Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

There are bigger things to make a big deal about. "So help me G-d" and "In G-d we trust" are traditions. This country wen through two religious revivals so it's no surprise that we're still feeling the effects.

1-Should the school be forced to allow someone with male genitalia use the girls bathroom?

No, there would be so much room for abuse, and when it comes to body parts, children should not be exposed. If the child wants to use a unisex or staff bathroom that should be fine.

2-Should a parent be allowed to change a child's sex before puberty has even set in let alone at 18 months?

Absolutely not. Let the child develop on his/her own, and admittedly because of society, boys will naturally do more masculine things, and girls vice versa. That's not a bad thing.

3- The Transgender community wants people to believe that it's a done deal that it's not a mental disorder... were do you weigh in on this?

Anybody can be therapied into believing anything; I have no reason to believe homosexuality is a mental disorder any more than heterosexuality is.

4- Can a baby make such a decision before puberty before they even really know there is diffrent genders?

It's up to the baby to decide. I knew there were different genders long before puberty started.

5-shouldn't this mother have done the same instead of putting him in dresses coloring his hair purple and wing him to pretend to be a girl, should she have said no you have a penis you are a boy and let him grow up and decide on his own later on in life?

I think it's bad that the mother encouraged her son to wear dresses yet discouraged him from masculine activities. That's hypocrisy on her part, not the tg community.

6- Should the lawyer and transgender community and crazy attention seeking mother be allowed to make a 6 yr old the poster child for there agenda ?

All depends if the tg community accepts the boy as their poster child. Then I guess it's not a question if should anymore.

I like videos like these. Both Americans and Canadians can be fun-loving goofballs, and if not for the uniforms you couldn't tell us apart.
And no, one soldier beating another soldier in a tug-of-war does not make one army stronger.

Link right here.

In Connecticut, a couple who were unable to have children naturally gave sperm and egg samples and implanted the fertilized embryo in a surrogate mother named Crystal Kelley who would be paid a fee for her service.

About halfway through the second trimester, ultrasound reports confirmed multiple brain and heart defects in the female fetus. The couple, not wanting to raise a child who needed special care, asked Kelley to abort the fetus. She refused.

The strange thing is, by law only Kelley could schedule an abortion, which she was morally opposed to. But she refused to get one, so the couple got a lawyer and legally ordered Kelley to have an abortion before the last month of pregnancy, which is the cut-off date for legal abortions in Connecticut. They cited that she had broken a part of the contract promising she'd get an abortion if there were certain abnormalities.

However, Kelley didn't even want to have this child, until the original parents filed an affidavit trying to gain custody of their still unborn child, so that when it was born the baby would be surrendered to the State of Connecticut and grow up in foster care.

Kelley heard about the horror stories of foster care, so she flew to Michigan, a state which had laws that would determine Kelley as the fetus's legal mother and prevent it from entering foster care. However, since she didn't want to be a mother to the fetus, she allowed another couple to adopt it.

Then, the original parents tried to claim themselves as the legal parents to the child, now born. Despite the discovery that the wife in the couple is not the genetic mother of the baby (although the father is the genetic father) they are able to visit the child occasionally.

That's the end of the story, but what do you think about Kelley's crusade? As someone who is pro-choice, I think she acted irresponsibly and was in breach of contract, but you all may think differently.

I think it's cute how you automatically try to badmouth the US for something that we have nothing to do with. That's quite a stretch. I suppose now you'll say that the US is responsible for those countries' average IQs.

Honestly, I hear this idea being thrown around so much. There was even an article on CNN talking about how only idiots believe in religion and that the world would be so much better if nobody believed in G-d.

I find this insulting on two accounts: First off, how are people going around decrying the evils of religion and telling believers that they are mindless drones any different than evangelicals or WBC going around telling you you're going to hell? Both groups are essentially the same: people who believe that if you don't agree with them, you are lower than dirt.

What I find really disturbing is that the majority of the anti-religion zealots almost exclusively attack Christians. Why single out Christians? Why not Jews too? We believe in the same thing, (albeit they wrote up a sequel) so why call out Jews on our supposed idiocy in believing in religion? If someone took a break from calling Christianity stupid and started shouting out how stupid Judaism is, people would shout "anti-Semitism!" and rightly so.

I can truly understand why some are mad at religion. It was technically religion that started the Crusades, 9/11, and crucifixion. There are are a lot of religious tribal conflicts which spark violence across the world.

But those are religious extremists. Those who overanalyze scripture will inevitably take it too far. And while it isn't good to follow the rules of scripture and only scripture, religion is not inherently a bad thing. They all profess basic moralities like treating others well. It's perfectly fine and rational to believe in a G-d-all civilizations have had dominant beliefs in a divine creator(s) since ancient times. As long as you live in a balance between religion and modernity, there's nothing stupid about that.

Not a smart idea; nobody in their right mind is seriously proposing it. There's no difference between a trillion dollar coin and printing so much money that we get inflation like Weimar Germany did.

At 12/27/12 04:33 AM, Psycho666 wrote: What do you think when you look at these pictures together?

I see two different situations. The Nazis didn't lock up the Jews because the Jews were suicide bombing towns.

Communism is socialism gone too far. The more socialist you are, the less capitalist you are, and vice versa. But simply saying "Country A is socialist" is a bit like saying "$100 is a large amount." Compared to what? $100 can be a ridiculously expensive candy bar, or an incredibly cheap car. Likewise, Socialism can only be defined when it's relative to another country. To Somalia, the US is very socialist, and to places like China, the US is very capitalistic.

Baloney. Osama bin Laden is related to Saudi royalty, so perhaps it was one of the royal family that met with Bush Sr.
But remember that the Saudi royalty disowned Osama.

As for the idea that Bush and bin Laden were in cahoots, it's bull. Bush was a bad President but he wouldn't be so evil as to cause 9/11.

Before I go on, I'd like to say this:

The government of Iran is a horrible, evil, anti-Semitic radical regime. I acknowledge that they are trying to get nuclear weapons, and not for peaceful purposes. I do not believe it should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

However, invading Iran and establishing a democratic government would cost the US and the West so much more than it would benefit us. And I'm not implying that the US could not overthrow the Ayatollah-we could capture Tehran by the summer.

However, history is repeating itself. Just as we fear that Iran is creating weapons of mass destruction, we feared the same from Iraq during the 1990s and early 2000s.

One could argue that as we justly invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda, we should invade Iran to destroy their weapons of mass destruction and prevent them from falling in the hands of terrorists. Iran does have connections with terrorists, and if not al-Qaeda it's confirmed that they are in league with Syria and other terrorist groups who, with a nuclear weapon would wipe Israel off the map.

But what's the difference between al-Qaeda and the government of Iran? Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups exist only to destroy their enemies; namely the US and Europe. That's why we were justified in invading their strongholds in Afghanistan. Their raison d'etre was to destroy us, so we had to invade and stop them.

But Iran? They're no friend of the US or the West, but their reason to be isn't to destroy us. It's to control and subjugate the people of Iran. Our only problem is with the weapons they're trying to create.

Our solution to a nuclear-to-be Iran is to do what we did with Iraq before 2003.
1: Send in UN weapons inspectors and make sure Iran cooperates
2: Bomb any nuclear facilities in Iran.
3: If need be, create a no-fly zone with the support of local Arab nations (Saudi Arabia would be happy to help)

The way to deal with an Iran that wants nukes is to prevent them from building nuclear weapons, but the key is to leave their government intact.

Now there are some who want to invade Iran, and they may ask these questions:

If we overthrow Iran's government they'll stop making nuclear weapons
True, but then we'll have another mess on our hands. Iran may be a terrible government, but they're not going to hand over power to Al-Qaeda or another terrorist group that isn't bound by international treaties or the UN.

Iran's government wants to hand over nuclear weapons; if they somehow get one it will fall into the hands of the terrorists

A valid fear, however, Iran is not going to hand over a nuke to al-Qaeda or Hamas anytime soon, and here's why: Iran's
government is self-preserving. You can't just give, let alone make, a nuclear weapon to someone without there being a trail. If Iran gave a nuclear weapon to a terrorist and that terrorist used it, Iran would be found out and there would be worldwide-sanctioned invasion and regime change for Iran. Khomeini may hate the US and Israel, but he's not going to trade being Supreme Leader for anything.

Getting rid of Iran's dictatorial government will bring democracy to the Middle East.

Not really. We're still having trouble with Afghanistan, and Iraq wasn't much of a success. There's more al-Qaeda than ever in Iraq, even before Saddam. The fact is, sometimes people aren't ready for democracy and the Middle East sure isn't. One thing we've learned from Iraq is that sometimes it's better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable ally. If we want to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons we'll have silos to bomb and scientists to kill; a clear chain of command to target. With terrorist groups like al-Qaeda who live in caves and are more ragtag bands of thugs than armies, it's difficult to track them.

In short, the problem isn't Iran's government: it is the weapons themselves. Don't invade Iran-we'll get another quagmire like Iraq. Use missile strikes, bombings, and covert methods to ensure that Iran doesn't get nukes.

Please comment.

At 1/21/12 08:38 AM, Korriken wrote:
It would be in the world's best interest to invade Iran, destroy their navy, destroy the enrichment centers, and either kill their scientists or force them to defect. Toppling the government is optional.

I agree with you on your points above, but we should not invade Iran. Definitely not.
If we invade Iran we'll be responsible for capturing cities and putting Iran's resources under our control. You can't just "back off" from that; otherwise Iran will claim it as their victory "Look, they captured our cities but now they're retreating! Allah bless Iran!"
Killing their scientists, destroying their enrichment centers, and cutting off their supply routes are much more preferable.
Or just do what we did with Iraq in 1993 and 1998: bomb them.

At 1 hour ago, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 16 hours ago, Ranger2 wrote: Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.

As a flimsy, not very substantiated excuse for invasion? Yes, yes it does.

No, just that there was a disarmament crisis before the invasion of Iraq.

-Iran is currently facing sanctions from NATO countries, the EU, and the United Nations. How well they're working depends on who you talk to.

Yeah, I'm going to go with not well since they can trade in something other then dollars or euros for oil. That also lead to an interesting article in the other thread that speculated that is the REAL reason the US has such a mad on to invade Iran. They want to protect the Petro-Dollar monopoly.

There you go again with the conspiracy junk.

-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.

All bad things, but that has what to do with our need to invade? Especially since we support and condone dictatorships in other nations with the exact same, or worse human rights records. Our biggest trade partner is China, they have one of the worst human rights records of any permanent UN member (oh, and there's Russia calling me up to remind me they're record sucks almost as bad, thank you Russia).

-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.

Threats are fun, doesn't mean you can carry them out. Saddam threatened the West on an almost daily basis, we toppled him and found out it was nothing more then political saber rattling to please the hard liners and make himself seem strong. Iran is doing much the same, I just don't see them as stupid enough to launch an overt attack or they would have done it already. Next!

Saddam attempted to assassinate President Bush in 1993. Iran tried to assassinate a Saudi national in the US a few months ago. I think that's a bit more than saber rattling.

-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions.

That HAS NOT been proven. It is a contention without irrefutable evidence. So this should not be on a list marked "facts"

Then those UN inspectors in Iran are in there for nothing, right?

It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.

Except Saddam didn't HAVE a nuke, or any other WMD! This has been proven. Do me a favor, turn off FOX News and other pro-Conservative bullshit factories and go read some actual news. The Bubble is not your friend, The Bubble is bad!

I'm a Democrat, and I don't watch Fox News. But thanks for showing your uneducated bias by trying to label me. Stop reading Russia Today and the Guardian.

-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency

According to the US...who never gets anything wrong! But yes, they are a state sponsor of terrorism, which is really the only solid reason I've seen to pay attention to, or worry about Iran and what it's up to. But this again is no justification because look Saudi Arabia, one of our great allies. Saudi Arabia PRODUCED most of the 9/11 hijackers.

This isn't about you really thinking that Iran is harmless. This is more of your anti-American bias.

If we are to attack, should we do like what we did in Iraq in 1993/8 or 2003?

No, we shouldn't attack period because there's no solid reason to at this point.

In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings.

That's not why we attacked in 1993. That was more of a border dispute.

Or should we stick to cruise missiles and precise bombings?

We should stay the fuck home until there's an actual solid reason for invasion other then some political misdirection BS.

What would that be? Let's say we have clear proof Iran is planning to attack. Would you be ok with a pre-emptive strike?

Iraq isn't entirely stable, and Afghanistan probably falls right back into the hands of the Taliban the minute we leave. We suck at nation building, always have, probably always will. We should have learned long ago not to try and force a regime out, but that we should support popular revolutions and then try to become friendly with the new government that rises from the aftermath.

We suck at nation building? How's Germany doing? South Korea? Japan? They're the products of US nation building.

At 4 days ago, DeliciousW wrote: Maybe I'm just young, but what is meant by "zionists control America"? I don't understand. Yes, you have the ignorant bigots shouting "Kill the jews! Also all other colors! White power!" But then you also have seemingly intelligent people who agree that the Jews are the root of every country's problems (including a few of our own founding fathers).

Which must be why George Washington gave a speech to a synagogue praising Judaism and declaring freedom of religion in the USA.

What do they mean? All jewish men, women, or children? Or just a few Jewish people? Is it race they are talking about, or religious creed? If it's religion, do they include converts to Judaism? Or people who convert out to other beliefs? And if it is race, what about those with only partial Jewish ancestry? And what are zionists?

All depends on who you talk to. You won't find many things that all Jews agree on. Some orthodox say that Jewish ancestry makes you a Jew. Others like myself say it's based on what you practice and believe.

Honestly, I'm just not sure how to approach this. What is the thought process? What do the people who say these things believe? If any of you are out there, I would honestly like to hear what you have to say about it. I'm not totally sure what they're even talking about.

You should contact a rabbi if you're interested. Here you'll get a lot of junk and conspiracy theories.

Let's say that the US decides to attack Iran because it is developing (sound familiar?) weapons of mass destruction.
Here are the facts:
-Iran is currently facing sanctions from NATO countries, the EU, and the United Nations. How well they're working depends on who you talk to.
-Iran is an extremist Shia Islamic state. There is no free speech, little to no freedom of religion, and homosexuals are hanged in public.
-Iran is virulently anti-West and anti-Israel. Its allies include Venezuela, Syria, and its trade relations are improving with Russia. It has repeatedly threatened the state of Israel and the West.
-Iran is building nuclear weapons despite sanctions. It is not even hiding them like Saddam did; it is openly flaunting it.
-Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, especially to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and according to the US, the Iraqi insurgency

If we are to attack, should we do like what we did in Iraq in 1993/8 or 2003? In 1993 and 1998, we attacked an enemy country that was developing weapons of mass destruction by cruise missile strikes and bombings. We destroyed the enemy's weapons, but did not invade and did not try to overthrow the government.

Or should we invade and remove the whole thing like we did in 2003?

There are pros and cons for each side, and it also depends on who the US would attack Iran with. Would you be ok with removing Iran's government as long as we had the blessing of the UN? Should we go ahead and overthrow the Ayatollah no matter what? Or should we stick to cruise missiles and precise bombings?

Personally I believe that we must bomb Tehran and attack Iran's missile sites without overthrowing the government. I would be fine with us doing it on our own, although preferably we'd do it with NATO, and with the blessing of the UN. I think one thing we've learned from Iraq is that it can be better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable new ally.

At 1 day ago, Nintharmed wrote: Socialism is imperative to the reaching of true political equality for man-kind. Allow me to make my case.

Capitalism is crippling towards everyone, be they poor, white, black, rich, middle-class, whatever. The economic masters of our current time have promised us success, but what have they delivered? Housing bubbles, credit crunches, Global Warming and delivery of our companies into the hands of China, leaving America and others hangers-on to economic ruin. The company cannot care for it's workers. It can only care for the wealth, which inevitably finds itself in the hands of grotesque Communist-dictator states such as China. Lets face it, trickle-down economics is bootless.

Communism is a form of socialism, shouldn't you be praising Communist dictator states like China? The fault isn't capitalism; it's plain stupidity on many people's parts. Yes, there should have been more regulation but that's not the only reason why.

The money will always speak instead of the investor. Nobody can gain from capitalism except the capitalist beaurocracy it caters to. The markets, in control of the worker, makes them their slaves. There is no escape from this: America, Europe, even the Middle East are regularly left broken by financial stupidity on behalf of the capitalists, co-opted by money and greed only. Markets cannot regulate themselves.

You have a lot of grandiose statements. Where's the proof? Where's the specifics where you can say "this country did X, so Y happened"?

The only way to eliminate the egotistical nature of Capitalism is to socialise the marketplace, and to ensure that moral values take precedence over the demand to suit young people for work in our educational establishments. Wake up, Americans, the American Dream is an illusion. Social economies with a planned worker base, assisting the spread of this money in favor of The People, and the moral education of youth to assist in spending economic capitol wisely, is the only way to save America/ Europe/ The World.

Socialize the marketplace? Who says the government knows what's right for the market? If you blame bad spending choices like the Iraq War why would you ever be for socialism if it's more of the same thing? Socialism goes against human nature. People are greedy. Greed can be good, as long as it's controlled. You're talking utopianism and that failed in 1991 (although it was a wreck even when it started)

Socialism is the only chance we have to survive socioeconomically. Otherwise our systems will collapse in on themselves out of their own greed.

Discuss.

This doesn't even sound like it's your own voice. I think you copy-pasted or just barely reworded a couple paragraphs in some socialist newsletter.

At 2/4/12 05:25 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If the resolution was supported by the Arab League, the UN definitely has the right to put pressure on Syria. My only question is why isn't the Arab League trying to fix this itself?

Because the rest of the Arab League is just as bad as Syria. They're just as repressive (if not more so) and any actual fighting would lead to the people in their countries realizing "hey, we're not free either. Let's rebel!"

And I agree with you answer to #2.

At 12/25/11 11:08 AM, tiegizzle wrote:

Ron Paul has all of the young and/or intelligent people's vote.
Rick Perry has all of the idiot's votes.

Nope, no bias towards any candidate in this prompt.

It's ridiculous. Citizenship requires that you learn English. She shouldn't have the job if she can't speak English.

Somebody's just itching for a fight. This isn't a prompt for a debate; it's someone letting off steam.

At 1/21/12 03:42 PM, J1993 wrote:

Id suspect Iran wants nukes to ensure Israel doesnt consider using them or at least air strikes against them since Israel has threatened to do the latter before.

Makes sense, seeing as Iran's President has said that he would like to wipe Israel off the map.

Those parents are messed up. And what's really telling about how biased they are is that they didn't allow the boy to wear a skull t-shirt but allowed him to wear blouses and sparkly pink swimsuits. They just want to have a gay son so that they can feel special and tolerant and unique.

There's a story about a baby boy who had a botched circumcision in the 1960s, and was raised as a woman. Around age 14 he used medications to try to turn back into a man (because obviously around puberty he started to mature more like a man than a woman) and eventually shot himself.

The poor 5 year old. He's going to have such a difficult life and it's all because of his stupid parents.

What does the poor kid do when he/she's in public and has to use a bathroom? The idiotic parents are so naive; the kid's going to find out eventually.

At 1/21/12 08:38 AM, Korriken wrote:

It would be in the world's best interest to invade Iran, destroy their navy, destroy the enrichment centers, and either kill their scientists or force them to defect. Toppling the government is optional.

Toppling their government as an option is key. If there's one thing we've learned from Iraq, it's that sometimes it's better to have a stable enemy country than an unstable ally. In Iraq, we should have just upped the no-fly zones and bombed Baghdad into dust, but allowed Saddam to stay in power.

I would be in favor of an attack on Iran, as long as it's not one where we take out their government. Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah make my skin crawl, but at least under them Iran is stable and the power is centralized and kept away from guerrilla groups.

At 1/14/12 04:01 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote:

Yes, I agree to this. We can negotiate with communists, Nazis, capitalists or liberals.

We DIDN'T negotiate with Hitler or Mussolini.

So it's in the news: The US, Afghanistan, and the terrorists are trying to set up peace talks and agreements.

What in the world happened to the US not negotiating with terrorists?

The very idea that we can work out a settlement between us and the Taliban is laughable. The very same people who aided al-Qaeda, that killed 3,000 innocent people, destroyed an iconic American landmark, damaged the Pentagon, and almost tried to hit the White House are now going to be on the negotiating table?

There are two types of enemies: those who fight with you for political reasons or territorial reasons. Like the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, and North Korea, negotiation may be tough, but it's possible.

Then there are enemies like al-Qaeda and the Taliban: those who fight with you simply because you exist. al-Qaeda cannot claim that they were provoked into 9/11. Al-Qaeda made the first move, striking at the USS Cole, attempting to blow up the WTC in '93, and bombing our embassies in Tanzania.

This is not a political argument. Radical groups like al-Qaeda and groups that support them like the Taliban do not care who they kill, as long as it's someone who is not a member of their extremist Islamic culture, or a woman. Much like the Palestinian terrorists who fight Israel because it exists, so do the terrorists who fight the United States. We support democracy and religious freedom, something that they despise. It wouldn't matter if we had not put troops in Saudi Arabia (never mind the fact that when we did we had the full permission of the Saudi government) or supported Israel. We are simply the biggest, most powerful country that embodies what they hate.

I also have to ask the powers that be, what would a settlement between the US and al-Qaeda look like? Would the Taliban share power with the Afghani government? How can we honestly say we are spreading democracy to Afghanistan if the Taliban, in any way, are allowed back into power?

And for those who say "we're negotiating with the Taliban, al-Qaeda doesn't count," remember that the Taliban aided and sheltered al-Qaeda. Anywhere the Taliban retakes will become a ground for al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups.

It's absolutely ridiculous. Should we have let Hitler stay in power in WWII? Or Mussolini? You cannot negotiate with the Taliban. If the Taliban is given any legitimacy, those who fought against it and the terrorists would have died in vain.

That's tough...I usually like most of the movies I've watched. I think the worst one I've ever watched was Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. A bit strange, because that was my favorite of the HP books. But the acting was stiff and wooden, the lines were crap, and the trio swapped wizard robes for t-shirts, and Hermione at the time wasn't even good looking. Ever since that movie the series has gotten progressively darker and worse. It's weird how the series started out happy and magical and adventurous but then became a dark drama.

That's not ironic; it's a pun.

It could be ironic if you chipped it while brushing your teeth, or while gargling some calcium-enriched mouthwash.

At 1/1/12 04:07 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 1/1/12 02:29 PM, MrPercie wrote: yeah but then take something like how the americans dealt with the native american population and you can say they were somewhat evil in those conflicts.

but thats all really.

Or outright evil, then there's also the warcrimes in Vietnam and the Phillipines, but then those aren't very popular in the standard US education are they?

I suppose that the British and other Europeans are innocent of enslaving almost all of Africa and most of Asia until the 1960s? Or that the Canadians and Australians did nothing bad to their indigenous populations either?

Well, 2011 was a crazy year. I know all the shit that happened, like Japan's troubles, Bin Laden dying, and dictators falling like dominos. And the end of the Iraq War.

On a personal level, 2011 is the year I scored lots of dates, got my heart broken several times, graduated high school, interned for a politician during the summer, went to Europe, and started my freshman year of college. It'll be one crazy year to miss.