Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by redneckdevil

  1. I finally know how fallout 4 fans feel like.  I am really enjoying this game.  The story and atmosphere keeps me pulled in.  The **** u can do is massive!  The side gigs and just the **** u see is Witcher 3 quality.  The main story and major side gigs I’d say are better than Witcher 3 writing.  It’s been a long time since I could connect with the characters or actually caring about them.  
    The random npcs ai and driving first person sucks but doesn’t bother me much at all bc I’m always heading somewhere and the landscape just distracts me instead.  Driving 3rd person fixed most of my issues with driving problems.

    it does ALOT of things really well that distract or at least dampen its flaws for me.  I waited 8 years for this game and didn’t get spoiled and went in blind and loving the hell outta it.  

    got 70 hours on this playthru and I’m lvl 20 and street level 40.  Love just sneaking in a corner outside a building and hacking in and taking out the whole building and using mantis arms for when I can’t hack.

    • Like 1
  2. 11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

    Yep. Among other reasons going all the way back to the Vietnam war. Getting off the gold standard made it possible for rapid economic growth.  With the dollar untethered to a physical commodity there is literally no limit to the amount of dollars that can exist theoretically. But it also opened us up to gross mismanagement and made us a date with destiny in the somewhat near future. 

    I agree it has opened us up to gross mismanagement.  I do have a question though, do you think that if govt steps in and funds to keep a company afloat should go the way of the banks in “owning” that company?
     Take the airlines for example.  Govt gives them a huge bailout to keep them afloat so that we don’t rely on a foreign nation for our flights, which I can understand to an extent.  Since every company I know of that gotten bailed out in the last 20 years wasted the money on not “fixing” the company but instead to line the shareholder and boards pockets instead and still having the same problems.  Since the airlines are for national security and growth for transporting goods and people, IF they govt couldn’t start a reason to acquire the company (which is the only thing I can think of to not go with the idea) but gave the company tax payer money, do you think that with the history of what happened with the money, that it would be better to just “take over” said company? 
    if the government doesn’t have the right to give money to keep a company afloat, since they do for national security reasons, then should the company be taken over instead?  Also do u think that would quickly end govt bailing out said companies if they are to dangerous to sink?

  3. 13 hours ago, Amentep said:

    I think often times people want to make things simple and in so doing give a false impression because rarely is anything simple.  Simplicity glosses over the years of racial tension around the country caused the ill treatment we have inflicted on ourselves based on race.  Sure there were lynchings and mob violence in the south, and it was more prevalent there.  Certainly the Jim Crow laws were unique (but exist, primarily, because the North kind of gave up on 'fixing' the south), but you can find examples of gerrymandering to disenfranchise or violence  in the north.  For a Rosewood in Florida, you get a Greenwood district in Tulsa. For a race riot in Atlanta (1909) you get one in Chicago (1919); for one in Watts (in 1965) you get one in Newark (1967).  Maybe history in public schools is better now but back in my day, a lot of this wasn't ever touched on (and no mention of the Asian immigration restrictions via quotas or what was really going on with native peoples for the most part, although perhaps some sort of ambivalence about Custer had begun to creep in). The Japanese internment camps were seen as bad, but were presented as I recall as a bit of an anomaly and not part of an interconnected picture about fears of Asians in the west.

    That said, I seriously doubt the South would have honored any promises made to the native peoples anymore than the North/US generally did.  There was too much money being poured into the plantation system for them to give plantation lands back to native peoples, and too much money in mining in the mountains.  

    Lincoln I think from what I've read mostly wanted to preserve the union.  I don't think he was a fan of slavery, IIRC, but he'd have kept it if he'd been able to keep the union together.  He didn't really have a lot of chance though, having spoken out against the spread of slavery he saw as inherent in the Kansas-Nebraska act while a Representative, South Carolina succeeded before he took office.

    I agree and likewise agree with the education part. 

  4. 14 hours ago, Theonlygarby said:

    Just wait until you've gone between Colorado springs and the palace a few times.  Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the game.  I dread reloading or entering areas due to the very long load times.  I blame unity

    Shoot, just reloading the many times I do for almost every chat with someone makes me understand people’s problem with the loading and speed of vehicle.

    i guess I’m a bit biased in that with the amount of fun I’m having with this game after not having this amount of enjoyment since I’m guessing shadow runs game came out.  The load times aren’t bothering me as much because my annoyance turns to enjoyment as soon as it’s done loading and I’m able to play lol.

    • Like 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Achilles said:

    As someone who flew to another state to knock on doors and talk to strangers about a candidate who is *not* Joe Biden, I have to admit that I don't understand these sentences.

    While the party clearly puts its collective thumb on the scale for some candidates and snubs others, that is not the same thing as having a chosen mouthpiece conspiratorially installed. The candidates themselves often have long-running relationships with media types and other levers of influence that exist independently of the party.

    To be clear, I'm not rushing to the defense of the DNC. Nor am I arguing that the system, as it exists now, is good and awesome.

    What I am saying is that maybe the reason the reason they "didn't learn" is because they never did (or even had the capacity to do) the thing that some people think they did (or do). Maybe Clinton and Biden are what we get when people with decades of political/campaign experience run against people with a lot less.

    With last election, the DNC did prop up Hillary over Bernie and sabotaged and even forced him out.  They installed Hillary as the mouth piece.  The emails that were leaked showed that and why I think the dems lost a lot of support last election. 
    Pure speculation but seeing how Bernie was running strong and then stepped down for “united front” to win against trump seems like yet again, the DNC propping up who they want.  Seems to fishy to me.  Like how no one from the Republican Party is running against Trump.


    • Hmmm 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Amentep said:

    IIRC it was about 3,000 that fought for the north (and lost about 10%), but were primarily the northern tribes that had been working well in the northern states.  So yes, the vast majority who picked a side, sided with the south.  Note the the reasons they did were complex and differed between groups.  The Choctow, for example, sided with the south because  their laws allowed slave ownership, and their agent who they liked was a southern sympathizer. Combine that with the US government having more or less ignored them and their issues for years and its easy to see why they'd side with the south.

    The western Cherokee siding with the south was a bit weird - yes it was the US government who sent them west, but it was to open up the southern states for southern plantation owning whites, so I'd imagine if everyone else around them weren't supporting the south so that they would have to fight in their homes constantly, they may have chosen  differently.

    The big difference in the industrial revolution 'wage slave' and the slaves of the south is that - as far as I know - the factory owner didn't have a legal right to kill you, to break up your family or to chase you down if you left and drag you back to work for them (albeit some of what they were allowed to do could kill you and/or break up your family; I don't recall them being able to drag you back to work except when prison labor got used).

    You are correct it was complex reasons but a good chunk of why the natives mainly chose the south was part the main fed govt who forced the trail of tears and part that the souther states had treaties signed that gave the tribes more land, sovereignty of their own nation and so forth.  The south was in a position to give them back a good bit of what they had lost if they won. Look at what the north did to the tribes of those that helped them, it wasn’t to far from what they did to the ones that sided with the south.

    i agree the south was able to dispicable things to slaves since they were viewed as property and not citizens, but then  again look at how the north treated the Chinese with the railroads.  It was the same perception as in able to kill/maim/separate from families and did the same with the natives as well.  

    North and South treated anyone who wasn’t white as non citizens and less than human.  Both sides were dispicable and caused untold travesty BUT because the North won, history dumbed down for the public is that South was the bad guys because of slavery and the North was the good guys as anti slavery when the North was doing just as horrible ****.  That’s my main point with this conversation is that both sides were horrible.  Hell Lincoln didn’t even care to free the slaves, it was a political move that he would have gladly abandoned if it didn’t drum up the support he was wanting.  

    I complain constantly about the spin in the news when our history we are taught in public schools is basically spin to motivate us to a certain view point just like our news does.  

  7. Can anyone explain with the protesting of the police that Biden/Harris is the Democratic nominees?  Harris has the history of keeping the jails full for the slave labor and for trying to expand convictions to parents to fill up prisons for more slave labor?   Biden is straight up old school and not even a progressive type?  

    how did the Democratic Party give us **** choices when we coulda had the MATH dude or the old socialist?  Still woulda been **** but those are more in the flavor that the public is going for.  
    also didn’t they learn with Hillary that forcing who THEY want instead of what the PEOPLE want is what’s gonna get trump re-elected?

  8. 28 minutes ago, Amentep said:

    As I recall the Delaware, Pamunkee, Lumbee, Iroquois, Powhaten, Pequot, Ottawa, Seneca, Huron Oneida, Potawatomi and Ojibwa fought on the Union side. The Cherokee (western and Carolinian), Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole, and Catawba fought on the Confederate side. I think the Creek ended up fighting on both sides.  Wasn't it the Oklahoma Creek who sided with the Union? The Lakota, Arpaho, Cheyenne and others were still fighting the US out west when the civil war started if memory serves me, and not really considered to have taken a side.

    At any rate, while you can argue the civil war was a libertarian movement against 'big government' (big business is, IMO not supportable, as the whole continuation of slavery was necessary for the economy as it was established, and therefore supported the southern wealthy), you'll never escape that what 'big government' was doing that the south objected to was freeing the slaves.  It will always come back to slavery and protecting the money interests of the wealthy southern families that had invested in the plantation system and the invention of the cotton gin.

    Outta 29000 native Americans that fought in the civil war, less than a thousand fought for the North because of the trail of tears and also because the North were racist against them and turned a lot away, hence also why certain tribes switched sides. 
    The problem of hyping up the south slave is that the federal govt right before the civil war showed that only 3-5% of the whole country owned slaves.  You are right that it was the “1%” as we call today that owned them while most did not bc of affordability hence big families for the MOST of the plantation work.

     BUT the North did the same only with a new wrapper and new game, because the factories that were owned hired people for long hours and paid low low wages to barely survive.   The South did the treatment with minorities while the North was woke and instead placed all colors into a slave wage state.  Why I say it was economical is that people were more outraged and rightly scared of the difference in class levels between the working man and the rich than about slaves because most people didn’t own them. 

    • Thanks 1
  9. Regarding the native Americans, I doubt a lot of the “pc” culture would be as warming and compassionate towards them if they remembered that MOST of the native Americans fought for the confederacy in the civil war.  Living near Cherokee, I saw a lot of old timers with rebel flags.  While every where else, the civil war was ALL about slaves, whereas down in the south it was always more of a “libertarian” movement in against big govt/business.   “The south is gonna rise again” was not a prophecy but a warning that no matter how big ya got, u **** with us, we will **** u right back.  The native Americans joined the cause because the big govt/business took away their lands so that the railroads go to help with the second industrial revolution of turning people into wage slaves for peanuts on the assembly line compared to agriculture work in the south.   So for minorities, the war was about slavery, to the white man the war was an economic war fighting the industrial revolution, and to the native Americans it was a war to fight against the genocidal govt and retake their land and powers.
    also the native Americans also owned slaves as well so they weren’t “good” people as well compared to today’s standards.

    So TLDR, the confederacy were “hero’s/comrades” to the native Americans for standing/fighting/dying along side them.   So the next time u see a confederate flag and most likely correct in thinking loser in life and history, then ur also calling the native Americans that as well :)

    remember everything isn’t JUST or MAINLY about race, winners write the history.


  10. 16 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

    Abolish the Electoral College.  It has served it's last gasp reminder of how bad it is 2000-2016.

    Trump is literally the same as Hillary Clinton as far as policies go, especially foreign PROTECT ISRAEL AT ALL COSTS policy.

    Only difference here is that Trump seems to attract the Christian Zionists and white supremacists, and we all know what happens to them in the end.  See 1865 and 1945 for reference.

    Edit: 2025?  80 year intervals ol' whitey seems to need a lesson in manners.

    We got this.

    Instead of abolishing the electoral college, how bout we actually let it go the way it DESIGNED and do away with the winner take all.

    not only will people’s vote actually count BUT also the best way to get away from a 2 party system by giving them actual choices.  Also best way to increase voter turn out as well. 

    instead of abolishing a system and go with one where 4 states decide what the other 46 get, get rid of the “winner take all” instead and watch as rep/dem voting numbers go down and independent/libertarian/socialist/etc voting numbers go up and give an election or 2 and u will have more than the 2 party system WITHOUT any drastic changes and we can keep everything going the way it is now.  It’s KISS.

  11. 13 hours ago, Gromnir said:

    our understanding is the case were settled. do you have additional info? considering how the similar case against wapo were initially dismissed, is more than a mere possibility that whatever the "maga hat boy" team were given could have been little more than enough to recoup costs. 

    tough to count this as much o' a win w/o more info.

    speaking o' washington post, and to avoid the double

    ‘You’re a bunch of dopes and babies’: Inside Trump’s stunning tirade against generals

    we can post a few quotes for those blocked, but might be pointless. at this stage in the administration, the revelations is not shocking while at same time being a gut punch for any but true believers.

    HA! Good Fun!


    Sadly your right, because I got the info from Fox.....shudders.  They’ve spun it in a way to make it seem like he had a great victory but like u said without the amount, who knows if it was a win.  I believe his team is now gonna go after more news networks such as nbc and such.

  12. Lol a lawyer criticizing someone on morality.  Ahh that’s a good laugh :)

    good day today, just found out late that maga hat boy won against CNN’s slander.  Was wondering why no news are really talking about it and realized several propaganda stations reported the slander as fact as well.  Hopefully maga hat breaks their banks as well.

  13. I forced myself to finish Witcher 3 and after I got passed that slump of being overcrowded with stuff to do, it ended up being in my top 3 rpgs with Morrowind and Fallout New Vegas.  Mainly because of story, atmosphere, and graphics.  

    kingmaker I’ve enjoyed but the kingdom **** just killed it for me so I’m trying again but putting the kingdom on auto.


    baldurs gate I feel is only good now because of combat although if I had played it when it came out, the story woulda been better for me.  Now, not so much.


  14. Really missed Yang at the debate.   Seemed like the only sane intelligent person running.  Weird, woulda actually felt proud having his face for our disfunctional corrupt govt.  Also woulda made the news seem somewhat normal after the constant “TRUMP!” always being broadcasted.  Have a feeling if Bernie wins, it’s gonna be about the same obsession toned down just a knotch.

    • Like 1
  15. 2 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

    The Obama Muslim stuff always cracks me up. I mean, it really does explain just how willing people are to believe that the other party is filled with monsters and super villains. People believed he was Muslim and then had to deal with him as President for 8 long years! How did this country even survive?


    Again I blame our propaganda channels for the misinformation that he was Muslim.


    10 hours ago, ShadySands said:

    Obama doesn't surprise me because Democrats overall are more likely to be less hardline and dogmatic when it comes to religion even though they and Republicans are both overwhelmingly comprised of believers. At least according to Pew anyways.

    Also interesting, to me at least as I have a weird interest in this kinda stuff, is that the Democrats generally have the support of the two most religious racial and ethnic groups and also the the least religious. 


    Could it be that they get the support because of mainly race tactics and also treating Muslims as a race as well? As in a tactic against anti-Muslim ideal push back in labeling people racist instead of religious discrimination?


    not being snide, a lot of our politics and the machine I don’t understand how they are working or how people can be backing them.


  16. 21 hours ago, ShadySands said:

    Regarding Pence and religion, I don't think he has to be able to force his beliefs on us to be bad. I think just trying to push them and directing the national conversation in such a manner is a bad thing.

    I also disagree with the that the left is completely hostile to religion as it is comprised of some groups that as a whole tend to be pretty religious and it also comprises more people from non-Christian beliefs. 

    Dunno if you saw that 538 article I posted a little while back about Millennials leaving religion and not coming back but it gets into some of the reasons why, though that's not the main point of the article, and how it's Democrats that are mostly not coming back and suggests some reasons behind that.

    The left isn’t hostile to ALL religion, just mainly Christianity.  Which always confused me why the hatred was so stoked against Christianity but would champion the Muslim religion.  Then again I mainly get this image because of our propaganda channels and also because the left didn’t have a problem with Obama being Muslim and didn’t have a problem with him pushing and enacting pro-Muslim ideals but we are worried about Pence...

    Then again I’m confused why people think Muslims are considered a “race” and not a religious people like u would call Christians.  

    Also I have to keep smh when I hear religion is the cause of all wars when really religion is just the “weapons of mass destruction” to get the population behind the wars.  

    then again I usually stay outta the discussions because of my ignorance.  

    • Thanks 1
    • Haha 1
  17. Just beat the main game of Witcher 3 and about to do the expansions now.  This game was hands down one of the best games to come out since the shadow run games.  Used a mod to use any item any level and explored all the nodes except skelligade.   Just to close to finishing it so just did the main secondary quests there to prevent burnout.  Damn, several moments in the story was very well done, just had a blast with it.  Once I finish the expansions, dunno what I’m gonna play next bc RD2 is to massive of a ya me for me to take on without burnout. 

  18. 9 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

    McConnell should probably have expected that to be honest. Best way to make sure the Repubs don't break ranks on impeachment is the threat that Pelosi becomes President. And it's 100% totally in character for Trump to make sure that if he goes down he's taking as many others with him as possible.

    Good way for him to keep his promises of draining the swamp 

    • Haha 1
  • Create New...