It's not good quality. The only thing I can point to as being wrong is that the last character is not holding his staff. The staff is just sticking to him. His fingers should be wrapped around the staff.

At 6/21/08 03:19 PM, Ghost1124 wrote: There should be something from the AWESOME series as well. Maybe snake or Egoraptor can be a character. Besides that, I can't think of any other character that hasn't been mentioned here.

I was not asking for character suggestions specifically. If you look for about five minutes, you will find a million of those. Suggest things like challenges, pick-ups, arenas or general features.

I was playing the game and i just got this idea. You could make a cool challenge about Pico Day. You could play as Piconjo and you have to fight a bunch of Pico's, representing fan submissions on Pico day. You may use other characters from the Pico storylines, like Nene and Convivt or any others that you might add in the future, to represent fan submissions too. Because there are so many fan submissions on Pico Day, more should spawn after you defeat three, like Hank's last challenge. If you add Tom Fulp, he could be the last opponent, since Pico Day is his birthday. The arena should either be the Classroom or the Portal.

Newgrounds Rumble does include many little bits of the culture here. I thought that Pico Day would be a cool addition. It would be fun for NG users, who know about Pico Day. Furthermore, it always seems like someone submits a Piconjo related submission on Pico Day. If anyone else has an idea for a fun piece of NG culture that could be added to the game, please post. Thank you.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/44 5379

Does this count as cruelty to animals?

At 6/18/08 07:44 PM, ZOMG3 wrote: Guns are evil. People are going around and shooting each because they are freely available. We must curb this yahoo gun culture to protect our children. I salute Brady for his campaign to take those menaces of our streets.

Guns are not evil. They are simply tools. They can be used for good purposes, like hunting or self-defense, or bad purposes, like crime and war. It is my right to own a gun for any legal purpose, or none at all. I particularly want a firearm to protect my family. If self-defense is for yahoos, then count me in.

At 6/18/08 07:03 PM, Q-Ba11 wrote:

At 6/18/08 06:38 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 6/18/08 06:14 PM, Q-Ba11 wrote:

A government with a lot of money is inefficient? Baseless claims, etc, etc.

"Baseless claims"? Look at REALITY.

It's baseless in the post I was referring to because the statement wasn't supported.

It is a well known fact that government is inefficient. It lacks the profit stimulus to allocate resources efficiently. It cannot properly value its goods and services. The history of government is filled with $300 hammers, bridges to no-where and wasteful bureaucracy.

Public schools spending 11,000 a student rutinely do worse then private and charter schools spending HALF OF THAT.

There are many other factors that can explain that than blaming it on the way the schools are paid for.

When the government ran the phone systems in the U.S, long distance calls where 4 bucks an hour, and it was ILLEGAL to install an answering machine because it would fuck up the phone lines. Now I can make a call to Rome for 10 cents a minute.

Which could be attributed at least in part to improved technology.

That technology would not have improved if government had maintained its control. Government has no incentive to innovate. Private industry has a profit incentive for innovation. Simply put, cheaper technology equals more profit.

Government rest-rooms are discusting, rarely used, and plain dangerouse. Private companies bathrooms, which make money selling ads, are amazingly clean, neat, smell good, and popular amoungst people in europe.

Generalization and I actually think that's just plain wrong. Maybe they're bad because your government doesn't have enough money to take proper care of them? P.S. I can see the public schools don't encourage proper spelling.

Our government has more than enough money to clean bathrooms. It simply wastes the enormous sums that it has. Then government officials come to the people and say that they need more money to run the government. It is perverted.

In Russia, government farming failed to get over-produced crops to starving people.

Which is exactly why not EVERYTHING should be run by the government.

Mugabe has RUINED his country with socialist business practices.

Government mail delivery is slow, and can take day's longer then private mail shipments

Okay you got me, sometimes the government is just plain incompetent. You can't really blame an ideology for this.

The USPS is excellant. However, it is run like a business. It does not get ANY federal money; it actually adds money to the federal budget every year. When it takes days longer, it is because you choose to be cheap. Also, many private delivery services use USPS (like DHL).

Government innefficency caused 9/11 because of moronic airport security rules

Links please, I'm curious ...

The idea is that if the airlines were allowed to protect their own property, there would have been armed guards on those planes and the terrorists could have been stopped. Regulations prohibited this.

The City of Austin, Texas, sells it's own bottled water via a government run company. Every bottle sold is overpriced and LOSES the government $2.90.

Bottled water is stupid.

Amen.

The Minitel Corporation, the French-Government run computer group, was a horrible mess, and could not compete even remotely close to free-market computer and internet firms.

The Trabant, the government made car from east germany, was a horrible mess, is WIDELY considered the worst car ever made, and could NEVER stand up to the free-market german Volkswagon Beetle.

Again, sometimes a free market encourages ingenuity and better ideas.

The government can't even take care of it's own money. Accounting decrepencies means governments lose track of billions, even TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, with no idea where they are.

Hrm.

In Pennsyvania, the government build a TWO HOLE OUTHOUSE, No running water, for $330,000 dollars. A nereby house with 15 bedrooms was selling for less then that.

That's nice. Just a few more anecdotes and I'll be convinced!

Public Transportation, when done by private companies, can make millions of dollars. When the government does it, it can cost up to $50,000 per foot of track, and LOSE money; in California, the Los Angeles subway costs the state NINE DOLLARS PER SUBWAY RIDE.

Uhh, they make money because people pay more for it?

The Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority is billions of dollars in debt. That is after subsidies. Recently it was discovered that there were many high level employees that never worked. It builds critter cams when it has no money for maintainance. Worst of all, state and local regulations give it a total monopoly. It would never survive in a free market.

In New Jersey, the public water system was a mess, the pipes where rusty, and the water failed safety standards. When handed off to a private company, the water got better, prices went down, and the pipes where fixed.

Hooray!

In countries all over the world, Ambulence services are bidded out, and free market companies frequently do better then the government ambulences ever did, for LESS MONEY.

Generalization, provide evidence.

The FAA has Antiquated vaccuum tubes in their radar, models so primitive that civillian T.V's no longer use them.

Canada Privatized their air traffic control, and TRA-DA, it got better.

Take an economics class. A LOT OF MONEY DOESNT EQUAL MAKING MORE MONEY. You don't just need CAPITAL, you need intelligence, innovation, and COMPETITION. Government doesn't get any of that.

Sometimes the free market costs too much for lower and middle class people. And companies can still compete to sell the government their products and services, right?

Government goods and services cost much more. We just pay for them in taxes.

But hey, name me a single thing government does better then the free market.

Health care.

Farms given fat government subsidies do WORSE then farms left to their own accord.

You're just making a bare assertion when you say "it fell because of socialism." Try reading Animal Farm!

What about "animal farm" is relevent? Animal Farm was an amusing George Orwell book, not a repudiated study of soviet economics. I can name you 50 different way's socialism fucked russia up the ass.

It was communism, not socialism. And if you don't understand how Animal Farm is relevant to this discussion you probably haven't read it or don't know what you're talking about.

Communism is socialism. So are facism and nazism.

And, again, Ironic that it got better when capitalism was added to the equation.

Socialism and capitalism are compatible, so you just proved my point and corrected yourself. The only political system that isn't capitalist is communism.

No, socialism and capitalism aren't compatible. When you mix them you get a MME, and in MME, you soon notice all the capitalist aspects are working, all the socialist aspects aren't. I gave a lot of examples above.

Straw man, I won't even bother.

Actually, it's not a straw man. People SPECIFICALLY SAID the American Dream is too idealistic, meaning he didn't put words in their mouth.

I was replying to the second half of his post and you took it out of context.

while at the same time believing that the government can solve all the worlds problems and turn everything into a happy fun time land.

I have a tiny suggestion. Add a legend that shows direction to the minimap. It would make it easier for allies to communicate and coordinate during a game. It may not seem important, but I think it could be useful, and it cannot hurt.

I think it is ridiculous. First, I do not want government officials inspecting my electronics. I think it is an invasion of privacy. Also, in the American judicial system, there is a principle that police can only search you if they have reason to believe you are committing a crime. Having an electronic device does not constitute reasonable suspicion, and pirating electronic property is not serious enough to overturn this principle. Finally, the G8 has no authority to be making domestic rules for America.

At 6/12/08 09:50 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Maybe I'm not being direct enough. Show me evidence through large examples, such as COUNTRIES, that gun RESTRICTIONS are harmful. I am very good at history and I know that gun BANS in America haven't turned out so well. However, show me some examples other than individual cities. I can easily find small areas where gun restrictions have proved beneficial, but that doesn't prove my point at all. I was referring to the other guy when he said I needed to leave these forums, but I'm not ignorant either. I know what has happened and my knowledge of politics is more than what can be expected of a 14-year-old.

As I said, there are tons of countries that have benefited from gun restrictions. Show me an example outside of America. if you prove me wrong, I will acknowledge that fact. If not, I will continue to ask for evidence.

In Australia, crime rates rose after the gun ban in the 1990's. Australia is more like America than Canada or the United Kingdom, because it had a real gun culture, like America.

http://www.gunowners.org/hlr-au.htm

What countries have benefited from gun bans? I would like to see your evidence.

At 6/17/08 11:55 AM, Fatone wrote: I have no trust in either the US as a world police nor the UN.
America's "shoot first ask questions later" attitude is inhumane and not worthy of policing anyone. And the UN is just as bad for accepting funds from a country that deters all efforts to end war.

If Canadian government wasn't busy getting raped by the states, and paid more attention to what it's known for (peace-keeping). We might make a difference in this "World Policing" idea.

As a patriotic American, I whole heartedly agree with the first part. Neither the United States nor the United Nations has the right or the ability to solve the world's problems with force. No one does. You cannot make peace through unlimited warfare. In the case of America, imperialism is an anathema to everything the Republic was founded on. America professed, and for many years acted with, a love of Liberty, self-government and peace. Our modern international dominion makes a mockery of those beliefs, of our Declaration of Independence, and of our free Constituition.

"Peace keeping" missions are not peaceful at all. They are aggressive invasions and occupations. They do not even solve the problem that they are intended to solve. They are like putting a lid on a boiling pot; once the lid is removed, the contents boil over again. Once the force is removed, the situation will be just as bad or worse than it was before. At that point, all that the occupying force has accomplished is drain the wealth and blood of its country. It is better for any nation to tend to its own interests and leave foreign nations be.

Also, on a lighter note, I thought Canada was known for snow, hockey, maple syrup and moose.

This suggestion might seem strange, but I think Charlie the Unicorn might be a good character. "Charlie the Unicorn" is a popular movie, with over a million views and a score of 4.31. The big attraction is that Charlie, as a quadruped, would feel different than all of the other characters. It is important that each character is unique and fun to play, which I am sure Charlie the Unicorn would be. Do not think that he would be a wimp; anyone who has seen a bucking bronco will tell you that their kicks are deadly. That horn would be another dangerous weapon. He could even use his tail as a weapon. There was even a flash movie called "Charlie the Unicombat" that featured Charlie the Unicorn killing other unicorns in a madness style.

I think a cool attack would be one in which Charlie impales the opponent on his horn, then throws him back and kicks him on the way down. Another attack could be Charlie bouncing an opponent on his head the way that Bitey bounced that little yellow farty thing (name?) in "Bitey of Brackenwood." With that horn, an attack like that could really hurt.

I do not know what the projectile could be. The only thing I can think of is horse shoes. Charlie would kick, and horse shoes would fly off.

A Charlie the Unicorn themed arena could be in the forest, with the magical Liopleurodon on one side and Candy Mountain on the other as platforms. You could include the other two unicorns in the background if you wanted.

I could think of several storylines. First, Charlie could be out to find his stolen kidney (from "Charlie the Unicorn). In this storyline, an arena with Candy Mountain would be particularly useful for the first or last battle. If you adopt this storyline, you should animate Charlie with either a scar or bandages from when his kidney was stolen. Second, Charlie could be driven mad by the other two unicorns and go on a killing spree. Third, Charlie could be pressured by the other two unicorns to become the king of Newgrounds, the way they pressured him into going to Candy Mountain in the first episode and finding the Banana King in the second episode. Personally, I like the first idea best.

Charlie the Unicorn http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/28 0260
Charlie the Unicorn 2 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/43 5202
Charlie the Unicombat http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/40 3323

That is all that I can think of about Charlie the Unicorn. I hope the authors find my suggestion useful, and that everyone else finds it interesting. Please post your own suggestions and critique mine. Thank you.

At 6/12/08 12:35 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: But really, I hate this bullshit that's going on about the 9/11. Seriously, can't we just leave it in the past? Come on, lots of shit happened, so can't we forget about it while still remembering those who died?

Not that I necessarily believe in 9/11 Truth, but if the federal government is in any way culpable for the attack, I cannot see how we could just ignore it. I think most people would agree that if it is true, we need to discover it and ensure that it never happens again.

At 6/17/08 06:01 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 6/7/08 01:44 PM, SolInvictus wrote: either give the UN the power to act

YES.
First off, make the UN a true democratic organisation where the voting power of a country is determined by the number of inhabitants. Secondly, REMOVE THOSE DAMN VETOES.

That's a good start. There's more to do, but it's a reeeeaaaally good start.

I want my nation to be able to veto Un decisions. I never supported making the UN into a world government. Without the veto, you could not argue that it is simply a "peace organization." Without the veto, foreign populations would be able to abuse my rights, and I would have no protection and no recourse.

At 6/16/08 10:14 PM, Bookman60 wrote: A conspiracy of this magnitude would require cooperation between the terrorists and us, not likely.

The United States funds and trains terrorists all the time. Bin Laden was trained by Americans to fight the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Then there is the infamous Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980's, when we sold weapons to Iran (which happened to be fighting a war against our great ally Saddam) and gave the money to anti-Communist terrorists in Central America. We fund and train PLO terrorists today, as well as many Sunni terrorists in Iraq. The United States has a long history of not just cooperating with terrorists, but intentionally supporting them.

At 6/16/08 07:38 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Rich people get richer and poor people get poorer. Without the redistribution of wealth, that will not change. Besides, rich people don't need that extra ten thousand, what will it do for them? For a poor person, however, that can change their life.

Also, not all poor people are lazy. That's a ridiculous argument.

Welfare does not reduce inequality. The poverty level stopped falling once Lyndon Johnson instituted the Great Society.

Once it becomes an accepted practice for the government to redistribute wealth to a group, it can do it for any group. Inevitably, invariably the wealthy recieve more aid than the poor. The fact of the matter is that the wealthy will always have more influence than the poor, so the wealthy can more effectively lobby for aid. This aid comes in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.

http://icy4life.newgrounds.com/reviews/f lash
The review for "poor psp" mentions blamming.

The role of government is to preserve the rights of its citizens. It should not redistribute wealth. If someone earns wealth, no government should take it away, let alone give it to someone that did not earn it.

Besides, once a government undertakes welfare, it will inevitably give similar aid to the wealthy, through subsidies and tax loop holes. This wealthfare is always greater than the welfare. This is because the allocation of resources is determined by influence. Since the wealthy always have more influence, they always receive more aid.

At 6/16/08 06:25 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: If God can make bananas so easy and perfect for us then why can't he sort out the rest of the shit in the world, like famine and genocide for example.

God gave us free will. We choose to undertake genocide, and famine is just an allocation problem. If God prevented humans from making bad decisions, then he would be taking away our free will.

At 6/16/08 05:05 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/16/08 02:48 AM, Rhyolite18 wrote: That's one thing I don't like about the American government. Any excuse to have a say in other countries affairs. Even the Irish peace process, they had their noses in that. But we got that sorted ourselves. I'd say that left to their own devices, other countries would sort things out.... eventually

America is not in most cuntries affairs. We are in alot of foreign affairs because we are the largest world power. We are leaving other countries like countries in Africa to sort their affairs out by themselves and as you can see thats not going good. So you think America should mind its own business as other countries have huge humanitarian crises like the genocide in Sudan of she we help the thousands of people that are being killed?

The United States has over 700 military bases in around 130 countries. The United States arms and funds governments worldwide that oppress their people and start wars. We pressure other governments to change their laws and their foreign policies. We are involved in the affairs of other nations. If you say otherwise, you are in denial.

We should not invade nations to end humanitarian crises. First, history shows that empires often start or expand for "humanitarian" reasons. The Roman overseas empire started when they sent soldiers to free the Mamertines from a tyrant in Sicily. Later, the Romans fought to "civilize" the barbarians. The English did the same. Time and time again humanitarian crises become an opportunity for tyrannical imperialism. Second, it is not in the interest of the American people to become involved in foreign conflicts. It drains our finances, weakens our economy, wastes our blood and provokes many new enemies. For our own sake, we should avoid foreign entanglements like the plague. Third, the United States cannot solve most of the conflicts in this world. In fact, we often make them much worse. Just look at the Israel-Palestine problem. It is no less bloody than it would have been without our involvement. American involvement has only served to extend the conflict. Instead of trying to use force to solve all of the world's problems, America should just mind its own business.

At 6/13/08 12:42 PM, Tomsan wrote:

At 4/22/08 03:26 PM, kamil-fucker wrote: I live in Europa, and the idea the EU slowly trying to get more power, and more and more control over national governments makes me sick.

they should focus on their original goal: prevent war in Europa and form an strong economic block to compete with the US, China, etc...
Not try to make Europa one under the flag of EU.

I do not understand why people "fear" the treaty so much or the constitution before that. NOthing really changes. It is only a streamlining of already existent treaties.

obviously progression of EU would mean more power to the counsil, but people make so much conclusion while all they have done is spreading money more equally. The irish have benefited of the EU in extreme measures.

The Lisbon Treaty is the Constitution without a popular vote (except in Ireland, as far as I know). It makes the European Union into a central government in name and fact. That is why so many people in Europe fear or hate it. They never wanted a central European government. They wanted an economic community. The whole process of centralization sped along for decades and the people had virtually no say.

No government is legitimate without a popular vote. There should be a popular vote in every nation and if a nation defeats the treaty, it should be allowed to leave the EU. After that, the system needs more transparency and accountability, more protections for individual rights, more checks and limitations on central power, and more protection for national sovereignty.

At 6/14/08 08:06 PM, PikeHead wrote: Hmm that does bring up a good point, but a poor president is like finding a ganster without a gun, or something to that affect. It would just be a hell of a lot harder to find a good "Poor" President too. I mean, picture this; If the guy is poor, he will go to drugs, then to guns and so on, or vice versa. And that is not presidential worthy.

It's simply not possible, to find a good, poverty stricken kid, who cares enough about the issues to make a solid difference as president. A rich president is a bit much, but a middle class one will do fine because he will know what it is to be poorer and richer than others.

On that note, Obama looks to be a fine candidate for president.

Actually, the wealthy consume more drugs than the poor. The reason is that drugs are expensive. Think about it. Studies suggest that there is more drug use in suburban schools than urban school.

To quote Union General Tecumseh Sherman, "War is Hell." Our goal should be the end of war. Private militaries would have an incentive to start wars and to keep them going for as long as possible. It would make us subject to war based on the ambition of rogues and profiteers. Think of the abuse that would result from mercenary armies flying the American flag. How many conflicts would they start, simply for their own profit? How many innocent people would die? How much property would be destroyed? I think that we should never, under any circumstance, suffer the existence of mercenary armies.

At 6/16/08 02:48 AM, Rhyolite18 wrote: That's one thing I don't like about the American government. Any excuse to have a say in other countries affairs. Even the Irish peace process, they had their noses in that. But we got that sorted ourselves. I'd say that left to their own devices, other countries would sort things out.... eventually

I totally agree. As an American, I am vehemently opposed to our imperialist policies. How can Americans believe that we, the people or the federal government, know enough to solve conflicts within or among other peoples? We should respect national sovereignty and mind our own business. That would be better for the Republic and better for the world.

At 6/7/08 08:11 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 6/7/08 08:07 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The united states should take a vacation from the UN for maybe 3-7 years, as in a temporary total withdrawl. Not for the reasons that Ron Paul provides, but just for the sake of the lulz.

that would be intresting total anarchy all over the world completely defenseless and weak.

What do you mean "total anarchy all over the world"? First of all, there are nations that govern themselves, so there would not be anarchy. Second, the UN is not and should not be a world government. Since the UN is not a world government, its abolition would by no means result in anarchy. Third, the UN starts more conflicts than it resolves. It is laughable to propse that the world would suddenly devolve into chaos for lack of UN oversight.

I like the art work. It would be cool if you could include end movies in the sequel (hopefully), like they have in Mortal Kombat.

I have not seen anyone give this suggestion, but I think it is a very good one. I think Mastermind should be added as a character. Who would want to rule Newgrounds more than Mastermind? His storyline could be that his minions failed one too many times and he decided to take his conquest into his own hands. I could see him beating someone with a billy club. His projectile could be the doom laser.

BillyClub.gif
Billy club

Episode 1 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/40 8342
Episode 2 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/42 0990
Episode 3 http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/43 2902

At 6/14/08 01:13 PM, Alfie wrote:

At 6/13/08 09:56 AM, MindChamber wrote: good suggestions :)

Are you taking any of them in?

I hope so. That is what I was aiming for.

At 6/11/08 11:42 AM, JT1 wrote: <a>http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view /401467
DaemonRites
Threatens the author with extreme violence

Come on. He threatens to cut off the author's testicles if he does not finish the movie. That has to be abusive.

Another good character is Auron from "The Paladin." He has already been used in "Paladin: The Game." His projectile could be the Aura Blast from that game, and his shield could be the Aura Shield. It would be cool if instead of jumping, he could fly, like in the game. His storyline could be that the God of Strength sent him to Newgrounds to rid the portal of evil, or something like that. I think Auron could be a great character, with a great storyline.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/41 6507

Again, I would like to ask if anyone has any suggestions for a multiplayer feature.

At 6/8/08 10:32 PM, gfoxcook wrote::

Is BEEBO already in it?

No, BEEBO is not a character. Sorry it took a while to answer.