Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/16/08 12:23 PM, UndeadTemplar88 wrote: Well, that's because nobody in Texas cares about Libertarian scum

You haven't spent much time in Austin, I warrant.

I'm pretty upset about the fact that third parties don't get much recognition, but I can't be too angry about it. Of course they're not going to get media time when nobody's going to watch it. Say what you will about the news media, but they're a business, a big business, no less. Why sell something nobody's going to buy? The reason they're not going to do shit about it is because nobody's making a fuss over it; or, to be more accurate, not enough people are making a big enough fuss about it.

Never expect people to acquiesce to you for the sake of fairness, especially not major conglomerates. The world doesn't owe the little guy jack shit, especially not "fairness." Join organizations. Seriously, organizations get shit done, but the only way they can do that is through numbers. Make your individual voice count.

To be fair, a country that operates on the concept of pure majority-rule is in for some really rough times. The closest our country has been to that was when we were under the Articles of Confederation. It was a complete and total nightmare.

The problem is that people are capricious and easily swayed and kicked up into a fervor over things that aren't necessarily the best course of action. It's an incredibly unstable and dangerous form of government.

I'm less than favorable of our representatives, but the very fact that we can't seem to elect good representatives is the same reason I don't want the majority voting on policy. What's more, we can barely turn out to vote for the leader of our goddamn country much less our own city councils and MUCH less for propositions.

Seriously, how do any of you think a direct democracy would work?

What we need is better accountability from our representatives. To do that, people need to be more active. If there's one thing I've learned from working with lobby organizations and non-profits, it's that making phone calls, writing letters and actually showing up and talking to your representative makes an enormous difference. One handwritten letter is counted as being representative of several hundred people.

If you want to complain about what's wrong, then go right ahead. Just make sure some of those complaints go somewhere other than an internet forum.

I fail to see how there's such an outcry against someone who's calling for a boycott.

He's making a claim as to why he, and people with his views, would want to boycott a certain type of product. If you don't especially feel the need to, are offended by the thought of boycotting, or ascribe to the particular beliefs the product offers, then don't do it.

What's more, saying why you don't want to is fine and dandy, too, but I don't see why there's a debate going on here. Obviously there's a difference of opinion, but nobody's suggesting legislation that we all have to follow, so I don't see why everyone's getting their panties all tangled up over this.

Now, if Pox was demanding everyone go out and vote yes on Prop. #Whatever to go out and ban all kosher foods, then sure, I'd be against it and rightfully so. You can't mandate companies not adding the nifty K and paying a holy man to grant my Kellogg's a +5 against demons and leprechauns. If it increases sales, sure.

What's more, I'm pretty disappointed that people don't propose MORE boycotts. Everyone seems to think it's too much trouble to do the absolute minimum for their principles. Everyone wants the government or the legal system to enforce their principles for them. For instance, if you don't like animal testing, don't get the FDA to outlaw it or levy huge fines on it, simply don't buy their products and convince your like-minded buddies to do the same.

It's a sad state when, increasingly, this country is losing faith in the power of individuals. Our individual votes don't matter, our individual dollar votes don't matter, our individual consumer habits don't matter, our individual rights to privacy don't matter. I mean, granted, the people to blame for the economic and legislative fuckups are our corporations and the government, but honestly, what do we expect?

It's apathy and the unwillingness to inconvenience ourselves a little to take responsibility for what we buy and how we're treated that's giving our corporations and our government free reign to fuck us over as hard and as thoroughly as they have.

Now granted, if you have no beef with a rabbi inspecting your beef and passing the cost to you, then whatever. But to criticize the notion that someone would have a problem with that and then, going further, criticizing the most powerful tool in our arsenal that consumers have over companies, well then, I'm going to have a problem with that.

Don't knock the boycott unless you like having corporate American break its dick off in your ass.

I literally cringed every single time she referred to McCain as "The Maverick."

I cringed through most of the debate. It was sickening. If only Biden was running for President, I would vote for that ticket, good Lord. Palin looked like a deer in the headlights. Every single one of her responses seemed totally out of place and rehearsed. It was terrible. Biden absolutely chewed her up and spat her out without appearing like he was trying. Honestly, it wouldn't have surprised me if Biden had only prepared the day before.

I have never been more pissed off at a candidate than I am at Palin. I feel like this is an egregious offense to our political system that people will even DEFEND her incompetence simply because she's on the Republican ticket. She might possibly be the worst Vice Presidential candidate ever, and that's even including LBJ. Yes, I went there. She has no business being involved in politics on any level. I'll let her have Alaska. After all, they've elected Ted Stevens for how many fucking terms? That man is the very definition of gross incompetence.

But, after all, what can you expect from a state that pays people to live there.

At 9/10/08 05:13 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: I was asking zoorule if those 4 points were accurate according to him. I was trying to figure out what he was trying to say, because I'm completely clueless as to where his arguments fit in. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

Fyi... I strongly disagree with 3 and 4, and don't completely agree with 1.

I was responding simply to the 4 points and I was saying the last bit to everyone who's like "OMGHITLER."

He's not even the worst person in MODERN history. Get over it.

At 9/10/08 05:11 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Dogs don't follow Christ. Rats follow Allah, but that's a different story. You're supposed to say, "the goal is to feel good, which means you gotta be alive and not being eaten."

No I'm not, because that's stupid.

BUT GUNTER, WHAT IF I BELIEVE HEAVEN IS ON EARTH, WHAT THEN?

Am I still a christian?

My world is falling apart..

woe..

I don't care about what you, yourself, believe, it's not an attack on any belief you hold. The idea I'm getting at is how does an afterlife NOT cheapen the life we have right now? If you're going somewhere after you die, why bother with this one? This is just some insignificant existence compared to what's going to happen. Any supreme being would have to be stupid to judge you on less than a millionth of a percent of your existence.

And contrary to that old argument "oh, but why be moral?" It's a funny thing, I don't need someone hanging a carrot in front of me to do the right thing. I'm not moral only for a reward.

Same thing with devolving, or losing traits favorable to survival.

Did I mention science?

Evolution doesn't mean "things get better as time goes on." You're thinking of natural selection. Evolution just means the genetic makeup changes.

Isn't currently being alive and having a reproductive herd a quantification (or qualification) for something being advantageous?

Sure, it's considered advantageous. That doesn't mean it's "devolution." That's not even a word. If something changes for the worse, it's still changing. That's the last time I'm explaining it. It's not hard.

If a creature living in Montana evolves to have a target painted on it's forehead, that's still evolution.

I think I understand your whole point even better now. Evolution isn't something that can be measured until the species is extinct. Evolutionary traits signifying uniqueness are still evolutionary changes, even if those changes involve the loss of something. Like legs, spines, toxicity, hair, pigmentation.

Therefore, with the right fossil records a snake could evolve into not growing legs.

Or narwhales and their horn.

And unicorns, too.

Except... it's the study of something changing. Where did you get any of that? When a creature changes, say, a bacteria, that becomes resistant to penicillin. That's evolution! Wow!

aka, none? The LHC should be evidence of that.

It seems like only stupid people who are easily caught up in media hype are seriously worried about it.

At 9/10/08 04:35 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Then why stay alive?

Why stay alive when you go to heaven when you die if you're a Christian?

"There is no cake." Got it.

OH, IT'S THE POP REFERENCE PHRASE THE KIDS ARE SAYING.

It's the idea that evolution is just change, that's it. It's not a qualification on something being advantageous or not. If a creature living in Montana evolves to have a target painted on it's forehead, that's still evolution.

Should morality ever play a role in the study of evolution?

It should play as much a role in evolution as it does in physics.

The study of evolution is based on observation. What does morality have to do with it?

At 9/10/08 04:09 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Are all evolutionary steps created equal? Is it possible to devolve and that's the real reason why evolution is important... and if that's true what is the goal of evolution?

...wow

There is no goal. There's no such thing as "devolution." Evolution is the study of genetic changes in life. If something is not an advantageous change for a lifeform, it's still evolution. That shit happens all the time. There are number of things about our makeup that isn't advantageous. Our backs are incredibly vulnerable. Just going about our daily lives is hell on our backs because it's not "well-designed" for walking upright.

Things just change. The changes that survive are passed on. It really isn't that complicated.

Seeing as how bacteria and virii evolve pretty damn quick, that whole medicine thing is pretty dependent on the idea that diseases change.

But that's not really all that big of a deal since God heals all affliction, right?

At 9/10/08 02:38 PM, ReciprocalAnalogy wrote: Ok so... what I could gather...
1. Napoleon and Alexander were examples of honorably accountable leaders.
2. The bit about the 16th century was hyperbole.
3. Honor justifies war.
4. Honor determines who you hold accountable and what you hold them accountable for.

Did I get it right?

Far from it.

Honor is a fucking stupid thing to justify anything.

Honor is such a fucking ridiculously arbitrary term. There's tons of shit that's considered honorable in other societies that's fucking appalling. Indians were strapping widows to funeral pyres because it was honorable for the wife to go out with the husband. Men leaving their families husband- and fatherless by going out and strapping themselves to an explosive-stuffed plane and flying it down an aircraft carrier's throat was considered honorable. Vikings murdering and raping entire villages was considered honorable.

You can't tell me that those are justifiable things. Those are fucking horrible thing to do and their societal standard of "honor" doesn't change a damn thing.

Also, there are still a bunch of the workmanship that Stalin ordered through his prison camps. Hitler's somehow worse than Stalin?

Yeah, Stalin didn't target a race, he targeted fucking everyone. Not to mention he murdered, far and away, more people than Hitler did. Or is there something honorable about throwing someone in a forced labor camp for 25 years just because they had the wrong parents, were religious, or just had otherwise shitty luck?

Fuck all of you people and your high horses.

At best, it's an inter-bureau pissing contest that ended up fucking America severely.

At worst? Well, it's fodder for the conspiracy crowd, that's for sure.

My opinion is that it has to do with a little of both. It's no secret that the FBI and CIA get into jurisdictional scuffles all the time about everything. In an effort to get more funding, they compete in areas where their scopes overlap to be the ones to make the big busts.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if there was CIA infiltration. It's not like the CIA is as lean and mean as it once was and it's not like we have J Edgar running the joint anymore. While he was an unacceptably racist, xenophobic prick, he certainly had strict qualifications for being allowed a security clearance.

Don't fucking talk to me. I'm not your friend, this isn't a social situation, I'm taking a piss.

Just like old times, it looks like. Back in the Cold War era, the USSR had close ties to Latin and South American countries. Seeing as how many ex-KGB agents are working again under Russian employ, I'm certain a lot of their contacts are still on cordial terms.

Russia's just flexing its muscles. As I've said before, the Russian people haven't felt like the world has taken them seriously for about a decade. This is a means to show that Russia is still a major player in geopolitics. I'm not frightened by it since they don't stand a chance against NATO or the United States and they know it. They've been very careful not to overstep their bounds. Muscling around fractured neighboring nation-states is one thing, but taking aggressive actions against a NATO member nation or one of the United States' interests is tantamount to political suicide. I don't see them getting into a pissing contest with anybody important for a long while.

I see this like the internet.

A government controlled project from the outset with limitless potential. Corporations get involved and build the framework and then, due to infinitely vast nature and scope of the damn thing, it becomes impossible to completely control and regulate.

Just because the initial investment is astronomical at the moment doesn't mean that it will always remain under the thumb of corporations and the government. Hell, I remember when broadband was something that only major companies had, now the entire damn internet is built for broadband because everyone and their fucking dog has it.

Given that, by the time space travel becomes popularized, the world population will likely have doubled, at least, the world governments will be begging for space colonists to ease up on the earth's carrying capacity.

And you know what? There will ALWAYS be people who are willing to go on dangerous exploratory missions and set up colonies on uncharted territory. It's human nature. Look at America's western expansion and the railroads. Look at the age of Imperialism with the European colonization of the entire fucking planet. Hell, even before that with the Norse explorers. It goes as far back as the nomadic tribes of pre-historic man hunting mammoth in whichever part of the world there happened to be any.

That's just how we fuckin roll.

At 8/21/08 07:42 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Russia is absolutely using the Georgian internal conflict to annex it. They really fanned the flames in South Ossetia especially.

I am not to be second guessed ever again.

I'm sorry, the redundant thread title cracks me up.

Still, I think it's a cheap political move. It's an obvious ploy to have an "I did it first" ticket, too.

At 8/28/08 03:44 PM, Battl3Mast3r wrote: You nailed my typo right on the head. Meant to say "that" holocaust. A holocaust is a type of event that involves mass slaughter and often genocide--it isn't just reserved for that which happened during WW2, although it is appropriate (for the lack of a better word) to reserve as such. You're aware there is different variations and contexts of the word holocaust, right? Ace.

Not really a typo when your entire post addresses an entirely different historical event. Also mistaking "that" for "the" and then capitalizing "holocaust" doesn't really scream typo to me.

So, you want to try again, skippy?

At 8/28/08 01:15 PM, Battl3Mast3r wrote: Uh, yeah man. It never happened. You should have a tea party with Mamoud, and give lectures at Israeli universities on how The Holocaust never happened, because eye witness accounts, and easily accessible internet photos of mass graves are just too damn easy for you--if it's that easy to call it a holocaust... well then I guess it can't be! Conspiracy-thumping antagonizer... god damn.

You're aware that Kosovo isn't Israel, right? Not all genocide refers to the holocaust. Go ahead and take another crack at that, ace.

At 8/28/08 01:19 PM, ThePretenders wrote: I know South Africa is going through a tough time but if they don't exert even a small amount of influence, more refugees will come to South Africa and will cause tension between the native blacks and the Zimbabweans, as we have seen recently in Johannesburg when foreigners, mainly Zimbabweans were brutally killed. South Africa will be screwed if it continues with its 'quiet diplomacy'.

I'm failing to see how having an open-arms policy when it comes to aiding Zimbabwe will result in fewer refugees coming to South Africa. If anything, it seems like it would invite more. They're going to be inundated in any case. That's what I was referring to when I said they would, most likely, distance themselves in order to keep from collapse themselves.

The way I see it, their smartest option, and the option they're most likely to take, is to work on their own infrastructure in order to help the refugees as best they can without overextending themselves.

At 8/27/08 09:24 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Let the country run it's course, we all know there's going to be a uprising, cou, revolution whatever.

This is my sentiment. I'm not against an international body sending peacekeepers. When it comes to revolutions, I believe that other countries do have just cause in aiding the side they deem appropriate.

In this case, however, I fail to see what good it will do. Either we're on the side of a broken system or for a brutal dictator. There's no winning this one and the country is either going to fall under a murderous regime or continue towards complete and total economic collapse.

In either case, I don't think the US wants anywhere near it.

I like ThePretender's comment about South Africa getting involved. South Africa is in a position to help and it's always nice to see countries backing up their neighbors. However, seeing as how times are tough all around the whole region, I don't realistically see much aid coming from there. I mean, being in such close proximity, I can see South Africa trying to distance themselves in order to avoid getting dragged down by them.

At 8/27/08 01:43 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote: "LOLwut"

Science is concerned with natural law. God is supernatural. Trying to explain God with science is ludicrous, even at its core, much less the kind of pseudoscience bullshit that's being sprayed all over the place.

At 8/27/08 12:28 PM, Elfer wrote: It's not just because of dog fighting, it's because certain breeds have a higher propensity for unprovoked fatal attacks.

It's really a shame, too, because, when given a loving home, those dogs are exceptionally sweet and loyal. People who train their dogs to be that indiscriminately violent sicken me.

At 8/27/08 12:35 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 8/27/08 12:28 PM, lolomfgisuck wrote:

At 8/27/08 11:12 AM, Gunter45 wrote: the burden of proof

The real issue here is, "What is proof?".

For those that believe in God, the simple realization that things (including living things) exists, is the proof.

it's almost always empirical evidence. It's the only kind Atheists look for.

Atheists and logical thinkers, it would seem. Funny how the whole discussion started with a cry for evidence proving God doesn't exist.

Moving right along, the fact that living things exist isn't proof at all. Now, if there was proof that existence necessitates a creator, then you'd have something. I am not opposed to that line of research in the least. I think it's fascinating to delve into how and why everything is the way it is. To sum it up with an arbitrary answer based on nothing, whatsoever, however, is less fascinating to me.

What I do have a problem with is people referring to natural forces as God. I get it, it fits in with their belief that God affects everything, but the problem is that if we already have a name and an explanation for these forces. Referring to natural forces as the work of the bogeyman doesn't prove the existence of him, either.

I don't have a problem with people believing in God, obviously, but what I can't stand is people who try to argue it like there's anything that proves their belief. I can't possibly understand how people who believe in God can possibly be offended by atheists saying that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of a God.

Face it, they're right. That's why, instead of arguing with bullshit and pseudo-science, do the honest thing: say that you believe in God and that's the end of it. As someone who appreciates the beauty of science, it really gets under my skin to see it butchered by people trying to force science to meet their beliefs.

If you believe in God, that should be enough for you, don't fuck with science, they're mutually exclusive.

Mugabe, the selfsame man with legions of guerrillas and death squads at his beck and call, has made statements about forming his own government. Quite the terrifying turn of events in a country where people already spend their daily lives in hiding.

If any, what should the international community's involvement be in this situation? America's?

At 8/27/08 03:06 AM, afliXion wrote: So not only do atheists want the Christians to have the burden of proof, but they also want to take away there main source of proof. You must be really be scared and desperate not to have anyone question you.

Even before I say anything, just because I disagree with your fucking retarded logic, it doesn't make me an atheist. In fact, nothing in the below post even suggests it other than the fact that I'm disagreeing with you. The fact that every time I've diffused this asinine line of reasoning, people have replied to me asking me why I don't believe in God lends credence to the idea that all Christians simply believe in God because they don't have enough common sense not to. Don't go there and make me write off everything you say ever again. That goes to anyone who replies.

Simply from a logical standpoint, yes, the burden of proof is on Christians to prove there is a God. The claim that something exists must always have some proof. On the flip side, I don't need any proof to say that fairies don't exist. Why should I come up with proof for everything that I contend doesn't exist? There's no way to prove that something doesn't exist. No way.

What's more, the Bible does NOT constitute proof in any way, shape, or form. It's a biased source that presupposes the existence of God. Not to mention that it isn't (and can't be, for that matter) corroborated is an ironclad reason as to why it can't be used to prove its own premise.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim and their proof has to be observable, unbiased, and corroborated. There is no possibly way to provide proof of nonexistence. Not for God, not for anything. To ask for someone to disprove the existence of something is a ridiculous request. What kind of proof are you wanting? Think about that for a second: what possible proof could anyone bring to bear to prove the nonexistence of anything? Once you realize "oh, I guess that's not even possible and it's up to the person claiming something exists to prove it," then you'll understand why everyone with a grain of sense treats you like a moron for claiming what you did.

The region has been fractured ever since '91. We have to realize that 17 years isn't a whole lot of time to develop stability, especially when all of your neighbors are in the same mire you are. The whole region is undergoing some serious political strife and that's just the nature of the beast.

None of these countries were ready to split off from the USSR. Their entire political system was turned upside down, their economy was absolutely destabilized and its not like they could turn to anyone for aid at that point. All of their neighbors have been in the same situation and Russia has been dealing with stuff of its own. They didn't have a game plan for the fall of the USSR and when it happened, it hit them hard and it's going to take more time to deal with it and that's provided they stop clawing at each other, dragging themselves further into political instability.

This is partly why I'm not at all disapproving of Russia's actions, of late. I fail to see how expansionism is a bad thing, even in this day and age, especially given that it's a mutually beneficial relationship. Russia gets more territory and expands its influence and, in return, these fractured countries are able to lean on the more politically and economically stable Russia so they can finally put the in fighting behind them. What's more, their civil wars become Russia's civil war and they can depend on the backing of Russia's rapidly improving military to handle insurgency and civil unrest.

It completely baffles me how the entire Western world is projecting its own cultural values on the situation, seeing as how they fit about as well as a square block in a round hole. The actions that are going on are very historically Russian, I'm failing to see how this comes as any surprise to the international community and why there's such an outcry against it.

At 8/26/08 10:26 PM, NickDaPwner wrote: both obama and biden plagerize speeches

nice combo

cant wait to see how everything turns out

Everyone plagiarizes speeches, intentionally and unintentionally. When you hear something you like, you tend to use it, whether you know it or not. Not to mention the fact that nobody writes their own speeches. It is incredibly rare for a politician to actually hand-write their own speech, much less a presidential candidate.

You're basically making yourself look like an asshole for grasping at straws. Nobody in the political world gives a shit about what bits of who's speeches you use outside of using that to influence stupid people like you.

God, I get my blue collar shirt opened up, put a hand down my Levi's, and stroke my hard-working American junk every time I go to his website.

I make my girlfriends wear Joe Biden masks just so I can maintain an erection. Ever since I read his voting record, nothing else would cut it anymore.

Joe Biden is going to unload his hot, sticky patriotism all over the American voter's eager, awaiting ballot.

And then we're all going to beg for seconds.

At 8/21/08 09:49 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The only thing ensuring them from joining NATO is

Fuck, second time something's cut out of the middle of my post. :/

At any rate, it's not like Georgia's not going to be able to join NATO after this. Hell, the way Russia's been intimidating Poland and the Ukraine, it would behoove NATO to have member nations close by just in case anyway.

Therefore, the only thing that'd keep Georgia from joining is not giving them the option to.

At 8/21/08 09:21 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: It happened before Putin was in power. Also, it's in the Russian constitution that Russia is obliged to protect all russian passport holders, as millions of russians are in countries that were formerly part of the USSR.

Right, and it also happened recently, while Putin was in power.

Georgia is nothing like Chechnya. If it was, Russia would not have granted it independence.

Chechnya? They're not independent. They're less independent than Puerto Rico.

No one is innocent when it comes to politics. IMHO, Russia is acting to ensure that Georgia cannot reclaim the lost provinces, so as to ensure they cannot join NATO.

The only thing ensuring them from joining NATO is

So, georgia attacking South Ossetia was part of Russia's evil plan?

Evil plan? Good Lord, does nobody read? Besides, fanning the separatist flames in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is a pretty good way to get Georgia to attack. It's not like Russia hasn't done something similar.

While russia is obliged to act or face humiliation, ofcourse they're going to do something to gain from the conflict. This is why they're collecting all the US arms in the country, and enforcing the original ceasefire which gives them the right to patrol up to 14kms inside georgian territory. Russia has stated that georgia will never again be able to act aggressively, and this ensures that both Abkhazia and South Ossetia will retain defacto independence, regardless of the world community.

The cease fire is a joke. Russia's not pulling out any time soon, they're just buying time that the rest of the world is happy to sell them.

The reality here is that Russia benefits the most with south ossetia and akhazia being in limbo, because if the situation is resolved either way, Georgia will be able to join Nato, which is what russia has a problem with. Georgia was foolish to attack these regions, and would have been better off negotiating a lasting peace with people that don't want to be part of their country. If i'm not mistaken, the UN charter gives people the right to self determination, so what is your view on whether or not they should be forced into a country they were never part of historically?

Honestly? It's better for them in the long run anyway. I object to the principle, in general, but when you get right down to it, that's just the way shit works. Russia has been playing this brilliantly and I can't help but respect the way they're handling things.

And besides, it's kind of silly to argue about something that's playing out right now anyway. Russia's acting very typically Russian, they have all their cards in the open and I'm calling it like they're going to handle this in a very Russian manner. If I'm wrong, whatever, but I have a pretty good gut feeling that seems to have been dead on so far.