Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

There is no better case for atheism than the 18 years of Baptist brainwashing my parents attempted to load me with.

If God helps those who help themselves, he helps no one.

You forgot one.

Probably the most important book I've ever read, it changed my perspective of myself and of everyone around me.

Spaghett!

These rules are stupid.

3:30 to the end.

Probably the best guitar work I've ever heard... AND it's improvised.

Meshuggah The heaviest band ever, light years beyond anyone else in metal today.

Also, Holy shit, Jack, I can't believe you've actually heard of Deerhoof. Such crazy music!

The idea that progress belongs to society instead of an individual isn't original either. It's communism. We all know how well that works.

You'd probably like this guy.

Still not heavier than Meshuggah.

NOBODY is heavier than Meshuggah.

blah blah blah blah

Guthrie Govan, a fusion guitarist from Great Britain. Flawless technique, great feel, impeccable improv, a fucking abyss of licks; the man could give Vai a run for his money on stage. Here's him playing 'Sevens' with one of his bands. The fireworks start at 3:30 if you're just interested in technique.

This is easy. The Funk Brothers. The group of detroit musicians who wrote and arranged the vast majority of MoTown's classic hits. Aretha Franklin, The Jackson Five, Marvin Gaye, The Temptations, The Supremes, and on and on. The sad part is the were uncredited for most of their early, most famous work; simply working as session musicians for cash.

They defined modern pop and R&B music as we know it, and their most famous Bass player, James Jamerson pretty much invented modern bass playing. They have played on more #1 tracks than The Beatles, Elvis, The Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys combined.

What a god damn MESS. I'd be so pissed if I was that driver, that's a one in a million wreck. I'd take a busted fender and windshield over that any day. What can you expect when you're going 140 mph, though...

In related news, this dog did it with style.

If you're under the delusion that Fox news isn't bias towards the Republican party, you've got to be a few cards short of a full deck.

FAIR AND BALANCED

I'd have to go with Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski.

Started as a petty thug, worked his way up to be the most prolific known hit man in the history of organized crime with a body count of 200+.

He's killed people every way imaginable; stabbings, shootings, strangling, hanging, poisoning, dismemberment, you name it. He also knew to vary his methods of disposal to keep investigators from identifying a pattern. If his boss wanted the victim to suffer, one of his favorite methods was to hog tie the victim and leave them in a rat infested cave-with a video camera pointed at them. He would return in a few days and collect the tape to present to his employer.

He got his name from his penchant for freezing the bodies of some his victims to disguise their time of death. It eventually lead to his capture when a body was found before it had completely thawed; the inside was still full of ice.

Oddly, aside from his life a hired killer and strong arm, he had a family whom he loved. His wife and two children never knew, and never asked about, his other life.

The government knows it works and is completely harmless. The thing is-they don't want you to know that. There isn't any money in legalizing it. They can milk more money out of us through taxation and tickets, plus they get these great photo ops with large amounts of drugs to perpetuate their policy and keep the propaganda machine rolling. Not to mention all the lobbying from alcohol and pharmaceutical companies. The modern war on drugs itself is the baby of good ol' Richard M. Nixon, Crook in chief.

The biggest miscarriage is that the government DOES grow it, and DOES distribute it.
Starts at 7:00, the whole episode is interesting, though.

At 10/17/08 02:12 AM, ShortMonkey wrote: Almost everyone who has posted in this thread is a total idiot. Read the quote below, written by the OP:

At 10/17/08 01:22 AM, Liquid5150 wrote: Your opinion is based strictly on you like or dislike for the music and not the technical skill or difficulty.

See that? He's not saying you can't like or dislike music, he's saying you can't judge the skill or difficulty unless you play an instrument or have reasonable knowledge of music.

He also assumes that just because something is difficult to play that it's good.
It's childish, stupid, and reeks of defeatism.
Welcome to music, stop playing so many fucking instruments and write a good song already.

At 10/17/08 01:22 AM, Liquid5150 wrote: If you can't play, even if you can play but all you can do is puke up tabs you've learned you are not the person to be judging musicians.

If you can't code, you shouldn't judge games or operating systems.
If you don't know the intricacies of lighting, sound design, special effects, direction, and editing, you shouldn't be judging movies.
and so on.

This is an asinine argument. Of course people should judge things. Yes, they are only opinions, but most of the time the opinion of outside observers are more valuable than the people involved with production.

As for music, the reason most musicians fail is because their shit sucks because they can't put themselves into the listeners perspective, making it unable to critique themselves objectively. Without doing a proper inventory of your strengths and weaknesses, artists tend to mire themselves in the IDEA of making music instead of spending time creating and expanding their vocabulary.

At 10/17/08 12:46 AM, Fyndir wrote:

At 10/17/08 12:39 AM, Llama-of-Death wrote: Shouldn't the government be able to start a registration and training program for private citizens who are willing to jump through the necessary hoops to defend themselves?

The cost of regular training and all the related nonsense would be prohibitive, meaning that it would be another way to seperate the rich from the poor.

So, no.

Money? Really? That sound pretty thin. The rich and the poor will always be separated, that's the way capitalism works. Banning something just because certain people can't afford it is ridiculous. Do you guys ban the rich from buying big houses because it will make the homeless feel bad? Also, the pragmatic side of me says that it might work out better that way, seeing as the vast majority of violent and property crime is committed by the poor.

Also, I still don't understand how an outright ban fixes the problem. As Jim and I have already agreed on, all banning firearms does is create a larger, more profitable black market in which criminals (people who don't listen to laws) can obtain guns and leaves people who would like to legally own them in the cold. There has to be some kind of middle ground.

At 10/17/08 12:33 AM, Fyndir wrote:

I hardly trust the average fuckwit to raise a child or drive a car safely, why the hell would I trust them with something that's designed to kill?

A valid concern. But you trust the government to train your police force. Shouldn't the government be able to start a registration and training program for private citizens who are willing to jump through the necessary hoops to defend themselves? Yes, I know you don't give your police guns, but they have numbers and organization on their side. What is an individual supposed to to against a group of people? What are the benefits of an outright ban?

As for "the same points" that I disagree with, which you're both trying to make. I'm not going to apologise for whatever I did to disagree with those, if I even did. Because I think they're both worthless comments.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to change your mind, anyway. On issues like these I believe the debate itself is more important than reaching a conclusion-it gets people thinking and discussing.

What I'm saying is, make valid points, don't just assume that I don't know what I'm talking about or that my opinion doesn't matter simply because I don't live in the same country that you do. Issues ascribing to the human condition can and should be openly discussed without derision. This does matter to me, believe it or not. It applies not only to Britain, but to most of the civilized world. I realize that cameras on street corners work for you guys, but that's not at the heart of the discussion. The real issue here is the power the government should have to survey it's population in what is supposed to be a free society. What right do they have to invade and

Where does freedom end? Where does fascism or oppression begin? I would argue that it should lean to the individual to protect themselves, especially when it comes to crime. No, I don't want to get rid of the police, I simply believe that people should have access to the tools of personal defense. With or without cameras, you will always be there before the police will. I would like to hear why it is more important that the government be in charge of personal protection.

Really? Because EarFetish is raising the same points I am, and the first thing you did was call him immature. You've already called me stupid twice, and then you called me a bumpkin.

Or maybe you think I'm too stupid to notice.

You could at least try not to be so patronizing and condescending.

Aside from drinking in public, which I've done many times before and have not been reprimanded for it on any occasion.... Refer to my previous comment.

Freedom is about protecting everyone's rights, not just the ones you have personally used. If you don't fight for the ones that are unpopular, pretty soon they WILL come after the rights you do enjoy. Oppression is not flipping a light switch, it takes years of conditioning and manipulation of public perception.

At 10/16/08 11:12 PM, Kor-Rune wrote:

At 10/16/08 10:50 PM, Llama-of-Death wrote: That's just it, though, he's not that good of a songwriter and most his songs seem to lack soul.

I don't know, Spell of the Gypsies has a very soulful feel to him, like he's at peace, or content. This song is just one of many of his that just warms me.

I can't argue with your feelings, and I'm not insulting the guy. Just seems like he tries to hard all the time. Like he sat down and decided "This is my soulful song." Also, 5 minutes? That's a LONG time for quarter notes over standard scale progressions.

Anyway, my real problem with him is IMPROV , the guy can't play on the fly to save his life. Whenever he runs out of ideas, he just runs back to the same tired dissonant and pentatonic runs he always does. Sorry, but I'm into way to many different kinds of music to kiss his ass just because he 4 finger taps, he needs to learn to put some damn stank on it.

Also, did you check out that link I posted in my other post? I see you play guitar as well, you'd probably dig'em.

I respect Buckethead, have a few of his bigger albums. He's probably a great guy in real life, and he's definitely a monster guitar player. That's just it, though, he's not that good of a songwriter and most his songs seem to lack soul. Also, he's not very good at improvising and tends to fall back on standard dissonant and pentatonic phrasing. He's done well for himself though, I can't begrudge him that, but it seems he relies on his shtick to bring in his audience instead of his music.

How improv is really done - Starts at 3:30

At 10/16/08 08:18 PM, liljim wrote:

I can't see how any of that should cause anyone who's behaving as they should any problems.

This is easy to dismiss, but the main concern is monitoring people who, ostensibly haven't done anything. Right now, we who live in the industrialized nations are safer than we have ever been. The media does a good job convincing us otherwise, but by in large, we have a larger chance of bashing our heads on the toilet than being mugged and decapitated. So the question is raised, "Why do we need these things?" The real answer is, of course, money. Relatively cheap to build, maintain, and staff, these things are area monitoring ticket generators.

The Rhys Jones Murder trial began this month, an 11 year old kid who was mistakenly shot two years ago has begun here. And the guy who's just gone chiefly on trial (along with a bunch of other guys belonging to the alleged perpetrator's gang) was ONLY caught as a result of the Police being able to track the shooter's movements through CCTV footage. They'd have caught him even more quickly, had the owner of the bar, outside of which this poor kid was shot, agreed to installing CCTV outside his bar when first asked.

This is precisely my point-you can't legislate away crazy, violent individuals. The gun control laws were on the books, the CCTVs were there, but the kid is still dead (I gather). As far as the CCTV outside of the business, I have no problem with it. Individuals who own businesses or property should have the option to mount cameras to protect their assets. My problem is with government owned and controlled area-monitoring systems. It is strange that you imply it's the pub owner's obligation to do the police's work for them, though. No business should be FORCED to monitor it's customer base.

For instance, if you're caught with Cannabis (even if without intent to supply, based on whatever amount/plastic bags that you might use to distribute that stuff to 'clients') in the US, you're faced with what? That is a question, rather than a statement. I'm guessing it's more than just a slap on the wrist (which is what you'd get here, if you were caught smoking it, or carrying an arbitrary amount around.)

This varies WILDLY throughout the U.S.. Some states have extremely harsh fines for possession, some require jail time for repeat offenders, while others have light fines and will only incarcerate if convicted of traffic, which of course, different states have different tolerances as far as amount possessed and method of packaging. TO further complicate matters, Alaska has it decriminalized, and California's medical marijuana regulations have created a pseudo-legal pot industry.

From personal experience I can tell you that most cops see pot as a fucking joke. Been pulled over once with it in my car, cop took it, never charged me. My friend got caught with two bowls in his car, he threw them into a snowy field (Only to be retrieved hours later). My brother also got pulled over with pot, and the cop had him flush it IN THE JAILHOUSE.

Hopefully this criminalization won't last too much longer, I hate smoking shit weed, and would really dig buying good American grown pot.

Last, the Airline situation isn't really a fair comparison. The airlines aren't owned by the government, and therefore aren't under government control. Basically, by purchasing your ticket, you've agreed to have you, your luggage, and your belongings search, scanned, x-rayed and probed at the Airline's discretion.

Oh, and I wasn't trying to say my country is better than yours, just stating an opinion. Always been fascinated by the fight between safety and freedom.

Also, long time no see, Jim.

Because their worship of a 5000 year old middle eastern tribal god compelled my parents to mutilate my genitals when I was an infant.

No, I'm not going to forgive them for it. Fuck those people.

I can't believe you UK'ers aren't bothered by this. Allowing your government to monitor innocent people's movements is totally unacceptable. Nothing to worry if nothing to hide? What the hell kind of reasoning is that? You assume everyone on your street is a criminal who deserves to be filmed while buying fruit? You're giving your government power that they will never, EVER give up.

You point out acts of terrorism and stabbings, and instead of saying "Let's empower the public", you say the government should be given more free reign. The real answer to violent crime is allowing the people to protect themselves. The police simply don't have the ability to protect everyone all the time-and they shouldn't. Don't believe me? Just look at the states; across the board, every single state with strict handgun regulation has a higher rate of violent crime. Even in my home state of Illinois, We're having a problem with handgun violence. Why? Because in my state, CCW isn't allowed. The criminals, who ignore handgun laws (duh), know that us law abiding citizens are easy pickings.

Meanwhile, you guys aren't allowed handguns. So what happens? People still kill each other, people still fight with each other. You can't stop crazy people from doing crazy things by passing crazy laws. The only people you end up punishing are the innocent.

No one likes to hear about stabbings, assaults, or shootings, but you have to balance your safety with your freedoms, and you need to realize that the world isn't all rainbows and puppy dogs and be prepared to fend for yourself, to the death if necessary. Open your eyes and grow some fucking balls.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

It's called a MacGuffin. Tons of movies use them. The point of the story isn't the item itself, but the way people react to it.

This thread is a complete intelligence failure of massive proportions. Pineapple goes with pizza like peas and carrots, or peanut putter and jelly. The contrast of sweet pineapple with zesty, garlicky pizza is legendary.

Fucking pointless romantic subplots. Added in purely to fill out the time and make the movie more marketable. I have seen movies where the woman could have been completely removed from the movie and it would have made no difference!