Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/27/13 03:08 PM, Ericho wrote: True, I mean if you look at some commercials, you hear about how they advertise drugs that can give you blood clot, stroke, and heart attack. Why are those legal but marijuana isn't?

I'm tired of explaining this over and over and over again.

Drug companies are required to disclose all problems that occurred to any patient during the double blind study REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY CONNECTION TO THE DRUG OR NOT.

Terrible correlation to make.

At 1/27/13 02:47 PM, Korriken wrote: Just having a token person once a week/month/year at the school is useless and pointless.

That token counselor is still likely to help some students at some time, and it's a 1 in 1 quintillion chance that those assault rifles will do anything, let alone help someone. The horiffically inadequate counselor is still more helpful that the guns.

At 1/27/13 01:24 PM, scoutthesoldier wrote: Yes, we should get rid of the Electoral College with a petition or something. The whole reason the Electoral College is here is because back in the day, everyone was too stupid to decide on who to vote for. But now, we are all pretty smart people, so we should get rid of them.

No and no.

The electoral college was actually a logistical mechanism. Instead of having all of the votes taking days or weeks to get to the Capital, each State would tally the votes on their own and then only the States' allotted delegates had to actually bring votes to the Capital.

No, people are not much smarter now than they were then when it come to politics.

At 1/26/13 06:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Bush was pretty left for his party.

And Bush was strongly to the right for America, so what does that say about the GOP?

At 1/26/13 01:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well it all comes down to the value of human life. We're all equal in this world.

No it doesn't, and no we're not.

It comes down to the pure amount of harm that can be caused by an abduction of the head of the Executive Branch's child. If someone abducted my child, there's relatively little they could get from me. Same goes for 99.99% of all Americans. Maybe they could extort some small amount of money, or get us to do some relatively small time bad acts.

Such extortion pressure on the President could result in pardons, military strikes, release of national secrets, and so on. That list doesn;t even include the secondary effects that such a trauma can have on a nation.

In short, we ALL stand to lose if Obama's girls are abudcted or harmed.

At 1/26/13 02:33 PM, TheMason wrote: Where do you live? It could be the size that makes the difference. Afterall, many schools serving small communities may lack the resources to have resource officers. And it's not just the school district...it could be the police force too. The police force could be lacking in manpower to support full time cops in schools.

That's very true. However, I do think pure location has a great deal to do with it as well. My elementary school did not need any security, but there were other elementary schools that fed into my high school that needed security even then. My side of the distrct was middle-upper suburban, but there were other parts that had strong gang ties.

At 1/26/13 02:38 PM, TheMason wrote: This just seemed suddenly appropriate. :)

I... I don't know what to think anymore...

At 1/25/13 07:37 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Actually, legally, killing in self defense IS murder. It merely falls under the category of justifiable murder and thus carries no liability.

Actually you are talking out of your ASS again

Have you ever set foot in a courtroom? Have you ever tried a criminal case? NO? Oh, I HAVE.

Self defense is justified murder.

It is an affirmative defense, not a negating defense. An affirmative defense is one where even though all of the elements of a charge have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a special and specified set or circumstances where even the satisfaction of all elements is deemed not to carry any liability.

Just because something carries no liability doesn't mean the root act isn't unlwaful either. (hint: there is no such thing as a lawful killing).

SO, sorry, child, you're out of your league here.

At 1/26/13 06:16 AM, Cootie wrote: Also, since the workers are much more numerous and also part of the day-to-day of a company I think they should get some say-so on how things are ran.

No they should not. They should have some control over how their specific duty gets done, but within strict limits. The average burger flipper does not have the knowledge to know how to set prices, or where to buy the material from, or what type of upselling works best across the board. The average factory worker doesn't know how to sell their good to the consumer, purchase the raw materials, design the aerodynamics of the final product, and so on.

Most workers don't get to decide a damn thing even when it only effects them.

That is the only case in which most workers should ever have the power to decide. Let the experts decide how to run the company and the workers decide how to work.

At 1/26/13 11:16 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So even though Obama is following Bush's policies EXACTLY,

On a quick look, his policies are actually quite different So explain how they're exactly the same.

At 1/25/13 07:29 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry I can't take someone seriously who wants someone to work for 1 day in a single school for the entire school year as a guidance councilor.

So you choose to focus on how little he would be able to do instead of the intended point? The point being: even that little bit will prove far more use to the students than a single gun, let alone an assault rifle, let alone many assault rifles.

At 1/24/13 09:46 AM, TheMason wrote: As for the Evangelical wing taking over...I'm not sure that is completely true.

True, but false at the same time.

Yes, it is true that the Republican party does not like being associated with the evangelicals, as they know that association with them is a surefire key to losing an election. However, they can't win without them. This means they have to cater their policies toward the evangelicals in order to get that chunk of the vote, while trying to mke it look to the rest of the voters that they're not.

In short, the evangelical vote has the RNC's nuts in a vice.

At 1/25/13 03:27 PM, LemonCrush wrote: A simple 10 question quiz on basic constitutional knowledge or political history would do.

That's hardly enough. If you're going to make intelligence any factor it all, make it the proper level of intelligence. Simply knowing the gist fo a few basics does not qaulify someone to understand the difference one word can make on a law. Frankly, if you're going to use intelligence, all non-JDs should be ruled out. As, even the smartest doctors, mathmeticians, and engineers might as well be reading Greek when it comes to statutory language.

At 1/25/13 12:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/25/13 12:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

I totally agree with you that school shootings are very rare. Also, the average day-to-day violence can and should be solved with words and not bullets.

There are specific schools where a higher level of security is needed, but Fontana California, a relatively quiet suburb, is NOT one of them. The remainder of schools disstricts, may run into an event where high caution is needed once a year. These aren't bad enough to warrant guns on campus. The number of schools districts that will have such a bad event in the existence of the district at all is statistically none.

On the other hand, in class and on my teacher's union's website...I'm getting the sense that allowing teachers to carry is not something that is all that of a small of a % anymore. I'm hearing people who do not like guns being at least open to the thought now.

This is still a bad idea. Teachers are there to teach, not to patrol the hallways like a sheriff out of Tombstone. Many students are already intimidted by their teachers. Giving teachers guns is hardly a way to endear the students to them.

And yet...gun control does not effect gun violence. I think some degree of gun control is appropriate...but I don't think there is much more that can be gained from new gun control laws beyond tinkering with our background checks.

There are two types of gun control that I think would work. Gun monitoring (strong background checks as well as a single national database) and making the possession of a gun without resgistering equal to failure to reister as a sex offender. The second is complete gun control. The removal of all legal guns DOES make committing a gun crime exponentially harder, and will deter many if not most, of the spur of the moment gun crimes (which make up the near entirety of US gun crimes).

At 1/24/13 11:40 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's predominately Gang Violence that equates to the vast majority of the shooting in America.

I'm not so sure about that one.

At 1/24/13 11:49 PM, LemonCrush wrote: 1) We're not talking about Gang Violence, but since you brought it up, gun violence and gangs seem to run most rampant in cities with the tightest gun laws, like NY and LA

The gun laws were created in response to the high amount of gun violence. Nice try, though.

2) It's literally impossible to stop a criminal from obtaining what they want. That's why they're criminals. They want something, drugs, alcohol during prohibition or whatever, and will hurt people to get it. This is an unstoppable fact of life. As such, it is better to allow people to defend themselves

The goal of such laws isn't to completely stop criminals. The lawmakers know that's not possible. The goal is to make it so hard for criminals to do a certain act that they either waste a lot of their resources on it, expose themselves to attention while trying to go out of their way to find it, or to make it so expensive and time consuiming that many criminals decide not to do it. When the country's gun violence numbers are in the tens of thousands, those three obstacles can make a HUGE dent.

3) Gun free zones do violate the moral code of allowing someone to protect themselves and/or their families. That's a right, don't ya think? Don't you tihnk that people have a right to protect themselves? The Constitution does. In fact, I'd say anyone, anywhere will agree that it is your right to defend your life and well-being.

Yeah, but if you reduce the amount of criminals with guns (which WILL happen with proper gun control) what is needed to protect one's family changes. And don't give me this "well, NYC has tough laws, but guns are still there" garbage. Their tough gun laws are sobtaged by the lack of state to state customs and other states willing to sell guns to anyone with cash, no questions asked. Until a US jurisidiction is able to have gun laws and a protected border from all other gun jurisdictions, and removes all prior guns, you cannot use that argument. It is completely stilted.

At 1/25/13 12:14 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Police respond, not prevent. We are constantly cutting down their budgets and making them cut personnel. Murder =/= Self Defense by definition.

Actually, legally, killing in self defense IS murder. It merely falls under the category of justifiable murder and thus carries no liability.

At 1/25/13 12:12 AM, Ceratisa wrote: I don't see the harm in splitting them up to better reflect the voting. Since hey, you know it wouldn't of mattered anyway?

I am fine with this, but it needs to be done in an all or nothing way. Either all states should go all or nothing, or we shouldn't change. Only changing the states that have Red state legislatures but vote blue for President is nothing other than a cheap attempt at election rigging.

At 1/24/13 08:30 PM, Ceratisa wrote: The travel alone would rack up cost unless you want their part time 14k job to pay for travel expenses as well.

You're not getting it. Even a vastly underpaid, overstratched worker has more use than an assault rifle at a school. Not because the overstrecthed is worth so much, but because the assault rifles are wholly unneeded and completely useless there.

At 1/24/13 09:39 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Is it a waste? I mean, schools, according to the media, are constantly in danger from crazy rednecks with "assault rifles". So, shouldn't we have someone at schools to stop him?

No, because the schools are not in danger of shootings. The kind of violenece that does occur at schools is of a kind where use of guns to stop it is innappropriate, but is very much preventable through the open ear of a counselor.

You can't support gun control in response to a school shooting, and at the same time, say schools won't get shot up

I don't support gun control because of school shootings. I support gun control because of gun violenece in general. School shootings make up a miniscule amount of the total gun violence in this country. Considering how many person hours are spent at school daily and yearly, I'd say schools are extremely safe.

At 1/24/13 04:34 PM, Ceratisa wrote: So you choose to ignore the fact that you want one guy who normally makes 55kish to work part time covering 44 schools? for 14k?

1 day a week going to the schools he/she is needed at. Still 1,000,000,000,000,000 times more useful than that amount spent on assault rifles.

At 1/24/13 04:14 PM, Korriken wrote: this school will probably never get shot up.

Which is why spending so much on guns is a waste.

At 1/24/13 04:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I guess it was kind gross, it was messy as hell ...but I can't really say it grossed me out or anything .

The visual wasn't bad (I watched my son get circumcized and that didn't phase me). The smell on the other hand was absolutely horriffic.

I also had been up 24 stressful hours straight and was pretty exhausted by that point, so that may have had something to do with it.

I think you should read the line item titled "backseat modding".

At 1/24/13 03:58 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Oh look, you can't read? Did you see the cost comparison? IT isn't even close, that is like not being able to afford a new company fleet of cars vs getting some high quality office paper.

$14,000 is more than enough to get a school counselor to come on part time. Seems to me that a school counselor is a heap load more useful to students than a pile of fancy and shiny cobweb launching points.

So, you were saying?

At 1/23/13 08:36 PM, Ceratisa wrote: No proof? Look at registered voters how is 108% of an entire district voting for one candidate not fishy?

Let's say I'm Missouri, the Show Me State.

Show me something more than just your assertion.

At 1/23/13 09:42 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Ok, how about we approach this from a non Democrat vs Republican view? Could we all agree that a direct popular vote for the nations highest office would be preferable to an electoral college?

Absolutely.

Though, it is much easier to enjoy it when it's the all or nothing electoral vote. That being said, the purpose of the election isn't to mimic watching a football game on espn gamecast...

At 1/23/13 08:52 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I declined to watch the live birth video though. To this day, I find the process disgusting.

And the visual isn't even the worst part...

At 1/23/13 05:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Information is free though...

Information is free, art is not.

At 1/23/13 05:35 PM, Ceratisa wrote: What about examples where in Ohio districts more votes just for Obama were cast then there were eligible voters.

What about them? (Ive been through this with others, there is NO proof of that)

Obama still won enough electoral votes to win without Ohio.

At 1/23/13 05:45 PM, poxpower wrote: When you start backing up your legal arguments with the word "morally" you lose.

That wasn't a legal argument. That was a true statement, that you're not going to find any innocent and good faith act that is prohibited by copyright law. Trust me, there has been more than enough attempts to both extend and shrink copyright protection beyond it's acceptable means and none (with one exeption) have succeeded.

The exception being the legislative extension of copyrights long beyond their usefulness.

There are numerous points that need to be addressed by the pro-piracy club.

- 1 - Why an act on the internet magically becomes legal when it would be illegal in the real world.
- 2 - Why a crime is justifiable if you don't like the person you think you're harming, or you dont think it will harm them.
- 3 - The false sense that it is the established musicians and the music publishing corporations that get hurt, instead of the reality where new musicians and the employees of the publishing companies get hurt.

Unless ALL THREE points can be explained away, piracy is a crime, just like counterfieting, and should be treated as such.

There are 2 million more votes for Obama that say you're wrong.

You lost. BYE.

At 1/22/13 09:16 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: Suppose I buy a CD. Then I lend it it to a different friend every other week so they can make their own copies. Are we stealing from the artist? I'll make it more difficult: What if they don't make copies, but just listen to it? According to some people, the artist is now a victim of theft since although a purchase of the CD was made, it is being listened to/used by other people who did not buy their own.

According to no one. A performance piece can be purchased for both personal use and use with close relations, including friends. It is once that piece is either performed in a commercial capacity or given away to strangers that the license to use it has been overstepped.

What if I made, say, 10 copies just for myself. Am I "stealing" 10 additional purchases from the artist even though the copies are all for me and I'm not selling/distributing them to anyone?

Again, no.

By this logic, lending and borrowing are against the law because the amount of people using said product is greater than the number of people who made the purchase.

Again, NO.

Dammit people. This is getting annoying. The rules ARE CLEAR AND SIMPLE. Cannot give it away indiscriminately, cannot copy and give it away (save any exception in the license), and cannot perform/play it in a commercial capacity. Those require diffferent licenses. How hard is it for you guys to understand this? Is your hatred for those with money so strong that you immediately throw thinking out the window and go out of your way to bury your head in your ass?

Here are some examples.

You can buy a CD/ITunes album with Happy Birthday on it.
You can sing Happy Birthday to a group of accquaintances or friends.
You can resell your CD/album.
You can gift your CD/Album.
You can make as many personal use copies as you like.*

You cannot sing Happy Birthday to customers in any capacity.**
You cannot copy your CD/album and sell it.
You cannot copy your CD/album and give it away.***

* - unless speicifcally instructed otherwise
** - unless you have a performance license
*** - I believe there may some exceptions for very close gifts, such as to members of the same household.

Finally, NO you're not going to find a situation where a simple and morally acceptable transaction is not allowed. Stop trying.

At 1/23/13 11:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Anti sex .... They'd have had to tie me down to keep me from walkin' out of that class !

I don't remember the slant in our class... I was too busy making sex jokes, hitting on girls (Quite clumsily, I might add), and daydreaming about it to really pay attention.

About the Soup CamaroH was sayin' you don't need to put any salt in homemade soups.
My lover makes fresh soup all the time, whether its a chicken vegetable, or a cream of mushroom , or chicken, or broccoli, etc. she will use bay leaves & other spices & herbs for flavour. Her Roasted Red pepper soup is Awesome & not one who has had it notices the only salt in it, comes from the vegetables in it.

Forgot about cream based soups.

I'm still able to have a feed of Salt Cod & Pork Scraps (its a traditional East Coast dish)

I love our local fish, but all Pacific Northwest fish is expensive. Salmon, Halibut, King Crab. I think the only somewat cheap seafood here is shellfish (dungeness and clams) but I'm not a fan of shellfish.

There's got to be lots of different recipes for it on the Net , I've never looked , I just make it the way my Nana & Mom & Aunts always do it.

I was given a massive list of ingredients I could use based on their low potassium, low salt, and appropriate phosphorus levels. I then set out experimenting. One of the few good thing about my fluid treatment is that it drains potassium off of me as well (or better) than a regular kidney, so that's freed up a ton of shit for me. Potassium restriction is a bitch. It's completely random what has and doesn't have potassium. Oranges, spinach, chocolate, nuts, potatoes, dairy, tomatos, and a whole slough of random and seemingly ubiquitous foods.