Life

And killing for survival? If I require meat to survive, I can kill, correct?Have you ever heard of the idea of culling a population? I learned about this after the Cecil thing (dicks out for Cecil and Harambe). Animals can actually destroy other populations or themselves if their population isn't kept in check.

I firmly disagree with a lot of this.I know that Putin is the strongman in Asia. But he is going to offset SA and Qutar because they are funding ISIS. The irony here for me is that Russia much prefers Israel to SA/Qatar. Proof? Russia was just kicked off the UNHRC. But the Saudis? Hell no, they still have their seat. In any case, Israel sits in a good spot without US intervention. That's my view as an Israeli. Now if I was American, my first thought is that war with Russia causes MAD. The USA can bomb Moscow and Russia will bomb Washington DC. Both will perish. I'm not saying that appeasement is the answer. Sudetenland is proof of appeasement not working. But I would start spending on defence and eliminate bad programs in order to free up money.

This is a fair position in my book.I have many problems with Trump, both policy-wise and character-wise. But even so, Hillary has sold diplomatic favours as SoS. You can't expect me to believe that she won't as president. She is beholden to Saudi Arabia and Qatar because they pay her money. What, do you really think that they're giving money to a charity because they feel bad for people? Add in the authoritarian left and I see civil war brewing with the POTUS inciting it. This is the fall of Rome in real time. There is a certain course of history that follows republics.

I'm going to return this back to the topic at hand. When I say I support Trump, it is not because I like him. In fact, (as Raven correctly pointed out before) I had even gotten off the Trump train because I do not condone what he said on the bus with Billy Bush. But I went back to Trump after the final debate. There were things that Trump said that were truth to power when he spoke about the sheer amount of corruption. We know that she is corrupt and takes money from corporations and foreign governments in return for favours. We know the DNC rigged the primary in favour of Hillary Clinton so that Bernie wouldn't have a chance (he wouldn't have won but it would have been a fair delegation). We know that there is media collusion between the campaign and the mainstream media (CNN and MSNBC are the big ones). She knows this. So why the fuck was she laughing up on stage when Trump pointed out her corruption? Because it won't derail her presidency bid and she knows this. She speaks the SJW language to a T by equating anyone who disagrees with to a deplorable. Proof? Cykes-dono proved it here. This is why I am terrified of a Clinton presidency. It is the rise of the authoritarian left.

You're contradicting yourself.All laws are enforced at the end of a gun. That is the nature of the law. It can only be enforced with force. It is acceptable to destroy a business because you disagree with the owner on his views as long as you do not resort to violence. But jail? That is what dictators do. Do I dislike anti-semites? Absolutely. Do they deserve to be physically silenced? Never unless they directly call to violence. I can't believe that I actually have to say this.

Yes, but I would never want to jail anyone who calls me a kike.This is the fundamental difference between us. You like using a gun much more than me. The difference is that you want to silence opposition. That is antithetical to the Constitution. You quite literally are a trans-supremicist.

So as long as I agree with you, I'm allowed to speak my mind? Because I don't agree with you on anything.Remind me why I am literally Hitler again. Because this is far more totalitarianistic than anything I have ever said.

I think you missed the point that I was making about Snowden.Nowhere did I say that he was a hero. Nor did I imply it (and I think you're making that assumption but correct me if I'm wrong). What I said was simply that Snowden pulled back the curtain on the US government in exposing the fact that it no longer believes that it is answerable to the people.

Until two weeks ago, I wouldn't have. But now that Bill C-16 is at the Canadian Senate, I have a serious grievence against a community that believes that they have the right to resort to violence and intimidation against vocal dissent because the bill infringes on free speech.So right now, I don't like the Toronto transgender community. Blame Smugglypuff.

Thanks for the compliment, baby. ;)Quick question. Have you ever met me?

Oh, I am absolutely biased. But I'm not a "fan" of Trump. I am simply supporting him because I believe that it is for the good of the republic that Hillary Clinton not win. Otherwise, I see Rome the US empire crumbling. In other news, the Weiner strikes back. God, the Wikileaks email thing is glorious.

The epitome of being a Bills fan.I honestly can't find an way to say that this sentence is objectively false in any way.

I think that you're bringing a weak argument to the table, eclipse. I'm disappointed, you're better than that.Just because I see the government as inherently prone to making mistakes doesn't mean that I don't believe in the need for government. Security of the state is one of the primary functions of government, as an example. But there is a clear difference between security and ignoring search & seizure rights. Just like the government does not have the right to take away my property for whatever reason with no due process, I am not obliged to provide them with my cyber security details. If I choose to work with a private contractor instead because they have a monetary incentive to keep my information secure, them failing means that they will lose money and go bankrupt. It is private security corperations rather than the government who have more of a moral duty to uphold my security because of the power of my dollar. If I take my dollar elsewhere because I do not trust the services, the company then fails. The government isn't beholden to the individual the same way private enterprises are because there is no incentive for them to put in their best effort. They may do so regardless but it is far from assured. As for why, it is because technology is changing at a massive rate. Less than 10 years ago, we weren't carrying around microcomputers in our pockets. To adapt, one of the things to be discussed is the idea of microchips which has both its virtues and its faults.

Holding AJ Green to 26 yards may sound impressive but he it is not indicative of how good the CB is in general. You need to look at the whole game in context. Where were the Bengals starting with the ball. What was the situation with the pass rush? Was there a better match-up on the field? Was the run game working? Ana, you take too much stock in numbers without looking at the context.

I think that Snowden and also WikiLeaks show that the US government has forgotten what the role of government really is. It also tells me that the government believes that the people are beholden to it when it is really the other way round. Security is absolutely profitable. Just because a company can get hacked doesn't mean the government can't. The only difference is that the company has a vested interest in wanting my information as secure as possible.

They can't because it would violate the 4th amendment. Search and seizure laws. That is exactly why it should be privatized because a private company would want to keep that information confidential in order to sell more units (their self-interest in wanting profits keeps my info secure).

So I'll explain the concept of C3 (Raven, correct me if I make a mistake).Cover 3 is a zone based defense where there are 3 defensive backs playing around 10~15 yards back of the LoS. You can have a cornerback who drops into zone coverage, a nickelback or an extra safety (I guess ILBs can also do this too in theory but it sounds silly) is how that is done and usually there are two LBs lining up as a result (if it is a CB dropping, you can still field 3). It's a zone defense that works well when the intermediate/long pass game is on fire but the underneath routes usually open up as a result. A good QB can usually run to his checkdown route which is a great option.

Guardian's decision. The issue of privacy is another one and that's why I would prefer that this sector is entirely privatized. But first and foremost, I am accepting of a parent's choice to partake or not because they are the legal guardian of the child until age 18.

Yeah, forgot to mention pass rush. Bills were getting penetration that season with only 4 in pretty much every game. ​Aside from that, you covered everything I missed. I personally don't like the BDB philosophy but it's a personal opinion (I love corner and safety blitzes and BDB doesn't allow for it). As you said, it's based a lot on personel in the defense and offense but a good implementation will be very effective for keeping games tight at the very least.

The Bills also ran a 4-3 Cover 2 defense a few years ago on a BDB philosophy and ended up getting the most sacks in the league (technically it was a Cover 2 but you'd see a LB drop back far into intermediate coverage every now and then). BDB defenses only work when you know that you can pin the opposing offense deep and have about 40 yards or so to work with. It's not that it's ineffective but it relies on an offense that can at least get to midfield on any given series.

Civilization 6 is a work of art. So glad I pre-ordered it. Getting used to the style slowly.

#1 NT #1 RB #1 SS (fucking dirty ass hit from Jarvis Landry) #1/2/3 WR That's a hell of an injury bug. I have no sympathy for your Titans. None.Especially because of that postseason.

The problem is that Goodell is thinking equity (if you ask me). I think he's saying that because the Bengals have been screwed so much in their history that I should give them a break. Meanwhile, the Patriots have had incredible success and other teams need to be given a chance. So therefore, a Bengals player gets a lighter punishment than a Patriots player, despite the discrepancies in actions. Brady's actions come down to compromising the integrity of the game and if you believe that he did. Burfict compromises the health of a player. In my mind, there's no doubt that Burfict needs to be suspended for at least a year if not permanently. But Goodell is also factoring in the commercial side.

Auston freaking Matthews. He's going to make Leafs fans insufferable.

I'm down for a year long suspesion regarding Burfict. Especially since I think that he will target Shady. That was nasty. Even to the Pats who I don't mind playing when they're banged up.