Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/9/12 10:44 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 9/9/12 12:17 AM, BeFell wrote: First, the people who call for lower taxes generally call for lower spending as well. While they would not like to see these cuts come out of the military budget they believe things more efficiencies in government operations and more discretion in social programs could balance a tax decrease. They may be flat wrong in this assertion but that's the point you should be arguing, otherwise you just come off as silly.

I do not know what you are talking about when you said "people who call for lower taxes generally call for lower spending as well." Could you come up with examples? Because when I look back I remember people like George Bush junior and the Congress under him having tax cuts yet spending like drunken sailors. Getting our country into insane mount of debt. If fact most Republicans in the government with the exception of George Bush senior since Ronald Reagan have been preaching low taxes high spending.

That's what happens when you live in a democracy, you don't always get everything you want. Unfortunately it is much easier to sell tax cuts than tough spending cuts and politicians have a tendency to simply take what they can get. If you will recall, Bush made several attempts at spending cuts, such as reforming social security but was blocked at every attempt. It is not too dissimilar from the way Obama has increased spending only to be blocked in his attempts to undo the Bush tax cuts. It would still be unfair to characterize Obama's position as calling for increased spending while not calling for increased taxes. Neither party is in favor of deficit (at least not at the levels we are currently at). However, due to dishonest discourse, such as what I addressed above, both sides end up looking like "drunken sailors."

I'm not saying either path will lead to deficit reduction, what I am saying is we should try to understand our opponents' positions and motivations rather than just screeching half truths because that you shuts down all dialogue and we end up in the idiotic predicament the last 12 years of political stonewalling have led us to.

I noticed a few inaccuracies above that could stand some clarification.

First, the people who call for lower taxes generally call for lower spending as well. While they would not like to see these cuts come out of the military budget they believe things more efficiencies in government operations and more discretion in social programs could balance a tax decrease. They may be flat wrong in this assertion but that's the point you should be arguing, otherwise you just come off as silly.

As far as Romney's 14% effective tax rate, the majority of American's have an effective tax rate that is nowhere near 14%. In fact, tax credits for reproduction ensure that a significant amount of Americans actually have negative effective tax rates. There are people who pay in the higher 30%ish tax ranges but we are talking about people who can afford to drive a Lexus, not a Geo. Sure, it's probably unfair to Warren Buffet's secretary but she's not raman noodles as a result of it. This could of course be fixed by a simplified tax structure that closes loop holes and perhaps an flat rate of tax, but then everyone who currently has a tax rate lower than Romney's (a majority of Americans) would bitch.

Someone made a comparison of Bill Gates and Mitt Romney in terms of overall charitable impacts. I know it's hard to fathom the difference between millions and billions but when it comes to net worth, comparing Romney to Gates is like comparing Warren Buffet's secretary to Romney.

At 11/3/10 02:22 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/3/10 12:24 AM, BeFell wrote: It's called a bitch slapping hippies! You should probably pull down your pants, bend over and get ready for 2012. =P

NO POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!!

You'd think you'd know that...or now that you're a big tv star with the "sister wives" you forgot this rule =P

Dude, don't compare me to that guy, he has hippie hair and I'm of the mind that you've got nothing to brag about when the multiple ladies are fug. There's also the bastardization of the the religion that I hold dear but mostly, hippie hair.

I have been keeping busy though...

It's called a bitch slapping hippies! You should probably pull down your pants, bend over and get ready for 2012. =P

At 4/7/10 11:43 PM, BeFell wrote: I dislike Obama's policies...

That is all.

Does anyone remember what the hell my sig pic is a reference to?

I dislike Obama's policies...

That is all.

I have never served in the military and I am not very knowledgeable about military weapons, however, there are a couple of general understandings, which I feel have been glossed over thus far in this thread.

First of all I am pretty sure that getting shot by any caliber of weapon really fucking hurts and has the potential to fuck your shit up. So while one round may have the potential to break your arm while another round will blow it the hell off, either way you are going to be in an excruciating amount of pain and you're combat effectiveness is going to be severely reduced. Sure if you shoot John McClain in the shoulder with a .38 he's going to brush it off and amazingly use that arm to snap you're neck but I bet if you shot Bruce Willis with the same weapon there would be a lot of screaming, cursing and whimpering in the fetal position.

The second point of contention I have with what has been said in this thread is the assertion that members of the US military do not have enough motivation to clean their weapons regularly. In an organization where soldiers live in the fear of God at the prospect of being found with a scuffed belt buckle I am fairly certain that there are at least minor consequences for not properly maintaining a piece of equipment, whose operating effectiveness could mean the difference between life and death for yourself and the people around you.

At 6/11/08 11:01 AM, AapoJoki wrote: That kind of a tomb curse is not something we should want to leave to be inherited by any future civilization, whether they're humans descended from us or aliens from another planet.

You are a complete idiot, I sincerely hope you never breed.

At 6/10/08 01:33 PM, Grammer wrote: Mods should be able to ban you if you make a fucktarded argument.

Shrike did it all the time.

It's snowing...

I would make a comment about how global warming is the greatest bullshit ever spewed but Al Gore conveniently modified the global warming predictions to include the possibility of global cooling so no matter what weather change happens it's the result of ignoring Gore.

At 6/8/08 11:04 PM, Imperator wrote:

Or do I just pussy it out and get a scooter?

"pussy" out, then laugh at the morons driving Escalades in 6 months when they're broke from paying $150+ gas bills.

I've already heard people breaking the $75 mark on their SUVs and trucks, so $150 ain't that far off.

It takes $75 to fill my minivan, most trucks are already over the $100 mark and some of the diesels are over $200. If gas is currently at $4 per gallon and you expect people spending $75 to fill their tanks to be spending $150 in six months, does that mean you expect $8 per gallon gas in half a year?

In GTA IV the scooter is called a Faggio.

You guys need girlfriends.

At 5/12/08 06:37 PM, stafffighter wrote: Lovely man serenade based on my eyes.

Stalker?

I can't wait to see what kind of poetry my assets under the gown inspire.

I graduated!... Again!

At 5/8/08 06:29 PM, fli wrote:

At 5/8/08 02:59 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 5/8/08 12:24 PM, fli wrote: I can write a really good essay... but nothing will stop me from writing "recieve" and not putting the "e" in "th"

I've started to notice that i almost never goes before e despite the presence or absence of c. "Their?" maybe I should have learned the whole poem.

"I before e, except after c."
Thank you Charlie Brown and the Spelling Bee episode.

Well, it's not that I don't know... it's just that, I don't remember except when I'm editing my paper two days afterwords.

I found the missing piece: (I initially misspelled piece when I typed this)

i before e
except after c
or when sounding like "a"
like in neighbor or weigh

At 5/8/08 12:24 PM, fli wrote: I can write a really good essay... but nothing will stop me from writing "recieve" and not putting the "e" in "th"

I've started to notice that i almost never goes before e despite the presence or absence of c. "Their?" maybe I should have learned the whole poem.

At 5/7/08 10:35 PM, BeFell wrote:

They need the BARBED WIRE FENCES because they have no way of defending themselves.

I already responded to this post but I had another thought. I bet the urban cowboy here doesn't realize what a boy cow becomes if humans aren't around to cut off his horns and balls when he's an infant.

I doubt you have ever been to a rodeo but let me assure you that those little fellas can take care of themselves.

10 pages single spaced, not too shabby for one evening of work.

Of course that includes a cover page, and one of the pages is only one sentence...

I'm going to bed.

At 5/8/08 01:38 AM, SirBackBoobs wrote: How much of a role does natural selection play in today's society?

Meat was important, but not anymore. I'm talking about living a healthy life today.

I was objecting your earlier statement, where you indicated that humans are not suppose to be omnivorous and they didn't eat meat before they figured out how to cook it. I defeated you on both points, quite masterfully I might add, as you admitted that humans did indeed eat meat before they figured out how to cook it and I indicated that humans are indeed omnivorous as natural selection guided us to that point.

Here's news for you. Every other "omnivorous" species on the planet is adapted to eat meat from other animals RAW. The fact that humans cannot eat meat raw, as they would get diseases that carnivorous and omnivorous species have defenses against suggests humans are not omnivorous.

Human's have only been eating meat as long as they could cook it.

As far as your whining about "I'm talking about living a healthy life today," you just started that however, I already addressed this several posts back when I indicated that modern humans are eating way too much meat because we are just too damn good at the the natural selection game.

At 5/8/08 01:16 AM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Our ancestors benefited immensely from eating meat. In this day and age, in developed countries, meat is decreasing health and causing heart disease. So while it was beneficial in the past, it's no longer beneficial because humans aren't designed to eat it.

People don't die of heart disease until long after they have passed on their genes. Speaking in terms of natural selection meat works just fine.

At 5/8/08 12:28 AM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

You don't think carnivores and omnivores pick up infections from raw meat?

No, carnivores and omnivores have specialized immune systems which are designed to deal with the bacteria from meat. An example would be the PH of a carnivores stomach, which is designed to get rid of bacteria from meat, and a shorter G.I. tract to deal with the rapidly decomposing meat.

Sounds like the results of natural selection to me. Not every human being who eats raw meat is going to die from it just like not every carnivore is perfectly designed to eat raw meat. You are not taking into account that getting e coli may just lead to diahrea and tummy cramp meaning even those people who get sick from eating raw meat are able to survive to pass on their genes thus eating raw meat is not detrimental to our success as a species.

More like observing carnivores eating meat, and trying to eat it to. Then, when they get sick, they experiment with ways of preparing meat. Thus realizing they can use fire to cook meat and expand the foods they could eat, increasing survivability rates. So yeah, they were working to increase there odds of passing on their genes, that doesn't mean they ate meat naturally.

So you admit they were eating meat before they used fire to cook meat which was my point. Now natural selection took them down the course of using fire but if that hadn't occurred good old natural selection would have worked it out like it did for monkeys and carnivores.

Now if you had bothered to do the homework I had assigned you could have come out of this looking a whole lot less foolish.

Now here's a mind fuck for you to consider, if natural selection determined that only the members of the species who were smart enough to utilize fire to safely eat meat survived to reproduce then that would pretty much mean that we are suppose to eat meat as a result of our natural evolution.

I'm 4 pages into my last paper of the semester (due tomorrow of course).

I think I'm going to start incorporating graphs, lots and lots of graphs.

Remember kids, when you start your own business LLCs are so superior to corporations as small limited liability forms it's ridiculous. They also make estate planning hella easy. If your CPA or attorney ever recommends you use the corporate form for your business, allow them to set it up that way, then sue them for malpractice.

At 5/7/08 11:53 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote:

Monkeys, you know our evolutionary cousins, eat meat, are you saying they all have George Foreman Grilles? Honest to God, what are they teaching you kids in school these days.

Monkeys=/=Humans. Humans didn't even evolve from monkeys.

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. " citation

Most apes are strictly herbivorous.

So they would kind of like be our evolutionary cousins? Well, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Fire made eating meat a whole lot less of a gamble

Eating meat isn't a "gamble" omnivorous species. If eating meat was a gamble to early humans, how could they be omnivorous?

You don't think carnivores and omnivores pick up infections from raw meat?

and turned our species into evolutionary pussies but do you honestly think our ancestor's didn't eat meat until they figured out how to cook it? I'm curious, if they hadn't been eating meat before, why did they think to invent cooking?

Experimentation with fire and the observation of predators around them. That's how everything is invented, experimentation and observation. When they realized that they could eat meat if they cooked it first, they added it to their diet.

They observed saber tooth tigers sitting around a campfire roasting a chicken? You're a silly bidilly. Early humans ate meat if they could acquire meat, sometimes it made them sick sometimes it didn't. Some died some didn't, hence the fundamental gamble that all species face, doing an activity that might or might not kill you and hoping you live long enough to pass on your genes. This is called natural selection, human ingenuity and inventions such as harnessing fire to kill bacteria and parasites in meat and using weapons to more easily obtain meat has taken humans out of the game of natural selection. Thus everyone can eat properly cooked meat and not have to worry about dying, this means that something that was a gamble is no longer a gamble.

Much like the other guy I spoke with in this thread I think you need to do yourself some "learnin" before you make any more comments. Your homework, read this, Natural Selection by The Assholes who contribute to Wikipedia, then come back and tell me how you think it may apply to what we've been discussing here.

At 5/7/08 11:19 PM, SirBackBoobs wrote: Here's news for you. Every other "omnivorous" species on the planet is adapted to eat meat from other animals RAW. The fact that humans cannot eat meat raw, as they would get diseases that carnivorous and omnivorous species have defenses against suggests humans are not omnivorous.
Human's have only been eating meat as long as they could cook it.

Monkeys, you know our evolutionary cousins, eat meat, are you saying they all have George Foreman Grilles? Honest to God, what are they teaching you kids in school these days. Fire made eating meat a whole lot less of a gamble and turned our species into evolutionary pussies but do you honestly think our ancestor's didn't eat meat until they figured out how to cook it? I'm curious, if they hadn't been eating meat before, why did they think to invent cooking?

It should be noted, however, that the diets of our ancestors didn't have anywhere near the amount of meat that we eat today.

At 5/7/08 09:33 PM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: We have removed so many of their natural defences that they would have no way to survive the winter. We Take care of them, they do not just wander around and moo and eat grass. What else do you think they do in their meantime? They get pumped with steroids, and, like you said, are surrounded by BARBED WIRE FENCES.

They need the BARBED WIRE FENCES because they have no way of defending themselves.

A few pockets may live on for a generation or two on Islands in the pacific or isolated tropical areas that present them with no predators, but besides that there will be a mass extinction.

What the hell, do you live in Manhattan? Cows spend the majority of their lives wandering around in the what practically constitutes the wild, in fact lot's of ranchers have grazing rights on public lands meaning the cows do wonder around in the wild with all of the other animals. They don't get stacked up, caged and injected until they are sent to the slaughterhouse before then it's all mooing and grass. The barbed wire fences keep the cows from wandering off because they are naturally nomadic and will go look for even more grass than what humans provide. Do you really think a three foot tall barbed wire fence stops a wolf? Cows currently have to contend with whatever manner of predator happens to hop the fence and come after them but the fact is there are a lot more cows than predators so if a few get eaten its not really the end of the species, you just have pissed rancher.

As far as surviving the winter, what the hell do you think they do now? Do you think in October all of the cows are rounded up, placed in a barn and given electric blankets?

The fact is cows are pretty much self sufficient until it's time to be slaughtered what assistance they do receive is the result of ranchers owning more cows than their land can support as opposed to any deficiencies on the cow's part. I'm not saying that if they were all released every single cow would fare just fine but it certainly wouldn't be the end of their species.

I would advise you to actually go and at least see a cow before you continue this discussion, watch it for a few hours and note the lack of ranchers coming out and bottle feeding them before tucking them in at night.

You sir are the meat eating equivalent of a college-know-it-all-hippie and I hate hippies.

At 5/7/08 08:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

2007: Mason makes a New Year's pledge to be nicer about typos...but this just struck him as funny...

If cows were released in the while they would wonder around, moo and eat grass.

So what would a cow "wonder" about in the "while"? And what is the "while", is it something like purgatory?

)

I'm in the midst of writing an estate so my brain is in the midst of "I could utilize Sec. 2010 unified credit along with the Sec. 2056 marital deduction to minimize tax consequences, however, if I also manage to incorporate Sec. 2503 deductions I could eliminate the tax entirely but the decedent would lose rights to the property. Perhaps if I brought in Sec. 2702 into play..."

I come here to vent as my brain works, my grammar suffers, don't fuck with me.

This one time my teacher said that it may be possible for humans to fly because of a thingy in the prefrontal cortex. So I jumped off of a bridge.

Lawsuits are pending...

Have you ever even even seen a cow? They stand around in a field all day chewing on grass. The presence or absence of a barbed wire fence doesn't really affect their ability to do that. They may run into problems which human developments where grazing land should be but that doesn't mean that they won't be able to survive, especially with the absence of natural predators.

If cows were released in the while they would wonder around, moo and eat grass. A few would be eaten, some would starve because of lack of food and others would die in the winter but a whole bunch would survive and breed and have baby cows bettered suited for their new environment. This cycle would continue so on and so forth provided the cows were given ample area to roam around and find food.

At 5/7/08 06:13 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

At 5/7/08 06:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote: why can't they refer to themselves as lesbans? or lesboans?

Um, because they were called that first?

This reminds me of something, The Great Question: Allied Atheist Alliance, United Atheist Alliance, or Unified Atheist League?

The people of Lesbos aren't otters by any chance are they?

At 5/6/08 12:05 PM, Grammer wrote: Also, I hate hotmail. I wish there was just some way to redirect all emails to my hotmail address to my gmail account.

Are you being sarcastic? My wife figured out how to do that all on her own.

I just found out that I passed my comprehensive exams, which means that the only things standing between me and my Master of Accountancy are 2 tax finals, an auditing final and a 20 page estate plan... hmm...

Well regardless this is the best I've felt in weeks as I feel a giant weight has been lifted from shoulders.

As such, Imperator, I want to apologize for implying that you won't be able to buy shoes for you kids.

At 5/5/08 06:22 PM, Malachy wrote: I hate group projects. last semester one idiot showed up on presentation day with nothing.

Group projects are the only projects I've done since I got into the business curriculum. Do you ever get the foreign students who can't speak the language, ask stupid questions, forget to do work and yet still come out with higher grades than you?