Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

Nolder

Members
  • Content Count

    22700
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nolder

  1. That's not an answer. I voted for Trump in 2016. Did you vote for Hillary or someone else?
  2. Take a deep breath. Relax. The game hasn't even started yet.
  3. Could it be more like 48/12 unless anyone objects? In my experience most people don't need more than an actual night to figure out their actions if they're paying attention to the game. Also we might have two more coming from JN, give'em another day to check in.
  4. Delayed afaik. No official announcement that I know of.
  5. You dont? Who did you vote for?
  6. Ape said he would check in and Spoot said he'd join if his hockey team loses on wednesday. Oh 80 said he might play too but he thinks he might be banned from DM.
  7. It would certainly be different. Like fantasy without elves or science fiction without space ships.
  8. I would say cats are under a grandfather clause, or legacy if you prefer. They used to earn their keep and rid our homes and businesses of vermin. Now they just knock things off our desks and stare at us while they do it like they're daring us to stop them. If it wasn't for their previous service cats would be public enemy number 1.
  9. They did the best they could but a government is made of people. Next time I'm at my PC. I'm visiting my mom. I think women (and men) should take all possible precautions before marrying someone. Yeah if you elope with the bad boy on a motorcycle you met in a bar you might be in for a worse marriage than it you married some dweeb who collects frogs or whatever. Just like in other aspects of life I believe there should be consequences for poor decision making. THAT'S NOT HOW STATISTICS WORK Not all statistics are polls. That's a mighty big assumption. I think you will be disappointed. I'm only talking about education. We have states... It's hard to remember. I definitely took standardized testing (CAT6 and STAR) but I don't recall the frequency increasing. Also one thing I distinctly remember from that time, especially high school, is that I WASN'T taught what was On the test sometimes. I remember having to guess since they were always multiple choice. My guess is they hadn't really caught up to what the federal government wanted yet. What year? I graduated in 08. By that measure you can never cut a program or even funding because you would be obstructing the federal government. Do you know the frequency at which expats return to the US? Those aren't expats. You wouldn't know like that. Only way to know is either to ask them directly or see their voting record somehow. Yeaaahhh..........but if I was going to make cuts that's probably the last place i would do it. cause ya know...If you get that wrong we could all die. Like would you just but the CDC if I told you 90% of their funds get wasted somehow? You could. But if you get that 10% wrong it's smallpox time lol. So better to focus on other areas first and continue to dump money into the CDC (and military) until you've cut everywhere else it made sense to cut first. Is it enforced? Did you watch the video? Yes. Yes. We are living in one now. Ok. That's not how it works. Definitions are not personal. I can't all of a sudden just decide you're a plant. No. That's not technically true though. They get benefits such as on taxes without providing anything in return (children). Less taxes collected when they should be effects me. Get off this offended kick already. I'm not offended. This isn't about speech or religion. What did I say that makes you think I'm offended? I'm really curious. I mean just because I say something you don't agree with I must therefore be offended by YOUR beliefs? I hope you have more than that. So, again, share or pop the ball so no one can play. If gays can't have tax benefits for sodomizing each other than no one should get them. I agree with libertarians on a lot of things but I agree with ex libertarians more. Disagreed. I think they would be a gang not a militia...
  10. @Leelou my mom loves your dog btw. I showed her the picture because apparently my aunt wants a new dog..Anyway long story short she thinks it's adorable.
  11. Does that offend you or something? It was gibberish. You were trying to discredit what I was saying On the basis that i , in your mind, should be for smaller government etc and I didn't make that claim nor was any of it part of what I was saying. Duh. I didn't say anyone/everyone. Anyway at this point we're just arguing degrees you don't actually disagree with the basis of my belief. It produces the type of children who grow up to be healthy functional adults. No, not religion, Christianity. Its not a matter of government not picking sides. That's where so many people go wrong. When this nation was formed it was primarily protestant and with the exception of a few founding fathers with weird atheistic tendencies they were Christian as well. So this wasn't a bunch of Christians going hey you know what would be cool? If our new nation just totally had nothing to do with god. No what they wanted more than anything was legal protection for them to practice their beliefs safely but they didn't want to just recreate a Vatican state. Theocracy wasn't their game. They felt that state should be small and carry out certain functions like...have you ever been in an IRC with a chatbot? That's how they wanted government to be. Like an automated function almost that did the bare minimum to keep things running. I don't agree with this philosophy but I see the appeal in comparison to other choices. Anyway point is there was never intended to be an absence of religion it was just never meant to influence the workings of the government's functions. No fault divorce. Also I'm not worried about DV. Less people are getting married in the first place. Which leads to children out of wedlock, often with separated parents. I don't need to trot out the statistics on children without fathers in their lives do i? That's bullshit. Marriage does not lead to any of that. I would say you're wrong, but looking at society today I'll just say it doesn't have to be that way and the alternative is better for everyone. Lol are you serious right now? The one was out of a million does not negate what I'm saying. You're talking gibberish again. If you have something to say then say it. It's pretty reliable especially when there's been mmultiple studies. ... That's not how statistics work. No it's just bad quality because no one cares about a debate for Illinois senator. I would describe myself as a right wing American Nationalist. I think it was dumb of people to get mad and I think it was even dumber to backtrack and give the money back. I don't want federal policies. Idk I would guess 1. WHO is being obstructed? Expats aren't even in the USA... You were probably wrong is the likeliest answer. Cost money, employ useless bureaucrats. No such thing. Maybe 80%. Lol edited my other post in addition to replying to this one.
  12. I'm sorry that was rude. Best I can manage is "face only a mother could love".
  13. Dear God that is the ugliest dog I've ever seen and I've been surrounded by ugly dogs my entire life. 😩 😩
  14. Answer the question bird brain. Is it you?
  15. Before 2035 is the best I got for ya. Prepare accordingly.
  16. So say something intelligent. Because it's sooo hard trying to be the guy who pretends to Be Above It All.
  17. you really need to calm tf down dude.
  18. NO I'M JUST REALLY MAD NO ONE ELSE ASKED YET!!!!
  19. WHAT KIND OF PUPPY AND WHAT'S IT'S NAME??????????
  20. Not usually. Let's not turn this into the usual war of left vs right on every single issue ever, ok? We're already talking guns and gay marriage can we please just stick to those two topics without running to something else? Except that they aren't. I literally had some guy flip out on me a couple months ago and tell me he WAS going to take my guns and that he hates the NRA and blahblahblah. I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I own a gun (at the moment) so I thought it was pretty funny but that's besides the point. If you want to make the argument that he's in the minority and that is a one off thing fine, I don't believe it but that's fine, but you can't tell me there aren't people out there who want to ban all guns. Because kids. In case you haven't noticed we have had a massive drop in fertility rate in the United States. You know how you get kids? Marriage. This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. Separation of church and state isn't really what you think it is. It is not the total absence or denial of religion it's more like the church isn't going to dictate what the government does more or less. It's not supposed to. Prior to no fault divorce which is a very new construct and the so called "sexual revolution" most people didn't get divorced (look at the divorce rates). I have two answers to this, neither of which will likely satisfy you. The first is that those two people chose their partners wrong. Whatever is causing the hate is something that should have been apparent (hopefully) before marriage. Sometimes you just can't anticipate though and in that case...you both need to suck it up for the sake of the children. Hate each other in private or after the children are out of the house but while they are kids living under your roof you must be cordial at the very least. Parents too often indulge in their feelings, whether they be love or hate, and forget about their childrens well being it's far past time that stopped. I am saying that the nature of homosexual relationships is intrinsically sexual and hedonistic. Whatever else happens, that's the foundation it's built on. So? It kind of does though. Look at the statistics. LOL I forgot to post it. My bad. This clip. I'm not a conservative anymore. They're both unconstitutional. It's not about interpreting what's already there differently it's addressing a change in the nature of the position. I don't know what she's doing like I said so how can I agree or disagree? lol Oh no I did hear about that actually. To use a relevant term the whole thing was more retarded than the participants. I think you're missing my point which is that I don't want the federal government telling everyone how to do school. Making that "better" goes against my goals it doesn't further them. I don't see how that's obstructionist. I meant the federal governments standards. Expats are irrelevant to me. Majority of professors are liberal. I hate the DOE because of what it is and because of what they do. Still missing the point. I guess it was my fault for making a joking comment about in god we trust but if you stop focusing on that for a minute maybe you'll see what I was saying. I'm confused as to why you think this proves your point. Just stop Muslim. The rest will fall into place. Ok. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4oh8ft/were_americans_allowed_to_own_cannons_under_the/ Just legalize all weapons and be done with it imo. I'm not. I don't currently own a gun. I'll finish the rest later taking a break. Will edit this post when I'm done so as not to spam. It doesn't matter. A militia isn't possible without a civilians right to keep and bear arms. the militia thing is a total distraction from the issue. I would say marriage and procreation are intertwined. Well we're kind of rethinking the issue here so I would say yes you do. Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman so you need to justify why that shouldn't be the case. It's not about impact it's about the definition. What is marriage? allowing homosexuals to marry changes what it is and why it is. Like most on the Left you appear to be reacting to issues with emotion and assume others are as well. My feelings are not hurt. This is about the definition of marriage. If anything the idea that some victim group might be excluded from something seems to hurt your feelings. So either share the ball or you want to pop it so no one can play. Childish. Then don't bring them up. I am not a libertarian. Ok but i still don't get why you asked me at all and then preemptively answered your own question. If you just wanna have a conversation with yourself that's fine by me. It's fine by me. Not me
  21. Hey cut that sarcastic shit out. I didn't call you a libtard so don't act like I did. Keep it up and I'll just drop the conversation.
  22. Not usually no. It's usually the other way around in my experience. Yeah and? They do though, the NRA isn't lying. Why even call it marriage then? And yet they insist on calling it marriage. Which is all the more evidence that marriage is a religious thing that the state tacked incentives onto and not something that the state is in charge of. Couples break up. Marriage is for life. A lot of things yes. Monogamy for one. It builds trust and love with your partner which is then extended to the children. I don't know, it becomes hard to quantify when you start inserting so many variables. I would almost always bet on the married couple having better kids than the non married couple though. Marriage. I invite you to watch the entire clip (or even the entire debate really) as it's very interesting but please pay attention to 3:08 to 5:10. This man has a more factual and eloquent answer than I could ever dream of on my own. This is gibberish. It's not an argument and I don't find it amusing. I would guess not. The one I'm most familiar with is Obamacare. It would be (and is) unconstitutional...unless you consider it a tax which is what Roberts did. If we had adhered to them unwaveringly for 200 years then that might make sense but because so many things have changed you have to take that into account. We can get rid of the ATF too while we're on the subject. Anyhow, that hasn't been my experience with the little I've seen from Devos. Looks like fear mongering primarily. Granted. And I support that. Just because she has an interest in doing it doesn't make a lick of difference to me. Would you rather get someone without an incentive to dismantle the DOE? would that make it better for you? Depends what your goals are I suppose. IIRC Rick Perry and Rex Tillerson were both supposed to gut their respective departments as much as they could when they were appointed. I don't want their standards. I don't care about Americans going overseas. You really have a chip on your shoulder. Bush was shit, you think I don't know that or something? Does it make you feel better that I said that? The state of education is by a large margin a problem created by liberals. Regardless I think you missed my point. That's not true at all. How about we just declare Sharia Law illegal (which it would be anyway but reaffirmation is always nice) and stop Muslim immigration? I guess this is where we go back to whether they're being honest or not. I don't think that most of them are. I think they understand they just don't care. No prob. We also have civilians who owned warships either during or immediately following the revolution so I think precedent is stronger on the side of gun ownership. Fine by me. Don't tempt them lol. I don't see any point in making a distinction between weapons. Arms are arms. Let them all be legal. Do you think I have a gun fetish or that I'm a "gun nut"? It's not about context or cherry picking. It doesn't say anything about your rights. A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state (ok?) THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first part is just like a statement. I understand why it's there, it's trying to explain the justification for the right within the right which was a bad decision but it's very obvious that's all it is. The right is as it says. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why? Because regular people with guns (a "well regulated militia") is necessary for a free state. My allies would agree with me. I don't think you know who my allies are. We're talking about marriage not sex. You're looking at it the wrong way. Why do homosexuals have the right to get married? They did not have this right at first, it's a new thing. So you need to justify it. This is a separate issue. This is why I don't like talking to you. You start going off on these rants and go so far off subject. Stick to the subject. We can talk about trans later if you want. Why do you ask me if you have your own answers? Hardware...you mean like weapons? I have a right to life. No and no.
  23. Oh, I didn't realize you posted twice. Ummm I answered this one already. Mmm. ???? No one. Arms are weapons. It can mean daggers, swords, guns, cannons, grenades, yes we could even go as far as nuclear warheads. Do you have billions of dollars and access to missile technology as well as weapons grade nuclear material? Then, sure, you can have your own nuke as far as the constitution is concerned. Again, even though the constitution pretty clearly allows for it, most people are willing to just shrug and concede it because we all realize that generally speaking that's kind of silly. They are. Yes. Yes. Most of them are unconstitutional imo. We could probably let most of them slide though. As long as someone is allowed to carry a pocket knife we shouldn't have much of a problem. Very few people want to walk around with swords. Yes. Most liberals like to get hung up on the "well regulated" part of that. I just say it doesn't matter whatsoever. The first part of the second amendment could be baby talk for all that it matters because the part that is your right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Everything before that is just like their opinion man. It might as well say googoogaga. I think just being a united states citizen gives you the right to own it. I'm not saying the military has to sell or give you any but if you somehow get some, say idk, from a weapons dealer in Iran let's say. It's yours. Should be perfectly legal. I'm not an enlightenment scholar so I'm not sure how to word this but it makes more sense than you think it does. For example we also have the right to pursue happiness. That is, if for whatever reason I find happiness in being a drunk that's ok. Or if I find happiness in little wooden statues of corgis that's weird but fine. If I find happiness in murdering and eating people...that's not ok because I'm now infringing on their rights. Likewise inciting violence infringes on others rights, starting riots or panics infringes on others rights. You do not have unlimited free speech you have free speech to the point where it will start infringing on someone else's rights. That said, it is very nearly unlimited. There are a few very specific exceptions. I have no idea what you mean. I'm no anarchist.
×
×
  • Create New...