Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/20/10 10:26 PM, Fyndir wrote:

Or, you know, you could tell it in a way that's amusing?

James Bond walks into a bar, looks at the barman and says

"I'll have a Haitian Martini, please, shaken...not stirred."

If you know what "on the rocks" means, then you would think that joke is hilarious.

Well i think this whole earthquake in Haiti think is just awful and depressing, so we need a few jokes to help cheer us up.

Here are a couple of my favorites

"Oh man, why did i break up with my Haitian girlfriend? Somebody told me that when she found out, she was crushed."

"Whenever i go and order a Haitian martini, its always on the rocks."

and remember folks. Its never too soon. Post your favorite "too soon" joke.

At 12/4/09 12:51 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/4/09 12:07 AM, ArbitraryAbsurdity wrote:

or should my gene pool end here for the beterment of our species?

Well there's several aspects.

1. Kill known weak babies at birth. If you know a baby will be all fucked up and just a burden to everyone, you can advocate killing it. That's one thing.

2. Kill weak people whenever. Just decide how weak is too weak and start murdering people who don't pass.

3. Prevent people with bad genes from reproducing.

Frankly I think all 3 questions are going to be entirely irrelevant relatively short in the future as technology will be able to upgrade the living. Who cares if you have bad eye genes when we'll just implant LASER EYES into you later on?

For now though I'd be all for limiting the reproduction of people with terrible genes. It's the least we can do for future generations, I mean, come the fuck on. I'm not talking about bad eye vision here but if you have genes that have a 50% chance of resulting in your child being mentally retarded and wheelchair-bound, then don't waste everyone's time with your bad baby-making skills and adopt one.
Of course implementing all of this would be really tricky and it's probably not worth the giant political battle that would ensue. We have more important things to attend to.

I think the book "A Wrinkle in Time" very well illustrates this dilemma when presenting the supposed "utopia" which actually turns out to be a dystopia because nobody has any freedom of choice and conformed to the same will. That will (forgot the name of the entity that controlled it but it was some central brain thing) would have anyone killed off that even caught a cold let alone a birth defect. It really comes down to natural law and rights of man. Its inhumane to kill someone for a problem they have that they didn't have a choice of having that problem. "Everyone is endowed any right that does not conflict with any right of someone else"

At 12/4/09 12:04 AM, OddlyPoetic wrote: You took one survery. In one school, in one town in America.

That is nowhere fucking near enough to make a reasonable guess.

Because other signs of this in our culture aren't apparent *cough*palinbooksigning*cough*

At 12/3/09 11:33 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: Surveying your peers on how well they know their current local politicians would probably be a lot more relevant than surveying them about presidents who ran for office before they were even born.

There's a clearly-defined (well, actually, convoluted-as-shit) hierarchy to government administration; ignoring the levels closest to the average citizen while focusing all the attention on who the commander in chief is... seems, to me, like a goddamn problem all its own.

They didn't know the platforms of the presidential candidates or their senators either. Ignoring the Federal or top political positions is a flaw all on its own as although the grunts are in the public's eye, the top dogs can use them as shields and take power too easilly.

Except its fucking obvious that the USSR wasn't true communism and that Stalin was a dictator..... so anyone using USSR as an example as to why communism didn't work obviously doesn't understand communism because what Stalin did would have made Marx roll in his grave.

As for putting the government in the hands of the proletariat. It already is, the proletariat are just uneducated and don't participate intelligently or at all in their government.

No system in the world can cure idiocy.

At 12/3/09 11:04 PM, Warforger wrote: Wrong. Reform of the retardedly biased media.

Oh, so its the media's fault that people dont actively pay attention to the platforms of the various candidates of various politicians that make an impact on their lives and its the media's fault that people are lazy and refuse to take a serious interest and analytical approach to their government........ sure.

People are not involved in their government. Simple as that. My friend just did a survey of our school and about 75% couldn't name who the last 5 presidents were or what the platforms for the various candidates during the presidential election were or who their senators were.

Now i think the problem comes full circle when you look at Marxists theory on economics. He says in Das Kapital that the government is the instrument that is used by the bourgeoisie to put down the proletariat. Now any good Stalin fearing commie will tell you this is why the bourgeoisie are a bunch of tyrannical fuckers who need to go and we need to reform the system. Well i say they, along with gun glorifying capitalists, should shut the fuck up. Its YOUR fault that fuckheads are in office. Its YOUR fault you either voted out of bandwagon or didn't vote, so dont go off and fucking complain to me that the government sucks when you have the power to change it and choose not to. The reason why the middle class and lower class are being oppressed in America is because they choose to be.

Solution: More Gov't involvement and better socio-economic education in schools.

Guys we need to clear up some bullshit here. One, Halucinogens are probably the least perminantly harmful of all the drug catagories because they dont attack your nervous, respiratory, etc. All they do is alter brain chemistry temporarily.

Marijuana is not bad. When you look at the medical benefits in comparison to the adverse effects which really come down to impairment and short term memory loss on chronic use, you can see how much more beneficial Marijuana is: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/abo ut-ama/13625.shtml

Keep in mind the only reason it was criminalized was because of racist motives in the south against Hispanics and because the paper mill companies didn't want to convert to hemp because it would cost them millions of dollars.

As for other hallucinogenics:

Im not sure on the properties of LSD, Peyote, Psiliban, PCP, etc. but i do know about DMT. DMT is the strongest hallucinogenic known to man. It is a natural neurotransmitter made in the brain when you sleep. It is produced in the pineal gland located near the center of the brain. Dr. Rick Strassman has a huge argument behind the legalization behind DMT in his book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule". If you make it when you dream, it can't be that bad.

At 12/1/09 11:17 PM, Kazuhiro wrote: If I'm not mistaken, religious institutions get tax exemptions purely on the basis of being non-profit organizations. Could obviously be wrong about that.

Nah, if they are an officially recognized religion by uncle sam they get a tax exemption

At 12/1/09 11:17 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I think everyone should pay taxes. Like, $5 for every unsubstantiated claim the IRS finds.

This is what i would want ideally, but no way that would ever pass.

Im a secular humanist and i find it to be unfair that religious institutions receive tax exemptions while the Council for Secular Humanism doesn't. I believe we need to give tax exemptions to the Council for Secular Humanism.

Agreed?

At 12/1/09 10:42 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

bitched some more about things im too lazy to quote.

Yes, i admit, i made a grammar mistake. Fine, we can drop the grammar thing. It's a stupid argument to be making regardless. As for semantics, simply understand that I'm not trying to exclusively point out conservatives.

There we go. Now can we move on and debate the issue at hand?

At 12/1/09 10:24 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

I was demonstrating how when a video in which stupid people are interviewed supports his position it's worth making a thread over it. But when the video goes against his position then he'll just dismiss it.

But I didn't ignore it. I said you agreed with my point, because it does. Liberals are American people too you know.

At 12/1/09 10:21 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

LOL. "yeah I'm not targeting anyone in particular just ignorant people. OH btw I'm a liberal and here's a video of dumb conservatives lolololol"

I explained why i used that video, im not repeating myself. Now either refute my explanation or fuck off. If I wanted to bash conservatives I would have said conservatives because I'm not a pansy who is afraid to speak their mind.

haha YOU'RE the one arguing semantics. I'm attacking your position and you're responding by saying "Oh well technically I never said this and TECHNICALLY I never actually did this" even though its pretty fucking clear what you were doing.

Says the guy who brought up the fact that i was bashing conservatives because I implied it. Good effort, I'll give you that.

At 12/1/09 10:00 PM, zero-gravity wrote: An even greater testament to his horrible grammar.

1. YOU'RE the one who can't read. It was a typo you moron. It has nothing to do with grammar.

Wow, your a fucking moron, your typo caused a grammar mistake. Holy fuck you just got a lot more idiotic than I originally thought you were.

2. Wait, so you thought I made a certain type of mistake (which I didn't) and so this is somehow indicative of my poor language skills? Holy fuck you're retarded.

Well yes, you made the mistake because your sentence didn't have a verb in it, and that is a grammar mistake. Yes, if you can't use language properly that means you have bad language skills. Notice I actually make sure I don't type grammatically stupid shit.

I'll give you an A for effort champ.

At 12/1/09 09:59 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 12/1/09 09:57 PM, zero-gravity wrote: Way to go champ. Learn to read.

"hey guys 70% of the population shouldn't be allowed to vote, though I'm not saying which people."

"Oh btw here's an unrelated video about Sarah Palin supporters okay lol"

Ummm, because I'm not trying to distinguish between political ideologies. Think a little bit. I was referring to the idiot population of America and not the conservative population. I just happened to use that video because it is the most recent example of the point I'm trying to get across.

Oh but you would throw your hands in the air and cry bloody murder over my semantics only proving that you in fact dont understand what we are arguing because you aren't arguing the issue at hand.

Keep trying champ.

At 12/1/09 09:45 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Fixed again because you didn't fix it properly.

P

I thought he was referring to "intelligent" as a noun, as a collection of intelligent people.

An even greater testament to his horrible grammar.

At 12/1/09 09:47 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

It's called a typo you fucking dolt.

Funny how you have nothing to say about the video.

You never commented on my video and where did i say conservatives shouldn't be allowed to vote? Try to quote me on where i said conservatives are allowed to vote. OH WAIT, i said 70% of the population which DOESN'T IMPLY CONSERVATIVES AT ALL.

Way to go champ. Learn to read.

At 12/1/09 09:29 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: LOL because all liberals and intelligent are well informed

Fixed because your grammar is awful. Second, in trying to bash my obvious liberalism you actually affirmed my argument. Way to go champ.

At 12/1/09 09:01 PM, Warforger wrote: I say, make a government official textbook and schools, no state owned schools as this makes people biased with the facts according to the ruling party of that state.

You realize the problem with what you just said:

Except the problem lies within the federal government as well, so what you are basically doing is giving out textbooks that are biased according to the ruling party in America. Thats much worse.

Obviously when i say "Take away the voting rights of 70% of Americans", im exaggerating both the percentage and the extent we should go to correct the problem to get a point across, its not meant to be taken literally.

At 12/1/09 08:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

But having it so that only 30% or 15% or even 1% of the educated populace being able to vote, aside from the fact that it would lead to violent revolution by people who think that democracy actually gives them some control over the government, would not change the 'ethical character' nor the 'responsibility' of the state.

Yea but allowing bumbling idiots who dont even know what they are voting basically accomplishes the same end because they are tricked into voting for garbage they dont understand.

That minority of voters would simply band together and have the other 70% pay for their pet projects and welfare schemes (corporate or otherwise) and enrich themselves at the cost of society as a whole.

But still, back to my original point, its already happening because the people they are taking advantage of at the moment dont realize they are even being taken advantage of.

This is why i advocate the provision of state services be handled on an individualistic level, and regulated, GENUINELY regulated by the Market, I.E. the interactions of people.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Because to me it sounds as if you want to take power away from the State whose responsibility is to take care of the American people and put it in the hands of the "Market" which is primarily controlled by CEOs whose only "responsibility" is to gain capital. Bad idea.

If the 70% of americans decide to purchase Sarah Palin's infrastructure plan and it screws them over, It won't hurt me and those 70% of American's won't have to wait until the next election season to fix their mistake, and by then they probably will have forgotten.

They vote for the same president you do so it is your loss as well.

Im sorry, but i do believe that at least 70% of the American constituency should NEVER be allowed to vote.

My argument for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKKKgua7w Qk

Im sorry, but nothing on that album comes even close to "Divine Moments of Truth" or "Star Shpongled Banner". They lost their ultra trippy touch and now just sound like run of the mill psytrance.

After listening to the song Heavyweight by Infected Mushroom i have fallen in love with the style of music found in it. It was a combination of my two favorite genres of music: Psytrance and Metal. So does anyone know any kind of psytrance metal bands? Google has failed me.

At 10/15/09 03:26 PM, ToastedCupcake wrote: I love trance. My favorites are Vibe Tribe, Infected Mushroom and Cosmic Gate.

i LOVE Vibe Tribe, favorite song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjdlBTun 1Y

At 10/14/09 08:51 PM, DarkComp wrote: You mean trips like this?

My god, that is Shpongle worthy.

At 10/14/09 08:43 PM, zero-gravity wrote:

On another note i found the greatest thing. Look at this and read the photo description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectr ogram_-_Aphex_Twin_-_Windowlicker.png

Sorry, miscoppied the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectr ogram_-_Aphex_Twin_-_Windowlicker.png

At 10/13/09 12:41 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: And what about EBM ?!?

S.A.M
Suicide Commando

Pretty cool :)

I agree, pretty good stuff.

At 10/12/09 03:12 PM, Rallard wrote: I'm not really big on the whole subgenres of trance, but psytrance counts as trance... right? If so, I'm a big fan.

Last DJ(s) I saw was Infected Mushrooms, and they were amazing.

Yea, psyTRANCE is a subgenre of trance. Infected Mushrooms just came out w/ an AMAZING new album. Good stuff.

On another note i found the greatest thing. Look at this and read the photo description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectr ogram_-_Aphex_Twin_-_Windowlicker.png

Stoners eh? Im all in. Just bought a gram yesterday.

i'll start:

How 'bout that vibrasphere?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqrfDNHne vU