Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/25/04 10:00 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, if you have such an objection we could start milking women... (This strangley isn't the first time this topic has come up this week...)

Why should we? I'm full grown. I don't need to drink milk anymore.

At 7/26/04 12:31 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Cheney, as VP, and thus leader of the Senate, represents Congress, of course he was in front of the 9/11 commission. It has nothing to do with him being the voice behind the presidency.

You ignored the point - they went in together to testify.

Care to give me another instance of people testifying together?

Google for it, some .gov site probably has the entire speech.

At 7/25/04 11:41 PM, spanishfli wrote: Do you think that this episode, which was about free and independent newspapers and people who controls media outlets, was taking a jab at FOXnews?

Wasn't it obvious? They even mentioned Rupert Murdoch.

At 7/25/04 06:34 PM, Ovalshine wrote: Obesity is no more a disease than homosexuality. Obesity can lead to diseases, it's just not one itself.

Not according to the health department.

At 7/25/04 06:56 PM, ryoshi100 wrote:

At 7/25/04 06:49 PM, uncle_skunk wrote: Why would I eat a dairy product? Do I look like a baby cow?

um, baby cows don't lactate.....

Awww, you're a quick one. Calf's drink teh milk. I have no place drinking cow's milk, because I am not a calf.

At 7/25/04 06:44 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: ...but if a church makes the decision that they do not want to marry gays, they should not have to.

Of course. I don't immediately see anyone proposing that we force churches to marry homosexuals. Just like we don't force a Catholic church to marry a Muslim couple.

Naw. Society is stratified enough, without resorting to rigid restrictions such as you propose.

Why would I eat a dairy product? Do I look like a baby cow?

At 7/25/04 06:36 PM, -MinX- wrote: your a fucking dumbass (excuse my french)

At least you realize it wasn't English. If it was, there would be capitalization, "You're", and a period at the end of the sentence.

the reason those drugs are legal is because it doesnt not harm u in anyway and it does not potentually put others in danger

Of course it harms you. There are side-affects. And people can also become dependent on them. It creates a "problem" where there really wasn't one anymore. It's simply taking advantage of mid-life crises.

i with marijuana was legal tho, maybe like a building were people r allowed to smoke as long as if they act up they will get beaten

What? Stop speaking French.

So.. basically... "Would I ever run for office?"

... Sure. I don't have any scruples.

I think Kerry won't cede power to Edwards if they get into the house. Edwards is charismatic and all that jazz - they have to use it. But he's fairly green in terms of national politics.

At 7/24/04 11:05 PM, Metal69hed wrote: Not all states are like that uncle_skunk.

What, European states? I said most didn't I? I would stand by that generalization.

At 7/24/04 02:20 PM, Reform wrote: Next time I'll try not to make my comments more coherent.

okkkk............

At 7/23/04 10:33 PM, Devaint_Lucifer wrote: how can they "stabalize a goverment" when we can't stabalize our own.

*Looks at US government*

*taps on it*

Seems pretty stable to me. Did you take your pills today or what?

He's missed so many votes because he's been campaigning, not because he's been loafing around on his Texas ranch.

Bush has the same track-record for his entire presidency.

At 7/24/04 03:58 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Why are you even thinking to ask? It could go either way right now; it's a statistical dead heat for Chrissakes. Ask me November 1st.

JMHX gave the right answer, he recieves the cookie.

Pot is decriminalised in many European countries - it's just as good as legalisation, at least from the "American-afraid-of-getting-busted-with-a-single-joint-and-sent-to-jail" standpoint.

Regardless, no one has justified Viagra use yet. Why? Because it's practically indefensible.

At 7/24/04 11:18 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: To clarify, the California constitution has both an impeachment, etc. clause and a recall clause.

O-k. Thanks for that. But wouldn't it of made sense, that every vote to not recall him, would be a vote of confidence - a vote for Davis? Yet this was not the case - although more people voted against the recall than voted for the nearest competitor (Austrian bimbo), teh bimbo got in.

What do you mean "marxist socialism"? What does that entail?

My understanding of "true-ish" (notice the quotes) socialism, is a society where the companies are collectivelly owned, by the workers. This would usually entail something like a co-op. True?

I agree. I propose that the UN begins strict economic sanctions against the world's leading militaristic power, which has a long , dark history of agressive, imperialistic actions.

Of course, that'd mean attacking itself at the base of things, still...

I heard about this, and crazily enough I'm going to agree with hithair's assessment (well come on - who would justify this?).

I wonder what is in store for the obese, now that it's being classified as a 'disease'? hmmmm

The UN really has to become more democratic in my mind. What's the point of any voting for the ~185 other nations, if everything is really in the hands of the top five?

At 7/22/04 03:52 AM, I7I23I7I7brs wrote: oh st0p teh comparrisons with p3nor pill poppers plz!

Stop taking it so personal =P

-
Come on, any more responsies?

Gee wiz! He's accepting signatures from Republicans? What next - Democrats? Greens? Ugh.

I'll tell you one thing, he wouldn't get on a single damn ballot anywhere if he didn't accept signatures from people affialiated with one party or another. And the Democrats are just as ideologically opposed on most issues as the Republican Party is, compared to Nader's platform. Give me a break.

At 7/22/04 01:54 AM, Conan_Obrien wrote:

At 7/22/04 01:50 AM, uncle_skunk wrote: Man, Modest Mouse were on tonight's show. Pwetty good Conan, pwetty good.

I just pull the lever.

Yeah, if you hadn't pulled it so much, there would of been time for another song. Good job :\

The effects are different, but the end result is the same. Practically no real social value. The chance of becoming mentally addicted - reliance on drugs. It creates the feeling that drugs can be just for pleasure, and not for any real medical condition.

I can fully see viagra becoming a gateway drug towards harder drugs - cocaine, methamphetamine, acid.

Furthermore, the fact that it's allowed on our TVs contributes even more to the tearing of our society's moral fabric. What will Little Johny think when he sees someone on TV - or even his dad - using drugs recreationally?

Want a toke, Johny?

Man, Modest Mouse were on tonight's show. Pwetty good Conan, pwetty good.

Family Guy is actually a pretty poor cartoon. Crudely drawn, crude, childish humour. It gets old after awhile. There are many cartoons better - indeed, practically any other cartoon currently running is better.

At 7/22/04 01:37 AM, Gunter45 wrote: I stand corrected by an extremely genuine looking bottle of Dick Pills. You sir, present a solid argument.

I'm sorry. I thought a topic about the justification of creating new recreational drugs would be interesting. We created this new market - unlike alcohol or tobacco. This is a new, fully legal, and purely recreational commodity, with all the repercussions and side-affects of any other drug.

But in the future, I'll stick to Iraq, Kerry, gay or Moore threads. Then you can take them seriously. Especially after responding to the same topic, different thread, 20 or 30 times.