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 - CIS
Pages: 1 ... 121314 1516 ... 111
391
« on: April 08, 2016, 09:59:19 PM »
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/05/hunter-video-games/Spoiler The Federal Election Commission is questioning Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, for his use of campaign funds to pay for video games on 68 separate occasions — something the congressman is attributing to a mistake by his son, followed by several unauthorized charges.
Hunter listed the $1,302 of Steam Games expenses on his campaign finance disclosure for 2015 year-end, with the notation “personal expense — to be paid back.”
The expenses run from Oct. 13 through Dec. 16, and no payback is listed during the time period of the report.
Hunter’s spokesman, Joe Kasper, said the congressman’s teenage son used his father’s credit card for one game, and then several unauthorized charges resulted after the father tried to close access to the website. Kasper said that Hunter is trying to have the unauthorized charges reversed before repaying his campaign account.
“There won’t be any paying anything back there, pending the outcome of the fraud investigation, depending on how long that takes,” Kasper said.
In a letter dated Monday, an analyst for the election commission asked Hunter’s campaign treasurer to explain the expenses, amend the filing as necessary, and seek reimbursement for the personal expenses. The commission gave Hunter until May 9 to respond.
According to the House Ethics Committee website, “Campaign funds are to be used for bona fide campaign or political purposes only. Campaign funds are not to be used to enhance a member’s lifestyle, or to pay a member’s personal obligations... Members have no discretion whatsoever to convert campaign funds to personal use.”
Hunter, who recently made news vaping in the House of Representatives, has defended violent video games in the aftermath of mass shootings. Hunter argued in an opinion piece in Politico that regulating video games is not the answer.
“The narrative that children and young adults today stare at television and computer screens, developing lethal skills through first-person gaming experiences, disingenuously portrays video games as having a corrosive influence,” Hunter wrote. “The problem with this rationale is that it conveys an image that America’s youth are incapable of discerning right from wrong, which simply is not true.”
The FEC also questioned a Sept. 21 payment of $1,650 to Christian Unified Schools of El Cajon as a personal expense to be paid back. Hunter’s spokesman said the donation — allowed under House rules — was mistakenly listed as a personal expense. This is stupid and irrelevant, but I still got a kick out of it.
392
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:03:19 AM »
The battle between the struggle of love and anger has begun. It's impossible for Armenia to go back to the way it was.
393
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:43:06 AM »
how would YOU feel if all you wanted in your life was to join the military and serve on the frontlines and then oh sucks you cant because you have a dick
how every single person on this forum isn't deeply morally appalled by this scenario fucking baffles me
Maybe it's because even people who have impairments like myself are able to set aside our personal emotions and try to look at things from a calm and collected perspective without letting hysteria get in the way.
394
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:39:16 AM »
I picked out of the air??? What the fuck? Yes. You're offering us a deontological ethical system with no reference to consequence. This is arbitrary.
and one thats far more important than human lives.
This is so unfathomably irrational I genuinely have to wonder how you can hold opinions like this. Say equality can only be ensured with massive poverty and human suffering as an unintended consequence; do you genuinely think it's worth it?
Of course it's worth it.
Your arrogance and insanity never ceases to entertain.
395
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:31:40 AM »
396
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:25:57 AM »
397
« on: April 04, 2016, 03:05:52 AM »
I fucking love it when Class comes into a thread and starts throwing a tantrum.
398
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:59:25 AM »
It prevents me from taking anything posted by you or Class seriously and to skim over and ignore 95% of it.
this is why you should be banned from serious
"i'm gonna argue with people without actually reading anything that they have to say lol XDD"
I haven't broken any rules yet so I'm fine. Last time I checked coming into Serious to argue for the sake of it didn't violate any rules.
399
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:55:01 AM »
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? are you genuinely impaired
Technically, yes. High functioning autism is considered an impairment.
does it prevent you from retaining information you literally just received
It prevents me from taking anything posted by you or Class seriously and to skim over and ignore 95% of it.
400
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:48:11 AM »
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? are you genuinely impaired
Technically, yes. High functioning autism is considered an impairment.
401
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:47:53 AM »
Basically the bathroom you are required by law to use is what it says on your birth certificate, which is generally the last document to get changed. So essentially it's just a massive "fuck you" and completely unenforceable.
That's the worst idea ever. Because people aren't already fucking insane, and they don't flip their shit when someone who could be perceived as the opposite sex such as a trans woman early in to transition therapy enters the women's bathroom.
402
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:41:51 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.
People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.
Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.
Then what are you screaming about? I usually just skim over most people's posts.
If a woman does everything a man has to do to enlist in combat roles, she should be in a combat role no questions asked.
Then we have nothing to fight about.
403
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:39:20 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.
People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.
Holy shit, the standards shouldn't be lowered. I've only said that a dozen times ITT, and I've never advocated lowering standards whatsoever.
Then what are you screaming about? I usually just skim over most people's posts.
404
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:32:33 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
Doesn't matter. The military isn't some existential void where the tenets of morality cease to apply.
People are making a moral issue into one of tangible military effectiveness. Why should we sacrifice the inherent good of doing the right thing for fleetingly making our ridiculously powerful military more powerful?
Why is lowering the physical standards for female combatants the right thing to do? As I said earlier, militaries aren't equal opportunity employers.
405
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:26:30 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
It's such a superficial and inaccurate way to gauge societal equality. Women aren't entitled to be allowed in roles that could compromise its effectiveness.
And yes the military's efficiency should be considered by the government well before some pseudo-equality bullshit.
Pseudo? Literally what?
This is equality 101. If one demographic has access to a legal privelege, every demographic is entitled to it.
Matters of civilian life and matters of military differ greatly. This is why we have military tribunals and specific legal codes designed to govern the armed forces.
407
« on: April 04, 2016, 02:10:56 AM »
I just love how little importance conservatives place in social equality, even though it's literally the most integral cornerstone of a developed society.
Based on what?
This certainly wasn't something that the more developed classical societies considered important. Or the antique civilizations. Or medieval. Or Renaissance. Really, nobody felt that way until the self-righteous Enlightenment writers showed up with their revisionist history and ideological violence.
Someone got into the Dark Enlightenment didn't they?
408
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:11:20 AM »
Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.
why would he, when he's stated that he's against that very thing
why do you even bother entering these threads when you don't read them
Because I'm fucking lazy and I'd rather not read through walls of text full of nothing but nonsense. Sue me.
409
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:09:56 AM »
You have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.
lol
Is this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.
I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it.
And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.
Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.
I can't, because they shouldn't? People ITT completely missing what I'm arguing.
Why should they be lowered though? The military is an organized national defense and war machine, not an equal opportunity employer.
410
« on: April 04, 2016, 12:07:42 AM »
You have shown nothing to dissuade the fact that organized discrimination is worse than a bad military.
lol
Is this just a tacit admission that women in infantry degrade effectiveness? If you can't figure out why that's not worth saving a few hurt feelings, then this discussion isn't worth having. The ban shouldn't exist, but the schools shouldn't change, which they have every time this comes up.
I've already said about five times ITT that I don't give a shit about unit cohesion. If that's an "admission", then so be it.
And if you think the ban should be lifted but standards shouldn't be lowered for one gender, then you're literally arguing my stance.
Give us a good reason why the standards should be lowered for female combatants.
411
« on: April 03, 2016, 11:59:42 PM »
You have shown nothing to prove the idea that organized discrimination is better than a bad military.
412
« on: April 02, 2016, 05:16:09 PM »
You should start posting reviews on places like Steam. You'd have a bigger audience. Though we fight all the time and I dislike you as a person I will concede that your reviews are great.
413
« on: April 01, 2016, 10:51:54 PM »
was tyrone too rough today?
He's always rough with me.
414
« on: April 01, 2016, 10:49:02 PM »
True fax
415
« on: April 01, 2016, 10:39:19 PM »
That is all
416
« on: March 27, 2016, 08:22:21 PM »
thanks for sharing
When a night is fucking ruined by some fucking niggers, yea, I'm going to fucking share
Did Tyrone cuck you?
417
« on: March 22, 2016, 07:28:44 PM »
Criticizing Trump for his use of Rhetoric and appealing to emotions when all that post was is Rhetoric and appealing to emotions? That's hypocritical.
How is Flee being hypocritical? He may be a little sensational but that's it. No, it wasn't just rhetoric and appealing to emotions. There was actual truth in the post.
418
« on: March 22, 2016, 04:09:40 PM »
>Hypocritical rhetoric should be posted everywhere
Lol okay.
This should be posted everywhere.
How is Flee being hypocritical? He may be a little sensational but that's it.
419
« on: March 22, 2016, 12:43:58 AM »
That sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.
PM me if you have a better idea.
No need for a PM. The better idea is to vote for literally any candidate that isn't Trump.
Why exactly?
I just could never bring myself to vote for a criminal who got our soldiers straight up murdered like Hillary. Even if I was a huge liberal, I would have a hard time voting for her.
Because Trump is a madman running on an extremely populist, moronic and hateful rhetoric. He does nothing but play on the misguided fears, mistrust and doubts of the poorly educated, easily manipulated and often downright stupid and bigoted groups of society who are blinded by "the hype" and fall for the endless series of empty buzzwords, vague promises and unsubstantiated claims.
Trump is not going to make your country great again. He is going to do exactly what many conseratives always feared but now so eagerly and hypocritcally support just because they won't be on the receiving end first. The man will erode rights, silence opposition, limit your speech and the press, twist facts and take harsh measures against everyone the far white, conservative and right wing perceives as "the other". He will and already is promoting sickening degrees of hate and hostility against everyone and everything different, with footage of his rallies making me worry about the return of fascism in a Western developed nation. Rather than make a case for himself, he thrives on mindlessly attacking others and running them into the ground through slander and slinging shit instead of proper debates and actual plans or solutions.
Trump's campaign runs on a short list of things that can be very powerful and dangerous if used by those capable of manipulation. Hate, stupidity, mistrust, lies, populism and the idea that blaming a vague scapegoat despite all the evidence to the contrary will make things better for a select few while eagerly casting aside things like human rights, compassion, empathy and tolerance. These simple things and the manipulation of those not intelligent or educated enough to see through this and those not capable enough to see that their qualms are being exploited are the cornerstones of Trump his campaign.
Hillary is far from perfect herself, but she is without doubt the lesser of two evils. Trump is a joke. A mockery of a fundamentally flawed political system that should've ended months ago to demonstrate to your society how wrong things are going. The rest of the world is looking at the US with disgust, and it's well beyond the point of "oh silly America is at it again". This is a serious and quite dangerous. And despite the fact that my faith in the American people has dropped even more during these elections, I genuinely hope people will realise how much of a disaster Trump would be and vote against him even if it means putting Hillary in office.
This should be posted everywhere.
420
« on: March 16, 2016, 12:55:50 AM »
Who the fuck still makes Halo montages? 2008 has been over for a long time.
Pages: 1 ... 121314 1516 ... 111
|
Show Posts
