Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I think the black water analogy is not a good one. I could be wrong but I believe they are a security force. There is a big diference between security and millitary. A better comparison might be the Swiss army vs. a national army. Security forces like black water do not fight wars, they are there to try to maintain order. Organizations like that are more akin to police, strike breakers, or security officers.

The most memorable thing from the RNC protests in St. Paul was a woman who weighed three hundred pounds easily. She was weaing only a dirty bra and a pair of really short cut off jeans. She was screaming "This is what a democracy looks like; that;s what a police state looks like" while pointing at herself and then to the police. I saw this and thought, if that's what a demcracy looks like, I'll go with the police state.

As entertaining as that was, It still didn't change my opinion on anything. I still think she looks gross and I still don't care about her politics.

protesting is silly, pure and simple. It does nothing, except make you look foolish. I worked the RNC and saw the protestors. they had all this crap about stopping the RNC from happening. Guess what, it went off without a hitch. I got to laugh at a lot of dumb looking people parading through the streets. I earned a lot of overtime and got a good show. I was quite happy. But more than that, nothing changed. Nothing was accomplished by it. There were hundreds of people who made a gigantic mess of the street to get nothing done. Also I find it quite funny that you have to ask permition and pay for that permition to hold a protest. You can't just march on the street, you have to purchace a permit. If you don't they just arrest you. So you can only protest the government if they decide to allow it, if it's a good time for them, sounds like real freedom.

To be totally fair to the individuals involved, it's not entirely thier fault that they know nothing of the peple they support. The way election propaganda is currently put out, nobody know what any candidate is or isn't willing to do. Nobody comes out and says what they stand for or what skills they bring to the table in thier commercials. They just bag on the other guy in hopes that you won't vote for him. They don't care if you vote for them as long as you don't vote for the other guy. If they don't focus on the other guy they make very broad statements that mean nothing but sound great. Obama was elected on the promise of change, though he never said what he would change. I'm still not sure. The first Bush was elected on "No new taxes"." Yeah that worked out well. GW Bush was reelected by promising to change nothing and by using a Foo Fighters song (without asking) to make people think he was a hero. Clinton got into office on pure charm and riding a promise for a balanced budget (which he actually delivered, though I suspect on accident). The point is that we learn nothing about the actual plans and policies that each candidate intens to put forth. These things are kept secret by design. The trueth is that either they have never been president and have no idea what they can or can't get away with, or they have and have no idea what congress will or won't let them get away with. But if you ask Obama supporters before the election you would have gotten similar responses. "He will make change" What will he change? "I don't know." Trueth is, nobody knows who they vote for.

I just don't get all the hype. It's the flu. THE FLU. Take your vitamines, eat healthy and rest. If you can kick a normal flu's ass you can kick the swine flu's ass. It's just the flu. the only diference is that it can infect pigs. just deal with it. You only need to be afraid if you are old, a small child, or already sick with something that hinders your ability to fight off illness. And all of those groups are equally affected by the regular flu, so there should be no extra fear. Get over it and live your life the way you would if it weren't real.

On a side note, swine flu is obviously not kosher, so if your jewish can you get in trouble with god if you contract swine flu? It's not like you ate a pig, but you got an illness that can infect pigs. That seems like a grey area to me. lol

Let's tackle the toilet seat issue. Men, I propose a boycott on putting that thing down. It is one example of a small piece of power we allow them to have. They aren't stupid, they can look to see if the seat is down before sitting on the toilet. Men do it every time we take dump you can too. We also check to make sure it is up before we take a leak. Why would you be incapable of checking that. They just use it as an excuse to change our behavior and we have to stop it. Start throwing a fit about them leaving it down. piss all over the seat and when they bitch, tell them that you got up in the middle of the night and didn't know it was down and that it's thier fault for leaving it down. Or start putting both lids down and see if the bitch about having to raise it. Guess what, they don't. That means that they are checking it before going, otherwise they would pee all over the lid. If they don't, it prooves they are capable of checking. The other argument is that it's not that hard for us to do for them. But why! why should we have to. It's just as easy for them to put it up for us when they are done, but they don't. So I'm the asshole who won't put it down, but you are just fine even though you won't put it up? F THAT! Deal with it. We don't complain about it being down so stop complaining about it being up. Take responsibility for wether or not your ass ends up in the toilet water. It's not my fault you can't chek that first. Sometimes I go in the bathroom and put the seat up when I don't even have to go. Just to mess with her, and I never feel bad about it. Try it sometime guys. It's fun. She may even fall in on pupese to try to prove the point. If she does, laugh in her face and tell her how foolish she is.

At 10/19/09 12:52 AM, Crazyhobo51 wrote: Take for example the Romans, first a representative democracy, they soon starting making faulty decisions and bad judgements, forcing one brave man, Julius Caesar, to bring about the height of Roman peace, power, and prosperity by declaring himself emperor. It is for this reason that I believe that we must have a single, all powerful ruler in order to thrive as a nation.

Yeah. I'm sure we would have done just fine if GWB had declared himself emperor and scraped the whole democratic process. We'd all be much happier I'm sure.

At 10/18/09 08:53 AM, bcdemon wrote:

:If having a job were about respect, that would be fine. But we (humans) have designed our society around money, therefor you need a job in order to acquire money. Otherwise you're an unemployed lazy bum, right Zen?

Sort of. enemloyment is fine by me if A: It is short term while between jobs, B: You are physicaly or mentally incapable of working, C: you are too young too work, or D: you choose not to contribute socially and are ok with society not contributing to you. I have no problem with any of those groups not working and fully support giving welfare to all but the last group if they need it. But if you don't work because you are too good or too "respectable" to work fast food or some other menial job, you don't deserve to have society take care of you. Why should I pay for a thirty year old man who is fit of mind and body to sit at home and watch tv because he thinks he's too good to work. If you have a job that pays too little for you to survive, i'm even ok with giving a little help there as long as you are contributing. And if you are a painter or musician and you can't feed yourself on those wages you may want to reevaluate you artistic ability. You may not be good enough to cut it. If you want to keep trying though, more power to you. I respect that, I just don't think I should have to pay for every yutz who thinks he's an artist. It is totaly lazy to contribute nothing and expect everyone else to cover you.

At 10/14/09 04:17 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/14/09 01:50 AM, zendahl wrote: while there are plenty of openings in construction, security, or even fast food.

and what happens if I can't get a job making fast food?

Everybody can work in fast food. I have a buddy that got out of prison and imediatly got a job at burger king. If you can't find a job it's because you are lazy or un willing to take a certain type of job. Even people with mental hadicaps are able to find work if they want. No jobs is an excuse. What you really mean is no jobs that I want to do. Too bad, suck it up and get to work. There are newspaper routs, fast food, gas stations, construction, security, telemarketing as well as thousands of other crap jobs. and I have no problem helping out for six months while you find one nor do I have any problem contributing a bit if you don't quite make enough wile gainfully employed, but take any job you can get. You are a leech on society when you refuse to work a crap jobs because you don't want to. Get over it loser and get to work. Take a step down if have to and try totake that step up again later.

At 10/16/09 03:16 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 10/14/09 10:27 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Thoughts?

Who cares about rights when I automatically get paid more for having a willy! It reeks of inherent bias in the system that men benefit from!

***THIS IS A JOKE***
I'll be willing to give women equal pay as soon as they start letting men leave the burning building before them. The extra pay men recieve is a down payment on the off chance that they end up on a sinking ship with thier female coworkers. We get paid extra because we are the ones who have to go see if the noise downstairs was in armed intruder or the cat knocking a glass over. It is payback for every injury we were told to rub dirt in it or walk it off. If women want equal pay they need to fight the biker who made a sexual remark by them self.

At 10/13/09 04:10 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: I have heard the theory before that women are attracted to the 'bad boy' because of a maternal instinct where they feel they have to give special attention to the males who are badly-behaved.

It probably has more to do with the idea that the "bad boy" type is strong and would be more likely to defend them. Instinct does funny things in modern day.

At 10/13/09 09:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: So what about the people who can't find a job because there aren't enough jobs for every person, do they have a right to collect money (welfare) from the ones who are working? I think so.
If not then the government should crack down on child birth until the population count meets the amount of jobs available. Unfortunately business would rather pay a one time fee for a robot than a weekly wage for their fellow man, meaning less jobs, and more welfare.

That is an excuse. There are plenty of jobs out ther, just not ones people want to work. Just because you have a masters degree in chemical engineering doesn't mean I sould have to pay for you to wait for a "good job" while there are plenty of openings in construction, security, or even fast food. Suck it up, take the shit job while you are looking. waiting for a good job is not worthy of my tax dollars. I fully support welfare to help out but there have to be time limits. I'm willing to help you for six months but after that you bet start asking if I want fries with that. We need to help those that want to work, not those who want to do nothing. I'd even be willing to give a wic style program to those who make too little to take care of there family, you know you get an alotment of cheese, milk, cerial, veggies, and meat each month. Nothing fancy just a little help. But if you are able bodied you really need to be working and helping socially.

Women tend to prefer men who are fucked up. Ha! they wasted time on that. I could have told them that. That's not even new info. Here let me save them some more research, most men like tits, the bigger the better (even most gay men oddly), women tend to be attracted to rich men, children tend to say the exact thing you don't want them to say at the exact time you don't want them to say it, and most people think brownies are fucking delicious. There now that we have that out of the way can we find out some stuff I don't know already.

There are many benifits to society that come frome social welfare, and I have no problem giving those who need it a little help and I think most reasonable people of reason regaurdless of income level would agree that the benifits of having less poverty in the society outweighs the pain of the taxes to take care of the proble. That is asuming it takes care of the problem. Like I said I don't mind giving someone a little help to get back on there feet, but I do have a problem with people who use welfare as a primary source of income. Welfare would not be such an issue if it were done correctly. Able bodied adults should be working when able. I don't mind if you get laid off and need a boost till you get back to work but after six months if you are still milking it, I say it's time to cut the cord. You're on your own after that. I also have no problem with people who work full time but don't quite make enough getting a boost. Though I would rather they don'y get money, I would support a WIC style program though. Welfare should be a temporary hand up, not a primary source of income.

At 10/9/09 10:17 PM, Freedomblades wrote: Really if there breaking in there not really planning on hurting you, there taking your stuff. It doesnt become a defense problem untill that person threatens your life. Also whats the point of taking a gun to the bank? You think your going to take down a number of armed enemys with anything from a handgun to a assault rifle? Really many people think this sound stupid but your more likely to get hurt carrying a weapon around in public at the chance of being mugged then to just let him take your wallet. You trying to hurt him just gives him a good reason to hurt you. I highly doubt if he has the weapon pointed at you that A the first thing he thinks about is shooting you and B even if you do have a weapon by the time you pull it and turn off the saftey you probebly would have been shot already.

If a person breaks into a residence with you in it, they are planning to harm you. No person will ever or has ever kicked in a door having no knowledge as to wether the place is ocupied saw a person there and tried to steal their stuff without harming the person. If a person enters a house and finds a person there they will either run or attack. The laws do say that you can only use deadly force against a threat to life or serious injury. If the person is running away then there is no threat and deadly force is considered excesive, but if they don't then they plan to hurt you. you have every right to defend with deadly force. you have no need to wait and see if they will actually hurt you, it is implied that they intend to hurt if they attack you in your home. And for the record not all firearms have a safety. My .38 special has no such thing as a safety. If it's loaded you only need pull the trigger. there is no way to "make the weapon safe."

At 8/19/09 08:52 PM, Korriken wrote: Secretly, Obama's minions have been plotting and carrying out assassinations of big name celebrities, like Ed McMahon. Les Paul, Michael Jackson, Billy Mays, and others, who suddenly dropped dead.

I would hardly call Les Paul, Billy Mays, David Carodin, or Ed McMahon "big name celebrities." Michael Jackson sure, but musicians dyng of drug overdoses is nothing new. Even Farah Fawcet was in my opinion just shy of a big name celebrity. Killing off b-list celbrities is not a very big distraction. Who's next Jalleel White? Neal Patrick Harris? No I would go after big game that would cause a much bigger distraction. Maybe George Clooney, or Ben Afleck, maybe even Angelina Jolie. Now that would be a distraction.

At 8/23/09 05:40 PM, scarneck wrote: While I do believe people have the right to bare arms (with restrictions) I have never agreed with the argument that it only stops law abiding citizens, since it seems like an argument against any sort of law.

The diference between those laws and gun control is that gun control prevents you from defending your self. Making you rely on a police force that in many areas can take up to six hours to respond if they ever respond at all creates a public safety issue. If nobody is defending a person from criminals who don't care about gun laws they are in danger due to those laws. other laws are diferent because they only affect those who do not follow those laws. Gun control laws only affect those who do follow the law, and on top of that they empower those who do not. It makes no diference to me if other people drive faster than the posted limit, however if a person is robbing my house with a gun he illegaly obtained because he knows I can't own a gun, that affects me big time. That's why that argument is logical and does not apply to other laws.

At 8/31/09 09:33 PM, Ericho wrote: Oh, it's probably going way up with men too, I bet. I still haven't heard a single news story on TV about a female who went on a killing spree. I recall reading about this one in Finland, but not as an actual story.

A few cases of women on killing sprees.and some more.

What's more disturbing is not the fact that women actually kill and generally have higher body counts, but that as the topic starter said, they get lighter sentences. And it aplies to all crimes, not just murder. If a female teacher has sex with a male student she will general do less than a year in county jail, but if a male teacher has sex with a female student he will generally get four to six years in state prison. Also in killer pairs involving men and women the women are often given a lighter sentence. Domestic abuse is another case where this happens. I have a friend who was arested for domestic assult because his girlfriend started punching and kicking him during a fight and he pushed her off of him so she called the cops. Niether one was hurt and I told the police exactly what happened, but they arrested him anyway. He never hit her, he just pushed her off of him to stop her from hitting him, and he is the one who whent to jail. Now how is that equality between the sexes.

At 8/31/09 09:15 AM, Dannyx28 wrote: If you eat other humans for a long period of time you go insane.

No you do not go insane, you get Kuru wich is closely related to mad cow disease. And before you say mad cow is an insanity, it's not, it's a neurological disorder, not an insanity, there is a diference. See my earlier post for the link to a video of a person with Kuru.

At 8/24/09 11:39 AM, poxpower wrote: When laws are shitty, we change them. Period.

Wrong. When laws become unprofitable we change them. We will never, ever, no mater how bad we want it, Get our right to poison our own bodies with whatever harmfull drugs we want back despite the fact that the supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to illegalize drugs. That ship is gone and we have lost that right for ever because it would not be profitable to change it. Remember, we live in a capitolist society, profit rules all and changing the law back would never be worth it, it's far more profitable to fight the crime. That's why we need to stand up and stop the laws from changing in the first place.

This is one good reason not to eat people.

Don't share stone tools with cannibals. lol

That's reason enough for me.... Unless I'm starving, then I'll do it without hesitation.

At 8/19/09 09:00 AM, Acid wrote: I also think that people who purchase sex and sell sex are pathetic.

I would also argue that due to job requirements, general personality, or family araingements (single parent who doesn't want the kid to see his casual sex partners at the house), are all good reasons to leave sex to a profesional.

At 8/20/09 05:12 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 8/18/09 08:02 AM, zendahl wrote: 7. Fuck tea, we drink coffee. Send it to us and we will throw it in the harbor again on principle.

Pah! That hot water you drink isn't coffee. Coffee shouldn't be beige, lamers.
WRONG
RIGHT

Niether of those are right. Proper coffee is black, strong, and full of liqueur. Vodka works best, but whisky can be used. Preferedly made in a percolator the grounds make it better, and should be fresh ground at home. That's coffee, tea is for pussies.

I will agree to your terms on a few conditions:

1. you want my guns? Come take them.

2. we reserve the right to use the Sex Pistols "God Save the Queen" as the anthem.

3. We actually get to keep our nice strait white teeth.

4. Your "football" teams must fight our football teams bare knuckle for the right to use the name.

5. You imediately teach our brewers what beer is. I actuall agree that most comercial American beers a disgusting. many of the microbrews are quite good though.

6. You never ever send that nasty shit you call food over here.

7. Fuck tea, we drink coffee. Send it to us and we will throw it in the harbor again on principle.

8. You have to come and get the land. Look how well that worked out last time.

9. You admit that simply putting a man in a dress is not by default funny.

10. send your tax collectors to come collect face to face. Mabey they can try to take the guns at the same time.

11. you grow a pair as a nation and show some strength instead of always whining, complaining, and arguing.

12. you admit that the british suck.

If you meet theese demands you can take it all.

I support the drinking age being 18 but not 21, if you are mature enough be sent to Iraq and possibly killed or kill someone else fighting in a war, you are mature enought to handle drinking a beer. It seems stupid tell a person "you are an adult now and all the responsibillity that comes with that is on your shoulders, but you are not adult enough to ingest a substance that is legal for older adults to drink." 21 is just such and asinine age restriction when the age of an adult is 18.

it is actually not a bad thing to be proud of who you are and your race is part of who you are, but it is silly to be proud of something another person did just because the person shares certain charichteristics with you. If you are black than it's not stupid to be proud of that. It is stupid to be proud of George Washington Carver or Martin Luther Kings acomplishments just because they share a skin color with you. The same goes for every race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The government and the leaders, both moral and political, don't want us to realize that though. They want that tension because it makes us fight each other instead of focusing on things that matter like what they are doing. It's the same as a magicians slight of hand. Do you think that if the population united and started paying attention instead of bickering about racial pride that we could change a few things around here? Be proud of who you are but don't let that pride weaken us by fighting the wrong people because of it.

Well the solution is clear, just interigation tactics should clear it up, You haul in the man and the cat and interrogate them both seperately, then you have someone come in and hand you an envelope, open and read the contents, then inform them that the other is talking and use the details you can deduce in the confession. After the cat and the man are each convinced that the other is talking, you stick them in a cell together and let them threaten and fight, then in the morning one will be more willing to talk to avoid being killed by the other.

Doesn't pointing out the race of a person during a racial history minth kind of diminish that persons acomplishment. For instance, when I was in hight school, during black history month they would teach us about the acomplishments of George Washington Carver, but they saved that lesson for black history month so that they could be in theme. I remember thinking that they made such a huge deal of teaching this during black history month, that it overshadowed what he actually did. It put the emphisis on that he was black and he acomplished stuff, but it took the focus off what he acomplished by sort of turning it into a "See? Black people can do stuff to." I think that black history month by being an event like that hurts the entire race by making thier achievements seem a bit trivial.

Drug trials are preformed with drugs that are not approved.

At 8/13/09 01:33 PM, Shukumei-the-Fox wrote: Good for you! Patriotism is a great thing.
There is no American Pride though, because you really have nothing to BE proud of. Except Big Macs, Coke, and previously having one of the worst politicions ever created. (Hopefully Obama will make up for him, though.)

I'm talking patriotism on a more colonial level, our country has become too divided by our government to fight for things like taxation without representation. the government gets us fighting over issues like race or sexual preference, by inventing things like black history month they divide us and stop us from fighting against them. Things need to change in this country and the same old people we have leading us now will never get it done. The population fighting amongst it's self is goint o acomplish even less.