Wrath of Dagon

Apparently that's how Arkane Studios themselves were acquired.

Politilie as as objective as the rest of the lying media that claims to be objective. Their job is to elect Hilzilla.

Grim Dawn. Pretty fun game even though I'm not a fan of clicky combat or the skill system.

Yes, and the same goes for ending the two-party system. The only way it would have a chance if there was a movement focused on nothing else.

Breitbart and https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Speaking of news organizations hiring violent racists: http://lidblog.com/un-happy-25th-anniversary-of-al-sharpton-led-crown-heights-pogrom/

Clinton vs Powell use of e-mails: https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/766597315767496708/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The problem is if you don't much care about the racial or ethnic makeup of your country, you can't very well be a "nationalist". Being for the rule of law, separation of powers and the Bill of Rights does not make you an "American Nationalist", or "Civic Nationalist" because those things were not invented by Americans and are widely regarded as universal, i.e. they transcend national boundaries. No need to make up a new political denomination containing the word "nationalism" when one already exists that perfectly describes the set of tenets you subscribe to: classical liberalism. I'm sorry, but "Civic Nationalist" is either a) whitewashing ethnic/racial nationalism or b) an oxymoron. Classical liberalism has come to be associated with globalism. American nationalism is the American government giving preference to its own citizens and in general putting America first. For example you can argue that Reason magazine or WSJ are classic liberals, but they are for open borders all the way. How does that square with the rule of law?

I guess Trump is reading off teleprompter now. Good speech though: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291931-full-speech-donald-trump-in-battleground-north

It's "American nationalism", not "white nationalism". SPLC is a lying far-left organization.

Yes, a consumption tax like a national sales tax. Generally (at least in states I've lived in) it's applied to all non-essential (meaning not on grocery or medicine) purchases. Although he hasn't released specifics on how it would work or what would be exempt that I've seen. On advantage though, everyone will be paying taxes. Rich, poor, legal and illegal. Because there is no escaping it the over all burden may be less than the income tax. It would certainly cost a heck of a lot less to collect. Of course, he can't wave a wand and make this happen. He'd have to get Congress to buy in. Yes, let's shift all the tax burden on the poor people, since they spend 100% of their income, while the super-rich probably don't even spend 10%.

@Nightshade You think they're misreporting the results of the poll? They look like an old gay-married couple.

Hey, there's hope yet: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/18/la-times-tracking-poll-clinton-44-percent-trump-43-4-percent/ Don't give up until the end.

And which political group do you think is standing in the way of the new water projects? Also I love Salmon. I don't know, which one? Can't be the Republicans, they've been entirely castrated in CA. Actually digging around seems to show that it is mostly corporations that seem to oppose his plans. As much as I hate corporations, I would think it's the environmentalists that are more at fault here. But I haven't studied the issue.

And which political group do you think is standing in the way of the new water projects? Also I love Salmon. I don't know, which one? Can't be the Republicans, they've been entirely castrated in CA.

Here's just one example of the extremely widespread SNAP fraud: http://nypost.com/2013/07/28/nyc-welfare-food-is-shipped-in-barrels-to-the-dominican-republic-then-sold-on-the-black-market/ States don't care about the fraud because all the funding comes from the feds, the fraud actually helps the state economy.

You have no idea how this works at all. Really. Why don't you enlighten me how the supreme court gets to set asside the constitution. What could really happen is that the state of whatever passes a law requiring more stringent background checks and psychological tests and so on, there is a lawsuit and it ends up in the supreme court. The supreme court gets to enterpret the constitution and you will still have your 2nd ammendment, as well as some sensible gun laws, hypotheticallly speaking. The reason for that is that whatever the SC says the law is, that's what it is. There's no accountability to anyone, and no appeal. If the SC says a circle is square, then legally it's square. In the 30's the Court ruled that a farmer who didn't engage in interstate commerce was still covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause, because failure to participate is still a form of engagement. As far as the Second Amendment, all the liberals on the court already said it's a communal right, not an individual right, which means it doesn't actually protect anything. yes. the extreme endangered sky whales that cause rainfall has been disappearing at an alarming rate over the past century. ever since folks started going to school and learning 'bout convection in elementary science classes, sky whale sightings has decreased to the point where they now face almost inevitable extinction. ... 'course, a half decade o' record low rainfalls and almost non-existent snow-pack in the sierra nevadas might also be at the root o' the problem. *eye roll* HA! Good Fun! Also failure to do any new water projects while the population doubled. They're also dumping fresh water into the ocean because of the salmon, I think that's what redneckdevil meant.

yes, you were extreme vague about policies in general, which is why we addressed your only concrete claims and concerns. and yeah, we suspect that less people would receive welfare if texas seceded. again, did you not understand the fed dollar differential? texas wouldn't be able to cover the costs o' fed programs as you is a dependent state. you can't afford welfare or a multitude o' other programs. oh, and children is far-and-away the largest age group receiving welfare benefits, and they receive the mostest individual benefits. no doubt once wod cures cancer and patents riding dinosaurs, he will tackle the problem o' reducing welfare recipients w/o punishing the children who is already suffering the most. HA! Good Fun! We wouldn't run welfare programs the way the feds run them. It would be very difficult to get welfare in independent Texas. Anyway, "how will we ever fund welfare" isn't a burning question on anyone's mind.

SNAP rates aren't solely due to illegals of course (and that's not what I said, I said Federal policies in general) and there are plenty of historical differences between Texas and California. Anyway it has nothing to do with Texas seceding. I'll guaranty that if we ever do secede, there'll be a lot less people receiving welfare of any kind in Texas than in California.

Probably Ted Cruz, though that might be infamous.

Not so sure they don't get SNAP. Apparently there isn't much checking. But even if they don't, their children born on US soil are eligible, so the underclass keeps growing. California has 4 times as many poor people as any other state, but it also has more rich people than any other state. Texas could certainly secure itself against illegal immigration, where there's a will there's a way. We wouldn't be a pauper nation, without the federal government pulling us back, we'd be the most prosperous, freest nation in the world. The last I checked, there are a lot more people moving from California to Texas than the other way around, and it certainly isn't for the climate. Edit: "California is the nation’s welfare queen: The state accounts for one-third of America’s welfare recipients, though it only contains one-eighth of the population, and there’s no good reason for it." http://www.nationalreview.com/article/302148/california-americas-welfare-queen-nash-keune

We'll pull our own weight when the feds quit flooding us with illegals. SNAP recipients are created by Federal policies, not Texas policies. Besides, if we're costing US money, US should be happy to let us leave, no? You have no idea how this works at all.

If Hilzilla wins, Second Amendment is gone, that is not even debatable. She also wants to make gun manufacturers liable for any deaths caused by their guns, that will put them all out of business. A complete ban will come later. I hope you like martial law in Texas because that's how you get martial law in Texas. Funny, there's no martial law in Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia. We joined under false premises. We were promised a limited and Constitutional federal government.

Hey, may be we get our secession out of all this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/clinton-wins-texas-secedes/496166/ It'll be more than 40% if they ban guns.

That's not how it's supposed to work though.