Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/18/06 05:00 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 9/18/06 04:36 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: And I'm still losing weight faster than a junkie. I might have a tapeworm, because last time I checked, being a drunk doesn't make you lose weight.

Do you smoke excessively?

Yes.

Someone told me chain-smoking is somehow related to weight loss, kinda sounded like bullshit to me.

All smoking does is keep your metabolism up.

Anyways, why the hell are all these religious threads popping up? I've only been gone for three days and there's like seven different "Disprove/Proof God" topics out on the bbs.

Because people dig god, apparently. Or the lack of god.

At 9/18/06 05:02 PM, Begoner wrote:

The intentional targeting of innocent life is always wrong. Period.

If, for example, I have a nuclear weapon and say that I will detonate it unless you kill an innocent civilian, would it be the correct course of action to kill that civilian.

'What if' scenarios are for children. Grow up, or go home.

If the US and Israel will keep on attacking Arab countries and slaughtering Arab civilians unless they are forcibly stopped, is that wrong?

The intentional targeting of innocents is wrong 100% of the time. Period.

At 9/18/06 12:45 AM, Rottrevore wrote: NADER IZ THE FUCKIN MAN! WHOOOTT NADER FOR LIFE, U PEOPLE got that!

Nader is a GOP puppet, fool.

Take a guess who funded his campaign, in '04?

At 9/18/06 03:35 AM, Sensationalism wrote: Too bad people think voting Green is a waste of vote. I don't care, I'll vote Green Party anyway.

Good. You'll help keep the republicans in the white house.

Thanks.

At 9/17/06 10:45 PM, Steel-Reserve wrote: The Green Party supports the abolition of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear proliferation is the only thing that will keep the world safe.

The Green Party opposes the death penalty, and wants to focus
on crime prevention, rather than harsher punishments.

Prevention and deterents don't help. Incarceration and execution, though, do.

The Green Party is in favor of taxing industrial pollution.

I'm opposed to the taxing of industrial pollution.

The Green Party supports a negative income tax to keep all adults above poverty line.

That would do nothing but encouirage laziness and poverty.

The Green Party supports choice within public schools.

I'm not sure what this point even means.

The Green Party supports universal health care. (this by itself will make for a good debate.) =D

That's socialism. We don't play that, here in the United States.

Man. The green party is the party of fools, apparently.

At 9/18/06 04:58 PM, Begoner wrote:

You were generalizing? You outright said you support suicide attacks on innocents.

Not on all innocents. Just on US and Israeli citizens, so far. Perhaps also on the Taliban and other more minor powers, too.

The intentional targeting of innocent life is always wrong. Period.

This isn't an opinion. Get over it.

At 9/18/06 04:43 PM, Crimson-Dragon24 wrote: I Myself like Linkin Park

I feel the deepest kind of pity, for you.

and also if you DO flame me over this you are a very childish person

Oh noes. You got me.

At 9/17/06 07:47 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 9/17/06 06:21 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Well aint that great for the multitude of victims of collateral damage.

Since when have you cared about collateral damage?

Oh, so if one is wrong occasionally, he's obligated to be wrong all the time?

At 9/18/06 03:23 PM, Begoner wrote:

Wow, we got a terrorist promoting flip flopper on the forums.

I don't believe in killing people in general. Would I be OK with killing Hitler? Sure. I was generalizing.

You were generalizing? You outright said you support suicide attacks on innocents.

That's not a generalization.

At 9/18/06 09:23 AM, Togukawa wrote:

At 9/17/06 06:17 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

To tie in with the gun supporters, how are you going to fight your government if the need comes, if it knows everything you are doing?

If I had my way, I'd strip the 'right' to 'fight the government'.

We should not have that right. Our government is greater than us. We are simply cogs for the American Machine. Those who attempt to knock the machine from it's tracks are nothing more than treasonists, who deserve prison or execution.

At 9/17/06 07:42 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 9/17/06 04:02 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: And I work at a little ceasars, now.

Can you get me free pizza?

You bet your ass I can. Every night, I bring home at least two or three pizzas, a bag of bags of crazy bread, and eight wings.

And I'm still losing weight faster than a junkie. I might have a tapeworm, because last time I checked, being a drunk doesn't make you lose weight.

At 9/17/06 09:43 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 9/17/06 06:27 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Kindness is rooted in greed. Love is grown from the seeds of lust and lonliness.
Name me a pure act. Name me a kindness not derived from guilt.

You are wrong. Your cynicism taints your views because you don't seem to understand that doing things because you want to is perfectly fine.

Oh, sure. It's fine. No one is going to stop you.

If you believe Love comes from lust and loneliness, you know nothing of Love.

I know much of love.

Pure Act: You hug a friend to help brighten up his day.
No guilt is involved. You didn't do anything to ruin his day, so how can you be guilty of anything?

You're confusing 'guilt' with 'feeling guilty'.

Your friends in a bad mood. This causes you to feel bad, for him, correct?
So you hug him, which makes him feel better - which makes you feel better.

Every act is an act of self service.

At 9/14/06 04:34 AM, StarFighter2000 wrote: We all need to let it go. It's not like Bush and his buddies didn't retaliate by bombing the shit out of Iraq for no reason. Sure, 9/11 was horrible but what happened after that was much worse.
At 9/14/06 02:30 AM, BushidoBrown wrote: i agree, its time to let it fuckin go.. if you did't lose any loved ones in 9/11 then shut the fuck up.

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.
Women? Stop worrying about sexism.

Stop complaining about the Christian Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.
Stop moaning about the nuclear weapons used in WW2.

Can't all you people just give it a fucking rest?

I mean really. Let's just get on with our lives.

At 9/14/06 04:35 PM, 200monkeys wrote: I guess at 15 I am too young to know why people would drink a shitty tasting drink they know hurts them..

Yes, you are. Much too young.

At 9/14/06 05:29 PM, 200monkeys wrote: And this doesn't say DRINKING makes you make more money, it is saying that being socially active does. Instead of going to a bar, where all the people you meet probably aren't the kind of people you want to do business with, you could go some place else and be socially active with a more respectable class of people and get even BETTER business.

Where do lawyers go, after a hard day of prosecuting/defending/interpreting?
Where do doctors go, after an eight hour surgery?
Where do flight attendants and pilots stop off at, while they're on the ground?

Bars.

AT 9/14/06 06:31 PM, fli wrote:

He's a fucking prick... fo'show--
I told him that it wasn't the fact the people are drinking that's making them successful... but the fact that people who go out of the house and socialize connect even if they're not drinking.

I think the point was that the institution of alcohol leads to socialization and, sometimes, job oppurtunities.

Oh, sure, you could socialize at Chuck E. Cheese, or a pizza hut. You can stir up rousing conversation at a Mcdonalds, or a Wal-Mart.
The fact, though, is that bars offer a much more comfortable atmosphere for socialization.

At 9/17/06 06:58 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/17/06 06:55 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Karma is as real as Santa Clause.

and god?

Yes, and god.

At 9/17/06 06:56 PM, Begoner wrote:

Sure it is. You seek to enact legislation to decide what's best for the individual.
That's what Big Brother does.

Yes, let's not have any laws at all. Let's not enact legislation against murder, because that would be deciding what's best for the individual! Let's allow people to own stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, etc., because only Big Brother would outlaw them!

Some things need to be outlawed. Acts that directly harm othersl, I mean.

A gun does not harm someone....a criminal does.
A car does not harm someone...a driver does.

Money is the root of America.

That is an extremely sad state of affairs, especially since you don't see anything wrong with your viewpoint.

I'm proud that money runs the world. That's how I want people to be.

Sorry if you disagree.

I'm not really that sorry.

Karma is as real as Santa Clause.

At 9/17/06 06:49 PM, Begoner wrote:

What you're seeking to do is impose Big Brother-esque laws into our constitution.

No, banning guns is no more Big-Brother-esque than banning nuclear weapons is.

Sure it is. You seek to enact legislation to decide what's best for the individual.

That's what Big Brother does.

Money makes the world go round.

Really? I would have thought people helped maked the world go round. You know -- all those people who have to work so that you can live your life of abundance?

And all those people worked for money. Take the money out of the equation, and you have no workers.

Money is the root of America.

At 9/17/06 06:45 PM, Begoner wrote:

At least I don't support terrorism and the killing of innocents.

Do you support Israel? Do you support the US? Then you support terrorism and the killing of innocents. I similarly bid you pleasant dreams.

HAHAHAHAHA

At 9/17/06 06:37 PM, Begoner wrote: No, nobody could make that argument unless they were retarded. Last time I said "boom" to somebody, they didn't fall down dead. Last time somebody was a shot in the head with a gun, however, I'm sure they died.

The issue is not something that is dangerous. The issue is changing the constitution over someone's opinion.

What you're seeking to do is impose Big Brother-esque laws into our constitution.

We don't need to give the government another reason to decide what's best for us.

Tough pill to swallow, huh?

I was being sarcastic. The fact that you care for a couple of dollars more than you care for somebody's life is -- quite frankly -- repulsive.

I wasn't looking to be anyone's friend, brother.

Money makes the world go round.

At 9/17/06 06:39 PM, Begoner wrote:

If I had my way, you'd be executed by the state for treason

You would be incarcerated for the rest of your life for treason if I had my way (lucky for you, I don't believe in killing people).

At least I don't support terrorism and the killing of innocents.

Hope you sleep good at night.

At 9/17/06 06:29 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:

At 9/17/06 06:21 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: Automobiles kill tens of thousands of people a year, too. Should they be banned?

Cars have a use that doesn't involve killing or recreational purposes.

So? They are just as dangerous as guns are.

I'd bet money that the number of people killed or injured in automobile accidents is higher than the number of yearly gun injuries.

If this were the end times, we wouldn't all be sitting around, debating politics behind our computers. Our kitchens and pantries would not be stocked with food.

There is no strife, outside of normal week-to-week living.

Where are the tribulations? Where are the trails, oh naysayer of doom?

At 9/17/06 06:26 PM, Star-pirate wrote: Yes im a collector so to speak of firearms and i agree 100% you bring up loads of good points kudos

Who, exactly, are you speaking to?

Quote and clarify, please.

At 9/17/06 06:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 9/17/06 05:05 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: I do feel, though, that there are inherant 'bad' acts.
Rape is always wrong. Always. Rape's wrongness is not a matter of opinion.
Genocide is wrong, 100% of the time. So is slavery.
So is the intentional killing of innocents.

But, if there is always one act of a evil magnitude, then there must be a complete opposite act, should thier not be.

Oh, there should be, yea. We, however, know better.

Kindness is rooted in greed. Love is grown from the seeds of lust and lonliness.

Name me a pure act. Name me a kindness not derived from guilt.

At 9/17/06 06:18 PM, Begoner wrote:

Even at the cost of innocents.

As long as the alternative is even less acceptable and they do not possess the capacity to attack the military, yes.

You are outright and openly not only supporting terrorism...but encouraging it.

If I had my way, you'd be executed by the state for treason.

At 9/17/06 06:16 PM, Begoner wrote:

I could make much of the same argument about the first amendment.

No, you couldn't. The 1st Amendment doesn't kill tens of thousands of people each year in the US.

You're arguing to rid something dangerous from America, yes?
Well, if someone felt that the total free speech Americans are granted was a threat to security...that someone can make the same argument.

Automobiles kill tens of thousands of people a year, too. Should they be banned?

The point of nukes is to kill. The point of guns is to kill. You do not allow people access to tools whose sole object is killing.

Yes, you do. Our country was founded on that ideal, just as it was founded on free speech and the choice of religion. The second amendment was built into America.

Economics trumps morality.

Yes, that is the sad state of affairs in America. Who cares if 5% of people have 95% of the wealth? Economics trumps morality. Who cares that we are slowly poisoning ourselves? Economics trumps morality. Who cares that were are killing tens of thousands of people? Economics trumps morality.

Tough pill to swallow, huh?

You'll get used to it. Everybody does.

At 9/17/06 05:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 9/17/06 04:47 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote:

At 9/13/06 09:02 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: At 9/13/06 09:57 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I can't wait till the day that it's (the patriot act) repealled.

With or without the patriot act, it shall continue. With or without your approval, it shall continue.
Get used to it.

Good to have cnyical Sam back again, I missed you some.

Wonderful to see you again, too.

But, yes I agree with you there, it will always happen, it's just the part that it has happened publicly that I don't like.

At least the patriot act defined, in legislation, what was wrong or right. Without that document, our government will continue doing the same thing...behind closed doors.

The prisons will not close. The surveillance will not stop.

At 9/17/06 06:02 PM, TimeTrials wrote:

At 9/17/06 05:51 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: People like you are no different. You'd have us drown in archaic laws, if you could.

Let me shorten what I was TRYING to say...
I meant taking away what the constitution already has, you dolt.

And what do you think is being taken from the constitution?

No one is looking to arrest innocent men. If you aren't breaking the law, you've nothing to fear.

At 9/16/06 06:11 PM, Begoner wrote: The Constitution was framed in a time when there was not that much violent crime committed by guns. The framers did not expect for people to be shot in the street with pistols, for there to be automatic weapons, etc. It is a living document, and, as such, the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed.

I could make much of the same argument about the first amendment.

I don't blame the entire gun community -- however, those who sell firearms are to some degree culpable when one of their weapons is used in the commission of a crime. People want guns for "self-defense" and then end up shooting their girlfriend after a heated fight. It's the fault of the people who keep buying guns.

It is people, and nothing else, that are responsible for gun deaths.

Guns are inanimate hunks of metal. Inanimate objects hurt no one.

Crazy people, though, do.

I'm pretty sure that all people who have or are going to commit violent crimes with a gun don't have "CRIMINAL" branded on their forehead. It's much better to harass potential criminals, or, better yet, take away tools whose sole purpose is to kill or wound.

Then let's do away with ornamental knives, swords, mace and pepper spray, beartrap, and electric fences.
After all, everything I mentioned is designed soley to harm.

It wouldn't come. I care more about human life than about the gun industry -- it is like a vulture; it profits from death.

Economics trumps morality.

10. Have you ever shot a gun in your life, hippy?

Of course not. There is no reason to.

That speaks volumes about you.

At 9/16/06 08:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: Eh, considering the majority's opinions on most things, being on the other side is rather an honor for most of us elitist left-wing hippies.

And we love your elitist attitude, too. So long as people like you, and your party, stands for condemnation towards our majority...you will gain nothing.

Same reason some lefties and some righties want to ban/cencor/heavily restrict violent video games. People have this aversion to personal responsibility, and if they can shift the blame onto anyone they will.

Exactly. The leftist that wants to ban guns is just as ignorant as the conservative who wants to ban violence in the media.

At 9/17/06 05:52 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I think he's mearly targeting extreme islam and thier inability to deal with anything that differs from thier theology.

Bingo. That's exactly how I interpreted it too.

Extreme Islam is one of the most intolerant, self-centered, arrogant beliefs that exist. They twist their own relgion, which was meant to be one of peace.

At 9/17/06 05:48 PM, TimeTrials wrote:

At 9/17/06 05:47 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: We need amendments that fit the changing times. Allowing judicial double jeopardy is not neccessary, at this time.

I don't see why anything should be changed as it grants everyone rights and fairness. Seems to work pretty well.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a living document.
It was written so that it could be changed in the future.
Our founding fathers knew the constitution of their time wouldn't cut it, hundreds of years later. So they installed a failsafe, where we can change the constitution if neccessary.

It's a good thing that we can change it.

You know, there were plenty of whites that disagreed with the constitution granting freedom to blacks. There were many men oppossed to the constitutional amendment allowing women to vote.

People like you are no different. You'd have us drown in archaic laws, if you could.

At 9/17/06 05:16 PM, TimeTrials wrote:

At 9/17/06 04:47 PM, Samuel-HALL wrote: The entire point of having a Supreme Court is so that America has the power to change the constitution to better fit the times.

Ok, then I want Double Jeapordy to be completely removed as it's illogical for a man to get off with a serious crime like rape or murder just because he was tried once already.

And that argument could be presented to the supreme court.

Considering reality, though, we both know that your argument wouldn't get anywhere close to a lower court...much les the supreme court.

We need amendments that fit the changing times. Allowing judicial double jeopardy is not neccessary, at this time.