176
Political Opinions / Re: Tiananmen Massacre
« on: August 17, 2010, 01:36:01 PM »
LOL! The Federation, DUH! 
- May 10, 2024, 09:28:14 AM
- Welcome, Guest
News:
Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
177
Political Opinions / Re: Tiananmen Massacre« on: August 17, 2010, 01:34:21 PM »
Yeah, sorry, BS, that wasn't really directed at you.
178
Political Opinions / Re: Tiananmen Massacre« on: August 17, 2010, 01:29:09 PM »
We've been through this before, countless times. Communism is an economic system. Whether China actually has a communist economic system is kind of a side question. Their POLITICAL system is totalitarian/oligarchical/authoritarian (pick some form of that). To lump the atrocities of the Chinese government/military under the heading of 'communism' does an extreme disservice to the very definition of the word.
[/schoolteacher mode] 179
Political Opinions / Re: NOT racism ...|>« on: August 17, 2010, 12:30:16 PM »your ancestors enslaved us, give us money forever!You're trolling, right? RIGHT?!?!?!? 180
Political Opinions / Re: NOT racism« on: August 16, 2010, 03:17:44 PM »
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm missing something.
How is that story NOT describing racism in action. As I read it in its original format (without your edits), racism comes through loud and clear. 181
Anarchy / Re: For all of you cock lovers« on: August 13, 2010, 06:44:14 PM »
Holy shit! DM!!!!??!?
182
Sticky Stuff (no pun intended) / Re: The Apparently Necessary Random Stuff Thread« on: August 03, 2010, 02:31:33 PM »
Vegas, baby! YEAH!
183
Anarchy / Re: Hi my name is poopsie bubblebrain.....« on: August 03, 2010, 02:29:15 PM »
Supreme Evil Overlord
Whadda ya mean, that's not on the list?!!??!!!? 184
Political Opinions / Re: Irrelevant is the Constitution« on: July 29, 2010, 11:26:42 AM »
I see your points, but still disagree. I understand the stricter definition of behavior, but that was absolutely not the point of the original question. "Name 2 things that aren't regulated or taxed by the government." It seems obvious to me that this excludes involuntary (and even some voluntary) human reactions, whether you classify them as observable behavior or not.
185
Flamer's Corner / Re: Random Rants« on: July 28, 2010, 03:50:48 PM »
I have been on hold for so long that I'm expecting someone to come back on the line and proclaim that they figured out how to make a Titan missile out of paper clips and scotch tape.
WHAT THE FUCK ELSE COULD SHE HAVE ME ON HOLD THIS LONG FOR?  ?!!!!!!!!!
186
Political Opinions / Re: Irrelevant is the Constitution« on: July 28, 2010, 03:48:32 PM »
Not so much, Rizzy. Reread it. "...any aspect of human BEHAVIOR..."
I would posit that Circadian rhythms aren't actually human 'behavior'. 187
New Geeks on the Block / Re: 'Ello« on: July 27, 2010, 12:06:26 PM »Of course Vesp is right. The more you do it, the more exercised and toned it gets. Everything improves with practice. What exactly are you planning to replace 'vag' with in the filter? 188
New Geeks on the Block / Re: 'Ello« on: July 27, 2010, 12:24:43 AM »damn we're deprived. Sure glad we grew up in this technology age where you and I can Jack and Jill off to sweet HD video. I love redtube in 1080p, I can see the sheer looseness of that hundred time used Thing that scares Tacdeho.And here's the fallacy...the idea that a woman with many partners is somehow 'loose' is wrong. A vag is a muscle, and therefore is stronger and tighter the more it's used. Also, no one actually uses the phrase 'jill off'. 189
New Geeks on the Block / Re: Hello:)« on: July 26, 2010, 11:27:12 AM »
15 minutes after reading it, I'm still chuckling over "having a DOS".
190
Anarchy / Re: *Poll* ...lol« on: July 23, 2010, 10:17:30 PM »
Where's the 'steak and a bj' option? You can't have a poll without that option.
191
Anarchy / Re: This is a thread for the ladies... but fellas, listen close.« on: July 23, 2010, 11:55:50 AM »
So, I was involved in the shoutbox discussion, and I'd like to clarify my original smartass remarks. In my mind, I was drawing a distinction between playing games that are targetted at 10 year olds, versus playing a game that targets an adult (or at least older) demographic.
Regardless of the target demographic, playing any kind of game to an extent that it retards your social graces or social development is a bad thing. 192
Anarchy / Re: Need Latin Help« on: July 19, 2010, 03:29:08 PM »
Or would i be better of with 'victus ergo sumus'?
But the same questions still apply about whether the conjugation is okay. 193
Anarchy / Re: Need Latin Help« on: July 19, 2010, 03:26:39 PM »
so does that change your previous answer?
 Am I close to 'we dominate therefore we are'? 194
Anarchy / Re: Need Latin Help« on: July 19, 2010, 03:17:54 PM »
I'm trying to use 'domitus'. That's why I was wondering where the 'god' part of it came in.
195
Anarchy / Re: Need Latin Help« on: July 19, 2010, 03:11:42 PM »
I don't understand where you guys are getting the God reference. From everything I've found, domitus is a conjugation of domare, which appears to roughly translate to 'to tame' or 'to subdue'
196
Anarchy / Need Latin Help« on: July 19, 2010, 01:19:06 PM »
Okay, I give up...the online Latin to English translators I'm finding aren't telling me what I need to know. Here's the latin phrase:
Domitus ergo sumus Here's what I need to know: Does that translate cleanly to 'We conquer therefore we are'? OR, does that contain an error that someone will point out and laugh at? 197
New Geeks on the Block / Re: (> '.')> <( '.' )> <('.' <)« on: July 08, 2010, 05:18:08 PM »I'll be damned. Ivan is quick! Shhh!!! You weren't supposed to tell anyone that. It was supposed to be his secret.... 198
Political Opinions / Re: Texas just beat Arizona, bar none!« on: June 28, 2010, 06:04:41 PM »so the tax breaks shouldn't apply to anyone?Correct. Neither should the tax penalties. Either that, or they should both apply to everyone. Are you aware that simply getting married entitles you to something like 900 some odd governmental (or pseudo governmental) benefits/rights/etc.? I'll try to dig up the exact number (and it may be specific to Arizona...other states may differ), but I remember reading that little factoid a couple years ago banning gay marriage went on the ballot here in Arizona. 199
Flamer's Corner / Re: Apparently...« on: June 27, 2010, 05:51:47 PM »
When did you make a joke, Arnox? All I see is some lame attempt to make fun of Wunderkind, after which ivan gave you a litle virtual slap.
TO: Everyone Else FROM: V. Do you guys really and truly NOT get an Evonus vibe off of this guy? I mean, the lame attempts at provocation are deja vu for me. 200
Political Opinions / Re: Texas just beat Arizona, bar none!« on: June 22, 2010, 11:53:32 PM »
At this point there's nothing in place to be judged as either constitutional or unconstitutional. It's the Texas Republican Party's platform and they're free to bluster about whatever they want. Now, should they move forward with enacting laws...they'll get slapped down.
For the moment it's nothing more than morally repugnant grandstanding. |