Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/14/09 04:43 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

not always, but this time. and those alternatives you listed were FAIL!!!!

I hope you're a troll.

I have a t-shirt that says "If Jesus comes back, we'll kill him again" So there's your answer.

nope, still crazy.

Because the early Mesopotamians, who lived between the Tigris and Euphrates, were terrified of floods. There culture reflected this in their stories. When the Israelites co-opted the Mesopotamian legends for their own uses, they decided to keep the flood in, even though Canaan didn't experience floods.

At 6/1/09 05:11 PM, Memorize wrote: Sorry, but just because the law says that one can go to jail and other can't doesn't make them different in the fact that they both did the exact same thing which constitutes murder.

The law also decides what murder is. You're free to have your own interpretation as well, but don't expect anybody to care what it is.

That just doesn't make sense to me. There's nothing in the first amendment about the right to a captive audience of high schoolers. It's got to be a contractual thing.

At 6/1/09 12:02 PM, Proteas wrote: THE INTERNET MAKES ME SO ANGRY

So how goes your posting in this topic just to annoy me going? you must be a hit at parties bro.

Brick Top, you still haven't answered whether World War II was pointless or not. Should we not have used force to stop Hitler?

At 5/31/09 10:50 PM, Proteas wrote: No. You want to sit there and be a hypocritical little bastard and call me out on shit your guilty of doing yourself, then by God I'm going to screw up your experience of reading this topic from now until this thing drops off the front page into the oblivion of page 2 and beyond. If you don't have anything witty and intelligent to respond with, then take your own hint and don't post.

COOL STORY BRO *Thumbs up*
"You're" is a contraction of "you" and "are"
"You" is the possessive case of "you"

You've been having a little trouble with that in this topic so far. So here you go. No thanks necessary dude!

Also, were the lawyers speaking pro bono? I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that they were being compensated in some way or another for taking the time to speak. The guy suing your school may claim that the teachers are in breach of contract.

At 5/31/09 10:10 AM, Proteas wrote:

Oh that's right, NOTHING. You're sitting there bashing ME for not putting effort into discussing this topic while sitting there not actually discussing this topic. I've actually gone out of my way to try and push this topic towards a given topic of discussion in addition to pointing out that none was given, while you've done jack shit with regards to actually being intelligent/witty enough to contribute to this discussion YOURSELF. IRONY OF IRONIES.

Caps lock. you must be serious. anyway, the mods say they aren't going to close this topic. So I'm just going to keep reading this interesting discussion. You can do whatever you want, but having every few posts come from you taking a few paragraphs to angrily complain about how much you hate this topic is a little distracting. So please, keep your ranting to a minimum so I can ignore you more easily.

At 5/30/09 10:39 PM, TheFarseer wrote:

I do not like his stances on EMBRYONIC stem cell research.
I do not like his views on Abortion. (I'm Pro-Life)
And I disagree with how he is handling the Economy "Crisis".

Ok, I disagree with you about his handling of the economy, but I respect it. But for goodness sake, just give it up with the abortion crap. Roe v Wade will never be overturned, find other issues to fight about, the sooner you guys do that, the sooner the Republicans will be viable again.

At 5/30/09 10:36 PM, Proteas wrote: *wraps duck tape around skull*

What's there worthwhile to say in a topic, when there wasn't an indication given by the topic starter as to WHAT he wanted to discuss, no point to his post, and no common theme in the discussion that followed? Can you tell me that?

You're the only person here complaining that the OP isn't holding your hand and telling you exactly what to post. If you're not intelligent/witty enough to contribute to this discussion, then you're conversational dead weight and have no business posting here. Just go away.

At 5/29/09 11:37 AM, jonnyrules935 wrote: crazy stuff

You watch too many movies

At 5/29/09 10:52 AM, Ericho wrote: Hey, he's pro-marijuana legalization and against war. I'd say he certianly has his good points, and everyone knows Internet fandom rules all!

No it doesn't what are you talking about?

At 5/27/09 12:33 PM, Ericho wrote: My hopes are for Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura. It'll never happen, but at least they'll do some protesting, so I'll give them that.

The job of a third party candidate is to get the mainstream parties to adopt parts of his platform. Ron Paul failed miserably at that. He made had not impact at all on this race. In the unlikely event that he accomplished anything, it was making the the Republicans more Hawkish, and the Democrats more statist. The man is a senile, racist disaster and his internet fans are blind to the fact that his policies have no popular support in this country at all.

As for my prediction:

The economy will slowly begin to recover, and barring some major terrorist attack or foreign policy crisis(which actually probably will happen) the Republicans will still be floundering in 2010 where they fail to gain many, if any seats in the legislature back, while the Democrats proceed with a moderate liberal social and economic agenda singnificantly, but not radically left of Bill Clinton. Palin, Jindal, Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich will run in 2012. Despite personal issues, and huge grassroots support for Palin bordering on fanaticism, Gingrich will use his relative lack of baggage, along with his conservative credentials and ties to the establishment to win the GOP nomination. Everyone aside from Gingrich and the GOP faithful will realize however that he's merely being offered up as a sacrifical lamb to the nigh unbeatable Obama, who polls in the low sixties and picks up several swing states from 2008 in the 2008 election. Despite winning a nearly landslide victory, he will lose some of the southern states that just barely tilted for him in 2008, further giving the GOP a reputation as a southern regional party. In 2016 the GOP will attempt to take itself kicking and screaming toward the center. Sarah Palin will be about as well regarded as Jonathan Edwards or Al Sharpton by then. The 2016 Republicans will be Cantor, Jindal agaim(soon to follow Palin's Pageant-walk into Irrelevancy) and some western governors/congressman. Hillary probably won't run for the democrats, but Webb, Mark Warner, Katherine Sebelius, Brian Schweitzer of Montana or Maybe even Jennifer Granholm of Michigan(if she can improve her approval rating, she could be a rockstar for the democrats) Whoever wins the nomination though, I think one of the main stories of 2016 will be "the Obama Legacy" which will be incredibly favorable towards him, and will help the democratic candidate, whoever he or she is, ride into office. This may be the last Democrat elected for a while, as the democrats will eventually overreach, and the Republicans will jettison the religious right. This won't be a major issues at all, since the religious right will continue its decline in influence, and finally realize that that abortion and gay marriage have won. ONce that happens they'll splinter off into conservative populist democrats, apathetic voters, and a hollow shell of what once was the "
moral majority". This will bring the Republicans back into play in the west with its mild libertarian tendencies, the Northeast where it won't win m/any states, but will take a significant bite of the democratic stranglehold on local, state, and even some national seats. Moderate democrats will then flock to the GOP, seeing it as an alternative to the statist Democrats. The Democrats, while losing moderate voters, will benefit from demographic changes and remain strongnot enough to stay on the left, and may actually head farther to the left, actually becoming of a socialist party. Once that happens, balance will be restored, and the parties will once again be at equilibrium.

At 5/27/09 10:32 PM, Proteas wrote:

I made my point, something both you and the topic starter have as yet to do with regards to THIS TOPIC.

Nobody else seems to have trouble discussing the topic. Maybe you should get out if you can't figure out anything worthwhile to say.

In addition, I'm angry at him for not releasing the Prisoner abuse photos. To be honest, his argument that it would probably make our work in Iraq harder has some merit to it, but from what I've heard the pictures contain, somebody has to be punished for all of this. It's practically atrocity level shit that went down that we're now covering up.

At 5/27/09 10:35 AM, LynchedJohNNY wrote: Because gay marriages cannot naturally produce offspring while traditional marriages can.

Exactly. That's also why we also make it illegal for woman over the age of 45 to get married.

HIV is better able to spread through the gay communities and it's different.

Good thing we diminish the risk of transmitting HIV and other STDs by encouraging gays to enter into safe, healthy, long-term monogamous relationships by getting marrie....oh wait.

Hell man, learn from the past I say. The Greeks a great nation who's past glory still influences modern thinking practiced homosexuality especially in their army/navy. But in the end they did not have gay marriages; all marriages were between a man and a woman.

Actually, Marriages in ancient Greece were between a man and a teenage or a preteen girl. So I guess you prefer pedophilia and Ephebophilia to homosexuality...pervert.

Hope the halped.

1) USA
2) 20
3) Portuguese speaking, Roman Catholic Country in South America. Population mostly descended from Portuguese settlers, Italian immigrants, and various native peoples. Significant problems with crime, deforestation, child labor and unemployment, but experiencing rapid economic growth and political reform under the Lula administration.
4) I think you'd agree that most of what I said is common knowledge. The various social problems, are pretty extensively covered in the media though. As I've never been to Brazil, it is possible that the data is misrepresented. My last regarding Lula is my own personal opinion, but I think there is more than enough evidence to make it a reasonable one.
5)Pelé is Brazilian right? and I have a CD by a Brazilian woman named Céu that I listen to now and then.
6) I know next to nothing about Brazil's pre-Columbian art and culture, but I am familiar with some famous Brazilian cultural landmarks, like Christ the Redeemer in Rio, and Oscar Niemeyer's buildings.
7) I know that your current President was a co-founder of the socialist worker's party and came into office promising some drastic reforms, worrying conservatives and thrilling leftists. He seems to be much more of a moderate than expected and seems to be implementing reforms cautiously. Overall, I like his approach, as Brazil is an enormous country, and radical reforms may backfire and do more harm than help in the long-run if not pursued carefully. I expect Brazil to be a dominant world power in a few short decades, so any internal instability should be avoided at all costs.
8) futebol,
9) I have heard that your economy is experiencing growth rapid growth, which will only increase even faster with the oil discoveries. Unemployment is a significant problem with nearly ten percent of Brazilians out of work, but since American's unemployment is nearly as bad, we're not in a place to lecture. Child labor and deforestation are awful, but I heard you're getting it under control.
10) I'd like to stress that the entire world expects Brazil to be one of the dominant powers of the 21st century. To this end, you must be careful in how you proceed, as all of South America and Latin America will soon look to Brazil for guidance and protection. Since the Cold War, Latin American countries have either been run by right-wing dictators backed by the US, or Left-wing demagogues who are just as damaging. Brazil needs to prove that there is a viable alternative to those extremes. Good Luck.

At 5/27/09 05:29 AM, Strategize wrote: Not too long ago a scienist found the gay gene.

no they didn't.

At 5/25/09 11:36 AM, ThunderboltLegion wrote:

I have no intention of redefining life, but I still wonder what state of existance one would classify this pre-sentient state. Since by definition it is not life what then is something that is not life but is going to become life?

an appendix with ambition. "Potential" life does not, and never should have the same legal standing as actual life.

My guess is that its a non-issue because there's almost no way the GOP will be able to spin this story to make Obama look bad. The more hardcore liberals that make up Obama's base may be disappointed, but none of them are dumb enough to jump ship and support green or socialist candidates.

At 5/23/09 09:34 AM, Kev-o wrote:

Stop using the Soviet Union as an example of a communist society, please.

Just because you personally don't like Marx-Leninism doesn't mean it's not communism. I'd also remind you that anarcho-communists were completely unable to defend themselves when Lenin and Trotsky decided to destroy them in the Ukraine.

There's an old quote somewhere that stuck in my mind, I forget the exact wording, but it generally goes like "aside from changing human nature, the only way to bring about world peace is to make war unprofitable." I think it was actually Nixon who said, but its still a good point. While Terrorists and radicals may fight for patriotism and religion, the important countries of the World like Russia, the US, China and Japan have far too much economically at stake to actively antagonize each other. the countries that we are most at odds with (N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran) are countries we have only tenuous or no trading ties with at all.

At 5/24/09 06:42 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 5/23/09 04:31 PM, Sneak-a-Toke wrote: I'm a 5 I guess, but thats because too many people actually think he brings change and will do what he beleives is best. That gives him alot of control and hence why I dislike him.

Well, he did legalize stem cell research, and he did shut down Gitmo, so that's some change at least. Even though he's against gay marriage, three (four?) states have legalized it, so that's actually quite a bit of progress.

I think the Obama is personally for gay marriage, and maybe even marijuana legalization, but knows there's nothing he can do about it on the federal level, so he's just standing aside and letting the states go about it. Granted, as a Progressive, I'd prefer faster change on a lot of issues, but I think this is the best anyone can realistically expect.

the circumstances are also much different. In a no-holds-barred war between say, Iraq and the United States, we'd win almost instantly, even with using only conventional weapons. But we have to things into account like civilian lives, infrastructure, world opinion, and so on. On the other hand, a military conflict with Russia or China probably wouldn't be so terrible as we imaging providing both sides held back a little.

I'm not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed that there aren't more truthers in this topic.

I'm pretty much a a vanilla liberal. I believe the expansion of capitalism(if allowed to occur naturally without us ramming it down anyone's throats) will break down, or at least open up authoritarian regimes around the world. But I think some aspects of socialism are healthy, and even necessary in a modern capitalist economy, and that the American government has reflected that since the time of Teddy Roosevelt. I like the idea of Universal Healthcare, and believe it will actually increase American competiveness, as Corporations will no longer have to provide their employees with Health insurance. Internationally, I think military intervention of the kind we saw in Iraq should only be used in extreme circumstances (WW2 or Operation Enduring Freedom), but that we should do more to provide aid to developing nations to hurry them into the world economy.

Socially, I believe in civil unions for gays...and straights. The definition of marriage is a cultural and theological issue that is nowhere near as universal as people like to claim. I think government should stay out of that arena completely. For abortion, I just don't care anymore. I really hate the idea of it. But the chance to criminalize it, or to even overturn Roe v Wade is long gone. Pro-lifers now need to focus on reducing abortions through other means such as education and yes, CONTRACEPTION.

yikes, a lotta words for such a generic position

The Media is biased towards whatever will get it the most ratings and ad revenue. Close topic.

At 1/28/09 09:41 AM, Mr-Money wrote:

That is the deception. Like Ron Paul says

^stopped reading there