Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

i live in indiana, it is an ok place. i like living here, i probably wont leave next year when i graduate. i, like many others in my state, do not like the thought of daylight savings time. i know, i know....everyone else does it, why shouldnt we? as much as i enjoy being from indiana, i can admit we have little to offer. several of our counties observe DST, in 2 different time zones (eastern and central) because of the large populance that commutes to other markets, such as chicago or cincinnati. we have been this way for quite some time now and it seems to work just fine.

"my man mitch" (mitch daniels won his position based solely on this campaign, i am sure) has been incredibly adamamant about getting this to pass, badgering his fellow republicans who were expressing the wishes of their respective constituency to change their votes to support his choice. this lead to several revisions to the bill and consequent returns to the house. i take exception to the insane amount of money, time, and other resources wasted in order to force this pointless legislation through. if this were something the people wanted, they would have expressed it to their representatives, who would in turn support daniels, not vote against him.

we do not fit into a time zone, we have observed indiana standard time since the 60s or 70s (sorry...i dont know, i was made in the 80s) and have had little problem. we are fixing something that isnt broke, and we hoosiers are paying the tab

At 11/8/04 12:06 AM, MuyBurrito wrote: (and Australia would still be like "Double Yoo Tee Eff, mayt?!" and France would be like "Fiyur zee meesails!" and "but I am le tired...")

OT.....
can somebody please tell me the name of the flash this is from? it is hilarious and impossible to find if you dont know the name....thx

At 11/2/04 08:42 PM, witeshark wrote: Your points explain why Kerry's economic promises simply must be all hot air...

thank you very much for your ... what do you call that? it certainly isnt a response that has any meaning, value, or influence. and whats with this "BS"? are you saying that i am wrong? if you are, at least give some type of arguement to support this notion.

ah, economics....that class nobody likes. its one of my majors, so i like it less i assure you. though it is my bane in many ways, econ has taught me many valuable things.

-quantity of jobs - this area annoys me a bit...both candidates arguing over how many jobs were lost or created under bush....its ridiculous. the simple fact of the matter is that jobs are a function of the demand for the good which those who hold the job produce...more simply-if there is a demand for something, somebody will make it, if not, there is no job....the very essence of capitalism. jobs are lost due to the fact that those who hold them are inefficient in the sense that they cannot compete with others in the field...an example would be american steel producers, they can not compete with the asians wihout governmental support. Although losing ones job is quite a hardship at first, it is for the bettering of the economy. how you ask? if the person was inefficient at one job and loses it, they are available to assess their skills and see where they can be better utilized, in other words, they are taken out of a low productivity situation and put into a higher productivity environment, very similar to a 'survival of the fittest' situation. Both candidates are focused on the quatity of jobs, not the quality. i know this concept is hard to grasp for someone put out of work by layoffs that were caused by an event outside of the presidents control, but look at the big picture and you will understand.

-education tax breaks - kerry wants to give the families of college students a $4,000 tax credit...souds good, huh? well its not. why? because this is a pure income effect...everyone in the population (families of college students) will be given the same amount, and it wll be given purely because they are in the population. what does this do? it causes tuition to rise...by $4,000. net gain = 0. if everyone has an increase in the ability to pay, the price will go up, if that ability is equal, price will go up equally, in this case, $4,000.

-raise minimum wage - heres the good one, it sounds great doesnt it? more money for everyone!!!...wait, everyone? theres that problem again. everyone has more to spend, so prices go up accordingly. this is, again, a pure income effect. there are 2 bad effects of this though, both affecting price in the way a purchaser dislikes. as mentioned before, prices will increase due to the increase in everyones income. but where does that money come from in the first place? employers. they have to pay the higher wages and that causes their margins to decrease. what would you do if you owned the small business that all of a sudden had to pay its employees another $2 an hour (i know this isnt an instantaneous event, but for the sake of simplicity in the example)? you will, of course, raise your prices to meet your previous margins. an increase in wages = a greater increase in prices.

please comment on this or bring up other economic issues, i know there are several i overlooked in the name of space and time. thank you for reading

At 10/16/03 04:40 PM, blueloa13 wrote: Solar Power ... cleaner, more effecient, etc.

im not sure where you heard that. solar power is one of the least efficient sources of power ... id go as far as to say 2nd in worthlessness only to wind. Nothing has been found yet that rivals the efficiency of nuclear power

on google, im pretty fond of searching for 'french military victories' and hitting i feel lucky. check the link it gives...

i realy hope you dont think youre winning this argument. you blindly call all actions murder, which shows you are close-minded and since you have no ability to see the other side, it shows you have no real knowledge on the subject. why dont you address what Slye had to say? i think youre afraid to

At 9/8/03 09:45 AM, TheTio wrote: Bush took the election by suspicious means, well that didnt work and i still dont give a fuck

suspicious means? oh, you mean the standards by which every president has been elected...yes...quite suspicious.

At 9/4/03 04:35 PM, RugbyMacDaddy wrote: Would upping the amount spent on international aid decrease the number of wars that break out? Or would it not make a difference.

actually i think, in some cases, it is a rather futile battle sending money to other countries. in cases like the taliban-controled afghanistan of a few years ago, the money was just used to fund special interests (ie the taliban). the part of the nation that needed the money suffered just as much after we fed the taliban as they did before.

At 9/4/03 09:55 PM, punk_disease wrote: a bunch of boo-hoo over my previous post

yep, your violent words give light to your terrorist groups violent tendencies...

At 9/3/03 09:44 PM, punk_disease wrote:

"SUVs are polluting the earth at an alarming rate" blah blah blah blaaaaah....

i drive a truck, not an SUV, and im sure that it pollutes more than anything you burned. its old, a 1978 ford to be exact, and all of the smog equipment has been ripped off *gasp!* by yours truly. after ripping all that useless junk off, i noticed not only more power, but also 2-3 mpg increase in fuel economy.

the moral of the story? stupid bastards like yourself made it so that all that crap had to be put on vehicles. it made lots of cars and trucks suck a lot of ass both on the street and at the pump. ill guarantee that even if my truck did still have smog crap on it, it would still pollute more than any SUV made today, hummers included. emissions controls have improved that much. now your type is saying that its not enough, which is ridiculous. whos to say what is too much? you? i cringe for the future...

its weird this topic was started today, we talked about it in my econ class. i wasnt aware that so little of the USs money went to other countries. if my professors numbers are right, 0.5% of all government revenues as opposed to the 8% switzerland contributes.

it does sort of put war spending in context. yes, kenney, 300 billion $ sure would keep a lot of people fed.

At 9/3/03 09:47 PM, punk_disease wrote:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

Obviously you know more than government-hired scientists.

wow.... a 1.8 degree difference between the coldest and hottest year in the past 125 years...

you missed my point. earths climate changes, on its own. did the dinosaurs cause the ice age? and once again i pose the question did early man end it? global warming is not something that can be proved...at least not for the next 50,000 years. you are comparing my statements to what govt. scientists say, but they dont know for sure any more than i do. besides, if you got a job where a bunch of hype kept your high-paying position open, would you come clean? oh yeah, you dont care about money...

At 9/2/03 07:45 PM, punk_disease wrote:

At 9/2/03 11:52 AM, fourdaddy wrote: your argument that you are helping the environment by burning them makes no sense.

Well at least they'll be $2 million poorer this year.

ahhhh, the wonders of insurance. ford could give a rats ass less if you destroyed their stuff, insurance pays for it

...there will be more manufacturing pollution, the same amount of vehicle life pollution, plus the pollution you fools released by burning the vehicles...

Yeah guess what, there would've been more pollution if those SUVs hadn't burned down, at least 2000 times the amount of pollution that resulted in those SUVs burning once.

i think you missed something here, you know, the part about 'same life cycle pollution'

Why? Because it's global warming. The air pollution created in America or anywhere else will affect the globe.

global warming is a crock of shit. there is no actual proof and anyone who can observe weather can see its not what the hippies thought it was. the earth goes through natural heat cycles. did man end the ice age with their evil creation of fire, which caused soooooooo much global warming? no.

everybody takes little jabs at the opposite sex. i am not sexist, just tryig to cheer up this topic a little with a joke. if you really want to point out unfairness, how about all of the false sexual harassment and/or rape charges? its easy for a woman to claim either, but if a man did, hed get laughed at. yes of course i realize that it does happen a lot more often to women, but when it doesnt actually happen and they target somebody and try to give them a bad reputation, take their money, and possibly throw them in jail...for something that didnt happen. there are lots of things that are set in place traditionally, such as the men being the dominant sex and females being submissive homebodies. im not saying thats the way it <I should I> be, its the way it is. things dont change instantly just because the government says they should, just look at how racist many people in the south are. in some cases racism increased in racist people when they were forced to accept blacks. again, not the way it should be, but rather the way it is (was in this case).

i think letterman said it best...

'if you have a long beard and hang out in the desert, and are not zz top, you might be a terrorist.'

in my opinion, women do not have a place in every brach of the armed forces. female army rangers? seals? that would be too terrifying for any of the opposition, well, at least for a few days every month...

i have a question...

all this talk about being terrorism or not is moot. isnt the act of destroying property, if nothing else, ILLEGAL?

all those involved should be thrown in prison. try explaining your position to Bubba, the huge grain-fed man who hasnt seen a woman in a few years.

on a side note...burning the SUVs accomplished nothing. i personally do not care for them, but i am a little less oblivious than you terrorist bastards (yes, you are) to the fact that as long as there is a steady demand, there will be a steady supply. your argument that you are helping the environment by burning them makes no sense. if the supply will meet the demand, that means that more will be built to take the place of those lost, so there will be more manufacturing pollution, the same amount of vehicle life pollution, plus the pollution you fools released by burning the vehicles. you are fighting against your cause.

and as for the european heat wave... dont almost all europeans drive small econo-box cars and/or ride mopeds or bicycles everywhere? i realize they have g-class mercedes and rolls-royces, but i do believe that they are a small percentage of the vehicles on the european roads, and therefore could not be the cause of the heat wave.

is anybody else still laughing at the fact that the starter of this 'stupid white men' topic has such difficulty spelling simple words and using good sentence structure?

At 8/25/03 09:39 PM, punk_disease wrote: Uh, letting those SUVs would result in AT LEAST 2556 times more lethal gases in the air. And burning down a few SUVs does not DOUBLE the growth of double warming in the air.

where did you pull this number out of? all i know is that it smells pretty bad...

seriously, does there need to be so much pointless destruction? burning a few SUVs will not deter the mainstream from purchasing and driving the vehicle of their choice. to those of you who sympathize with the CRIMINALS who did this, i pose this question: do you realize that their ignorance accomplished nothing other than getting themselves mentioned on tv and causing insurance rates for EVERYONE, EVEN YOU to go up? even if i did believe in global warming (i dont as i only saw 5 days over 90 this summer) and other such hippie developed propaganda, they would have just alienated me by making me pay cash for what they think is right.

as always, the shrike puts it best... "terrorists are cowards"

At 5/1/03 03:13 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: communist sympathizing propaganda

ok, heres why they werent invited:
1) wed do another regime change in a year, since we hate communism
2) the people arent intelligent enough to see that communism can not work, so they will probably support it, puttin them in a worse economic state than they are already
3) in a region with such a powerful economic resource (oil), the is going to be insane corruption in the government, as the leaders will take as much profit as they can, allowing the public to live in poverty, its saddam all over again

At 5/1/03 06:34 AM, PreacherJ wrote: I'd have liked to see McVeigh's. It'd be interesting, to say the least.

it was on closed circuit at some public schools here in indiana (not during classes, of course). im not sure who all was admitted though, it could have just been family

At 4/29/03 04:26 PM, duelmasterp wrote: There are some people who just shouldn't drive, like this woman!

its not just her, there arent very many women who should be allowed to drive.

you ask me to tell you where you said to provide proof, here it is...

At 4/26/03 02:05 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: I challenge anyone here to say that he is an intelligent manAND have proof to back it up. Or, if you think hes a moron, like i do, please share it with us.

ill repeat the important part... 'AND have proof...if you think hes a moron...share it...'

idiot? not me... at least i remember and take responsibility for what i say

good enough?

At 4/29/03 08:13 PM, Jiperly wrote: 15 people die and 53 injured

put yourself in the same position as the guards... what do YOU do? stand there and get run over? i didnt think so.

At 4/29/03 10:31 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: why has noone said India? They invented the Kama Sutra!

yeah, ancient india... ut they were probably more sanitary and literate 1000 years ago than they are today

At 4/28/03 05:16 PM, paulnice wrote: 50 words with no punctuation

ummmm... ok.

At 4/24/03 03:16 PM, Nirvana13666 wrote: stuff

well, you call me an idiot for calling you one, but you had no supporting information to go with your 'hate' in the first place, so im confused. your arguments on cutting back of programs are not very strong ones, as every administration does it, it just pisses off some different special interest. you cant please everybody, and the money has to come from somewhere, so its either these programs (some of which are grossly overfunded to begin with) or lower taxes, ill take the tax cuts, thank you. your opinions are different than mine. you, unlike most others on your side, actually have reasons that you can express in coherent english, and i respect you for that.

and about my other comment, it was rather rude, so i apologize. i dont quite understand though... you do not compose the things you write? how does that work? i thought composing was the same as writing...

At 4/28/03 01:43 AM, Evanauto wrote: Those issues were the focus of a protest that drew two dozen gun-control supporters outside the convention center where the NRA was meeting. The protest was organized by the Million Mom March, a gun-control group.

"We must expose the extremist agenda being discussed in this building behind us," said Mary Leigh Blek, director of the Million Mom March.

hahahahahaa... one extremist group putting down another and labeling them extremist. hypocracy, i love it