Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/17/06 06:44 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: hippies want everything given to them without offering anything in return.

Bingo... and the smell thing too.

So could anyone explain to me exactly how this is suppose to be thought provoking? Does anyone know the plot?

Basically it follows an investigation that leads to a Muslim immigrant because according to the Brits that would be the first group we'd suspect. Then in the end it is revealed that the actual shooter was a black man who's son was killed in Iraq.

So what exactly is the point they are trying to make? Americans don't like immigrants? British people are naive? Way too many black people have guns? Soldiers should think twice before commiting themselves to an occupation that involves being shot at?

Mostly any political discussion you could garner from this film is a shallow stereotype of Americans at best. In fact they should call the film what it is, "Ha Ha Stupid Americans."

At 9/13/06 02:17 AM, Jesus wrote:

At 9/12/06 05:27 PM, poxpower wrote: From the moment the first primitive human throw a rock at an antilope, we've been on the downslope of lazyness, and I'm damn happy about it.

Really? I see your point that the more we invent, the less jobs we have to do, but the downside of that is the more we invent, the less jobs we can do. For instance, the number of people who have had their jobs taken by machines at car manufacturors companies is very high.

Machnines are like a non-lazy version of humans and they're taking all our work. And yet we can't stop creating them. We need them to progress, but we can't have them if we want a job.

Have you looked at the unemployment rate lately? If your assertion is correct and machines mean less jobs shouldn't we have high unemployment?

In that last two weeks I had $1,000 dollars in unplanned expenses pop up. Being an adult sucks.>=(

So much for my Wii/360 Christmas...

At 9/12/06 04:39 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

At 9/12/06 04:24 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 9/11/06 11:17 PM, SirXVII wrote: Cons: The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Actually the poor have never been better off. Most economists recognize that while the rich may get a bigger piece of the economic pie as long as the pie keeps growing everyone is better off.

Saying things doesn't make them true.

Fair enough, have you ever thought of applying that statement to your own reasoning.

The only way that income for "average joes" has somewhat stayed the same in the post seventy or so years is because there are more wage earners to a family. More people are working two jobs, more couples both have jobs. "Better off" is relative, but I'd say working your tail off just to get by isn't "better."

Yes indeed reading a Steinbech novel is like reading a modern account of being poor in America. Of course you have to forget things like ample food, home ownership, multiple cars per family and cable tv but other than that you can't tell the difference.

You can whine and complain about people being worse off all you want but the FACTS indicate it just isn't true. Dramatic increases in output through worker and marketplace efficiencies have created such an abundance of resources that the main concern of the average American is not dropping dead from a heart attack caused overconsumption.

You can probably point to cases where children are not getting enough to eat but I can guaranfuckingtee these cases usually have more to do with negative drug addicted parents than a hostile economy. The fact is in our current economy there is no exscuse for not having enough to eat and some kind of roof over your head, compare that to 70 years ago.

As far as your ramblings about both parents working, if I'm not mistaken there was something that occured 30 or so years ago where women Chose to enter the workplace. It would not be unreasonable for a family to survive on a single income (many do as apparent by the fact that there are more single parent households than ever before) but who really wants to give up that high defenition television, third car and vacation budget?

At 9/11/06 11:17 PM, SirXVII wrote: Cons: The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Actually the poor have never been better off. Most economists recognize that while the rich may get a bigger piece of the economic pie as long as the pie keeps growing everyone is better off.

Capitalism was a great idea when the world was going through the Industrial Revolution to the 1945's, but has increasingly shown us how it doesn't work.

Example?

It looks like you're learning buy maybe you should get past those 200 level Econ classes before you set out to educate the masses.

I don't really have any idea what the hell you people are talking about at this point but as to the idiotic non-issue of Canadians and Mexicans who feel bad that they don't have a term that identifies them as members of a particular continent, couldn't they just call themselves North Americans? It actually seems that would be more propper anyways so as not to confuse residents of North and South America with a blanket term like Americans.

I just want to point out that the topic starter is stupid as is the discussion but it occured to me that Orson Scott Card tackles this very subject in a somewhat plausable sense in his "Shaddow" series.

At 9/7/06 05:32 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 9/7/06 05:28 PM, GrammerClock wrote: Oh btw, I replaced my broken iPod, and my first day of College wasn't half bad, if not borderline fun.

Go me.

College noob.

Last week I learned a technique which can be employed to help rich people prevent paying taxes (legally even). My eyes actually started to tear up, after three plus years of higher education I actually learned something which could be applied in my future career, it was indeed a magical moment I never thought would come. My joy was soon replaced by anger, however, when one burning question came to the front of my mind, what the hell was point of my last three years of life?! Shakepeare and Biology classes for an accounting major? I'm going make these motherfuckers pay for every wasted moment memorizing the major sturctures in mollusks.

*clears throat*

I mean, hooray it's my last year... and then grad school... I should just stick a shotgun in my mouth.

Um... guys, I wasn't going for a parody, this topic stemmed from a thought process that started when I misread the title of the other guys thread, so yeah...

At 9/7/06 02:38 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 9/7/06 01:52 PM, BeFell wrote: My first topic in over a year is sinking to the bottom quicker than Mel Gibson's dignity.

Nobody gets me.=(

Teenage angst came late to you didn't it.

I passed through that lond ago now I am indulging in the wonderful apathy that overtakes one who has formally contracted to spend the rest of his life with the same person.

My first topic in over a year is sinking to the bottom quicker than Mel Gibson's dignity.

Nobody gets me.=(

Black men have been marrying white women for several years now despite the opinions of those who watch NASCAR (Any sport that doesn't have at least one black man who dominates over all others isn't sport) and gays are already tying the knot in some parts of the country meaning it's only a matter of time before it's a nationwide phenomonem. Then of course there is the recent excitement about plural marriage, or good ol' Mormon fun as we call it in Idaho, and it's only a matter of time before those of Scottish descent and their sheep get their way. So my question is this, if we do mannage to prove the existance extraterrestrials and are able to interact with them, then should human and alien be able to join in holy matrimony?

There is of course the negative sexual associations with aliens primarily of which involve some form of date rape as in kidnapping, druging and anal probing but I am of the mind that as long as it's cosential why the hell not? There are those who pay good money for that sort of thing within their own species.

Perhaps the debate would evolve around what form are outworldly visitors are in, if they're humanoid like Klignons or Vulcans I don't think anyone would have too many complaints but what if they are something completely different, like Jabba the Hutt? Cetainly the thought of a Jabba/human hybrid is too disturbing to fathom anything but a complete ban on such nonesense. There is the possibility of only banning marriage in certain forms meaning Leia could go down with spock and probably Chewie but not Jabba, the pit monster or that green guy Han capped but where does Jar Jar fit into this? Perhaps Leia isn't the best example given her tendency to make nooky with just about anything including Han, Chewie, the Empororer, General Mar Tok and her brother (which is prohibited in most cultures exluding the Romans as my understanding of the movie Gladiator goes).

My point is this though, if a man can love a woman, if a man can love a man, if a woman can love a woman and a Mormon can love a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman... and Curt Kobain could be married to that evil shebitch demon from hell then is there any reason why a woman can't choose to be with an oversized slug with a speach impediment and an deoderant intolerence just because a few of us might find it unsightly? I certainly hope not, not if America truly is the land of the free where people can be whatever they want to be (exluding drug dealers, murderers, pedophiles and rap singers, Tupak's murder was a government conspiracy it's all online) by God I say go for princess, have Jabba, have Lando have a Gungan and that freaky dude who was cruising around with Lando in the Return of the Jedi but for the love of Pete please leave Luke out of it... or don't who am I to tell you what to do.

Am I the only one who is disapointed that Tom's "PAX" message doesn't refer to PAX TV?

Also that Extraterrestrial Message topic would be 100X better if was what my brain first thought it was, Extraterrestrial Marriage. Gays are going to be marrying all accross the land pretty soon, then Mormons and men with goats but one discussion I haven't heard is if it would have been ok for Elliot to bone E.T. and eventually tie the knot (pending his 18th birthday of course). I bet he wishes he got some of Drew Barrymore while he could and while she was somewhat almost something close to a virgin, probably.

At 9/6/06 05:44 PM, red_skunk wrote: I was just saying that I haven't seen an ounce of shrike on the interweb at all recently. Of course, he's on AIM right now, just to invalidate that claim.

I wish I could see you naked.

I was on myspace, checking to make sure my sister isn't being stalked by anyone freaky (you guys) and I found that never before have I more wanted to take my own life than when veiwing a MySpace slideshow. Then I got to thinking, "I wonder if some emo kid ever slit his wrists then created a little myspace slideshow of it as he was bleading out." I then became filled with warm and fuzzy feelings just thinking of the possibility.

I hate America because it's the popular thing to do and I am so totally a trend whore.

At 8/29/06 11:00 AM, -Fudge- wrote: Huh? How is it sexist?

It's sexist because it has two women and um... well there's gotta be something wrong with it.

It's racist of course because white people cannot engage in fair combat with black people because God forbid if they win then redneck somewhere might be able to say, "Ha, I told you."

What about the ACT?

At 8/24/06 06:01 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/24/06 05:58 PM, BeFell wrote: You people are fucking morons.

Dude, Mormons don't swear.

>_>
<_<

I'll give you some M&Ms if you keep this quiet.

At 8/24/06 12:37 PM, red_skunk wrote: Everyone should live alone at least once in their life... And preferably early on, so it's not sad-looking.

Who's going to make your sammiches?

Ok I'm full of shit my wife doesn't do any cooking, or cleaning for that matter, but when I tell her about really raunchy stuff I saw on the internet and want to try she almost always says no.

hmm...

*sigh*

You people are fucking morons. Your right to privacy isn't violated because you can CHOOSE not to go through the machine. There are many alternatives to air travel including but not limited to boats, trains and automobiles. So if you are to shy to dangle your goodies in front of one stranger behind a curtain then don't fly.

For those who bring up the pervert question, what if they had two machines at each airport, one for men and one for women, each operated by a member of each respective sex. If that still isn't good enough for you we could just call it the express lane and make all of the whiners get in a long line for less pervasive but more time intensive searches. Of course I know how we feel about compromises especially on this board so I expect my logical solution to fall on deaf ears.

I wonder if anybody has even bothered to read this far before hitting the reply button and throwing a little e-temper tantrum. Usually I find when I make posts like this though they are usually just ignored as if the readers say "what's this rationality bullshit, I'm right and that means all others are completely wrong not a little right and a little wrong that just doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure I'm just talking to myself at this point, I'm gonna go eat some M&Ms. Did you know they have dark chocolate M&Ms now? They are damn tasty.

White people are pansies.

The media would never print something that isn't true. These are all Jewish lies.

DAMN YOU JOE LIEBERMAN!!!

Don't we arrest people who refuse feed their children?

Sometimes I forget just how gay this place is.

...

WHO WANTS A BEAR SUIT?!

At 8/11/06 09:15 PM, Monocrom wrote:

At 8/11/06 12:16 PM, BeFell wrote: You know, I bet safety at the airport would dramatically increase if they just thouroughly searched everyone. Honestly, what is the point of having the bulk of travelers go through a security check that isn't sufficient enough to detect whatever they are looking for in the more thourough searches?

You do have an excellent point........ except for one thing.

Do you really want to spend 10 hours on the check-in line for your flight so that every single paasenger can be searched thoroughly before each plane takes off? Instead of coming to the airport 2 hours before your plane is scheduled to leave, you arrive 10 hours before.

Not so, if carry on items were banned you'd be looking at about 30 to 40 seconds per person for the metal detector and a quick pat down. That's about what it takes now for everyone to get their shit on that stupid conveyor belt.

You know, I bet safety at the airport would dramatically increase if they just thouroughly searched everyone. Honestly, what is the point of having the bulk of travelers go through a security check that isn't sufficient enough to detect whatever they are looking for in the more thourough searches?

At 8/8/06 12:07 PM, red_skunk wrote: This first round of apartment hunting has gone less than spectacular. Why do people not believe me when I say I'm not an asshole college student?

You hippies are always claiming profiling, maybe it's just because you're ugly.

At 6/23/06 04:52 PM, zendahl wrote: Yes I pay taxes, and (get ready for this) I'm in the military.

You have nothing buy my utmost respect for that.

I PAY MY OWN WAGES! to a point anyway. income tax that every person who has a paycheck gets pays for the military.

Not neccessarily. In the case of people like me, where my income is below a certain benchmark, the only deductions I see on my paycheck go to FICA (socail security and medicare) now unless you go into technicalities about congress stealing from the the socail security fund that means that a whole lot of people do not pay one dime towards the military.

At 6/23/06 04:54 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Exactly. This is the United States - there's no call for deifying the wealthy and putting them above criticism, after the Estate Tax cut and two or three consecutive tax cuts, I question exactly how much of anything they pay for.

I didn't say they're above criticism I implied you're a God damn moron for not recognizing their contribution.

As far as them not paying anything let's not let a little thing like facts disrupt your ranting:

As of 2004, the top 1% of individual taxpayers paid approximately 32% of all federal taxes. The top 5% paid approximately 44%, and the top 10% paid 50% of all federal taxes. The bottom 20% of taxpayers paid a little over 1% of all federal taxes..

Basically most of us on this forum are sucking off the tit of the wealthy, especially those of us who are recieving Federal Finacial Aide. Even if your income is above the $8,500 required to actually pay any income tax I would still wager that you are taking out a hell of a lot more than you're putting in.

So these people aren't joining the millitary, it's a volunteer service, most of you laying down criticism in this topic aren't in the millitary either. The difference here is at least these people are footing the bill with their persuits of higher paying activities.