no, but fewer comments like that might make you less of a cockusmarine2005 wrote:
So would being a kakand armor whore make you less douche baggy?makeuser wrote:
you must train the douche bag to be less douche baggy.
Search
Search results: 76 found, showing up to 50
That's one of the game challenges, fault the developersAshlite wrote:
i don't mind people who use it alot, its there to be used, but it annoys me when people will actually shoot you with it point blank, before the blast goes off, it takes absolutely no skill when its used that way.
but that's a the pt, a new formula or reward system wouldn't reward ppl for spawn killing & base raping. you must train the douche bag to be less douche baggy.
Agreed, ranking based on good play, i.e. k/d ratio (possibility of dropping rank if you're k/d declines), pts to time played ratio (for ppl w/lives), headshots, etc. I think if you make ranks challenging ppl will play w/in reason. That's partially why WOW & BF2 are a success. It really does add some prestige to the rank. They didn't put a lotta thought into the cod4 rankings, why? Developers know multiplayer is an important part of the game, so in the future this formula will hopefully be dealt w/more seriously. Some modder might have to lead the way. The formula should at least be smarter than the bcs.Spearhead wrote:
The point of ranks shouldn't be to give everyone who plays a good rank. They should be in the game to reward people who are good. Sadly, CoD4 gives everyone the highest rank and that rank isn't even earned through skill. There is absolutely no point of ranks in CoD4.
I'd like to play a game with ranks where 1/3 of people are under sergeant, 1/3 of people are sergeants, 1/3 of people are officers. But I know that'll never happen, because people hate not getting ranked up. Whats even more stupid is that these people, who basically play the multiplayer for the rank, are the first to accuse other players of having no life.
Sadly, I'm a major general II w/a week of leisure.
Go Big Red!usmarine2005 wrote:
[REB]Qrite wrote:
I O !! Ftw!
Has any other game adopted this?']['error wrote:
most stupist addition in this game....
It's only for the lazy, impatient and ultimately frustrated.
Thanks Chuy!
Turquoise, I think the handgun death rate in Baltimore and D.C. has more to do w/those places being f- ghettos & having a high concentration of poor people living in an area w/no industry other than the drug trade. Have you been to SE D.C. or Baltimore? (The house flipping, urban renewal trend didn't stop at the stop light in front of the row houses there for safety reasons). The poverty & the drug trade creates the violence in those places, not the lack of licensed guns. Texas is far less urban & a far larger place by comparison. In the two largest urban areas, Dallas (where I live now) & Houston, there is quite a bit of crime. Both cities rank in the top 20 in the 2005 national crime rate statistics. They haven't outlawed guns in Detroit & St. Louis, but those cities aren't any safer either as they ranked 2 & 3 in crime. For the Northern cities it's a consequence of industry & economic prosperity moving from North to South. People left in those areas gotta eat & they wanna live the good life too & they'll use a gun if it's available.Turquoise wrote:
For example, DC doesn't allow non-law enforcement civilians to have handguns anywhere within the city limits, and yet, DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Baltimore (the murder capital of the U.S.) is right next door too.
By contrast, many areas of Texas are heavily armed but have significantly lower murder rates.
Guns don't necessarily equal less safety, and honestly, why would you find yourself in many fights anyway? You don't seem like the aggressive type.
In some situations the innocent person walks away & sometimes the criminal walks away, but the gun always kills (unless your a dodgy sprinter, bad shot and/or run out of ammo).
Yes, why are are still pointing to Truman after I have pointed to all of the British favoritism & support Jews received in Palestine during the British Mandate?Bertster7 wrote:
No juice then. That's why I'm pointing the finger at Truman. When the US did become involved their actions were decisive and it is those actions that, post WWII, led to the creation of the state of Israel.makeuser wrote:
ffs, as I stated before American opinion counted for all wank as they were isolationist and not a player on the world stage prior to their involvement in WWII. You value someone's opinion (who has no juice) over someone who has mandate over the area?Bertster7 wrote:
Yet you ignore the earlier American reports which recommend the establishment of a Jewish state throughout the whole of Palestine.
Please read my previous statement: The Palestinian Arabs never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, which made it ripe for Palestine to be taken by the Jews. By the time the U.S./Truman entered the world stage again to approve of the existence of Israel it was a moot point. The British Mandate had assured that.Bertster7 wrote:
The earlier reports simply outline the position the US took on the Palestine situation. A totally different position to that held by the British. The fact that the solution supported by the US came to pass, as a result of their support for Israel in '48, says a lot.
This was not "a totally different position to that held by the British." Please see my reference to the 1937 Peel Commission. The Brits wanted to establish a Jewish State in Palestine.
ffs, as I stated before American opinion counted for all wank as they were isolationist and not a player on the world stage prior to their involvement in WWII. You value someone's opinion (who has no juice) over someone who has mandate over the area?Bertster7 wrote:
Yet you ignore the earlier American reports which recommend the establishment of a Jewish state throughout the whole of Palestine.makeuser wrote:
I don't think the timeline or gravity of events prior to Truman/USA's endorsement of Israel is more important than Britain's "rubber stamp" endorsement of Jews/Zionists coming to Palestine and later training and arming Jews to help the British fight the Palestinian Arabs in 1936. You assert the British training of Jewish security & intelligence groups occurred primarily to assist the British during WWII. The training and arming occurred in 1936, WWII didn't start until 1939 (and Rommel wasn't in the neighborhood until 1941). So, Britain chose to train & arm the Jews in Palestine and not "the common enemy," the Arabs in Palestine. From 1936-39 the British, with cooperation of its Jewish allies killed 5,000 Arabs, wounded another 10,000 Arabs, imprisoned or exiled, a total of 10% of the male Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs apparently weren't assured by all the British White Papers issued and I am not either ("and the rest is history").
I addressed your points, point by point previously. I just got tired of quoting it all over again. You don't want to seriously address the timeline (British Mandate [you dismiss as irrelevant], you want to start w/Truman), you want to argue the nuance of events (Balfour's national home vs. national state, Britain trained some Jewish groups but not all, some weapons Jews used were stolen). You ignore recommendation of the British Peel Commission published in 1937 that wanted to give the Jews, not a home in Palestine, but an actual State. The Arab Palestinians never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, so when Jews declared independence, guess what, they were defeated before the 1948 War started.
^Again, all events prior to Truman becoming president.
I don't think the timeline or gravity of events prior to Truman/USA's endorsement of Israel is more important than Britain's "rubber stamp" endorsement of Jews/Zionists coming to Palestine and later training and arming Jews to help the British fight the Palestinian Arabs in 1936. You assert the British training of Jewish security & intelligence groups occurred primarily to assist the British during WWII. The training and arming occurred in 1936, WWII didn't start until 1939 (and Rommel wasn't in the neighborhood until 1941). So, Britain chose to train & arm the Jews in Palestine and not "the common enemy," the Arabs in Palestine. From 1936-39 the British, with cooperation of its Jewish allies killed 5,000 Arabs, wounded another 10,000 Arabs, imprisoned or exiled, a total of 10% of the male Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs apparently weren't assured by all the British White Papers issued and I am not either ("and the rest is history").
I addressed your points, point by point previously. I just got tired of quoting it all over again. You don't want to seriously address the timeline (British Mandate [you dismiss as irrelevant], you want to start w/Truman), you want to argue the nuance of events (Balfour's national home vs. national state, Britain trained some Jewish groups but not all, some weapons Jews used were stolen). You ignore recommendation of the British Peel Commission published in 1937 that wanted to give the Jews, not a home in Palestine, but an actual State. The Arab Palestinians never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, so when Jews declared independence, guess what, they were defeated before the 1948 War started.
^Again, all events prior to Truman becoming president.
I addressed your points, point by point previously. I just got tired of quoting it all over again. You don't want to seriously address the timeline (British Mandate [you dismiss as irrelevant], you want to start w/Truman), you want to argue the nuance of events (Balfour's national home vs. national state, Britain trained some Jewish groups but not all, some weapons Jews used were stolen). You ignore recommendation of the British Peel Commission published in 1937 that wanted to give the Jews, not a home in Palestine, but an actual State. The Arab Palestinians never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, so when Jews declared independence, guess what, they were defeated before the 1948 War started.
^Again, all events prior to Truman becoming president.
So 30 years of British rule in Palestine just prior Zionists declaration of independence is irrelevant? A British debt to a Zionist is irrelevant? The Balfour Declaration is irrelevant? Telling Zionist Jews to come to Palestine is irrelevant? Training and arming Jews in Palestine is irrelevant?
Yes, I am quite incapable of understanding how all these things occurred under British rule are irrelevant and didn't lead to the creation of Israel.
Yes, I am quite incapable of understanding how all these things occurred under British rule are irrelevant and didn't lead to the creation of Israel.
Bertster7 wrote:
makeuser wrote:
I am not quoting it all again.konfusion wrote:
I support Bertster7
It is not a fault of the British - it's the Zionists...
And the question of this thread seems very naive. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took my house and told me it's someone else's now...
-konfusion
You and Bertster are ignoring the issue that Britain had mandate of the area, issued a Declaration stating there should be development of national home for the Jewish people which was ratified into a peace agreement w/the Ottoman Empire, as a result of a debt from WWI and the person the Brits were indebted just happens to become the first president of Israel.
I'm talking about events in 1917 and you are warping ahead to 1947. In the interim Britain divided Palestine into Jordan & Palestine and let a load of Zionists (you know the guys who want their own Jewish state, the guys the Balfour Declaration was talking about) into Palestine in the 1920's. The Arab Palestinians revolted against the British and the Zionists continuously (seems a reasonable thing to do; people who aren't your people move in where you live, want to have their own state, but not include you). In 1936 the British govt begin training, arming & funding Jewish security & intelligence organizations (the Jewish Supernumrary Force, the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Night Squads, FOSH & SHAI to name a few). Britain has invited Zionists into Palestine AND given them weapons & trained them prior to 1947. Which leads us to the events of 1947 when the Zionists have been given the go ahead by the U.N. to stay in Palestine, are ready to declare independence and kick the ass of 5 Arab nations (+ the Palestinians). Not bad for a bunch of farmers & street merchants. It was a done deal by 1947, I'm talking about events leading up to 1947 under British administration.
Berster calls all these political moves "naive" and "unintentional," and wants Truman (a guy who was selling hats for a living at the time, not exactly consequential to world events) to take the fall. I wouldn't call allowing Zionists, if not actually encouraging them, to come to Palestine and then arming & training them "naive" or "unintentional" (by the time Truman was president the White Papers of 1922 & 1939 actually did serve a function, the Arab Palestinians could wipe their asses w/them).
Yeah, you're right, it was the hat salesman in Kansas City.
No, just one person, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who became the first president of Israel. Though it is a largely a ceremonial position, it is obviously an honor. And why do you think he was given this honor? Coincidence? No. It was b/c he got the British Balfour Declaration done. And the Arabs in Palestine aren't just revolting against the Jews, they're revolting against the British as well. Why do you think they were attacking the British? B/c they had some extra bombs & bullets laying about? Or b/c the British weren't operating in the Arabs' interest and arming & training the Jews? Like I said, the White Papers were good for one thing.Bertster7 wrote:
You talk about people the British were indebted to, you neglect to mention their commitments to the Arabs living there for their part in the Arab revolt.
I quoted it, I even put the entire document in a post - The Balfour Declaration. "...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...". Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, White Paper, White Paper. Keywords there - "national home." Britain invited Zionists to Palestine! What is the Zionist mission? This is naive & unintentional? Do you deny Britain armed & trained Jews in Palestine? Trained security & intelligence forces? Now we have Zionists w/training & guns. This is prior to Truman becoming president, the U.S. endorsing the U.N. deal, the U.S. recognition of Israel, etc.Bertster7 wrote:
You show me a single document from a British source that supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine (I could show you dozens from American sources). They were offered a Jewish state in other places, but the Zionist organisation delined these offers and were offered a homeland (not a state) in Palestine.
After Britain trained & armed them!Bertster7 wrote:
They were given an inch and took a mile, as the old idiom goes.
Once again, you ignore the events from British Mandate of 1917 until 1947, a period when Truman was struggling to sell hats & later became a senator. He became president in 1945. There was a history of Britain, Jews, and Palestine before that time. C'mon, what part of this puzzles you? Are you floating down that river in Egypt?Bertster7 wrote:
Without US support, the declaration of independence would never have been recognised by the UN - therefore Israel would not have been a state. I'm not saying Truman set the events in motion, he just facilitated their conclusion - those are the two most important periods, the begining and the end. Blame can be placed with a lot of people, the vast majority of it resting firmly with the Zionists, whose methods were abhorent. But then blame can be placed upon the British for setting it in motion (though as I have stressed earlier, that was as part of a decision made by the league of nations) and blame for the creation of the state of Israel can also be firmly placed with Truman.
Bertster7 wrote:
You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?
I am not quoting it all again.konfusion wrote:
I support Bertster7
It is not a fault of the British - it's the Zionists...
And the question of this thread seems very naive. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took my house and told me it's someone else's now...
-konfusion
You and Bertster are ignoring the issue that Britain had mandate of the area, issued a Declaration stating there should be development of national home for the Jewish people which was ratified into a peace agreement w/the Ottoman Empire, as a result of a debt from WWI and the person the Brits were indebted just happens to become the first president of Israel.
I'm talking about events in 1917 and you are warping ahead to 1947. In the interim Britain divided Palestine into Jordan & Palestine and let a load of Zionists (you know the guys who want their own Jewish state, the guys the Balfour Declaration was talking about) into Palestine in the 1920's. The Arab Palestinians revolted against the British and the Zionists continuously (seems a reasonable thing to do; people who aren't your people move in where you live, want to have their own state, but not include you). In 1936 the British govt begin training, arming & funding Jewish security & intelligence organizations (the Jewish Supernumrary Force, the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Night Squads, FOSH & SHAI to name a few). Britain has invited Zionists into Palestine AND given them weapons & trained them prior to 1947. Which leads us to the events of 1947 when the Zionists have been given the go ahead by the U.N. to stay in Palestine, are ready to declare independence and kick the ass of 5 Arab nations (+ the Palestinians). Not bad for a bunch of farmers & street merchants. It was a done deal by 1947, I'm talking about events leading up to 1947 under British administration.
Berster calls all these political moves "naive" and "unintentional," and wants Truman (a guy who was selling hats for a living at the time, not exactly consequential to world events) to take the fall. I wouldn't call allowing Zionists, if not actually encouraging them, to come to Palestine and then arming & training them "naive" or "unintentional" (by the time Truman was president the White Papers of 1922 & 1939 actually did serve a function, the Arab Palestinians could wipe their asses w/them).
Yeah, you're right, it was the hat salesman in Kansas City.
As a Now solution it doesn't work, the technology isn't here & the fuel is very expensive. Watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" (2006, it's been on the Encore network in the States, rent it, get the torrent, loads of clips on you tube). Hydrogen fuel cells aren't a going venture.
So, are you ignoring the Balfour Declaration, or calling it inconsequential and/or meaningless? I don't understand. This is a document from the British govt of 1917 incorporated into Treaty of Sevres, a peace treaty that the Allies of WWI, not including the U.S., and the Ottoman Empire signed in 1920. Inspired by negotiations between Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour and a Zionist the British govt was indebted to from WWI, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of the State of Israel.Bertster7 wrote:
It wasn't the British governments decision in any case, when the mandate was established it was always intended to be a homeland for Jewish people - the British interpretation of this was never to be a Jewish state, but a single Jewish/Arab state. Perhaps this was a naive view, but it is the actions of the Zionist immigrants that made it that way.makeuser wrote:
I'm somewhat familiar w/the the history of this area.Bertster7 wrote:
You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?
That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.
If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
Here's the document:So, my understanding of this letter is the British govt endorses the view of Jewish Zionists that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Jewish Zionists believe Jews from around the world should gather in Palestine and create a Jewsih nation-state. The San Remo Conference (1920, giving the Brits stewardship of Palestine), Churchill's White Papers (1922, denying a Jewish state was the intention) were subsequent to the Balfour Declaration.Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
My issue is this; you can't invite a group of people (Zionists no less) to someone else's homeland & not expect some problems. The British govt was either being very daft or not exactly honest.
It was always the US who pushed for and supported the idea of a Jewish state.
The Republicans in the U.S. declared that the U.S. would hold an isolationist stance in the world post WWI and declined membership in the of League of Nations. The British however are one of the four permanent members of the League's Council - the body to deal w/any matter affecting world peace. The U.S. govt isn't a power on the world stage at the time British govt is endorsing Zionists come to western half of Palestine (the Brits having mandate over the area, divide Palestine into two sections, they create the "Emirate of Transjordan" - Jordan, east of the Jordan River, and Palestine west of the Jordan, the area for "a national home for the Jewish people"). So when the sh!t was about to hit the fan, Britain wanted out of the mess it "naively" created and told the U.N. to take over. In 1947, the U.N. partitioned part of Palestine for the Jews and part for the Palestinian Arabs. And just before the British got out, the Zionists did the inevitable and declared their independence and started the 1948 War (the result being the ultimate insult for the Palestinian Arabs, more land was taken from them by Israel, Jordan & Egypt). Truman/U.S.A. did approve of the 1947 U.N. plan and did recognize Israel in 1948. I don't see U.S. complicity in the situation until it was a fait accompli.
British Balfour Declaration + British Control of Palestine + Zionists + WWII + More Zionists - Britain + U.N. = Israel
I'm somewhat familiar w/the the history of this area.Bertster7 wrote:
You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?makeuser wrote:
I think you can fairly put the blame on the Brits w/the introduction of the "Balfour Declaration of 1917," partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and their support of a Zionist home/state in Palestine.CameronPoe wrote:
They had done for centuries. The Jewish immigration that was permitted under British administration following WWI fucked things up a bit. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman empire.
That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.
If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
Here's the document:
So, my understanding of this letter is the British govt endorses the view of Jewish Zionists that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Jewish Zionists believe Jews from around the world should gather in Palestine and create a Jewsih nation-state. The San Remo Conference (1920, giving the Brits stewardship of Palestine), Churchill's White Papers (1922, denying a Jewish state was the intention) were subsequent to the Balfour Declaration.Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
My issue is this; you can't invite a group of people (Zionists no less) to someone else's homeland & not expect some problems. The British govt was either being very daft or not exactly honest.
I think you can fairly put the blame on the Brits w/the introduction of the "Balfour Declaration of 1917," partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and their support of a Zionist home/state in Palestine.CameronPoe wrote:
They had done for centuries. The Jewish immigration that was permitted under British administration following WWI fucked things up a bit. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman empire.nukchebi0 wrote:
Yes. So are you saying that the Jews and Arabs should have coexisted peacefully within what is now Israel.CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth should the Palestinians have been relocated? If someone told you tomorrow that the UN decided your house and business was being given to a Mexican immigrant would you not regard yourself as having been done an injustice?
omg, thanks Bruno!SealXo wrote:
And look what clinton is wearing.
i think thats disgusting, and if you were thinking about voting for her, you shouldnt now. because i find that disrespectful for some reason. come on. i cant believe she would have the nerve, but then again she wants minimum wage to be 10 bucks, esentially raping my fathers asshole so he has to ly people off.
Yeah, that's great, congrats on the hoodie, I still don't think you understand how off the comparison you offered was (Cam, thanks for the support, I see you've been reading the "Complete Idiots Guide to Amazing Sex," Chap 8, "Her Secret Garden").[pt] KEIOS wrote:
..and i can testify, that my foreskin has a lot of very sensible parts in it... it is NOT just a useless part of skin.
my point is, that many of you don´t have a problem to present your prejudices about muslims and are not able to abstract possible similarities in your and their cultural believes and traditions.
the turks did vote for a more religious politics - but they won´t become a new afghanistan. religious beliefs do play a big role in many political systems... remember, that your president believes, that he can talk to a dead guy called jesus....
I think you're coming to conclusion on Turkey's future a bit soon, the Turkey situation is TBD, as most are. Lebanon was also a lovely place to visit & had great commerce before the religious mafias tore it apart. Aghanistan isn't bumping for EU membership, Turkey is (also a member of the G20).
Personally, I have a problem w/all religions that would have us sit in a temple/church/mosque and have life interpreted for us and tell us what to do w/our bodies by their religion's spokesperson. I'm not biased in favor of one religion, I don't like any of them. I'd rather listen to a doctor's advice on my health.
Please, you don't have to point out our president is a follower of superstition & the supernatural, he lets us know quite often.
Look genius, a proper comparison would be cutting your entire dick off, not just the foreskin. The purpose of female circumcision is removing the potential for all pleasure for the female during intercourse. The male can still have pleasure from intercourse after his foreskin is removed (I can testify).[pt] KEIOS wrote:
sure. i do not defend females genitals mutilation, because it is cruel and unnecessary... but you can´t point your finger on other cultures, when it is part of your own culture, to also cut on boys genitals. would female circumsission would be ok, if a doctor would do it under hygienic circumstances and if only a small part would be removed?konfusion wrote:
I know mine doessergeriver wrote:
Doesn't your penis belong to you?
However, what some people do to women is like cutting away the top two cms of your penis (in some cases on these forums, that might be more than half *cough*)
-konfusion
ffs, thanks for that bit of irrelevance from the pecker patrol. it's not really the same result.[pt] KEIOS wrote:
ok. drop your pants and search for your foreskin.
many americans still believe, that there is a need to circumsize... even when there is no medical need in it at all. look at the majority /millions of europeans, who do not ever get any problems with their foreskin. but out of old traditions and irrational believes, you still cut of a functioning part of the genitals...
He's not really in the closet at all, he is a libertarian, but as any 3rd party candidate knows you won't be allowed to enter the presidential debates unless your a member of our two party system. Democracy.Kmarion wrote:
Goldwater was a closet libertarian, like Paul.Reciprocity wrote:
he's the first real republican since Abraham Lincoln. or mabye Barry Goldwater
Crytek isn't the developer for FC2, the title is owned by French based Ubisoft & it's being developed by their Montreal branch. Crytek was the developer on FC1.Noobeater wrote:
OMFG i need to get that, damm they're a busy developer crytek i mean they've not even finished crysis and its not exactly a huge developer either.
will sell souls (i've stolen many) for far cry2
Crysis is being developed by German based Crytek. 50% of Crytek is owned by Ubisoft rival EA.
two different games, two different developers, two different publishers, hopefully two great results
weasel attack 101; attack the critics not the criticism1SFG-SAWBLADEZ wrote:
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p251 … 668053.jpg
Unless of course you disagree, then they have no room for a different veiw from their own.
yeah, um, maybe you didn't get the memo, he's a douche bag.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
For people who claim to be tolerant and kind-hearted, including those I know who have the utmost sympathy for career criminals, they've sure been making some nasty-assed jokes about this.Stingray24 wrote:
Junk drawer.
and you're assuming he's not a criminal
so what was the exact cost to the tax payers Mr. Concerned?Kmarion wrote:
When using tax dollars on other people the general rule is spend ... then think.
BFD
Agreed, the big gay conspiracy on Bravo almost had me. Others haven't been as lucky. Normally straight ppl are taking a ride on Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride b/c they've finally been convinced being gay is fabulous by the latest parade. Gays are enacting legislation right now that says you won't get health benefits unless gay or you can't get married unless gay and you can be fired for being straight. <sarcasm>Home wrote:
Oh c'mon, the gays are pushing their beliefs on you? BS. When was the last time the Gay Association of America came knocking at your door, handing you pamphlets and trying to convert you to homosexuality? Someone announcing that they are gay, or acting gay, is not "pushing it in your face". I have nothing against homosexuality, however, I don't like or hang out with a lot of gays because of the overly dramatic way they act. That's just my personality, the kind of people I hang out with are "calmer" (for lack of a better word). I don't like the typical "gay" behavior, but it's not "pushing it in your face". If thats what you define as someone imposing their beliefs or lifestyle on you, then you do the same thing to the people around you simply for being interested in women or "acting" white or black or whatever.Harmor wrote:
its just when they force their lifestyle on me that I get upset.
I think gay people suffer alienation and hostility straight ppl wouldn't understand. Who would voluntarily choose this? The evidence points toward homosexualality being caused by physiological/genetic traits, not choice.
There have been gay ppl in every aspect of life and all throughout history. Homosexuality has been documented in 1500 species in the animal kingdom. Have the animals been watching Bravo, reading the pamphlets & enjoying the parades as well?
It takes a lot more balls to be an out of the closet sissy than an in the closet homo.
I fear the fascist, religious conservatives more than I fear some dildo waving S&M boys in a parade. The fascist, religious nutters have done far more damage.
the question is how long before someone hacks dx10 for XP?
Great, red ants everywhere, it might be more effective & patriotic to nape them.thareaper254 wrote:
I'm going to put some firecrackers in ant piles and blow the shit out of them, the big kind . And some of those bumble bees that you light and they fly off.
jeebus you live in texas, start the brisket & put some shiner on ice.
um, that's bswraparoundww wrote:
*UPDATE*
If you have purchased the Euro Forces expansion via Downloader please be aware that the game is not scheduled to go live until Wednesday morning (9am GMT). While you may be able to purchase the booster ahead of this release time, it will not function as intended until the release time and date.
Found that at www.bf2tracker.com
I'm assuming it's for the american release.
i'm in texas, i downloaded via the ea downloader, launched, played 2 rds of each of the 3 new maps on a server here in texas
once again ur *update* ^ is bs
it is currently 4PM CST USA
quoted for emphasis
google bro
google bro
c'mon NASCAR fans... where r u?
motogp - 200+ mph on 2 wheels, w/turns not all in the same direction
road rally looks like fun, participated in amateur drunken road rally once, didn't win
edit *thanks zim! classic!*
motogp - 200+ mph on 2 wheels, w/turns not all in the same direction
road rally looks like fun, participated in amateur drunken road rally once, didn't win
edit *thanks zim! classic!*
spoke 2 soon, i crapped out twice 2day
no warning, middle of play... crash!
no warning, middle of play... crash!
i'd b a little more convinced of ur conviction if.... u did the haka for us!?!? pls!!!
- another thing the nfl is missing
Jonah & Mehrtens 2007! find Cristian Cullen 2!
argh! The All Blacks! 2 much damn talent!
- another thing the nfl is missing
Jonah & Mehrtens 2007! find Cristian Cullen 2!
argh! The All Blacks! 2 much damn talent!
very stable
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe
AMD 64 3200 OC to 2.35
2GB OCZ Gold Series
1 EVGA GeForce 7800GT
the only thing that jacks my game is my isp
ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe
AMD 64 3200 OC to 2.35
2GB OCZ Gold Series
1 EVGA GeForce 7800GT
the only thing that jacks my game is my isp
oc it! i've got the amd 64 3200 & i've got it oc'd to 2.35 on the stock fan. incrementally oc it and then stress it w/a stress program to see if it remains stable
sry for being general, but it shouldn't b 2 hard 2 find some specifics
nice comp btw
sry for being general, but it shouldn't b 2 hard 2 find some specifics
nice comp btw
chitlin, agreed population pool ftw. the US should always have more superior athletes than other countries considering our population and resources (what happend in the olympics? etc.) and the nfl has more freaks lolchitlin wrote:
something you aussies apparently will never admit .. which is the obvious truth.. that is the NFL player is a much higher caliber of athlete.
the reason NFL players generate more force with thier tackles is becuase they are genetic freaks, huge monster sized people that can benchpress trucks. larry allen benchpresses 700 pounds and most of them can run a 4.4 40 yard dash
also not to knock australia but the population is 20 million and im certain the selction process compared to the nfl is a joke. usa has 300 million and every single highschool in america has a football team. maybe one or two players from there make it into college ball then maybe one or two of them make it to pros. then maybe one or two of them acutally get to play.
Larry Allen? Larry Allen? u mention Allen and then in the same sentence mention speed? 4.4 speed? LMAO For the ppl who don't live in the States & haven't seen Allen on TV or in the stadium (i live in Dallas, he's a cowboy), that boy isn't chasing anything down except a triple cheeseburger.
maef, not to take away from overseas nfl players (i play rugby in the States and it doesn't compare to rugby overseas, i'm not an elite athlete & rugby is also a social sport, for most after high school ur football career is over, there is semi-pro, but why?), but here in the States the coach runs the show, he calls the play and you run the play or sit the bench. the positions in nfl are so specialized they have to have a coach who takes everything in and makes the call. i think this is why nfl players of all athletes r stuck w/the dumb jock sticker. i just think rugby, rugby players (who have to think all the time and longer than one play/drive at time) and the play are much more dynamic. clock management (big strategy!) - eating the clock - suks! i wanna see action (southern hemisphere rugby, hockey, lacrosse, college basketball [March Madness!], college am. football... anything but ZZZZ nfl)!maef wrote:
um, yes i did. and still do. football that is. tho i haven't played rugby.makeuser wrote:
um, bullshit
i'd never call the nfl boys soft, but i differ on the opinion that they hit any harder
I've got a question for you and the professor - have you played either/both sport(s)?
and as far as strategy goes, it all happens quickly, on the field, decided by the players & not 6-8 second intervals (strung out over 3hrs!) & not by some crusty old douche on the sidelines
and where i played (chrysler vikings vienna) the plays weren't solely decided by the coach (which was not even 30 years old, so no "crusty old douche"). he only told us a scheme and the players on the field decided what exact actions to take. i (cornerback) was always communicating with the free safety to pick the right play for the situation we were in.
and no matter who decides it, i think it's pretty sure that there's way more strategy involved in football. at least concerning the long term. i don't think rugby players have to think about what impact their actions have on the rest of the drive, the time remaining on the clock, etc...
um, bullshitmaef wrote:
ermm... for all those saying that NFL players actually are a bunch of big sissies, you might want to consider one thing:
tackles in rugby (or the like) hardly ever (i did NOT say never) develop the force that tackles in the nfl do. those peolpe don't wear the pads because they are scared of some bruises, but to protect themselves from very serious injuries.
a professor at some university once calculated that an average to hard hit in the nfl developes the same force as a bowling ball that is dropped from the 13th floor!! so try lying on the ground and have someone drop a bowling ball at your chest from that height. i don't thinke you would survive it.
so there's more to those pads than just fear of a little pain.
plus i like the complex strategy that rugby is missing
[EDIT] sorry, big-time vocable mistake
i'd never call the nfl boys soft, but i differ on the opinion that they hit any harder
I've got a question for you and the professor - have you played either/both sport(s)?
and as far as strategy goes, it all happens quickly, on the field, decided by the players & not 6-8 second intervals (strung out over 3hrs!) & not by some crusty old douche on the sidelines
sry, the ones playing nfl are they kickers/punters? the nfl position players really do have to know their positions, offensive, defensive schemes, etc.
i know we (US) have some (very few) crossover to union in the northern hemisphere
i know we (US) have some (very few) crossover to union in the northern hemisphere
^agreed
^agreed
nfl - 53 players.ACB|_Cutthroat1 wrote:
skill in NFL, you have over 40 players on a team, nrl has 17 per team (usualy) they have to both defend AND attack()so i think you have to require more skill to play league, you guys even have seperate guys to kick the ball and punt it, like wtf talk about lazyGreenie_Beazinie wrote:
Rugby leage players are oversized meat heads... football is just as hard except theres skill and finese involvedozzie_johnson wrote:
rugby league is the best arial ping pong is gay(AFL)
specialized in taking the piss out of the game so you're well bored and start paying attention to the frequent commercials for entertainment
might i remind my Kiwi friend of the outcome of 95, 99, 03 (07?), not even big Jonah could bring the Ellis trophy back to NZ. cough, cough, chokeTyferra wrote:
Aussie rules? Best sport in the world? you know, for me to believe that it would have to come up with a better name for itself - I mean - aussie rules... that's just dumb.
It's an okay game though - kind of reminds me of ballet though.
I, like most if not all Kiwi blokes, like to watch Rugby, (Union.) I mean, we are reputed to have the best team in the world, (we do, but it fluxuates every now and then.) We thrashed the Lions - even the Maori All Blacks took them out, and when we did the All Black tour of the UK and Ireland we smashed all of them too - including the current 'world chumps' England who don't have Jonny their soccor playing star any more to kick their conversions and penalties while we get Dan Carter.
I'm not bitter, I just liked the pun 'world chumps.' Nothing personal.
Paintball though - that is fun. I don't really like the whole set up thing, with bits of 2x4 and rubber tires to make an otherwise barren pieceof land interesting. It's still fun, but I prefer the wilderness. There's a place fairly near me, TAG wargames, this place has a couple of courses, the first one's the small one - kind of like what I described before, a couple of forts bult on to it, the second one I can't remember, but the third one is the biggest, yet most barren in terms of man made structures. Okay, so there's a main point in the middle, and one small fort for each team, poorly built from thin bits of wood and corrugated iron, but most of it takes place in the buch. There's cliffs and a river and trees and gorse which fucking hurts, but when you're playing paintball that dosn't really matter.
Edit: Oh, and every time I play Paintball with my mates my Dad insists on coming. He's a valuable asset too because he's a mean bastard. He grabs people's guns and shoots them with it. He also grabs the barrel of other people's guns and hammer a few shots at them while they are helpless to fire back. He also played on my team when we were playing a game where if you were shot you had to call for a medic. The medic was anyone on the team who tagged them. My Dad shot a Twelve year old and told him viciously, "Right. Now call for a Medic." When the Medic came he shot him, and so on until he got shot and was so far into the bush that none of us could tag him - we were defending an onslaught and running out of ammo while our weapons were jamming. Fucking classic man.
leaguers bust out that highlight video everytime someone wants to talk about tough sports, were those highlighs from a period of 30 years? 1 trinations series or 1 weekend of s14 produce the same results. and league doesn't have any of the finesse or strategy of union.
nfl vs league, 2 games that got worse the farther removed from union they got. lining up nfl players vs leaguers, best hitters? i think leaguers would be outsized. linebacker (the mobile defensive tacklers) joey porter from the pittsburgh steelers - 6'3" 250lbs 1.8m 113kgs - the big man always wins right?
ARL, extending yourself in the air for the ball while someone gets a free hit? That may not be bright. It's a real intense kicking game.
generalizations about the intelligence of athletes is bs, they know athletics/sports at least, it's their job
most yanks (me) played gridiron w/out the pads in our neighborhoods. we also played smear the queer (back in the day b4 the pc police).
Tyferra, never invite me to paintball w/your Dad Was he in Nam?
union
Dunno Chuck, the Enron boys (scarier) or Bush (scariest), but thanks for the new word - "chav." Wannabes, wangstas, wiggers, hoodrats, fashion victims, culture zombies, wallmart shoppers... The UK lost its empire was taken over by vanilla ice? More apologies (+1, 4 teabagger, out of my depth). http://www.chavscum.co.uk/ - !@#ing riot!!!
On topic: The decline of the empire (in the west) is the result of the general education & liberties given to the individual who realize that the cost/benefit of glory and profit derived from imperialism is minimal to the individual (vs death). The UK couldn't outsource their fighting to the Scot, Irish, etc. once they were given the same rights and education (who's left to do the dirty work?). Much like today in the States, facing an open ended occupation in Iraq, the enrollment rate for the armed services is down. Fortunately we allow non-citizens to enroll in the armed services in exchange for citizenship (Mexicano put down the chicle, here's a gun), GM announces 30,000 layoffs, and there are tools like arabeater. Other western nations (and the US most of the time) have decided it's easier to allow their corporations to get in bed with more than suspect nations, outsource the dirty work and take the profit. U can call me an anti-capitalist, socialist, communist, etc., but this is just how the world works. Get out with as much as you can and fcuk the kids and grandparents.
On topic: The decline of the empire (in the west) is the result of the general education & liberties given to the individual who realize that the cost/benefit of glory and profit derived from imperialism is minimal to the individual (vs death). The UK couldn't outsource their fighting to the Scot, Irish, etc. once they were given the same rights and education (who's left to do the dirty work?). Much like today in the States, facing an open ended occupation in Iraq, the enrollment rate for the armed services is down. Fortunately we allow non-citizens to enroll in the armed services in exchange for citizenship (Mexicano put down the chicle, here's a gun), GM announces 30,000 layoffs, and there are tools like arabeater. Other western nations (and the US most of the time) have decided it's easier to allow their corporations to get in bed with more than suspect nations, outsource the dirty work and take the profit. U can call me an anti-capitalist, socialist, communist, etc., but this is just how the world works. Get out with as much as you can and fcuk the kids and grandparents.
mmm, meat pies (over your dead body)Esker wrote:
Let me first remind everyone that in Britain, at least 200 people are crushed to death each yeah due to fat people tripping over in a mad dash to get into the queue at the local pieshop.
lol
it's not a freakin'mystery, too many calories & not enough exercise. Eating for shit, culture, commute, schedule are bs excuses. How long does it take to do 3 sets of push-ups, crunches, squats and lunges? 15mins? A couple of jogs around the block? another 15mins? 30mins total? Even a hardcore BF2 gamer like myself can make time for that. I think people get lazy, get scared & give up.
5'10" 185lbs
1.78m 13.2st or 84kg i think
take a joke m8, don't be such a crusty Afrikaaner, wasn't trying to slag off on yaSkinnister wrote:
tea bagger, he must be a 16yr old CHAV, sorry wrong forum for you read the heading DEBATE AND SERIOUS TALK not talk shit and slag others off.makeuser wrote:
teabagger!Skinnister wrote:
Well im from South Africa so I can talk what we call dutch/english or afrikaans which is a mixture of both languages from when the dutch and english ruled south africa many years ago.
i'll let that douche arabeater do that
peace