Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/7/11 04:49 AM, Sense-Offender wrote: I was also looking for the ringtone in Dead Rising when Otis calls you, but I couldn't find it.

Is that just so you can say:

"Fuck you, Otis, I'm fucking busy being eviscerated by a clown... I don't have any goddamn time to chat."

At 12/6/11 10:02 PM, TheMason wrote: At this point I think the Obama team is probably looking at doing all they can to ensure an Electoral College victory as a hedge against loosing the popular vote. (Ironic, don't you think?)

Indeed. And it's hard to say yet what Obama's re-election campaign will focus on since the repubs haven't even chosen a candidate yet. But the shocker to me is that Obama and the dems have practically handed the Repubs the easiest win in DECADES and they seem absolutely determined to fuck the dog every way it can be fucked.

Herman Cain was woefully unqualified to be president. The joke, however, is that he knew it all along. He had to know the scandals would break, he just had to get enough national attention to bolster his book sales and make him a known name to take on the commentator circuit, give speeches, and be a pundit for the Repubs on Fox. I think he got exactly what he was looking for, he accomplished exactly the goals he set out to meet, and we're all the suckers for paying enough attention to him to allow it.

At 11/17/11 05:45 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/3/11 05:13 PM, Ravariel wrote: and the success of the Arab Spring.

That's an interesting way to describe it.

Say what you will about how it might end, but for now, the people of Egypt and Lybia are deciding their own direction. Whether or not we like that direction... well it's not up to us, is it?

Obama's polling at about 47% favorable right now, and is beating all of the republicans in the primary race by 16% or more in head-to-head matchups.

Say what now

That's from 2 months ago. I actually can't find the poll where I got my numbers, which make me suspect something was off about them. However, let us take the most recent Gallup Polls:

Against a generic Republican opponent, for the last two months Obama has been losing by 8 points. This month he has pulled even.

Against individual opponents, he is tied only with Romney (I consider anything less than 3 points a tie, and Obama leads by 1.8 on average), and beats the rest of the field by 8 points or more (Except for Paul, whom he only leads by 6).

For those of you who have lived under an internet-capable rock for the last week, a former assistant coach at Penn State, Jerry Sandusky, has been arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting at least 8 young boys. The Athletic Director and Financial Manager have also been arrested for failure to report the crime. Joe Paterno and the University President have been fired over the scandal, though neither appear to be facing criminal charges.

McQueary, an assistant coach who, in 2002 said he witnessed one of the assaults, but only ever reported it to Paterno and the AD (read: left the boy to his fate with Sandusky and didn't call the cops) remains on the coaching staff and will likely be on the field against Nebraska this Saturday. To make matters worse, students at Penn State rioted after they learned of Paterno's firing.

As much as the crime itself sickens me (and I hope that, if Sandusky is proven guilty, he will face the heaviest punishment allowed by law), the reaction of the students and media may make me even more uneasy. The Students rioting shows that they are more concerned with a hometown hero's job, than his complicity in the raping of several boys (allegedly). And some media outlets have been calling this a "sex abuse scandal," as if a child could consent to sex and it just got a little out of hand. This is a "Child Raping Scandal."

What does it say about our society that events like this are rioted against by students, and downplayed by some media outlets. Seen in conjunction with Herman Cain's sturdy poll numbers in the midst of a series of more-and-more believable charges of sexual harrassment (where crowds boo when he is questioned about it and cheer when he blames it on some media bias). These same crowds cheer letting the uninsured die and boo a soldier.

Seriously... what the fuck?

At 11/10/11 05:34 PM, Korriken wrote:
Fry her.

Personally, I think that lets her off too easy. Let her rot in a jail cell for the next 50 years and wallow in the knowledge that she murdered her own children. Kid killers have a rough time of it in prison, and I say: good.

Anyway, back on topic. Since there has been some movement in the race so far, it seems a good time to re-visit the question first posed by Mason.

What are Obama's chances?

He still hasn't shaken the weak leader persona tirelessly crafted by the Congressional republicans (and himself, to be fair). His approval numbers are still significantly below 50%.

But. His poll numbers are rising, and rather steadily. He got obvious bumps from Bin Laden and Gaddhafi's deaths, the announced withdrawal from Iraq, and the success of the Arab Spring. OWS has been a boon to Obama, who has been canny enough to not try to co-opt the movement like the GOP did with the Tea Party, but rather trying to campaign on the issues that OWS has brought forth. OWS still coould be a backfire, though, if the trend towards more violence continues.

Obama's polling at about 47% favorable right now, and is beating all of the republicans in the primary race by 16% or more in head-to-head matchups. His rise has been gradual enough to avoid bubble-bursting due to flagging interest in international matters. Also, he is beginning the part of the whole shebang at which he is best: campaigning.

His opponents face some serious challenges if they truly want to unseat him. Romney has issues with the base which make a primary win for him difficult, even though he would have (aside from Huntsman, whose base issues are even larger, and who also doesn't have the infrastructure to compete with an establishment icon like Romney) the best chance of beating Obama in the general. Cain's bubble is about to burst, and the Tea Party is looking like they're going to try out Gingrich next.

While overall Democrat approval sits about equal to Obama's at 47%, GOP approval is at about 40% and falling. It seems like the GOP, after having been set up for the easy win in '12 may be on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Woo, Go Blue!

Also, I can't get enough of this video:

http://youtu.be/uZtCZOiZ-cg

reference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ6zr6kCP j8&ob=av2e

</bandnerd>

And that Sharia Law and democracy are not mutually exclusive. Also, remember the fellow whose name I forget, only said that Sharia law would be the basis of their new system. Much of our legal system is based on Judaic and Christian law, much of which (see: most of leviticus and numbers) seem barbaric to us. Also, baby steps. We shouldn't expect any of the arab spring nations to shift immediately to some Star Trek Utopian democracy in one swell foop.

At 10/4/11 10:22 AM, Famas wrote: You know, there is an experimental surgery out there that helps treat the condition of people suffering from 'terrible neighbor/roommate' syndrome.

It's called trephination. You should look it up.

Defenestration is a good one, too. Slightly more severe, but effective.

Maaan, the Big Ten Network can go suck it.

At 9/25/11 10:17 PM, Korriken wrote: I'm in a bit of a pickle atm...

Doesn't sound like much of a pickle to me. Sounds like a deal. Granted, renting a room in someone else's house (as opposed to an apartment in a complex) is always a little awkward, but barring a self-destructive streak, it sounds like something that should work out well for you.

I live a couple miles from Michigan Stadium. It didn't rain one drop at my place until AFTER they cancelled the game. Go figure.

At 8/31/11 06:50 AM, TheMason wrote: The problem with Keynesian economics is reality means it's principles are carried out by humans who are inherently falable and politicians who are especially falable. We don't save money as a government. Instead we spend it on special interests of the party in power at that time.

That's the problem with ALL economic and political ideologies. Communism would work if we all bought into a communal economy. AnCap would work for the same reasons.

Don't be too quick to blame US woes on the result of military spending. Much of the added cost of Iraq and Afghanistan has been made-up by internal cuts within the military. Furthermore, the biggest drains on our budget are not the military but the unchecked costs of Social Security and Medicare costs.

Medicare and Medicaid are the largest chunk, consuming ~23% of the federal budget. SocSec and Defense are both at around 20%, but a lot of Defense spending (like the entirety of Homeland Security, and the VA) is not put in that category for accounting purposes. That said, there are several receipts that should go in the SS/Medicare areas that don't. So, in reality, they are all about equal "drains" on the economy.

Now you can, rightly, say that military spending advances us in technological ways which can offset some of the cost, and I wouldn't argue. You can also argue that there are serious fixes that need to be put in place for SS and Medicare, and I will certainly agree. I personally thing that the SS retirement age should be bumped up to 75, but that's not likely to happen anytime soon. However, you shouldn't try to talk as though the 12 billion more that SS uses is something significant in a multi-trillion dollar budget (hell, it's not even enough to garner it a percentage point higher in the budget breakdown), and as such is worthy of extra consideration for cuts.

We spend more on defense than nearly the rest of the world combined. Over 42% of all military spending in the world is done by the US. We're also a little on the high side as far as % of GDP at around 4.8%. Only a handful of countries spend more of their GDP on defense than we do. Saudi Arabia and Israel being perhaps the only important ones. If we stop policing the world, become a little less interventionalist (just a little, operations like Libya are exactly how we should work), update our systems, and stop idiotic spending on new planes we don't need, and we can streamline the defense budget quite a lot and save many billions, if not 100+ billion.

If we add that to significant overhauls in SS and Medicare, as well as revenue increases, including higher taxes on the rich, closing corporate loopholes and generally simplifying the tax code, we could easily get ourselves a balanced budget.

But we get these ideologues who say "no tax increases evar!" or "Don't touch SS/Medicare, or I cut yoo!" and we get mired in shouting matches and have no political will to actually make changes for the better.

At 8/18/11 06:56 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: But, there stands Perry.

I'm beginning to see Perry as the largest potential threat to Obama's re-election. His staunch anti-science pandering to the social conservatives lies in stark contrast to his pragmatic approach to real issues. This made me practically spit-take when I read it, swelling with hope for what might actually be a socially non-retarded republican. This, this, and this made me mourn for the people of our country as I expect he'll be the next one with the reigns. He's like Bush, without the retardation, but more chest-puffing and smirk, if that was possible.

At 8/10/11 10:48 PM, TheMason wrote: Oops...wrong link.

Generic Obama vs Republicans:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/
2012/president/us/general_election_presi dent_obama_vs_republican_candidate-1745.
html

And the faceless Republican has only been leading since mid-July...

I think there's two facets that make the faceless republican a red herring poll number. The first is that without a name to go with "republican" anyone can mary sue their personal preference, either idealizing a republican candidate or at least choosing his own personal preference out of the known field. The second is that once the name is known, a lot of votes split, and some will inevitably go toward Obama or just not show up at all. Those who would go for a pawlenty, for instance might not go for a Bachmann or Romney, and might just stay home instead of vote for a bad republican or a worse democrat in their view. I think the various head-to-head matchups are the more important number to consider (though obviously still with a huge year-and-a-half-sized grain of salt). I don't believe that currently the republican base is unified enough to vote for "anyone but Obama". A lot of the disgust about congressional gridlock lies deservedly with republicans, and so far, most of the anger seems to be raised by the left, against the republicans. I fear this may result in an uninspired base and low republican turnout with a medium-to-high democratic turnout.

While all of your issues regarding Obama are fair, (though I would argue that no one won in the debt ceiling debate, and it is difficult for me to see that Obama lost any worse than Cantor and Boehner and the republican congress. Might the repub nominee be shielded from this problem if he or she was not a part of the congress (obv only relates to current and former governors in the race, which to be honest are the only ones, in my opinion, with a chance at the nom)? Perhaps, but I don't know that this issue is a winner or loser for either side.), I think each of the republican potential has some serious issues to overcome.

Bachmann: Certifiable. Charismatic but way too fringe for the average american. Similar to Huckabee last election. Will probably do well in the primary but won't get the nom. If she does, I think that it's a lock for Obama.

Perry: Too religious. His use of prayer in office has rankled a lot of the moderate electorate who may see that as infringing on the idea of separation of church and state. This is an easy weakness to exploit without ever seeming to negatively attack the candidate, and could lead to a landslide. However, he does have some heavy economic punch to his message, so he could be a serious contender if he can get out of the shadow of Bachmann and Romney.

Romney: Message is all over the damn place. He rails against "Obamacare" which was heavily based on his own plan. His defense of big business and tax breaks for them may backfire due to those very big businesses being the (arguable) engine of the financial collapse. He has already promised to never raise taxes, a-la Bush the foist. His bonus is that losing by 4 points to an incumbent president in polls a year and a half before the election means that they're basically neck and neck and if the economy doesn't improve, Romney would have an amazing shot at winning.

Pawlenty: Slow out of the gate, hard-pressed to keep up with the larger names money-wise, and has a small charisma problem. He would have to get an Obama-level boost or falter from one of the 3 biggies ahead of him in order to secure the nom.

Paul: I don't know that he has enough base support to overcome the rest of the field. He'll have to come hard and bold with a seriously awesome plan to rock Washington in order to gain favor with those who may not hold with his libertarian social stances. Certainly the most certifiable dark horse in the race since Gingritch imploded, but still going to take a perfect storm to win.

Cain: Buck fuggin nutty. Awesome addition to the republican field, and by god I hope he lasts until the end, but I just don't see it.

While Obama has shown a significant amount of weakness in his leadership and policy skills, his skills as a campaigner I believe are tried and true, and it's going to take an impressive showing from the republican candidate in order to keep pace.

At 7/25/11 12:27 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I suppose this is both a compliment and an insult, to my knowledge there are only two people that COULD fit the description of "An-Cap". So by process of elimination...

Well, you can add in any tea partiers, and staunch libertarians to the list if that makes it any better... which it may not in your view, but it was meant as mostly complimentary. When Sadistic starts railing, I roll my eyes and skip his post for the most part. When you post something, it usually makes me think... and even if I disagree with the ultimate conclusion, often I can see the logic that leads from A to B.

However, since outright imperialism ended roughly half a century ago, the economic fates of these countries over the course of the proceeding centuries varied considerably from one another. I do believe there are more IMMEDIATE causes of differences in wealth between countries [of which I think the prime difference is regime uncertainty and property rights] Imperialism might explain why these countries are the way they are, but there are more immediate differences between, for example, Africa and Asia that prove vastly more *useful*.

The problem is that a lot of the more immediate causes of those differences are rooted in the imperial foundation of the nations themselves. It's like saying there are more immediate causes of the strife between Jews and Muslims and ignoring the import of Jerusalem, culturally and historically to both peoples.

This is important Especially since many of the people who invoke imperialism seem to be of the attitude that the problems of Africa and parts of Latin America are *inevitable* consequences of imperialism, that internal reforms cannot take place without external aid, and most importantly, the attitude that "The West" has a collective obligation to undue the damage that "They" are "Responsible" for.

Well, isn't it a good thing to want to fix what you broke? Regardless, it's not that the issues were inevitable... merely that issues were inevitable when one culture imposes it's structure onto another forcefully. Is it possible that a subverted culture could thrive under an oppressive invading culture? Sure. But it's also possible to flip 5000 heads in a row. Once we look underneath culture, to basic human nature, we see the inevitability of strife in the act of colonialism and imperialism. Agency is the one universal thing that humans of any culture desire, and agency is the very thing that colonialism and imperialism destroy most.

And this "Blame Western Imperialism" attitude, ironically, gives the rationale for the foreign aid and other institutions which, in my view, have hindered the progress of LA and Africa. In fact, it might be better to say that the poverty of third world countries has less to do with past imperialism and more to do with present neo-imperialist interventionism.

While I heartily agree that our specific aid policies have been disastrous, if well-intentioned, and are a big part of why there hasn't been more of a recovery in a lot of areas, this still stems from imperialism. The thing I want you to see is that while treating short-term symptoms such as individual dictatorships, and poor aid policy may make greater short-term gains, long-term structural change is going to have to come out of understanding imperialism and how, exactly, it fucked the cultures in Africa and South America. This will be very difficult because that requires an understanding of the original set of cultures prior to imperialism, and then tracking the specific ripple of dissonance that led to our present situation and trying to figure out a way to remedy it within the paradigm of the global culture/economy.

The problem here, I think, is that you seem to be suggesting that we replace one cultural hegemony with another... and suggesting that it will fix the problem.

It's sort of like a story where two siblings are abused as children, one of them struggles for awhile but manages to get their life together over time, while the other one struggles, and ends up progressively making their life worse through bad lifestyle choices. The original parental abuse might provide an adequate causal explanation for the end result of the latter sibling, but it does not wholly excuse the end result.

Noone's excusing anything. But trying to fix the problem of the struggling child without addressing the originating abuse is a method likely to fail, regardless of his sibling's prosperity, to extend the metaphor. Just because one sibling (culture/geographic area... and that's an important distinction right there, especially in Africa) thrives despite abuse, does not mean that the abuse was not central to the failure of the other sibling.

At 7/22/11 01:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: That may explain how certain countries became wealthier than others.

However at this point in history I no longer buy the argument that certain countries are poor [even regressing economically] because of past imperialism.

You're a smart guy, and one of the only ones whose views on anarcho-capitalism and the sinister nature of the State that I listen to with any credulity on this board. However, I think this is either a poorly-explained attempt to reframe the debate, or an outright failure of you to accept the power of history and oppression on a population.

Do countries in the modern world who were once colonized have the ability to overcome that history? technically: yes. But I technically also have the ability to dunk. I'm tall enough and with enough athletic training I could do it, hell I was only about 4 or 5 inches away from doing it in High School. But that doesn't mean that I actually can. There are a lot of factors that have to go right for a people to get themselves out from under the influence of decades of imperial control and the resulting border/tribal disputes that have created a lot of havoc in Africa especially.

Add in cultural tendencies and different value systems, as well as conflicting rules and law sets from the disparate rule through history and you have a Gordian knot to untangle in order to get shit in order enough to extricate them from their situation.

At 7/20/11 03:29 PM, Proteas wrote: ... am I the only person on the planet who doesn't own a cell phone?

What Mal said.

Also: yes.

Bah, I'm supposed to meet someone who's gunna buy my old car, and tonight my Blackberry decides to freak the fuck out. Once I finish paying off this phone it's over to Android, dammit... or google...

It's like when a couple of kids took some Mini-Thins, then ran wind-sprints in 95 degree weather without drinking any water and died from heatstroke. It must have been the ephedrine! Totally!

At 7/12/11 07:13 PM, TheMason wrote: This actually appears to be based on actual social science. Furthermore, I don't think it's mourning a by-gone era that only existed in Southern Mythology...but rather a commentary on how modern culture has a destructive impact on families.

The problem lies in the converse implication that slavery was "good" for black families, and perhaps for "family values" (per Korriken's post) as a whole. It, regardless of the factual correctness of the statistic, implies that a backwards path in social mores would result in a positive effect on families.

3) He admitted to ignorance of the case involving a black Yale Prof who was arrested for disturbing the peace...and then claimed that the white officer obviously acted stupidly. But he gets a pass.

A pass? Excuse me? He got reamed for that shit. It took 2 or 3 whole news cycles (weeks) for that to pass out of front-page rotation, and still people bring it up. It was one of the first major hits to his popularity that he faced.

At 7/11/11 08:42 AM, Korriken wrote: it'll come back once I find myself in a better situation, some people's creativity is sparked by misery. Misery destroys my creativity, inspiration, among other things.

Meh, misery + time = creativity. Once you are no longer miserable can you actually reflect in any meaningful way on that misery to spark creativity.

The only thing I've ever noticed directly sparks my creativity is a deadline.

At 7/9/11 02:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
Um car innovation has been driven(lol) almost exclusively by the private sector (?)

Actually, you can draw a more direct line of causation to the EPA than to any private sector item.

At 6/25/11 10:35 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Good now there can be jobs for people who ACTUALLY ARE CITIZENS

Jobs we as citizens have decided we don't want to do.

At 6/25/11 07:46 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 6/25/11 07:11 PM, Jedi-Master wrote: Hey, at least the teenagers in Georgia can look forward to a new summer job, right?

I would say yes, but a lot of Americans, not just teenagers, have an entitled attitude that this sort of thing is beneath them.

Wow, I didn't think this would happen quite so fast, but I do love it when a plan comes together. This segue's into a secondary point I wanted to make about our distaste for manual labor on a cultural level.

Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs and Deadliest Catch fame recently did a TED talk where he talks about the import of manual labor. Of tradesman and, indirectly but logically including, agricultural laborers.

These jobs go to immigrants because they're what's left after the entitled Americans have taken all the jobs they "want" or at least are willing to do. Will Americans step up and do these back-breaking, sweat-drenched, shitty-pay jobs? We'll have to see, but I expect that farmers will have to up their rates, and the price of food will soar in response, and there will be a backlash against laws like this that is couched in constitutional language, but rooted in financial entitlement. Then the laws will be repealed, immigrants will come back to work, and our food will drop (slightly) in price... until the next election cycle.

So, in every way imaginable, this law exposes our seedy, unspoken, entitled underbelly. Our two-faced desire to have our cake and eat it too. Our ironically xenophobic drive to keep out "the other" while being unwilling to pony up and take care of the business that brought them here in the first place.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/20 11/06/14/ga-s-farm-labor-crisis-going-ex actly-as-planned/

Georgia just passed an Arizona-like Anti-Illegal-Immigration law which has sent undocumented workers fleeing from the State. The resulting labor shortage has cost the farmers of Georgia millions of dollars in unharvested food. Farmers expect to need more than 11,000 (likely an underestimate) workers by the end of the summer, and will likely have to pay more than the normal $8.00/hr in order to fill those positions, and food prices will rise accordingly.

Be careful what you wish for.

At 6/13/11 07:37 PM, TheMason wrote: There is a problem with the studies. Rape is a very hard issue for even psychologists to study largely because the sample population (or "n" in statistical parlance) is problematic. Because of victim shame and the intensely private/personal nature of the crime...the vast majority of rapists go unpunished because the victims do not report the crime.

While a certainly valid point, this ambiguity does not lend any weight to the assumption that dress style has any effect on the instances of rape. Rape happens everywhere, to people of all dress styles, even in countries where full coverage is the norm.

Thus it is very possible that the data that can be studied is skewed towards the power motivation? Ie: a person who rapes random women do it out of anti-social or psychotic urges rather than purely sexual urges and since the woman is raped in her home or a parking garage are more likely to go to the authorities instead of a girl who wore something her Daddy didn't approve of and her bf couldn't control his sexual urges.

Possible? Yes. Probable? Not to my mind. Even in cases of "date" rape, where the dress excuse is most prevalent, there is significant data that points to power being the main motivator of the act. I do not believe that the inclusion of those instances not reported would change that much at all. Our sample size, while small, is large enough to gain significant statistical knowledge.

Actually, I think you miss the point of these walks. I've read multiple stories about these Slutwalks and their motivation is:
That how a woman dresses is NOT something that should be used to defend a rapist (something I whole-heartedly agree with).

Yes, but there is also the underlying assumption that dress style is inherently dangerous when it comes to sexual predation. You, yourself, have listed dress style as a preventative measure a woman should be conscious of, as though she were wearing a napalm shirt in a forest fire or wearing a deer costume during hunting season (if you'll pardon the metaphorical hyperbole).

Rape is not about sex. It is about power and thrill and harm.

There has been no study able to correlate any relationship between dress and instance of rape.

Ergo, how a woman dresses has no relationship to the likelihood of her being raped. Any insinuation, however subtle, that a woman puts herself in more danger by dressing seductively is exactly what these walks are designed to protest.

At 6/6/11 01:31 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: you know your group is in bad shape public opinion wise when the KKK protests you and YOUR the one that looks like the asshole

If I had room in my sig, that would totally go there. All I got now is a "good on ya, mate." I Lol'd at that description quite heartily.