imagined Judeo-Christian sameness.

A religion is a set of beliefs. And guess what, everyone has them. You insert your beliefs into politics, so how can you not bring your religion which influences you into politics. So basically you're saying that those who disagree with you shouldn't be able to.

Strange isn't it?

So, Timetrials, all I'm trying to do is hold a mirror up to people like you and see how you like have your beliefs misrepresented like you do others.

aww, I have a fan.

Playing devils advocate is rather pointless considering that there are already those on this forum who are against me. But... "So, Timetrials, all I'm trying to do is hold a mirror up to people like you and see how you like have your beliefs misrepresented like you do others." So you really aren't playing devil's advocate at all, just using it to make yourself sound better than you actually are.

At 9/25/06 06:15 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

But if the man had a say, then he'd have rights over the women's body...

ooo I like how people twist words.
Point: Say if the couple were married and the father would happily take the child if the woman didn't want it, what's wrong with the man taking care of it after it's born? I mean, if the woman doesn't want it then wouldn't that option be good for her?

Oh but wait that's right, people like you don't believe in responsibility. How could I forget?

That doesn't seem very free to me either...

Aww, someone going to act like a little bitch?

At 9/25/06 01:06 PM, AMFYOYO wrote:

So you're basically saying that if she didn't want the child and she got pregnant, she would have no right to abort it. Even though they're the ones who do the whole "work" of bieng pregnant, and carrying the baby, and birthing it.

Scientifically the fetus both belongs to the man and woman, half and half. Also it's not like the baby just appears from thin air since it after all, does have to come from somewhere right?

So you're basically denying any right to the man in say of His child as well.

So much for freedom eh?

At 9/25/06 01:11 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Ok, new topic; Bush dosen't support stem cell research on practically bastulas, (not alive) that would save thousands to millions of peoples' lives.

Just for the sake of arguing. You said "would save" so tell me, who has it saved?

At 9/25/06 03:18 AM, TheMason wrote:

bla bla bla

You're just an idiot aren't you. Did I say some "christians" don't do the same? No, altho your example hardly comes close to suicide bombing. Since you're unable to read correctly, I compared today's average Christian to extremist muslims since extremist muslims outnumber the extremist christians.

So instead of making it seem like you're trying to stand up for all muslims (including extremists) as if you have a personal vendetta against christianity overall, why not actually look at the wording you twit.

At 9/24/06 07:09 PM, TheMason wrote:

The thing about your post is you compare mainstream Christianity with radical Islam.

Well no shit. I was stating how ironic it was that radical muslims hate the typical christian to the point where they'll blow themselves up all because they don't like how christians can convert people.

Kind of like that guy on the news a while back converting to christianity, what was the sentence they were thinking on dealing him? Oh right, Death, and they weren't "extremists" either.

Think of it like smoking... Just say NO.

At 9/24/06 10:21 AM, Begoner wrote:

However, the death of some could serve the greater good. Hitler was pure evil, for example. Do I think he deserved to die? No.

Hm, the man responsible for killing millions of people because they weren't part of his "perfect race" doesn't deserve to die... whatever you say.

Would it have benefitted the world if he was killed? Yes, certainly. Would it benefit the world if Israel agreed to international law? Certainly. The same applies to the US.

The US being blown to bits would benefit the world? Ok... whatever you say...

At 9/23/06 10:30 PM, Cajunspirit wrote:

Suicide bombers are seen as great martyrs and if you do some research you'd be appauled at what the US did to abuse them.

Whatever you say pothead.

At 9/23/06 06:39 PM, IndianaJamie wrote:

If a man kills in the act of war or religion its called heroism. If a man kills in an act of passion its called murder.

Well no shit. There's a difference between killing as an "act of passion" and killing suicidal maniacs who also target innocents. It's not like security isn't going to shoot when someone at an airport says he has a bomb and he's going to detonate.

At 9/23/06 04:33 PM, neoptolemus wrote: What you fail to realise is that "al-Queada" doesn't need Bin Laden. If he is dead that wouldnt change the fact that there are tons of really pissed off Muslims wanting to stop Western countries from abusing them.

Ironic that they complain about us abusing them when they're blowing themselves up.

Even tho, we're actually reverting back to the temperatures of the 1300 and 1400. Uh oh.

Conservatives. Because they can afford bigger dicks.

At 9/22/06 07:09 PM, Begoner wrote:

I simply think that the life of one US innocent is worth the same amount as the life of one Palestinian innocent or one Lebanese innocent or one Iraqi innocent.

Haha, apparently you don't.

[Begoner: "1 US life = 1 Terrorists life"] is more correct.

Honestly... I don't know.

I mean, you got people who say they lived millions of years apart, but some things people find in archeology (just some) suggest they "roamed" when humans were at the same time. Which I guess isn't that hard to believe considering we have control over all those giant dangerous animals today.

whatever.

What was that one movie? Day after Tomorrow?

I found it humerous how a tiny piece of ice the size of Rhode Island melts into the ocean causing a giant hail storm in China.

At 9/22/06 05:03 PM, Begoner wrote: Oh, and another thing to note -- doing what she did was legal in Germany at the time. Germany did not submit to international law back then the same way the US does not submit to international law now.

I like how you support innocents in the US getting killed, but not a woman who helped the murder of 6 million people.

I'm going to try and make this simple.

You guys are arguing with Begoner, you know, the rebel teen who thinks it's ok for Terrorists to strap on bombs and specifically target civilians while at the same time believes that all US soldiers should be put on trial because an innocent got caught in the crossfire.

Or as Carlos Mencia would say to a person like that: "DER DER DER"

Anyway, to tell the truth i'm more half and half on the topic... however I don't believe anyone should just get away with whatever they want due to age.

At 9/21/06 06:40 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Also, liberals don't hate America, they just don't trade intelligence for patriotism.

But they sure like to trade realism for fantasy.

Let us put this in a way we can all agree. We have all of the left over hippies teaching kids, whereas those who go into business (and sometimes make a fortune) are generally conservative.

Personally, I'd rather make a good amount of cash, which is why i'm heading into an field that a University offers that matters. Haha, never thought I'd be one of those Republicans who goes off to a university while getting 2 years completely paid for due to my GPA.

And this will accomplish what?

What about those kids who actually... work?

At 9/20/06 10:03 AM, Jizzlebang wrote:

No, look, they should prioritize their own problems, and at the same time help others. Otherwise America will turn into a 3rd world country aswell

Then what's wrong with Iraq and other oppressed nations?

At 9/20/06 07:04 AM, Jizzlebang wrote:

It's not americas job to take care of all the worlds problems before their own.

Then why don't we just stop helping out Africa?

At 9/20/06 08:28 AM, bcdemon wrote:

LOL this is great, radical islamists can play the same game the US gov can, 'video game propaganda'. US military comes out with Americas Army and the jihadis release Night of Bush Capturing.

Lol, even in video games they still resort to things such as kidnapping.

Ironic.

Americans: "Oh please, we have to help the poor people in under developed countries and try to aid them in any way we can" Then "What? So what if Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, we should take care of our problems first".

Interesting.

At 9/20/06 12:45 AM, velocitom wrote:

Give school more credit, in the classroom you learn academics. But what about on the playground? The hallway? Whether you know it or not, you probably developed most of your social skills during school.

So how does that make the South different?
And why is it that people are nicer down here?

I love to argue, even if its over the most petty thing I still argue about it. And I keep most of my smartass arguments online, because as you may know its not the most popular feature that people like in a friend.

Most likely more because you're not face to face with the guy.

Maybe not where you live, but its funny were I am. I believe thats called differing cultures.

I guess we have something in common then.

Damnit, my english teacher would be so ashamed.

People from the north have better schooling. People in the South have better spelling and grammar.

Personally I like the South better. It's cheaper, not so crowded while still having some good shopping and the like while having nicer people.

But that's my opinion.

I like how the Canadians like to shift the blame.

I live in the South, but i'm from Cali.

And even tho just a few people may be "slow" down here, at least they can fucking pronounce properly.

Ex. Washington, not Warshintin.

At 9/18/06 11:21 PM, Togukawa wrote: Yes it is torture. It's covert torture, that doesn't leave any marks, but it's still torture. Of course Bush will write some law to redefine the word torture, but making a person stand op for 40 hours straight is not acceptable.

Well, considering it was just a while ago when mainly the Dems were deciding what is and what isn't torture...

But tell me, is grabbing someone by the collar during an interoggation, torture?

No matter what these people are suspected of, they are still innocent until proven otherwise.

Ok, lets save that for those who didn't try to shoot their way thru US (and others) troops or aren't head honchos for Al Quida.

At 9/18/06 11:02 PM, extremegamer2491 wrote: Bush approves torture.

What a very misleading way you put your link. Considering how different that type of "torture" is, even if you would consider it torture.