Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/2/13 05:04 PM, LemonCrush wrote: What conclusions?

And yes, polls and statistics are virtually the same.

All polls are statistics, but not all statistics are polls. Know your difference in denotation.

And you still haven't shown me your data.

At 1/2/13 05:01 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I didn't pick the definition. Webster did.

You still didn't answer my question. Who owns your education?

I'm not talking about political socialism, I'm talking how society as a whole has socialistic tendencies already built into itself. If you can't even see that then what do you see when you look at those markets?

No it doesn't.

Otherwise, we would be a "socialist" society. And we don't. We live in a society where people sustain or at least want to sustain themselves. You very existence is a product of greed. As is mine. As is everyone's.

Sure, you have some "socialist" societies...say...the Amish...but again, they CHOOSE to be there. They are not forced by government or threats.

Definition of socialism, from Webster:

"any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"

The American education system is socialist. The highway system is socialist. The frickin' army, because it's raised by the government, is socialism. Those markets are socialist because society has deemed that those markets are best controlled by the people rather than individuals.

Let me ask you this: how do you see those markets otherwise? If the highway market in the United States isn't socialist, then what is it by definition?

Um, no. Those things are not benefits of socialism.

Socialism is forced theft to benefit others. Clearly, by their very structure, schools, fire depts. etc does not apply. Socialism, is the wrong word to describe roads and public education. That's charity, or contributing to the common good. Socialism not only has nothing to do with that, but runs completely opposite to charity and the common good.

See above. Also, you're telling me that our tax dollars, collected by the government, isn't funding our education system or public roads? How do you think our government works?

At 1/2/13 04:10 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Polls and statistics do not subscribe to the scientific method, therefore are invalid :)

You still haven't shown me the data in which you're drawing your conclusions from. And you first said statistics as being invalid, not polls. There is a big difference between the two, but it seems that you can't see the difference.

Answer me this: what's it like inside that tiny head of yours?

At 1/2/13 04:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote: PROPERTY:
Noun
A thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
A building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them.

A "thing belong to someone"? Could you have picked a more vague definition? A thing can be anything. If anything, you've helped prove my point: any thing can be property. So, therefore, if you don't own your own education, who does?

Except that every socialist government has done the polar opposite.

I'm not talking about political socialism, I'm talking how society as a whole has socialistic tendencies already built into itself. If you can't even see that then what do you see when you look at those markets?

It has built no benefits for me. Socialist policies, as Obama, Bush, Reagan, Carter, et al, love so much, benefit a select few, in most cases CEO's and corporations, at the expense of other.

Trickle down economics. That's what socialism is. Even Marx knew that the concepts and theory of socialism and communism were humanly impossible (due to human's need for freedom and choice), and unsustainable.

Okay then. If socialism has no benefits for you give back your education, stop driving on the roads, you're probably going to want to arm yourself because national defense isn't going to protect your ass anymore, oh, and if your house burns down, you can kiss it goodbye because the fire department isn't going to come and hose it down.

At 1/2/13 03:55 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I tend to believe in reality.

Statistics are easily, and frequently skewed

Then show me where you are getting your numbers from and how they are valid. Without the use of the scientific method and empirical data, because, as you say, is "frequently skewed".

At 1/2/13 03:44 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Education is no property.

Do you value it? We may not be able to put a number on it, but if it has value and society benefits from it, then it's a good and therefore property. Otherwise, you could argue art isn't property very similarly.

And education, or rather, an educated public, benefits society as a whole, therefore I have no problem paying for it. Same with roads, military, etc. I have no problem paying for something I'm going to use, or will benefit the entire nation equally.

And if that's done by the government, as it is in most countries, then THAT IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF SOCIALSIM!

Socialism is stealing stealing from haves and giving to have nots. I am aware I am in these systems...because I am forced to be. That's kind of the problem I'm talking about.

It seems like you want to have the best of both worlds, but completely being ignorant of the system yet still want the benefits that have provided of said system. This what Obama was talking about in the full context in his "You didn't build that" speech. You can't be ignorant of the benefits socialism (government controlled markets) has already built for you.

At 1/2/13 02:50 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Hmm. My property, every single thing I own, was acquired by me purchasing it. I didn't force anyone to give anything to me. I traded money (which I received from a person in exchange for services), for items or services. The goods I purchase were also produced voluntarily.

What about your education? That's a good in which you were given involuntarily because society deems that educated citizens is more beneficial to itself. You did not pay for it, yet you are still experiencing its benefits.

So, again, the socialist thought is flawed because it requires government forcing people to participate in things they may not want to do.

But you're already in several socialistic systems. You just haven't realized they're socialist yet.

Hey, back from the dead. Well, not really, but something kind of along those lines. How has everybody been?

At 12/29/12 07:28 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I tend to not believe in statistics.

Um, so, if you don't believe in the very way humans observe and report data, how can you possibly logically justify your position? It would be like if you didn't like a book you would say "It would be better as a painting." You're ignoring the way humans analyze data! What then do you believe in? That your shoelace is God of the Mountains?

Just wanted to point that out, cause I just finished Nate Silver's new book, and man, is it good.

Look, the reason socialism is bad from a very large perspective is that it kills motivation, and by extension, innovation. Humans are naturally self-interested, a la Keeping up with the Joneses. If your neighbor gets a nicer car than you, you're going together jealous and presumably work harder to get money to buy an even nicer car. Competition leads to motivation. Now, say two companies have very similar products. The motivation from the competition will push for innovation in the market, leading to better designed or even new products.

But what happens when everything's equal? Well, now your neighbor's got the same car as you, because there's only one kind of car. You're no longer jealous, which means you no longer have that competitive drive. If companies only have to make one kind of product and the government fully supports that product, why would there be innovation?

It's not that socialism is all bad. It basically boils down to "self" or "society". I personally think the pursuit of "equally" is much noble than "personal gain", but there's no right answer.

Honest question now for conservatives at this point: do you honestly believe in Mitt Romney as a candidate? Please have your answer not include the words "not" "Obama".

At 9/18/12 11:10 PM, Feoric wrote: The reason why Romney is in the same position because Obama is running one of the best campaigns in recent history, imo. Obama has been leading the narrative in the news cycle since the convention because Romney is such an incompetent idiot when it comes to his campaign. Obama is leading in the polls without having to hammer his policy positions or anything. It's effortless for him. I'm starting to think Romney's campaign is run by Democrats.

The joke is that it's not really a strategy but rather common sense. SNL 's opening political skit this past weekend was spot on in this weird way: all Obama really has to do is to have Romney speak for 5 minutes before you realize how disconnected Romney is and how he can talk himself into a hole bigger than Texas. One thing's for sure, it's working.

At 9/18/12 06:36 PM, TB1ZZL3 wrote: Welp, I thought Obama would win, but I didn't think he'd win by Romney committing political suicide. Well done, Mitt.

This is what I've been saying for months. From the first page of this thread:

At 6/26/12 10:45 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Like I've said earlier: Obama doesn't win this election. Romney loses the election for the Republicans.

It's been almost 3 months from that post and Romney's still more or less in the in the same position. He really hasn't gotten any momentum in much of the polling so whatever he's doing is clearly not working, And here we are, what, 5 weeks to the election? Unless there's a major ace in the hole Romney's got going into the home stretch what he is going to do?

Oh yeah, when David Brooks has nothing nice to say about Romney, that's a bad sign generally. Again, unless the Romney campaign's following some better formula for a presidential election that we're not aware about, why are you pissing off David Brooks?

Are you kidding me? Here we go again..........
-------

ItâEUTMs another crummy night in a crummy bar in a crummy side of town. The beerâEUTMs here too warm, the gameâEUTMs off and the drunks are too obnoxious. So why I am still here? IâEUTMve been pondering that question myself after a few more rounds.

Is it the people around me? Sure, theyâEUTMre loud. Yeah, theyâEUTMre drunk. And okay, maybe one of them is up there on stage, shirt half-tucked, trying to belt out the high notes to JourneyâEUTMs âEUoeDonâEUTMt Stop BelievinâEUTMâEU (dear God, is that really happening?) but itâEUTMs not annoying. To the contrary, most people are finding this behavior humorous.

How about then the game? IâEUTMm pretty sure we won. Took them down 5-2 after 9. McGee went 7 strong, gave up 1 and fanned 8. Gibson clobbered home 3 ribs with a 3-bagger in the 5th and Turkleton later bombed a 2-runner in the 8th. Normally on nights like these IâEUTMd like to watch the game and get my mind off the other things that are going on, but it looks like tonight isnâEUTMt going to be one of those nights.

How about the booze then? This isnâEUTMt half bad Kentucky Bourbon. Hell, even I donâEUTMt know what it is. All I know is that this stuff is gonna cost me once I settle the bill with the bartender. Judging how well my nightâEUTMs going, IâEUTMd also say that itâEUTMs almost time to put the drink down.

But why should I put it down? ThatâEUTMs why IâEUTMm here, right? Funny, how a little sip can make life a little grayer around the edges. It helps settle the soul and keeps the ego in check, making all of lifeâEUTMs little problems go away by dissolving them in a mixture of sadness and ale until it is one big blur.

That blurriness isnâEUTMt happening tonight. Sometimes, the mind howls, and thereâEUTMs no escaping it.

When the cabbie asks where I want to go, I donâEUTMt respond. I hand him a 20 and tell him to just drive.

Sunrises are beautiful when alone.

Penned originally on a bar napkin. Please enjoy and comment.

--------

ItâEUTMs another crummy night in a crummy bar in a crummy side of town. The beerâEUTMs here too warm, the gameâEUTMs off and the drunks are too obnoxious. So why I am still here? IâEUTMve been pondering that question myself after a few more rounds.
Â
Is it the people around me? Sure, theyâEUTMre loud. Yeah, theyâEUTMre drunk. And okay, maybe one of them is up there on stage, shirt half-tucked, trying to belt out the high notes to JourneyâEUTMs âEUoeDonâEUTMt Stop BelievinâEUTMâEU (dear God, is that really happening?) but itâEUTMs not annoying. To the contrary, most people are finding this behavior humorous.
Â
How about then the game? IâEUTMm pretty sure we won. Took them down 5-2 after 9. McGee went 7 strong, gave up 1 and fanned 8. Gibson clobbered home 3 ribs with a 3-bagger in the 5th and Turkleton later bombed a 2-runner in the 8th. Normally on nights like these IâEUTMd like to watch the game and get my mind off the other things that are going on, but it looks like tonight isnâEUTMt going to be one of those nights.
Â
How about the booze then? This isnâEUTMt half bad Kentucky Bourbon. Hell, even I donâEUTMt know what it is. All I know is that this stuff is gonna cost me once I settle the bill with the bartender. Judging how well my nightâEUTMs going, IâEUTMd also say that itâEUTMs almost time to put the drink down.
Â
But why should I put it down? ThatâEUTMs why IâEUTMm here, right? Funny how a little sip can make life a little grayer around the edges. It helps settle the soul and keeps the ego in check, making all of lifeâEUTMs little problems go away by dissolving them in a mixture of sadness and ale until it is one big blur.
Â
 That blurriness isnâEUTMt happening tonight. Sometimes, the mind howls and thereâEUTMs no escaping it.
Â
When the cabbie asks where I want to go, I donâEUTMt respond. I hand him a 20 and tell him to just drive.
Â
Sunrises are beautiful when alone.

At 7/19/12 02:49 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: So name one moderate Republican. They're in pretty short supply nowdays.

Jon Huntsman. Though a full Mormon ticket is political suicide.

More about Rubio.....

In a normal election I would agree with you. Rubio, if he wants to get his name out there, should take the nod. However, you have to look at the whole GOP base and they're still not happy. And Rubio, if he's serious, needs to appeal tothis whole group. That isn't going to cut it with Romney's campaign. There's too many questions that if you wanted to try to appeal to the common voter you'd be made a laughing stock.

One of the first questions the vp nod is going to have to answer is what's Romney hiding in his tax forms? Answer that question the wrong way and the press is going to be all over your ass. That alone can kill 2016 dreams.

My money's on Tim Pawlenty.

At 7/18/12 10:49 PM, Deathcon7 wrote: Serials

I eat those for breakfast every morning!

whoops, wrong cereals. But when I finish the box, am I a cereal killer?

In all seriousness though, it sounds like a great idea for collabroative project for the writers of this forum. My concern?The number of people who would be willing to take part. Seems like there's a few regs here enough to generate interest but will it be enough? God knows the last thing we want is writing with no thought behind it.

At 7/17/12 11:57 PM, TrueWolf123 wrote: ah...but i never made a 2nd draft.
this is considered my first.

More reason why to draft then. A large part of writing is refinement.

At 7/17/12 11:36 PM, TrueWolf123 wrote: lol 2nd? where'd the 3rd come from?

A first draft would literally be bare bones; no regards to spelling, grammar, or sentence structure. It's purely thought. Very rarely do other people read first drafts.

It'sa nice start. You should definitely take out the ideas of chapters here, as the story's currently too short and the chapters break up the flow of the piece.
However, what this piece lacks is emotion, and that's on part of lack of character development until the wee end. Why should the readers care about the protagonist? Dive into his mind more and let the reader know what's going on inides this guy's head.
Also, the ending brings a lot of detail really fast. Try spreading this out, otherwise readers get lost.
Good 2nd draft. Now come back with a kickass 3rd.

At 7/17/12 10:17 PM, TheMason wrote: Marco Rubio

I have a hard time believing even if it was offered, Rubio would take the vp nod. Rubio's a great raising star within GOP and probably a likely contender for 2016, so why would he try to associate himself with probably the antithesis of the current American public, Mitt? It makes no sense running with a guy who's the perfect image of the Wall Street CEO when your sorry is that you're a poor immigrant achieving the American dream? (which, by the way, isn't all necessarly true either) While it would make logical sense for Romney again, I don't see anyone who's serious about 2016 coming close to the Romney campaign.

At 7/17/12 08:25 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 7/17/12 07:05 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

It's not exactly insanity though since they are doing it purely for political reasons. They're not actually expecting to succeed in getting the ACA repealed, they're just doing it so they can have an opportunity to give Obama the finger and to fire up donors and their base.

The number I find more interesting is the number of healthcare bills to replace Obamacare that the Republicans have passed since they took over the House.

The number is zero.

It's insanity because obviously it's going nowhere, while there are more pressing matters at hand......like, I don't know, the economy?

At 7/17/12 05:55 PM, MikeVouros wrote: Uh, do you want us to clap for you or....what?

Anyways, Obamacare is a fucking joke.

Obviously you missed the point, so let's spell it out for you, shall we?

Congress has voted 33 times to try to appeal Obamacare. Obviously, that hasn't worked, and that's with the issue being forefront in the public eye for the past 3 years. What makes you think that the law is going to be thrown in the trash if it hasn't been repealed yet? It's insanity, which is something you might understand.

At 7/17/12 02:47 PM, Exgesis wrote: I did say PM me for more details, just so you know.

Yes, but if you're going to come asking for help, you're going to need details. People aren't going to sink their teeth into something they have idea is. It's no different than a craigslist ad; more people will bite the more effort you put in.

At 7/16/12 08:32 PM, MikeVouros wrote: I can't wait till NobamaCare is thrown in the friggen trash.

Do you know what the defintion of insanity is? It's doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

One number: 33. That's how many times Congress has voted to repeal Obamacare. Has that worked yet?

It ain't going anywhere anytime soon people.

Perhaps you could give us more details of what you're looking for. What genre are you thinking? How much depth are you looking for, etc. This'll help a lot of writers more.

Look, if you're looking for a trophy or a pedestal to stand on, get in line. If your writing is truly that good you would have been noticed by now. That's just a fuckin fact. So until then, sit down and shut up, because the only way your writing gets better is through editing, which stems from other people reading your piece. There's a saying, if a guy calls you a horse the first time you tell him to shut up. If he calls you a horse a second time you punch him in the face. If he calls you a horse a third time, well, maybe it's time to start shopping for a saddle.

That being said.......

It reads horribly. And to clearify, I have not read anyone elses post. This steams from my own opinion. It reads like a bad romantic novel written by Zack Snyder on acid with no sense of grammar. There's no character development what so ever, the setting is nonexistant and the plotline is beyond bland virtually a cliche. That's just content too; your style is so far across the map it's hard to read and quite frankly looks like something people wouldn't read. There's no flow and the paragraphs are chunky. Do you have something against longer paragraphs and sentence variety?

Seriously, you're going to need to go back and edit. This piece needs a lot of work.

And what's with the attitude? Because seriously, people are trying to help you. If you're going to act like a jerk, you're going to find yourself lonely really quickly.

At 7/13/12 07:27 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Perhap's as in my brothers observations, attitude of the student(s) plays a more substantial role than is normally talked about.

True and there's also the cultural aspect of education as well, which is similar to the point Camaro is trying to make. In the United States at least (i can't speak for Canada, perhaps you can describe that) education is not seen as privIlege, rather almost mandatory. Opposed to other countries where public school systems are not as prominate, American children don't realize in some regard how lucky they are and take it for granted. And, at the same time, like Camaro said, we're hurting our own teachers (and thus future educators and people who shape education policies) by making teaching a less lucrative position, not to mention God knows what other hurdlles we as a country put teachers through. It's funny, as a society as a whole we value education, but we don't value the educators and we certainly don't realize how lucky we are, despite the problems now.

Here's the thing about Romney's vp candidate, whomever it will be: it's going to be a nonfactor to most voting groups. Any serious candidate who's thinking of running in 2016 is staying far far away from Romney's campaign, and for good reason: there's too much contraversy surrounding the campaign.

Romney's VP pick will probably be the following:
a) more conservative than himself
b) a Senator or Rep

At this point in the race, most people have decided their vote. The one key group left is the independents, but for Romney, another challenge is still convincing conservatives he's their guy, hence a more conservative vp. But will it have a bigger effect on the election as a whole? Romney might get a 2% bump. It's actually similar to Obama in 08; Romney needs a pick to bring together the party to try to win.

I swear to God that soccer moms are more impatient than New Yorkers. If I'm in the middle of the crosswalk and you have just pulled out of a parking space in your giant SUV(BTW, what's your MPG in the city? Under 30? Lol!) why do you honk at me? In literally 3 seconds I'll be out of your way and out of your life, so why do you feel the need to express your impatience with a random stranger? Or are those 3 seconds so important you want to piss other people off because they are not as important as those 3 seconds?

Btw, to everyone here, Hi! Proof that there is life beyond death, or something like that.

At 7/8/12 09:28 AM, TheMason wrote: It's not so much the lead the incumbent has that's important but how close to 48% he is. The reason is the "undecided" or "independent" voters usually go for the challenger. The incumbent can only expect maybe a fifth of those voters. What this generally amounts to is 2-3%. Where those voters are large % (ie: 5-12%) the incumbent picking up 3-5% is possible...but that depends on how extreme the challenger is.

Show me where this happens please, because I have a very hard time thinking that This is going to happen here. As I've said earlier, Romney, despite the Democrats's weak position, is even weaker as a candidate. Hell, when John Boehner doesn't have exactly the kindest of words for you, well, you kind of know something is going sideways fast on that campaign bus.

Ohio is a mixed bag. The most recent polls show Obama where he needs to be but there are two problems:
* The most recent polling uses a Registered Voter model where I prefer Likely Voter models.

The problem using likely models, is well, they're only likely. They may be close when the final results come out but there's no way day in and day out that they're accurate. Registered voters have already put in the time and effort to make their vote count and thus are more likely at actually vote.......but I'm spilting hairs.

* The upswing for Obama could be a temporary bump due to his perceived win on healthcare.
But the recent polling does show another pick-up for Obama.

While it might be healthcare, if it's Ohio, it's the Bain ads put out by the Obama campaign attacking Romney. It's funny this way, because one of Romney's big arguments is the economy, but what's getting slammed on is his business record. This is working Romney even more as his image is being painted as an out of touch rich politician. And with the way things are going, well, you get the picture.

Finally, there is something I'm watching for on election night: the Bradley Effect. In short I think Obama's presidency has polarized us along racial lines. In 2008 there was no Bradley Effect. However, now I think people will lie to pollsters about their plans to vote against Obama so they don't appear racist. This could cost Obama between 2-3% (4-5% outside) come election day. If that's the case Romney will probably win.

People said this back in 08 and I didn't believe them then either. It makes no sense at this point: Obama done enough in office where if you quasi-didn't like him in 08 and still voted for him you have a fairly good reason not to vote for him this year. Besides, I could say the same thing about Romney's Mormonism if I wanted to, but that wouldn't be fair politics, would it?

Again: I don't see Obama victory though. It's going to be a Romney loss.