Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Freedom of expression is a bitch, but this kind of game just shows how great we have in the US. You can burn the bill of rights and face no persecution, but if you question the government's actions in Cuba you get twenty-eight years in prison.

Quit question, would you support the bombing of Pakistan to route al-Qaeda there? Otherwise, stfu about this since you have no solution.

Don't let the KGB get you.

At 7/14/07 02:11 AM, Bolo wrote: All but one of Tom Cruise's teeth were organically grown in a greenhouse in Southern California, then carefully placed in his mouth to look as if they are natural.

The above is a common Scientological ritual.

Scientology is organized religion with the scam, multiplied a thousand fold.

At 7/14/07 02:14 AM, Bolo wrote: Why would the topical poster want the worst Operating system to roll off the assembly line since Windows 95?

um, because Vista is supposed to be the system that's going to run all the imported console games like Gears of War?

Am I the only one that noticed this should be between and Xbox 360 and Windows Vista?

At 7/14/07 01:12 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: God dammit, JakeHero, would you get the fuck off Newgrounds already? Your making it really hard for me to blanket-label all conservatives as stupid and closed minded.

I have been thinking about taking a vacation, all sarcasm aside.

I have another thing to add, scientology is bullshit.

At 7/14/07 12:48 AM, Grammer wrote: Isn't that because there's been a ban on them until recently?

The ban hasn't been in effect for a couple years, yet there's been no dramatic increase in assault rifle violence.

At 7/13/07 06:54 PM, SlithVampir wrote: As much as I'd like to lecture you on the "food web" and how all life is interconnected through the eating of each other, and how if you destroy the envirenment you'll fuck the whole thing up(and you wouldn't have any good hunting spots), I wont. Bow down before my run-on sentence.

I don't remember my beef becoming depleted since the dodo bird went exstinct.

At 7/13/07 07:11 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: was true. A fetus (I said fetus, not baby)

Then we shouldn't even be having this argument since this doctor was performing late term and partial birth abortions if you have sympathy for a baby.

At 7/13/07 09:43 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Getting to that.
getting there...
You see my point. The SWAT team does not need to be called evrey two seconds because you rarely have a problem that needs an enourmous gun.

And you see my point. These assault rifles have purposes in the hands of non-military. Are policemen part of the military? I tell you what, if they're three guys trying to break into my house I'd rather be armed with an M16 or AK-47 than a rifle, pistol or shotgun.

If these civilians(police) get to arm themsevles with military weaponry then why can't any other law-abiding citizen?

Assault rifle ban = bullshit.

I hope you make a more compelling argument than that.

So far the only argument the people who are for a ban on assault rifles breaks down into "Because they're scary." As facts show, assault rifles are among the LEAST likely to be used in a crime. Isn't the point of gun control to reduce crime? So let's go over it, assault rifles are about as likely to be used in violence as another terrorist attack, the point of gun control is to limit these crimes, while ignoring handguns which consitute the majority of gun crimes.

Okay, outlawing assault rifles is equivalent to call an exterminator to kill some fire ants when you have termites in your house. The fire ants are alot less damagin than the latter, whereas termites cause many more times as much financial damage.

Or avid bank robbers.

Robbing a bank with an assault rifle is like using a bazooka to kill a fly. It just doesn't happen often, and statistics show people rob banks with concealable handguns.

"Little information exists about the
use of assault weapons in crime. The
information that does exist uses varying
definitions of assault weapons that
were developed before the Federal
assault weapons ban was enacted."

Read the graphs. They display the known amount of ratios of crime.

That told me.....nothing (beyond that handguns make the most trouble.)

And that's my point exactly. You're going to outlaw something that causes less problems, while ignoring the primary one(I am against all gun bans). I'm not going to use an M1 Garand to shoot a crowd of people, and neither do most americans who own assault rifles. Looking at the statistics, I believe what we have now is working out pretty well.

At 7/12/07 01:54 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

I know alot of you assholes out there support infanticide

Well if you're so against abortion you should be against killing little woodland creatures,

I don't think we kill enough woodland creatures, actually. I'm also pro-choice when it comes to first and second trimestor abortions because it still just a zygote or fetus at that point, but there's something fucked up about killing a baby moments before it's born. So why don't you argue intellectually instead of pelt me with emotionally-driven bullshit?

The reason we don't dig for oil in our backyard is because of environmentalist that don't want to kill the (insert random botanical or zoology species here).

This war has caused nothing but problem, the Iraqis are ingrate, assholes that deserved to be ruled under Saddam Hussein, it's a multi-billion dollar burden on the US, it's expending military manpower among other things, however, withdrawal is unacceptable. I've said it once, and I'll say it again; the best word to describe it is quagmire.

At 7/13/07 01:49 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I would venture a guess that this topic is along the same lines of this thread.

I don't recall you ever telling someone not to make biased jabs at others.

This thread's funny, not because of the content, but in the Officially Bush Topic, tony got on my case for making a partisan remark about democrat only bitching and not conceiving a solution of their own. Saying that such biased comments aren't needed.

Oh well

At 7/12/07 10:37 PM, Elfer wrote: In theory, this makes sense.

It's no longer just a hypothesis or theory, it's a fact.

In reality, the driving force is to make the most money by any means possible, rather than to provide the best product.

And that desire to upscale your competitors is the catalyst for new innovation. An example would be aspirin. Not to be overlooked, it's become much more fast-reacting and relieving than its previous designs. By investing in the best research or manufacturing that would yield the best product is the fruit of ambition

In many cases, the product is improved to beat out other companies by luring in more customers, but this doesn't hold true with health care. If you increase profits by cutting the amount you pay your workers, you make more money and produce an inferior product.

I believe your first flaw in reasoning is that you state the companies will cut the pay of their workers inexplicably. A pay cut doesn't happen frequently, and usually it is the result of financial setbacks. If a company does well so will it's employees, if a company suffers so will those that are employed by it. That's how the market works. Secondly, you assume that if you downsize some employees that it's going to infect the performance, which is why they have "Effiecency Experts." Typically, a company makes decisions that will benefit it, if cutting pay will result in the decline of a product and hurt their finances, then I highly doubt they'll make it.

If you prefer to wait for a patient to become sick and then treat their illness, you make more money than by giving them preventative health advice, but you deliver an inferior product.

I do see your reasoning here. A doctor will make more money giving someone medication instead of outright curing a patient, but this isn't because companies realize they'd make more money with preventative healthcare. After watching an infomercial on alzheimers I became aware of the obstacles medical researchers face. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars just to fund researching for a longterm cure for a disease, not counting producing a cure, it takes years and years of research, plus these research teams must be on the upkeep considering different strains of disease surface. This is one reason why the last disease we cured was polio. If diseases were that easy to remedy, I'm pretty sure one of the other socialist nations would of discovered a cure.

If you want to go on to say that countries will universal healthcare for these cures I'll have to give you a brief history lesson on the flu vaccine the USSR produced.

With a public health care system, you strike a better balance by trying to minimize costs through preventing illnesses.

Or it could face the same problems as all other socialized services(NOTE I use the term "socialized" very loosely in this case).

I agree that centralization is a problem with US schools, but that doesn't mean that privatization is the answer.

I concur with that much. After thinking about it in more depth, I decided utterly abolishment of public schools wouldn't do much except exclude a demograph from education. What I want is drastic reforms to be used.

It means that schools should be given more leeway to operate on an individual basis.

I think should be runned more like individuals city states and less like a bureaucracy. Also, teacher unions are a huge problem in the US.

In Canada, there's a lot less standardized testing (we don't even have an SAT), and most of the public schools do quite fine, since we instead standardize the curriculum, so rather than studying for the same multiple choice tests, the goal is to learn the same things, so universities and colleges can determine what concepts you already know by looking at the courses you took in high school.

Consistency is a good goal, but the differences in our system is wording alone. What I would like is the option Japan and those european countries have. This includes minor tuition, a greater amount of freedom to punish/expell disruptive students among others.

The thing about private schools is that there's no such standardization, so often you get kids coming out of prestigious (read: expensive) private schools who are not only complete elitist dicks, but know fuck all anyway.

There are advantages a private school have over a public school.

America spends more per capita on health care than countries with universal care.

In general, the cost is either transferred from taxes to health insurance, or you have no insurance and you get fucked up the ass with medical bills.

A push for preventative care would actually reduce costs, because it's a lot cheaper to give someone advice on how to live a healthy life than it is to operate on someone's arteries.

This doesn't surprise me. Looks like I spoke out of ignorance.

At 7/12/07 05:37 PM, SlithVampir wrote: There's a reason regular patrol officers don't carry around bolt action single shot rifles. Those targets are deer.

Those aren't concealed, but you don't see SWAT officers going easier on the hardware, now do you?

There is a reason they don't carry around machine guns either.

For the same reason above.

They carry around small, semi-autonatic, low calibur weapons.

Most situations can be resolved with such a weapon. You don't need a gatling gun to resolve a domestic disturbance.

This is because most of the time, the target won't weigh three times your size, and can be taken out with two quick shots.n other situations, call the SWAT guys.

And what kind of guns do the SWAT guys use?

I'm all for gun laws as they are (as long as they're enforced) , except for the lack of restrictions on assault weapons.

Assault rifle ban = bullshit.

I can see the handgun in the dresser, the hunting rifle in the garage, even maybe a shotgun under the bed if you're really paranoid.

Or an assault rifle in a gun case for avid gun collectors.

I'm sorry, I can't envision a regular guy toting an M-16. It might seem like a sorry excuse, but I just can't imagine needing a weapon that powerful, and trust me, I've been in deep shit. I guess this is where hunting comes in, do your worst.

And you're using the same arguments I've heard over a million times. These same arguments were used to try and ban all firearms in the 1920s citing "I can't imagine any ordinary person owning a gun." According this study assault rifles are the least likely to be involved in a crime or used to kill someone.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

I apologise for that long of a post.

right

At 7/11/07 10:08 AM, SlithVampir wrote: Assault weapons are made for the express purpose of killing people, therefore, people shouldn't have them.

And so are all other guns. I'd hate to see a pistol and or shotgun that wasn't designed to either kill or wound the target.

At 7/11/07 10:52 PM, Elfer wrote: How would it stifle innovation?

I hate repeading cliche lines, but here goes. Universal services hinder innovation and quality because they don't have to fight for their financial survival like provide companies do. This is due to the fact they will be continually financed by the government. So if they deliver subpar results it's no big deal for them, because their livelihood isn't at stake.

Look at our public schools. Ours are officially the shithole of industrialized nations for a myriad of reasons, but the main is it's more centralized. I don't know how it is in Canada, but in Europe and some asian countries public schools do have a more capitalist attitude than the US. Which is irony considering the US is supposed to tbe bastion of free market.

If anything, it would create a drive for less sickness and greater efficiency.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one.

In any case, I'm pretty sure there's doctors out there who are interested in medicine whether or not they can get mad stacks of cash out of it.

The individual doctor mentality has little to do with it. As a whole, people are more greedy than altruistic.

For example, you'd see a much bigger push for preventative healthcare, which saves everyone a lot of time and resources.

And a much bigger tax rate.

Killzone will always pale in comparison to the Halo series. All you sony bitches out there can quote me on that.

At 7/10/07 08:24 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: The Chirstians were bitching about Athiest for WAY longer than the athiests were. Not "a common truth" at all. The Athiests hardly "cry" at all.

Christians do bitch, but proportionally atheists seemed more inclined to bitch. I don't see any christians whining about the fact there's religious symbols in a private burial. I don't see xtians suing people for their expressed views. Go to youtube, live journal, or the promised land and watch these vlogs posted by atheists. All they know how to do is bitch.

Ignorance is the key to stupidity.

Your delusion is induced by bias.

At 7/11/07 08:52 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There's also the encyclopedia dramatica, and the unencyclopedia.

I don't know about unencyclopedia, but encyclopedia dramatica is pretty funny. You guys should check out their section on newgrounds.

At 7/11/07 01:33 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Ah. So the Majority of scientists are all in on a massive world wide plot to unify the world into a single socialist government,

Are the scientist the ones pushing the legislature? But yes, these people that want nations to forgo their sovereignty are pushing for a one world government.

or take over the planet with death stars or whatever the gist of your inane theory was, but the T.V action star who's just as 'guilty' as them (guiltier, in fact, since he has easily placed the most stringent anti-GW rules in possibly the world), is the only guy not 'in' on it.

That's some shitty reasoning. For starters, you're going by this whole guilt by association mindset, second, if you haven't actually disproven anything I've said. So far all you've done is made a pitiful attempt to dismiss it.

Thanks, that cleared it up. Before then, your whole theory sounded completely bogus. Now, it sounds down right half-assed.

Right, so much so all you could do was nit-pick. I'm in some deepshit now, Inspector Clouseau is on my ass. He's gonna shove somne logical fallacies down my throat and claim my hypothesis is bogus.

At 7/11/07 06:48 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: It has nothing to do with liberalism. The political correctness craze comes from both sides.

That's the biggest bullshit I've ever read.

At 7/10/07 10:37 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Wonderful, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a socialist who believes in a Geo-Government, despite being a member of the party who's overall goal is the WEAKENING of a central government. Simply brilliant.

Regimes tend to have one innocent person. I was referring to the people encharge of the scam.

At 7/10/07 07:06 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: Jeeze. Wait a while before you judge. At least we waited a month or two before starting bashing Bush.

More like the moment the Supreme Court decided he won the electoral college.

I wait like to say it's nice to see you posting, MoralLibertarian.

I would like to add that there is an alterior motive to this environmental movement. These rabid environmentalist support the Kyoto Treaty so vehemently because it would have the international community superceding the decision making of individual nations. It's a convenient front for globalism. These people are aware of the fact that they can't instill a geo-centralized government at once. They believe that if they stir up enough of a scare about a bio-apocolypse that people would be more inclined to support every bit of legislature with absolute volition. One step closer to ensure that an international government maintains supremacy in decision making.

Notice also how these environmentalist continual blame corporations for all the worlds ills and polution. It makes me think that environmentalism is also a front for international socialism. It's a disturbing fact that just about every head of the UN has always been a socialist. Notice who is trying to push all these environmental reforms and how it targets industrialized nations that practice free markets and gives a pass to developing ones.

Think this only the ranting of a paranoid fella? Fair enough, just consider the political leanings of the people trying so desperately to push this environmentalism.

At 7/10/07 12:46 PM, Imperator wrote:

Wait wait. I thought a comma could be used to link a dependent and independent clause, since the independent one could stand on its own.

You people and your arcane vernacular and grammar are confuzzling me.