This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - big sponge
Pages: 1 ... 247248249 250251 ... 394
7441
« on: March 17, 2015, 03:15:47 AM »
...That is unless you were joking. I thought he said Asshole too at first, but to be sure I turned on subtitles to check.
I have no idea how people confuse this line. Keith David is speaking pretty clearly.
I mean... Subtitles are cool too
You confused it didn't you Squidward?
No, I'm just saying; playing without subtitles is heresy
There are only certain games that I play with subtitles. And those are ones that have been modded and certain new NPCs don't have voice actors.
7442
« on: March 17, 2015, 03:12:44 AM »
Pfft, noobs.
Someone found an exploit...
Or it's shopped.
Cause you know, the font is different.
No it's real. I know what he did to do it. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Each droplet is 5 points Deci. You can't have a score that isn't a multiple of 5.
You can change the number to anything. Even words. Look at my most recent post.
7443
« on: March 17, 2015, 03:06:38 AM »
...That is unless you were joking. I thought he said Asshole too at first, but to be sure I turned on subtitles to check.
I have no idea how people confuse this line. Keith David is speaking pretty clearly.
I mean... Subtitles are cool too
You confused it didn't you Squidward?
7444
« on: March 17, 2015, 03:03:48 AM »
Pfft, noobs.
Someone found an exploit...
Or it's shopped.
Cause you know, the font is different.
No it's real. I know what he did to do it. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Each droplet is 5 points Deci. You can't have a score that isn't a multiple of 5.
7445
« on: March 17, 2015, 03:01:41 AM »
Pfft, noobs.
Someone found an exploit...
Or it's shopped. Cause you know, the font is different.
7446
« on: March 17, 2015, 02:58:59 AM »
...That is unless you were joking. I thought he said Asshole too at first, but to be sure I turned on subtitles to check.
I have no idea how people confuse this line. Keith David is speaking pretty clearly.
7447
« on: March 17, 2015, 01:30:15 AM »
 105 on my third try. You sure this is hard?
7448
« on: March 17, 2015, 01:27:06 AM »
wut
7449
« on: March 17, 2015, 01:13:31 AM »
StarCraft: Ghost
7450
« on: March 16, 2015, 03:59:59 PM »
inb4firefly
7451
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:48:05 PM »
I'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.
The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc.
So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.
No, that's not correct at all. Obama raised about 1/3 from small donors and Romney raised 1/4. Cruz isn't making the distinction between the two sources, anyway, so it wouldn't have been a false equivalency in the first place. The point is that both sides want open access to whatever funds they can get. This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of how you think donations should take part in the campaign process.
I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history.
This is what I was referring to specifically. Your insinuating that their money came from the same place and yes it is correct that Obama raised more money via small donors than Romney raised in total.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.html
Just 9 percent of donors to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall.
The source for the source.
http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-08/Small_Donors_in_2011_Obama_s_Were_Big_Romney_s_Not.aspx
Also by 1/3rd I'm hoping you did a typo and actually meant about 1/2.
It might help if your source included the entirety of campaign donations, not just 2011.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/
Obama raised a lot of small donations initially, then moved to large donations later in the campaign.
I was specifically to 2011. So anything else is irrelevant.
7452
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:23:25 PM »
I'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.
The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc.
So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.
No, that's not correct at all. Obama raised about 1/3 from small donors and Romney raised 1/4. Cruz isn't making the distinction between the two sources, anyway, so it wouldn't have been a false equivalency in the first place. The point is that both sides want open access to whatever funds they can get. This isn't a partisan issue, it's an issue of how you think donations should take part in the campaign process.
I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. This is what I was referring to specifically. Your insinuating that their money came from the same place and yes it is correct that Obama raised more money via small donors than Romney raised in total. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-fundraising-powered-by-small-donors-new-study-shows/2012/02/08/gIQANfKIzQ_story.htmlJust 9 percent of donors to GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, by contrast, came from the lowest end of the contribution scale, the study shows. Obama raised more money in aggregate from small donors — $56.7 million — than Romney raised overall. The source for the source. http://cfinst.org/Press/PReleases/12-02-08/Small_Donors_in_2011_Obama_s_Were_Big_Romney_s_Not.aspxAlso by 1/3rd I'm hoping you did a typo and actually meant about 1/2.
7453
« on: March 16, 2015, 02:34:43 AM »
Fap
And this is why I get bored so easily here......
It's 1:34 am. You expect to much.
7454
« on: March 16, 2015, 02:27:43 AM »
Fap
7455
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:32:56 AM »
>343i does this for CEA instead of graphical overhaul
>DEATH TO 343I
Except for the fact that when I showed an earlier version of this off back in 2011 on b.old people were disappointed that 343i didn't do something like this for CE:A.
7456
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:10:48 AM »
I'm honestly pretty undecided on campaign spending. I'd rather see the donations pooled into a general fund that is fairly distributed to each candidate after the primaries, I think, but stuff like this painting Republicans as evil rich white guys is pretty ironic considering President Obama spent more and raised more than any other candidate in history. To get upset at the fact that presidential campaigns spend monumental amounts of money just seems childish at this point.
The difference was that Obama raised more money via small donors (people who donated less than $200 aka grass roots) than Romney raised in total iirc. So that's kind of a false equivalency right there since Obama relied on these small donors in a big way.
7457
« on: March 16, 2015, 12:21:21 AM »
Pretty accurately sums up my role on the Flood.
literally who?
foxe :3
literally who?
...
No really. Who?
7458
« on: March 15, 2015, 05:30:21 PM »
7459
« on: March 15, 2015, 05:25:35 PM »
idk, but I keep getting thrown into them at the last second.
You might as well become the host.
Fuck that.
7460
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:49:14 PM »
You better give updates.
7461
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:13:07 PM »
Pretty accurately sums up my role on the Flood.
literally who?
foxe :3
literally who?
7462
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:57:54 PM »
Pretty accurately sums up my role on the Flood.
literally who?
7463
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:55:08 PM »
States rights are cool and all until the states you don't like start exercising them.
7464
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:15:21 PM »
idk, but I keep getting thrown into them at the last second.
7465
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:00:49 AM »
Don't remember him sorry.
7466
« on: March 14, 2015, 06:43:16 PM »
Have fun bongarongs.
7467
« on: March 14, 2015, 04:24:46 PM »
Hence work in progress.. By the way, ODST is being given to us, for FREE (As long as you have MCC of course).. Little room for bitching to be honest
If someone hands me a fat smelly turd for free I can complain bitch to them all I want.
7468
« on: March 14, 2015, 04:14:31 PM »
By the way, if ANY state became its own country, Texas is the most well equipped.
That's actually California. Texas and New York aren't far behind though iirc.
7469
« on: March 14, 2015, 04:12:52 PM »
That better be with VISR on.
Making Mombasa streets bright absolutely kills the atmosphere.
7470
« on: March 14, 2015, 04:07:23 PM »
What happened to Epsira? I haven't seen him in what must be close to a month.
He's taking a break from the internet in general IIRC.
Pages: 1 ... 247248249 250251 ... 394
|
Show Posts
.png){kind=spacer}
