1,782 Forum Posts by "Christopherr"
At 3/3/09 03:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: It's my birthday, worship me bitches!!!!
You think your mod status allows you to parade around like some kind of froofy-poofy princess figure? No!
You know what? My birthday was two days ago (well, it didn't really come this year), and you don't see me waving my skirt around and demanding birthday festivity!
>:-(
I don't understand why we preserve these cultures, saying that they have a right to keep their culture, yet not do anything about the Hispanic culture bleeding into southwestern US. So, for consistency, I say that we either assimilate these tribes into modern culture or reject drastic changes to the US culture (ex. make English the official language).
At 3/3/09 11:56 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: That didn't look like anything but advanced touch screens. I am not impressed. Also, I did not see one thing in that video that was made better by the touch screens significantly.
After buying an iPod Touch, I firmly believe that touch screens hate you. I'm going back to a buttony iPod. But hey, at least I don't have a Zune.
At 3/3/09 10:00 AM, hansari wrote: We're not too good with nationbuilding... -ex. Iraq/Afghanistan
Hey, historically, the US has done an exceptional job at protecting (for some, nurturing) many nations in the Americas and Pacific. Think Cuba and the Philippines, maybe Japan and South Korea. Don't judge the US so harshly based only on a not-so-stellar job happening only recently.
I have questionable morals, so I would not be an asset to an anarchic society.
At 3/2/09 06:37 PM, Ericho wrote: We'll just keep up with those wars and stuff...
The wars? The death toll is not really significant compared to our population growth.
Although I have no objections to your asking it, I will not do your social studies project.
Unions would probably go apeshit if companies reduced hours on everyone. They'd probably demand higher wages, which would somewhat defeat the point of lowering work hours to save money.
At 3/1/09 05:54 PM, Al6200 wrote:You know, converting your kids still counts as a conversion.
Painting green on a pure white canvas is not changing the color of the canvas, it is putting color where there originally was none.
At 3/1/09 09:00 PM, Brick-top wrote: "Hey Mick, can I shoot your gun?"
"Yeah sure"
Problem solved.
Aside from the obvious legal troubles that sharing a gun brings up, only douchebags hit up their friends for shit.
Here's how the conversation would probably end, given the possessiveness of most gun owners:
"Hey Mick, can I shoot your gun?"
"Yeah sure, I suppose I can trust you enough to lend you a dangerous firearm."
"Dude, really?"
"Hell no, fag, it's my gun. Go get your own."
"I can't, I waste all my money on pornography and penis enlargement treatments for my pathetic excuse for a prepubescent dick."
At 3/1/09 02:52 PM, aninjaman wrote: You can't claim socialism is evil because it has the potential to turn into communist which has the potential to kill people. Thats like saying gunpowder is murderous because it has the potential to launch a bullet which has the potential to kill people.
Never claimed it was evil. I was trying to clarify for the kid who completely missed Al6200's point.
At 3/1/09 02:13 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Give me one example. I don't recall "socialism" killing anybody, I seem to remember totalitarian dictators killing people. Not the economic system.
Socialism has caused deaths in the sense that when a large country surrenders so much power to the government, it is misused... which is why most notable socialist countries turned communist and got totalitarian dictators. However, socialism has shown itself to work better on a small scale.
Like China, Cuba, North Korea, and the USSR.
At 3/1/09 12:44 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:At 3/1/09 06:48 AM, Christopherr wrote: Regardless, I have reliable word that Watchmen is terrible. Which is a tragedy.Wil Wheaton really liked it, and he is a geek whose opinion I trust.
This person had my film tastes and also has not read the book. She just noted non-story-related things, like that she found the effects to be cheesy and that the cast (with the exception of Rorschach) to be fairly forgettable.
I'm trying to find more reviews, but Metacritic's three reviews so far are really broad. One's an 80, one a 50, and one a 20. I want it to be good, but I'm going to wait until Metacritic has more reviews to judge whether I really want to drop ten bucks on it.
At 3/1/09 12:26 AM, BrianEtrius wrote: But dude, Snyder had nothing to do with The Spirit. It was all under Frank Miller's control.
MY BAD, GUYS. I had the directors penned as the same person, for some reason.
Regardless, I have reliable word that Watchmen is terrible. Which is a tragedy.
I have disheartening news for any comic nut here:
One of my good friends just saw a screening of Watchmen today, and she has reported back to me that it sucks balls. I am inclined to believe her, since Snyder's last movie, The Spirit, was also absolutely terrible (For those of you who haven't seen The Spirit, it was a mess from start to finish. It wasn't fun enough to be camp, nor smart enough to be witty, nor new or original, and it had god-awful acting.).
I'm starting to think 300 was just Snyder's fluke.
At 2/28/09 05:10 PM, thedo12 wrote: yes unlike in the 1800,s when they were forced to work in mines or factories at the age of 7 or earlier.
I'm talking about 50 years ago, dude. It was after the age where kids had to work in factories, yet still before the media revolution.
At 2/28/09 05:18 PM, Achilles2 wrote: It very much is a bad thing. You're preparing your child for failure and he/she'll be ignorant of the real world until they're thrown out into it, which is bad 9 times out of 10.
I'm not saying, "don't let your kids grow up ever." It's a given fact that your kids are going to grow up, but that doesn't mean you have to rush it. For example, the only pornography I saw as a child was the occasional adult magazine acquired by a friend of mine, and I grew up completely fine.
It's not a bad thing that children are protected from the real world until they grow up, sex included. It allows kids just to be kids, without having to deal with a myriad of adult worries. I don't want my kid having to deal with sex just like I don't want my kid having to deal with taxes or a full-time job.
Kids are growing up too fast these days.
Well, the government has grown more and more socialist over the years... So the "socialist scare" isn't completely unfounded.
The government owns 40% of CitiGroup now, for example. You can't deny that that's a step towards socialism.
At 2/27/09 09:07 PM, Proteas wrote: I apologize if anybody was grossed out by the previous post.
Do you think it's possible to gross out a physician?
Using monkeys to represent a politician viewed by the author as unintelligent is not a new thing. I can't source anyone, but over the years I've seen plenty of white people portrayed as primates in political cartoons. It's not racist, it's just making a connection between what is viewed as the less intelligent evolutionary ancestors of humans and certain humans.
Damn, America is too PC nowadays. Get the fuck over it.
At 2/27/09 10:34 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I personally hope there a really cold spot in hell for all of them, the only winners every time are the lawyers & they purposely have the system set up for maximum profit...for themselves.
That's my beef with the government nowadays. It's run mostly by lawyers, and lawyers direct the government to be beneficial to lawyers. I mean, why do you think the US's civil disabilities laws are written so vaguely, leading to much manipulation by way of legal interpretation (like the kind King of the Hill parodied with the junkie manipulating the laws to get a free ride)? Because the law was written by lawyers for lawyers, so that people would have to (or want to) go to court to debate the law.
Oh, and I empathize with you. A whole lot of women can be downright vicious when it comes to splitting up.
At 2/26/09 08:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
It was lost in translation over the internet. I don't want to rip your arms off, <3
At 2/26/09 07:17 PM, Brick-top wrote: If people are so emotional they can happily scream it's murder and show pictures of a dead fetus they'll have no problem in stopping medical research to help others....
....Until they need the research to help themselves.
I'm not arguing for or against stem cell research, but ethics is a major issue in the medical world. Medicine is a place where the ends do not justify the means, and it is a shaky argument to assume that stem cell research is OK just because of the prospective health benefits.
At 2/26/09 08:38 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Thanks Chris, for representing the Republican pundit in me.
If that was a smear, I will rip your arms off.
It's not like I repeated everything you said... Just what I needed to to justify a few other points.
It's not a Republican pundit thing, it's a "Jesus Christ, read the Constitution!" thing.
At 2/26/09 06:11 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i'm not sure i understand why the "local person of a different religion" thread is still up.
It's funny, but it is a troll thread.
But it's so funny.
At 2/26/09 03:38 PM, ReiperX wrote: I wouldn't say all marriages are miserable. Unfortunately many are, but mine is awesome. My wife and I work together (at our normal work and our side business), we go to college together, play WoW together, and spend a lot of our time together. But we are extremely odd compared to most of our married friends.
I'd say most heterosexual marriages are failures. Half of them end up as divorces, and many of the other half are just unhappy marriages.
That aside, given the current status of the gay population as less family-oriented than heterosexuals, gay marriages will probably be mostly miserable failures, more so than heterosexual marriages. With that, I don't really care if they get married or not. If they don't, I'm alright with it, and if they do, they can have a great time with the brutality of divorce.
At 2/25/09 03:05 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: So, basically, if people are citizens of the U.S., and living in a landmass under U.S. law, I think it would be wrong to not allow them voting representatives. It makes sense, right? If someone is paying federal taxes, they shouldn't be taxed without representatives.
DC is represented, they just don't have a vote in Congress.
There is no Republican conspiracy to keep DC from voting; the only reason Democrats support it is because the Democrats want an extra vote. In fact, anyone supporting DC voting rights in Congress is arguing a very uphill battle against the US Constitution, notably Article I and the 14th and 23rd amendments:
-The motion to give DC a voting representative violates the Constitutional differences between DC and the fifty states, as stated in Article I that members of Congress must come from states. That's why DC and the US territories such as Puerto Rico shouldn't get any voting members but can be allowed delegates instead.
-The 14th Amendment states that only the states are allowed to vote in the House.
-Finally, the 23rd Amenment draws a clear distinction between DC and the states, stating that their electoral college members "shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State..."
With the fact that DC is not a state and should not be entitled to voting members in Congress, what should happen is the removal of the federal income tax for DC residents. It is only fair that a non-state should not be forced to pay income taxes without being represented, and we should not violate the Constitution by granting them Congressional voting rights, so the only logical choice is to exempt them from the federal income tax while still allowing them non-voting delegates., just like the US territories.
At 2/25/09 09:22 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: Send me a PM calling me a cunt and I will shower you with love in the Lounge, I promise.
Or something.
You think I'm crazy? I would never.
I figured he probably sent a bitchy PM. Great way to get on the bad side of nearly every reg.
At 2/25/09 08:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote: TimtheGreat just sent me a really cute PM, he's such a sweetheart. Love you too sugartits!
He sends you one message and you're flattered... YOU NEVER ACKNOWLEDGE THE CUTE MESSAGES I SEND YOU :'(
But really, I understand.
At 2/25/09 11:11 AM, Der-Lowe wrote: YES!
I envy you.
I've loved Keane's music for a long time.
Take me?
At 2/24/09 06:43 PM, Proteas wrote: 16 will get you 20, you know.
In most states.
16 was the age of consent where I grew up...
At 2/23/09 09:40 PM, Christopherr wrote:At 2/23/09 05:43 PM, Proteas wrote:I knew this one chick who had a fetish for anal porn involving women who were about her size and build.At 2/23/09 05:27 PM, reviewer-general wrote: 17 year old girls renting porn, what? :PI'm more curious about the idea of what members of the female persuasion watch in terms of pornography.
Now I know more who I think watch porn, but this one came to mind because she openly admits it.
