Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/21/06 05:03 PM, texicomexico wrote: Hey, just a side note but check Begoner's sig. I, as a Jew am apalled he would compare us to nazis.

Begoner is an anti-semite, and a supporter of terrorism.
Ignore him and do not respond to him, if at all possible.

At 9/22/06 12:58 AM, Truthiness wrote: And you notice, there are no flamethrower-related crimes.

Not yet. The word is out now, though.

At 9/22/06 05:37 AM, fli wrote:

At 9/22/06 05:17 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote: And why the fuck wouldn't minorities have IDs? Do they not drive? Do they not purchase cigaretes, or alcohol?

Lots of Blacks and Latinos don't have IDs.
Don't know why... cultural thing, I guess.
They may have a Fash Cash ID to cash a check. When I was a bank supervisor, lots of black men (save from the very old ones) just didn't have IDs. Lots seemed resentful about being asked.

Well that's just tough. As I said before, photo IDs implant one into 'the system'.
It's time minorities conform to this. It's time everyone conform to this, if we can make them. Anything we can obligate a photo id on, we should. From restaurants to voting booths.

I do my best to make the minority voice vote as much as they can protest. I can't stand a person who bitches about the president, but never took the chance to vote in the last election when they had the chance.

I'll strongly agree with you there.

At 9/22/06 05:10 AM, fli wrote: Marvelous idea...
But the intention is to curb back voters who don't often have IDs... Minorities and young people.

And why the fuck wouldn't minorities have IDs? Do they not drive? Do they not purchase cigaretes, or alcohol?
Young people, I can see what you're saying. I think, though, that this is a great incentive for young folks to hurry their little asses up and get into the system.

I guess I will be helping a lot of people getting their IDs soon...

Please do. I'd applaude that action, from you.

At 9/22/06 02:45 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/22/06 02:08 AM, fli wrote:

Bullshit, AIDS is running rampant in Africa because the Pope said no to birth control.

Hence...
"Getting priorities wrong.."
Africa would be better if people choose to be either abstinent or to have sex only with a condom.

Umm, joke guys...

You ain't shit.

Weapons that do not discriminate targets are useless. A point of a weapon, be it of singular firing or mass destruction, is to kill an enemy. When a weapon begins to kill innocents, or anyone who is not the intended target...it becomes inefficient.

I'd disagree with cluster bombs even more so than napalm. Napalm is (was) targeted at troop movements, and verified enemy strongholds. The fire is dropped, and once it burns out, it's gone.
Cluster bombs remain. They don't burn out. Long after our enemies are dead or gone, the bombs remain for innocents to find.

Here's a question: Why not improve the cluster bomb, so it actually fucking explodes on impact..

At 9/22/06 04:18 AM, FeeFee85 wrote:

At 9/22/06 04:13 AM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 9/22/06 01:13 AM, NorseBeast wrote: I'm an atheist, for the record.

You're an athiest, so you can't express an opinion (or make a logical conclusion) about which of the two things presented in this topic are more dangerous?
By 'athiest' (and that's the correct spelling, by the way), did you mean 'idiot'?

Can you explain why he cant express a valid opinion because he is an athiest? I figure he would be more objective due to this fact.

In his first post, he chose to not give an opinion for the ignorant reason of 'being an athiest'. As if any topic regarding religion is moot to him, simply because he doesn't believe in a god.

I don't believe in a god either, but I'm cognitive and intelligent enough to know that I better solidify where I stand, on this particular topic...because our opinions and actions regarding such things hold sway over the future.

The little boy was showcasing his athiesm, by posting and intentionally not giving an opinion. And that's fucking retarded.

At 9/22/06 01:57 AM, fli wrote: One's American and the other isn't...

Exactly. That makes all the difference, sometimes (unfortunately?).

At 9/22/06 01:13 AM, NorseBeast wrote: I'm an atheist, for the record.

You're an athiest, so you can't express an opinion (or make a logical conclusion) about which of the two things presented in this topic are more dangerous?

By 'athiest' (and that's the correct spelling, by the way), did you mean 'idiot'?

At 9/22/06 12:39 AM, NorseBeast wrote: Yeah, I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that if you are a convicted murderer you can never vote again

You are wrong. After a designated period of time, all felons can reapply for voting rights. In most states, anyway. I'd imagine there's some places that don't allow it.

At 9/21/06 07:17 PM, Begoner wrote: She posed no threat to the country whatsoever

So? She was a criminal, who entered America illegaly.
End of story.

At 9/21/06 03:18 PM, xboxbob11 wrote: Americans who came to this country illegally would be denied the right to vote simply because they are not classified as official U.S. citizens

Aliens who come to this country illegaly are not 'Americans'. They are 'illegal aliens'. They do not deserve the right to America's air and water, much less the right to vote.

And no, felons cannot vote unless they go through a lengthy process. They must be clear of any debt incurred by their felony, and they must pay another fine for reinstatement.

At 9/21/06 08:16 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 9/20/06 01:01 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I've found cheap and easy girls dig old spice, while classy chicks consider it a turn off.
And you can guess who I'm trying to impress by wearing oldspice, too.

Wow, my grandpa wears Old Spice. What does that say about him?

That he's a man who loves the cheap stuff.

Cheap girls don't stick around long enough for their baggage to show (both literal/physical luggage, and mental/emotional baggage). I dig that.

At 9/21/06 02:49 PM, Idyes wrote:

At 9/21/06 02:46 PM, Monocrom wrote: Sometimes, it's not about punishment. Death is the only way to guarantee that a serial-killer will never kill again.

Just sentence the killer to life. Only like five people are murdered per year in jail... I don't think that those five people are a good enough to reason to execute hundreds per year.

We don't want the killers to live, though. We don't just want them off the streets: we want them in graves. We don't want to give them second chances. We choose to not even allow the chance at reformation.
Some people don't deserve a life sentance, or rehabilitation.

At 9/21/06 12:35 AM, TimeTrials wrote: What about those kids who actually... work?

What the fuck about them? Guess they better catch a ride from their parents, or take the bus, or a cab. Or walk.

At 9/2106 12:23 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: All you bitches that are in favor of it are over 16. Think about this; when you were younger, you needed that license to get to school, to work, to simply conduct life.

People got around just fine before cars.
School? Ride the bus like everyone else, asshole. Or get a friend to pick you up.
Work? Get a ride with your parents. Take the city bus. Hail a cab. Get a coworker to pick you up.

To take that away from teens will just produce a lot of angry teenagers who can't work, and have to be driven everywhere by a lot of angry parents.

No one cars if teenagers are angry.
And if this happens, it will give parents more direct control over their children's (as in, under eighteen) lives.

At 9/21/06 12:33 PM, AMFYOYO wrote: Yeah, sure it's great to just put all teenagers under one roof of "assholes who can't drive and only do destructive shit", but did you ever think that some of them actually need their license?

So the fuck what if they do? They'll live, until they are eighteen.

Just to shrug it off and say "oh yeah its just the plight of a few teenagers" is really an assholish move.

That's really too bad for you.

Folks under eighteen are barely American citizens, as far as I'm concerned. They can't vote, or excercise any legal right. They've been proven to be wreckless, and irresponsible. They're more worried about pretty girls and high school footbal than they are becoming a productive citizens.

Driving is one of the few rights folks under the age of eighteen have.
And I'm all for stripping it away.
For safety's sake, of course.

At 9/20/06 05:09 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 9/20/06 01:01 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I've found cheap and easy girls dig old spice, while classy chicks consider it a turn off.

A woman friend of mine, accurate term and not eupthamism, asked that I wear tag when we met up last month. How does that reflect on her?

She wants the staff, fighter.

And thanks to all who advised my goddamned keyboard situation.

At 9/20/06 06:48 AM, xboxbob11 wrote: Tell me, do they really need to know who we are to vote or is this all a big setup?

Yes, they do. This is (or should be) a great thing for democrats. They made such a big fuss about potential voting fraud, and 'voter disenfranchisement'...and this will solve that problem.

It will show that everyone is of voting age.
It will show that everyone is a national, or a legal immigrant.

There's no reason to disagree with this. One must even start to question the motives of one who disagrees with this. Wouldn't a person who disagrees with mandating photo ID's at the voting booth be...encouraging voting fraud?

At 9/19/06 07:33 PM, AshfordPride wrote: When you punish someone, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? In most cases, the answer is reforment. You punish people in oreder to show them that what they did was wrong, and when you do this act, bad things will happen.

No. Punishment and recourse (or 'justice') don't give a fuck about reformation.
Puinishment is self defining. There is no underlying motive - it is simply to inflict on those who have inflicted, or to incarcerate and seperate from society.

And for the vilest of the vile, what better seperation from society than death?

The person learned nothing, and even if they do repent it's ignored.

Yet they no longer exist, and that is the point. Death means a person cannot murder, maim, rape, molest, or torture ever again. Death takes away the chance of said person 'reforming' and being put back on the streets.

It offers no justice to the victims of the crime.

What the fuck says punishment and recourse serve victims, other than your own morals? No legislation, or law, or government mandate says that laws have to satisfy or console a victim of a crime.

Death is no punishment.

I disagree. Death is the ultimate punishment.

At 9/19/06 08:24 PM, ThePurplishOne wrote:

At 9/19/06 07:57 PM, defactoidZERO wrote: You'd surprised at the number of people related to a victim who get angry when a murderer "gets off" with only life in prison. A lot of people find solace in the "eye for an eye" philosophy; most people are just happy to know that the murderer is dead at all.

Care to back that up with something more substantial than "well people think like this"? No, you can't. An eye for an eye makes us all blind, to quote Gandi. Also, revenge is not the point of justice. Justice needs to be totally blind, or it is unfair, and so unjust.

That's exactly what the fuck the topic starter did, Purplish. He made an unsubstantiated claim that victims, and the family of such, recieve no console in a criminals death.

You don't get to bash this person on the same methods that you're agreeing with the topic starter on, and still act like you're using any logic.

At 9/19/06 09:33 PM, Grammer wrote: But it depends on what you meant by "a certain point". Do you mean a certain point in time, or a certain degree of severity in a crime that should not go without "vengeance"? Either way, murderers and rapists can be reformed, it's just very difficult. Granted also is that many of the worst criminals are sociopaths, and don't want to be reformed.

Even if they can be, I feel some do no deserve to be. Why should a murder, who raped and tortured his or her multiple victims, be provided psychiatric counseling and government housing....even if it is for the rest of his or her life?

Some people do not deserve a second chance. You give up the right to seek treatment for your mental diseases and psychosis, when you torture and kill, and rape and mutilate. And I don't feel that's extreme, or even unfair.

At 9/19/06 09:34 PM, Begoner wrote: It is a barbaric practice, pure and simple.

Sure is.

No one deserves to die,

Pfft. Grow up.

and it doesn't carry that much deterrent value as opposed to life in prison.

So? Any who look at the death penalty as some kind of intended 'deterant' have failed to grasp the concept of law and order, and recourse.
We are not trying to deter, by executing criminals. We are simply trying to execute criminals.

Hell, I'd prefer the death penalty to life in prison.

Who the fuck cares what you think, if you're the torturing, raping murderer in question? Society should stop caring, when one chooses to commit certain crimes.
Detach yourself from society's weak links. Stop thinking and speaking as if Dahmer was just the guy next door. Manson was not Joe American that you work with. People like that are not simply 'sick'. People like that do not 'rehabilitate'.

And even if they did, they wouldn't deserve the second chance, as far as I'm concerned.

At 9/20/06 08:17 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: The redneck to me is a person who is unsophisticated, low-class, not neccessarily white, crude, unhygenic, drives trucks (usually for no reason), has some obession with hunting, and has a singing fish somewhere in their house.
Yeah, i'm a classist, and i hate rednecks.

Yes, you are a classist. And yes, you are part of the problem.

Empathy, sympathy, and assistance can be powerful tools, used to gain what a country or empire most desperately needs: clout.

At 9/20/06 10:34 AM, D2KVirus wrote: After all, they're building a bigger penis substitute on the site...

Goddamn right. I hope they put a fountain at the top of the tower, to spray water in an ejaculating manner every hour.

That'll show the terrorists and Ted Kennedy who the man is.

At 9/19/06 03:25 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Also, a note to the guys out there: Wearing enough Old Spice to kill small animals will not attract girls. On the contrary, it repels them.

I don't drown myself in old spice...but I use it often.

I've found cheap and easy girls dig old spice, while classy chicks consider it a turn off.

And you can guess who I'm trying to impress by wearing oldspice, too.

In other news, the pressing of my 'u' key produces 'ui'. I have to backspace every time I use the letter. Please, someone tell me how to fix this.

At 9/20/06 01:25 AM, fli wrote: It's a way for non-whites getting back at a class that doesn't really have a bad word. But it isn't really as bad. I mean, Redneck is in no way as close on scale to the n-bomb word.

Only because caucasians are intelligent (or absent-minded) enough not to empower someone else's hatefuil lingo.

And by the same token what you have said...
One must question why are good qualities are bad.
Red neck = person who works all day hard
"N-Bomb" = Person who is dark

Refer back to people's, 'specially the topic starter's, opinion about the word 'redneck' and 'hick'. It is used in a derogatorey manner, implying inferiority. To most of these people, 'redneck' means 'uneducated, bigoted, and ignorant'.
Not far from what the n-bomb means, yea?

A slur is a slur.

Why is wetback such a bad word?
I mean... to cross deserts and dogging dangers is braver than most people can do here. Really, to be called wetback is like wearing a red bage of courge.

Because various races of latinos have empowered the word, and allowed it to affect them.

At 9/19/06 08:39 PM, Malachy wrote: the thing is, people typically thingk redneck as white racist men who are prejudice against everything, typically conservative and alcoholic.

And that's just as prejudice as me thinking all blacks smell, and live off welfare.

and lets face it a harsh working life would do that to most anybody, so soon enough, every "townie" becomes a redneck in people eyes - they hang out together, then things they do and how they live outside of work becomes part of the mental image of others, they drive pick up trucks, listen to country, have "support our troops" stickers, generally christians, and dicks to everyone who's not like them. thus they in a way helped along the idea people have towards red necks.

You're right. Just like the blacks in Harlem, in a way, help along the idea people have towards blacks.

we have people just like that, who give off a bad image and even take the name redneck or hick with pride because it puts them into some social group - thus why they shun outsiders, they have a constant need to belong, so if they can be seen together as a unified group, then they will attempt to give off whatever the expectations of the group.

If you interchanged the words 'redneck' and 'hick' in your above post, you could be speaking of any minority.
Many accuse blacks of doing exactly what you imagine 'rednecks' doing.

You're just as ignorant for believing the 'redneck' stereotype as a racist is for believing the 'wetback' stereotype.

At 9/19/06 09:15 PM, Del-Toro wrote:

Agreed. It's time folks let go of all past atrocities.
I want the jews (and blacks/gays/retards/gypsies) to stop pissing and moaning about the Halocaust. It was over fifty years ago...give it a rest.
And c'mon, you black people....let the civil rights thing go. Stop complaining about reparations, and the Jim Crow Laws.
Native Americans need to shut the fuck up about their land being confiscated for American use. Mexicans, too.

Amen brother, people dont get that comparredto other parts of the world life here is sweet, especially women, maybe we should ship them all to sudi arabia and see how they like it, and there is no way in hell Im paying some black guy cuz his ancestor was my ancestors slave,I wouldnt want reparations in his situation, and money doesnt grow on trees. Althought the Holocaust should be remembered......

What the fuck are you talking about? I was mocking the person I was responding to, for acting as if atrocities can be swept under the table. Obviously, though, my sarcasm went far over your head.

Idiot.

At 9/19/06 04:08 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 9/17/06 11:28 PM, fasdit wrote: The presense of Nuclear Weapons by everyone in a sense prevents them from being used. Because everyone knows that if one country fires its nukes the other country is going to fire back resulting in a stalemate.

MAD only made sense when only the major countries with something to loose had nuclear weapons, and even then it didn't make all that much sense (haven't any of you children ever seen Dr. Strangelove?). Nuclear proliferation makes nuclear weapons easier to come by (look at the break-up of the USSR, and the amount of suitcase nuclear weapons STILL unaccounted for). As an example, I'd ask you how the US having 11,000 nuclear warheads prevents a religious fundamentalist from detonating a bomb in a major urban city.
This response is aimed at you too, flagg, you little wanker.

There will always be extremists. There would be fundamentalists seeking nuclear weapons even if all major countries in the world banned them. The existance of fundamentalists/extremists, though, does not negate the concept of nuclear proliferation.

When all the major countries have nuclear weapons, it deters one country from launching at another. Why would you 'press the button', if you know you'll suffer nuclear attack soon there after?

Nuclear weapons do, and will continue to, exist. And since they do exist, we must have our own supply of them.

That's all I'm saying.

I've decided, after listening to Rodney Dangerfield (and drinking) for six hours, I've decided Mr.Dangerfield is the funniest motherfucker that's ever lived.
I have spoken.

At 9/18/06 06:16 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 9/18/06 05:56 PM, Politics wrote:

At 9/18/06 05:05 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Because people dig god, apparently. Or the lack of god.

He's a cool dude.

Hell yeah he is.

Me and God, we been cool from way back.

I remember we used to sit around and play Super Mario Brothers, and smoke blunts.

He always rolled 'em, of course. I can't roll for shit.

At 9/18/06 03:39 AM, Sensationalism wrote: I can see how people would view drugs as bad, but peace?

Oh, you didn't know?

Americans can't stand peace.

At 9/18/06 05:07 PM, Begoner wrote: Are you retarded? Seriously, do you ignore everything that I post that flat-out refutes your idiotic assertions?

During a debate, I ignore childish scenarios deliberately created and tailored by an oppenent to be answered in a way he expects.

I ain't your regular NG dummy, brother.

Targeting innocent life is wrong. Period.