Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/7/14 09:43 AM, Ericho wrote: You must make a fair amount of money then, because fast food joints are usually the cheapest things out there. Granted, there's healthier cheap places like Subway's, but with all the people allergic to gluten, that's becoming less popular too.

Well, that's largely a myth. Fast food is nowhere near the cheapest food out there. Going for processed nd boxed meals at the grocery store is by far the cheapest. You could eat for a week on what it would cost to eat BK for one day.

The truth in the myth is that healthy food is expensive. Sure, you can load up on mac and cheese, frozen pizza, raman, and alike for cheaper than fast food, but it's really difficult to get healthy food for less than fast food costs.

File ths under just a bit too much information:

It's surprising how hard it is to wipe your butt with your other hand. What was once routine has now become a friggin' acrobatic exercise. Feels like trying to do a Rubik's cube behind you, with your arms tucked under your legs.

At 9/6/14 11:39 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Off to get in some kayaking before the rivers freeze up

Kayaking on a frozen river sounds fun.

At 9/6/14 10:51 AM, Ericho wrote: a Power Rangers logo that did in fact use a swatisika.

FUCKING HELL. Is nothing sacred?

At 9/6/14 07:50 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: Gamification works only until a kid gets old enough to realize personal responsibility. I'm pretty sure that a person has to be educated for education, not for fun! We already have the generation of narrow-minded ignorames who are crying out their rights to be themselves, so that the can never get married, or get some social responsibilities!

Problem is, that too large a part of the population never reaches that stage. For these people, ever having everybody wins on a real scale and you've gone too far. They will never go back.

At 9/6/14 07:41 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: It seems to be kinda kindergarten method. Those baby-cops were bad boys, that's why we can give an incentive to those who were better. Is there really some need to reward people (especially governmental representatives) for just doing their job?

Sounds dumb, but that's what you have to do in order to get things done properly.

Also, I suggest you never become anyone's boss with that mindset. You'll have a very bad time.

At 9/5/14 11:48 PM, Gontronic wrote: I've been boycotting Burger King for years. It's called having a healthy diet. Stop supporting shitty fast-food chains that just make people fat and unhealthy.

You don't have many friends, do you?

At 9/5/14 06:55 PM, Radaketor wrote: Well you're talking in english so i guess it's okay for you to call him Stalin as opposed to how his name is pronounced in Russian.

Y'ain't impressin' anyone.

At 9/5/14 06:10 PM, Feoric wrote: That's because the police are always shooting people before anything bad happens to them. Check and mate.

In all seriousness, the two cases in which officers are shot tend to be in situations where no vilence is expected at all, like traffic stops, or in situations whre the vilent acts had already been signalled and both sides were ready, such as shootouts.

It's quite rare for an officer to be shot knowing violence was coming, while also not being ready for it.

At 9/5/14 12:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Cops that are inadequately ""trigger happy"" in bad situations are the cops that get injured or killed.

Not really. Rarely are officers killed in situations where the danger was apparent an the officer hadn't yet used their weapon.

At 9/5/14 12:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: The reason this is a thing is because of how the west have used Hitler and portrayed him, almost to the point of caricature, as the most evil person imaginable.

If you think he's demonized solely because of starting WWII, well... you're dumb.

At 9/4/14 02:26 AM, Feoric wrote: but to say they moved to Canada purely because of that then you have to logically conclude that they dished out 11 billion dollars to save a few million per year, which is a little bit ridiculous.

You don't have to save that at all. There are two very likely possibilities here:

First, BK looked to buy Tim Hortons because of its massive popularity in Canada and ability to break BK into the breakfast coffee market to compete with McDonalds, Dunkin, and Starbucks. After the decision was made to acquire Tim Hortons and entirely separate decision was made to move HQ to Canada to save tax.

Second, BK could have been seriously mulling the idea of inverting. The possibility of acquiring Tim Hortons comes along and allows BK to get TH's big following and to break into the breakfast coffee market. The fact that TH is canadian and allows for easy inversion is just icing on the cake.

Either way, the Tim Hortons deal would have gone through regardless of the possibility of inversion. Therefore it is A-OK to treat the inversion as an independent act.

At 9/3/14 09:53 PM, Feoric wrote: The fact that Burger King most likely does not actually pay 40% in taxes after taking into account deductions and loopholes (they pay ~26% according to industry experts) does not necessarily mean they couldn't be paying even less if they had a Canadian address.

Wel, for one, a starting tax rate of 26% with no loopholes and a tax rate oopholed down to 26% are not equal. It costs good money to loophole out of that many taxes. My guess is that BK probably pays a combined $10 million to accounting and legal firms to get that. An expensive bill, no doubt, but still cheaper than the 40% rate. A tax bill starting at 26% doesn;t need the accountants or lawyers to get it there and saves that money.

At 9/2/14 11:57 PM, brilliantgrey wrote: There needs to be better screening for social media type jobs. Instead of like whichever intern has the cutest instagram

Or you could just screen the posts. Its not like they do more than a handful a day. Have a senior campaign worker, or aide, or even the politican review the posts before they get sent out.

Most of these politicias are surrounded y lawyers or are lawyers themselves, and one key point in law is "you can't unring bell." In short, they should know better.

At 9/2/14 09:30 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: No, I'm not pregnant. I've had four pregnancy tests administered since all this began, so we can safely put that to bed.

Well, your problem is in that general region. Perhaps it is causing some hormonal mixed signals. Your reproductive organs know you're not pregnant, but for some reason your stomach and tongue never got the memo.

At 9/2/14 06:19 PM, Feoric wrote: That tweet was hilariously unprofessional but it's hard to lay blame on Perry.

It's his account in his name. He is 100% responsible for whatever is said on it. He may not be writing the tweets himself, but he has the duty to monitor what the person who does write the tweets says.

At 9/2/14 07:28 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: At least a used mirror, parts and labor are only $138. It could be far worse.

I know. My wife got into a year long fight with one of the parking posts at an old apartment. She busted the bumper (which we still haven't fixed cause it's only cosmetic and will cost over $1000 to fix) and the second time busted a side mirror. We had to get it new and custom painted and the whole deal still only cost about $200.

I likely have anemia from all the bleeding for no reason.

Anemia is a sneaky little shit. At first you feel just fine, only slightly less energetic than usual. As it gets worse you start to get really sleepy at weird times and find you can't do much without getting super winded. You also start to lose concentration a lot. You also get this weird headache where it feels like your eyes are trying to push back into your head. Once it gets under control, though, things feel great. One of the many things kidneys do is create the hormone that cause your body to produce more red blood cells. My anemia got to the point where my hemoglobin was at 70% of normal, and that's really bad.

At 9/2/14 06:02 AM, Mokevo wrote: You're wrong, and this guy disagrees with you.

Random guy on youtube is a very strong source... NOT.

You're making lots of strong claims about TPPA. It's time for you to back your caims up, and I want primary sources. Articles of how other people who haven't read the TPPA language but still think they know what it means are not primary sources, nor are they even quality sources. Show us in the text of the TPPA where the problems lie.

At 9/1/14 10:24 AM, Spedmallet wrote: I'd feel bad if any portion of that tax revenue were taken from employees and benefits

I fyou think ANY of their tax savings are going to go to paying employees more, holding onto employees longer, or opening up new stores, I have a beautiful ocean front villa in Arizona I'd love to sell you.

I hate this move. Sure companies can point to stats about high taxes, but who the fuck cares? It's not like they'd use their extra money in a productive manner. All it does is pad the profits or payouts to people who already have a ton of money. If those corporations could prove to the US people through good faith acts that lower taxes would ACTUALLY trickle down, I would be a hell of a lot more amenable to lowering their taxes. As it is right now, their should not only by a 40% rate, but a huge penalty for leaving the country (80% of gross income for the 10 years after leaving).

It's well known that tax dollars go back into the economy at an extremely higher rate than private dollars, especially high end private dollars.

That system just does not functionally work in a one of winner takes all election system.

At 8/31/14 08:47 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Just for mental mindgames sake, would a drunk person having sex with a mentally ill person just be unfortunate?

It gets extremely muddy when both parties are incapacitated. In that case you run into two big issues: first off, who's consent fails? Were they both raped as they both could not consent? That doesn't seem to make sense. Second, can someone have the mental state to commit rape (can vary by jurisdiction and the charge involved) if they themselves are incapacitated?

When it comes down to it, I would have to say that the mentally ill person will be prtected above the drunk person as the drunk person's incapacity was voluntary. However, I'm in no way sure or confident.

At 8/30/14 09:26 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: so if I'm sober and she's drunk off her ass and she consents, its still rape under what they want in this legislation? if so thats fucked up.

It always has been. A drunk person does not have the capacity to consent to many things. Sex being one of them.

At 8/30/14 07:35 PM, Korriken wrote: That would be one way to do it... But you'll want to get that notarized too, just in case she claims you forged her signature.

There is no need to overreact here. The standard for consent is reasonableness. In short, if it is reasonable to believe certains constitute consent, they do. There are exceptions to this, such as mentally ill and intoxicated acts, but these have been clearly stated as per se not consent regardless.

If you act in a manner that a reasonable person would, you should (key word being SHOULD) be fine.

At 8/30/14 04:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: ...aren't there more tech jobs in Washington state than Mississippi?

Since when were students required to stay in the state they were educated in?

I don't think you're giving the state-by-state basis of education the sufficient criteria to deem it "a crock of shit."

Like what? Al you have talked about is an amorphous "states have different needs". What are these different needs, and how does it make a spit of difference when applying for a job?

Isn't this exactly what No Child Left Behind sought to accomplish?

Yes, but in a terribly shitty way.

Devaluing a diploma does not help anyone.

Can't devalue a high school diploma. It's not worth that much.

I'd like to think we'd be open enough to try such a system like the Germans 3-tiered educational juggernaut.

It's a great system, but entirely antithetical to the American dream and our idea of freedom. We are too in love with the idea that anyone can do anything. The German and Japanese systems are both expressly built upon the notion that people have certain levels of possible achievement. A child who goes to the lowest tier of schools is not going to be able to become a doctor under that system.

At 8/29/14 07:19 PM, Warforger wrote: It was focusing more on colleges though, to make it absolutely clear because colleges have varying policies on rape, so if someone was intoxicated and someone took advantage of them they wouldn't necessarily press charges.

This also strikes me as unecessary. Can they not make it super simple and say "College policies regarding rape, assault, and domestic violence must confrom to the metes and bounds of the California statutary and common law crimes they correlate to."

I think a huge change needs to be made regarding colleges and crimes that occur on their campuses. There needs to be a massive campaign to keep people from reportin gto the college as the college is NOT going to act like a police force. Hell, the whole Sandusky incident should have been enough to get it into students' heads that the college is out to protect its own ass, not save yours. If there was a crime, go to where you are supposed to go: the police.

At 8/29/14 10:06 PM, Korriken wrote: What students need doesn't vary by state, nor by school. It varies by student.

Very much agreed. Saying state have different needs is a load. The trees may be different, but when you get enough trees together, they make a forest, regardless of what kind of trees are involved. Saying states have thier own needs is nothing but an excuse to allow extreme differences in standards of education where states like Washington have low end students leaving high school with the same knowledge as the upper middle chunk of Mississippi.

I don't want a plan where all students must be the same. I want a plan that holds all sates to a minimum standard, cause clearly, far too many states are content with sitting below this line.

As far as school's goal in graduating as many students as possible, hell yes that's a goal, and a damn good one too. Whether or not the school actually prep them for the non-college educated workplace/lifestyle is a different matter. I mean when those people who woul dbe droupouts decide to get on track, which would be better? Having to go back and get the GED, which can actually be time consuming and difficult, or already have a diploma and can immediately start looking for jobs a tier up? Simple.

If our school system's goal is to give our children the best chance to suceed as adults, the diploma, which is required for most jobs above ground level, is a definite goal. I do agree, that this should be bolstered by a system that preps non-collegebound students for more of the skilled trades than academics. However, properly doing (adopting the German and Japanese style of education) so would offend the conscience of too many Americans as it's not free enough.

At 8/29/14 11:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: so now if I have a drunken one night stand in LA the bitch I sleep with can yell rape? fuck man.

Always has been. Nothing new here. When it comes to questionable consent, you're 100% at the mercy of your partner. If they don't believe it is rape, or do not report it if they do believe it is rape, you'll be fine. However, should they believe it is rape the law has been on their side for a while now.

So California is close to passing the "Yes means Yes" bill...

Now I'm kind of annoyed. Is the shallow, "Let's not do anything, but make it look like we're doing something" attitude of internet feminism seeped into everyday life?

The text says:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

Wait a minute, California. I know you want the kudos from all the chickies out there who will now fawn over you thinking you're a feminist, but, and here's the crux of the whole issue, THIS LAW IS REDUNDANT TO THE CURRENT RULES OF RAPE.

Consent has always needed to be affirmative. Someone who was incapacitated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily could NEVER consent. Silence was never unviersally considered consent. Consent had to be objective, and silence is not a reasonable way to consent to sex. You have essentially said in words what has been said in words before and done it just for the positive attention. Oh, and an FYI, your college sexual assault ain't gonna drop because of this, cause you haven't done anything new.

That is all.

At 8/28/14 08:09 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: You keep bringing these two things up like they are important, relevant, or related to the case. Where does melatonin concentration in the epidermis fit in with all of this?

Would an officer have been as willing to shoot a white kid? Not likely. I mean, the officer's facts may be 100% true, but even in that case I would claim it was questionable to shoot the kid and more than once. The fact that unarmed white kids don't end up getting shot (and there are just as many trashy white fuckers out there) begs a question.

At 8/28/14 08:53 PM, Korriken wrote: No I'm selling adjusttable beds by appointment. I got to try one that was set up for demonstration.

Is it quadruple adjustable? I mean, those new tempurpedic that only adjust the head... YAWN. I want full on hospital bed level adjustment where you can raise or lower the head, raise or lower the legs, raise or lower the entire bed, and adjust the long angle of the bed. A help button to call for service wouldn't be bad either.