Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Well the reason why it looks like everyone hates Romney comes from two factors:

1. He is called the front runner by the media, giving him the most attention. It sort of sets up the illusion that the media wants him to fail when the reality is the exact opposite. Despite all the negative attention, the media is also quick to dismiss the other candidates as "fringe" runners as soon as they mess up once. In the case of Apartment building 13th floor Ron Paul, they consider his very name a swear word.

2. All of his supporters are the same sheep who are too old for Internet sites like newgrounds 4chan, Reddit, anything that quickly spreads word of every candidates virtues and quirks like wild fire and contains people who constantly war over who sucks the least.

So you really don't get to see any real supporters very often on the Internet, and more media attention means more scrutiny.

forcing morality on people in a professional environment like the class room is one thing, but they are socializing, one part of the story that would be helpful for us to know is if this is a high school, or an Elementary school, because if its a high school...

At 1/9/12 02:22 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:
This part is complicated because you need to vote, if anything this is very important, corrupted politicians want you not to give a shit about politics.

if it involves voting for one puppet, or the other, then its not going to make a difference anyway. you can try voting to make a difference instead of buying into the whole lesser of 2 evils thing.

At 1/8/12 12:56 PM, dontpanic01 wrote:

At 1/7/12 09:05 PM, Nyaoku wrote: So how do you suppose we should prevent the enemies from destroying the country from within?

(I second this question)

what should they do instead?

(post ignored 20 more pages of the i''m right your wrong point by point)

first and most important thing: understanding the difference between Democracy and Republic.

Second: Understanding how a free market works and what was done to sabotage it. (hint: central banking)

Third: NOT vote for the Democrats, OR the Republicans.

Fourth: get the Tea Party to do the above as well, merge the movements, and stop giving the media ammunition by cleaning up, looking respectable, NOT supporting authoritarianism of any kind, and suddenly become too dangerous for the media to want to draw attention to, yet too big to ignore.

and Fifth, abandon Eisenhower's American dream and realize just how unsustainable it is. This was not our cultural norm, it was artificial.

the likelihood of this happening looks low, but our generation is running out of time.

Why do you get called a liberal when you call the bail-outs anti free market?

if they use the "Ron Paul will never beat Obama" defence then they would have to ignore the fact that he does better with independents than any other candidate in his party.

but the one thing I learned from Iowa caucus is that the main supporters of your party don't matter, its the baby boom that decides every election. The majority of them are voting for better pensions and senior care, free meds for seniors, etc. I'm seeing the irony of it all, these people call you socialist if you want help with your student loan while you are working your ass off for an education so that you can work for a living while they are sitting around collecting dust demanding free stuff and more money.

it goes to show that very few people are actually dedicated to free market, and that the majority just use it as an excuse to not pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S entitlements. want lower taxes? then you have to make sacrifices, don't want to sacrifice your own entitlements? then don't expect other people to lose theirs just for you.

it would be seen as right leaning if the Democrats were holding a leadership race between 7 different candidates making all sorts of bull shit up to knock each other out of the race too. Very good sites imo.

At 1/3/12 02:22 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 1/1/12 12:53 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

Prisons are an unfortunate necessity, I don't really want a violent criminal living across the street. Our CF-18s are old and need to be replaced in the next 5 years. Chances are we'll go to Iran which I'm not fond of, I'm more concerned over the resources over the North Pole, I definitely see a cold style war over that. The fact that Mark Carney is now chairman of the Financial Stability Board speaks volumes about how Canada now handles money.

I like to separate the violent criminal from the self inflictor. I think if you are going to harm another human being via theft or any kind of assault then you deserve to go to jail. If you are simply abusing your own body then we can wait until you resort to the above before we toss you in. I'm even pro death penalty. But mandatory minimums for pot? this is ridiculous, prisons will over crowd, for nothing, and they will only get raped, beaten, and mentally fucked up when they get out making them even MORE of a threat to society when they get out. All for a crime that doesn't concern us.

How exactly does the conservatives in power restrict your personal freedoms unless you break the law?

because their idea is that the law is to make us all act according to their Christian morals, even if we aren't christian.

I'm sure a fourteen year old somewhere would also like to be left alone by a nanny state so he can smoke crack. It sounds ridiculous, but it's the other extreme. Pot will eventually be legal for rec use just because there are so many people to smoke it and the government will want to tax it., and if the conservatives stay in power long enough then I imagine in 10 years you as a home owner will be able to walk into a gun shop and buy a rifle without a license.

anyone willing to smoke crack obviously doesn't care about the law, nor does he/she care about what his/her parents have to say. Some people are naturally stupid, all we should be doing is making sure that they don't decide to go out and stab some one, and that before they decide to smoke crack, know how addictive it is, what the consequences are for smoking crack and that they will have to bear the responsibility for their actions. It is like running down the stairs backwards with a blind fold on, sure its incredibly stupid, and bound to end in disaster, but should we fine the person for doing it? Should we throw him in prison? I personally think we should make him pay his own hospital bill.

as for gun rights, I look forward to him accomplishing that on his FIRST term instead of forcing us to elect him for a second term, but oh well that's just me asking a politician for the moon.

At 1/1/12 01:49 AM, Prinzy2 wrote:
It would be pretty bad still. Canada would sign the new Kyoto accord, the keystone pipeline would be shutdown, money that Canada doesn't have would be spend expanding social programs, and Canada would be in a similar position that the US was in 3 years ago.

Instead we are spending all that money on prisons, jets, and most likely a war that has nothing to do with us. I don't like my hard earned money being taken away via taxes either and its a shame that there isn't a political party that represents me in that sense but its better than lowering taxes and spending that money anyway forcing us to borrow money and then have to raise taxes even higher later on to pay off the interest.

Kickbacks to Liberal friendly advertising firms and crown corporations, and long gun registries? Paying $500 million to terminate a helicopter contract? Giving out loans to friends?

they were in fact a very corrupt bunch and I do hate every single one of them and a lot of other people feel the same way and that is why the NDP got so popular. They intend to leave my personal freedom alone, that makes me pretty happy, even if they do want to hinder my economic freedom. lesser of 3 evils. (and believe me I really do hate voting that way but my vote was still over ruled by some other MP winning anyways)

I've never heard of a crime that didn't affect someone else.

Not a lot of things can be done about actions affecting other people indirectly, but if I choose to own a gun, or get stoned, I would rather be left alone by the nanny state so I can live my life the way I choose to. I would also like my tax money to NOT be given away to other people whom I neither care about nor have been affected by for choosing to do the same. They chose to get stoned, my life goes on, everyone else's does, theirs does, and nobody gets money taken out of their pockets to imprison the guy for using his freedom to make a bad decision.

Vancouver zone reporting in, 5 minutes past the coming of humanities final year on earth.

sweeeeet.

I'll start from international to local (for me)

Iran will develop their nuclear weapon, everyone will be in shock, but nobody will do anything because... they have a nuclear weapon. They will then have a mini cold war like stand off against Israel and Saudi Arabia. Worst case scenario, they invade Iraq if America leaves, (key word, if) and will have to endure a long and bitter civil war until they collapse.

Romney will become the leader of the republicans, and lose to Obama in the elections the same way Kerry lost to Bush.

In Canada, Harper will piss all the independents who bought into the whole "coalition" sky is falling bs, and we will probably be dragged into a war with Iran if my first prediction turns out differently.

In British Columbia, the BC liberals will lose their majority government due to how much they have pissed off their supporters over the last 12 years. Power will be split between them, the NDP, and the BC Conservatives (Conservatives being the fringe party that nobody wasted their time with up until now)

At 12/31/11 01:54 PM, Prinzy2 wrote:

At 12/30/11 10:46 PM, PsyhcoWalrus wrote: I'm not too keen on the NDP right now.

A majority NDP would be a nightmare for the Canadian economy.

how about a minority? as majority for them would have been impossible anyways.

Canada is in the best shape it's been in for a long time, despite going through a recession. The European financial world is in a crisis and America is still appears to be losing momentum due to Obamacare.

we are where we are because of the regulations put in place by the Liberals.

So what is Harper wants to get tougher on criminals?

because he wants to get tough on people who do petty crimes (some that don't even affect anybody but themselves) so they can sit around doing nothing draining our tax money only to come out as even worse criminals than before.

At 12/30/11 08:46 PM, marchohare wrote: It's funny. I don't believe I've ever spoken to a single Canadian who likes Harper, but you've been stuck with him for what? Six years? Canada's system sounds a lot like the United States'. It sounds like it's been bought.

the funny thing is that he acts like we gave him a mandate for absolute power, but most of us remember how he only won because the left vote was split not 2, or 3, but 4 ways, and he BARELY managed to get that power even still. The majority of Canadians voted against him but the shitty way vote distribution works ensured that Alberta got their way once again.

well for one, they are passing a crime bill with little regard for anything.

the majority of the population doesn't want it
experts are saying "It will only make things worse!"
Mayors are BEGGING him not to put it through because, like experts are saying, it will only make things worse.
every opposing party in parlement is saying "wait no lets sort this out and make it not so horrible"
ffs even TEXAS was saying "guys slow down wtf"

the Conservatives response to all that? limit the time for debate to 2 days, and then just rush it through as fast as they can. you can expect a Canadian war on drugs that nobody wants soon as well as privatized prisons, since Harper is obviously in it for his rich buddies.

So my opinion of this reformist neocon is fairly low to say the least.

I want Santorum to win Iowa

seriously, I do.

At 12/26/11 02:22 PM, HookerID wrote: I liked Mitt when he tried to get the nomination last time around. He looks the most "Presidential"

in a nut shell, that's exactly what this is all about.

At 12/27/11 08:24 PM, Familyguy666 wrote: Section 1032-

UNITED STATES CITIZENS.-The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

Enough said. Stop trying to scare everyone with those lies. Not a myth.

the requirement is exempt. meaning they aren't exempt from detention, only the requirement.

lets see, Ron Paul supporters are tired of:

endless over spending on wars and entitlements
Patriot act, and other unconstitutional bills that go against our rights and freedoms
bail outs and general corporate welfare
the drug war
government involvement in marriage.

these 5 issues matter to us the most, now tell me, who else on the ballot is going to represent us here?

the ironic thing is, a lot of people are trying to point us in the direction of huntsman, but believe it or not, Huntsman's odds of winning are actually less than Ron Paul's, and he says he is going to invade Iran straight up, so that is a huge deal breaker, among his do nothing attitude towards corporate welfare, drug war, over spending and patriot act.

At 12/26/11 12:01 AM, BumFodder wrote: The Imperials are definitely the lesser of two evils. Sure, theyre not exactly the lightest shade of grey, but apart from outlawing worship of Talos (which is failing miserably), theyre not actually anything more than the Stormcloaks. The Stormcloaks themselves are run by a power obsessed asshole, with racism deeply embedded in the faction.

hey he and the emperor both agreed to a duel to the death, he won and the guards were ordered to kill him. Then the Nordic gate man let him out because it wasn't right to kill a man for winning a fair duel just because people didn't like the out come so they chopped his head off. And not a single trial was had. Plus they are the invaders who say their new subjects owe them unwavering loyalty for no reason other than the fact that they are just now in charge.

so... is cultural Marxism the belief that all races are equal and should be treated equally, or a sinister plot by the Jews in Hollywood to exterminate the white race?

In the end it all sounds like a bunch of storm front bull crap.

I think the biggest problem with him (other than being identical to Obama in every way other than appearance) is that he is the perfect stereotype. Everyone want's their leader to be perfect so they Hollywood the hell out of them until they end up like those robot girls at the beauty pageants.

look at Bachman and Romney, maybe they talk differently but they are visually and personality wise perfect clones. Botox, fake smiles, insincere emotions, personal lives that nobody seems to hear about ever. It is as if they were made in china, stored in a box, shipped over to America, and programmed by scientists before being let loose.

Contrary to popular belief, people don't like this. They may say that they hold their politicians to the highest moral standards and believe they should look strong but... look at these people. Look at Kerry, look at Al Gore, look at ignatieff (if you were available for the Canadian elections). People like flaws, it lets them know that they are electing a human and not another robot that they can in no way identify with. You can almost hear the Microsoft Sam behind his voice.

Get Obama to travel back in time and join the republican party just to say everything Romney is saying and you would have the new republican front runner, that people actually like.

If Hollywood were anti white, then the majority of their actors would be non whites and the "A List" would be mostly minorities.

Such things are to be expected from a buddy of Reagan.

freedom of speech grants you the right to be wrong.

At 12/23/11 02:25 AM, Noonga wrote: >calling Obama an incompetent idiot but still saying congress is useless and stupid

>hating Obamacare despite similar methods working in other countries and not coming up with any better alternatives

he is just a puppet president from the congress of puppets.

well lets see our options:

we can allow doctors to kill things that are arguably people in the most humane way possible

or we can make it so the only way people can do this is to inflict large amounts of pain on the "baby" using either drugs or severe beatings...

I may be morally opposed to the act of killing your child but just because the law says you can't doesn't mean you wont. And since we have a pretty big shortage of willing adopters and people willing to pay for the social security needed to keep these children alive after birth (their compassion ends when life outside the vagina begins)...

as long as they still belong to the same two parties, your flushing piss out with piss.

At 12/19/11 09:11 AM, Korriken wrote: I always said it would take something major to make me vote democrat... I think I just found it.

or, you could raise a little hell and vote for a 3rd party that doesn't plan on taking a shit on the constitution and setting it on fire. Or if you really feel like that is worthless you could just take your ballot and write "fuck you" on it.

At 12/19/11 03:47 PM, TheMason wrote:
But this is neither the USSR nor the PRC. Instead this is the only hereditary Communist dictatorship to ever exist. Furthermore, they have been more successful in setting-up a police state and cult of personality that actually diefies the Kim family.

things change, a betting man would have said that his skill as a tactician in the civil war and Lenin's recommendation would have been more than enough to get Trotsky into power.

Here we have an interesting set up, a brutal dictator who oppressed his people and scared his party members shitless for years is dead and he is now trusting the military to take charge until his crazy son takes charge. They don't have to give that power to his son, they may use him as a figure head if they are super super nice but they have probably had enough of the purges and seemingly random accusations of treason. If they are really really scared they might just reveal the truth and try him with treason just like the PRC did with Mao's wife and a bunch of his closest buddies.

Add Chinese influence into the picture and I think you can expect a McDonald's in Best Korea soon.

Stalin was worse than him i believe, so was Mao, neither of those two got replaced by anyone who was near as bad as those two. in both scenarios, they were seen for who they really were after their death.

I think the reason this happens is because under those two batshits, their party members lived in a state of perpetual fear. Yes they had luxurious lifestyles but being closer to their leader meant being under closer scrutiny. I don't think it will turn out much different for Kim. They will remain a dictatorship but it will be a lot more mild than the last one.

They will probably get a puppet from china to tone things down, since China was getting rather frustrated with their aggressive behaviour.