You haven't played the required 5 hours it takes to master every aspect of the game. Keep trying
Search
Search results: 88 found, showing up to 50
Your response isfadedsteve wrote:
Typical liberal response. . .T0rr3nt wrote:
shhhh, go to sleep.fadedsteve wrote:
Outing CIA operatives?? First of all (Valerie Plame) WAS NOT a field operative!! Where are the charges, oh thats right, THEY WERE DROPPED!!! NO indictment whatsover. . . .so nothing is going to happen to Dick Cheney SORRY BUDDY. .
We are not "occupying" it, we have 130,000 troops protecting the government of Iraq(fledgling yes, but none the less an INDEPENDENT government, who asked us to remain for security purposes). They (Iraqi government) has complete soveriegnty over their lands etc. YES, we are their, but we are by no means "occupying" Iraq. . . . babysitting is a better word to use!
Your right Iraq is not Syria nice job!! But Syria is a state sponsored government of terrorism, and needs to be attacked!! Assad needs to be removed from power, once he's gone, more puzzles to this picture will probably be better unveiled (ie knowledge of where the weapons went). . .
!!!!
Dont respond if you dont have anything constructive to add . . .
...and you're criticizing his response as unconstructive?typical liberal response
I love partisan zealots, they do little but make themselves look stupid at every turn.
Whether or not you have emotions is irrelevant, what is important is that the justice system dosen't give a shit.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhh if only we were all emotionless robots.K8Kommunist wrote:
No, the emotions of the victim's family should not factor into the punishment of the suspected criminal. Sorry.
No, the emotions of the victim's family should not factor into the punishment of the suspected criminal. Sorry.
In the future I'm sure several of the people we put to death using DNA evidence will be exonerated by newer investigation technologies.lowing wrote:
I think DNA is pretty conclusive isn't it? It is exonerating people now, I assume it can also slam the books on them to.
At many points in our history we have thought a person to be guilty beyond question only to be contradicted 20 years afterwards. When do we truly know for sure that a man is guilty?lowing wrote:
I agree with ya, I have no problem ptting down such a person where guilt is beyond question??K8Kommunist wrote:
The purpose of the justice system isn't to exact revenge on the behalf of the victim. The purpose of the justice system is to arbitrate disputes and mete out consistent justice, not serving the needs of the victim.lowing wrote:
For me it isn't ALL about punishment......It is more about justice, justice for the victim and for the victims family and society itself. Maybe even revenge for the victim and his or her family. I will be honest and take it that far. If someone killed my sons, justice and revenge is exactly what I would want. To see the perpetrator of such a crime locked up with 3 squares a day and a library so he can get his college degree would not satisfy my need for avenging my sons murder. Every breath he took would make my need for revenge grow deeper. I am sorry, but it is honest.
For the end all argument over capitol punishment, what happens in your dreamworld when the man you put to death for your son's murder is exonerated years after his execution? Until we reach a point where guilt can be absolutely proven, the death penalty is unacceptable as the chance of executing innocent men is too high.
Seems to me justice and punishment and revenge all walk hand in hand when you are talking about killing a person this evil. Why would it be so hard to admit that you would want revenge for the death of a loved one by another persons hand? I personally would wanna throw the switch.
it's true that revenge and punishment walk hand in hand but out of principle the intent of the justice system shouldn't be extracting vengeance on the part of the family. first in mind should be fair, equal arbitration, and if need be, reasoned and fair punishment. i dislike this mentality that families should go into courtrooms looking for blood. that's not what the courtrooms are there for.
Those aren't landings, those are slow speed crashes.
The purpose of the justice system isn't to exact revenge on the behalf of the victim. The purpose of the justice system is to arbitrate disputes and mete out consistent justice, not serving the needs of the victim.lowing wrote:
For me it isn't ALL about punishment......It is more about justice, justice for the victim and for the victims family and society itself. Maybe even revenge for the victim and his or her family. I will be honest and take it that far. If someone killed my sons, justice and revenge is exactly what I would want. To see the perpetrator of such a crime locked up with 3 squares a day and a library so he can get his college degree would not satisfy my need for avenging my sons murder. Every breath he took would make my need for revenge grow deeper. I am sorry, but it is honest.xXSarnathXx wrote:
havent bothered to read it but my view is no to death penalty. two wrongs never make one right.
there are other ways to punish offenders
For the end all argument over capitol punishment, what happens in your dreamworld when the man you put to death for your son's murder is exonerated years after his execution? Until we reach a point where guilt can be absolutely proven, the death penalty is unacceptable as the chance of executing innocent men is too high.
PM to dumbass:dankassasin42o wrote:
Well im 25. 5.11 an 175lbs. If im willing to get up an stab a terrorist in the throat with a plastic folk. Explain to me why nothing but PUSSIES were on those planes? There were susposed males on those planes? Who castrated them before they boarded? Cuz they were to bitch to do anything. but that dont sound like any NORMAL person i know. I do not know 1 person who would sit there an let a terrorist take over the plane im on an crash it. Unfortuatlly for you i wouldnt be pissing anywhere except on president bush. I played hockey for 12yrs. I dont give up a fight to easy. And the next fight im aiming for is one against our government. IMPEACH BUSH.CC-Marley wrote:
Actually three planes had 5(AA FL11 92 people),(UA FL175 56 people),(AA FL77 64 people) with the forth (UA FL93 37 people) having only 4. All numbers include the terrorists. Early flights were picked for a reason. Do some research before you blab crap all over the Internet. As for your humorous scenario.......lol....I can't say what I'd do. But I can say I wouldn't be pissing myself. I'm 33 6'1" 200 lbs. And still am in decent shape. I'm pretty sure I'd do my best. Since you sound like a punk-ass little kid, it sounds like you'd be pissing yourself crying for your mommy.dankassasin42o wrote:
here CC-Marley, let me prove it to you. Picture this. U and I are on a plane. say a 6 person plane. in front of us a woman an her child. in front of them a terrorist about to take the plane, and a pregnant woman. Now the SECOND that terrorist REVEALED him self. Id be in his face STABBING him in his throat with a plastic fork. What would you do? Would you be up helping me, or would you be pissing yourself waiting for the plane to crash? Now picture a 747, full over people. and what was it they claimed? something like 4 terrorist per plane? among some 200 passangers? Those terrorist arent goin anywhere. So EXPLAIN TO ME how they did it? Unless every american is like you, since you prolly picked the role of pissing yourself waiting to die. Unlike me. Most people would have reacted. So this WHOLE 9/11 BULLSHIT, smells alittle fishy. But pussys like fish dont they?
Edit: Also kinda funny how that plane that crashed in the field, wasnt there. but then 2 months after 9/11 it was seen on the tarmac somewhere by someone who paid as much attention on 9/11 as i did, SAME WING numbers different flight number. But now its been reserviced an painted, also getting new wing numbers.
200:4 isn't such a terrible ratio when the 4 are armed, trained, and have a strong tactical advantage in a narrow 1 person wide chokepoint at the cockpit doorway. Also, you must discount women, children, the elderly, and the obese from your 200 count. So your odds are more like 50:4.
yes i normally get those as well. however it was really surprising to see this and thought id' share.KingSnake wrote:
I get small ones, 200 mb ones. but nothing that bad.
Has anyone ever seen one this large?
that's a whole gig of memory leak, after 2 hours of play...
that's a whole gig of memory leak, after 2 hours of play...
Only ever got to shoot down two MiGs
Take pride in your personal achievements and abilities, not something as arbitrary as nationality...
Interesting footnote:Major_Spittle wrote:
Hitler was a registared democrat, thus the state controlled health care, schools, and the high five sign.Spearhead wrote:
lol, the Neo-Cons are using this whole Israel situation as an opportunity to lable liberals as anti-semitist, despite the fact that Jews in the US vote democrat 80 percent of the time.
Plus the fact that histories most infamous right-winger murdered 6 million of them.
State sponsored welfare was brought into the mainstream by famed militarist Otto von Bismark.
How did you connect this with liberalism? I hope you realize that a ranting, off-topic diatribe about your political opponents makes you look like an immature douche.Major_Spittle wrote:
OMG is this a video that shows that Jews flew the Planes into the Pentagon that never actually hit the Pentagon . I love conspiracy videos.
oh yeh, I better watch it and believe it and talk about everything in as being the gospel truth while arguing with people. then when they prove that parts of the movie are wrong, I will just move on to something else in the movie. Then in my next argument with somebody else, I will still bring up the part of the movie that I already know is incorrect and still state it as fact. This will make me a truely powerful liberal, capable of winning debates about evil republicans, christains, and jews. OH boy, I can just imagine the UBAR bumper stickers I'll get for my VW when the people at the peace rally hear about this. I can't wait to pwn some repubs with this UBAR new knowledge.
I'm thankful that your typing and grammar skills are that of a 5 year old, and therefore you most likely do not vote.
OH NO! A balanced and well thought out opinion??!??!! Quickly, BAN!!!!Pubic wrote:
I just finished talking to an Israeli lady from work, who lived some 8km (5 miles) from the Lebanese border and only moved over to NZ a few years ago. She told me a lot about the situation over there...IEDs, missile attacks, Hezbollah bunkers...(if you think you might be fighting Arabs anytime soon, pay attention to that uncle whose a vietnam vet, if hes willing to talk about what he did he might have some good avice that'll help keep you in once piece!)
I'm still against all the BS thats going on over there, that much hasn't changed.
But I'm definitely closer to neutrality than I was before even a few hours ago...I've certainly heard the guts of the Muslim/Hezbollah side of things(tm) from a somewhat personal level, and now I've heard the Israeli side of things on a personal level...and you know what I think now?
They're both as bad...and as good...as each other. The sad thing about the wider ongoing conflict is, both sides have very valid (and very conflicting) points; the Arabs have a right to their land, but the Israelis have a right to exist, and at the moment the two rights are utterly incompatible. Though peace is a nice idea, I honestly believe it just isn't possible, and the only realistic way for all the BS there to end is for one side to be utterly defeated, once and for all.
And damn, I must say, I'm sooooooooooo glad to be living in the middle of nowhere; good food, shelter, I get to vote, the closest I'm likely to come to any sort of evacuation is if theres a big flood or earthquake, and when I'm playing BF2 the worst thing I have to worry about is a bit of Wake Island carrier rape (ie. imaginary bullets)...and certainly not real-life artillery and missiles hitting my house!
Hearing both sides of the story up close, it really makes you think sometimes...
You're a moron.siciliano732 wrote:
i agree...they were definitely worth their while....if you had an engineer or 2, someone as supply, and a medic or two....everyone would make out big time on points...which was great....and it was a dominating force on maps like Mashtuur and others.....they should bring that back.....that would be great.....and im pretty sure there would be VERY FEW complaints.....except from those select few people who have nothing better to do but cry about everything this game offers.
In 1.03, the blackhawk was only fun for the fortunate 6 onboard. It was absolutely brutal to be on the other team.
You know, it's really funny that the BF2 community is so hostile to criticism of their game. Anyone who offers suggestions or criticisms in regards to the balance or intracies of bf2 has an "anti-whiner" bandwagon trained right in on his forehead immediately, fueled by lots of preteen angst and little more then half developed mental gestures in rationality.
Food for thought: the best gaming community I've ever been in, which I will not name in fear of it becoming populated with dipshits such as yourselves, featured forums where gamers would report bugs, suggest features and point out inaccuracies in modelling, with the only bandwagons being in the name of "OMG THAT'S AN AWESOME IDEA!!!!". The gamers criticized endlessly and offered no shortage of suggestions, however inane, the developers listened, and the patches were such great leaps it was breathtaking.
Maybe you halfwits should stop crusading against imaginary "whiners who are ruining the game" and begin critiquing BF2 yourselves. BF2 has no shortage of room for improvement and your bashing of those who point out flaws does nothing but retard BF2's development.
Food for thought: the best gaming community I've ever been in, which I will not name in fear of it becoming populated with dipshits such as yourselves, featured forums where gamers would report bugs, suggest features and point out inaccuracies in modelling, with the only bandwagons being in the name of "OMG THAT'S AN AWESOME IDEA!!!!". The gamers criticized endlessly and offered no shortage of suggestions, however inane, the developers listened, and the patches were such great leaps it was breathtaking.
Maybe you halfwits should stop crusading against imaginary "whiners who are ruining the game" and begin critiquing BF2 yourselves. BF2 has no shortage of room for improvement and your bashing of those who point out flaws does nothing but retard BF2's development.
Anyone who uses the phrase "smacktard" should have his head repeatedly thrust into a box of shattered glass. It's a nonsensical, made-up insult that is neither descriptive nor insulting.smacktardthefirst wrote:
Are you sick of Team killers, crappy commanders, medics who do not revive you, etc? If not, you just might be a smacktard! The following is a list of "THE SMACKTARDS CODE OF CONDUCT"!
To be a GREAT smacktard you must abide be the following rules:
1. You will use vehicles as much as possible to kill your opponent.
2. If you decide to fly, you must be of the sniper class and hold your m95 as tight as possible to shoot those pesky teammates out of the cockpit.
3. You will kill a minimum of 3 teammates per round.
4. If commander, you will at all times make sure to artillery YOUR team!
5. The following is a minimum requirement to be a smacktard; TEAM KILLS- 1441, DAMAGE- 696, & VEHICLE DAMAGE- 389.
6. If on foot, you will always attempt to get run over by a fellow teammate.
7. If you happen to see one of your noble teammate ground pounders off to battle such as "tvmissleman", you will always put a minimum of 3 pistol shots into his body prior to him arriving to the battle zone.
8. You will wound a minimum of 15 teammates per round.
9. You must run over at least 4 teammates per round.
10. If commander, you will drop at least 4 cars on teammates waiting for planes or choppers.
11. You will never give an UAV overflight when requested; instead put it somewhere opposite of map, preferably away from battle.
12. If you are playing Wake and a little board, hang around airfield and AT rocket the newly spawned plane, or better yet, wait for a teammate to get in and then AT rocket newly spawned plane.
13. When playing US, always make sure to spawn on Essex and make a beeline for the Essex gun at start of round. Always shoot your teammates planes and choppers with Essex gun, it has incredible killing power.
14. If you are unlucky and not on a map with Essex, take a newly spawned APC and "never, I mean Never pick up other players".
15. If friendly fire is on for mines and claymores, please at all costs mine and claymore your spawn bases!
16. IF you spawn and cannot kill that pesky teammate in the plane or chopper, please make sure that they run you over at a bare minimum.
17. An excellent way to upset your team is to always have a car ready at your disposal. When you happen to notice a patiently waiting teammate finally secure a plane or chopper, it is now your job to get in the car and ram them as quickly as possible. Sadly this may not get you a team-kill, but it will definitely get them one so kudos to you for a job well done.
18. If you are a squad leader, always invite many players to your team, and then go as sniper and park your ass as far away from the battle as possible.
19. When playing US, and on maps such as Wake ( this map is a smacktards best friend ), if you get the chance, always try to pilot the black hawk, wait for a full load and head off into the middle of the ocean. Never go into battle with a black hawk as it is "nerfed". Hover nicely over the sea, and stay there for rest of map.
20. Finally, just be the best possible smacktard that you can be! There are many more ways to upset other players, just be creative.
If you wish to be a part of the Smacktard team just follow the above code of conduct and you will be very successful in your endeavors.
Yours truly,
Smacktardthefirst!
it would be awesome if players would do something besides hop around through alleys spraying with G36Es.
So you're whining about a "whining crybaby". No hypocracy there.Twist wrote:
You think that the guy who TKs you is bad ? The moron who shoots you out of your airplane and steals it ? The fucker who gets in the way of the J10 because HE couldn't have it ? Do you think the morons who throw nades in every which direction without looking at the minimap suck ? Or the medics who wont heal you ? Or the supports who wont rearm you ? Are you pissed about the suicide bombers who blow up half their team everytime they go out for a drive ? Are you going nuts over all the tank whores who keep running over their engineers ?
Well, forget about THOSE idiots... I've just run into one that's EVEN WORSE... Believe it or not.
The moron mud_hun... Total doltz if you look at his stats, spawned with the rest of us chineese at the main base on Dalian (large map), and he got PISSED because there was not enough room for him to get in one of the three vehicles that spawn there, and apparently he didn't want to use the transport helo... So what does he do ? He bitches and moans about it, and then when an APC spawns, he grabs it and starts shooting anything that moves in our main base, Planes, helos, tanks, even the UAV, radar and arty, and ofcourse any friendly inf. He ended the round with so many negative points I could barely count them ! And all because he didn't get a RIDE ! Asshat.
By the way, no one cares. BF2 is filled with trolls.
Everyone whines and cries and about teamkillers, assholes and idiots, failing to realize that at one point or another they've committed the same obnoxious act, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
Mark my words, in 2 years, BF2 will usurp CS in the "most obnoxious community of 13 year olds and elitist condescending 14 year olds" category.
no other ideas?
No, you wait until there's a possibility someone can shoot you before buying the vest.kr@cker wrote:
alright, you wait til someone's shooting at you to go to the store to buy a kev vest
the patriots actually had a hard time hitting the scuds because they (the scuds) were so poorly built they couldn't stay on a proper flight path
I'm sorry but that's ridiculous, we should not spend hundreds of millions if not billions on a threat which may or may not emerge in a few decades.
While we are at it, let's spend a few billion on anti-UFO air to air missiles for fighters.
While we are at it, let's spend a few billion on anti-UFO air to air missiles for fighters.
nope, happened with both this set at 3-4-4-8 and on a set of patriot 2-2-2-5 2x512mb at the loosest settings possible.
the minimum number of processes you can run is 14, i believe the default with a regular windows install is around 22.
the minimum number of processes you can run is 14, i believe the default with a regular windows install is around 22.
this problem has me stymied.
BF2 will suddenly lock up with repeating sound, whatever was heard last. The stuttering sound will continue for about 30 seconds, and then the colors will invert. A few seconds of this and i'll drop back to the server browser with a "connection lost" message. onto this only happens in BF2-i've ran WC3XP, DoW:WA, F4.0:AF, SCXP, AA:SF, LOMAC, GR:Advanced Warfighter, WOE, SW:EaW and, most importantly, 3dMark06. Everything but BF2 runs flawlessly. this happens even with the absolute minimum 14 background processes.
hardware:
A64 s939 3000+ at stock speed(with arctic cooling freezer 64 pro)
DFI nf4 Lanparty Ultra-D, also occured with a DFI nf4 Ultra Infinity
Leadtek 6800GT PCI-E, bios flashed to 450/1045(with Arctic Cooling NV5 silencer)
mitsumi 3.5" internal floppy, also occured without floppy
Fortron 450W v2.0(AX450-PN)
GIGABYTE IDE DVD-ROM optical drive(GO-B5232A-W)
Hitachi SATA 160GB(HDT722516DLA380)
Patriot 2x1GB PDC2G3200LLK
BIOS is absolutely immaculate, as is windows. no spyware, adware, virii, etc.
since the stuttering sound is tip off to sound driver problems, here's my sound setup:
integrated karajaran module with the Ultra-D, integrated with the infinity
for drivers, i have tried the manufacturer recommended realtek AC'97 as well as the audio drivers that come with the nForce 6.70 and 6.66 drivers.
headset:sennheiser PC150 now, crappy ancient sony headset and logitech online chat cheapy previously.
i tried disabled voip and eax, one at a time or together, and have set DX9 sound acceleration to basic. nothing.
also-
it seems to just not happen on some servers, and frequently on others. there's no similarities between occurances, but it happens frequently enough to be very annoying but not quite dehabilitating.
BF2 will suddenly lock up with repeating sound, whatever was heard last. The stuttering sound will continue for about 30 seconds, and then the colors will invert. A few seconds of this and i'll drop back to the server browser with a "connection lost" message. onto this only happens in BF2-i've ran WC3XP, DoW:WA, F4.0:AF, SCXP, AA:SF, LOMAC, GR:Advanced Warfighter, WOE, SW:EaW and, most importantly, 3dMark06. Everything but BF2 runs flawlessly. this happens even with the absolute minimum 14 background processes.
hardware:
A64 s939 3000+ at stock speed(with arctic cooling freezer 64 pro)
DFI nf4 Lanparty Ultra-D, also occured with a DFI nf4 Ultra Infinity
Leadtek 6800GT PCI-E, bios flashed to 450/1045(with Arctic Cooling NV5 silencer)
mitsumi 3.5" internal floppy, also occured without floppy
Fortron 450W v2.0(AX450-PN)
GIGABYTE IDE DVD-ROM optical drive(GO-B5232A-W)
Hitachi SATA 160GB(HDT722516DLA380)
Patriot 2x1GB PDC2G3200LLK
BIOS is absolutely immaculate, as is windows. no spyware, adware, virii, etc.
since the stuttering sound is tip off to sound driver problems, here's my sound setup:
integrated karajaran module with the Ultra-D, integrated with the infinity
for drivers, i have tried the manufacturer recommended realtek AC'97 as well as the audio drivers that come with the nForce 6.70 and 6.66 drivers.
headset:sennheiser PC150 now, crappy ancient sony headset and logitech online chat cheapy previously.
i tried disabled voip and eax, one at a time or together, and have set DX9 sound acceleration to basic. nothing.
also-
it seems to just not happen on some servers, and frequently on others. there's no similarities between occurances, but it happens frequently enough to be very annoying but not quite dehabilitating.
I'm sure at some point ICBMs will again become a threat, and hopefully at that point the star wars system is more feasible and less costly.kr@cker wrote:
so you're confident in saying that for the rest of human history NK will be the only aggressive state to ever use ICBM's? Even if they are, I for one would rather it be smacked down while still in NK airspace, which a patriot can't do, unless Kim lets us station them within a few miles of each launch site. That alone is reason enough to justify the cost. and rogue soviet generals can do alot more than just launch a missile, they can sell targetting tech, engineering, the warheads and triggers themselves, NK was also involved in that huge nuke tech smuggling ring with china, the former soviet union, india, and pakistan as well
whether or not he builds an arsenal is irrelevant, he only needs one as far as I'm concerned.
But for now, ICBMs are a lesser threat to the United States and not deserving of the massive funding it would take to build an SDI system which will most likely not work properly in the end.
Havazn: To expect a nation to retard it's military development in the name of the security of other nations is about as flawed a theory as I've ever seen.
Lil Kim lacks the economic prowess to create the fleet of missiles necessary for the Star Wars program to be worth it's cost. A Patriot system could destroy the few missiles Kim could launch, if it happens.
The de-stabilization of the USSR has increased the chance of nuclear attack, but not airborne or ICBM nuclear attack. ICBMs require extensive maintence and expertise to keep them in working order, and currently, the CIS nations lack the technology and ability to even mantain their ancient ex-soviet MiGs.
Mutually assured destruction is a relic of the cold war and is no longer really possible as all the nations that possess the ability to mantain and fire nuclear weapons in conventional manners are allied.
The de-stabilization of the USSR has increased the chance of nuclear attack, but not airborne or ICBM nuclear attack. ICBMs require extensive maintence and expertise to keep them in working order, and currently, the CIS nations lack the technology and ability to even mantain their ancient ex-soviet MiGs.
Mutually assured destruction is a relic of the cold war and is no longer really possible as all the nations that possess the ability to mantain and fire nuclear weapons in conventional manners are allied.
The Star Wars program was just another ploy by Reagan to force the Soviet Union into economic turmoil. It was never a practical idea or all that feasible.
Practically, in this day and age, Patriot ADS systems are far more reliable, and even cost effective despite their enormous pricetag.
Also, it's important to consider that the Star Wars program was intended to be used against mulitudes of incoming ICBMs, a threat which the US does not face today. A Star Wars-esque program won't stop a suicide bomber from detonating a dirty bomb, a much more probable threat then ICBM attack.
Practically, in this day and age, Patriot ADS systems are far more reliable, and even cost effective despite their enormous pricetag.
Also, it's important to consider that the Star Wars program was intended to be used against mulitudes of incoming ICBMs, a threat which the US does not face today. A Star Wars-esque program won't stop a suicide bomber from detonating a dirty bomb, a much more probable threat then ICBM attack.
Emobashers are just glad that now people have someone else to bash besides their social group, the nerds.
Big talk coming from someone who cannot piece together a 7 word sentence.Major_Spittle wrote:
You are a retard and know nothing.K8Kommunist wrote:
I called bullshit immediately after hearing the "women and children take down multiple knife wielding trained close combat professionals, while attacking one at a time through a narrow isle" story.
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that it was shot down...?
Not that shooting it down was a bad thing-what needed to be done, was done, at the minimum possible loss of life.
"You are a retard who knows nothing"
I called bullshit immediately after hearing the "women and children take down multiple knife wielding trained close combat professionals, while attacking one at a time through a narrow isle" story.
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that it was shot down...?
Not that shooting it down was a bad thing-what needed to be done, was done, at the minimum possible loss of life.
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that it was shot down...?
Not that shooting it down was a bad thing-what needed to be done, was done, at the minimum possible loss of life.
The real traditional American values are ingenuity, individualism and unbridled ambition. Traditional American values has nothing to do with Leave it to Beaver, the 1950s, feminists, activist judges, or illegal aliens. Nope, the current set "traditional american values" is a replacement of the original, authentic reality with a wistful nostalgia for the mind boggling conformity of the 1950s, flavored with decisively neo-conservative political views.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
There is? Please elaborate, Thanks.K8Kommunist wrote:
There's a reason why "traditional American values" don't have a place in modern America.
Societal values are reflections of the times. You cannot just transplant the feelings and politics of the 1950s into an era 50 years later faced by entirely different problems and threats.
There's a set of values associated with every epoch of American history. They evolve with our society and politics, as they should. The painstaking conformity of the 1950s are just as traditional as any set of values throughout American history. Why not revert back to the values of the 1800s? They are certainly as traditional as the values so extolled here.
I'd also like to add that praying for a resurgence of the attitudes of the 1950s is a totally lost cause. Take 5 minutes with a history book and you'll find that the attitudes of the 1950s was the result of a slew of societal and political phenomena, which will never repeat themselves.
You sure?
Not someone to publicly agree with.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who gave you the "racism is fun" karma message, as well.karma message, from pdanrichey wrote:
New Orleans is filled with freeloading whores...aka, black people.
Not someone to publicly agree with.
Should be gay so when they come to bumblefuck, Texas and the Good Ole' Boys and yourself string them up you can claim it's homophobia instead of racism?pdanrichey wrote:
Sharpton and Jackson should be gay together...then do us all a favor and kill themselves. Maybe some kool-aid for all their followers as well!
If you were browsing around MichaelSavage.com...I don't think you were changed much.topthrill05 wrote:
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/
Go down to know your enemy and watch the beheadings. Those changed me.
I did not state that you should not be able to say, in your example, that black people from New Orleans are kinky. I said, it's effectively trolling to say "lower class urban people from New Orleans like foot sex" and then proceed to jump on someone for paraphrasing that "black people from New Orleans like foot sex", as you did in the New Orleans thread, albeit minus the foot sex.kr@cker wrote:
ok, so you used the NO thread as an example...
let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the majority of New Orleans' population are.........ooh ooh ok let's say they have a foot fetish, if the majority of NO's are also black would I not be able to state that they are kinky? why are they deserving special critical immunity due to their skin color? If a penal (tee-hee) system is housing 60% black inmates in a district that is also 60% black, it's not racial profiling, it's the law of probability...
Was not implied, although I can see how you would make that delineation.as for not calling me racist, it was heavily implied in your first statement, in that it could also be taken to mean that "if you were truly not racist, you wouldn't bring this up"
Al Sharpton has the political power of a sticky and conspiciously crunchy sock(continuing with your foot sex example)outside of urban areas. He represents a tiny, tiny minority of black people.yes I'm hypersensitive to any racial discussion, as most of it comes from a flawed world view forced on us by the likes of that fecal-philiac Al Sharpton, who run around telling me how much I owe him because someone in his family he never met was once a slave of someone who had the same skin tone as me. True egalitarianism has long been my cause celeb, not just in terms of racism but sexism as well, look at my name, it is a (attempted) racial slur against white southerners that I in turn defuse by wearing it with pride. My main problem with race issues is that we are told to sweep race under the rug, so yes, I yank back the rug every chance I get.
Agreed, for the most part.As opposed to debating the person, here I am debating the issue, I am quite familiar with Mr. Reids history (I didn't need to click on the link to know that it was the ad ending with wally and the beaver) as he and I have the same basic philosophy, the fact that someone's skin is a certain color doesn't change the fact that they are _____________ (insert pretty much any stereotype here, there is some truth in all of them, positive and negative), and I actually want people to step over politically correct boundaries, as PC is the highest refuge of discriminatory behavior, what's more pathetic than affirmative action? Well your a (non-white ethnicity and/or female) and couldn't possibly get the job/finances/admission to college X on your own, so here are some bonus points on your application...
"modern racial philosophy" is things like AA, or terms like "reverse discrimination" (implying that only white people can be racist), or people that keep negging me saying that I'm a bad person for being proud of my whitetude meanwhile James Brown can sing it loud that he's black and he's proud, or the fact that politicians like Reid, Rice, or Powell are labelled Uncle Tom's and Aunt Jemima's simply for belonging to the Republican party, or Bill Cosby getting shunned by the likes of the NAACP for stating fact
I'd rather not. Anyone who advocates the repression and flummoxing conformity of the 1950s as "traditional American values" deserves to politically go the way of the dodo.and if you don't think Vernon Reids career has had anything to do with racism, then you need to read up some more on him
Is there anyone that genuinely likes Kerry?
I always figured it was an "anybody but Bush" thing during the election, and that after he'd lost, he'd disappear off the political map permanently.
I always figured it was an "anybody but Bush" thing during the election, and that after he'd lost, he'd disappear off the political map permanently.
Well let's see:kr@cker wrote:
so....i'm racist because I point out the fallacies of the modern racial philosophy??K8Kommunist wrote:
For someone who is not racist, you sure love to bring race into every little issue you can force it into.kr@cker wrote:
yeah this guy is the shit, he'll be getting all sorts of racist crap from his "more open-minded" opponents off this
It's really about time you find another slogan to bludgeon your "more open-minded opponents" with.
guess what, view the links, see/hear the ads that are the topic of this thread, and even if I had never posted..... THE MAIN THEME OF THIS THREAD WOULD BE RACISM!!
and quit bringing k8kommunism into every little issue you can force it into
You use little racism traps to initiate ad-hominem attacks on your opponents.
Example: the "new orleans" thread.
You vaguely hint that New Orleans is filled with "freeloading whores" and characterized it's denizens as societal parasites. you are clearly aware of the racial undertones of the issue, and that New Orleans has a large black population. Your statement is a thinly veiled barb at the New Orleans poor, who happen to be predominately black, therefore, your statment is directed at the New Orleans poor african-americans. When someone points this obvious little factoid out, you quickly jump on the issue, labelling him a racist despite how you indirectly infered that the entirety of New Orlean's lower class blacks are "freeloading whores". You derail entire threads from their purpose by setting ill-concieved verbal traps regarding racism.
You are hypersensitive to any racial discussion. Nowhere in my post did I call you a racist.
You see racism where it does not exist; you insert racism into discussions where it does not belong. This thread had absolutely nothing to do with race from the onset, with the exception that the candidate in question is black. Yet you go totally off topic and predict that his "more open-minded" opponents will attack him in regards to race. Instead of debating the candidate's stance, you stipulate that this particular candidate will be under attack for his race. Prior to your involvement, there was no discussion in regards to race, as it should be. You use the word "racist" more often then "the". You insist you are not a racist, yet all you see are racial divides. Your hypocracy in this issue boggles the mind.
As opposed to debating issues, you debate the person. You love the racism issue because its a hot-button issue that is sensitive for all involved, allowing you to slip in and attack others, leaving them little room to manuever without stepping over the politically correct boundaries.
"Modern racial philosophy". There is no such thing. You are not a vigilante, you are not a brilliant thinker. You are not revolutionizing race relations in the United States by setting traps for your opponents and labeling them racists while neatly bypassing the issues. You are a troll.
Do us all a favor and drop it. Its irrelevant, and largely fictional.
I hear lots of talk regarding "supporting the troops". What actual meaning does this statement have? If you support the troops, what activities do you engage in?
For someone who is not racist, you sure love to bring race into every little issue you can force it into.kr@cker wrote:
yeah this guy is the shit, he'll be getting all sorts of racist crap from his "more open-minded" opponents off this
It's really about time you find another slogan to bludgeon your "more open-minded opponents" with.
There's a reason why "traditional American values" don't have a place in modern America.
Dear typical canadian:Nyte wrote:
How about being good with SVD/Type88 ?Towelly wrote:
Nyte, its quite sad to post a 6 page thread about yourself on gamespot you know
j/k (unless I'm right)
But anyway the whole "Nyte=God" thing is getting tiresome, we know your good, theres no denying that, but being good with a M95 does not make up for being cocky all the time.
Your K/D ratio with the sniper rifle is 1.85.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Thank you.
To everyone else:
A spastic child with one hand "busy" could create a sniper video as "leet" as Nyte here, simply by cherry picking clips and heavy editing. Short fraps clips of headshots isn't indicative of skill.
On a similar note, sniping isn't difficult at all, just as the rest of BF2. If you cannot snipe you are either using a computer incapable of decent framerates or you simply haven't spent the hour it takes to master each component of the game.
There's dozens of arguments against the death penalty for pedophiles, but it seems everyone pro-killing pedos in this thread has little more than stubborn mental gestures and is unable to debate the topic. It would be a interesting debate had it started in a more highbrow forum.dh124289 wrote:
Interesting debate...
Just a point on sentencing though. If the penalty for sexually abusing a child is the same as the penalty for killing a child, wouldn't that encourage the abuser to kill the child and therefore eliminate a potential witness?
Again, I can emotionally scar someone for life by calling them ugly, if they are emotionally fragile enough. Does that mean calling someone ugly should be a capitol offense worthy of execution if convicted?Mackaronen wrote:
In death you do nor suffer. But raped at 6 years old you are scarred for life.K8Kommunist wrote:
Following your logic, a criminal would get less jailtime for killing a 6 year old and then having sex with her corpse. The only crime that justifies the use of the death penalty is murder. Otherwise, you're inflicting a punishment far more severe then the crime, which is unacceptable in a modern democratic society.
Also, it's important to note that in most cases molestation, sex with a minor, etc. it's mainly the victim's word against the criminal's, making the death penalty much too risky. You'd execute one innocent man for every 3 pedophiles.
In both cases the youngster are rob of the life he/she would have.
The only acceptable penalty is death.
Edit: I do not totaly dissagree but i just though i should make a point...