Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/12/10 12:01 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Evolutionists don't need to justify being gay because evolution doesn't need "justification"

But how do christians justify eating pork & hating gays. The old testament says don't eat pork & don't be gay. I never got how you could pick one and not the other.

The New Testament (specifically Matthew) struck down the dietary laws of Leviticus. This is why Christians feel free to eat whatever they want and Muslims and Jews continue to refuse shellfish or pork. Not that I expect the average Christian to read the Bible, nor am I justifying anything. Just giving the reasons why.

At 10/19/10 08:09 PM, Sekhem wrote: At 10/19/10 01:29 AM, BezFriend wrote

"Christians" would cry foul similar to the Mosque being built in ground zero. They would say that it is insensitive to their savior "Jesus" and their "god" who destroyed it with an earthquake.

jews have zero right to israel to begin with

if they build another offensive structure showcasing their refusal to accept christ then it will simply be struck down again

YES, BECAUSE NOT BEING CHRISTIAN MEANS YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO LAND. OR THE ABILITY TO BUILD THINGS ON THE LAND THAT YOU OWN.

Honestly, you act like God is giddy with anticipation to strike down some Jews.

Anyway, onto the main point. Israel isn't going to rebuild the temple for a long, long time. For one, it's pointless. Israel is a secular state, they have no need to waste time, money, and resources to build a massive temple. Besides, doing so would require demolishing the Dome on the Rock, which would severely undermine the already incredibly strained relations between the other states in the Middle East. I wouldn't be surprised if they ever built one. It's pointless to do, and a drain of funding.

At 10/11/10 03:55 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: If he actually runs - I think I may actually register to vote finally, and heck yes I would vote for him.

At least the dude knows how to save money (and how!) Unlike the guy currently elected who thinks money is a like a bucket of candy that should be given to kids at halloween.

Maybe he could tell sh*tty washington politicians "you're fired" while being taped. It'd be awesome. I'm pretty sure his approval rating would rival that of Clinton's high points.

Someone should start a fan website tracking his steps towards presidency. I'll sign each and every guestbook. Just please, for the love of God let's get Mr. Bigtime Spender "Obama" the hell out of office. The last thing the United States needs is be a subsidiary of China, thank you.

This is what happens when a teenager tries to think up a bold political statement, and tries to post it to a website because he thinks it's socially relevant.

Harsh, but true. As is the case with many things.

At 10/9/10 04:52 AM, chairmankem wrote:
You know what's funny? Jews weren't even a majority a century ago.

You know what's even funnier? They are now. And that's the way they're going to be, short of mass deportations of the Jewish population or genocide. Neither of which has a chance in hell of happening if the Israel remains Israel. Arguing whether or not they had a right take over the country from the native Arab is a trap many people fall into when discussing the current state of Israel. No one argues for the Indians to take over the government from the United States. The only difference is time. It's a shame it happened so violently, but discussing that is a completely different topic.

At 10/10/10 02:03 PM, Drakim wrote: The modern dog is a human creation. It is an domesticated form of the gray wolf which you can see a picture of here. It's amazing to realize that we made that gray wolf into, like these breeds.

And it hasn't even taken us very long. Many dog breeds are no more than a few hundred years old, although there exists older kinds. On a macro scale, transforming that gray wolf into a small annoying handbag dog that rich women carry around didn't take much time. Considering how ineffective manual selective breeding is (getting puppies, waiting until they grow up, selecting one, and making new puppies), the speed of which we have accomplished this is mind-numbingly fast. And yet, with modern genetics doing this sort of thing would most likely take tens of years rather than hundreds.

Not quite. In reality, the domestication of dogs has occurred at least since the formation of the first civilizations, and the very first domesticated dog remains have dated back to at least 14,000 years ago. Still an impressive accomplishment, however.

Imagine if we applied this to humans..... No, don't object about moral concerns, shut up >:o

Imagine if we applied this to humans. We could double or half the size of the human body within a few hundred years using basically nothing but selective breeding. Or a few tenfold years with genetics and modern technology.

But perhaps more importantly, imagine what we could do to our intelligence. If you can make that badass wolf into a small permanent puppy that easily, then you can also take a human and make him into the most intelligent being on the planet in the same timeframe. Great minds thoughout history like Einstein and Newton would be put to shame by average joes of such a super intelligent breed.

Who would be in charge of a project like this? A project massive enough to change the face of humanity as we know it, essentially making every man into a Utopian version of himself? The government couldn't be expected to handle something as massive as this, without intentionally spiraling it out of control. A private organization would be too interested in the financial gains to be made out of something like this either. A team of scientists would need funding, leading back to one or the other options.

Not only that, but that's not even factoring in the environment that the child products of the subjects would be raised in. Who would raise the child? The mother? The father? Obviously not every pair would want to be together as a couple, it's simple human emotion. So that leaves either single mothers or fathers, which also leads to dispute. What if both of them want to raise the child, but neither want to stay together? Would the organization involved raise the child? That wouldn't be the best prospect, seeing as how there would be potentially millions of children forced into this manner. Not only that, but how often will the breeding take place? There's many health risks for mothers to bear children too often in their lifetimes.

If you think human technology is advancing fast today, imagine what it would be like if every single human was much more intelligent than the brightest minds we have had thought history. Imagine if Leonardo Da Vinci was labeled a dumbass compared to his jock peers.

Except not EVERY human wants to be dedicated to advancing humanity. Some just want to live comfortably, and then retire young. Some want to go into business, some want to care for animals, etc, etc. And there's some humans who are just content being slackers. Do we breed the desire to do anything against the norm out of them? Not only that, but the drive to DO something, when everyone is essentially the same level, is almost gone. There's no innovation, no need to trump another inventor when inventing. There's no underdog striving to do better, when there's nothing to strive for. Enstein is considered the greatest physicians to ever live, not because he was the only one to ever think of special relativity, but because he was the first.

That is something we could achive.It's not really some vauge abstract dream of possible success. It's something within our graps, within our means, as easily as we made the pug dog.

It's not quite. There's too many factors involved, there's too much of that pesky "human factor" to seriously consider something this massive. Too many problems, and no one to solve it. It would be nice, I wouldn't dispute that. But, then again, Communism was a nice ideal before humans twisted it into something heartless and cruel.

But we think that toying with humans is immoral. So here we are, wondering how and when we are gonna be able to put a man on Mars. It's gonna be a while, methinks.

It's going to happen just like every human innovation happens. A few people will be immortalized, and the failures will be forgotten. Sad, yes, but human nature isn't fair. There's no way to make it fair without removing the human aspect. And if that happens, then the good things about being human, about being unique, will be gone forever.

At 10/10/10 03:47 PM, Korriken wrote: the fact that humans took the noble and powerful gray wolf and bred it down to a shaky nervoud yappy dog shows the exact reason why humans shouldn't be messing with genetics. it's much in the same league as our other "great inventions"

Yeah... And the foxhounds, and the guard dogs, and the police K9s, and all sorts of other breeds that are useful in some way. Try again.

here we are Ugg, I call it a bow. it launches these pointy sticks I call arrows.
wow, looks neat Grawg, what do you do with it?
what else? you see that thing over there with the rings? we try to make the arrow stick in the middle.

And there's that whole "revolutionizing hunting for literal millenia" nonsense. I'm sure you considered that before you made blatant generalizations as you are wont to do.

I call it.. the... Automobile!
Cool Henry, real cool. so now what?
simple my dear Jim, we run it in a circle 500 times as fast as we can.

Aside from the fact that racing itself bears many, many technical innovations which trickle down into the auto industry itself? There's even some in the car you drove to work in if you actually bothered to research. And that's not even considering the revolution of the assembly line, the interconnection of cities though highways and paved roads, the boon to industry, and the start of the consumer culture.

We have created a network that could possibly incorporate every computer in the world into 1 vast system that can bring forth the world's knowledge and place it on your computer monitor.
sweet! let's play video games, pirate games and music, and look up porn!

Oh, and host servers for businesses, streamline bank accounts, revolutionize computer technology, interconnect the entire WORLD at the touch of a button.

yeeeaaahhh...... humans are ingenious.

Yeahhhh... You sure did your research before making several bland, stupid, and otherwise uninformed generalizations on several inventions that completely changed the face of humanity.

At 10/6/10 06:24 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: The issue of virtual ownership in games has lead to murders and asuch money shouldn't be invested in these sort of things because if we lose it it's outside of our control - and nothing pisses people off more than that. I'm not saying it should be banned, it's just a dumb fucking thing to do.

So you're saying that if you lose something in real life it's completely inside your control too?

No, not quite. Sure, if you lose a diamond ring, you can try to get it back. But more often than not, once it's out of your hands, it's gone for good. And, to be honest, I don't know about you, but I'd be more pissed and emotionally effected by losing a 2000 dollar diamond ring than losing the 30 dollar investment I put into my virtual farm.

Besides that, thousands of people get killed each day over burglaries and home invasion. I didn't look it up, but I'm fairly certain that's a wee bit more than stories you hear on the news about a crazy motherfucker shooting up someone over an internet debate or something.

At 7/13/08 10:57 PM, redzone wrote:

At 7/13/08 10:54 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

At 7/13/08 10:51 PM, redzone wrote: If the person is denied a job because of it, then hey, too bad.

Wow....Just wow......Please cut off your testicles so you never reproduce.

Listen here boy, I know how things work, life isnt fare. OK. If you cant get a job because of a false arrest, it ain't my problem.

I would take you seriously, but since you can't even spell "fair" right, and it's clear that you're a troll, I won't even bother.

I'll let Cellardoor rip up your post some more.

At 7/13/08 07:59 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote:

At 7/13/08 07:33 PM, arcansi wrote:

At 7/13/08 07:22 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: This thread is made of fail. Just like Republicans.

Because all we need is:

-No Rights to Bear Arms

You'll still have that right, Obama promises to preserve that right. But he also wants tougher laws regarding automatic weapons and handguns. Not to much to ask when you consider that they are designed to kill.

Not only is the "designed to kill" argument complete and utter bullshit, you contracted yourself by saying "you'll still have the right, just not to semi-automatic weapons" (I doubt that even Obama wants to ban handguns). So are Semi-autos not arms now? Oh yes, and I don't think I need to bring up that fact the semi-autos are used in only >1% of crimes, or the fact that more people died in a stabbing spree than in the Hollywood shooting.

-Less military funding

The USA spends more in its defence budget than the rest of the world put together. Obama will literally save billions of dollars. His policies also include ending the war on terror.

He still wants to stay in Afghanistan, just not in Iraq. Oh yes, and all those billions of dollars and more, will be blow on his health care policy.

-Social healthcare

How can you be so selfish to think that the poor do not deserve healthcare? Here in Britain, even the most right wing party we have believes that there is no better alternative to the NHS. If you don't like the long waiting times, you can still use private healthcare, 8% of people in Britain do. Just think of the extra tax as a replacement for all that military funding. Stop using 'Social' as an insult.

Yet, if you do, you still have to pay the tax burden. And, the cost of having UHC will only add significantly to the MASSIVE costs of Social Security and Medicare in the future

Oh yeah, and let's not forget his policies regarding marijuana. Reducing punishment for having small quantities. It sure is a start!

I certainty put marijuana on the top of my list when looking for a good president! /sarcasm

At 2/10/08 07:00 PM, DeathAura wrote:

At 2/10/08 02:14 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 2/10/08 04:31 AM, DeathAura wrote: woops, link screwd up, here it is http://theviewfromsteeltown.blogspot.com /2008/02/would-mccain-invade-venezuela-i f.html

blogspot.com...

Sounds extremely credible.

I'm too lazy, but if you want more, than get more. Its not my responsibility to tell you whats going on with the world. You should know this stuff already.

You started the debate, the burden of proof is on YOU, not him. And most people don't trust blogs, much less the ones that are biased towards socialism. Now provide me with a credible news source or GTFO.

At 1/19/08 10:50 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: We're not trying to ban all guns, just the ones civies don't need. No good honest civilian needs hollow-points, nor assault rifles, nor fucking proton cannons.

Who are you to decide what people need or don't need?

At 1/14/08 06:00 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:56 PM, Schizo4002 wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:19 AM, emmytee wrote: How many of your past presidents have been Christians??

All have been Protestant except for one(JFK).

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, James Madison, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were, at the very least, non-Christian.

Let's see...

Thomas Jefferson: Deist, right.

John Adams: Unitarian, wrong,

Benjamin Franklin: Proponent of every religion, Half right.

Thomas Paine: Deism, right.

James Madison: Episcopal, wrong.

George Washington: Anglican/Episcopal, wrong.

Abraham Lincoln: Attended churches, but wasn't a part of one, half right.

So, out of all of those, you got 2 half right, 2 right, and 3 wrong.

At 11/30/07 10:25 AM, Nylo wrote:

At 11/30/07 12:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Duh.

The CNN is obviously biased towards the Democrats.

This may be, but does it really matter in this context? The candidates were asked questions. What's the harm is asking a question? The candidates can't handle them?

(agrees, however, with poster below you about Dems being wusses because they won't appear on FOX news)

Yea, but did you see the questios that were asked? Stuff like "Do you own a gun?" and "What would Jesus do about the death penalty?" "Yankees vs. Red Sox" I shit you not, but the democratic debate didn't have stupid shit like that. Also, no real questions on Iran nuclear program, and healthcare. Blah.

At 10/28/07 10:58 PM, NHT123 wrote:

At 10/21/07 08:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

You sound as bad as the communists here! I say GTFO; capitalism is what made america strong! All the socialist and communist nations with their money redistributed are poor as shit. How do you account for that?

Nice to see someone who understands sarcasm

At 9/25/07 08:09 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 9/25/07 07:54 AM, Chickidydow wrote:

At 9/25/07 07:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Hmm, this concept seems vaguely familiar to me...

lol Rob Schneider, what an untalented actor

Rob Schneieder! der derp dee derp! Da teetely dum... Rated PG-13

whoever catches that reference gets a gold star

South Park, now GIVE ME THE GOLD STAR!

At 9/8/07 07:32 PM, Lightx wrote:

Way to revive a dead topic.

At 8/24/07 11:43 AM, Fr0z3nb14d3 wrote: Thor.

Uhhhhh.......

At 8/25/07 03:36 PM, zambota wrote:

At 8/25/07 03:30 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: ....Retard.....Do you realise what we are even talking about here?

Well what are you people talking about here?

Hippies.

At 8/25/07 01:28 AM, ApotheosisLost wrote: Well, in regards to the land, as my native american ancestors would say, "How can you own the land?", and as for the rest of it, although i don't believe in gun control, I do have to say that they didn't have sub-machine guns in Washington's time.

No, but Washington and the other founding fathers knew that technology would improve.

At 8/23/07 02:32 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote:

At 8/23/07 02:27 PM, TheReno wrote: 2) Not for oil. If we were gunna invade a place for its resources Id say go to africa. Its got the Titanium and diamonds. Bomb material and louds of cash.

Yes, but not oil. And that is crucial to the American economy. More than anything else.

Africa has oil, a few OPEC nations are in northern Africa.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Q.E.D.

At 8/20/07 01:53 AM, guitarist9189 wrote: I agree with the going to school choice. If we don't go to school, then we are dumb, we get crap jobs if any, and we suffer later in life, but that should be OUR choice to make, and nobody elses. This is why drugs should be legalized, it should be your choice whether you want to screw up your health. The government just needs to let the average American make their own choices in life, instead of spoonfeeding them their own ideas. If people are dumb enough to do drugs, and skip school, it should be their own doing, so they can't blame anyone else. Besides, think of it as population control =)

The problem with that is the fact that most kids will choose not to go to school, because kids HATE school(I know I did.) If we give kids the right to choose weather or not to go to school, we might as well abolish drinking ages, and smoking ages, and allow kids to marry, and drop the age of consent, and get rid of child labor laws. It is, after all a child's right to choose right?

At 7/28/07 10:55 PM, Christopherr wrote: It depends how one looks at it.

From one perspective, Hitler commited one of the worst atrocities known to date.

He did a lot of bad, but not everything he did was necessarily bad.

From another, he was the German peoples' economic salvation. After World War I, Germany was in an extreme state of debt, as they were being forced to pay for the war. Inflation was so ridiculously high that no one could afford basic necessities. The German people needed someone, anyone, to restore order. It just so happened that the person to restore order was Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party.

He started WW2 which led to Germany being broken in two, most of Germany's cities were bombed, and the eastern half of Germany to be Communist.