Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/15/09 09:31 PM, Brian wrote: Obligatory, but Dems did it when Bush was in charge, we can now skip that point.

Why skip a valid point?
You wouldn't go into a healthcare debate if abusive practices from insurance companies was off limits.
That said I think most democrats are taking things extremely out of context. When a republican point out that the plan is impossible without large tax increases after a democrat claims otherwise, you get a rather schoolyard response of "How dare you call me a liar". If you have a suggestions leaning heavily towards socialist practices you would have a republican bring up the point only to be shot down with "Yeah, just call them a commie."
The bigger problem I see is that valid questions and debate are being over simplified and misinterpreted as name calling.

Fort knox would hold the largest collection of gin on the planet?

Why do you have to continue to split points? Think of point B as the final. Then think that the motions necessary are not the reaching of the mid point, but reaching the next point in the path.

At 7/4/09 03:36 AM, POOPIES wrote:

At 7/1/09 11:57 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Your logic is entirely flawed. You imply that you believe that if tobacco was made illegal, it would simply disappear and everyone addicted to it would be fucked.

No no no. You only heard half of my proposal. What I would suggest is that once tobacco is banned, the FDA should devote half of its resources to propagating all known tobacco crop diseases so as to wipe out the existence of tobacco from the face of the fucking earth.

That's the only goddamn way to do it. Jesus, I'm not stupid.

Actually you are.
It's unlikely to find a disease that only effects tobacco. More likely the disease will effect most vegetation that can grow under the same conditions effectively ruining acres of fertile land.
People will hold onto seeds and grow it in the US and it will still exist outside the US.
Tobacco has more uses than you realize. It's still used as an effective medicine in cattle. Are you willing to ruin the beef industry to eliminate a plant?
When marijuana was made illegal they cut and burned every field they could find. Later every plant. They arrested anybody with any plants growing or any amount on them, even little old ladies who threw their bird seed out the window(It was common to put marijuana seeds in bird feed to make them sing). And after all that effort how effective has that been in removing marijuana from the public? I'm willing to bet 90% of NG's forum members are able to make a phone call and get some first thing in the morning.
It's been tried and failed. What makes you think it would be any different with tobacco?

At 7/2/09 02:26 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote:

At 7/1/09 11:57 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

If tobacco was illegal, it would still be bought and sold. The only difference would be that instead of the economy benefiting, only criminals would profit.

This^^
I could not add any more win to this statement.

Criminals are already profiting. With the insane taxes and regulations forcing a lower quality product many smokers,myself included, are turning to the black market to get, not just a cheaper price, but a higher quality cigarette as well.
I can go buy a carton of camels for $65 at the corner store. They're all going to have that disgusting fire safe chemical in them and I won't enjoy smoking a single one.
Or I could go online and order my cartons for $15 a piece from the island of man and I'm going to get a high quality smoke with a flavor I can enjoy.
It won't be long before the smoker tax gravy train is stopped. And it's not going to be because they've bullied enough people into quitting.

Just shifting the blame and jobs to other countries.

I'd be all for it assuming there's no fee to receive a state ID.

I'm sure there's a total somewhere of the amount of government assistance they've collected. If they win the government collects their debt, refunds it back into the system, and the rest is theirs.

No. If anything Obama is the democrats Reagan.

At 11/28/08 12:54 PM, poxpower wrote: I think it's a waste of money.

It stinks, it tastes like crap, it's expensive, hard to get and doesn't even buzz you.
People who smoke it often need a shitload.

Basically, to me, smoking pot is like eating a lot of really expensive, stinky aspirins.

I appreciate alcohol a lot more. You can fuck yourself up as much as you want with it and there's also a long tradition of making quality interesting products. Yay.

I think you've just been around the wrong marijuana. I bet you wouldn't have the same high opinion of alcohol if the only thing you had ever drank was natty ice. Not attacking, just sayin.

http://www.pridedating.com/
http://blackdatingnetwork.com/
http://www.littlepeoplemeet.com/

Are you the time of 10 yet? I may be willing to practice one of your ideas.

I've always thought that Rice has one of the best resumes the republicans can offer for the presidency with great name recognition. I can also see it all played down by the fact she's black and female. It would just be assumed that she would be trying to out minority Obama. Mix that with the bush and chevron ties and there would be no way she could win in 2012.
2016 is a different story though.

Your main flaw is comparing earned wealth to given wealth. If someone steals my car and I get it back I'm not taking anything from them.

At 10/8/08 08:41 PM, Achilles2 wrote: 1) Tax cuts to the Middle Class
2) More jobs
3) Allow the Middle Class to spend their money by buying things, etc.
4) Increase taxes for the richer in American society, and give this extra money to small businesses
5) Encourage the American people to support these small businesses by buying their products
6) Take a small "cut off the top" from the big corporations' profits
7) Use some of this cut and grant it to smaller businesses
8) Encourage worker "quotas" for some of these small businesses so as to force these businesses to create new jobs

So you think it's wise to hurt large businesses that create alot of jobs with proven efficiency and use those same profits on riskier small businesses?

You guys are all forgetting one major factor that could easily win the debate for palin.
The new VP swimsuit competition.

How many obamas does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Just one, but all he has to do is hold it up and the world revolves around him.

At 9/14/08 01:17 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I think greed is a far worse problem is western society.

i mean, even if the average American is apatheitic to the world's problems, there's not a huge amount they could do anyway.

It's the people with power who can change things, but most of them are too concerned with making life better for themselves.

I think this here is what our problem is. When someone can claim that any part of their life is the responsibility of someone else without offering anything in return.

You all need to drop the discussion. You all seem like nice enough people with good lives. It would be a shame to mess that up by accidentally stumbling on something you are not permitted to know.

It's all about revenue and control.
Revenue from the unfair amount of taxes placed on tobacco and now further through fines on smokers and business owners who choose to ignore unfair laws.
Control because everything they do against tobacco in the name of public health sets precedent to go after any other product or activity.
And sadly tobacco has been vilified to the point that nothing can be done to protect smokers and business owners rights. You cannot say anything in defense of smoking, the only thing you'd be doing is ruining all public opinion of yourself.

At 9/6/08 03:23 PM, tritiumnitrate wrote: I am curious as to why some of you say abortion should be illegal except in cases of incest and rape and protecting the mothers life. The latter I can understand but what makes incest and rape any different that a normal pregnancy? Just wondering what your justification is on that.

The idea there is that the mother is held to a certain level of responsibility for the choices she has made. If she hasn't made the choice then it's easily argued that she shouldn't be held to the same level of responsibility.

Well since this is one of the calmest and civilized abortion discussions I've seen I want to bring this up in the hopes that it doesn't get broken down into another pro-life/choice screaming match.
Roe Vs. Wade for men
Of course it was struck down in court and there hasn't been any mention since that decision. But I'm curious to hear opinions from both pro-life and pro-choice people.

At 9/4/08 07:34 PM, CaiWengi wrote: And I think its ridiculous for people who have never been in a situation such as been raped or whatever to comment on if abortion is right or not.

Let me just say here that we're on a forum dedicated to people discussing situations they have no experience to discuss. They also tried that same reasoning with all of cindy sheehans bullshit and that didn't fly.

Now on the subject at hand I think it best to keep your personal beliefs and allow others theirs. Myself I'm pro-life. I practice safe sex, keep monogamous relationships and discuss the outcome and how we would handle a pregnancy should one arise. Other people may act like whores get knocked up and go "get it vacuumed out" that's their choice. Hell yes I'm going to look down on you and think less of you for that decision, but as it stands that's your right to do and I'm not going to stop you.
There's no need to carry the burden of the worlds bad decisions on my shoulders. So I'll keep my views and you can keep yours.

I think you're reading too much into it. If I call you a douche bag that doesn't mean I have anything against feminine hygiene.

At 8/14/08 06:57 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 8/14/08 06:51 PM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: I've always looked at neocons as christian liberals.

I'm an atheist businessman and I support neocon views.

If you're an athiest that's supportive of a group that takes away your freedoms on the basis that god knows better than you're a moron. Also your eyes are brown.

I've always looked at neocons as christian liberals.

This is just set-up in case the democrats lose. There's always something besides their policy that's the reason why they lost. Every election you see them set up the "fear mongering" lines (2004, bush used fear mongering to win, it's not that the dems had a shitty candidate) or the electronic voting machine(man of the year) and now if they lose this coming election, it won't be because the country thinks they're wrong, it's because the country is racist.
I'm white and I'm going to vote for obama, but the democratic party still isn't going to look at itself serious if we lose. They're going to keep with the same blame game they always use.

If I'm a winner while playing by the rules, what makes you think I still won't come out on top if I'm making my own rules? That is the point right? You're a loser and you think it's because of the current system, and if that system is gone it'll be your golden opportunity to come out on top. Well it's not. All the things that made you a failure this far in life will make you a failure in the middle of anarchy. Only now you won't be helped by all the rules that were meant to protect you before.

It probably started out as a statement against china. They got called on it and pussed out.

Cars are unnatural.
Computers are unnatural.
Modern housing is unnatural.
Government is unnatural.
For fucks sake marriage and monogomy are unnatural if you want to look at the majority of the animal kingdom.
Who cares? We're humans. We do unnatural things. As for the sanctity of marriage and all that garbage. People act as if it's a total afront to all that it stands for. When if you really look at it, it's more like spitting into a brown pool. Let people live there lives and persue happiness how they see fit as long as it stays between consenting adults.