Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Freddie Mercury fo' sho.

At 10/12/08 10:40 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: In other news, have a gummi lighthouse:

Those do not look like lighthouses.

I'm quite interested in this. The game looks fun, but it's hard to say how team elements will play in this besides formations. Any way when this game is done and if it keeps up with the pace it has been I will get it.

At 10/5/08 06:12 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Yes we do.

Ehh, no we don't, in fact theres a sticker on our schools front door that says we don't.
This is why we can't make petitions, have group activities without the school being aware of it/having a teacher be part of it, they can without questions search us/confiscate items.

No, you don't.

If we don't then, where do you think we do? Because it's quite apparent we do, and the teachers frequently remind us we have.

But you can hand out ad's and papers all you want.

I wished it was that simple.

Mm ba ba de
Um bum ba de
Um bu bu bum da de
Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you no man ask for
Under pressure - that tears a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets

At 10/4/08 09:55 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 10/4/08 07:22 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: I am Shaggy.

;;;;
I also am Shaggy !

I broke the dam.

At 10/4/08 09:38 AM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 10/4/08 12:57 AM, omega510 wrote: Then i got a slip in class that says i have 2 days in In School Susspention.

That's bullshit if it's true. You should talk to the Superindendent or to a court. Suspensions look bad on Transcripts, so make sure you do something about that. It's a violation of your rights.

We do not have rights in our school system. You sign those away when you join the school.
Your not allowed to put up posters or anything on the walls anyway without permission and depending on what it is.
Hell the principles son went around putting up signs that he was having a party at his house with drugs and alcohol. It was quite funny. He was told to take them down, and the second the assistant principle looked away he started putting them back up. Oh great times.

At 10/3/08 05:22 PM, Grammer wrote: Your last name is Bevill?

Why yes, yes it is.

I think Bo Biden is hilarious

It rolls off well.

Reminds me when black people and wiggers (mostly wiggers) say mo' money or any other such nonsense.

At 10/3/08 05:11 PM, Grammer wrote: wtf I had a legitimate question as to who would name their kids Bo and Track

No srsly, who would?

That's just thilly

Uhh I'd probably name a son Bo, Bo Bevill doesn't sound to bad.
I still love moonunitone.

New season for my CS team. Looks like it might be a good year since CAL manned up a bit and started the hacker crackdown, obviously their still whoring out to select teams though.

At 10/3/08 12:54 AM, Musician wrote:

At 10/3/08 12:08 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: Way to go off on a tangent and troll a thread like usual.
Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?

I'm going off on a tangent? You've completely refused to stay on topic, opting to give pathetic retorts like "way to miss the point durr hurr" rather than proper responses. And I find it endlessly amusing that you accuse me of being a troll and then proceed to post something as inflammatory as " Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?". You're a total hypocrite.

Please look at what you type next time. You ARE taking this thread on a tangent, all the while being a hypocrite for the exact same things your accusing me of.
Next time don't just jump into a discussing you have no idea about.

Not only that but your argument is completely unsupported. Obama does not run his campaign completely on "glam" because he's actually able to actually make and present coherent arguments regarding the issues, something that both you and Palin apparently cannot do.

Read again, I never said Obama ran his campaign on glam. Now your sticking words in my mouth. And once again we are not arguing over issues, we were arguing over presentation.
Whose being coherent again?

At 10/3/08 12:02 AM, Musician wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Way to overlook the point:

Way to try and dodge your way out of the debate as usual.

Way to go off on a tangent and troll a thread like usual.
Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?

At 10/2/08 11:56 PM, Joshiwa wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

Way to overlook the point:

At 10/2/08 11:36 PM, Joshiwa wrote:

This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks : by using "glam" she is going to win over votes but in reality it insults us when what we really want is answers which she could not give.

Were not discussing who answers what questions what way, were discussing how they send that message through appeal. Throwing in which one does it to be correct is a whole different story.

Yes we are and have been the entire time, it just shows that you have no counter for this because its the truth.

You quoted me saying, "Look when it comes to getting a message across the average person doesn't know any better to tell if it's right or wrong, but they remember things that stick out. Her being glamful did just that."

I was specifically talking about how they get their message out.

You then said, "This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks by using "glam" she is going to win over votes but in reality it insults us when what we really want is answers which she could not give."

I was responding to the, "This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks by using "glam" she is going to win over votes"

Basically I stayed within the bounds I set up for myself. So yeah sorry for not continuing what you tacked on there.

I have not noticed it, only the fact that he stands for change and has a plan. But forget it I will give you that but the fact remains that it fails in comparison to how Palin is using it as the basis of her entire campaign and the fact McCain is trying to leech off of it.

I wont deny it, their both shoving it in our throats, but Palin is pushing it harder.

At 10/2/08 11:42 PM, Musician wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:38 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Arguably Obama has done the exact same thing in the majority of his presentations. His whole appeal has been I'm a young black guy.

Except Obama actually produces information that's relevant to the questions being asked. Palin just completely danced around the questions given to her. So no, you can't argue that Obama has done the exact same thing.

Way to overlook the point:

At 10/2/08 11:36 PM, Joshiwa wrote:

This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks : by using "glam" she is going to win over votes but in reality it insults us when what we really want is answers which she could not give.

Were not discussing who answers what questions what way, were discussing how they send that message through appeal. Throwing in which one does it to be correct is a whole different story.

At 10/2/08 11:43 PM, Joshiwa wrote: When has he used this to his advantage like Palin tried to tonight? The McCain campaign thinks because she is a women other women will vote for her which they have come to find out, obviously, that is not true. Obama knows what he is talking about and gives the answers, charisma is part of politics but not in the sense Palin is using it to her only factor in an election.

His whole campaign is based on this, a lot of his speeches have reflections of it, though I will admit some can be taken in a lot of ways. It's there, but it's hard to notice.

At 10/2/08 11:38 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: But it sticks out as annoying and repetitive, not as truthful and significant. Negative things can stick out, and that's what people are going to remember: Palin beating a dead horse.

True, but Biden did the same thing. For example the whole McCain 90% vote for Bush. They're both guilty of it.

Shit, that should have been in quotes.

Yeah I deleted it for yeah. :)

At 10/2/08 11:36 PM, Joshiwa wrote: This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks by using "glam" she is going to win over votes but in reality it insults us when what we really want is answers which she could not give.

Arguably Obama has done the exact same thing in the majority of his presentations. His whole appeal has been I'm a young black guy.

At 10/2/08 11:23 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: That's why she fucking lost. She was so far up her own ass in flowery bullshit about America and family and all that great shit that she couldn't find the time to actually say anything that mattered half the time. That wasn't "glam", it was a crutch to keep her from falling on her face on live TV. It looked fake, it was horrible, and she had to resort to it to prevent further damage as a last resort.

Well hur hur hur, man with conflicting opinions. Look when it comes to getting a message across the average person doesn't know any better to tell if it's right or wrong, but they remember things that stick out. Her being glamful did just that.

Biden gave his shit straight up and out, and did his best to get right to the point hard and fast, and said what he meant, since what he said was frequently much more relevant than Palin's responses.

At 10/2/08 11:11 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:01 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: And the truth of the matter is... no seriously, shaking your head laughing is a sign of weakness in debate.
Sorry guys, but win Palin.

If you respond with a valid point that shoots down the opponent's, then it really doesn't matter what you do with your head. Judging a win fro Palin just because Biden shook his head laughing instead of responding (mainly because he wasn't going to interrupt her) is a weak basis for saying who "won".

Well gee thanks Skippy for pointing out a no-duh.
I found Bidens responses to be quite dull and non effective, not saying Palin didn't do the same here and there. As far as presentation goes, Palin put more 'glam' in the explanation and came off being witty at times. When it comes to the debate I say it's a tie, but when it comes to getting your points across Palin did better.

And the truth of the matter is... no seriously, shaking your head laughing is a sign of weakness in debate.
Sorry guys, but win Palin.

That was amazing, right when it started to go downhill, boom, ranting hobo.

At 9/27/08 08:08 AM, Lord-Ilpalozzo wrote: MacCain was blinking so much I though it was morse code heres what I think I got

".. .----. -- / -- .. ... ... .. -. --. / -- .- - .-.. --- -.-. -.- / -... . -.-. .- ..- ... . / --- ..-. / - .... .. ... ? ..--.."

What are you going on about? Obama blinked just as much as McCain and frequently smirked and showed signs of being pressured.
Quite frankly I would also say it was more or less a tie as far as the debate goes, but when you throw in the back meaning to it McCain won.

At 9/20/08 01:22 PM, DasUberCow wrote: Youre such a fucking typical halo fanboy. I might put this in my sig as living proof that people who play too much halo eventually become assholes.

Scuse' me, but this additude stretches over to any online game, not just Halo. So it's easier to say the internet in general makes people bitter.

We've all ready experienced Link talking...

Excuuuuseee meeee Princeeeesssssss...

At 9/9/08 08:21 PM, aninjaman wrote: You have never seen fox if you are going to say that. What about Sean Hannity, and Bill'O, and the fact that KARL ROVE is a political analyist. I am a liberal but I do watch fox news and it is obviosly biased.

see the movie outfoxed

As far as Bill goes, isn't he under the opinions section?

I've always enjoyed the MGS manuals, very well made with some additives thrown in.

Link to the Past was always my favorite, probably because it was the first one I played.

That mirror room in Mario 64

I don't know. I guess it's one of those 2 sided things where to him yeah he would be a martyr, but to us he wouldn't be just from the point of views. As for what impact it made, I suppose it temporarily eased the minds of the ones he was malevolent towards.

At 8/29/08 09:52 PM, Musician wrote: Knock yourself out. Even if you can find one time where you were engaged in a real debate with another user, most likely it's a very rare occurrence. And even if it isn't (which it probably is), it doesn't change the fact that you're contributing absolutely nothing to this thread.

And you've been doing what this whole time? The exact same thing, therefore that joke from before... oh wait. And yes it will be easy to find actual debate in my post and even easier to find your off shot ramblings in threads that in some cases completely derail them. While your at it go ahead and reply to this and continue my joke, and point because they are in fact interlaced.

Of course I have. On that note, why exactly is it that you have chosen to ignore that previous on topic debate we were just having about John McCain?

Because you do not understand the purpose or intentions of it therefore there is no point to argue a frivolous debate without one of the debaters knowing the conditions of the debate.
I'm over here, your over there, and so we have zero ability to connect on this because of this gap.

At 8/29/08 09:32 PM, Musician wrote: Theres no arguing over the fact that I do engage in actual debates with the other forum members. As in I present my views and defend them, as opposed to you who uses *actual* hit and run tactics by failing to do even this.

Do you really want me to spend 15 minutes shifting through yours and my posts to prove this false? Do I need to remind you that the past few times we've had an arguement that you not only never provided any points to allow debate, but did nothing other than take jabs at me and ending up leaving after I call you out on it?

Your "joke" made absolutely no sense, neither does your post right here. Are you accusing me of being a hypocrite? how about you explain yourself.

Yes, you dolt and this is why you don't get the above comments. You seriously can't understand simple concepts. You yourself have proven this in this very thread and many others.