Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for RollinThundr

Real Name RollinThundr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 5, 2009, 08:31
Total Comments 2460 (Senior)
User ID 54946
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ] Older >


News Comments > Out of the Blue
4. Re: Out of the Blue Apr 2, 2013, 09:58 RollinThundr
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Apr 2, 2013, 09:55:
Hockey? Oh, you mean that boxing on ice. Yeah, I don't care for that either. Seems okay during the Olympics though..

Watch a hockey game then comment. Most games don't have any fights in them at all.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Jay Wilson: Auction Houses "Really Hurt" Diablo III
68. Re: Jay Wilson: Auctions Houses Mar 29, 2013, 14:27 RollinThundr
 
Beelzebud wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:24:
I just hope that Blizzard actually ate some humble pie over this.

When Jay made the "Fuck that loser" comment, in regards to the man who designed Diablo, the thing that struck me was all the people who cheered him on and backed him up on facebook all worked at Blizzard. One of them even bragging that Brevik (the loser of with whom to fuck) never sold that many copies of one of his games.

This is a group of people that started their careers at Blizzard on third base, and thought they hit a triple.

No one bought Diablo 3 because of those people, they bought it because of the reputation the first two games had. When you take a close non-troll look at Diablo 3 it is an utter shell of the former games. The one thing they got right was the "feel" of the game. Combat can be fun. The problems quickly pile up beyond that.

The "randomization" in the levels is simply a joke. Haveing 2-4 ways for a map to slightly change isn't random. Being able to re-specialize your character at every whim takes any real sense of choice or individuality out of the game. Not only the item drops, but the items themselves just suck. They essentially copied the WoW item formula, and ignored everything that made items interesting in Diablo 2. The auction house was just the shitty icing on the shitty cake. They can express regret about it now, but they tuned the item drops to make the ah the only viable choice to get any upgrades at a certain point.

What happened to the game they showed in all of those early demonstrations? It actually looked fun.

If they do put out a paid expansion for this game, I will not be buying it. Nearly a year in and there isn't even the PVP game they hyped. Battle.net 2.0 is a 100% step back compared to the old system they used to run on dial-up modems FFS.

QFT!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
108. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 13:34 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:14:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:13:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 12:28:
Beamer vs. Thundr:

DETENTE


Not a fair fight, I have logic, common sense and economics on my side.

Well, it's a good thing you tie a hand behind your back by not using any of them! Haha.

Zing and shit. Argue
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
106. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 13:13 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 12:28:
Beamer vs. Thundr:

DETENTE


Not a fair fight, I have logic, common sense and economics on my side.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Jay Wilson: Auction Houses "Really Hurt" Diablo III
38. Re: Jay Wilson: Auctions Houses Mar 29, 2013, 11:09 RollinThundr
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 10:42:
nin wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 10:13:

I cannot fathom the fact that they believe players want simplicity over complexity when it comes to Diablo which namely Diablo 2 made it's entrance through all the customization and permanence of character development. Having multiple characters of the same class made for awesome build styles and planned paper work on character design beforehand. (not that I ever did that, lol).

Here, with the way that you can respec at will, anybody and everybody can have the exact same character build at any given time and where the hell is the fun in that? It's a bunch of cookie cutter toons running around. Blizz putting simplicity into this meant try to get as much money from all age groups and keep it simple enough that even the total unexperienced gamer can get in on the cash flow.

The theory that it was basically designed for consoles and the PC version was a giant beta test becomes more and more believable, doesn't it?


Yeah, yeah it does. Also, remember how awesome Diablo2's Battle.net lobby was? With all the little avatars which displayed items worn ingame. The large numbers of public and private chat rooms, the awesome public game system, ladder rankings etc. etc.

How the fuck do you BREAK THAT SHIT if it aint broke? I mean seriously, the only reason why they would remove that stuff would be because these kinds of keyboard + mouse friendly systems dont belong in a console game.

Blizzard can go shove their battle.net 2.0 where the sun dont ever shine! Motherfuckers....

I remember when Diablo 1 shipped way back in December of 96, meeting tons of friends on b.net, organizing in the rogues gallery with a group of regulars who frequented that channel, making real life friends out of the deal that I still have to this day.

If they call B.net 2.0 progress considering it has far less features than it did almost 20 years ago (god I feel old now) then I want nothing to do with said "progress"
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Jay Wilson: Auction Houses "Really Hurt" Diablo III
36. removed Mar 29, 2013, 11:05 RollinThundr
 
* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Mar 29, 2013, 15:12.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
104. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 09:18 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 09:16:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 08:13:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 20:02:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 18:21:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.

If consuming less complete shit ruins lives, well, let's ruin them.
Also, you're a drama queen.

It's more so calling it what it is, democrats have this whole control issue. Not sure why, maybe one of the key components to leaning to the left is have a touch of narcissism.

Oh, wait, I read "run their lives" as "ruin their lives."

I spent way too much time yesterday staring at monitors.

No worries, I know what that's like.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
102. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 29, 2013, 08:13 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 20:02:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 18:21:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.

If consuming less complete shit ruins lives, well, let's ruin them.
Also, you're a drama queen.

It's more so calling it what it is, democrats have this whole control issue. Not sure why, maybe one of the key components to leaning to the left is have a touch of narcissism.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
100. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 18:21 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:33:
PHJF wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 16:18:
Oh and this kind of stuff, like the slow fall of tobacco, isn't going to happen overnight. You can't flip a switch and suddenly everyone is on the path to good clean living. The best thing you can do is educate and condition kids and hope it sticks. This was just on CNBC:

U.S. soda consumption fell in 2012 for the eighth-straight year, this time by 1.2 percent to levels not seen since the Clinton administration, according to new beverage statistics.

Then again those putrescent "energy drinks" saw another meteoric gain.

You can't flip a switch, but you can lead people to it. Part of the reason smoking is so low is the taxation. The government didn't flip that switch, it's gradually increased.

Of course, doing that on unhealthy food is difficult. As you mention, it's socioeconomical, and food is a necessity. Feeding a family of 5 is a whole lot easier on a McDonald's Dollar Menu than on salad. And the bread that is sold in stores may be kind of gross with partially hydrogenated soybean oil, tons of salt and tons of sugar, but all that stuff makes it last longer, meaning less goes bad, it's easier to transport, etc., which lowers costs.

It's a bad situation.
I do think, though, that attacking the liquid calories isn't a bad idea. Coke just launched FruitWater, which they market as a healthy alternative to soda. It has no fruit. None. Not a drop. Hell, most "juices" in the supermarket are no more than 10% juice.
Maybe getting more strict on the crap companies produce and how they market it would be a step in the right direction.

And by leading people, you mean run their lives for them. Coax them to do what you think is right.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
94. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:52 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 15:45:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:57:
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:47:

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.

Ban everything ban breathing while you're at it. Because people can't be personally responsible to not eat potato chips all day and get fat, tax chips 500%! that will teach em! Big Daddy Obama will tell you what to eat, when to sleep, when to rub one out. Jesus you guys are really something.

Please all of you liberals, move to the UK or China.

I say ban heroin, but don't ban chips and Coke, and you interpret that as me saying ban everything? Also, Obama wouldn't be responsible for passing laws encouraging or discouraging behavior. That would be the house, and last I checked it was in Republican control.

And yeah, I'd prefer a junk food tax. Obesity related diseases are now the number one killer and the number one healthcare cost in this country. It's been proven that they are addictive, just like tobacco. And just like tobacco, they need to have their advertising restricted, and their price adjusted through taxation. Not banned, but adjusted so that their consumption can be discouraged and their price can reflect their cost to society.

In Obama's case he'd just put in an executive order anyway. Lets have carbon taxes too, and a junk food tax, and a air breathing tax then we can spend all that money on more welfare for people who refuse to work like the rest of us. It'll be a grand social experiment!!! A utopia of perfect living! /sarcasm

Meanwhile back in reality, people will still get fat, smoke etc.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
92. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 15:48 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 15:32:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:14:
If taxes continue to go up to the point where we have no middle class since Obozo is all about tax and spend wealth redistribution what would you call it?

The bottom 90% of income earners has had a salary increase of $59 over the past 40 years while productivity has doubled. The top 10% has increased $116,071. So, we could actually do with some wealth redistribution, thank you very much. I'm guessing you're in the 90% bracket, so you'd benefit from that.

As for taxes, they're lower than they've ever been. Given the state of our infrastructure and debt, I'd say it's time to raise them, especially on the wealthy who haven't had rates this low for a long time. It hurts the country when they don't pay enough.

I'm fine with raising taxes, but there's a stipulation to that. Massive spending cuts, and neither party, dems especially want to cut anything that's not military.

We're going to be at 20 trillion in debt by the end of Obama's 2nd term here. That to me is a problem. When the government proves to me they can balance a budget and stop putting so much pork into bills that no one apparently reads anyway, then I'll care about taking more from the job creators.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
88. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:57 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:47:
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:42:
Banning cigarettes is counterproductive, its a huge industry and there is a lot of money involved. Better a large tax and let people choose for themselves. Look how the alcohol ban turned out, production went underground and it powered one of the biggest crime waves the US has ever seen. IMO they should legalize marijuana as well. Its a herb, like tobbaco and could power another huge industry that would be very beneficial to the economy. Then they should tax the shit out of that too, considering the risks.

This, exactly this. Banning outright needs to be preserved for those few most destructive things like heroin. Most things should simply have the price adjusted based on some kind of measure of the damage they do to society. Rice, apples and broccoli: 0% tax. Jam and butter: 20% Twinkies, Coke, potato chips, and MJ: 50%. Etc. Obviously how much these %s should be is up for debate, but no one doubts that "foods" like potato chips and Coke are causing a nationwide health epidemic and need to be reigned in. I'd put in place an advertising restriction on these things too, like tobacco.

We'll never see this though, not with our current government completely in hock to corporations. Get corporate advertising out of politics, and you might see some good laws. And while I hate the current trend in journalism "both sides do it" false equivalency, in the case of being coopted by corporate money, both US parties are neck deep, so you'd never get anything like this passed.

Ban everything ban breathing while you're at it. Because people can't be personally responsible to not eat potato chips all day and get fat, tax chips 500%! that will teach em! Big Daddy Obama will tell you what to eat, when to sleep, when to rub one out. Jesus you guys are really something.

Please all of you liberals, move to the UK or China.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
83. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:39 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 14:29:
We have no middle class because of low taxes, not high taxes.

Duh.
lol sure thing. Not going to bother to debate economics with you, you've proven more than once that you think out of control spending is a good thing anyway.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
82. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:37 RollinThundr
 
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:46:
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:24:
Excuse me for butting in (no pun intended) into this argument I dont usually defend Rollingthundre's opinions but claiming that smoking costs more in tax dollars than the industry brings in is a rather weak argument.

When you add up all of the direct and indirect costs for smoking related health care I'm sure that's the case. That's without going into the toll it takes on families and the economy. I don't have any studies handy because I rarely care much for smoking debates but I'm sure there have been several done in NA if you get google happy. Keep in mind most of the money the Big Tobacco lobbies take in stays there. Health care in North America is insanely expensive, you have no idea man. It is not uncommon for people to get very sick and go into major debt or bankruptcy after being screwed by health insurance. Smokers get boned on that stuff too, the HMOs will use anything against you and smoking is a giant red flag on your file.

The government is pretty indifferent about the taxes, they will make it up somewhere else. The taxes also don't scale with the costs which continue to increase every year. I can't disagree with RM that the smoking industry doesn't have a very long term future ahead, it's being slowly phased out everywhere I travel. I'm on business in Canada pretty often and they don't even let them display cigarettes on the shelves there in many places, American tobacco companies have it easy.

Actually the tax itself is more than half the cost per pack to begin with. Trust me, the government makes a ton off of those who smoke.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
80. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 14:14 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:44:
I can't tell from that rant, would you prefer that Monsanto's genetically modified crops, which there's no proof cause cancer and could probably end up doing the opposite (in that hopefully someday they reduce the need for pesticides, which we do have proof causes cancer.)

Wouldn't that be a slippery slope?
I imagine you'd prefer a world where the government never says "hey, that causes cancer, stop doing it" and, well, we have no options. Because, if you've followed the Supreme Court case, you'd see you really do have no options. Over 91% of soybeans are genetically modified. Basically, you're eating genetically modified food at every meal.

I'd imagine, if it comes out that they cause cancer, the US wouldn't do anything because, I mean, nanny state.



Also, it's impossible for the US to become a 3rd world country, under the modern definition. And, under the prior definition, we'd simply have to be neither communist nor part of NATO, an organization you probably feel is socialist, so you'd probably prefer us to be a third world nation.

I'm saying let them test the shit extensively first to make sure. Don't you think that would be a better idea than a bill that has a provision to exempt them from any wrong doing should it happen? If it's so safe why is that type of provision in the passed bill that prolly no one actually read? As usual.

If taxes continue to go up to the point where we have no middle class since Obozo is all about tax and spend wealth redistribution what would you call it?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Safety Dance
2. Re: Morning Safety Dance Mar 28, 2013, 11:21 RollinThundr
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:20:
I dont really think this is that terrible actually. The FBI wants to be able to get a warrant from a judge. Better a proper warrant then snooping illegaly (which is what Im assuming is already done). Some would argue that its better not to snoop at all, and I would usually agree but can we really stop any government from snooping if it wants to??? The NSA is already doing shit nobody wants to acknowledge in the interest of "National Security". Wouldnt it be better to regulate the snooping with the judiciary so at least there is some kind of probable cause required and they cant snoop on random people at will...

It would be better and more legal to get a warrant to snoop in the first place. Otherwise you're opening a can of worms when it comes to privacy rights and trampling on such rights.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
75. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 11:07 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:04:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:53:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Stop twisting things, did I ever even suggest being against laws in general? Or drunk driving laws? Holy fucking strawman batman!
I am not saying you are against laws.
I am saying you are against new laws that may change your habits.

Old laws that changed other people's habits? Those are fine.
New laws that change your habits? NANNY STATE!


See how I'm not saying you hate laws but instead saying you use the term "nanny state" very hypocritically.

That is the slippery slope right there. Cigarettes are still legal right? How bout fattening coca cola and MC Doubles with cheese? When you start allowing politicans to outlaw things because it'll make you feel better or whatever, that's the definition of slippery slope.

We'll be a totalitarian 3rd world shithole before you know it, I hope you pat yourself on the back when it happens.

Nice job passing the Monsanto Protection act btw dems, when people start getting cancer from genetically enhanced food and can't sue, maybe we can outlaw food in general because it's too dangerous.

I'm so glad the liberals are on the case to protect us helpless citizens.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
73. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:53 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Stop twisting things, did I ever even suggest being against laws in general? Or drunk driving laws? Holy fucking strawman batman!
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
71. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:08 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:56:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:48:
Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:
Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

You'd know all about nanny state things I'm sure. Maybe we should outlaw cars too, while we're outlawing guns and everything else so you can live in your little bubble world and be safe while papa Barry watches over you.

Woosh.

No I got it, it was just a stupid fucking thing to imply. But keep your bullshit up, it's comical.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Morning Legal Briefs
70. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Mar 28, 2013, 10:06 RollinThundr
 
Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2460 Comments. 123 pages. Viewing page 47.
< Newer [ 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo