Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Damn... I don't think I've ever seen such awesome ownage as Elfer just laid down.

Props.

At 12/17/07 06:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote: But let's look at your "business ethics" nonsense. Appointment positions are political in nature, and they serve at the Pleasure of the President. The President can fire all of his cabinet members tomorrow and replace them, just as an example, so that he can get fresh perspectives. And they can resign immediately without reason.

This is not a matter of ethics.

Actually, it is. Because it IS completely legal, like Memorize said. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Once we're in that realm, we call it "ethics".

At 12/16/07 08:51 PM, Yabuturtle wrote: Did you know he wants to go back to the gold standard? Oh, I guess he must be crazy to go back to that old thing. Nonsense. If we had the gold standard, then we wouldn't have as much inflation as we do now. Because the gold standard has real value, and it's not simply a piece of paper you could easily print.

Um... actually, going back to the gold standard is one of the few ideas of his that are really bad. Without the flexibility necessary for a global economy, our currency would stagnate and become even weaker on the global stage. Our inflation is under control, and has been for some time now. It's nothing we need to worry about at the moment. The Fed is doing a fine job keeping our economy relatively stable during the credit crunch. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There's a lot of talk about how the Chinese market is booming, but much of that is speculative and state-sponsored overinflation of prices to make things seem better than they are. Eventually their market will self-correct, and then we'll need both the stability and flexibility (not an oxymoron, I promise) of our own currency market.

So all I really wanted to do was post this pic, so here's the text necessary to do so. Note: it kinda ruins the joke.

At 12/16/07 02:32 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 12/16/07 02:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: Fuck winter.

That is all.

Come to Florida! It's less complicated!

Nah, too many old people. And hurricanes suck. After I get my degree, it's off to Cali for Smog and Earthquakes!

Fuck winter.

That is all.

At 12/15/07 08:07 PM, Topopop0 wrote: Al Gore definately should definately read the book "An Inconvenient Book"

it explains how hybrid cars do virtually nothing, and a whole bunch of other stuff, like how Al Gore is an idiot

Hybrid cars aren't the "answer" to GW... anyone who follows the technology already knows this. The point of hybrids is that they're a technological "next step" towards truly green transportation. Same with Corn Ethanol. It doesn't actually save us oil (takes as much to produce as it saves), but it's a step in the right direction. Their media coverage also promotes a shift in public opinion, driving us toward a greater desire to back green technology.

Also, Anthropogenic: Anthro = man Genic = genesis = created. And I'm not even a linguist.

At 12/15/07 06:29 AM, Imperator wrote: Because smart ass comments make me look smart!

Better a Smart Ass than a Dumb Ass, amirite? Anyway, I'll definitely be voting for Paul come the primaries (since there is no Dem primary, for all intents and purposes)... we'll have to see once the general election comes around if I'm still swinging his way. Might not if Obama wins the Dem side.

At 12/13/07 12:18 AM, Imperator wrote: No, get back to work! It's Finals Week damnit!

Awwww...

At 12/11/07 04:48 PM, Drakim wrote: Sigh, how many idiots are we going to have to repeat this to?

Read the fucking topic. Several people already said exactly what you said.

Do I get a cookie for being the first one to make the lame smartass comment?

At 12/12/07 07:32 PM, gipper2 wrote: To Lord Jaric, I posted 'em because I want to see shag-fag's response. Should give me a chuckle or two.
To public-enemy, yeah, I know.

Didn't you know? They're all in on the conspiracy.

As to Olberman's tirade: Daaaaaaaaaaamn.

Well put, good sir, well put indeed.

At 12/11/07 11:36 AM, Drakim wrote: Biological diversity. Humans wouldn't survive long without any other life on earth. We need other life to eaaaaaaaat.

Fuck PETA. If we weren't meant to eat animals, they wouldn't be made of meat.

Sigh, teeth doesn't grow that way. Teeth isn't made by cells that can divide, thus, they cannot grow in the normal sense. They are made by the body, somehow. I'm not sure of the details.

Our I D'er doesn't know either, so he just kinda tacks them on afterwards. It's like Magic.

coughclarke'sthirdlawcough

You don't stab people in the kneecaps. You just don't.

I do. But only on every other wednesday.

At 12/10/07 11:38 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote: What are you talking about? The super flood has evidence to support it, and I learned about it on a TV documentory on discovery, dont be so quick to dismiss science.

Hahaha. No.

Started the first vid, but I'm exhausted so I'll probably take another gander tomorrow while I'm at work... looks interesting, though.

At 12/9/07 02:26 PM, Drakim wrote: For something to be added in terms of evolution, it needs to be useful.

Tonsils
Appendix
Male nipples...

Hmmm... I guess that means we DO have a D... just that it's kinda lacking in the I.

Also, having our most vulnerable area be the hub of 4 of our 5 senses and the home of our most important organ (brain)... poor design. Put the brain at the center of the body, inside the ribcage near the heart, say, and spread the sense hubs around a bit and viola... you can lose one without dying completely. Get your eyes shot out... still got your brain, ears, taste and smell... take a shotgun to those pesky eyes as we are now... kinda inconvenient.

So... if our D is so I, then why do we eat, drink and breathe from the same hole?

At 12/6/07 05:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote: the Golden Compass is coming out soon and because of its anti-religion stance a number of religious groups have called for it to boycotted. while i find it a little ridiculous, thats not what bothers me. what pisses me off is the fact that there are people who are bitching about the fact that some people feel the movie is an attack on their views and that those with the same views should not watch this movie.
how does a Christian group's boycotting something hinder everyone elses ability to enjoy said movie?

Directly: none.

Indirectly, if they cause enough of a dearth of ticket sales, similar films will most likely not be made, and will thus eliminate the enjoyment the rest of us could have had at a later date.

Either way, it's retarded. Don't like a message in a movie? Don't see the movie. Aside from in a historical context (and musical, oddly enough... great score) I wouldn't go see Birth of a Nation, for example. I would also suggest to others to not see it (were it released today) so as to not encourage the views contained therein.

At 12/6/07 08:36 PM, Euroc wrote:
Make sense?

Absolutely... an Appeal to Authority in that case would be to claim that Global Warming is real and man-made because what'shisface said that the temperature has risen 2 degrees over the last howeverlong.

Also, I can't really claim expertise on anything, so I don't really know what to list as "Shit I Know and You Should Believe Me". I tend to cast a wide net, and thus end up being okay at a crapton of things, but never excellent at any one.

But as for stuff you can probably believe me on:

Physics (Though I bow to EndGame's expertise)
Biology (especially evolutionary)
Anthropology (especially early human)
Religion (in general, very nonspecific)
Philosophy (Locke, Rawls, logos, etc)
Music (history, theory, etc)

Credentials: Majored in Physics and Music (not at the same time) at U of M, could, with an extra year of study, get a minor in any of the other subjects listed as well as Mathematics.

I usually look shit up anyway, because I want to make sure what I remember learning is correct... and because I like learning new stuff.

one might call me a sponge...

So linking comes easy to me, and is far from monotonous (except when I have to link to talkorigins for the bajillionth time when someone says the global flood actually happened)

At 12/5/07 04:26 PM, Elfer wrote: First reply sums it up. Flip-flopping due to the emergence of new evidence is reasonable and appropriate, doing it because of a shift in popular opinion independent of new evidence is bad.

But aren't politicians, as the rulers of the people, by the people etc, morally obligated to follow public opinion?

At 12/3/07 07:15 PM, tony4moroney wrote: I nominate God. Biggest flip-flopper ever.

Wins with the first post. Congratulations.

Am I the only one who finds when candidates avoid answering questions absolutely infuriating?

"WWJD?"
"I would pray to Jesus for the blahblahblah."
THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU DIPSHIT!

"Do you believe that the Bible is 100% literally true?"
"I believe it's the word of god."
*steam from ears*

Does this shit actually fool people? Are we so stupid that we actually get distracted by this shit and don't realize that they didn't actually answer the question? Are people so blindly allegiant to their parties that they'll ignore all evidence and reality for some utopian view of what they really are...?

owait...

I guess the real question is: Why are we as a people so willing to swallow bullshit from our leaders?

At 12/2/07 06:00 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 12/2/07 04:17 PM, chocolate-penguin wrote: You're shockingly sympathetic towards Al Qaeda from what I understand.

And is it wrong?

...

Waitwaitwait... the Pope, the leader of one of the largest and most powerful religions in the world, criticized a belief system that runs directly counter to his own!? NO WAY!

that intolerant bastard!

At 11/30/07 04:57 AM, Drakim wrote: To what extent should parents be allowed to rule over the life of their children because of religion? On the mild side, they might force the kid to go to church when he doesn't want to be. But, on the more extreme side, childen of Jehovas Witnesses have died because it goes against their religion to transfer blood.

Mild guidance and education are the best imo. When you start disowning children for converting to another religion or letting them die because apparently god doesn't like us to use our free will to make life better... well then I have some issues.

So, where would you put the limit? What should parents be allowed to decide based on religion? Should parents be allowed to try to "treat" their kid because he is gay? etc

See, I'm very hesitant to put anything beyond personal limits on anything like this. I wouldn't associate with people who were Witnesses for those very reasons, but I personally don't have the power aside from my ability to gather local community pressure to change that. And I hesitate to endorse government of any level being an arbiter in the matter (mostly due to the fact that this sort of thing would need a very fine touch and the gummn't would be like swatting a fly with an abrams).

That being said, I don't think any person should die or be injured because of someone else's religious beliefs, even if they are their guardian. Life saving procedures should ALWAYS be enforced if the person themselves wants it. Issues obviously come up when we start talking about younger and younger children who may not be able to make and informed decision, but if a religious issue is endangering a life, I do believe that the hospital should have the right to assume temporary guardianship in order to get the procedure done. If someone over 13-ish says that they would rather die than accept a transfusion, then let them. At the risk of sounding rather heartless, our gene pool will be cleaner without that kind of idiocy in it.

Now as to the question of fixing "gayness"... I'm actually a bit torn. Aside from the class divide that "designer" children would create, I don't really have any issue with making your child as strong, healthy, beautiful, intelligent, and socially acceptable as possible. In all honesty can anyone who is gay say that they would not rather be straight? Ignoring silly rebellion/anti-conformist bullshit that noone believes anyway, making the life of your child that much easier seems like a rather benevolent action. However, forcibly changing a cogent person (say late teens, when most people realize their orientation) who is opposed to it is a big no-no in my book.

At 11/30/07 10:00 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: People, it's not the actual theory of evolution where the problem is, it's the principle of the matter.
If a president is willing to let faith, not evidence, have bearing on their beliefs, what does this say about his/her ability to lead a country?

Okay, so we're now up to about 3 people who "get it"... let's see if we can recruit a few more!

At 11/30/07 09:35 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 11/30/07 08:58 PM, Ravariel wrote: Because as we all know, changing your mind when presented new information is BAD! FIRE BAAAD!

I was not talking about changing your mind. I was talking about being on one side for some issues and being on another for others. It seems kinda strange.

Wait, so having a separate stance on a separate issue is bad, too? WATER BAAAAD!

At 11/30/07 05:39 PM, poxpower wrote: We still drink better beer though.
OH WHAT YOU GON SAY NOW?

Dude, saying your beer is better than America's is like saying your teeth are better than British folk's. Sure it may be true, but it's nothing to be proud of.

People give a shit. There are all sorts of organizations that are against it, people petition Ottawa to abolish it like every year.

Hippies.

Word. They only ever want to protect the cute animals. Lab rats are slaughtered in the most gruesome ways imaginable... but do you ever see some butch dyke outside a lab protesting?

At 11/30/07 08:36 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 11/30/07 07:10 PM, LordJaric wrote: The idea of being independent is that we listen to all sides not just one.

That's not a good idea, seeing as how the Democrats disagree with everything the Republicans say. In lamen's terms, independents are flip-floppy in their decision making.

Because as we all know, changing your mind when presented new information is BAD! FIRE BAAAD!

At 11/30/07 09:13 AM, Euroc wrote: Since emipirical evidence is lacking for evolution aside from micro-evolution, that makes the theory more of a philosophy.

That assumption right there would be false. Both the assumption that macro and micro evolution are two different things, and that there's no empirical evidence for large-scale change over time. If you really want me to start running the science by you, I'm game... but I'd rather not.

Same with 'created equal' as long as we believe it and it works then why not?

As long as you take it as a parable and not a literal truth, then sure. Believe that all you want. Anyway, there is only one human species... the races are less genetically different than dog breeds, so any difference between them is minuscule anyway.

Gut feelings on what issue? Evolution? Sure... Terrorists in the subways? No.

He's already made it clear that he disregards expertise, evidence and fact for pure opinion. Who's to say it won't carry over to terrorists on subways? (See Drakim's Post)

There is not pratical reason for evolution (aside from observable micro-evolution) to be taught as a science.

Again, if you want, I can go into the science and show you why that's completely incorrect.

You have mentioned ID in schools and such. Do you really think that would dumb down our kids? Really?

Actually I only mentioned it as far as the science classroom goes. If people want to teach creationism, do it in Religions class. (and yes, ID is creationism with an appeal to probability thrown in to make it look "sciencey")

Arent most of them pretty stupid anyway? Shouldnt they focus on getting them up to reading level and teaching basic math so they can balance their friggin checkbooks? Damn, some of the kids at the college cant even write a decent paper! And we are really worried about teach origins as a science? Hell, man... save that for the AP kids in a philosophy course.

Sure... math and reading and fuck everything else! That sounds like a grand idea to me! Biology and chemistry and physics... we should make those all AP classes... hell, just toss them all together into philosophy. Noone really uses that shit, anyway.

I'm passive-aggressive enough to write quotes for other people.

Yes, I noticed that. Thank you.

It was a humorous aside, not meant to be taken as your quote.

seriously, sensitive much?

At 11/29/07 11:58 PM, Euroc wrote: I'm surprised that you are taking this so seriously. Does it really matter? Is the theory of evolution really going to change policy?

Yes it does, and yes it can. Think of the recent and not-so-recent attempts to insert ID into the science classroom, or to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Then put someone who thinks that's a good idea into the most powerful position in the world. The mindset of preferring opinion to fact is not one I want in a leader. Is that something you want in a leader? Is it a feature you want in the most powerful figurehead in the world?

I mean, our declaration of independence claims that all men are created equal.. and that they have rights given by God.

Poetic license aside, what does that have to do with anything?

Evolution claims that certain races have favored traits. Aren't we as a society trying to ignore any 'favored traits' in an attempt to become politically correct?

Unfortunately, we are. Mind you, controversy of types non-political surround the studies that claim there is a significant biological difference in mental acuity between the races. Those of phenotypical features are easily documented and pretty inarguable. And whether or not there are differences... our "acceptance" of them does not make them any more or less true. If you choose to disbelieve in Evolution, it doesn't have ANY bearing on is veracity. The only thing it has bearing on is your own mental acuity.

Don't we as Americans believe that anyone can accomplish anything humanly possible if they try? (Within the constraints of their genetics, of course) Don't we like the ideaolgy that we are trying to move toward a level playing field?

Again, poetics aside, what does this have to do with the issue?

Aside from my own reservations about evolutional origins, I don't think it really matters for the president to have a stance one way or another on this issue.

You don't think it's important for the president of the united states to believe scientists? You don't think it's important that he listen to the people most knowledgeable about a subject? You're cool with him going on pure opinion... "gut feelings"?

I find that sad and pitiable... and yet another blow to humanity's esteem.

This is the way it is, don't confuse me with the facts!