Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/8/06 08:28 PM, fasdit wrote: Okay this is bullshit.

Say for example the government makes Cocaine legal and you can buy it at any party store. How does the fact that it's legal prevent people from overdosing and killing themselfs on it?

You wouldn't understand irony if it raped you.

LADIES AND RETARDS the moral of the story is, if people were able to buy drugs anywhere they wanted legally in the united states, they would overdose and get killed.

now obviously i dont actually beleive that it's fair to let thousands of americans die just to proove drugs are bad for you.

If i told my opinion straight forward you wouldn't argue with it, you'd just say, wait, i already explained it.

At 10/9/06 01:09 PM, JoS wrote: For one you seem to have no understanding of immigration law. Anyone who sneaks into the country can be removed at anytime without a warrant for their arrest (wella ctually the INS issues the warrant, not a judge). Ditto goes for people violating the terms of them being here. To immigrate you need to go through a background check. The current proposal only covers people who are in the country rigth now and who are law abiding and contributing to the country. Terrorists are nto a law abiding person.

Liberals Beleive that no one should be denied rights into the united states, that includes terrorists.

If we resort to a totaltarian state the terrorists win. If you maintain your civil liberties in spite of the terrrorists threat you win. Killing a few hundred or thousand is nto the terrorists goal, destroying the American way of life is.

And if we maintain civil liberties, the terrorists will keep killing, do you think that women can prevent themselfs from being raped by standing still?

Racial profiling does nto work for terrorists. Why? Because terrorists are recruiting people who dont fit into the profile. John walker Reed, the American Taliban is one example. The terrorists arrested in the UK were all British citizens, the ones in canada arrsted a while ago all grew up here. Many of the people arrested for terrorism where not of Muslim decent at all.

The majority of them will still be arabs. Most terrorists that are arested are arabs

At 10/8/06 05:11 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/8/06 04:54 PM, smith916 wrote: - most drugs that are illegal in the united states have very benificial medical effects

- If the government made drugs legal people would die from them

I see a contradiction in terms here.

Sorry that's a typo, i meant WOULDN'T

The illuminati are scientists who went against the christian anti-knowledge mentality. They're not reptiles...

I'm guessing that they are trying to get a computer to think on it's own. What it's doing with diagnostics desisions is rather interesting. But one mans uselessness is another mans usefullness.

Like i said, this conflict will never be won.

Well... if we gave the terrorists they're way, You wouldn't hear a word of westernizm in the middle east, and every jew in israel would have to either evict or be killed.

For some reason the united states generally hasn't supported democracy in other countries. (but has in others) For economical reasons, but it's no news that humans are greedy. You cant remove greed.

I asume that they do this due to fear of economical competition. The united states will always support capitalism because capitalism is almost never negative to them. (Especially since vast regions of the world supply different types of resources, which is good because it helps prevent international competition)

Terrorists dont hate westernism half as much as they hate western influence. Islamic males would rather die then give up their ability to dominate their wives.

If it were up to me, the united states would be politically isolationist (economically isolationsism is a bad thing in my mind so long as you make sure your money isn't going to military)

The world will never be disarmed so long as males are in charge, neither will the united states be able to solve it's international problems. Osama bin laden doesn't want diplomacy, because he know's that nothing will get done in their interests, Asking the united states to self destruct is equally as impossible as asking terrorists to disarm.

You have two parties who want to kill eachother, and are going to kill eachother, and no human force is going to be strong enough to prevent it from happening.

It's a male V male thing... If no one had them, this wouldn't be a problem.

America will never, ever, ever, ever (Times infinity) be able to rid the world of the majority of radical Islam by fighting them Modern combat style. The "Fair and just" method that democrats and moderate republicans are pushing to solidify will get more soldiers killed. Period.

Now let’s expand on this,

Let’s say, for example, Astir 3 bags full were a terrorist living his life as a modern citizen who in his home is contacting Al Quad and other groups abroad.

We cant arrest him because we don’t have a warrant, we don’t have a warrant because we don’t have any evidence against him, we don’t have any evidence against him because we are unable to spy on him for reasons of civil rights, we are unable to violate the civil rights because we DONT HAVE A WARRANT.

There's problem number one. Terrorists in our country are under complete protection of our own laws. They know this, and they are LOVING IT.

But it gets better for these nut jobs. Not only are they protected in their own homes by the government they seek to destroy, they're also free of any legal speculation or search. In fact, it was suspected that the 9/11 hijackers, were hijackers, SOME of them were stopped, but the United States government was prohibited from questioning or searching them. Racial profiling will spare maybe a dozen or so innocent Muslim families from being shamed by security, but how many lives is that worth? 3000? 200,000,000? Score two for the terrorists...

Well, so we can’t stop terrorists from doing what they do best in our own country, but at least we can stop them from entering our country right? Hell no we can’t. According to some... recent members of America’s civilian populace, anyone who wants to be American should be entitled to enter the country at their own digression without back round checks. They should be entitled to all the benefits of being an American, the right to vote, welfare, and legal protection (Eli otherwise) Including being able to acquire a lawyer USING THE COUNTRIES OWN GOVERNMENTAL TAX MONEY to get themselves out of being sued or arrested. Allah blesses America (At least until he destroys it). (If you even think to say that I am implying that (all or some) Mexicans are terrorists... God help you...) BTW ladies and gentlemen, this doesn't only include terrorists; it includes drug dealers, and sick people.

Oh well... so there's little to nothing we can do to stop a terrorists from blowing up buildings and doing what they can to kill civvies, but at least we can repay them abroad. HAH! That was a joke, there aunt NOTHING you can do to stop them, even if you tried. Let me explain

Well first off, to kill a terrorist; you have to find out where they are, otherwise your shooting in the dark. You also need to find out where they're getting their funding. Let’s hope the laws in America that protect terrorists aren’t as bad as the ones in the countries where the terrorists come from. Well as you know, they're not. They're worse.

Once again, we get to that whole loop hole, if you want to prove that someone is funding terror you have to get what is called, proof. To get proof, you have to investigate, and in order to warrant investigation, you have to ask the mother***** of planet earth for digression to do so, the mighty UN. Now, the UN is composed of 3 types of countries

- Slum countries who want nothing but to be spoon fed GDP percentages of 50 - 70 percent of countries that actually benefit economical goods that ARN'T drugs and nukes. Why should they let America spend its money to protect itself, when it could be donating its surplus on their governmental corruption and failure?

- "We-don’t-care" socialist countries who believe that the only way to stop terrorists is to hug and kiss them to death. They let them flourish in their own countries, and pray for mercy. Some of them would rather be emasculated in public then have to say that they actually supported a war I MEAN, the nerve of it, SUPPORT A WAR? that's crazy talk.

- "nuclear nations", who, if the terrorists were gone, would have no one to sell their goods to. Dont expect any support from them.

ok so you have got these 3 groups of countries all giving America the thumbs down to go into other countries. of course America was burdened with a jackass president who had other plans, to enter a country against their permission, get his soldiers killed 1 per day, NOT take oil out of Iraq, and PERPOUSLY raise oil prices so his approval rating would go down. At least Hitler killed Jews for a reason people supported. (I know what the word righteous gentile means, but they were of the minority)

Putting aside everything I put so blatantly obvious, even if the Un did give the ok, you would have to abide by the Geneva convention

- if a terrorists is captured, we hand it over to the French, who then release the terrorists back into the country like they did with Sadam. (pre-GWB presidential era)
- if we refuse to hand it back to the French, we have to give terrorists all the rights they desire, including the ability to talk to each other, and hire lawyers with American tax money to sue the government for imprisoning them, after all, what did they do wrong?
- we have to be 100% accurate in telling which Arabs are terrorists and which aren’t, )(being that there is no way to tell since the enemy gave us the inconvenience of not wearing a uniform that say's 'kill me' like the Nazis did) if we choose right, and kill the right man, well... good for you. If not, we are "condemned" by the international community, and the tragic death of an innocent Arab is showed 10 times on American news channels across the globe.

Conclusion, keep it up America, and your as good as dead.

Yes, there are spelling errors, but if my spelling errorists and gramatical errors are your best argument, then i think i should move to a different political forum.

screw fire arms, those things kill people instantly, I think teachers should have something better, like a fire arm lancer, or grenades, or better yet! a flog!

Here's the problem

- Americans are so stupid, alcahol restrictions suck
- Marijuana is harmless, it has no affects on the brain
- most drugs that are illegal in the united states have very benificial medical effects
- Drugs take away the pain and make me feel good, what's wrong with that
- If the government made drugs legal people would die from them

It's rather simple, the better a debate is, the worst the arguments are:

a very sold point: results in the following:

- your grammer sucks
- your spelling sucks
- Your momma a bitch
- Answer with a question
- Start cursing in german

is rather simple, get the health department to say that every drug is 100 percent safe, and even benificial to ones health. Ban schools from teaching drug abstinence, and force kids to try atleast one drug in their life time (legal or otherwise i couldn't give a flying fuck)

Then, we watch the mortality rate skyrocket, then record it in the history books so we dont make the same fucking mistake again.

problem solved.

This is a very good question. We are going to have to wait until george bush is out of power, then, get a very very moderate democrat in power, then, he'll do the most conservative thing possible, nuke their asses. The republicans dont get blamed, the democrats get the fame that they've been in withdrawl over ever since clinton was out of office, and the US feels safe. Everyone wins!

At 10/7/06 06:52 PM, Grotesk wrote: You know nothing about history.

true, The allied powers were not out to save the Jews, but you're wrong in your assumption that they were attmpting ot save france.

The Allied powers were fighting the Germans in the interest of self-defence and Truces.

Germany attacks France, who is allied with Brittain. France and Brittain enter war by default. Russians make non-aggression pact with germany, which was later broken, they enter into war by default. Americans stay neutral, but are attacked by japan, they enter into war by default.

The Americans, Russians, French, British all entered into the war becasue they were directly threatened by the Axis powers, not for some egalitarian, altruistic goal. They were in it for their best interests.

This is all true, but your forgetting, scum bag. That the united states has no right to attack other countries, if a country wants to rape the united states, we encourage it to do so, it's the most diplomatic thing to do. It's a good thing FDR was a democrat, or we'd have to surrender. (Cause democrats have political tenur)

I got this from a social scientist / economist contributors site. none of what i am showing you is of my work. But i fully agree with the one who wrote this. If you consider this extreme in any way, i know who the extremists are. If you dont get what i said, then i STILL know who the extremists are. (i can keep this up all day)

And lastly, if your going to debate the 1% of this forum post made by me, then it shows you couldn't care less about any legitimate debate as to why communism doesn't work with human psycology.

The excerpt is over 10,000 + characters, therefore i'm just going to give you the link.

http://www.faqfarm.c..failure_of_communism

If this doesn't satisfy you, then you are: A TRUE LEFTIST

At 10/8/06 05:38 AM, lapis wrote:

At 10/7/06 11:43 PM, smith916 wrote: - In a world of the present, there is no future

What the fuck does that even mean? And for the love of God, learn to spell. Typos happen to everyone now and then but before you go down in the history books as the 21st Century's first influential philosopher I suggest you write something that isn't laden with lexical errata.

I didn't have time to do a Micosoft word / Forum back and forth. I wrote them at 11 something and i wanted to go to bed.

At 9/18/06 05:50 PM, Dizzy-D wrote:

Also considering capitalism outlasted communism in the cold war, thats all the proof you need.

umm wtf, the soviets were the first to send a satilite into space, the first to travel completely around the earth, and the first to land on the moon. They had the economic means to do this because they were under a communist system. learn you history god your stupid

That's because the government had huge stores of money (Since in communism, money goes in only one dirrection, up)

Personally i dont like the second batch of them cause they're very... ordinary.

If you find the statements stupid/corny/boring/sleezey/insulting

i'm ok with it, i'd just rather know why.

If the Sec. of state's name was elizabeth, you'd be calling elizabeth a weird name.

Oh, REALLY sorry for doubleposting, but i had several of them written down (when i think of ones that have deep meaning, i write them down) here are a few others

- laws dont change the people, people change the laws

- In a world of the present, there is no future

- Doing what feels fair is often unjust, doing what is just is often unfair

- You can change the law, but you cant change the people

You know, "regular" names are actually words in other languages (some of the more anchient in fact)

For example, my name, brendan, means little raven in galic (Celtic language of irland)

Ex: peter, chris, james, emily probably all mean things. Infact, i've heard of some names that translate to death, evil, sex, and other strange things.

So what do you consider more normal

Brendan, or little raven

Well... they're one in the same.

The following are some philosophies made by my favorite philosopher me! (actually my favorite is probably einstine. My thesis, is that through philosophical statements, one can express their opinion better. If you dont understand the statements i make, i will NOT explain myself.

- The effectiveness of any law can easilly be predicted by two factors, it's ability to be enforced, and it's alinement with the morals of it's people.

- for aly law to suceed in it's perpouse the benifits of obeying a current legislation must make things greater in safty then in complexity.

- The larger a body of people becomes, the harder it is to manage

- Culture affects the moral of it's people, it's power is unmatched in it's ability to make and break lives along with it's adhearance to the laws of the community

- nationalism and patriotism are like light and fire, virtually one in the same but view completely differently. This, depending soley on whether love of country is forged from the higher mind, or the ego.

- no specific law is can retain it's hold forever, as psycology, the ultimate energy for the evolution of mans true weapon, the mind, will never be static.

- Tradgety is a social force, not a political one

- Acheiving a domestic or international goal only requires as much strength as to trump it's resistance.

- Religous pride can render a law mute, religous compassion will render a law, unnessesary

- no one can hope to better themselfs if they feel they do not have the inner capacity to do so.

- Inspiration comes not from detracting from others, but generating a mental current of the mind.

- To a passifist, killing a killer is equal to 2 deaths, to a lawmen, killing a killer is 2 deaths, and dozens more saved.

- A leader can change nothing. When the eyes of the people spell fire, there will be fire. when they spell life, there will be life. Only through a leader, however, will their eyes spell anything.

I'll only explain one of them if asked...

Yes, my philosophies are opinionated, but most are.

Comments? questions? debates?

At 5/31/06 12:36 PM, raoul_duke wrote: Why must they become citizens? Why can't they just live there? America is supposedly the land of the free. So why can't the native Americans, who've been there alot longer than most, just live freely out there?

Well first off native american ancesoters came to america 20,000 years before the first foreiners. So THEY came first, not the other way around.

If a person wants to live in the united states but not give an effort to become a citizen, i think, then i beleive they should be separated from the government. in other words

- since they're not citzens they dont pay taxes,
- they wouldn't get government benifits becuase they dont contribute with taxes
- they shouldn't get the right to vote

However the door to citizen ship should always be open to them.

At 6/2/06 04:40 AM, user001b wrote: sorry for double post but this is interesting

its not only those da vinci code assholes who believe jesus wasnt crucified(im not christian i just think they spread obvious fiction as fact)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuz_Asaf

well they believe he was crucified but survivived and moved to kashmir and changed his name to yuz asaf

In the Da Vinci Code There is a scene of jesus being crusified. And they say in the movie:

After jesus was crusified, mary magdolen was pregrant and fled isreal with her uncle peter to egypt.

At 6/1/06 06:01 PM, CaptinChu wrote:

At 6/1/06 05:53 PM, smith916 wrote: Islam is, actually infact developed from anti god worshiping reactionaries.

Source please? 'Cause from what I read, they are not allowed to worship ANYONE except God. Yes, I am using God as a capital "G," because Muslims and Jews and Christians ALL WORSHIP THE SAME GOD. Stunning isn't it?

No, not really. Christianity is a tangent from Judaism, and Islam is a tangent from Christianity. Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet, but Muhammad as the last prophet.

Before you make prejudice remarks, research your subject.

What i mean is, and i do, islam did develope from either christianity or judeism, i wasn't sure but i asumed it was christianity. Reactionary, as in, reaction to. And anti god because it states in the koran to whipe out christians and jews.

At 6/3/06 10:44 AM, Cazruzult wrote: Why do humans put themselves above every other creature just because they have their little world of metal and wheels?

Humans = Stupidest creature...ever... EVER.

What buttcrack would abuse their planet so much, when they're the only ones with the intelligence to look after it?

And that they can just choose to wipe out any other species?

"Omg, these wolvesare killing the sheep because there's no other food because we wiped out the forests to build farrrmss, ohno, lets WIPE THEM OUT"

That's why there's no wolves in the UK..... same with a LOT of others... the Dodo? It had no natural enemies, kids would go out and beat them in the head until dead for food.

Hyoomans are like, Earth's virus.... o_O;;

[/endrambling]

i cant answer this. Simply stated humans are the only species on this planet which have a cerebrum large enough to solve complex problems. Consider this, animals do something that is unfair like attacking a specie from behind, but we call it survival. Now obviously we dont try and change it because it's the natural way of things. For humans it's the same thing. Some humans do things that others consider to be wrong because the majority of humans have a concience, and because we have the ability to survive without hunting others, such is looked down upon.

I beleive that earths problem will solve itself, earth has a certain carrying capasity and because earths population is so huge, something such as war, famine, plauge, disease, and so forth would be able to lower earths human population down to a fraction of what it is now. i think if the situation get's worse , naturally disasters will set permedent laws into place which attempt to prevent it from happening again.

Any country that attempts to fight against terrorism will be attacked, it's very simple, dont expect to fight somone and not get a few punches thrown at you. But it hardly matters since once terrorism has finished with one country it moves to the next, which could be you.

The whether or not the sacrifices involved in fighting terror are worth it is debatable. But perhaps if i changed a few words.

Any country that attempted to fight against nazi germany in world war II was attacked, it's very simple, dont expect to fight somone and not get a few punches thrown at youm but it hardly matters since once germany had finished off one country, it moved to the next. Which could have been you.

At 6/2/06 11:17 AM, EZ3 wrote: his fanatic anti-communism could have destroyed the world.

plus he's a fucking homophobe.

too bad he wasn't assasinated.

He was, he just didn't die in the assassination. Somone tried to kill in while he was swimming or something. Infact had he not been weakened by the gunshot wound he probably would have continued exersizing, which may have kept him alive for awhile longer.

Ok, first of all let me say that please dont argue over the first part, because that's not the point.

Let's say that osama bin laden get's a 20 nukes from korea and bombs the 20 most populated US with 10 of them. The united states government surrenders and is now a ragime under one of jihad's top diplomats.

With the united states army under islamic extremist control, osama bin laden plans to use the US army to wage war on other countries.

Once again, this probably isn't going to happen, but, as i was saying.

Make a list of the countries, in order, which you think he would attempt to invade.

At 6/2/06 06:56 AM, Kenzu wrote: How about only those who vote for People who want jihad to fuck america in the ass go vote?
I'm just kidding. Of course sane people should vote too.
How could I be so shallow

Yeh, how could you.

At 5/30/06 11:20 PM, PacoW wrote: Funny.

I'd make religion mandatory. I don't care what religion, as long as it believes in God.

No atheists allowed, or deists, or agnostics, or whatever fancy word.

The Flag would feature a large black man giving the thumbs up.

It would be ruled as a Softer, Fluffier version of Hitler's Totalitatian Fascist government.

Get the idea?

nooooooooo!!!!!

Atheists are awsome, second best are islamics, and then jew's rein supreme.