Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/7/06 01:08 AM, fli wrote:

I think homegrown was joking around with you...
Whatever... you're cool Quanze, and that's all you need to hear.

Guilt trips aren't cool, so don't trip-- I like you (in a not homo sort of way).
So cheers...

Thanks man. It was just that i don't know homegrown that well, so I wasn't sure if he was just joking or if he was serious.

At 1/6/06 10:35 AM, HomeGrownTurnip wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:29 PM, Quanze13 wrote: fil, way to totally shed the image of a steryotypical gay dude.

Stop being a Homephoebic dude.

I'm probably the furthest from a homobphbe you will find on these boards. I was simply making a comment about how spani was nowhere close to the typical steryotype of a young homosexual man in our culture

its called shock and awe, that's our 'winning strategy'

At 1/6/06 01:00 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 11:15 PM, Imperator wrote: Anyone wanna try making a list for the Clinton administration, or any other administration?

Not really. It's been done before, trust me. I think they have one at boycottliberalism.com.

Yup.

considering they don't know how to spell crony, i would take them with a grain of salt.

No need to be a dick about it Lib, I try to have a civil discussion with you, and you manage to turn it nasty and personal. Can you try to be at least a little professional and a bit less childish? Is that at all possible for you? You still haven't disproven the point I made. If you insist that the anus wasn't speciffically designed for sex, and anal sex is wrong, then you must also acknowlege that since the earlobes weren't designed for earrings, those are also wrong, since the flesh wasn't designed for tatoos, those are also wrong, etc etc etc ad nauseam. Your point is moot -- just because an organ wasn't made to function a certain way doesn't mean that that use of it is morally wrong.

wel, the old guy's in a coma now, and he probably won't last much longer. I wonder who the next pm will be.

MoralLib, you keep making the same arguments, but I've already refuted them. You're entitled to your own religious oppinion on teh morality of homosexuality, but there is no biological justification that anal sex is 'wrong' unless you brand all other uses of teh body that weren't intended, such as piercings, tatoos, rings, etc. wrong and abnormal.

At 1/5/06 10:30 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Is it just me, or is DAGism making a serious return to the forums?

I missed the old days of overt, downright nasty DAGery.

yep, with that old dag-light flashing nonstop

fil, way to totally shed the image of a steryotypical gay dude.

At 1/5/06 09:16 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: In the cases you provided most of the guns were either illegally obtained, made by the criminal, or not even used. And that's all you have for a 13 year period? It avarages out to less then one incident per year. I have to say that's very low.

Also you are once again over estimateing the capablities of a .50 cal. It's max effective range is 1700 meters and that's under perfect conditions with a trained sniper. Also it won't peirce tank armor at a mile. In fact it will only pentrate one inch of armor plating at 35 yards. That's drastically shorter then your mythical mile long range. As for my source it comes straight form an army field manual.

Ok, so the range is 300 yards shorter. It can only penetrate one inch of reinforced steel plating. You are nitpicking the details. The fact is, this is a gun that is designed to pierce tank armor from long range, not hunt deer or protect your home. There is no legetimite reason to own this gun other than a) getting on top of some tall building and going completely postal on unsuspecting civvies, b) asassinating come world leader in an armored limo, c) shooting at tanks. Owning a 50. cal is like owning a Stinger, it is a military weapon that has no civilian use. I'm so sure you are going to protect your home by blowing off the skull of anybody who comes within 1000 yards of your house.

At 1/5/06 09:00 PM, fli wrote:

What Fil said

OMG. HAHAAH. thats some of the funnies shit eer.

At 1/5/06 08:33 PM, fenrus1989 wrote:

At 1/5/06 08:27 PM, mackid wrote: "Jesus"=Joshua of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, girlfriend was Mary Magdelene, a hooker. Said he was the "Son of God" and the "Messiah" but clearly wasn't. Historically insignificant until his death. And his method of execution was common at the time.

Your really like being so Blasphemous in such a short turn of words.

he was giving a picture of Jesus the historical figure, not Jesus the religious icon. In the 75 years before the sack of Jeruselem, Judea become increasingly anarchical. The profession of vagrant preacher was a very common one, and rabblerousers roamed the countryside preaching, be it against the romans, the pharisees, or for their own profit. Jesus just happened to be an esecially sucessful one, who, just by chance, had just the right followers, who managed to use his death as a catalyst to spark the largest religious movement int eh world.

At 1/5/06 08:40 PM, Orcinator wrote: well I am not sure but I saw that many of the people who join the military are poor people from bad neighbor hoods, not all of them but some are.

yes, the main argument for a draft is that having a voulenteer army puts mainly poor minorities on the frontlines. Of course, this is far from a rule, and there are many exceptions, the most notable being the officer corps, which is composed nearly completely (although that is changing) of white middle class or well to do southerners.

At 1/5/06 08:37 PM, fenrus1989 wrote: Hell i'm in favour of Zionism. Due to varying reasons. The holding of the Holy Land by a stable government that won't destroy history, a strong sensibile government in a sea of chaos, and the fact that i have an interest in archeology, this is a god send.

In fact, I agree with you. Having a pro-western government in Israel will greately increase the chances of westerners having acess to the wealth of historical receasources in cannan.

Despite my leftist political leanings, yes. I plan to join the military for a few years after i finish college before I get a job. In my oppinion, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to fight for their country, wheather they believe in their government or not. Can it be dangerous if you are on an active tour? yes, but it needs to be done, and I don't plan on letting other people do it.

Zionism is simply the jewish desire to return to the place where their civilization - one of the oldest in the world - origionated. If you don't oppose black people wanting to live in africa, then why shouldn't you like jews wanting to go back to Israel?

At 1/5/06 08:21 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/5/06 08:19 PM, mackid wrote: By the way, does anyone know what counts as a "regular?" A hundred posts and up, or is more needed?

If you need to ask, then you're a dumbass.

i guess the response to that question never changes.

At 1/5/06 07:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong. I really mean it - there is no argument in the entire world that you can use that I cannot knock down.

various interesting arguments about the evolutionary intention of sex

This is true. However, if homosexual sex is wrong or 'abnormal' because the anus wasn't meant to recive semen in a reproductive purpose, then that makes all sex using contraception 'abnormal' and 'wrong.' Taking it one step further. The fleshy lobes at the base of the ears weren't meant to hold sharp strands of metal with vaious precious or semi-precious stones on their ends. Does that mean that wearing earrings is wrong and abnormal? The digits on the end of the hand were not meant to hold bands of tempered metal around them, does that mean that wearing rings is wrong and abnormal? the 'intended purpose' argument is quite moot.

At 1/5/06 07:14 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 1/5/06 05:21 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

At 1/5/06 05:17 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 1/5/06 05:05 PM, Quanze13 wrote:

The fact that the supreme court has interpreted a part of the constitution a certain way doesn't mean it was intended that way. The second amendment was insertd to the bill of rights to apease states rights activists, who believed that if the federal government welded all the military power, then the states would be at risk. The amendment is meant to refer to the collective rights of state militias, not the individual rights of people.

James Madison considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calcuated to secure the personal rights of the people". He never excluded the Second Amendment for this statement.

"We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intened to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal goverment's power to maintain a standing army, or applies to only members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indcates that the Second Amendment , like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. This is from US v. Emerson, 5th cour of Appeals decision , November 2, 2001, No 99-10331

The fifth circut court of appeals is the dalas texas court. One of the most conservative courts in the country. This isn't one of those sitty liberal Austin courts, these Dalas judges love their guns. Although Madison was a federalist and believed in individual rather than state rights, the second amendment was a product of anti-federalist backlash against the framers for curtailing the powers of the states. Our judge friend in Texas may think otherwise, but the origional meaning of amendment number two wasn't personal gun ownership

At 1/5/06 07:56 PM, mackid wrote:

At 1/5/06 06:54 PM, Quanze13 wrote: poor guys' officially fucked.

Poor guy? He's a murderer. Who should be locked up for the REST of his natural life.

I know that. I was using a turn of phrase. poor guy not meaning that I condone what he did, but poor guy meaning that he's screwed and will be sentenced to life or death.

poor guys' officially fucked.

At 1/5/06 05:27 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/5/06 05:21 PM, Quanze13 wrote: The amendment is meant to refer to the collective rights of state militias, not the individual rights of people.

But if you invalidate the Supreme Court's decision on one judgement, what's stopping people from invalidating all their judgements?

I'm not saing its invalid, I'm just saying that the amendment is currently interpreted in a way contrary to that in which it was written. The right of individual citizens to own firearms is currently the law of the land, but I was just pointing out that that wasn't the end that the amendment was written to establish.

At 1/5/06 05:15 PM, ScaryDeadGirl wrote:

At 1/5/06 04:07 PM, LordXanthus wrote: Please provide me with your definition of viability, so I can explain to you how it simply doesn't apply to a newborn child.

Viability is the body's ability to function properlly, allowing homeostasis (to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable, constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms). The chance of survival when it comes to birth. A function of physicle developement. Dependency is that newborn's need to be cared for my it's mother or said guardian. One is internal one is external. Both are required for survival. So of course it applies, otherwise the child wouldn't be alive or born in the first place, and would not even be around to be cared for.

I'm also saying your trap idea isn't logicle. I'm more interested in defining when viability begins and it's connection to personhood, because therein lies the abortion argument. You're disreguarding the key to the entire abortion debate. Before we talk about killing babies or aborting fetuses when is it that, that life form can be defined as having personhood?

viability is a moot point, as there is no fixed point where a baby is 'viable.' Babies now are viable today, weeks before they were viable in the 60's because of our ever-changing technology. In the near furture, when we can make artificial wombs, fetuses will be viable from the moment of conception. A better rule to go by when considering the ethicality of abortion at different times in pregnancy is the level of brain development, or something similar.

At 1/5/06 05:17 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 1/5/06 05:05 PM, Quanze13 wrote: To those who say that the second amendment refers to the ownership of small arms like pistols, you are wrong. It refers to muskets. So if you want to buy a breach loading musket and carry it arround with you, be my guest, just don't try and buy a handgun. There's fucking constitutionalism -- it is a sacred document. Also, it says 'a well regulated militia...' not individual gun nuts running around. By militia they refer to the state militias - aka, the national guard. So you want to own a gun within your constitutional rights? Joing the national guard asshole.

Actually the constition says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It does not specify that a person can only own a musket.

Also the part about a well regulated malitia is the justification clause, but it doese not modify or restrict the rights clause. The supreme court has also ruled that this is an individual right and not a collective right. Also if you deny one admenment on the basis of it's justification clause it would mean the other admenments can be denyed as well.

The fact that the supreme court has interpreted a part of the constitution a certain way doesn't mean it was intended that way. The second amendment was insertd to the bill of rights to apease states rights activists, who believed that if the federal government welded all the military power, then the states would be at risk. The amendment is meant to refer to the collective rights of state militias, not the individual rights of people.

There are a multitude of different theories, including the mob, cuba, the military industrial complex, republicans in congress, etc, etc, etc. I highly dobut it was cuba though, as Castro didn't have the economic and human receasources to pull off such a perfect hit, as well as the even more masterful fall, and coverup.

Sandy Berger was a former memeber of the Clintion Whitehouse who stuffed some documents into his shoe a few years back. Whenever Democrats point to the blatant corruption of our current whitehouse and congress, all the republicans start screaming "Sandy Berger biotch!!!! POONED!!!!1111'

To those who say that the second amendment refers to the ownership of small arms like pistols, you are wrong. It refers to muskets. So if you want to buy a breach loading musket and carry it arround with you, be my guest, just don't try and buy a handgun. There's fucking constitutionalism -- it is a sacred document. Also, it says 'a well regulated militia...' not individual gun nuts running around. By militia they refer to the state militias - aka, the national guard. So you want to own a gun within your constitutional rights? Joing the national guard asshole.

At 1/4/06 10:02 PM, Buckdich wrote: All Presidents up to JKF were freemasons?

Please give us a source b/c this is hard to chew. If you have said that most of our forefathers were deists, then yes, that is true, but what your saying...

It was in The Biography of Malcolm X. Its a long book and I have work to do, so I can't find you the exact page, but its there, and i'll post the exact page later on.

At 1/5/06 03:04 PM, red_skunk wrote: Oh, but everyone and anyone I know remotely in the field would call that a horrible sentence. The last bit is totally unnecessary. Making sentences that don't make sense and are unduly long is totally contrary to what you're trying to accomplish.

unless you're paid by the word

At 1/4/06 10:34 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/4/06 09:24 PM, Quanze13 wrote: Bush won't drop the bill because he is a war president, and war presidents never back down.

The war has nothing to do with the Medicare bill. Backing down on this would make everyone happy.

What I was trying to say is that Bush's presidency relies on repeating the same shit over and over again in the hope that people will believe it. Backing down on issues isn't something he's good at.

It is actually the dumbest bill I have ever seen. Not only does it rape old people, it also panders to the insurance and pharmesudical industries. It bans medicare from a) using its bargaining power (it is the largest single pharmesucidal purhaser in the united states) to negociate lower drug prices for its members -- it MUST take the prices offered by the pharmesudicals.

Congratulations, almost everything you said was borderline retarded.

For the record, the government doesn't negotiate with drug companies, it just says, "You're selling us these drugs at these prices whether you like it or not," and the drug companies are like, "Fine, but only because you're the government and have way too much power." Not saying that's any worse than Bush's bill, which was bought and sold by big drug companies, but it's easy to symphasize with them.

um, sorry friend, but you're wrong. The governent is required by the medicare bill to accept whatever prices the pharmesucidal companies set for the drugs -- no negociations, no counter-offers, nothing. just a big cash cow for the drug companies.

b) It prevents Medicare from buying canadian drugs. Canadian drugs are completely safe, since Canada, which has one of the best socialized healthcare systems in the world, uses them. This plays right into the hands of the pharmesudical indstry by forcing medicare to buy overpriced american drugs. Bush's Medicare = bad

Oh, cool, Canadian drugs are safe because Canada uses them. Sweet. What a coherent statement!

I don't see Canadians dieing in droves from tainted medicine, do you?

When you buy American drugs, you're paying for all the development and research costs that came with the drug. American Drug Companies research and develop drugs, and Canada is able to make a cheaper version in about two year's time (since the drug has already been developed here).

In fact, you have come upon a common myth. A majority of the money we spend on brand-name drugs goes to the marketing cost and the branding value, not R&D of new drugs. In fact, most drug breakthroughs are at major universities, not private labs. We should increase the rate at which we find new drugs by giving more grants to university labs, not corporate welfare to pharmesudical firms.

That is a problem no matter how you slice it. The answer to the problem isn't a ridiculous wasteful entitlement that is for the drug companies as much as the senior citizens. I would like to see some kind of global patent system.

Great, so not only do you want to cut off many senior citizens' only way of getting medications they need, but you also want to deny the rest of the world american medicines. yay.