Jump to content
Due to the significant updates that have taken place, you now need to login with your display name or e-mail address, NOT your login name. ×
Due to posts that are 5+ years old being rebuilt, some of the older BBCodes may not have converted properly but still be in the post. Most posts are unaffected but some using what was our custom BBCode (like [spoiler]) will be a bit broken. ×

TrueBeaver

Members
  • Content Count

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About TrueBeaver

  • Rank
    Unicorn Horn

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

RuneScape Information

  • RuneScape Status
    None
  • RSN
  • Clan Details
    Red Blade Hunters
  1. A good promotion in my eyes :thumbsup:
  2. Full Out SST vs. Downfall Chivalry Legions vs. Dragonwood Natural Born Killers vs. Runite Knights of Finland RuneScape Dinasty vs. Wilderland Luso Brazilian Clan Crimson Raiders vs. Forsaken Pure Hatred vs. Elite Assassins Goldr Titans vs. The Titans Red Blade Hunters vs. Final Ownage Elite -- olawd. should be fun Sorrow of Knights vs. Apocalypse Slayers Rune Raiders vs. The Brazilian Kings Violent Resolution vs. Titans Revolution Reign of Terror vs. Austrailian Army Poison vs. Divine Forces Way of War vs. Brutality 20v20 Thunder in the Sky vs. Crimson Raiders True 0wnage vs. TRWF Red Blade Hunters vs. Natural Born Killers -- Should be an awesome match. The Titans vs. Sorrow of Knights Cheer Up vs. The Rising Ascension vs. Wilderland Chivalry Legions vs. Dutch Generation Australian Army vs. Elite Assassins A lot of good match ups, good luck everyone.
  3. Congrats on your win CR, impressive to say the least :thumbup:
  4. At least someone in that clan has a sense of humor (whoever signed up United Skillers for a Combat Cup). QFC: 281-282-73-63060299
  5. RBH #1? A lot of good matchups in the 20v20 Didn't bother looking up all those clans so yeah.
  6. TrueBeaver

    Tanning

    The sun causes cancer. I'd rather stay inside and play Runescape all day.
  7. Or, you know, it could be that Americans think America's budget spends 27% on foreign aid: Source Yes, those damned Europeans! Spending their money on things like college, health care, child care and assistance to the poor! Why can't they be real men and spend money on guns and bullets like us! Lol, what a bs argument. So because fewer percent of the population is participating in the armed forces -- which is because we don't have a draft, we have a growing population, infant mortality is going down thus we have higher longevity, etc -- that means we're spending less on the military than ever before? We're spending more on the military now than at any point in time in pure physical dollars, and we're not fighting wars of self-defense but wars of aggression and imperialism. Spending more than the entire world combined isn't enough for you? That source doesn't say that the program is better than ending farm subsidies. It just says that Bush's AIDS program was better and more funded than Obama's. So either find a new source, or make a different argument...like, "Bush's AIDS program was better for Africa than Obama's." I find this arguable. I do not find it arguable that Bush's foreign aid program was better by the simple fact that Obama removed the Gag Rule, and isn't promoting abstinence. However, both are failures on terms of foreign aid because of local politicians in the Dakotas and Midwest who never want agricultural subsidies cut. These keep food prices artificially low and African farmers cannot compete. But I guess in your zeal for partisanship for quite possibly the worst president in recent memory, you had to find and exploit his one good spot: his AIDS program. edit: LOL! Look what I found this morning on my feed when I woke up: U.S. trucking contracts funded Taliban, source says Can we leave Afghanistan and Iraq now? My apologies, I posted that while incredibly drunk and I don't even know what I'm talking about part of the time l0l. I agree that we can easily cut down on defense spending, for example by closing foreign bases, but significant cuts are not wise nor pragmatic. I posted on another topic the breakdown of our defense spending and there's maybe 15% maximum, which includes R&D which arguably increases GDP multiple times over what we spend on it. But aid will not solve any problems in Africa. You're right in pointing out that there are additional factors that cause our military strength as percent of population to be low, but then you go on about "pure physical dollars" which are likewise a result of inflation. Also, wars of imperialism? Please. Don't know what caused me to post that link about the AIDS program, to be honest, but I agree with you that we should stop subsidies. My "zeal for partisanship"? Laughable. Again, I apologize for not making any sense.
  8. Why should we force corporations to use domestic labor if foreign labor is more viable? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY It's because the Pentagon is essentially another arm of government. A few other reasons: 1.) War is profitable for private businesses, and because we elect individuals rather than parties, it's more expensive to run a campaign in America. This leads to dependence on a lot of funds to continue to win reelection. 2.) The MIC placed its tentacles in every single Congressional District. So if you cut a piece of military spending, you're potentially removing jobs from that part of America. A major part of our economy is built around war. 3.) Once the Cold War ended, its power was so strong that it was unlikely to go anywhere and needed new enemies; dictators in the ME and terrorism continue to give itself fuel. 4.) High level of respect among Americans for military. Not only do Americans not think the military is too powerful, they think it should be more powerful than it already is: This means that no matter what people say about defense spending or the deficit, it will in practice be extremely difficult for mere politicians to ever win an argument with generals and admirals. Oh, and Americans do not care about "perspective" or starving people in Africa. Every poll shows Americans' ignorance about our budget, and that the one thing they want to cut more than anything else is foreign aid http://www.gallup.com/poll/145790/americans-oppose-cuts-education-social-security-defense.aspx It's not about perspective, it's about Heritage's desire for lower taxes on rich people. End of story. We'd give more aid to Africa if I had my way (and end agriculture subsidies, which contribute far more to African poverty than anything they do on their own); in fact, I was planning to join the Peace Corps after graduation but was forced out due to budget cuts. Or, you know, it could because foreign aid is a fallacious means of "charity". And that the other members of NATO don't fulfill their obligations so we must match their inadequacies. In fact the current US Military force is the "weakest" it has been since World War Two. Source Further, wouldn't George W. Bush's AIDS program be better for the continent of Africa than some subsidies here and there? Source What I don't understand is why no one can be bothered to create a different thread to discuss the U.S.'s military budget. Imagine you create a thread about chocolate, and how you'd like to debate whether tootsie rolls can be considered chocolate or not. Then, your opponent starts to argue that tootsie rolls are chocolate, and that your position on the inclusion of marshmallows in the list of gummy candies is absolutely wrong, and it makes your argument on chocolate less valid. I'm not discussing the U.S. military budget here because it has very little to do with the Census Bureau's definition of poverty, or the way the U.S. gives aid to people. If you want to discuss the U.S.'s military budget, I suggest you create a different thread instead of mucking this one up. You make statements that you are against taking from the rich to help the poor but you support taking from the rich to pay for a military. In my opinion the military itself is a welfare program, thus I personally agree with anyone saying it is relevant to this thread Source: tl;dr: republicans hate any government spending that isnt for god (you know the republicans goal of making a Christian version of Shariah law for America) and guns (military so we can "liberate" moar countries and doesnt afraid of anything). Of course I agreed with the general thing you started this thread with however you are among the many hypocrites who preach this so I dislike the person saying this not the central point. Libertarianism is better. They agree with the "tea partiers" on economic points but also are for individual freedom like abortion rights, ending drug prohibition, etc. I must admit, I laughed. Surely you don't think all, or most, Republican policies are for religion and that we allow citizens to bear arms to liberate other countries? If you do, I insist you excuse me from considering your opinion on related policies relevant. I am interested, however, in how the right for me to own a handgun is relevant to people much braver and more virtuous than I serving in Iraq or Afghanistan or how fiscal discipline is related to any Christian text.
  9. Nice job CR :thumbsup: Gotta love the oldschool box by PH tho
  10. Thanks for the fight, I enjoyed it.
  11. Grats Poison, not much they could do outnumbered like that but still an impressive victory.
  12. I think that's fair. Hopefully we can have a rematch sometime that's cleaner.
  13. Ur Enemy has been RBH for like 4 years, he should be on the retired memberlist since he's an inactive phaggot. Not sure why he isn't. Same thing with iflame, except even longer than Enemy. He ragequits and rejoins so often there was probably a mix-up with the memberlist for him. Dclaw is the account of someone in RBH but apparently it isn't on the memberlist and it was his brother on it, so we kicked him from friend chat after finding out. That account didn't war either round. Viz is a longtime friend of ours and attends lots of our events so I, and probably others, didn't even think anything of it when he was there. I apologize for that, must've thought that round 2 was friends-allowed rather than just round 3. Although, I doubt his presence would've had much of an impact considering... Your turn: [sun 12 - 23:11:41] @TrueBeaver : .clan ka t [sun 12 - 23:11:42] • [Notice-Private] [DA]RuneScript ([email protected]) : *** [ CLAN ]: Ka T was not found in the RSHSC. [sun 12 - 23:12:21] @TrueBeaver : .clan lemantation [sun 12 - 23:12:23] • [Notice-Private] [DA]RuneScript ([email protected]) : *** [ CLAN ]: Lemantation is in 3 clans. First 2 clans: All WG ever 2, Destiny | URL: http://runehead.com/clans/search.php?search=lemantation [sun 12 - 23:14:41] @TrueBeaver : .clan joey sh0tz [sun 12 - 23:14:42] • [Notice-Private] [DA]RuneScript ([email protected]) : *** [ CLAN ]: Joey Sh0tz was not found in the RSHSC. Lemantation looks like their old clan might be slow removing them or something, although I find that difficult to believe since they have High Council rank. Maybe it's a team? Not sure. Third round was agreed to NOT be a tiebreaker. It has no bearing on the fight. We have logs from both sides saying that. You had 15 people when the timer ran out so that's what we matched. edit: you explained on RSC.
  14. Grats True Ownage, looks like a pretty solid victory especially coming back.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.