Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/17/09 08:47 PM, Warforger wrote: ....How the hell was he ignorant?

He got pissed when someone asked him a question about healthcare, the crowd cheered him on, thats fine

Go back and reread the context. I'm not describing Rep. Scott as ignorant.

At 9/17/09 08:10 PM, opim101 wrote: Well that's just great! America is wonderful like that, people can throw their votes away by voting for someone who has 0 percent chance to be re-elected!

And they can also cast ballots based on acceptance of extremist rhetoric, gross and/or irresponsible overgeneralizations, misrepresentation, and ad hominem attacks as truth of divine proportions! Keep up the valiant effort, as one day you may elect a congressman who makes it his calling to turn every issue into a pissing match!

At 9/17/09 07:29 PM, opim101 wrote: Glad he has your vote.

Darn straight. Isn't democracy great, where I can make an apathetic vote to spite the one you cast in ignorant rage?

I live in his district. He will be getting my vote November 2010.

He was at a forum to discuss a highway bill, it's understandable that he didn't want to answer questions about health care, because it wasn't a health care event, it wasn't a town hall meeting, and there are other things that do need to be taken care of other than getting asked the same stupid questions over HEALTH CARE.

Do I find his irritation at being asked health care questions troubling? No. Do I find his non-committal stance troubling? No. Why don't I?

It is impossible and undesirable to try to hold a reasoned and sensible discussion when the toilet that is this issue is overflowing with the verbal diarrhea being spewed constantly by radical moronic assholes on both the left and right-including yourself-to the point that even the most experienced shitters-the politicians themselves-cannot enter the political bathroom without clinching their nose and gagging in disgust at the putrid stench of your foul, putrid, runny excrement flowing over everything! Regardless of whatever corporate government homosexual Nazi pro-abortion socialist death panel fountain of youth finally results when the toilet gets flushed I don't know and I don't care at this point; I can merely hope that it does pay for the treatment for the cholera-like discharge emitted from the rectums that were your mouths that threatens to flow out of the political bathroom and infect the rest of the house with the stench and disease it carries!

I would have no qualms about Texas seeking independence. They were a formerly independent country and made the decision to be annexed, they should have the right to be "unannexed".

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

One of the reasons this country was founded. If Texans feel that they would be better governed, and be more happy independent, why keep them in?

I prefer the FairTax system. It's a 23% inclusive sales tax. Each month, you get a prebate check for the tax you would spend on purchases made up to the poverty level. Stores already collect sales taxes, and the effort to add this on would be offset by not having to deal with W-2s and other income records. Moreover, it will be harder to evade paying taxes, and income from black market (drugs, etc.) would be taxed when it is spent.

At 12/28/08 06:46 AM, Nein wrote: Potentate, if you're going to use memes here, at least use them correctly.

My sincere apologies. I didn't realize that any attempt to lighten my presentation had to be forced into a preset template.

Why don't you actually discuss the topic at hand? Do you have suggestions as to get an idea for a law developed into legislation? Do you disagree with my assertion that the only ways to get ideas for laws into legislation is by perpetually nagging a congressperson or through lobbying?

4chan really is truly the black hole of the internet; sucking all intelligence from the internet and annihilating it.

There are two ways to get a bill through Congress:

Method 1

1. Create an idea for some cockamamie law.
2. Call your congressperson's office.
3. Yell at the intern that answers the phone, reminding him or her that you're a taxpayer, dammit, and you need to speak to your congressional representative about a very important issue.
4. Yell at your congressperson and remind him or her that you're a taxpayer, dammit, and you pay his or her salary, and you vote. Tell him or her your law is the most important issue facing the country today. Tell him or her to think of the children.
5. Repeat.
6. Recruit other paranoid/ignorant/insulated/ people to petition the congressperson.
7. Repeat.
8. PROFIT!

Method 2

1. Create an idea for some cockamamie law.
2. Get a lot of money.
3. Hire a lobbyist.
4. A good one.
5. PROFIT!

Before I begin, as someone has already pointed out, you are discussing the comments on a YouTube video. There is no base level of intelligence required to post a comment there, nor is there any guarantee that the views expressed there are people's actual views.

- Time and time again, Ron Paul has shown his ignorance of the workings American government. He's said that he would "abolish the IRS", for example. Do I even have to tell you the consequences of such a stupid action?

I think you need to learn more about the candidates yourself before you start calling their supporters stupid. Ron Paul is one of the advocates of the FairTax, an inclusive 23% sales tax that would eliminate the income tax, and by extension, the IRS.

- What the hell did Bob Barr stand behind? Bob Barr licked cream off of a woman at a rally, he cheated on his ex-wife, and yet he still had the nerve to call out Bill Clinton for doing the same and he lead the impeachment cause against Clinton. Bob Barr CREATED the "Defense of Marriage Act", which banned Federal recognition of same-sex marriage. THIS is the honest and modern politician these nuts are asking for?

Did Bob Barr run on a platform of honesty?

These people support 3rd Party candidates because they think that all these candidates are somehow honest, and that all majority candidates are somehow dishonest. This is just another form of stereotyping, and we all know how ignorant and utterly stupid stereotypes are.

Stereotyping third party voters while denouncing stereotypes as ignorant and utterly stupid is a very interesting tactic. Many third party voters vote for their candidate because they better represent one's political views, and some vote third party simply because they don't like either of the candidates from the two major parties. Few cast their ballots based simply on "honesty".

Then you have the people who know that they know nothing about politics, so they just shorten their comments to "obama can suk my dik". Are they fucking serious? Do they, no, CAN they think? These people should be banned from opening that shithole they call a mouth until they can boost their IQ to above a 70.

Or perhaps you shouldn't get enraged at comments posted by 11 year-olds.

In short, these people are MORONS. And they will always piss me off.

If so, then write your congressperson asking them to institute some sort of legislation that would require all voters to pass a knowledge test before they are allowed to vote.

At 12/22/08 11:18 AM, Proteas wrote: Australia is just censoring the following;

- X Rated Porno
- Internet Casino Gambling
- Hate Speech
- R rated computer games

OH MY!!! TEH WORLD IS COMING TO AN END!!!

No.

But if you take a few steps down a road, it's easier to continue down that road than if you hadn't started at all.

Once censorship has started, the easier it becomes to censor more.

At 12/15/08 01:21 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/15/08 11:35 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I'm still waiting for some politician to come back from a trip to Iraq with a statement along the lines of "Everyone was really grateful, everyone we passed on the street gave us the thumbs up!"

They tried that. Don't you remember all the footage a few years ago of Iraqis dancing in the streets, welcoming the U.S. troops?

It was later proven to be staged, of course. I'm not sure people would believe it now even if it was true.

Well, I meant it in regards that in the Middle East, the thumbs up gesture basically "Up yours!"

Ahh, we could end the recession and halt illegal immigration at the same time! Wait for the recession to get bad enough that most of the illegals return back. Then, we create a massive program tasked with border security, and building an impenetrable border wall. It would be like the CCC during the Great Depression. The materials needed to build the wall would provide jobs in materials and manufacturing, not to mention the jobs to build and patrol the wall itself, and the jobs to support those building and patrolling the wall.

At 12/15/08 11:22 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/15/08 10:28 AM, KeithHybrid wrote: When one directs the sole of their foot at another person in the Middle East, it's considered a grave insult.

Hell, in the Middle East, writing a "blasphemous" book or drawing a silly cartoon is considered a grave insult, worthy of the death penalty.

I'm still waiting for some politician to come back from a trip to Iraq with a statement along the lines of "Everyone was really grateful, everyone we passed on the street gave us the thumbs up!"

At 12/15/08 11:15 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/15/08 08:46 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Oh, can mods edit their posts now? When did that change? Just your posts, or anybody's?

Nah, I just deleted my post and reposted it (like I normally would for anyone else).

Just curious, I'm sure I've missed quite a few changes over the past year or so.

I get to Christmas Shopping today. Somebody kill me. :-\

Simple solution: Wal-Mart gift cards. Everyone I know shops there, you don't have to worry about them not fitting, not working, or not liking them. I try to get my really close family something nice, but they're hard to shop for, too.

If gift cards aren't your thing, then you can always make gift baskets. One of my sisters and her husband like Emeril Lagasse, I made them a basket with one of his books, containers of his spices and other products, and a grocery store gift card. My other sister and her husband like coffee, so I bought a couple of nice mugs, a bunch of those $1 Millstone flavored coffees, and extras like little coffee creamer packets, biscotti, etc.

At 12/15/08 08:13 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote:

At 12/14/08 10:14 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:
I can't be filed under "Freedom of Speech", as there is no speech involved.

Freedom of Speech can be used in cases such as the attempts to ban Lady Chatterly's Lover as it was the printed word, Hustler magazine was not and is not. There's nothing wrong with porn, but to say it's allowed by the First Amendment is laughable.

I should point out that Garfield is, by your definition, unconstitutional. Any image can be described as a work of art by it's producer. Art expresses things that are dificult or impossible to put into words. Nobody would have told a Greek sculpter that he had no legal right to creat a nude statue. Even if it doesn't fall under freedom of speech, it still gets scooped up by freedom of expression.

Garfield isn't unconstitutional, by his definition, but rather, not protected by the constitution. There's a significant difference. If it's unconstitutional, it's not allowed. If it's not protected by the constitution, it can be allowed, but it's not guaranteed.

Freedom of expression and freedom of speech are one in the same, as speech in a constitutional sense is defined as communication. Whether pornography is communication can be debated. However, it is protected, at least at the federal level, by the ninth and tenth amendments.

Perhaps you chuckle in an attempt to stifle that nagging little thought in the back of your mind that it could have just as easily happened to you? That you subconsciously chuckle to try to take away some of the reality of it--that subconsciously, it turns it into a story--it didn't really happen... stuff like that just doesn't happen, at least not here. Or its possible you could be even sympathetic while chuckling, like chuckling "heh heh, better him than me" when you pass by someone pulled over by the cops? That feeling of "hey, I know what you're going through, stranger, but I'm glad that you're going through it now instead of me."

At 12/15/08 08:12 AM, linkerooftime007 wrote: Go rot in hell you ignorant most likely illiterate bastard.

If he isn't illiterate, then you have used "illiterate" at an inappropriate time. This makes you look like an idiot.

If he is illiterate, then he won't be able to read your post, making it completely pointless. This makes you look like an idiot.

¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢

To the point:

Unless you are actively buying an American car at every opportunity, buying a new one as soon as you get the old one payed off, or even more stupidly, leasing one, you have no standing to call for a boycott of "un-American" cars and states. The Big Three don't benefit from you owning their cars, they benefit from you buying them. A redneck with a "Buy American" bumper sticker on his old '82 Chevy pickup is doing as much for the Big Three as somebody going out and buying a new BMW off the lot: neither is doing anything for them.

If you want to see a similar situation to the Big Three, look at the now defunct British Leyland. A large consolidation of brands--most of Britain's car production at the time-- led to a lot of self-competition. Demanding unions brought the costs up, and poor build quality and reliability when compared to German and Japanese imports made the cars undesirable; not even nationalization could prevent its demise.

At 12/14/08 11:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/14/08 11:09 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Linky doesn't work.

I used my modly powers to repost with the right link. Click it again.

Oh, can mods edit their posts now? When did that change? Just your posts, or anybody's?

It's such a shame the reporter missed, he could have won a FREE RINGTONE**!

Seriously, I look at this and shudder at President Bush, a representative of the American people, getting shoes thrown at him--and his arrogance to just dismiss it as a publicity stunt.

Mr. Bush, after all the things you've done, you're lucky it was a shoe.

At 12/7/08 09:22 AM, homor wrote:

At 12/5/08 05:29 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: That's because people have started dring hybrid cars.

hybrids actually get worse milage than old junky cars.

How so? Want to show us some figures to back this up?

Aww...look at the cute widdle Canada, isn't he cute? He thinks he's weady to walk to school by himself without mommy...who's a big boy? That's right, it's you, widdle Canada!

Global warming is being caused by the sun getting warmer. Ok.

Is smog caused by the sun getting warmer?

Is acid rain caused by the sun getting warmer?

Are the supplies of non-renewable resources getting lower because of the sun getting warmer?

Of course not. Even if you subscribe to the view that global warming isn't man-made, there are plenty of reasons why we need to reduce CO2 emissions--because the processes causing CO2 emissions--burning fossil fuels--is also causing the problems above.

It's my experience from working retail that the ones that get upset that you don't wish them Merry Christmas are the ones ruining the holiday by acting like it lasts through the duration of November and December. I had someone get upset that I didn't wish them Merry Christmas a couple days after Thanksgiving. I told him that it was still a month to go; needless to say he wasn't very happy.

The media don't have a liberal bias; they have a bias to whatever will get them the best ratings.

That's one of the reasons why sex scandals, despite having the least effect on the everyday citizen, get the most play in the media.

In this election, Obama got so much attention from the media because of his newsworthiness and because he made for good TV.

At 11/20/08 05:01 AM, AwesomeRific wrote: 2 B's = History and Geometry
3 C's = Health (Bullshit), English (BULLSHIT), Spanish (Fucking lucky lol)
1 D = PE (Don't wear required uniform, still do all the fucking work though)
2 F's = Website science (Racist teacher), Biology (I do the labs, I don't write them. Stupid class, plan to switch to another teacher)

Let me get this straight...you admit to not doing the all the work in a class, and not wearing the required uniform for PE, and you're complaining about your grade?

NEWSFLASH: You don't get graded in the real world for attempting or doing part of your work.

Imagine you're working at a corporation, and your boss assigns you a sales report for an upcoming meeting. You arrive at the meeting, yes you did the math for the report, but you didn't write it up...

You honestly think you'll be able to keep a job with that kind of attitude?

At 11/18/08 07:55 PM, universal-fear wrote: It comes from a non-nuclear nuclear device.

I'm not a scientist, nor am I an engineer, but this seems to be a contradiction in terms. How can a device be nuclear and non-nuclear at the same time? Or is this a typo?

Don't listen to them. I trust your credibility.

One thing I've noticed is that a representative's stance on gun control has less to do with their party and more to do with their location. Note that many rural democrats are anti-gun control, while the four republicans listed above, along with many democrats, are from urban areas.

At 11/10/08 10:32 AM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 11/10/08 01:56 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: He's one of those guys where I think we need to go back to the old days of a mob of people smart on the issues he's dumb on out debating him till he goes away...Any PC left? Any DAG left? Project? Hmmm? :)

Holy cow, the DAG boards are still going? I thought those died ages ago...

lol at the forums with most recent comment dating back to 4 years ago

At 11/7/08 08:20 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 11/7/08 06:22 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: I think the best way to reform the electoral college is to keep all the electoral votes each state gets and apportion them by the percentage of the vote each candidate got in that state.

This idea's been brought up before, and it's almost as good as dividing North and South California. Okay, it's even better than splitting Cali.

Example:
Massamainevada 12 EVs
Bob 53% Joe 45% Bubba 8%
Bob = 6.36 Joe = 5.4 Bubba = 0.96

...a better representative outcome.

One question though, if a candidate wins 51% of the presidential vote, does he become president of the 51% or everybody? The only argument I can think of against dividing the state electoral votes percentage-wise would be that the election forces you to pick one candidate over another, and not a sliding scale percentage based on what you think of the front runners. One vote, one ticket. States' votes work the same way.

I don't think that's a big issue. Yes, you do have a limited choice of candidates, and yes, you do have to choose just one, but this system would better represent your vote than the winner take all system that is in effect now.

7. Unlike abolishing the electoral college, it would not require a constitutional amendment.

Should make it easy, right?

Unfortunately, no. Because the states determine how their electors are chosen, states would have to pass legislation to change the way they choose electors. But in most cases, the majority party in the state would reject this, because it would weaken their electoral vote for their presidential candidate. Take a typical Republican (or Democrat, doesn't matter) stronghold state. Every presidential election, they cast all of their electoral votes for the party's presidential candidate. But if they allowed legislation like this through, it would mean that a few of the state's electoral votes would go to the minority candidate, which is something the majority party in the state wouldn't allow.

At the national level, Congress could perhaps submit a constitutional amendment requiring states to select their electors this way, since any gains in electoral votes gained by one party somewhere would be offset by losses elsewhere. However, you would still have to have the states ratify it, and you would run into the same problem.