Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/28/08 05:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/28/08 03:57 AM, Wooly15 wrote: I live in Australia. We have strict gun laws, we have reletively strict knife laws.

Great! Good for you! But if I wanted to live under Australia style laws...I'd move to Australia.

Well, if Australia style laws are better than US styple laws, why not change to Australia style laws?

At 8/28/08 04:52 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 8/28/08 12:14 AM, poxpower wrote: Didn't you ever find it strange that people who don't hear about your religion strangely don't seem to find God?

I have heard of many occurances of this.

When? Who? Where? Sources/links?

At 8/28/08 05:50 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 8/28/08 05:18 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Didn't I say I would wait to see if there was anything wrong with them before considering to buy them (which I probably won't, I perfer German cars). I think that's a better solution then indulging in bullshit stereotyping.

Well well, looks like someone left their sense of humor at home today.

I don't know, I didn't see anything that seemed funny... Well, whatever, sorry for misreading your post I guess.

At 8/28/08 05:28 PM, Jackie-Knife-Juggler wrote:
i'm seriously not the kind of degenerate who would go around descriminating like that, or calling him a terrorist because his middle name is hussein, but he wouldn't even put his hand on the bible for pledge of allegiance. I think the evidence is stacking up people. everyone should just step back and vote for Stephen Colbert.

So what? I wouldn't let myself be forced to put my hand on a steaming pile of bullshit, I mean the bible, either. He does not put on his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance either! OMG, he hates America, it's proof! Things like that are just visual stuff, they have nothing do with the reality of the person.

How can people be so stupid as accusing someone of being Muslim while at the same time bashing the fact they went to a anti-American church?

Also, Obama didn't grow up a Muslim. His mom was Christian and his dad was a Muslim turned atheist.

Moreover, so what if he is a Muslim? I mean, most Muslims are peace-loving people. Don't confuse some dumbass terrorists with normal Muslims. I bet it's pretty hard to type from under that hood...

At 8/28/08 05:12 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 8/28/08 05:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I'm not gonna right off a car just because where it's made. Now, I'll wait to hear from people who buy these cars to make sure there not crap, but just because they're made in China doesn't I won't buy them.

Enjoy your lead paint and sweatshop-assembled seating.

Didn't I say I would wait to see if there was anything wrong with them before considering to buy them (which I probably won't, I perfer German cars). I think that's a better solution then indulging in bullshit stereotyping.

At 8/28/08 05:04 PM, Jackie-Knife-Juggler wrote:

At 8/28/08 04:16 PM, 5Dollar wrote:

At 8/28/08 03:54 PM, Jackie-Knife-Juggler wrote: we will all be 6 ft under. seiously, dont vote for barak hussein obama.

wow "hussein" your a idiot Barak would help the USA sooo much.

no that's his middle name lol.

Your point? If someone's middle name is "Adolf" it doesn't mean there a Nazi. Making fun of people for there names is something only a dibshit little kid would do.

I'm not gonna right off a car just because where it's made. Now, I'll wait to hear from people who buy these cars to make sure there not crap, but just because they're made in China doesn't I won't buy them.

An excellent speech. I'm a big supporter of the Clintons, espicially Bill. Though his behaviour in the primaries wasn't very good, this made up for it.

At 8/28/08 03:54 PM, Jackie-Knife-Juggler wrote: we will all be 6 ft under. seiously, dont vote for barak hussein obama.

Care to say why? Besides the fact his middle name is "hussein". I mean, your so funny for including that in. It obviously hasn't been done before. You certainly are an orginal genius arn't ya :).

I would agree if strict restrictions were enforced. We have to treat these dogs like guns: they can easily be molded into killing machines bred for fighting, but we should blame the dog as it's not really there fault, rather it's the humans. So, we should do background checks etc... on the people looking to buy these dogs, to make sure they won't be used for illicit purposes. However, if an average citizen wants to buy one of these dogs because they think they look nice (which is understandable), then why not? If in a loving family they can be the same as any other kind of dog.

At 8/27/08 05:13 PM, Jezuz wrote: Two words, and one acronym: C.I.A. assassination plot.

He shows his face in public far too frequently. He would be an easy target for a trained sniper.

Because that wouldn't set off an international shitstorm *rolls eyes*. Assassinating world leaders is a big no-no, unless you want the US to lose what international credibility it still has.

I don't really understand this post so much, but I'll reply as best I can.

To what "old morals" do you refer? There are thousands of moral codes that exist and have existed. Judeo-Christian morals, Islamic morals, Buddhist morals, pacifist morals, etc...etc.. In my view, the idea of "morals" is complete crap. The only real "morals" are rather simple, don't murder, don't steal etc... But those are all against the law and are hardly under debate. I think everyone should have the right to determine what they think is right or wrong. If you believe sex before marriage is wrong, then fine. If you believe sex before marriage is perfectly acceptable, then fine. It's your choice, I don't believe that everyone should be forced to adhere to one set moral code (besides the obvious laws). Really, my greatest "moral" is not to force my morals on other people. I don't mind debating my morals with other people, but I consider that more to be the discussion of my views than trying to force other people to accept my outlook.

As for your point about people not changing, I agree people haven't really changed. However, the times have. The essential human character may not have changed, but the way we live our live certainly has.

I think I answered you as best as I could. If I missed the point of your post please tell, I'm sorry but I didn't understand your post completely.

At 8/27/08 07:18 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 8/27/08 04:38 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

LOL! Hilarious! Love the hypocracy! I don't give a fuck about whenever or not Ted Kennedy is a "good person" in your opinion. He's a good politician and is respected by most. If you can't grow up enough to realize that, you don't have the right to say I'm 12. Stop trolling and piss off.

Well, he is technically mostly correct.

He got in a car accident. Left the crime scene. Phone'd up his lawyers. Then waited 9 hours before calling the police.

I believe the word for that is: Manslaughter.

Anywho, I'm actually quite surprised that Obama has yet to receive his "bounce" in the polls. This is turning into an Afghan trip all over again.

And that effects the fact he is good politician who's spend his entire life helping the American people how? Who the fuck cares what people do in there personal lives. Bill Clinton wasn't the best person, but he sure as hell was a great president, just like Ted Kennedy isn't a great person either, but he is good Senator. They're completely seperate. I pity the dumbasses who fall for the scandal mongers who try to make a politicians personal lives an issue.

At 8/26/08 07:56 PM, TheKlown wrote: Saruman200 must be 12 or something, He left the scene of an accident, that is illegal.. He killed someone in a car accident, thats also illegal and normal people do time for killing people who are passengers in there car. Accident or not he left the scene of an accident and people do get charged with murder when they drive drunk and kill the people in there car. Normal people who don't have Kennedy and have money get charged with murder. Stop sticking up for Ted Kennedy he is not a good person, he cheated on his wife many times, and he is a heavy drinker and he killed someone.

LOL! Hilarious! Love the hypocracy! I don't give a fuck about whenever or not Ted Kennedy is a "good person" in your opinion. He's a good politician and is respected by most. If you can't grow up enough to realize that, you don't have the right to say I'm 12. Stop trolling and piss off.

I can't believe how people act like being similar to Ronald Reagan is a good thing. All Ronald Reagan did is lower taxes while at the same time raising military spending in order to fight the imaginary "evil empire". Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush fucked the economy, and Clinton had to repair it.

Ronald Reagan didn't cause the fall of the Soviet Union, Mikhael Gorbachev did. The fall of the USSR was almost a completely domestic issue, the US had almost nothing to do with. The Soviet Union fell because Gorbachev attempted to reform the system with good intentions, but his lightning-fast reform didn't sit well with a country that had remained unchanged for decades.

All Ronald Reagan did was introduce a shitty world outlook of oversimplified "good vs evil", instead of the reality of Real Politik, and he brought in Christian conservatism that screwed over older values of small government and replaced it with more government regulation on people's lives. Ronald Reagan was a bad president, whenever or not your a conservative or a liberal. The way people view Ronald Reagan as some kind of small government saviour is pure historical revisionism and partisan views on history. There can be bad conservative presidents and bad liberal presidents, just as there can be good conservative presidents and bad liberal presidents. Just because someone is a conservative, it doesn't automatically make them a good president, or vice versa.

At 8/25/08 04:09 AM, TheKlown wrote: Whats the tribute to ted kennedy for? Killing this girl?

Near midnight on Chappaquiddick Island, a possibly drunk and definitely married Senator Ted Kennedy takes a right turn instead of a left. His car winds up skidding off Dike Bridge and is quickly submerged upside-down in salty Poucha Pond. His passenger, RFK office secretary Mary Jo Kopechne, is knocked into the back seat. Kennedy swims to safety, whereupon he fails to rescue his companion or even simply report the incident to authorities until the following morning.

Because no autopsy is ever performed on Kopechne's body (her body had been promptly whisked out of state) it is uncertain how long it took her to drown, if she wasn't killed on impact. Likewise, it is never established whether Kopechne was pregnant or exhibited signs of recent sexual activity.

Source: http://www.nndb.com/people/182/000088915 /

Cheating on his wife and killing a girl... Ted Kennedy is a drunk pig

Uh, he got into a car crash and his passenger died. So what? That's not his fault... Accidents happen, deal with it. Moreover, what does it have to do with his politics. Bill Clinton wasn't the most truthful, loving huspand in the world, but he was still a great president. Oh, and Ted Kenedy drinks! THE HORROR! THE HORROR! Guess what! So do most Americans! Grow up, no one gives a fuck about Ted Kennedy's personal life, he's a brilliant politician who has helped many Americans and is respected by members of both parties. If you knew what the fuck you were talking about you would respect him too.

This happens every election. People are always saying "Oh both candidates suck". I heard it in 2004, I heard it in 2000. What makes the US anymore screwed now? As for McCain being a POW, I respect that and all, but that doesn't make him any better as a candiate for president. John Kerry tried the same thing in 2004. And fuck all this talk of who's more "patriotic". I consider over-the-top patriotism a bad thing in a candidate, because it smears there ablity to see what's wrong with the country and what needs improvement, and blinds there judgement when it comes to workign with foreign leaders.

At 8/25/08 10:31 PM, PieGraphGlock wrote: BOTH candidates? I'm sorry, but if you looked at the polls, you'd realize that this is slowly becoming a three-party race between McCain, Obama, and Bob Barr.

I get you support Bob Barr, but don't bullshit yourself. Looking at the polls, he's at 6% while Obama and McCain are in the 40s. To catch up, he would need not only all the undecided voters, but also a good portition (like 20%) from the major candiates. That's not gonna happen. At most, the best Bob Barr can do is draw enough votes away from McCain for Obama to win easily. Barr will to McCain what Nader was to Gore.

At 8/25/08 06:58 PM, MrHero17 wrote: Seriously, so they can defend us in a school shooting, no. How often are there school shootings, answer, not very. I don't need teachers to walk around with guns 24/7 when theres not gonna be a shooting.

Correct. By having teachers carrying around guns your actually increasing the likely hood of a shooting. Shootings don't happen that often, but put guns in a school and your going to see a big increase in the number of shootings.

At 8/25/08 06:26 PM, osiris201 wrote: not really, impulsive shooters could run home grab their dad's gun and run back, and thus not having time to really plan/think it over but you're right, i should've mentioned that.

And the teacher will just let them run out of the classroom? I highly doubt that. At most she'll stop him, and if he gets away she'll call the police to find him. Thus, her having a gun or not changes absolutely nothing.

At 8/25/08 04:04 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 8/24/08 01:51 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I'm glad you think I'm englightened, but when did I say all relgion is bad? I don't recall ever saying that. If you want to share in my enlightenment, maybe you shouldn't put words into my mouth :)

Well, I would imagine it goes without saying that you think what the principal did was bad, and you suggested a direct causal relationship between religion and his actions. You then said that not all Christians are bad, rather than saying that religion itself was not bad. What am I supposed to think?

Since we're talking about Chrisitans here, why should I go further and say all relgion is not bad? Your supposed to think logically. By assuming that I was saying that Christian arn't bad but relgion is your just going the extra mile to make a point when it isn't nessicary. To me it's quite clear. Am I the one being unclear, or are you just getting stuck on the details instead of looking at the bigger picture?

You need to add clarification to your argument, because saying religion was involved doesn't mean anything. A doctrine doesn't "do" anything; it's how people choose to act on it that is important. So whatever these folks in Florida choose to do, it's because of themselves, not religion.

A doctrine itself doesn't "do" anything directly, but that doesn't mean it can't cause anything indirectly. Just like technically, Nazism hasn't "done anything" but it did cause the Holocaust. Relgion didn't actually "do anything" but it still causes the event we are discussing to happen. If relgion didn't exist, this wouldn't have happened. Does that mean relgion as a whole is bad? No. Does that mean relgion has some bad aspects? Yes.

At 8/25/08 05:43 PM, osiris201 wrote:
there are 2 different kinds of school shooters in my eyes

1. planners those that plan the shooting

2. impulsive shooters, those that pissed of and suddenly decide to start shooting without thinking it through.

how by giving teachers a gun, the number 1s will plan accordingly and shoot the teachers first and in the case of the no. 2s, imagine a really disturbed 16 year old kid, who's really pissed at a teacher for giving him ANOTHER bad grade, and he happens to know where the teacher got his/her gun... while if the teacher didn't have a gun he would manage with his anger some other way, by yelling at the teacher or hitting someone (at least it's better then grabbing a gun...)

If you want to look at it like that:

1)Planning shooters: As you said, plan accordinly to shoot the teacher(s) first.

2)Impulsive shooters: Grab the teachers gun.

Without a law like this there is no such thing as an "impulsive shooter" as you define it, because currently you have to go out and buy a gun to shoot up a school. Thus you have to have decided beforehand to shoot up the school. It's not a spur of the moment thing. You can't just "grab a gun" when your pissed if there are no guns there. Of course, with a law like this your putting guns there, allowing "impulsive shooters" to get to them.

So, if you want to use a "two types of shooters" definition, all this does is do absolutely nothing to "planner shooters" and creates "impulsive shooters"

At 8/25/08 03:47 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/24/08 09:50 PM, thedo12 wrote: prove to me with actual satistical facts tht people are becomeing more violent,

;;;
Read a news paper.
try reading several big city papers like the BBC, Toronto Sun etc. Toronto could just as easily be any city in the U.S. the amount of Gun crime ,even with our tougher laws, is nuts.

Canadian gun laws arn't that tough at all...If you want a really tough gun law go to Europe. Toronto could not easily be any US city in gun crime. Toronto's highest gun crime rate is 1.25, compared to around 3 in Boston, around 5 in New York, and around 19 in Atlanta.

Are you still in school ?
I remember what High School was like & I have been in a fight or two over the years & knife/gun crime was unheard of around here. That has changed completely. You want proof do your own homework I have & it is getting worse.

Um, reading the newspaper isn't doing your homework. Newspapers only report on fights were people are killed or weapons are used. Why would they report on every single fight?

Also I believe the courts are partly to blame... you get a convidtion for a weapons offense 5 years Str8 time no early parole should be the minimum, & it should go up from there. That will immediately curb the more intelligent from carrying a knife. The stupider ones will get caught in due time 7 that problem will also be rectified.
You can get more jail time for sellong pot that you can for a weapons offense...that to me is truely offensive.

I agree with this, the weapons offense laws are way too weak.

At 8/25/08 03:43 PM, tkrow wrote:

At 8/25/08 02:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote: What if a school shooter gets ahold of this teacher's gun? What if a school shooter takes out the teacher before they have a chance to respond?

I'm going to label your question 1 & 2.

1. I'm not sure I understand your question, but I assume that by school shooter, you mean a potential one. There are many places that potential school shooters could get guns.

Yes, I ment potential. Sorry. Your also right, there are many places potential school shooters could get get guns, but we're talking about a high school here. None of the students are old enough to legally purchase guns. Stealing a gun from a little old lady school-teacher is a lot easier than faking an ID to legally purchase a firearm, or going into the worse-off parts of town to get an illegal weapon.

2. If they take out the teacher with the gun, you're back to what you were always at anyway. So the situation either gets better or stays the same.

Correct, it'll stay the same. I don't believe keeping guns is a nessicary risk for things to stay the same.

If the teacher knows how to use a gun, I'm sure I'd feel safe in that classroom.

I wouldn't.

Great, how about we just go up to all the mentally disturbed kids, hand them guns and point them in the direction of the nearest school...

I can see the logic behind this, but there are so, so many ways it could go wrong. What if a teacher misplaces her gun and a kid finds it? What if a school shooter gets ahold of this teacher's gun? What if a school shooter takes out the teacher before they have a chance to respond?

The idea looks good on paper, but when put in pratice there are way more risks than benefits. Too many what ifs for me thank you.

At 8/24/08 07:28 PM, Bramly-apple wrote: Its tragic that this happened and there was probabaly a mistake in intel reports or something . Its easy to criticise the US forces about friendly fire and civillian casulties but the fact is you don't know the full picture. You weren't there in the plane when it happened or on the ground being bombed

Exactly. Don't second guess a military operation from an armchair.

you have to realise that you can't win a war without some collateral damage, it dosen't make it right but its unavoidable in war.

Very true.

:That bombing run may of saved dozens of US or British soildiers lifes.

This part I disagree with. US and British soldiers are just that: soldiers. They know the risk, it's there job. Their deaths may be tragic, but better them than innocent civilians. You can't use the excuse "It saved our soldiers lives!" to justify the killing of civilians. Better soldiers who came to fight voluntarily than civilians who arn't even a part of a conflict. It's sad, but if you had to make a choice between the lives of soldiers and the lives of civilians, even if the soldiers were on your side, you should choose the lives of the civilians.

At 8/24/08 07:40 PM, TheKlown wrote:

At 8/24/08 01:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 8/24/08 02:18 AM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: McCain will win anyways

Obama is actually leading. Maybe not by much, but a lead is a lead. This could go either way, but Obama has better chances.

Obama will lose for two reasons:

1) He is not as experienced as McCain

2) He is part black, looks black and the majority of voters are old white men who still have racist beliefs.

Obama is more experienced then Lincoln was. Experience doesn't count for shit. Point number 2 makes more sense. It's really sad. Only 49% of Americans voted in the last congressional election, and 52% in the last presidential election. It's disgraceful.

At 8/24/08 07:37 PM, TheKlown wrote: GAMES AREN'T EVIL, PEOPLE ARE EVIL. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE

I suppose your message is right, but not all people are evil, and the video game and gun issues are completely different cases.

This topic.

At 8/24/08 07:24 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/24/08 06:57 PM, Saruman200 wrote: If everyone owns guns, such as in Switzerland, gun ownership works really well, because while there are guns that can be used to commit crimes, all the law-abiding citizens have them too, so it levels the playing field, which really discourages criminals.

;;;
This isn't what the topics about..& maybe it discourages B&E's but the people of Switzerland are not wandering around everywhere with a gun in their hands.

But most of them carry guns on them. I've been there, believe me. Then what is this topic about, do tell?

;;;
If you look at Canada ,Great Britian... the crimes involving knives are over the top...once a criminal or two would mug you & steal your money or belongings...today they knife you multiple times then rob you...people are getting in arguments and instead of a fight , there are multiple stabbings.

Yes, but Canada and Britian both have much lower crime rates than the US (but higher than countries like Switzerland or Israel).

So while having a gun may make it easier to shoot more people quicker, It doesn't matter these days what is banned or outlawed ,people it seems are becoming more violent.
The larger centres especially you don't just have any real fighting any more its all done with weapons...that's really stupid .
we recently had some people who were going around Halifax & just randomly attacking people. no reason...just something to do !

I know, I read about it in the papers.

Also take sometime & read the papers from several different countries & the larger the population 7 the more poverty the bigger the violence seems to be.

I do... I'm a dual US-Canadian citizen, so I read papers and watch news from both those countries. I also use the internet to get information from all over the world. Yah, more poverty more crime, isn't that obvious?