Wrath of Dagon

Only if it interferes with homosexual activity.

Hmm, I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway, Texas requires you to wear seat belts when driving.

Only true if your car is parked.

That's not exactly what the proposed law says: "A bill under consideration in the state Legislature calls to prohibit "any activity unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle on a public road or highway." That means no cup of coffee for those sitting in traffic, no munching on that breakfast burrito, no time to groom. (No, the law does not target coffee verbatim.)" Notice the interference with safe operation part, since you're endangering other people. Edit: Not exactly election related, but I have to say I'm siding with our ambassador here: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/08/rodrigo-duterte-u-s-ambassador-annoying-homosexual-son-btch/

Both parties live in an ideological fantasy world of their own, so apparently they don't know. Edit: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/07/hillary-clinton-needs-help-getting-stairs/ We'll have to see if Darth Nihilus can hold herself together with her willpower alone until after the election.

Sorry, was looking through old posts, I forgot which was the last post. Run-offs is infinitesimally better, but the exact same basic problem still remains - you need to eliminate spoilers on your side, while encouraging them on the other. This leads, effectively, to the exact same system which is in place today. Suppose the left-wing parties would field two candidates (let's call them "Bernard" and "Hillary") while the right-wing parties field 16 or so candidates. The cancer in FPTP shows clearly again, and the right-wing voters are forced to strategize and avoid spoilers while the left-wing voters laugh as their candidates are the ones who will likely win the run-off. One of the few scenarios where run-offs would be helpful and not induce gamism is if there were only three candidates, ideologically evenly spaced. The next closest thing to proportional representation is really preferential voting. With a long enough list of preferences, this approaches proportional representation systems in that you can actually safely vote for the person you sympathize with, without risking acting like a spoiler. When electing a president - one person - this system is actually half-decent, but when using this method to elect multiple people to some assembly you get the typical retarded FPTP malfunctions such as arbitrarily brutally favouring parties with certain geographical distributions, and so on. You've actually made my point for me. In your previous example, with 2 liberal parties and 3 conservative ones, equally split ideologically, you'd always have a liberal and a conservative in the run-off, so no problem. With 16 conservative parties they would of course always lose, so unless brain dead they'd consolidate into fewer parties, just like the 2 party system works now. And that's what I said, we want 4-5 parties, not 16-100.

Why don't you quote the post where I answered your question? I said having run-offs in elections would fix this.

I'll give myself credit for my foresight back then. And btw, the British general who refused Clark's (aka Hilzilla's best friend and adviser) insane orders was Michael Jackson.

New Vegas had shooter mechanics too, it's what you do with them that matters. I'm expecting a lot more than a straight-forward shooter, but we'll see.

A President has to make decisions whether or not to go to war. A person running for President should not be guilty of exposing highest government secrets, so your question is a non-sequitur.

It's from Arkane Studios, so I doubt they'll make a generic shooter.

Wasn't Quistina saying things exactly like that?

And riding in a tank looking like an idiot smurf. And releasing a rapist/murderer to rape and murder again. I don't think it was even the whole debate, it was how he answered a single question about the death penalty. Good by free speech, it's been a good run. Geez, I cant believe people may consider Trump a better debater than Hilary Trump does make me laugh sometimes but he also constantly reminds me how insecure he is .....we live in an age where its considered inappropriate for Billionaires to boast about how rich they are Especially with this " anti-wealthy people " sentiment and the issues around the income gap Look at Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, there philanthropy is what defines them....not the fact they keep telling strangers how rich they are? Being douchebags is what defines them, especially Zuck. That monster literally has blood dripping from her hands, I don't know how she's got away with it for so long. Edit: Nice victory against abuse of Eminent Domain: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/05/court-strikes-down-taking-that-is-a-manifest-abuse-of-the-the-eminent-domain-power/

What do you teach in your history class Hurlshot? "We aren't sure how deeply Hitler was involved in the Holocaust"? "No one is sure if Stalin knew about the Gulags"?

Fencing rules!

A nation without borders isn't a nation at all. A nation which treats everyone in the world the same as its own citizens makes citizenship meaningless. The politicians are busy replacing the voters, and no one seems to care.

And it would be very easy to show that he did. But that's not even what Gorgon said, he said "you could make a very strong case".

@Gorgon There's no way he could've shown he didn't know about it. Milosevic wasn't in charge of the Bosnian Serbs, and the court records show he was opposed to them in many instances.

Until you get to the tax and regulation part. And gun control. And free speech, Federalism, and education. But that is the nice thing about the LP. It's got half a sandwich for everyone! Yeah, open borders and open zippers. Well they lost me on the open borders part but it would be a stretch to agree with any candidate 100%. If you ever see a "perfect" candidate let me know. Destruction of America is a pretty important issue to disagree on.

That's not what he said at all. He is talking about proving something in a court of law. Chillax. "You could make a very strong case that Hitler was not aware of the Holocaust and that he never gave any direct orders." Learn to read historian.

There was no written order found. That doesn't mean he didn't give a verbal order to Himmler, it's believed by all sane historians he did. This is what Goebbels wrote in his diary on August 19, 1941, which is the time the murders of Jews increased hugely: "We talked about the Jewish problem. The Fuhrer is convinced that his earlier prophecy in the Reichstag is proving correct, and if the Jews succeed again in provoking another world war it would end with the annihilation of the Jews. This is being proved in these weeks and months with an apparently eerie certainty. In the east the Jews must pay for this..." The Holocaust took a huge amount of Hitler's desperately needed wartime resources. The Allies knew all about it. To believe that Hitler somehow didn't you'd have to be completely delusional.

No you can't, don't lie.

Until you get to the tax and regulation part. And gun control. And free speech, Federalism, and education. But that is the nice thing about the LP. It's got half a sandwich for everyone! Yeah, open borders and open zippers.

Well, Trump just sold out and endorsed all the establishment candidates in the Republican primaries.

Unfortunately because of their hatred of parties the founders set up what turned out to be a two party system. A perfect example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.