Infinityward

OMG I LOVE KANYE GUYS! HES SUCH A GENIUS. I LOVE HEARING 5 WORDS AND THEN BACKGROUND MUSIC FOR THE REST OF THE SONG.

Man the shit isnt funny. Chill out guys.

vr is nauseating as fuck to me and the accuracy was shit when i used it a few years back, not sure if its gotten any better.

Thanks broski, very kind of you.

Shout out @HAXOR

POV: Your entire Political Philosophy is Establishment Bad

I've escaped the grasp of Sam Walton to write this... Goodbye BoMathon, you've helped me grow as a person over the last couple years and for that I am grateful. You will be missed. @Kopstais still a scared ass rat.

TLDR: Stop using SCOTUS as a legislative branch, pass legislation through congress to enshrine abortion so it won’t be overturned. like I said in my last post Roe V Wade wasn’t a good ruling even if you believe abortion should be legal (which I do). Make sure you vote in 2022 and 2024!

So as I said it’s impossible to ban guns right now and probably will continue to be that way in the future, so what’s your solution? Complain online about how Vile I am for not entertaining wild out of reach impossible ideas?

If we want to fix this problem people need to talk about viable and pragmatic solutions. First we need to figure out what type of gun violence we're trying to solve here, obviously we'd like to solve all of it but the majority of discussion right now is centered around "Mass Shootings". Mass Shootings make up an extremely small percentage of American gun violence yet are the center of discussion when it comes to the gun debate in America. This is because Mass Shootings are extremely unique, it's usually innocent people going about their day gunned down by some far right/left/nazi/incel/whatever. Hearing about a grocery store or school being shot up hits a lot closer to home to people than gang violence in Chicago or a Robbery gone wrong in New York. Banning all guns is not in the realm of possibility, there are more guns than people in America and taking them away would most likely result in extreme violence across America the likes you've never seen. Also to repeal the Second Amendment you'd need a supermajority in both the House and Senate and would need 2/3 of states to ratify the new Amendment so that's most likely not happening in our lifetime. Alright so lets talk about banning certain types of weapons... Obviously the most talked about is the AR-15 as many recent Mass Shooters have chosen it to carry out their attacks, but would banning it solve anything? The majority of American gun violence involves handguns; rifles and more specifically AR-15's make up a small percentage of overall gun violence. The majority of the discussion that goes on around the AR-15 is brain rot. The majority of people get their info from Action Movies and TV Shows and think that the AR-15 is some machine gun that can mow down thousands of people at once. The AR-15 isn't unique, it's not some sort of magical killing machine, it doesn't fire faster than other weapons, it's not a military rifle. That's the problem with banning a certain weapon, there's a multitude of weapons that fire the same exact caliber as the AR-15 but look less "scary" so nobody ever talks about them. Example: Both semi-auto, both fire the 5.56 round, but one looks militaristic and one looks like a hunting rifle. And whatever security theater Cali is doing solves nothing. Banning all rifles doesn't seem like it would solve the problem either. Virginia Tech was a Mass Shooting that killed 32 people carried out by a man with two handguns and Columbine was carried out with pistols and shotguns as well. That's extremely naïve to say, banning guns and keeping them out of the country might work for an island like Australia or New Zealand, but we share a border with Mexico which has an immense Cartel problem. If we banned guns the Cartels would ramp up their already existing gun smuggling business and funnel thousands of weapons into the United States, so until that problem is solved good luck. Also you defeated your own point, if someone is an insane psycho wouldn't they be the ones to go out of their way to find a weapon? So let's talk about viable solutions. I suppose you could limit magazine capacity, it only takes a few seconds to reload but every second counts in an Active Shooter situation. We could put more focus on recognizing the warning signs of a possible Mass Shooter, the Buffalo shooter and the Texas shooter both had a history of animal abuse and torture yet it seems nothing was done about them. We could also require a mental health screening before purchasing any firearm and that would almost definitely prevent some Mass Shootings. This problem is unique to America and very difficult to solve, but we need to talk about viable solutions and stop with this "Ban all guns" shit because it's never happening.

fucking ridiculous

Right but i think its pretty safe to say when most Americans hear the term "Mass Shooting" they think of mass casualty events such as parkland, Las Vegas, etc, and not a gang shootout or violent altercation between two aggressors.

The term "Mass Shooting" carries a lot of weight and when people say there have been 200+ "Mass Shootings" this year it's not entirely accurate. That Wikipedia list for instance includes literally everything from this shooting to an altercation between a few people. When people say "Mass Shooting" they're typically referring to events like Parkland or Las Vegas or others like them, not a bar fight shootout. Obviously, this shooting is very new and we don't have all of the details yet but it seems like the police utterly failed to do their jobs. Apparently, the shooter was engaged by either 2 or 3 resource officers but they failed to stop him before he went inside a classroom. The shooting lasted for over 30 minutes which is absolutely unacceptable given the amount of police presence on site. I can't imagine what all of the parents are going through right now, this should never have happened and we need to find a solution. My condolences to the families and victims.

Well... it's not really inarguable. Roe V. Wade doesn't actually point to a clear right to have an abortion rather it pulled from the courts prior ruling on the use of contraception and introduced a concept known as "right to privacy" that it argued was enshrined in the fourteenth and ninth amendments. Now i'd wager that the majority of people really know nothing of Roe V. Wade nor Altio's draft except one makes abortion legal and one makes it illegal (Alito's draft doesn't actually make it illegal it simply leaves it up to the states which would result in about half of the country banning abortion). I've seen a lot of fear that if Roe V. Wade is overturned then contraception, gay marriage, etc will be up for debate but I don't believe that's the case. In Alito's draft, he argues that abortion is different from other intimate matters such as contraception, interracial marriage, gay marriage, etc because abortion involves a potential life which is actually set out by Roe V. Wade and expanded on by Casey V. PP. Roe V. Wade makes it clear that this "right to privacy" that they founded their decision on is not absolute but that it must be balanced against governmental interests such as the health of the mother and the life of the fetus. It also sets out the "trimester framework" (copying straight from Wikipedia on this one). "During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that a state government could place no restrictions on women's ability to choose to abort pregnancies other than imposing minimal medical safeguards, such as requiring abortions to be performed by licensed physicians.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave states a compelling interest that allowed them to enact medical regulations on abortion procedures so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] From the beginning of the third trimester on—the point at which a fetus became viable under the medical technology available in the early 1970s—the Court ruled that a state's interest in protecting prenatal life became so compelling that it could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health." The whole "potential life" thing is the root of the debate here, that's what the majority of people disagree on. Contraception is the only other issue remotely related to abortion and very few people (other than crazy religious people) have a problem with contraception. One could possibly argue that the use of contraception also ends a potential life but any argument would be extremely shaky as preventing a set of components from coming together to make a fertilized egg isn't really the same as terminating an already developing fetus. I've been on somewhat of a liberal arc recently and my political views have shifted a considerate amount (although I'd say I'm still leaning a bit more right) Over that time I've noticed that both sides don't really try to understand one another and boil it down to "CONSERVATIVES JUST WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN" or "LIBERALS JUST WANT TO KILL BABIES". This isn't an accurate representation of either side and it just leads to more divisiveness. Regardless of your opinion on abortion, it's clear that Roe V. Wade is grasping at straws and relies on extremely broad and vague amendments to enshrine the "right to abortion" and even makes some concessions that put the pro-choice side in a difficult position. The right to an abortion should never have been pulled from this case and should absolutely be legislated by Congress. In all honesty, my opinion on abortion has changed over the past few years, i'm in favor of abortion up to a certain point (probably second trimester) but this really needs to be legislated not adjudicated.

I've got a 5800x and from what I've read and experienced it tends to run hotter than the 5950x or the 5700x.. I'd probably get the 5950x if I were you. Also i'd probably swing for an AIO rather than a small air cooler, or at the very least get a bigger air cooler.

Congrats Pokeathon!

Ukrainians

Because it was a shoutbox message. You're actually ridiculous, you have civilians with their hands tied dead in the streets that just so happened to be killed from shelling? ^ Not too graphic but it includes dead bodies The image that goes along with this is probably the most damning. It's literally a pile of bodies in a corner with their hands tied and clothes removed (including what appears to be a young child). The fact that you can't even recognize when Russia commits war crimes and just chop it up to "Artillery Shelling" is sickening. It's absolutely not something I can post but i will DM it to you if you'd like. "Azov has killed civilians too so that makes it okay!" Once again you provide absolutely no evidence for any of these war crimes committed in the Donbas. I'm willing to accept what you're saying is probably true, but its not a justification for Russia committing war crimes nor is it a justification for the invasion. You're so incredibly quick to believe an accusation of Ukrainians committing war crimes but when Russia is accused you find some dumb-ass Twitter account that makes an equally dumb argument about why the dead bodies strewn throughout the houses, streets, and mass graves of Bucha actually all died from shelling to prove your point. Also stop trying to act as if you've been studying Ukrainian-Russian history for the past 10 years, you fucking talked to your boss and watched a few shitty YouTube and Telegram videos and now you think you're some expert in slav politics. You're literally a joke, every single argument you've pulled out are literally Russia Today talking points. Not sure if you know this but literally everyone thinks you've gone off the deep end and with every post you prove it more and more. Also Russia withdrew from Northern Ukraine so W! (Stay mad)

^ There is a picture that goes along with this but it's extremely disturbing and upsetting. https://www.newsweek.com/bucha-massacre-images-show-mass-grave-church-ukraine-1694602 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/03/bucha-ukraine-graves-war-crimes-calls-icc/ https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/04/biden-bucha-massacre-war-crime-00022690 ...

Pretty much destroys every pro-russian argument...

Holdfast NAW is pretty fun, its 50v50 battlefield type revolutionary war game. If you're into more realistic military sims Squad is a great option. It's polished pretty well and is fairly easy to learn. Arma 3 would also be a good option but its more sandboxy and centers more around Player vs AI. It's also infinitely more buggy and poorly optimized than Squad.

goodbye my fellow realone

No lol Obviously I'm no expert on Eastern European history but it seems Ukraine's desire to join NATO was one of the reasons Russia decided to invade. Greggy also mentioned that it may because of the shared culture and history that Ukraine and Russia both have and Putin's desire to reform the Russian Empire and further his own interests.

Nope, I use the same language and accent no matter who I'm speaking to. I've always had a dislike for the southern accent and southern slang so I try my best to keep away from them.