Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/5/09 04:44 PM, Decagonian wrote: Siddhartha, by Herman Hesse.

Absolutely.

At 10/5/09 08:04 PM, Sh0T-D0wN wrote: I read constantly, and I've read some of these more than once.

1. All Quiet on the Western Front. (Personal favorite)

I still need to read that. I almost bought it at a used book store but didn't want to shell out 7 bucks. So I bought a Russian copy of Crime and Punishment instead.

5. A Clockwork Orange.

Definitely.

6. 1984.

A must. George Orwell is amazing.

I would also recommend his essays, like "Shooting an Elephant", "England, Your England", and "Why I Write".

8. The Stand.

It is really cool for the first half, but then it turns into a soap opera and ends with a (literal!) deus ex machina.

At 10/5/09 10:03 PM, Leidolfr wrote: Thus Spoke Zarathustra [ Also Sprach Zarathustra ] by Nietzsche

An interesting one, for sure.

A Brief History of Time by Steven Hawking

Very worthwhile read.

Crime and Punishment - Dostoyevsky

The Castle - Kafka

Slaughterhouse-Five - Vonnegut

Just for starters.

At 10/6/09 04:33 AM, fli wrote: It was a wonderful time, but not if you were gay, homeless, retarded, mentally sick, Latino, Black, or in another country...

Seriously. He basically created the rampant homelessness in many CA cities, such as San Francisco, when he cut off funding to mental institutions. Now they wander around the city.

At 10/6/09 03:04 AM, Lorkas wrote: I have no idea what I'm gonna tell my mom, probably "I was trying to fry an egg, but the gas didn't light up instantly" or something.

You could tell her that you are a retard, and that you sprayed some air freshner to the toilet and decided it was a good idea to throw a lit match there.

I would accept it and automatically know how to fire it from the hip and suddenly be recruited to assassinate the president of a Latin American country or else my kidnapped daughter will be killed but instead I go on a rampage killing all of his goons that I come across and delivering humorous one-liners until I finally get to the military base where they are keeping my daughter and kill everyone inside including a fellow ex-secret agent turned rogue mercenary and then finally get my daughter and go back home in the mountains and live happily ever after.

Or I'd put it in my inventory and walk away.

At 10/6/09 03:03 AM, jmalouin7 wrote: Flowers. get her that. and if that doesn't work, get her drunk :3

The method of stimulating her arousal through the controlled massage of her upper ventral region generally provides adequate, enamoured results.

Rubbertittys

I've always had a thing for Fyndir.

At 10/6/09 02:46 AM, badassdude1234 wrote: What sickness would you want to have a cure if you chose one.

I would want to have a cure of any sickness if I chose it.

Musicals suck overall, and Bollywood seems to attempt to be as cliche, or more cliche, than Hollywood, plus all the bizarre over-acting of Japanese anime.

I like Simon and Garfunkle

Take her to Denny's!

At 10/6/09 01:10 AM, riemannSum wrote:

At 10/6/09 01:03 AM, TheReno wrote: Fifty years my ass. Reagan. nuff said.

Seconded. And by the way, Lincoln intentionally put people he disagreed with into his cabinet so that he would obtain a more rounded and well informed viewpoint in order to make decisions. Unlike Obama, though, he was a decent president capable of doing stuff on his own...

And a crony of the railroad barons.

But I definitely feel that idealizing people beyond the point of rationality in cloudy, rose-colored glasses is an important act.

At 10/5/09 10:10 PM, donuthead7310 wrote: Bullshit.

Republicans are just whining because for once in a million fucking years they lost the election.

Ahem, 1996. 1992.

Democrats are whining because they think that just because they won the election, everything will go their way.

I support Obama, but this bipartisan shit needs to stop right now.

The parties should stop working together and agreeing on things/compromising?

At 10/5/09 09:49 PM, porkybacon wrote: Yes, and that's because whenever he attempts something, vit never gets done. I mean, come on, he put his oppenent in his own cabinet! WTF, man!?

Definitely. Hillary being the Secretary of State is why everything he has tried to do (I.E. health care and winning a historically/statistically unwinnable war) has failed.

At 10/5/09 09:45 PM, porkybacon wrote: Because U.S. is a Racist Country. Face it! U.S. has more Hate Crimes Commited than a Christian/Nazi Convention.

Go back to your bridge.

Yes, it's a silly embargo. They are starting to ease it, though, for instance Cubans in the US may now visit their relatives in Cuba. One of my friends is actually there right now going to the University of Havana (she's a whitey American from California). So it's better than it's been.

Mostly now it's just the same old fact that once something becomes a part of political culture it is difficult to change. The embargo has become a part of both of our political cultures.

When have we ever wanted to boycott Scottish goods? I don't think that's ever been the policy in our entire history of existing as a country.

At 10/3/09 01:37 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Wow....that would be awkward, don't you think?

Yes it would be.

Unless of course you had one of those nasty, unhealthy trusting/open/respectful relationships with your parents and they with their children, like I had with mine.

Hey guys, long time no post. I'm posting a tune, but it isn't on this site as it is too long and wouldn't really work for any flash submission I think. If someone feels otherwise they could certainly send me a message and I will work with them.

A Felon and a Bard

Hope you guys enjoy it! It's a solo acoustic guitar piece, pretty atmospheric methinks.

I spent some time in Poland last summer, and it seemed the overall opinion there was that it either means pissing off Russia (a bit of a frightening thought for Poles, given their history with Russia) and being good allies to the US, or not doing anything and making the Russians less belligerent towards them.

You linked us to a very 1-sided article, too, by the way. Anyone who simply reads this article will naturally be against the decision because it focuses on the criticism much more than the positive bits.

At 8/7/09 12:29 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 8/6/09 03:37 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Incorrect, they were not "inspired" by atheism. They were inspired by a cocktail of ambition, egotism, and fear. Atheism is simply a necessary policy to take now that people no longer believe in holy kings. For all intents and purposes, Kim Jong Il and Stalin were both far from atheistic, and their policies were as well. They require(d) their people to see them, essentially, as gods, which could not be farther from "atheism".

They said they were atheists. It's obvious you're just denying fact.

I did not say that they did not say they were atheists, I said they were not "inspired by atheism". It's obvious you are distorting my words. I try to write clearly and exactly so no implications are necessary.

You know what? Albert Einstein said he wasn't a Christian, yet he claimed Jesus was a great teacher, which could not be closer to "Christianity" proving he used it showing that religion is indeed a force for good.

Right. Just like the Soviets called themselves atheists, and actually weren't.

At 8/6/09 05:09 PM, rockerdog5 wrote: lets try and keep this on topic. this thread is not about other "religions" i just want to hear other people's thought on the rapture.

The topics change, good sir. Enough people have responded to the original question to merit it answered, so you are actually the one going off topic now.

At 8/6/09 02:34 PM, Ericho wrote: Which were inspired by atheism, I'll have you know.

Incorrect, they were not "inspired" by atheism. They were inspired by a cocktail of ambition, egotism, and fear. Atheism is simply a necessary policy to take now that people no longer believe in holy kings. For all intents and purposes, Kim Jong Il and Stalin were both far from atheistic, and their policies were as well. They require(d) their people to see them, essentially, as gods, which could not be farther from "atheism".

At 8/6/09 02:56 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 8/5/09 12:54 PM, K-RadPie wrote: Somalia. I mean, just look at how happy they are.

What a coincidence. I was just looking up at the most corrupt countries in the world and theirs happens to be the most corrupt.

I don't understand how that can be - in order for there to be corruption, there has to be a government or some sort of governing body that can be corrupted, neither of which Somalia has.

At 8/6/09 02:32 PM, Glides wrote: Umm, I don't know, if Hitler didn't hate Jews, then why did he kill 6 MILLION of them. I'm Jewish, and don't say stuff like that if you don't want to get that kind of response.

Perhaps you should read some of the posts here, or consider other political killings and genocides in history, before getting offended.

At 8/5/09 10:19 PM, SgtGoose wrote: I think if possibly, this would be a very effective system of government. I've always hated the fact that politics is a paying career for our congress man, thus making politics a business. Don't get me wrong, I still think we should have a three branch government, I just think we may have the technology to have the population replace representatives.

Thoughts?

Here's the thing - the populous is extremely indecisive. It is, as Congress itself is often referred to, a many-headed monster. A direct democracy is itself inherently flawed in that nothing would get done.

For instance: In a direct democracy, who will decide what is important to focus on or not? Popular passions, true, but who will guide the issues to what is important? No issue would receive the proper focus, everyone would speak out of turn... In all, we would turn into a more populated, more technologically advanced Ancient Athens. If you don't know much about ancient Athens, it's well worth reading about - basically very little got done and only the incredibly wealthy had much true say because they purchased power and votes, and their belligerence got them into a war with Sparta (Yes, Athens were actually the provocateurs, not the victims), which eventually destroyed Greece's power forever.

Read Plato's Republic if you want to know his opinion of direct democracy. Of course, his Republic is very different from ours, but he felt that the military dictatorship of Sparta was actually the closest to the ideal, closer even than the direct democracy of Athens. And this is coming from a man who valued human rights and so forth.

Also, a direct democracy creates a tyranny of a majority.

Representative democracy is, overall, far more favorable than direct democracy. I agree that the US in particular should be more directly democratic in areas, like the election of the president, and that reforms could be made to make Congress less ridiculous, but, like has been said before, it's the worst type of government - except every other form tried.

Hah. I'm glad you mentioned Somalia.

In anarchy, someone will always take power because in an anarchist society, everything is uncertain and unsafe. We formed governments in the beginning to allow us to be more safe from the elements and humanity (which is far more dangerous than the elements). Anarchy provides no protection, and so thus when somebody wanted something they would take something.

You may say that friendship would allow those who had the thing taken fight back against that person, but then a dispute would happen between two groups of friends. Then it would become a time of the survival of the fittest; the strongest group would prevail. Factions would form, and leaders would take shape.

Then those leaders would not want to risk losing their leadership, and what do you have? A government.

Anarchy will never work in a large-scale form. Ever.

At 8/5/09 12:24 PM, Ericho wrote: Why exactly was it the Jews that Hitler singled out? Yeah, I know, there were plenty of other people he killed, but Jews were of course the most important one, but when did Nietzsche talk about Jews among other people?

I think what Cheetah is referring to is not the Jewish aspect, but the Aryan aspect - that of a perfect race. The Aryan race theory could be seen as similar to Nietzsche's "Übermensch", if one extremely (and ignorantly) selectively reads Nietzsche's words.

About the Jews, however, that was not inspired by Nietzsche, so much as common thought, and the fact that the Jews held many powerful positions which the Nazi's, realizing that the Jews are commonly independent and loyal to their specific community separate from much of the rest of the world, could not have such outright competition.

Also, a scapegoat is required for any totalitarian regime; there must be something to scare the people into requiring such a strong, assertive government as totalitarianism. The Soviets, for instance, first used monarchists, then counter-revolutionaries, then Trotskyites, then Nazis, and then Americans. The Nazis always had the Jews, as, historically, anti-Semitism has been a favorable mentality in Germany, as well as the rest of Europe, and indeed that hemisphere.

Again, though, it's highly likely that Hitler subscribed to that popular opinion, and in "Mein Kampf", written when he was merely a messager POW in WWI, he discusses how the Jews are widely responsible for many of society's ills.

Was the book written as preemptive propaganda? Quite likely, but did he actually believe it somewhat? Also likely, I feel.

If you actually think of people differently based on their color or appearance, go fuck yourself.

I don't understand any other argument on the subject. Perhaps I'm simple-minded.

At 8/3/09 08:57 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Still kind of worthy to mention that no birth control is failproof... (except abstinence and vasectomy perhaps)

If the pill is taken correctly, you will not get pregnant. You won't. Statistically, it is something like 99.5% guaranteed that you will not get pregnant, and that other .5% is likely from improper use.

At 8/2/09 02:33 PM, AapoJoki wrote: There was a long trend of anti-Semitism in Europe before Hitler. It's possible that he had no passionate feelings against the Jews, he simply chose to capitalize on them because they were the easiest group to hate at the time. I wouldn't put this kind of insincerity past Hitler.

It's quite obvious that he used anti-Semitism in order to further his goals, but it would not be in the least uncommon if he did in fact hate Jews. The idea of the white race being in danger and of Jews being one of Europe's problems went back even to Wagner's time.

Aryanism was definitely one of Hitler's tools, but I would find it quite strange if he did not, himself, believe in it at least to a degree.