Hm, well, the Pinky and The Brain knew that they needed to strike first.

Oh lord, my friend sent me a bunch of Pinky and the Brain comics. One of them was very interesting.

If I hugged you, would you feel better?

You're no fool?
Well, everyone DOES have their chain to break.
They do hold you, after all.

At 7/15/08 06:22 PM, D-XN wrote: I am Jack's broken heart.

Freaky, his name WAS Jack.

At 7/15/08 05:15 PM, TheAmateurAnimator wrote: Could you post some of the jokes?

Kay, here's one. A man went to a doctor for a check up. The doctor said "Sir, I'm afraid you have cancer, ... and alzheimer's. The man said "Well, at least I don't have cancer"

Blender.

So anyways, I was going through my garage one day, and I came across my late father's notebook. He died of cancer when I was two, and so I don't remember him all that well. So I am going through the notebook, and I noticed he spent his time making up Cancer jokes. He would tell them at parties all the time. Honestly, you gotta be really brave to have such a good sense of humor when you have cancer. Anyone else have any stories about humor in the face of a terrible thing?

"Resists temptation to hijack the thread with Ranma pics."

This game will only be complete if Tom Nook gets mafia connections.

Hold it, different circumstances. Microsoft has ALWAYS had a hold on anything computer related, so they know how to play the game.

Oh lawd, the whole internet is raging at Square atm. Wonder how SDF is going to react to this.

Hm, well, you can get back at England by leaving. The US, Ireland, and India can attest to how annoyed Brits get at losing land.

Mick, who cares? The best way to deal with assholes is to forget about them.

So wait, the people who hold the most wealth have the most wealth? NO WAI

At 7/13/08 06:57 PM, Gendo wrote:

At 7/13/08 12:25 PM, Mendou wrote: wonder if the video game is good...

Sadly no, gave it a shot a while back and it is pretty blah.

Uninteresting puzzles, so-so combat, mediocre platforming bits.

The old cliche of anime games. The only good anime game I played one of the Gundam games, but with that many games out there's bound to be one good one.

Well, just form an unbroken promise with him. You let him fap, he lets you fap,

At 7/13/08 11:37 AM, WilliWowza wrote:

At 7/13/08 11:01 AM, bwak1 wrote: Its teh shit right??
I love that show
With all the vviolence and nuditay!

Typical anime fan.

Um, Willi, methinks he is being sarcastic. Any anime guy worth his salt HATES elven lied.

At 7/13/08 12:47 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 7/12/08 06:41 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Hm, you make a good point actually. I'll agree with you, but with one added condition. We get rid of welfare for all people who do drugs. That way, we eliminate crime and the burden druggies have on the economy?

Oh, and I take no offense to you calling me self centered. I AM self centered, as are all human beings. We glorify our own opinions, but yours actually makes a bit of sense so I'll agree with you, under the condition we remove welfare for druggies. I am not going to pay taxes for someone else's harmful habit.

Well as I said, being that way is human nature. I just took offense when you accused me of being smug. Which I am. Unbearbably so at times.

Anywho I'd say the wonder of ending the war on drugs is the billions spent in it could be diverted towards helping people anyway so you wouldn't have to pay for them in any greater a capacity than you do now.

Well, to be honest, I don't think we should waste ANY money to go for someone's drug habit. We divert money from the people who deserve it, poor people who are working 2 jobs and can barely make ends meet. We should not give any money to people who would waste some of it on drugs.

ZOMG I LUV DAT SHOW 2 rmember when that guy gots his heads cut of!1

Um, duh. The allied treaties had a terrible effect on Germany, everyone knows and says that. Did you just graduate from elementary school, cause you start learning obvious things like that there.

Yo romeo, yo romeo, wat be up mah sugga daddy?

At 7/12/08 06:09 PM, Pontificate wrote:

At 7/12/08 05:59 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Um, MY morals, not everyone elses. You assume people are all the same, which is untrue. Also, one could argue the reason I have my morals is due to the fact I grew up in a society that was tough on drugs, and as a result, am myself tough on drugs. You see, it is true that if meth were legalized i would not touch it, but only due to the morals installed upon me by growing up in a society that shunned drugs. If I grew up in a society where meth could be sold next to coke, perhaps my morals would be different. So all you've managed to do is PROVE that the morals of growing up in a society which is tough on drugs makes people not want to do drugs.

Sorry for the doublepost but I missed this particular little gem. You make the assumption that the fact these drugs are illegal makes you not want to use them ratehr than your being educated about them enough to know the terrible things they do. From what I can tell what actually stops you from taking them is your acknowledgement of the fact they do terrible thigns to people not the legal status and therefore actually you're the one who shot holes in your own arguement. That and beforehand you said noone is the same so you cannot, by your own logic, extrapolate your point any further than yourself which is good because your point is, as shown, a false assumption. Even if I ignore this it still means that people would not start taking drugs because we've all grown up in a society where they're criminalised (and yet people still take them, odd that).

Well, this is after the fact now, but I would say it is the harmful effects I've seen it have on people. My uncle died due to drug usage. So I guess thats why I am disgusted by drugs in general.

The position, whether you deny it or not, is still 'people would take drugs if they were legalised' despite that being a false or smug assumption (which is made worse by you stating not everyone is the 'same' but believing your position to be right so by extension you consider a lot of people inherently worse than you).

Well, do you consider yourself to be right? What's wrong with thinking that one is better than others? Don't damn me for thinking I am right, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing with you! Also, keep in mind that this is the internet, you are allowed to act a bit unusual here:D

Hm, you make a good point actually. I'll agree with you, but with one added condition. We get rid of welfare for all people who do drugs. That way, we eliminate crime and the burden druggies have on the economy?

Oh, and I take no offense to you calling me self centered. I AM self centered, as are all human beings. We glorify our own opinions, but yours actually makes a bit of sense so I'll agree with you, under the condition we remove welfare for druggies. I am not going to pay taxes for someone else's harmful habit.

At 7/12/08 05:50 PM, CIX wrote: Your argument can easily be defeated by your morals. If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, you would not start doing them because you said so yourself that illegalization isn't meant to prevent the access to drugs.

Um, MY morals, not everyone elses. You assume people are all the same, which is untrue. Also, one could argue the reason I have my morals is due to the fact I grew up in a society that was tough on drugs, and as a result, am myself tough on drugs. You see, it is true that if meth were legalized i would not touch it, but only due to the morals installed upon me by growing up in a society that shunned drugs. If I grew up in a society where meth could be sold next to coke, perhaps my morals would be different. So all you've managed to do is PROVE that the morals of growing up in a society which is tough on drugs makes people not want to do drugs.

At 7/12/08 03:20 PM, zoolrule wrote: They can choose who they want in their country, who are you to judge?

Be honest, if the person was a Jew, and was denied citizenship, you would feel a bit differently. And also, we CAN judge the French, as they are quite merciless when it comes to bashing the US's policy on immigrants. Also, Memorize makes a good point, its kinda clear the men in the family are doing SOMETHING to make her submissive, people are not submissive by nature.

At 7/12/08 11:25 AM, Pontificate wrote:

At 7/11/08 11:51 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: We as a society can not let something as evil as hardcore drugs be available for casual use. Let the darkness stay within the dark. Let the parasites of society be hidden away from the people who contribute to it. Let them hide in the dark areas, away from the light of civilization. Let them know that they are filth, and as filth, shall be bought and sold by filth. If we allow drugs to be legal, we are stooping down to a criminal level, selling things that tear families apart. One must not fight fire with fire.

Remove yourself from your horse before you bang your head against logical reasoning. This entire arguement is a joke and can be summarised as 'OH WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?'. Well I'm sorry to be the one who has to dispell your delusions but illegalising drugs does not force them out of the light, not really. Children are still confronted by these ruined spectres the only difference is that while the criminals decide what gets sold to who these children can also become one of those ghosts. The terrible truth of the dark is that it only exists because of the light and for it to be battled effectively it must be illumined. The truth of drugs must br brought in to public scrutiny. Education, dear boy, will reduce drug usage not criminalisation.

Hm, first off, I don't take kindly to ad hominem attacks on me. Neither do I enjoy your patronizing of me. If you oppose my argument, fine, but don't resort to insults. My point was not, as you sterotypically summed up, "OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN". It was the fact that drugs have bad effects on people, and the principle of making it illegal is just as important as educating kids that drugs are bad. If we tell kids drugs are bad, yet sell them at the same time, we are using a "Do as I say, not as I do" policy.

On a more pragmatic level if drug usage is controlled & regulated, addicts are given help instead of sentences and the money is taken away from the criminals all those terrible creatures of the dark you seem so terrified of society will become both safer and cleaner. The reason this is so is quite simply because the actual percentage of addicts won't really change; merely the amount of criminals, crack dens, slum housing, overdoses, intoxication due to adulterated substances and prostitutes. As the video Eifer linked to (something everyone really ought to watch regardless of opinion) states the amount of people addicted in America to substances when drug legislation was first introduced was 1.3%, when the 'War on Drugs' really started the figure was 1.3% and today after the billions of dollars spent and lives lost that figure is still 1.3%.

While I agree that we should help addicts if it costs less then imprisoning them, I don't think you understand what I am saying. My view on drugs is what they should be associated with. Most people don't like crime, and less will do drugs if they are associated with crime. But when we make drugs legal, we have drugs associated to daily life, which would have terrible effects, due to the "lie" that we would create, that drugs are fine to do, heck, we are the ones who would be cashing in on it.
Let me clear one thing up for you. I don't believe drug laws prevent people from doing them, I just think that they do, rightly, show that our society does not believe in drugs. Principles go a long way, and if we adjust our principle to make drugs LEGAL, you bet more people are going to do them.

While I am sure it is comforting to veil yourself in a cloak of smug moral righteousness and place your principles, and by extension yourself, higher than other people (which is, after all human nature) one must be adult about these things. Drugs are not going to go away so instead we can help the addicts, educate the world honestly and truthfully and just try to make sure people don't hurt others with their activities. We all saw what happened due to the prohibition across the world in the early 20th century: crime increased, incidents related to the usage of alcohol increased but the actual amount drank? It was barely affected at all. Tobacco usage? It was never outlawed but instead a massive campaign for public awarness was brought about and the amount of people smoking now is declining.

Ugh, you call me smug? I never made an attack on anyone while presenting an argument, but your driving factor seems to be that you know all, and everyone else is just a blind righteous sheep who knows nothing about human nature.
Ok, well onto your arguments.
Tobacco usage right? Well, hate to break it to you, but smoking a cig does not have quite the effect of taking crystal meth. Tobacco kills you slowly, Stuff like meth is so dangerous that just once can really hurt you. You are comparing a bow and arrow to a high powered machine gun, the danger level is so hugely different that you can't place them in the same category. Alcohol is in the same thing, it does not have NEARLY the same effect as crystal meth does. Let me outline my argument and cut out the fluff so you don't insult me anymore like a 13 year old.

1. Certain hardcore drugs have terrible effects on people's lives, and by making them legal we would therefore be endorsing those effects.
2. By endorsing those effects, we are in effect saying its ok to do said hardcore drugs.
3. If said hardcore drugs are ok to do, more people will do them.
4. More people will do them, leading to more bad effects happening.
5. Bad effects have a drain on society.
Get my point? Once again, it is solely the HARDCORE drugs I am talking about, I do think softcore drugs should be legal, as they do not have as terrible an effect as the hardcore stuff.

Legalisation and REGULATION will help our crime problems; education our drug problems.

Education won't help jack. Seeing some people having a good trip in 7-11 will send me a better message then some half ass teacher will ever . You live based on what you see and hear.

Crime- You argue that by legalising drugs, crime will run out of funds, and therefore drop. First off the bat, crime will always find a way to make money, there will always be scum out there. Second off, if we regulated drugs, there would therefore be a market for UNREGULATED drugs. Crime would still prevail.

You look upon me as someone on his high horse, and I guess I did kinda add a bit of fluff to my arguments. But my message remains the same, by legalising HARDCORE drugs, we are sending a message to society that Hardcore drugs and their terrible effects are 100% A-ok, since we allow them to be sold. You compared drugs to tobacco and alcohol, but I proved that drugs are much more dangerous than a cig or a bud. When it came down to it, you could not disprove my main argument, that hardcore drugs being a part of normal life in society will have a BAD effect on society.

Oh impressions I see Kuro!

I'm Uhnoesanoob. I really like Ranma 1/2. Also I......uh.....um..., nope, I got nothing...

Oh, he'll be shot soon by an unidentified rebel. Fuck yeah CIA.

At 7/12/08 01:40 AM, poxpower wrote: WARNING: DEAD HORSE BEATING AHEAD.

What % of people who oppose drug use are religious vs the number of people who don't?
============

First off, don't use an ad hominem argument. Second off, the majority of the country is religious. Are you implying that most religious people are against drugs because their spiritual leaders told them to?
I really don't see how religion should come into this.