Be a Supporter!

Credits & Info

Uploaded
Oct 30, 2011 | 12:16 PM EDT

If you liked this, check these out!


Author Comments

ORIGINAL COMMENT: The corporate shills in the mainstream media claim that we don't know what we want, that we're unfocused, that we have no unified vision. They lie.

PLEASE NOTE: This video came in at 6th place in the Daily Top Ten on October 30, 2011, and was carrying a score of 3.55 at the end of the day on the 31st. Unfortunately, it caught the attention of an obsessive nutcase.

A submission does not come off the front page at 3.55, then drop to 2.96 in 20 days without being deliberately attacked. The law of averages prohibits that. The score on this animation no longer reflects an accurate statistical sample of Newgrounds users.

Reviews


redfox280redfox280

Rated 2 / 5 stars April 27, 2012

This problem is likely going to continue, and as weird as it sounds... it should. I hate the fact that companies can buy out people like romney and obama, but lets face it: What are we to do? What is the solution? We should be able to donate to people, whether we're rich, poor, or in between. If you take away our ability to donate, what would they run off of? More tax money so that everyone is forced to pay for them? No thanks. A money cap? Bypassable, and there would be a controversy topic of where the cap would be. The presidential candidates need a lot of money to do their work. I guess the only thing I can think of, would be to make it more illegal to show obvious signs of bribery. For example, if a company gets out of taxes due to one president.

This is simply on of the few abuses of freedom, and I see more benefits than problems. If america decides not to elect the right president, then we can either call scam, or we need to understand that the majority made a bad decision. The presidents, whether owned or not, still do make their own decisions. For example, Obama pushed his healthcare plan and signed the awful NDAA bill which isn't necessary a corporate move. He was advocating the healthcare to his fans before and after election, and the NDAA is purely a freedom taking bill made "for our own safety". The presidents still means more than just corporate donations.



kerbourchardkerbourchard

Rated 5 / 5 stars April 26, 2012

Hey we totally passed a law against politicians getting involved in financial districts just recently. Totally worth a point to the black politician on here, don't ya think? Of course, the republicans took it a notch down with allowing unlimited contributions. Anywho.. It is an interesting government/capitalism scenario. You see.. if the rich aren't making money in the U.S. .. they can take their money, products, jobs, etc... to another country and just say screw you 99% "of America". Which is probably about maybe 5% of the world. This is part of the struggle. We want our rich. Without them our nation can easily bankrupt. Our unemployment would be through the roof. We'd no longer have the funds needed to support all the poor and sick. It would be disastrous. America has great freedoms. America is a nice place to live. So, we have some things to keep them around, but it is still a tricky situation. If walmart, mcdonalds, microsoft, apple, starbucks, .. if these rich companies just said screw it and disappeared all of a sudden.. general motors has a huge lay off and we never hear the end of it.. that's only one of the former fortune 500.. imagine if 10 20 or even a couple hundred disappeared on us.. we'd be so screwed. Imagine if we removed all the crooked politics.. and they fought back by firing 20% of their employees. Which is completely within their right to do. It would be the kind of think that would get politicians thrown out of office for. Antagonizing big business to the point of big business antagonizing the 99% back would have us just as upset with politicians as them making crooked deals. Somethings just have to be kept in a nasty balance on the pile of manure that we call politics.



TomaO2TomaO2

Rated 2 / 5 stars November 9, 2011

An unfocused message.

In your flash you make the accusation that politicians are bought and paid for. Okay, that is a good start but then what?

I'm not sure I follow what your goal is. Make it so corporations are no longer "people"? How does that solve the problem you are worried about? The system was bought and paid for before that new rule, after all.

Do you want to put funding limits on what can be donated? Eliminate advocacy groups? Are you suggesting people vote for a third party? I haven't heard anyone in OWS advocating a third party. Tax the rich?

What do you want? All this is is anger and does nothing to provide solutions. you do nothing to dispel the claim of not knowing what you want.

However if you are looking to fix the problems, might I suggest you look towards following your own Constitution? The problem, as I see it, is that people can "buy" a politician's vote because politicians meddle in markets. Changing the law, picking winners and losers. Stopping them from going bankrupt or being sent to jail in cases of fraud. Wall Street has done tons of fraud here but very, very few have gone to jail. That should be looked at.

If a clear, unambiguous, rule was made to follow the Constitution and butt out otherwise. This could create the most favorable environment to stopping the cheaters. Stop awarding subsidies and meddling with our democratic economy. Stop baling out losers. Get out of the housing market. If they did that then corporations wouldn't give money to politicians anymore. It's not hard.

Stop occupying wall street and focus on the real problem. If a child asks for a cookie and the parent gives him a cookie do you blame the child or the parent? The child (corporations) can ask and bribe all they like but if politicians didn't change the rules for them and give them their cookies (subsidies) then they can't really do anything can they?

You gotta change the culture of Washington. Gotta turn off that unlimited money spigot that they can tap in order to fund trillion dollar deficits. That is where the occupation should be. You gotta make it so they don't have the power to reward people that donate. If they get the power, then they WILL be corrupted. You can't "fix" the system to make it that they only reward the "right" people. It's just never happened and never will. People are reliable that way.

END THE FED!


marchohare responds:

I think you've made some very good points. In fact, the first version I made of this was twice as long (one minute instead of 30 seconds) and suggested much of what you said. However, frankly, it exceeded the attention spans of most Newgrounds regulars -- no humor, no fight scenes. That's obviously the kiss of death around here.

So, I tried this, figuring it would at least identify the problem and get people to ask questions. It doesn't say "Edited for Newgrounds" for nothing. Nevertheless, I do believe I'm barking up the wrong tree. I emptied this account out a couple of years ago, thinking it just wasn't my audience, but a few months ago I figured I'd give it one more shot. However, I suspect I was right in the first place.


trippyharetrippyhare

Rated 5 / 5 stars October 30, 2011

Nice

Simple, direct, and to the point. Well done.

Btw Catone: the 99% refers to the bottom 99% of incomes- as in, everyone in the U.S. who earns less than 350k a year. Which means you too, by the way. And judging by your weak grasp of English and lunatic right-wing-fringe diatribe, you're probably pretty close to the bottom of the 99%. Which, to put in perspective, means this: the top 1% earns more in right around an hour than you will in a year, doing a job that- three years ago- damn near caused a Great Depression. And you're so gullible you actually OPPOSE anything that would keep them from fucking up the global economy and getting recockulously rich doing it.

"The idea that corporations donating money to political campaigns somehow denotes "free speech", and any effort to limit how much money they can give to a politician is restricting free speech, is bullshit" is the entire point of the vid. Companies handing money to politicians is bribery, plain and simple, and the U.S. is the only country that legalizes it. At least everywhere else they TRY to hide it or have the good sense to be ashamed if word gets out.


People find this review helpful!
marchohare responds:

Thanks! Considering that it's on the front page at #6 for Sunday's submissions, I think Catone's opinion can be dismissed -- particularly considering how awesome the submissions were yesterday. "Villainy - The Tape," "Jack's Halloween Treats" and "Mystery Meats" are just... wow. They deserved the top three spots. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have submitted this the day before Halloween, but... oh, well.


CatoneCatone

Rated 0.5 / 5 stars October 30, 2011

99%... yeah.... who taught you percentages?

A couple of jobless, uneducated knuckled heads, living on the street, demanding that America adopt communist/socialist/facist laws... I sure as shit don't THINK thats 99% (least I sure as hell hope not).... where the hell did you people learn to count? Government run and funded healthcare, look around, how many countries have it? Lets take Canada for instance, ever ask a Canadian how good it is? Try it sometime. How about redistribution of wealth... equal pay for non equal work? Who the hell is gonna get up and work if they get a free home and free food? Why work if everything is handed to you? Why go to college if that six year degree is not going to earn you any more money than a high school dropout? Ever study history? World civics? Every country in recorded history that has tried the economic policies a few people are protesting for are... well they sure as hell are not doing as good as America was before everyone started wanting handouts. What about communist China? Even they went to a capitalist economic system, it works, people work for money, be it greed or whatever, no motivation to strive for being better, no movement. I mean damn, if the government runs everything, who runs the government? The people with money!
And who the hell paid for the current american president to get in office? Corporations and people with money, who does the national press put on TV thats running for president... the guy with the money and backing to actually attempt to run.... oh forget it, if you really believe that crap then your to much of a dumbass to be reasoned with. So many reasons that this so called "99%" BS is exactly that, BS I can't even keep on one track.

As for the flash, it sucks. Animation is poor, the message is not proven in any way, and what is stated is well... pointless. The voice, while not acting, IS respectable, thats really all I can give it.


marchohare responds:

I'm quite good with percentages, Catone -- good enough to watch the daily vote count and the drop in my scores, do the math and determine that I had acquired a stalker with your voting power.

I figured you were the deranged user of whom I spoke, but watching the figures only told me that it was one person with a lot of voting power, not which person. However, now you've confirmed my suspicions.

You submitted your review of "Twisted Demo" within six hours of my changing its Author Comments to flush you out! Actually, calling you "deranged" was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If the timing of that review wasn't a sign of sick obsession, profound stupidity is the only option you have left.

Your reviews are meaningless, as are your votes. You've never uploaded a single Flash. You obviously know nothing about animation, or anything else. Your website is a pathetic frames-based thing on Angelfire. You're just a loser who sits around on Newgrounds, building his voting power by blamming the same submissions day after day. I'll bet that gives you a warm feeling of accomplishment, doesn't it?

Reacting within hours of my changing the Author Comments was a dead giveaway, although I was already pretty sure who was stalking me due to the insane, rambling PM you sent me shortly after I uploaded this Flash. (I didn't answer it; I just blocked you.) You're the type of no-life loser who gives Newgrounds a bad name.