Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Republicans think liberals are wrong and so use the term in a derogatory way, but they respect their right to form a party and campaign for office. I've never heard a Republican say "we should make the Democratic Party illegal!"

At 5/14/11 08:59 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Free Trade, for me in my experience is a myth.
I recently ordered greenscreen material ,used in photography, from chroma key in California. I live in NS Canada.
THis is a patented material & isn't available in Canada, unless you go to BC & order premade screens made at chroma key in California.
Well I needed a custom screen (actually 4 of them)
So I tried to see if they could help me in BC, they couldn't . So I contacted chroma directly & told them what I was doing & what I wanted. They did nothing as large or like what I wanted, but would be happy to sell me the materials & I could use my own seamstress here, I actually used a sail maker, as my drops were so big.
I paid not only for the usual stuff like shipping & taxes, I paid a huge duty, more than 10% of the price. For a product that wasn't available in this country.
I was robbed. If there is/was free trade, why should anyone get hit with paying duty for a product unavailable in this country ?

Free trade is there for big business, & Gov's to rape & pillage the population IMO, same old, same old.

Well, if you paid a duty on it then that wasn't free trade. I don't pretend to be an expert on NAFTA, but it doesn't totally eliminate all trade barriers does it? A couple of tariffs and the like still remain, right? There isn't total free trade between NAFTA nations and all other nations. So the fact that you paid extra due to a trade barrier was the result of restrictions on free trade.

And free trade isn't just for big business, it's for consumers. For example, the EU used to have a tariff on Central American bananas coming into the EU in order to protect banana producers in nations which used to be European colonial possessions. This pushed up the prices of bananas for EU residents above the market rate; we ended up paying more for bananas than people outside the EU, who could enjoy bananas made by more efficient central american producers without the added cost of tariffs putting up the price. Recently, the EU removed this trade restriction, making trade more free, and voila! Bananas are now much cheaper for European consumers.

Are Americans really this prudish, or is it just a small but very vocal minority dictating what is or isn't acceptable through powerful pressure groups?

B-b-b-b-but I th-th-thought we were America's super special best friend..?

*cries*

Well I'm covered by the good old NHS, but at the moment I'd have to say I'd prefer one of those systems where it's all private, but you're legally required to be covered by one insurance firm or another and if you can't afford it the government provides you with the necessary funds.

Seems a hell of a lot fairer than the poor being taxed to death to pay for the care of the rich, and much more morally justified than simply offering one health service only to those who can't afford it themselves. I mean, we don't give the poor government-manufactured shoes, clothes or food, we give them benefits which they use to choose their own goods. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to healthcare?

At 12/3/10 09:08 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: So for those of us (read: most of us) that are not familiar with the electoral structure of the United Kingdom, would you be so kind as to elaborate on how it works, what's wrong with it, and how you would like to see it changed?

Hello.

The UK currently uses a plurality system for electing MPs. It's also called "First Past the Post." Whoever gets the most votes in a constituency wins the seat, even if it's not a majority. So, if three people stand and two guys get 30% each and one guy gets 40% each, the guy wins even though only 40% of his constituents voted for him.

It's basically the same system you use for your stuff. In presidential elections for example, most of your states use winner takes all plurality systems. In practice, this distorts the result; for example, in 88 Walter Mondale won like 40% of the popular vote, but ended up with something like 3% of the Electoral College Vote. He'd still have lost, but not by as much if it were proportional. In 2000, Gore got more of the vote but still lost to Bush, even ignoring the kerfuffle over Florida.

Here the effect is even more pronounced since we have three major parties, though one is less significant than the over two. Though the Libdems routinely do respectably in terms of the popular vote, they never get significant representation in Parliament; in 1997 for example they won 17% of the vote, but just 46 of 659 seats. This is because their vote is thinly spread across the nation and not concentrated in areas like Labour's and the Conservative's. They're in government now, but that's less to do with the system becoming fairer and more to do with how neither the Tories nor Labour ended up with a majority. In fact, their share of the vote increased in 2010 compared to 2005, but they ended up with LESS seats.

Governments are routinely formed with a minority of the vote. We haven't had a government which has won over 50% of the vote ever, to my knowledge. In 1997, Labour won 43% of the vote, a respectable number indeed, but not a majority. With these votes however, they won a huge majority in Parliament (curiously enough, their calls for electoral reform died down after this result :P). There are also numerous quirks in the system too. In 2010 for example, the Tories gained more votes than Labour had in 2005, but ended up with less seats; in other words, the Tories couldn't form a government with 1% more of the vote than Labour had when they won in 2005 with a healthy majority.

So there's the problem. People (especially LibDems) say that this is unfair and unrepresentative. The LibDems want Proportional Representation (eg, 25% of the vote gets you 25% of the seats, etc.). Some want other systems like STV and AMS.

As part of the coalition deal between the Tories and the LibDems, we're gonna have a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which isn't PR, but is more proportional than FPTP. It allows you to select second and third favourites when voting. If your top preference has the least votes after the first count he is discounted and your second and third preferences are re-allocated and etc, until someone has a majority.

If Parliament agrees to this referendum (which it probably will, though some Tories are a little mad about it), we'll all vote on whether or not to change the system.

Personally I'd prefer we kept FPTP. I like my governments strong and able to deliver on their manifesto pledges. :)

Liking Michael Moore doesn't make you a Marxist.

Even if she was a Marxist, if she doesn't let it affect her teaching, there's no problem. A sociology teacher at my college is a full on Communist (not just a Marxist in sociological terms), but he doesn't bring any of it up in class (we only found out when someone asked him), and he's a pretty good teacher from what I've heard. I couldn't disagree with his political and economic beliefs more, but as long as he teaches well I couldn't care less.

I say we send a load of people on a spaceship in hyspersleep right now. We do have hypersleep pods, right?

I'm not a Catholic or a believer, but I'm glad the Pope didn't die.

If that had happened on our watch it would've been really embarrassing. Besides, the stuff he's been saying hasn't really annoyed me that much.

"OMIGOD! Did you hear?! The Pope said he doesn't approve of homosexuality!" What, the Pope? You don't f*cking say.

"OH SNAP, did you hear that the Pope is critical of what he sees as aggressive secularism?!" No shit, Sherlock! Just what the hell is so outrageous about that? I mean, he's the bloody Pope!

I was watching Futurama. All of a sudden it was interrupted by a news flash.

I was 9, and boy was I pissed at having my viewing interrupted. I screamed and shouted and my mother came through and was like "what the hell is - OH GOD WHAT'S HAPPENING?!"

And I was like "I know, right! They stopped Futurama!"

I'm not sure I understand the need for this "Fund."

I mean, why would I join this fund when I can just... y'know... buy my own stuff?

How exactly does this fund work anyway? You said your put any money "you didn't need" into this bank account. If the Fund provides for all your basic needs, that just means that you pour all your income into this thing, right?

And how exactly would anyone be any better off? Either everyone gets exactly what they put into the fund, or a certain amount of people get less than what they contributed and a certain amount get more. How is this desirable? Why would those who receive less than they contribute agree to it? Why would a rich man join and get less than he contributes? To be charitable? Well, can't he be charitable without the fund? If a rich man wants to help the poor, he can do so now by giving money to charities or grabbing a laddle. This is a much more simple way for them to be charitable than your "Fund."

I suppose that the money in the fund could be invested in order to make a little return so you could give out more, but the extra money wouldn't be made overnight. In the meantime, people would still be requesting money. The only way to make this work would be for the Fund to give out substantially less than it took in, so it could invest the rest in large enough quantities and wait long enough to make a return to offer more, and if this is the case, how is this better for members than saving their surplus income in a single bank account outside the fund, where they actually make a little money on the interest?

I suppose this fund is designed for people on low incomes who are struggling to survive on their own. I mean, why would a rich or well-off person join, right? Well, how would this Fund help the less fortunate? If they all individually don't have enough money to make ends meet, why would they collectively?

Say Person A needs $10 for rent on an apartment (I know it's a silly amount, it's just for the theory). All Person A has is $5. Person B also needs $10 for rent on an apartment, but also only has $5. They both sign up to this Fund (imagine they're the only ones who have), and their combined $10 is reallocated so that both now have... oh wait, they both just have $5 again. This fund does not create new wealth. The only other scenario is that either Person A or Person B gets the $10 for the rent, while the other is left with nothing.

And investment couldn't work at all in such a scenario, since these people are already just barely surviving as it is and so would need to get every bit as much from the fund as they put in from day one.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't make sense to me. It's very noble of you to want to help people, but this idea just wouldn't work. It's overcomplicated, flawed and unnecessary.

I've got one more week of Summer left.

Then back to sixth form to start my A2s. FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

When I was little I found an Aliens graphic novel in the library, then started ordering them one by one since they didn't have anymore in stock.

Nightmare Asylum
Outbreak
The Female War
Alien Versus Predator Versus Terminator (actually, that one sucked)

It was an outlet for my obsession with the franchise while I was still too young to watch the movies.

I'm not American, but I like having America in charge of things. You guys seem competent and you keep things ticking over pretty nicely.

At 8/25/10 02:20 PM, iPumas wrote:

At 8/25/10 02:17 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote:

At 8/25/10 02:06 PM, iPumas wrote: Because potatoes don't shit and then fuck in it's own shit, that's why.

Hey Kids, its time for! Griffons Fun Facts!

yaaaaayyy

Potato's are covered with shit while there being grown.

People Shit

Right, so we can all get fukken E. Coli.
Stupid fuck, go fuck a pig like the pig fucker you are.

Actually, pigs are very clean and hygenic animals. It's a common misconception that they shit up the walls wherever they go. While they're quite happy to live in mud (what sort of animal or vegetable isn't?), they shit in seperate sections of their penns and then avoid that section when not shitting.

At 8/25/10 07:33 AM, MuyBurrito wrote: Communism seems great in theory and as an ideal, but it never works in practice.

I disagree. I think it's a load of crap in theory too.

So a man sat under a fig tree and became a fully enlightened being with the knowledge of how to end all suffering? That doesn't sound crazy at all!

In all seriousness though, if you want to become a Buddhist and you believe all they believe in, then go for it. However, I've briefly looked into it, and it all just seems... crazy. I mean, prayer wheels that send prayers out across the universe? An astrologer who prophesised that the young Buddha would either become a great king or great religious thinker depending on whether he left the walls of his fathers' house or not? Streams of consciousness in a state of death and rebirth? A cure for all forms of suffering?

There are some positive teachings in there, but all religions have positive teachings. In any case, why do you need all these pseudo-scientific spiritual excuses to be a good person? Why not just try to be a good person without worrying about Karma, or an Eightfold Path, or Four Noble Truths?

I dunno, Buddhism seems pretty crazy to me. I mean, basically some guy sat under a fig tree for a few days, claimed to have become a "fully enlightened being" and started gather followers among the unenlightened masses.

Sounds about as crazy as any religion I've ever heard of.

At 8/21/10 03:50 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 8/21/10 02:02 PM, donkey1233 wrote: If we had socialist economies, we'd be even further up sh*t-creek than we are now.

An economy can be called "socialist" if all (or at least most) productive resources are collectively owned and allocated co-operatively. This is not the case in France, the UK, Germany or any such European nation.

Depends on how strictly you want to define socialism. I could say that every Christian is a fundamentalist and wants to rule the nation with an iron fist and dismiss moderate Christians because those don't abide to the Bible literally, then indeed Christians are dangerous for a society.

No it doesn't. Neither France, the UK nor any other such European nation is socialist by any reasonable definition whatever. We have market economies with a higher degree of welfare spending than America.

That metaphor is flawed. I assume the message behind it is that you can't say socialists universally desire collective ownership of productive resources. Well actually you can say that with a high degree of accuracy. In a socialist economy all productive resources are publically owned and co-operatively allocated. There's no two ways about it (unless you go into more confusing areas and ideas like "market socialism," which I must stress doesn't accurately describe the French economy at all).

You're argument appears to be that you could call an economy socialist if it has even a slight degree of welfare provision if you're definition of socialism is reasonably lax. This just isn't true. At most you could call that a "mixed economy," though it would be more accurate to just call it a market economy.

If an individual in America believes that the US should adopt something like the NHS, that doesn't make that person a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. It doesn't make him a "moderate socialist" either. There are many things that you could call him (social democrat, etc.), but "socialist" isn't one of them.

I understand that this all gets rather confusing, especially so in Europe where many ex-socialist parties have modernised themselves and adopted market-orientated policies but still clung on to old descriptions like (in the case of the Labour Party UK) "the UK's democratic socialist party," even when labels like "social democrat" would be far more apt.

However, to my mind at least, socialism is easily as strictly defined as is free market fundamentalism.

We don't have a total communist social economy, but do have more socialist ideas incorporated in our system than say America, and I find it eronous to say that this is a very bad situation.

I didn't. All I said was that to call an economy socialist just because we have socialised one or two more services than America is silly.

If anything, I like the fact that a welfare state gives money to the unemployed and sets up programs to support the poor and unfortunate, even if this means I will earn less due to taxes. At least that money is well spent.

I have nothing against the idea of welfare at all. While you can't guarantee that the money is actually well-spent, I feel it is necessary to help the most vulnerable in society. While I do think more benefits should be means-tested in the UK (the winter fuel allowance, child benefits, etc.), I'm quite happy to pay taxes to help the least fortunate.

At 4/9/10 07:01 PM, FullFistMaria wrote:

At 4/9/10 06:59 PM, GOOSE15 wrote: we beat England.

Yeah thats why they still own the top of our country.

You beat the UK in 1921 and got your country. The top bit? That's not part of your country.

So you won! :D

My grandpa died before I was old enough to hear him say racist things.

:(

Stamping out fags is a common pastime round my way. Many's the night we spend fag-stamping, fag-stamping to the tunes Glen Miller 'til morning comes.

At 8/21/10 09:41 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/10 08:57 AM, donkey1233 wrote:
Sorry to butt in here, but since when is France a socialist country?

its not socialist but it has socialist aspects to it welfare Free Health Care just to name a few.

It's still far from a socialist state.

I'm from another European nation with such things as free health care (the UK), and I'm sort of sick of misinformed people pointing to us as examples of socialism working. If we had socialist economies, we'd be even further up sh*t-creek than we are now.

An economy can be called "socialist" if all (or at least most) productive resources are collectively owned and allocated co-operatively. This is not the case in France, the UK, Germany or any such European nation.

If we're talking about using such nations as examples in an argument that the US should increase welfare provision or install something like the NHS, then, while I wouldn't wholly agree with such an argument, that's fine. However, no one should be under the impression that France, the UK or any other European nation is successfully operating a socialist economy. This just isn't true.

At 8/18/10 11:48 AM, QuantumPenguin wrote:

At 8/18/10 08:48 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: there are none...(?)

France for one.

Sorry to butt in here, but since when is France a socialist country?

I'm not a Christian, but there's a whole lot more than love and tolerance involved.

For one thing, you have to accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour. That's a biggy. Depending on your denomination you also have to worry about the Trinity, Mass, the Eucharist, the mysteries, icons, etc.

There's a whole load of business involved. If you want to be judged to be worthy of Resurrection come the Last Judgement and help God build the Kingdom of Heaven (or, if you want to be simple about it, "go to Heaven"), you'll need to do a lot more than just be loving and tolerant.

In a way, I prefer honest, hardcore Christians to the modern ones. If a Christian tells me that all I need to do is be good and I'll "get into Heaven" I just get annoyed. It's like, have you even read the Bible? Do you even understand the faith you purport to follow? "Just be good?" I mean, by saying that you've basically made up your own new religion with it's own set of rules if you believe that.

On the other hand, if a Christian tells me that I've got a world of fire and brimstone waiting for me, at least I know I'm being judged by a guy who knows his theology.

His brother Peter holds very different views.

At 8/8/10 10:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/8/10 09:54 AM, donkey1233 wrote: A mosque is the perfect thing to build at Ground Zero. It would reduce the chance of another Islamic extremist attack to zero. I mean, what sort of Islamic fundamentalist is going to bomb a mosque?

I don't know

This one maybe...

That's a Sunni/Shiite issue. Al Qaeda is Sunni and I'm assuming this mosque probably would be. Besides, I think Islamic extremists are more worried about the whole Sunni versus Shiite thing within predominantly Muslim countries.

Besides, I can't think of a Shiite group as large and as powerful as Al Qaeda that would go to all the trouble of attacking this presumably Sunni mosque when there are plenty in the areas they live and are persecuted in.

Hell, if you ask me we should build a big mosque dome over every major city in the Western world. Now that's what I call terrorist-proof.

A mosque is the perfect thing to build at Ground Zero. It would reduce the chance of another Islamic extremist attack to zero. I mean, what sort of Islamic fundamentalist is going to bomb a mosque?

At 7/23/10 12:50 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 7/21/10 06:42 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

The tax is on their salary, not on the company's profits.
The money Tony Hayward pays himself from BP doesn't go towards employing more people and growing his company, it's his salary and he buys stupid shit with it like a yatch and strippers.

If you taxed the salaries of all the wealthy significantly more, I'm not sure you would generate that much extra revenue.

And about Haywood buying stupid shit; do you think that money just disappears when he's spent it? Say the strippers use the money he pays them to buy food at the supermarket. If enough strippers are hired, and they spend enough of this income at the supermarket, the business may have enough profit to invest in itself and expand, creating jobs. If he buys an Italian yacht, the Italians who built it will have more money, which they might spend on a holiday home in Iceland. Those who built the holiday home may then save this money in a bank, which may invest the money in a business, creating jobs, etc.

At 6/20/10 07:13 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: To me socialism today is about preventing big companies to close down facilities putting a few 100 of their employees out of a job without any compensation so the company can save a few bucks by producing their merchandise in china.

Socialism is what it is. It refers to the public ownership and cooperative management of all productive resources. That's what it is, you can't reinvent the concept. Minor measures intended to create a more equitable society like the minimum wage, providing incentives for firms to stay in or set up disadvantaged areas, etc. could be called... I dunno, social demoracy? But such measures aren't socialism.

Anyway, where can socialism go from here? Hopefully nowhere. Hopefully it can be left on the scrapheap of history where it can not threaten human progress.