Altimaomega said: »
Ramyrez said: »
I mean, I've got the "shooting the bad guy before they shoot a good person" mindset to, to some degree. I just can't see it realistically playing out with a happy ending
Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
You'll have a better chance of a happy ending in that situation with the DP-12 than you would without the DP-12.
[+]
Aside from the Lugar, I don't own any, and I don't intend to acquire any (aside from what my dad leaves me when he dies, which I'll promptly sell). While I don't have any issues with guns, and I know how to handle one safely, having a real capable firearm would unnerve the hell out of people very close to me.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Ramyrez said: » I mean, I've got the "shooting the bad guy before they shoot a good person" mindset to, to some degree. I just can't see it realistically playing out with a happy ending
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Ramyrez said: » I mean, I've got the "shooting the bad guy before they shoot a good person" mindset to, to some degree. I just can't see it realistically playing out with a happy ending Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Guns or no guns, arguments like the one above are dumb. Stop trying to equate two unlike things. It's dumb and you know it. It's also why gun nuts are as dumb and panicky as those who think we can just ban all guns. Quote: trying to equate two unlike things Our society thrives on violence and promotes it in every facet of our lives, but lets go ahead and ban guns so we can maintain our security theater while keeping our flawed ways of life intact in their brokenness.
[+]
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Anna Ruthven said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Ramyrez said: » I mean, I've got the "shooting the bad guy before they shoot a good person" mindset to, to some degree. I just can't see it realistically playing out with a happy ending Valefor.Endoq said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Guns or no guns, arguments like the one above are dumb. Stop trying to equate two unlike things. It's dumb and you know it. It's also why gun nuts are as dumb and panicky as those who think we can just ban all guns. Quote: trying to equate two unlike things Our society thrives on violence and promotes it in every facet of our lives, but lets go ahead and ban guns so we can maintain our security theater while keeping our flawed ways of life intact in their brokenness. The stupidity being pointed out was comparing a high speed chase to gun violence, for the record. It's a false dichotomy and a flatly HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE comparison to be making. The ban guns crowded can be stumped with a simple 'like banning marijuana went over so well?' without hurting someones frontal lobe.
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Well now it's finally happen. I'm very skeptical of Trump now. I was ok to meh at least he's not Hillary for the longest time to ugh stop pandering to the lowest common denominator (you couldn't really do that, etc.), but now I'm skeptical. Thanks to Palin's endorsement, I'm officially worried. So get it together Rubio, or Paul (but that would take some serious turnaround now). Not that I preferred him to begin with at all (I helped Paul), but he was always a better choice than Hillary... Looking at you too Bernie, you better keep that momentum going. What about Palin endorsing Trump has you more skeptical than before? It was inevitable, I'm kinda glad they got it out of the way early. I was half joking, but really she is quite the annoying person and she should not be in politics. It was definitely a mistake as no one takes her seriously as rightfully so, but we'll see how this affects Trump's campaign now. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Valefor.Endoq said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Guns or no guns, arguments like the one above are dumb. Stop trying to equate two unlike things. It's dumb and you know it. It's also why gun nuts are as dumb and panicky as those who think we can just ban all guns. Quote: trying to equate two unlike things Our society thrives on violence and promotes it in every facet of our lives, but lets go ahead and ban guns so we can maintain our security theater while keeping our flawed ways of life intact in their brokenness. The stupidity being pointed out was comparing a high speed chase to gun violence, for the record. It's a false dichotomy and a flatly HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE comparison to be making. The ban guns crowded can be stumped with a simple 'like banning marijuana went over so well?' without hurting someones frontal lobe. That connection was made solely by yourself/the readers. Interesting that you would see them as similar though, so you must agree on some level. Edit: that frontal lobe thing made me laugh out loud. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Any candidate she endorses or even goes near loses. I knew it was a possibility, but I was hoping she would have stayed away or done it over the summer. I was half joking, but really she is quite the annoying person and she should not be in politics. It was definitely a mistake as no one takes her seriously as rightfully so, but we'll see how this affects Trump's campaign now. I thought it was funny (and sad) how she got up on the stage and blamed Obama for her son having PTSD and thats what led to him beating his wife. No sympathy or anything for her daughter in law. Just blame Obama. I wonder if her son will try to use that in his defense before his conviction.
[+]
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Any candidate she endorses or even goes near loses. I knew it was a possibility, but I was hoping she would have stayed away or done it over the summer. I was half joking, but really she is quite the annoying person and she should not be in politics. It was definitely a mistake as no one takes her seriously as rightfully so, but we'll see how this affects Trump's campaign now. I thought it was funny (and sad) how she got up on the stage and blamed Obama for her son having PTSD and thats what led to him beating his wife. No sympathy or anything for her daughter in law. Just blame Obama. I wonder if her son will try to use that in his defense before his conviction. Warning: Listening to Palin talk will temporary lower your IQ. Listen to her at your own risk. Prolonged exposure may cause permanent brain damage.
[+]
The weird thing is Ted Cruz was actively seeking her endorsement, but instead the last few days prominent senators and a governor have lined up against him. I don't know why anyone would want Palin's support.
Idk either. From what I thought, her popularity died out years ago as everything she did ended in complete failure.
Her and Cruz are supposedly best buddies, I was actually kind of surprised she didn't endorse him. Of course I was even more surprised when the Iowa governor came out and said anyone but Cruz, I guess his stance on ethanol is starting to come into focus in that state.
Shiva.Viciousss said: » Her and Cruz are supposedly best buddies, I was actually kind of surprised she didn't endorse him. Of course I was even more surprised when the Iowa governor came out and said anyone but Cruz, I guess his stance on ethanol is starting to come into focus in that state. Good ol' Cruz did a prompt 180 on the subject after the criticism, too. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Shiva.Viciousss said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Any candidate she endorses or even goes near loses. I knew it was a possibility, but I was hoping she would have stayed away or done it over the summer. I was half joking, but really she is quite the annoying person and she should not be in politics. It was definitely a mistake as no one takes her seriously as rightfully so, but we'll see how this affects Trump's campaign now. I thought it was funny (and sad) how she got up on the stage and blamed Obama for her son having PTSD and thats what led to him beating his wife. No sympathy or anything for her daughter in law. Just blame Obama. I wonder if her son will try to use that in his defense before his conviction. Warning: Listening to Palin talk will temporary lower your IQ. Listen to her at your own risk. Prolonged exposure may cause permanent brain damage. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » The foregrip is part of it, yes. There's plenty of videos of it in action. It looks pretty goofy, but it's surprisingly comfortable to shoot. Quote: Holy ***! 1400 bucks? Freedom isn't free.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Palin's streak is only overshadowed by Hillary's cackling. Talk about your brain damage...
[+]
Ramyrez said: » No, there's a hefty ***' fee. Yeah, it's called a child.
[+]
Guess I won't be paying my share, then. They'll have to settle for my tax dollars. Thanks to our screwed up mindset though, that's okay, because I pay more than someone with a child anyhow, even though 2 people > 1 person. Late Edit: Cruz has issues working well with others. He fails to understand that taking a stand is not leadership if you cannot persuade others to follow you.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Palin's streak is only overshadowed by Hillary's cackling. Talk about your brain damage... If you take them both seriously, Palin would by far be harder to deal with, but I think in reality Hillary would be more difficult to listen to for longer because with Sarah you sort of get this delirium where you're not sure if she's for real or a stand-up comedian who is really good at satire, or if maybe you're just hallucinating the whole thing because holy ***who can be that crazy. YouTube Video Placeholder Conservative Magazine lines up against Trump
Quote: National Review, the conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley, published a special issue on Friday opposing Donald Trump's bid for the presidency. The cover -- with the headline "Against Trump" -- was tweeted by the magazine on Thursday night. The issue features a blistering editorial that labels Trump a threat to conservatism, as well as essays by 22 prominent conservative thinkers from various ideological factions, in opposition to Trump's candidacy. "Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot on behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as The Donald himself," the editorial states. Read all National Review essays GOP responds by banning National Review from debate Looks like its getting testy over there. Shiva.Viciousss said: » Conservative Magazine lines up against Trump Quote: National Review, the conservative magazine founded by William F. Buckley, published a special issue on Friday opposing Donald Trump's bid for the presidency. The cover -- with the headline "Against Trump" -- was tweeted by the magazine on Thursday night. The issue features a blistering editorial that labels Trump a threat to conservatism, as well as essays by 22 prominent conservative thinkers from various ideological factions, in opposition to Trump's candidacy. "Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot on behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as The Donald himself," the editorial states. Read all National Review essays GOP responds by banning National Review from debate Looks like its getting testy over there. No party wants a candidate that won't play ball. I respect the hell out of Trump on some levels because he's a master at what he's doing. I also just think he's a terrible human being with terrible policies, practices, and a history of terrible actions. And a penchant for implying some seriously vile things. It's like that "I'm with stupid" newspaper thing. It's all well and good to dislike them and belittle them for it, but neither of them is actually stupid. They're making money hand-over-***-fist. Jessica Simpson, for all the hate she gets, is a nine-figure millionaire and most of us aren't. Exactly who is the stupid one? Ramyrez said: » I respect the hell out of Trump just vote for him now and avoid the rush! it's gunna be awesome! I heard that jesse james is coming out for trump, not the real jesse james... but the douchebag jesse james that was sandra bullock's wife for a while... and whatever else he did/does...
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.