Alpha1Cowboy

Still More than Trump has done

42 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Some, I assume, are good people

But the name tags? And if it's like MPD here..the Badge number is on the helmet so you can find your effing gear when it all gets tossed together.  

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

What does your family have to do with the entire country? 

Aren't you paying attention?   that shit is happening everywhere.  This isn't some isolated case... Republicans win because their base stays hyperfocused on winning. I mean..I'm not voting for Joe...the top of my ballot is gonna be blank...but even though moderate republicans out there don't approve of Trump as a person...they aren't gonna not vote for him.

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Every Republican could turn into this and it's still not half the country.

 

Side note: they were impossible to talk to during the Bush years. Doubling down and ignoring facts didn't begin with Trump; he's just what they already were without the facade.

Naw..we discussed the failures of the war and bad economic policies that led to the housing crisis and other stuff all the time with no issues.  It was really when all these conspiracy theories about Hilary started being pushed over and repeated ad nauseum that things devolved.   Trump isn't stupid...he knows that a lie repeated enough can become the truth.  

20 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Are your relatives half the nation?

Admittedly not...the vast majority ..around 30 or so were centrist Republicans before Trump. But from what I'm seeing...this seems to be the norm across the country as they are choosing to double down. 

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

No, that's less accurate.

 

Half the country aren't Trump sycophants. 

Based on what I've seen my relatives devolve into over the last 4 years...I disagree.   They went in for Trump timidly and are now digging in harder and harder as the mistakes and idiocy blows up. Even during the Bush Jr years they weren't actively pushing conspiracy theories every chance they got.....social media and these right wing pocasts and media has really pushed them hard into trumpism.

We used to talk and debate all the time..and now...well you can't debate conspiracy theories and as soon as i start putting facts in discussions they attack my and not my argument.  

57 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2496446/scream-5-is-officially-bringing-back-one-of-the-original-cast-members

 

I'm down for that...all i can say is that I'm down for some big tongue in cheek scene chewing fun.  

I saw it for like $29 on cdkeys.....i might pull the trigger

That reminds me....Eternal Darkness 2?

A good Sonic Game?

Did anyone mention System Shock 3?

FU*K Mario.......give us Metroid!!!!!!!

year you saw it?

Any of the Epson Eco-Tank printers.  Prints great and buying ink is cheap. 

Still no release date....and one sneak peak a year. Must be waiting for next gen consoles.

3 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Hardly. If someone said they liked underwater games like  Subnautica (like you said) and thought this game was anything like that they'd probably be disappointed.

However, I would be fine with it if you said you love games that take place in bodies of water.

1. I said that looking at this game reminded me I still needed to get the Subnautica expansion.....not that the two were comparable in gameplay or content

2. I also said I like game set underwater.....and this is set underwater because thats the natural environment for your shark character

Your're not a shark thats running around land....it's not your natural setting for the game...hence limited movement and ability once you leave the water.  Its open world with the exception that your severely limited outside your natural environment..which makes sense.  

Just because Ecco could jump out of the water and perform actions doesn't mean Ecco's setting wasn't under water either.

Also...you should have been fine with my original post with getting pedantic about it in the first place.

1 hour ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Of course you’re going to go below the surface of the water but most of the action will be above the water.

Pedantry 

3 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

But it’s set above water. 

Hyped for this game...for some reason I love games set underwater. 

Reminds me I still need to get the Subnautica expansion.

Bernie has 1 foot in the grave....if he somehow got to be President....him dying in office would not be an unexpected thing so VP in his case is as good as President....and sabermetrically I'd go with Sanders/Klobuchar to make that play to swing voters in the midwest states Trump won or moderate Democrats in general...but my heart wants Sanders/Warren.  

Of course I understand the VP nominee will likely come form none of these...but it will play a major factor this time around I feel.

17 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Sophomoric. I'd say you could do better, but that would just be me acting polite.

 

 

So you jump right to the most ridiculous assertions. This definitely makes your arguments look genuine and well thought out.

We literally live in a society where drug users go to public libraries to get off because they have naloxone on hand to bring em back from the dead.  

The idea of removing that variable to save on healthcare costs is plenty plausible.

Hell...we are already trying to do that 

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/americas-heroin-epidemic/ohio-sheriff-says-his-overdosing-ohioans-my-guys-have-no-n780666

You let someone make it an official  government policy preventing healthcare based on a variable....bad stuff is gonna follow.

But I will concede that your view on humanity may be more positve and optimistic than mine.

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Bloomberg isn’t talking about a slippery slope. He is correctly pointing out that we spend a massive percentage of our total medical budget on keeping terminally ill old people alive a short time. As @CastlevaniaNut18has noted from her own experience, it often would appear that we are doing more harm than good to these people by not allowing them to peacefully die.

 

So it’s incredibly expensive and probably causes more suffering, very good use of our resources!

If it's their choice to move to pallative care..then I'm good with that.  But we can't remove them from the decision making process.  If they want treatment..it should be accessible.  

As Jweel pointed out..Bloombergs take also does nothing to fix the cost structures of our medical system. It..like our college system is broken and in need of direct change.

5 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

No, you're responding to the explanations of Bloomberg's [actual, not a meme] statement with ridiculous equivalencies re: execute prisoners and let children die. Give me a break.

Damn..and I thought I was on the Spectrum....

Again...because I've read  on form that point Bloomberg was using that take as a cost argument.....which is in itself a slippery slope.  And yeah..once you start quantifying who gets acess to healthcare based on cost variables like age...then it's easy to slip more variables in the equation.

That's what humanity does.  

5 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Are you serious with this nonsense? Stop with the disingenuous slippery slope bullshit. It's not a good look.

Oh for fucks sake...the disingenuous slippery slope started when the Bloomberg cancer meme was posted.  I'm responding to it.

Jweel had the right of it

That's a morality and cultural issue and we agree, the issue with Bloomberg is he's turning it into a cost issue. That's the sick part, the fact that he's blaming 95 year olds with cancer for increased healthcare costs and that denying care is the best solution. He's prioritizing keeping the current price structure over lives.