Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Anybody know much about this race? It seems like a spoof on an attack ad. Did his opponent throw out a random attack ad that was out of context or irrelevant?

I think our biggest problem is simply artificially high profits. You can go a long way explaining why wages are kept low to keep the rich rich, but it puts the wrong message across. I don't want the rich to not get richer. I just want them to do it honestly.
Any full time employee should make enough to support themselves. If your employees cannot support themselves than you are making too much profit.
From a conservatives point of view I believe that if you are paying your employees a wage that requires them to use government aid in any way be it supplimental income, medicare etc... you are just as much in the wrong as these large companies taking huge sums of money through government bailouts.

The movie was ok if you enjoy cheesy sci-fi, but it's an absolute abortion if you are a fan of the novel.
All of Heinleins political beliefs are portrayed in a classroom setting. The rest of the story is basically a coming of age story for the main character.
As for no plot I'd disagree. People are more upset that it didn't end with a big smackdown military victory, but one of the major points made in the book was that the war would span several lifetimes. So he focused on one character and gave it a fade to black ending.

At 5/25/10 12:43 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 5/24/10 12:16 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/23/10 11:03 AM, morefngdbs wrote: As other posters have mentioned,

First you say government needs to BAN certain people selling chocolate called "Belgian", and then you point out that simply having a "seal of approval" system works just fine.

Why not just the latter?

;;;
Sorry Sadistic, What i meant was anyone can sell " chocolates" I don't care if its chocolate covered feces.

But only Belgian handmade quality chocolates can carry that name & have a seal of proof for the buyer that they are the real deal. Anyone caught faking the approval gets the wrath of govenment fines issued against them.

So the ignorant tourists you speak so highly of are supposed to learn about this seal and then differentiate it between common "Hershey approved" type seals that are bound to pop up?

"Come in and sample REAL Artisan Chocolate!"
Boom. Hang that bad boy outside your shop. Let people taste the difference while explaining why your chocolate is superior.
It's your job to educate prospective customers about your product.

You want some high class propoganda?

No matter your politics on the sunject there's one clear thing. They are the enemy. One big thing we do is dehumanize them in our heads. Look back at ww2 propaganda, the nazi soldiers were characterized as mindless zombies under hitlers evil control and the japanese were made into goofy retards with an inferiority complex.
Stories of the bravery of iragi soldiers would humanize them to much for us to handle being at war with them.

Read the book if you find the video interesting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=
6127548813950043200#

Grow some balls and stand up for what you believe in. You may find middle ground some of the time and you may feel the extreme is the better option. Just don't be one of these indecisive morons who thinks their is always an acceptable middle ground.
Grow some brains. You need to be able to research and gather as much information on a subject as you can so that you can hold an informed opinion and argue for it with facts.

"i dont think its just a lump of cells, its a human(and as for people who think not, fast forward ten years or so and then chop the kids head off, then is it murder?"

"I don't think" is not an argument. It's a statement.

At 1/12/10 06:33 PM, Grizzli wrote: What about those people who dont like beer or are allergic to it?

There's still controversy over blood banks not accepting donations from homosexuals.

It's dances with wolves in space.
It's not the great white man saves the ignorant natives, it's the evil white guy denounces his white guynes to become a better person.

Yeah the company I was working for for 5 years went out of business and I'm struggling to survive on 1/3 of my old income...
But the birds make noise and the sky didn't change color. So it's cool.

The same reason the researchers for phillip morris found the link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer to be purely coincidental.

Sorry I read the story through a different source
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-
beat/Charity-Doesnt-Come-Free---Catholic -Church-Serves-DC-Leaders-an-Ultimatum-6 9857147.html
On Tuesday, a council committee voted down an amendment that would protect individuals from legal retribution should they decline services for same-sex marriage based on religious beliefs. That vote now leaves the Catholic Church and individuals open to lawsuits should they, for instance, refuse an adoption to a same-sex couple or close a church to a same-sex wedding. They would be "at risk for adhering to the teachings of their faith."

At 12/5/09 07:15 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/5/09 05:21 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote:

The new laws would force them to do something they feel is morally wrong and they don't want to continue if that happens.

Well it shows what they care bout.
They're rather not be charitable if it means paying a little money for same-sex couples.

That's really really douchy.

I agree it's douchy, but it's not that they want to pay more money for same-sex couples. It's that helping set up adoptions for same sex couples is supporting something they feel is morally wrong.

The point has been missed completely.
The new laws would force them to do something they feel is morally wrong and they don't want to continue if that happens.
These people are just serious about their morals no matter how screwed they are. I've heard stories of pharmacists closing shop when forced to keep plan b in stock. It's the same thing. "You can have it your way, but I'm not playing anymore." Yeah we lose whatever service they provided for a bit, but someone will come along and fill in the gaps shortly.

He's black and the democrats crossed sides to ensure the republicans had a candidate that most republicans wouldn't even want.

You said it yourself. Less government for individual freedoms. I don't know why you would think that the "peoples" freedom would require more government or how they differ from individuals.

If "marriage" is such a sacred religious bla bla bla Shouldn't we get rid of legal marriage anyways?
Seriously. Everyone gets the rights that go along with a legal civil union and if you want to get married talk to a priest.

To put it simply.
Protect me from others not from myself.

I'm gonna sit back with the "How the hell are we going to afford this?" crowd.

There's a big moral issue here as well.
These greedy rich people have earned all there money through agreed upon trade. They're not robbing banks or stealing it from anybody. What makes you think that you have the right to say that you or anyone else deserves that money simply on the premise that you've judged they "have enough"?

The problem with the GOP is too much pandering to Christians. They believe that if they keep that base of voters they can do anything they want. Conservatives, to extremely simplify, dislike high taxes and government control on private citizens. When we see that they advocate high taxes and absurd government controls, but keep touting the whole "pro-jesus" line it's turning alot of people away.
They keep thinking they can bring in voters with a different moral crusade each election season; gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc.. and they go about it by vilifying there enemies. They run into two problems with this. Most people simply don't care and they're slowly alienating more people.
I could talk for hours on everything that is wrong with the gop, but it's mostly just expanding on the example above. They're officially a dead party, they won't attract any new voters with the christian pandering, and they're dead in the water if they stop. The only hope for a truly conservative party is if we can somehow all get behind one of the third party options.

At 10/24/09 10:54 AM, polym wrote: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/interne t-access-denied/

"The email is incorrect that the state of emergency allows the shut down of all private internet traffic," Granick told us in an e-mail."It allows the shut down of federal or critical infrastructure networks." This could include some private networks, Granick said, but they would have to be outlined as "critical infrastructure" in advance. "So the email is right that this could be unbelievably broad, but wrong that it targets all private traffic, specific websites or email senders."

If that is really the case then he should already have the power to do so. Saying something is critical is a bit misleading as well. If they think it's critical to stop the flow of panic, or ideas, they could use the bill to do exactly what they claim won't happen.

At 10/19/09 01:27 AM, Natron888 wrote: Did you, perhaps, play Bioshock?

I thought he might have just got his hands on his first Ayn Rand book.

The whole idea of insurance is that you are paying a company to take responsibility for financial risks you can't afford.
If I'm in a car accident that renders me a cripple my car insurance will cover the damages caused by that.
My medical insurance will cover my medical expenses.
My income insurance will replace my income that I am no longer able to earn and my family won't be without.
And if I should die, income insurance will still pay to the date of my intended retirement and life insurance will cover funeral expenses, pay off my house and leave a nice lump sum that will most likely go towards my childrens school fund.
By this point we're talking millions in expenses. No where close to what I've paid into them.

I don't think the government should be in a position to know if this has been committed.

At 9/30/09 03:42 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote: First. Can you show me proof that he did anything? If not, shut up.

The whole fleeing the country a week before trial thing might hurt his case.

Second, are you capable of writing a paragraph without swearing?

Its harder to take you seriously that way...

So much this. I was half tempted to play devils advocate and defend the guy in an effort to distance myself from sharing the same opinion as someone who could make such a post.

At 9/15/09 10:21 PM, Brian wrote:

At 9/15/09 10:12 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: If your claiming that that behavior is what makes them idiots, then why are you asking the question in defense of people who displayed the same exact behavior?

Who said I was defending anyone? I never defended anyone at all.

I'll give you that one.

People want a politicion who represents what they want and think is best. I doubt a liberal would support a a great conservative candidate even if the choice of liberal candidates were complete crap. In fact that would be more reason to support the crap candidates, because what the conservative would do in power is what they would consider to be detrimental to the country. It's better to stand still than run in the wrong direction.

No, it would be more reasonable to start a new party without crap candidates or join up as a non crap candidate. Actively choosing to eat shit for breakfast because you don't like cheerios, but you like brown cereal is stupid.

Funny I almost threw a food analogy in the same post. More along the lines of "I'd rather eat low quality hamburger than high quality fish. No matter the quality of either I don't like fish and I do like hamburger." and I do like your idea of steak, but that gets us into more problems. We have a few third party options, but you have to look at the variety of people represented by the republican party. Too many ways to divide. What you would get is several weak parties each pitching their own guy splitting the votes almost guaranteeing victory for the other side every time. So people make concessions within their own parties to cover the most people giving them a reasonable chance of victory.
/Still I wouldn't mind if the christians made their own party.

At 9/15/09 09:54 PM, Brian wrote:

At 9/15/09 09:44 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote:

At 9/15/09 09:31 PM, Brian wrote: Obligatory, but Dems did it when Bush was in charge, we can now skip that point.

Why skip a valid point?

Its not a valid point when the question was about how you could support Republicans if they are being lead by idiots. Maybe the question should be: Why would anybody invest in any party being run by idiots as the Republicans are now?

If your claiming that that behavior is what makes them idiots, then why are you asking the question in defense of people who displayed the same exact behavior?
People want a politicion who represents what they want and think is best. I doubt a liberal would support a a great conservative candidate even if the choice of liberal candidates were complete crap. In fact that would be more reason to support the crap candidates, because what the conservative would do in power is what they would consider to be detrimental to the country. It's better to stand still than run in the wrong direction.