Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/14/14 11:34 PM, Warforger wrote:
Because over the last few decades economic conditions for blacks have been improving mostly due to the reforms by Democrats?.......

That and blacks were mostly poor before the Democrats "lead" their communities.

is that what they told you in high school?

The democrats have run the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates for decades, and 4/5 of the worst cities for police brutality (including first and second place), and 9/10 of the worst cities for crime rates (the exception being Rockford, run by an independent).

At 8/11/14 05:18 AM, Darthmenisis wrote:

At 7/31/14 05:56 PM, Greggg586 wrote: apparently I've heard that the right to bare arms isn't actually protecting what we commonly thought it was protecting, and that is the right for the state militia to bare arms.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Yeah, anyone who reads it knows that. The question is how do you feel about that?

know would imply it's objectively true. It specifically separates "A well-regulated Militia" from "the people".

At 9/20/14 10:56 AM, Ericho wrote: Andrew Jackson's policies actually led to the economic depression of 1837, but the following guy, Martin Van Buren was blamed for that. Seriously, Clinton managed to even the debt out or something, so he did a better job. Jackson was an awful President for that and the persecution of the Native Americans.

it was just a reaction to the corruption of the central bank at the time. It's summed up by him as this: "when your investments win, you keep the profit, when your investments lose, you charge it to the bank". It was like a group of mobsters with a machine that printed money.

At 9/16/14 05:10 AM, ChloeFlora wrote: It seems that you are wrong!
I'm not sharing most of Democratic ideas, but still... When a Republican comes to power, who but him in his sphere of influence becomes richer?
As far as I remember the GOP is still existing just because most of it's authorities own base industry that's why they're rich. greedy and dancing under Koch's whistle

all rhetoric, no substance. Not a damn thing you said has anything to do with what I said.

Me: Democrats are in charge of black communities, and all fail to bring them out of poverty
You: "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

At 9/13/14 07:21 PM, chinablue30 wrote: http://imgur.com/gallery/BNCgvtL Interesting read.

it kind of goes to show the more logical concerns against feminism. I have nothing against equality for women, but when the group overwhelmingly embraces flawed statistics and lobbies to have government make policies based on them, it becomes scary, especially with how powerful the feminist lobby can be.

At 9/11/14 12:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: The educational system in this country IS broken. Once you start allowing money and profit motive to come into it, the game is over. We've seen that over and over again in every sector, and yet we do nothing to curb it.

Are you trying to suggest that more private sector involvement in education correlates with lower quality education, or that corporations are trying to sabotage public education?

At 9/10/14 02:27 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/27/14 07:34 PM, epicaldude wrote: That is total bullshit, because there are reasons:

How effective is this? Most people with guns don't have the training police do and so often times they kill people who they know (like the amputee South African Runner) or they hurt themselves, both of which are more likely than to help in an active crime.

gun accidents make up a very VERY small number of gun deaths. You are actually more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be shot by accident. Many gun accidents are also miscounted, some people lie to get out of trouble. Second, when your life is in danger, it doesn't matter if you are as trained as the police are, you do what you got to do. Guns are also really good at preventing crimes since a lot of criminals do the smart thing and leave when their target pulls one on them.

No you have a general idea, but it's far from how to defend. That would be forming the militia part, mainlining training and discipline.

Poorly trained Gorilla armies with out uniforms have historically been some of the hardest enemies to fight.

Stuff like that made me always wonder because it's just a power play fantasy that works out differently in real life. You're not factoring in things like nervousness or fear.

Well the official statistic on that question is that on average, mass shootings stopped by police kill about 14.3 people, while mass shootings that are ended by civilians kill about 2.3. True, every death is a tragedy, but even the bleediest of hearts would agree that it's better to end the killing spree at 2 people.

They have a gun, but they don't have ammunition nor can they take that gun outside.

"all military — but not private — ammunition must be stored in central arsenals rather than in soldiers’ homes" is the official law. They do have the Ammo. They also don't typically take their guns with them, but it's not illegal, nor is it taboo to do so. People often times openly carry their guns to the gun range.

Yes let's use Ukraine, A COUNTRY WHICH IS IN THE MIDST OF A CIVIL WAR, as an example of a failure of gun control (although technically you're right, in the sense that the government can't enforce the laws).

just about all of central America and South America has higher gun death than the United States too. The main factor is their poverty rates. Gun ownership does not correlate with violent crime.
there is more violence in states with less guns. Also, I remember that the stats on Ukraine are dated (you can look them up on wiki, most of the stats are from around 2010), they were in well before the civil unrest.

Um no, there's more violence in the Southern states than anywhere else, gun crime is different though.

There is also more poverty in the southern states. African Americans and Hispanics are by far more prevalent in the south and it just so happens that they are more likely to live in poverty. That's another issue to address, guns have nothing to do with it.

Here is my go to source. http://www.gunfacts.info/

what would happen if some one showed up and said that not only is poverty the main reason for the disparity of black people in America, but the Democrats, who have been in charge of just about every single one of their communities for the last few decades, are probably to blame for it?

At 12/22/13 07:18 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote: I've seen enough things that I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or are an actual backwoods redneck ignorant small-minded twit. So which one is it?

Secession isn't happening. End of story.

that's the kind of attitude that makes people want to secede even more.

At 12/7/13 10:21 PM, naronic wrote: Why can't we simply all be independents?

even independents have an agenda, they are just smart enough to not assume one party will always represent them.

every political ideology is hated by everyone who doesn't agree with it.

At 11/2/13 05:44 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/2/13 05:40 PM, lapis wrote: A martyr in Christianity is someone who dies opposing oppression. A martyr in Islam is someone who dies imposing oppression.

Pro-democracy protesters during the Arab Spring? Benazir Bhutto?

we know that they were trying to impose Shariah Law by now.

Democracy is over rated as hell, especially in parts of the world where it's all a contest of which majority can impose it's will on others and loot the economy.

At 10/22/13 07:01 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/22/13 04:37 PM, Fluffington wrote:

Why do most feminists keep on defending Islam relentlessly when Islam is quite possibly the most anti-women religion on the planet?

I've never ever seen any feminist defend Islam ( and religions in general), where are you getting this from??

probably just an assumption, most feminists are liberals so it would make sense to believe this, whether it's true or not.

when your house is on fire, what do you replace the fire with?

At 10/2/13 09:19 AM, hecticjon wrote:

At 10/2/13 08:48 AM, Memorize wrote: And all over a very unpopular bill that no one wanted in the first place.

yes nobody wants the bill where people don't have to pay loads of money for health care just because you have to pay a few extra dollars a week.

how much more would you have had to pay?

So from what I hear is that we have until the 16th of October to work something out before this gets serious, but Government IS shut down.

At 9/28/13 04:51 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 9/28/13 02:23 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: never is a dangerous word when you are predicting the infinite future

We can print our own money. So you're not actually saying anything here.

that isn't a very encouraging thing to say.

At 9/27/13 07:06 PM, Feoric wrote:
The United States government can never go bankrupt so this is not a possibility

never is a dangerous word when you are predicting the infinite future

option A: shut down government, wide spread rioting and panic will happen for sure, which will probably shut down many sectors of the economy.

option B: raise debt ceiling, meaning they will solve the problem later when it's even worse.

option C: balance the budget, which will turn out a lot like option A.

don't think there are any good ways out of this. They will probably just choose option B because as Keynes puts it "in the long run, we're all dead"

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

this site gives you an idea of how much your insurance premium will be under Obamacare, as well as what subsidies you qualify for.

if you are on the fence about Obamacare, this will give you an idea of how much you will benefit. Most of us who work for a living, even if we make less than 50K/year, are going to pay more than we do now and receive no subsidies.

all I have to say about my rate of $2535/year with 0 subsidies, I'm glad I don't live south of the boarder.

so what will/would you be paying? Is this affordable to you? If you get insurance through your employer, are you confident that they love you enough to keep you around as a full timer?

At 9/22/13 05:11 PM, Korriken wrote:
It'll work out the same way the last one worked out. Talking heads come up, begin slinging the race card around and saying that it's all the GOP's fault and the unwashed masses begin foaming at the mouth.

I've never liked how the GOP has dealt with Obamacare, it reminds me of playing with people in a team based pvp game with a random group. People begin doing hideously stupid things and end up losing because of it.

if the GOP wants to kill Obamacare, the best thing to do would be to let it be implemented, and when people feel the financial weight of the bill on their backs, they won't like it anymore.

problem with that is most of these sorts of ideas are likely to remain in place for a very long time, no matter how unpopular they get. That's because as soon as the next president fails to repeal it, Obamacare will just end up being one of those issues that shows up in the editorial every so often and nothing more, like Marijuana.

remember when everyone thought the democrats were the anti war party? I wonder how many people still haven't been disillusioned by Obama and Kerry.

identity politics and socialism took over and went from "stop giving our money to rich people" to "give us their money". its a movement of ignorance that divides everyone. It can't even disenfranchise people from the democrats.

It should be just as hard for a police officer to get a gun as it is for a civilian.

last time I took this one I was even more radical

At 8/15/13 01:53 AM, Feoric wrote: Turns out all those conspiracy theories describing how the United States would eventually catch up with the rest of the developed world turned out to be true after all, huh?

single payer is over rated. In school we have our opinion of how great it is shoved down our throats for us. It is still inefficient, line ups are long, and the cost is high. At the very least we could allow private clinics but what few exist have to constantly look over their shoulder as the government and ignorant masses constantly push to have them shut down. That's why there is only one in my entire province.

funny thing is, everyone would stand to gain from allowing private clinics, because waiting lines for the public healthcare would go down as well.

freedom goes in all fields!

At 8/8/13 08:14 PM, NightmareWitch wrote: If I was on the jury, I would consider that both parties were drunk. But being drunk doesn't get you out of crimes. If the male initiates, it's the male's fault. If the female initiates, it's the female's fault. Would alcohol excuse any other crime? Rape is rape.

But I wouldn't be on the jury..

isn't it just better for everyone to base it on who consented, and not who initiated it? If they both consented, it isn't rape. And no, alcohol wouldn't excuse any other crime, but of course, had the "victim" been sober, it wouldn't be considered rape now would it? you got the double standard all backward.

also, some people naturally have really shitty judgement. If one of those people were to have sex, would it always be rape for them?

At 7/31/13 11:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
Gun control makes it easier for criminals to get guns? Did you drink bad Budweiser today or something? Do you know where criminals get most of their guns? By stealing them from lawful owners. That's right. The prevalence of guns among civilians is the primary source of guns among criminals.

I think what he meant to say was that gun control makes it worse when they do get them.

At 7/31/13 02:13 AM, Warforger wrote:

Taking them to prison makes them hardened, disciplined and more skilled criminals. Moreover how can you expect their children to get jobs then?

That would be the American government's problem to solve, not private business. Of course there's a chance we can save these hardened criminals by trusting them with our valuables, but, why would we do that?