Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/29/06 10:36 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/29/06 09:25 PM, Elfer wrote:

Also, Quanze, nice try blaming it on masturbation, but I don't have a forty pound metal cock.

No but you want one

Quite astute, Dr. Freud.

JoS, even though America is just as guilty of state sponsored terrorism as Iran is, We need to look out for our national interests. The current Iranian government is a declared enemy of America and America's only real ally in the middle east, Israel. Iran has shown itself to be willing to commit suicidal acts of agression against western powers. So, although we may not have the moral highground in this situation, America has a reason to deny Iran nuclear power from the standpoint of pure survival -- there is a signifigant chance that Iran would nuke us despite the threat of massive United States nuclear retaliation, so in a way, denying Iran nuclar power would save millions of lives, both American and Iranian.

At 1/29/06 05:46 PM, Elfer wrote: Bah, I wish I had some weights that didn't have such shitty handles on them, my hands are starting to get mad blisters on them.

Nice story, but we all know where those blisters are from... *downloads more porn*

At 1/28/06 07:35 PM, furball1 wrote:

At 1/28/06 04:10 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 1/27/06 08:03 PM, furball1 wrote:

I've had it up to my eyeballs arguing about WMD, but here it goes again.

the reason why? saddam WAS connected to osama bin laden, saddam MOST LIKELY HAD WMDS, imn not saying we know for sure but there is strong evidence about the WMDS being posses by saddam

Thats an outright lie. I'm so tired of people repeating the same bullshit about Saddam and Osama over and over again. Just because you put it in capitol letters doesn't make it true my friend. Osama and Saddam never hd any ties at all, in fact, we supported Saddam for as long as we did because he acted as a stabalizing force in the region against Islamic extremism, opposing countries such as Iran etc.

we were only friends with saddam and osama to help them defeat the russians, if the russians gained control of the middle east it would be hell for the united states
another thing is this http://www.newsmax.c../27/11207.shtml?s=ic

Wait a moment, I though that Sadddam and Osama were Russain boys. Isn't that what you said? Your'e contradicting yourself. Give up now. And please don't cite newsmax.com as a 'source,' because it isn't. Their fact checking is worse than Michael Moore's -- I dobut that two thirds of the stuff on that site has any truth at all in it.

first reason:

1) saddam already had chemical and biological weapons, the most famous use is from when he gassed the kurds more than a decade ago, the chances are he wouldnt go say "Oh i gassed the kurds and stuff im just gonna go throw these weapons away *goes to trash can* done HEY UN I DONT GOT NOES WEAPONS!!!"
UN: SADDAM WE LUVS YOU AND TRUST YOUZ!!!

Note, more than a decade ago. In fact about 20 years ago now, back in the mid-eighties. And of course, the United States must have been up in arms to stop him from commiting these atrocities. Wait a second, the mid-eighties? DIdn't John Ashcroft present Saddam Hussien with the keys to the city of Detroit in 1986? Gee, that doesn't sound like a way to deal with mass murderers. Saddam was just a CIA tool, we used him in the 80's and we threw him away now. We have absolutely no moral high ground in this situation.

wait using our enemies to do stuff for us that we would have trouble doing without him? thats just like saying that just because we didnt do something back then doesnt mean we shouldnt have done it now

What I was saying was that he posed absolutely no threat the the United States now, and when he actually was commitng acts of genocide, we were showering him with praise and honor.

this is very impropable, and before all of you democrats flood in and say "well how he get wmds?" the answer is the russians. They sold alot of weapons after the cold war for very cheap about 2000 for a nuke, this guy was rich, he could have afforded it, so could have terrorists and everyone who hated the united states with some money.

Very sorry, you are incorrect. The correct answer was America. Yes, America. In the 80's we sold both Iraq and Iran chemicla and biological weapons, as well as SCUD misciles and other weapons. It was us, not the Russians. The Middle Eastern Soviet Bloc consisted of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. Iraq and Iran were American influenced.

source? evidence? proof? nothing?
i think you just made that up

I didn't, and I will get a source for you tommorow. At the moment I'm too tired.

2) why wouldnt he? why wouldnt he want WMDs? no one ever answers that... he wanted to be the ruler of the world really, he just never tried doing that because he knew his people would not fight for him, his army sucked, he had few allies, and it was pretty much impossible. But lets say he got into a war with someone. how bout he just nuke a city? or two? or three?

What is this bullshit? I can't even understand what you're saying. Saddam did have WMD's in the 80's and 90's when the CIA sold them to him. They were destroyed after the First Gulf War.

thats my point he had them, BUT WE DONT KNOW IF HE DESTROYED THEM there is no evidence of that ever happening, and he didnt have a reason to

We don't know that France isn't planning to genetically engineer a clone army and take over the world. Should we invade them too?

If he had them, he would have used them on us when we invaded. Or on Israel. Or on Iran. He didn't have them in 2003 or 2002 or whenever we invaded him.

3) WMDs, just because they havent been found doesnt mean they dont exsist, this scenario is really like someone across the street says he has a car, but he does a crime and has to abandon his car soemone because they have the license plate number, the wmds could be anywhere, in a cave, in another country, anywhere

We have perhaps the largest, best trained, and most expensively equiped army in the world. I personally, trust the compitence of the US military to the degree that, if we have been in the country for three years and we can't find any WMD, there aren't any.

they could be anywhere, maybe they werent hidden before iraq but when we came they hid them.
its like if a cop comes to your house and says you have a gun and you know you do you would hide it in the least noticable place. and there are tools that could detect WMDs such as radioation detectors but those are too expensive and we have spent alot more on the iraq war than we should have

We have been comging the desert with radiation detectors, and satelite imaging, etc etc etc. We are using the most advanced and cutting edge technology. We have thousands of soldiers searching. We havn't found shit. So unless Saddam Hussein suddenly has acess to some sort of highly futuristic super-secret underground bunker complex hidden where not even the most advanced military in the world can find it, there are no WMD's.

At 1/28/06 05:43 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/28/06 05:30 PM, Quanze13 wrote: Haha. Nobody ever said they didn't. Its just that the correct way to deal with it isn't to build the Berlin Wall v. 2.0 along our 3000 miles of Mexican border.

Agreed, for once.

With the freedom of speach thread that makes twice. Hand-wringing liberal pussies and hard-ass conservative fascists coming together. Ain't it grand?

At 1/29/06 12:28 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 1/29/06 12:19 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I finally got around to making another YTMND, this one based off of my thread about SimCity over in General.

http://secretnazisimcity.ytmnd.com/

Your deathcamp layout accuracy is scary.

Unbeknownest to us, IP is actually eichmann in disguise.

<_<
>_>

At 1/28/06 04:42 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: We pretty much have as much free speech as we need. If there were one thing in the United States that needs virtually no fixing, it is the freedom of speech.

Wow, I actually agree with you.

Interesting article. I've never really been one for the whole '9/11 was a setup' conspiracy theory stuff.

At 1/28/06 04:13 PM, Masterful-Swordplay wrote: It seems to me that a lot of Rap haters are ''in-the-closet'' racists. That's a lot of racists. Discuss.

Thats the dumbst pile of crap i've heard in my entire life. Does that mean that people who don't like kletzmer music are in the closet anti-semites? People who aren't polka fans hate poles? Stupid premise. Thanks for shopping at the newgrounds BBS.

At 1/28/06 05:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/28/06 05:05 PM, Proteas wrote: Still think that illegal immigration is a problem? ;-)

*isn't. Dammit!!!

Haha. Nobody ever said they didn't. Its just that the correct way to deal with it isn't to build the Berlin Wall v. 2.0 along our 3000 miles of Mexican border.

At 1/28/06 04:30 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

Truly sad... for him, as for me, nothing you do or say can bring me down right now, I'm the happiest camper around >:D why? I GOT ME SOME TIX!!! And the concert's gonna be held in a theatres mega-close to my crib, and it's less than a month away, I can't wait >.<

Aww, how cute. Isn't death metal so heartwarming?

At 1/27/06 08:03 PM, furball1 wrote:

I've had it up to my eyeballs arguing about WMD, but here it goes again.

the reason why? saddam WAS connected to osama bin laden, saddam MOST LIKELY HAD WMDS, imn not saying we know for sure but there is strong evidence about the WMDS being posses by saddam

Thats an outright lie. I'm so tired of people repeating the same bullshit about Saddam and Osama over and over again. Just because you put it in capitol letters doesn't make it true my friend. Osama and Saddam never hd any ties at all, in fact, we supported Saddam for as long as we did because he acted as a stabalizing force in the region against Islamic extremism, opposing countries such as Iran etc.

first reason:

1) saddam already had chemical and biological weapons, the most famous use is from when he gassed the kurds more than a decade ago, the chances are he wouldnt go say "Oh i gassed the kurds and stuff im just gonna go throw these weapons away *goes to trash can* done HEY UN I DONT GOT NOES WEAPONS!!!"
UN: SADDAM WE LUVS YOU AND TRUST YOUZ!!!

Note, more than a decade ago. In fact about 20 years ago now, back in the mid-eighties. And of course, the United States must have been up in arms to stop him from commiting these atrocities. Wait a second, the mid-eighties? DIdn't John Ashcroft present Saddam Hussien with the keys to the city of Detroit in 1986? Gee, that doesn't sound like a way to deal with mass murderers. Saddam was just a CIA tool, we used him in the 80's and we threw him away now. We have absolutely no moral high ground in this situation.

this is very impropable, and before all of you democrats flood in and say "well how he get wmds?" the answer is the russians. They sold alot of weapons after the cold war for very cheap about 2000 for a nuke, this guy was rich, he could have afforded it, so could have terrorists and everyone who hated the united states with some money.

Very sorry, you are incorrect. The correct answer was America. Yes, America. In the 80's we sold both Iraq and Iran chemicla and biological weapons, as well as SCUD misciles and other weapons. It was us, not the Russians. The Middle Eastern Soviet Bloc consisted of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. Iraq and Iran were American influenced.

2) why wouldnt he? why wouldnt he want WMDs? no one ever answers that... he wanted to be the ruler of the world really, he just never tried doing that because he knew his people would not fight for him, his army sucked, he had few allies, and it was pretty much impossible. But lets say he got into a war with someone. how bout he just nuke a city? or two? or three?

What is this bullshit? I can't even understand what you're saying. Saddam did have WMD's in the 80's and 90's when the CIA sold them to him. They were destroyed after the First Gulf War. If he had them, he would have used them on us when we invaded. Or on Israel. Or on Iran. He didn't have them in 2003 or 2002 or whenever we invaded him.

3) WMDs, just because they havent been found doesnt mean they dont exsist, this scenario is really like someone across the street says he has a car, but he does a crime and has to abandon his car soemone because they have the license plate number, the wmds could be anywhere, in a cave, in another country, anywhere

We have perhaps the largest, best trained, and most expensively equiped army in the world. I personally, trust the compitence of the US military to the degree that, if we have been in the country for three years and we can't find any WMD, there aren't any.

good lord, I'm so addicted to AdventureQuest I tried it out about a week ago, and i might even shell out the cash to get supporter status. Its incredibly addictive, and its why i've been eschewing the forums lately. Try it, although since the server is capped out most of the day, you should stay logged on at all times after your 24 hour free loggon pass expres, since its nearly impossible to log on otherwise.

At 1/24/06 05:51 PM, 1WingedDragon wrote:

At 1/24/06 05:45 PM, Quanze13 wrote: THere is absolutely no legitimate reason to buy a 50. cal rifle.

I can name a few.

please do, praytell. The only ones I can think of involve shooting through steel plating at 2000 yards.

At 1/24/06 05:43 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

At 1/24/06 05:30 PM, -poxpower- wrote:
which one would YOU pick?

The smiling one.

I think that was a rhetorical question.

At 1/24/06 05:34 PM, The_Tank wrote: Facts :

Fifty Caliber rifles are not the weapon of choice of the criminal. The fifty-caliber rifle is too large and heavy to be employed in normal criminal behavior, and accessibility to ammo is difficult because of its high expense and the availability through retail sales outlets is limited.
The decision to purchase a fifty caliber should be given careful consideration. Fifty caliber rifles are expensive and range in price from $2500.00 to more than $7000.00. The sport of competitive shooting also carries with it a commitment of significant financial obligation with all the ancillary support equipment that is necessary

If your hoping to prevent gun violance, your targetting the wrong gun asshole.

50. cal's may not be the ideal weapon for a criminal, but nor are they the ideal weapon for a hunter, nor for somebody wanting to protect their home. This is a MILITARY WEAPON. It is meant for a WAR ZONE. The fact that it isn't able to be used easily in crimes doesn't make it right to sell it to civies. Its hard to use a STINGER launcher in a crime, but we don't sell those either. THere is absolutely no legitimate reason to buy a 50. cal rifle.

At 1/24/06 04:53 PM, mackid wrote:

At 1/24/06 01:58 PM, BeFell wrote: Actually Freud did indeed mean in "that way." Don't you know that every young boy wants to sex his mother and kill his father?

Yeah, he was a big proponent of "everyone is oedipal..." but he was a cocaine addict, so we can pretty much ingnore him.

I'm so sorry, but you're a moron. Freud was one of the greatest geniuses in modern psychological thinking, and the fact that you, without even having read his work, call him a cokehead and say to ignore him is pretty rediculous. The man was several orders of magnitude smarter than any of us on these forums, so I'd best stop running my mouth if i were you.

At 1/24/06 05:08 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 1/23/06 08:20 PM, mackid wrote:

At 1/23/06 02:14 PM, Imperator wrote: The only thing I've discovered from this debate is that ignorance breeds hate......

Yes, the Palestinians do express hatred.

You are a fucking tard, bro. A complete fuckin tard.

Yeah, and this topic is a compelte pissing contest. Who can hate eachother more and spew more bullshit.

WINNER: Deadlocked. Both sides are filled with complete tard ass retards (yes, tard ass retartds). But so far the Palestinian side is winning. The people arguing for Israel seem totally igonorant to me so far. Israel has no legitimate historical rights to that land. They just got it because of war, as has happened for thousands of years. As a result, I dont care. Its the way things are. But there is nothing worse than a self righteous Jew who doesnt know shit about the history of Israel, or, if they do, totally ignore the bullshit that happned that was pro Zionism.

The whole area of 'Palestine' was a British colony. The British administered to it and they had complete soverignty over it. After World War II, they decided to give it to the jews as their own state. It was completely Britain's decision, and the Jews have perfect right to that land. Its just that palestinians and terrorist-lovers keep bitching and moaining about the fact that the Jews have a state because they are all a pack of flaming anti-semites who want to see every last jew on earth killed. Maybe if they tried to live in one of the other fuckin' two dozen arab states and start a new life, rather than just blowing themselves up and mindlessly killing civilians, they would actually have good living conditions rather than living in the shithole slums they do now because all they do is try to kill jews.

At 1/24/06 01:17 PM, -Michael- wrote:

At 1/24/06 12:26 PM, TheShrike wrote: Skunky-poo...

Did you ever get your mail?

Hey Shrikey-poo,did you ever get my envelope in the mail? Or maybe the post office in your town confiscated it?

Yeah, bakshi, i was going to remind you, next time, don't send Shrike heroin and C4 in the mail. Postmasters usually don't take kindly to those kinds of shenanigans.

At 1/24/06 05:17 PM, The_Tank wrote:

At 1/24/06 04:57 PM, mackid wrote:

At 1/24/06 03:46 PM, The_Tank wrote: Outlaw and confiscate all guns.

A person with hitler's ideology is not going to emerge in the United States. It could not happen. We've got too many preventive methods-education, checks and balances and the like. Why else do you think that there are three branches of government?!?

Who said anything about his Ideology, I'm talking about his methods.

Hitler also revitalized Germany's economy. Does that mean that if you revitalize a nation's flagging economy you are a facist bastard?

As much as I like and respect the man, John McCain is stuck in the Cold War. I mean, the man is neurosing about the fact that are commies in South America. BIG FUCKIN DEAL! Maybe a senator with his clout should focus on more important domestic issues. Or terrorism. Its 2006, not 1979.

At 1/24/06 03:26 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 1/24/06 12:40 PM, mackid wrote:
It's historical fact that many Arabs are anti-semites. But the belief that Jews hate most things that aren't Jewish is just stupid. Where's your basis?

Wait, its a historical fact that we all lived in dung huts and slayed wooly mammoths. Doesn't mean its relevant to today

Furthermore, maybe you'd like to explain the rise of Zionism within the Jewish community. Its very difficult not to see it as the Jews attacking the Arab homes.

I also ask what's YOUR basis - you claim it is a 'historical fact' - maybe you'd like to give us a source to prove 'most' Arabs hate Jews more than any other race.

Zionism is a jewish desire to have a homeland that we can call our own, rather than being exiles in other people's nations. The Arabs have Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, and countless other countries, and so do the christains, buhdists, and pegans. Jews need a homeland just like anybody else so we won't be perseuted. And when these palistinians try to take it away from us, we work harder to keep it. THats is the explanation for Zionism, it is the arabs trying to take our homes from us, not visa versa.

At 1/22/06 09:27 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: Your either really deep thinking, or you have been smoking to much hash but i get your point.

That humans are only a part of a larger species.

But then again, i don't believe in that because my faith in God surpasses everything else.

what if god is some sort of higher, multi-dimentional organism that lives on a higher plane of existance than we do, and we are simply cells in His body, able to exist in only a cross-section of His form in these 3 dimensions completely unaware that we are all part of Him?

At 1/21/06 01:45 AM, Mighty_Genghis wrote:

At 1/20/06 09:51 PM, mackid wrote: Many/Most Arabs=Anti-Semites

A tad bit of a racist thing to say no? But in any case Many/Most Jews = Anti-anything that isn't Jewish. It is natural for one to prefer people who are similar to oneself over others.

how many jews do you know? Like on a personal level? We don't hate anything that isn't jewish. Thats a foolisth thing to say.

becase they have shifty eyes and kill babies.

But seriously, because they are the fastest rising economic power in the world and are looking like pretty soon they're oging ot be replacing the United States as Super Power Number One.

At 1/23/06 11:12 PM, AreYouSure wrote:

Quanze:

So because the US military is so powerful, we should disarm ourselves and place all REAL power intot the hands of the people controlling the military?

And why's it always gotta be a slippery slope with some people? A sperm is not entitled to live a full 78.6 year life. An individual is not allowed to possess a weapon capable of incinerating 6 million people in a flash. Can't you come up with some better examples?

Be real pal, the current "REAL" power already is in the hands of the people controling the military. No pack of backwater country hicks with their weapons, wheather they be cavalry sabres, or 50. cal sniper rifles, can hold a fuckin' candle to the US military. My point was, that short of having stealth bombers and nuclear warheads, a mob of individual citizens can't do shit against a military coup, no matter how many and what kind of guns they have.

At 1/23/06 06:44 PM, Gunter45 wrote: It's to fight the US military if such a need ever arises. The right to bear arms wasn't protected to allow people to defend themselves against criminals, it was protected to allow the US citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

Therefore, a .50 calibre rifle would be fully acceptable, especially since that sort of rifle is far more useless in criminal activities than a simple handgun. It's hard to conceal a rifle that size, you aren't going to roll into a liquor store with a .50 calibre rifle and expect them not to be keeping an eye on you. A sniper in a clocktower could do a better job picking people off with a smaller rifle that had a larger cartridge and would be quieter. Hell, if he was a competant machinist, he could even fit a silencer for a small bore rifle, but not a .50 cal.

The only purpose a rifle that powerful has is to fight against the US military should they be turned against the US citizenry, and that's exactly why it should be legal.

I know the angle you are coming from, but I find that interpretation of the second amendment utterly and completely insane. It follows the chain of propisitions that a) americans have the right to bear and maintain arms in order to combat the military in the event of a military coup. b) a military of such size and effeciency as that of the United States can not be fought without weapons of the technological advancement of the United States Military. c) The United States Military has military devices that go beyond simple small arms and rifles, including war planes, surface to air miscilles, various tanks, hellicopters, submarines, and warplanes, balistic misclies of various ranges loaded with various conventional and nuclear warheads. Following logically from propisitions b and c, if propisition a is true, then by the second amendment, american citizens have the constitutional right to own a stealth bomber loaded with nuclear weapons. I know that this is taking your interpretation of the second amendment to an extreme, but if you interpret it as being a check against some sort of military takeover, then individual American citizens should have the right to possesany and all weapons of the types that are contained in the United States military arsenel.

At 1/23/06 11:50 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/23/06 11:35 AM, Quanze13 wrote: No criminal background check or anything.

Might I trouble you for where you got that from?

Damned if I know. I think mackkid in another thread about 50. cal's.

In terms of sheer corpses, yes we won. "Only" 50,000 americans died in comparison to close to 2 million VC, NVA, and Vietnamese civillians. So yes, we killed more people than they did. But their propaganda campaign was better than ours. Americans saw all the body bags coming home and got tired of fighting and dying. The vietnamese, howver, would have fought until the last man woman and child was dead. So yes, we lost the Vietnam war in conventional terms, since we were forced to pull out of Vietnam, and the South eventually fell after we left, so yess we lost.

At 1/23/06 11:32 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/22/06 06:36 PM, mackid wrote: Do you know how EASY it is to get a .50 cal as opposed to, say, a handgun?

No... why don't you tell us then?

To buy a handgun, you have to be 21 and pass a poliece background check. To buy a 50. cal, you need only to be 18, and all you have to do is fill out a questionaire to prove that you are mentally sound or whatever. No criminal background check or anything.