Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The media definitely has some explaining to do in terms of the story and why they are being so judgemental.

an example is the part where they put up the shooters mug shot beside the victim as a kid. Why not put the most up to date picture of the guy who got shot? there are less tear jerking pictures of him out there I know that for sure.

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.

At 3/24/12 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/24/12 07:45 PM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: but you don't see me going to the government and trying to trick them into forcing the taxpayer to give me the money.

Ah yes, cause energy security is the same sort of completely personal luxury items like the things you mentioned...

some one would have to own the profits from this clean energy. whoever does would get all of those things. (unless the greener energy isn't profitable, if that is the case that would be because it takes more resources to start and run it than it can produce)

I'm finding it more and more annoying that people are throwing the terms "moderate" "sane" and the worst one "closest to the centre" at all of their favourite candidates. The reason for this is because what is "sane" now would have been considered "extremist" a long time ago and as well other countries have different versions of this idea of the political centre. Who decides the political centre, how is it decided, and why is it automatically right? If suddenly we were to outlaw free press and it were all put under control of the government, wait less than 2 years and suddenly you would be an extremist Somalian anarchist for suggesting that right to free press be re-implemented.

So tell me, why is it so important that we choose the candidate that is closest to what the government claims is the political centre when we can't even decide where it is? All it does it hold back social progress, it is why it took so long for black people to get the right to vote, and why it is so hard to move past the stupid gay marriage debate, nor are we going to decide how much welfare is enough.

Wouldn't be very effective at all, the market correction is going to be devastating because of all the money that was spent into inflating this "oil bubble". Same sort of idea that caused the housing bubble, except this is going to be much worse.

our tax payer money was used to subsidize oil companies to make sure using oil would be "profitable" even though it wasn't productive, and the longer we wait the worse it gets. The free market leading to new technologies idea is moot now because we threw away our free market to protect these oil tycoons.

At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The republican party believes in the traditional American values that they just made up. That's why they only care about your rights if you're a wealthy heterosexual man.

fixed it for you

well if you are so hell bent on screwing your own country up so much then I guess you better go big or go home. Everyone who wants another statist in charge should be all over this guy.

It is a shame that I can list a but load of US presidents who seemed to hate freedom yet "freedom loving" presidents seem so few and far between, and are even so up for debate I can't even say them with confidence. here is what I got for "freedom loving"

Abraham Lincoln: purely result based, state rights vs human rights and even if the war wasn't even about slavery. result was that slaves were freed that's big enough for most people. He did also pave the way to Corporate person hood, even if not on purpose.

Herbert Hoover: failure to say the least, performed various acts of unlawful and unwise government intervention with tariffs and keeping both prohibition and the fed. the only real thing libertarian about him was his economic policies but I seriousely question his knowledge of economics and what the role of government was supposed to be.

Kennedy: but he got shot so we don't know the full extent of what he planned on doing.

Franklin Roosevelt: I honestly believe his intentions were good and that he wanted to simply restore faith in our economic system, even if he set us up for our downfall.

then there is the massive long list of freedom haters, but my knowledge of American history is limited by my Canadian high school history 12 class, but most of them seem to be from the 20th and 21st century.

At 1 hour ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: this thread is pure bullshit. America is as free as it gets in the world.

well thanks to NDAA and the Patriot act we are clearly seeing that nobody in power is very anxious to keep it that way.

At 1 hour ago, streetbob wrote:

At 4 hours ago, Warforger wrote: The people of the US should start to understand the Civilian death toll and that a death of a civilian is much more tragic and important than a death of a US soldier.

That's a matter of opinion. A Middle Eastern citizen, to ME, isn't worth the severed penis of an American ANYTHING.

ah but if you are trying to control a population in a foreign country that sees your forces as an occupational force, then tactically it is WAY more important.

but there comes a point in every game where there is just no chance of turning it all around, I think our actions in the past month or two, heck the entire operation have gotten us there. This war can't be won without the good will of the civilian population and lets face it, we have imprisoned it, taken it's clothes off, put a bag on its head, made it do a human pyramid while naked, raped its women, killed it 15 times over, lit its holy book on fire, then pissed on it's corpse.

At 1 day ago, HolyKonni wrote: Consistency is not necessarily a good thing. Flexibility is what's needed sometimes.

Also, Paul doesn't believe in evolution. All of the republican candidates are anti-science as fuck.

well for one, he stated that he knows he will never be able to make ALL of the changes he wants, so he is going to start with the important ones that need to be done anyways, his goal is to cut 1 Trillion in spending in total, thats all.

and he may not believe in evolution but he keeps that to himself when he can (sort of like a voluntary don't ask don't tell). At least he believes in putting people on trial before sending them to jail.

and @Camaro, Plan B for Paul supporters isn't to not vote anyone at all, Plan B is to vote Garry Johnson, or for some supporters to vote Obama just to spite the moralists and war mongers who made his defeat possible.

So the media has prepared for the coming of the millennial into the voting pool, now my generation is just as blood thirsty and warmongering as the boomers.

were screwed.

At 7 hours ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 9 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: If you can't afford contraceptives, you have plenty of options to keep having sex while not getting pregnant.

But as stated, having access to birth control is not always simply about not getting pregnant. It has a number of health benefits that are completely unrelated to sex.

there are also vitamin tablets, and foods that are good for you as well, but the problem is, if they were free, no one would waste their time making them, and there for, no one would have them.

Further more, lower prices on pharmaceuticals can be obtained by having the government relinquish its monopoly on them and opening up to competition. But of course an establishment suck up like Rush would never suggest such a thing in face of his corporate buddies who benefit so much from cronyism.

Finally, I would like to see the source people have been using to say that the only way for a woman to avoid cancer is to have sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis while taking contraceptives to stop the risk of pregnancy, and that this whole bs doesn't work the same way it works for men where they can just wack it and poof chance of cancer averted by .01%.

Luckily, having sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis is not a requirement for birth control pills to work. Idiot.

now we get some where, so the pills itself do it? I'm sorry the only thing people of your stance have been able to cough up is "SO YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THEM?" and most recently from you

"idiot"
But how is that Debt doing for you smartie pants?

its a cool story bro, and I'm glad you care enough about strangers to have the government steal from other strangers to give to those strangers. Just because something is good for your doesn't mean you should mandate that everyone else pay for you to get it. It isn't free if you are still paying for it.

The people who made this stuff had to pay money to do it.
They did not do it for free.
You can't get it for free.

At 17 minutes ago, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 35 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote: I don't think insurance companies should provide contraception

Oh look, a guy who doesn't care about women's health! Alright, tell us why you think women who can't afford contraceptives on their own should have to run the risk of getting cancer.

*rolls up sleeves*

If you can't afford contraceptives, you have plenty of options to keep having sex while not getting pregnant. Further more, lower prices on pharmaceuticals can be obtained by having the government relinquish its monopoly on them and opening up to competition. But of course an establishment suck up like Rush would never suggest such a thing in face of his corporate buddies who benefit so much from cronyism. Finally, I would like to see the source people have been using to say that the only way for a woman to avoid cancer is to have sex with a man's bare penis on a regular basis while taking contraceptives to stop the risk of pregnancy, and that this whole bs doesn't work the same way it works for men where they can just wack it and poof chance of cancer averted by .01%.

At 5 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Instead of us arguing the negative, how's about you argue the affirmative first. Why should the drinking age be anything but 21?

well lets put it this way, its a blue law. I was (okay everyone was) ready to drink when I was 18 too, but my province (B.C.) put the age to 19. Looking at 21 however it doesn't seem so bad at all, my only disappointment was getting into trade school early and having that awesome event ruin my plan to spend my 18th birthday in Calgary.

Few things with higher drinking age limits:
1. it encourages binge drinking among what your region considers "minors"
2. does not prevent crimes related to alcohol, all it does is give older people more money in their pocket if they decide to boot.
3. if your nation can draft you to fight and die in war before you are even allowed to drink, it really doesn't make sense.

First of all, I'm not suggesting we invade Iran

then we are in agreement, I wouldn't GIVE them one either, but to stop them from getting one pretty much implies invasion. I would however SELL them one if the price was right, and I would except my payment only in gold :3.

At 3 hours ago, Korriken wrote: 1. we would not benefit from it.
2. Back when we backed the Taliban against Russia, it would have been pointless to give the Taliban a nuclear weapon to blow up a city because they were trying to get rid of the Russians, not the people in the cities.

but they could have used it on Russia's cities.

irradiating your own lands would be counterproductive. you should know that by now. I'm not sure if you're overlooking something, trolling, or being intellectually dishonest here...

Israel is holy land to them, nuking that would surely go against their ideals in some way.

Given that Iran is funding them, they have very good reason not to try to blackmail them or try to take over Iran. Iran and the Jihadists have a common enemy, all non Muslims. Iran gives them a sizable portion of their funds, having that cut off would put a large dent in their ability to operate. Also, Iran most likely knows what they are up to and knows where they operate. It wouldn't surprise me if Iran was training them directly.

We were funding the same group of militants before too. They turned on us, because we were killing people and building bases in their holy land. Taliban recently turned on Syria for killing Muslims, and of course, Iran would be ripe for revolution as well if we didn't give their government so much reason to rally their people against us. If they turned on the Syrian government for killing Muslims in a revolution that we support, they will turn on Iran for killing Muslims as well. Doesn't matter if Iran is funding them, it didn't matter to the Taliban when they turned on us.

Either way letting an enemy (and yes Iran is an enemy, not misunderstood, not poor pitiful Iran, no, they work against our interests and must be kept in check) get some sort of leg up on you is never advisable.

who says doing the same thing that made them our enemy in the first place is such a good idea? Here is what you do, you open up trade and end the stupid sanctions, their economy improves and they have no reason to ruin such a good thing. Then their people start realizing how much better we have it in our free society and that we aren't such bad people after all and they push for change. And we don't have to lose a single soldier. But if we go out of our way to hinder their economy like we did with Germany before WW2, then were asking for trouble.

At 1 day ago, djack wrote:

Are you seriously saying that a second Cuban missile crisis is better that refusing to give a nation that supports and supplies terrorists nuclear weapons? I ask because if you were being sarcastic I wasn't able to read the sarcasm in you're post and if you're serious then you need to be institutionalized in Arkham Asylum. There were several incidents that very nearly caused a nuclear holocaust and you owe your life to the people who did everything in their power to prevent that from happening including people on both sides who defied direct orders from a superior officer despite the consequences they would face for doing so.

Actually, the stance you take on this issue is more likely to lead to a Cuban missile crisis than mine is. Looking at the history of the Cuban missile crisis, America was found on the wrong side of the Cuban nationalist movement that started because American Imperialism (yes, that is exactly what it was, by definition) was quite oppressive and brought lawlessness to Cubans. Iran also had a very unpopular puppet state forced on them by America, and had it over thrown by radicals as a result.

America then sent troops into Cuba to try and get rid of Castro, but failed, and forced the Cuban dictator to turn to the only person who would help him, Russia. Now you see Iran, who is also surrounded by hostile forces and has an economy that is struggling under them, now those people are foaming around the mouths to invade Iran and get their oil/ "give them democracy"/ "stop them from getting weapons of mass destruction". What is Iran going to do in this situation I wonder? They are probably going to turn to China for help.

And history repeats itself, the world shits it's pants in fear and then nothing happens we all go to bed and do this all over again except to Egypt and only to not learn our lesson all over again.

At 21 hours ago, Th-e wrote:

So while the nukes may never get used themselves, they make Iran immune to attack and gives it an even greater influence over the rest of the world.

North Korea may not have gained much from its nukes, but Iran has a lot to gain. Therefore, it is critical that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Allowing Terrorist groups in your country to agitate other countries is a bad idea, and it is made worse if you think to support them. Topping that, when nukes are brought into the question it makes it EVEN WORSE. Let's say you are the leader of a country, a group of terrorists to whom you are at first indifferent to and maybe even sympathize with a little move in to your country. These terrorists start shouting threats and hiding behind your nations military and nuclear capabilities and eventually start launching attacks at other nations. These other nations begin to get pissed off and start blaming YOU. These nations then begin to tell you that if you aren't going to deal with these terrorists yourself, THEY will.

If Iran is supporting the terrorists, then that makes the terrorists an extension of Iran and there for, Iran has just as much incentive to distance itself from these loose cannons in a possible nuclear war situation as any other country does. The people of those other countries will get pissed off and create pressure on their leader to do something about it if suddenly shells started flying from your side of the boarder to theirs. That country's leader might decide "that is it, were going to retaliate until you do something about these terrorists behind your boarders, and if you think nuclear war is a better option than doing the right thing, then bring it on". The threat of Nuclear war was used by both sides of the Cuban missile conflict as leverage for each nation to get what it wanted. Eventually, the USSR pulled the missiles out of Cuba but in in return we had to pull some missiles out of Europe for them.

At 11 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: The biggest thing I don't like about Santorum is how he plays the victim card with his values.

He claims that there is a war on Christianity because Gays and such are getting more rights. He plays it off as if others' values are being forced on him. However, I have yet to see any thing that he cannot do now that he could do before. However, his 'values' will restrict what others can do.

So in other words, he's being victimized in the sense that he cannot force others to live as he does... Such a victim.

It is an important skill for wannabe tyrants to twist the idea of "force" and "victimization" into their opposites with these things. "this person will force gay marriage on us all" is a good one, but the only way for that to be true is if this guy actually said "I'm going to force all people to marry other people of the same gender". Storm front says that by allowing non-white people to live freely side by side with white people is equal to rounding all the white people up and shooting them.

As stupid as all of this sounds most people seem to be falling victim to something like this one way or another, and it is pretty hard to get them to realize this. It won't always be as obvious as "the robber was victimized by the shop keeper he killed because the shop keeper wouldn't give him his money" so some times you have to look hard, and be willing to look hard, even if doing so questions your established ideals. What sounds retarded to one person may sound genius to others.

So yes his tactic sounds totally stupid but at the same time, it's flawless.

At 28 minutes ago, Th-e wrote: From what I have been hearing, the resources for making biofuels from algae cost more than it's ultimately worth, and would not really be useful except as a temporary thing.

But I wonder about another biofuel source: our own poop. How tough would it be to take shit and make it a viable resource? Human poo, dog poo, cow poo...

A prison in Rwanda gets 75% of its electricity from its own inmates' BMs. Well, cow pies are mixed in for better results...but you get what I'm saying.

Wouldn't solve the problem that most of our products are physically made out of petroleum products and that using that bio fuel would still require those to be economically feasible. Plus, that dung is used as a natural fertilizer for food, with out that, people would have to use more petroleum based fertilizers. Yet despite all of this, if it does manage to become efficient and some how make our oil last longer, here is what will happen.

Oil price goes down as demand falls, Investors see this and powered by the debt driven economy, start creating more petroleum products and using more petroleum fuelled vehicles until it the price evens out, now the economy grows as the same amount of oil is being used. Then the supply starts falling below demand again, but if this economy doesn't keep expanding it collapses, problem not solved.

The real Irony is that the Nobel Prizes were named after the man who invented dynamite.

At 14 hours ago, Korriken wrote:

At 5 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes totally, why not give a Fundamental Islamic government that supports and funds terrorist organizations like hezbollah and Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction? nothing wrong could go possibly wrong.

nah, certainly a country that funds and arms jihadist groups that are attacking our soldiers overseas and try to attack non muslim civilians (and muslim civilians that are not the right sect) overseas and at home would NEVER slip them a nuclear weapon to smuggle into another country to attack a major city... nah, that would just be unthinkable. They might put on a bomb vest or try to detonate a car full of explosives near a government building, but to take out a large city?.... nah. /sarcasm

Here is a pretty funny bunch of questions for you chaps: If it is possible that these extremist regimes would supply nuclear weapons to rag tag hit and run factions, why haven't we done it? We sided with the Taliban against Russia when they invaded Afghanistan, we helped Bin Laden personally in that war too, why didn't we just slip them a nuclear warhead to use on the Russians? Why is it that the Russians didn't do this to us during the war in Vietnam? The Russians had nuclear capabilities, and the NVA and VC were both pro Russia,Why were they not given nukes to use against us? In North Korea, why didn't Russia give a nuke to their allies in any of those wars?

Here are my answers to these questions: everyone would know who was behind it, it would just be common sense. The other answer, is that it might be more convenient for their loose ally to use it against them, as it wouldn't have to be transported as far, and they could potentially use it to blackmail their way into getting more, and with that they would be able to gradually take over an entire country.

We can make people less concerned about the future with little temporary solutions like this but here is the thing: there is no way we are going to make enough algae to support our needs. Remember, exponential growth is a built in factor to our economy that is not just driven by supply and demand, but by debt. If our economy does not grow, our economy collapses, if we keep growing, we will not have enough capacity to produce the energy needed to sustain it. Yes free market drives to alternatives yadyada that's all well and good but too bad we are forgetting that we have been attempting to over come survival of the fittest and there for, don't have a free market economy. Our economy doesn't create wealth it creates debt, forcing people to consume and TRY to create wealth.

Here is the final nail in the coffin for this biofuel: to create it, it requires more energy than Oil did, since Oil was a found substance that only needed to be taken from the earth, this fuel has to be created, requiring time and energy, with this in mind, we will have to produce much more algae than we were producing oil, just to compensate for the extra work and time needed. We will also need nutrients and various chemicals to keep the algae alive, creating this requires petroleum products, requiring that we make even MORE algae. So now we are gradually taking more and more of every resource on this planet to feed this algae. So basically we are using up too much of the planet as it is to pull this off. too bad.

At 6 hours ago, camobch0 wrote: "I'm a moderate, so I'm going to vote for a far-right old white man."

Just vote for Obama. He's not great by any means, but it's better than getting stuck with a republican or Paul.

moderate depends where you are looking from, Stalin would have considered Obama to be an extremist.

At 2 days ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 16 minutes ago, mothballs wrote: 9/11, which fucked up the economy pretty bad.

No it didn't.

Analogy time!

Imagine a huge pile up on an interstate, like 50 cars and it's massively shitty. 9/11 is like the VW Beetle near the end. Sure, it might have had some worsening effect on the extent of the damage, but the pile up was already there before it hit, and the pile up was gonna happen even had the Beetle decided to take the side roads.

well to complete that analogy, the beetle was trailing behind it a series of semis that were loaded with black powder. 9/11 in itself wasn't much (ECONOMICALLY speaking), but it caused the government to over react and chain multiple, very costly wars together, not even slowing down after they got the guy responsible for it.

At 1 day ago, Camarohusky wrote: 100% Constutional too!

yea its about time they caught on to that part when dealing with protests.

I see this as potentially mutual. The government improves it's image by following its own laws, and the protesters will improve theirs as they take their stupid tents down. Unfortunately, both parties have their images tarnished beyond repair any ways.

At 17 hours ago, IGotMilk wrote:
Not exactly, Dictatorship just means that one person has power in the government, now sure, most likely there will never be a Libertarian Dictator, but it's still very possible.

there are the naive dictators for them to fall under, because if that given libertarian knew history, he would know that giving himself absolute power would mean having to give a successor absolute power. He/she would also know that having absolute power is a very popular thing for people to shoot for so that their chosen successor may not be very relevant when his/her death comes.

if Xi had the best long and short term interests of his people at heart, his goal would be to relinquish the government's absolute power, in which case his colleagues would never allow him to be put in charge.

There are only three kinds of dictators in this world:

The corrupt dictator (smart and evil)
The insane dictator (stupid and evil)
and the Naive dictator. (stupid and good)

Xi is not Naive, nor is he Insane, that leaves him with only one more Category. The reason for that is because Smart people who are good NEVER become dictators.

At 1 hour ago, Warforger wrote: I doubt he actually believes in half the things he says, he just says them in order to get people to vote for him, that's why I don't like him.

3 out of 4 of those guys are doing this. 3 out of 3 are doing it if you look from the media's perspective.

Newt Gingrich is a fool and has a hard time disguising the fact that he's pretending to believe this crap

He is pretending to be edgy.

Well it's not exactly a secret that he is full of shit. Here are a few things to add about him though:

He wants to "cut taxes", invade Iran, send more money to Iran, build a moon base, but most of all, "cut taxes".

At 19 hours ago, RightWingGamer wrote: Well, after Santorum's contraception gaffe, it looks like I'm a Romney supporter now.

the prophets were right, Stockholm syndrome in action.