At 12/18/07 11:40 PM, Elfer wrote: I got best foreign poster once.

I ain't winnin' shit, all I talk about is science.

yup, i'm trying to rectify the situation. Can someone else plz run the awards, and do it properly this time. Anyone?

At 12/19/07 04:30 AM, fli wrote: Hey guys...
Maybe we ought to list all the names.

Am I right?

I think better to start again. I'm pretty sure 1 key rule of proceedings is "Not to be run by a Mod". The other i've highlighted above is "Not to be run by same person twice" ..this wasn't exactly stated before, but that's how we've handled it so far (for 4 years). At least in previous years people made a request to conduct the awards, and not just gone ahead and started them. Also, the Best Newcomer and Best (or Worst) Mod is noticably absent (good reason why a Mod doesn't run the awards imho). Lastly, Religion and Science are massively absent!! Sry to say this, but that's a shoddy job right there JoS. You did so well before too. This year is all military, foreign affairs, immigration, terrorism and hate.. like.. WTF??

fli, look, if you have the time or motivation dude, then you're more than welcome to start new 'Poli Achievement Awards' topic. Even ask for categories if we have to. Let's do it right, or not at all.

.

At 12/19/07 03:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: ~~~whoever makes up the most bullshit.

Ooh this is a tough one.

Either Imperator, Tony4Mormoney, or bcdemon.

~~~worst poster award.

That's all I'm going to vote for..

Welcome to Political ACHIEVEMENT Awards 2007 .... quote: 'I H8 EV1' ..... how f**ken typical of CellarDuh! Nuthin' good to say about anyone.

At 12/19/07 12:14 AM, JoS wrote: No, I mean t to say you can vote for yourself. If you can vote for yourself in a presidential election, why can't you vote for yourself here. Most of us are mature enough to not vote for ourselves in every single category.

Why are you comparing the voter turnout for NGP elections to the population of all America? Last year we had about 15 voters.

Rule #1: You can vote for yourself ...even thou that's terribly immature.

Oh Plezz!! Let's recap;

-Dredd: 2003 = http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1034 77

-JoS: 2004 = http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/2067 24

-Red Skunk 2005 = http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/4065 45

(2005, Red Skunk set his own nominees, nominated himself for 3 categories, then said he was too "ghey" not to vote for himself .. leaves in 2007 citing "politics user immaturity").

-IllustriousPotentate: 2006 = http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/6331 64

(2006, JMHX votes for himself in ALL 4 categories he's nominated for. Wins all 4! )

By all appearances JMHX beats MoralLibertarian by his own 1 vote for position of Economics Advisor, but according to my count, ML looked to win by 1 (maybe i'm wrong?)~ but that's a 3 vote win if you discount JMHX's "self-vote", and some "JMHX fanclubber" with 23 posts, half of which are in gun topics, and hasn't posted ever since.

Now 2007, and you've suddenly reappointed yourself grandmaster of ceremonies and made "self-gratitude" the first rule.

...Political Maturity? Like wha'ever!

At 12/18/07 05:37 PM, Elfer wrote: Captain Science Award.

At 12/18/07 08:51 PM, Ravariel wrote: Minister of Propaganda: Cellardoor6

seconded (^both)

At 12/18/07 03:10 PM, Yeticowman wrote: just wondering, do you have any idea what the awards would look like if they existed in real life? I'd just like to see an artist's representation of the Lewis Libby award.

Smelted from over a Year's Worth of Experience Coins for Great Justice!

.

At 12/13/07 07:44 PM, Truth wrote: Wrong. If I seen this thread last year, I would be the one arguing against the conspiracy.
You think I actually like arguing about the same thing over and over again?
9/11 believers want a change in America, but first they need people to realize the Truth.

..and Truth gets the annual DAG Award. ^_^

..and Sevenseize as Most Overzealous Mod Award.

Ok, I nominate myself as Best Newcomer.

At 12/18/07 05:39 PM, poxpower wrote: Why isn't water orange?

It is when you leave it oxygenated in something ferrous for 51 years :)

1- There's nothing on the moon. Going there is useless.

Reasons to go to the moon;

1. Ice. ice means water, and is vital for human habitation. Securing this resource secures one's future as far as living on Moon for any extended period of time is concerned.

2. HELIUM-3 - {sauce} - Right. So H3 can be mined by robots (already being developped), and fusion reactors (also being developped {sauce} ..and H3 is considered the "perfect fuel" ..valued at about $10 million dollars per kilo compared with current oil prices. Although mainly contained in ore called ilmenite, H3 is fairly abundant. One suggestion is to return substantial chunks of this ore back to Earth for H3 extraction. Again, easily achieved by robotic missions.

My guess is that the Chinese, Japanese, and Indians are likely to favor robotic practicality, far above human "hero" missions.

They're probably trying to prepare a much bigger mission with, like a little habitable base on there or something.

Yeah, but again, why send humans, when robots work 24-7 without oxygen, water, food, waste, or radiation worries, etc, etc.

At 12/18/07 05:31 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 'You Can't Vote for yourself'

You said you can.

Agreed! Voting for oneself, with so few votes as we actually get, makes a mockery of the system. This is not in the spirit of the way the awards were started (nominating peers, not oneself). I stand by last years assertion that votes for self should NOT be counted.

It's not too bad being a Moon Landing sceptic because there's one additional thing on our side: TIME!

Already there's a whole generation who never saw the actual TV coverage live. Infact, we're less than 2 years away from the 40th aniversary of the 1st landing (of men). If you were 10 when it happened, then you're already nearly 50. If you had children in your 20s then those children most likely already have children of their own, meaning we're almost 2 generations removed from the events in question.

Moreover, Bush made an announcement almost 3 years ago of America's intent to return to the Moon by 2020, but despite a sudden rush of activity by China, Japan, and possibly India, to achieve thier own successful moon-landing programs, this hasn't much affected America's own schedule. "By 2020" is also odd in itself. That would make it 51 years after the 1st landing (of men). Why wouldn't the President, in the spirit of the way Kennedy himself did, set the target "Before the end of the decade..". I mean that's why they supposedly did it in '69 and not '70 after all.

Sceptics of course can now point to this 40 year chunk of time (and 15 year program to return), and the schedules of these other countries programs, as yet further proof that America never did get there in the first place. If it only took about 10 years from when America had NO space program at all, upto actually landing men in multiple missions, then why does it take longer to achieve after almost 40 years of technological advancement? Why do they make exuses like "it's got MORE expensive"..?? I mean, that's like saying computers have got more expensive since they were first invented. It's BS and people know it. They already have the Shuttle, they could make a modular landing craft, then all they need is an additional booster remotely steered to the ISS, and they're away.

If the reasoning is because the mission is different, and it needs new craft and new systems, then fine. Why does it still take longer with all of today's CAD-CAM systems and scientific advancements and such? Likewise, why set a new target just past the 50th year anniversary?

At 12/17/07 02:54 AM, Kaspoogle wrote: After rudd won, two australian soldiers have died*i think*

Huh? After only 3 weeks?? Listen, Howard put those Aussie troops in harms way, not Rudd.

and rudd has gone to bali..

Yeah, not for a holiday. Just to sign onto the Kyoto Protocol (which expires in 2012) so as to make Australia participant, and thus more likely to contribute towards negotiating it's replacement document.

When you think about it, howard didn't do such a bad job, did he?

Koizumi, Blair, and Howard have gone finally, and Bush soon enough. Rudd's "next gen" leadership.

Also, following standard proceedure, he can't officially be considered a 'bad leader' until someone assigns him an obligatory set of mammalian characteristics..

.

At 12/16/07 12:49 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: I saw a news report about recalls made to toys with dangerous levels of lead paint. From what I've observed, we're getting screwed over by the People's Republic. All this nonsense with these toy recalls..

Mattel (America's biggest international toy distributor) has already taken responsibility for the recall of over 21 million toys. Mattel's executive vice-president for worldwide operations, Mr Thomas Debrowski, visited China and issued the following apology:

'Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologises personally to you, the Chinese people, and all of our customers who received the toys,' said Mr Debrowski.

'It is very important for everyone to understand that the vast majority of those products recalled were the result of a design flaw in Mattel, not through the manufacturing flaw in China's manufacturers.'

{sauce}

..and the bird flu from earlier...I'm sorry, but I'm not one to believe in coincidence.

LOL

Forgive me if I sound like some crazed conspiracy theorist, but this is just what I think: long story short, China's screwing us over.

Haha. Globalization and Capitalism are just 'SUPER GREAT FANTASTIC' when you are screwing other countries over, but when it happens to you and your country.. yeh, not so great then is it!?

At 12/17/07 08:51 AM, thuggar wrote: Hes doing this to SAVE MONEY!!!!!

Ok wise guy. How much does he save by spending this $2 million dollars?

Since when are influential people in America NOT rich? Since when was money per-se not the measue of one's stature in society?

Would anyone today honestly take seriously a guy who lived the authentic hippy lifestyle, and saying how good it felt to cut his personal energy use by washing his own clothes by hand down by the local stream everyday?

What amount of "living the life" are we expecting here? Why it is that Al's public respect would proly deminish if he drove around in a small solar car, or some shit like that? Isn't that the crux of the cultural dilemma we are presently facing? ie. Attitude.

At 12/16/07 06:26 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: 1000 : 1

uh... 100 : 1

(my bad)

At 12/16/07 04:53 PM, Potempkin wrote:

At 12/16/07 03:29 PM, Christopherr wrote: We've taken under 4000 casualties, that's not bad.

That is bad. 4000 people have died, people, not mindless things, people that will be missed.

Stratagem # 6: Avoid recording or talking about insurgant and civilian (direct and indirect) casualties of said unprovoked war, especially when somewhat conservative estimates put the ratio of American to Iraqi war related deaths at around 1000 : 1

.

At 12/15/07 11:53 AM, Elfer wrote: It's bad for the corporations that own the government.

2nd post is a Winnar!!

At 12/15/07 09:38 AM, Al6200 wrote: Sustainable development is the philosophy that Earth has limited natural resources,

Sustainable development is not a "Philosophy", it's a practicality. Sustainable means "ongoing" or "lasting". Development means "advancing" or "expansion", and is normally ascribed to technological progression.

Also it's important to explain what is meant by "Natural resources". Oil for one is a natural resource which can't be recycled or replicated, thus it is limited, and can run out. Otherwise the word "limited" means "manageable" or "restricted", but is still replaceable.

Sustainable fisheries for example means taking into account the lifecycle or breeding capacity of each fish type, and calculating the replacement (under optimum conditions) of a given fishery based on current estimated stock levels. The technology for measuring ocean fish stocks has advanced greatly in recent years so knowledge of changing stock levels is far more accurate.

The goal of sustainable fishing is only to limit the catch of certain species to allow stock levels to recover where they are being depleted faster than they can recover. But in some cases overfishing has nearly wiped out certain species, and extinction is a real threat. The technological alternative to the natural process is fish farming and/or cloning. But until these technologies are widely adopted or developed, we are wise to manage fisheries in a sustainable way.

Sustainable foresty similarly means the replantation of forests at an equal rate to deforestation to allow for continued logging at current rates. Again, todays satellite technology makes measurements highly accurate.

and therefore development must be slowed and consumerism limited in order to reduce the consumption of natural resources.

Environmentalists like to take things which are difficult or impractical to build with modern technology, and pretend that the laws of physics make them impossible to build.

Modern environmentalists are much more tech savvy than you give them credit for. They do not dismiss technology as a solution. Instead they see powerful commercial and governmental interests as being reluctant to change existing ways of behaviour which are damaging the environment, in leu of existing profits. Our consumerist society has the power to adopt cleaner technologies, but existing technologies (cars and oil for example) are far too profitable. Replacement technologies are being developed, but environmentalists doubt the political and commercial will to address what can best be described as cultural inertia, or at worst, environmental denial.

Furthermore, although current technology might suggest a small carrying capacity, that technology is improving at an exponential rate.. (Moores Law)

The advancement of certain technology is exponential, but cars for example haven't much changed in over 100 years. The growth of car numbers worldwide however IS EXPONENTIAL. That's the unsustainability of the "sustainable development" argument. Now they are built by robots, and are cheaped than ever to buy, but they still consume about same quantity of oil as they did when they were first invented. Any developments in energy efficiency has been vastly offset by traffic congestion and commuting distances. Thus achieving nothing as far as reducing oil consumption per car.

.

At 12/15/07 06:01 AM, poxpower wrote: Yes we should all spend 2 million dollars on our mansions.
God Bless him! It must be so difficult spending money on saving the earth when your pockets are exploding with cash.

Oh come on.. cut the guy some slack. That money was proly made by selling us a mountain of books about how we should all be trying to save the forests..

..oh wait. What are books made of again?

At 12/13/07 09:39 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

You think that they just started it all of a sudden in response to the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

IF they started decades ago, then yes..

Except for the Gulf War, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and the Iraq war, which was around when Iran STOPPED their nuclear weapons program, the US hasn't invaded Iraq or Afghanistan in previous decades.

You're saying "yes" to a response of the US invading, yet apparently Iran was developing nukes before any of those wars took place.

As i said, it was before your time (off your "history began when i was born" radar). America supported Iraq who invaded Iran. Not only did America support the agressor, but this made America Iran's natural enemy since the early 80s. Everything you hate Iran for was thus created by your country being reckless by trying to wage further defacto war with Russia by imposing your influence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The irony shouldn't be lost on anyone; that Russia is fast becoming resurgant just as America has crippled Afghanistan's resistance freedom fighters it once supported. Moreover, America has now set Iraq back decades in every way imaginable, leaving a considerable power vacuum that i'm sure Iran and others will be more than grateful to fill the moment America leaves, aiding the spread of Shia Islam. Now you are spitting tacks and saying that is a VERY BAD thing for the region, but it is exactly what your own country's latest mis-adventure in the middle-east will ultimately result in spreading. Of course you could always stay in Iraq and Afghanistan for next 50 years like the neo-cons suggested is how long it should take to get these terrorist-prone countries back to standing again.

That's the plan all along anyway wasn't it? In for the long haul. Or at least, until the oil runs dry.

Plans are one thing, but American foreign policy and it's arrogant crippling wars are like organized mayhem ...and just as typical as ever, suffered upon the poor and disperate peoples of asia and the middle east, and not your real enemy of Russia, because despite what we've always been led to believe, nukes don't stop wars, they just exports war to poorer countries who don't have any comparable form of defense.

.

have nothing to do with towers going down.

What i haven't heard much data about is what was the predicted "life-expectancy" of the Twin-towers? How long before they were actually planned for demolition (..considering how easily they fell under their own weight!). Likewise, any takers on the New York's UN-Building (fast approaching it's useful end) suffering some ill fate before demo?

At 12/13/07 09:07 AM, Imperator wrote: So Iran is looking around, sees Pakistan, sees Saudi Arabia, sees Israel, sees North Korea, sees Russia, sees China...... Sees Bush's Axis of evil speech. Sees stuff leading up to Iraq War. Sees Iraq get destroyed.

..Realizes they've lost a valuable bargaining chip by having stopped their nuclear development in 2003... Looks at the behaviour of Putin and Musharraf. Ponders why America has been making secret pacts with both of these military-style dictators.. Hears the continued rhetoric and WOT ballyhoo coming from the US. Calculates that Bush might be playing for a 3rd term in office by reason of imminent war (ie. approaching WW3 if US invades Iran without allied support or justification). Sees no good outcome in Afghanistan or Iraq after years of US occupation. Does a double-take on recent Palestinian and Lebanon derstuction wrought by Israel (sanctioned by US silence). Looks around it's borders at the vast array of US military bases, troop and naval deployments..

........you do the math......

Yeah, so who's the one guilty of turning fear and paranoia exerted over it's own people into an ongoing war-footing here? America or Iran?
.

At 12/13/07 05:57 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/13/07 04:59 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/12/07 10:01 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If Iran is no threat and has no bad intentions, why did they develop a nuclear weapons program,

Same as Nth Korea.. to defend against America. They don't want to be invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan have been. 2 of their neighbours as it happens.

LOL, they has been developing nuclear technology for decades.

I wont even ask for proof of this statement. Apparently (according to what you now say) it takes more than 20 years to make a bomb, yet by current estimates, they won't even finish the job for another 10 years, even if they hadn't stopped, which they have!

You think that they just started it all of a sudden in response to the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq?

IF they started decades ago, then yes, because you may not know but America was heavily involved funding and arming both those countries (Afganistan against Russia, and Iraq against Iran) thou i don't expect you'd know much about that seeing how you were most likely still in nappies at the time.

Me? Yeah, I saw it on the news every night for 10 fucken years. Iran-Iraq war alone killed about a million on both sides.. a totally pointless war. Iraq was the agressor originally, yet America supported them because it saw Islam as the bigger threat. Regardless, America was involved, and that made Iran the enemy by defacto. And why would Iran view it any less so today as part of America's axis-of-evil?

Not only are you showing how uninformed you are, yet again, but now you're RATIONALIZING them seeking nukes, basically justifying them building a nuclear bomb when your argument before is that they aren't developing them at all.

I'm explaining "WHY". It was your question. I'm just answering it. And yes, there is a RATIONALE why they did, and equally a RATIONALE why they stopped. Both make sense to me. Where did i ever say "they aren't developing them at all"?? Read the Fucken Title, and stop putting words in my mouth.

Also future security against any number of questionable nuclear neighbours; Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, to name a few.

So now you admit Iran has the intent of developing nuclear weapons. Thanks!

That's past-future dip-shit. And who knows the future. "Totally Rationale" Israel could let one off tomorrow, and justify it as defensive, just as they do today with illegal weapons (ie. Lebanon cluster bombs).

why do they continue to hide it,

Why does Israel?

Israel is rationale country.

So rationale countries hide nukes. Got ya!

Israel already has them, there's nothing that can be done about it.

BS.

why do they develop technology for the use of nuclear bombs.

Why does Pakistan?

For self-defense against India.

BS. They already have stuff that can reach India.

Why isn't America pushing for all these countries to give up their WMD and or Nukes?

2) Pakistan probably should give up its nukes given the situation in their country, how likely the change of Islamists taking over is.

Nukes in the hands of ANY Islamists = nightmare scenario. Yeah, we kinda got that point already.

1) Israel is a rationale country. Tthere is not much incentive to disarm them if they have them given the fact that they belong to a stable country. If they have nukes now, then there is no way to get them to give them up if they do in fact have them.

"IF they have nukes" LOL ..you don't even know do you? They won't say, and America doesn't ask. Hiding whether you've got nukes is a "rationale" strategy. Well, i beg to differ. Anyone will tell you nukes are not something you hide up your sleeve. If you have them, then you let all your enemies know about it in advance. Infact, doing otherwise is not rationale, never has been, never will be.

However, since Pakistan already has a developed program, it would be hard to get them it get it up, probably impossible.

BS.

Iran doesn't have nukes yet, it is wise to stop them from getting nukes now.

They stopped. You've given them ZERO credit for doing so. How very rationale of them.

Iran is also OBVIOUSLY a threat..

At 12/12/07 10:01 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: If Iran is no threat and has no bad intentions, why did they develop a nuclear weapons program,

Same as Nth Korea.. to defend against America. They don't want to be invaded like Iraq and Afghanistan have been. 2 of their neighbours as it happens.

Also future security against any number of questionable nuclear neighbours; Israel, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, to name a few.

why do they continue to hide it,

Why does Israel?

why do they develop technology for the use of nuclear bombs.

Why does Pakistan?

Why isn't America pushing for all these countries to give up their WMD and or Nukes?

"Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that a thing agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live by it." (The Buddha, The Kalama Sutta)

.

At 12/12/07 08:33 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: everyone knows Iranian leaders will not say that outright.

case closed.

This creates an allusion to the intent of Iran..

correct spelling; illusion.

.

Yeh, sll this talk about "proof" over what someone already dead might have said 20 years ago, is in pretty strong contrast to the topic at hand, which is about lies and lack of proof over weapons that Bush is claiming Iran had only a month or two ago. The punative sanctions. The outright announcement that Iran's army is "A State Sponsored Terrorist Organisation". The likely threat of WW3, following from the imediate prospect of war against Iran ...all based on a lack of ANY physical evidence. Just like happened with Iraq.

Where exactly is the onus for the burden of proof? On Iran for defending itself, or America and Israel using unfounded rhetoric as the basis of another pre-emptive attack. That's the real issue here. An issue that Cellar is so desperate to hide beneath all this crap-load of nonsense.

.

At 12/11/07 11:44 AM, Malachy wrote: NSFW

IUHTM-IWHG ... WGAFFA

At 12/6/07 09:10 PM, Christopherr wrote: It's not gun control laws causing people to do this. Mental instability and glorification of killing are to blame.

Yeah, like most of you, the first thing that went thru my mind was.. "gee, this might be another of NG's Malltime-Madness playing nutjobs".

At 12/10/07 04:59 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: Fatwas (accented ascii) are almost exclusively issued native language; Arabic. Anything proclaimed under the order of Islam is done in Arabic.

^However, i'm not a scholar of Imam or Shia Islam by any means, and all of Khomeini's speeches might have been in Persian (Farsi), Dari, Tajik, or Klingon for taht matter, but my point (about source and translation) still stands.

"that state the Ayatollah said it"

At 12/10/07 08:16 AM, Slizor wrote:
Firstly..
Secondly..
Thirdly..
Fourthly..
And fifthly..

Sixthly, (and this is critical to the originality of it's source) ..IT'S TRANSLATED!

Fatwas (fat%u0101w%u0101) are almost exclusively issued native language; Arabic. Anything proclaimed under the order of Islam is done in Arabic. Likewise, the Qur'an has been translated into many languages, but they all refer back to the original Arabic text. Although natively, 90% percent of the world's Muslims do not speak Arabic, the language is still used in everyday prayer and such.

Authenticity around the study of Islam is all about having the original in Arabic. Any "official translation" would almost certainly be expected to source the original speech, and give evidence to the person (or persons) who did the translation. Citing a proclaimation of this type without also being able to cite an original text (or in this case more likely a transcript of an original recording) is just asking for trouble.

.