Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/3/10 09:46 PM, Me-Patch wrote:
Oh hell yeah, the US shafted the Brits big time...

What is more a kick in the proverbial teeth is that, whilst Britain was paying off its loan way ahead of the expected schedule, the US were giving money to Germany and Japan to rebuild what was left of their countries - notably their inductrial base - which gave them the springboard to their respective economic miracles. Britain, which had also seen much of its industrial base bombed to rubble during the war, didn't have any help in getting it back up and running.

The bankruptcy that occurred when Truman shafted Britian by demanding they repay the Lend-Lease they received during WWII under FDR didn't help matters - as the repayments were being made until 2006.

For non-Brits, Keith Vaz MP is our version of Jack Thompson - and, on Tuesday, decided to take his anti-gaming stance into the House of Commons, to voice concerns about Modern Warfare 2. However, he met some stiff resistence from Tom Watson MP and Sion Simon, Minister for Creative Industries. The transcript follows:

Keith Vaz: At midnight tonight, a new and violent videogame called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is to be released. It contains such scenes of brutality that even the manufacturers have put in warnings within the game telling people how they can skip particularly scenes. Given the recommendations of the Byron Review, specifically paragraphs 32 and 33, what steps is the government proposing to take in order to ensure that these violent games do not fall into the hands of children and young people. It's not about censorship; it's about protecting our children.

Sion Simon (Minister for Creative Industries):The clearest recommendation of the Byron Review is that content suitable for adults should be labeled as such and sold as such, that it should be an offense to sell such content to children. That's the case under current law. It will be the case under the law when it changes in the Digital Economy bill. This game the honorable gentleman refers to is a certificate 18 game. It should not be sold to children and the governments job is to make sure that adults clearly labeled can get what adults should be able to and that children are not in danger of being subjected to adult content.

Tom Watson: I've seen the content in this video game... it is unpleasant, though no worse than in many films and books. It carries a content warning; it is an 18+ game and carries a BBFC 18+ rating as well. Does the Minister agree that it would be better for members of this house to support the many thousands of games designers and coders and the many millions of games users rather than collaborating with the Daily Mail to create morale panic over the use of videogames.

Sion Simon: I was in Dundee last week visiting the videogames industry. I can certainly agree with him that videogames is an industry... a very large... a very important industry, in which we have a national competitive advantage in this country, which it's important that all members of this house and he government continue to support.

Watson has also set up a group on Facebook, Gamer's Voice.

As for the references to the Byron Report, Vaz was - unsurpisingly - found out to be talking out of his backside, as the paragraphs he referenced did even fit into his argument. Here they are:

32: There are some possible negative effects of violent content in games, but these only become 'harmful' when children present other risk factors...

33: However, we need to approach unequivocal claims of direct causes with caution - there is a strong body of ethnographic research which argues that context and the characteristics of each child will mediate the effects of playing video games. This means considering the media effects evidence in light of what we know about child development. We can use this to hypothesise about potential risks to children from playing some games....

It's as if he was hoping nobody looked it up, so he could sound important by referencing something that nobody had read, so they'd agree with him.

I read one comment today from a BNP supporter saying "All buildings in Britain named after Nelson Mandela should be renamed after British heroes."

Presumably they meant Oswald Mosely...

At 11/3/09 04:12 PM, ReiperX wrote:
So what is this newspaper anyways?

The second-highest selling paper in the UK, behind The Sun - which says a lot about the UK, doesn't it?

The Mail is best known for three things:
i.) Their support of both Hitler and Mussolini until 1939.
ii.) Being part of the definition of a Moral Panic in the UK - if the Mail reports it's bringing down society, it's an official Panic.
iii.) Being the paper of choice for Middle England due to its Conservative slant and casual isms. Especially their wives.

At 10/13/09 11:27 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/13/09 10:01 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: People who carry guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens.

And the NRA say gun control doesn't work...

D2K this does not really argue that gun control works. In fact the links prove otherwise. Chicago has one of the highest murder rates in the US...yet some of the most strict gun control laws.

No, it says having a gun is more likely to get you shot - which means that, if you don't have a gun, you're less likely to get shot.

We have to break what have become socio-economic norms and modes of behavior, not waste time and money on gun control. All that will do is take guns away from people who are not using them in crime and not do anything to stem the flow to law-breakers.

Is it really wasting time and money when - and let me just reiterate - you're less likely to be shot if you don't have a gun?

As for the increased chance of getting injured carrying a gun...well duh! Guess what? People who ride in cars are ten times more likely to get injured in a car accident than someone who rides a horse.

Ah, the car argument. Well, guess what? Cars aren't weapons designed to kill, so the majority of people killed by cars isn't related to somebody deliberatly aiming the bonnet of their car at them and putting their foot down. The people killed by guns, on the other hand...

It is really a useless study that does not really tell us anything about gun violence in the US. It doesn't change the fact that socio-economic factors are the underlying cause of crime. It doesn't change the fact that there between 800,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year. It doesn't change the fact that crime rates drop when concealed carry goes into effect. It doesn't change the fact that fatal gun accidents are more rare than drowning, falling or walking accidents.

It doesn't tell the pro-gun brigade anything about gun violence, maybe. Then again, nothing ever seems to tell them anything - and they'll shoot you if you argue otherwise (stillo, at least you're not being so literal about it...)

But anyway, nice work making a semi-pithy comment using the NRA to make an emotional argument.

And now we're at the "appeal to emotion" argument we get from the pro-gun brigade.

Of course, saying more people are killed by cars doesn't do this, nor does the usual "defensive gun use" argument - when the fact is the US has the highest gun murder rate of the First World nations, and the eight highest worldwide per 100,000. Or the fact the US has a very high frequency of mass shootings.

But, y'know, none of that matters...

At 10/13/09 06:48 PM, CaptainChip wrote:

At 10/13/09 04:33 PM, Patton3 wrote: Closing Guantanamo? After all, what went on there beyond a doubt provoked many attacks on civillians and soldiers. As for any other actions... none come to mind. And even the order to close G Bay wouldn't qualify one for the award by any means.

Problem with your answer: He didn't. Gitmo is still running.

And the prisoners are being transferred to other facilities - still without a trial.

They're not so much bullying, more a vehicle for Simon Cowell/Alan Sugar to watch willing morons squirm for their own personal enjoyment, and they get paid to be complete twats to people.

If anything, Big Brother is bullying - not in the Jade Goody/racism sort of way, but the UK version constantly pokes and prods the contestants to get a reaction so the audience can laugh at them.

Just because the UK has 20% of the world's CCTV cameras doesn't mean it's a police state.

The fact the police can shoot and batter the population to death, and get away with it time and again, when they're not making up reasons for arresting people on the other hand...

At 10/13/09 10:12 AM, amaterasu wrote:
Going to be nitpicky are we? Then he's the blackestest president so far. Better?

I think we should throw this one open to the black posters of NG: do you think Obama represents you, because his skin is darker than all previous Presidents...even though his features are more caucasian than Afro Caribbean, he was raised as white in a white family, and all the other stuff that usually gets trotted out.

Also, am I alone in thinking that, because he's The First Black President of the US, this congratulatory cult around him looks remarkably similar to the special needs kid at school getting patted on the head everytime he does something right?

At 10/13/09 10:06 AM, amaterasu wrote:
What did he do? He was black.

prove me wrong :P

You can always rely on the interweb for this stuff...

My main issue, other than being wondering what Obama did to justify the award, is the timing - the last date for nominations was the end of February, when he'd been in office for the grand total of three weeks. What, if anything, did Obama do in his first two/three weeks in office that makes him more deserving than (using a fellow nominee as an example) Morgan Tsvangirai?

People who carry guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens.

And the NRA say gun control doesn't work...

Last time I asked a VG character for advice, they said " I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri Rock. I need scissors! 61!"

Jurassic Park Arcade nullifies this theory, being as it was rather good - hopw many other games have you crashing into a triceratops' ass? Actually, arcade games do tend to be better than the console ones - the Terminator 2 shooter being another example.

As for home consoles...errm...Germlins 2 on the NES is the last half-decent one I can think of.

Because there's no such word as paedophobic, nor is it illegal to harass a paedophile for their lifestyle choices or sexual preferences - which happen to be illegal in most countries.

I noticed that, even before the Election, there were some Obama supporters on here itching to play The Race Card - in other words, they can say it isn't an issue that Obama happens to be black, but they will make damn sure to imply you're the one making an issue of it when you criticise him.

Doing it over his Healthcare reforms, though, is retarded - why Carter didn't say the reactionary overreaction was the sort of response that keeps the US healthcare system so far down in polls I'll never know. But the pause between Carter saying it was a racist reaction and Obama saying not to equate criticism of this plan with racism was notably delayed.

Then again, ever since Obama went off half-cocked about that Harvard lecturer, there have been those itching for a chance to point at anything Obama does is part of His Black Agenda - which is equally retarded.

In summary, then: people suck.

At 9/18/09 04:54 PM, Eddyking wrote: So Obama's a Nazi (A far right winged ideology) yet he's also implementing a socialist (A far left wing ideology) healthcare system. How dose that work?

Because, in the minds of the average below-average American, fascism and Communism are the exact same thing.

Simple: give the justifiable criticism of the BNP and what they represent a more prominent forum than they have.

If the BNP are getting seats in the London Assembly based on voter ignorance, this is important.

The correct answer is Rome: Total War, which is still sixteen different types of greatness at once.

Fear Effect Inferno is the main one, whilst I'd love to see Rainy Woods escape from Development Hell as well.

Just to say that I've played it, and it was a juvenile pile of crap I presume that it is, I suppose I'll add Thrill Kill to the list.

At 9/2/09 09:49 PM, yinyangman wrote: Because the United States is becoming such a hotter and hotter climate, There could be alot less snow by 2055.

And yet there will still be people saying there's no such thing as global warming here in the UK...

Private Eye is always a good source.

Try a different outlook: perhaps the annual fires are God's way of punishing Silly Clone Valley. So, when the fires are burning towards residential areas, throw in Paris Hilton and see if this appeases some primitive god.

If that fails, chuck in Lindsey Lohan...

At 9/2/09 09:31 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

*Bribes*

Man, I ate a bag of white choc chip cookies yesterday as it is...

Watch or read any segment of Murdoch's evil empire, and just think of the exact opposite way the story could be reported. Best news source going.

Sure beats the BBC, which has become neutered beyond belief.

At 9/3/09 01:53 PM, Ledgey wrote:
I know, let's just destroy the West then feed our babies to hungry africans. That'll put us straight, surely.

I have to say, I'd love to see Madonna mouthing off aboutthatonstage...

At 8/28/09 10:09 AM, Riech wrote: Seriously, for the last 200 years they've done nothing but cause trouble.

Yupo, it was the actions of the French that started both World Wars, and it is well known Osama bion-Laden is actually French.

Napoleon: They couldn't control their leader.

They removed him from power and exiled him. Twice!

Franco-Prussian War: They took on more then they could handle and look what happened...

The same thing that happened to the US in Vietname and Afghganistan, right?

WW2: France was the worst thing to happen to my country. You sit there so high and mighty and judge us for allowing him to take power. What other choice did we have? Germany was on the edge of an abyss. We were blamed for the entirety of World War 1. Still soar over there loss during the Franco Prussian war, they took us on. Germany overthrew its ruler because the people were sick of the Bloodshed and surrendered. It could have ended there, but it didn't. France forced Germany to sign a treaty that turned us into a 3rd World country, broke our economy's back, and caused a lot of people to starve to death. All you ever see are the Concentration camp photos of what Germany did, but what about the twice as many people Russia killed in their own camps, or the Japanese who suffered in America's camps? Or how about the skeletons of the German people who suffered and died because they couldn't afford food. The UK and America knew what France was doing and did nothing to stop it. We had no choice but to turn to someone with a new idea and a bold voice. France and the allies indifference caused WW2 not us!

So, you're telling me that France is responsible for the actions of Stalin?

The Vietnam War: France was too beaten to take care of it's own territories so it begged the US for help, resulting in one of the bloodiest wars Asia had ever seen.

Which doesn't explain how the US also went home, tail between their legs...

Today: France has been sucking at the tit of its more powerful western allies, and then treats them like crap, contributes nothing, and even provides goods to terrorist nations!

Sounds like a rather accurate description of the UK to me, actually.

It's impossible not to support socialised medicine - because both Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin are so damned against it.

However, as the NHS demonstrates, it needs supporting: the Thatcher and Major years tried their hardest to kill the system off, and it's underfunded to the tune of £200bn as a result - this should not be allowed to happen. Then again, Blair and Brown trying to show they're doing something by upping funding by £20m a year is another symptom of the issue: it looks good on paper to up funding, but it's a fraction of what's needed - and Blair pissed funding up the wall on the NHS computer system (that was never implemented), as hospitals hire more administrators than nurses.

At 8/21/09 06:34 AM, ThePretenders wrote:
On a side note, the UK banking bailouts are totaled to £1,227bn. I wonder if the politicians will tell the electorate that the government would have to make spending cuts in boom times, in accordance with Keynesian principles because the government would also have to raise taxes to pay off some of the debt. When push comes to shove, the NHS finances would be constrained.

Even more so given how hospitals have more administrators than nurses, and how Blair wasted £20bn of NHS funding on a computer system they never used.

In other words, the NHS isn't evil - the underfunding it got under the Tories has, however, made it so crippled it probably has to go BUPA.