Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Never mind, i found it. Its called Luncheon of the Dead.

At 8/14/11 04:43 PM, KoOsHa wrote: Last Stand and Last Stand 2

No thats not it.. its older then that. Your in a mall or store. and the zombie come from the entrance at the bottom of the screen.

At 8/14/11 12:36 PM, EmperorOfSwag wrote: when my pets die i buy them a GOLD COFFIN

i read the bible at their FUNERAL

i make sure everyone pays attention and knows that my pet DIED

my pet might be annoying to others but i LOVED

my PET

WOOF WOOF HEAVEN IS A PLACE FOR DOGS AND HUMANS ALIKE WOOF WOOF

AIN'T NO HELL FOR AN INNOCENT OL' DAWG LIKE YOU

Tell this to the catholic church, "Animals have NO SOULS" just like gingers. lol

So a few years ago i played a strategy/defense/shooter game that takes place in a mall or store. There are three stores connected, and an area that leads to them. You use your men (like 10 of them) and divide them up into savaging ammo, money, and barricades, then the other men you use to shoot the zombies that are coming through the entrance way...

Does anyone one know what this game is? I played it here on newgrounds, and i cant find it at all.

At 9/9/09 06:39 PM, Jinzoa wrote: On a sidenote of the "benefits culture" the UK seems to have, quite a few people who want to get back to work are in those situations of either kids/loans etc. Assuming they could land a job it generally has to be both stable and often above the minumum wage...why? because benefits quite often than not gives them [b]more[/b] than alot of jobs available could. It pays their rent + the added sum they get is usually alot more than a fulltime job could get them which shows how the system can be flawed at times.

Ok, yes i know what your saying about the people who want to get job's being the students who graduated and have loans, the problem is basically the same here in the US. And of course if they have a loan, there going to need a job that pays more then min. wage, or else they would never be able to pay it off. But when you were talking about benefits i had a question..

Are there jobs that will pay for an apartment for you? Or i guess what i mean is, are there jobs that as a benefit pay for your housing, while you also get money for working? Because the only job that ive ever heard of that does this is the Military, and unless you live off a military base they technically dont pay for any of there persons housing, they own it and run it(well at least privet companies run it for them.)

Thats actually a great idea. I dont mind people spening welfare money on things, i do mind when they waste it when it wont help them at all with there job, or make there life easier while they still want more money... But your idea is really good. Sure helping people threw school is good, because once they are educated they have a better chance of being hired somewhere that makes more money then min. wage. And it is true if they spend it on legit things, that they will use then it does go back into the economy so thats good.

At 9/7/09 01:38 AM, Toadenalin wrote: The most popular change in the UK at the moment isn't about time-limiting but about vacancy-limiting.

The idea is that anyone who turns down three consecutive jobs that they are pysically able to do loses all welfare payments until they have had a year back in paid employment.

I can see the superficial appeal of this scheme, but I think it could be extremely difficult to balance right - suppose I am studying for a Business degree at night school and have to turn down three jobs that clash with my classes? Or suppose I turn down two jobs, get a cash-in-hand job at a bar, get made redundant next year then turn down another job (making the total the government knows about three)? Suppose I have children and want to stay at home to look after them?

Thats interesting, i didnt know that UK was doing that, and yes there are many reasons to not work, i will agree with you there. But if someone is going to school, and cant pay for it all, there's always student loans. And well, i cant hold that much sympathy for mothers who have 2 or 3 kids and no father, sure it happens, and yes they would obviously need support somehow, after all if they are single then who would watch the kids while they work? Noone. But the solution for that, go on welfare, and try finding someone that can support, a good boyfriend who works, or live with family, if there is any, and try making a living together. But the whole problem about people who have kids and are on welfare, its extreamly hard for them to get anyware, after all once you grow up in the slums, and have kids and live in the slums, it gets more and more impossible to get out. The reason i said i cant hold much sympathy is not because of anything they are in, they have problems, and what makes it worse is they have more kids, which in end only makes things worse if they cant even hold a family in the first place...

Ok, that whole paragraph, only applies to what 1/15 single women, im not saying that i just think we should get rid of welfare and let natral selction set in and kill off those who are unworhty of living here, thats un human, they need help, and in the situation of a single mom, they ARE the one's who need help, not the 23 year old high school drop out druggie who has 5 kids because they party all the time....

At 9/7/09 03:49 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 9/6/09 01:54 AM, pbishop2010 wrote: I dont have a problem with welfare, but Opera Winfrey said it right, Welfare is ONLY a pick me up, and is not meant to live off of. After all she was on welfare once, and look where she got just by trying to make a living...

What are your thoughts?

Using a success story to drum up interest in welfare reform is fucking retarded.

That's the entirety of my thoughts.

I was just using an example, Im just disscussing this, and no i dont think that any kind of reform will happen about welfare, because obama is all about supporting the poor and making them rich by taking money from the rich.... Go ahead and think what you want, i just think that many things are wrong with the united states government, and if a few things were changed the citizens of this country would be better off. Now i do not support the things the health care reform is saying, but i agree that something needs to be done, after all as an example, Going to walmart to buy a bottle of aspirin, it cost around $5 to get it, when it only cost around a dollar to make. We are paying for research on a product that was made 50-100 years ago. That needs to change.. My thoughts on welfare is just that its kinda out of control, im not saying that there is too much money flowing into that program, just that too much of the money is getting wasted, rather then used wisely

At 9/7/09 10:57 PM, TDwizBang wrote: just because your homeless dosnt declare you less of a human and should die faster. thats not a solution at all.

as a matter of fact if i am not mistaken thats the whole reason welfare exists.

other than that everything else you said ties into the ideas already stated before... i would think that if you are thinking of ways to improve the public system you wouldnt offer the cause for the systems purpose as a solution.

Two things, im not sure if many homeless people can even apply for welfare. Yes they do get assistance from many different agency's, most are people run thought, not government. And secondly, My idea would be to improve welfare, make it benefit both the government which is a mess right now with debt and other things, and benefit people who really need it. There's only so much money that can go towards welfare support , thats why they restrict certain people from getting it, because they say that they dont need it as bad as others do.

Improving who gets it, and helping it be distributed between the people who really just need a pick me up, so they can get their lives back is what is needed, not the people who just look at walfare as a way to survive and not work because they are lazy or disabled in some way and dont want to work when they actually could work if they had the right job, like a part time desk job. After all, as an example, people with down syndrome still have jobs, there are agency's to help them find the right job they can do, even thought they are disabled there are still jobs out there that they CAN do.

At 9/6/09 09:36 PM, Mr-President wrote: How about we just place a time limit on it? Six months maximum, and then they can't reapply for a certain amount of time.

Thats a good idea, Ex president George w. Bush had a 5 year limit on it, but now that it went from a republican president to a democrat Im not sure if Obama got rid of that or not, 5 years is a long time to be on welfare thought, but i bet the reason its that long is because putting it at 2 years or shorter, i bet that people in congress wouldn't want to pass it because after all, most of there popularity comes from the poor and immigrants. If they "look good" towards those who struggle with life, and say "I will help you out" then they get more votes.
If they voted towards a shorter time period of how long people can be on welfare then they would lose votes..

Thats just my idea thought, i could be wrong... But putting a limit on it is a great idea, too bad not many people would vote for it.

At 9/6/09 12:01 PM, cHunter wrote: No more snow? Fuckin' a, I love this "Global Warming" bullshit so much!

If you dont like snow, then why dont you move to some place like phoenix or LA, where it only snows like every 10 years...

Well yes, im not a lawmaker, im just 17. And this is just an idea i thought up, im sure someone out there has a better idea of how to fix it.

I thought about first shutting it down for a day and possibly up to a week.. When it starts back up, everyone who wants to receive a check MUST apply for it, and will be evaluated. Basically, depending on what they spend it on, or how long they have been on it, or there life situation( where they live, how many kids they have ect.. ) Once evaluated, its determined if they need and even deserve a check or not. And from that day forward they have a limited amount of days/weeks before they Must get a job (depending on the situation, but almost always) and when they get a job, the checks will either stop coming or lower.

The basic idea is to help them even more, rather then just giving them money. Have people who can help them manage it, and also people to help them get a job.. random things that help them get on there feet, and plus once their on there feet they help the economy by supporting it in their own way, by spending their personal money, rather then money the government gave them.

So recently all the US government has been trying to do is reform things and make the economy better while fixing national debt.. Yes all these things need to be done, but the way the government is trying to do it will not work, at least it wont be efficient enough.

Ive had the idea of reforming Welfare for a couple of months now. By this i mean, go in and actually make everyone who is applying for a welfare check have to budget their money, and spend it properly. Welfare is NOT meant to live off of, it is for when you get laid off, or cant get a job and unemployement isnt enough, or you dont qualify. It is ment to be a pick me up, and get you back on your feet so that you can go get a job like every other person in the working class.

The welfare system is abused so much, people spend all there money on drugs and then go back high and demand more money. Or some spend it on stuff they dont need, Tv's, computers ect.

I dont have a problem with welfare, but Opera Winfrey said it right, Welfare is ONLY a pick me up, and is not meant to live off of. After all she was on welfare once, and look where she got just by trying to make a living...

What are your thoughts?

At 9/2/09 04:05 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 9/1/09 08:29 AM, Eddyking wrote: I really don't see the problem with socialized healthcare. So what if its socialist? The cold war is over and America needs some socialism in it.

The world does not need any socialism.

I totally agree with you. If ppl think that socialism is somthing to mess with then i say lets show them what it truely is made out of. So everything is "fair" , in a city of 5 people, 3 are homeless and 2 have cardboard boxes with a few pennies, next the government steps in, takes the boxes and splits them up, and all the money is taken for taxes...
Or an even better example, i work for a living, and after years of managing my money well i have left over money for retirement, the government punishes me by taxing me higher then someone on walfare, who pays nothing and saves nothing

At 8/12/09 03:40 AM, AngryBanana wrote: Blah blah blah crazy racism.

How about no pride at all, and we can just live our lives?

Im with you. Sure i believe that if blacks are going to have black pride, then so should whites. but honestly, it doesnt matter, so why cant it be american or uk (whatever country your in) pride

I may be wrong, but whatever. In my opinion, this current "global warming" is only the beginning, next is an iceage. After all scientist have predicted it, and that today's measures show that the earth is slowly cooling again.

At 1/4/09 09:32 AM, Lizzardis wrote:

At 1/4/09 08:56 AM, Crazymonke wrote:

I think you should buy some games for your computer console!

Well i was thinking about taking $100 out of my account and buying an ipod touch... I had one in june that i got for my birthday... But one of my "friends" stole it and then claimed he didnt have it..

At 1/2/09 09:03 PM, Rallard wrote:

"The belief that men's private parts can magically be stolen by incantations or even a simple handshake is widespread across parts of western Africa."

Wow. Also, that video was pretty disturbing.

Wow, you think thats bad... In juarez mexico (the city south of el paso) they get cinder blocks and throw them at emo's heads... Oh also cutting there veins out.

Its because they all suck ass. DR. Pepper # 1!!!

At 1/4/09 07:42 AM, Crazymonke wrote: Anyone got any advice?

Yep, Lay on a bed made of ice cold needles, glass and that's covered in tarantulas and scorpions. Try goin to sleep on that

At 1/4/09 09:23 AM, Cyberdevil wrote:

At 1/4/09 09:11 AM, ps2master wrote: spend it on food etc to keep you going

An obviousity you don't ask about :P
I think.

What? lol

At 1/4/09 09:21 AM, SCUD14 wrote:

At 1/4/09 09:16 AM, pbishop2010 wrote: Haha, why do you say that?

It's not a survival horror.

Then what is it? A death horror?

At 1/4/09 08:59 AM, IrishGun wrote:

At 1/3/09 11:21 PM, pbishop2010 wrote: Resident Evil 5

This is going to be awful.

Haha, why do you say that?

At 1/4/09 09:02 AM, Sensationalism wrote: Eat it!

Yuck, used dyed denim taste bad, so no.

At 1/4/09 08:57 AM, Archon68 wrote: You should give it to me.

Only if you'll help me kill zombies when the apocalypse comes. lol

At 1/4/09 08:56 AM, Crazymonke wrote: You should hire a cheap hooker that has multiple STDs and totally fuck her silly.

So is your mom busy?? Haha

I got $160 for Xmas... What should i do with it??... I had a bank account with about $2000 in it... But since i went on a spending spree about a year ago its down to $500. Haha. Anyways... I'm left wondering What should i spend it on??

At 1/4/09 12:31 AM, seahawk95 wrote:

At 1/4/09 12:08 AM, pbishop2010 wrote:

At 1/4/09 12:04 AM, malachi117 wrote:

l4d has next gen graphics not retro. retro is super mario 64 or the original sonic the hedgehog

Next generation graphics huh?.... If you call that next generation graphics then we aren't getting anywhere. They have modernized graphics, but certain graphics about the game are made with outdated versions.

At 1/4/09 12:26 AM, Blaze-Heatnix wrote:

At 1/4/09 12:23 AM, pbishop2010 wrote: Mario Tetris for GameBoy

Not for GameBoy. That is DS, and if it isn't, it's Advance.

Chinatown wars

Broken link.

oh whoops, sorry... but still... if you do see a pic of it, it is one of the worst looking games i have seen since like 2000