Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

very pretty, nicely done sir.

What should we do? Give them a tiny slap on the wrist and mean looks? This is all we can do, if we would've just turned a blind eye to this we would have been attacked many times. But now, 2/3 of their leaders including Osama are dead and the Taliban government has been disposed of.

I never stated that the intention of the War in Afghanistan was a bad thing (though American government building hasn't gone spectacularly in the past now has it). The war was mismanaged and has proven to be an embarrassment for the US and the UK. We haven't disposed of our 'enemy', just one man who acted as a figurehead to a loose organisation.

I'd understand the whole, eye for and eye thing if our taxpayers money went on creating an efficient war whereby we were killing the real 'enemy' rather than turning the whole arabic world against us. And I haven't heard a single bit of remorse over those who have died thanks to our misfiring.

I would say their is a difference in making mistakes in war and attacking a country's civilians out of nowhere.

As a result of mismanagement and poor planning. Yes intentions are different but alas, it still results in the death of 9/11 3 or 4 times over. And yet we act morally superior. Brilliant.

At 5/2/11 11:21 AM, Cootie wrote: We know this doesn't end the war but one of the main reasons we were there was to kill him and he deserves to die for what he did. People like YOU is what makes me hate the United States sometimes.

Bush and Blair masterminded something that killed many many more innocents than 9/11, should they be killed also?

also I don't hate the US, see I put Blair in there! that means we in the UK are just as morally corrupted and flawed :)

At 5/2/11 11:09 AM, TheKlown wrote:

:Why are we so soft of a nation that we think justice is killing a terrorist quickly with a bullet?

Well it'd help if you did kill him quickly, and without causing injustice to others along the way. jus' saiyon

At 5/2/11 10:54 AM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 5/2/11 10:46 AM, megakill wrote: How is this relevant in any way to his simple request for more information about the circumstances surrounding the death of Osama?

It's just out of my own curiosity.

der joos

Goddamnit North Korea, just invade and remove this shit please.

Hi GFC, how's the wife?

At 4/29/11 10:49 AM, Nighthawk27 wrote: Hi there, guys. For my birthday, I got Bioshock, and I was wondering about the plot and characters and such. I don't wanna look it up on Wikipedia cuz sometimes their wrong, and esrb gives you only a little sample about what happens in the game, such as, "There is blood." So...Plot? Characters? Guns?

Seriously, I loved played Bioshock. why woud you ruin a great gaming experience?

Shoegaze?

You wouldn't understand...

it's just chocolate, and I'm sure it's very tasty

At 4/29/11 01:37 PM, EjitinToadForm wrote:

At 4/28/11 10:09 PM, Ledgey wrote: The idea of an anarchic world, whereby there exists true freedom is an idealistic, albeit beautiful thought. Impossible to achieve yet difficult not to wish for.

500,000,000BC - ~10,000BC

true freedom

Yup, and it's impossible to revert into such a state. Which is a shame.

To be fair, I can't see any differences with this and what the Soviet Union practiced. The Soviet economy ran on quotas to factory owners, which they had to meet. The problem with this system is that all it does is give them a number of things to produce and there is absolutely no quality control in the products. Furthermore, there is no incentive to produce better products. It's also worth noting that such a system would find it impossible to follow demand, which the USSR certainly did. Thousands of poorly made shoes would be made when the population didn't need them. Farmers would slaughter all their animals to meet numbers, yet have a shortfall next year.

Also, because the economy was centrally planned, there was so much red tape and this would be no different. The economy is not black and white and to efficiently plan it centrally you would need thousands of civil servants, which is a contradiction in itself as that creates inefficiency.

I admire your effort, but I think you've taken the worst aspect of Soviet socialism and have adapted it into its own form of government.

At 4/29/11 04:53 AM, Sevkat wrote: We all know Harry's the cool one.

I'd love to have seen him at the stag do...

She's not head of anything, she has no say in anything that happens, dumbass.

Well... yes, she does. She has employed many of her powers in the past. Nevertheless, I'll avoid proving this little revolutionary wrong and get back on topic.

David Beckham sure looked purdy in his suit.

attempt at being an internet badass

ahahahahahahahahhahahah

Well, she is the head of state. If you're against the crown... that makes you an anti-statist no? :)

Either way, you're pretty uneducated on your own head of state, so I shouldn't expect anything more than childish insults. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're cranky this morning :)

That's great pigbeast, go worship the inbred spitfucks that you call "royals"

oh man you're so anti-statist and cool

I've stayed up all night to watch it!

nah just kidding, I have severe insomnia

13/f/cali

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.

The idea of an anarchic world, whereby there exists true freedom is an idealistic, albeit beautiful thought. Impossible to achieve yet difficult not to wish for.

At 4/26/11 03:46 PM, simple-but-sandy wrote:

At 4/26/11 12:40 PM, Ledgey wrote: A more democratic way would be to put together a government and parliament using a lottery system.

I'm not sure what logic you're going for there. Care to explain?

Yeah sure. We live in representative 'democracies', whereby we're supposed to be represented by someone who is technically equal to us and thus can portray our voice. This is because technically we can't represent ourselves like the Athenians did (which was the purest form of democracy). This is opposed to the likes of Monarchy (rule by one) and Aristocracy (rule by the best). The idea of elections is not so dissimilar to aristocracy because we are, technically speaking, electing the 'best' people to represent us. People who know better than we do.

Naturally, this isn't at all representative of society and the only real way one can do that is to randomly choose people to be part of the legislator. That'd be the purest form of representative democracy.

*shrugs* Pretty much. More accurately, all systems are equally broken, but some people prefer some flaws over others.

Eh, voting itself is a logical fallacy. After all, we're technically voting for the 'best' candidates leading them to form a government of the 'best' people. Certainly not representative which is what it's supposed to be and definitely not fitting to democracy's description (more like aristocracy). A more democratic way would be to put together a government and parliament using a lottery system.

Nevertheless, it's the system we have and it's best to improve it so that we are all somewhat represented.

At 4/26/11 04:41 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: I'm voting no, because tbh to me it seems like a waste of time restructuring the entire system. I also read somewhere on BBC news (if I can remember exactly where I'll post a link) that in Australia (the only major country to use AV) 99% of the results would have been exactly the same if First Passed the Post was used.

Predictions show that here in the UK, the result would very much alter the outcome, giving the Lib Dems more MPs (that they should have, considering they get a quarter of the vote but less than a tenth of seats). I think it'd move them up to just short of 90 seats, which is an improvement.

In the case of Australia (Aussies, feel free to correct me), I believe that the reason they wouldn't have changed is due to that they have a stronger two party system than we have here (ours is only maintained because of the system, not the voters).

One of the arguments the no group is making is that it will eliminate safe seats and thus make the MPs more accountable since they need to get 50% of the vote. There are a lot of seats in the UK where the current MP already holds over 50% of the vote thus meaning AV will have little to no effect in making the MP work for his vote.

I think little over 200 seats have over 50% of the vote (according to the No campaign anyway) which means that only 200 constituencies are truly represented by their MP. that makes around 400 seats of people who aren't being represented properly. There are many seats where MPs barely scratch a third of the vote, nevermind 50%.

On a national scale, like I mentioned with the Lib Dems, they do not receive the amount of seats that they deserve. The vast majority of their voters are unrepresented and their votes wasted. I live in a safe seat with a low turnout, mainly because people believe their votes to be wasted, which is certainly true.

The arguments against are so ridiculous and damaging that this referendum is nothing short of a farce. The idea that it is too complicated is simply ridiculous, I mean who would find it hard to preferential vote?

Secondly, their argument that it costs too much is completely false and is incredibly defamatory. This seems to be their main argument considering the whole "she needs a maternity ward, not an AV system" campaign and yet it is completely baseless. It will not cost us anywhere near what they're quoting.

AV is not an ideal system (STV would be better), but it is far far better than FPTP. The Conservatives elect their own leader using AV, so surely they must think it's the best way to get a representative outcome? Unfortunately they're campaigning against it so they can hold on to their only chance of achieving a majority, even though it's completely unrepresentative and isn't what the electorate chose. Same with those in Labour who disagree with it.

Tis just a shame that if we do lose, it's down to a dirty campaign rather than anything else... but either way, I'm counting on a low turnout.

Anyone who is interested in how AV will affect their constituency, check out: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

wasn't oblivion's system where you could level by jumping on the spot?

They fact is they don't need to bring out a new console for another 4=5 years.

Everything you just wrote is irrelevant.

If you would have clicked the link you would have seen the already have "pictures" of the new system. It's fake and they aren't basing it on anything.

I'm sorry but what.

I did click the link... did you? They actually state what they're basing their release date on:

"As a result, the question on everyone's mind is, when will the PlayStation 4 see the light of day?!?!? While Sony has not released any official information concerning the system's future launch, the generally accepted release date is pegged as late 2012, which would follow the trend of Sony's previous console generations..blabalhablah... Likewise, the PlayStation 3 came out in 2006, 6 years after the release of the PS2. Following this trend that Sony has established would give us a late 2012 release for the PS4."

And I said that was a ridiculous assumption because the current lifespan is longer than the PS1 and PS2.

They're basing this on the two previous consoles' life span of 6 years. I think that's pretty ridiculous considering this generation of consoles is still well underway. The difference between this generation and last generation is the fact that XBL and PSN has drastically expanded the lifespan, and Move/Kinect have notched it up a bit too.

They fact is they don't need to bring out a new console for another 4=5 years.

lol he's been sacked from two and a half men

At the end of my seminar I was talking about the Charlie Sheen interviews with a bunch of people and I said they were hilarious. This girl comes up to me and says "He's not hilarious when he beats up and shoots women" and storms out the room. lol

I don't kill people... I just shoot them in the leg the humane way...

also Nazi's aren't human, I kill them.