Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

would support Obama just to spite the GOP for absolutely not having it's shit straight by any standards, but would rather support the 3rd party.

some of it is a bunch of bs but there was a recent article in the newspaper where a chinese herb that was used to treat arthritis (not sure if it worked for that) was experimented with pancreatic cancer cells in mice, and it killed the cancerous cells while leaving the healthy cells alone. eventually the mice were cured. They are going to test that out on humans next. if it works, then the minds behind this will have just cured one of the most deadly types of cancer anyone could contract with one of the lowest survival rates.

the third parties need to be there to challenge the two front runners directly some how. they can challenge each other all they want but that's not going to get anywhere unless they are actually given a chance to compete on the main stage. I don't care if they win or lose, I just want to see them on stage where they belong against the two cartoon character archetype parties.

the cost of living.

The entire point of a police state is that you are always being watched through secret police, surveillance, phone tapping and everyone's movements being tracked in some way. Any time anyone gets that sort of power it ends in disaster. It sounds to me like this is another "Communism only killed over 100 million people, lets give it another try" sort of thing...

Its a great step in the right direction but gold standard wasn't perfect either. As long as the government doesn't do anything irresponsible with it like American history demonstrated it should put Libyans in a position of advantage. I read up on the panic of 1900 and a bunch of other "panic of 18XXs" and saw that most of them were caused because the government started buying more gold and/or silver. What I found even funnier is that there were pro silver and pro gold candidates who would swap power as a result in these. "gold failed? lets try the same thing with silver, silver failed? lets try gold again", and so on.

I wish them luck, but maybe we just have to go back to something old before we try something new, like competing currencies?

At 10/5/12 01:35 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: sounds like something some right wing tea party nut.

of course, its always your opposition that makes claims you don't agree with. Then some one from the right will say its just some OWS punks causing trouble.

but most libertarians are just Atheist conservatives.

makes no damn sense to me.

At 10/2/12 09:59 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 10/2/12 09:22 PM, TNT wrote: My response.

Ironically, these SOPA copycats are becoming quite chaotic.

I think the goal is to push as many of these as possible until one gets through, just like WW1. there we go, lets call it "Trench Warfare Legislature" but seriously how many have to be shot down before a constitutional amendment shows up to put an end to this?

At 10/2/12 03:54 PM, science-is-fun wrote: Why not make ganja muffins, smoking it is dumb and gives you lung cancer?

I know there is this obscure chemical in cannabis which supposedly suppresses tumor growth or something, but the risk increase of smoking cannabis or just breathing in smoke in general is definitely astronomical compared to the risk reduction of this chemical.

Also cannabis should still be treated like alcohol, it impairs your ability to function and excessive use can have long terms effects in adults or permanently change the way the brain develops in adolescents.

The vaporizer is another way because it doesn't produce smoke, and it uses 90 something percent of the THC in the drug as opposed to less than 10 percent from a joint so its both way more clean and efficient. but were talking about Industrial hemp in this thread...

At 10/1/12 10:33 PM, CrazyKat wrote:
If pot smokers spent even a fraction of the time designing weed that was not illegal according to its chemical makeup we wouldn't be having this conversation. Most other drugs with far less widespread use have a legal, designer alternative with the exception of marijuana. That's what you get from pot smokers, lots of talk and little action. Otherwise this ought to be a simple problem with a simple solution.

Industrial hemp isn't made to get you high, nor can it. it is made to make money, like you know, BE PRODUCTIVE. Not all of it can be passed off as "hippy culture bs" either, there will be people out there who will create jobs with the savings that these products will generate. Yacht rope too expensive, use hemp rope, its stronger and cheaper. Plastic prices rising with the price of oil, use hemp plastic. There is even Hempcrete.

I know a common argument against this is that "but Iron-Hempster, you only want marijuana to be legal so that you can smoke it with out consequence." I'll admit to that. I do want Marijuana to be legal so I can make my own personal decision with out other people harassing me unlawfully.

But then there is Industrial hemp. It is where all the other uses come from. it has a very low THC content and is pretty much impossible to get high off of. While clothing made from this is not comfortable, it is incredibly cheap, and durable, perfect for people who are having a hard time getting by. In this current economy, there are lots of those people out there. I for one would also be using it not because I'm having a hard time paying the bills, but because as a welder, I destroy a lot of pants, and would like a cheaper alternative that lasts longer to wreck all the time. Then finally, because it makes paper, it means you don't have to cut down trees to produce paper anymore. That means either: A, you save trees, or B: you get to export more lumber. Win win.

So tell me, why shouldn't this be allowed? It is not a drug, and it is a massive economic opportunity that can't be underestimated.

At 9/14/12 09:25 PM, hateyou1 wrote:

At 9/14/12 08:36 PM, The-Great-One wrote:

At 9/14/12 06:10 PM, hateyou1 wrote: Look at it this way people. You're not voting for Romney because he's the next Reagan. You're voting for him to get Obama out of office.

I know this is a troll post, but that is exactly why a lot of Republicans are voting for Romney. It's not that they like him, it's that they want Obama out of office.

So wouldn't that be a good reason to vote for Romeny than? I mean, who's stupid enough to re-elect a president who has proven to everyone that he is a failure? Besides, he said himself that if he doesn't fix the economy, he would retire. Well, that's just another broken promise, now isn't it.

No offense, but you would have to be pretty stupid to support Obama again. Tell me how the economy has improved with him in office? It hasn't. So just vote for Romney and get Obummer out.

the problem with that is that you aren't thinking out side the box. the only message that you are sending by continuing to vote for the two major parties is that no matter how bad you are, you will get my vote if you manage to be the lesser of two evils. The next problem that results from that, every election becomes worse than the last.

I would only do strategic voting for congress, and only to "fire" them, as in, get all of these old bought out bastards out of there.

At 9/13/12 09:10 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Well that's politics for you. If you can change the subject and bring the person along with you then you can look right in different eyes. I'm just going along with it for right now, because hey our political system in the United States is fucked no matter how you look at it. Can we fix it? Yes, but not right now because American Idol is on.

maybe I just have a bug up my ass because any jack ass with spare time could have gotten enough information to know that of all the republican candidates Romney may have seemed the least scary (except huntsman but he is in the wrong party) but his credibility was so terrible that pretty much every single one of his opponents would have been a better nomination, yes even Bachman and Santorum.

wow and I thought this would be a topic about how Romney totally stole the primaries with empty promises and then ditched the most important one only after he won and it was too late to choose a different runner.

almost got away with it too.

At 9/12/12 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

There are two things I don't like about Romney.

1 - He doesn't understand the people. From culture to finances, he might as well be Greek.
2 - His campaign has created 2 dramatically different Romneys, and that major uncertainty is quite disturbing. Will he be governor Romney or campaign promise Romney, or something completely different?

reminded me of this

I hope you are all sitting down, this information has hit me like a ton of bricks and for your safety you should assume a position where you have no where to fall. keep your medication close at hand, because for many of you, this will be so unbelievably shocking that the idea of it has always been defensively dismissed by your mind instinctively for your safety.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/09/romney-fleshes-ou t-health-care-plan/

Romney is not going to repel Obamacare.

Swastika, how cute. those mongoloids think their white.

how well do you think they are going to get along with the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans with that party in charge though? Their basically cutting themselves off from the rest of the world and shooting themselves in the foot.

At 9/7/12 01:44 AM, wwwyzzerdd wrote:

At 9/6/12 08:00 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: well since taxation is theft, how about we keep the theft to a minimum?

Public education is theft.

Driving on paved roads and freeways is freeloading.

Interacting with other people on partially subsidized internet is pillaging.

Living in peace and security because of an impressive military is being a pinko-commie bastard.

Being able to work in a healthy economic zone with all the opportunities and security that America has so that you can earn currency that's issued by the government and backed by their full faith and credit rather than your own pitiful financial reputation in comparison is... Fuck it, obviously you can only comprehend and respond to ideas the size of a bumper sticker. FREEDOM AIN'T FREE!

"freedom ain't free" meant that in a free society, you still had to work for a living because no one else is going to do it for you. now I'll respond to the ideas that aren't bumper stickers.

public education works great until education inflation starts to kick in and suddenly it is no longer enough to land you a job, then you slowly need more and more years of post secondary just to get your foot in the door as a janitor. Like anything that inflates, it eventually becomes worthless, and so every employer who can offer an entry level job will unanimously decide "I need you to have work experience before I can offer you this job that is clearly supposed to be for young workers like you who are trying to get experience". Not even getting a student loan to put yourself ahead in terms of education will get you out of that one these days, they will just treat you the same and now you have debt.

roads, oh dear god roads, a free market society will never have roads! lol but seriously, transportation was provided all the time in the earlier centuries, you could say that when the government started paving roads, it only encouraged mis-allocations of resources. What happened when rail road over speculation happened, it caused the panic of 1873 and 1893. You could say an even bigger monster is approaching us with the suburbs and peak oil.

subsidised Internet, well that just means you are taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people who own these Internet companies and making it harder for competition to show up, which creates a dependency for these subsidies, assuming the company is keeping it's word and using them to lower prices or hire more people. really, competition is a much better way to ensure lower prices.

and finally, for the military, if we had a minarchy that only focused on law and order and defence, taxes would be minuscule, as well as if we used the military for defence, and not to fight unprovoked wars.

and then you said something about government issued money, well that isn't turning out so great either, it's what leads to over speculation which then causes a boom and bust cycle. This is because money is always issued to banks first. aw yea, devaluing all of our savings to the benefit of the rich, notice a pattern?

At 9/6/12 09:30 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 9/6/12 08:00 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
well since taxation is theft, how about we keep the theft to a minimum?

Then we will have to have a small military and cut back on any thing else expensive that the government spends money on.

pretty much. most of the weaponry these days is seriously fucking over priced anyway, and with the end of cheap oil, I wouldn't be surprised if our most advanced technology suddenly became obsolete. An Abram's tank is great, but it guzzles fuel way to fucking fast, eventually it's use will be unjustifiably inefficient.

At 9/6/12 08:01 PM, pirateplatypus wrote:

At 9/6/12 07:51 PM, HiryuGouki wrote: Tell ya what, when it comes to the election this year, I am voting for the guy who DOESN'T have a foreign bank account to evade taxes.

Candidates like that still exist?

why yes in fact they do

here's a shocker: they aren't democrats!

At 9/6/12 12:43 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: How about a reasonable middle ground?

well since taxation is theft, how about we keep the theft to a minimum?

At 9/6/12 07:37 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:
Good one, and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps, we should try raising taxes for the rich and wealthy. Somehow, Clinton was able to balance the budget by doing it, I personally don't see any reason for that plan to fail.

when Clinton did it, the economy was a lot better, and the spending was also a lot lower. Now we have2 wars being fought, and another war on the way (and trust me, Obama isn't going to try and stop it.) as well the debt wasn't nearly as high which means the interest was much lower.

At 9/4/12 03:17 PM, Brae wrote: Are you absolutely certain that the filthy rich fat cats hoarde huge piles of money, just to have it, in a big money vault they can swim in like Scrooge McDuck? And even though the money is useless to them and is far more than they can spend in a year, they're greedy bastards who just like big numbers, so they refuse to spend the money growing their business and hiring poor people because they want to add a few mil to their net worth? Because growing your business and hiring people is really easy--all you have to do is spend money instead of hoarding it--and there aren't any other important factors involved? Evil rich people are just greedy and won't spend the money hiring people?

he didn't say that he said there is no demand for them to expand their business and there for no reason to. doing so would put them at a disadvantage to their competitors and would eventually force them to cut back to stay competitive anyway. The result of that would be bad because they would end up with less than they started off with forcing more people to be laid off than the amount of temporary jobs created. that's called a boom and bust, if everyone did it, that would mean double dip recession.

realistically, the economy will never recover under any administration that refuses to fix the fed.

the one thing that pisses me off about this argument is one thing:

if every single pro life and pro choice person who had it in them to get up and go to their little rallies instead got together and opened up shelters and offered some assistance to all the single mothers who chose not to get abortions, then more women would choose not to get abortions knowing that there are people kind enough to help them.

but no, it is easier to just let them kill their baby off, and it is easier to just grab a shock image off the Internet and start screaming at people as they walk in and out of planned parenthood. heads up, if you do either of these, you aren't making an impact.

Allowing abortion is the same as allowing your political opponents to willingly kill themselves and their children off

I considered this the punch line of your post

well that should be up to the league. if they do or don't want to allow it, it's their business.

At 8/22/12 11:23 PM, Warforger wrote:

Why would we use the Founder's idea's on military? I mean there's multiple reasons to disregard certain intentions of the Founders because they lived in a different society and they themselves did not agree on how to interpret the Constitution.

their arguments were attempts to minimize loopholes and challenge ideas to make sure the constitution would maximize freedom and have as little room to wise ass your way around. Their ideas on the military, limiting tax terms, was to prevent the runaway income tax we have today. before WW1 there was no income tax, and for both Canada and USA, income tax was supposed to expire after the war. it didn't, it is still freaking here, and has gotten a lot higher since it's time.

so you can modernize that section for sure, but damn it they had good reason to have something like it.

At 8/20/12 01:00 PM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
I commend your defense of the ideology; however, this does not change the actuality of the policies invoked by those who will likely be in power.

Those who espouse your viewpoint are on the unelectable edge of your ideology, i.e. Ron Paul. As commendable as this stance may be, these policies are destined to go the way of Confucius and Machiavelli -- unheeded in their own day.

I am dealing with actuality, not debating ideology. The Republican candidate who will either be elected or not come the 2012 ballot does NOT subscribe to your ideology; indeed, he makes concessions for the power brokers who have always been in power, the financial and natural resource elite. There is no mistaking this is either his nor his Vice-Presidential pick's history or current rhetoric.

I wouldn't doubt that for a second, i kept up with the primaries from the start and know that Mitt Romney has no real principles and that Paul Ryan is a Christian republican who pretends to like Ayn Rand and Rage against the machine, at least 3 different contradictions in one. But the Democratic ballot really is no different in policy or ridiculousness. Voting one or the other will never break this self destructive cycle, that's why I choose not to conform.