Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/30/07 04:16 AM, Sirschmoopy wrote: The same could be said for a lot of actors.
Will Ferrel and Bill Murrary for example

That's totally unfair for Bill Murray. Caddyshack is way different from Groundhogs day which is way different from Lost In Translation. Recently yes, he has had a couple boring old guy roles.

I think it's unfair for Ferrel too. Yes he plays a loud idiot a lot, though he's balanced it out with Stranger Than Fiction, Melinda and Melinda, Winter Passing, and a range of variety with his years on SNL. Also, I think Ron Burgandy was too good of a character to be considered just another loud idiot.

At 4/30/07 02:16 AM, Serphyas wrote:

At 4/30/07 02:10 AM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote:

At 4/30/07 01:27 AM, Serphyas wrote: Welcome to old news. Anyone who's anyone knows that Cage can't act.

Go watch Leaving Las Vegas, then come back and tell me he can't act.

Tell you what...instead, I'll watch Face-Off, Ghost Rider, The Wicker Man, National Treasure, Gone in 60 Seconds, and The Family Man, and get back to you.

...

Back. Ok, yeah, this guy sucks ass.

Spielberg has made a ton of crap. Does that mean he can't direct? Does that take anything away from Jaws?

Nicholas Cage's problem isn't that he can't act. It's that he won his oscar more than a decade a go, so takes roles in popcorn flicks for a paycheck instead of genuinely good films.

Besides, De Niro would suck if he was in Ghost Rider or Wicker Man, there's no way anyone could have put in a great performance for those pieces of crap.

At 4/30/07 01:27 AM, Serphyas wrote: Welcome to old news. Anyone who's anyone knows that Cage can't act.

Go watch Leaving Las Vegas, then come back and tell me he can't act.

At 4/27/07 11:34 AM, Tafari-dh wrote: but know this, how does high grade steel covered in flame retardent foam mealt in less than an hou

Jesus Christ people are stupid.

The steel didn't literally melt. It was weakened enough by the heat to collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/mi litary_law/1227842.html?page=4

At 4/2/07 10:33 PM, Twessel wrote: Linkin Park might be tolerable if it was purely instrumental, and had no lyrics.

Am I right?

Up until their most recent song, their instrumentals would have been tolerable. Now even that is pathetic.

At 4/2/07 09:32 PM, johnfn wrote:

At 4/2/07 09:30 PM, Para-Noid wrote:
I bet some people on newgrounds say they hate Linkin Park but you really like them, they just say that to look cool. See, me I think there good, just the words can be modified a bit. The music without vocals is cool, the words on the other hang erm...

Its not so much they suck as it is that every other band is so much better.

You got to be kidding. Just about every band (and rapper) from the last 10 years has sucked ass.

At 4/2/07 09:26 PM, FULLMETALHOBO21 wrote: Dont all bands sing of problems?

Bands that suck sing about middle class white kid problems.

At 4/2/07 09:13 PM, johnfn wrote: Someone's a little slow to hop on the bandwagon.

I join bandwagons at my own pace. I held out hope that they'd get over the "I've become so numb" shit and produce some good tracks that didn't deal with white middle class kid problems. Guess I won't be seeing that.

Has anyone heard "What I've Done"? The new single from Linkin Park. It's just terrible. It's like a standard pop song with the musical complexity of Fall Out Boy's "Dance Dance".

I never really liked them, they bitch and complain too much in their lyrics, though I held out small hope since I heard an interview with Rick Rubin about them.

Turns out they're worse then ever.

At 1/1/07 10:44 PM, Siamese-Dream wrote: First of all, it's at 0.99

First of all, you're an idiot.

It passed with a .09.

It's been voted up since.

Second of all, do you seriously doubt that it was rated a .09? It's less belivable to imagine it had a 1.6.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/247602

Sequal, coming soon???

-TeddyRob

At 11/24/06 01:18 AM, Demosthenez wrote: 1) Thats partisan horseshit. The strength of the economy and the tax revenues that are brought in by that said economy has everything to do with defecits and surpluses.

That's partisan horse shit. Did we have a massive economic collapse under Reagan? Except in extreme cases, the government has the ability to choose whether we have a deficit or a surplus.

2) I would like to see the figures on the massive defecits you are claiming.

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

3) Clinton does not equal the whole of the Democratic party. Thats ridiculo

His stance on fiscal responsibility is the stance of today's Democratic party. It's what they campaigned on, it's what the Democratic leaders are preaching.

4) I will get the figures if you ask but Democrats spend just as much defecit as Republicans.

I already got the link above. If your talking about pork, I bet both parties use up plenty, the difference is, the Democrats make sure they can pay for their pork.

Strawman. Show me a single business that wants to put mercury in our water supplies. Show me a single lobbying group that is lobbying to put mercury in our water.

It's not a straw man argument, though I'm not going to waste my time debating definitions.

Change "mercury in the water" to "polluting our air". Point is, a business is not a person. A regulation is not an invasion of anyones civil liberties.

Take a look before you bash. Most are Republicans but your refusal to acknowledge Democratic corruption is rather childish.

Your comparing scandals to crimes is rather childish. No Democrats were connected to Abramhoff, no Democrats have been indicted, no Democrats have gone to prison.

Everyone who did buisness with the criminal Jack Abramoff was a Republican.

Not true.

I'll take the fact that the AP agrees with me, and your only source is a right wing hack site as evidence that I'm right.

There's a reason Republicans were thrown out in mass this election, the top reason listed, ahead of the Iraq war, was the Republican's political corruption.

Doesnt say anything about the Democrats capabilities or the peoples professing of their love of Democratic ideals though, does it? The election was a referendum against the Republicans, not a vote for the Democrats.

Yea, it was.

Its a sad day in America when we vote people out and dont give a flying hell who replaces them. The Democrats ran on no agenda and promised nothing to the public. That really is sad.

Oh that's just not true. The Republicans are just better at setting the common wisdom in the media.

At 11/23/06 07:56 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Though I do agree that those mention Republicans have not been the best economically,

Deficits and Surpluses do not flucuate with the economy. They have much much much more to do with who's in charge and what they'll accept. If we have a president who will accept a 400 billion dollar deficit, we'll get one. If we have a president who refuses to accept a 400 billion dollar deficit, we won't get one. Unless we're at war with China during a depression, we won't get massive deficits if the president refuses to accept them.

Republican accept massive deficits. Democrats don't.

Republicans: Government in your bedroom, at your doctors, on your phone, telling you what's moral
Democrats: Consenting adults can do what they please.

True on some issues, but not on others. Look at Guns, and business...

Guns is a non issue, no one is going to overturn the 2nd ammendment.

Businesses arn't people. Telling a buisnss they can't put mercury in our water supply is not infringing on anyone's civil liberties.

Both parties are equally irresponsible, and any intelligent American knows that the choice lies in the lesser of the two evils, whichever one thinks that may be.

Oh that's just crap. Delay, Foley, Cunningham, Ney, all these congressmen resigning in disgrace, and will be/are starting prison terms are Republicans. Everyone who did buisness with the criminal Jack Abramoff was a Republican.

There's a reason Republicans were thrown out in mass this election, the top reason listed, ahead of the Iraq war, was the Republican's political corruption.

This is very simple:

Reagan: Massive Deficits
Bush Sr.: Massive Deficits
Clinton: Massive Surpluses
Bush Jr.: Massive Deficits

Republicans: Government in your bedroom, at your doctors, on your phone, telling you what's moral
Democrats: Consenting adults can do what they please.

Democrats are the party of responsible government
Republican are the party of massive invasive irresponsible government.

At 11/22/06 07:18 PM, losiglow wrote: Pretty gross man. Pretty gross. And who said Butt Secks is hot?

Um, anyone over 14 who's not seriously repressed.

Got it on DVD, awesome show

Best fucking story ever.

At 6/18/06 10:24 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote:

At 6/18/06 08:54 PM, _yoddtacos_ wrote:

At 6/18/06 08:01 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote:
B+ batting average.

That can't be true, it displays fat_badgers name...

I'm pretty sure it's also if you're bookmarked a lot.

EDIT: Fat_Badger has a B+ batting average.

At 6/18/06 08:54 PM, _yoddtacos_ wrote:

At 6/18/06 08:01 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote:
B+ batting average.

That can't be true, it displays fat_badgers name...

I'm pretty sure it's also if you're bookmarked a lot.

At 6/18/06 07:03 PM, _yoddtacos_ wrote: You guys what does it take to have your name under the

we also have submissions by these following artists:

Because I had a submission yesterday...

B+ batting average.

At 4/24/06 11:29 PM, AntiClock5900 wrote: Glocks suck! There should be more Pokemon on frontpage not this Glock shit!

Oh, thanks for clearing everything up!

Oh, getting out your blam sticks. You guys are cool.

Let's see you guys actually make some flash.

Awesome as usual.

Don't let these assholes get you down. You could kill them in flash.

At 2/24/06 09:03 PM, shmelo wrote: Clock flashes usually suck, because of what they represent.

Sign-up date:
02/19/2006

Like you even know shit about what they "represent."

Blockhead was very entertaining. Glad it got first place.

At 2/6/06 05:35 PM, robotussin wrote:

At 2/6/06 05:25 PM, TheButcherKid wrote:

At 2/6/06 05:19 PM, TwentyOneGunz wrote: IMHO, Old School Rappers and DJ's had more talent in their finger nails than today's Rappers have in their whole crappy albums. Discuss and debate.

Whats IMHO? In My Holy Opinion?

H = honest.

Old school.

Eazy E > All

You've got to be kidding.

Eazy E ruined NWA

"Shining tha light in my face, and for what
Maybe it's because I kick so much butt
I kick ass, or maybe cuz I blast "

Plus he sounded like a 6 year old kid.

At 2/6/06 06:22 PM, snow_templar wrote: Well can't say much then if you don't want to download a program. All I am going to say is the best program I have used so far with sound recording and editing and such that was free without and bad stuff that came with it was a program called Audacity.

I actually already have audacity, what do u do?

At 2/6/06 06:07 PM, deck_head_tottie wrote: Sound Capture 1.1a

Is that the sort of programme you mean?

No, a couple years ago I knew how to do it with Sound Recorder, I just don't remember now. I don't want to have to download a program to do it.

At 2/6/06 06:06 PM, TwentyOneGunz wrote:

At 2/6/06 06:00 PM, MembrsOfBushWhackers wrote: Rap reached it's pinacle in the late eighties with albums like "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back" and "Paul's Boutique". It's been downhill ever since, reaching new lows every day. That's a fact. If you disagree with that assesment, you're wrong.

Nas started Rapping at about the 90's, he realesed StIllmatic which featured a song that he Rapped a whole story backwards i'll try to find it off the 'net... No luck, but if that's not talent; I don't knopw what is. You're wrong. I'll keep on looking..

Nas' greatest album came in 1994. It was worse then the greatest albums of the late eighties. Though it was better then the best albums of the late nineties, which were better then the best albums of the early 2000s, which were better then today's rap.

I stand by my correct assesment. Rap reached it's pinacle in the late 80s and has been on a downward slope ever since. Today's slope is much steeper then the early-mid nineties one, but the fact remains that nothing can touch late eighties rap.

At 2/6/06 05:58 PM, Wesley_Crusher wrote: Switch the record input to WAV.

Where? There's no option to switch record input to wav in properties or audio properties