Quote from: Cindo on October 22, 2015, 07:46:03 PM

Quote from: HEAT SEEKING GHOST OF SEX on October 22, 2015, 07:36:58 PM

Europe as a whole is fairly diverse, if less so than the US, but no individual european country can match the diversity of any one US state.

Not arguing that, lad, just arguing that the culture on the continent as a whole is

And visitors don't fuckin' count. Germany has high populations of Vietnamese and Turkish immigrants, but I'm not saying that it's got Vietnamese or Turkish culture.

tf lol

europeans from one country to another aren't really more different than Americans from one state to another, and if you don't realize that you've spent too much time in homogenized urban areas.

Do you mean white suburban areas? Because urban areas are where you'll find all of the immigrants and different cultures clashing together.

I mean I know you hate cities and urban areas, but you won't be finding all of those different cultures out in the middle of rural nowhere.

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:25:27 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:17:04 PM

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:14:11 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:08:28 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:05:21 PM

Quote from: spewky bewgie on October 22, 2015, 11:51:24 AM

Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.

Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.

Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.

Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?

The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.

22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.

Yeah, that's what I was referencing.

Not really limited to the right wing. Amendments require a 75% ratification from states (38 states), of which the 1950s were more evenly divided between Republican and Democrat than 2010. It was made a policy by both parties, not just the right.

I said nothing about democrats and republicans. I said right wing. Democrat =/= left wing.

I still don't see how limiting the President's amount of terms is right-wing; it was made to prevent the incumbent from staying for too long, especially given how radically administrations change from president to president. Creating the amendment to promote progress is as much a reason as preventing Authoritarianism (being that they could be considered two sides of the same coin).

It was made to stop a popular left wing candidate from continually being elected and dressed up to look like "progress", kind of like PIPA, SOPA, and the Patriot Act. The top earning percent of Americans absolutely hated FDR for making them pay for WW2 and bail out the economy they ruined and they feared the prospect of having another FDR come up later down the line.

Telling people that they can't vote for who they want because they've been in office to long and forcing them to pick between a bunch of people they don't want isn't progress nor is it democratic. If they really wanted to prevent authoritarianism they would have set term limits across the board and them both for the senate and supreme court. However then they'd have to give up their cushy jobs as senators and representatives where they're able to vote to give themselves pay raises and they wouldn't be able to dictate the law of the land for 60+ years with their justice nominations.

And honestly, if term limits are going to be a thing they're needed on those two branches more than they are on the executive one. Good luck getting congress to give up unlimited terms though.

If you're really worried about getting a similar situation that we currently have with congress (where as in some states it's impossible to beat the incumbents because they just so much money that you'd burn out your own cash reserves trying to compete) you could solve that through campaign finance reform and allocate the same amount of money to every candidate that runs. Thus preventing what are essentially election buy outs (like what happened when the tea party took power).

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:28:01 PM

Quote from: Nexus on October 22, 2015, 12:23:10 PM

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:22:21 PM

looking 4 best friend

please apply

will pay well i promise

Let's be best friends.

post your resume

I am great bestfriend.

anything more substantial?

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:14:11 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:08:28 PM

Quote from: Prime Megaten on October 22, 2015, 12:05:21 PM

Quote from: spewky bewgie on October 22, 2015, 11:51:24 AM

Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.

Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.

Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.

Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?

The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.

22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.

Yeah, that's what I was referencing.

Not really limited to the right wing. Amendments require a 75% ratification from states (38 states), of which the 1950s were more evenly divided between Republican and Democrat than 2010. It was made a policy by both parties, not just the right.

I said nothing about democrats and republicans. I said right wing. Democrat =/= left wing.

Quote from: LC on October 22, 2015, 12:13:48 PM

Quote from: Big Boss on October 22, 2015, 11:58:33 AM

Quote from: Endork on October 22, 2015, 11:52:10 AM

tfw John cena is a weeb

Liking Fist of the North Star doesn't make you a weeb. It's a manime. You can't be a weeb if you're into manime.

John Cena likes this. He even appeared in it.

Watching anime is one of his favorite hobbies dude.

The hell is that


I wonder if he likes Hetalia

Don't know, never watched it. I just know he was in it.

Quote from: Endork on October 22, 2015, 11:52:10 AM

tfw John cena is a weeb

Liking Fist of the North Star doesn't make you a weeb. It's a manime. You can't be a weeb if you're into manime.

John Cena likes this. He even appeared in it.

Watching anime is one of his favorite hobbies dude.

no

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 11:36:33 PM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 21, 2015, 10:43:39 PM

Quote from: Tackel on October 21, 2015, 10:20:45 PM

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 09:22:51 PM

Vader wasn't even the strongest in both movie canon and the EU so I'm not seeing why that's a negative. Being the one that's supposed to balance the force doesn't mean being the most powerful being ever.

He is now. More powerful than Sheev at least. Anakin would have been to most powerful force wielder in the galaxy had he not lost all his limbs and was burned. That's from the man George Lucas himself.

Quote

Both Luke and old man obi matched the power of his robo limbs so I'm not seeing the issue.

Vader didn't want to kill Luke and Vader was playing with his food with Obi-wan.

Vader can easily overpower his enemies.

YouTube

Quote

I'm not seeing how it's sideways retarded to use the secret apprentice to draw out the leaders of the rebellion and capture them, but ok.

Sheev: K lol, captured rebels. Gonna talk and brag instead of killing u k?

*rebels escape*

Sheev: all according to plan, amirite Vader? lol go hunt them down and never kill them even though we know who they are and they are public officials of the senate and could use their public lives against them. k.

Vader: lol k mastur, gonna go clone that guy that was super stronger than us, cuz sith always want a threat to their power. talk to you l8r.

Quote

The gameplay was solid

I love how the OT emphasizes that the Force is something beyond the physical, and then the PT states that Vader is less powerful because he doesn't have any limbs, lol. It makes sense in regards to force lightning but the ability to use force lightning doesn't dictate if you're the most powerful or not. Vader js supposed to be powerful, I'd argue among the most powerful. However, I must say the "Chosen One"/Vader is space Jesus thing is so retarded. He didn't have to be the most powerful of all or the center of some grand prophecy.

You're correct in regards to Vader toying with Luke and Obi-Wan and being perfectly capable of defeating them quickly.

I like how you're using new canon in a discussion about how TFU fits into old canon.

Sidious toyed with people a lot and had his plans backfire because of it multiple times. I'm not seeing how this is out of character for him. Also assassinating rebel leaders and covering it up is a lot better than publicly outing them, letting them speak, and showing that the rebellion had a lot more traction and power than the empire was letting on.

I'm not talking about TFU. I'm just talking about how stupid it is that Vader losing his limbs makes him significantly less powerful.


Ugh, the prequels just ruin everything.

I herped and thought both you and tackles posts were the same.  My bad.

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 09:14:03 PM

Nothing I said was a nitpick. Those are all major issues with this response. You can't refute someone who's making an argument with I don't like your opinion, pointing out an extremely minor thing that does absolutely nothing to address the point the other party is making, and using your imagination to prove yourself right.

It's a 109 page response. So yes, you picking out that one small thing in his rebuttal is just as much nitpicking as is him picking out Stoklasa's mistake with the timing of when Anakin shows up. Like I said, it's all subjective, which you've clearly just proven.

Quote

He goes into detail on some things to explain why Plinkett is wrong. A lot of that information and characterization isn't made in the movies.

Yes it is? I've never read any EU about Qui-Gon Jin, and all the characterizations the person lists are in the movie if you actually watch it. Same with Padme and Anakin. All of his examples that he uses are from the movies.

Quote

Also using Qui-Gons role as a father figure to explain why the people who couldn't describe him without using his profession, looks, costume, or role only proves Plinkett right.

 Something tells me you didn't actually read this and just skimmed, as that's not the point the author was making. Yes he said idolized father figure, as a lead into the examples that could be used. However, it was not an example itself. Reading comprehension skills come in handy.

None of those are small things, they're the basis of his every counter point. Pointing out the flaws in the basis of someone's argument isn't a bit pick. That's not me nitpicking, that's you in denial.

Yes that's a redundant paragraph , but it needs to be stated multiple times because you seem to be in just as much denial as the author.

No, none of those things were in the movie, your view of it is distorted due to having these things explained to you at some point. When I watch adaptations of things I've read I'm easily able to fill in the gaps and pick up on subtleties that people who haven't read the source material wouldn't. Sure I can claim that they weren't paying attention and if they were they'd know everything about the story. However realistically without some form of prior or expanded knowledge about either the source material or the universe the audience will not pick up on these things and this is a failure on the part of the crew that made and produced it. However it's not quite the same since the novels were made to fix the glaring problems in TPM and it wasn't a movie adaptation that assumed you were familiar with the source material.

And no I didn't miss the point of his argument because he didn't have one. Head canon, outside information, and deliberately breaking to rules to infer things that were never inferred in the film does not refute the point Plinkett was making. Using material that isn't in the movie defeats the point of the game. Qui-Gons backstory is not in that movie at all, yet the author is making points based off of it. There were no deep hidden meanings amongst that flat dialogue in the films. But I'm sorry, when qui-gon tells someone good job it means he's a kind hearted trusting, and responsible man who's only looking to provide the best possible future for his "children" and not just some common thing to say when someone succeeds. Yeah it's an exaggeration and sounds silly, but that's what this author is doing.

Small additional point, but the author also keeps using material from later movies to show that Padme has a character in TPM. That doesn't work when we focus on a single movie. The author might have justified this somewhere in his incoherent bitching about how everyone who dislikes TPM is stupid and wrong and dumb because of one of the random friends saying that  Han was a womanizer in a segment that was about those characters in general and not a specific movie, but I'll be honest I tend to tune out whiny man babies that cry over a drop of spilled milk.

Sure the author is saying that he didn't read the EU until after watching TPM and understood all of this on his first watch through, but considering none of that characterization is actually in the movie it's hard to believe his claims. I mean i can claim that I'm actually George Lucas cause this is the internet and you can't verify that what I'm saying isn't true.

You and the author can continue to use things that weren't in the movie to justify your views if you want, but it doesn't actually refute the video Plinkett made and until you do there really isn't much to talk about. I don't really have an interest in discussing this with people who continue to break the rules of the game in order to win.

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 08:59:30 PM

Quote from: Tackel on October 21, 2015, 08:41:25 PM

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 07:47:10 PM

Quote from: Tackel on October 21, 2015, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 07:37:02 PM

A person in this thread is actually shilling for the removal of Kyle.

Shiggidydiggirydoo

Muh Valley of the Jedi that granted force super powers.

Kyle Katarn was a great guy, but was a in a shitty story which used game mechanics to write rule for the Star Wars universe. Worse than Force Unleashed.

TFU 1 wasn't even bad.

Having weird moments in the EU doesn't mean you have to remove a character. Just cut out the post OT shit since none of it exists anymore and get rid of the wonky stuff that exists before and during it.

That way you get to keep an established fan favorite character without having it mess with your new timeline.

>TFU 1 wasn't even bad

It wasn't. Sorry you didn't like it, but it wasn't bad.

Also

>linking a chan image

Just wait until that 404s.

It's on the archive.

As for TFU:
>Super duper secret apprentice
>Is more powerful than the chosen one
>Easily took down Sheev without breaking a sweat
>Easily matched the strength of Darth Vader's robotic limbs
>Only redeeming quality is the forming of the alliance plot
>Forming of alliance plot implies that Sheev is sideways retarded, which completely contradicts his character

Only autismo kids think that game was good. It's the same group of people who jerk off to their shrine of Karen Travis and have statues of "muh true mandolorians".

Vader wasn't even the strongest in both movie canon and the EU so I'm not seeing why that's a negative. Being the one that's supposed to balance the force doesn't mean being the most powerful being ever.

Both Luke and old man obi matched the power of his robo limbs so I'm not seeing the issue.

I'm not seeing how it's sideways retarded to use the secret apprentice to draw out the leaders of the rebellion and capture them, but ok.

The gameplay was solid and offered a bit of replayability. Not $60 worth, but it wasn't bad. Sorry you didn't like it.

Karen Travisty is trash.

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 07:47:10 PM

Quote from: Tackel on October 21, 2015, 07:39:37 PM

Quote from: LC on October 21, 2015, 07:37:02 PM

A person in this thread is actually shilling for the removal of Kyle.

Shiggidydiggirydoo

Muh Valley of the Jedi that granted force super powers.

Kyle Katarn was a great guy, but was a in a shitty story which used game mechanics to write rule for the Star Wars universe. Worse than Force Unleashed.

TFU 1 wasn't even bad.

Having weird moments in the EU doesn't mean you have to remove a character. Just cut out the post OT shit since none of it exists anymore and get rid of the wonky stuff that exists before and during it.

That way you get to keep an established fan favorite character without having it mess with your new timeline.

>TFU 1 wasn't even bad

It wasn't. Sorry you didn't like it, but it wasn't bad.

Also

>linking a chan image

Just wait until that 404s.

Still waiting on Plinkett to be refuted.

So at what point does this refute Plinkett? I'm 20 pages in and so far this is "waaaaah I don't like Plinkett cause he said bad things about my favorite movie", nitpicking "ANAKIN COMES IN AT 32 MINUTES NOT 45 PLINKETTS ArGUEMENTS ARE INVALID" and "my head canon says this so it must be true".

Oh and there's the whole bit where he's using knowledge gained from the books to explain things that weren't explained very well or not at all in the movie. Which ignores a big point of the dissection.

Your movie shouldnt have to explain what's going on in it in a bunch of outside material.  If it has to, you have a big problem on your hands.


Another edit, but I just realized he completely skipped over the point of Plinkett explaining what a protagonist is and dismisses it as a bunch if nonsense showing showing off a bunch of teenagers and young adults that people are supposed to identify with and root for.

Holy shit this is hilarious. I hope the title of this thing is referencing the author because this is like 109 pages of fanboy denial.

Still waiting on Plinkett to be refuted.

Jesus fuck, I can't fathom having to create custom modes using nothing but the game type edit menu. What the hell did we ever do in CE and 2 for custom games before 3 came along?

I can't possibly have fun in custom games without forge for a whole month.