Lurker > streamofthesky

You guys are either delusional or actually Republicans but I repeat myself. I didn't like Hillary, refused to vote for her. But I understand Sanders officially supporting her once it was clear they were handing her the nomination no matter what. He may not like her, but at least they agreed on some issues (and not in the sense of Hillary switching her view to "agree" with him in those cases, I mean) and she was still better than Trump. Continuing to oppose her and hurting her in the general election would've just helped Trump (and thus my suspicion that the people lambasting him for "abandoning his principles" are actually Republicans).
You want to be mad at something out of that, be mad at our god damned first past the post voting system that ensures a corrupt 2 party system forever and always.

Erik_P posted...

He said he would repeal Obamacare. That failed.

He said he would ban Muslims. That failed twice.

He's under investigation for collusion with foreign government.

He claimed Obama wiretapped him, which was shot down by the FBI and multiple intelligence agencies.

The only thing that he's been successful at is murdering innocent civilians.

When does the winning start, exactly?

That's not true.
He's also been pretty successful at destroying the environment. And allowing our ISPs to sell our browsing history. And stealing a Supreme Court nomination. And is poised to undo all kinds of scientific research funding.

He's had plenty of "winning."

Oh, this topic's still going?

Here's something I just found today on Jack Ass with the initials backwards.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/11/hunting-down-runaway-slaves-the-cruel-ads-of-andrew-jackson-and-the-master-class/

Jackson added a line that some historians find particularly cruel.
It offered “ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him, to the amount of three hundred.”

ParanoidObsessive posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Both are chemical weapons. Cripes.

Except context is everything, and you're actually kind of wrong in this case.

Which part of Spicer's comments did I get wrong?

The part where he said hitler didn't use chemical weapons (HE DID) or the part where Spicer apparently thought the millions of German Jews, Communists, gays, Roma, disabled, etc... weren't hitler's "own people" yet the Syrian rebels Assad attacked were his?

Never got why people felt the need to leap onto a rhetorical sinking ship when it's half-under already just to join in, especially when it's so obviously in the wrong as this.

DorkLink posted...

streamofthesky posted...

All the time. Some of my favorite music. Listen on youtube, listen in my car, listen on my MP3 player while walking...
I don't "categorize" it, not sure what you mean. Just have it all in a big list with my other music.

I mean, most music is usually categorized by artist and album, but that doesn't entirely make much sense with video games, especially as I tend to listen more by game/series than by composer. If I were to put VG music onto my phone the most logical thing to me would be to have it all as the same artist and each game be its own album.

If I know of the composer and have a lot of his/her stuff, I might add that to details. More often I don't bother. For album info, it's usually "[insert game name here] OST." May not be the correct name, but it's for my sake to help ID the track and I don't really give a shit beyond that.
Name of the track and game it's from is sufficient info.

All the time. Some of my favorite music. Listen on youtube, listen in my car, listen on my MP3 player while walking...
I don't "categorize" it, not sure what you mean. Just have it all in a big list with my other music.

Lil69Leo posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Lil69Leo posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

St_Kevin posted...

Wow

Really America?

These comments Spicer are making

I'm new to this one but he never said Hitler used chemical weapons. He said Hitler never sunk so low as to use them. Essentially saying Assad is worse than Hitler, which is wrong on many levels. And has said that was a mistake.

Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He did use gas chambers in concentrations camps.

Quoting so you can't delete and try to hide your stupidity.

There is a blatant difference to executing people stuck in a locked room and launching all sorts of bombs and artillery filled with chemicals to cause damage everywhere. One is a weaponized and the other is straight execution.

Both are chemical weapons. Cripes.

Lil69Leo posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

St_Kevin posted...

Wow

Really America?

These comments Spicer are making

I'm new to this one but he never said Hitler used chemical weapons. He said Hitler never sunk so low as to use them. Essentially saying Assad is worse than Hitler, which is wrong on many levels. And has said that was a mistake.

Hitler didn't use chemical weapons. He did use gas chambers in concentrations camps.

Quoting so you can't delete and try to hide your stupidity.

berniepanders posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I still think the best way to handle the Middle East is to just let them fight each other

if they would stick to just fighting each other this would definitely be the best way to handle it, but at this point enough resentment towards the west has built up that groups like isis and al-qaeda before them will never stop coming at the west

But in general that is what Obama did. They're fighting each other in Egypt, Syria, Lybia, Yemen, etc.. We drone bomb, but didn't send in armies. He kept us out of those messes and yeah they're hives of anarchy and destruction, but...we're not personally stuck there at least. ISIS tries to conduct terror plots in our country, but so did al-qaeda and others before them already. Same drill, gotta invest in security at airports, sporting events, etc.. I venture that ISIS would've aimed to strike at us in our own country whether we got involved at all or not. The prestige among terror groups of killing Americans on their own home turf is significant.
It's not perfect, they do try to divert from killing each other to kill us, but Obama did about as good a job keeping their guns pointed at each other as one can.

SkynyrdRocker posted...

streamofthesky posted...

The point was having a reason to go to war (in some form...bombing the shit out of a country is war, even if we put no boots on the ground and 99% of U.S. citizens go about their lives like nothing's different).
So he asked Congress to sanction military action, as the constitution requires. And they chickened out of being personally accountable for a possible war.

Obama couldn't win. If he follows the constitution, he's weak. If he had made strikes against Assad w/o Congressional approval, they'd have called him a dictator. No matter what he does, people like you would shout that he's wrong.

I think I'd have supported him acting in Syria. I don't know. We intervened in Iraq and it's a mess. We haven't intervened in Syria and it's a mess. The Middle East, man...

I still think the best way to handle the Middle East is to just let them fight each other, only stepping in to protect vulnerable minority populations, like the Yazidi (sorry if I spelled that wrong).

I remember when a community of Yazidi Christians were trapped on some mountain by ISIS, and we did end up helping them. But stuff like that... Bomb the ever loving shit out of ISIS when they march towards that mountain. They head Assad's way...do nothing to them. Guide them, let them figure out the path of least resistance.

I'm hoping war w/ Syria will be a distraction for Trump from the destruction of our environment, scientific research, and basic human rights domestically, if anything...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Erik_P posted...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

What was Obama's missile strike in Syria in 2013?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/obama-syria-airstrikes-trump/

So Trump did what Obama should have done. What's the point of drawing a line in the sand if you just go "oh darn it" when they cross it?

The point was having a reason to go to war (in some form...bombing the shit out of a country is war, even if we put no boots on the ground and 99% of U.S. citizens go about their lives like nothing's different).
So he asked Congress to sanction military action, as the constitution requires. And they chickened out of being personally accountable for a possible war.

Obama couldn't win. If he follows the constitution, he's weak. If he had made strikes against Assad w/o Congressional approval, they'd have called him a dictator. No matter what he does, people like you would shout that he's wrong.

Zeus posted...

Claude_Frollo posted...

streamofthesky posted...

There's more, those are just the highlights. He was the first populist president, riding in on a tide of resentment by the common people against the elite...and as any cynical person would expect, was one of those elite himself.

Sounds like Trump.

And Teddy Roosevelt. Actually, Trump is a lot like Roosevelt since he's also a bombastic, larger than life figure.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.

Trump definitely doesn't do the former, and judging by his hands, probably doesn't pull off the latter, either.

Yes, if only Lincoln had abdicated his right to run for president of the United States, the south would have never attacked Fort Sumter. Damn you for existing, Lincoln!
*sarcastically shakes fist in the air*

Dikitain posted...

Anybody who doesn't say Buchanan doesn't know history very well. He literally drove the country into civil war then told Lincoln "Your problem now, sucks to be you!"

The path to civil war was decades in the making. While he is one of the worst presidents, claiming he's solely responsible for driving us to civil war is hyperbole.

Claude_Frollo posted...

streamofthesky posted...

There's more, those are just the highlights. He was the first populist president, riding in on a tide of resentment by the common people against the elite...and as any cynical person would expect, was one of those elite himself.

Sounds like Trump.

There's obvious similarities (and I read a while ago that Trump visited Jackson's grave and seemed to admire the dude).

But until Trump commits genocide, single-handedly causes a financial depression, and permanently changes our political system for the worse (ok, I think he's accomplished that last one), it is factually impossible to claim he could be a worse president than Jackson.

Andrew Jackson, no question.

- Committed ethnic cleansing bordering on genocide, and in the process broke the law when the court ruled the Cherokee had a right to stay in their lands and as the head of the executive branch, tasked with enforcing the laws, had them removed anyway.
- Introduced the "spoils system" whereby he gave all the top cabinet posts to his own people. Before Jackson, presidents actually tried to include people from opposing parties in their cabinet to work with them, imagine that! And he still found his cabinet picks distasteful and ended up sneaking in his best buds through the kitchen door of the white house to discuss matters with, dubbed the "kitchen cabinet"
- Took campaign politics into the gutter with mudslinging campaigns against his opponent. Adams did mudslinging as well, the difference was his attacks were generally true (like Jackson getting into a relationship w/ a still-married woman) while Jackson's attacks were generally complete lies. Also, claimed his victory at New Orleans got the U.S. more favorable terms in the peace treaty for the war of 1812, even though the battle occurred 2 weeks after the treaty had been signed (news traveled slower back then, especially across an ocean).
- Destroyed the national banking system in favor of banks in each state controlling finances, headed...of course...by his cronies. This would lead (a few years after he left, w/ his hand-picked successor as president) to what would become the worst financial panic in U.S. history until the Great Depression relieved him of that honor a hundred years later

There's more, those are just the highlights. He was the first populist president, riding in on a tide of resentment by the common people against the elite...and as any cynical person would expect, was one of those elite himself. He was responsible for the single worst atrocity in our history, is possibly the only case in all of history of a single man's ignorance and stupidity crashing financial markets, and innovated pretty much everything you hate about modern U.S. politics. What a guy!

Cook the noodles in a pot
Drain the pot (get rid of the residue on those cheap noodles)
Put in new water, just enough to make up the "soup" and mix in the powder
Cook until just boiling again

Make sure I'm not living in a heavily populated area and try to also not live in the the middle of any direct linear path between Russia and a heavily populated area?

Not much you can do, if enough nukes get launched, even if you don't die in the fallout area, the atmosphere will be affected enough to kill the rest of us off slowly.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I had an Acer laptop for 8 years, finally had to replace it last year (overheating...probably from all the cat hair that's gotten into it). It worked great, aside from the hard drive dying a few years in and needing replacement. I have an MSI now, it seems fine so far (~ 4 months of use). My wife's got a Samsung laptop, nearing 7 years. So, I know those three are good brands.

I've had HP and Acer computers at work....don't buy HP. And supposedly they're good now, but I can never trust Dell after my experiences w/ them a decade ago.

Uhm, what do laptops have to do with PC monitors?

Oh, specifically just monitors?

Guess I glossed over that word. Never had a problem with any monitors before.

I had an Acer laptop for 8 years, finally had to replace it last year (overheating...probably from all the cat hair that's gotten into it). It worked great, aside from the hard drive dying a few years in and needing replacement. I have an MSI now, it seems fine so far (~ 4 months of use). My wife's got a Samsung laptop, nearing 7 years. So, I know those three are good brands.

I've had HP and Acer computers at work....don't buy HP. And supposedly they're good now, but I can never trust Dell after my experiences w/ them a decade ago.

Of course you have pineapple pizza w/ tomato sauce! They go so well together. Like someone else said, zestiness of the tomato sauce combined w/ sweetness of the pineapple is perfect.

ernieforss posted...

I can't wait for someone to make Indian pizza where they use curry sause instead of tomato sause. and before you say "that insane", there is BBQ, alfredo and pesto sauced pizza. I'm not big on BBQ sauced pizza, but it's still good.

Can't wait for middle eastern/thai pizza, where they use naan bread as the base and use hummas as the sause.

All of those sound delicious! I do like BBQ pizza, too. I haven't tried any of the ones you listed, but I like making "taco pizza": salsa instead of tomato sauce, then put taco cheese, taco seasoned ground beef, lettuce, and tomato on top. So good.

I find Gordon entertaining, and I hear he does a lot of charity work.

But dude doesn't know shit about what taste good, clearly. Pineapple + Tomato + Feta on pizza = heaven

I thought the hit detection is fine, and enjoy the fighting. You want to approach most enemies from slightly to the side, not straight-on, due to the arc of the swing. Against knights it means not getting the sword blocked, against most enemies it can mean hitting them w/o their attacks hitting you. Use those angled approaches to your advantage. The movement is also on point, I can often "dance" / shuffle dodge projectiles.

You might just be rusty, I played it for the first time in ~4 years recently and I certainly didn't have the moves I used to. I blame it on the PS-style controller I was using that has detached directional buttons instead of a true D-pad :p

4 times a year. Usually $15 and a I tip $3.

supergamer19 posted...

All three stones acquired. Master Sword obtained. Let's go kick Agahnim's butt!

Man that was a good, fun game. I really enjoyed- OH MY GAWD, THERE'S A WHOLE 'NOTHER WORLD?!?

That was my reaction as a kid. I was so dumb. I feel the game really opens up here and gives you more freedom similar to the first game. Let's see if I remember correctly.

I always go back to the Sanctuary just to see off the priest.

You doing the dark world dungeons in order? I only ever did that the first time I played, now I immediately go to the 4th dungeon after the 1st. Fighting mummies w/ wall masters lurking is so much easier w/ the tempered sword...

JPN, obviously

The puppet guy...Jeff Dunham? He's so awful
Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy (at least Blue Collar gave us Ron White)
Rebel Wilson
Aziz Ansari...seems like a nice guy, but just so bland
Seth Rogen

I really liked Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, and the Waterboy as a kid, so I can't hate Sandler even though I haven't watched his movies in years.

Ah, you're already onto the best Zelda game! I just wish I could forget all I know about it and be able to play it again having to figure everything out. I've beaten it over a dozen times, and know where everything is and exactly what to do, and it's just not the same. -_-
One nice thing is there's such a crazy amount of item/weapon variety that you can just fuck around with different options and see if they'll work. Last play through I tried to dash attack as much as possible just for fun ("jousting" -- dash through someone, stop, dash back through them the other way, etc...), and I always mean to use the magic weapons more than I end up doing so...

Re: 2nd Quest -- I never even beat it, not because it was too hard, but I couldn't find half the damn dungeons. I agree, guide's basically required unless you have ungodly amounts of free time to waste aimlessly lost.

I remember using Game Genie to become immortal in LoZ....then realizing I could never save b/c I could never die, and since there's no way I'd be able to one-shot the game in a single sitting... (-_-)
Pretty amusing "balance" method.