Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/27/09 12:50 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/27/09 09:59 AM, pr0ded wrote: a right winger could say they give you "communist thoughts"

Well the problem here is, is that your acting like you want Communism, no advertisements, everyone has the same pay etc. So you really are a Communist you probably just don't know it or accept it.

Okay, while I've been doing my level best to keep out of this shitstorm, sooner or later someone has to say it. FUCK OFF ABOUT COMMUNISM. It's a great idea that's been demonized because people aren't unbiased and emotionally capable of running it. Go read about Marxist communism, the real concept behind it. It's not an evil thing, it's a great idea that we lack the compassion to really use. There are too many greedy people for it to work, but if we all grew up a little we could have perfectly functional communism that work FAR better than modern governments do. Communism has been demonized because people have never actually tried it. They just found a better way to steal from the people and named it after communism because they didn't know any better.

At 11/22/09 01:34 PM, adrshepard wrote:

God forbid we look like a jerk to the world. Why don't you just come out and say it? Obama's low bow prevented people from becoming terrorists, right?

Yeah, us.

Something to note is that we never actually should have called this Global Warming to begin with. It was a poorly researched and not clearly thought out nickname that needs to be replaced pronto.
It's not JUST warming. Global Warming as viewed by the scientific community is really better described as random weather fuckups. Things get hotter, things get colder, places get windier, others have more acid rain, currents slow, stop, or flow to other places... It's not just one thing, and it's not all our fault, but we are a likely contributing factor in producing weather that isn't normal for the area or time period.

At 11/20/09 05:57 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/20/09 12:04 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm just making the point that if we're really going to get up in arms about things the president does, wouldn't it be better to get up in arms about a president selling to "them evil commies?" vs. how he greets an ally? That's really all I was trying to point out.

This isn't so much about what he "does." It's just a bow, but that bow, to me, says a lot about Obama, especially considering his past behavior. It reflects an attitude that is inherently damaging to America. It can only speed up our inevitable relative decline, or worse, encourage absolute decline.

Actually, I'd say our relative decline is being caused by a lack of judgment in funding, where our money goes to wars and lobbyists instead of R&D for useful things like cancer treatment and stem cells. Our absolute decline, on the other hand, will be caused by the lack of interest in raising our children to be smarter and better equipped than our ancestors.

Wow, wild over reactions really change my mind so they do.

What do you mean over-reaction? I was serious.

That's what's so scary.

Yeah, he should be using the tried and true method of furthering American interests abroad: bomb or bully the fuckers what don't agree and install governments who kiss our ass and who cares how they treat their people.

Yeah, it's called human existence. What do you think, that countries and empires simply "persuaded" their way to greatness over the past few thousand years? Of course not; they were butchers and enslavers. The difference is that we (the US and every other modern country that seeks to enhance its own power) have refined the practice to a very subtle and, overall, less violent version. In the past, it was all about land, tribute, resources, slaves, etc. All the US asks is that certain countries DON'T so certain things; don't support terrorism, don't become or support communism; don't build WMDs. Most anything else they do is okay and can be more or less ignored.

That's the way things used to be, doesn't mean it's the way it has to be. We used to think bell bottom pants were cool. Things change, sometimes for the better. You should really try to work on fixing the problem, starting with a shift in your personal view and moving to convincing others that it doesn't have to be that way.

At 11/19/09 05:00 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/19/09 12:33 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Get over yourself. The President of the United States is important, but no more important than the actions of the country itself.

Oh really? Obama himself doesn't believe that; why else would he make such a point of "reaching out" to everyone, apologizing for American "arrogance", and cultivating his image as someone who wants to cooperate on the world stage? Our country's interests and priorities haven't changed. Obama was elected on his character, and we can see how weak and embarrassing it is when it comes time to further American interests abroad.

In any case, your comment doesn't make any sense. Are you saying nothing he does has any bearing on the US? Do you think Iran's Supreme Ruler or Kim Jong Ill look at Obama and say, "This is a man who will do whatever it takes to stop me, even in the face of condemnation abroad and unpopularity at home?"

You're still worried about terrorists? Way behind in the times. Stop watching FOX, it's bad for your brain, your eyes, your ears, your kidneys...

He was elected not just on character, but also on policy, and even more so because let's face it, we really had no other suitable choice. Did anybody actually want to risk McCain starting more wars, having a heart attack halfway through them, and leaving them in the care of Palin?

One more thing... The President does, in some ways, represent the American population. I never said he was useless, just that where his views clash with the views of America, people abroad will notice the difference and be (remember, they are generally more observant than the average US citizen...) aware that he isn't the only American. If the President likes mayo on his sandwich, that does not mean that foreign countries assume every American likes mayo. In a similar sense, even if he was showing weakness, (he wasn't, just a lack of complete cultural understanding of what was expected of him) that would NOT make every country assume we had suddenly shrunk back into toddlers. They know better, they aren't you.

(Sorry for the double post, didn't want to go copy pasting quotes and screw something up)

At 11/20/09 08:18 AM, mikailus wrote:

At 11/18/09 07:28 PM, Stoicish wrote: ... by going up and bowing to the Emperor of China! CHINA!

It's not the Emperor of China, you fuckwit! It's the Emperor of JAPAN! READ A BOOK, AND SOMETHING THAT'S BASED ON FACT!

And the bow? IT'S A NATIONAL CUSTOM IN JAPAN! NOTICE THE GODDAMNED PHOTO?!?!

... Dude? Read the whole topic before posting, seriously. You're all upset and he's already said here on the second page that this whole thing was started as a joke to see what kinds of people would take the bait. I admit, he had me, I thought he actually was a moron as well, but you have to actually read things like this before you get that mad. It's over, calm down and form a rational debate against the people who actually AGREED with what he was making fun of.

At 11/18/09 10:51 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 11/18/09 10:08 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: There's a connection in the country between bowing and a servant. In Japan bowing is something that's just done. You need to consider the difference in the cultures before making a fool of yourself getting upset over something that doesn't mean the same thing there as it does here.

Christ, do you not understand? When the President of the USA goes somewhere, he BECOMES the USA. He is the representative of all social, political, military, and economic activity that involves our country and speaks for us as a whole. He is not a man beholden to someone else's cultural traditions. He can display politeness through a handshake. He can even show a slight bow as a recognition of our generosity and self-respecting humility. But when Obama kowtows before some monarch, be he legitimate or figurehead, he disgraces all of us and one of the most basic principles at the foundation of our country.

I said earlier that a full reciprocal bow would have made it okay. I take it back. It would have been less humiliating for the US but still painful.

Get over yourself. The President of the United States is important, but no more important than the actions of the country itself. We're not appeasing Japan in any way, he's being polite. If he had done that and then signed a multi-trillion dollar deal with the Emperor, that would be cause for serious alarm. As is stands, the only thing hurt here is the pride of a handful of people who think America is better than other countries. Personally, I've had American Pride on my plate for 19 years now, and I'm about ready to try some other entrees.

There's a connection in the country between bowing and a servant. In Japan bowing is something that's just done. You need to consider the difference in the cultures before making a fool of yourself getting upset over something that doesn't mean the same thing there as it does here. If he had gone to one knee and put his hand over his heart, that's one thing, but I'd make the same motion he did if I ever had the honor to meet the Emperor. Granted, I wouldn't shake hands while doing it, but that's kind of a neutral point, really.

At 11/18/09 09:35 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/18/09 08:15 AM, domdom2323 wrote: "500 pleasing girls between 18 and 35 years of age, at least one metre 70 high."

Apparently it's important to be hot to be muslim.

Yeah, that one was a little confusing. I suppose it was mostly because that was the line of work they were in, and it made it seem more like a normal job offer so it would attract more people. Still weird though.

Gaddafi said that women in the West "have often been used as pieces of furniture, changed whenever it pleases men. And this is an injustice."

Wow that's probably the most hypocritical thing ever said by anyone anywhere ever.
That's amazing. An entire galaxy probably exploded when he said that just to keep the universe balanced.

I agree, with the obvious exception.

The muslims more than anyone treat women as livestock. From slave trades, stoning, rapes, harems, beatings, arranged marriages, daughter selling.... holy shit there's no one worse than those assholes. They've had the record for 1400 years.

Again, agreeing except for the one clear exception.

They lock women up in their houses, deny them education, work opportunities... there's nothing they haven't done.

Anyone who's taken in by any religion in adult age is a FUCKING RETARD. Seriously. If you've over 18 and that shit still works on you, you deserve every beating you'll get from your loving muslim overlord.

and then proceeded to invite the women to travel to the holiest city for Muslims, Mecca in Saudi Arabia, even though only Muslims are permitted to go there.

IT'S A TRAP

I am a Catholic

Quit that shit
The Catholics are as bad if not worse than the Muslims when it comes to a lot of things. As far as I know, they're the two worst religions you can have today.

I shouldn't mention the exception by name, mostly because he's the kind of self rightous asshole who thinks he's always right and gets a sick form of pleasure from trolling. He's also a mod, which I still don't understand completely.

Grow a pair, exception, and learn to tolerate people with other viewpoints. It might help you some, given that it's clear nobody will ever be able to tolerate you in present condition.

Me, I'd just as soon skip currency altogether. It's more complicated to use a bartering system, but let's face it, I'm not going to get screwed over if I go to the store and trade a chicken sandwich for a mars bar. I know what the two objects are worth to me, and if the mars bar is worth more to me and the chicken sandwich is worth more to them then it's a fair trade.

My working an 8 hour shift is worth This, This, or This. My working the same 8 hours in a much more labor intensive job is now worth two of these, two of these, or two of these. You see? An economy based on actual value, not on the values of the two things relative to gold which frankly has no value whatsoever to me. I wouldn't trade a roll of toilet paper for a block of gold as big as my fist, because let's face it, I can do more with the toilet paper.

At 11/10/09 11:33 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 11/10/09 11:25 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Theoretically

You can't say theoretically then pretend what you said is the only option.

I didn't. But I have my theory, and you probably have some story handed down to you from generations ago that your grandfather taught his son never to question, who taught you never to question it, who has still not questioned it, and thus still believes in it even though it holds no water.

Theoretically there are a finite number of dimensions ranging from 0 (a point) to 1 (a line) to 2 (a drawing) to 3 (our world) to 4 (Our world as viewed from beginning to end on a timeline) and they get more complicated from there. A truly omnipotent god would live outside of these dimensions, but when he did so he would provide point of reference for a new line between the dimensions and himself, thus he would be a part of the next layer of dimension. Thus there is no truly omnipotent god. There may be beings in higher dimensions which we would view as gods, and there may be only one in the highest possible dimension that encompasses all possible events ever, but he would still technically not be omnipotent. Just the strongest being ever possible. And yes, he would know it, but he would have no way to actually step outside the dimensions to check without screwing up the whole order.

At 10/28/09 05:46 AM, Korriken wrote: another observation. this post was supposed to be more about the republicans straying from conservatism, not so much another thread on fox news... but not 1 person mentioned the republicans lack of conservatism and went straight for the fox news part. kinds disheartening really.

Then I'll be the first to go for the obvious... Yes, they are stepping away from conservatism, and yes, thank whatever gods the people of NG pray to that the whole mess is finally getting some sense to it. There's just something wrong with a government that DOESN'T want to help the people under it.

Personally, I watch fixed news just as a lark. It's fun to watch them act the fool and not know what they're talking about, then some guest comes on and tries to tell them off and they shut him down as if nobody in the audience knows they're covering up stuff that's not helpful to them.

Personally? The smell. A sugarglider doesn't smell like week old ass, unlike a donkey. Thus, a sugarglider I will invite into my home, and a cow will remain outside while it snows.
As for why I eat meat at all, I personally enjoy the taste of warm flesh and blood. Why not? Everything has to die some time, and frankly if I didn't eat them the fungus and bacteria would. Unless you plan on embalming every living organism, dooming the planet to starvation by lack of nutrients?
I'll eat any kind of meat you put in front of me. Cow, chicken, lamb, pig, dog, cat, horse, rabbit, alligator, and cobra; I'll eat it all and smile.
I don't personally care whether you eat meat or not, no skin off my back, but I don't plan to be guilt tripped into thinking that every animal is on equal stance with homo sapiens either. The few animals that make the cut include dolphins, African Grey parrots, and some species of apes/gorillas/monkeys.

Not exactly my favorite bill, but if the Patriot act didn't get Bush beaten on by a long line of irritated citizens with rubber mallets this isn't even going to make us blink.

At 10/7/09 04:43 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/7/09 08:10 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote:

You've just trolled

You don't know what a troll or trolling is.
Quit while you're not too far behind.

Only when you do.

I thought up a more efficient solution in the time it took to read this thread.

Which is?
???

Try actually reading my previous posts. I recommend better use of the current gym classes, a significantly more cost effective solution which doesn't rely on keeping kids somewhere away from their families for 7 weeks.

At 10/7/09 01:33 PM, hansari wrote:

50+ posts and no one brings up how hilarious and insane this is?!

He flat-out wondered how on earth I could know you can lose that amount of weight in 7 weeks. I'VE DONE IT IN LESS.
In fact, TONS OF PEOPLE HAVE.

You don't need to be a fucking doctor to know this.
In fact, even people who's entire knowledge on health, medicine and fitness was watching the show "The BIggest Loser" would know this.

Man this is too easy. I should have been a lawyer.

Wow. First time I've ever heard anyone ASK to be a blood sucking parasite. Granted, it may be a step up in some cases...

At 10/7/09 12:07 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 10/6/09 11:33 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: he's not just blowing smoke this time.

People need to realize that I AM ALWAYS RIGHT.
It pisses people off a LOT when an asshole is right and they're wrong. Well, tough shit kids.

Please, you're not even right this time. A mandatory camp DOES suck as a solution. You've just trolled so many controversial subjects you've finally found one that can be solved by total accident. It's classic 'blind squirrel gets nut'.

I still think mandatory fat camp is a super-awesome idea. In fact, it's the best idea anyone ever had on this forum. I crown myself Champion of Great Ideas 2009.

You only wish. I thought up a more efficient solution in the time it took to read this thread. Try again next year.

The only real no-nonsense criticism I got was that there's no guarantee people would stick with it. Well no shit. There is no system IN EXISTENCE that will guarantee people stick with it.

You could strap a bomb to people's chest that explodes if they get like 15% body fat and they'd still fail. Targeting kids and teenagers before their problem spirals out of control is A SUPER-AWESOME IDEA.

Correct, but don't get a big head over it. You're only saying it's a great idea because you suggested it, if anyone else had gotten there first you'd be saying the opposite.

At 10/6/09 11:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/6/09 11:33 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: but honestly he does have a point and it seems to me like you keep attacking him and his idea without offering valid suggestions for improvement.

Because there isn't one. The major underlying flaw in all this is that he has no plan -- and won't address a plan -- on how to make kids stick with the fitness plan. He thinks that kids will magically stick with this program, when he has no evidence to support the matter. All the money in the world won't mean SHIT if he can't get kids to stick with it.

So, again, improve it or offer a better idea. You think kids won't stay with it? Offer a plan they will. Add Disney characters or something, for all it matters. The point is to make an improvement to, or an alternative to, his idea. Not to prove someone right or wrong, but to find a real answer to a real problem. Stop looking at it as a debate and look at it as a brainstorming session. You can't just say 'No, that won't work. No, that's dumb. No, we can't do that. No...', or nothing ever gets done.

He's got a valid problem, and has tried to pose a valid solution. Can't you try helping, instead of just tearing his idea apart?

How can he prove he's right if people don't scrutinize his ideas?

I'm not interested in proving him right. Tear away, just include some other plan of action for improving the situation when your done.

Also, as a side note, I'm more than willing to continue this minor side debate in PM form to avoid spamming the thread.

Anyways, gym could be significantly improved, and I would also like to see regular health checkups in school. They already have hearing and visual specialists visit schools and check students, they could add in a dietitian or even just a general practitioner to that list to diagnose and offer suggestions on students with weight problems.

At 10/6/09 11:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/6/09 11:11 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: what exactly is wrong with using someone's attack on your idea to improve and better understand it?

The problem being that Pox is making up his position as he goes along, he didn't start this topic with a rational thought out idea or a thought out plan of action.

So? I often make threads (Usually on other boards since nobody reads mine here...) where I just suggest a topic and ask for ideas. He did have a plan of action, even if it was flawed, and it was thought out, even if he didn't see it from your point of view. If you knew about my first conversation with Pox you'd know how much it makes me ill to defend him, but honestly he does have a point and it seems to me like you keep attacking him and his idea without offering valid suggestions for improvement.

This isn't about Pox V you, it's about thinking of ways to improve the physical health of children.

You can't have a rational debate on ANYTHING if you start off the conversation with "this is my idea, and I'm right regardless of what everybody else says, screw you guys ha ha."

Only he did in fact use your argument to build a slightly improved version of his idea, even according to you. That's logical. Regardless of his often incredibly poor attitude, he's not just blowing smoke this time. He's got a valid problem, and has tried to pose a valid solution. Can't you try helping, instead of just tearing his idea apart?

At 10/5/09 11:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 10/5/09 11:02 PM, poxpower wrote: A BMI wouldn't be sufficient to send a kid there. They'd need doctor approval.

Everybody, take note; pox is revising his argument as he goes along. If he had his argument thought through before he made this topic, this conversation would have ended a looooong time ago. So in essence, this little back and forth thing I've been doing has been helping him to flesh out and refine his points.

I wonder what would happen if nobody debated you?

I probably should just avoid the double post, but can you tell me, and honestly I do want to know I'm not being a dick, what exactly is wrong with using someone's attack on your idea to improve and better understand it? That's the whole point of debating, not to prove that your original idea is better than someone else's without regard to anything they say, but to find the path that makes the most sense. That often includes compromise and changing details to include your opponent's viewpoints. This isn't about Pox V you, it's about thinking of ways to improve the physical health of children.

While I still find you to be royally insensitive, I do agree that physical fitness for minors should be a far bigger concern than it currently is. There should be programs that assist children in exercise, funded by the government, and they should only apply to... Oh, wait, that's gym. Why bother with a camp during the summer, when you could just up the game in the class they've already got? Get gym teachers that are more interested in producing healthy, physically educated children that understand the basics of eating and living healthy, instead of gym teachers that everyone calls 'Coach' because they only care about a handful of students on the football team. Sports are physically demanding, they are not physical education. Actually, any moron could tell you that sports cause injuries which results in more health problems later on... Regardless, you shouldn't be concerned with the few weeks between school, where the kid would have to be separated from his family, so much as with the time we already have for taking care of them.

Actually, in this theoretical two item economy, I see it as the entire 100 person population takes shifts making hotdogs or buns, so that everyone can have as many as 4 hotdogs on a bun per week, that's still more than they did get, and now they only work half the year or so. It's not that hard to imagine a society where we take turns doing what needs to be done so that we can have a turn doing what we want, is it?

At 9/25/09 01:31 AM, SgtGoose wrote: tax money made from the lower class will increase significantly,

Right there, you lost me. Why does the lower class need to pay more taxes, when it's the upper class that can afford to share the money?

At 9/23/09 09:57 PM, Elfer wrote: The first step then, I guess, is to raise two generations with excellent work ethic.

Personally, I think that's a slow step in the right direction, but we've got enough people who already want to put on a lab coat for it to be cost effective to wait 100 years for the whole population to agree. I think we should skip step one and move straight to opening the floodgates. Anyone who wants to learn firsthand how the universe works, and then teach it to the rest of us, here's the sign in board.

Ah, but the beauty of it is that we no longer need everyone to contribute. So why should we force them to? It's like saying, "I have two sandwiches. I can only eat one. The other one would be wasted if nobody ate it. I will give you this sandwich, if and only if you make me a sandwich."
You see, right now we have people doing jobs that don't actually need to be done. If we just gave them the sandwich in the first place, it doesn't really matter if they do the job or not. People are just so used to being absolutely opposed to giving something away for nothing, they'd rather throw away good tables and chairs that no longer match the paint in their kitchen than to donate it to goodwill! It's just sad that this country can't recognize that it no longer needs a full workforce. We can do just fine without everyone having a job, and we have plenty left over to give to the people who don't work.

And why, exactly, and someone give me a real answer without any reliance whatsoever on the phrases 'because it won't work that way' or 'because that's how it's always been', do we have to have everyone working? Someone give me one good reason that in a country where all the mandatory jobs can be taken over and done almost entirely without human intervention that anyone should have to work at all? Think about it. If only 1/x people is required to run our country, then everyone in the country should be taking shifts working 30-40 hours a week for 1/x of the year. Maybe a little bit more than that, to help cover the people who can't actually work due to age/disability/et cetera. Some people that I know of would volunteer for more, because they actually like their jobs. Then others have to work even less. The whole capitalist system becomes pointless, the whole concept of money dies, when you no longer need every man, woman, and child working to keep a country afloat. We should be working on moving on.

Okay, just a quick question... Has anyone else noted that the poster compares Muslim women not to the average American woman, but to American prostitutes? This brings two questions to mind... One, do these people really believe that there's no gray area whatsoever between the two extremes, and two, the possibility that the people who made that poster knows so much about the average American prostitute says what exactly about their credibility as a religious leader? XD

I would establish additional members of the presidential cabinet that would be voted on by the public. These cabinet member's job titles would range from moral adviser (We deserve at least one honest man/woman near the president...) to ecosystem specialist. These additional cabinet members would work for the people, would be voted out when and if the people decided they were no longer working in the best interests of the public, (Voting occurs once annually, no term limits, emergency mid-term voting possible if a petition is signed by at least 30% of the population), and they would have the job of keeping the president fully informed on the course of action desired by the American people, and the course of action they personally recommend as the most effective for their area of expertise.

Religious belief or not, this guy wants to walk into public with a hood on, let him! I mean, if he's acting shady and standing in the most populated part of the store waving his arms around you sweep him for bombs real quick, but it's his right to dress however he wants to. I've gone into Walmart and forgotten to take the hood off when it's raining. It's just not that big a deal. It makes them harder to identify on camera, so what? You ask him the first time he comes in if you can get a snapshot of him with your friend. Now you've got a clear picture, something for your next Halloween card, and he's well aware of the fact that you know what he looks like. Simple, elegant, and non discriminatory.