Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2 (Read 339598 times)

AcidLameLTE · « **Reply #1400 on:** February 05, 2012, 04:53:04 PM »

Quote from: El Barto on February 03, 2012, 03:15:53 PM

By virtue of their hardware level copy protection, console games have enjoyed a tremendous amount of protection from counterfeiters. Anybody can download a PC game. Almost nobody can play a pirated console game.

Unless you own a Wii or a PSP. Those are really easy to "jailbreak" via soft mods.

chknptpie · « **Reply #1401 on:** February 05, 2012, 09:39:44 PM »

Quote from: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 05, 2012, 04:47:24 PM

Did anyone else notice all the people on the Super Bowl who DIDN'T have their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem? Including servicemen. I guess it's okay to do that if you aren't a black Democrat in the White House. $:\$

What?

Sir GuitarCozmo · « **Reply #1402 on:** February 06, 2012, 06:22:39 AM »

The following picture has made its way into my inbox a number of times:

I've seen it on Facebook, in emails, heard about it in discussion, the media has beaten it into the ground - about what an absolute AWFUL abomination of a President this man is for not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. My dad has cited it as the primary reason he doesn't like Obama. People get crazy up in arms about it.

My point was that as they were playing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl last night, they showed TONS of people who did not have their hands over their hearts. INCLUDING servicemen overseas. So far I haven't heard a peep out of anyone anywhere about it. And I won't. People only make a big deal out of it when it's Obama not doing it.

chknptpie · « **Reply #1403 on:** February 06, 2012, 06:44:38 AM »

Ah okay, I have never seen the photo. I don't put my hand on my heart for the anthem and don't think its a requirement.

Sir GuitarCozmo · « **Reply #1404 on:** February 06, 2012, 06:52:57 AM »

I don't have any problem with it. The flag code indicates that it's something that should be done, but it also makes mention that "headdress" should be removed and placed over the heart. It would appear to me that nowadays. it's not really required to place the right hand over the heart any longer.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1405 on:** February 06, 2012, 08:07:26 AM »

Quote from: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 06, 2012, 06:22:39 AM

The following picture has made its way into my inbox a number of times:

I've seen it on Facebook, in emails, heard about it in discussion, the media has beaten it into the ground - about what an absolute AWFUL abomination of a President this man is for not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. My dad has cited it as the primary reason he doesn't like Obama. People get crazy up in arms about it.

My point was that as they were playing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl last night, they showed TONS of people who did not have their hands over their hearts. INCLUDING servicemen overseas. So far I haven't heard a peep out of anyone anywhere about it. And I won't. People only make a big deal out of it when it's Obama not doing it.

I guess maybe because they're dying for our country they might get a free pass, but yeah, still.

Quote from: chknptpie on February 06, 2012, 06:44:38 AM

Ah okay, I have never seen the photo. I don't put my hand on my heart for the anthem and don't think its a requirement.

Which is what makes it so absolutely ridiculous that everyone is getting all up in arms about this with Obama.

Sir GuitarCozmo · « **Reply #1406 on:** February 06, 2012, 08:12:06 AM »

Quote from: Super Dude on February 06, 2012, 08:07:26 AM

I guess maybe because they're dying for our country they might get a free pass, but yeah, still.

My thinking was that being in the military, they would be more likely to feel led to do so than your average person. When they aren't doing it, you know it shouldn't be a big deal if anyone else does or not.

El Barto · « **Reply #1407 on:** February 06, 2012, 08:24:04 AM »

I thought military guys were supposed to salute, or some dipshit like that.

Me, I usually just use that as a opportunity to go and get a beer. I have no interest in participating in any patriotic circle-jerks, but down here there will be a confrontation if you don't, and neither fighting off the hoards nor trying to explain to it my reasoning which won't be understood anyway sound very appealing.

MasterShakezula · « **Reply #1408 on:** February 06, 2012, 06:26:17 PM »

I've never quite understood the national anthem ritual/pledge of allegiance.

I mean, I do it so I don't stand out or anything, but I still don't get it.

Are other Western countries as unusually enthusiastic about their pledging allegiance and such?

Super Dude · « **Reply #1409 on:** February 06, 2012, 06:27:54 PM »

Tons of countries do it, whether Western or not. I think it may be a relic of a different time though, I'm not sure.

Israel does it, and I think Britain and Canada do as well.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1410 on:** February 06, 2012, 08:22:47 PM »

This is brilliant:

El Barto · « **Reply #1411 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:20:02 PM »

Ryzee · « **Reply #1412 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:29:10 PM »

That's....amazing, dude

GuineaPig · « **Reply #1413 on:** February 08, 2012, 05:46:05 PM »

There's a tumblr dedicated to those who don't realize The Onion is satirical:

https://literallyunbelievable.org/

GuineaPig · « **Reply #1414 on:** February 09, 2012, 12:45:21 PM »

There's been an amusing mini-coup in Toronto against the current mayor, Rob Ford. When Ford came into office, he unilaterally canceled Toronto's existing transit expansion plan, which would fund the creation of five light rail lines for about $10 billion, instead opting to sink all of it into one completely sub-surface LRT and a short subway expansion.

Well, there's been a massive backlash to Ford since his election. He campaigned on fiscal responsibility (that he never explained how he would implement), vowed to "end the war on cars," won by a significant measure, and has since alienated everyone. He's an anti-intellectual, petty, slob, who hates compromise. And much to my delight, the City Council is basically reversing all his decisions and leaving him powerless, with going back to the previous transit plan (called "Transit City") as the biggest push.

MetalMike06 · « **Reply #1415 on:** February 09, 2012, 02:59:37 PM »

A friend of a friend on facebook posted a photo of Rick Santorum (met him at some rally). The caption reads:

"I met Rick Santorum this morning. I think he's the only one not corrupted by Washington and big money."

GuineaPig · « **Reply #1416 on:** February 09, 2012, 02:59:59 PM »

antigoon · « **Reply #1417 on:** February 09, 2012, 03:09:15 PM »

Just corrupted by his outdated, backwards worldview I guess

El Barto · « **Reply #1418 on:** February 09, 2012, 03:25:17 PM »

Part of being a politician is being able to pull off a completely genuine demeanor when you actually meet people. It's a lot easier to see somebody as a fake and a douchebag on TV than when you're actually shaking his hand. The slimy types know how to play off of that.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1419 on:** February 09, 2012, 04:12:45 PM »

I was waiting for one of my professors to arrive to class today and heard this guy behind me talking about how Dr. Paul is so much more qualified than anyone else because he's a doctor and he understands the economy better than anyone else in the country.

antigoon · « **Reply #1420 on:** February 09, 2012, 07:41:24 PM »

Scheavo · « **Reply #1421 on:** February 09, 2012, 09:12:00 PM »

Quote from: MetalMike06 on February 09, 2012, 02:59:37 PM

A friend of a friend on facebook posted a photo of Rick Santorum (met him at some rally). The caption reads:

"I met Rick Santorum this morning. I think he's the only one not corrupted by Washington and big money."

It's just plain historically wrong. He was one of the most corrupt house members when he was in the Government.

hefdaddy42 · « **Reply #1422 on:** February 12, 2012, 04:24:44 AM »

GuineaPig · « **Reply #1423 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:01:47 PM »

The Long Gun Registry here in Canada is finally on its way out.

I'm not in the pro-gun rights crowd, but the Long Gun Registry has always been a mess. It has no effect upon preventing crime, and is much too expensive to run. Never should have been implemented.

Vivace · « **Reply #1424 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:09:17 PM »

Quote from: chknptpie on February 06, 2012, 06:44:38 AM

Ah okay, I have never seen the photo. I don't put my hand on my heart for the anthem and don't think its a requirement.

This doesn't surprise me. Love is no longer a requirement to marry someone. Having a father and mother are no longer requirements for a family. Cursive writing is no longer a requirement for elementary school.

Wait for it... a new Renaissance is coming. It always does when people stray too far in a direction without a foundation for it to support.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1425 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:11:17 PM »

GuineaPig · « **Reply #1426 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:15:27 PM »

God Hates Fags, Loves Cursive Writing

antigoon · « **Reply #1427 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:16:39 PM »

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #1428 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:19:37 PM »

Quote from: El Barto on February 08, 2012, 05:20:02 PM

Vivace · « **Reply #1429 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:20:03 PM »

Quote from: hefdaddy42 on February 12, 2012, 04:24:44 AM

One of my biggest questions on this whole thing (which I completely side with the RCC on) is what exactly does it mean that woman cannot control their reproductive health because of someone else's beliefs? Maybe I'm just ignorant to a woman's reproductive system but what exactly does a pill do that is better than sexual abstinence in general? It just seems the problem exists because of a social issue we have created.

Vivace · « **Reply #1430 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:22:01 PM »

Quote from: GuineaPig on February 16, 2012, 01:15:27 PM

God Hates Fags, Loves Cursive Writing

er? Your new sign for the protest?

. Cause that's not what I said.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #1431 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:26:35 PM »

Quote from: MetalMike06 on February 09, 2012, 02:59:37 PM

A friend of a friend on facebook posted a photo of Rick Santorum (met him at some rally). The caption reads:

"I met Rick Santorum this morning. I think he's the only one not corrupted by Washington and big money."

From a New York Times piece posted on 2/15/2012

Quote

But an examination of Mr. Santorum’s earmark record sheds light on another aspect of his political personality, one that is at odds with the reformer image he has tried to convey on the trail: his prowess as a Washington insider.
A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash.

Rick Santorum is the consummate Washington insider who has long since been bought and owned by his corporate and military industrial complex overlords. He's also a whack-job.

Sigz · « **Reply #1432 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:27:50 PM »

Quote from: Vivace on February 16, 2012, 01:09:17 PM

Quote from: chknptpie on February 06, 2012, 06:44:38 AM
Ah okay, I have never seen the photo. I don't put my hand on my heart for the anthem and don't think its a requirement.

This doesn't surprise me. Love is no longer a requirement to marry someone. Having a father and mother are no longer requirements for a family. Cursive writing is no longer a requirement for elementary school.

Wait for it... a new Renaissance is coming. It always does when people stray too far in a direction without a foundation for it to support.

I can't tell if this post is a joke or not.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #1433 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:31:00 PM »

Quote from: Vivace on February 16, 2012, 01:20:03 PM

Quote from: hefdaddy42 on February 12, 2012, 04:24:44 AM
*snipped*

One of my biggest questions on this whole thing (which I completely side with the RCC on) is what exactly does it mean that woman cannot control their reproductive health because of someone else's beliefs? Maybe I'm just ignorant to a woman's reproductive system but what exactly does a pill do that is better than sexual abstinence in general? It just seems the problem exists because of a social issue we have created.

Not sure if seriously asking what the pill does compared to abstinence? How about it allows my 48 year old wife and I to enjoy an intimate sex life without having to worry about her getting pregnant at her age and without us having to diminish our enjoyment of the experience because I have a hunk of latex covering my johnson?

Let's start there.

Super Dude · « **Reply #1434 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:34:53 PM »

The pill keeps a woman's eggs from dropping into the uterus during ovulation, which means that all eggs are still inside the woman, just that they're not really in a position to be used. It also makes the fallopian tubes stickier so it's harder for sperm travel through it to the egg. Nothing is being "killed" by use of the pill.

News: Welcome back, Mike Portnoy!

Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2 (Read 339598 times)