Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Are you really that materialistic?

If so, dump her. She deserves better.

I'm surprised you guys haven't directed to the Star Syndicate's website yet.

According to (be careful with this link as I don't know how trustworthy their site is) this page, Fourstar seems to be taking pride in the amount of people who are getting infected.

At 5/25/09 01:09 AM, Bolo wrote: Kubrick's singular mistake in his entire illustrious career was directing that subpar-at-best film.

Subpar-at-best? How do you figure? The movie made brilliant use of symbols, was well-directed, well-acted, well-shot, well-thought out, instills in you strong emotions of dread, disgust, and occasionally conflicting sympathy... He left out the final chapter of the book, it's true, but Kubrick tended to have his own ideas of where books/movies should go (exhibit B - the Shining). Not to mention when he had started directing it and planning it out the American version omitted the final chapter, and it wasn't until too late that he read the British version, but by then he decided "fuck it".

So, how is it subpar-at-best?

At 5/26/09 12:05 AM, thatoneguyfromDD wrote:

At 5/25/09 11:33 PM, thatoneguyfromDD wrote: I'm watching the movie now, seems good.

About forty five minutes in, still not getting the point. So they're a gang who kill and rape people for fun, and they seem to be living in the future? That's what I'm seeing so far.

So far that sounds quite accurate, O my brothers.

At 5/26/09 12:26 AM, kolbarten wrote: 1) Where are you from?

Massachusetts, the United States.

2) How old are you?

19

3) When you think about Brazil, what comes to your mind?

Quite a few things. I've had quite a few good Brazilian friends and a Brazilian girlfriend. She taught me a lot about Brazil.

4) Can you point that to something specific (the news, a movie, someone, etc.), or is it just your opinion?

I'm not sure what this is asking.

5) Which Brazilian celebrity(ies) do you know/remember?

Seu Jorge.

6) Did you ever saw any kind of Brazilian art (paintings, comics, movies, soup operas, etc.)? Talk about it.

I love Brazilian music (you guys mastered the guitar), the two movies I've seen that were very Brazilian (that I can remember) were City of God (amazing) and Coffin Joe (interesting). Oh! Brazil is also one of the few places I have found where people still appreciate progressive rock. Os Mutantes and Saecula Saeculorum are great bands.

7) What do you know about Brazilian politics?

That the situation there is quite (almost hopelessly) corrupt, the division between poverty and wealth is extremely large (i.e. there are an enormous amount of wealth people compared to a very few, very rich people; the middle class is smaller than most countries). You recently found oil... near Rio was it?

Also, I know that the United states is part of the corruption, as there are records that the United States played a role in overthrowing the democratically elected president in the 1960's for a military dictator.

8) And sports?

Nothing except you guys apparently produce very good soccer players.

9) What did you heard about Brazilian's economy?

Brazil is a third-world country, of course, but it is steadily growing. The corruption needs to be seeded out, but Brazil has the potential to be one of the strongest countries in the world.

10) Anything you would like to add?

I'd like to say I am not a nationalist for any country. I admit that Brazil could be one of the strongest countries in the world, but I do not know if this would be better than the United States being the strongest, as the strongest country tends to do anything it can to remain the strongest.

I understand your desire to see if people know about your country, and I must admit I did not know quite as much until my girlfriend told me more.

Before we dated, all I knew about Brazil was that was where most of the immigrants came from in my hometown (Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts).

I will say, though, that it is possible that I might have researched Brazil anyway, even if we didn't date, because I've always been interested in the histories of countries around the world, anthropology, and cultural linguistics.

Questions 1 and 2 are useful for a basis, but you don't need to answer those if you don't want to. If an admin consider that this post is on a wrong place, I apologize in advance.

And thanks for anyone that decides to help.

I hope I helped.

At 5/21/09 10:45 PM, Tancrisism wrote: I would honestly like to see how they established that Statistic. We lost only 250,000 in the entirety of the war.

I went back and fact-checked, and we lost 418,000. It's still far less than 1,000,000, especially considering the fact that we were involved in 2 enormous fronts for 4 years.

At 5/21/09 09:22 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote: You are both saying you would have had no problem with taking Truman and the Manhattan project developers to court by the next administration?

I wouldn't take the Manhatten project developers to court, but Truman and the higher ups, sure. Similarly, I would have recommended taking the British who did the firebombing of Dresden to court. Why would Nuremberg

Despite the fact that Nuking 2 Japanese and an active mission to nuke a third saved an estimated 1,000,000 American lives by not invading Japan?

I would honestly like to see how they established that Statistic. We lost only 250,000 in the entirety of the war. Japan's navy was completely destroyed, and their army was hardly anything more than a small contingent and militias. And, not to mention, Russia was on the way. They had a neutrality pact with Japan that had ended in August, and they had promised to focus all of their attention on Japan after the war in Europe was over. So, they invaded Manchuria, and were on their way to the Japanese mainland.

Let's see who we had - most of the United States military, Australia, the UK, Canada, France, and now Russia, on our side. Who did Japan have? Japan, and hardly even that.

The real problem was the unconditional surrender policy. After the war, our demands were hardly that demanding - we allowed them to keep their emperor (though admittedly as a figurehead only), and merely re-wrote their constitution and allowed our businesses to move in. This could easily have happened if we offered negotiations.

One of the reasons that people think that Truman actually authorised the bombings was to intimidate Russia now that the balance of the world had suddenly shifted obviously to a two-superpower balance. But the killing of 200,000 + innocent people cannot be excused for competition's sake, and the thought that one million Americans would die is tenuous at best.

At 5/21/09 09:09 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote: Oh thank God nobody ever disagreed with dropping Nukes on Japan or Truman's cabinet and anyone involved maybe even Robert Oppenheimer would have been facing war crimes.

I would have no problem with that.

Go die in a fire.

Woah there.

When you talk about the Indian immigrants, do you mean the Roma (gypsies)? I noticed you said Roms, so it's possible you are talking about gypsies.

And, in that case, I understand your distaste for them. Their culture is basically shaped around begging for money and surviving on the scraps of the dominant culture, or growing their own. It's interesting, definitely, but highly obnoxious.

I wouldn't say I'm "pro-Obama". I like a lot of the things he's doing, but I am watching him carefully.

At 5/21/09 03:36 AM, TheMason wrote: Militias & Patriot 'movements' (on the far-right) and Communists, Anarchists (on the far-left) start believing in the same whack-o ideas. That is why many people could easily switch between Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Are you really comparing Kucinich and Paul to communists and anarchists? They are hardly even radical; they merely actually have ideologies, as opposed to most politicians.

At 5/21/09 03:22 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: I feel like civilization is needed, but that its been nto generalized, that's why its failing (it always has been)

Failing in the sense that it isn't perfect? I wouldn't say it's failed - our average lifespans are increasing, our population is increasing... It's done its job of allowing us to proliferate as a species.

Isn't that the way it works? It's JUST like nature, cumbersome, unforgiving, i feel like the only difference is that instead of fending for yourselves, you have others fending for you, and often you get caught at the wrong time in these defenses.

You become a victim of society, i guesss, not a victim, but you're dead, nonetheless. If we group together in survival as you say, then why not strive to fully define that term? To define WHY we need to survive.

Well, for our own personal self-interest. Why else? In a deeper level, why live but live? Besides, in a carnal way, self-preservation is a basic instinct. Humans are not built very well to live on their own, but we are clever enough to be able to manipulate almost anything, including each other.

So, your own personal desire for self-preservation is the reason for morality. If you'd like to justify morality in a different way, that's fine, but it can all be traced back to civilization (just like religion, superstitions, culture, etc.)

Well I'm sure glad we didn't elect one of those pansy "easy-on-terror" Democrats to office!

At 5/21/09 02:29 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Your post assumes that we are to stay as men and not evolve. Doesn't it? A bit?

Not at all. I'm not sure where you would get that from...

My post says nothing about the biological evolution of man, just the societal evolution of man. And the societal evolution is linked to the biology, of course, but not too much has happened biologically in the past 10,000 or so years in which we have banded together to form this thing we call civilization.

At 5/21/09 01:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Not end of story because while what you said is indeed a story, I'm going to sadly have to file it into the "opinion" section because you've done nothing to back up your assertions here so that I could even be tempted to move it over to "reference" or "true fact"

I'm really surprised that you still take the time to try to debate with him. Kudos.

At 5/21/09 01:50 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/20/09 03:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But it's not wrong, killing is natural. So what is moral? Unnatural.

I would argue that, for the human race, killing each other is just as natural as morality.

Sorry for the double post, I meant to say that morality is more natural than killing each other.

At 5/20/09 03:38 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: But it's not wrong, killing is natural. So what is moral? Unnatural.

I would argue that, for the human race, killing each other is just as natural as morality.

So what is really right or wrong? How have we gone and got a society that places morals in a natural manner, in a way that is unnatural.

Morality (according to Freud in "The Future of an Illusion", one of his best works and something I would highly recommend) was created as a result of civilization. Civilization was created because human groups began to group into even larger groups out of a desire for protection, mainly. Protection, that is, against nature, and against each other.

In order for civilization to continue, certain rules must be followed. If everyone was allowed to kill each other at the mere drop of a hat, civilization would certainly crumble in upon itself. Morality and Civilization are natural constructs of man, and require each other in order to exist.

Why do we think killing is wrong? Because we want our species to survive. Well, I don't think we have to worry about the latter, so why does the former matter?

Why don't we have to worry about the latter?

At 5/20/09 11:15 PM, thedo12 wrote:

At 5/20/09 11:01 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

but are stereotypes even inheritly harmful?

I would say they are.

Stereotypes attempt to provide you a basis of information about a person based on their stereotypical groups, which may or may not be true.

Even "positive-seeming" stereotypes limit human individuals to nothing but categories, which, you may notice the more people you meet, are never fitting. People may have aspects of stereotypes in them, but no one is limited to a stereotype. Do you understand?

A problem with that that I have seen is that some people who embrace racist jokes become so fond of them and tell them so frequently that they end up forming in their heads the thoughts that the ideas are true.

I have also seen this happen with sexism. Stereotypes being perpetuated and being recalled frequently sometimes cements them in people's minds.

So I don't know how much of the solution that is.

The solution, I think, is that people should be encouraged to go out and meet people that they don't understand - racist should talk to somebody for a long time, for instance, without knowing that the person is black (or white, or whatever) and then the veil should be lifted or something. Or even not, if some person of a white color went and talked to a black person who spoke in the strongest Ebonics, if they spoke for a while, they would realize that both of them are human and truly not very different. They merely came from different cultural backgrounds.

I don't know how this would go about happening, but it should be encouraged somehow effectively. Not those pictures of people of every color holding hands around the world, something less cheesy, idealistic, and more effective. Defeating racism isn't idealistic, it's realistic. In fact, being racist is to be far more idealistic than to not be; a racist holds the ideal that someone's color or overall phenotype has something directly to do with the way their mind works.

Affirmative action is only going to make things worse, and racist jokes, while being noteworthy because they do portray stereotypes as being ridiculous, they still perpetuate the stereotypes.

At 5/20/09 01:44 AM, fli wrote: There is no criteria other than that you'll be east to talk with in the lounge, and to not bring politics in here.

After, of course, a thirty mile run wearing nothing but a rubber glove over your penis, which you must keep erect the entire time. Naturally.

At 5/19/09 03:21 PM, ShadowWest wrote: If she was an hallucination, then how did she open the door for Isaac in that one part of the game where you have to protect her ? No one else could've been there...

That's the trippy thing about the game. It's possible that if we could watch the game from a force outside of Isaac's mind (or one not influencible by the marker) we could know, but for now I suppose all we can do is suspend our disbelief and try to rationalise it.

What. The. Fuck.

Discuss.

(Note, this is not spam. If you have beaten it, you will know what I am talking about)

At 5/17/09 05:49 AM, TheMason wrote: I am just saying that if (at least two or more) happens:
1) Medicare fails his last year in office.
2) Social Security worsens.
3) China stops buying our bonds.
4) Taxes go up.
Then eight years from now we'll be seeing Obama being called a failure and the worst president in history and blah, blah, blah.

Personally, any of the last three in combination with each other I don't think I would blame him for. The first one he has much more involvement with.

We should get rid of Social Security quickly (allowing those currently dependent on it to live it off) but then encourage strongly that people start putting away for retirement early.

But who knows? Perhaps we'll get a third party that actually amounts to something.

I highly doubt it, personally. The last third party that almost meant something was the pet party of Teddy Roosevelt. Unless some really strong and popular politician (such as Obama, assuming he doesn't fuck up as you predict) or some charismatic and popular demagogue (such as Limbaugh, assuming people don't finally see through his propaganda) decide to form their own party, it's unlikely.

At 5/18/09 10:39 PM, Christopherr wrote:

The sources you've provided seem to be good.

Right. This =/= abortion.

It depends which taxpayer you are talking to. To a large, large group of people, it is the equivalent in the sense that it destroys life.

Women on their period and men masturbating destroy life in a similar way.

If something is to be done, there's going to have to be a compromise, plain and simple. Obama knows that's just how things work, people aren't going to just start agreeing with each other without meeting somewhere in between. Realistic debate is the means to the end of compromise. In that speech, he urged people to listen to each other and build off of each other's differing opinions, or compromise.

Definitely, compromise is a good idea. He has said, though, that he doesn't know if it is possible, but debate is a good step towards something, at least.

So, what's the problem?

At 5/17/09 11:51 PM, Korriken wrote: If she's found to be lying, the news media will twist it around to make her look innocent...

"It was all a big misunderstanding! she misread the reports!"

Part of it may, but overall the media, regardless of their political allegiances (except, of course, editorials), LOVE a scandal. Scandals always sell the figurative paper.

At 5/18/09 09:07 PM, homor wrote: if shes loses her speaker seat i say good riddance.
i'm more than happy to see that stupid whore go.

...K. Thanks for your opinion.

At 5/18/09 05:25 PM, Christopherr wrote: -He is making it easier for young girls to obtain "the pill" by removing the parent from the issue.

The pill.. as in, the morning after pill? Or birth control? Or the abortion pill?

-He is working on lifting the ban on third trimester abortions (partial-birth),

Send me a link of this. Last I remember, he was against this.

-His budgets call for taxpayer-funded abortions.

-He is overturning conscience protections that allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions without repercussions.

Another link here would be dandy.

-He signed an executive order forcing taxpayer-funded embryonic stem-cell research.

Right. This =/= abortion.

-The vast majority of his relevant appointments are pro-choice.

Those are only the highlights that I can remember from only his few months in presidency. Take a look at his congressional voting records, and you'll see that the spirit of compromise is lost on him there, too:

You remember them, you say, but what were your sources? Some of your examples don't sound like him at all.

-Rated 100% by pro-choice groups (100% being completely pro-choice) and 0% in similar scalings by pro-life groups, which means he didn't compromise on abortion.

-He voted to let minors cross state boundaries in search of legal abortions.

-He also voted against notifying parents whose minors receive out-of-state abortions.

Likewise, this is just from memory, so there surely is more to list.

After listening to his compromise rhetoric, I would like to know when the compromise will come? I don't understand how I'm supposed to just swallow this without questioning his commitment to what he says.

I'm not sure if you have actually listened to his rhetoric at all. He has said that he understands that it's an issue where people perhaps will not be able to compromise, but he thinks that both sides are turning each other into ridiculously polarizing "caricatures" (his own word for it) and that this is not healthy, or helping anything.

He has an opinion on the issue, naturally, but he wants a realistic debate to be opened up rather than each side painting the other as satan. Which is, essentially, what they do.

At 5/18/09 03:07 AM, Yorik wrote: I'm not saying that China is a wonderful place to live, but come on...

How is the embargo helping anything, though?

At 5/18/09 02:34 AM, Yorik wrote: He better not. The only person that would benefit from that is Castro.

Looks like someone needs to learn a bit more about politics.

At 5/18/09 01:23 AM, TheSouthernTower wrote: With as overrated as Borat was, I'm not gonna waste my time on this one.

Sounds like someone either got offended by its content, didn't understand it, or judges his movies positively or negatively based on the amount of people that quote it.

At 5/18/09 01:34 AM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote: I'm not going to waste my time. I always hate stupid humor movies like that.

Because well-written and intelligent satire = stupid humor movies.

Also, you're from Glasgow but you type in American English?

At 5/18/09 01:50 AM, mariomusicmaker1 wrote:

You ever examine WHY you feel you need to drink so much?

Major depression, its a bitch,

You ever examine on what alcohol's effects are? I.E., what category it is in?

I'll tell you - it's a depressant.