Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/2/12 03:16 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 5/1/12 09:55 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Remember way back in 2004? When we had this sort of thing going on: Politics of Fear.

It's only "politics of fear" when it's inaccurate. The typical democrat position on foreign policy and counterterrorism in 2004 was to run away from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, repeal domestic security initiatives, even if they worked, and start treating terrorist detainees like normal soldiers. Regardless of whether you think these policies may have had other benefits, none of them furthered US security.

No, its not the truth value of something that makes the politics of fear wrong. In fact it was usually that the politics of fear weren't to scale of the problem.

Nor were we under direct threat of attack from some huge army. And Iraq was not even part of the terroristic network we were after. There has never been any proof that that country was involved. Invading Iraq did nothing to improve US security.

It is also contestable that the patriot act improves our security without simultaneously destroying our individual security.

I myself haven't noticed any real difference in the war coverage, but I don't think it's bias for some reporters to question the wisdom of politicizing bin Laden. I don't think it's so easy to draw the line between what Bush did that helped get bin Laden and what Obama did. And I doubt voters will think it was a "gutsy call" to launch the raid (why have special forces at all if not for missions like that?).

Gates was against the move initially and they only had a 50/50 confidence on the issue. When you look at the consequences of failed moves like this into someone else's territory (The bay of pigs for instance lead up to our stand off with russia and the verge of nuclear war) it actually is a very gutsy move.

The war coverage has largely turned negative as the populace has grown tired of it, that's the main change. But the coverage of Obama has pretty much gone entirely negative. This is just one example.

Coupled with those stupid web ads suggesting that Romney wouldn't have gone after bin Laden, I don't think you have to be anti-Obama to point out the risks of seeming to take undue credit for his death.

Romney did say he didn't want to go after Romney. In fact, he was assaulted by almost every other republican at the time he said it because they all knew it was a stupid thing to say. Within a month he was back tracking the comments, but only because of the negative reaction. Willard moves with the wind.

At 5/2/12 04:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/2/12 03:54 PM, Kidradd wrote: neoconservatism (bush) and neoliberalism/new democrats (clinton, obama)

These terms are annoying. Particularly because they falsely assume that poltics and social opinion isn't fluid.

If the definition of words are too fluid they become useless. Better to define new categories and words to describe those categories to define a fluid situation than to corrupt historical texts by destroying the words in those texts.

At 5/2/12 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Actually, getting the government more involved is a liberal policy point. It has been for a long time.

Depends on the issue.

The stimlulus actually did slow downt he crash of the economy. The political climate was not willing to swallow the amount of stimulus it would have taken to actually halt the crash.

Right, I agree with you. But the stimulus wasn't enough and was bankrolled right and targeted a lot of things it shouldn't have, such as lowering taxes.

Maybe he's mixing up the words "socialism" with "socialite".

I think he's just inept, ignorant, and perhaps incapable of learning.

This point of view actually quite annoys me. When I hear this I imagine a guy and a girl sitting in a Stumptown Coffee (Starbucks is too mainstream) the guy adorned with everything REI, except for his shorts and kneehigh scoks under sandals, with his full beard and pea green beanie. The Girls wearing the newest American Apparel/Urban Outfitters (those companies aren't corporate at all) get up with unwashed hair and a knit cap. Well, these two in between vegan meals, are chatting over a 15 word coffee concoction about how the world would only be so much better had corporations never been concieved. They also rant about how the average American is too dumb to understand what OWS is all about and that is why the movement is underground (cause it sure didn't fail).

What I'm getting at here, it that this whole "Obama isn't liberal enough" smacks of someone who's bbeen in a cocoon for that past decade and has little connection to political reality. These people see massive opposigtion to the lighter liberal things Obama has done and don't see how Obama couldn't have forged ahead with the hispter delight dream politics.

W/e. While I acknowledge the political reality, that doesn't mean I have to be happy with what we got just because the right is ass backwards and this country forgot what liberalism really means.

Obama's doing something the SCOTUS Justices cannot seem to do; He's being an attorney first, and a liberal (or conservative for the 4.5 Justices) second.

Right, which is why I'm not hugely offended by the whole thing. Its not like he went around appointing judges in a political fashion the way Bush did.

At 5/2/12 08:36 AM, Memorize wrote: Getting the Government more involved in Healthcare is a liberal position.

No.

Worked out under Bush

Yeah, because that Stimulus to prevent the economy from crashing sure did keep the economy from crashing.

The stimulus was meant to reverse the acceleration of the economy, which it did do. So, no.

Corporatism, which is a form of socialism.

Socialism: The state takes control of private property and distributes it as it sees fit.
Corporatism: Wealthy individuals with stakes in coorporations control everything. Plutocracy.

What you say does not compute.

I like how you consider getting Congressional authorization to attack a country that posed no threat a "hawk move", but by-passing congress to get permission from the Arab League to be "more liberal."

Don't believe I ever said that. You just did though. And it sounded stupid when you said it.

Even though all the liberals voted for it at the time.

There really aren't any liberals in congress who aren't named Bernie Sanders, and he's not liberal in every facet of what he does.

A move that no one on the right (or even Bush) claimed to have.

Except that by doing this Obama moved to a more conservative-hardline-authoritative position. That doesn't mean liberalism suddenly becomes something else, it means Obama does.

Obama (Anakin) sought out the dark-side. Liberals (Yoda & Obi-Wan) are still light side.

Again, a very right side of the aisle position, although for his sake its mostly personal. I don't believe he'd actually veto a gay marriage bill if it came across his desk, even if he agreed with the people who wanted him to veto it on a personal level.

Despite ordering the Justice Dept to file against the Judge's motion to get rid of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' when a GAY REPUBLICAN GROUP won it.

Because he believed he had to order the government to try and defend the laws since that's what the executive branch is supposed to do. The judicial and legislative branches are responsible for over turning piss-poor laws.

Its a morally shitty thing to do imo, but its constitutionally correct. Either way, its not a very liberal direction to take.

That the ban on pot started under FDR and all 4 of the liberal justices on SCOTUS ruled against a woman who grew pot in her own yard in a state where it was legal.

Because SCOTUS only cares about the constitutionalism of things. You don't and never did understand our government. Go back to Australia or Austria or where ever it is you live. Or am I thinking of Sadistic-Monkey? I never could tell the two of you apart sometimes.

But Liberals claim to want bigger Government, while Conservatives claim to want a smaller one.

Liberals want bigger government in some areas, but not in others. Liberals, for instance, hate the patriot act as much as libertarians, and that's because modern-day liberals are a splinter off of libertarianism that care a little bit more about social justice.

And conservatives may claim to want a smaller government, but you know they've never practiced what they preached.

The irony of you using McCarthy

This isn't tit for tat. McCarthy was staunchly authoritarian. It doesn't matter what other people did or do. He was an example. There is no irony here.

I didn't expect any consistency from you very people who only pretended to give a shit about civil rights, torture, and dying soldiers in pointless wars.

*yawn* its like you're insulting some phantom of who you think I am. I really don't care. You aren't pissing me off, but you're certainly wasting our time.

The rest of what you had to say I'm not even going to read. Too much garbage for me to bother trying to parse it. But you're right, things have changed much at all. Enjoy ranting while I stop replying to you. :)

At 5/1/12 06:39 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/1/12 04:58 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

You're welcome to point out all of Barack's liberal ideas though. Good luck. Most of the policy implemented in the last 4 years has been discarded heritage foundation junk, including, but not limited to, the so-called "obama care."

Obamacare

Heritage Foundation

Stimulus

Worked out under Bush

Auto Bail out

Hardly liberal and barely socialist in nature. Keynesian, maybe, but everyone was Keynesian up until recently.

Bank Bail out

Really not liberal the way it worked out. In fact it was just way to friendly towards the banks. Not enough oversite or anything, just a hand out of money. It was a centrist half move.

Expanding wars in Middle East

If anything this could be a war hawk movie, but you'd have to get into more of the why & how it happened. I'd certainly say that the Libyan war was more liberal than the iraq war in execution; BUT, I wouldn't call it liberal.

Increased border bombings in Middle Eastern Countries

Again, not a liberal policy at all. Its just a security policy, one that even Bush might have made. It has nothing to do liberal ideas, but instead the progression of the war.

Renewal of the Patriot Act

Very un-liberal. In fact, its down right conservative.

Claims and has targeted Americans for assassination (including a 16 yr old)

Again, very un-liberal. Its a very rightward move.

Against gay marriage

Again, a very right side of the aisle position, although for his sake its mostly personal. I don't believe he'd actually veto a gay marriage bill if it came across his desk, even if he agreed with the people who wanted him to veto it on a personal level.

Continued Support of Drug war

Most liberals are considered hippies, and drugster hippies at that. I don't get what you're saying.

A couple things to note here is that these are ALL big Government positions. And since big Government is something liberals claim to support, then I should consider all of these to be Liberal Positions.

Um no. Big Government =/= liberal. There's conservative big government as well. It generally takes on McCarthiest shades. It generally supports wars of aggression or choice. And generally, it has to do with implementing religious styled values that suppress minorities.

The other thing is that all of these positions are almost identical to Bush, which begs the question: Why is Obama considered a "Great Guy" and Bush Horrible?

Obama is considered a "Great Guy" because he goes about the implementation in a different way. He doesn't our allies off, he's not combative, he doesn't flex his muscles for show, and he's generally an intelligent guy.

However, in the liberal community people aren't exactly happy with him. We'd rather have a real liberal in charge who advanced a liberal agenda. That said, we'd rather have Obama, even if he is republican-light over someone as crazy as McCain or Palin, and certainly over someone who is openly pro-business and anti-small guy the way Romney is.

I could list a bunch of things Obama has done wrong or insufficiently and many of them are in the list above, but also include the lowering of taxes, the inability to tax the rich at a rate comparable to the rest of us, the inability to put secure financial regulation back in place, the failure to progress the sciences, and the failure to really support equal rights for the LGBT community outside of don't ask, don't tell (perhaps the most liberal thing he has supported).

Let's face it. The only reason you get away with calling Obama a centrist is because you're using an idiot like Bush as an indicator.

Not really. Bush is fairly moderate as far as republicans go in my opinion as well. He's just an idiot, which is why a lot of people don't like him. A lot of his policies which were definitely right of moderate, but more moderate than what many republicans would have instituted were the cause of this horrible crash. Obama's very centrist position has only stabilized the country, it hasn't done much if anything to fix our woes and cause a comeback.

At 5/1/12 04:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You're missing one vital component here, and perhaps the biggest gap between the current left and right. Obama is very socially liberal for politicians.

Maybe for elected politicians, but in the spectrum of actual politics, he's not very liberal at all. Again, if you want to make this subjective its going to lose its meaning and be a useless term.

You're welcome to point out all of Barack's liberal ideas though. Good luck. Most of the policy implemented in the last 4 years has been discarded heritage foundation junk, including, but not limited to, the so-called "obama care."

At 5/1/12 04:36 PM, Kidradd wrote: the point is he is "to the left of republicans" but when using this scale, with the rise of libertarianism and the tea party and traditional establishment conservatives, he's either a radical socialist or a standard middle ground republican, depending on who you're comparing him to.

Then you need to be far more specific or what you say is relatively useless perhaps could lead to confusion.

IE, I could say the sky 6'9'' instead of saying its really really big. And while its true that 6'9'' is bigger than I am when speaking in terms of height, it has absolutely nothing to do with the sky and conflates the meaning of 6'9''

At 5/1/12 04:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/1/12 01:40 PM, MrFlopz wrote: You know we have a rightward media bias when the media has convinced us that Obama is a liberal president.

Well, when the comparison is people like Santorum, Ryan, Bachmann, Perry and so on...

This assumes that a liberal position is subjective and not a quantitative set of positions. Obama is not liberal. He's a "New Democrat" that basically means a centrist that likes big business but still wants to protect big government. He doesn't actually govern from a liberal standpoint with any consistancy, though he does occasionally campaign on those principals.

At 5/1/12 10:43 AM, Memorize wrote: Even when I'm gone for a year, things don't change around here much.

Right, you resort to ad hominem attack and don't post on topic. See, things don't change at all. :D

Obama has come under fire from the center right and rightward for getting Osama Bin Laden and using it as part of his campaign. The short story is that once upon a time Mitt Romney said finding Osama Bin Laden was a waste of money and the POTUS put it in an advertisement. The right, of course, went nuts and a lot of media is carrying their water for them right now:

Media saying its wrong for Obama to tout the killing of Osama.

Remember way back in 2004? When we had this sort of thing going on: Politics of Fear.

Where is the line drawn? Why is it ok, even expected, for republicans to be the foreign policy party and that no matter what they do its ok, but if a democrat does it its meant to divide the country?

I mean, there's a right way to lead this country. We can either waste our time and resources and grow our deficit in places like Iraq. Or we can do the smart thing and pay a s**t ton less the way we did in Libya. (I concede that there's also the Ron Paul option of do nothing)

But, I'm just confused as to why our media spends its time calling out a president on campaigning this way when it is at least truthful. Last decade our leaders lied right to our faces, tried to scare us into submission, and wasted trillions of our dollars while letting the economy go to hell.

My position on this is that our media is totally out of whack. They aren't a liberal organization. If anything their commitment to "balance" has made them out to be conservative, since they seem to be completely unwilling to actually point the finger where it belongs.

When you get down to it, no one in the media is calling out republicans nearly as much as they should be. And the people calling out Obama now, are the same people who completely ignored or cheer leaded our way into Iraq.

At 4/24/12 10:53 AM, bismuthfeldspar wrote: The ecosystem is not a finely tuned delicate balance that will collapse at the slightest touch, when something changes it simply shifts to a new dynamic equilibrium.

I liked that equilibrium shift where all of the dinasours died. Or the Cambrian Extinction, that was a neat one too. :)

At 4/29/12 12:38 PM, Feoric wrote: This "Buffet Rule" is like the mushiest progressive tax plan ever. Rather than just adding new brackets or raising rates, we're going to arbitrarily link it to the middle class and wage earners and make it really hard to understand and thus easier to game.

I don't think its very arbitrary, but you're right that its good policy for campaigning.

I favor a much much higher rate, something inches closer to 55% as you get over 200,000. I also support raising capital gains and business taxes.

But that's just me. I'm well aware it won't be the silver bullet, but in an options machine gun of you need every bullet you can lay your hands on, and this one isn't a particularly bad one. A draw down on defense and a fix for medicare/medicaid would go a long way to fixing everything. SS is funded well enough if we go back to the tax rates that Obama frankly should have never lowered.

At 4/26/12 09:19 PM, AcetheSuperVillain wrote: I think that whatever Romney is in the Mormon Church is equivalent to an Elder or Deacon in reformed church (I don't know how universal those terms are). If so, it's nothing like a Catholic Bishop or any kind of real spiritual leader.

Besides, if he's going to enforce his beliefs as president, maybe he'll re-legalize polygamy. That wouldn't be so bad.

Tell me how your husband is when your wife gets two of them.

Anyhow, polygamy isn't part of the COLDS (that's a hilarious acroynym by the way). Its splinter movements that try to do that.

At 4/26/12 09:49 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: he's moderate on this scale.

True... lol

At 4/26/12 09:08 AM, Korriken wrote: plenty. trying to use a man's religion in order to try and disqualify him from being elected is a low blow.

No, not using a man's religion. I wouldn't vote for a rabbi or a priest or an imam. I do not believe anyone involved in the leadership of a religion should also be involved in government.

also, where were you when the Jeremiah Wright issue came up with Obama? Remember, he attended the church for over 20 years and "never once heard him speak in such a way" yeah... smells like bullshit to me and anyone who even thought to touch it got labeled a racist for bringing it up.

Which is completely different. In one case a man listened to an idiot espouse idiotic things, and he should have known better. In the other case a man espoused the beliefs I'm calling into question and preached to other people.

You can't seem to understand that there's a dividing line between espousing beliefs and listening to others espouse beliefs.

I listen to you often enough. Thank god that's not a reflection on what I believe.

At 4/25/12 09:48 PM, bgraybr wrote: Is it really fair to compare having a position in the Mormon church (where all males over the age of 12 are ordained and hold some sort of temporary rank in the Church) with an elected position in the Catholic church?

You'd basically be excluding him from the election based solely on the fact that he's a Mormon, which is silly.

No, I'd be excluding someone who'd have a tendency to push religion. Which is different than picking a church. Besides, he was a Bishop. That's different than just doing the mandatory service. He took a leadership roll in which he basically held court and lectured women on whether or not they were going to hell because they had abortions and what not. If you really want to know this guy's viewpoint, his real viewpoint, take a look at some of the very very conservative positions he's taken as a Bishop of the Mormon Church.

At 4/25/12 08:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote: As far as Republicans go, Romney is pretty harmless.

I highly disagree.

He's so out of touch with what the middle class is feeling that he might be one of the most dangerous people for our country right now. (Britain just slipped into a recession because of their horrible austerity measures, which Romney has been campaigning to impose here). His focus on business is not a focus on jobs. Its a focus on those on the top taking the cream, the stock market doing well, and the business thriving over the employee.

All of the companies bain capital took over either shut down, or moved to a model where they hired a lot of cheep cheep labor and the owners at the top made a lot more money. That's not harmless. That's a recipe for a horrible economy.

I looks harmless. He ran a very liberal state and had very liberal opinions because if he didn't they'd throw him out. If he were president it'd be very different. On top of that, you have no idea what he stands for. Name one position he has other than cutting taxes and bashing gay people? Huh? You don't know?

This man is what is wrong with the republican party, even if he is Republican Light. Don't forget that its his sort of policies that ruined this country. He's not a fiscal conservative. He's not a brilliant leader. He's not in touch with the people of this country. The only thing he's got going for him is he's not black, people don't think he's muslim, and people have no idea what he'd really do.

Its fine, this is the beginning of the campaign. But YOU need to do your research.

Would you vote for the Pope of the USA? Would you vote for a Bishop for President of the USA? Then why would you ever vote for a Mormon Bishop to be president of the united states.

Electing Romney would really strain the the separation of church and state. If you are a constitutional conservative, you really don't want to elect Romney. If you're an aethiest I don't think you want him

And if you're not a conservative, you really don't want to elect Romney.

If you're an evangelical you don't want to elect a mormon, which means you don't want elect Romney.

Who in this country even wants Romney?

At 4/21/12 09:02 PM, Gario wrote: The theory is that with fewer taxes to punish companies for hiring more employees then jobs will be generated. And you know what, I actually still hold that would be the case - tax breaks for employment purposes is still a nice thing to have, as those taxes can be incredibly prohibitive for smaller companies, and jobs actually could be created by such breaks.

That's a shitty idea. Tax breaks are generally on INCOME. Meaning that unless the head hancho is collecting INCOME from the company there are NO TAXES TAKEN OUT OF THE COMPANIES HOLDINGS that wouldn't normally be taken out.

AS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL POST.

SO, if you don't collect a higher income as the BIG CHEESE, your company HAS MORE MONEY to HIRE PEOPLE.

Beyond that most CORPORATIONS PAID $0 IN TAXES OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS DUE TO TAX BREAKS. You can't cut taxes any more than that.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR ENTIRE THEORY SUCKS ASS. THANK YOU.

[CAPSLOCK FOR EMPHASIS]

Also cause I'm cool like that.

I'd like to make one, there's multiple tables I'd like to pull from.

Forums, comments, cards posted, etc. (www.gumonshoe.net)

Question is, should I create a table just for feeds or pull all the data from the things that exist? Thoughts?

At 4/20/12 01:22 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/20/12 12:48 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.

"Republican obstructionism"...now that's a myth that qualifies as self-gratifying fellatio (along with a little prostate tweaking).

Session with the most fillibuster in the history of the united states? This one. Who's been carrying them out? Republicans in the senate. What is a fillibuster? Obstruction. Therefor Republicans are obstructionists. QED

1) For the first two years of his administration Obama enjoyed a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress that made the Republican minority insignificant.

Which is a complete lie because the Democrats never had a solid 60 votes to overcome a fillibuster. When it appeared they did they still had to deal with conservative blue dogs and "independent" lieberman. Plus deaths and all that, they never had 60 votes when legislation came up for a vote. Without 60 votes you can't invoke cloture and the minority can filibuster any legislation they want to. Which they have.

Know the fuck what you're talking about.

2) Since the Republicans took over the House in January 2011, following the 2010 election, congress has been unable to pass a budget...it's been held-up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The republicans in the house haven't passed a single Obama budget since 2008. Instead they've opted to pass politically polar budgets that had no hope of passage at the expense of our nation and its economy. Most of their budgetary moves would have caused enconomic havoc (the kind that's been seen in Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, & Britain) due to austerity.

The myth of Republican obstructivism is just factually false.

Except when its true. Like, right now.

The buffet rule would require anyone who makes a million to pay at least 30% of their income to taxes.

Rublicans blocked this rule about a week ago saying it would hurt job creators. They didn't admit of course that if the money stayed in the companies it came from then it would never be taxed as income. Jobs could be created by the companies without the money ever being taxed.

The reason this rule is being made is because most citizens in this country have a tax rate of 30%. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to many of us that the richest get a lower tax rate. I mean, their companies use more of our infrastructure. Their business over seas can cause conflicts and requires our government to have foreign relations employees and whatnot. Having rich people around is frankly expensive. They hire truckers who ruin our high ways and residential rodes by transporting heavy loads. They create large businesses that require people to commute, straining our resources.

But they also give us a lot in return. Its just, it doesn't make sense that the people who often use government the most should be paying the lowest tax rate. Many of the rich people agree.

Do you? And if so, why not write your representative and tell them you support the buffet rule?

Why should a secretary pay a higher tax rate than her boss?

~gum

At 4/17/12 10:57 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 4/17/12 09:44 PM, TheMason wrote:

I don't really believe that Moscow comes in peace.

Of course they don't.They know Obama will bow to them when he can. if he DOES get reelected, Bush's ending approval rating will seem amazingly high compared to Obama's when he does leave office.

Mmmm. Self gratifying felatio. If they are that low, it'll be due to republican obstructionism.

At 4/20/12 12:22 PM, davohsaurus wrote: Nah, the internet was always intended for us who are unpopular and socially retarded as a haven where we could post shit like this.

I don't believe you because people are always talking about cool points on the internet. How many cool points do you have? How big is your e-penis? See? Its still all about how cool you are.

Was this a total waste of time?

www.gumonshoe.net

Please lecture me on the value of finite increments of temporal states and how websites should only be made for cool people.

Thanks!

Also, 'sup?

Just on the negatives:

1) I don't expect a complete reversal of jobs numbers. Obama's administration would be stupid to use numbers that were that far off. It'd essentially tank his credibility.

2) Racism. It goes both ways. Everytime a pollster calls me I lie and pretend I'm a republican either to inflate or deflate the numbers based on the general mood of the party at the time and whose running. If its a crazy guy like santorum I tend to inflate and if its a sane guy like romney I deflate. All's fair in love & war and all that jazz.

3) Gas Prices. In the end it won't be his fault, but yes public opinion isn't known for its bright and astute observations.

That said, there's been talk about the national oil reserves being released to battle the rampant speculation that actually is driving these numbers up. If Obama does that it could immediately affect the price of oil by 25 cents at the pump. And may have longer lasting affect on the market. As a military tactic it may be stupid; but it may be very good in an election year.

The other part of this is that the people who actually affect the price of oil are the traders and the companies who produce oil. Those companies are deliberately selling oil overseas and causing a shortage here. My most Republican of Republican friends is actually outraged at them right now. Its pretty funny. The only reason he really cares though is how much it affects his pocket book and his sense of jingoism is hurt because american companies turned out not to care much for americans. Big Surprise!

Anyhow, your third point about internal oil isn't much of a point at all. Our foreign dependence has gone way down during this administration as surprising as that may be. However, you have a point that the Republican party will push this point regardless of its truth value.

So, while the truth of the situation is that Obama shouldn't be blamed, you're probably right that a lot of people will try to and will believe it.

4) Israel & Iran were going to duke it out 4 years ago [ during another election ;) ]. I'm still waiting to see the results of that fight. I think this is a republican pipe dream in all honesty.

At 5 hours ago, Lintire wrote:

At 5 hours ago, gumOnShoe wrote:

Anyway, some folks might chew me out for this, but it usually really helps if you can provide a sample image or two from around the net to indicate the art style (realism or a more stylized look) and skill level that you'd prefer. Save folks wasting their time when they're totally not what you're looking for.

Honestly, most of the stuff you've got in the portal is a style I'm totally cool with. Its sort of got that roughness that yields luminosity. At the same time, something more realistic would be cool too. XD

I'm sorry, but I'm the worst when it comes to being specific because I like a lot of the art I see. My original requests went to Alvin Hew & Kamikaye. I'd say they would be top of the bar, Alvin perhaps a bit more since he's focuses more on fantasy. That said, I know not everyone is at that level, and I don't need that level of work to have a succesful banner.

Basically what I like is the use of a range of colors. The feeling of "place" that you get from most of the landscapes. And when characters are focused upon there's something you can connect with.

That being said, I'm totes interested. Attached is an idea sketch, and as a Newgrounds user, you can obviously find all my art in the portal or art thread.

I actually really like what you've done with that, and a dragon fighting a night would probably be right about what we're looking for. I'd be interested and knowing what your color pallet plans are. I have to say that I probably prefer bright to dark. Maybe change from "dungeon" to cliffs or something. It'd be a little more inline with the flavor of the game.

User expectations for dragons are going to be along these lines:
http://magiccards.info/query?q=t%3Adragon+f%3Amodern&v=card&
s=cname

They are typically (although not always) red, even in color.

Knights are most likely going to be white and use a white color palet. Although this has bled a lot more in recent years. Here's some card artwork that's happened in the past:
http://magiccards.info/query?q=t%3Aknight+f%3Amodern&v=card&
s=cname

I really like the set up you have going here, and I'll likely work around the banner with my input fields, so if you'd like to talk money we can do that. If you're more comfortable doing that over private message feel free to pm me. Or we can wait to pm until we've agreed on price and a time table.

Rates are up for negotiation. I have to afford a wedding this summer so there's not tons of money, but I guarantee there is some (on my honor as a former forum moderator and whatnot).

Here's the site (warning, very bland right now): www.gumonshoe.net

I'm looking for a spiffy banner with a good background and 1 or 2 (at most) focus "characters". The theme MUST be fantasy. If you know anything about magic, you can do some stuff with robots, but it must be clear that "magic" and not "science" is powering them. Aside from that there's the standard fare of dragons, knights, angels, whatnot.

Something that suggests welcome, inginuity, skill, or competition would be great; but I'm also a sucker for great landscapes. What I'm saying is there's plenty of room. I'm trying to stay away from the gore and whatnot though (a bit of blood would be ok like a cut on the face, organs dripping out of bodies not so much).

I've already tried asking around via pm, and if any of my first few pick artists get back to me, I may go with them. But if you can provide a simple sketch (please don't spend too much time on it) and idea of what you'd like to do along with a link to some of your previous art I'd love to talk shop.

Thanks for your time. Feel free to redirect me if there's an actual commission thread somewhere.

So, not sure how many of you like to make custom cards and all that jazz, but if you do you'll probably enjoy the new website I'm making. Needs users though.

Easy to find too: http://www.gumonshoe.net

Please pass the link around if you know someone who enjoys this sort of stuff. It can be hard to get your name out there.

At 14 hours ago, McPaper wrote: Looks cool but the backspace just prints a strange character.

I'm using firefox 10.0.2

Probably due to using keycodes. I can't guarantee it'd work on a mac either, lol.

If you try out chrome you'll see it work as intended, hopefully.

I may wait to do anything with this for a bit, but I had fun doing it. Not much code, feel free to look at it.

As far as running the code it might be possible to do that eventually, just not yet. Eventually it'd save code to a cloud and whatnot. Haven't thought much into it, I was just trying to figure out what was possible in the browser and thought, hey, will this work?

I might snag apache wave and work with that instead. Just playing around right now. That editor only took 2 or 3 hours to figure out having never done keyboard work in javascript before.

Making an online text editor for code: www.gumonshoe.net/java/

Keep going or halt?

At 2/3/12 08:24 AM, EyeLovePoozy wrote: Hot damn that's a big fucker!

They've got a mobile one that's almost as big. I knew you'd like it. Merry Kwanzakannukah.

<3