Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well, a certain political group thinks the budget is more important than veterans, and also thinks immigration is a problem. If they didn't have their way, the VA would be heavily funded and we wouldn't be focusing much on immigration.

At 8/12/14 11:53 PM, Malachy wrote: It's been nearly 2 weeks now and I still can't find a bunch of things that I packed away - like shower curtain hooks - how do you lose those? I managed to lose my spare car key too. I don't know if its in the house or if it fell out of my pocket when we were at a family event a few days ago in another city.

Totally. In the past 11 years I have moved 11 (13 if you count move to study abroad and back) times. I have lost a lot more than small things. I lost shirts, movies, entire game systems, and more. It's fricken insane. Though, one positive about moving is finding $10-$20 in change that the cats/dogs/child have thrown under/behind the furniture.

Went to the zoo today. Turned out it was cheap zoo day. Other than the zoo being... well... a zoo (figuratively as well as literally), the type of people that went made the state fair look like an opera... White trash alert!

Also, extra point. You know you've seriously just given up on life when you decide to use a scooter to move around just because you're too fat to walk any sort of distance comfortably. I have nothing against fat people, having grow up with one, but shit. Too much is too much.

At 8/10/14 04:36 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Agreed. America has unlimited money and can provide housing, food, clothing, education and healthcare to everyone in the world.

We can easily handle 50,000 more children. I mean, if we were having 50,000 new white babies, you wouldn't blink an eye. Make them brown and foreign and you act like a demon being doused with holy water.

At 8/9/14 06:46 PM, Light wrote: It's unjustified, really.

If you're going to use that logic, NO criticism of a group is EVER justified.

Well, there is the FSM. I mean, many atheists throw this around a ton. The whole purpose of the FSM is to mock other religions, so that is on ereason many dislike Atheists.

At 8/8/14 08:34 AM, Light wrote: We get it, you don't give a shit about the lives of other people or the deaths of innocent civilians.

By advocating for a stop inviolence when there is no possible stop in the continued violence is either the ultimate in niavte or a backward way of wanting either one of these genocidal maniacal powers to actually rule the area.

There is more wisdom to Tony's point that you give him credit for.

A couple weeks ago I was walking in my hallway in the dark and accidentally kicked the wall, causing my middle toenail to pop.

THANKS OBAMA.

(Not derailing, just letting you know what your post sounds like)

At 8/6/14 07:08 PM, Raab wrote: Rather than refuting the things I have stated in my original post with facts or legitimate concerns, you instead began spewing forth a slue of insults and it was immediately dismissed as diarrhea. Sorry.

That's the kind of response you get when you make those hip yet flat "C'mon sheeple" arguments. Not to mention one that has been made a million times before, and yet has never been made well.

And of course both parties are indeed different..... but that is part of the illusion of giving Americans a choice.
These parties are just as "different" as your left and right foot.... they are both feet belonging to the same person.... and they are walking us (this country) in the wrong direction.

And that foot is the nation, and guess where the nation's center of gravity lies? Right between the feet.

Those who fault the parties for being the same have some crazy illusion that the view should be made from a relatively extreme position. Well, guess what, America is a center nation. It looks from the middle, not from the right or the left. This is why to central parties are the best fit for it. If you were speaking of Denmark, you's probably have a point, but you're not.

Then why choose either of them if they have problems?

Who doesn't have problems?

You're opinion is akin to those nuts who want to scrap the entire welfare system because 1% might be misusing it. The two parties, eve with their problems, still represent the wishes of the US far better than any alternative.

If I offer you a choice of
a rotten steak
OR
a raw steak

I get it, you don't like the parties.

The bottom line is..... if both parties have their problems..... why to we continuously support them instead of pursuing an alternative?

Because, to use your steak analogy, the alternative to rotten steak and raw steak is a pile of cow shit. All of the third parties in the US are too small to keep the crazies (see Ron Paul) from co-opting and polluting their message and image. Not to mention that most of the third parties also harbor views that are far too left or far too right for 75% of Americans to feel comfortable with. Finally, the problems you claim exist with the current parties will exist with ANY party that reaches the power level of the big two. You don't fault the platforms, you fault corruption as if a new party would be impervious to the corruption that is both so rampant, and so easy at the Congressional level.

Your argument has philosphical merit, but lacks any attachment to the real world. Not only does your argument fall apart completely when you look at what you believe are the problems with the current parties, but it completely ignores the biggest part of the voting system: the American people.

Oh, and if you don't want to be ridiculed, keep your ridiculous tone and analogies at home.

Matriculate them. Why not? Make them Americans. It's not like they'll be taking anyone's jobs at this age.

The only rational difficulty is trying to find housing and support for them. Do we try to enlist volunteer families? Do we force their closest kin, should they have any, to take care of them? Do we create big orphanage style housing facilities?

Ugh, aside from your "I'M FUCKING CRAZY! OUR GOVERNMENT IS RUN BY A BANANA DISH WASHING CHEVROLET!" act, your point is still full of shit, and, frakly, I'm fucking tired of all you hipster pseudo intellectuals claiming "BOTH PATREEZ ARE TEH SAMEZZ0R!

Grow up. Both parties are VERY different. Sure, if you compare then to an extreme position, YES, they seem similar, but guess what? The Country is NOT as extreme as you! For a country that is largely center (what side fo center depends on what you use as your basis for averaging) two parties that are largely center, but fit a short but significant distance on either side of that line make a great deal of sense.

Now, do the parties both have similar problems? Absolutely. They both seem to be beholden to the $ instead of the people. This is a severe problem, but it in now way means the parties are the same.

So please, people, stop telling us the complete and utter fallacy you came up with one late night in highschool/freshamn year of college in your marijuana induced philosphical time. It is NOT a revelantion and it flat out isn't true, and even where it is, it's not relevant enough to be a worth while factoid. Your time would better be spent tending to those "sheeple" you people love to talk about.

I think you all have very much missed the point.

You are trying to determine which is more known due to the actual type of conflict, and that is completely missing the mark. If this were true the Mexican cartel would be big news everywhere because it has seeped into the USA.

The real reason why Mexican cartels are not as focused upon comes down to one term: Newsworthiness.

The media dictates what Americans see and know, and as far as things that the news likes to report on, Israel's conflict has a heck of a lot more than Mexico does. Israel is a war, involving the Middle East, involing as US ally, involving an Al Qaeda friendly terrorist organization, involving the Holy Land, and so on. It also is either all on or all off.

The Mexico issue involves Mexico (already turns off many Americans to it), a third world country dealing with crime that happens in more of a slow simmer than in big flashy bursts. Mexico is best fit for crima dramas and documentaries, of which there have been quite a few (the Bridge, Gangland, Traffic) So until the Mexico cartels start going into full on war with Mexico (I mean standing armies here) or until they make a large scale overt incursion into the US, instead of the current much more subtle tentacle method involving small groups or partnership with US gangs, Mexico's cartel war just won't post the news ratings of Israel and will take a back seat in the US' mind.

At 8/4/14 09:50 AM, Korriken wrote: Allow to me clarify. I've been able to confirm that Hamas firing missiles from civilian areas IS a war crime, but I can't seem to find much on them firing the missiles at civilians, which I can only assume is a war crime.

You are right BOTH sides are committing war crimes.

However, the circumstances of each country doing so are very different. The circumstances don't abslve Hamas et. al., but it does explain the glaring imbalance in attention.

The differences come in many areas. First, let's look at the who of the sitution.

Hamas: A small motley band of militants, with little money and almost a complete inability to compete with any nation in a conventional war. Hamas is ruled by a bunch of quasi-terrorists with little regard for the rules of war and the civilized world.

Israel: A big boy Democratic nation with a great deal of power and a large military. Israel is also one of the big boys who is expected to know better and to act better. (In short, Israel is the mature adult of the two, yet it seem to love to bring itself down to the level of its opponents instead of rising above.)

Now, let's look at the what.

Hamas: Lots of rockets into Israel, very little damage and very little success.

Israel: full scale bombings, high levels of success, high levels of civilian casualties.

Finally, and perhaps one of the issues that stings people on both sides the most, let's look at their relations with the US.

Hamas: Only recognized by the US for the purpose of ending the conflict. Otherwise, considered an Al Qaeda type terrorist organization. Their location in and tensions with Israel are the only things keeping drone strikes from targetting them.

Israel: Abnormally and quite perplexingly (I say this as they provide the US almost nothing in return) close with the US. The US provides tons of political support as well as massive economic and monetary support.

This last one has a tendency in many people's minds, and rightfully so, to impute the childish actions of Israel onto the US.

Note: My post is not meant to raise Hamas and demean Israel. I equally hate both sides. The Israel conflict is little different than the Syria conflict where there is no good guy and no clear winner for the region, just half of America is too fucking stupid or too blinded by religion to see it.

At 8/2/14 06:29 AM, Gozeta wrote: That makes sense sense smaller states need to be heard. It was put up to help them compete with larger states.

Yes, and no. There is no reason a Wyominger (wyomingite? Wyominginian?) should have the voting power of nearly 2 Californians.

At 8/1/14 09:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Which people ? How many people ? "Why Do People Not Like Atheists?" loaded questions such as this are a type of fallacy in developing a proper argument and is really just some vague rhetorical bull shit when it comes down to it.

First off, that is not the definition of a loaded question. A loaded question is one in which the question is asked in such a manner as to lead to no possibility of a right answer, or a question where the "right" answer is extremely hinted at and often carries consequences for not giving the hinted at answer.

Second, the question is a mild bit vague, I'll give you that, but you can easily infer what is meant. There is a large group of people in the US that do not like Atheists. Everyone else here picked up on the intended meaning pretty easily, and therefore the question was definitely not too vague to be answered. It definitely was not loaded.

At 8/1/14 11:36 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Why Do People Not Like Atheists? Loaded question renders thread invalid.

How?

You're making sense right until the conclusion. I think you need to bone up on exactly how the electoral college works.

At 7/28/14 09:37 PM, Korriken wrote: Am I the only person that doesn't like that concept?

I does sound strange, but you have to look at what most of these positions entail. They have two functions: to advise the Presdient; and to run the department. Running the department is by far the biggest tsk they have, so naturally, they need to be good managers. While being good at the subject matter will assist with the first task, they have their own advisors who can give them the information and ideas necessary to adequately advise the President.

Think of them like Generals. A General who knows how to shoot a gun sounds nice, but being a General has more to do with commanding the army as opposed to fighting the battle.

How do you manage something that you know nothing about? I can tell you the ins and outs on how to fix a car and even guide you through it, but if you have no experience at all, are you really up to the task?

There is some credence to that idea. A manager who knows the subject matter will always be better as they know the tips tricks and a few extra that can help raise efficiency and grease the wheels. However, when you take a stp back, the management of a large entity is the management of a large entity. Aside from structural differences, managing is relatively the same regardless of where you go. A good manager also knows when to listen to their experts to assist in anything that is peculiar about a specific topic, area, or set of people.

True. Still, it would be nice if they'd at least make an effort, rather than simply appointing some political buddy or donor to such a position. Then again, I expect too much from power mongers.

That is true. Though, the best talent at that level often stays in private industry as it is far more lucrative. You have to either find someone who owes a favor, someone who is awed by the limelight of being an offical, or (the most likely scenario) someone who cares more about power than anything else.

Not all candidates are so well connected that they have people from all the department walks of life to call upon either. My guess is that Obama, being a Chicago liberal, isn't exactly too well connected with the agricultural world.

At 7/28/14 08:03 PM, Korriken wrote: For example, Tom Vilsack has zilch in his background that pertains to Agriculture.

Well, to be fair, most cabinet positons have mor to do with knowing how to manage than the nuts and bolts of what the department is all about. These people have their own bevy of experts who give them the knowledge they need.

A person who is 100% ignorant of agriculture is a better person to led the agriculture department than a agriculture avant who couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag.

Granted, the ideal candidate would be someone who both knows how to manage and is competent in the field related to th department. Finding such people is a lot harder said than done.

At 7/27/14 05:23 PM, Korriken wrote: Therein lies the problem.We have egotistical "leaders" who instead of filling their cabinet with people who know what in the hell they're doing, they fill it with boot lickers looking to advance their political careers.

There is an inherent problem that once you get someone that high it is natural for career aspirations, which flourish there, to outdo their integirty to a position.

At 7/27/14 09:19 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Religion of peace? more like savages.

Oh, grow up.

At 7/26/14 09:36 PM, Th-e wrote: You wanna know why I think Obamacare, as a whole, is crap? You can't expect a lawyer to do an engineer's job.

Wait, healthcare should be run by engineers? So THAT'S what's been wrong all along.

At 7/26/14 11:15 AM, Ericho wrote: Christmas has secular aspects, so it's not a big deal if atheists celebrate it. Then again, that could make you wonder why they don't celebrate other religious holidays like Hanukkah. Of course, that's just because no one likes Hanukkah and no religious holiday is as close to being as popular as Christmas.

Not necessarily. Secular things often form out of popular religious things that people cannot live without even as they abandon other aspects of the religion.

Seeing as the United States' religious history is pedominantly Christian, it is no surprise that the major holiday that became secularized was Christamas and not Hanukkah.

This thread is not about the current strife in Gaza. This thread is about the nature of Israel discussions.

Have you ever noticed how discussions involving Israel ae so bitter and so illogical? I think I have figured out why.

So many people look at the issue, pick a conclusion and the proceed to fight for it. Conservatives think "I like Israel, so they MUST be in the right. Gaza is targetting civilians!" Liberals often think "Israel is a big baddy and represents all of the corporate problems with out government. Israel is recklessly killing far more than they are losing!"

Well, any rational person ould see that both these viewpoints are foolish and stupid.

An outsider would see that BOTH sides are wrong.

The Palestinians are wrong as they target civillians and do so intentionally.

Israel is in the wrong as they have no concept of proportionality. If Israel were a human and you punched him, he'd take a cleave to you and your family and then claim self defense as if he were the victim.

It's a damn shame people are so locked in on their prejudged conclusions that they cannot see the obvious truth.

At 7/24/14 11:47 PM, TheKlown wrote: Ben Carson should be the next President of the United States of America. It's about time that the people have a Voice in this country instead of always electing career Politicians. Why not elect a guy that is a genius and saved people's live for a living?

Electing a nuerosugreon is like having a college professor fly an airplane. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they're qualified for the job.

Lawmaking requires an intimate knowledge of how laws work on the ground. This is why so many lawyers make good politicians. They know how laws actually work and can levy that experience into making good laws.

At 7/24/14 11:40 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: How bout instead of having a partisan pissing contest, we just discuss the issue at hand.

I alredy stated above that I think this whole thing is a total nonissue.

What are the cold hard facts behind this (Im looking go Husky and warforger for this one since yall two seem to be able to sleuth out good neutral information)?

Cold hard facts are extremely hard to find here as with the nature of illegal immgrants being illegal, they aren't exactly volunteering for studies, especially when most such studies seek to pint a negative picture of them.

I doubt a physic wall does much as the surrounding geography of the border is pretty harsh to begin with.

True, it is not uncommon for ranchers near the border to come across old corpses of attempted immigrants.

Also how accurate is the idea that illegals strain the economy, is that just conservative talk or are there actual facts behind it?

As fars as I have seen having lived in a community with a large immigrant population, I can say that not only is that a crock of total bullshit, it's actually the opposite of the truth.

Immigrants do not hurt the economy. They don't take jobs from white people. Well, let me clarify that: they don't take economically important jobs from citizens. The jobs most illegal immigrants take are low end agricultural jobs, and maybe some low end retail jobs. In order to be in competition with illegal immigrants for these jobs, the citizen has to essentially be an economic drop out. Frankly, our economy should not be focused on those who have to compete for the worst jobs possible.

The jobs that have economic impact (i.e. ones that pay reasonably well and require some level of skill for) are being filled by foreigners. Overseas foreigners. Outsourcing has done 10 trillion times more harm to American jobs than illegal immigrants have.

Now, this isn't to say illegal immigration can never cause problems. If an influx of skilled illegal immigrants came this could wreak havoc with the economy. However, we already have some good protections for this and skilled workers are far less likely to be illegal immigrants.

Those who employ skilled labor are much more sophisticated entities and are easier to track when it comes to requiring documentation. It's much easier for a farmer or a general store owner to overlook citienship status (or the lack thereof) than it is for a school, or a hospital, or a factory to and so on.

Also, those who immigrate illegally do so because things are so bad at their home. The more skill a person has the less likely things are to be as bad in their home country. On top of that, our legal immigration system is far more freindly to economically valuable immigrants than it is to the lowest end.

And a little out of topic, but whats the Cartels status as of now? I always hear the whole gang culture aspect of immigration (even those these groups have graduated way beyond a mere gang) as a reason to keep em from coming over. Do they still have much of Mexico in a vice or have they largely been pushed back

Last I hear they still have extreme power, but the government and the people of Mexico have stood up a bit and evened the balance.

As far as cartels being stopped by walls, this is a total load. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s in San Diego had serious cartel infux into the city. The wall between San Diego and Tiujuana is perhaps the strongest section of the border, and yet the influence still happened. Cartels are more than well equipped enough to circumvent nearly any border defense we put up.

This whole issue is an extreme waste of money.

Everything we have tried has been mildly effective at best. A wall won't work, but will cost tons of money. More agents will only help a little bit, but will cost loads of money.

The cost of having illegal immigrants in the country is actually quite low on the economy. They provide productivity in jobs that Americans would not fill themselves, and they do so at cheap enough rates to let you shop at WalMart prices.

The reason you were able to garnish your cake with raspberries is because they were most likely picked by an immigrat who was paid well below the minimum wage. Otherwise, the berries would have likely doubled in cost.

This issue is a bunch of hullaballoo pushed by those who are looking to have a cornerstone agenda to preach about. They line that immigrants are taking jobs is a total load of shit. Immigration of peope didn't kill your jobs. Emmigration of jobs killed your job. Mr. Agni in India, or Mr. Zhou in China are 10,000 times more likely to have a job that should be done by an American than Mr. Rodriguez who just jumped the border last year does.

At 7/18/14 03:15 PM, SnakyDragon wrote: I beg to differ. I think that Atheism is the belief that there is nothing, not that believing in something is wrong.

There's a difference between no belief and belief in nothing. No belief means that you do not have ANY views on religion. This is the benign group that you try to lump under atheism. Belief in nothing means you have an active belief that there is nothing, which is at least a passive way of saying all those with belief are wrong.

At 7/19/14 12:26 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So you can't explicitly ask somebody about their religious orientation, but can you slyly use a lawyer trick like this to goad it out of them?

Too transparent. I know many a tort lawyer who prays for employer to ask this sort of question. It's practically a slam dunk case. There are ways to do it, but they're much more difficult and often need to be far more targetted than opening it up to all religions or even a major religion.

The question: how do you spend you weekends?" could be a veiled way to ask about religion. This would open the door for religious based activities or ceremonies to be mentioned.

The problem with these veiled questions is that the culture that makes open questions be frowned upon also frowns upon the volunteering of information that would answer such an open question.

At 7/18/14 10:19 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: depends on the people in power at the time. i really cant define it any further than that, different people have different biases.

I'm calling BS on your claim then. If you can't even find one example...