Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'm not sure what type of freedoms you have to go about the area as an ambasadors son, but if you have some I'd go about looking for friends. Chances are you can meet some good people that can show you everything your missing and you'll end up having a pretty good time while you're over there.

evilchan seems to be more into the raids specifically on scientology. LEt's just hope the scientologists don't start using gaia.

I would have said thompson, but he's out. So if he makes it romney. If Mccain gets it I'll vote democrat, no matter who. I'd rather have the country going the wrong direction for four years then lose the party that can fix it.

The age should match the drinking age since you can reasonably compare the impairment.
One worry of mine is it seems all the tests for marijuana we currently have are yes/no either show you have smoked or you haven't. Since it can stay in your body for 3 weeks after the high is gone we'd need to develope some sort of test to tell how high a person is for the sake of DUI. I don't know about you, but if it is legal I don't want to be arrested on DUI charges when I haven't been high for two weeks.

The whole life/death no afterlife thing was one thing I had a hard time with when I accepted athiesm as truth. I finally came to the conclusion that my legacy was more what I was worried about, what people thought of me after I died. Sure people would have mourned my death. But would they think of me as a good person? Well that depends mainly on how I act when I'm alive right? So to that end I live my life day to day trying my best to be a good person that people will respect now and when I'm dead. So to put it simply. Your memories of her is her afterlife. There is no need for her to be floating with angels, because her friends and family think of her in a good light and that's the best you can ask for in death.

At 1/20/08 11:43 PM, 0peth wrote:

At 1/20/08 11:15 PM, LadyGrace wrote: There also is a black woman running for president. I BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT!

I'd love to vote for her based primarily on that, but unfortunately, she's fucking crazy.

http://ontheissues.org/Cynthia_McKinney.
htm

"More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)"

Lol

You only need to read to reperations to realize she's batshit crazy.

Everyone I've talked to who won't vote for obama or clinton is purely against there policies, not their race or gender. Ofcourse if either of them lose you know democrats will claim it's purely on the base of race or gender.

At 1/19/08 07:24 PM, Zeistro wrote: Obama can beat any Republican candidate? Are you kidding me? Obama may be able to defeat Huckabee or Romeny, but there's no way in hell he'd outperform McCain or Guiliani for the mere fact the swing voters, whom would for moderate candidates over fully-fledged party zealots such as Obama, would be less attracted to such polarizing figures.

Why would a republican vote for McCain or guiliani when the democrats are already running a liberal candidate?

Ok this is something that started bouncing through my head the other day as a way to encourage the free market to not only invent greener vehicles and alternative fuel technology, but to also implement it in a way that we don't end up with fuel wars. Think hd-dvd vs blu-ray, but with ethanol and hydrogen.
First we give tax free status towards research and manufacturing above the consumer standards. Basically all the expenses for labour, equipment, materials would be purchased completely tax free, may not seem like much, but that's 10-13% cost gone, may make it a little easier for the companies to take the expense.
Second, one of the requirments to recieve your tax free status would be making your research available for study by other car makers, who in turn must share their findings and advances they make upon your original findings. Say one company finds a way to run hydrogen more efficient another figures out the storage side of things another works on getting more power and performance out of the engines. Pretty soon through this cooperation we gain industry standards, something we can model our future gas stations out of.
Third, once the technology is off the ground to the point of consumer manufacturing cut the tax free research status, but still impose open sharing of research or let them purchase the right to private research to develop the technology to compete, regaining some of the loss they grew from not collecting or refunding taxes.

I've thought of a hundred reasons why it wouldn't work and a hundred more why it would. I think once the hurdle of two big companies starting to share is over the rest are sure to follow. It gives a pretty good incentive to the companies who know that if they develope something without the tax free status it will most likely be reverse engineered anyways.

At 1/16/08 09:16 PM, phsychopath wrote:

At 1/16/08 09:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/16/08 08:58 PM, phsychopath wrote: What makes these other shit for brians better canidates than her?

What good does it do us to try and convince you of anything on the matter? It's obvious from your post that you've already made your mind up to vote for Hilary if she gets the nomination, as you hold all other candidates in pretty low regard.

So I want to ask you this; how exactly does 8 years as First Lady make her qualified for the job of the President, when most of her "experience" consists of being just that, Bill's wife.

Well she may of observed his work. I haven't made up my mind yet BTW, I'm just asking why is everyone bashing Hilary, whats the big deal and what makes her a lesser canidate than the other's?

She's extremist, she'd increase taxes to the higher classes the people who create jobs leaving less capital for new job growth. All these goodies she's promising are going to put even more strain on taxes. Regulations she wants to put on industry would choke them on there own without the extended taxes. She obviously doesn't understand economics or business at all. So she wants to raise taxes on pretty much everyone above lower-middle class to pay for socialist programs and then she wants heavy regulations on every industry from auto-makers to videogames that would cut productivity way down. Can you tell me how we're supposed to grow or even support ourselves when more money is taken and we can't produce as much as before? Where does this magic money come from? That alone is a DAMN good reason why she shouldn't be in office. If she makes any ground on any of the pretty promises she's made it would hurt our country badly.

Exactly why huckabee is unelectable.

At 1/16/08 10:22 AM, Musician wrote: Honestly it doesn't matter who wins the Republican primary, I really can't see anyone other than McCain actually winning against any of the top 3 democrats.

McCain is only republican by name, he's not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He may encourage alot of swing voters, but he'd turn away so much of the republican conservative base there would be no way he could win. Romney has a chance, a good one against hillary or obama. His stances on social issues, mainly civil unions, may turn away some bible base republican voters, but bring enough swing and even democrat voters to make up for it. His religion is another plus, most of the criticism towards him will most likely be religious concerns leaving him time to speak about issues swaying voter towards him with that and then closer to election time answer the religious questions freeing up alot of the vote from people who are concerned with that.

Groups like that are limited to basement dwellers, like hillbilly WOW players. Obama's safe if elected president.

Mike Huckabee (R) 61.54% match
Ron Paul (R) - 60.00%
Fred Thompson (R) - 57.69%
Sam Brownback (R) - 53.08%
Barack Obama (D) - 46.92%

Fuck, my highest match is at 61%? No wonder I'm not too excited about any presidential candidates this go round.
I don't exactly follow many party lines though so I can't be surprised.

It's reasonable to assume that we can people from doing harm to the general public without killing them. We're a civilized society we should avoid taking human life as much as possible.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/8132 43
There all the debate all the statistics put together on why theres a higher health risk.

Remember it's for the children.

If I were god there'd be no explicit sex on tv.
wiki wiki...
you can finish it all in your head now.

We've had this discussion over the blood donation issue. Go look up one of those threads replace words where needed and you have this thread.
There saved ya a whole lot of time.

I'm surprised nobody has a clue about the whole clinton thing.
Paula jones accused clinton of sexual harassment, her lawyers looked for character witnesses. They found lewinsky who actually had physical evidence. Clinton lied under oath a serious crime no matter what the subject. Ofcourse I liked clinton so I'm glad there was no impeachment.

At 1/6/08 11:34 PM, AdamRice wrote: I'm going to go ahead and defend the OP on the notion that drilling in ANWAR will not turn it into a toxic wasteland. I think many of you are heavily exaggerating the damage that will be caused.

What happens when you have oil fields? You have employees to run them, employees have families, families have homes homes grow into neighborhoods and so on and so on. It's not just a few pumps here and a factory there it completely changes the land.

At 1/6/08 02:02 AM, TonyTostieno wrote:

At 1/5/08 03:02 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: hydrogen

That'd be nice.

Ethenol

Last I checked that's more expensive then gasoline is.

Larger capacity electric storage

Notice that electricity is made mainly by fossil fuel using power plants.

Just plain efficient use of gasoline

We're doing the best we can mate, we try to get any more efficient and our cars are going to completely suck ass.

And everything you mentioned that is improving becoming cheaper and more efficient every day.

Not efficient enough to become independent of oil, though that would be absoloutely badass.

I think you got me wrong here. I'm just pointing out new technologies that are advancing. With that we'll most likely be off of oil in turn for something cleaner and cheaper by the time the alaskan oil fields start producing. Why would you spend 4 months and thousands of dollars fixing your 88 honda when your sure you'll have an 08 mustang in 3? If you know me I could care less if we go green, but fiscaly it doesn't make any sense. And if you're worried about driving a car that "sucks ass" then just take a look into electric racing where it is today. The cars have the ability to go faster and get to top speed quicker then most sports cars we have today and it's not too long till they surpass the ability of their gas counterparts. Not to mention easier repairs and a shit load less moving engine parts to break.

At 1/5/08 07:11 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 1/4/08 10:20 PM, Grammer wrote: Heroine doesn't constitute a large enough part of the drug crime in this country to justify banning it.

Heroine also doesn't constitute a large enough portion of the illegal drug trade to be the main focus of the Drug Enforcement Agency either, they're usually more worried about Cocaine, Marijuana, and Meth, which are far cheaper and easier to get.

See what I did there?

So you must admit that you must concede

Cheetos are a wonderful source of stained fingers

I concede that I never made the argument to begin with. Read on, True Believer.

I just made an argument but you just conceded you can't argue with it.

Doritos are tastey, but sometimes due to the nature of hard corn chips they stab the side of your mouth causing discomfort.

And by the same token, you've conceded that you cannot argue that such a weapon is functionally better for hunting and self defense. I guess you aren't as consistent in your argument as you thought.

AR have larger clips which are typically found in people who need to shoot multiple times

Funyuns are ok. Although I find it odd I can eat them considering I'm allergic to onions.

Larger clips are also a popular collector's items at trade shows. Not everyone who goes out and buys one has the express purpose of going out and starting a massacre, some people just like to have them for the historical value they have, not unlike collecting inert grenades or bayonets.

Explain how.

Fritos. Taste great, not as messy as some alternatives and they are able to cure the munchies in moments.

The only logical part of your argument thus far has been grossly excessive clip size, that's it, and even then you augmented said argument with the idea that someone who would purchase such an item has the express intent of going out and massacring a bunch of people. That is an appeal to fear. It's also an appeal to probability, because you're posturing that simply because there are nutcases out there that someone will eventually misuse them in a massacre, and they should be banned because of it. If you were worried about people going on shooting sprees, you'd be more focused on semi-automatic pistols and illegally modified hunting firearms, because the reality is that those are the weapons of choice for spree killers... that, and improvised explosives.

I could also easily -- and rightly -- accuse you of Straw Man for the whole 50 round clip argument, since it was YOU who came up with it and acted as though myself and the others on here were somehow defending the right of people to go out and massacre others with them.

And I should mention that the original Assault Weapons Ban did not ban said clips or weapons they were used in. There was a grandfather clause in the bill that allowed legally owned weapons and clips made before the ban to still be legally bought and sold, which only accomplished making said articles that much more expensive on the collectors market. The overall incidence of gun crime in this country wasn't significantly effected by the bill, and there was no blood running in the streets the day it expired.

Chedder and sour cream ruffles must be my favorite chips. As I look back onto my choice of potato chip whenever I hit a deli I can honestly say 90% of the time I'll get my cheesy ruffles.

Leno doesn't have many options other then his late night show. He's gonna be limited to a car dealership and bit pieces in movies.
He needs to get back to work and showing himself to be more valuable then the writers at the same time.

So you have a superiority complex. You're convinced that your opinion is the only one you can reach if you look at things with any level of inteligence, and so everyone who disagrees must be stupid.
You're using the same logic that tells people whites are better then blacks, men are better then women, and basically any excuse people have used to try to justify opresion of any group they want. Democracy works. It has worked well for us even with its flaws. And just because all the decisions made don't go along 100% with what you think doesn't mean it's broken.

hydrogen
Ethenol
Larger capacity electric storage
Just plain efficient use of gasoline
And everything you mentioned that is improving becoming cheaper and more efficient every day.

The problem I see, playing devils advocate, is that we are very close to developement of cleaner renewable energy sources. If we start drilling alaska we loose the urgency for these technologies since we'll be swimming in cheap american controlled oil.
Also oil fields take time to set up, we're looking at 5 years before we see the first barrel roll out and 10-15 before we start pumping enough just to be self sufficient. Not to mention the years of work just to get the project started in the first place. So by the time we actually get what we need for today out of the ground technology will have progressed enough that our need for oil will have shrunk largely.

At 1/4/08 01:44 AM, ForcedDj wrote:

At 1/4/08 01:30 AM, SEXY-FETUS wrote:

At 1/4/08 01:08 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/4/08 12:56 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

blablabla

I don't know, maybe it could make people question Clinton more, and start voting for Edwards or Obama. How does she appeal to extremists anyways?

Well if you take all of her promises and intentions she's made public, we'd be a very heavily regulated practicaly socialist country. She's hardline social and economic liberal. I've met alot of people who are one or the other, but the few I've met who are both I consider "extremist" maybe I put a bit of a heavy word on it, but it's been commonly used lately and I guess it's sunk more into my vocabulary.

:And I dunno, but hopefully the next president is not Clinton, and is actually going to help out in the WOT and try to bring peace to the Middle East.

That would be nice, but don't hold your breath. Obama with his muslim connections I had thought would make it possible, but his attitude towards war and Iraq in particular don't make me hopefull. Edwards I'll be honest I know practicaly nothing about. He may be a good option, I don't know.

At 1/4/08 01:08 AM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/4/08 12:56 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I'm in disbelief that Edwards beat Clinton.

See, I really don't like Hillary, but John Edwards is such a sleazeball. I don't understand how anyone can like him. He looks like, acts like, and talks like a car salesman.

Fuck me... I was just having a convo with a friend of mine on the drive home from work tonight about that very thing.

The question then becomes... what does a third place in Iowa mean for the Clinton campaign? Will she have to post a double-digit win over Obama and Edwards in New Hampshire to regain her lost momentum? Or will it take a Dean-esque scream to nail her coffin shut?

Just hope for the sake of the democrats that she doesn't recover. She only appeals to extremists and fantasy demographic groups. A win for huckabee or romney are almost a given if clinton is the democrat nominee. Obama is the best bet and a sure thing against romney, americans don't have the bigotry as much towards blacks anymore, but they sure have more than enough for mormons.

Huckabee playing the "I'm the REAL christian" game in iowa is going to hurt him everywhere else, the whole time he's trying to sneak in he's not mormon he's telling every other christian denomination they're wrong as well. He's up with clinton on my hate meter.
Obama however I'm very happy about this victory, I think he has the best ideas and can do the most good for our country on the democrat side and wish him luck.