Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/16/09 09:17 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Being a sociopath helps my friend. Please I doing this from a practical standpoint so please give me a reason to not feel this way.

Well if you're a sociopath you'd be the first to go - is a lack of self-preservation a symptom of sociopaths? I mean,
BUT! I'll play by your rules. Let's look at... Sparta.

I also believe Nazi Germany had a thing for killing all handicapped citizens... The human mind which lacks the logical ability to empathize or sympathize can never know evolution. Is not a deep understanding of human emotion a sign of evolution? That's just what empathy is.

Humanity is so far advanced that we've created a society in which even the weakest among us can thrive. To destroy this element is not evolution, regardless of how powerful the human body or the human mind becomes.

Then we should start with you because your cognitive ability is seriously flawed, you sick brute.
You deserve nobody's respect. To be so nonchalant about killing the less fortunate is troubling. Troubling.

At 2/20/09 09:47 PM, Al6200 wrote: If people did the same thing to Obama, calling him a monkey because of his appearance and calling him an idiot because he's from the inner city - there would extreme cries of racism.

We shouldn't really have that problem, because he conducts himself rather well, I would claim. And he doesn't really look like a monkey.

And it would be racist - to insult him BECAUSE he's from the inner-city. I didn't insult Bush because he was from Texas; I insulted Bush because he conducted himself as an untouchable fool. To insult someone because they're from the inner-city and nothing else falls back on racial overtones (or perhaps just socio-economic overtones; either way, offensive).

Besides, especially where I live, I've heard plenty of insults about Obama - moreso than even Bush and McCain in certain circles. There just won't be any "Obamaisms" because he won't repeatedly butcher the English language in such an astounding manner as President Bush did.

As when Washington crushed the mutiny in the Revolutionary Army; an example for everyone. :)

At 2/14/09 09:45 AM, Korriken wrote: His apology is insincere. Why do i say this? When the problem arose, he stood by Daschle. He only apologized when he realized the move had hurt him politically. That's like a child breaking something, denying he broke it, then apologizing when his parents show em the videotape of him breaking it.

You're failing to see that he didn't HAVE to apologize. By apologizing, according to your logic, he's pandering to the right. By not apologizing and continuing to stand by Daschle, he's pandering to the left.

Now, I wonder which base is going to get him reelected. Hmm... Maybe he apologized because he realized he was wrong and wanted to clear his name? Maybe he apologized because he wanted to show America that he was willing to admit his error and cut his losses? Because for the last eight years anytime something's gone wrong, it was always somebody ELSE's fault. And because of the insistense that "I AM NOT WRONG, I AM RIGHT, AND EVERYONE WILL SEE MY GLORY," we've dug ourselves in a shithole.

You do see that, don't you?

Korrken, that's all well and good and I totally agree with everything you said.
That's right.

It's just a shame I was referencing your unfounded bias of Obama as a "bad" politician rather than the fact that all politicians are pretty much just jockeying for power.

Then you insulted the Democratic Party for passing a resolution with no Republican votes in the House and just 3 in the Senate. What would the Republicans have done in the same situation? What would ANY party have done in the same situation?

There's no need to compromise when you don't need it to pass, which actually supports your argument and I actually agree with it. But I have my own opinion; there's no chance in hell I'd want a compromise with the GOP with the way they've been acting, say, the last 25 years.

You then bring in valid points to further demonstrate that all politicians want is power and they do ANYTHING to achieve it. And something about the power struggle in America is subtle compared to developing countries.

Which I do not doubt. I was simply trying to be polite enough to swear off our disagreement on Obama. You seem to take him as the antichrist, and yes, that is the picture you are painting. I was willing to concede that. But because you took my comments out of context, you insulted my logic, and I find this rather frustrating.

I'm sure you'll say that I could've made myself clearer in my remarks, and because I really don't enjoy speaking to you, I'll just concede that also. Let's just say this whole misunderstanding is my fault, because I really don't care and I won't blame this whole "disagreement" on your flawed logic, as happened to me. I still gather from your comments you would see the stimulus fail for the good of the Republican Party than you would see the stimulus succeed for the good of the country.

And of the irony? I'm not exactly sure whether or not I support the stimulus. I just know that I trust Obama's character, and I'm having a difficult time seeing why you don't.

And please, don't mention Ayers, his pastor, or even the faults of his cabinet. I've weighed all of these myself, thanks. Is Obama a good politician? You have no clue. I have no clue. We only have time. But is Obama a good man? I would wager a "yes" vote at this point. You would have that any other way.

meh, korrken, there's no logic to either of our arguments besides personal bias, so I agree to disagree. :)

And I do appreciate you not ripping on Pelosi or Obama for silly mistakes and personal preferences. Who says intelligent users don't lurk the Politics forum anymore? In fact, I have the most difficult time comprehending the complexity of the arguments here than I do ANYWHERE else, so I give kudos to everyone who posts here regularly for their clarity.

And tact, even.

At 2/6/09 02:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Yeah, the only way I'd be behind that kind of auditing system is if in the same breath as them saying "if you make tips, you need to report them as income on your taxes..." that they then say "...and because we're doing that, anyone who is employing people in a serving capacity where they've given a completely sub-standard wage because they figure tips will make up for it now has to pay the server a living wage in line with state minimums and such".

But I can't see that happening, can you? You can't start taxing tips unless you're willing to overhaul the restaurant industry and make them change the way they pay people.

I would actually agree to that auditing system, it would work, I'm rather surprised :)
But you're right, I don't see it happening. Business owners want as much control over their business as possible, so if the government steps in to do audits, you've effectively pissed half of the populous off because "big brother is watching." :/

At 2/7/09 07:36 PM, Korriken wrote: IF it hadn't been made such a big public deal, he would have pushed him through.

Yeah, it's so tragic that "left-wing" media pushed it through, right? ANY politician would have done that. I would hire a heroin addict if he could get the job done; you can't exactly do that in politics without an uproar.

You said you listened to other news to keep it in perspective. You just listen to it to hear the argument. You buy the conservative talk. And I'm really not insulting you, you just need to know that about yourself.

I find no fault in you saying "admitting it does nothing." I can deal with that. But you seem to be implying that Obama is of such little character he's only doing it to make himself look good, as if he's not genuinely apologetic for the situation given the circumstances.

That I do not like. I don't even know if I'm right or wrong in my belief of his morality, but you can't make such an accusation because you don't know a thing about him personally.

At 2/4/09 10:48 PM, slowerthenb4 wrote: unless it(scotus) really wants too... hahaha

I was about to say, I think they SECEDED in doing that before :)

At 2/5/09 06:11 PM, n64kid wrote: Audit every public official!

Everyone working for tips at a restaurant should be audited too. According to an IRS study, only 40% of tips received nationwide are reported as income. This underreporting needs to stop.

Please Obama, change this madness. Waitresses need to pay their fair share!

Is that REALLY your issue? The waitresses I know get paid $2.50 and hour, spare them something man.

At 2/5/09 10:07 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Agriculture is 1.2% of the GDP and 0.6% of the total labor force.
So no.
174 billion dollars is not a lot for you, but it is for the third world.

Since when is tangible economics about how small of a hit we take? I do happen to care about that 0.6% of the labor force, my grandfather was a farmer and they're everywhere in Georgia. Protecting domestic farming is more important than protecting foreign interest, IMO.

If you watch the Falcons play then you know the Turner-Norwood combo they have going with both power and speed works great :)

WWIII's gonna take place in South America just because infotainment and a zero-risk culture influences media coverage in other regions?

Have you tried the BBC? They cover EVERYTHING, by region. Google "South American News" as well, you'll find anyting you need and more. And more.

At 2/4/09 07:26 PM, Mugabe wrote: Homosexuality is the disease of the white man.

And monkeys, bats, dolphins, and TROLLS.

At 2/4/09 06:46 PM, Ravariel wrote: Word. Bout time someone manned the fuck up and mea culpa'd. His TV interviews after the Daschle thing impressed me more than any speech I've ever seen of his.

I hope, at least with the way Obama seems to conduct himself, that his presidency will set a moral standard for years to come.

No more candidates like Bush. Hell, no more candidates like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or McCain, either. I don't want someone perfect; I want someone honorable.

And about the auditing, yes, great idea. I wonder who's going to pass the legislation? :P
And someone's sig quoted the number of mistakes in Obama's cabinet? Yes, he's made mistakes. We know of them because he's come clean with them. I can say Obama's been wrong and his transition team didn't always do their homework. But I can also say he's handled everything in stride and with class.

Still too early to judge too much, though.

At 2/3/09 11:59 PM, pilpopper wrote: This is all information ive gathered from varies sites. Im actually an Obama supporter so dont misinterpret me as one of those socialism crying nutjobs.
Really I just dont know how to feel about this and wanted some input. Just to clear things up.

Okay okay, that's good. :)
And we could argue all day, but it doesn't matter unless we know how the DoD feels about this. There obviously has to be some support somewhere, right?

Cultures and societies never advance because of discoveries of the elite.
Cultures and societies always advance because of collective understanding and evolution. A "super race" that would make us all foolish wouldn't benefit the greater good of anyone but this "super race."

...But apologizes and promises to more forward.

This specifically references Sen. Daschle's tax evasion and Nancy Killefer's quote "tax issues."

I'm still unable to discern whether or not Daschle's tax errors were a mistake or something more sinister. It's a shame it'll marr his years of service.

This all comes after Gov. Richardson's withdrawal from Commerce Secretary in January. Bad luck or cursory cabinet-filling, d'you think?

At 2/3/09 11:07 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/3/09 03:18 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 2/3/09 10:50 AM, Chase1336 wrote: i appose guys getting married but not girls

Care to state your reason(s) why?

Double standards and stupidity.

And sexism. Which is an extension of both.

So by titling in "A New Draft", you're hoping to play on some delusional fear that Obama will require us to serve?

Because you just led into that in your last post. I'm a little confused.

Let's not be overanalytical here folks. The act speaks loads to Emmanuel's character, but not so much to who's "in charge" by any means.

At 2/3/09 09:08 AM, ariades wrote: Most people are socialist at young age, and turn more right when they get older :D

I speak regularly with one socialist.
I will agree there's more of a left-right shift, but not usually involving socialism.

At 2/1/09 09:08 PM, Al6200 wrote: What I find really ironic is that someone can declare themselves a communist and still get taken seriously in American academia (and to a less extent the public at large), while anyone who says that they're a Nazi is immediately discredited and pushed out of mainstream society. But in reality communism did far more damage to the world than Fascism. They are not even on the same order of magnitude.

That's because every Nazi I've met (which would be two, but I get a good idea from Stormfront) doesn't possess any type of logic; they are racist, anti-semitic bigots who almost seem to thirst for hatred and destruction of people and culture (sans white culture, mind you).

Communists, regardless of how you feel about their ideologies, do not typically feel this way; least not in America.

Historically, you have a point, though. I don't regard anyone who considers themselves Communist to be "ignorant" or anything, but it's such a BOLD ideology to hold, very radical and yet very difficult to purport without the one thing they supposedly detest; the bourgeoisie.

The whole "MEH! NATURAL TAKEOVER BLAH!" thing doesn't seem to feasable to me. No political, cultural, or social ideology will last forever, no matter how perfect it may seem.

At 2/2/09 10:48 PM, Contipec wrote: People from the USA all live in their ultra luxury apartments and homes and drive their ultra luxury and ultra expensive cars. How do you expect people from the USA not to hate Communism? How do you expect people from the USA to respect popular will? They never will. People from the USA only care about taking care of their riches.

Yes, you have America figured out. Down with me and my coherence to a working economic system, which, by the way, isn't even considered truly "capitalist."

It was my belief that the US respects popular will in this instance. Most Americans don't want communism. You're either making the assumption that most Americans want communism but refuse to respect "popular will", or, you just don't know what popular will means.

Please don't insult a mass group of people; it's problematic if you don't enjoy looking like a fool.

At 2/2/09 10:30 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Well, given the fact that a lot of people who stand against Putin seem to get killed, including a spy (by Plutonium, you may remember), there is probably merit to his concerns.

OH YES! I do remember. Forgive me for my youthful ignorance :)
Poor fella was bald and everything :(

great link btw, thanks.

Newgrounds doesn't have to grant you First Amendment rights. You accept THEIR terms by posting on the boards. Besides, there's a little "net neutrality", anyway, and since when has anyone paid attention to the Constitution for anything?

One of those terms is, "please don't bitch about modding." Or do so in a more, uh, tactful manner. That's a pretty rude thing to say when you don't actually have to make a decision or anything.

Before you lump all religions together like that, check out the Unitarian Universalist Church, where I will be attending once I'm in college.

It's more "study" and less "worship", which I like.

At 2/2/09 10:02 PM, Al6200 wrote: Oh yes, and as for the comment about electing actors, I have only one thing to say:

Reagen

I thought about that, but I didn't actually think he looked good enough at that age for it to matter.
Maybe a pornstar should run? Evan Stone's fiasco at the Super Bowl is nice publicity :)

Speaking of fright, I saw one of the candidates on Real time with Bill Maher who expressed the concern for his welfare and the welfare of his family because he was campaigning against Putin and company.

I'm not insinuating anything with that statement, I'm just wondering if anyone else saw it and/or legitimately feels he had a reason for concern.