Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/5/08 05:56 PM, Malachy wrote: A kid in my group dropped out of school today.

now we're down to 3 members, when every other group has 5.

That happened in on of my Grad. School groups, my group dropped to two so the other member and I were able to join with another group. They had already done all the work but we compiled the project and took it to Kinkos.

my fiancee went to the ER today because her back has been bothering her. she strained a back muscle and was given ibuprofen and vicodin.

Try laying down or standing in front of her so her neck isn't at such odd angles for the repetitive motions.

At 5/5/08 02:47 PM, MattZone wrote: Seconded. Although Reagan's spending had a purpose: the Soviets tried to copycat us, and wound up wrecking their own economy. Also, Reagan's cutting tax rates actually increased tax revenues, as the rates at the time were so high (up to 70%) that cutting them caused a huge Laffer Curve effect. Bush, on the other hand, cut taxes a little and increased spending a lot, with no significant Laffer Curve effect (maybe 50-70 billion dollars) and not much to show for the increased spending.

An interesting fact is that Reagan didn't actually want as big of a tax cut as he got. His people told him that historically a president could expect to get half of what he wanted out a tax bill so Reagen just doubled what he wanted and went to congress. Much to his surprise he got what he asked for which meant the taxes brought in were too low despite the laffer curve effect. This meant that Reagan wasn't able to go through with his intention of killing the estate tax because he needed even the piddly revenue its reduced form was providing. This leads one to wonder that if Congress hadn't been drinking that day then perhaps they would have approved a practical tax bill and Reagan could have hit the equilibrium he was going for, imagine how much different tax laws would look today.

This presidential election does not look like it's going to be a very good one for the economy. Both Obama and Hillary have proposed plans that, when all the costs are added up, would increase the budget from the current $3.1 Trillion to around $4.5 trillion, while significantly increasiing taxes. McCain would be a better choice in that spending would probably only increase to about $3.6 Trillion or so, but considering that it's doubtful that he would raise taxes, there is no telling if he would reduce the budget deficit as much as either Obama or Hillary would with their tax hikes. Either way, with the prospect of an actual reduction in spending being very slim, the only question is whether the budget deficit is going to be allowed to increase, or whether taxes are going to be raised so high that they start to suffocate the economy.

Well obviously all three of all three of the liberal candidates are hoping to initiate an economic collapse that will make us envious of the economies of most South American nations. Then they'll be able to blame Bush and build us up again into a Marxist utopia. Of course that will fail too but maybe they will become really bad ass mummies on display in front of the Washington Monument.

At 5/5/08 12:37 PM, mariomaster123 wrote:

At 5/5/08 10:11 AM, BeFell wrote:

At 5/5/08 07:43 AM, mariomaster123 wrote: If anything, we outta use the ol' toll road method. If you use it, you pay the taxes.

That is just about as regressive as a tax system can be.

True, true, but probably the best to pull us out of this housing market crash. :(

How in the hell do you figure?

At 5/5/08 12:34 PM, Elfer wrote: Making more money doesn't make you a smarter or better person. I'd rather do something I like for 30k a year than something I hate for 50k.

I don't mind having shitty weekdays for awesome weekends. Besides, you have to look past your own personal enjoyment and consider what's best for the people you provide for. I may may not love accounting but I derive satisfaction from the fact that I'm pretty damn good at it and I'm never going to have to sign my children up for the Federally provided free lunch program courtesy of the taxpayers who dislike their jobs. Also there is just something that's pretty fucked up about telling your child you can't afford a pair of shoes.

Luckily, I happen to like chemical engineering, so everything worked out for the best.

Your weekends are going to be more fun than mine.

At 5/5/08 11:40 AM, Elfer wrote: The smugness of certain disciplines (especially engineering and especially business majors) is largely unwarranted.

Completely unwarranted, I absolutely agree. Curse those handsome devils they'll surely get theirs in the end.

At 5/5/08 07:43 AM, mariomaster123 wrote: If anything, we outta use the ol' toll road method. If you use it, you pay the taxes.

That is just about as regressive as a tax system can be.

At 5/4/08 09:40 PM, Imperator wrote: While completely true, and probably the case a majority of the time, there are still a lot of pompous asses. I was actually asked a few times "why don't I switch majors to something that's useful", or thereabouts......

most people I know are pretty modest, and most don't even know what they're doin with their lives anyways, so it's rarely an issue. When it is an issue though I'm usually not too nice, especially if they make rather blatantly arrogant comments.

Now you aren't going to be one of those people who gets a PhD in something where the only job you can get is on a college campus then complain because you don't make as much money as the professors in more competitive fields are you?

In terms of social retardation, I think the engineers here are the worst. Part of that may be due to the fact that the school's on an entirely separate campus.....

They are pretty much like that anywhere, the separate campus is probably a result of their social retardation as opposed to a cause of it.

Hooray, a sig. pic. bandwagon!

At 5/4/08 02:55 AM, Doudder wrote: why it has been a proven fact that lowering taxes increases government revenues and raising taxes decreases it. granted I am not wanting to have taxes at zero but a reasonable number it good. I would say dropping taxes below 15% would probably be bad. reffering to the dederal tax so there is no condusion.

Bush lowered the taxes significantly and now the government is sitting on the largest deficit in history. I agree that lowering taxes is good for the overall economy Washington can control spending however, when you lower taxes and increase spending, as Bush and Regan, did you are going to hurt the economy in the long term. Then someone is going to have to come along and raise taxes to fix the crippling deficit and I'm going to have to vote for the asshole.

If you want to vote for someone who will be good for the overall economy pick a candidate who won't raise taxes and can control spending. To my knowledge this candidate has never existed.

At 4/28/08 05:55 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Okay, I'm back from my weekend out. What did I miss?

And no sacrificing me. As of this weekend, my status as a virgin has, um, changed. So there.

Speaking as the Lounge's only other not virgin (Most Likely=P)

Congratulations!

At 4/28/08 06:05 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/28/08 05:04 PM, BeFell wrote:
You're also ignoring other means of automatic detection such as cameras at stop signs.

Well there you go more rights gone away. The difference is that these are actions taken at that moment, at that intersection etc. Whereas a smell could be from a previous thing.

No, the smell comes from you, at the moment, being in possession of a legal substance. It isn't a passive thing, being in possession of something is an action akin to an action.

At 4/28/08 04:31 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/28/08 12:44 PM, BeFell wrote:
Once again the Canadian Supreme Court made a dumb ass decision which will probably end up as a very bad precedent.

ANYONE can see a speeding car. Radar just measures it.

This is like if police had a detecting system to tell if you had car insurance or not. Because with a human sense, it cannot be seen/detected.

Bullshit, a human being may be able to detect excessive speeding but not a difference of 5 to 10 miles per hour. You're also ignoring the fact radar is used to Detect as well as measure speeding. Although probably not much longer in Canada if this ruling has the legs the SC appears to have granted it.

You're also ignoring other means of automatic detection such as cameras at stop signs.

At 4/28/08 10:24 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 4/27/08 09:46 PM, JoS wrote:
Does walking a dog through a bus terminal though constitute a search. If an officer walks by you and smells wed he can search you, why doesnt the same hold rue for K-9s?

Because we aren't dogs. Is the dog the one that is going to arrest me.

A radar detector doesn't write you a ticket but it's still allowed to accuse you of speeding.

Once again the Canadian Supreme Court made a dumb ass decision which will probably end up as a very bad precedent.

At 4/28/08 02:33 AM, BeFell wrote: Once your married that won't seem at all surprising to you.

I have to write for my Grad. School comprehensive exams tomorrow, and my grammar has degraded to a level worse than stafffighter's... Maybe that's a tad dramatic but it's certainly shitty.

This is all your fault internet.

At 4/28/08 01:58 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Is it wrong that upon reading The art of War by Sun Tzu my first thoughts were not ' this is good battle strategy' but rather ' wait a second...this can be applied in trying to get a date!'?

Seriously, a lot of it seems to apply when approaching women...

Once your married that won't seem at all surprising to you.

At 4/27/08 07:25 PM, JoS wrote: First off, this case is in Canada, not the US. Second, police dogs are given special legal status. In some states the punishment for killing a police dog can be 10 years imprisonment or more.

Man kills K-9 and faces life in prison.

Obviously the law recognizes these animals as members of the law enforcement community. So why should their nose be treated differently?

Because your supreme court screwed up, just as ours is prone to doing. Just think of this as a Plessy v. Fergusen and expect the Brown v. Board of Education to come along as soon as someone from Al Quadia tries to use this case to argue that the bomb detection equipment at the airport violated his rights.

I know some of you are arguing that transportation security measures differ but you voluntarily bring any illegal items you might carry into those facilities with the understanding they may be searched just as children voluntarily carry illegal items into the school where the facility should have the right to search them. The Canadian Supreme Court just flat out fucked up on this case.

At 4/27/08 07:40 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 4/27/08 06:51 PM, BeFell wrote: Give me an explanation and graph in the correct language of commerce so that I may properly insult you.

Yes sir.

GDP = C + G + I +X - M

Where C is private consumption (purchases of durable and non durable goods, and services), G is govt expenditure (salaries, purchases of goods of services, public works), I is investment (purchases of capital goods and inventories variations), X are exports, and M are Imports.
The Gross Domestic Product, is the value, at current market prices, of the total final output produced inside a country during a given year.

GDP + M = C + G + I + X

Aggregate supply = Aggregate Demand

That's not nearly as interesting as I thought it would be. I guess it's true, adding some Latino flavor will up the sexy of just about anything.

At 4/27/08 06:18 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: This made all my fellow Economics students applaud me.

Yeah, it's a really crappy University ^_^

Give me an explanation and graph in the correct language of commerce so that I may properly insult you.

At 4/27/08 01:25 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 4/27/08 01:20 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I want this.

I'll just settle for a good old fashion axe!

Remember kids: when the zombie apocalypse comes there's one thing you should bear in mind when choosing your weapon of choice...

Axes don't run out of ammunition!

That's true but given the amount of fatigue you would experience after swinging an axe enough times to drive back a hoard of the undead you might as well be relying on the 18 rounds for your .45 that you will find throughout the whole zombie envasion experience. You also have to keep in mind that if you try to use an axe against these modern day "fast moving" zombies, you might as well just stick the handle up your ass and derive what pleasure you can because that's all the good it will do you.

Surviving a zombie apocalypse is like surviving any other natural disaster, you have to plan ahead. First you have to decide if you are going to ride it out in a single location or if you will travel somewhere. I am personally an advocate of the sitting and waiting in a fortress school of though however, I will admit that I have reservations after Katrina. In either case a vehicle mounted 50 caliber is a must, either as a means of securing of facilitating your travel plans or in case a hasty retreat is in order. The 50 cal. should prevent your vehicle from being swarmed and rendered inoperable. That 50 cal. is going to piss bullets so make sure you are well stocked and remember a stops them just as well as a steady stream.

As far as fortress defenses the 50 cal. is once again going to be your best choice. It will be the best insurance that your other defenses don't get a chance to fail. Next up you will want a mine field followed by moat no less than 20 feet wide and 20 feet deep (obviously a backhoe will be a must) Now there are a lot of those who say they want a flaming trench because of the intimidation factor and overall effectiveness, however, I have always argued this is a short term defense. Pointy sticks worked for thousands of years and they will work here. If you have the time you could you can reroute some natural gas lines for controlled bursts. Beyond the trench you should really have an outer wall made of at least one foot thick concrete. If this proves impractical a chain link fence with razor wire will delay them long enough to run through your evacuation procedures or prepare to stand and fight.

Evacuate or stand and fight is really going to come down how many zombies you are have breaching your perimeter. If you've god a couple dozen soulless adversaries rapping at your door go ahead and grab your shotgun and take care of business. If you have an endless swarm of hundreds of the little bastards that's when you put the pedal to the metal set off your fuck off charges. You'll want a blast radius of 100 feet fast the walls of your fortress. Hopefully the explosion and your 50 cal. will take care of any that could commence with pursuit.

If you do engage in face to face combat, shotgun, shotgun, shotgun. You can easily carry hundreds of shells on your person and and you'll have the benefit of stopping power with a spread.

I think seven brings up a good point, institutions should be allowed to control what comes on their property. Having a dog sniff a backpack is no different than forcing everyone who enters a building to walk through a metal detector to ensure they are not carrying weapons.

In fact it would be interesting to see if any civil rights groups try to apply this ruling to shut down metal detectors and x-ray machines. I don't think your supreme court but enough thought into the precedence they were setting.

At 4/27/08 12:02 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/26/08 04:41 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 4/26/08 02:58 PM, fli wrote: I'm holding a shotgun.

;
Is that what you call it.

If I was to ever give mine a name... I would call it crackers .

I call mine Excalibur.

lol.

Little Miss Teatime, featuring the Sugar and Spice Duo.

You all come off as a little insecure...

At 4/26/08 07:35 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/25/08 07:45 PM, BeFell wrote:

Atheists are like those people who shop at the Hot Topic,

Or, you know, the world's most eminent scientists.

More like the world's most eminent bandwagon whores.=P

At 4/25/08 07:51 PM, SevenSeize wrote: I guess we need some spam in here now.

The way she's holding that Remington Express, she's gonna be in for an awful shock when she pulls the trigger.

Are there any You Tube videos of improperly instructed females handling fire arms?

Emo Mormon, I demand that you immediately get started on that.

At 4/25/08 06:40 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 4/25/08 06:31 PM, poxpower wrote: Just out of curiosity, are you religious, Brick-Top?

I wouldn't think so.

OMG he's an atheist?! That is sooooo cool and unique.=)

Atheists are like those people who shop at the Hot Topic, just out there and in your face but not. They don't care what other people think because they know how the world really works and they know they don't need the approval others to be cool. In fact it's running counter others beliefs that makes them cool, like the Fonz. Sure Hot Topic shoppers spend 60 dollars on a pair of black jeans with an inexplicable amount of zippers and atheists start mean spirited theological debates with complete strangers, but damn it, that's how cool people validate their self esteem.

I am so totally jealous, I'll have to remember to jump on the next bandwagon. Hopefully it will involve fashionably strutting around in oven mitts, I've got a lot of oven mitts. Is that counter culture enough to be cool?

At 4/24/08 06:26 PM, LazyPint wrote:

At 4/24/08 05:58 PM, LazyPint wrote: And it's only one example of the extreme end of the religion anyway, I'm sure there's loads of Mormons who would take blood.

Oops, that's Jehovah's Witnesses. OK then, Mormons are even less harmless than I thought.

We're even encouraged to donate blood. You know because of the no drinking, drug use or indiscriminate sex, it's very good blood.

That reminds me, does anyone want to buy some urine?

At 4/23/08 11:39 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/23/08 10:57 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

What's really cool about the Amish is that people who are Amish can leave when they are 18.

Yeah but then you have to leave your family behind and all your friends and everyone and everything you've known your entire life...
But yes, you can leave...

O

It's a missionary tactic. You send a repressed 18 year old male out into the world of sin and chat rooms and within a month he's knocked up some girl desperate enough to make it with an Amish dude. A woman who "accidentally" procreates with someone who has the mannerisms of the Amish isn't going to be able to support a baby on her own thus the good religious man must marry her and provide for her and the child the only way he knows how. Thus the Amish are able to increase their population without all of the extra toes involved in inbreeding.

All this is very accurately illustrated in the film The Wicker Man. Of course in real life donors of outside genetic materials don't whine and scream quite as much as Nicholas Cage and if they did they would be "dealt with" much quicker. Seriously though, that movie was awful.

At 4/23/08 11:19 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i'm so confused;
1. i lost my binder containing all papers and notes (well not many) for this term.
2. i think i had a dream that my friend was looking through my binder and i mentioned how it was blue on the outside, but that the plastic on the inside was black, for some reason i was very entertained by this fact.

now its possible i'm confusing a memory with a dream (who the hell dreams about their binders?) but my friend doesn't recall looking through it as i think i thought he did.

Blue on the outside but black on the inside? What kind of a stranger binder world do you dwell in? You're not making any sense man... or woman... I haven't checked.

At 4/23/08 10:10 PM, poxpower wrote: So while both are pretty stupid, the church of mormon is a lot more like a religion than the church of Scientology.

Now that's the nicest thing you've ever said about the LDS religion. I think I'm tearing up, can we hug?

At 4/23/08 09:30 PM, stafffighter wrote: I shall now do an impression of the poli boards today.

"You know what sucks? The establishment."

That is all.

Get a haircut, get a girlfriend.

At 4/23/08 10:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: Do the 13 million followers of The Church of Latter Day Saints follow a well established Religion or a money desiring cult?

Opinions?

Who exactly is getting rich from the "money desiring cult?"