Earth_Poet

I had to work range detail for an MP company once, and they brought a MK-19 mounted on a Humvee. The recoil was so strong it was pushing the truck backwards as they fired. It was such an awesome sight. Yea, I think there was some weird loophole in the assault weapon ban in the states that allowed you own an automatic rifle as long as you had purchased it before the ban. There's also a handful of miniguns that get passed from collector to collector in the states as well, and they're legal since they were owned before some point in time. I had a friend in Minnesota who got an AK-47. It wasn't an automatic though, only semi-auto. He had to get a license to carry first, which didn't make much sense. What are you going to do? Sling it over your shoulder while you're walking downtown? :lol:

This guy is crazy fast. I know they said he could've run even faster at the Olympics if he hadn't slowed down to showboat. Now he's gone and done it again? I ran long distance in high school, but for fun I ran a 100M in practice and ran like a 14s, so take it from someone who sucks....Bolt was running fast. :lol:

[hide=videos][yt]Ar0_um--LDQ[/yt] [yt]YwjHhJdhY0I[/yt][/hide] [hide=Full Metal Jacket quote]HARTMAN: Do any of you people know who Charles Whitman was? None of you [wagon]es knows? Private Cowboy? COWBOY: Sir, he was that guy who shot all those people from that tower in Austin, Texas, sir! HARTMAN: That's affirmative. Charles Whitman killed twelve people from a twenty-eight-storey observation tower at the University of Texas from distances up to four hundred yards. Anybody know who Lee Harvey Oswald was? Private Snowball? SNOWBALL: Sir, he shot Kennedy, sir! HARTMAN: That's right, and do you know how far away he was? SNOWBALL: Sir, it was pretty far! From that book suppository building, sir! HARTMAN: All right, knock it off! Two hundred and fifty feet! He was two hundred and fifty feet away and shooting at a moving target. Oswald got off three rounds with an old Italian bolt action rifle in only six seconds and scored two hits, including a head shot! Do any of you people know where these individuals learned to shoot? Private Joker? JOKER: Sir, in the Marines, sir! HARTMAN: In the Marines! Outstanding! Those individuals showed what one motivated marine and his rifle can do! And before you ladies leave my island, you will be able to do the same thing![/hide] I love this movie.

I don't know why people are so against Mechscape. Why not associate a new game with one that already has millions of customers, even if you are targeting an older audience? Chances are, there are plenty of Runescape fans that started playing at a young age and grew up. It's not that much of a stretch: World of Warcraft Starcraft Can you spot the similarities? Hard to believe both games were made by the same company, huh? But seriously, aren't we putting too much stock into the name? If the game sucks, it doesn't matter what you call it, it won't make it any better of a game. If the game is good, are you really going to turn away in disgust because of the title at the top? I don't care if it's called Boobies and Beer, if the game rocks then I'm going to play it.

=D> bravo! That was quite an achievement.

You're in the military, and you're approaching the enemy lines. Then you look over and see the guy who will be watching your back crying... I get uncomfortable with women crying around me, let alone men. It really depends on what you are crying about. Children often cry to get attention. It's one of the first forms of communication you learn. For adults, it can sometimes be perceived as "crocodile tears". Imagine if adults cried like babies, uncontrollably and with their entire bodies. ARRRRRRRGGGGG!!!!!! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHGGGGG!!!!! It can make women uncomfortable as men are often seen as a role of security. Men who cry can portray a lack of confidence in themselves, which can be very unattractive. It's no so much about holding in your emotions, but not letting them get the better of you. You don't look in control of yourself while you are crying, and usually you aren't at that moment. Of course, everybody cries sometimes. If I feel I might cry about something I try to do it privately. And that's how I view it: a private moment.

He was never a great QB, but he was an...unconventionally good QB. :lol: I think he's too tall and lanky to play RB. You want someone who can get low with a lot of weight. If he can catch a ball, then I'm wondering why he wasn't playing WR to begin with. I mean, hell, didn't he run a 4.2? Yeah, but he had played in college as a QB and he was drafted as such. And he was in the bottom %50 of passing NFL QBs during his career. Hey, you're preaching to the choir. Atlanta is wondering why the same receivers that were dropping Vick balls are now catching Matt Ryan balls. We both already agree that he makes plays with his legs, not his arm. But don't confuse fast with good. The Vikings had to learn this the hard way with Troy Williamson, the receiver that was supposed to replace Randy Moss. He could run a faster 40 than Moss, but couldn't catch anything. Eagles got a good buy. It adds a new wrinkle to their offense, along with Westbrook who can run and catch. It'll be interesting what interesting what they do with him. Meanwhile, Pete Rose is still banned from baseball. :-k

He was never a great QB, but he was an...unconventionally good QB. :lol: I think he's too tall and lanky to play RB. You want someone who can get low with a lot of weight. If he can catch a ball, then I'm wondering why he wasn't playing WR to begin with. I mean, hell, didn't he run a 4.2?

Wait.. those aren't the important things? :-w :-w These are a few of my favorite things... :-w :-w

I'm just thankful he didn't make it to Minnesota. Here's what I believe. The Eagles took a shot in the dark. They saw a good QB on the clearance rack. If he turns out to be a bust, the Eagles didn't really lose anything, but if he looks great then they got a great deal. Living in the Atlanta area, I've had to watch Vick through most of his years. He makes more highlights with his legs, not his arm. Now, being a Vikings fan with TJack taking snaps, I can't complain about his accuracy. But when I look at the Eagles, I see Vick fitting right in line. Randall Cunningham was a very good scrambler in the 80s. McNabb was a good scrambler; he's older now, but his legs is what set him apart in his early years. The Eagles have a history with using running QBs, and Vick was one of the best at that. I was listening to some announcers last night, and they pointed out how Philly has often been one or two big plays from being Super Bowl champs. Vick has been known to make game-changing plays. He could bring them what they were looking for. If the fans and organization can look beyond his baggage, and Vick can get himself back into playing shape without getting injured, then it might be very interesting to see what happens over these next two years.

I agree. But to be fair, the creator of this thread opened that can of worms in his post. Maybe we should just start over and make a thread for American football fans to hold a discussion.

Even though it's not officially a disorder yet, I believe there will be cases of online addictions. However, I also believe media sources have hyped it up, and the actual number of cases that could classify as an addiction would be very small. On top of that, if you factor out the number of people who already have some underlying mental disorder, you'd probably be left with an even smaller number who could be considered having a social disorder directly linked to online games. To peg online games as dangerous (and not only online games, but MMORPGs specifically?), and that you should "get out whilst you can" is highly irresponsible. This article takes a very extremist point of view in demonizing all online games, comparing it to crack. One of the big problems is the perception of addiction towards online games is very subjective. How much is too much? 5 hours a week? 10? 30? There's no number that can be put on this, because it doesn't matter. Which would show more addictive behavior: a child who blows off his friends after school because he is only allowed to play one hour a night, or somebody else with nothing to do on the weekend who plays 12 hours Saturday and Sunday? And when we hear of someone playing obsessively we automatically think it's a problem. What about somebody who is handicapped, and it's very difficult for them to leave the house? To them, the internet can serve as a healthy social outlet. Are you going to chastise them for being an addict? Another problem with labeling online gamers is you portray them as victims in need of help. Most of the time, you'll find it's their own fault, or the fault of the parents, and the behavior is very, very easy to correct. People who do have problems, you'll often find may already have some social disorders coupled with it, and that the online gaming is a symptom of more serious problems.

I love football, and it's the only major sport where I find the professional league more interesting than the college leagues. I'm a Vikings fan, even though they've managed to break my heart every year. If we can get our QB issues fixed, we'd be a Super Bowl threat.

-Do you have one where you live? No -Have you had experience with it? (either with specialty/emergency care or standard care) Yes, in the military. -Do you think the US should switch to it? Yes. -Why/why not? It probably won't matter. The same fear mongering tactics look like they'll work like they always have in the past with this issue. I laugh when I hear "death panels". That was born out of the "they're going to ration healthcare" farce. Healthcare is already being rationed in this country.

Wow, this didn't get locked or moved yet? Mods are generous today for some reason. Okay, I'm not sure what to say as it's not an old pic, and taken shortly after a skill was released, so it doesn't even show an accurate display of who was actually on top.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...are you trying to tell me that Germans don't binge drink? lmao. Have you even been there? I have. They hold world famous festivals dedicated just for that. I'm not trying to paint a bad picture of them, but they get drunk and belligerent just like the rest of us. Contrary to what some might think, the drinking age has little to do with at what age you can hold your liquor, and more to do with a reflection of cultural attitude towards drinking. Have you forgotten they actually tried to ban alchohol in the US? It led to the rise of mobsters and organized crime. There was also a time in the US when you actually could drink alchohol at 18, but you weren't allowed to vote until you were 21.

Ok, done.

I remember my history prof. bringing this up. I'll say here what I said back then in class: I think there's truth to it, but it's a very narrow way to paint the causes of the American Revolution. But maybe we should go find a history forum to fight about it instead of derailing this thread. :lol: Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule. That's the point. Communism, monarchy, whatever, the point of this country is to provide the pursuit of happiness. How are we supposed to do that if we can't afford to pay for our illness? I'm on your side. I support public healthcare.

[hide=] But secondhand smoke is very unhealthy. That's why they are creating laws making it illegal to smoke in bars and such. You are no longer just putting what you want in your body, you're indirectly putting it in other people's. If you're going to a bar then it's kind of implied that you're going to be inhaling the equivalent of a cigarette about every 10 breaths. If you don't like second-hand then goto non-smoking places, they excist. I don't want to inhale the carbon dioxide your car puts off, maybe they should make laws against driving around other people. That is a ridiculous argument. Where'd you get the fact that a drink is the equivalent of a cigarette? By creating these laws, they created non-smoking areas. And smog is indeed a problem. But you don't inhale any exhaust while driving. [/hide] People who frequent bars are genuinely concerned about what goes in their body. :roll: Why does it have to be government law to prohibit smoking in private establishments? Why can't the owner of a pub make that decision? If s/he chooses to open a nonsmoking establishment, then that should be their decision, and then they can watch all of their business migrate to the smoking pub across the street. And I'm not saying this to be facetious, but how do you manage not to inhale any exhaust fumes sitting in rush hour traffic with hundreds of other cars, but you risk dropping dead of lung cancer from someone smoking a cigarette 20 feet away from you?

Communism didn't exist during this time. Their beef was with the monarchy, and their "divine right" to rule.

Those are some great prizes! I'll be looking forward to seeing the competing videos.

It's right here, Article I, Section 1: They have the power to make law. And here in Article I, Section 8: They have implied powers to make laws necessary to carry out government actions. Now you have to show me in the US Constitution where public healthcare is unconstitutional.

Same here in Bama', it's not such a big deal this time of year but when Winter rolls around it's like torture, I always end up half finishing my cigarettes because I just get too damned cold. Try January in northern Minnesota. I'm glad I don't live there anymore, but I feel sorry for all my drinking buddies.

But Den, you're a... ...and don't ya forget it. ;)

Personally, I find the popups when I open up Tip.It more annoying than that. :-w