I don’t know why, but I feel odd playing first-party Nintendo games on a platform that’s not a Nintendo console. The fact that my Wii can run Homebrew hacks and ROMs makes me happy because playing Zelda on my PC with a 360 controller is just weird.
Trilogy is definitely up there for me. Probably my second favorite after Zelda.
I waited to play ME3 until after the epilogue DLC came out, so my first experience with 3 had the full story ending.
Also, I’ve tried multiple times to start playing as ManShep, but I start to miss my own FemShep as well as the wonderful voice of Jennifer Hale. So I always come back to my original FemShep character model when I replay the Trilogy.
Further, I watch Let’s Plays of games on Youtube, but I have a real difficulty watching FemShep LPs. When I hear FemShep speak, it feels awkward if she doesn’t look like my character. Fortunately, my character does look somewhat like the redheaded ME3 FemShep boxart.
You guys are accusing Warbler of fetishization of The Star Spangled Banner, but what I want to know is, why is it such a big deal to you that it’s such a big deal to Warbler?
Why do you have to constantly berate him for holding the flag and/or the anthem sacred and believing that others ought to do the same? Let the man have his opinion. Dang.
You make no effort to understand why Warbler feels the way he does, nor lend any weight to a possibility that his position might have merit. You just want to prove him wrong, as though such a thing were possible in a subjective topic like this, by making him explain himself until he can’t think of a strong enough rebuttal.
I feel like that post is missing a Citizen Kane gif.
Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.
We’re talking about it though, I’d say they were pretty successful.
We’re talking about him sitting. We’re not talking much about police brutality. Case in point.
I talked about it. It’s you guys (mostly Warb) who would rather complain about someone sitting down during a song.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You mentioned it. There wasn’t significant discussion.
And while I am on the fence about whether sitting is or is not acceptable as a form of personal protest, I definitely do not agree that The Star-Spangled Banner should be relegated to merely a song.
Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.
If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.
It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.
A player sitting during the anthem is so ineffectual you think the media should ignore it (instead of jumping up and down accordingly) - so it will deflate their method of protest entirely?
Erm… what?
His argument is that if people and the media stop making a big deal out of it, they will eventually stop protesting the anthem and move on to some other sort of protest.
Yes.
Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.
We’re talking about it though, I’d say they were pretty successful.
We’re talking about him sitting. We’re not talking much about police brutality. Case in point.
It is ineffectual at helping the cause. If someone sees him sit, they don’t consider the legitimacy of why or make any appreciable change on his behalf. They argue about whether he should be allowed to sit, effectively bringing attention to only himself and not why he sat.
So people should ignore him and make his decision ineffective at drawing attention. Then, he either can keep sitting but no one knows so no one cares; do something that actually helps the cause; or quit bothering altogether. Albeit given that two of those options would have the same effect since no one is paying attention to him.
Personally, I think a football player sitting during the anthem is ineffectual. It’s less effective even than temporarily adding an overlay to your Facebook avatar after a crisis.
If the people who sit want to help the cause for which they protest, they should do so in a way that matters. You can’t show solidarity to the BLM community by sitting unless the camera notices you doing it and the media jumps up and down accordingly. So I think the people who sit should be ignored, because it deflates their method of protest entirely.
It’s similar to how Trump wouldn’t have won the primary had he not been given all the media attention. Just ignore them, and their opinion becomes moot.
again, same is true for those protesting funerals, yet people still made big deal about that.
The people protesting funerals hate gay people. The people protesting the anthem want equal treatment. Huge difference.
Actually, if you think about it, it isn’t. The issue with protesting funerals isn’t about the subject being protested. It’s about the method of protest. The protested subject matter at issue is really irrelevant. People could be sitting during the anthem because gas prices are too high; or the WBC could be picketing funerals in reverence to Cthulhu.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
No, it insults you. You are not the country.
You are not the country either.
I’m not insulted, so your response makes no sense.
Actually, it does.
How I interpret it is this: There is a difference between an insult to the country as an entity and an insult to the collective citizens of the country.
Warbler might himself be offended, yes, but he feels offended on behalf of the country as an entity, as though the dignity of that entity is something that should be protected and/or respected.
He’s not saying that man is insulting everyone and their dog who collectively live in the country. And by his saying that you, Frink, are not the country, he’s saying that you can’t speak directly for the entity that is the country when you say you’re not offended because your personal dignity is not akin to that of respecting the country itself.
Ok well then he can’t speak for the entity that is the country either. His belief that it insults the country is only one interpretation of the action, and in my opinion a very closed-minded interpretation. He doesn’t seem to understand that these people aren’t protesting the anthem, they’re protesting the treatment of black people by the institutions that are part of the country.
I don’t think he doesn’t understand that. I think he just thinks their method of protest is inappropriate. Legal, yes, but inappropriate.
The argument we’re (meaning you and he are) having here really just comes down to whether one ought to be allowed to say (and/or opinion is valid in saying) what is or isn’t an appropriate method for someone else to protest.
again, same is true for those protesting funerals, yet people still made big deal about that.
The people protesting funerals hate gay people. The people protesting the anthem want equal treatment. Huge difference.
Actually, in my mind the huge difference is that the WBC claims to be a “church” and/or “Christians” and/or “Baptists”. And as a Christian myself, and a member of a baptist church, I can say that I’m all kinds of offended at the vitriol that come from the WBC. I just… ugh, don’t even get me started.
Whereas, people who sit during the anthem speak for nobody but themselves.
How many times do I have to say that it is legal for them to protest the anthem and that I wouldn’t want it any other way?
What I’m saying is, in my view it’s not worth arguing about. It wouldn’t be a big deal if people didn’t make a big deal about it.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
No, it insults you. You are not the country.
You are not the country either.
I’m not insulted, so your response makes no sense.
Actually, it does.
How I interpret it is this: There is a difference between an insult to the country as an entity and an insult to the collective citizens of the country.
Warbler might himself be offended, yes, but he feels offended on behalf of the country as an entity, as though the dignity of that entity is something that should be protected and/or respected.
He’s not saying that man is insulting everyone and their dog who collectively live in the country. And by his saying that you, Frink, are not the country, he’s saying that you can’t speak directly for the entity that is the country when you say you’re not offended because your personal dignity is not akin to that of respecting the country itself.
I played Assassin’s Creed 1, and the 2 trilogy. But I have to say, I’m sick of the formula. Every AC game feels exactly like every other AC game, with the apparent exception of the ship-sailing/combat parts of AC4. At this point, there are just better open-world games than AC.
I like JRPGs. I’ve never played Persona (nor do I care to), but I loved Final Fantasy 7/8/9, Dragon Quest 8, Tales of Symphonia/Abyss, Kingdom Hearts, and Ni No Kuni. However, there are several JRPGs I’ve tried getting into but just can’t. Persona is like a JRPG mixed in with a crazy creepy angsty modern anime, so no thank you. I’m not into anime.
I definitely recommend Red Dead and Uncharted, though. Fantastic games.
Another asshole sits for the anthem. (and yes, I know you all think I’m the asshole)
Another PATRIOT showing us all how great this country really is!
*shrug* I’m… actually on the fence about this issue.
No, what makes this country great, is that he can do it. Actually doing it does not make the country great. It insults the country.
But I agree with this. However, I think it’s neither as offensive nor as benign as people make it out to be. I think what I find most offensive is that people in either camp make such a big deal out of it. The man sat; let him sit. It might be offensive, but it’s less offensive if people don’t draw big red circles with arrows pointing at the man.
It’s like the media feeds off of sensationalism, so who cares if this argument is hurting the country. Let’s argue about it nonstop anyway. The man is allowed to sit, so unless we want to make it illegal for him to do so, just let the man sit as though his voice didn’t matter. To complain about his voice only helps to make it louder.
I read somewhere that Trump’s “drain the swamp” base hates the GOP establishment, and that Trump is actually following his base by not doing them any favors.
really? I thought his base hated the Dems even more.
You know, I don’t know degrees to which they hate whichever side, but basically there are reasons why none of the other GOP candidates stood a chance against Trump in the primaries. Cruz kind of did, but he’s a Tea Partier and they were the most recent previously popular non-status-quo group among right wingers.
Suffice it to say that I think many people don’t actually know how politics (esp. in Washington) actually works, so they voted Trump in as a sort of wrecking ball against the establishment, regardless of which side that refers to.
The Democrats voted for Obama for similar reasons, but unfortunately Obama didn’t actually know how to buddy up to the GOP leaders to get what he wanted and so the GOP shut him down. At this point, (or at least for the time being) it seems Trump doesn’t care about the GOP leaders for the same reason but in reverse. Meanwhile, it would appear that (again at least for the time being) Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have figured out how to butter his bread.
Well, the word is that he handed a pretty solid victory to the Democrats, in that when the debt ceiling comes back up again in December, the Dems will have a lot more leverage to get things that they want passed.
https://newrepublic.com/article/144726/trump-screwed-republicans-now-what
Faced with the perennial debt ceiling problem, Trump shocked Washington on Wednesday by agreeing with Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and Pelosi, his counterpart in the House, to fund the government and raise the debt limit for three months while also providing aid for Hurricane Harvey victims. To call this a “deal” would be generous, as Trump gave Democrats exactly what they had sought. The agreement keeps the debt ceiling issue alive ahead of next year’s midterm elections—giving Republicans ample time to shoot themselves in the foot with infighting over government spending—and provides Democrats with leverage in future negotiations on key issues like granting legal status for DREAMers.
Has anyone talked about this yet?:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/trump-meeting-with-democrats-deal/index.html
Apparently Trump absolutely hates Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, and he dropped the GOP suggestions for a postponement of dealing with the debt ceiling in favor of one proposed by the Democrats. And when asked about it afterward, he referred only to “Chuck and Nancy”, while completely leaving Ryan and McConnell unmentioned whatsoever.
I read somewhere that Trump’s “drain the swamp” base hates the GOP establishment, and that Trump is actually following his base by not doing them any favors.
Apparently Rowling discovered, after having already invented the racist ideals of the Death Eaters on her own, just how close the real world ideology of the Nazis really was. She visited a Holocaust memorial and discovered the lengths the Nazis went to to determine someone’s supposed racial purity.
excuse me? why would an outright white supremacist vote for Obama?
Because there wasn’t a white supremacist option on the ballot. The logic is a little monstrous, but I’ve lived in terribly close proximity with white supremacists. The whole belief system is more warped than even the simple level of warped that’s obvious on the surface.
You’re referring to something like the idea that being a n-lover is just as bad as being a n?
JEDIT: Hadn’t read the whole post just above before I asked. So I guess that’s a yes.
You know, this reminds me of the Harry Potter book series. Ron and his family are “the biggest blood traitors there are,” especially with Arthur’s fascination with muggle technology. Muggles, mudbloods and blood traitors all seemed to be lumped in together by people who thought blood purity was important (ie. Slytherins).
Honestly, I think Hillary’s irrelevant at this point, and she should stay that way.
Agreed.
To some, it seems like she’s preparing to run again in 2020, but I think the best thing she could do for the country is just not. It’s clear that she hasn’t matured or learned anything since November, so she’d really just be handing the election to Trump, and I don’t want that to happen.
- She is not bigoted, sexist, nor willfully inflammatory outside of occasionally putting her foot in her mouth;
She herself. Hillary Rodham Clinton herself is not. That image is part of a political game her staff played to beat Obama. There is no evidence that shows Hillary herself chose to do that, nor that she directly accused Obama of being Muslim, nor that she in any way made a plea to the white working class that minorities and/or immigrants were ruining the country. There is and was direct, verifiable, irrefutable, straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth evidence that Trump is racist, sexist, narcissistic and relies on information supplied by conspiracy theorists.
For example, when she called Trump-supporters a “basket of deplorables” she, in her inability to identify with why they would support him, put her foot squarely in her mouth. She wasn’t being intentionally inflammatory. She was frustrated and speaking her mind. Unfortunately it’s times like that, when the media eats you alive, that you learn to clam up and go back to everyone being sick of secrecy again.
It’s because she didn’t and doesn’t understand why she lost that she was kind of damned-if-she-did and damned-if-she-didn’t no matter what she said, because she doesn’t know how else she could have changed it.
Try a different Windows PC. Also, try restarting the PC in question.
Bernie would have had a lot of trouble too.
Yes, but many people who voted for Trump were voting against the status quo, and perception of Bernie was that he was also not status quo. So people wouldn’t necessarily have voted for Trump simply in their desire for change.
Does no one remember how much of a dirty word “socialist” is?
As opposed to a fascist?
JEDIT: I feel that Bernie, had he won the primary, would have been able to run on more than just a “Trump sucks worse than me” platform.
It’s hard to say how well I would take it if I lost an election to Trump. I’d certainly be devastated, maybe even suicidal, when faced with the knowledge that Americans prefer Trump to me. It’s hard to imagine anything more humiliating for someone in her position. She is obviously psychologically “managing” it by dropping into a sort of self-defense “justification” mode. It’s not uncommon, although all it does is further tarnish her image.
I don’t get why people that hate Trump don’t hate her too.
Because:
She has respect for our political allies;
Despite her public image, she is able to make compromises with people in Congress to get things done;
She wouldn’t outright provoke North Korea nor drop MOABs on the Middle East;
She understands that humans are significantly contributing to climate change and that the Paris Agreement is an important step toward rectifying that;
She is not bigoted, sexist, nor willfully inflammatory outside of occasionally putting her foot in her mouth;
and she actually is genuinely qualified for the job.
She’s the reason he won. If the Democrats had run Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren then it would have been a sure Democrat victory.
Bernie, yes. Warren, I doubt it. Elizabeth Warren was the one who accused female Bernie-supporters during the primaries of betrayal to the cause of feminism for not backing Hillary. She’s not really super popular among the mainstream.