Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/29/08 09:02 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: You know I could argue that he said this before having an "inexperienced VP" so at point of stating this it had relevancy and may lead him not to mention from this point on, just like I can argue Obama has no experience and that's why he tacked on Bidan to makeup for his weaknesses.

1) This has nothing to do with the fact that you stated that Obama was a hypocrite with no reasons listed.

2) Yes, McCain said such things before he had an inexperienced running mate, that doesn't change anything. He accused his opponent of being inexperienced, then chose a running mate with that exact flaw. That's hypocritical.

Over my time of being on this forum which is extremely longer than you I might add, I've seen you pretty much do hit and run tactics when it comes to debating on any subject which typically ends with you stopping at some point building a fort and using jab cannons on other posters.

Theres no arguing over the fact that I do engage in actual debates with the other forum members. As in I present my views and defend them, as opposed to you who uses *actual* hit and run tactics by failing to do even this.

If you can't see the point of me possibly restating what you typed and changing a few words then you have no ability to comprehend simple discussions. Oh it's relevant, but you tacking on that tidbit of you adding buildup is not. And yes it's funny for being a hypocrite in a thread about hypocrisies.

Your "joke" made absolutely no sense, neither does your post right here. Are you accusing me of being a hypocrite? how about you explain yourself.

At 8/29/08 08:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Actually it works pretty well because it doesn't need any buildup.

Usually you need to give reasons before calling someone a hypocrite. For example, McCain is a hypocrite because he hired an inexperienced VP candidate, while attacking his opponent for his alleged lack of experience. That makes McCain a hypocrit, that's a reason. You have no reason.

On another note, I don't think in all my time on these boards I've ever seen you engage in an actual debate with someone over something to do with politics. I've only seen you take little ad hominem jabs from time to time. So if you have an actual opinion on McCains VP, then I encourage you to speak up, otherwise your little remarks are off topic and better suited for the general board.

At 8/29/08 08:44 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Obama looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Whoa, busting balls around every corner.

It doesn't work because you don't have the same buildup I do (read: reasons).

At 8/29/08 08:22 PM, TheMason wrote: The reality is Obama cannot really make that claim that McCain is a hypocrite since such a claim opens the door for the Republicans to further attack him:

She has NO federal experience. Furthermore, even if you allow some leeway given the fact that she has executive experience, you can't ignore the fact that she's only been in such a position for 2 years. So she has very little executive experience.

I could argue that Obama is more experienced than her if I wanted to too, but I wont because it doesn't matter. It's a moot point. The fact is she's inexperienced, and if she is more experienced than Obama then it's not by any significant amount.

And yes Mason, McCain looks like a hypocrite. Know why? because he is one.

Yes she's been a governor for longer than Obama and yes she has executive experience, but as I've said before and other have said before, this is a moot point because either way, the fact of the matter is that they are both inexperienced. By picking Palin as his VP, McCain has basically said he doesn't care about experience. That's where the logical cycle ends because you can't follow it any further than that.

You can try to argue that she's more experienced than Obama, but that's just spin since the argument is that Obama is inexperienced anyways, so it doesn't say much, and doesn't detract from the fact that Palin is still Inexperienced. In equal measure you can argue that Palin has more executive experience, but you're still playing off of the word "more", because in the end, she still doesn't have very much executive experience.

Even the the most talented of spin artists can't argue that Sarah Palin is "experienced". McCain has shot himself in the foot.

At 8/29/08 05:22 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote: Let's also look at the other ways in which this has damaged McCain's campaign. His biggest argument against Obama was that he has little experience. In picking he Palin, he's nullified this argument. It may be a valid argument to make, but in picking Palin, McCain now looks like a giant hypocrite. It's true that Obama can't argue about Palin's experience, but he doesn't have to because he can now argue that even McCain doesn't believe that experience is that important.

This is basically what I've been saying in my argument with Memorize. How can McCain make attacks on Obama's inexperience, when he chose a running mate that has that exact flaw. What was he thinking?

At 8/28/08 09:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: the biggest Obama supporters happen to be non-Americans who absolutely despise the US at the core of their being

NOTE: This is what cellardoor6 actually believes

At 8/29/08 04:29 PM, Memorize wrote: Hence: "Even still"

Now he's able to indirectly attack Obama on experience just by picking her. His VP is more experienced than their Presidential Nominee.

How would that work? "Hey guys, Obama is so inexperienced, he's more inexperienced than my running mate! And that's saying something since she's pretty gosh diddly darned inexperienced!"

That only draws attention to the fact that he's picked an inexperienced running mate.

Obama banks on judgment, transparency, transcendancy, and reaching across party lines and/or going so far as to cross their own party. So far, the only 3 people even capable of doing that in this presidential race are John McCain, Palin, and Ron Paul.

Obama banks on transcendency? Care to explain what you mean by that? And how is John McCain crossing his own party? Ever since he's recieved the nomination he's basically started agreeing with everything the current administration has done or is doing. Furthermore, Obama banks on a transition from a government owned by personal interests, to one owned by people.

You don't find it strange that McCain will now be attacking Obama for flaws that are present in his own running mate?

Sort of.

But not as much, if only because of several differences:

-She's the Vice Presidential pick, not THE Presidential pick.

Which shows that McCain really doesn't have a problem with inexperience. I mean honestly, if you're picking a candidate you should feel confident that he/she will be able to run the country if you die in office.

-She's actually a governor, which comes WITH executive experience (unlike McCain, Obama, or Biden)

But you still can't argue that she's more experienced in politics in general then McCain is. Executive experience is one thing, but the fact of the matter is that McCain/Biden have been working in Washington for far longer than she has been. By the definition McCain's been throwing around she should be considered inexperienced and unfit for office.

-She's also actually been mayor (though with a small town).

So? It's my understanding that Obama was a part of the Illinois State Senate for around 8 years. He also had a career as a civil rights attorney. Why don't we chalk those down under Barack Obama's experience?

That's why it's a smart pick. People can look at the tickets and say to themselves that the Republican VP is more experienced and actually has management/executive experience than the Democrats Presidential Nominee.

What is it with the word "more"? If Barack Obama is inexperienced, how is saying that Sarah Palin is "more" experienced say anything at all? The fact of the matter is that, Sarah Palin is an "inexperienced" VP. That's where the logical argument ends. Sarah, even is she is allegedly more experienced than Obama, is still, herself, inexperienced and thus according to McCain unfit to run the country.

The media focuses on the stories that the people are interested in. People are more interested in Obama, and don't care so much for John McCain. It's not liberal bias for the media to be focusing on a popular/controversial candidate, it's capitalism.

At 8/29/08 03:23 PM, Memorize wrote: Even still, she does have executive experience for actually being a major and governor.

Even if you did argue that being a governor gives you more experience than being a senator, you can't argue that Palin has by (McCain's/Republican Party's) definition, a lot of experience. So even if you did argue she has more experience than Obama, you can't argue that her inexperience is moot because of this.

And she's actually done something fairly big as well, taking on big oil Republicans in corruption cases (her being the whistle blower).

Obama was one of the main sponsors of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Which created the government hosted website http://www.usaspending.gov/ , which allows citizens to see where every dime of their tax money goes to. I would consider that "fairly big"

And then there's the fact that she's not the Presidential Nominee, but the VICE-Presidential nominee.

You don't find it strange that McCain will now be attacking Obama for flaws that are present in his own running mate?

At 8/29/08 01:45 PM, adrshepard wrote: Sound like anyone else? Let me do some revision:
He has been Senator for only 2 years and his friends are under investigation over ethics. He has zero foreign policy experience. He is obviously trying to get the black vote and voters of Jesse Jackson and Sharpton. Democrats are so out of touch, you can't just get a black man from left field and say vote for him because he's black and multicultural, what about the other democratic men much more qualified than him?

Now you see the beauty of it. There isn't anything the Obama campaign can fling at her that can't also be applied to their presidential candidate in some way.

Well yes, but then you also have to accept that you can't criticise obama for any of those things either, if your vice president is going to have all the same alleged "flaws". I find it interesting that McCain would pick out a vice president that is basically everything he's criticized Obama for.

At 8/26/08 08:03 PM, TheKlown wrote: Why don't you go buy some acne cream to fix your bad acne?

HURR HURR, YOU'RE SO FUNNY. Hey, I've got one! Why don't you buy some pesticide and rub it all over yourself. Get it? Cause you're a pest. Get it? *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*

A computer

A T1 connection

and a copy of Enemy Territory: Quake Wars.

AWWW YEAH BABY

At 8/25/08 11:35 AM, Earfetish wrote: Lets wait until there's been at least one clumsy accident before saying it's a terrible idea because of clumsy accidents.

Yes, lets wait until someone gets killed or seriously injured before we reconsider the dangers of putting guns on school property.

At 8/25/08 04:53 PM, 51lver wrote: okay...this is a new drifting engine that i put together(sorry gust not using your script, the maths was slightly too advanced for me at the moment) HERE is a link to the new engine...tell me what you think of it and how you like the feel of it

thanks xD

Much better than your first attempt. Good work.

At 8/25/08 12:51 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's not an abysmal success rate. Cluster bombs used by the US, such as the GBU87, only have a dud rate of 5%, that's on par with other bombs.

So one kind of cluster bomb has a low dud rate. Even if this were proven to be the cluster bomb predominantly used in US military operations, it still wouldn't change the fact that for every 100 bomblets, there are (statistically) 5 inactive bomblet that pose a threat to civilians. That's 5 accidents waiting to happen where a civilian is going to be killed or maimed by an inactive explosive.

The Pentagon also agreed to phase out the use of cluster bombs that have a failure rate of any higher than 1%.

Was that voted on by congress? If so that's what I was referring to earlier. Regardless it's pointless for the time being as cluster bombs are still currently extremely ineffective.

Even if your 98% figure was correct, which I highly doubt it actually is, even though I know you didn't just make it up, you're not thinking clearly. If the intended target was destroyed, but years later an unexploded bomblet caused deaths, that doesn't mean its success rate is low as a percentage of casualties by enemy/civilian.

It's subjective as to how you want to define success. You can drop a nuclear bomb on a bunker and kill 10 targets and call it a success, despite the thousands of deaths due to radiation poisoning afterwards.

That's just dumb to make such a connection anyway, especially considering you're entirely ignorant of the fact that cluster bombs are often used to destroy material targets and not to take out enemy fighters specifically. Sometimes they are used to saturate the target for area-denial also, which is not a directly offensive action but is nonetheless important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bom b

Well, according to wikipedia, one of the primary uses of the most common cluster bombs is to kill enemy personnel. Now I know you immediately want to jump to the conclusion that wikipedia is inaccurate like everyone seems to do around here, I want to consider the fact that you yourself have used wikipedia as a source, and thus have no room to complain.

Except it doesn't, at all.

A cluster bomb can still be dropped very accurately. As this video demonstrates. The difference is that the cluster bomb is used to destroy things over a larger area, against a larger group of enemy or material targets so it uses dozens of smaller bombs to blanket a larger area. It's not that it's inaccurate or imprecise, it's that the bomblets, like all bombs, sometimes don't go off, so weeks or years later someone might step on one or pick it up, causing civilian casualties. So the 98% casualty figure is completely irrelevant.

Actually, the 98% figure is what I was referring to, not the actual accuracy of the cluster bombs. Although the civilian deaths were not immediate, ultimately there were more civilian deaths than target deaths. So in terms of ultimate precision (which is what matters) as opposed immediate precision, the cluster bomb is not an accurate weapon.

We'll go ahead and assume they are until you can prove otherwise.

Argument from ignorance

Argument from the information we have at the time. If it works for the president it can work for us.

Go ahead and prove that cluster bombs are only used on human targets to validate the applicability of the 98% figure even if it did apply to American cluster bombs specifically and not a total of all the cluster bombs used in the world.

I wouldn't need to prove that human targets are exclusive, just primary. Which they are, and I have shown. But in case you've forgotten, I'll give you the link again.

And yet your premise in the first place is not true, you're assuming as a fact that cluster bombs are unnecessarily causing civilian casualties. Little do you know, but cluster bombs not only save US lives, but their use can actually result in LESS damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure than what the unitary weapons like the Hellfire missile or the JDAM bomb would cause.

Right, that would be true of the immediate situation. But once again, you can't predict how many of the cluster bombs are going to be duds. In the long run, it's possible that unexploded bomblets caused more collateral a precise explosive would have. Not that I'm recommending we drop either.

Except for the fact that not only is it improving cluster bombs to be safer, but cluster bombs are actually potentially better to use when trying to minimize casualties.

You like to repeat yourself alot.

You said protocol.

I was actually mistaken, but not in the way you think. It isn't protocol to shoot up everything in the area, but it is authorized. Which is why many of the ex soldiers insist that acts like this were common. Every time an IED went off, every time a shot was fired from the crowd, the soldiers get the go ahead to basically kill whatever they want. Which they do without fear of persecution because there aren't enough resources to investigate the incidents:

While some veterans said civilian shootings were routinely investigated by the military, many more said such inquiries were rare. "I mean, you physically could not do an investigation every time a civilian was wounded or killed because it just happens a lot and you'd spend all your time doing that," said Marine Reserve Lieut. Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia. He served from August 2004 to March 2005 in Ramadi with a Marine Corps civil affairs unit supporting a combat team with the Second Marine Expeditionary Brigade. (All interviewees are identified by the rank they held during the period of service they recount here; some have since been promoted or demoted.)

By anonymous tips I thought you were referring to those made by soldiers against other soldiers. But all you just provided was information that US forces tend to act on the anonymous tips of Iraqis for whose homes to raid... that exerpt didn't include anything about civilians dying from it.

No, perhaps I was a bit off topic referring to the US terror tactics in general as opposed to the specific anti-civilian tactics. But hey, speaking of investigations into civi

While some veterans said civilian shootings were routinely investigated by the military, many more said such inquiries were rare. "I mean, you physically could not do an investigation every time a civilian was wounded or killed because it just happens a lot and you'd spend all your time doing that," said Marine Reserve Lieut. Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia. He served from August 2004 to March 2005 in Ramadi with a Marine Corps civil affairs unit supporting a combat team with the Second Marine Expeditionary Brigade. (All interviewees are identified by the rank they held during the period of service they recount here; some have since been promoted or demoted.)

Looks like you were wrong about those investigations too.

It seems like you're still bitter about the fact that every time you've ever argued me you've been completely proved wrong and humiliated. Nice to see that you quickly resume your same old shenanigans after your long hiatus though.

If I'm bitter cellar it's certainly not because of you. You don't get to me, because I know it's your tactic. You just nag, repeat, and strawman your opponent into a corner, committing fallacy after fallacy as you do, until they finally get fed up with and leave. Speaking of which, I have no intention of entering an extended debate with you.

At 8/24/08 10:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Cluster bombs are tactically necessary sometimes. Therefore their use is not a deliberate attempt to kill civilians and not using them might be counterproductive because less dead Taliban in many cases means more dead Afghans.

I don't see how a weapon which statistically has such an abysmal success rate could ever be necessary. That's like saying nuclear bombs are sometimes necessary. For what? leveling an entire area?. Kind of works against your theory of precision warfare.

That doesn't mean 98% of the victims of American cluster bombs are civilians.

We'll go ahead and assume they are until you can prove otherwise. Which I'm guessing you can't because you've probably already tried to google search something that fits your assumption and found nothing.

Although not so long ago this was voted on in congress (they decided that the number of malfunction cluster bombs had to be decreased by a certain times, I think)

That would imply that the US is working to reduce civilian casualties.

It definitely would, and I have no problem giving credit where credit is due. However, this does not negate the very real fact that cluster bombs notoriously cause incredibly large amounts of civilian casualties.

Telling of the fact that cluster bombs are still necessary sometimes.

Telling that the US Military isn't concerned with the long term effects of it's actions. specifically, undetonated cluster bombs in Iraqi and Afgan neighborhoods.

That's completely bullshit.

Next.

You would hope so.

"well um... for example...when um... IED would go off, Improved Explosive Devices, by the side of the road. The instructions were, or the practice was, to shoot up the landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen alot."

-The US military does not provide enough resources for proper investigations into anonymous tips.

Yeah they do.

So, not to sound like a sarcastic asshole or anything. But does this make you a liar? because it seems any time someone else is misinformed in an argument against you it makes them a liar.

"Intelligence

Fifteen soldiers we spoke with told us the information that spurred these raids was typically gathered through human intelligence -- and that it was usually incorrect. Eight said it was common for Iraqis to use American troops to settle family disputes, tribal rivalries or personal vendettas. Sgt. Jesus Bocanegra, 25, of Weslaco, Texas, was a scout in Tikrit with the Fourth Infantry Division during a yearlong tour that ended in March 2004. In late 2003, Sergeant Bocanegra raided a middle-aged man's home in Tikrit because his son had told the Army his father was an insurgent. After thoroughly searching the man's house, soldiers found nothing and later discovered that the son simply wanted money his father had buried at the farm.

After persistently acting on such false leads, Sergeant Bocanegra, who raided Iraqi homes in more than fifty operations, said soldiers began to anticipate the innocence of those they raided. "People would make jokes about it, even before we'd go into a raid, like, Oh fucking we're gonna get the wrong house," he said. "'Cause it would always happen. We always got the wrong house." Specialist Chrystal said that he and his platoon leader shared a joke of their own: Every time he raided a house, he would radio in and say, "This is, you know, Thirty-One Lima. Yeah, I found the weapons of mass destruction in here.""

There's more. You should read the whole thing.

And yet... anonymous tips have ended up with troops being Court Marshalled and pulled from duty several times.

several being the operative word. That's some pretty clever weasel wording cellar, I have to admit.

At 8/24/08 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: -The use of precision weapons such as Hellfire missiles or JDAM GPS-guided bombs in place of artillery would be cheaper but less precise and would result in higher civilian casualties in the surrounding area.
-The almost excruciatingly long and drawn out procedure from the point a possible target is identified, to the point that forces are given the clearance to deploy weapons at all.
-The simple fact that events like are mentioned in the article are rare, showing that the US is still putting effort into preventing civilian deaths because they are an exception and not the norm. If the US wasn't trying to minimize civilian casualties, the US would be carpet bombing the civilian areas of Afghanistan similar to firebombings in Europe during WWII, instead of using targeted strikes like it does.

Fair enough. Now here are the ways the US occupation force is increasing the civilian death toll with their tactics:

-Although the US does precision weapons, the US does not always use such weapons for bombings. The cluster bomb is still employed by the US despite it's use notorious for causing massive amounts of a civilian casualties. Last time I heard, about 98% of all cluster bomb casualties are civilians. Although not so long ago this was voted on in congress (they decided that the number of malfunction cluster bombs had to be decreased by a certain times, I think), the fact that cluster bombs have been employed for so long in the face of such a gruesome statistic is telling.
-The US orders it's troops to kill indiscriminately. every time and IED explodes, it is protocol to kill everything in the immediate area.
-The US military does not provide enough resources for proper investigations into anonymous tips. Former soldiers from Iraq have stated that many killings by US troops, ordered or not ordered, go unreported.

I have yet to see my question answered.

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's a fact of war. It has happened before and it will happen again. People fail to realize it. They also fail to realize how much effort goes into minimizing civilian casualties.

Like what?

At 8/24/08 11:26 AM, Paranoia wrote: You need to post examples of your work if you want people to seriously consider working with you.

I don't see why anyone would care if he's going to pay.

while(1==1){};

I know. I know. I'm far too generous.

Well it's better than my first game was. That's not saying much though.

My advice for some minor tweaks to help the aesthetics of your game.

-find some new music, what you have now is obnoxious.
-get rid of that curly text and get some more suiting text, even the standard Ariel/Times New Roman would be better
-don't use a ripped image as your background. If you dont want to make your own just go with a neutral gray background.
-spend some time to make your menu a bit more symmetrical. put this code into your "Start" and "Instructions" buttons for starters (assuming they're both movie clips, which they probably aren't):

onClipEvent(enterFrame){
this._x = (Math.abs((this._width-Stage.width)/2))
}

anyways, I think it will probably pass. Just don't expect to make front page or anything.

Neither, they're both shitty Halo ripoffs.

At 8/23/08 11:33 PM, Frankmank wrote: VARIABLES, DO YOU SPEAK THEM?

you seem like a very helpful guy.

Scrolling is easy. It's like this: Instead of making your character move when you press the arrow keys, make the background move in the opposite direction when you press the arrow keys. If you want the specific codes a tutorial will probably be more helpful than this.

At 8/23/08 09:05 PM, zrb wrote: I jsut stoel all yoru ashkunzkript codse dued !
I decmoplied yrou gaem mna !

Wow you're cool. I made that shit in like 10 minutes , whoopdee fucking doo.

Also, to anyone who downloaded that .fla file I provided. I hope you learned a valuable lesson.

more like:

on(rollOver){
this.gotoAndPlay(3);
}

and it doesn't have to be a button.

At 8/23/08 02:28 PM, cumSum wrote: nobobyd is goign 2 paly yrou gamem if U doens't put SONIC inti n00b

pfft sonci is a pansy!!! goku is wehre its at lol

At 8/23/08 05:37 PM, Memorize wrote: I still lol'd

He's made an ad already?