Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/31/10 11:50 PM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/31/10 05:39 PM, BigLundi wrote: He DOES have a reason for harming me. Nobody does things for absoljutely zero reason. The reasons may be odd, wrong, and silly, but they are reasons nonetheless.

Yes, but for all intents and purposes we say he has no good reason to do so.

Again, no good reason sure, but they have a reason nonetheless.

It is not meaningless, not to the individual. I agree with the system of law.

I'm an individual. It may be meaningless to me if I don't feel satisfied with his imprisonment. If he and I were the only two people on a deserted island, the law is meaningless because I am the only person who might consider enforcing it, even if it were territory of the United States by statute. Law is having someone else settle matters for you.

And as an individual, I would be quite satisfied wit hthe carrying out of justice on the side of the law Just because someone ellse is doing the punishment means nothing to me, he is still paying for his crimes fairly, and in accordance to the sociological laws and rules that he himself has broken.

Civilized? Who's to make that judgement as to what is civilized anyway? Also, isn't the authority of a government derived from the consent of the governed? The only reason that should stop me from doing whatever I want is that of other people, and in this scenario, I am presented with the choice to take the law into my own hands and get away with it so I would exercise that option.

Just because you have the oppertunity doesn't give you the natural right to do it. Vigilante-ism is illegal, and for good reason, everyone going around killing ehowever they think deserves it isn't good. It provides momentary relief, but the actions taken against you still happened, how the individual gets punished shouldn't matter, so why chose the immoral way to go about doing it when there's a perfectly legal, lawful way to go about it?

At 10/31/10 01:14 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 10/31/10 05:18 AM, BigLundi wrote: In fact, the only REAL similarity between the two is that both are in supreme places of power, and aren't necesarily very nice. That's just about it.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei.

Great, so they have nothing in common now.

At 10/30/10 04:13 PM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/30/10 03:54 PM, BigLundi wrote: As satisfying as it would be to take revenge, I refuse to become as bad as the person who harmed me.

Why would that make you as bad as him? Don't you have a reason for doing it, whereas he doesn't? I'm not necessarily saying that your decision to choose the path of less violence is a wrong one-after all, it would ultimately be your decision-but isn't the concept of one decision being 'higher' than the other purely subjective?

He DOES have a reason for harming me. Nobody does things for absoljutely zero reason. The reasons may be odd, wrong, and silly, but they are reasons nonetheless. Simply having a more logical reason for violence (I.E. Revenge or Self defense) doesn't make the violence right. though in the case of self Defense, while violence isn't right in that regard, it is also is unavoidable and understandable, where I believe the law understands, and therefore allows.

If Justice is how they must be punished, then they will get it, by any means necessary. It's the fair and impartial way to get results.

Justice on an individual level it is meaningless. If your sense of security is fulfilled by relegating decisions to a higher power, so be it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a convenient illusion that we use to prevent the propagation of additional violence.

It is not meaningless, not to the individual. I agree with the system of law. We are civilized beings today because of laws and the like, and deciding it isn't necessary for the sake of revenge, to me, is a silly compromise to make.

but the fact remains for ME

If it's a fact for you, wouldn't that mean it's an opinion?

It's a fact for me about what would make me feel better. It cannot be proven that somethign else would make me feel better, as I know for a fact, what does.

I don't agree with some extents pro lifers will go through to 'prove their point'. However I fully agree with their right to do it. As long as things don't get violent, I have no problem with pro lifers waving signs of dead fetuses at those who wish to have an abortion. It's your choice, yes, but that doesn't mean people aren't allowed to not like your choice, and express their feelings about it. If you don't like people yelling at you about being a "baby killer" and whatnot, it really isn't so hard to simply ignore them. However, if they put their hands on you...well...then you have the right to bitch slap the motherfucker into next week.

Ahmadinejad has not killed millions of Jews. Until he has, he is not near as bad as Hitler. He has not started a war, and he has not convinced an entire country that there is a master race, and all other races should be eradicated.

In fact, the only REAL similarity between the two is that both are in supreme places of power, and aren't necesarily very nice. That's just about it.

The Big A isn't any worse than most dictators, truly North Korea has fucked up FAR worse than him on the "We're evil sumbitches" scale, why aren't you talking about them?

So, Fox News is the first bunch I saw to do an interview, or rather a back and forth, concernign the Rally. I wasn't there for the set up, so I don't know exactly who was debating, but I know one represented the younger voting generation, while the other represented political knowledge and skepticism, from what I could see.

It was two women, one younger, one older, though not THAT much older, just obviously well educated and experienced. The younger woman explained that, after having experienced the rally, she was proud to be a part of such a monumental event, and stated that she had an appreciation for the message that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert were trying to convey.

The older woman, however, was shaking her head skeptically, stating that it wasn't a political rally, it was a road show. It was entertaining, but the only thing she got out of it was a satirization of the bickering back and forth between the media, and that none of it should be taken as a political statement of any sort. There was much attacks on the younger lady, accusations of naievity, sarcastic and mocking laughter at her ideas oof any sort of political message being expressed, and then finally they were cut off before the talk could go furthur.

I'm sorry, but Fox seems to be downplayinng this a bit too much...this was much more monumental than anything they've ever covered, and anything Beck has done...so now it seems like they're downplaying it, saying it's not to be taken seriously at any sort of level. This rally wasn't so a bunch of people could laugh and clap their hands, though I agree it wasn't a purely political rally, Stephen and Jon said as much...but that's not to say we shouldn't look to anything that said. Jon himself had a 20 minute speech at the end that I feel SHOULD have been taken seriously. He even started it off by saying, "I don't know what limits I'm breaking as a television comedian and satirist...but I'm sure the news will tell me all about them tomorrow."

At 10/30/10 04:15 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Gotta love good old Glenn Beck...talking about any kind of voting as inappropriate.

To be fair to Mr. Beck, I believe he was talking about ill informed voting. I believe his thoughts are that the youth, in that sentence, aren't well informed enough to vote(though why they have the ABILITY to vote if they aren't informed enough) and therefore will make bad decisions on the whims of television comedians.

However, the rally itself didn't encourage any sort of voting one way or the other...it encouraged exactly what it said...civility...saity...reason. Stephen Colbert represented the 'fear' spread by the media, talking about every single problem like it's the end of the United States as we know it, from minor epidemics to marijuana. Jon represented the idea that the media itself has become a broken tool of communication and mediation between the government and the people, and encourages everyone to stop letting the media scare them, to be reasonable, and understand that we are all americans, and as americans, there is nothing wrong with being united in an issue, republican...democrat...anything you might be.

I do not like Glenn Beck's show. It scares me. He keeps telling me everything I once thought was good and rigtheous is akin to fascism, and they're all nazis. I.E. the Peace Corps.

I do not like Glenn Beck. I find him hypocritical, and a monger of fear. One who must use fear to get his point across angers me. You want proof? Watch his show just one time, that's all the proof you need. For added fun, take a drink when he shakes his head dejectedly, or yells for people to wake up, or rewords that phrase in some fashion.

That being said, I will defend to the death his right to say all the shit he says on his show. He's allowed to say all the things he does, and has said himself he is NOT a news source, and is, in fact, a clown. He is allowed to say all he wishes to say, in addition to Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert's rights to say whatever they wish to say on their shows.

At 10/20/10 03:31 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/19/10 09:36 PM, BigLundi wrote: We never made our laws based off a religion or anything. Laws are, esentially, a commonality in morality, that's pretty much agreed on. "Murder is detrimental to society, agreed? Ok, no murder then."

Not necessarily true. religion does kind of influence moral. One big example is marriage and relationships. Very religious ideal to have 1 person being paired up with 1 other and live together with the Blessing of god. And there are a lot of laws about faithfulness and marriage, even though the deal is not so morally trivial. For example, why shouldn't you get married with 5 women at the same time?

I dunno, why are there some laws that DO indeed allow this?

Religion has nothing to do with laws, as it should be. Polgamy is legal in some areas of the world, in fact, it is even encouraged in other places, and in some religions.

As far as religion influencing moral? Only on those that allow it to hapopen. They influence, sure. They influence terrorists to attack people that don't agrtee with them, they influence book burnings and hate speech, but it's not the source of them. The people that allow religion to influence their morality would be insane without religion as well, individuals come up with their own morality, not religions.

Marriage is state regulated by what's agreed upon. the only LEGAL argument made against gay marriage is the raising of children. Gay people cannot procreate, so allowing them to marry is detrimental to society, which is why it's illegal. It's not, however, illegal because religions say it's bad, like some believe. It's the same reason we can't marry animals. We cannot procreate with animals. It's not that it's morally wrong, it's that it just won't work for society to allow it to happen.

As satisfying as it would be to take revenge, I refuse to become as bad as the person who harmed me. If Justice is how they must be punished, then they will get it, by any means necessary. It's the fair and impartial way to get results.

My one co worker would point out that police and the justice system are useless, and would never help me(in his opinion, just because they apparently don't want to). this is of course, an opinion, and not a fact, but the fact remains for ME that, regardless of if this man gets convicted or not, I wil lat least feel better in knowing I took the high road, and did what I could to place a deserving individual behind bars for something they did to me.

Obama is encouraging another leader into peace talks.

How does this have anything to do with our personal policy? Obama's not making the peace talks is he?

I'm sorry, but everyone in this thread seems to think he's trying to be all buddy buddy with terrorists...no...he's trying to lessen the violence. Here's the deal. The terrorists in Afghanistan are in power because, about 30 years back, Afghanistan was invaded and screwed up the butt by Russia. After some time of bombing and attacks, we slid them some aid in the form of firearms and funding, so that they could defend themselves. After they drove Russia off, we left them go. We gave them a lot of guns and money, yet no direction to go. Hence, the most powerful warlords and richest men came into power. Thus, small groups began fighitng, killing, pillaging, taking power. Currently, the power of Afghanistan's government is....minimal, at best.

Why wouldn't we want Afghanistan stable? Our soldiers clearly aren't able to do the full job, why not encourage their government to make some peace?
Let me be clear, you won't see Obama saying, "I wanna talk to these guys, they seem like reasonable people."

His mentality, right now, is that these terrorists' main concern are....well...us, not Afghanistan. Why not make whatever strides we can to stablize Afghanistan? It can't all be solved with combat rifles and rocket launchers, unfortunately.

I'm surprised you don't know, the media's been all over Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, and its potential political impact.

To quote Glenn Beck, actually, "Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are showing their true colors...they are holding a rally...the purpose of which is to...activate the youth...into an inappropriate influx of voting."

At 10/29/10 06:39 PM, TheMason wrote: Actually your facts are heavily biased. You point to policies that you feel are beneficial. On the other hand, I think Obama's efforts to push through healthcare and climate change policies are misguided and not where he needs to be paying attention. I don't really want to get into a ideological debate...(but that would destroy your argument that you claim is based on non-biased facts.)

Actually I only pointed to policies that I know of. All I'm doing is letting numbers do the talking, it's your choice to figure out which seem more beneficial. My anger didn't stem from saying Bush was better, my anger stes from the constant, "Obama's done nothing" mentality. He has. People need to stop saying he hasn't.

On the other hand, when you look at how the Obama administration is able to get its legislative agenda through congress (no matter if you or I think it is good or bad) vs the Bush administration's ability in this regard (for good or bad)...Bush was able to get more done with less.

And what constitutes as more? Again, Obama has done a lot of things, and has only been in office for two years.

Look at the healthcare bill. Obama spent all of his political capital to get it passed...which is messed up when you realize that the Democrats had TOTAL control over the House and Senate. Yes the Republicans got a repuation of being the party of "NO"...but there was a Super Majority of Dems in the Senate which meant the Republicans could not filibuster. Secondly, there was enough Dems in the House where the Dems did not need any Republican/bipartisan support.

No, I question why they wou;dn't just bull rush their policies through. The common argument is that they are pussies, which is a possibility. I, for one, like to believe that they just don't like the idea of taking away the voice of the republicans just because they have the majority.

And yet he had to spend all of his political capital...and about 60% of the electorate are very unhappy with the bill.

I ask which of the 60% have read the bill, and the fact that the bill passes on many of the things he promised these same Electorates. So what? They vote for him because he promises things, and when he delivers, they don't like it? Strange.

On the other hand, Bush had less majorities in the House and Senate and was able to get his legislative agendas passed. In fact he was not told "NO" until he tackled Social Security reform in his second term. Furthermore, he did not have a veto override until 2006...very late for a president.

Again, popular response to this is that liberals are pussies. It is, actually possible, that the republicans have a distinct ability to simply stick to their issues and bills long enough and strongly enough that they get passed regardless. Remember, just because one doesn't have the majority doesn't mean they have no power.

Finally, Bush did not suffer big losses in a mid-term until 2006 which is normal for a president. On the other hand, Obama will most likely loose his legislative majorities in only two years. If he doesn't learn from this like Clinton did in 1995/6 then he'll probably be remembered as a failure a la Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter is a well respected former president, I, for one, don't consider him a failure. As far as being a failure goes? I consider a president that follows through on his promises more than he breaks them a success, and Obama has succeeded thus far. If, by the end of his term, he has outnumbered his kept promises with broken ones, then yes, he is a failure.

Again, I'm just explaining that Obama is not as lame duck as some are accusing him, in fact, he went on the Daily Show to explain just that. I will be the first to criticize his failures, and the first to make fun of him for stupid shit-What president bows to a foreign delegate?-But I will also be the first to praise him for his accomplishments, of which he has many. Meanwhile, as far as accomplishments go, Bush is far more disputed, to the best of my knowledge, both as a speaker and as a leader.

And/or Fear.

I just watched it, in it's entirety.

...Well...what do you guys think? Success? Failure? Good? Bad? What?

My personal opinion...I think we need more down to earth speeches like what Stewart gave at the end. I watched this with my 9 year old step brother, and he asked me "This guy seems nice. What's he talking about?" I explained that it was adult problems, nothing he need worry about, at least not yet. He frowned and asked why there were children there then. I looked at him and said, "There is ONE message I think you can take from this...When you grow up, understand something. Just because a person doesn't agree with you...doesn't mean they're a bad person...it just makes them different from you."

Not sure if I handled that right or not.

At 10/19/10 07:49 PM, FBIpolux wrote:

At 10/19/10 07:46 PM, bodom-child wrote: Really?
why don't you have a seat.

Wow, this is the most original post of the whole internet.

Really? We did a litle bit of research FBI.

Why don't you have a seat? Have a seat right over there. I have in my hands a transcript between usernames FBIpolus and Gagsy, do you need me to read it to you?

At 10/19/10 08:52 PM, Ptero wrote:

At 10/19/10 05:54 PM, Lorkas wrote: Just think, how many great actors are going die in the next 20 years...

Morgan Freeman.

Oh man.

I insist he make his own eulogy, record it, and have it play at his burial.

The problem is...if they're really hot like that...it's really hard to NOT say something. That is one very nice ass, and if she's angry for people to be sayins so...maybe she should just get out of shape, or wear looser fitting pants, I dunno.

Fantastic. Now we can balance out questionable reasons for invasion with the 9 billion he's spent to make Africa a better place. Feed the Children yo.

At 10/19/10 08:35 PM, lawlmaster wrote:

At 10/19/10 08:34 PM, BigFatKid wrote: ...his 40-year-old brother...

How old is his dad?

That's not SO strange. I got a friend 2 years older than his aunt.

Communism is the very best pen and paper government in existence. Unfortunately, as far as we know, there's never ben a truly communist country. Every time humans try to make one, it doesn't end up working out, or it becojmes some alternate form of communism specific to whoever's leading the country at the time of its implication(I.E. Stalinism, Maoism, Castroism).

We never made our laws based off a religion or anything. Laws are, esentially, a commonality in morality, that's pretty much agreed on. "Murder is detrimental to society, agreed? Ok, no murder then."

That's literally how our laws were made, we made logical claims about what's good and what's not, and made bad things illegal, so that we have a right to arrest and imprison people who fuck up. as a GROUP, human beings are quite capable of living out moral lives, but those who break laws NOW wouldn't just, for some strange reason, become good people if we had NO laws.

Ok. So I officially got pissed today when one of my co workers informed me that George Bush was FAR better in his presidency than Obama is. I asked how this was, and they said that he accomplished far more in his first term than Obama currently is.

Here are facts. Non biased facts about George vs. Obama.

Concerning Health Care

George Bush promised to make health insurance more affordable for hard working low income families.
The fact is that within the first half of his term, 4 million more people became uninsured, and health insurance premiums went up by 12.5% per year, and according to a major study, Bush's health care plan drove up health care deductibles paid by workers. He also promised he will establish the 'Healthy Communities Innovation Fund', to provide $500 million in grants over five years to fund innovative projects addressing targeted health risks, such as childhood diabetes." Fact is he never created this fund.

Barack Obama promised to create a National Health Insurance exchange. He instead created a State LEgislated Health Insurance exchange. He did not completely fulfill his promise, instead he compromised, another thing he promised to do. He also promised to reimburse employers for a portion of catastrophic health care plan costs. He also compromised on this, creating a chunk of money to be set aside per year to aid employers in this subject. Not reimbursing them fully, bu garaunteeing help.

I think that's enough about Health Care, that's about an equal amount of stuff. Obama's done WAY more than that, but I'll leave it at the little things, so he doesn't seem so much better in that regard.

Concerning the Enviornment

President Bush promised that the federal government, the country's largest polluter, complies with all enviornemntal laws. The fact is that within the first three years, the Department of Defense asked that they be exempt from enviornmental regulations and laws such as the Clean Air Act of 1970, despite the fact that military buildings in question are already exempt in the first place.

President Obama promised more specific things. One of them being to enact some sort of wildfire prevention plan. His legislation accomplished this. They are setting aside 75 million dollars a year towards fighting wildfires, and funding existing wildfire prevention programs. He also promised to establish a program to convert manufacturing centers into clean technology leaders. Again, his legislations delivered. His stimulus bill delivered on this by promising and delivering billions of dollars to achieve this goal, including setting aside millions towards creating clean energy sources, and 3.1 billion set aside from state alternative energy programs.

I'm not going to go any furthur, because this takes forever to type, and I'm just not that zealous of a guy.

However, I WILL say that I have over 122 kept promises, over 40 kept through compromise, 22 broken ones, and 236 that he's currently working on.

I have, however, not near as much for anything on George Bush. This keeps me from posting much, because I don't wantto overwhelm George Bush' failures with Obama's successes, I really don't. Please find some GOOD things Bush accomplished in his legislation for me. IF anyone has any competitive stats saying that Bush is somewhere on this level, please let me know.

At 10/19/10 02:20 PM, Spackled wrote:

At 10/19/10 02:05 PM, BigLundi wrote: I don't consider 2 years that long.

4 years, bro.

Really? Obama's been there for 4 years?

Oh that's right, you must think a congressional majority with democrats actually means they have power. Since when has that stopped Bush and the republicans from passing JUST ABOUT whaaaaatever the fuck they wanted to? It really hasn't. Democrats said, "No more war!" and Bush went, "Lol. Fuk u." and veto'd every bill they put to finance the troops while outlining a retreat strategy. The democrats don't have the ability to use any power, the republicans have had power the ENTIRE time Bush was in office, not just most of it. If Bush wanted something, he got it. End of story.

At 10/19/10 02:14 PM, LethalDosage wrote: lol the second I read the title of the topic I knew it was gonna turn into a big gai political discussion
fuck myth busters, and all this chatter, politics are about as interesting to me as controlling the movement of the sun....good luck controlling either with your interests

Feel my hatred and melt.

*feels increased animosity towards*

Yeah, burns doesn't it?

At 10/19/10 01:57 PM, Spackled wrote: Well, I don't watch Glenn Beck. EVER. He is an ideologue and way too extreme.

Which is the right thing to say.

As far as Bill O Reilly goes? I don't even have to TRY to find a quote, that right there was off the top of my head. I've seen him make shit up, spin shit his way on his 'no spin zone' and completely disregard evidence and research that goes against his own opinion. He's a hypocritical douchebag that insists he only reports truth, when anyone who watches his program once can tell it's pure bias. If you want proof of that, just ask, I've got over a hundred videos.

Oh my God, just like..........KEITH OLBERMANN

Another person that can suck a cock.

Commentators will be commentators. Love em or hate em.

I choose hate. I hate them all.

Let's be clear, I'm not a liberal, nor a republican. Liberals are pussies, republicans are douchebags.

At 10/19/10 01:50 PM, Spackled wrote:

At 10/19/10 01:42 PM, BigLundi wrote: Lol, I have a co worker who likes to say, "It's all Obama can say, "Oh it's the republican's fault."

To which I reply, "...Because it fucking IS."

LOL, the Republicans haven't had control of anything for awhile now.

Think.

Really? I don't consider 2 years that long. Especially when MOSt policies put into place by Bush's administration are still in place now.

But meh, Obama's kept a majority of his promises, it's when he doesn't push through the big things that people get pissed off. He's only broken 22 promises, I'm guessing those are the only ones people are bitching about. You don't hear any congrats for the guy on the 122 he kept, and the 41 on top of that passed through compromise, and the 221 that he still hasn't abandoned and is currently working on. But yeah, he's not accomplishing shit right? And most of the ones he wasn't able to keep is urely because of Republicans and their hardstance against his policies, as well as cowardly liberal senators and reps whose only interest is looking good to voters, instead of voting on what matters.

At 10/19/10 01:44 PM, Spackled wrote: No, George Soros is not dead.

My bad, he's just extremely fucking old and decrept.

At 10/19/10 01:29 PM, BigLundi wrote: "If you listen to me, you'll learn things."?

I see you are referring to a line that Bill O'Reilly used on The View a few days ago to try to be humorous. Only an ideologue like you would find something wrong with that, instead of pointing out the stupidity of Whoopi Goldberg's and Joy Behar's childish and embarrassing walk off the set because they absolutely can't stand views and beliefs that are different from their own.

I hate the View too btw, don't get me wrong.

I see you didn't debunk the "Peace Crorps=NAzi" comment that I know for a fact Glenn Beck made. And if you're gonan excuse that one, I can refer to several times he's called perfectly legit organizations nazish.

As far as Bill O Reilly goes? I don't even have to TRY to find a quote, that right there was off the top of my head. I've seen him make shit up, spin shit his way on his 'no spin zone' and completely disregard evidence and research that goes against his own opinion. He's a hypocritical douchebag that insists he only reports truth, when anyone who watches his program once can tell it's pure bias. If you want proof of that, just ask, I've got over a hundred videos.

At 10/19/10 01:41 PM, LethalDosage wrote:

At 10/19/10 01:29 PM, Major-n0ob wrote: Maybe they will bust the myth that his policies are working.

That's like calling harry potter a myth
every one knows obamas policies are a bust, but as we all know, its cause of bush *cough
side note: that in no way was an endorsement for bush

Lol, I have a co worker who likes to say, "It's all Obama can say, "Oh it's the republican's fault."

To which I reply, "...Because it fucking IS."

I know you've come to kill me. Shoot, you're only going to kill a man.

Apparently he's also dead. So wtf do I care about him?

Also, has he ever said something as stupendously idiotic as "The PEace Corps are equivalent to NAzis." Or somethign as severely douchebaggerriffic as "If you listen to me, you'll learn things."?

Because if so, then I hate him too.

At 10/19/10 01:22 PM, Spackled wrote: Uh oh, another die-hard left-wing ideologue left the cess pools of the DailyKos and Moveon.org and stumbled upon Newgrounds. Nothing to see here, people. He will be crawling back to his master George Soros soon. Carry on.

...>.>...<.<...

Ahem....who the fuck is George Soros?