Don't forget to simp for women's issues or you will be banned from here too.
So you'd rather get soft-soaped by Scotty from Marketing? Or perhaps get a handy from Albo before he heads off to his next meeting with literal socialists?
Perhaps you want a return to the good old days of Howard?
Revive huh? Is that what all that grunting and sweating is?
Bethesda made Fallout 3, which introduced FPS to the franchise and the "insert headshot here" VATS mechanic.
They then threw it to Obsidian Entertainment, who were veterans of RPG Development.
There was a division of labor in the contract. Bethesda would do testing and QA and submit bug reports to Obsidian for fixes.
Part of the contract was that Obsidian would receive a substantial bonus if New Vegas received a certain aggregated review score. I think it was 80%, but you can check.
The game was well received by critics, but they docked a few points for the massive number of bugs, which were unquestionably Bethesda's fault due to shitty testing and QA.
When hit up for the bonus, Bethesda laughed in Obsidian's face.
Isn't it traditional for Antonio to ban Imp in these threads? What do we do instead?
If the government are smart, they will give the economic migrants a chance to riot, use their grenades and burn some cars.
Put it all over TV and use it as an excuse for a crackdown.
Any economic migrant who is not a citizen can be deported for crimes of violence, which include rioting.
Bam, huge groundswell of public support.
The reality is: Enforce the law; then when the riot happens roll in the military and arrest all the rioters and deport them too.
Remember, when the process of arrest begins it either ends in arrest or death. It has to be that way to prevent escalating violence to be a free-pass to unlimited criminality.
That said, I don't think that Sweden has the political will to enforce their own laws.
Women are optimized for different functions.
For example the pelvis of women allows them to give birth to babies with larger skulls (which is great for babies) but at the sacrifice of leg strength, due to leverage.
Women (in general) have a higher percentage of body fat to lean muscle; This allows them to have the energy reserves to (more often) carry a healthy baby to term with an uncertain food supply.
Women are phytologically different, in ways that make them much more likely to love and care for children and they needy; which optimizes them to raise an incredibly demanding baby to independence.
Men are fantastically motivated to make women happy. Men went to the moon basically to impress ladies and have children. Men run down antelope in their bare feet because someone told them it impresses chicks.
Thank you Antonio. I am going to say that this answer is definitive.
I think we are failing to utilize a powerful resource at our disposal.
I am lead to believe that Antonio is both a faggot and an aficionado of dudes with boobs.
Antonio, are you less gay when you are sucking the cock of a guy in a skirt?
If I played baseball, I would name my team the Cassowaries.
You guys laugh about Emus, but they are not even in the top three meanest birds down here.
At the moment Hamas uses dumb fire (rockets built with hardware store materials) and heavy morter shells.
I don't know how much the Iron Dome rockets cost, but Hamas seems to have figured out about "war of attrition".
Look buddy, the mandates killed MEN. We don't give a shit about those.
Drug overdose, suicide, vaccine side effects all effect predominantly men.
Besides old people respond much better to FUD! As a demographic they are much more easily manipulated.
So a bunch of young men died? Nothing of value was lost.
At the end of the day Canada is in the control of the right kind of people, and they are making sure that the important interests are protected.
This is all functioning as planned, and you should be grateful for that.
I point out that they don't have this kind of problem in Switzerland.
Coincidently Switzerland is famous for having the toughest immigration policy in the world. Easy to visit, impossible to stay.
It is almost like it was predictable what might happen if Iran got access to money!
Assuming she is true to her name. Why on earth would a Majewski lend their political support to a Muslim?
I mean, at that point just buy Hamas a Starbucks pumpkin spice late.
Admit it. You just miss the steroids era.
Did you even ask her pronouns, bigot?
Or he was a poor AF writer (or something) and NYC rents are bonkers.
Leftists think that activism is more important than money. They live dirt poor so they can work harder on activism. Look at all the comic writers for the Big Two (DC and Marvel), they alternate between crowing about how they are changing the world and begging for money to pay their utilities or buy a sandwich.
Guy, we can't even convince people not to pre-order.
It is transactional. Lean into being a whore.
Cool!
Want to buy a bridge? We are going to start construction on it any day now. I'll need actual gold though. You will have plenty when your asteroid gets here.
Yeah, okay. Now show that it is a causal link to the decline of relationships and the increase of failed relationships.
Personally I think you will have a better time showing that Tinder has profoundly changed the behavior of women. I guess that makes it harder to tell men that the deserve to be alone?
Press X to doubt.
You still haven't done anything other than make nonsensical assertions.
You have no evidence that "strong relationships" remain. Divorce rate is at an all time high. Something like 70% over a 40 year marriage. Are 40 year marriages strong? Because 70% of them fail to get that far.
How can you tell that "people who would not be happy in a relationship" are no longer seeking them? Do you have a secret test or method that looks into the future to judge total possible happiness? Or is your assertion meaningless and without any kind of basis? I am thinking the second one.
So no only are you confusing correlation with causation, you are making claims for which there is no possible proof or even fucking supporting evidence!
So lets count your logical fallacies, shall we?
-
Ad hoc post ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this): You conclude that Men Use Porn, therefore they Are not seeking relationships. A causal link.
-
Non sequitur (it does not follow): Strong relationships are unaffected by porn. Fucking prove it, mate.
-
Non sequitur (it does not follow): "People who would not be happy in a relationship no longer seek them." Is that an axiom? A religious belief? What possible evidence could prove or disprove this statement? It is not even wrong!
I mean, I am sympathetic that you have an untestable hypothesis as an attempt to explain social ills and the decline of committed relationships. I am just surprised at the utter confusion of thinking that has lead you to such a conclusion.
I especially like the way you casually throw all the blame for the current situation on porn-addicted men who "would not be happy in a relationship". This is a very special blend of Social Darwinism and blaming men. I mean, there is no point in addressing the situation if those guys would never be happy anyway.
Oh, and bonus points for being rude. Well done guy! If you are failing to bring any facts to a discussion, always get insulting. It will be sure to grant victory! Well done! I mean, what kind of fucker asks you to actually justify your claims with facts or logic? Am I rite?
Have a great day.
There is no other court that can hear matters between states. If the SCOTUS won't hear it, then there is no other recourse but armed conflict.
This single refusal to hear a case is enough to have the court abolished (I am pretty sure the POTUS can do it) and replaced by something else which is then DIRECTED to hear matters between states on every occasion.
BTW I don't see why there are so few SCOTUS judges. It isn't like there are few cases; Perhaps they are too busy legislating from the bench to notice that they are not actually a functioning court?