Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/1/12 11:14 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/1/12 08:39 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: He isn't out of touch with the public, he is out of reach of corruption.

I can't believe people believe this, if he were incorruptible he would be using his vast amounts of wealth to help other people who are in need. His opponent Ron Paul didn't have near as much money as he did, but he voluntarily treated people at reduced prices and often times for free when they couldn't pay for help. When people got Medicaid, he refused it from his patients and covered it himself.

you guys shun anyone who isn't part of your trendy sub-culture while Mormons read about jesus giving to the poor all day and when they finally come across them they're like "wow, just like it says in the bible, I'm going to go full jesus here".

Religion in politics is just for decoration, so is being trendy. Obama said things that were appealing to hipsters and did some very NOT so trendy things like giving the government more power and vowing to enforce drug laws no matter what the states choose to d. You also see how often the Republicans, who are all about protecting America from god's wrath get caught with their pants down in the same room as 15 prostitutes (male and/or female) and $5000 worth of Coke... in a public bathroom.

At 4/29/12 07:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Yes it should. If I'm going to pay for others' care regardless, we might as well pay for the cheaper preventative care.

well you shouldn't have to pay for their health care, and you would pay less if the otherwise uninsurable weren't forced into the mix.

A good idea to ensure that all people who are in need have at least a base level of health care available.

and for those who can't afford the mandatory insurance, they can lose their house in a lawsuit later.

At 4/29/12 05:15 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So long as people absolutely refuse to have mandatory health insurance, I am 100% supportive of hospitals suing to get their money back. We've got to lower mdeical costs somehow, and if we're not smart enough to do it the (a) right way, let's do it the wrong way.

well 1, should health insurance be mandatory, 2, if he didn't have enough money to pay for his treatment what is a lawsuit going to do to get their money, and 3, why did they treat him if he didn't have the money to begin with?

In Canada we have private sector working in our school cafeteria as well as public sector, we didn't have to worry so much about this.

now there's an idea, privatize your school's cafeteria, save money, and your students eat better, it is win win.

oh and don't forget that the current immigration system is highly inefficient and drives people who would have been accepted legally into the country into breaking the rules anyways.

the fastest way to get into the country legally, is to be a genius, so lets pretend Einstein was from Mexico, if he tried to Immigrate to America, he would have had to wait 5-7 years to do it.

At 4/27/12 02:44 AM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Mitt Romney may not be the best choice, but he is superior to Obama.

They appear as two, but they speak as one.

At 4/27/12 12:46 AM, Silverdust wrote: How is it that so many people are outraged by what our government is doing, yet nobody lifts a finger? I say it's nearly time to make change.

well what are you gonna do, vote against Obama by voting for Romney? or vote 3rd party? Thing is that the people who are outraged enough to do something about it are out numbered by the outraged but too demoralized to try folks.

few helpful tips to stop the masses of fleeing Mexicans from running into your country.

1. stop advertising yourselves, don't even advertise to skilled workers because that is a major dick move and is why 3rd world nations are still 3rd world.

2. no more welfare programs or minimum wages. when these people understand that there actually IS risk in your country, they wont show up unprepared or drain your good people's tax money. They will be productive!!!

3. end the drug war, less violence in their home country means less need to flee into yours. Remember their drug cartels are there because your drug laws create a supply vacuum with out lowering the demand and that is exactly what makes their profiteering so successful.

4. pretend your economy has collapsed and now your country is a bigger crap hole than theirs is. hire some people to jump over the boarder fence from your end "to escape poverty" to make it seem legit.

At 4/26/12 07:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/26/12 07:14 PM, Gambit wrote: Exactly. A giant waste of money. A giant useless waste of money.

What is the purpose of having an military force?

not having a military is like not wearing a seat belt, it's not bad until it's bad.

it is the same strategy Hitler used to gain totalitarian control over Germany in a democratic country with out using force (more or less). He said his government needs complete control to protect the German people from Communists and other threats, but only temporarily (until the threats are gone).

of course we all know that he didn't give that power back as he promised. When the time comes for martial law (or as we call it in the civilized world, state of emergency, implying that it is only temporary we promise please believe us we pinkie swear we will give it back when we sign a peace treaty with the concept of terrorism please oh please oh please let us become dictators!) all of these new tools will be very dangerous in the hands of the government, phone taps from Patriot act, Internet tracking from Cispa, Indefinite detention without due process from NDAA. This happens so often and we dismiss it every time as craziness but that is why history keeps repeating itself I guess.

Maybe Glenn beck could be blamed for making people who know about creeping fascism all look crazy by using strong Christian over tones and blending his rants with lots of ignorance and obvious fallacies.

he's moderate on this scale.

At 4/23/12 06:38 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/23/12 05:09 PM, Korriken wrote: A lot like a certain other president we hear a lot about...

But Harper's lasted more than one term.

as a minority, and he did great with the other parties stopping him from doing all the stupid shit he is doing now. this is his first time as a majority and with all the shit hes purposed already and is rushing through unopposed we can already tell "stability" wasn't a very accurate way to describe majority governments. Also note that he hasn't passed a single high profile non authoritarian bill yet.

well I feel bad for France. I blame political parties for all of these problems, the left right left right march in USA and the vote splitting technicalities everywhere else its just a result of politicians abusing the system by unionising and convincing people that it is normal that they don't get to vote for some one who represents them.

thing that people forget about some of Americas most historic presidents and the founding fathers is that they are some of the most immoral men you can imagine when you use the bible as a standard for morality. George Washington grew weed, lots of it, it was his main crop, and was the man who said America is not founded on Christian values. Ben Franklin was a womaniser and proud of it. Jefferson had a shit load of kids with his black slave, and he was married.

don't feel bad though, they still promoted all of the secular demands that conservatives make these days like small hands off government, minimal taxes, gun rights, tough on crime, (<-death penalty for counterfeiting) state rights etc. They just weren't blood thirsty pro war crusaders.

The thing Buffet doesn't know is that the problem doesn't rest in the rich being taxed too little, it is that the non rich are being taxed too much. The rich get less income stolen by the government than the poor do, proportionally, making it impossible for rich failures to fall and poor heroes to rise. It also gets topped off that what tax money is spent on goes to benefit the rich more than it goes to benefit the poor. If you are poor, welfare means bare minimum to survive, if you are the owner of a fortune 500 company, it means getting bailed out and given enough money to give your executives a nice bonus.

this is why income inequality is going up so fast, and why social mobility is going down. Even when I was a little misinformed grade 11 Socialist it came across as odd that under Roosevelt, you had to have a certain amount of money to start a bank and what a catch 22 it was that the only way to get rich was to already be rich under this idol of modern liberalism.

At 4/20/12 02:29 PM, animehater wrote: I also have trouble seeing the purpose of a Canadian military other than to make some nationalists feel good. Hell maybe you guys should cut it to ribbons and let what's left (men and all) be incorporated into the U.S military, who will then be held responsible for your defense after being given those extra resources and manpower in an arrangement specifically designed to be cheaper than what you have now.

Of course that wouldn't make the nationalists too happy but quite frankly they can go fuck themselves.

you don't have to be a nationalist to be concerned for your safety. I'm a hard core cosmopolitan yet I know the dangers of letting peaceful times lull you into complacency. The thing is, you will actually cheat the people of this nation out of their hard work if you allow the country they live in to get bullied around by super powers too much. China wants our water, and we give it to them at the price THEY say it comes at. America wants our energy, and we give it to them at the price THEY say it comes at. If the word economy hurts your people, that's life, if the government, any government, is taking from your people, it is theft.

At 4/16/12 03:57 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote:

At 4/16/12 08:36 AM, Shade wrote: /b/

I'm never going to /b/ again, or 4chan for that matter. Though not because of the cussing...

you wimp,

but the... "people" of General would be my main suspect for the behaviour described in this topic.

The biggest problem with pretty much all modern "defensive" forces is that they are both A, very expensive to use and maintain, and B, over used. The weapons used in war have become more expensive than what they are used to destroy. If Canada is to adopt a stronger army the first piece of advice we should follow is to stop producing $900,000 Javelin Missiles and buying billion Dollar jets that guzzle fuel like Bush used to guzzle liqueur(hint hint fucking hint). We should focus on using our defence for what it actually is meant to be used for, DEFENCE.

build cost efficient ways to shoot down the enemies billion dollar jets, build fast ground vehicles that cost $899,999 to make, or less, and specialize their weaponry into killing people who are carrying large state of the art rocket launchers. make cheap explosive devices that can be quickly scattered and hidden across the land scape to slow down their troop movements, so that you can barrage the area with artillery. and finally, don't be such a pussy and USE chemical and biological weapons when they are cost effective and strategic!

While Switzerland had a small nation with very challenging terrain to defend against invasion, we have the opposite, a very large nation (2nd largest to be exact) with lots of very flat terrain and a lot of mountainous terrain as well. To be tough to invade, Switzerland strategy wouldn't be viable for us, we would have to adopt Vietnam's strategy.

in short, modern military tactics are very disconnected from reality these days. Just as inefficient as the WW1 trench warfare strategy in fact.

At 4/14/12 04:34 PM, Wurfel-Waffles wrote: Canadian can't fight? You are kidding me. They kicked the crap out of we Germans and those Taliban.

Most people say that jokingly based on our civil personalities, they know that we, for what we were able to contribute, were little bundles of drunken lumberjack rage.

At least we will never be France.

At 4/14/12 12:23 PM, djack wrote:

At 4/14/12 10:01 AM, Korriken wrote: a nation without a military force is a nation that will soon be taken over.

Who's taking over Japan, and when? Real question, do the Swiss even have a military? I doubt a nation devoted to neutrality has much need for a military force.

sry double post but Switzerland was only able to keep neutrality through both world wars BECAUSE their defensive forces were strong enough to ensure mutual destruction. (what ever side invades our nation sized bunker of doom loses the war!)

At 4/13/12 03:20 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: Wouldn't the right thing to do be to pitch in and help your allies who would help you in a pinch?

Besides, by most standards Canada isn't even a real country.

in a recent article by Castro for his great and all powerful nation he said it was hard to tell if Canada was a Colony, Monarchy, or Republic, were a combination of the 3 really.

but for your first point, that is not always possible, If your ally is a loose cannon that looks for trouble then it will do you more harm than good to lend assistance, even if by some moral or philosophical standards it is the right thing to do.

and of course, for the above two guys, the most effective way to maintain peace in the real world is to "Speak softly and carry a big stick". While you don't actively go out looking for trouble and in fact do the opposite by going out of your way to defuse conflicts, you have to have the subtle threat of violence behind you to make sure no one tries to bully you into becoming their vassal. Thankfully for Canada, we have the highest concentration of Uranium in our country than any other, so we can get a pretty killer deal on nuclear intimidation sticks.

Hey guys I need to ask some one to take over Vimmy Ridge for me but I don't know anyone strong enough to do it... I think 95 years ago some one in the north west area of earth did it quite easily compared to everyone else but I forgot who it was.

a small but modernized army equipped for hit and run tactics should be good enough if we get ourselves some nukes. with all the resources we have behind our boarders i can't help but think the dumb bastards WANTED us to be bullied around by every single world power at the same time when in the middle of the cold war we decided to give up all of our nukes. A little foreign influence maybe?

At 4/4/12 12:06 AM, pirateplatypus wrote: I like the idea of making all races non-partisan but I don't like the idea of just electing one person to in turn elect the other offices.

well it is both your job to know who you are voting for and your representatives job to be competent and honest, but if he isn't thankfully you can kick him out for any reason you like, it is your responsibility to after all. If he elects a president that you don't like (and mind you the president is supposed to have a very limited level of power) then you vote him out and make an example to the next guy.

when I come to think of it, the founding fathers warned everyone about what political parties would do, and we are all seeing it first hand. You aren't supposed to vote for your federal government, you are supposed to vote for the person who will represent your region, and the person elected this way is supposed to represent the region who elected him, NOT his political party. How would the president get elected? your representative will vote for him, and he wouldn't have to pick glorious party leader.

remove the idea of political parties, and you will solve the problem of strategic voting, as everyone would be an independent, another good part is that your representative would have to work harder to keep the trust of his voters and wouldn't be able to dick around just because he is a Republican in Texas who never has to worry about people voting Democrat.

well the problem is that it was already and rightfully so illegal to harass and slander people, but these laws focus on singling out one person and defaming or making their lives miserable. It is sort of like comparing your right to bear arms, and still not being allowed to shoot people with them at random, fair enough? fair enough.

passing another law about this means they are almost definitely doing this for some sort of illegitimate gain, weather they are trying to restrict free speech, extend government's eyes and ears further into your personal lives, put on a show some where else to distract from an issue that actually does matter, or a combination of a few of these.

the SOPA crew however, only cared because SOPA effected the entire nation while this only effects one state if I am correct.

Where would I draw the line on harassment? when the site is under your ownership (aka your property), if they are just insulting you on a site like this block them, as soon as they start attacking your email account then take legal action but only if that is what it comes to. For slander, I draw the line when they start using your real name.

unfortunately not a lot of things on the Internet are "your property" and that is kind of why you shouldn't treat the Internet like you are at home, and should protect your identity to some extent. If there were ever a site that gave you full ownership of your account the security of your info on that site would be unmatched and completely under control but people like things that are free, so it is your responsibility to protect yourself from douche bags.

At 3/31/12 11:47 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Looks like Dick is up to it again. First there was "bla" people, now we have Obama as an "anti-war, government nig-...".

Does Santorum suffer from racial tourettes or something, or is this just him being him?

if you listen closely he almost said fuck after that too

The notion of strategic voting is the PERFECT way to get Romney to win.

Romney has been painted as the front runner in every primary, it is always viable to vote for romney if you are strategicly voting.

the rest of the candidates have been taking turns as the next on the list, taking turns so that no one will ever have more wins than romney.

it is the perfect way for the media to rig an election no?

At 3/27/12 12:26 AM, Greggg586 wrote:

At 3/25/12 11:57 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: as for my stance both sides are his word against theirs and have probably made up their minds about what happened before gathering evidence to support their stance.

I hear what your saying, and your right on the part that the media does exaggerate the story. But the evidence cries out guilty all on its own. I've herd that this isn't the first incident this has happened, only the one that broke the camels back. The community has been having issues with the police and their racial profiling habits and they admit to it. The facts that are in this case: zimmerman pursued the boy when told not to by police, and ended up killing a kid armed with skittles and tea. Afterwards zimmerman claims self defense, even though the eye witness from the 911 call describes him on top of the young boy.

My biggest problem with media bias, especially in cases like this, is that it ALWAYS seems to do both of 2 things: favour the defendants chances of getting off Scott free on claims of mistrial or some shit, and then slander the piss out of him. It is lose lose, if he hypothetically is really is innocent, he will forever be known as the Hispanic version of OJ, If he really is guilty, he's not getting any jail time. It is just that much more likely when "race" is involved.

So the evidence points him to be guilty, the media is only hurting the odds of the victim's family getting justice.

It has kind of come to a time where "moderation" isn't locking in good progress and blocking out bad anymore, it is doing the opposite, it holds back good and necessary progress while locking in the bad. Candidate 1. "hey I know you all hate these laws so I plan to abolish them" Candidate 2: "woh woh woh not so fast hahaha you will never win the election if you go all out like that! vote for me and I will do nothing about these laws but I might certainly throw our voters a small bone if they vote for me!" key word might, as in won't.

At 3/24/12 10:09 PM, djack wrote:
Better yes, cheaper no. Alternative technologies are very expensive and require far more production than gasoline. As for the technologies you mentioned as being "advanced"; the chips don't actually record your medical history they just carry a code that connects to a database that can hold your medical records but usually just include basic info and a hospital that has your records, lasers aren't as advanced as you think, we don't have invisibility cloaks (I've followed these "invisibility cloak" stories every time they show up and it turns out to be just something that blocks detection methods like the radar absorbing paint used on planes), and infrared goggles just need something that enhances the rays and converts them into the visible spectrum which is also not very advanced. Most of this is hardly more advanced than velcro. Sure we've shrunk a lot of those technologies down over the years but we haven't had some breakthrough that advances tech drastically. Really our technology has been relatively slow in its development compared to previous decades. This is partly the result of people ignoring current technologies in exchange for pipe dreams (I'm very openly in support of the use of nuclear energy as a source of electricity but too many people fear the term nuclear and would rather wait until green technologies are forced to replace oil due to a lack of supply) and partly because we aren't fighting for our lives against a super power like we were during the Cold War or WWII or WWI.

problem with Nuclear power is that although it can produce a lot of energy, it guzzles resources fast, and still doesn't produce as much energy as oil. You can recycle Uranium as well but the process is expensive, and you can't recover very much. The only thing that sort of keeps nuclear power viable is... oil. to replace the power generated by oil, the world would need 10 000 nuclear plants, that rate would give us only 10-20 years.