Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

oooooooooooh cheese atronach.. that would be wicked cool! Would be a good challenge for my character... finally something... getting tired of walking through the oblivion levels... seriouly I think my last challenge is to wipe the world clean of all sentient beings..

you said the car you drew took four hours... so... was just complimenting you on time well spent...

good thinking..... gooooooood thinking

Dude, BizarroJoe those are AWESOME! Lookin very good!

Here's mine.. a little post St Patti's day hero-ism, even made him a logo

it could be infinitely worse.. you could be a mac owner and pay even more for parts AND have less games...

At 4/2/08 07:54 PM, kenshi2 wrote: Oh lawds.

when the hell does that happen? I'm just running around trying to finish all the side quests before finishing off the big bad guy main quest (which I am prepared to be let down by...somebody out there tell me it's a good ending)

I want rocks to fall from the sky and over run a city! DAMN IT! Course once I finish the main quest I've decided with this character to see how many people I can kill before the guards just overwhelm me. I've got pretty nifty stats for a warrior... bummed I won't ever have enough magic to use the finger of the mountain spell.. it sounds awesome! Anyone use it?

you guys serious? the world ISN'T going to end? But I bought duck waders and everything!

However the pole shift thing is interesting to me. I've seen a bunch of shows on the various science channels talk about it and the scientific guesses are fairly different depending upon who you talk to. Like I saw on a Discovery Channel show a physicist say the poles might shift "drastically" from where they are but still remain in their "hemispheres" while someone on TLC or the History (can't remember the other one) said it is likely, based on past evidence, that the poles would reverse. Which is infinitely cooler to me. So where I am geographically (north Georgia) I would instantly be living in a place like south Florida or northern Mexico... hopefully this area instantly transforms into a resort community so I can get drinks on the beach with those goofy umbrellas in them...

Have to agree, though it hasn't happened yet (that I know of at least), the Super Delegate system opens up opportunities for any number of corruptions to happen in a tight race. What's funny is that people have been hand picked to enter office multiple times before so it wouldn't exactly be anything new. The good thing about the Super Delegates is that it is only in one party and the winner of that party still has to compete in a "general" election, so there is that safety net. We'll get a good test of it this year that's for sure.

I LOVE Scientology!Hate to say it but it rocks! I would of course never be one or remotely believe the crap they do but seriously is there any better pick up than going and loading up that awesome Tom Cruise video?

It's better than watching the latest Spears break downs!

No? no?

The writing is pretty good, read a few of them and they made me chuckle. I agree though the art is a little weak and doesn't drive the story too well. The character concepts are good too but they just need some more time invested in them.

keep it up.

totally in on this one...! some of these are really nice!

and the hours of slaving away slave show.. BRILLIANT!

Well I'll get involved in this thread too.. in the flattax thread Elfer did a basic break down of the Canadian flat sales tax which seems similar to what is proposed here, though maybe not exactly, and it sounds fairly sound. In the Canadian (and Elfer correct me if I misrepresent) they only tax "luxury" items which doesn't include "grocery store" foods (though I'm the sure the breakdown is a little more complicated), clothing, housing etc... all the essentials but they do tax non-essential items such as cars, ipods, games, music etc...

Now it seems that's a fairly good way to go about it. (though I'm sure as I think about it I'll find someone that gets screwed that is not rich) Is that the same premise as the Fairtax? If so it seems pretty cool. However if things like food, shelter etc are taxed then yeah that totally screws the poor. As for the point about when you spend your savings it gets taxed again. Well sure it does when you spend it on "luxury" items but then again it gets taxed again in the US anyway in most states, we do have a slaes tax. My general income gets taxed as income then when I go to spend it it gets taxed again with a sales tax associated with what I'm buying. So transitioning to a new system that eliminates one of those seems ok.

So does it tax essentials the same as non-essentials? (I guess is my question)

At 3/12/08 08:11 PM, Elfer wrote:

A federal sales tax has worked out pretty well here in Canada.

cool....explain it to me (I've never fully understood why people are so in love with a flat tax or a flat sales tax and always figured I was missing some key info that turns the light on type of thing)

So I'm interested.

Ok... here's my two cents on a flat tax and a flat sales tax

A flat tax, based on what I know and anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is that it levies a single rate against everyone no matter what their income with the thinking that everyone pays an equal share compared to their income. Which on one hand is a really good thing if you make a ton of money 25% sent to the government is relatively larger than someone who mkaes little money. So, in essence the government gets more money from people who have more. Here's what I see as a problem with it.. let me set up some fictitious $$ amounts to play with.

Let's say a poor person makes $120 a year and has rent and bills of $10 a month and an average rich person makes $10,000 a year and pays $500 a month in bills. ( my thinking there is the less money you make the more goes towards necessities ) so if we take 25% of the those the poor person is then left with $90 that year leaving them 3 months short for a full year of living and the rich person is left with $7500 dollars which covers them for the year and leaves money left over for savings and increasing wealth.
( that is how it works right? )

So essentially the divide between the two most distnce classes gets bigger.

As for a Flat Sales tax, again, based on what I know, that is just a bunch of crazy talk. Simply because all that would do is make the gap get wider even quicker. (if there's no income tax) If you think about it with the above numbers who is impacted greater by that kind of system? The guy making $120 of course...

no?

At 3/12/08 08:26 AM, ThePretenders wrote:

But, what prosecuters are wondering now is, how he paid for this transaction and if it wasn't from some government slush fund.

See that's where I have a problem with it. I don't care if a public official hires a prostitute, gets an intern to speak into the mic under the desk, or anything like that ( and wouldn't care if a woman did it either ) HOWEVER if you get it paid for by funders and/or tax payers... pay for youer own of the clock fun damn it.

Here's what I find funny (as for how "bad" it is... well aside from the fact that hiring a prostitute outside of Nevada state sanctioned establishments is well...illegal - if he did it the Clinton way it would have been perfectly legal - I don't think this kind of thing impacts someone's stance or productivity in office, never has never will)...anyway.. the hilarious thing is about a month ago he was on The Daily Show and declared that his Super Delegate vote was going to Hillary no ifs and or buts. She had the same moral fiber as he did and he liked what she did for him and the state of NY. I'm just thinking, not that I'm pro or anti-clinton, that JESUS MAN KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS FOR LIKE 3 MORE MONTHS! (And yes that should be screamed at him by someone)

However, it brings up an odd question I never thought I would ask, let alone think. Does this mean, since he had already pledged his delegate ticket to Clinton that whoever replaces him does the same, votes their own way OR (my personal favorite) Obama should break out a super delegate of his own with some sort of stupidly mistimed sex scandal? Maybe Eleanor Holmes Norton you know... gettin jiggy wit it.

hehehe

At 3/5/08 11:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

There is none. I just assume that over time there will be a thinning of the uglies and defective if we change our ways.

HOGWASH! I refuse to believe it. Perhaps as an addendum or earmark to your proposal we also allocate a healthy dose of financial backing to various alcohol providers to research and produce replacement beverages, maintaining current flavor and general effects, with on small change... some sort of additive that would then make people appear "uglier" the more of the liquid is in your system?

I mean come on we live in the 21st century... science HAS to be able to produce such an effect. WE CAN CLONE SHEEP FOR CHRIST SAKE!

sorry to post back to back (damned inability to edit!) but there also is the HUGE problem..and I mean HUGE!

How do you keep uglies from bumpin uglies? That temptation would undoubtedly arise how would you keep the ugly peoples of the world standing on opposite sides of the gym? You know like in every 80s movie that involved a dance of somekind?

At 3/1/08 04:48 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

What are you going to do about drinking?
I know for a fact, girls get better looking when your horny & drunk ! ! !
You'll do stuff drunk that you probably would think twice about sober, I know I have & so have my friends.

There is that point pox! I mean I've had friends that are female and very attractive...some I got some I did not...but I've been out with all of them...watched them get drunk and go home with some total goober, I mean like two pens short of a full pocket protector goober. What s your plan to combat that? I see your reasoning, and it is truly sound. But there are some gaps to fill in. I mean like wide smell of the ocean gaps here. the most damaging being the "get the girl drunk" strategy.. would that then be illegal in this utopian society of which you speak?

Also what about addressing the ugly chick factor? Wouldl we just give them all "Maroon 5" tickets then accidentally lean on the C4 detonation plunger? how do we handle that aspect of it all?

Many things to consider here

Yeah the whole Super Delegate thing in the Dem Primary irks me to no end. Posted a littlre more about is in the Electoral thread but this is a good scenario to see how well the "super" delegates work or not.

It's a tight race in the Democratic party most certainly. The Super delegates will be deciding once they cast their final vote...

I actually blogged about this a little while ago. The electoral college is an interesting entity in American Politics. Whether it's in the party primaries (both parties have different, in my opinion flawed, ways of managing the electoral votes) or in the presidential election. The reasn it was created, which I think was the original question, was mainly due to the educational level of the voters. Back in the 18th century the vast majority of the people were uninformed and uneducated. Whether you think people today are morons or not doesn't change the fact that if you take your average person (and their knowledge of what's going on n politics/economy/etc...) and put them next to the average person from the 18th century you have a much mroe informed citizen. the electoral college was created (and yes electors can vote however they please, though in general they don't and vote how theyir respective state dictates) to counter the lack of information an every day citizen/voter posessed.

Now the primaries have two basic systems. The Republican party essentially has a system where the winner of the state gets the electoral votes (there are some variations but for the most part). So if a winner wins 80% of the state they get all the votes...if they win 51% of the state they get all the vote. For me if a candidate gets 48% of the vote then the electors should reflect that, same with 20%. I think that holds true no matter who is running. If David Duke (renowned racist who ran a few elections ago) somehow managed to get 20% of a states vote I believe he should get 20% of the electors (or something close...and then I would be concerned about whatever state that is) Now...this is basically how the Democratic primary works.

On the Democrats side each state (again for the most part) gives some percentage of electors equivalent to the popular vote. However they too have a flaw (in my opinion a bigger one) in that they have Super Delegates who can vote, as main electors can, for whomever they want. And this year it would appear very well might cast the deciding vote.

Here's my problem with the Electoral college (and the Super Delegates with the democratic party) it puts the power into a significantly smaller group of people's hands. I'm not sure what the electoral college voting number is but just for arguments sake let's say it's 1000 people. Now, if I were a "power hungry" politician, which would be easier for me to sway? The billion+ people who populate the country or 1000 politicians? A good example is the Governeor of New York, who is a Super Delegate and went on national television (albeit cable) and stated a month ago that his super delegate vote was going to Clinton...no matter what. the state of New York went her way of course but even if it didn't his mind was made up for who his vote was to be cast.

As for the states getting equl treatment I can get into my opinion on that one if anyone wants to hear it.

It is an interesting debate though. On one hand the popular vote can easily be circumvented using the electoral college however in the case of say 2000 where Gore won a greater % of the popular vote but no one broke the 50% mark (I would have a much greater issue if Gore had won say even just 50.5% of the popular vote and the electoral college went to Bush but he didn't) the electoral college plays a role. It's an interesting dilemma

alrighty here's my contribution to the dragon thread..the guy is all sorts of mess up bt I like the way the dragon turned out

At 2/28/08 10:57 PM, TheTwistedOne wrote: Why can't we all be the same?

That's the solution! Twisted you're BRILLIANT! What about a Government Mandated Interacial couple law until the entire species becomes homogonized color wise! I love it! Let's make that happen...

hehehe

At 2/27/08 10:01 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Before video games, it was television, and before that, it was rock music, and before that, movies.

Seeing a pattern?

Actually yes...but a different one than you might want me to see. I have to say yep...all those things I think are leading to younger and younger homicidal crimes. Television, movies, (well...ok... not rock music so much except maybe in rebellious british punkers from the early 80s and that was mostly punk on punk crime so no real foul there... hehehe)

However! It has nothing to do with any of those things. I know, confusing isn't it? Well here's my logic and feel free to contradict. It all comes down to "parenting" and the lack there of. I grew up with knobs on my television as a kid and there was one of them in the living room. I got to watch TV occasionally on my own or when the 'rents were with me. If I wanted to hang out with my friends we were forced to do something. There were lots of times we would want to watch Kung-Fu sundays (which if you don't know about you missed a brilliant time of Sunday morning television..) but noooooo if we wanted to play we would have to go get some legos, get some army men or GI Joes...or (heaven forbid) go outside. All those things you mentioend are now used as a baby sitter which just allows kids to absorb all sorts of ways to do "destructive" things. If we wanted to cause havoc when I was a kid dag nab it we had to make stuff up and I think without a preconceived notion there was only so much pain kids are willing to inflict on one another.

So again, yes. I think video games, television and movies all have increased the level of violence and the perception of violence amongst th yutes but it's not the video games fault.

At 2/28/08 10:30 AM, hellsorb wrote: Miss Black sheep

cute yet deadly!

hehehe

awesome!

dante: hehehe thanks.. was actually channeling my visorless Snake (GI joe..does he even still exist?)

and ace: was thinking of having a foot or hand or something poking out... barrel armor would be cool though...or naked ninja wearing the barrel wtih straps! hehehehe I'll have to work on that one

My Ninja in a barrel... need to work on it some more but I like the comical look of it right now

At 2/21/08 01:15 AM, Stoicish wrote: Let me put it simply this way and I'm surprise no one even mentioned it.

This may seem like pro-American ranting, but its not. The one inharent flaw in communism is freedom.

Actually I would argue the inherent flaw with Communism is power. (and of course the corruption of that power) for any ruling body to work there has to be a power difference whether it's in ademocratic system as in the US or in ancient Egypt with an imperialist society. In order for government to rule it must hold a position of power within the system otherwise any Joe off the street could tell people what to do causing chaos.

Now why Communism can't possibly exist successfully in the current world is because the meer concept of it (and it is the closest political theory to Utopia...that was what drove it to be created in the first place) is in direct conflict of the natural power struggle that occurs in nature. If as a system it needs to go through an amount of Totalitarianism then it is ultimately doomed because in order for Totalitarianism to work some one or some group of ones have to have the ultimate power, the boom stick if you will. And people do not give up power....EVER! That's why they say power corrupts... absolute power corrupts absolutely.