Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/15/12 03:22 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 12/15/12 03:21 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well actually Mexican drug cartels would expand to start selling ammunition and under sell legal sources.

Where do they get their guns from?

gunsmiths and imports. Russian weapons tend to be pretty cheap and mass producible, and easily replicated.

At 12/15/12 09:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Maybe Chris Rock had the right idea.

Make bullets a thousand dollars each.
THen people who own guns would probably only have 1 or 2 bullets.

You could own several guns, as long as they were the same calibre you'd still just need to own a few bullets .

With bullets being so expensive, no 20 year old could afford the ammunition needed to kill 28 people !

well actually Mexican drug cartels would expand to start selling ammunition and under sell legal sources.

come to think of it, if you start banning guns OR ammunition, the Mexican drug cartels would just start selling it and you would end up with more organized crime. See that one? the same argument for legalizing drugs can be used in favor of enforcing the second amendment. who would have thought?

At 12/7/12 12:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/7/12 02:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: In reality, tax policies that diminish the incentives and capacities of innovators, business owners and investors will not spur economic improvement.

Prove it. You can talk big all you want, but until someone (anyone? Bueller?) actually correlates high taxes with less economic growth, I will see it for the bullshit the claim is. There was a massive tax cut in the early 2000s, what happened there? There was a tax hike in the early 1990s, and what happened in that decade? Tax cuts in the 1980s, and look at that decade. There is no correlation between high taxes and bad economy. If anything the correlation leans the other direction.

I'll give you an example of lower taxes and deregulation causing economic improvement. If you say correlation does not mean causation, then right back at ya on that one.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/record

so now we have Clinton, an example of tax and spend causing job growth and budget surplus, and Garry Johnson, an example of fiscal conservatism causing job growth and a budget surplus. Now we can argue over which way is the best way to get shit done.

At 12/3/12 07:57 PM, Warforger wrote: Something that has been bothering me has been the way people seem to categorize people. For example, there was this man who grew up in a poor black family, he worked hard and went to College and graduated with a Master's degree in Computer Science. He worked for a short time as a ballistics analyst for the Navy and after that went to work for Burger King as a computer analyst. After a while he was tasked for running the Burger King chain in Pennslyvania and attracted alot of attention for his success with Burger King and he was selected by Pillsbury to become a corporate executive and to run a failing Pizza chain.

wait a se

During this time he had also ran a Federal Reserve Bank.

Herman Cain

He has since won many awards and honorary degree's. A couple years ago he also got diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer. Too make a long story short this guy's name is Herman Cain.

this is where I jumped out of my seat and yelled "I'm a smart cookie I know my stuff!"

But wait isn't the media perception of him that he is some TEA party moron who doesn't understand economics? That he's also apparently some shithead who sexually harassed some women? I mean I could go on about Mitt Romney and how we seem to think that he's an elitist shithead who doesn't know what it's like to struggle, but in all of actuality he is actually a pretty decent person who knows what it's like to suffer. But my point is, why do we seem to base our perception of a politician more on his/her gaffe's and failures rather than their actual backgrounds? I mean I thought Cain was just some TEA party idiot before I read his bio and developed respect for the guy, yet his political career died all because he made some 9-9-9 idea and of course he was accused of sexual harassment, despite the fact that his achievements dwarf the shit out of all of that.

well depending on the extent of it then yes it would. My problems with him come from his pro war and pro fed stances though. His conservative views on social issues are also places where me and him would disagree with. Finally the ideas behind his simplistic flat tax system are an admirable goal, I will tell you right now that they won't be accepted everywhere, as there are state's rights issues where his 999 plan would cause new or increased tax rates in certain areas, but more importantly, the rest of his platform wouldn't cut nearly enough spending to pay for it all. While it would be nice for a lot of people to experience a lower tax rate and I too would welcome it myself, what happens when your revenue is less than your spending? debt. If his plan were to have gone through, debt would have sky rocketed which means higher taxes for everyone later, or a worse outcome to a default.

that's my perception of him, I wish more people would put as much effort as I do when I decide to become a judgmental ass, because honestly, there is that view on him, or the greedy business man with no smarts point of view.

At 11/30/12 10:06 PM, Feoric wrote:

We don't have a credit card. We can print our own money.

I hope that's just some form of sarcasm.

one side will cave. This is really a decision of forcing Americans to pay off the credit card that the government is maxing out against their will, and putting even more money on the credit card first. lose lose.

At 11/7/12 03:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
- What is your general view on social policy?

in the eyes of the law and public sector (what there should exist of one), all should be equal.

- regarding religion and he government's role re: religion?

mutual non intervention. no special privileges or hindrances to religious freedom are okay with me.

- reproductive rights?

Your body, your choice, your money. There is also a birth control pill for men, it was repressed by feminazis. not okay with me.

- gay rights?

see religion

What is your general view on fiscal and economic policy?
- regarding economic regulation?

some are needed, others are frivolous, or unjust in the sense that they only serve the landed elite rather than the consumer.

- taxes?

should be kept to an absolute minimum

- globalism?

commerce with all, allegiance to none

- health care?

fast access with low prices is better than free with slow access. Private sector can manage this better.

- education?

same as health care, only with reason that public sector is getting too corrupt on all levels.

- privatization?

I would pretty much recommend this for everything that isn't immediately needed to maintain order. what's left should be phased out if or when possible.

What is your general view on criminal policy?

too much emphasis on punishment vs rehabilitation. Should be about victim compensation first and foremost.

- regarding anti-terrorism efforts?

sacrificing freedom for safety is basically like throwing everyone in jail to prevent crime. Go after guilty individuals.

- drugs?

personal choice, let the users throw their own lives away and seek help on their own, don't destroy their lives for them.

- copyright and patent protection?

Theft and Plagiarism are wrong and should be illegal, Piracy and patents are just government enforced monopolization.

- death penalty?

should be reserved for only the worst crimes. Self defense and public safety should be the only valid excuses for killing, and even then, only due process proves it to be necessary.

What is your view on foreign policy?

see globalism

- Regarding Israel?

their actions are acts of war, and should be treated as such.

- militant Islam?

focus on self defense (not retaliation mind you) and they will leave you alone eventually.

- Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, et al?

don't want to see any of my countrymen killing anyone or getting killed in any of those countries.

What is your view on government's role in general?

Maximize freedom and focus on core responsibilities of defense and law and order.

- what role should personal responsibility have in governance?

Everyone should be held to it, even those who have power, and those who don't.

How would you describe your general political view in one word?

Minarchist

- why?

apart from not liking monopolized authority, full out anarchy implies no laws and there for, no liability. You need liability and laws to stop things like the walled city from happening, or slavery, or in general, make people safe enough to use their freedoms and produce.

- what is your biggest political pet peeve?

red team vs blue team mentality, this is probably the biggest obstacle to independent thought. how it works is summed up by attached picture.

- What current US political party do you most identify with?

Libertarian.

Ononymous, that's the name of a wize man, a man you can trust.

At 11/16/12 07:23 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Secession a media stunt LOL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BACRIcXGg&feature=g-u-u

wonder why the MSM would risk giving everyone the idea that they can Succeed their way out of shit creek, when its main goal is to keep people believing they aren't in it to begin with?

At 11/15/12 01:39 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

I can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying, or if you are just here to provide some comic relief.

its the second part.

eventually we are going to find out if that does them good in the long run or not, maybe they will have to hire more people to compensate? or maybe they are just going to have to back down, because people want pizza and different times of the day and damn it when i want pizza you better be able to delivar.

At 11/15/12 01:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
18 USC 2831

"Whoever; ... is guilty of treason and shall suffer death"

However, I don't think seccession falls under treason. Sounds more like it falls under rebellion or insurrection which does not have the death penalty.

not even, its non violent protest= first amendment.

At 11/11/12 09:43 PM, Feoric wrote: Insane racists file petitions for this kind of shit all the time. This Michael E shithead does not represent those 15 states in question and it's completely meaningless.

as much as I too believe this is just more melodramatic baby boomer gloom and doom, and that people are probably only taking this lightly because they think they are signing another piece of paper that says "FU Obama!", I can't say I wouldn't sign it myself.

I think smaller countries with strong diplomatic ties and similar goals and interests can work together better than one giant nation swollen with inefficiency and Beaurocracy and can't even keep more than 50% of the population anywhere close to content at any given point and time. I say this knowing that Romney would have been no different than Obama either, but that's just another reason eh?

At 11/13/12 08:54 PM, Ministrel wrote: Shouldn't Quran be banned because the book is hatefull?

the irony of restricting free speech summed up in one sentence.

1. Progressive
the idea that more government solves everything

2. Rights
you are born with them, the law defines which ones you get to keep

3. Freedom
the ability to keep all of your rights

4. Equality
to be taken, not given.

5. Political Correctness
what's socially acceptable

6. Partisan / Ideologue
a way to unite people under tyranny

7. Imperialism / Colonialism
take their stuff, make it ours, genius.

8 Socialism / Communism
the idea that if we all commit theft, that makes it okay

9. Regulation / [A] Control
soft words used to justify the unjust monopolization power

10. Tax
soft word for extortion

11. Moderate / Centrist
subjective, changes all the time according to what the public thinks is right

12. Extremism
subjective, changes all the time according to what the public thinks is wrong

13. Racism
unjust use of power against people who are ethnically different

14. Feminism
vague idea, alternates between women are equal, women should be made equal, and women should be treated equal.

15. [The] Economy
flow of goods and capital.

16. War
a series of normally unjustifiable crimes justified by achieving a goal at some one else's expense.

17. Politics / Public Policy
people who get to decide what rights you get to keep/ what rights you currently don't get to keep.

18. Democracy
the idea that if 50%+1 agrees to something that is wrong, it is right.

19. Science
understanding of the world around us

20. Religion
cool stories.

maybe he was having an affair, but something caused him to believe that the media had found out, and panicked in an effort to escape the shit storm.

At 11/10/12 07:05 PM, Profanity wrote: Oh come on, he didn't owe them a free ride. This is America. If they had done their job and got the man elected, they would reap the benefits.

the lack of notice screwed a lot of people over when he terminated a service that he had promised them. No they weren't entitled to them but he shouldn't have gave it to them just to take them away with notice, because that's how stuff like this happens. You don't send your employees on a business trip, promise to pay for their flight tickets, and then suddenly decide you can't afford their passage home so they get stuck in China with no way home.

that is just in really fucking bad taste.

Well now its just up to the federal government to respect state rights on this. Not sure if I trust the Democrats or the Republicans to do that at this point.

well it doesn't effect me so i still don't mind voting for you!

that's what democracy is all about. Majority vote justifies EVERYTHING!

At 11/4/12 01:47 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/3/12 07:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Again, I'd rather have 47,000 deaths and a booming black market for marijuana, than 47,000 deaths and a booming market for child prostitution in the US.

So the only thing stopping the child prostitution market from booming is the fact that Mary Jane is illegal?

Did I miss something?

some how if we reduce the limitations on the supply of marijuana it will magically increase the demand for child prostitution. Not sure who in the right mind would start trying to increase their stock in that area though, because more supply with out increased demand means lower price. in other words, you put more effort into getting more child prostitutes with out increasing your profit margin and there for, LOSE money. The black market is ruled by the same fundamental laws that any other market is ruled by.

At 11/3/12 12:43 PM, JoS wrote: Comparing prohibition on alcohol and its effects on crime are not the same as comparing prohibition and its effects on crime of marihuana. First and foremost, when prohibition on alcohol came into effect, there were tens of millions of people already drinking alcohol legally up until that day, so it's something they were already doing socially or dependent on. None of us were alive when marihuana was legal, so if any of us tried it, it was already illegal.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure because you were telling millions of people to stop doing it. Marihuana prohibition, you are telling people they cant do something, which they try in spite of the ban.

Secondly anyone who thinks making marihuana or any other drug legal will eliminate organized crime from the picture clearly doesn't know much about organized crime. In Canada, despite tobacco being legal, it is estimated that as much as 1/3 of the market is black market tobacco, run by organized crime groups. Strippers are legal in Canada, but a large number of strip clubs across the country are run by organized crime. Prada, Coach and tons of other brands of clothing or other items are totally legal, yet there is a huge counterfeit market. If there is some way for organized crime to make any money off of something they will, and legalized marihuana or other drugs are no different.

ya know what? i agree on ya more or less on every part of that. But I look at it from a perspective of civil liberties. would we have to pretend that it would cure Aids and Cancer to give black people the vote if that were the topic here? Here is what I look at, the use of Marijuana harms no one but the user, so how would throwing public money at this issue to punish these people be any better than throwing people in jail for attempting suicide? sure we fine people for it and put them in counseling but jail? people see that as counter productive because you give them another reason to commit suicide again. Just as throwing some one in Jail for using pot would be unproductive because you give them a reason to stop caring about their life that has already been ruined by the law itself.

People who go to jail get raped, how do people suppress the negative emotions caused by that? they resort to either self medicating (harder drugs) or taking their anger out on other people (violent crime). Now you took a pot head off the street, paid to keep him clothed, sheltered and fed, and what do you have to show for it? you end up with a violent crack head.

Economic warfare is more effective than one would think, but I think it should be considered extremely dishonorable, even more so than biological and chemical. Its a warfare that you can say you are waging with out even declaring war first.

Voluntary economic sanctions are fine in my opinion because they hurt both nations engaged in it, but as soon as you start surrounding a country with military bases and cutting off trade from the rest of the world, you should be forced by international law to declare war on the country you are cutting off, and every country that doesn't want to have any part in it.

I believe some chap here told me that smoking should be banned in all establishments they deemed "public" whether they were private property or not, because smoking is bad for your health. Then told me that shouting would never be treated the same

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227001/Silence-mark et-Fruit-seller-banned-shouting-damage-peoples-health.html

I think some one here has something to look at because I do believe shouting is being treated the same as smoking in this instance.

At 10/31/12 12:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, the right to bear arms was there so we could kill tyrant leaders if the need be.

Owning pot doesn't exactly relate to that.

If you make it illegal to own something when the act of owning alone it is not an infringement of other people's life or free choice, its intolerance at best, and tyranny at worst. Marijuana is an inanimate object, religious symbols are inanimate objects, guns are inanimate objects. "oh but there's a difference" the difference is the excuse, nothing more. Pots a "gate way drug" for irresponsible users, religion is a cause for violence in extremist followers, guns are a tool for murder for bad people. whats the common denominator? bad things that are caused by bad people.

New purposed second amendment: change the word "arms" to "material, inanimate possessions of any kind"

because, why should we only protect our right to own weapons when we can protect our right to own anything that can be lawfully acquired through our own hard work?

a nuclear Iran would make me happy, because I won't have to worry about my nation's debt going through the roof to fight Israel and America's war.

At 10/23/12 11:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Stop using smoking. It's not a good analogy. First off, it's 100% a choice, and one that can be suspended at no cost to anyone. One's family status is only partially a choice, and it cannot be suspended at any moment. You can substitute suspension, with day care and baby sitting, but that costs a good deal of money, an dif on eis lucky enough to have a free baby sitter, it costs a good deal effort.

You disagree with their lifestyle choices and don't want to be effected by them, that's fine because smoking is bad for you. Other people don't wish to be affected by your choice to take your kids with you to earls, that's wrong because noise is an inconvenience that they can live with? I don't give a damn what is bad for me, the only analogy is that both are a personal preference that some other people don't want to have to put up with, and that there should be a place for both groups that can maximize their satisfaction. The child free zones are in fact, an attempt to make everyone happy by allowing parents to take their kids while not annoying the people who would enjoy not having to hear the loud screaming. group A's happy, group B's happy.

The government intervention, yes. You said the government was distating noise. No one ever brought that up. The government is dictating whether a private business has the right to block a consumer based solely on their family status.

actually, I was thinking more in terms of "what if you found yourself on the other end of it, where the government started mandating the exact opposite of what you wanted so that the other side would benefit to your expense?"

I was just at a nice restaraunt with my brother a couple weeks ago, and he was talking well over the background noise. I told him to quiet down at least 10 times. A stubborn adult is just as unlikely to change as a child. So, shouldn't we block all stubborn people? Or better yet, as you want, block all adults?

its one thing if it comes from you, its another if it comes from the owner. An employee's voice can sound a lot more intimidating in the sense that it implies "do as we say or your on the curb." as opposed to "do as I say or I'll say it again."

What if the segment is too small to support a business by itself? Does that mean that the restaraunt that serves them has to be a charity? What if the entire town colludes to block that group? What if the town is too small and there is no other reasonable alternative? The free market IS NOT A SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING. You see a business opportunity where there likely is not one. Also, you cannot copy the restaraunt, that's illegal. So you're advocating the "separate but equal (well, it's not really equal, but it's the best you'll get. Sorry that you're part of the disfavored group. Here's your immitation dinner.)"

what would be the worst that happens? all the minorities that can't get service anywhere else flood to me, my dreams of corporate domination are bogged down to simply having a moderately successful business fueled by strengthened customer loyalty. And if the group is too small for that, well then they move on to an area where they are going to have a better life, because in the dystopia you speak of, their neighbors are going to resent them, their kids will be at risk every day of hate crime, even if the cops in the given area could care enough to do something about it. We don't live in the age of lynch mobs anymore, but even if we did, being able to get service at a restaurant would be the least of their problems. Even segregation isn't socially acceptable anymore and if some one were to try it, the law wouldn't need to stop it because too many people would look at the sign that says "blacks and gays need not enter" and just figure that the guys a jack ass, even though they themselves are neither gay, nor black.

This policy is BOTH underbroad and overbroad. It's underbroad in that in an attempt to control noise it fails, whollistically, to cover other very prominent and common sources of restaraunt noise pollution. It's overbroad in that it covers children who are quiet. My child, a 3 year old, is very quiet. Give him a lego toy, a transformer, or a plate of grapes at the table an he'll be quieter than the adults. Why should he be restricted when my noisy brother is allowed in?

In short, this rule is a poorly written rule just begging for a lawsuit with more zeroes than the restaraunt can handle.

I think quiet 3 year olds are very common, probably common enough so that most places won't ever feel the need to adopt a policy that might come across as "aimed against them." But then try two or more 3 year olds at the same table, or how about babies? Another thing this could lead to is loophole abuse, maybe they could make the kid free zone have things that will allow them to block people under the age of 18 from the area.

At 10/23/12 12:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There's a big difference. It costs ZERO dollars to not smoke during a meal. It costs a good amount of money to go out without one's children. Also, like I said to another, the harm caused by a loud child is trivial AT BEST. The problem with pushing to competition is that it still unfairly burdens a large group of people for the slight benefit of others. Freedom from cigarette smoke is hardly a light benefit, especially for those with health problems.

its a small inconvenience for the benefit of everyone in the end actually, because the people with kids can eat with other people who don't mind kids because they probably have them too, and smokers can eat where they can smoke because the other people there are also smokers, and the business owners get their freedom as well.

WHo said government here?

any issue where the government forces you to or not to give service to a certain group implies government intervention.

Exactly. If noise is the problem, have a noise rule. That way the drunk idiots and the people like my brother who unconsciously have an urge to tell every story to the entire room (by speaking 5 times as load as the background noise) will be stopped as well as the children, because in an adult restaraunt there are way more of those types than screaming babies.

and my best friend habitually swears loudly in public around old people and kids. what happens to those people is that they get told to quiet the hell down. Can't say the same for the babies though, would that work on them?

What are you even talking about? "Oh, well this place don't like black people. Sorry, darkie, adapt." "This place don't like gay people. Sorry, faerie, adapt." "This place doesn't like Latinos. Sorry, wetback, adapt." Your logic? Absolutely.

I would love it if people did that because I would just open up a business right beside them that did the same thing except didn't discriminate and then lol as the people beside me get really mad because my customer base is bigger, my profits are bigger so my prices can get lower and suddenly people would have no incentive to go to them over me. Shooting fish in a barrel. You see inconvenience where investors see opportunity.

At 10/22/12 11:06 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Very poor analogy. Your personal residence has no societal ties whatsoever. Your business does. The restriction of someone to your business put s a strain (however slight) on society by forcing them to go elsewhere, and in some cases great distances, to access a service equivalent to what your business offered. When you block out an entire group of people for illegitimate reasons those slight harms to society aggregate into bigger and bigger harms to society. they can even aggregate to the point of becoming a de facto prohibition for a certain group of people even being able to live economically in a location. The government allowing such acts would be quite similar to the government performing those acts itself.

Your personal residence is no less your property and there for, no less under your authority than your business is. While yes it is kind of an inconvenience if the closest restaurant to you wont let you smoke in it, or on the opposite end, will let other people smoke around you, all it does is push you away to their competition. It's the same with other issues like the screaming brat one in this thread. Truth is we don't really need to get the government involved because the businesses that will be better off will be the one that can offer accommodation to as many people as they can. With issues like the smoking and the kids though, the government seems to ensure that only one group will get convenient service while the other will absolutely not. We used to allow a compromise with "sections" so that every place had to work for both, but then one side gets greedy, lets say maybe noise from children can travel the same way small amounts of second hand can travel to the other side. What that causes is for the complainers to call for the government to ban the other side outright. Thing with referendums is, when called into issues like this, they don't display all of the options and it becomes a contest of majority vote, which team gets their way and which team gets to have their rights violated.

The issue here is not, has never been, and never will be, whether it is wrong to prohibit business from illegitimate discrimination, rather the issue is whather the discrimination the business is undertaking is legitimate or not. As I pointed out before, the restriction of children does not trigger age discrimination as children are not adults. Until they are adults they are considered part of their partents' unit for many types of discrimination. The discrimination that would be triggered here is family discrimination, a much less protected status. Family discrimination is strongly protected in housing, but outside of that it renders few protections. A restauraunt attempting to keep out children for noise purposes may be OK as family status discrimination isn't as protected (if protected at all) in the consumer sector.

when your life changes, so will your lifestyle. having kids is seen as a necessity to most people but the reality is that it is a personal choice no matter how much social and instinctive pressure there is behind it. But businesses should be free to cater to either or both as they choose to with out coercion from above. Both sides can be made moderately happy so long as there is demand from both of those sides to warrant both kid friendly and kid-free facilities. Whether it is fair or not when looking at the behavior of one place isn't thinking with a wide enough range.

Now, I would have to say that the restaurants that do this are paying their attorneys too much, as they are still opening themselves up to lawsuits and major PR problems. If noise was the true issue, they could EASILY make a noise policy. They could also just make the restaurant a bar and keep out all younger than 21. What the restaurant is doing is choosing to take the long way from point A to point B at 150 miles and hour through school zones, when they could (with less effort) take the shorter expressway at the speed limit and get there at the same time.

I think that the only noise violations that the government should have any power over are the ones where the noise goes from one property and starts to effect others. Any internal noise issues that one place might have can be best solved by the owner. When we use their services we inherently agree to the terms of their service. If the ruling Beuracracy is simplified so that this balance is maintained appropriately, then no one would be able to force another person to do anything with out their say so, and businesses would be left to serve the needs of the people in their area more appropriately than any regional mandate run by the whims of people with very different needs ever could. All we need to do is accept that while businesses will try to adjust to suit your needs to the best of their abilities, some times the customer must also adapt and know how to best serve themselves.

the rights of the children and their parents do not over-rule the rights of the owner of what ever property they decide to visit. how would they like it if the government started getting involved in their own households making sure they were politically correct about the guests they let in and how they treat their guests. oh yea, and no more smoking in your own house anymore, its a public place now.