Sneakyone Posts

[color=#2e1a6b]Try to keep these responses intelligent and insightful, or else this thread will easily be moved out of Serious Discussion
screw it

I hold the hopeful belief that the people who like NTR at least think that such scenarios would be horrible in real life. If this is true, then this is what differentiates NTR from other fictional things we like or dislike. So, I have a question (which is not limited to NTR): Why do people enjoy fiction of something that would be horrible in real life?

I don't enjoy NTR, so I can't really answer this question. Though, in thinking about it, I thought of incest. I enjoy a fictional tale of incest, even though I think it shouldn't happen in real life. I don't think incest is horrible; the problem with incest is genetic issues. These genetic issues (seemingly) don't exist in fictional incest, so I don't see anything horrible with fictional incest.

[color=#2e1a6b]I will either ask questions in a way that will lead to an explanation, or I will have an explanation that leads to questions.

[color=#2e1a6b]It's accurate, just not very descriptive. As a means of critic's feedback, it's not very good, since critics are expected to be more detailed. But as a means of user feedback, it's quick, effective, and capable of analyzing large amounts of reviews. It's much better than a like/dislike system, as those are just a popularity contest.

[color=#2e1a6b]Back when I was 12, I was a big fan of teen titans and similar action shows. I was randomly changing channels one day, and came across the climax of the 2nd Naruto movie. This got me into watching Naruto, which (after way too long) led me to watch real anime

[color=#2e1a6b]I'm afraid of lethal danger; if the dark causes lethal danger, then I'm afraid

[color=#2e1a6b]Darkrai, just because of all the memories of finding him


exploring that void is so much fun; never found Arceus though

[color=#2e1a6b]This looks exactly like an IB thread

[color=#2e1a6b]"Mango"?

How good is the Clannad anime compared to the VN?

[color=#2e1a6b]Because he did it in defense of his daughter, he is not and should not be guilty of any wrongdoings. If the Father went to the assailant's house and murdered him after it already happened, then it's no longer self defense, and there could be some charges against him.

I most certainly would have done the same if it was my Daughter (heck, I'd do the same for my lil' sister, and I hate her).

As Tegumi already said, this happened here in Texas; it was certainly a legal means of defense. There's a reason we have this slogan

[color=#2e1a6b]I Fucking Hate the Miami Heat; Ego 10x higher than their skill. They're only good because the refs make them untouchable

I really like Oklahoma, especially Kevin Durant. I know someone one was a referee at Durant's games when he was younger, and he says that Durant is the most respectful player he's ever met. I hope for a sweep, but I think it'll take 6 games for the Thunder to win

[color=#2e1a6b]I play it a little, though I really like it. I've probably played a little over a hundred songs, and I think I've gotten good at it really fast. I usually played together with some expert, so I was able to practice really challenging songs, without the risk of a game-over.

This is the hardest song I'm able to pass:


I don't get to go to the arcade that has DDR (supernova 2) very often, so I'm gonna build my own pad this summer.

[color=#2e1a6b]I think he meant an method to find a original work series that contains multiple chapters. When you clicked on "manga" in the top bar, the page used to have a section where it showed these multiple-chapter series (I think they were called Volumes). I never used that section, but it's gone now.

If you just type "chapter" in the search bar, it will show most of what your looking for. There are series like Ring x mama, which say "round" instead of chapter, so searching "chapter" won't list everything

[color=#2e1a6b]I wouldn't mind it if the front page posts were very short entries, but some entries like sudohbucks and google take up way well over a page of space. Either the size of the front page posts should be limited to 1/4 of the screen, or a link to show all recent manga needs to be added.

This thread is becoming just as bad as last time. We're essentially debating every political issue, with the exception of drug policy. All this thread is is you calling Ron Paul an idiot for having a position that differs from you. I'm not gonna keep such a thread active, so I'm not gonna make any more replies in this thread. If want to continue this debate, make a new thread for the particular issue you want to talk about (such as "Ron Paul is racists", "Federal Income tax", "Gold Standard", etc).

There's certainly a lot I want to respond to, especially "Listen Lelouch. you're young and you clearly don't know how politics work"[color=#2e1a6b], but like I said, I don't want to continue this thread.

[color=#2e1a6b]You didn't provide evidence that he will enforce his religious views on others


[color=#2e1a6b]ok, 3 things:

1. WTF?
2. Please use complete sentences
3. You didn't quote all of what I said:
The "Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools" are funded by CITY taxes. Ron Paul can't and won't stop city taxes, he wants to stop FEDERAL taxes.




[color=#2e1a6b]yeah, we haven't attacked anyone since the last declared war (World War 2)



[color=#2e1a6b]Sorry, I forgot to read Article II section [size=10]Doesn't exist[/h] where it says "the executive may place departments to regulate food, drugs, education, the envirement, etc"



[color=#2e1a6b]I got that percentage from here, but the amount really doesn't make much difference.



[color=#2e1a6b]That's what it sounded like, at least this part did:





[color=#2e1a6b]I'll admit that you're right; any politician can speak to a specific group and say stuff that they want to hear. I should have posted a better video, so... here's what he said on CNN



[color=#2e1a6b]No it doesn't. Ron Paul didn't say those racists comments, so you can't use those to claim inconsistency.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHNp1wf1T_k#t=0m43s

[color=#2e1a6b]Ok, your turn to show Anna Schwartz' predictions



[color=#2e1a6b]The former doesn't take away any liberties, and the latter was falsely phrased, but actually defends our civil liberty



[color=#2e1a6b]see bottom of post


[color=#2e1a6b]He's not an Isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. There's a fucking difference, so stop calling him an Isolationist. I've said this multiple times, so you either don't read what I say, or you're intentionally being stupid.



[color=#2e1a6b]correct



[color=#2e1a6b]Are you really talking about Ron Paul? Ron Paul's the only candidate who explains what causes the economic problems

so, this isn't explaining what causes the economic problems? even if you disagree with him, you can't just say "no, he doesn't explain what caused the economic problems".



[color=#2e1a6b]Did you really just say that he has Shady campaign contributors? WTF, Goldman&sax, JP morgan, and other lobbyist support Obama and Romney, not Paul. Paul get's his support from citizens who love freedom, and active duty military

I already explained that he was never racists, and I showed that he said those things on CNN, you know, national television.



[color=#2e1a6b]I watched the first 15 minutes of it. In regards to Foreign affairs, Ron Paul consistently voted to defend against threats to our national security, and not get involved if it doesn't. I support enforcing the clause of the 14th amendment. I also think that the Federal government shouldn't force states to give taxpayer-funded benefits to non-taxpayers.



[color=#2e1a6b]Humor me, show me Ron Paul changing his position. And no, Ron Paul never held a racist position, so don't bring up that BS again.



[color=#2e1a6b]Your question is like asking "what's the weight difference between 100lbs of feathers and 100lbs of bricks"

I have very little control over the federal government. If my state is against welfare, but most other states are, My state is forced to provide welfare, even though most of the people in my state are against it. The more Local the government, the more control you have over it. any issue should be governed by the most local government available. So, fire safety can be handled by the city, therefore, the city government is in charge of the fire department; the federal government isn't in charge of the fire department. Driving regulations would be too complicated if they changed in each city, so the state government is in charge of driving regulations. There are many issues that are handled by the federal government, which could be handled by a more local form of government (in this case, state government).

Yes, that was a mess. Instead of talking about Ron Paul, we debated 5 different issues at once. I hope that doesn't happen again in this thread.

Here are some more reasons why I think Ron Paul is a horrible person to be elected for [color=red]ANY office.

President is different than Mayor. They have different levels of authority, different restrictions, and different responsibilities. I'm only gonna focus on how these reasons affect his ability to serve as President, not any office.

1. He [color=red]continues this idiotic belief that there's some sort of war on religion. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html Which is absolute nonsense. What kind of position do you need to be in where the vast majority of Americans are christians, yet you're still under threat by the 'secular leftists'. Let me let you in on something Dr. Paul, Secularism is a GOOD THING. And the leader of Americans for a Secular Society is a CHRISTIAN. Secularism is NOT what either he, or fox news, or any other republican likes to think. It is NOT pushing atheism or outlawing christianity. Secularism is simply, separating the establishment of official religion, where it has no place. Specifically, where there are publically owned, tax supported property, religion has NO place in it.

Fucking war on christmas...who the hell is taking christmas away from anyone? Nobody.

That article was from almost 10 years ago, so don't say that he continues to speak about it. He was saying that the action of banning displays of Christmas violates a tradition of our country that's been upheld for the past 200 years. As president, he will certainly not enforce his religious views on others, so this isn't an issue

2. He wants to get rid of the income tax. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/ Though, it's worth pointing out that he's against ALL taxes, but that doesn't make his position any less retarded.

Taxes support so much within the american system that at this point, if we took them away, the country would COLLAPSE. Infrastructure would be FUCKED. Government workers would have NO job. Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools, just get rid of all of that if you get rid of taxes. What kind of psychosis is required to desire such an outcome? And for anyone who says he doesn't support getting rid of these things, too bad, taxes fund them, and he IS against interstate highways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xO2EA5KGOc

[color=#2e1a6b]You're an idiot You don't understand what you're talking about. Ron Paul is against all FEDERAL taxes. These tax dollars go to fund: Illegal wars, unconstitutional departments of the executive branch, the drug war, the federal prisons (in which 90% of inmates are from the drug war), and Obama taking 7-digit $ vacations. The "Policeman, firefighters, publically funded schools"[color=#2e1a6b] are funded by CITY taxes. Ron Paul can't and won't stop city taxes, he wants to stop FEDERAL taxes.

3. He's pretty homophobic. You might say, "He's against banning same sex marriage!" And you might not agree or think there's any evidence to suggest that, but guess what? The reason he's against the ban is because of his anti-federalist libertarian views that the government shouldn't have much of the power it has now, including banning same sex marriage. That's why. Not because he approves. He fights to keep states from legalizing same sex marriage(http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html) and was pro don't ask don't tell(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU&feature=related). He also votes to defund any organization that presents homosexuality as acceptable(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:)

[color=#2e1a6b]So... it doesn't matter how he'll actually govern, what matters are his feelings on the matter

4. He seems a bit racist. Quote: "If you've ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how fleet footed they are." Quote: “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” And complained about transportation security hiring visible minorities as workers. http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/ And the rest can be found in old personally published newsletters by him, which he used to defend, and now denies he ever had any part of.

[color=#2e1a6b]He didn't write that, he might have known about it, might have not; We don't know. What we do know is that he's not racist, and that's what matters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

5. He wants to bring back the gold standard. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

...What the fuck is with him? The gold standard would be a HORRIBLE idea. And nobody knows this better than Winston Churchill who wrote in his autobiography that installing the gold standard was, "The worst decision of my political career."

You may argue that the gold standard is associated with long run price stability because it acts as a limit to economic growth, but economists like Anna Schwartz have argued that this kind of instability in short-term price levels can lead to financial instability as lenders and borrowers become uncertain about the value of debt.

And that's just the BEGINNING to all the problems with an established gold standard.

[color=#2e1a6b]Honestly, I haven't studied economics, so I don't entirely understand it. I study it next year in highschool, so I could argue better then. However, I can say this:
Ron Paul predicted the economic crisis that we're experiencing now, Unlike Anna Schwartz or whoever. Ron Paul has credibility to speak on economics, something that only Austrian economists have.

So my question: Why the hell do people want this extremist guy elected?

[color=#2e1a6b]Because he will defend our civil liberties, he will reduce the size of the federal government, he will stop the spending, stop the wars. He faces the issues instead of hiding from them. He actually explains what caused the economic problems, and explains how to fix them. He does all these things, and to top it off, he's the most consistent and trustworthy politician ever, if it's even appropriate to call him a politician; He's a true statesman

[color=#2e1a6b]I was a little worried about you at first, but then you started listing the reasons, and it became obvious.

I have met a few people that actually support Mitt Romney, on the basis that he's better than Obama. I ask them to explain how he's different from Obama, and NOBODY has said anything other than the fact that Romney's republican.

[color=#2e1a6b]That was from the video you posted in this thread, back in November... 17th... oh, on my birthday

[color=#2e1a6b]That is a lie that supporters of drug enforcement continuously spout out without any historical evidence. There actually have been countries that legalized drugs, Which FPoD already explained



[color=#2e1a6b]After thinking about it for awhile, I decided that the government shouldn't regulate food. The only thing the government should do is require that all food products publicize their ingredients. Apart from that, it's our choice whether we eat it or not.

[color=#2e1a6b]I'm listening to trololo while reading your thread, no offense, but it's a hillarious combination; y'all should try it.

This looks like it should be a PM. But since it's a public thread, I guess I'll respond.

Free Will is what gives us the capability to choose to sin. It does not mean that we will without-a-doubt sin, it just means that we are capable of sinning. This capability to sin, combined with a desire or motivation to sin, will cause us to sin. God has the capability to sin, but his nature presents no desire or motivation to sin, therefore he doesn't sin. We have the capability to sin, and our tainted nature and temptation create a desire to sin, therefore we sin. In heaven, we will be in the presence of God. While in God's presence, the desire to sin will be gone, and therefore, we won't sin.

I'm not sure if this analogy will help, but:

You have free will, which makes you capable of stabbing your heart with a knife. Does that mean that you will stab your heart with a knife? No. You have no desire to stab your heart with a knife, and it defies your nature (desire to survive). This analogy shows that can have the free will to do something, but if you don't want to do it, then you won't.