Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

There is no absolute, here.

Some homosexuals, or bisexuals, are born that way. They are that way from birth.

Others, though, make a conscious choice to pursue bisexuality?

There is no one defining reason behind homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Go ahead and ask me how I know.

At 10/5/06 05:20 PM, fli wrote: Don't sound so prententious.
Kids at 14 should be having fun and acting immature

Says who?

We live in a world where immaturity equals ignorance.
And yes, you're well within the norm to be both immature and ignorant, at fourteen years of age.

If, however, we say kids 'should' be acting that way, at fourteen....how can we be surprised when they act they same way, four or five years later?

At 10/5/06 06:24 PM, Begoner wrote:

Kids at 14 should be having fun and acting immature (but not destroying shit and mimicking Jack Ass and stuff.)

They should also have some respect for governmental institutions, like the police force and the school system, and they should give a shit about their education. Where I grew up, talking in class was unheard of (no pun intended) and everybody took their education quite seriously. Nowadays, in the US, children openly flaunt authority in an inane, puerile manner.

Agreed. Having fun in your off time is one thing. After you finish chores, and work, and school, and your other obligations...then go have some fun.

School isn't a place to have fun, though. A flagrant disrespect for institutional authority isn't 'amusing'...it's downright disturbing.

I feel, personally, that we should raise our children in a manner that actually prepares them for adult life. This inane idiocy of 'let kids be kids' and 'immaturity is the norm for that age' does nothing but fuel the fire that leads to ignorance and complacency.

And people wonder why school shootings have become a problem, in the last twenty years? They wonder why people 18-21 hardly ever show up to vote? They wonder why teenage drug use has gone up, and they wonder why teen pregnancy has gone up.
All you need to do to answer those questions is look around at society, and the things we're teaching our children.
We raise them with a total lack of responsibility. It's not Timmy's fault he failed the ninth grade for the third time...it's the school's, for singling him out and having too strict standards. It's not your son's fault he got caught vandalizing homes and keying cars...it's societuy's, for putting so much 'media pressure' on our children.

It's the same mentality used to defend rapists and child molesters, in the world of law. Pass the buck, and place the blame on anything but the individual. Do not instill responsibility and values...instead, instill complacency and dependancy.

At 10/5/06 06:26 PM, Peternormous wrote: But: Authority, by its very nature should be questioned. Though not in the way some people do it.

Questioning and disrespecting are two different things.

You are, in fact, correct. People should know why they do what they do.
That doesn't mean they should disobey authority, though, simply because their own opinions speak differently.

Your government gives you unalienable rights.

Period. The government wrote the doctrine. The government's troops paid for the doctrine, in blood. The government enforces that doctrine.

I don't give a fuck how our founding father's worded it.

At 10/5/06 07:36 PM, fli wrote: I'll say let's kill Whitey.
That would eliminate the problem all together.
Complaining?
*KaBLAM*
You ain't complaining no more, foo--

I hereby, then, convert fully to the hispanic race.

Spanish eggs, enchiladas, and tequila (doubles, of course), all around.

At 10/5/06 04:16 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:

At 10/5/06 02:07 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: How, though, is it any different from flushing a Koran down the toilet?
Or breaking a crucifix? Or smashing a buddha?

Those are symbols of religious exercise, not of political beliefs.

So? A flag is a symbol of a philosophy, just as a Koran or a Bible is a symbol of a philosophy.

I know, and I fully agree. I just felt that you explained it as if it were more of a savage display of crudeness rather than just self-indulgence and me being a complete ass.

Do you say, then, that self-indulging destruction isn't crude?

At 10/5/06 03:55 AM, goozebump wrote:

At 10/5/06 02:25 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I'm not proposing what we should do. I'm naysaying what we shouldn't do. We should not give our oppenents what they want. We should not play into their hopes for diplomacy.

Who says theya re hoping for diplomacy? One second u say that they have no ranks, no coutnry, and hide in the innocents hell bent on destroying our way on life, but now they have "hope" for diplomacy? YEah i guess thats why all those car bombs are going off in iraq, becuase all they want is diplomacy.

You're an idiot.

They want diplomacy because diplomacy handicaps us.
They want diplomacy because such things as diplomacy allow car bombs, and insurgencies.

If you can't keep up with what we're talking about, go on back to the General forum.

Alright. My fault.

Won't happen again.

I looked it up, and yes, I've seen the crow.

I fail to see the relevance, thogh.

At 10/5/06 02:30 AM, stafffighter wrote: Fuck, someone got high watching The Crow.

I've never seen the crow.

I don't think.

At 10/5/06 02:18 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Can you suggest a way to combat "terrorism" then than would be more successful than my idea?

I'm not proposing what we should do. I'm naysaying what we shouldn't do. We should not give our oppenents what they want. We should not play into their hopes for diplomacy.

We ignored our enemies in the middle east, for decades. Did that shrink their hate for us? Or did they plot the entire time to bring fire and destruction?
Diplomacy works on those who seek diplomatic resolutions.

If we face an enemy that wants bloodshed and destruction, why should we not fight them the same way?

We lost vietnam because we refused to bomb the capital city.
That was diplomacy, in action.

At 10/5/06 02:17 AM, stafffighter wrote:

At 10/5/06 01:43 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: What can I do? I need the people around me, in a variey of ways. I cannot, though, continue relationships where my own brothers and sisters decieve me, and plot against me. They seek to derail me, and what I hope to become.

Not giving a good argument for your sanity here dude.

And what did I say to counter my claim of sanity?

That I need people? Do you not need people, Staff?

That they decieve me, and work against me behind my back? What else is an intervention of this caliber, if not deception? Their concern wasn't even for my drinking, primarily. It was me being 'unstable'. They smile to my face, and yet they doubt and frown and scorn the second I turn my eyes from them.

Was it me saying they seek to derail what I will become, that made you say what you did? Do you not have hopes and dreams? Do you not wish to be something greater than what you now are?

At 10/5/06 02:04 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/5/06 01:53 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: So you'll forgive me, when I have to ask if you're agreeing with me, or pointing out the flaw in my logic.

Disagreeing. I am saying you cannot give your enemies in this day and age, enemies who do not fight real wars, ammo to recruit with. We do that if we legalize "torture," we do that if we have more scandals. We have to show our enemies we are BETTER than them, that we are more controlled, more stable, kinder, better, more advanced. We kill them everytime we restrain ourselves. Emotion only kills our fight.

Pffft. That's foolish. Our enemies have no trouble recruiting evil men. Ammo to recruit with?
Do you dare imply that they have none now?

Our enemies will continue to grow, and continue to recruit, and continue to attack...until they are defeated.

Whatever means defeat them, I approve of.

Immoral, you say? So?

Some guy on the Daily Show commented, basically, "The war on terrorism is basically a propaganda war. And we are losing it to a bunch of guys living in caves. What does that say about us?" And what does it say?

That we've not chosen the right means of offense.
Kindler, and gentler, and nicer, and more diplomatic...doesn't work.
Maybe it worked with Germany. Maybe it worked other times in history.

Our enemies now, though, are not Germans. Our enemy does not where uniforms, or carry weapons. They have no rank, or command. They hide amongst innocents and peaceful civilians.

We must adapt our tactics. Morals tie our hands. Morals cover our eyes and ears. Morals release criminals, and allow our enemies to thrive.

Dimplomacy is exactly what our enemies hope we will bring to them. Kindler and gentler is what they want.

At 10/5/06 02:05 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 10/5/06 01:47 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: As it is foolishly optimistic to think you can stop a process that existed billions of years before humans?

Not stop. Slow down/remove or reduce our influence/introduce an opposing influence. Hardly optimistic. We already have the means... all we need is the will.

Oh, sure. No one, save for fools, denies such a thing.

My point, though, that I've been trying to make, is that nature always wins. It will take back everything we've built, one day.

Global warming exists. And it will always exist. Long after humans are extinct, the earth will continue to cycle through tropical and ice ages.

At 10/5/06 02:03 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:

At 10/5/06 12:42 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Are you such a simple mind that burning a flag, or a bible, or a koran will make you feel better?
Continue, then, fool.

It's not some cro-magnon urge to burn shit for fun. I find it to be a psuedo-ironic twist to use the power of burning a flag (although I agree with the person who said earlier that a flag is really just a simple piece of cloth), but also making a statement about something so uselessly tripe as the Dixie flag.

As I said once, if that makes you feel better, excercise the right.

How, though, is it any different from flushing a Koran down the toilet?
Or breaking a crucifix? Or smashing a buddha?

All I'm saying is that the destruction of a symbol serves no purpose, other than self satisfaction.

And, again...if the destruction of the symbol of another's belief helps you sleep at night, and hold your head high, then I urge you to do it.

At 10/5/06 01:48 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/4/06 11:00 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Morals are to be thrown out during times like ours. Morals do nothing but poison the minds of patriots, and destroy the loyalty of our citizens.

And make good recruiting tools for terrorists. You may have heard of Abu Gharib some time. . .
Sorry, Machiavelli died with the dawn of the information age. You cant be feared by an ideology and you cant subdue one either. So you out propagandize them. Thats how shit works now.

It's late, and I've eaten many darvocets.
So you'll forgive me, when I have to ask if you're agreeing with me, or pointing out the flaw in my logic.

Using your propaganda against another's is exactly the kind of thing I'm promoting.
Rhetoric kills rhetoric. Morals do not work against those who have none of their own.

At 10/5/06 01:45 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 10/4/06 11:03 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

All you need to do to "shut off" the sun is to add mass. Onc ethere is enough, it's fusion will become unstable, causing it to burn hotter and faster, eventually collapsing in on itself and going supernova.

Scientifically implausible.

It does not matter. The ice age happened long before humans...and look at the extremity of that phenomenon.

So you admit that humans are effecting the phenomena in one direction, but refuse to believe we can effect it in the opposite direction?

I've admitted that humans affect, speed up, and sometimes slow down earth's natural cycles. What more do you want from me?

It's also retardedly defeatest.

As it is foolishly optimistic to think you can stop a process that existed billions of years before humans?

I had people attempt intervention, on me, today.

They percieve me to be an alcoholic, and a drug addict. They think I'm bi-polar, and paranoid. One of these 'friends' even went so far as to call me a 'full-blown sociopath'. The word 'demagogue' was used...which I think had to have been a mistake. Demagogues are leaders, and I'm hardly such. Aspirations do not count, either.

I was called manipulative, and unfeeling. I was told the things that I feel, and think, and write about, will consume me.

My point, though, is that those I called friends are now seeking to break me. They have lost faith in me, and the things I speak of and about.

What can I do? I need the people around me, in a variey of ways. I cannot, though, continue relationships where my own brothers and sisters decieve me, and plot against me. They seek to derail me, and what I hope to become.

What do I do? I know this is a stupid, angsty thing to ask advice about....but I am, for once in my life, at a loss for a solution.

At 10/5/06 12:49 AM, hongkongexpress wrote: why are most black men named Devon, Leroy, and Tyrone.

In a word?

Culture.

Though I agree with the right to, I personally find it silly and immature to burn a symbol of something you disagree with.

Are you such a simple mind that burning a flag, or a bible, or a koran will make you feel better?

Continue, then, fool.

At 10/4/06 07:39 PM, Bull-Hound wrote: Uhh, where have you been for the last 3 Millenium? Violence is an instinct.

Rape is an instinct, too. Rape takes place in nature every single day.

I suppose you advocate the 'natural' tendency to commit rape and sexual assualt, too.

Just because it's a compulsion does not mean it's moral.

At 10/4/06 11:52 PM, Truthiness wrote: You act like a consensual blowjob is the same as soliciting sex from a child.

No one said it was.

I said that both acts were morally reprehensible, for an elected official to take part it.

At 9/30/06 03:27 AM, fli wrote:

At 9/29/06 09:49 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Babay-- pulease...
Most 13 year old boys look like girls... if the man was gay, he would solicit men.

He did solicit men.

This thing didn't start with a child...it started with a consensual male page, in the mid nineties.

This man's open homosexuality (open in the sense that GOP leadership knew of it) was the first red flag...and it should not have been ignored.

At 9/30/06 02:40 PM, Truthiness wrote: If someone were to solicit sex from Hillary Clinton, would it be considered solicitation of a young boy?

Definitely. Worse, even, than soliciting sex from a young boy.

And as far as clinton goes?
Foley is immoral, and his acts were reprehensible. Clinton was immoral, and his acts were reprehensible JFK was immoral, and his acts were reprehensible.

Politicians are immoral, and they acts reprehensibly.

Stop acting like your party is any different. All politicians are the same. If it's not homosexuality, it's pedophelia. If it's niether of those, it's alcoholism. If it's none of the above, it's the acceptance of bribes.

At 10/4/06 11:24 PM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:

At 10/4/06 11:08 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: "Shenaynay', though, is not. Nor is 'Deshawn' or 'Keshawn' or 'Leshawn'.

Some are of French/Creole decent. And I think that Hurricane Katrina and Alexandre Dumas have proven that there are black people with French herritage.

I don't believe you.

Look, parents are allowed to name their kids whatever the fuck they want.

The rest of us, though, are well within our rights to call those names ridiculous.

At 10/4/06 10:28 PM, Ocelot wrote: Those names are of African origin.

Bullshit.

Some are of African origin, sure.

"Shenaynay', though, is not. Nor is 'Deshawn' or 'Keshawn' or 'Leshawn'.

At 10/4/06 02:59 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 10/3/06 03:15 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

Do you believe we're only advancing the pace of a natural event, then, and not effecting the scale of that natural event? i.e. you believe we're speeding up the warming, but not that it'll actually get any warmer than it would without us?

Both.

There is nothing we can do to stop a natural cycle of earth. Can we stop rain, or sunshine? Can we stop hurricanes, or tornadoes?

All? No. Some? Yes.

When you find a way to stop hurricanes, let New Orleans, Florida, and Cuba know.
Tell Kansas when you find a cure for tornadoes.
When you find a way to shut off the sun, let the NG BBS know.

We can stop contributing to global warming...but the process will never go away. It shall come to fruition, whether humans exist or not.

Possibly, but it is up to us as to how far that fuition will go. Will it level off in a few years, or will it remove our icecaps altogether?

It does not matter. The ice age happened long before humans...and look at the extremity of that phenomenon.

At 10/4/06 04:04 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Anyways, if we resort to torture, were stooping to those savages level.

Oh no. God help us if we don't hold the moral highground, right?

Morals are to be thrown out during times like ours. Morals do nothing but poison the minds of patriots, and destroy the loyalty of our citizens.

At 10/3/06 07:03 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 10/3/06 06:55 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

You can explain to people when the U.S. economy grinds to a halt.

Let it. If that's what it takes the enforce the law, maybe it's been a long time coming.

Riiiiight.... because a resession is worth the price of having fewer hispanic faces on the streets.

Who gives a fuck about hispanics? Thousands of legal immigtants enter this country every year (some of them hispanics), and I stand strongly behind them. I stand behind all legal immigrants.

We're aren't, however, talking about hispanics. We're talking about illegal aliens. We're talking about criminals.

At 10/3/06 12:22 PM, BrickMurus wrote: Rounding up the large number of illegal immigrants is an improbable if not impossible task. The sheer amount of time, money, and man power that would go into such an operation would require something along the lines of martial law or a strict dictatorship.

Yes? And? Any sacrifice neccessary for enforcing the law should be acceptable.

Especially when you think that the current amount of law enforcement that we have would have to arrest, process, and transport them would cripple their ability to actually fight crime.

Which is why I've thought, for many years, that our police force needs to be given autonomy. Our police force needs ten times the funds, and twenty times the manpower. Law enforcement, as a governmental branch, should be the most important branch in our country.

At 10/3/06 01:27 PM, Truthiness wrote: You can explain to people when the U.S. economy grinds to a halt.

Let it. If that's what it takes the enforce the law, maybe it's been a long time coming.

At 10/3/06 01:59 PM, JoS wrote: Furthermroe , why are we only making the act of being an illegal immigrant illegal? why not crack down on those who employ them? If there was no one giving them jobs they would have no reason to come. I say crack down first and foremost on people who employ them.

Agreed. Shut down every single business who knowingly employs and exploits illegal aliens. Make it a felony to be and illegal alien, and a felony to employ an illegal alien. I don't give a fuck if it's Wal-Mart, or Mom and Pop's House of Fruiit.

At 10/3/06 02:49 PM, Cereal wrote: deporting... they'll just walk over the boarder again.

Kudos, for bringing that up.

The attack on illegal aliens must be three pronged.

The first is a baricade, between the Mexico and America borders.
The second is a crackdown on every and all businesses who give incentive to Illegal Aliens.
And the third is the rounding up and deportation of every single illegal alien in America.

At 10/2/06 07:58 PM, SirXVII wrote: If our government cannot protect our nation without sacrificing personal liberties then they DO NOT DESERVE TO GOVERN US! End of freaking story!

I disagree. I feel if the American people are unwilling to give up small things in exchance for protection, then the American people deserve no protection.

Democracy is the theory that people know exactly what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Well I'm sure as hell not. I am not signing over ANYTHING to ANYONE that gives them more power, but look at the heads of the Republican Party.

You don't need to. The change in this country is coming, friend, and there's nothing anyone can do to stop it. It's already here, in many of it's forms. And more shall come.

You are not neccessary for change. Our government, and those like myself, do not require those such as yourself.
The agents of change are already in place. The one's that are not soon shall be.

Mr. Bush however goes a big step beyond what the frame of our Constitution is. He basically says, "That's unconstitutional" and refuses to go by it without appealing to the courts! Tell me thats not too much power.

The Constitution contains in it the power to change the constitution itself.

That power is one of the most appealing aspects of America.

I for one won't stand for it.

There's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. It's out of your hands.
Protest, and those I stand beside will put you in a cage.
Riot, and we'll turn our own dogs loose among the people, as we did in the sixties.

So you just keep doing what your doing. Write your blogs, and tell your friends, and let everyone on every BBS know you don't approve. Vote, or don't. Write your congressman, or don't.

You will change nothing.

10/2/06 04:40 PM, zeus-almighty wrote:

At 10/2/06 04:35 PM, Cereal wrote: well how did this 32 year old man get his hands on it then.

On another note. How in the hell did that canadian guy get his hands on a weapon in that monteal shooting? I thought they didnt have guns in canada.

Omg! You mean Canada's ban on guns didn't stop a violent attack?
You mean...crime actually exists outside the world of firearms?

I'm so surprised

At 10/3/06 12:32 AM, The-Bi99man wrote: But it wasn't commited by a student, which is what instantaneously comes to people's minds when they hear the term, "school shooting".

Then the flaw is with people's interpretation, and not with the term that is used.

It was a shooting. In a school. The fact even one person disputed the term is idiotic - the fact that many did is disturbing. This topic has more posts about 'it wasn't a student so it's not a school shooting' then about the actual shooting itself.

If it had happened in a laundromat, it might have been called the 'laundromat shooting'.
Would that term be faulty, too, because some imbecile out there assuimes that the shooter was someone washing clothes?

If ever in doubt, turn not to perception and interpretation....but to definition. Definitions do not yield, or waiver. Defintions are black and white. Definitions remains constant.
Either something is, or it is not.
If George Bush calls protesters 'terrorists'...turn to Webster's for the truth of the word.
If some foolish mind calls up the image of students shooting student everytime he hears the word 'school shooting'...do not blame the word, or phrase.

Never blame a misused word, or flawed perception. Simply blame the mind who was incapable of seeing the definition.

At 10/3/06 02:02 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 10/3/06 01:52 PM, Proteas wrote: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I can see how theoretically speaking, this is a good thing. And at the time this was written, the government was new, and possibly unstable.
But there are many 'Free States' around the world whose citizens don't feel the need to keep a militia. My own included.

Pffft. Good for you, and good for them.

They don't, however, have a constitution guaranteeing a right to a citizen militia.

Also, many Americans who are pro-gun, are also very patriotic (a generalisation? maybe...)

Yes. A major generalization.