Jump to content

Blarghagh

Members
  • Posts

    2741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Blarghagh

  1. I'm pretty sure they are included, as are the immigrants with all Jihadists. Not exclusive.

     

    More snark because **** gun culture and the GOP: Gosh, I wonder how big ole' Stephen's surviving victims' medical bills will be. I'm sure a gun arsenal is a god given right but not going bankrupt over it isn't. But I guess you could make guns illegal and those who want them would still find a way to get them. Wouldn't be a point to it. It's not something dangerous, like weed. Or Kinder Eggs.

     

     

     

    He was using a full auto weapon. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Even if it was modified it was already illegal. What kind of gun control are they hoping for here. Make it really, really illegal? Or just take them all away? If so my invitation still stands. They want my firearms come take them, smoking from my dead hands. The ammo I'll be happy to serve up first, as fast as I can fire it.

    It always cracks me up how eager you are to shoot your fellow countrymen who are just doing their jobs :lol:

    Eager? Not even. I also really, really, really doubt this would ever happen. But if it does, well... I'd rather die that day than see what comes after. You might say I have principles that I value more than my own life.

    What the ****? More than anyone else's too, I guess. I'm not too fond of those who'll shoot law enforcement or military forces for their 'principles'. It's fine if you decide you're not worth **** but another human life isn't less important than your goddamn pellet guns. I honestly don't see how that statement doesn't make you as radical as a ISIS terrorist shooting people for his 'principles'.

    • Like 1
  2. On the other hand. After mass shootings you get large amounts of liberals talking about needing to make societal changes to prevent such things from ever occurring again. When a terrorist attack occurs you get a similar response from the right, while the left says that's just letting the terrorists win. I believe much of the right feels the winning move is to collect oneself and move forward with the parts of life that matter, that restricting gun control is letting outliers win. This sort of "double-standard/symmetry" I've never seen talked about.

     

    So in the end what is the right move? More laws, bureaucracy, more acting like we have real power over terrible things? Or do we collectively vote with our time and money to charge ahead with what really takes precedence. I feel people would rather donate to help victims than politically engineer a solution that may or may not work. The optics of either of those two scenarios may hurt people's idealistic sensitivities, but collectively I think the answer to the cost/benefit analysis is revealed.

    I'm not sure of the source of this, but I feel like it shows the difference?

     

    Risks.jpg

     

    Also pretty sure the amount peacetime Americans killed with firearms inside US borders is more than the amount of Americans killed in every war and armed conflict America has participated in put together?

     

    Don't take my word for it though. Typing on my crappy phone so I didn't check.

  3. Oh sure, it's illegal to buy one or convert one. Show of hands, who here knows people who have enough tech savvy that they could convert readily available crud? I'm sure all of those would be deterred by it being illegal if they snapped. "We've tried everything to stop it! We told them they'd be fined in addition to their other sentencing if we found out they killed 20 people with a MODIFIED gun! Gosh, I don't understand why they didn't listen!"

     

    But let's just debate and do nothing, and then next time we'll do that too.

  4. Hope you guys have more luck forming a coalition than we're having. We're approaching record time without a cabinet - which suits the largest party just fine since now they don't have to justify saying "no" to any reform that helps people instead of corporations with anything but "we can't make this big decision right now, we're only the decommissionary cabinet!" despite them still being the largest party.

  5.  

    Ugh, look, something shiny to look at while we try again to murder people by taking away their healthcare. This is why Trump won - because everyone's looking at the wrong things he's doing.

     

    That's a bad take. For one thing, most Americans care far more about sports than healthcare. If anything, we react more from out of apathy when they take away our entertainment.

     

     

    So it's a bad take because everyone PREFERS looking at the wrong thing?

    • Like 1
  6. Funny, the villain and final encounter is usually what I find the most boring and annoying in ANY superhero movie. Seriously, of the top of my head right now, I don't remember any that I really liked. Especially if they go all out in super CGI that's usually when my brain shuts off and I could nick away.

    /Edit: Except the Nolan's Batman movies. I still like them the most.

    Agreed. Doesn't help that the villains are rarely focused on lately. The only ones I've liked recently were the ones with a funny twist. I.e. Dormammu, I've come to bargain! Civil War didn't have them fight a big villain and ended all the better for it.

    • Like 1
  7. Lawrence of Arabia has a really impressive visual quality as well. If not for the sound, it looks like a modern movie. I've looked it up a while ago, because I wanted to know how this was possible. Turns out, movies that had been recorded with analog technology can be remade in whatever resolution you'd like to (and them resized smaller to make them look sharp again), while that is impossible with digital movies (some data is always lost and increasing the resolution would lead to pixelation).

     

    Assuming the original roll is available, but for most films it decays. There are also many more ways that analog film can just get entirely messed up. That's the trade-off. Even then, there's a limit to how much mileage you can get out of it before you get film stains, grain, etc.

  8.  

    There is no debate about wether Hitler ever ordered the Holocaust. Pretending that he didn't does nothing but cater to Neo Nazis. Anyone who spends even a minimum amount of time with politics should be aware of this.

    Maybe this guy doesn't Heil Hitler at home. He certainly does make an effort to attract those who do.

    Even if he may not call himself a Nazi, he goes long ways to get their votes.

     

    Tell me, where am I wrong? Because catering to Nazis doesn't make you a lot different from being one. Not catering to nationalists, conservatives or patriots; catering to Nazis.

    Is speech a document, now? Well some things certainly changed since I covered historical sources classification in school.

    It did point out there is a record, a.k.a. it was documented, so yes it is 100% a document. What do you think document means? Must be handwritten and signed in triplicate? Hitler was a nazi, not a vogon.

  9.  

    Last time I was there I saw a lot of celtic crosses and bald teens wearing shirts with slogans like 'kill for the fatherland'. Between that and PIS being in charge, asking what they'll do when fascism comes to Poland seems to be behind the times.

    Except we use the term motherland and wear christian crosses. So maybe you confused with Germany.

    And implying fascist to the country that suffered the most from nazi Germany is bizzare at best.

    Right, and Red is Bad isn't one of Polands most mainstream brands. Neo-fascism and racism has been normalized among Polish youth subculture for a while now, and there are literal far-right extremists in parliament.

  10. To be fair, she changes her mind rather quickly when actually confronted with supernatural evidence and the first film established that most of the population lives in blissful ignorance. Nobody believes Elizabeth about Barbossa's undead crew and one lieutenant makes fun of her by comparing her story to mermaid fairytales. Hilariously, said lieutenant returned in the fourth film under Barbosss's command and witnessed part of his crew getting massacred by... Mermaids.

    • Like 2
  11.  

    Bah, so boring and safe. I'd prefer Trevorrow.

     

    Nevah, can't stand his approach or style. As far as I know the reason he was given JP and then EP9 was because of his personal friendship with Kathleen Kennedy. He was being groomed into the next blockbuster director. I just don't see him as the right for helming a loved classic.

     

     

    No arguments. I just don't have faith in JJ to deliver anything new. Force Awakens was fine for what it was, a loose reboot. But I'd rather end the series on something terrible than on something boring.

     

    I was hoping for Brad Bird, Alfonso Cuaron or maybe Trevorrow's Jurassic series successor, J.A. Bayona.

×
×
  • Create New...