Quote from: Kinder on October 18, 2014, 10:29:10 PM

Wait, didn't like KSI have a big split?

LGBT community confirmed to be irl KSI

wtf is ksi?

....

Wait, didn't like KSI have a big split?

LGBT community confirmed to be irl KSI

Sometimes I'm like screw it and just jump in the shower and spread my cheeks apart to get the rest out

Spitting on someone.

I did that to some cunt in 7th grade

Quote from: Kinder on October 18, 2014, 08:47:32 PM

Quote from: Septy on October 18, 2014, 08:45:09 PM

Did Shia Labeouf ruin it?

I thought he did fantastic. He was there but he was more like the cool headed person of the group

With all the hate he has been getting lately, i was expecting him to be mediocre, but he didn't disappoint one bit.

I've never had a problem with him. Of course, I don't pay much attention to actors and only care how they portray their role and he was great

Did Shia Labeouf ruin it?

I thought he did fantastic. He was there but he was more like the cool headed person of the group

Seems like someone downvoted me for no reason whatsoever.

>your rank

lol

smoke weed evrrday

I was thinking about writing a review of this movie, myself. Blazed Iron and I went and saw this yesterday and it was way more interesting than I thought it was going to be (still more a fan of Basterds, but whatever).

Feel free to add yours to mine if you want. Make it like a joint review

So I'm taking my shot a review so don't expect it to be all that good

At first glance, one may make the assumption of it to be a lack-luster and over-hyped film that will just be forgotten in another six months. With other World War II movies such as Band of Brothers, Saving Private Ryan, and Pearl Harbor then why else would you need to see any other? Well, the answer is simple: Because Fury goes above and beyond the call of duty, granting itself a place to remembered as a World War II film for years to come.

From the first five minutes, you are greeted with the film's first introduction of the gritty and gruesome violence it has to offer. And it continues on in the scenes to come where you will witness brains and guts literally being blown out (think Inglorious Bastards, but more realistic and believable) by machine guns, tank rounds, artillery, and ever other weapon encountered in war. When not showing off the incredible amounts of violence, there are times of crude and adult humor that will actually leave you laughing, not some half-ass chuckle and even during the action scenes, humor still finds it's way in.

But what truly makes this film memorable, as a lover of history myself, is the incorporation of an actual German Tiger I tank. and not just some tank, but the tank: Tiger 131, the only operational Tiger tank in the world. It was lent for the film by The Tank Museum in Bovington, England. And for added bonus, real M4 Shermans were used as well

Overall, the fully surpassed my expectations and it is something I can and will watch over and over again. I suggest you all to watch it if you love action, WWII, tanks, guns, or if you just want to see a damn good film

If it happens then oh well. I have guns and ammo so I can defend myself and have the ability to get food when I need it

Quote from: Kinder on October 18, 2014, 06:51:52 PM

Quote from: Camnator on October 18, 2014, 06:49:28 PM

We should just abolish voting.

wut

You're playing a rigged game. Voting does not matter. Simply participating legitimizes them.

I dunno. Local elections are pretty important. Just a couple years back, a neighboring city was in need of some work but the council was putting it off. The elected Sheriff got tired of it, took money from his own budget, bought a bulldozer, slapped a Sheriffs office sticker on it, and sent it out to do some dredging to fix the problem

I just fingered my butt

:^)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/supreme-court-voter-id_n_6007300.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas can use its controversial new voter identification law for the November election.

A majority of the justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit the state from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo identification in order to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold. The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

The Supreme Court's order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.

"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

Texas' law sets out seven forms of approved ID — a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.

The 143-page opinion from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos called the law an "unconstitutional burden on the right to vote" and the equivalent of a poll tax in finding that the Republican-led Texas Legislature purposely discriminated against minority voters in Texas.

Texas had urged the Supreme Court to let the state enforce voter ID at the polls in a court filing that took aim at the ruling by Ramos, an appointee of President Barack Obama. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who's favored in the gubernatorial race, called Ramos' findings "preposterous" and accused the judge of ignoring evidence favorable to the state.

The court had intervened in three other disputes in recent weeks over Republican-inspired restrictions on voting access. In Wisconsin, the justices blocked a voter ID law from being used in November. In North Carolina and Ohio, the justices allowed limits on same-day registration, early voting and provisional ballots to take or remain in effect.

Ginsburg said the Texas case was different from the clashes in North Carolina and Ohio because a federal judge held a full trial on the Texas election procedures and developed "an extensive record" finding the process discriminated against ballot access.

Texas has enforced its tough voter ID in elections since the Supreme Court in June 2013 effectively eliminated the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented Texas and eight other states with histories of discrimination from changing election laws without permission. Critics of the Texas measure, though, said the new ID requirement has not been used for an election for Congress and the Senate, or a high-turnout statewide election like the race for governor.

Ramos' issued her ruling on October 9. Five days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans put her decision on hold and cited a 2006 Supreme Court opinion that warned judges not to change the rules too close to Election Day.

The challengers in Texas said that the last time the Supreme Court allowed a voting law to be used in a subsequent election after it had been found to be unconstitutional was in 1982. That case from Georgia involved an at-large election system that had been in existence since 1911.

Republican lawmakers in Texas and elsewhere say voter ID laws are needed to reduce voter fraud. Democrats contend that such cases are extremely rare and that voter ID measures are thinly veiled attempts to keep eligible voters, many of them minorities supportive of Democrats, away from the polls.

My response to a comment earlier today on FB:

So I guess to get rid of illegal guns, we just have to ban all guns? And in order to obtain a free ID, a person needs a home address. So what of homeless people, are they unable to vote despite being U.S citizens? If that's the case then under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a state is not allowed to pass laws that "unduly burden" the right to vote. According to the Supreme Court, even very minor burdens have to be justified as "sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation. The Voting Rights Act says that a law related to voting is invalid if it places a barrier to voting that is more likely to affect members of a minority group than the general population. As previously noted, voter ID laws have a disproportionate impact on Latinos and African Americans. A felon who was voting illegally, for instance, could easily have an ID and no poll worker could tell from that ID that the person was an invalid voter.