Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/21/07 08:13 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Increasing or Decreasing?

(and why?)

After participating in the NG politics forum? Increasing, markedly.

At 3/21/07 11:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: That seems a gross over estimation.

www.iraqbodycount.org puts the count at 65,000. They collaborate their counts with news reports, etc. So while there's the potential that 65,000 may be under the actual figure, I'm inclined to believe that the total is closer to 65,000 than 655,000.

You should know better. IBC is a lowball totaling of deaths directly attributable to violence. They only add when the death has been confirmed by several sources. Those 65k are the deaths that are reported, in a war zone. The Lancet studies extrapolate deaths attributable to the conflict more broadly. Reading the article linked, about half of the deaths in this study are the result of direct conflict. The rest are the result of a complete collapse of infrastructure and law & order. They're comparing the death rate pre and post invasion. These numbers are in excess of what could have been expected had the US not invaded.

The 655,000 is the median estimate. The Lancelot's low-ball is 392,000. Half of which is 150,000 (the amount Lancet claims are due directly as a result of the conflict). I don't believe it's a gross leap of faith to say the IBC is under-calculating these deaths by such a scale, considering the limitations of the IBC's methodology.

Man, I don't know any of you people and I think I've outgrown this site. I'm going to stop depositing and move on.

At 12/5/06 07:37 PM, SevenSeize wrote: Today I went to Books A Million on my lunch break to kill some time. While there I found this book," lose weight, get laid, find god"..... Is that all we have to do? No one ever sends me the memo.

That's awesome. And wouldn't it be nice if it was so simple? If life could be summed up in six words. Shit. I'd buy that.

At 12/5/06 07:41 PM, Tomsan wrote: I am just stoned and wanted to be part of this godforsaken big thread.

I could use some drugs now. I feel like shit, coming down with something, and I have so much work hanging over my head. Some sort of downer would be great. *le sigh*

At 12/5/06 01:25 AM, fli wrote: I'm shaved nearly all my hair...

Yay! Join the shaved silent white majority! I'll put you up for a vote with the Imperial Wizard...

And now that I've shaven my pubic-hair coarse follicles, I feel sexy...
Villian sexy, you know.
Lex Luther, you know...

oh. ah.. eh.....

>.>

Awesome holiday header!

At 12/4/06 06:24 PM, Grammer wrote: There aren't many Christians who stone people to death for breaking Jesus' commandments. Being that Jesus was against the death penalty, and all.

You didn't read Camaro's post, did you?

At 12/4/06 11:04 AM, Tomsan wrote: I find it hard to comprehend, that someone who excually lives in europe, has no idea of whats going on, and someone from the states does.

.. I lived in Germany for a semester and studied the EU the entire time.. Sole reason I know anything about it, really.

At 12/4/06 02:44 PM, ReiperX wrote: Muslims, on the other hand, in certain countries have these traditions, whether its in the Koran or not. But not all Muslims believe in the veil thing. Or the covering up the head thing. I work around a lot of Muslims, and you have a few that cover their heads, but a majority are modernized. Remember, just like Christianity, you do have different sects within Islam as well with some different beliefs.

What does it matter whether or not a woman wears the veil? Is your post based on the assumption that "modernized" (and by which you mean westernized, certainly) is good and the alternative is bad, or are you pointing this out without making a claim about it? In which case.. Why point it out?

I had a topic similar to this a couple years ago..

Most of the arguments that say we're liberating women in the Middle East are false and based more on [intentionally] misunderstanding / misrepresenting the culture.

I just got a call from someone at the school paper. The guy was stuttering and hemming and hawing, could barely understand his voicemail. I call him back, and we agree to meet in the Pub.. But he doesn't think to figure out where we'll meet, or a way for us to recognize each other.

I think it's this guy just standing dumbly here.. But I'll let him squirm...

Haha. It's great being on this end for a change. =]

At 12/3/06 04:25 PM, Politics wrote: I badly need to start adding music more frequently to it, because I have a list of about 100 artists I've yet to add,

Only 100?

At 12/2/06 08:25 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: You mean the same ones that were fighting the British, American and countless Resitance groups.

No, I was talking about the Russians.

And I don't mean to be flamey, elkrobber.

At 12/2/06 06:15 PM, elkrobber wrote: Most large countries don't, however, have at least 15 widely spoken naitive languages.
If a language for example, were to be claimed as the standard European language (not necesarily intended to take over from others), it would slow the development, and cut usage of other languages.

The EU has already officiated 21 languages. They use five or so for EU business. English, German, French, Spanish.. Italian? This has been dealt with whole-heartedly to not step on toes. But it's terribly inefficient – I remember when I was studying the EU that something like 1/3 of their total budget goes solely to translation services (on-the-fly translations at meetings and paperwork).

Of course it would be easier to see the rest of Europe, but there wouldn't be so much motivation to do so, if the regions of Europe were to become more similar.

Again, I ask why political / economic unification results in a more homogenous Europe culturally. Seems like a false assumption.

I fail to see what was empty, or rhetorical about my statement.

"taking away power from powerless standard citizen blah blah blah." I'd bet you can't point out a single specific example of rights being taken away from an average citizen because of the EU.

The war scenario was simply to illustrate how a unified Europe could be problematic.

What is the worth of contemplating unrealistic scenarios?

You do have a point there, but if there was to be a war, it would prove far more costly for the whole of "Europletérre".

Mayhaps, but my last response stands.

This is just the way I feel. I support the European Union, but a united European state wouldn't, in my opinion be practical, and isn't going to happen any time soon.

That's perfectly fine. And now you're talking about something that I'm not. An actual single European state isn't in the cards any time soon, yes. But further political unification of the EU certainly is.

Mounties. Their uniforms are hot.

At 12/2/06 05:16 PM, elkrobber wrote: There are huge variations in lots of different cultural things in europe, such as music, food, and people's general day to day attitude. ... A superstate would merge many of these things together, and, in my opinion, stop europeans wanting to see the rest of europe.

The same "huge variations" can be cited in any country with a large landmass or population. And the political unification of Europe would not necessarily result in homogenization of culture. What makes you say that?

As far as Europeans traveling – the EU has aided travel. It's much easier to cross between nations as an EU citizen now than before. Come on.

That would just take away more power from the already mostly powerless standard citizen, by giving politicians 10,000's of kilometres away the power to decide the fate of an area they may never have even seen. Also, if two principalities decided to start a war, it would be a civil war, and everyone would be obliged to join in.

Empty rhetoric and then a war scenario? The further unification politically and economically decreases the possibility of open conflict between countries. The single thing that would most assure an eventual, peaceful solution between Turkey and Cyprus is if they were both members of the EU. Unification increases the costs of war, where it matters the most – economics.

Isn't the EU nearly there? The member-states' economies are nearly fully-integrated, creating an economy roughly equal to the US. And the EU is already a political force, brokering deals in the Israel-Palestine conflict, with Iran, N. Korea.. They're ineffective sure, but it's a start.

I don't think that Europeans are particularly enlightened or more moral than Americans. Most of their foreign policy is just as self-serving and destructive as ours. The reason why I support the EU and it becoming a larger political force is to deconstruct the unilateral world we live in. A single global power that dominates the entire globe and has pretty much carte blanche is fucking dangerous. The rise of the EU is inevitable in my mind, and the best thing about it is the US can't do a whole lot about it. They can be intentionally abrasive and slow things, but they're limited to token amounts of soft power.

To oversimplify – nobody will support an invasion or coup of a European state on the grounds that they're a direct threat and amassing WMDs.

At 12/2/06 02:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/2/06 12:19 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 12/2/06 12:02 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

You mean the Russians who had us at a standstill for decades only after being an undeniable force in world war two?

You mean the same ones that sent thier troops out on the battlefield without weapons.

Or the russians that suffered catistrophic causalties in WW2 due to inept leadership.

Yeah, the unarmed Russians with the inept leadership who still managed to defeat the Nazis.

wait, wtf are you people talking about? Shadup.

At 12/1/06 03:12 PM, Grammer wrote: Because if say, you, were choosing who the candidates would be, then anyone who you didn't feel was qualified to be a candidate can't win, even if they might have if they had a chance.

"Wah"?

At 11/30/06 07:16 PM, Grammer wrote: Bah, I guess that could work, but that just seems a bit unfair that the decision for candidates are up to a single person.

Why would it be unfair? There are people here who could pick out the best candidates for whatever positions are up for voting. Last year Dr. Arbitrary was up for best reg even though he had only been around for about two months that entire year.

But whatever. I'm not involved, whoever organizes it decides.

.
Rooster, are you going to do a free offer on yourps34free for me? I could use it, I'm cashing out early, only need one more referral..

At 11/30/06 05:28 PM, Grammer wrote: I don't think it'd be a good idea. We'd have people voting for every other person and we'd have votes going everywhere. The winner would probably have 5 votes or so, but that's just a guess.

No, whoever is organizing simply picks three or four best users for each category. Then there's only one thread, and the last 2-3 months don't determine everything.

At 11/30/06 06:34 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 11/30/06 05:57 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: does that mean i'm gonna have to redesign my entire lady gettin' program? i always thought the nod and smile philosophy was the key.

I never thought about it that way. That is so interesting! Please, tell me more.

It seems to be working..

At 11/30/06 02:06 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: You're just saying that because you have 17,000 posts.

Anyone who missed that is hopeless. Don't bother explaining things to them.

At 11/30/06 08:13 AM, Grammer wrote: I also noticed I tend to judge popularity by post count. Does that make me shallow?

No.

At 11/30/06 09:17 AM, Grammer wrote: So... who's making the Poli Awards thread of 2006? It should start tomorrow =]

Yeah, the thing should either start around now, or at the beginning of next year. Too close to the whole "holiday season" BS and you miss out on a lot of regulars. Befell always used to disappear because he didn't have internet at home. Course he's gone now too, but..

Did you listen to dredd? I think skipping the nominations thread would be a good idea too. But that requires a lot of faith being put in whoever does the awards..

i've been looking forward to this for like half a year :|

Sort of sad....?

At 11/28/06 03:40 PM, Begoner wrote: Of course, nuclear waste can be re-processed -- I believe France excels at such a practice and can reduce nuclear waste by 99% with such programmes.

Sorry Begoner, but this is the last reply, I've hit my quote of indulging smart-asses today. Check back later!

At 11/29/06 06:45 PM, Begoner wrote: Are you referring to the assertion that 99% of waste can be re-processed?

You said France reprocesses 99% of their nuclear waste. If I were you I'd get checked out for Alzheimer's.

At 11/29/06 02:26 PM, MickTheChampion wrote: We'd get a boost from our oil wealth, maybe even nationalise it - it would be a great thing for Scotland
In saying that, for some people it's even just a matter of pride - the right to call yourself Scottish, to be a citizen of a Scottish Republic, not a subject of an English Queen.

Yes, those are reasons. I'm sure there are plenty. But I don't think it's worth it. Or, hell, that's subjective. I don't think it will happen..

if nothing else, consider this a free bump for a different sort of topic here.

At 11/29/06 04:57 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 11/29/06 04:44 PM, Techware wrote:

At 11/29/06 03:41 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

But they used to be?

You can't used to be.

Your either Straight, Gay, Bi(I guess) or a deeply confused person at the time.

I think that's a lot of your own personal opinion and definition of sexuality.

Someone could be covering up their sexual preference.. Someone might prefer both sexes.. I don't see why someone might not change preferences over the years. Why is this not possible in your eyes?

Say I enjoy sleeping with women today. Ten years from now, I begin enjoying men. You're saying this can't happen?

I don't see the point.

At 11/29/06 06:22 AM, Demosthenez wrote: I have learned a hell of a lot here and its shaped my views a ton,

You just earned years of ridicule.