<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

I'm a personal fan of warlordism. In a vacuum, the dick with the biggest guns and the most Toyota Hilux trucks is the new government.

Clearly, it's the guy who has the largest collection of LARPing equipment.

<Snipped quote by TheEvanCat>

Clearly, it's the guy who has the largest collection of LARPing equipment.

Well Evan's at West Point so we can argue he has access to more STALKER LARPing equipment than any of us. Or really: more modern LARPing equipment than any of us and the most authentic.

Touche.

Touche.

That said, he will definitely take over all of America as a Duty commander in a warlord situation.

<Snipped quote by Shorticus>

Well Evan's at West Point so we can argue he has access to more STALKER LARPing equipment than any of us. Or really: more modern LARPing equipment than any of us and the most authentic.

I have some dirty Iraq-era body armor, a gas mask from the 1990s, and a rucksack that permanently compressed my spine a half inch. I look like a goofy grey blob. I'm not a cool STALKER.

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

I have some dirty Iraq-era body armor, a gas mask from the 1990s, and a rucksack that permanently compressed my spine a half inch. I look like a goofy grey blob. I'm not a cool STALKER.

That is optimal STALKER equipment man. No one in the Zone but the Ukrainian military uses perfect-condition military equipment. It's all hand-me down shit.

All you'd need to do is paint it grey or green. And then add red detail highlights.

Too long...Have too many other things to do...I guess this won't away. >.< Just small points.

dammit, you gonna make me work for this. where all y'all who were bitching about libertarianism before? why you guys not pulling your weight when the chips are down?

To start with last point first... yes, I haven't been entirely serious. See, to me, this isn't some horrible argument, it's just an entertaining bit of forum fun. So I've been hyperbolic or tongue-in-cheek just for fun, and I suppose it has become confusing. So that line you quoted... yeh, that's crazy oversimplified because I'm just screwing off. That's also just partly how I write... like seriously, I wrote most my essays in school in a tongue in cheek manner, always to varied effect. It's a personality quirk I suppose. Though, in my defense, in some places you have been misunderstanding me. That is probably my fault too. Can't say I'm the clearest point explainerer. But I ain't the type of give up with shit gets fun, so here we go again.

1. "I'll take anything that gets any sort of result I like." Is a rather dangerous political belief. If that's just a general thing. That'd be like wishing for more people to go on mass shooting because maybe it get people to want more gun bans...Not saying its the same, or you believe such a thing ofcourse. It still is a little scary to say.

That is a rather extreme comparison, but you recognize that so I won't push to hard on that. I'd like to say though, you should read up on what has been done to pass legislation in the past. Not calling you out, but rather saying you should because it is seriously fun reading. Either way, what I am driving at is that politics is a grimy thing. It's rare for things to be done on the square. So Obama, to me, fits pretty nicely into the general beat of American history.

But how did Obama failing to provide socialized medicine help anyone? I just straight up don't get it, probably never will.

What I am saying is that, by creating a situation where the only way the problem can be fixed is by socializing the healthcare system, he has guaranteed it will be socialized one way or another in the near future. I explained it a couple of times in the last few posts, and I don't know another way to word it, so I suppose you'll have to refer back to those. I should stress I am thinking long term, not short term.

2. Trickle down economics have never existed. Ever. It's political jargon bullshit

You don't gotta tell me that right-wing economics is BS. I'm with you there. But seriously, the argument posed here seems to be mostly a problem with the term. And though I have no doubt that real economists don't take the idea at face value for serious, I do think that politicians are willing to use the concept behind this idea, and more importantly, it is totally how economics is seen on the ground by the common folk. Seriously. I've had this discussion with plenty of people before, who openly argued for the concept of trickle-down economics at face value. Academic realities don't always match up with either the popular or the political realities.

3. Well I asked maybe do it via PM...but I don't want to sound controlling or anything.

Naw man, that wouldn't be as fun.

...dude..."You presented one way that pollution regulation can go wrong. I could point to the slave-trade as an example of why capitalism is wrong, but both your and my arguments would be disingenuous". This statement is quite disingenuous alright. XD Slave trade exists in socialism too, and they're are FAR MORE benefits to capitalism than government restrictions. This is the kind of statement that makes me think of black/white.

Don't argue with the analogy, that's missing the point entirely. What I am saying is that arguing against specific examples in a general system isn't proof against the general system, but rather against the specific example. Pointing out slavery as evidence against capitalism would be dumb because that argument only proves slavery is wrong - you take out slavery, and it can no longer be used as an example against capitalism. For the same reason, pointing out the existence of bad regulations or taxes does not stand out as proof against the entire concept of regulation or taxation. Take out the bad eggs and you can still have regulation and taxation.

This is the point where I need to pull aside and point out that you keep posting links with specific example, mostly editorials, instead of getting at the general problem here. Make your own arguments, man. Use evidence of course, but don't use editorials.

According to economists... etc

Ok, so here is my problem with these arguments. We're worrying about the effects of legislation on employment and not on the benefits for society. The employment argument is a little shady. Now, I am going to use an analogy again, but I don't want it to be misconstrued, so I am going to point out a few things. A: Don't take what I am going to say literally or make an argument against the analogy, and B: I don't at all think you literally think this way. Okay, so here is the problem with arguing using only employment as a standard: If the only moral precept society needs to consider is the economic health of the country as shown through employment rates, then our economics problems would be solved by hiring deathsquads to hunt down unemployed people. We'll call this scenario "Reaganomics Part II: First Blood".

The point is, we have to consider other things than cold hard economics, and that is the point of regulation. I can't stress enough that I am fine with the idea of getting rid of regulations that produce no benefit, but I do not think that the existence of some useless regulations mean that all regulation is useless entirely. I also do have a natural distrust for any politician who brings it up, because I'm used to the pattern of politicians cutting costs only to redirect money into their own projects at the expense of the general population.

*As much as 80% of all inflation is attributable to federal, state and local government mandates and regulations, according to economist Richard Rahn.

I sincerely doubt that number. It seems a bit inflated. It also seems incredibly arbitrary. That he's a libertarian suggests to me he might be a tad biased.

*Americans spend 12 billion hours, equal to 48 hours per capita, dealing with federal forms each year.

I probably inflate that number since it is literally my job to deal with federal forms. Beside that, I think that "DAE paperwork sux" isn't much of an argument.

*According to the New England Journal of Medicine, 24% of all health care spending goes for administrative and regulatory costs.

The Administrative cost of medicine is infamous. That being said, I do kinda want my healthcare to be regulated.

*Since stringent drug-approval procedures were enacted in 1962, the cost of developing new drugs has doubled and the number of drugs approved each year has plummeted by two-thirds.

What does this disprove? I don't get how this is supposed to be a bad thing. The entire point of those procedures were to make sure that the market wasn't flooded by dangerous drugs. Like Aaron said, in a circumstance where the buyers have no way of knowing whether or not a product is legitimate (you can't do to a pill what you do for an avocado and squeeze it to make sure it is fresh), it is good to have a government agency dealing with the matter.

Excessive regulations have held-up reconstruction of riot-torn South Central Los Angeles. Entrepreneurs wishing to start up "light industries" in Los Angeles must first receive as many as 200 approvals from federal, state, city and regional government authorities.

This seems exceptional, so a discerning eye would suggest the number is extreme. But if it is true, yeh, it should be fixed.

Like, all of these links have produced in me the same feeling that made me drop my teenaged libertarianism so long ago. There seems to be a prevailing idea in your argument that government is an unnecessary step that we can generally trust the decency of private enterprise to have our best interests at heart. That idea to me, and don't take this the wrong way, but it seems painfully naive. It's not that business owners are all cackling mad men in their evil towers, I'm not saying that. But it's just that, the same human capacity for finding a niche and milking money from it which makes capitalism works also means that less scrupulous people will inevitably find morally questionable niches and milk them too. If allowed, a snake-oil salesman will inevitably pop up and swindle people with fake drugs. This isn't in question because... well, the phrase snake-oil salesman exists for a reason. If a business can cut costs by polluting, some will. And for this reason, the general population needs advocacy. It just seems to me that the best choice for an advocate is that thing we can vote in.

Private property is one way to create cleaner environments. It does make sense, if let's say a non profit, didn't want people polluting in a park, if they were able to pool there money and buy the land, anyone dumping on their ground could be fined. Just assuming every business is evil and are like the cartoon villain's via captain planet. Ignores all the businesses that are for the environment, the government is terrible at keeping public property clean. It's something the libertarians argue for. Now its of course not a end all solution, nothing is. But it's a start right?

This only works for littering, and we do it. That's what things like the "Adopt-a-Highway" program exists for. It doesn't work for the sorts of pollution that are not limited to specific pieces of property though. There isn't really a practical way to sell a water-table, or the air, to a private trustee. The one place you could use this argument is the federal park system, but to me that seems like taking something that isn't broke and pretending to fix it.

The reason I don't think your being particularly gray...

Lemme clear up what I mean. I have beliefs, and I am by no means a centrist. I absolutely and unapologetically pull to the left. But what I mean by grey is that, I do not believe things are as simple as bad and good. I don't think a right wing government is the end of the world, and I don't think a left wing government would fix everything. I've never liked the idea so many idealists have that, if we just do things their way, history will end and we will never have problems again. The history of the human race is the history of struggle, we will always have trouble. So to me, this isn't some black and white good vs evil shit, we're legitimately just disagreeing about what we think is better for the common folk.

your saying Ted Cruz wants to fire "me".

Actually, he does. It was one of his campaign promises, literally. I'm not trolling you either, i'm telling the truth. But I will leave you to figure this one out.

when the beginning of the conversation is "I didn't read your link or side, but I totally did" like less than a minute after my post. When one side plugs their ears, it doesn't seem like this is a discussion, its a battle to be right. And that's the kind of stuff I really don't like.

Well, I did skim them to know what the point was. That being said, I have always resented that way of making arguments. I supposed if you want to know why I don't like that method of doing things, imagine what your teacher would say if instead of an essay you just sent them a bunch of links. It suggests you either can't be bothered, or you don't genuinely understand what is being discussed, and besides that it is a really tedious thing to do. I want to see your thoughts, man. I want to see you parse the information on your own. Especially with economics, a subject where you could find people to support just about any argument you ever could want to make. It is a battle to be right, but not in the way that you think. The point of this stuff is to test our ability to understand and discuss the subject, and sitting back and posting links just don't cut it.

I just find that a little ridiculous. That's the supposed straw man argument of democrat vote democrat solely to get free crap. But your not made of straw are you? It makes it hard to take you seriously when I can't tell what's a joke or not. :P (it also reminds me of my roommate's grandpa saying I'd rather have a black man lie to me and a white one, for why he voted for Obama.)

Don't be so serious, man. Enjoy yourself. Your roommate's grandpa sounds like he's worth his old spice IMHO.

<Snipped quote by TheEvanCat>

Clearly, it's the guy who has the largest collection of LARPing equipment.

That's basically the plot to "Dies the Fire"

<Snipped quote by TheEvanCat>

That is optimal STALKER equipment man. No one in the Zone but the Ukrainian military uses perfect-condition military equipment. It's all hand-me down shit.

All you'd need to do is paint it grey or green. And then add red detail highlights.

You forgot the most important part.

A whiskey flask. Well, vodka, I suppose.

You're all wrong. The most important part of being STALKER is to be able to say a somber, post-apocalypse tale in poorly broken English. It is also very high importantly to be names after a profession that matches your thinking methods and personalities.

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

You forgot the most important part.

A whiskey flask. Well, vodka, I suppose.

What do you think my 2L camelback is filled with? Water? I'm not a fucking casual.

love this video

Let me just... just... describe what happened to me this morning.

I couldn't get gas last night while driving home because the gas station's register was getting repaired. I decide to take a different route to school so I can get gas today.

The first gas station I pull up at is also getting its register repaired - well, replaced in this case. I can't pay for gas. Okay, fine. I move on.

The second gas station has people working on the pumps. Ergo: can't buy gas. Annoying, but whatever; third time's the charm.

The third gas station is operational! I'm happy! I go inside, I buy gas and a meal, I get into my car and drive off. It's only once I'm several minutes away that I realize I didn't actually put the gas into my vehicle, so I drive on back to get it. As I walk inside and inform the cashier of the situation, someone else uses the gas I bought earlier. Also, there's a REALLY long line in the gas station now for some reason, so instead of waiting I leave in shame and wander back to my car and drive to a fourth gas station.

Good news everyone! The fourth gas station is also operational! I get my gas without a hitch. I actually put it into my car. I drive off.

And then I realize that I don't actually know how to get to class on the route that I'm traveling because I haven't driven on it for several months, and I never drove on it much in the first place.

...And some other stuff happens on the road that I won't go into detail about; it's a lot of little things. Suffice it to say that I got to school, REALLY had to use the restroom, and when I got out I was 45 minutes late for my class that typically lasts about 90 minutes. So, uh... Here I am. Hello everyone. Howdy. Nice day we got here.

Also my car's air conditioning has been broken for a long time and I'm super sweaty right now.

The good news is I didn't get into a car crash like I did at the beginning of the semester! Nor am I vomiting all day like I was two weeks ago! I mean, think positive!

<Snipped quote by Shorticus>

What do you think my 2L camelback is filled with? Water? I'm not a fucking casual.

I think we're ready to penetrate the heart of the Zone my friend.

love this video

I like this one better.

They're all out to lunch. And if it was 20 against one, it wouldn't be a discussion it be a circle jerk. They're enough echo chambers on the internet already. :P

Conversations are less fun when its not short brief and to the point. Which is good you haven't been serious, because I can't take this seriously anymore. I've never taken politics seriously enough to like dislike someone personally over opinions they have, you seem like a fun guy and it probably be more entertaining discussing something silly. But, Oh joy, can't wait to read this rest. ^-^'

1. True, that is an extreme comparison, but its a very vague/sorta extreme opinion to have but I did make it clear it's not the same, or you believe in such a thing. To avoid putting words in your mouth. I know to be careful with words, or at least I try to be. Which I will say, that is the main reason why I'm skeptical about continuing. (because how hyperbolic/extreme certain opinions have been. Even if I know you're not because I've yet to have about 6 ad hominem attacks against me. But it still makes me feel more like I'm just spamming the thread.)

2. The problem is, all it did was show how much worse socialized medicine can get. Failing, does not mean more people will want to try it again. (but even more extreme because Obama didn't go far enough.) Or something along those lines. I mean do we really want something like Canada's system? I could go deeper into...but I suppose if we must go on, I'd like to ask you before I say anything, do you think we should in a direction similar to Canada?

3. No, I mean Reagan, was constantly falsely represented by saying he "invented the term" When it was a democratic term, made up to make him look stupid. It has never been actually used, in serious discussion besides misinformed people that don't know it has never existed or has ever legitimately been spoken.

psmag.com/business-economics/trickle-d..

If there’s one person most often associated with the origins of of trickle-down economics, it’s President Ronald Reagan. Few people know, however, that the phrase was actually coined by American humorist Will Rogers, who mocked President Herbert Hoover’s Depression-era recovery efforts, saying that "money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes it would trickle down to the needy."

4. I will argue with the analogy because it's VERY wrong. Cap'N'Trade is a very legit excuse why government reach can go to far and make a problem much worse. Slavery existed before capitalism was even a f**king thing. So it's like comparing apples to orange poltergeists. (aka very unsimilar.) I'm posting links because instead of making up a random story about evil bigmart polluting in a lake. I want evidence to back up my case.

5. I'm just going to stop you there, your argument (Reaganomics/trickle down) is completely for something THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED. It is satire you've believed as truth. Stop bringing it up like an actual thing, please.

You told me, small businesses getting hurt with regulations was a myth. Or that high taxes don't hurt small businesses. It's almost common sense how wrong that is. Now you can argue, the damage is overblown? Or not as serious as the opposition lets on? Maybe...Now you're going to say, "well I don't agree" but you have nothing to prove those statements wrong so how can I even reply?

* No contrary evidence.
*Time equals money. it is an argument.
*They're far cheaper and less restrictive ways to do it.
*The point of that, is the regulations halt drug production, making drugs more expensive because of less competition in the market. They are not simply stopping 'deadly' drugs.
*Nothing to do with the point, but every reply after this I'm seriously just going to post something nonsensical because, I literally don't think this is going anywhere.

But, it still does more than any other alternative. And if your arguing a difference isn't good enough, I have absolutely nothing to add, because any possible suggestion you bring up will fall under this catergory as well.

That's all fine and fair. I don't really think many centrists actually exists. I'm not against people who are passionate. But I take a little farther by not believing anything at face value or assuming things. Just assuming a link is bad before properly reading into it. Or assuming satire is actually a real point, among other things.

Like that...Well doesn't help me much, not even saying where you work, or how much you make Approx. Makes it very hard to believe you. And you want me to not provide facts and evidence...I don't think you should take things at face value and just "believe".

I can give you my opinions, but facts don't care about your feelings. It doesn't matter if I think the sky is blue because of the reflections of the water. (satire.)

spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en

No, these aren't my opinions, but I think NASA would know more about the sky than I do...You are arguing against providing evidence. I think this is frankly the silliest thing you've said thus far.

But, if I we're to just go by what school has taught me, it wouldn't be much because my schools fucking sucked. And my memory on pointless facts (or in general.) is frankly appalling. So, I find no problem with looking up what you don't know for sure...the only way you'll ever get smarter is by reading more and how people will know you're not just pulling things out of your ass. By providing such context to be a backbone to your case. Debaters in college aren't suppose to provide no evidence...they do show links and provide their sources too. XD I don't want to have a debate on Moby dick story, and have neither of us read any passage of the book...

(This is not exactly what I describe as fun. XD Well, my roommate's grandapa and someone like my one sister, a bleeding heart liberals, probably never voted replubican in their fuckin lives. And they both like and probably will vote trump...So, I don't exactly know what to say anymore.) But like I said, I will more than likely just say "Wuff" or something depending how engaging I find the next reply. :P

They're all out to lunch. And if it was 20 against one, it wouldn't be a discussion it be a circle jerk. They're enough echo chambers on the internet already. :P

Right, but I got shit to do, I can't do everything myself. Plus you've misunderstood what I've said a few times and I would like to know if I'm really screwing the pooch so badly.

Even if I know you're not because I've yet to have about 6 ad hominem attacks against me. But it still makes me feel more like I'm just spamming the thread.

This thread's already shit so we ain't gonna make it worse.

2. The problem is, all it did was show how much worse socialized medicine can get. Failing, does not mean more people will want to try it again. (but even more extreme because Obama didn't go far enough.) Or something along those lines. I mean do we really want something like Canada's system? I could go deeper into...but I suppose if we must go on, I'd like to ask you before I say anything, do you think we should in a direction similar to Canada?

Yes, we do want something like Canada. It is rather rare to find people who like the old system even for how much Obama's isn't working. But first lets clear something up - we don't have socialized healthcare right now. What Obamacare is in its current form isn't socialized healthcare at all, except for the medicaid and medicare bits that were already in place. The main complaint about Obamacare, the almost universal complaint, is the price of health insurance. And that happened because the one thing Obamacare did in making it a requirement for insurance companies to accept people regardless of prior condition. Back in the old system, a person who wasn't healthy could be denied coverage and required to pay for healthcare out of pocket, and that was its biggest flaw, since the only way to get socialized healthcare was (and still is) to either be poor or be old. It reached the point that, before Obamacare, I just assumed my way of dealing with healthcare would have to be to join the growing trend of not purchasing health insurance and not paying my bills if I got sick (I knew assloads of people who handled it that way and they always seemed to come off rather well). That was a meaningful trend, and one of the practices signally that the insurance system wasn't sustainable.

That's why I say Obamacare has guaranteed we socialize. The thing people don't like (besides the prices) is how you get fined if you don't purchase a plan. If you got rid of the fine but still required companies to Insure people with prior conditions, the price of health insurance would skyrocket. The entire practice of insurance is rather medieval in that it's basically a company making a bet that you will pay more for the insurance than they will have to pay out, hence their unwillingness to bet on people who's existing conditions guarantee they will receive more money than they pay in. If they keep having to pay out for those people they wouldn't have accepted before Obamacare, it'll drive the price up. That was why the fine for not having insurance was put in place - so healthy people who normally wouldn't purchase a plan would be compelled by the government fine to pay for a plan and therefore balance out all those prior condition people who would otherwise make the insurance system untenable. What happened is that, by setting a fine instead of succeeding to pass a Public Option, Obamacare puts the Insurance companies in competition with the fine. All they have to do is make sure it is cheaper to get health insurance than get fined for not having it, and they'll keep raking in money from their captive consumer base. Whereas if the US had a public option, they'd have to compete with the usefulness of private insurance vs the cheap or free nature of the public option.

What Obama tried to do in his complete plan is the German version of health insurance, or at least that is how I have heard it explained in the past and I don't want to google it right now. Since it still involves private insurance and it is relatively less total, I can see it eventually becoming the Republican answer to Democrat cries for a completely public system. This especially works because, like I have said before, Republicans can't get rid of Obamacare. To do so would either require getting rid of fines and watching prices skyrocket, or actively tearing health insurance away from all those people with prior conditions who got insurance through Obamacare. And since illness knows no political party, a lot of the people who would be negatively effected by the repeal of Obamacare would be Republican voters. You also have to add to that the open question of whether or not prices would actually drop, and how many people once Obamacare was repealed would simply drop their health insurance altogether and thus cause a complication for the companies themselves.

So that's why I like the long-term effect of Obamacare despite dislking the cost of a plan under it. I like it when circumstances force the right to wander leftward on an issue. The dream situation for me would to see the right wing dragged as far to the left as where Sanders sits now before I die, so any work on that is going to impress me despite the short term annoyances involved.

3. No, I mean Reagan, was constantly falsely represented by saying he "invented the term" When it was a democratic term, made up to make him look stupid. It has never been actually used, in serious discussion besides misinformed people that don't know it has never existed or has ever legitimately been spoken.

A lot of things get lost in the wash. Like I said before, I've heard Republicans defend the term as if it were uttered by Reagan himself. Humanity is sometimes like a big game of telephone.

4. I will argue with the analogy because it's VERY wrong. Cap'N'Trade is a very legit excuse why government reach can go to far and make a problem much worse. Slavery existed before capitalism was even a f**king thing. So it's like comparing apples to orange poltergeists. (aka very unsimilar.) I'm posting links because instead of making up a random story about evil bigmart polluting in a lake. I want evidence to back up my case.

That's missing the forest for the trees though. Your still focusing too hard on the details of the analogy and not on what it actually means. I've explained it a few times and I don't want to have to write basically the same paragraphs over and over again each time I post.

And the idea that I'd have to post links to show that large companies pollute... how on earth would that have to happen? Do I need to post links to show the world is round?

5. I'm just going to stop you there, your argument (Reaganomics/trickle down) is completely for something THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED. It is satire you've believed as truth. Stop bringing it up like an actual thing, please.

You've posted links showing that the term itself is a joke. What it is used in modern parlance to make fun of though, supply side economics, does exist. It'd be like me saying Obamacare doesn't exist because the word itself was invented to make fun of Obama.

You told me, small businesses getting hurt with regulations was a myth. Or that high taxes don't hurt small businesses. It's almost common sense how wrong that is. Now you can argue, the damage is overblown? Or not as serious as the opposition lets on? Maybe...Now you're going to say, "well I don't agree" but you have nothing to prove those statements wrong so how can I even reply?

I said, and where this even started, is that the idea that large businesses support regulation and taxation to destroy small businesses is a myth because it doesn't make sense, and I outlined why several times. Again, you're misunderstanding what I am saying here. What I've argued for beyond that isn't that taxation or regulation does nothing to small business, but rather it is necessary to keep society honest.

Like that...Well doesn't help me much, not even saying where you work, or how much you make Approx. Makes it very hard to believe you.

Dammit, you aren't going play with this one. Okay, I work for the IRS.

And you want me to not provide facts and evidence...I don't think you should take things at face value and just "believe".

If you make an extraordinary claim, and you can't argue for its efficacy using general knowledge, then you can cite things, but that isn't the same as link-spamming. To cite something, you read it, break it down and present its information yourself in a way that fits the conversation, so that the link is more a formality. What I take exception to is listing a bunch of links and saying nothing about them so your reader has to go and read them all. I go into these things more like verbal discussions because that means I can write them stream of conscious and it doesn't take too much time. If you want to write yours like an essay with citations that's your choice, but don't just toss links at me and get mad when I didn't take an hour to read and dissect everything. I'd also argue that editorials and blogposts don't count as citations since you can find any number of those that support anything you could ever want.

I don't want to have a debate on Moby dick story, and have neither of us read any passage of the book...

i read the Wishbone version when i was a kid, but since it was a kids version i think they censored the dick

This is not exactly what I describe as fun. XD Well, my roommate's grandapa and someone like my one sister, a bleeding heart liberals, probably never voted replubican in their fuckin lives. And they both like and probably will vote trump...So, I don't exactly know what to say anymore.

I've voted in one Republican Primary and one Democratic primary in my life, and the two Presidential elections I've been old enough to vote in I've voted third party. Trump's popularity is wild. I'd never vote for the guy, but between him and Sanders, this election has been some of the best TV in recent memory. It's fun as hell watching everyone squirm. The one thing I can say about Trump is, he seems to be helping to make the right-wing disreputable. My father, a life-long Reagan Republican, dropped the party and promised never to vote again after that penis-debate.

<Snipped quote by Weird Tales>



I like this one better.

That doesn't make a good film. A part of me died watching that trailer

I have things to do as well. Precisely why will be a short responce. X3 Well i agree this thread is terrible and we already have two of them making it redundant. So, you have me there. xP

youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw Wuff. :D

(Pics or it didn't happen. :P)

I'll admit I'm being lazy, but as you said, got more things I'd rather do. ^3^ (i'm trying to show you snippets of the links to make it a little more than link spam) but I argue doing nothing is even lazier. :P

So how's about that air line food? Its crazy isn't it? :D

I have things to do as well. Precisely why will be a short responce. X3 Well i agree this thread is terrible and we already have two of them making it redundant. So, you have me there. xP

youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw Wuff. :D

(Pics or it didn't happen. :P)

I'll admit I'm being lazy, but as you said, got more things I'd rather do. ^3^ (i'm trying to show you snippets of the links to make it a little more than link spam) but I argue doing nothing is even lazier. :P

So how's about that air line food? Its crazy isn't it? :D

dammit. videos are even worse. like, just looking at this guy i feel like more of an authority on the subject

@Vilageidiotx Well he also sites his sources. And you didn't answer my question about air line food? Dammit the hard hitting questions must be answered. :P