Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/14/07 02:11 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:38 AM, iiREDii wrote: If your against guns in the hands of men then you shoudl ask yourself if the jews in Germany had a right to defend themselves. Did the peopel of cambodia. Did the armenians of turkey? Gun control preceded EVERY major genocide in the 20th century.

i would like to see proof. the first two seem plausible, the Armenian one i doubt. even if they were armed i doubt it would have changed much. (the Kurds were armed, how far did that get them?)

not an anti-gun comment.

Jews and the people of cambodia were stripped of arms rights before genocide. The Armenians in turkey were forbidden from owning arms and officer sof the Turkish state woudl raid their homes looking for them and sometimes kill them if none were found. They often woudl buy the illegal guns just so the men woudl find something to take.

The jews in the warsaw ghetto during WW2 using stolen and smuggled arms and primitive bombs managed to push back the nazis for nearly 4 weeks. Forcing them to commit a serious force against them. American revolutionaries possesed the same weapons technology as their attackers and were able to defeat a super power. The same is going on in the middle east and has been going on in Somalia for nearly 10 years. The French underground were mainly civilians using stolen or smuggled or allied supply weapons to harass and destroy nazi infrastucture during WW2. Hell... Texas seceded from Mexico thanks mostly to volunteer militia of privately armed men!

At 12/14/07 01:52 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/14/07 01:50 AM, iiREDii wrote: I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

You're crazy.

All four of those men could be considered top ten best Presidents. Three of them could be top five.

No. I am not crazy. I am better versed in hostory than you.

Lincoln for example:
- shut down free presses with troops
- jailed reporters
- had protestors shot by federal union troops in the streets of New York and elsewhere
- raised taxes on border southern towns so high that entire villages were thrown in prisons with conditions similair to guantonamo bay.
- deported an ohio congressman who oppposed the war
- declared total war on his own people (total war on the south, total war is when the governemtn targts civilians as well as military targets)
- jailed and threatened supreme and minor court judges
- conscripted thousands of people (most of whom just happened to also be Irish, the Irish were once looked down upon as immigrants much like Mexicans today)
- responsible for millions of dollars of damage and entire cities being burnt to the ground
- occupied and forced the south into a government not of their own choosing
- had dissenters and protesters jailed without trial
- violated 3rd amendment by quartering soldiers in peoples homes
- raised tariffs and taxes to a absurd degree to help spur war with the south, provoking them to leave the union.
- expanded and abused the powerof the presidency more than Bush, Clinton, and FDR combined
- wanted blacks deported to africa
- established one of the first fiat currency systems

the list goes on

At 1/4/07 08:24 AM, Slizor wrote:

Free to do wat you please with your life liberty and property so long as you do not interfere with anyone elses L L or P.

If there is no state then how are infringments on someone's life, liberty or property dealt with?

private courts and law systems. private courts and police have existed for ages. Admiral and Mercantile law was orgiinally developed much like common law. On a free amrket and voluntarily. It was not till much later that governments took it over. Private arbitrators and 'law merchants' were once common place. Even in Rome.

The state is not neccesary for protection. And indeed they often hinder or outlaw anyone who attempts to offer that service or provide for their own defense.... anyone who challenges their monopoly on protection services is swiftly dealt with.

At 11/27/07 07:45 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 11/26/07 01:21 AM, iiREDii wrote: I would have to say that Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR were by far the WORST of the WORST. Matter of fact the only presidents we have ever had that were worth a damn at all would be Jefferson, Cleveland, and Coolidge.

Can I have whatever you're smoking?

I see someone has absolutely no background in history... Look up Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR... fascists and slaughterers of man. Civil rights violators and Constitution smashers. Free speech enemies and warmongerers.

At 12/1/07 04:51 AM, subzerov wrote: bush!

If you think Bush is bad you ought to look up the shit Lincoln did. He made Clinton and Bushes violence and control look like childsplay.

At 11/28/07 04:14 PM, Humbucker740 wrote: Actually Keynsian economics is much more 'real world' orientated. Classical economics consist of what would happen in a perfect world.

You obviously know jack crap about Keynesian economics. It was pretty much debunked by Mises and Hayek long ago. The Austrian school predicted the outcome of Keynesian policies and they were absolutely correct.

Umm.. State lovers want less central government (less government in general). Retard.

umm... wrong. People who love the state want ever mroe centralizatoin and action ont he federal or global level. What planet do you live on?

anyone who is against guns in the hands of privte citizens ought to consider that fights among people are small and infrequent where as governemtns commit mass murder on a yearly basis (wars, internal violence against their people).

If your against guns in the hands of men then you shoudl ask yourself if the jews in Germany had a right to defend themselves. Did the peopel of cambodia. Did the armenians of turkey? Gun control preceded EVERY major genocide in the 20th century.

The government is NOT your friend

At 12/13/07 11:54 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I like a lot about Ron Paul, I really do. However is absolute Isolationist views is something I just can not mesh with. I mean I am all for decreasing foreign aid and decreasing our troop presence in the world and letting them deal with their own fucking problems, but there is a limit, and Paul doesn't seem to think there is.

It is not isolationist to advocate peace and non intervention.

Isolationism is closing of ones borders to trade as well as abstaining from foreign conflicts

At 12/13/07 10:04 AM, Imperator wrote: Y'all WISH your candidates were as cool as ours.....

Fuckin BLIMP mother fuckers!

blimpin aint easy

there really needs to be some steam punk submissions and a steampunk crew on NG.

Imperial Guard here baby!

At 11/19/07 06:19 PM, bluedemonspeedracer wrote: Here is more information on what life is like in complete anarchy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/401714 7.stm

and here is the truth without the UK/US/UN slant!

http://www.mises.org/story/2066

http://www.mises.org/story/2701

At 11/18/07 08:19 PM, OrbitalDebris wrote: Where ever there are two people, there is a power heirachry.

This is ridiculous. This is to say that no two people may ever get along peacefully or that they will not without the oversight of a third. This can be proven to be ludicrous in everyday life.

At 11/18/07 06:04 PM, Ubernaut wrote: Should We Have A Goverment? Yah I know its kinda a dumb Question But Seriouly....

No. We should not. I would encourage you to not assume that one is necessary for a few minutes and go to mises.org and read up a little. Or simplyanarchy.com

the government cannot succeed in providing or protecting freedom by its very nature. By this nature, it must rob from us to protect us from robbers? It must force us into actions to protect us from slavery? It must kill some of the people in order to protect their lives? It is a logical fallacy that a organization that preys upon liberty can be beneficial to liberty.

you may as well ask a parasite to protect you from other parasites

Keynsian economics is bogus. That anyone ever took that marxist retard seriously is beyond me. He was wrong about he new deal, wrong about mises critique of central planning and money theory, and wrong about demand. Bu they, he liked central planning and economic intervention

OR IN OTHER WORDS...

more power for the government

so of course lovers of the state will drag his name with them to the end.

All these writers are doing is continuing to shrink the number of people employed as writers to protect their jobs from competition. More expensive writers = less writers will be hired = lower competition.

And they are threatening the scab writers who dont want to be apart of their frickin union... AS USUAL with unions.

At 11/22/07 05:20 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: If we were not in a war right now.
If we were not on the brink of an energy crisis.
If Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Cuba, China and several other countries were friendly.
If our country had no use for competing in the global market.

THEN I might consider voting for Ron Paul. But the nature of the world right now doesn't call for an isolationist as President of the US.

In a war we started?
In a 'energy crisis' that is being pushed by foiegn intervention and restrictions on trade?
If all these nations werent made hostile to us by our aggressive foriegn policy

and finally

ron paul has never advocated economic isolationism. so that is a straw man argument

At 11/21/07 04:35 AM, lumpypaint wrote: do you know of how many promises Bush made back in 2000 that he still hasnt fufilled? If Ron is anything like Bush, hell Win our votes, deceive us, then corrupt power.

It has been the mantra of many a democrat and a republican. Peace Peace Peace! then followed with years of war. And yet, the public buys the lie every time.

the best government for it? NONE.

At 11/11/07 10:28 PM, Jokeen wrote: In your opinion, has the goverment failed us?
How? In what ways? When? Please give examples and why you say so.

I am not picky, however I am looking for examples of ineffective or dysfunctional goverment (FEMA's reaction to katrina for example or the Democrats insulting the Turks, our best Ally during Iraq)
corruption, and abuses of power.

Governments are merely the biggest gang in a given area. That is all government is and all it ever was. A monopoly on force and violence.

I would have to say that Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR were by far the WORST of the WORST. Matter of fact the only presidents we have ever had that were worth a damn at all would be Jefferson, Cleveland, and Coolidge.

All government is horrible.

At 11/22/07 12:26 PM, PowerRangerYELLOW wrote:

At 11/22/07 12:24 PM, GrandPanda wrote: Oh and we should make a huge collab for the writers strike thing

also happy thanks giving :)

can i make my cartoon about how the writers are greedy?

can i help you do it? I would also like to add in the special legal privileges, intimidation, strong arm tactics, and exclusion of other non union writers from the workplace.

screw unions

Anyone have any ideas?

Well you see I want to animate it. Not just have it remain static. To shift from left ot right. i was trying to shape tween EACH letter but the shape tween seems to well... not work so hot. it twists all around and thelike and well you know how shape tweens often turn out.

So I thoiught maybe ther eis some way to distort a movie clip instead for the animation.

At 11/3/06 03:58 PM, Begoner wrote:

Collectivism is slavery to the majority pure and simple.

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you against democracy? Would you consider all American citizens "slaves" because they can vote for whomever they wish, and the person with the greatest amount of votes typically wins? Additionally, countries such as Sweden are much freer than the US, despite their more social economic model. The ultra-capitalistic US has an extremely rigid social structure -- it is very hard to move up in society if you are born poor. That's the real slavery -- your deluded, misguided faith in the "free" market. Guess what? Market forces are what take away your freedom -- they're what make you work long hours for exploitative pay, not socialist systems.

I most cetainely AM against democracy.Why is enslaving the 49% because the 51% voted yes, just? It isnt.

If you would liek to talk about this furhter IM me at Odin248(AIM). I woudl enjoy showing you how you ar ebeing fooled to support more state control over your life in the name of "fairness". How the statists are fooling you into thinking your ills are being caused by FREEDOM, by a FREE market. Most of thsese ills have there ROOT in governemtn control. In state legislation. The corrupting influence is the state! Its law! And your solution is to impose more law? More of the disease to treat the symptoms?

nahh, you missed the point. they're provided for you whether you want them or not, so suck it up and pay your share. besides the obvious fact that you DO use public services so your whole "i didn't ask for them" argument is irrelevant.

Look at what you are saying you nationalist pig! "if you dont like being forced to do something by the governemtn then too bad! suck it up! its the law! governemtn is your master!" Its so obvious the mentality you have. Subserviant...

the only obligation businesses have is to make money for their shareholders. the only standards they have to live up to are government-imposed ones, because businesses aren't obligated to regulate themselves. government has to force them to do things ethically or within certain limits because otherwise they wouldn't bother. the only thing businesses are obligated to do is turn a profit, while on the other hand, the government is actually obligated to protect and provide basic stuff to the public.

Business has an obligation to make a profit or they go out of business. They have to do what the consumer demands, provide what he wants, or someone else will and they will go under. You obviously dont understand how a profit motive EQUATES to not needing these governemtn imposed restrictions and limitations on the FREE market.

Governemnt doesnt provide the basic necesities of life. they historically never have... the people provide for themselves through commerce, through trade. Whatever governemtn provides... business can provide it for cheaper, while simotaeniously creating more jobs and eliminating any obligation off the back of the citizen to provide for any one else but himself.

saying there should be no government and everything should be run by businesses is silly. they're both full of beauracracy and the only difference is who they're working for -- themselves (business), or everyone (government).

its not silly. its called Anarcho-Capitalism, the free market. Check out the mises institute online. Read some of the FREE books there online concerning the fallacies of the state.

Business works for the consumer (everyone), Governemtn works for the mob (the majority) and seeks only to protect and further the existance of itself at the cost of everyone WITHOUT choice, WITHOUT consequence for their actions... because after all... they hold a monopoly on force (weapons)

When you use the free transform tool on simple shapes in flash it allows you to transform the corners when you press > ctrl. Allowing you to drag the corners to get a star wars sorta text effect and etc.

Is there a way to get flash to let you transform movie clips like this?

I am trying to get an image to look as if it is oscelating on its uhm... Z axis? Sorta like those old windows screen savers. I can post links to the file if you want to try and see what I am attempting to do

At 11/10/06 01:26 PM, Techware wrote:

At 11/10/06 01:19 PM, iiREDii wrote: becasue it was never meant to be directly taxed and because it was never meant to be applied in any way but equally amongst us all.

You have to take into account how much items costs when taxing people. They may be taxed the same, however, that still means super rich folks can afford anything they wish while the poor can't afford much of anything.

why shoudlnt they be able to afford anythign they wish? Its there property not yours. There is no constitutional basis for progressive tax schemes. You have no right to someone elses property. This whole dogma of socialism that declares that those with the means are obligated to rovide for those without destroys charity and eliminates free choice. It is to say that you haev more calim to another mans property than he simply becaue you and enough other people say it is so.

Taxes when levied in a percentage are equal by nature of mathematics. 5% is 5% is 5%.

The moe taxes you levy on the people anyway, the less economic boom you will see. Taxes are the biggest impedement to the advancement of the poor and middle class, not a lack there of.

At 11/10/06 01:34 PM, DrWurm wrote: First off, public schools are excellent places.

Now go outside and imagine a world where there is no government funded associations or services.

I guess you'll need a jeep, because you don't have any more roads. What?! You've been robbed? Well there's no more police department to help you. You'll also notice that its darker at night. Guess those streetlights were funded by taxes too. At least the astronomers are happy, eh? Wait, they don't have a museum, or observatory, or goverment funding to do work. Guess, they're not. Maybe they can take their little telescopes out to the park and stargaze. Oh, hold up! No more parks either. Guess they're out of luck. Oh no! it's a hurricane and now your streets are flooded. Would've been nice to have a few storm drains.

Without taxes NOTHING gets done. Suck it up asshole. You live in a great country that tries to provide for everyone. The least you can do is try to keep it alive.

right because without govenemtn business wouldnt pick up the slack and offer a better variety at more cost efficient means with more jobs as a side effect... bullshit.
There already exist forms of privatized roads, power plants, museums, astronomical research, and parks.

Listen here: I never once cursed at you nor did i insinuate that you are an "asshole". Without taxes and governemtn thee woudl be only voluntary exchange and contractual agreement outside of force. I dont want your services monopolized by government. I dont want to fund them or take part in them. All I asking for here is your benign neglect... not to be forced intoyour socialist dream world where enslaving the populace to force the funding of whatever damn program you dream up is considered not only neccesarry (which is a DAMN lie) but somehow NOBLE.

Nobility and virtue cannot exist where mutual consent is not present or where the alternatives are punished.