Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

you know, I think if we make it so that all drugs are legal, the free market would take care of the harder drugs as the natural ones would be cheaper to make and there for, cheaper to sell.

just make sure you allow every day people to grow it privately so the fat cats don't load our weed up with battery acid and formaldehyde then bribe the government to require a "licence" to grow your own effectively giving them a monopoly.

should they have to explain themselves? it is starting to sound like martial law.

It may have a common theme to various world events but usually they like to mash a bunch them together with a change of setting. Star wars took themes of Buddhism, Roman republic-empire, and the middle ages etc and used it to create a plausible story line while placing it in an impossible setting.

Skyrim probably did the same thing, taking references from Hitler, Romans, Vikings, etc and used it to make a game. Maybe they are making political statements or are asserting that the world isn't black and white but its a fun game none the less.

At 12/17/11 12:26 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/16/11 09:25 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: aaaand finally see pic.

Way to completely miss the point while making yourself feel really smart with these pics...

you don't know what missing the point is until you get this through your head:

what you think we are protesting

what we are really protesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_w elfare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capit alism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

why should i put any more effort into exerting this when all i'm going to get in response is "LOOK AT THOSE DIRTY HIPPIES"

disaster number 1 was when the neoconservatives took over the republican party, disaster number 2 was how the public couldn't tell the difference.

^ you don't have to live in poverty to be negatively influenced by government corruption. Here's some food for thought, they live with their parents because jobs are too scarce to find in a timely manner, and the jobs they can find aren't very secure, and really hug minimum wage. add this with how much rent costs and the probability that their parents need them to help pitch in and they are kind of stuck. I also refuse to buy from certain companies and Apple is included in those for their use of slave labour in Africa, but some times your morals weigh more than your wallet can handle so I'm not in a position to boycott everyone who does something morally questionable. I need to eat and put gas in my car damit. Yes there is also probably a good amount who wasted their money on useless degrees, my advice to them is if they got an art degree, get a job at McDonalds and sell your art on Ebay until you can live your super awesome dream of money women/men and fame. I however support what their base cause is and have a ticket in a skill trade. Can't really find a smarter investment when you didn't get the best grades in school. I'll have a better job than some of the people who did better than me.

You could argue that cutting the corporate tax rate would give them the hand up that they desperately need but that is useless without sufficient competition and demand. So they are only seeing one half of the issue, that's not a good thing but the Tea party is only seeing the other half and nothing else as well. One side blames the pimp, the other blames the guy who bought his whores. aaaand finally see pic.

At 12/16/11 08:11 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

that's not right though Kung Fu is a mostly weapon based martial art...

self fixed, hand to hand is its weakest field.

anyone else worried about how the Sikhs are going to react to this? I hope they at least make an exception for them.

and I don't know what to say to that, carrying a knife, 4 years. What kind of self defence ARE you entitled to? A knife can be used to intimidate a gang of attackers for just long enough for you to make an escape if used right but nobody is going to back down if you are ambushed by a bunch of scum bags and all you can do is say "I know Kung Fu back off now or I'll kick all your heads off!".

that's not right though Kung Fu is a weapon based martial art...

you know what? you should probably consider bringing a staff around with you. (unless they have a law against that too!)

At 12/14/11 06:30 AM, joe9320 wrote: You know what happened after the two years? The Greens said no, and the censorship plan was scrapped. Confidence in Government restored. Hell, if we had enough petitions to tell RIAA's executives that they are Hitler, well, we can put an end to the whole SOPA bill.

this is America we are talking about, it will take a pretty long time to get rid of this if it is ever implemented, very, very long time.

At 12/14/11 01:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: so do we have any agreed upon facts, or perceived external stimuli, that we can utilize in a discussion on the OWS topic?

that as long as the topic of the discussion contains OWS, then intelligent discussion is impossible.

I wonder where the conspiracy theorists are, no one is considering that we are GIVING it to them intentionally? they must be on break.

I recomend that the people in this topic come take a look at this.

I'll post the important part here, its a letter to the guys other cartoonist friend who seems to be a tea party supporter as opposed to the man who sent it, a reluctant OWS supporter. excusing the imo less than funny cartoon.

"I know you and I are located at roughly orange and indigo on the political spectrum but I can't help but feel the Tea Party really ought to be down there demonstrating alongside all the insufferable nosering-wearing anarchists [of Occupy Wall Street]. The Tea Party formed when enough conservatives felt the Republican Party had betrayed or abandoned them; this demonstration seems like proof that a critical mass of progressives now feels the same way about the Obama administration. The one consensus in this country is that things are fucked up. We both agree that absolutely no one in the government cares what we think about anything. It seems to me that the main difference between Left and Right anymore is that you guys blame The Government for everything while we blame Corporate America. It's past time we all noticed that there's no difference between these two anymore; they're all exactly the same people. They're all former classmates and golf partners. In other words the great ideological divide between us increasingly looks like a false dichotomy, and about the only thing keeping us from forming that formidable coalitionthat political philosopher Charles Daniels called "the cowboys and the hippies, the rebels and the yanks," is our mutual distaste. But look: I despise those feckless hippies and their goddamn drum circles, and I'm still going down there every day, because I feel like I can't not be there. Even if you're not going, let me know what you think about all this. We may be the only two people on our respective sides who are in any contact with each other and as such we are like diplomats from two great powers at war. We should keep the lines of communication open."

basically he says OWS happened because the Democrats betrayed the people who supported them, while Tea party started because the Republicans betrayed the people who supported them. Both sides are equally concerned that this country is moving toward despotism in one way or another yet both sides hate each other on made up comedic ideological differences and wardrobes, both of which are nothing more than strawmen who lack the intelligence to organise events as impacting as these two, think about that.

At 12/13/11 09:10 AM, Korriken wrote: meh, my biggest gripe about Christmas has nothing to do with political correctness, that much I don't really give a damn about. My biggest gripe is how Christmas is about some fat guy in a suit going around satisfying greedy little children.

Not the first time people took a legitimate religion/ holy day and commercialised the hell out of it. your concerns can be summed up with this cartoon.

i just realized the irony to all this, America sends a drone to collect information about Iran that Iran doesn't want to share, and then it breaks so that Iran gets information from the Americans that America doesn't want to share!

you have to see the satirical value of this.

At 12/13/11 08:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Got any better sources? I'm not exactly going to trust a site who was allegedly a target of said bill, much less one that has made its goal nothing less than an all out assault on the governments of the developed world.

Well, they wouldn't exactly be able to lie about it if 4chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica at the time were blacklisted, or themselves for that matter (without people jumping up and down calling their bullshit), but here.

the Australian government, instead of denying the claim, condemned wiki leaks for publishing their top secret blacklist. This implies both that it was the real deal and that they are more concerned with keeping the list a secret than they are of keeping it constitutional.

they hid the worst cause in the world under the best of intentions (removing child pornography, in their case) but it all proved to be too corrupt to be true. If this bill is amended so that all sites that are blocked have their names available to the public (for transparency) then maybe this bill won't be so dangerous.

nobody likes theft, I don't like it either, but my concern, as well as everyone else who sides with me, is for the law abiding sites that are at risk of collateral damage. see above.

This is definitely a valid concern, and something I would definitely like to ensure doesn't happen. However, the overarching tone of this debate has been that all internet censorship at all is bad. It seems as if these groups are asking for an all or none approach leaning heavily toward the none.

It's not all bad of course, but its not an issue of slippery slope, its an issue of trust. as I mentioned earlier, Transparency for this bill and all the sites that it will block would be key to obtaining the trust needed by the people for this to go through with our consent. And if they pull the same excuse the Australians used by saying that it would make people seek these sites out well then they would be forgetting the key fact that the given site is blocked and inaccessible.

At 12/12/11 11:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
If you're going to make this comparison, finish it. You claimthe Australian law is like and was bad, how?

they used their bill to block sites that were not in violation of the law. they also blocked certain genres of porn and dentists. Other sites that were blocked include Wikileaks, 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

source: wikileaks.

I really don't see this Bill going anywhere near this far. Anyway, theft is theft. Just because it happens on the net doesn't make a crime any less of a crime.

nobody likes theft, I don't like it either, but my concern, as well as everyone else who sides with me, is for the law abiding sites that are at risk of collateral damage. see above.

shouldn't be illegally spying on other sovereign countries in the first place. Okay so what if the drone had an explosive rigged to it? The following hazards occur: one, the device is remote detonated which would be a catch twenty two since they lost contact with the drone any ways, or two, the explosive is automatic, which would make the drone very dangerous for people handling it and has the possibility that it lands in a city around people before going boom. If the latter were true, you would provoke a war.

I don't see why everyone is worried about Iran anyway, I'm sure their leader knows damn well that if he hands it off to terrorists, there is nothing stopping the terrorists in question to use the weapon against him or his allies. (remember that all those terrorist groups have agendas of their own)

At 12/10/11 01:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/10/11 04:16 AM, joe9320 wrote: Yet they speak out against censorship. There should be a balance between the two. Back a while ago, Australia attempted to censor the internet.

The world isn't black and white. It's not an all or nothing place. We can advocate for free speech while still having and enforcing restrictions, such as libel, slander, and theft of ideas and speech.

You're making an odd logical jump. In tangible goods trms you'd be saying that when the government tries to stop shoplifting it's actually trying to discourage the purchasing of goods.

remember, the Australian government down played everyone's fears of the censorship before it happened as well. They said they would only block sites with illegal content, in the same manner supporters of S.O.P.A are. The problem is that we shouldn't be forced to trust the government on this issue, especially after what happened the last time people were forced to trust their government. Enough people are saying no to at least call for a referendum. This bill is shady, and there are a lot of sites out there that could fall victim to it what with how fast and far copyright infringing you tube videos can be spread.

At 12/11/11 01:42 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

I'm a little appalled by this actually because if these people had the capability to do these things.. then why weren't they doing it to begin with? They're just using the Occupy movement as a title to get things done because it's topical.

last time I checked, Charity was optional. you see various corporations spending more on advertising for their little charity promotions than they actually donate to that said charity, yet its still just the greatest damn thing ever.

At 12/10/11 09:57 PM, WallofYawn wrote:

L. Ron Hubbard

well, not the greatest example of drugs doing society well. but for the rest of the post your bang on.

you are supposed to call them a saint when they feed the poor, and a communist when they ask why the poor are starving, not the other way around.

Banks make money by borrowing and spending other peoples money. This money is invested into the stock market, wich can result in gain or loss.

The banks lost, but they didn't lose their own money, they lost their customer's money. In response, they appealed to the government to bail them out, in order to save us from losing our money. The government responded by giving the banks more of our money, in fact they gave enough of it so that the banks could get a nice kick ass bonus for all of their executives.

The banks payed that money back over time, with more of our money (remember how they make their money?), and the government was happy to take that money and give it back to the population, by building more bombs and sending them over seas to blow up brown people and secure the oil fields for the oil companies, who still to this day charge us an arm and a leg plus a blowjob as a tip for their so called "still plentiful" goods.

Did I meantion that banks charge you to use your money?

ummmmm... there is no reason that someone should have to wait until the are anything higher than the age of 21 before they can use a recreational drug. Heck 21 is still too high imo, people are adults when they are 18. Adults should be free to do what they like to themselves, without expecting help from others.

one: there is a difference between a man forcing himself on you, and having sex with some one while you are drunk only to regret it when you sober up.

two: the rapist should always be punished, no matter how slutty the victim was acting (so long as their actions don't imply consent... from start to finish.)

three: I lock the door to my car every time i leave it. I know people shouldn't be searching through my car for my valuables but the people that inhabit this earth are scum bags and I know it. it may not stop them from breaking my window, but it means they have to set off the car alarm. Rape can be given the same metaphor. Unlocked car= drunk girl, Locked car= drunk girl with friends around.

keeping my old stance in mind of leaving it up to the church individually, I have another question.

are there any academic arguments against gay marriage that don't boil down to either tradition, the holy book that not everyone believes in or "ewwwwww"?

No opinion or expression should be forced on anybody. that goes for everything including our culture, and it goes both ways.

not the first time a president committed heinous crimes and got away with it.

I believe Jefferson committed genocide, they gave him a memorial and a happy ring to his name.

To expect the president to be punished for his crimes without public intervention is ridiculously naive. Everything Bush did was in the best interests of his lobbyists, why would Obama be any different? Despotism is a helpful tool for the big businesses that have their money where the law is. Unless people change their voting habits the surveillance is only going to become MORE pervasive. You can bet there will be more bending of the constitution and bill of rights as well. Then again there is not a lot stopping people from buying out the whole electoral process either.

At 12/6/11 08:24 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I've seen several news 'blurbs' about this & al have said Obama will veto it.

that requires less than 2/3 of the congress support. This vote was close to unanimous so veto is out of the question.

At 12/5/11 10:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

Romney has the best chance because he can come off as semi-normal, and not batshit crazy. Ron Paul can only pull off the latter.

I agree, all elections should be between candidates who have the exact same policies on everything that matters. nothing wrong with that at all. no sir democracy is about who would look the best with their head printed on your money. I'll be damned if i grow up in a world where one candidate has any significant difference from his opponent. this is just the way i like it thank you very much this election isn't about left or right its about black or mormon.

multi billion dollar corporations are the biggest welfare queens in America.