As if I'm ever sleeping when I'm posting.

... see, now I've got the urge to change this post to 'resigned' because it fits the mood of the post better.

Send me your address to claim your prize: a swift kick in the balls.

Pfft. I'm not ON the internet, I AM the internet.

One of the benefits of sovereignty is that you are incapable of going bankrupt. Should the US become insolvent (ie: the government no longer represents the will of the people and is abolished, or our member states all secede, or any other number of scenarios that END the SOVERIEGN state of the United States) our debts would then be settled by other countries seizing US assets (since the US is lawless and would no longer have the means to defend itself).

Basically: we've the most powerful military in the world. We're hegemon in the free market/civil rights/free trade/globalized corporate world order. We have the most might and therefore the HIGHEST sovereignty on earth. Other countries recognize that our might and wealth is rooted in our HUGE consumer marketplace. Our HUGE consumer marketplace is resultant of a vast middle class that's supported by our well-balanced system of governance.

So, our middle class would have to shrink to non-existence thanks to an inability to provide resources (impossible... the US was established at a point in history when no other sovereign state existed in the land surrounding, therefore our fledgling union was able to snatch as much territory as possible, eventually expanding to cover BOTH COASTS of A LARGE CONTINENT and EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. History improved this advantage with the establishment of TWO stable states to the north and south. The US isn't UN-invadeable, but thanks to our modern satellite technology we're pretty close to impenetrable.), then our state would have to be unable to defend itself against enemies who WANT America destroyed (second amendment and patriotic ideals make that unlikely... factions that HATE America are countered by many who owe their decent lives to the promise of this free land), and finally states that want America's resources would have to come in and take control before the NATION (people) of America reestablishes the STATE (sovereign political entity) of America.

It's really difficult. The US rides a GREAT world-image outlook of being 100% democratic and very individual rights-oriented regardless of nationality. We're seen as a place with the MOST commecial friction and thusly the highest number of opportunities to personally succeed. We're perceived as an INCREDIBLY stable investment by most foreign states, because as a result of our dependence on a large market for our commercial success any investment in improving America and lessening restrictions on our market's spending-power eventually benefits the nations lending just the same.

China is taking advantage of this as their nation is industrializing. As OUR middle class recovers and continues buying goods from abroad (made in China), THEIR middle class will grow and China's infrastructure will improve to support it.

The only real end is that our populations outgrow our planet's ability to sustain them. It's kinda like the arms race leading to WWI.

This is perfect for a userpage update.

At 11/24/09 04:10 PM, HighJack wrote: Violence: Abusive or unjust exercise of power.

Smoking is a personal right to be exercised in personal space. Personal space is one's property and one's person.

Is it not an unjust exercise of power to harm another without their consent? Or is that perfectly reasonable?

They consent when they smell the cigarette's smoke and CHOOSE to continue exposing themselves. Most who aren't interested simply hold their breath, leave, or if neither is possible politely request that the smoker give them more room.

And you are lost in a thing haze of ignorance.

Actually, the problem here isn't me, it's your argument and that I'm NOT lost NOR ignorant.

A: Indeed.
B: Indeed.
However, that does not mean it cannot travel 20 feet.

Indoors, perhaps. Outdoors, unlikely. With no breeze the odds are in favor of the heat causing the smoke to rise faster than it can travel 20 horizontal feet. With a breeze the odds are in favor of the smoke 'cloud' dispersing before it could travel 20 horizontal feet.

You have an untenable argument. It's based on half-facts and circumstance. You then attempt to translate isolated, fictional scenarios into a blanket assertion that 'if ever second hand smoke is assault, then ALL second hand smoke is assault'. We've mistakenly been arguing definition, physics, all sorts of irrelevent details. The fact is: unless you can point to legal precent by which second hand smoke was implicated as a form of assault, or establish one with a successful lawsuit against a smoker; you aren't right.

I kinda get the feeling that's what a lotta teen angst is about. Unfortunately, a lotta 20-something soul-searching is "well, fuck... that HS/College relationship was a wash, I'm'a just fuck around for a while" and 30-something is "shit... I know so many people who've settled down" and 40-something is "fuck what have I done I settled for THIS!?" and 50-something is "ha ha ha... who cares, why does everything have to MEAN something? I'm comfortable" and 60-something is "Jesus... I SHOULD NOT have treated my body so shittily all these years, I'm uncomfortable" and 70-something is "ARGH! ::dead::"

... sorry I got carried away. Yea, it's not getting laid per say that does that to you, it's the adult perspective. Certain events are hallmarks of maturity and how you learn from them proves how much more mature you are for the experience.

http://www.newgrounds.com/pm/send/stormw arden

That link provides the most direct way to ask, I'm pretty sure.

I'm QUITE sure those are photoshopped. The architectural design looks like three circles with a common triple point. I do not believe that the light could hit them correctly to produce that shadow effect, because the 'head' of the penises isn't accurate.

And if you look down the perspective toward the horizon, they spontaneously lengthen as they approach the people leaning against the rail. ... tee hee.

Clever for the ease of the photoshop and it's relative believability. Sadly, we don't allow image galleries on the forums.

At 11/25/09 12:17 PM, Dapper wrote: In the film, Ironman, when he puts on that helmet with the controls for navigation for when he flies in the suit, the screen-like thing showing all of the data in his vision, (like the VISR in Halo) how come everything he sees isn't blurry?

Hollywood special effects. They want it to look pretty so they ignore the realistic limitations of focus with their effects. If they wanted to make it artsy, they'd've focused on important symbols of foreshadowing/motifs/etc.

If something's so close to the eye, it blurs. Is there a way of making it not-blurry?

Lenses. That's why people use magnifying glasses. So if his mask had the ability to spontaneously form a lense and somehow constantly adjust for something, well he'd probably be dizzy as shit but if he were able to get over that he'd have an awesome vision enhancement.

... why you thought that reading that much menial garbage gives you a right to post some of your own is beyond me. Perhaps a userpage update would be a great place to share this?

Ha ha... well at least he didn't need to be told the joke was kinda douchey. And the girl gets to learn a tough lesson about dignity.

Still... naivity at its finest on both sides of that kerfuffle.

I'm glad for it. How else would I get to hear the opinions of those too shy to offer them otherwise? Too scatterbrained to collect their thoughts face-to-face? Contrary to your negative take on the inability of some users to think things through before they've written down their opinions (or their devil's advocacy), I like the honesty in it.

Why? Well, a knee-jerk reactionary response to a question is the most honest a person can be with themselves. Then they've put it out there for others to ponder and question. It's kinda like self-sculpting... if you've got an open mind anyway. Because you can be proven wrong and then you're forced to eat your own words and thanks to the anonymity of this online medium you don't have to feel so proud that you can't admit it and learn from it.

It doesn't make sense that you would want someone barring themselves from media that allows them to practice being able to form coherent and well-thought-out face-to-face opinions, because if they're unable they'll need the practice the internet presents as it is.

I think it's positive, but the downside would be the trolling, as it seems that's come up already in this conversation. It dulls the spirit of decent discussion and those interested.

[Descriptive Action]

But... BC counts UP away from 0. -1 BC is +1 AD. Or... roughly the year Christ was a year old.

... back when dinosaurs roamed Earth. Yea, I remember that.

I don't think you had any capital letters, punctuation, or sense of word-choice whatsoever; not to mention your topic might belong in the Politics Forum if there weren't already many topics regarding Obama's specific policies there.

I'm gonna finally be able to stop locking and deleting threads about 2012.

At 11/24/09 01:00 PM, Chymeraxe wrote: We are limited, but there's still an opportunity for civlians to get automatic weapons, as long as they have the permits, training, and qualifications.

Right, but that's totally different. It enters the realm of priveledge earned through education more than 'right granted by merit of existence'.

In most instances where you need a firearm, anything that's semi auto and has more than 5 rounds is more than enough to solve a situation, when it comes to civilian circumstances. Obviously police need better/higher quality weapons, but civilians can get access to those higher tier guns through legal means. IT takes a while but if you're going to go through the training to do so obviously it's for a good cause, unless you're a real determined psycho or something, lol.

Yep, in which case you probably wouldn't bother going through legal channels, you'd just get in contact with the underground and/or seedy chain of command to nab yourself something that 'fell off the truck'.

And all of our country states are usually a lot more easy on the laws. The most you need in the country is a good rifle or shotgun, both of which are available without having to go through a lot of bullshit.

Yea, with big cities and urbanization comes big municipalities with strict gun-control and the means to enforce.

I think our gun laws are pretty decent, we could use a bit of lightening up but for the most part they're as we need them.

I think gun laws should be emended. Technology exists that manufacterors should be REQUIRED to put safeties on weapons that make them useless unless in the hands of their registered owner. But, for the most part I think we're in a decent place with our regulations. I would NEVER support the subtraction of the second amendment... and as a MA resident I actually kind of resent that my right to own and operate a weapon is entirely in the hands of the local police chief.

At 11/24/09 12:41 PM, Chymeraxe wrote:

At 11/24/09 12:37 PM, TacoFreak wrote: americans think they can solve every problem with guns

Our history is different and the culture is different in any country, this is ours and our laws have stuck to it since they were written. We enjoy our rights and you enjoy yours, our rights just include the right to own weapons. Not our fault stupid people get that right too.

... and we're severely limited in the weapons we can own as is. Automatic weapons aren't allowed. The idea is that automatic weapons are specifically purposed for killing more than one person at a time without the need to aim well or pause between rounds. The collateral damage would be incredible.

But, there's also the fact that our country is the 4th largest by area. Our population isn't typically as confined as the populations are in Europe. Out in the country, most people NEED a gun. To protect their livestock from damage, etc. because there doesn't exist the urban remedies city-folk are accustomed to.

This country was founded with the blood of a militia and the idea that the people have the right to abolish a government that no longer represents the will of the people. It's tradition and self-protection all wrapped into one. Since then weapons have changed and gun laws have been amended to keep things reasonable.

Anyway, I think your question's been pretty much answered. I don't know shit about shotguns or much about any gun for that matter (other than how to load, fire, clean, etc. and a working mechanical knowledge IN GENERAL of how they operate), but I think I'd agree with keeping several non-lethal rounds and some lethal rounds just in case.

Newgrounds Audio Portal moderation is vastly outdated. It was created with the launch of the AP which was pretty much before I signed up to the site.

What that means is we have a small crew of trusted Audio Portal veterans who have to listen to your audio and approve you for further submission. Once you've been approved for your first track, additional tracks are added pretty much instantly. If your audio is stolen, includes samples of others' copyrighted material, or sucks horribly in a bunch of other ways (entirely comprised of online drum-kit, a hardly changed remix of free-ware tracks, etc.) you will be barred from submitting any other tracks.

Anyway, don't complain about it. Just wait.

Ask politely then report them to the librarian. Your 'like an immature pushover' comment made me laugh. If you recognize it... stop being a pushover about it?

I was in MCJROTC in High School and it was a joke. Most kids took it because it filled the gym requirement, but was basically a mostly 'do-nothing' class most of the time. I mean... there's really not much to learning military history and tradition. Drill was easy as shit (and I joined the drill team after school which was fun), and PT was only on Fridays.

By sophomore year I was changing into my uniform on uniform days only for the duration of ROTC's block and getting away with it. After that they changed the gym requirement for graduation so I didn't have to take ROTC any more. Ah... good times.

Userpage for poetry.

It's called 'moderating'. Y'know, that thing we do where we clean the forums of all the garbage and filth you guys leave all over the place.

So you're question's been answered rather sufficiently, I'd say. We don't allow topics on the BBS complaining about the actions of any of the site's moderators regarding deletions, bans, locks, whatever.

I only care to disprove your idea that there's a law above logic. Because if that were true, and it were contrary to a logical system, there would/could be cases where the illogical higher system overrides the subordinate logical system, thus invalidating the logic system by the very nature of its construction.

However, you've hit a decent concept, just mis-labelled it. The concept would still follow logically, it's just that we haven't yet discovered, observed, or understood any of the precepts at work to allow the conclusions that may appear illogical in our currently logical world. Am I making any sense here? There are things outside of current human scope of understanding that we COULD fit into our logical system if we simply realize all the missing factors that make the result predictable and thusly logical.

At 11/23/09 01:40 AM, Peaceblossom wrote: Haha, nobody has said it, but based on some of the posts its clear they didn't read it. And yeah, something about shy girls draws me in so much.

Oh, it's been said. I just happened to lurk your thread and extend them the courtesy of unsaying their crap. ; )

Anyway, you're kinda young to the whole game, but I'd be feeling pretty good about myself other than the apparent lack of condomage during coitus. Fuck that shit... ALWAYS be prepared. You stop at the store on the way home, tell her she can only blow you; WHATEVER. No going in without putting on the batter-block.

So, yea. It's not that bad. I mean... it could be worse for sure. What if this chick actually thought you wanted a relationship with her? You're clearly not interested any longer and into that other girl, so it's good that you don't have to be inexperienced and now you've got some decent confidence vibes going so you aren't all timid or whatever around your real interest. Even if the other girl ISN'T clean... you're probably fine. STDs aren't exactly prevalent, nor are the odds 100% of you contracting them given that somone has one. I mean... you can't even be guarenteed to get a girl pregnant with one occasion of spilt milk you're cryin' over. It's repeated exposure to the population at large that puts you at risk; NOT each individual occurance.

Good luck with it all. Oh, and lay off the drinking. It'll catch up. Monetarily, health-wise, etc. You DO NOT want to deal with alcohol withdrawals.

At 11/23/09 01:27 AM, REVIV wrote: You should of never became a mod again. I mean you got phished, you have to be dumb as FUCK to fall for that.

Well, I wouldn't be calling you dumb as fuck if it weren't for the fact that you apparently relish ignorance enough to announce it so proudly.

Feel free to troll my userpage news posts for the actual explanation of my account's compromising.

At 11/22/09 11:45 PM, Captain-Jack wrote: I believe, though am not sure, that that honour goes to Slightly_Crazy_Dude.

Great, now all the marsupials are coming out of the woodwork.

*macdeth, unless forum mods are the only ones who matter which I guess I'd like to believe so let's just say so.

The cat was being playful, it interpreted your half-hearted hand-movements as something enticing and interesting and gave it a nibble to see if you'd react playfully. Your quick jerk and "OUCH WHAT THE FUCK!?" undoubtedly startled it into running away.

Odds are, it was your sudden movement that actually made the bite do any damage. My cat doesn't even close her mouth when she bites playfully, she just grabs you lightly with her jaws and you play along by making your hand go dead.