|
|
But the goal of the ban is the same: protect local businesses by keeping money local instead of flowing out of state/city/county/country.
You missunderstood your parent. The point is not accessibility for new players. The point is that a super top geared level 80, who needed monthes on level 80 to get that gear is outgeared by a lvl 81 who played the new expansion for two or three hours.
Would you feel better if they called it "Modern Warfare", then released "Modern Warfare 2", then "Black Ops", then "Black Ops 2", then "Modern Warfare 3", and every time you bought a new version you had to level up from 1 to get access to all the cool weapons while all the people that never played a previous version were at the same level as you?
People want new content and new challenges. That is what WoW is trying to do, but with a continuos world so you can keep playing the same character. If WoW really is dying, it is because people are ready for something radically different. You can only choose a new wild card so many times in poker before people start to realize they're still just playing poker with a wild card...
The last WoW thing that got me truly interested in the game was the An Qiraj war effort. Something that actually affected the world in some way. When I rescue orphans, I want to see them running around Org until some Alliance brat kills them on the way to slay Thrall... who will remain dead until the Horde resurrect him. But instead the entire world is little more than a chat room to find people to join a Diablo style raid group.
How about a Sims/WoW mashup? Or better yet, Minecraft/WoW? At least a world-editor so people can make their own dungeons.
Aaaah... I miss the MUD days sometimes. Just spend a few minutes coding and you can have anything you want in there.
Yep, it's all about the crazy pussy, few men can resist after the first hit.
Sometimes even the most tasty and tightest pussy is not worth it if she tries to kill you no matter what!
Says Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin.
Does he know any women who are not trying to kill him?
Know? Or
There's "yells at you to put the toilet seat down" crazy, and there's "shoot at your head" crazy. One is not a danger to your life and limb.
The other is a god damned honey badger in bed.
Lucky for me, my honey badger doesn't read
When in US history has the government been taken over by rogue elements?
In these cases did an Armed Citizenry actually stop said rogue elements?
tbd.
In the numerous cases where the government has actually oppressed it's people (slavery, segregation, etc.), can you name a single instance of the armed citizenry stopping them?
OUR government? Or *any* government?
I don't see the South electing a government with the stated goal of expelling or murdering every resident of the North, flatly stating that any and all negotiations are purely strategic moves to delay fighting when deemed necessary, that the commonly accepted "two state solution" will never be allowed to happen, or refusing to acknowledge the historical incidents predating the formation of their Northern neighbor and otherwise implicitly believing that no Northern citizen has a right to live.
Yeah, I don't like the Likud Charter either:
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
... The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
Which part of the charter claims the inferiority of "The Jew", or in this case the Palestinians? Or states that peace negotiations are only strategic moves?
None of it.
The comparison is still invalid. Wildly invalid.
I get that Israel does some shady stuff, but its really important on an issue as touchy as this to try to be objective, and refrain from hyperbole. Neither side has been great about this, both sides have considerable grievances, but neither side is as bad as WW2 Germany or current North Korea.
Perspective, rationality, guys.
This is all I want. I'm get worked up by the Rush Limbaugh quality opinions.
As soon as the rockets and suicide bombings stop, I'll start attacking the 2nd biggest threat to peace in the Israeli/Palestinian issue: Israel.
You mean this rocket right here?
No, I mean the ones the anti-semitic organization Hamas, who the Palestinians elected to run their government, continually fire at innocent Jewish families. The ones you never have to live through. The ones you so easily make light of and excuse. The fact that Israel has better technology doesn't make the people firing those rockets any less evil.
More problems for tired Zionist apologia: Israel's justification for starting the 1967 war was the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran
I haven't apologized for anything. I merely point out facts that both sides, mostly anti-semitics, like to ignore.
But that means that Palestinian attacks in response to the total blockade of Gaza are perfectly justified by Israeli rules.
Sure kid. And its perfectly justified if Manson gets out and murders some more because we were evil enough to put him in prison. You're a typical anti-semite refusing to acknowledge that you would yourself would never live with the shennanigans the Palestinians are pulling and would probably respond in the same way.
The Palestinians are entitled to all of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, but they've been willing to make concessions on that in order to get a state of their own.
Of course they do. As soon as Jordan gave up their own claim to the land it should go to some randomly chosen 3rd party that promises to kick out and/or murder some portion of the population. And the Jews that have been living there for the last 2000 years, or those that came at the invite of the Ottoman Emperor be damned, right? Just like the ones that were murdered or expelled from Gaza in 1929.
But Israel keeps making more and more draconian demands, or pulls out of negotiations.
They both have at various points.
Because Israel isn't interested in peace.
I'm sorry, who isn't interested in peace? Have you even read the Hamas charter?
It's interested in land, and waiting out the clock until it becomes a matter of taking land from someone's great-great grandchild to give to someone else's great-great grandchild.
Probably. But until the rockets stop, I don't give a fuck. You don't target children. Ever.
Frankly, I agree with Sir Gerald Kaufman of the UK in his views that Israel is no better than certain German Fascists in their treatment of the Palestinians.
I don't recall German Jews ever stating they wanted to march every German into the Rhine (Ya, I know that quote doesn't come from a Palestinian, but the sentiment does and it predates the formation of Israel), so I really don't see how the comparison is valid.
“The current Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians,
Actually their most commonly cited reason for "murdering the Palestinians" is something along the lines of "INCOMING ROCKET!" I really don't ever hear the Holocaust being brought up except to compare Israeli Jews to the Nazis.
And before some butt-hurt heeb starts pulling out his "you disagree with Israel, you therefor are an anti-semite" card... Sir Gerald Kaufman is himself a Jew.
Uncle Tom doesn't care what race you are.
I hope that someday more land can be given to Palestine and both sides can learn to live in peace -- but considering this dispute seems driven by ultra-conservative religious wing-nuts on all sides, I don't think that will happen without total annihilation of the region.
The Palestinians have been rejecting a two-state solution for more than 80 years. So you're probably right on the mutual annihilation...
No, the US funnels far more overt support and resources to its bellicose little buddies. I don't see North Korea shifting the DMZ southward every year, leveling South Korean cities so North Korean settlers can move onto the land. China doesn't throw an international diplomatic hissy-fit at the mere suggestion that South Korea should be allowed to have its own autonomous government, much less one armed and hostile to the expansion of North Korean power.
I don't see the South electing a government with the stated goal of expelling or murdering every resident of the North, flatly stating that any and all negotiations are purely strategic moves to delay fighting when deemed necessary, that the commonly accepted "two state solution" will never be allowed to happen, or refusing to acknowledge the historical incidents predating the formation of their Northern neighbor and otherwise implicitly believing that no Northern citizen has a right to live.
So I guess neither of us like the analogy.
No, you weren't. Neither was I. You appear to just be a pedantic shit
Don't know why I'm even replying to this, but just to give you an (obvious) idea how far I read through you post.
If you don't want to discuss things, why even respond in the first place... unless I was right on the money. fine with me.
Both.
Being either poor or non-white means you get a worse treatment.
So now the question is, are you saying race, or culture?
See, the poor side of things can be reached by following logic in a capitalist society: having wealth is an advantage in nearly any situation. The race and culture side though is not so easily followed. When the entire argument is based on comparing this science case to the BB case and citing as the only evidence the fact that one kid is white while the other is black, but not explaining how any other variable is being discounted, the entire argument is so full of holes you might as well be preaching from the bible rather than discussing a topic.
When dealing with persecution, violence is one means to an end. But the choice to use or not use it does not, by itself, mean that its users lack or have a genetic or cultural preference for that tool. There are many other instances of persecution that have not been responded to with violence, some of which taking places at race level proportions: The Jews, Ghandi, and Tibetan monks come immediately to mind, though Malcolm X vs. MLK may be a more relevant example.
While race issues may be the source of many problems (And is absolutely the accepted reason behind the start of the anti-drug laws), I am not convinced that our justice system is tainted with rampant racism or that these two cases are examples of the same, as is being claimed. I think money or the lack thereof is far more influential in deciding prosecutions, with racism being the domain of individuals, not the system. I don't have the psychopathic personality necessary to be an effective prosecutor today (I would not have filed charges against this girl), but I also see no reason to believe this D.A. based her (his? I don't recall and don't have the energy to check now) decision on race, especially given the world's history of sexism.
The "boys will be boys" argument has worked very well for boys of every race just as much as the "girls should be quiet in the kitchen" argument has sent girls home from school for being witches and cursing their teachers with sickness. We may have never heard about Steubenville if not for the girl's suicide because everybody there, including the victim's best friends, think the victim was at fault... She shouldn't have gotten drunk at the party. And yet not a single "this is a race issue" post has explained how sex is not influencing the prosecutors decision. (And just in case the D.A. is female, remember that Uncle Tom ruins the 'chicks dont hate on other chicks' argument too).
As soon as race is involved it seems, science and logic goes out the window.
The bug starts here.
