Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/25/09 07:33 PM, jAk88 wrote:
Just wondering.

You're dicking around on Newgrounds. COMMIE!!!

At 3/25/09 02:31 PM, Brick-top wrote: I see that shaggy is on one of his overly emotional incoherent tirades again.

So I guess he does this crap a lot, huh?

We should all know about them by now, he leaves for a while, comes back acting innocent, stars using contradicting, backwards and hypocritical arguments and then the swearing and insults. Then he repeats the process.

Oh, well. Every court needs a jester.

OK. We got some great posts here, but this one is my favorite.

At 3/22/09 09:19 AM, Ericho wrote:
Because Jesus was the greatest teacher of all time, while L. Ron Hubbard was a nobody who died taking drugs. To say that they are equal is simply insanity.

CONGRATULATIONS! This is what I've been waiting for someone to say!

So I guess you're a Christian? And not an immortal? So how do you know Jesus said any of that stuff in the Bible?

I'm in a high level Latin class at school, and we're reading the letters of Pliny to Trajan regarding the up-and-coming faith of Christianity. They're quite interesting.

At the time it was about a hundred or so years after Jesus' death, and the faith was looked at, at least in the public eye, similar to how Scientology or Mormonism are today. Pliny was kind of a douche about it, though.

The point that I'm trying to make in this thread is that there is no difference between the Big 3 faiths and these fringe guys.

So as much as you characterize L. Ron Hubbard as a moron and a drug addict, it's just cause he lived not too long ago. You never know, in a thousand years once people forget that stuff, everyone will get their E-meters and drink the Scientology Kool Aid rather than whatever they're drinking now.

I love human culture. Oh, how soon we forget.

At 3/21/09 06:31 PM, KemCab wrote:
Druidic religions did exist in Europe for millennia, but those two are relatively modern, in the sense that the modern practice only goes back to the 20th century.

This is also true. It's like the Olympics. Even though it was practiced a bagillion years ago, it was started again after a 1500 year break. Does that mean it isn't the Olympics.

Attacking a small faith is easy because you can point out all the differences between it and mainstream religions. Major religions are like the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody touches.

PRECISELY!!! This is what I'm saying. WHY ARE THEIR BELIEFS LESS VALID THAN ANYONE ELSE'S?

At 3/21/09 06:18 PM, Ericho wrote:
I agree with him.

Why? Just a question.

At 3/21/09 06:04 PM, KemCab wrote:
I think we don't attack larger religions because they have more people to back them up, or carry weight either through money or sheer historical presence.

This is true. At the same time, Wicca and Ásatrú have been around in some form since WAYY before Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad.

Now, obviously the big 3 aren't attacked because of size, but why can the little guys be knocked around like nothing. I mean come on, most Christians who know anything about Arab culture are not a fan of Islam.

Frankly, neither am I. But I can't say it.

At 3/21/09 05:53 PM, KemCab wrote: All religions are stupid. The more people they have, the greater the backlash for criticizing a particular religion. It doesn't say anything except that the opinions of 2,000,000,000 morons is not any more valid than those of 100,000 morons.

I'm not talking about media acceptability, I'm talking about social acceptability.

I'm not talking about CNN, I'm talking mostly about the jokes and suck people make in private.

(Note to Morons, one and all: this thread is for thinking, conscious human beings. If you want to rant and rave, post it somewhere else)

I am really having trouble putting my thoughts into words for this one, bear with me here.

To begin this thread, I would like to say that I am a Deist, and have all applicable biases against organized religion. Try to cut through it.

We all watch South Park, right? Good, because it's the best social commentary on TV, IMHO.

I saw the Mormonism episode recently, and it reminded me of the Scientology episode, which got me thinking about religion in general.

The way these faiths are parodied is fucking hilarious, as well as pretty serious in its attacks. Others I talk to, in and out of the "free-thinker" circle, thought so as well.

These particular religions (along with Wicca, Ásatrú, etc.) can be parodied, maligned, and even attacked in the public square without anyone really batting an eyelash. Meanwhile, some Dutch guy makes a 17 minute movie critical of Islam (remember (rememberFitna ?) or Christianity (Remember The God Who Wasn't There?), everybody from all corners of the Media (liberal, Conservative, whatever) scatters like cockroaches to condemn it.

These faiths aren't as radically different from the mainstream ones, to be honest. They don't prescribe violence for social differences. They don't tell everyone that they'll suffer for eternity if they don't buy in. Sure, the beliefs are a bit different, but as a whole there really isn't a difference.

Well, Scientology has fought legal battles on the level of the Crusades, but no real ones.

So here's my discussion question. Why is it that that if a small group of people believe things differently, we can openly hate them, but when a large group of people believe something, we have to pretend not to hate them?

At 3/18/09 07:53 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: and if you're the kind of person who can't live or do anything without your stupid phones,computers n all that crap, fuck you, we lived with nothing back then, we don't need it.

I wonder if you're aware that without those stupid computers, you can only get up on your soapbox and spout conspiracy theories to people in the general area, right?

Now you can let the whole WORLD know how the government wants us all to be teh SLAVESSSLOLOL!

Isn't that fun!!!!

Before we get started here, I'd like to say that I find it funny that you guys here at NG respond with animosity toward ANYONE who you disagree with in the slightest.

I like to keep my threads more thought oriented and less troll oriented.

At 3/18/09 03:57 PM, Al6200 wrote:
No. Scientists get grants from the US government to do research. If there was an extreme animosity then we'd be talking about the government BANNING research. Not just cutting funds...

You'd be surprised how equivalent those two are. A major portion of any scientist's funding comes from the federal government. Cutting that can kill projects.

I don't think that distinction is as cut and dry as you're making it out to be.

Elaborate plz.

That's not an unreasonable argument. How much damage do volcanoes do? Does that justify 140 million dollars of federal funds.

He didn't say how long that money was to last. It might be for the next ten years.

Granted, it might be for the next half hour, but I see that as less likely.

That's not opposing science, it's opposing federal funds for science. There's a big difference.

Like I said, it's not as big as you think.

If the federal government doesn't fund those geologists or astronomers or whoever, who will?

At 3/17/09 07:19 PM, RDSchley wrote:
NASA, i hate you and you eat our economy alive with your overpriced, behind schedule, never-working space junk that keeps our civilization from exploring space more efficiently and quickly.

Dude. Neither the time nor the place. This is a completely different issue we're talking here.

At 3/17/09 12:29 AM, dySWN wrote: Somehow I actually doubt that a lot of these will find resolution within our lifetimes.

You make a good point. However, the reason these have been so long-lasting is that they have been passed-down from one lazy ass gen to another. The difference is, that all of it is exploding RIGHT NOW, and it seems that we're going to have to clean up our parents' mess. How Ironic.

As for the environment, no matter what we do countries like China and India will burn coal and oil until it's all gone, rendering our policies nearly moot in the grand scheme of things.

Also a good point. Despite, however their large sizes population-wise, we put out WAAAY more nastiness.

Still, did you hear about that $2000 car for India. Imagine everyone in India with a car......

At 3/15/09 05:56 PM, dySWN wrote:
I take it you've never had to clean a firearm before.

Firearms are irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make

Where in the public school system was this done without evolution being taught as well?

Also irrelevant. Intelligent design teaches children that things which cannot be proven, hell, that don't even have any EVIDENCE, can still be science. This is malignant.

There might be a god turning the gears to life on Earth, but until he signs his work, it ain't science.

The program did nothing to boost our education system, but I don't think it hurt it much either - it was all a wash in the end, IMHO.

OH. responded a bit too quickly there.

IMHO, I think it puts too much significance upon a child's ability to fill in bubbles

Even then, though, the net result is that little changed, and it follows that the net result on the sciences overall was negligible as well.

I'm aware that teachers have done this, I went to school before NCLB. George just put funding cuts into the equation in ways never seen before.

The middle school I went to is as of now labeled as "crappy" by NCLB. I swear to god, there are stalls with no doors on them. Not saying it's entirely Bush's fault (my town government is run by the sopranos), but those cuts sure as hell didn't help.

When I took standardized tests in early grade school, the science sections were always ridiculously easy. I'll never forget this question from the one I took in eighth grade:

(Picture of space shuttle going off)

What type of energy is being released?

a) Light
b) Sound
c) Heat
d) all of the above!

So far, the tendency is to place WAYYY to much emphasis on these tests.

BTW, this thread is about politicians, not republicans. Obama talks about "merit pay" for teachers, right. Sounds good, I like accountability as much as the next guy. But it's almost surely going to be based on this shit.

If funding cuts cause grade stuffing, pay cuts........

:, even if said AIDS patients disagreed with the company's policies on a moral level.

This is true, though many more dollars are going in now that said bans have been lifted.

Of course, it remains to be seen if any benefit will come from fetal stem cell research as opposed to research into other forms of stem cells, but that's not really the point of this argument.

Frankly, I hope they find adult stem cells that can do all the shit embryonic ones do. The evidence is to the contrary, but we can still cross our fingers.

Imagine, a cure for Parkinson's without having to listen to Sam Brownback rant all day long....

tl;dr - It's time to get over the 2004 election, folks.

Hey bud, I just made an offhand comment about "that moron". Everybody else took it farther than I expected.

At 3/15/09 02:21 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 3/14/09 10:53 PM, RippinCorpse wrote: The eight year intellectual dry spell we had with that moron, combined with this tough shit will put America SO far behind. We already compete badly with Europe and Asia.

Bush really didn't hold back the sciences much. In fact, one could argue that he helped push it forward -

No. He didn't. Weather resistant material can be tested in any harsh environment. Either way, Iraq is a desert (mostly). Desert climate is more predictable than any in the world.

Also, it's a matter of education with Georgey boy holding back science.

The first thing that comes to mind is the acceptance of "intelligent design" (which is creationism with a paper bag over its head) as science, which it is not.

But let's go less controversial, with the No Child left Behind Act. With the stroke of his pen, the Shrub made standardized testing the beating heart of public education.

Believe it or not, this is TERRIBLE for science. While Math or English is easily made bubble-in-the-answer friendly, the sciences cannot.

Science requires critical thinking in ways that other subjects do not, and therefore is not easily standardized, at least not up until higher levels in High School with the AP test and such, and even then, it's more a matter of preparation than talent.

From a grade school's perspective, why would you want to waste time learning about things like evolution, geology, and astronomy, when you could be doing Standardized Test practice to get better funding!!!

Do you see what I mean?

but even that's offset by the fact that private entities can and do fund research in that direction.

They didn't, usually. Thank Odin that ban got overturned. Funding comes from Federal Grants.

You're the CEO of a major company, or something, and you have X dollars to sponsor shit.

If you decide to fund stem cells, you get either:

a) no publicity, and therefore wasted money.
b) publicize it and create controversy, and therefore lose more money than you wasted.

Personally, I'd just put up a banner at Yankee Stadium, wouldn't you?

WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!

TOO MANY REPLIES!!!!!

On one hand, I'd like to see where this goes, but I made this and I'll try to stay involved.

The mod's was best thought out, methinks.

At 3/14/09 05:24 PM, SevenSeize wrote:

At 3/14/09 03:51 PM, RippinCorpse wrote:

He doesn't think spending money on volcanoes is bad. He thinks the fact it was included in the stimulus package is retarded and frankly so do I. That's not where it belongs.

Ok. Where?

First of all, very little of this bailout is going to scientists.

800 billion to corrupt, inefficient, white collar criminals: MUST PASS!!!
140 million to Geologists: PORK!! OINK OINK OINK!!!!!!

In tough economic times, we forget science.

Look at the 30s. Almost everyone who made scientific advancements was from Europe. Why? America forgets science easily.

The eight year intellectual dry spell we had with that moron, combined with this tough shit will put America SO far behind. We already compete badly with Europe and Asia.

Anyway, Bobby Jindal is republican so anything he says is going to be scrutinized by Obama's people and the democratic national party.

Obviously. This is politics. Especially considering that his whole point was to scrutinize their messiah.

For the record, I'm not a Democrat. My political thoughts are too specific to be grouped into one of two columns. I'm something like a socialist who believes in personal responsibility.

I know him personally, have campaigned for him twice, and have seen all the wonderful things he's done for the state of Louisiana.

I have no idea what he's done as a governor, and frankly don't care. I'm sure he's a wonderful guy, and seemed like a decent guy. At the same time, It isn't really Jindal, or even the bailout that's in question here.

It's US politics.

I will agree with you that the republican party does tend to shy away from science however. And I agree with you that it's very unfortunate.

LOLOL!!! You show me all that opposition towards my example, but agree with me at the end.

REMINDER TO POSTERS: GIVE OPINION ABOUT POLITICS-SCIENCE RELATIONS FIRST!!!

At 3/14/09 06:31 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:
Thinking is good.

This is true. The reason I started this thread is that I used to listen to that podcast common sense with Dan Carlin, and researchers in Britain found this to be true. I never checked the link he gave on his site (this was 6ish months ago), and can't find it. YAY!!!!

Thanks for indulging my political daydreams.

At 3/14/09 04:06 PM, SolInvictus wrote: research has a tendency of being both very expensive and highly unproductive (especially when it comes to cutting-edge stuff and "imminent" breakthroughs).

Example please.

Does anybody else feel that the government (specifically the GOP) has an extreme animosity towards science?

Oh, and I'm not talking baby-killing, human-beaver hybrid science. I mean the entire practice of understanding the world around us.

In the eyes of a politician, science is either blasphemous or a waste of money. Under Bush, the former was a more popular excuse. Under Barack, the latter.

Remember Obama's State of the Union (but not really) Address? How 'bout the GOP response by Gov. Bobby Jindal?

"140 million dollars for something called volcano monitoring?"

Gee, how could THAT be useful? This is science that has direct effects on human lives, and it is STILL attacked by the morons we put into office!

While the bailout was bumbling its way through the Senate, you could turn on C-SPAN any time around the clock and watch the Republicans taking a shit on any number of scientific initiatives to be funded by the bailout.

Why do you guys think this is? Do you think it's even happening?

140 million to understand the earth we live on (and what lava comes out of it) has always made more sense than a thousand of times that to bail out banks that don't give a shit me, my economy, or anything other than their profits.

At 3/13/09 02:46 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: A is still cheaper.

How is that? You just said that under UHC, costs would decline.

Inter-temporal analysis is also tricky, because you are ignoring technological advances that may lower or increase the cost of medicine.

So divination is easier? No one can predict technological advances.

Your conclusion is also invalid, since careless people could certainly strain the system more, if they are to take medications instead of leading a healthier life.

Cholesterol is the prime example, you can either exercise or take a pill. Exercise costs the State nothing.

This is true. Now, when I said "single-payer", it was somewhat late, and I just wanted to get my idea down.

What if the government gave out health insurance like any HMO, except the aim isn't profit. For example, if guy B wants his cholesterol pills, he has to take a tax increase, or something of that nature, for the gov't to pay for it.

Also, I believe the HMOs should stay in existence for competition's sake. How I think of this is like how I think of education. Everyone contributes a little bit to the public system, but one can pay extra if they think the government system sucks. I think France has this kind of thing.

BTW, I'm not making any huge end-all-be-all claims here, I'm just kind of thinking.

Alright, ladies and germs, we've all heard every argument about health plans, and I've always fallen on the side of the so-called "socialist medicine" that makes the whole Bible Belt collectively shit its pants.

Now, one of the biggest criticisms towards universal healthcare (UH herein) is that, to make costs SOMEWHAT reasonable, the gov't will have to pass legislation that will force Americans to curtail their fucked up lifestyles.

I'm talking things like illegal fast food, illegal tobacco, lower speed limits.

You know what? These are valid concerns.

It makes complete logical sense. Bad lifestyle choices cause hospital visits, which costs $$$$$$$! The reasoning is pretty simple.

What I'm asking you do in this thread is think a bit like me.

Here's my thesis: we all die once. Simple, no? Well it AINT!!!

In the following scenarios a single payer, universal healthcare system has been passed.

a) Guy lives a relatively healthy lifestyle. Does everything in moderation, exercises a bit. Guy gets old (humans do this). Around age, say 65-70, Guy has minor heart attack (genetic predisposition), and survives. Has to make regular visits to his doctor. Gets the biggun. Kicks the big, rusty bucket in the sky at age... go with 75-80, say?

b) Guy lives shit lifestyle. Burgers, booze, and TV. The WHOLE SHEBANG! Gets a heart attack at age.... say... 45-50. Same shtick as guy A, albeit a few years earlier. Doctor visits, blood thinners..... yada yada yada. Biggun at 55-60.

Two reasonable situations which your average male homo sapien can die, wouldn't you say?

My question to all of you is WHO IS CHEAPER?.

My answer: guy B

Why? Everybody has a "downward spiral" at the end of their life, and except in rare cases, it's about the same. It's almost comical how generic death is. The cost is fundamentally the same for both guys A and B.

What's the difference? TIME!

Guy A has constant work done on him (check ups and such, common injuries, etc.) for the 20 years that separate our guys. Guy B never gets the chance.

If my logic is correct, freedom of choice can be preserved in a universal system.

Thanks for reading, let me know what all you think.

At 3/12/09 07:59 PM, Memorize wrote:
Nevermind the fact that the majority of the 47 million of uninsured are uninsured because they don't feel like paying for healthcare.

So. The 35 mil living below the poverty line don't "feel" like paying out? LOLOLOLOLOL!

So, if you don't want to be a complete moron, let's assume that the 35 mil can't pay for it (New Jersey has funky laws, so it can end up more than a mortgage payment for a healthy person)(I don't know what the average is everywhere else).

Now let's do the math. 47-35=12. 12/47= approx 25.5%. So, assuming EVERY SINGLE uninsured person above the pov line is a complete idiot, and would simply "rather not" pay up, it STILL isn't a majority. Therefore...............

YOU FAAAAAIL!!!

People like you make me sick. You seem like the type of guy who tells a bum on the street to get a job, but fails to realize that the world just isn't that fucking simple.

At 3/11/09 11:42 AM, bcdemon wrote: 150 Iraqis found dead in the past 7 days
Yep, looks like the end is near....

It is for us.

We've reached a point where the US can do nothing to hold Iraq up. It's up to them at this point.

Also, with us gone, terrorist orgs will have no excuse to bomb civilian areas.

At 3/10/09 07:57 PM, Proteas wrote:
I'm aware of that, but if you watch the evening news at all you will notice that any movement up or down in the market is usually connected by the newscaster to Obama's policies, which is bullshit because he has about as much control over the matter as Bozo the Clown does the cost of aspirin.

This is true. I honestly think that a single politician can't be blamed for not fixing a recession like this in less than a year.

There's no goddamn reason to.

So I should be watching this stuff?

No. We may have a misunderstanding here.

Ben Stein is a moron

Explain.

I watched his "documentary" about intelligent design. I can't even watch Ferris Bueller without thinking about it. The comment in question seemed to have some basis.

At 3/10/09 06:45 PM, TheRipper00 wrote:
Here ya Go hope its what ya wanted.

EXCELLENT! Thanks a lot dude.

At 3/10/09 05:42 PM, Proteas wrote: Catchy title, ain't it?

Now all we hear about is how much the economy is in the shitter, and how the Dow Jones seems to be an accurate representation of President Obama's performance in office.

The Dow Jones is not a representation of Obama's performance. The Dow Jones started snowballing before he was even elected. I'm not sure if you were saying that, but I wanted to clarify.

Is it racist to get an actual public opinion poll of his performance now?

Racist, no. Inaccurate, yes. People remember the inauguration too vividly.

have we become so jaded as a society as to no longer care about Iraq?

Not necessarily. I think our own asses (and IRAs) are on the line, we care more. I think people also see Iraq as coming to an end with the upcoming troop withdrawals, which GWB refused to even talk about.

I tend to ignore the market news when it's on.

There's no goddamn reason to. It's not like any of us can do anything. Hell, the "experts" who make their living giving people "advice" can't do anything,

And the politicians in charge aren't helping matters either, as they are helping to perpetuate the economic crisis.

I think they are somewhat sincere, but I also think that the mistakes have been made, and they only have so much power as humans.

the general public would regain it's confidence in the market and things would rebound.

Ben Stein is a moron, but he has an interesting perspective occasionally. I don't think it would Presto! Chango! ALAKAZAM! recover, but I think it would probably end the hysteria.

Hey I posted here three days ago, so I figured I'd post again.

I'd Like a sig with a black background, and my name in bloody letters

Also, integrate the devil guy from Kreator- Pleasure to Kill

Thanks in advance.

At 3/9/09 09:40 PM, onilink19 wrote: apparently today, Obama lifted the ban bush set 8 years ago on stem cell research.

That he did! W00T!!!! I think, ladies and gentlemen, that we can declare the US government's war on science OVER!!!!!

Also, it wasn't a ban per se. It was just ban on federal funding for the creation of more stem cell lines than the 30 or so already in existence at the time.

whats next, human farms for body parts?

Yeah, then what? Quadriplegics walking again? Cure for type 1 diabetes? Cure for Alzheimer's? Parkinson's?

No one [credible] scientist wants to do things like farm body parts or clone people. You've been reading too much dystopian lit and watching too much Hannity my good man.

This is a time for celebration! We have reached a new age of government-science relations!

How do you guys feel about the new Cannibal record that just came out- "Evisceration Plague"?

I actually thought it was pretty good, just not as many memorable riffs as past releases.

Did no one else notice the important fact: He never had anything to do with the USA. This is not our problem.

Unless, of course Afghanistan is the 51st state and no one told me.

The US can't run around picking up every foreigner in the entire world with a phony passport.

At 3/7/09 01:12 AM, D3NTATUS wrote: Thrash recommendations: I desire them. Give them to me. Bands, albums, whatever.

SLAYER!!!!!
Kreator
Sodom
Destruction
Metallica
Testament