Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/3/08 07:24 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Are you SURE you're a guy then? Cause that isn't supposed to happen to us.

Wait.....give me a second......yep, I'm a dude.

Called no overcoat.

At 11/3/08 07:24 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: My mind is filled with hatred for my job. I will have to get up earlier then I want to tomorrow so I can make sure to go out there and vote.

I know I should vote tomorrow, but the simple fact is, I just don't fucking want to this year. And that kills me because of my past on this board. I haven't even BOTHERED researching candidates this year.

I may as well just step into the polling booth tomorrow and go "eenie meenie miney moe" for all the good it will do.

At 11/3/08 07:26 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Called no overcoat.

Well there goes my bladder control theory about you.

At 11/3/08 08:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

Well there goes my bladder control theory about you.

Not cool man.

Also, thank god for absentee ballots.

there should be an option for an "anti-vote" where I don't actually have to vote for any single candidate, but I can at least take 1 vote away from my least favorite candidate instead.

At 11/3/08 08:44 PM, Malachy wrote: there should be an option for an "anti-vote" where I don't actually have to vote for any single candidate, but I can at least take 1 vote away from my least favorite candidate instead.

I like Jello Biafra's idea best; a "none-of-the-above" slot on the ballot. If "none-of-the-above" comes in as the winner, the election starts over, and the people who ran before can't run again. With this setup, you can even vote out people running unopposed.

At 11/3/08 08:44 PM, Malachy wrote: there should be an option for an "anti-vote" where I don't actually have to vote for any single candidate, but I can at least take 1 vote away from my least favorite candidate instead.

In France, they have a system where, if enough people vote "white card," then they have to scrap all of the candidates and get new ones. That should be in this system, too.

At 11/3/08 08:53 PM, Elder500 wrote:

At 11/3/08 08:44 PM, Malachy wrote: there should be an option for an "anti-vote" where I don't actually have to vote for any single candidate, but I can at least take 1 vote away from my least favorite candidate instead.

In France, they have a system where, if enough people vote "white card," then they have to scrap all of the candidates and get new ones. That should be in this system, too.

So THAT'S where he got the idea from. I knew he was talking about Europe when he discussed the no-confidence vote, I didn't know he was talking about France specifically.

Whodathunkit.... those wine-swilling cheese-eating surrender monkeys actually have a good idea for a change!

At 11/3/08 09:01 PM, Proteas wrote: So THAT'S where he got the idea from. I knew he was talking about Europe when he discussed the no-confidence vote, I didn't know he was talking about France specifically.

Whodathunkit.... those wine-swilling cheese-eating surrender monkeys actually have a good idea for a change!

fuck france. I literally want my "anti-vote" to take a vote AWAY from John McCain without me actually committing myself to Obama.

fuck france.

b-b-bu-buh-but they make good bread!

Nah, this is just too funny.

At 11/3/08 09:03 PM, Malachy wrote: fuck france. I literally want my "anti-vote" to take a vote AWAY from John McCain without me actually committing myself to Obama.

That's kind of the point of a "none of the above" vote, man.

.... okay, they just advertised "Mortal Kombat; DC Universe" on Comedy Central. A Mortal Kombat game, where you can pit MK characters against DC Superheros.

Milking it much?

At 11/3/08 10:28 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/3/08 09:03 PM, Malachy wrote: fuck france. I literally want my "anti-vote" to take a vote AWAY from John McCain without me actually committing myself to Obama.

That's kind of the point of a "none of the above" vote, man.

no. it's not.

I mean. that by voting "NO TO MCCAIN"

some vote FOR mccain will be taken away from mccain.

so say mccain has 3 votes.

and I vote "anti-vote" mccain

he will now have 2 votes.

see? I can take votes AWAY from a candidate..not just saying "none of the above"

At 11/3/08 06:52 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: ...bad 70's elevator music.

Oxymoron.

At 11/3/08 10:46 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Oxymoron.

I think not.

And U2's best album is the Joshua Tree. Awesome.

At 11/3/08 10:39 PM, Malachy wrote: see? I can take votes AWAY from a candidate..not just saying "none of the above"

Vote for the others, who aren't hardly mentioned:

Charles O. Baldwin
Robert L. Barr, Jr.
Cynthia Ann McKinney
Ralph Nader

It's a vote not for McCain, but not a vote for Obama.
Nader would appreciate any help he can get....
The poor man-- a sympathy vote. He'll lose, but... it's something for him.

Tomorrow we go to sleep in a vastly different world than we woke up in.

At 11/3/08 09:01 PM, Proteas wrote:

Whodathunkit.... those wine-swilling cheese-eating surrender monkeys actually have a good idea for a change!

I'm stafffighter and I approve kicking you until your pee looks like fine French wine.

At 11/4/08 12:36 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 11/3/08 10:46 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Oxymoron.

I think not.

Maybe redundant is a better word...

And U2's best album is the Joshua Tree. Awesome.

Truf.

I actually AM voting for Nader. I LIKE Nader. I HATE MCcain, and I think Obama is... an actor. Like, he gives me this Reagan-esque thing. He's a great public speaker, very charismatic, and I find that to be a turn off. Plus, I'm fairly certain he's going to win, which makes me want to vote for him even less. I don't EVER want to vote for a winner; it's just bad policy. If my candidate wins, I'd be responsible when he fucks up. By NEVER voting for a winner, I squeeze right out of that one.

You can't be an instrument of change if you don't vote for the winner.

three times

At 11/4/08 07:08 AM, stafffighter wrote: I'm stafffighter and I approve kicking you until your pee looks like fine French wine.

Are you of french descent, staff? I knew you always took affront to the french jokes, but I wasn't sure.

At 11/4/08 09:35 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I actually AM voting for Nader.

That's what I did, simply because I was to chicken-shit to go to the write-in box and put Charles Manson down as a write in candidate.

I was surprised at how many candidates there were to vote for this time around, though. It seemed like back in '04 it was Bush, Kerry, and Nader, now it's McCain, Obama, Nader and about 5 or 6 independent candidates I've never heard of. I'm half tempted to punch out the next person who says "lesser of two evils" in regards to this election.

At 11/4/08 09:42 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You can't be an instrument of change if you don't vote for the winner.

three times

Your brain is encased in a titanium strength wall of dumb.

Candidates are CRAZY OCD about why individuals vote for wacky candidates, because they want EVERY SINGLE VOTE. When I vote for Nader, four years from now, Obama is going to look at this years poll numbers and think: "What was so right about Nader that he got these votes EVEN THOUGH he didn't have a chance in hell?" Then he's going ot look at Nader, and try to take as many of Nader's policies as he can without alienating his core supporters.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best of both worlds. Instead of just carte blanch voting for Obama and letting him assume I support him 100%, I vote NADER, which forces Obama OR Mccain, whoever wins, to change their policies to the way / dictate.

Wait... no politics in the lounge, k?

At 11/4/08 12:04 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 11/4/08 09:42 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You can't be an instrument of change if you don't vote for the winner.

three times

Your brain is encased in a titanium strength wall of dumb.

I was more leaning on those damn polls showing "who's ahead" for the last eternity and the voter scam scandals that're going to fly around post-election '08 regardless of the winner. I predict "voting reform" becomes the big national issue after either Dopey or Ackhmed claims Bush's mandated throne.

That's the change both candidates can agree on...
....if there was politics in the lounge...

Candidates are CRAZY OCD about why individuals vote for wacky candidates, because they want EVERY SINGLE VOTE. When I vote for Nader, four years from now, Obama is going to look at this years poll numbers and think: "What was so right about Nader that he got these votes EVEN THOUGH he didn't have a chance in hell?" Then he's going ot look at Nader, and try to take as many of Nader's policies as he can without alienating his core supporters.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best of both worlds. Instead of just carte blanch voting for Obama and letting him assume I support him 100%, I vote NADER, which forces Obama OR Mccain, whoever wins, to change their policies to the way / dictate.

Decent logic, with a tinge of misplaced hope.

I don't see either McCain or Obama making it to the next election, or their respective party scions to critically give a fuck about Ralph Nader.

Wait... no politics in the lounge, k?

Gotcha.

Finally.

;

At 11/4/08 03:25 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Finally.

;

Word.

At 11/4/08 12:04 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Wait... no politics in the lounge, k?

Right, we're here to discussing huge throbbing PENI....

I can't do it. I've got something else on my mind. I had a customer at work the other day who was about 5'5", lovely face average build, and a stunningly beautiful pair of bouncing G-Cup breasts straining against the straps of her tank top. It was difficult to maintain professional composure, but I managed... somehow...

At 11/4/08 04:27 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/4/08 12:04 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Wait... no politics in the lounge, k?

;;;;;;;;;
No matter what Funk, the most important thing is that you voted.
I feel that is more important than who you voted for !

Right,

I've got something else on my mind. and a stunningly beautiful pair of bouncing G-Cup breasts straining against the straps of her tank top.

;;;;;
Damn ! Now I've got something large and firm and ...gotta go !

At 11/4/08 04:27 PM, Proteas wrote: I can't do it. I've got something else on my mind. I had a customer at work the other day who was about 5'5", lovely face average build, and a stunningly beautiful pair of bouncing G-Cup breasts straining against the straps of her tank top. It was difficult to maintain professional composure, but I managed... somehow...

That wasn't a typo, right? G-cups?

That's not really a turn on for me... at all. :S

;

At 11/4/08 11:46 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/4/08 07:08 AM, stafffighter wrote: I'm stafffighter and I approve kicking you until your pee looks like fine French wine.

Are you of french descent, staff? I knew you always took affront to the french jokes, but I wasn't sure.

Oh yeah. Ask Seven, my last name is very French. So much so that the guy at gamestop messed it up by spelling it the way it sounds on my wrath of the lich king pre-order. I hope that doesn't complicate things.

At 11/4/08 05:02 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

That wasn't a typo, right? G-cups?

That's not really a turn on for me... at all. :S

;

What are you? Gay?

Also. I'm making it a point to avoid any and all election coverage just to keep myself from going nuts. I voted and now I don't want to hear about it until it's all done.

At 11/4/08 05:02 PM, reviewer-general wrote: That wasn't a typo, right? G-cups?

G-Cups. Natural, nice and bouncy. Think of the way Katie Price/Jordan used to look before she had the implants taken out.

Well, Jordan had double G's, which I suppose would be close to an H cup.

That's not really a turn on for me... at all. :S

Well, if she was an old woman and they had been hanging to her waist, it wouldn't have been for me either. She was closer to my age, and I think she had a bra on, though, as her breasts were up above her elbow line which would normally be an indicator for sag. Which is a physical impossibility when your boobs are THAT big.

At the core of it, I'm a simple man.