Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just learned today that accountants and lawyers can plagiarize their asses off and not get sued for it. In fact they are very likely to get sued if they don't do it. Just another example of the things you learn in college running perpendicular to the real world.

At 4/20/08 12:03 AM, fli wrote: Well,
I just got a call from work saying that I can't come in... apparently, a rowdy costumer I handled a few days ago talked to my boss and said that I was racist to him. Which is bullshit.

Where I come from there are these douche bags running round everywhere called "lawyers." They are pretty much a pain in the ass for all involved but satisfying effective, (unless of course they are Maurice Graham malpractice-man extrodianiare). My Cholos tell me that up in this barrio a great many Mexicans Americans (or "brown" people as they would prefer not to be called by me but it's okay to refer to themselves that way... it's complicated) have used them to great effect.

Also keep in mind that you pissed off an Italian, so maybe you hire neighborhood kids to start your car for the next couple of weeks.

On another topic, do any of you reside near a Native American gaming establishment (Indian Casino)? In August I will start working for a CPA firm which audits Native American gaming establishments (Indian Casinos) all over the country and I will require people to snuggle with on the cold nights away from my wife.

At 4/8/08 04:59 PM, Socrates wrote: I don't know how o handle a vagina.

How does it work?

Honestly, I doubt you'll ever have to worry about it.

It's simple, I was made in America so I want products that were as well. It's kind of like how black women have to vote for Hillary because she's a woman. Then again Obama is black... shit.

Boy, I'd hate to be in their shoes.

Apparently McCain wasn't made in a America.

What were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID

At 4/6/08 11:41 PM, poxpower wrote: Fires are a natural event, the forests have replenished themselves and wil keep doing so in the future and even faster now since there's firemen specially dedicated to putting out forest fires to minimize the damage.

Actually modern forest fires are no longer natural events. Before man got involved forest cleared out brush and dead wood that accumulated on the forest floor but usually left living tees alone as the fire didn't get hot enough to burn the moist wood. Since man has been fighting forest fires the brush and dead trees which had previously been removed through natural fires pile up in levels nature would never have allowed before man started putting out fires. Since there is so much more fuel in the forest it means the fires burn hotter and longer meaning it can take out living trees and cause massive detestation. These fires are also too powerful for man to extinguish meaning the best we can hope for is containment.

One solution to this problem is permitting loggers to harvest forest on the condition that they remove the brush and dead trees from the areas they are not harvesting. This would restore nature's intention of removing these items, prevent the super fires which destroy wildlife habitat and cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing. Then of course the loggers and those who work in the paper industry would be happy because they would be able to feed their families.

Of course this solution has been attacked by environmentalists on the basis of being too damn logical. I believe this is the same logic against removing protections on timber wolves even though their population is growing to the point of being detrimental to themselves and other wildlife. The too logical card was also invoked in the DDT issue despite the fact that lab tests which proved its danger were never duplicated and millions in the third world have died of malaria since DDT was banned from use for mosquito abatement. I don't think environmentalists really care about they environment at all they just like to be on the news for suing the government.

At 3/29/08 10:21 PM, Grammer wrote: lol I had a sudden impulse to post all of the known porn sites I could think of

But then I thought: nah, not worth it

It's best to just keep that to yourself anyways, you never know when your quirky tastes might make you look peculiar in the eyes of your peers. When the RedSkunk was running one of his many failed attempts at creating a forum environment outside of NG, I got a wild hair up my ass to create a topic about an academic discussion of the various porn sites each visitor regulared because I thought it would provide some enlightening discussion. Well instead of participating with their own contributions everyone just kind of pointed out that my preferences mostly included videos of individuals whose anatomical structures could best be described as "a little of both" and my soft spot for Helen Hunt nude scenes and they all acted like there was something wrong with me. Needless to say the academic discussion never surfaced but fortunately as website funded by by the illustrious discolored skunk the url soon expired and my post faded into a distant memory.

Ted Easton was not so lucky as he, to this day, is still unable to make the occasional hello post without accusations of infidelities with goats being tossed around.

At 3/29/08 12:37 AM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I can't say why they don't fall, but it has been proven that autistic kids have a higher tolerance for pain. When I was a kid, the other kids would be running back to mommy after falling off the slide and I'd still be playing with skinned knees, so I guess it's true. Mom would have to get me to stop playing so she could use Neosporin or something.

It might not be a matter of pain tolerance so much as alternative interpretations of the situation. No boo boo in the world hurt as much as little kid makes it out to (with the possible exception of getting your ears ripped off, that seems excruciating) the response of running home to mommy is probably more environmentally conditioned than an actual response to pain. Since autistic children interact with their environments in a different way than other children they may not have received the conditioning.

Differing perceptions of their environments may also explain why they don't fall and run into people. You can pretty much surmise that non-autistic children aren't very good at running around the pool simply because paying attention to what they are doing is probably the last thing on their minds in an environment as stimulating as a public whereas an autistic child may not even perceive the distracting stimulants. Then there's always the possibilities of differing motivations and planning.

At 2/10/08 07:59 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/9/08 10:59 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 2/9/08 10:19 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

There are twelve apostles plus a first presidency made up of three individuals. Jesus's time he served the role of the first presidency. After his death Peter took his place.

I am well aware of the Original apostles of Christ. What I was referring to was Smith's apostles.

Restoration of the church set up by Jesus. The original apostles brought in new apostles after the death of Christ. Are you familiar with Paul?

The skin changing thing is actually in the the book of Mormon. Obviously there had to be some explanation of how a bunch of Jews turned into the Native Americans and higher sun exposure wasn't going to do it.

But how did everything else change about them. I mean, facial features, bone densisty all of that. There are more differences between native Palestinian Jews and Asiatic Natives.

Or is it just the faith in God.

My personal guess is intermixing with with Asians who crossed the land bridge. The book of Mormon doesn't say all native Americans came from Israel.

Oh of all the things it is time for a monthly of I was hoping you would say a kick in the ass. You know because you could use one... regularly.

Oh and on the subject of American Jesus. It's the same fucking Jesus, we just believe he visited America after he got done in Israel running around saying "Look, I'm dead but not really!"

At 2/9/08 10:19 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Cellar, could you give me a link to a website or article that you feel, in your opinion and knowledge of Mormonism; accurately depicts the beliefs and values of the Mormon religion.

Because i have a slight intuition that the 1950's quality video of Mormonism being about the abrahamic god being part of a Pantheon and being elevated to god-status... Somewhat... misleading?

And check your private messages. [pl0x]

Cell hasn't posted this yet? What a lousy token Mormon. =P

Behold the 13 articles of faith written by Joseph Smith. http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,494 5,106-1-2-1,FF.html

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

At 2/9/08 07:04 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/9/08 05:47 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 2/9/08 02:38 PM, poxpower wrote:

Joseph Smith wasn't the only one to ever see the book, there's a list of witnesses right after the title page. If you or the South Park guys had ever actually opened the book you are criticizing you would know that. South Park didn't say anything about the books being invisible...

So basically Smith, in all his glory and power, allowed a new group of disciples, that would be better then twelve....

by having fifteen.

There are twelve apostles plus a first presidency made up of three individuals. Jesus's time he served the role of the first presidency. After his death Peter took his place.

But question, is the Indian thing true (as in Indians are actually Jews from Jerusalem that were white skinned but were turned red by Gods wrath) or was Jospeh Smith just pandering to American Jingoism by having an American Jesus?

The skin changing thing is actually in the the book of Mormon. Obviously there had to be some explanation of how a bunch of Jews turned into the Native Americans and higher sun exposure wasn't going to do it.

At 2/9/08 02:38 PM, poxpower wrote: I think you forgot to mention the part where the books were all invisible and only ever seen by Joseph Smith. Again I'm no specialist so you tell me if that's not true. If you've seen the South Park episode, you tell me what wondrous facts they're hiding from me here, or if they're lying about something.

Joseph Smith wasn't the only one to ever see the book, there's a list of witnesses right after the title page. If you or the South Park guys had ever actually opened the book you are criticizing you would know that. South Park didn't say anything about the books being invisible...

Yeah you sound mormon... yeah...

You're just bitter because I won't hug you.

I never trusted this "conservative Mormon" who could win an election in Ted Kennedy's home state.

At 2/9/08 12:19 PM, poxpower wrote: Oh and p.s. I forgot, and answer this please instead of being a giant wussbag once again:

what if a super-advanced being comes down from the heavens and tells you to do many things that are contrary to your current moral code/ mormon ethics?

Pox you seem like you need a hug. I won't hug you because I imagine you smell like shit, but I'll find somebody who will. They will take you in their arms , stroke your hair and tell you what a good boy you are. Would you like that big guy?

I'm not going to read through three pages of material just to respond to the same old dribble so here's my best guess at the proper response.

First of all, observe my sig pic and apply it to your everyday life.

South Park is adult entertainment (much like pornography) and thus did not feel the need to make an accurate rendition of the story they drew from. Mormons believe that those pages of the book were stolen by people who wished to discredit Joseph Smith so they wanted to force him to retranslated those pages so they could change their copies if he did it and claim he didn't. Since the restored translation came from another book the threat was negated.

As for September Dawn, it may be true that some bat-shit-crazy Mormons killed some people passing through their land but pretty much everyone agrees that the movie portrayed it in the most biased anti Mormon way possible. First of all it turns out those Mormons did happen to be human beings (fallible and everything). They had been chased out of every other place they tried to settle in, they saw their homes burned to the ground and their friends and family members murdered. They perceived that group of settlers as a threat to the peace they had finally found then made a tragic mistake. It was the mistake of an isolated group and there is no evidence of higher involvement by the church leadership as portrayed in the film. That movie is simply an indication of what a high priced anti Romney ad looks like. We all know how reliable political ads are for unbiased information.

That has been this weeks lesson in "Pop Culture Does Not a Good Historian Make," come back next week for pictures of me fucking your mom in the ass.

Ann Coulter is a irrelevant nutcase.

Can I post a whole lot in the next two days to make up for a year of neglect and finally seize the presidency?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitn ess/11/07/whats.natural.ap/index.html

Apparently food companies are fighting because they have different views of what constitutes natural foods.

Could someone please explain to me how anything on this planet could consist of something other than all natural ingredients? If by natural you mean no human has touched it then how do those chicken breasts or salads end up shrink wrapped on the shelves of my local grocery store?

Should we simply murder anyone anal enough to contemplate his or her food's state of existence (hippies) and go watching the obesity rate as well as the average lifespan continue to climb in a mess of contradiction?

At 10/23/07 02:19 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Nothing the British Judicial system can do can surprise me.

Now were these burglars coming at him with knives or were they running away with his television and he was pissed because it meant he'd miss Oprah so he capped their asses. Given his history of shooting at cars that happen to be turning around in his driveway perhaps those crazy Brits are on to something here.

At 10/23/07 01:58 PM, Cheekyvincent wrote: Thoughts?

Your country sucks.

Remember when when winning a Nobel prize was a sign of making a significant contribution to the world as opposed to a thinly veiled middle finger to some political group and or person?

Neither do I, I wonder if there ever was a time...

If you want the the government to take action then you have to provide proof for the criminal investigators. This proof has to indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that federal statutes were broken and it should indicate who did it. Since the company is going out of business and you are no longer in a position to gather evidence, however, I would say you missed your chance to blow the whistle.

At my school the only people who ever got into fights were dumb white trash kids and illegal aliens. How about the next time you get in a fight and your school and the administration tries to punish you, you simply claim that the rules are written in such a way to naturally discriminate against you. I think this is the same excuse ignorant people use for standardized tests.

At 9/25/07 06:13 PM, NuttyJuggalo27 wrote: If your not paid well enough to make a decent living what they hell other choice does one have. Don't give me that goto college and get educated shit either when you busy paying off the loan for your house supporting a family and paying the bills college isnt exactly possible.

It looks to me like you just don't have the slightest idea how to manage money, its not a very easy thing to do, I'm in my fifth year of learning how to do it. Given all of your comments about overpaid executives and whatnot I have to ask, do you really think you deserve as much compensation as GM executives who have the skill set to manage over $300,000,000,000 in annual revenue when your skill set is limited to tightening lug nuts? Actually come to think of it, I bet they have a robot that does that, but I'm sure somebody needs to load the lug nuts into the robot.

Seems your quite the happy corp. whore. But with that crack you made about sending all the plants down to mexico it's quite obvious to anyone you've never worked a day in your life. I guess in your eyes us mere mortal working stuff should just bow down and do what ever the execs tell them,

You apparently are not very good at identifying "obvious" things. Perhaps this is why you can't understand the fact that when your employer is taking losses in the billions of dollars it probably isn't the best time to ask for a raise or block cost cutting measures?

At 9/25/07 01:00 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 9/24/07 07:53 PM, BeFell wrote: How do you account for the fact that most intelligent people don't belong to unions because they were not smart enough to specialize and make themselves a valuable asset negating their need to belong to union?

Unions are for the unskilled laborers. It's hard to make yourself a valuable asset when all you have the ability to do is punch car door frames from sheet metal.

Traditionally unions have only included skilled craftsmen who could manage their scarce resource, labor unions built on unskilled labor didn't come around until the 1930's to much protest from the skilled labor unions.

Often, they don't have enough money to become a skilled laborer -- to receive the education requires time and funding. In order to get the money to accomplish this task, they need to work at unskilled jobs. However, they also have to support themselves, and possibly a family, so most of the take-home pay is scattered away to various purposes.

I think it's not really possible for most of them to rise out of the low-income lifestyle, and become a specialized, skilled laborer for the workforce.

That's complete nonsense spoon fed to the American people by the Democrat presidential hopefuls. I was offered $18,000 in financial aid to attend college this semester. Combine this with a part time job and you're looking at the mid 20s for yearly income, if you have a spouse who works this number jumps into the 30s. Lack of income is not an excuse for a lack of a college education in this country. If college isn't your cup of tea then the only requirements for the military are a high school diploma and reasonable physical fitness. If these possibilities don't float your boat there are several apprenticeship programs one could join. These include careers in electrician and plumbing where one works as they learn and thus make income while becoming skilled. A friend of mine is two years into the electrician program, he is earning enough that he just bought a new house, and car and he's putting his wife through college.

There are plenty of opportunities for one to become skilled in American society and damn few excuses not to pursue them. Lack of income is certainly isn't a reason to be unskilled, laziness on the other hand...

At 9/24/07 11:02 PM, NuttyJuggalo27 wrote: I love all the anti union sentiment here I wonder how man of you union bashers actually work btw. Slim to none knowing the internet.

Most of us are busy specializing so we won't have to rely on the generosity of a corporation to have a pleasant existence.

To the fool who doesn't think the the bosses wouldnt screw the worker every chance they got if their werent any unions or labor laws. Well your an idiot simply put. Ever pick up a history book and read about what it was like for workers before labor laws and unionization?

Things change after several decades, unions may have been necessary a hundred years ago but in today's global market they are another obstacle for the American worker.

Your assumption that mandatory 16 hours workdays would return with the death of unions is kind of like saying slavery would start up again if Jesse Jackson died.

However look mostly at the bastards at the top who run the company they are the ones who run it into the ground not the workers.

Indeed, those morons conceded to the union demands in the first place when the prudent thing to do would have been to close down the whiner's plants and rebuild in Mexico.

At 9/24/07 08:44 PM, Joe67 wrote: Dude people in the U.S.A just can't get enough money for themselfs.

Even if they have enough money they ask for more and more.

It's the American way, although we would generally prefer if one were willing to work for it.

At 9/24/07 07:22 PM, Elfer wrote: That's the basic idea behind a union.

What we need to do is get rid of stupid union leaders who don't know how to negotiate.

How do you account for the fact that most intelligent people don't belong to unions because they were not smart enough to specialize and make themselves a valuable asset negating their need to belong to union?

Of course this is not true of all unions, electricians and plumbers have fairly successful unions which don't cut the throats of their workers but the the members of these unions are specialized highly skilled individuals who could command a high salary with or without the union.

In other words unions only work when they make sense, such as when highly skilled individuals exploit their scarcity, but unions are idiotic when they try to inflate the value of unskilled laborers such as our friends in the UAW.

At 9/24/07 04:08 PM, Ornithorynque wrote: Thats because Toyota Gets things done right and fast,while GM sits around taking a shit on the floor.

Yeah I'm pretty sure the union fought for that right because they deemed the 20 feet to walk to the restroom was too much effort for any of its members. GM management asked the union if they could at least have some employees clean up the shit but they were refused. When GM tried to hire some Puerto Ricans to come in and clean up the mess the union threw a literal shit storm asphyxiating the poor souls in the abundant feces.

The United Auto Workers have just shut down GM.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/24/news/com panies/gm_uaw_strikedeadline/index.htm?c nn=yes

Now it's now secret to anyone that GM hasn't been doing well for the last couple of years, in fact they have been doing downright shitty as evidenced by these Income Statements and the fact that Toyota (a Japanese Company) has surpassed them as the world's largest auto maker. For those of you who have majored in unemployment (English, History, Political Science, Native American Studies, etc.) the use of parenthesis in the Net Income row indicates a loss, which is bad. A big reason for these losses and piss poor margins is the fact that GM has made such generous concessions to its employees over the years that every car it produces has an extra few thousand dollars of cost tacked on to it. For a company that produces 12,200 new cars everyday, that's a lot of extra cost. So with their employer getting its ass kicked around by the Japanese and remaining crippled in terms of producing a decent margin the GM employees have decided that the best course of action is demand guarantees that GM will not attempt any obvious cost cutting changes or they will stop making cars.

Essentially GM laying on the ground struggling to breathe while its employees kick it in the head.

It simply occurs to me that someone who is concerned about losing their job to oversees workers should not force their employer out of business especially when the nearest competitor is an overseas firm.

Thoughts?