At 11/10/09 11:34 PM, Z-Sector wrote: If not, they're doing it wrong. They just don't know you personally, but they're doing it for our well being.

No they're not. Some are doing it for the substantial economic benefits that accompany it. Some do it because they really aren't capable of making a substantive contribution to domestic society. Some do it because they're sadistic freaks who need a legal outlet for their bloody urges (see Abu Ghraib). Some do it because they want the sense of personal glory that is lavished upon their heads as they return to the home country. But don't deceive yourself into believing their reasons for going were motivated by a compassion for humanity or country.

At 11/8/09 03:48 PM, CRASHAKEZULA81 wrote: For shame. I guess we could give obama a VMA award for this
Or we could give him a purple heart for being from illinois.
That's hw were suppose to o it right? Give him random awards that he doesn't diserve, right?

The difference is, now that he's on the verge of accomplishing something huge, he would actually deserve an award. Or multiple awards.

Hell yeah, man.

At 11/8/09 12:16 AM, Anonymoususer092 wrote: Yah really cool. YOu know what's even cooler?! He let 9/11 happen! But people are too busy bashing Bush to realize that, but naive kids such as yourself don't look at the truth, especially by saying that you want to hang out with that douche.

I think you meant to say Reagan, not Clinton. Reagan basically gave billions to finance Al-Qaeda in the 1980s when they were fucking up the Soviet invasion, and when it suited his political ends. Thus, he provided the financing that allowed them to take over the country's religious circuit and impose the restrictions and intolerance that fostered anti-western sentiment.

At 6/10/09 05:23 PM, LardLord wrote: for the love of god, nix the furry rat that seems to be living on your philtrum

Why has my sage advice gone unheeded?

Welcome to 7th grade literature hour, with our lovely host, Scarab!

Searchbar + 10 seconds =

[1]

[2]

Fuck, man, it's so hard to be nice.

At 11/7/09 06:36 PM, Headshot777 wrote: That's better.
Bob's second-to-last post says he is working on the redesign. But it probably won't be done until after chat and the Lit portal.

Bob's second-to-last post says nothing of the sort. In response to the question "What do you most enjoy about the site?" Bob replied that he most enjoyed working on the multi-year Newgrounds redesign project of 2006-2007.

You have no idea how many times it was delayed, man. They'd promised that motherfucker for a year and a half before it finally came out. I promise you, until Newgrounds becomes relatively behind-the-times in terms of the internet technological curve, there will not be another redesign. This will probably not occur in the forseeable future. The current infrastructure is stable and expandable, and the staff is focused on beefing up existing content, not starting from scratch.

Because people who commit online theft of intellectual property should be rewarded with continued access to the medium that allowed them to commit the theft in the first place. Yup.

Smoking isn't a right. It's not guaranteed by the Constitution, nor are public or private institutions required by any law to accommodate smokers. UMT is fully within their right to revoke this ability.

At 11/3/09 04:01 PM, ChaseApple wrote: /secret bragging topic.

Why are you bragging about something so ridiculously mundane? Great job, buddy: you listened to your instincts and performed an act which both prolongs the existence of our species, and inherently has no other value; a mechanical and wholly animalistic action that ultimately will be forgotten when the last strands of humanity are erased forever from the cloth of universal existence.

You matter.

At 11/1/09 02:08 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: The metaphor wasn't intended to justify victims of circumstance.

Nonetheless, the fact that victims of circumstance exist, and the fact that their existence is perpetuated by children born into poverty and malnutrition indicates that there are people in the world who are in bad circumstances not because they are bad people, but because that's just the way it is. This God is bad deity spreading moral depravity by showing that he actively despises half of his own creation, and is willing to let their earthly existence cease based on no sinful action committed. If he exists, he's a goddamn maniac who has no regard for things which by all rights he should want to nurture and love equally.

Or it's because we as a species just don't care, that's always a possibility.

If we as a species don't care, then we are guilty of genocide by lack of action. If a God exists, he is also complicit in the same genocide.

At 10/30/09 05:14 AM, ChaDMcBaDD wrote: ok thats fine and dandy, but have you thought of the phrase 'living in the moment"? you should try it out for the next 60 years.

What does "living in the moment" serve to do in terms of justifying my existence? That's the attitude of someone who simply doesn't understand how easily this world will disappear from the universe without so much as a whimper, erasing any of that life lived "in the moment" and thus erasing any significance gained from it.

At 10/30/09 07:29 AM, snapper5 wrote: of course its pointless, but that doesn't stop people from enjoying it

Your "enjoyment" is nothing more than a chemical stimulant called dopamine which evolution decided to implant in your brain in order to encourage you to replicate yourself. The entire reason you exist is to generate children and continue the human race. "Enjoyment" exists only in your animalistic single-minded mentality, and means nothing beyond it. Nobody and nothing will ever care that you felt any enjoyment, thus negating any reason for experiencing it.

It's all rather kafkaesque, isn't it?

At 11/1/09 01:44 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote: You can tell a child something, but you can't make him do it. If your parents build a fence to keep you out of the street, and you climb over, well that's now your problem.

How can you justify that metaphor when you apply it to African kids dying of malnutrition? They didn't climb over any proverbial "fence" -- they're simply victims of circumstance. That's bad parenting on the part of a gad, if a god actually existed; plain and simple.

At 10/30/09 05:37 PM, MrFinland wrote: Gotta love mankind and where it's going to.

"Where it's going"? Jesus Christ, humans aren't any worse or better than they were five hundred years ago, and won't be any better or worse 500 years from now. This hackneyed "losing faith in the world" bullshit is one of the most annoying and fucking stupid clichés that exists amongst the world's bounteoud pseudo-intellectuals.

At 10/30/09 03:18 AM, LardLord wrote: This does not change over time.

I'm referring here to the definition of unemployment.

At 10/30/09 03:03 AM, Memorize wrote: Hahahaha... Really...

"Forecasters expect the unemployment rate to continue to rise, to 10 percent in the first quarter of next year, before edging down to 9.5 percent by the end of 2010. "

Yeah, in the shitter.

So you're arguing that the period from 1993-2000 and 2002-2007 were not periods of economic growth? Because by saying that our production possibilities curve experienced a leftward shift you are saying that a permanently reduced state of full employment was instituted during this period.

Nevermind Lyndon Johnson altering the way we calculate unemployment to make the economy "seem" better.

Our unemployment is defined as the number of people who are in the workforce and actively pursuing a job. This does not change over time. The percentage of unemployment which occurs above the natural rate is a measure of the severity of a recession. Our natural rate in the years leading up to this recession was around 4%, and now is around 9.8%. It will likely rise above 10% for a short period of time and then being its decline due to the aforementioned lag effect which slows unemployment's corresponding decline in the face of an increased GDP.

The so-called "lagging indicator" is nothing more than a politician's excuse to do whatever they wish to later claim responsibility for the eventual recovery.

Do you know nothing of economics? The lagging indicator is a well-documented phenomenon in history. Unemployment reaches its highest rate after an economy has already begun to recover, before reversing course towards the natural rate. See below:

At 10/30/09 01:52 AM, Memorize wrote: That's why the economists are saying we might have a "jobless recovery" with a "new normal" in unemployment or, at best, having double digit unemployment well into the middle of next year and possibly 3 years from now.

Most economists say that the unemployment rate a year from now will be markedly lower than it is right now, after a slight increase in late 2009 - early 2010, due to the lag effect which is derived from consumer expectations and confidence not being restored as fast as firms' ability to recover from recessions.

Our production possibility curve has not shifted inward as a result of this recession; our capacity to produce remains the same, and likewise the long-run Phillips curve has not shifted outward, because the increase in unemployment being experienced right now is almost exclusively cyclical in nature, as opposed to frictional or structural. Only an increase in frictional or structural or seasonal unemployment could shift the long-run Phillips curve, and thus the natural rate of unemployment, to the right.

At 10/30/09 01:08 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Thank god the government built all those arts centres.
And yacht clubs, and walking tracks, and other things that are obviously essential to economic growth.

Actually yes, the building of these things will cause aggregate demand in the American economy to increase over time, which will in turn cause a growth of both real GDP and inflation rates. Higher Inflation rates are a problem we can solve later, after unemployment has been reduced (GDP and unemployment are inversely proportional, so increases in GDP herald decreases in unemployment). This is the whole idea behind fiscal stimulus, and the fact that GDP grew 3.5% in the last quarter signals that decreased unemployment is not far behind at all.

At 10/29/09 12:49 AM, Blizzaine wrote: The best part is simply being one with the person you love.

Love; it's a series of chemical signals that predisposes a person to reproduce with a particular well-suited mate who may possess a certain set of genetically desirable features. The idea that love is anything more than simply that is patently false. You meet them, you fuck them, they bear children, and then all purpose is lost in a relationship, which is why infidelity is basically omnipresent in all societies -- the human propensity to fuck will rule the day until our species is erased from the earth. Which it will be in due time, after our organic particulates have been recycled a few hundred times.

At 10/29/09 12:59 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 10/29/09 12:57 AM, PenguinKommando wrote: This analogy doesn't make sense at all. It doesn't cost anything to register, what the fuck?

Time is money. Money is time. And every second you waste posing as somebody you're not is another second less that you have to spend doing things you enjoy in the world, before you die.

Yeah, that's the general idea. You guys could be doing something productive with your lives.

They're allowed, sure. But what a goddamn waste of time.

You might as well be throwing cash in a furnace.

At 10/28/09 11:18 PM, Sil3ntkill wrote: why are some people gay well cuase they want to to no other reason

More along the lines of "they have a genetic predisposition."

At 10/29/09 12:30 AM, Jackdabomb wrote: A bit pessimistic aren't ya now.

What the hell can I say? We're a group of glorified monkeys operating at hundreds of times the intellectual capacity, and we either can't even stop and realize, or are unwilling to, that the mechanism of our pleasure is also the mechanism of our planet's destruction, and that in all honesty, none of us will will ever matter; we'll all end up as subatomic particles cast into the void of space, and realistically, the universe will never even know or care that we ever existed.

It's never satisfying.

As you proceed, your instincts tell you to thrust, but the act becomes tedious, and you start to think again. You ponder what you're doing, and then you realize that it's meaningless, that the girl and you and everything around you will be decomposing molecules chewed-on by worms in a hundred years, and that a fifty years after that, whatever offspring you produce from the act will be decomposing molecules chewed-on by worms. And then you start to get that existential disgust for for the stupidity and the banality of it all, the sheer ferocity with which this dull and repetitive act is parroted across the human community as if it were the most wonderful thing ever experienced in the universe, instead of the mechanism by which our destructive species continues its pointless destructiveness.

And that's when I climb off the bewildered and drunken woman, put on my clothes. and drive home with that sinking feeling in my stomach that participating in such an act again would be a humiliation beyond the capability of words to describe.

Controversy starts now.

At 10/24/09 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: F-35 does NOT maintain the same level as the F-22 or even F-15! I mean seriously, what have I not been doing to make this clear?

Realistically, what we need right now in combat theaters is planes primarily designed for use on ground targets, which the F-35 is. Given that we're not engaged in wars with countries capable of competing in any meaningful way in the air, and in fact haven't been since 1967, the proposition seems unlikely. I support preparedness, and I think 200 F-22s constitutes preparedness. At such a time when we do enter a war, production can be correspondingly increased to meet the need.

The F-35 is not a suitable sub for the F-15 or F-22.

It is a suitable replacement for the F-16, which is what it was designed to be.

No we cannot make up the difference with F-35s. I'm sorry, but you're flat-out wrong. If we fill the F-15 gap with F-35s we're going to have $80M piles of rubble.

I think you're underestimating the effectiveness of 200 F-22s and the effectiveness of pretty much any country to combat them.

In the long run I think cutting the F-22 will be more expensive than buying more of them.

Ehh, I guess I have to disagree with your assessment

At 10/23/09 07:55 PM, TheMason wrote: Umm...that will be another 95K unemployed. I don't think they or their families really care about what kind/type of unemployed they are. Especially in a 10+% unemployment market...it is hard to find a job out there right now. At least with the F-35 the line has not really started producing any operational aircraft, so the jobs there have not been fully filled.

The point is that structural unemployment is part of the natural rate of unemployment; it acts independent of recessions, and is not necessarily a bad thing, because it allows for a forward progression of technology and changes in taste and particular needs. As firms start to recover, unemployment follows several months later because firms have adapted to fewer workers during the recession and are initially reluctant to hire on more workers. But when they do start to hire again, unemployment decreases rapidly, meaning that these former F-22 workers will have no problems finding new jobs at that point in time. In the short run it looks bad, but ultimately, those F-22 jobs weren't meant to be permanent anyways, and the workers will certainly be able to find new employment fairly soon.

Nope. The F-35 does not, regardless of numbers, contribute significantly to air superiority. Like I've been repeating myself over and over...they don't have the capability to carry the RADAR and weapons the F-15s and F-22s do.

I dunno. It seems to me like the AN/APG-81 is effective enough. The weapons payload seems like its sufficient. Clearly, it's not as effective as the F-22, but from everything I understand about it, it's designed to be less expensive and easier to manufacture, while still maintaining nearly the same level.

The F-15 needs to be retired and replaced. The F-16 and F/A-18 does not...hence the reason why we need to build a few more F-22s (250 or 63 more) and cut/eliminate the F-35.

Sure, the F-15 needs to be replaced. I never discounted that, but I think most will be useful enough to last a few more years. It seems to me that any more than 200 F-22s is excessive given their cost and the fact that we're not imminently engaged in air superiority contests. When the F-15s are no longer useful, make up the difference with F-35s.

20 minutes in AutoCAD. No, seriously. This is somebody's speculative mockup. There are hundreds of them on the internet.

At 10/24/09 12:52 AM, Calintz wrote: This "soft pussy side" is getting laid tonight regardless, so I don't care...

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.