Jump to content

vla1ne

Elite Members
  • Content Count

    3,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by vla1ne

  1. Catharsygil is a series of magical formations that were granted from a successful summoning. Several sigils were granted to the summoner (presumed to be the player and other monsters) by the entities they called, that use abilities depending on what sigils are established on board and how many "Catharsygil" counters are on the board. The playstyle revolves around placing counters, and tries to establish a counter based strategy that isn't "spell counter based, and make it a viable splash strategy for decks by being fairly generic and pendulum based. Catharsygil Assimilation System: Overlay Field spell If a card with "Catharsygil" counters leaves the field, you can place any remaining "Catharsygil" counters on this card. monsters you control gain 100 ATK for each "Catharsygil" counter on this card. The first time a "Catharsygil" Spell or Trap card(s) you control would be destroyed during either turn, It is not destroyed. Once per turn, if A "Catharsygil" Spell/Trap card is activated, you can remove 3 "Catharsygil" counters from your side of the field, and if you do, Special Summon 1 "Catharsygil" monster from your Hand or Deck, and if you do that, place 2 "Catharsygil" counters on it. When this card is destroyed, add "Catharsygil" cards from your Deck to your hand, up to half the number of "Catharsygil" counters this card had on the field. ------------------------------------- Catharsygil Crest Quickplay spell Place "Catharsygil" counters on cards you control, up to the number of "Catharsygil"cards in your GY. If You activated this card in the same column as a "Catharsygil" monster(s) you control, or a monster that already has a "Catharsygil" counter(s) on it, you can add 1 "Catharsygil" card from your Deck to your hand. You can only activate 1 "Catharsygil crest" per turn. ------------------------------------- Catharsygil Circle System: Creation Continuous spell Each turn, the first time you summon a monster(s) while this card is on the field, you can place 1 "Catharsygil" counter on that monster(s). If a monster your opponent controls is destroyed by battle with a monster in this cards column, you can place 1 "Catharsygil" counter on that monster. Then, If that monster has 2 or more "Catharsygil" counters, you can draw 2 cards. You can only use each effect of "Catharsygil Circle System: Creation" once per turn. ------------------------------------- Catharsygil Square System: Assault Continuous trap You can remove 2 "Catharsygil" counters from the field: Target 1 card you control, and 1 card your opponent controls; Destroy them, and if you do, place "Catharsygil" counters on this card, up to the number of cards that were destroyed. During either player's main phase, you can remove any number of "Catharsygil" counters from your side of the field, and if you do, negate the effects of cards your opponent controls, up to half the number of counters you removed. If a monster you control with "Catharsygil" counters battles an opponents monster, During damage calculation, you can have that monster gain ATK equal to the ATK of one other monster you control with a "Catharsygil" counter(s). You can only use each effect of "Catharsigyl Square System: Dissonance" once per turn. ------------------------------------- Catharsygil Fairy: Level 2/ LIGHT/ Fairy/PENDULUM S3/ ATK 1000/DEF 1500 Pend Eff: If you Pendulum Summon a monster(s), you can place 1 "Catharsygil" counter on this card. monsters you control gain 200 ATK for every "Catharsygil" counter on this card. Once per turn, if you activate a "Catharsygil" Spell or Trap card in the same column as a monster(s) you control, you can place 1 "Catharsygil" counter on that monster(s). If a card(s) you control With "Catharsygil" counters would be destroyed, you can remove 1 "Catharsygil" counter from each of them instead. Monster Eff: Once per turn (Quick effect): You can place "Catharsygil" counters on cards you control, up to the number of "Catharsygil" monsters you control. During your Main Phase, you can remove 2 "Catharsygil" counters from your side of the field, and if you do, add 1 "Catharsygil" Spell or Trap card from your Deck, to your hand. You can only use this effect of "Catharsygil Fairy" once per turn. ------------------------------------- Catharsygil Archfiend: Level 2/ DARK/ Fiend/ PENDULUM S1/ ATK 1500/DEF 1000 Pend Eff: If you Pendulum Summon a monster(s), you can place 1 "Catharsygil" counter on this card. Monsters your opponent controls lose 200 ATK for every "Catharsygil" counter on this card. Once per turn, If you activate a "Catharsygil" Spell or Trap card in the same column as a monster(s) you control, you can place 1 "Catharsygil" counter on that monster(s). If you remove a "Catharsygil" counters from a card(s) you control, you can Inflict damage to your opponent equal to the number of counters removed x200. Monster Eff: Once per turn (Quick effect): You can place "Catharsygil" counters on cards you control, up to the number of "Catharsygil" monsters you control. During your Main Phase, you can remove 2 "Catharsygil" counters from your side of the field, and if you do, add up to 2 "Catharsygil" cards from your GY, or face-up from your Extra Deck, to your hand. You can only use this effect of "Catharsygil Archfiend" once per turn. Next card, Inscribal architect
  2. So it weakens their strongest monster by the ATK of your strongest monster? If that were a quick effect it could have some insane applications. as it stands, the effect is kinda weak, but the requirement (if it were normal yugioh) could help it see major use.
  3. Immortal coil is an archetype based around a continuous spell card, with effects based upon how many coils are on the field. Monsters in turn, each have differing effects that involve shedding their mortal coils to activate their effects, and creating new coils to serve the immortal coil. Tributes are how they shed this coil, and the tokens they summon are the new forms that they are reborn into. The goal of the deck is to use weak monsters to build larger and larger monsters by continuing to spiral along this coil, and the continuous spell card is how they continue to recur advantage as they grow. There is also a single trap in the deck, that acts as the false form of the spell, having "lesser" effects for each one of the spells effects. 4 examples (1 monster, 2 spells, and the trap.) Ajar Amar, Harbinger of the Immortal coils Fiend Level 1/ATK100/DEF100 If this card is Special Summoned, add 1 "Immortal coil" monster from your Deck to your hand. Once per turn, if you activate the effect of an "Immortal Coil" card, you can banish 1 card on the field. Once per turn, if you control "The Infinite Immortal Coil", you can tribute this card to gain life points, equal to the total ATK of all "Immortal Coil" monsters on the field, and if you do, Special Summon 1 "Immortal Coil Token" (Level 1/Light/Machine) with ATK/DEF equal to the Life points you gained. ---------------------------------------------------- Immortal Coil Creation Normal Spell card Add 1 "Immortal Coil" card from your Deck to your hand. Then, If you control an "Infinite Immortal Coil", you can tribute it, and if you do, Special Summon 1 "Immortal Coil" monster from your hand, and if you do that, draw 1 card for each "Immortal Coil Token" you control. You can only activate 1 "Immortal Coil Creation" per turn. You cannot Special Summon monsters the turn you activate this effect, except "Immortal Coil" monsters. ----------------------------------------------------- Infinite Immortal Coil Continuous Spell card You cannot control more than 1 "Infinite Immortal Coil". Once per turn, when a "Immortal Coil" monster(s) is tributed, you can Special Summon 1 "Immortal Coil Token" (Level 1/Light/Machine) with an ATK/DEF equal to the total ATK/DEF of the monsters tributed. While you control 2 or more "Immortal Coil" cards, apply the following effects: 2+ Once per turn, you can banish cards on the field, up to the number of "Immortal Coil" monsters you control. 3+ "Immortal Coil" cards cannot be targeted by card effects, and "Immortal Coil" monsters cannot be destroyed by battle. 4+ Once per turn, you can Tribute 2 "Immortal Coil" monsters you control, and if you do, Draw 2 cards. --------------------------------------------------- Apeiros, The False Immortal Coil Continuous Trap card (This card is treated as "Infinite Immortal Coil" card while it is not on the field.) Once per turn, when an "Immortal Coil" monster(s) is tributed you can Special Summon 1 "Immortal Coil Token" (Level 1/Light/Machine) with an ATK/DEF equal to half the total ATK/DEF of the monsters tributed. Apply the following effects, up to the number of other "Immortal Coil" cards you control: 2+ Once per turn, you can destroy cards on the field, up to the number of "Immortal Coil" monsters you control. 3+ "Immortal Coil" cards you control cannot be destroyed by your opponents card effects. 4+ All monsters you control gain 500 ATK/DEF, and all monsters your opponent controls lose 500 ATK/DEF Next, "Beast Arsenal "
  4. Let's give it a shot... UnderMIne is an archetype of Earth, reptile monsters that change from Earth to Fire the deeper you dig into the GY. I know adamanticipators do it too, but i have yet to actually play that deck, so i don't know how they work fully. Undermine monsters begin as level 3 monsters within the earth. They start out as Earth types in the main deck, and as they grow to their synchro forms, they become Fire types, with the aesthetic and support cards depicting them developing stronger bodies the deeper they go (Think onyx to steelix for the theme).While they are digging based, the do not have excavation effects, but are more focused upon digging out of the grave, and then using the banish pile to recover resources and make plays instead of the GY. [UnderMine Princess, Abbey Serpent] Earth/Reptile/Tuner/Level 2 You can only use each effect of "UnderMine Princess, Abbey Serpent" Once per turn. If this card is in your GY, You can banish 1 "UnderMine" monster You control, and if you do, Special Summon this card, but banish it when it leaves the field. If this card is sent to your GY: You can target 1 of your banished "Undermine" monsters; Add it to your hand. Then, if this card was used as a material for a Synchro Summon, you can target 1 more of your banished "UnderMine" monsters, and Special Summon it. ATK[100] DEF[200] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [UnderMine Burrowing] Continuous Trap You can only control 1 face-up "UnderMine Burrowing". Once per turn, you can Tribute 1 "UnderMine" monster you control: Target 1 banished "Undermine" monster; Special Summon it to your side of the field, Then You can activate 1 of the following effects, depending on what monster you tributed: Non Synchro monster: Banish 1 "Undermine" monster from your Deck to your GY. Synchro monster: Draw 1 card. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Ascended UnderMine Queen, Abbey] Fire/Reptile/Level 8 UnderMine Princess, Abbey Serpent+ 1 or more monsters If this card is Synchro Summoned, you can banish "UnderMine" monsters from your GY, up to the number of monsters used to Summon this card, and if you do, Destroy cards on the field, up to the number of "UnderMine" Monsters you banished. Then you can Inflict 200 damage to your opponent times the number of your banished "UnderMine" cards. If this card is sent to the GY, you can target "UnderMine" monsters in your GY, up to the number of your banished "Undermine" cards; Add them to your hand. You can only use this effect of ""Ascended UnderMine Queen, Abbey" once per turn. ATK[2100] DEF[3200] I would post more cards to give a better idea, but I have no Idea how spoilers work right now, this will suffice Next: NulForce
  5. Urnight can now summon into a search, so you'll probably have zero issue getting it out regardless of the variant of the deck you're using. On top of that, this thing is pretty easy to search or refill via R4 toolbox, considering gallant granite and daigusto emeral are both massively useful rock types that also happen to support half the deck. In fact, you can use this thing extraordinarily easily so long as you have anything that your rocks can ED summon into. Making this arguably the best support the deck could ask for. sucks that it doesn't search on normal, but there are any number of ways around that, so i'm not mad.
  6. Metaphys might be able to use this in combination with levianeer. the whole deck doesn't really care where the cards go so long as they keep moving, and it doesn't care at all about the banish cost, as necroface and all of the metaphys monsters will just go off when you bring it back. as far as level 8 monsters go, yeah, it's not a boss monster, but it does have enough bulk to make dropping it worth it, and it gives you a really good mill on top of that. with necroface at 3, we might see some really crazy shenanigans from this thing down the line.
  7. i beleive ash says "Includes the effect to" and this does include the effect to draw, so yeah, ash ought to work. that said, this card is definitely going to be a boon against ash blossoms and other cards of that ilk. so long as your opponent does anything on your turn with a monster, you have a choice between using pot of greed, change of heart, and forceful sentry. this card is one of those cards that is liable to get limited in the future, as running three of them really doesn't have too much of a downside, and it can work well with any manner of deck, so long as they can get you to use a monster effect on their turn. it's 3 banned effects, for minimal requirement, i see no way this card will not be meta.
  8. Not just Veritas, but I have pointed out over the course of these posts, that not only does tim use third party confirmation, but that he encourages his viewers to go to other news sources besides him. He supports reporters on both sides of the fence for people to get a proper mix of opinions. as far as a source goes, his articles are in the video, it's not like anybody and their mother can't just read along to see if and where he runs off on a tangent. complaining about tim makes no sense, his videos are there for all to see, and he himself tells people to call him out if and when he gets things wrong. lately he's been a bit more hard-headed, but he still forms his basis on more consistent arguments than most of the people he criticizes. I really wish i had a spoiler notice for that article, but i'll do it up to 5, just to give you a hint of what they're trying to make into "valid" claims. 1) trump was invited to Russia, through his personal assistant, by a British agent, or a Russian pop star. he declined. that's the first one they have on their list. tells you exactly how this list is gonna go. 2) Cohen talks to trump about meeting with Russia, and sees about the Russians interest in it. that is literally all it was. Claiming this was somehow trump seeking corruption, is to ignore that trump also had talks with Germany. You wanna call him hitler too? he also talked with Slovenia, china Scotland, Mexico, Ireland, Sweden, the list goes on. 3) A real estate mogul building a tower in yet another country is not an article worth going into. do not forget trumps original job, and the sheer level of connections he has as a businessman. the man is a household name for a reason. 4) A rich woman contacts trumps daughter about building aforementioned tower. this is then passed onto cohen, who in the end, declines the offer. Do i even need to explain how this isn't even close to a political argument? Yes, the husband has ties to the russian government. This is a business deal over building the trump tower, an unashamedly american brand, on foreign soil, there is zero reason to doubt that it got the attention of putin, but there is less chance of trump being corrupted than bernies' literal honeymoon in the ussr, especially when this never even reached trump. this took up 2 points by the way, and the one right after is literally another invitation declined, so it falls equally flat. 5) Cohen askes for help building the trump tower from the kremlin. Ok. This is about trump tower, the assertion means nothing unless there is some manner of event during the building of the trump tower, where trump decided to step in and ask for kremlin help with the actual election (we actually have dirt on his opponent at the time asking for this very thing with ukraine, so it's not like they couldn't have found dirt) 6) The rest all go on pretty close to like this. They make assertions on events that were absolutely normal at the time, and lightly admit near the end, that either nothing occurred in the end, or the requests were clearly declined. some exceptions, but the main rule is exactly that. "Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting." that was the first thing stated. in other words, a British producer with a Russian client contacted trump jr to hand him some info. Wonder why nobody tried t hit him with British collusion charges, considering the third party initiator was not even Russian. If I, a third party, offer somebody a service, for nothing at all, and they say they'd love it, that does not make a collusion argument, especially when the third party is nowhere near the level of connection that they were asserted to be, and the cash itself is unsolicited. That said, https://reason.com/2019/06/13/is-accepting-information-about-a-political-opponent-from-a-foreigner-an-assault-on-our-democracy/ there is ample precedent for politicians to accept info on their opponents, from anywhere they can find it. On top of that, as Muller says, verbal communication would be defensible under the 1st amendment, on the basis that a basic discussion on the right to hear info (so long as there is no compensation), is by no means illegal. Call it what you like, but there are any number of ways to break that meeting down, and there are as many in your favor as there are for mine, while mine can actually wield the 1st and 4th amendments at the same time. Fact is, there have been ample investigations, not a single one chose to try pushing this narrative, because by any chosen standard, you would either blanket burn several dozen politicians, or the 1st and 4th amendments would be able to break any attempt at creating a prosecution. Even the founding fathers had foreign assistance when fighting for the country. At worst, you could maybe argue that it would be fine-worthy. Especially considering https://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections there is evidence to suggest trump jr's "potential collusion" level was lower on the totem pole than 2 past presidents, and several president hopefuls. Your WP article won't let me in anymore, but to address your point Reagan was the president, in other words, he is absolutely capable of effecting change, and he didn't go there to join any cities, he went there to attend a summit where they were going to create treaties on restricting nuclear weapons, improving human rights, withdrawing troops, and cancelling propaganda attempts. they got that much done before Reagan stopped calling them an "evil empire" Bernie went before all that, and praises Russia for giving him the kgb edited version of Russian life. https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/21/i-lived-in-soviet-russia-when-bernie-sanders-visited-and-hes-a-communist-dupe/ That's what the people who actually lived it, think of bernies views. Same as china often does, they gave the visitor the good seats, and brushed the rest under the rug. you can see america's poverty just by turning on the local news, bernie was actively reveling in the high life, with the lower lives kicked under the rug. Reagan went there to give the people human rights, bernie went there to tout the glories of of their architecture. One only gave them praise past actually implementing change, the other was really just there, doing little more than touring. Of course they have different motivations, one likes capitalism, and touts as much. The other likes socialism, and touts as much. One just got through several years of investigation, and came through clean, the other gets a free pass with no "thorough" investigation. Yeah, you see them differently alright. it's called TDS because you have yet to even attempt to give trump the same benefits that you have given bernie. I have pointed this out several times, and while i have given Bernie the same benefit of the doubt that i give trump despite trump actually making it through a literal investigation, you do no such thing for trump. See the difference? "These people need help, and we have this much help we can send them immediately" "No, we refuse to send this help till you add this fluff" Is exactly what happened. https://fox6now.com/2020/04/09/democrats-stall-president-trumps-250b-business-virus-aid-package/ The bill could have been passed unanimously, and neither party had a reason to hinder the support from going out (though admittedly there was a republican that was liable to force them all to be there as well, but as wrong as he was, in his case, it was solely to have them all acting in person). As for diversity quotas, what exactly would you call using "relief for minority owned businesses" to hold up a unanimous vote? Aren't they already businesses? Are they affected by the virus? If both of these are true, then there is zero reason to use that as a reason to block the bill. The money was already going to be increased greatly, by almost 300 billion if i recall, if the money is not handed out to anybody who has been affected, then that would be enough basis already to make the claim that they were overlooked, adding in an additional fluff clause is exactly what i said, nothing ore than a diversity quota. if they own a small business, they they are already covered, that is the fact of the matter, and their delay of the bill over this issue, when they could literally have passed this, had money flowing, and then drafted the rest, is a clearly political move. fact is, they are not, and were never going to be able to cover everything at once, them blocking this bill, delays help that could already be heading out, while adding pointless fluff that the original bill. Look at this this way "let's get money to people" vs "Let's get money to minority people" are minorities not people? are minority businesses not businesses? if they need the money, then they already had ample grounds to get what they needed. that is the problem. they halted aid that could already be going out, for nothing better than social justice reasons. they could add more money to the next wave, they chose not to. this shouldn't even be an argument, the time they wasted adding extra fluff, is time being added to the people's waiting. minority businesses, and workers overall, are more harmed by this delay, then they would be by the bill as it was. I meant the witnesses, that was my bad. I made an incorrect claim when i said it was republicans blocked, they themselves weren't blocked, it was republican witnesses, Republicans were indeed allowed into the hearings, but the democrats had hours to question their list of people, while republicans were wholly blocked from questioning their list of people. that was my mistake. Republicans were shut down by the majority even when they had the right to argue appeals, or to call witnesses. This was still an unprecedented action, and ignored the rights of the minority party. That is a massive part of the reason that the senate blocked witnesses. they claimed to have "a mountain of evidence" and yet couldn't even build a case, even though they were the only ones allowed witnesses. When forced to play on equal grounds, they got done the same way they did the republicans in the house. Then trump roasted them on it in the acquittal speech. My bad on that mistake though. The movement of quotations annoys me because it slyly moves the goalposts. Reread the quotes i placed, and then think about how they each look when taken outside the discussion. He said it's "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." he said it "might be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." That's how easy it is to take quotes out of contexts. I happen to be looking at it through the lawyer-speak lens though. One is a call of certainty, that is quoted can wholly leave behind the proper context. the other is the whole comment, with proper spacing, so it cannot be dragged out of context on purpose or by accident. It's also not an assumption that they added or changed things either. The fact is, the article is listed as being either posted, or updated on the 10th, yet you posted your comment on the 9th. That is ample reason to suspect an edit of the article. Me not knowing what or how they changed it is because they added no further explanation aside from it being edited. I was going to leave the rest of my objections out, but let me fire further upon the article since that wasn't enough for you: The combination of chloroquine plus zinc as been proven to be effective by independent users across the globe by this point in time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVs_EWVCVPc doctors all across the globe have been using the drug on patients who have declined in health, and the Hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc has been getting results. It's a well known drug already. The zinc is shown to stop the RNA of the virus from mutating, while the Hydroxychloroquine is capable of opening cells and guiding the zinc to do its' work. The current consensus from doctors in the field using it is that it works when used under doctor supervision and administration. https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/04/01/covid-patients-remarkable-recovery-prompts-florida-officials-consider-hhydroxychloroquine-treatment/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/antimalaria-drug-speeds-up-recovery-of-coronavirus-patients-study/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FczpFtz5q-0 The people writing the cnn article were trying to fire on an optimistic president over what is a literal nonissue. Fauci said effectively, the same things as trump, just in a less optimistic tone. One said it could be a game changer (which it is now proving to be) while the other said it is worth studying. The two statements do not oppose each other. "it needs further clinical testing, but it could be a game changer if proven true. it may work, it may not." see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6kPUFseTWQ That's another breakdown of how the medication works, and explains how and why it's so effective. This treatment has already seen ample success. Enough worldwide that trying to slap it down at this point as ineffective is literally ignoring the fact that the doctors using it right now are wholly advocating using it on patients who have worsening conditions (so long as consent is given), and are seeing great results. Your article can't even deny as much, though it tries to play the narrative as if it could. Of course the drug can be dangerous, that is why it is only being administered by doctors. This is also not a cure, it is a symptom treatment, which is why further options still need to be researched. these are the facts, and none of them contract trumps claim that it could be a game changer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScdYrN3BWTM that is trumps views on the drug, he thinks it could be good, and understands that the drug has been around long enough that we know how to use it better than most other drugs in the field. it's inexpensive, it's well known, and it has been treating similar symptoms to the CCP virus for decades. the fact that we know so much about it is why it was placed on the table in the first place, and we have seen that while it does not cure everything, it has been shown to handle the symptoms, to at least some degree. To put this upfront on the charlottesville case, i was wrong, in the dumbest possible way lol. I was wrong here when i thought there were two crashes I was looking at the scope of the incident as if it were two incidents, where you have actually, and accurately pointed out that the two are the same incident. I looked at both videos as if they were completely different. So thanks for showing me that. That being said, I still stand by my argument that the accident was exactly that, an accident, and now i can at least make some sense of some loose ends that i was having in my point before. First up, the fact that so many people were already after him with weapons out. People were on him in less than a second, some literally swinging even while the car was moving, swinging on the vehicle with bats and the like. Exactly what kind of peaceful folks would be already swinging on the guy? this is one of several things that didn't mesh until i realized that the separate angles were actually the same thing. So yeah, definitely thanks for that bit. it actually helps out with my point to an extent, you can see that more than just a few folks were already after the guy, and he was clealy right to be in fear for his life, as several folks were already coming at him with bats and other weaponry. this is further evidence to my point that the guy was likely not in his right mind at the time, and was likely in fear for his life when he was driving. case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2yf0egWiRA&feature=youtu.be In this less tragic case, we see a crowd of these asshats attacking a man who was effectively minding his own business. then at 0:09 of this video, we see the same phenomenon that we saw in Charlottesville. The man hits the gas to get away from the absolute lunatics attacking his car, and they chase after him anyways. This is textbook antifa shit. In fact, the more i look into it, the more places i see it, and can tell that charlottseville was just that time it went south for them. (for more proof that they enjoy these tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjGPmc7_PRI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcaDO7SY4-4&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK5bh16CyGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSc_7FJc-f0 Yes. I can keep going.) blocking the roads and attacking the drivers is what they do. After looking this far into it, as much as i believe "involuntary manslaughter" still applies, fact is, antifa does this extremely often, and the driver should not be responsible for the assholes that are attacking his vehicle. I'm starting to feel less sympathy for those of antifa who participate in this kind of behavior. Did you know that getting hit by a car can cause a heart attack? It's not a conspiracy theory, it is the literal term for what happened. Yes, getting hit by the car is likely what triggered it, but from her unhealthy lifestyle, she was clearly not built for that life. in fact, this is an image of her, https://i2.wp.com/www.occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1504665039863.png?w=267. She is clearly not healthy. And she is the only person who dies. so yeah, i stand by the point that her health is a large part of the reason she dies. Since i haven't said it for a while, as sad as the accident is, fact is, at worst this ought to be a manslaughter charge at best. The dude broke down crying at the fact that he killed someone in the initial estimate. we clearly see that he was being attacked readily, by the footage that we have of him during the incident. In my earlier post, i was confused for a bit on why there was only one report of a car accident, but thanks to you, i can now see that the guy was clearly getting attacked for most, if not all stages of the event, and as we see several times over, antifa is often the only ingredient needed for anything to get violent. Here we see antifa attacking the car, and whatever argument you may have for them here, it's not the first time, nor is it the last that we have seen them attacking innocent drivers. making the argument that they started it, all the more credible. The point i made in my previous post was one that was shown to you dozens of times over since 2016. we cited the sheer size of the two states in support of clinton, and compared districts that voted for trump, vs those that voted hillary. Not just me, but several others have done this as well. you, and many who have taken your side, simply did not acknowledge this. If you do now, ok, but it's not like we haven't been making the point for years. thing is, trump won in almost 3x the districts as hillary, yet somehow the popular vote was still won by her. if nohting else, that alone is evidence that the electoral college is doing its' job. Just keep in mind, i let you set the terms, so that you had no complaints about whatever the end outcome is. Remember that.
  9. And here i thought I would be keeping it short. Times like this i really wish spoilers still worked, it would make it way easier to form this response. Either way though, Addressing the tim argument first because it somehow feels out of place all the way down there. Tim, while he complains and adds his own views, tends to be on topic. I won't argue that he does get a bit... Excessive at times, and can be off topic in a few videos, even i have seen reason to call him out at times for making certain reaches, or for making an argument or claim that breaks via his own known actions or standards. but opinionated does not mean he is using bad sources, and on that note, you literally cannot dispute tims sources, as he uses a proper third party source to verify them, that leans left in the first place, and is quite vocal about when he is using a source that is not verified by said source. on top of that, as i said before, time I could go much further, but I have no idea how spoilers work on this new site. That's how i would normally format certain arguments to avoid clutter, and his is already gonna be a long response. The man picked a near peak moment in the cold war, to visit russia, at nearly the height of the USSR's power. Bernie decided that bringing along political allies to foster a relationship with a city in russia during the cold war, was all while he was holding enough political power to be worth corrupting, but not enough power to actually effect proper change yet, was a good idea. Compare that to trump jr. One is a meeting arranged via third party, with someone who worked with fusion gps and has ties to the debunked steel dossier, aka, a person more associated with the american democratic party, and a failed political hit piece, than russia. The other, aka bernie, made the voluntary choice, to spend ample time under the shadow of what at the time was a massive regime that still held tensions with america (bringing his wife along with him) Several sites literally try to claim that they took a "proper honeymoon the next year" but a honeymoon a year later is not a proper excuse, considering his first anniversary is the next year, and a trip would have been in order regardless. How can't you see why this is easily a comparable argument? On top of that, for the business relations, business ties are not the same as a political honeymoon to a country that is currently in a cold war with your own. Let's not pretend it is. As far as jobs, Trumps kids actually have credits to their names in business development by this point, and they held no political power. It would be akin to calling business owners communists for exploiting Chinese labor for lower costs (dick move yes, but a communist, it does not make them). Unlike bidens kid, trumps kids actually have knowledge in the field they are working in. As far as the russia business deals go, unlike bernie, none of the trumps have been preaching socialist party policy during their time as businessmen, and were not elected officials, but regular businessmen for the most part. You have to make the argument that he is less qualified than the people beneath him. Bernies wife has been working for his political party since the early 2000's, if you want to use that argument, then family members working closely with the parties in politics is nothing new, and trumps family actually has (for the most part) lifelong experience that can help assist with the corona outbreak, such as a business acumen that allows them to handle control of the monetary distribution, production methods, and supply allocations that may fall under government jurisdiction. My argument is not "it's only right when trump does it" it's "if you want to aim at trump, i can show you several political precedents and actions that were established or occurred, well before trump, that exonerate the mans actions by the same metric you use to attack him." after finishing and looking over this respons, gonna have to ask that you read this one properly, you have, several times, made mistakes that imply you are incapable of giving the benefit of the doubt, i have not done you the same disservice, and i expect that respect of you. you can keep in those sly jabs, i actually love the spice, but when it comes to the arguments, try to actually understand my points, if not the entire implicated meanings, then at least the verbatim words i type. I am actually reading through your comments and responding as accurately as possible so as not to misconstrue you any further than reasonable, i expect that same courtesy. For examples, when i defend trumps actions requesting investigations into biden for having his son on a foreign board, it's not (just) because it's family, it's because as established, hunter has literally no experience in the field he was placed in, or even experience in the field of business really. We literally have video of hunter admitting his gains were likely due entirely to nepotism, and video of biden boasting of said nepotism that started the whole thing. If we can hit trump on an impeachment charge for requesting an investigation, then there is no viable reason we cannot hit biden. When i point out that sanders honeymooned in Russia, parties with dictators, and praise regimes that are unquestionably horrible (Venezuela for one), it's not because i consider him a russian agent, and i said this already. It is to point out that had trump done these things, you would undoubtedly use them against him, even though sanders' political message is far closer to communist/socialist regimes than trumps own message. I make arguments that test your blinders, and you often miss this entirely, due to the same said blinders. That is the whole point. They did not have to block this, and should not be delaying the aspects that they already agree on and can pass unopposed. Especially during a time where people and small businesses literally cannot pay their bills due to state actions and need the money. In fact, democrats literally blocked a bill just hours ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5CxjVPOcI&list=WL&index=9&t=1s The bill was simply a doubling of funds to small businesses. all the worse as far as interruptions go, because there was nothing in it anybody was able to object to, nothing about large businesses like Disney or amazon was in the bill. All the dems wanted were useless diversity quotas and the like, added into parts where they had no business being. They could have passed the initial bill, and then argued for a new bill, to handle the further desired demands as necessary. The method they use now holds up the entire bill, and it's literally for the most pointless fluff you can think of, aka "diversity quotas" This is literally the republicans trying to add more money asap to avoid the worst outcomes of this economic halt, and democrats are, instead of passing this one thing what they can all agree on, and working to make new legislation to work their extra fluff through, are halting the entirety of the aide, and instead, saying "more money to keep businesses afloat, is not enough, we are going to try and force our agenda through at the same time" they are literally holding up aide to the people of this nation, because they want to throw in what are in my opinion the most useless clauses possible. They can do ALL of that in another bill under development. The bill that was ready to go was already filled with things both parties could agree on. Tim even points out several clear inconsistencies in the media, like how several sites changed their old titles to make the dems look better. then he explains in fair detail how this kind of dishonest reporting covers for the democrats, and only makes the divide worse. There is nothing vindictive. That boy trump already came out clean from several separate investigations. Not proven guilty in america, is the effective equal of innocent. Your argument here fails because i already addressed your point. Here you make this mistake that i mentioned in an above edit as i was finishing up. You seem to make responses that are not actually applicable to what i say. I get it, it's a nice projector, but you need to turn it off my guy. Go reread what i wrote on bernie, I said the accusations against him were bunk, but the gravity of them was on par with anything against trump. Then i pointed out how bad they look in context, and pointed out just how hard you would be going on trump if anything bernie or biden did applied to him. Under my standards, both parties are innocent. Not only did i state trump, bernie, and tulsi were innocent of the accusation, i pointed out, and explained how if your own standards were able to include the trump jr meeting, then by your own standards, there is ample evidence against your own candidate, and if you were consistent in your standard, you would either demand as much of an investigation into him as trump had, or leave the situation be, because your standards would damn sure not ignore bernies actions had it been trump taking them on. Trump came out clean, and while i would say bernie could also come out clean, the point is that trump went through a thorough investigation, making the points against him, carry far less water, assuming you hold the same standards across the board. I answered your question, you must not have read the actual statement if you believe otherwise so here you go. I'll restate it and break it down for you: "Look at any prior impeachment and you will see that both sides were allowed to participate, both sides were allowed to set the terms, regardless of minority, any closed doors had democrats and republicans inside to discuss the topics." let me break it down for you, since you somehow couldn't: In other impeachments, There was no blocking of the minority party's ability to call witnesses as there was here. During the impeachment hearing for nixon, both parties were pissed, and they unilaterally were about to slap him down, under that context, the impeachment was obviously bipartisan. We then get to clinton, while the democrats were in the minority at the time, the republicans still gave them a say, and did not block this many motions from the democrats, and gave them near equal time, to conduct interviews and call witnesses. The democrats and republicans had nearly equal time to present arguments during the Clinton impeachment. There was absolutely none of that during the trump hearing. A total of about 70 hours was sunk into the impeachment trial for trump, and democrats had control of over 50 hours of that time early, with zero hours of republican input allowed during that time. This impeachment was extremely partisan in comparison to how republicans handled the Clinton impeachment. The only reason you could not see it is because you are suffering tds, but it's ok, i'm here to help you, so let's continue. Hydroxicloroquine probably butchered that again was already sanctioned in malaria, arthritis, and several other treatments, and has seen success in treating symptoms for severe cases of the CCP virus already. It's a drug we already have on hand, and have experience with, thus can use more effectively to minimize unexpected factors. Trump did not call it a miracle cure, he said, verbatim: "It might work, it might not, we should try it" and fauchi agreed that it was worth a shot to treat symptoms, as did cuomo down the line. It's easy to make, and already has some documented uses going in, thus it is a better option than just hoping and praying. also, I need to rip into your CNN use for one minute, take a look at the first paragraph, at the quote they use. Did you notice it? do you see where they twist the narrative from the onset? i'll give you the answer, it's where they start the quotation marks: "pointing in a tweet and in person to a French study as evidence that one particular drug combination might be "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."" Is what they do, where it should look like: "pointing in a tweet and in person to a French study as evidence that one particular drug combination "might be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." See how that changes the feel of the quote? They do this several times,. They subtly shift the way they quote trump, and it comes off with an entirely differe t feel than it otherwise would. On top of that, they edited the article after you posted it, to add... they actually don't say that they add. I would assume though, that what they added would be the small admission in the end, where doctors who say while that study wasn't good, they think that the study still showed that the drug shows some promise, and is worth studying further. Alongside the fact that several larger organizations are also looking into the drug, because its' known properties happen to be perfect counters to one of the ways in which the drug can cause death (cytokine storms). Gotta love that CNN right? Just taking just a shot in the dark with this guess, but were tim to do things the way CNN did in this article, crunching quotations in ways that shift the meanings of quotes, would you not try to nail his ass to a cross for it? Just wondering. I know i would, and call him out on such things, as i do on occasion when i see him make a mistake in a video that could lead to a dishonest or illogical conclusion. Side note, did you know that too much dihidrogen monoxide also has severe side effects, and has been used to kill and torture millions of people, throughout history? Trump still says it's good for the people in the proper dosage though. He must hold the people in utter contempt for the people of america right? That's kind of what you sound like to me right now. You are trying to claim a drug that is already known, and has been getting used in the medical field long enough that we know better how to use it on symptoms than almost any other known option against this ccp virus, is somehow a terrible thing to endorse. everything can kill you, the question is whether or not we can discover, and apply the proper dosage to treat symptoms. Get over your tds. Like i said, i'm here to help you. It's ok, we aren't scary people. Did you know that standing in the way of an oncoming car is a stupid idea? i know, shocking right? I know about the permit, i also know about the person who literally bragged about causing an incident, by making threatening gestures with his gun, and showed you several videos and articles of them, (like this one: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/armed-antifa-professor-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-rifle-deadly-crash/) demonstrating that he was deadass serious about his intent to cause if not harm, then at the absolute least, serious disruptions. the man(?) was absolutely elated on his twitter about the fact that he caused an accident. You seem to have missed those facts several dozen times. Just saying it now, but the crash he caused, is far worse than the one fields was in, but we'll get there again in a second. I gave you many of these facts already, several times. I gave you several others as well, in the past but it'll take more time to relocate those. I showed you, several times over how the trial was bunk in the first place, but let's go over it again, this time breaking it down for you piece by piece again. point 3) http://www.departmentofmemes.com/article/protesters-attacked-charlottesville-drivers-car-baseball-bat/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSz5zr-rdMU for a clearer view, with similar breakdowns. This shows you a breakdown of the video, using the actions at the scene to demonstrate what i have been saying all along. In fact, the freeze at :10 shows his car being assaulted by a random dude with a weapon (seems to be a bat, and we know antifa has plenty of those). You really want to argue that a guy who is driving a hellcat capable of a clean 0-60 on the autobahn, with the intent to kill or maim a crowd of people, is going to be driving slow enough to get hit by a slow ass swing from a baseball bat? He was clearly startled, hit the gas just barely harder than he would otherwise have, and ending in the crash. The officers themselves reported him as scared at the end of the scenario, not as murderous, which aligns with his comment of being "chased by violent terrorists (aka antifa)" like he told his mom. It is only several months later, after the gravity of the situation, and the injustice of the narrative, that he shows this resentment. Claiming that this is somehow evidence of past malice is deliberate ignorance of how humans work. Rage at unjust accusations is a 100% understandable stance. Let's say you crash by accident, and people (by people i mean the media at large) use that crash to claim you're a malicious murderer, would you take that on the chin peacefully, or would you be absolutely furious that the media is absolutely smearing what was a literal accident? The dude was venting to his mother, of course he's pissed. He knows he's innocent, and his mother has to talk to him now through a damn jail cell. tell me he has no right to be mad when he's painted as the villain and is on his way to a kangaroo court. We even saw it attempted with the covington kid case in fact, every outlet smeared them to the dirt, ruining their lives, and had the full video not surfaced, the media would have only gone in harder. luckily media got their comeuppance in that case, unlike this one. point 4) the attempt to discredit fields makes zero sense, as dixon (or any other maniac with weapons like antifa enjoys employing against innocent people) chasing him with a rifle would be ample grounds to establish the argument that the baseball bat hitting his car, after being intimidated by a man with a gun, would be enough rationale for the slight speed boost to 28mph. I go faster than that on a morning commute. Are you really going to tell me the splc has a grounded argument, when their nail in the argument is that 28mph is proper attempted murder speed? This is a video from the same day, showing how "well" antifa was behaving towards drivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAf-6irU2Y&feature=youtu.be different car in this one, but you see the point? and we see in the film involving the death, that a man hit the back of the drivers car with a weapon as well, likely startling him. Antifa is not a movement of peace. We see everywhere they go they bring violence where there often would not be any, and this scenario is no different. Hell, look at the way they reacted to that other one, awful lot of bat for some "preaceful" protesters huh? Fact is, they were attacking people all day, and one of them lost the coin flip. It wasn't even the car hit that killed her, she died from a damn heart attack. She was unhealthy as hell. If you want to claim she suffered injuries severe enough to kill her from the car, nope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gJl8p0R4U&feature=youtu.be. You see that? THAT'S an impact with intent to kill. Yet nobody died from that much of a hit (hospitalizations occured, but point stands). The video you want to claim was a lethal strike had zero acceleration in comparison. You see the point here? The man was accused of something he clearly did not mean to do, and her unhealthy lifestyle cost two lives, hers, and the unfortunate man who made her heavy commie heart finally put in real work. Now let's keep going. We know a man hit the back of his car with a bat, it's in the video, you can't even pretend that the back of his car wasn't hit, because you can literally see the dude swing in the most common video of the event. If you're driving and a man hits the back of your vehicle, while your foot is on the petal, would you really not be startled enough to slightly speed up? I showed you a video from that very same day of a proper impact, fields was driving far slower than that, and yet you expect your argument to float? Nah my guy. We know that at the absolute least, a man hit the back of his car immediately before the impact. We know that even with permission to be there, they were instigating incidents of violence the entire day, and fighting with the other people there. We know antifa has an extraordinarily consistent record of bringing violence with them to events that would be otherwise peaceful. You gonna tell me the guy who hit the back of his car in the same video was being peaceful? Nice try. No my friend, you are ignoring the existence of math, and (hopefully not on purpose) ignoring or distorting the actual explanation. I suppose i really do have to make it so simple a child could understand it. first, lets revisit my statement to point out how you misrepresent my comment: "look at the electoral votes, going by state, hillary lost badly, but thanks mainly to the absolute size of her two largest supporting states, she still managed to influence the popular vote. 4 million is nothing. New york alone has over 20 million people, and california has 39.5 million. Do you not understand how such massive states are capable of stealing the popular vote of an election? remove cali and texas from the equation, and suddenly the popular vote would be a hell of a lot closer." In other words, the point was not that clinton didn't win the popular vote, but that the popular vote was due solely to the absolute size of her two most popular states. She got beat in enough states that the whole map was practically red. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html#4.00/39.63/-96.56 this was the equivalent of a murder scene as far as how red the map was that election. Nobody was contesting that hillary won the popular vote, in fact, that just makes it funnier. I was demonstrating that her "popular vote" was nothing more than a consolation prize. she got dragged, and california/new york, known democrat strongholds, were the only thing keeping her old ass on life support with a verdict like that. you may not like facts, but i'm here to teach you as well, just take my hand, together we could rule the galaxy!/s Deal, your same conditions will aply to you for my end. And in the event that there's one win and one loss (shared between the funi and marchi/ron suits), we both leave forever on a count of phyrric victory. Sounds like fun to me. Now let's flip that coin.
  10. Charmers might be really good at negation in the near future. they lack offensive power, but as far as stun, they have a hell of a lot of support.
  11. The best part of the game begins now.

    1. Show previous comments  3 more
    2. vla1ne

      vla1ne

      There is a very, very good reason for me to say it here, the game is being played on this very site.

    3. Phantom Roxas

      Phantom Roxas

      Basically, vla1ne and I made a bet about Vic Mignogna's appeal. I believe the appeal will be dismissed, and vla1ne believes Vic will win.

      Considering how he took the bet at the same time he posted a conspiracy theory about someone dying from a heart attack after I had already shared an article which quoted testimony from a medical examiner confirming that no such heart attack had occurred, I feel good about my chances.

    4. Ryusei the Morning Star

      Ryusei the Morning Star

      now now, daddy winter loves you all equally, no need to fight

  12. Glad i waited a week, because we now have a clear ending to the bernie saga. and the result is a hard L. That said, gonna start cutting this response down for times sake. Bernie straight up refuses to drop the socialist label, this is the biggest issue in both the russian spy aspect, and in his election campaign. There is a reason that the argument "Bernie is a Russian agent" holds as much water as the clam that trump is (both being bullshit arguments, but point stands). of course countries suffer worse, but saying "at least they have breadlines" is a terrible look. The dude has a habit of playing the fence on communist regimes, when even the "good" things about them are often leagues worse than they would be elsewhere, like the literacy rate in Cuba. Nicaragua is just an outside example of how he does this, meaning at least he's consistent with that. So is your argument that a contact point introduced via third party, to the son of the person in question for something like an hour tops, even though the son had no idea prior to the meeting that the person had even the most remote ties to Russia, is somehow a strong point of evidence to convict trump on russian collusion? Yet you are arguing that literally honeymooning in Russia, is somehow not enough to make someone worthy of that title of collusion? Or that having a son on the board of a foreign board of a company that handles a product that he holds no experience in dealing with, is somehow also not a strong enough argument to have an investigation despite both hunter and joe biden themselves admitting that corruption is what landed the job? Boy if you don't get that reaching shit out of here. If we go by your own metric, either your own argument here is garbage, or my argument is valid. There are two sides to this coin, but you do not get two flips. You either pick one or the other. Are you seriously comparing the temporary spending of money to handle a worldwide event/national emergency, to a continuous program that would drain the same level of funds over a similar course of time? there is a clear difference between spending to cover massive overflow of hospitals in the event of a pandemic, to spending that same level of money on a constant basis. "we can't let this crisis go to waste" (more or less) was not said by the republicans, but by a democrat, and only democrats blocked the bill. Fact is, republicans wanted to get the bill through asap, with as little spending as possible to both help the people, not over strain the economy, and deliver the cash as soon as possible. Democrats are the ones who stalled it and then filled it with several (some are admittedly good, but all of them could have waited) extra policies that dragged down the distribution time. It is a fact that this stimulus is going to cause massive inflation as we are spending money we do not have. If your argument is that this is a good idea as a constant policy, which you appear to be implying when you link it to bernies plans, then you are gone in the head. luckily, the american people also realize this, and bernie got screwed fairly in the polls. bernies plan is only feasible in the short term, the extremely short term. Try to run it as a constant and you will burn money faster than you can drain it via taxes, and you will still be draining money fast enough to destroy companies. free college, free healthcare, ect, is not a stable policy, it's utopian ideals that sound exactly as nice as they would be destructive if implemented. look at every country that has anything even remotely like them, and you will see that they do not endorse bernies proposed system. In fact, a country (can't recall which, I believe it was Denmark, but too lazy atm to look) flat out stated that bernies plan was nothing like what they have in place when he stated his idea was similar to theirs. Bernies plan is shit. It's utopian daydreaming, that sounds exactly as nice, as it would be destructive. we all want healthcare, but the government forcing it through on taxpayer dime, is not the way to do it, especially under bernies ideals. veritas is a legit source, and that "random bernie supporter" was a staffer on the bernie campaign, hardly random when a guy responsible for organizing your message is the one spouting the idea, on top of that, thanks to waiting a week, we now see bernie bros drop the "democratic" in front of their socialist titles, and i bet we would definitely have seen exactly how "tolerant" they would be about losing, had we not been in quarantine. But hey, no refunds right? The fbi investigation was still included in the muller report, they are intertwined as they are all part of the same vein of investigation and used much of the same data. Also, when your boy bernie takes a 2 year investigation and comes out no worse for wear, you can talk to me about equal levels of innocence. They couldn't even pin a thing on trump that wasn't already media fluff, after two whole years worth of investigating. The point of putting bernie through the same rigor is called making a fair argument. Trump went through over two years of investigations from the highest seats in the land, and they STILL got nothing to pin on him. and obstruction is a stupid charge to brag about when it's literally the only thing they could so much as attempt to make fly, and even then it would be dubious at best. "The suspect didn't commit the robbery, but he did protest his treatment using the rights he possesses, guess we can pin him for obstructing justice" that's how shit your argument is. If your candidate doesn't have the same credentials, then he is not on the same level. End of story. You serious about that question? Are you that biased? Or are you as gone as biden? look at any prior impeachment and you will see that both sides were allowed to participate, both sides were allowed to set the terms, regardless of minority, any closed doors had democrats and republicans inside to discuss the topics, there was no blocking of the minority party's ability to call witnesses as there was here, the list goes on. the republican party came to respect him, while the democrats have embraced outrage, it's that simple. i already told you how that could have been a win for democrats, the fact that they have been partisan the whole while, disrespecting even the basic premise of honor, regardless of occasion, so long as it meant insulting trump, shows exactly what i mean. Name one SOTU where republicans were as nasty as dems have been, name one impeachment process more biased than this one. people have been trying to impeach, delay, and otherwise disrespect trump from the start. It's called TDS, and it is a demonstrable phenomenon. in fact, you could make several prediction based upon TDS, and you would see the people following accordingly. for example, hydroxychloroquine probably butchered that one, doctors said it has seen success, trump says the same after hearing it, and they swarm him, with one state democrat even trying to ban it, then it sees some effective runs, and they try to run a claim that trump had a stock share in it all along, with some idiots even trying to call for a second impeachment over such a flimsy rationale. The list could literally go on for days about the mental gymnastics people with TDS go through, but i'll let you do the next flip. sit down with this old ass argument. Yes, a fat chick dies, nobody else even goes to ICU. Do you know what a vehicle driven with even the barest intent to kill would do to bodies? i'll give you a basic image search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vehicle+hitting+bodies&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images that's about what even the barest "intent to kill" looks like. Your "intent" arguments are meaningless. If he was driving the car like an Islamist, then, you would have an argument. He drove like somebody who made a mistake, and the condition of the people hit, backs that fact up. One dead fat chick out of a whole crowd of people, who have no business being in the street in the first place, does not prove intent to kill, much less intent to hit people. People call everyone a grifter, spend enough time looking and you will find people calling literally anybody a grifter, from ben shapiro, to joe rogan, to any other popular name you can name. it's a pointless argument, and that's where i'm leaving it. You got a problem with any tim pool video i use, you can address it there and we can have talk, till then, your source is just another person upset, because his desired narrative isn't the one he's hearing from tim. I've got my own issues with tim, but i don't use videos from tim that i haven't personally watched and checked the logic on, and his sources are all third party certified, by left leaning organization no less, many of which, are the same sources you yourself often use. look at the map again, trump beat clinton in every state he won, so those all have majority trump numbers, now look at the largest states trump won by any large margin in, and subtract those from the largest ones hillary won by a large margin in. What you see, is that of all the most massive states, california and new york, were overwhelmingly clinton favored, while mainly only texas, was overwhelmingly trump. what that means, is that clinton has two of the most massive states buffing her numbers, while trump mainly has just texas. New york and texas pretty much cancel each other out as far as vote comparison, and that leaves the massive state of california to lean the popular vote count towards hillary. look at the electoral votes, going by state, hillary lost badly, but thanks mainly to the absolute size of her two largest supporting states, she still managed to influence the popular vote. 4 million is nothing. New york alone has over 20 million people, and california has 39.5 million. Do you not understand how such massive states are capable of stealing the popular vote of an election? remove cali and texas from the equation, and suddenly the popular vote would be a hell of a lot closer. i'm dropping the vic case till it resolves, but i will gladly bet anything you want on vic winning. If you are that confident, go ahead and make any proposal. anything from a status change, to permanent public admission, to leaving forever. that's how confident i am that you're wrong. If you got the balls to flip that coin then make that bet, if not, then this topic is done for now. I don't have enough time to play around as much as i did in 2016.
  13. Stay safe and healthy folks.

    1. Rayfield Lumina

      Rayfield Lumina

      The same to you, vla1ne

    2. vla1ne

      vla1ne

      I have one of the "essential care" jobs, so i'm all but guaranteed to take a hit in the near future. I work with the elderly, and am one of the main contact points for every outside interaction as well. Thanks to quarantine procedure, my exposure rate is primed to go through the roof if anything goes further south in my area. Hopefully my facility doesn't catch anything,

    3. Rayfield Lumina

      Rayfield Lumina

      Damn it, man, sounds rough. Thanks for doing that amazing job, though.

  14. To the first response, ok, that's my bad. for some reason i though he was discussing USSR who also had bread lines around the same time. in either case, the point still stands though, There is literally nowhere in the united states where you will die of hunger faster than people did in USSR nicaragua, breadlines or not. I was terribly wrong about the location, and i need to work to not make that mistake again, but the overall point remains the same as it ever was. Trump runs business in real estate, calling that acceptable evidence of russian collusion would be like arresting the starbucks CEO for opening a starbucks in russa. Not good enough. not bad, he learned to pull the disavow card. doesn't change much about the point though Bernie, and every other wannabe socialist gives the same responses, "That wasn't real socialism" or "I oppose that form of socialism, mine will be different" and we have seen, time and again, that each and every one of their proposed "variants" collapses, for all the same reasons. aka, stifling innovation, spending money that they do not have, disincentivising people from becoming doctors, stifling the free market via the astronomical level of taxations required to float their policies, the list goes on. There is zero reason that bernies plan will be any different. and we see time and again as well, how bernie advocates similar plans to other regimes that collapse. For a proper response, buttigieg puts it the simplest: "Of course literacy is a good thing, but why are we spotlighting the literacy programs of a brutal dictator instead of being unambiguous in our condemnation about the way he was treating his own people?". this is the fundamental flaw of bernie. he can say all he wants that he doesn't support the regime, but he continuously tries to look at the rose colored glasses version of them. We have food kitchens in america that serve more, and better food than any "breadlines" in Nicaragua, we have literacy programs in america that don't involve a gun to the heads of your loved ones, the waypuerto rico does, or forced propoganda. This is bernies flaw, we already have most, if not all of those good aspects, without the extreme poverty. “I happen to believe that in the United States, there is something fundamentally wrong when we have three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society.” is exactly how we slide down the slippery slope. The wealth inequality in america is nothing compared to the rest of the world. look at venezuela if you want to see a true wage gap. In america, some win, and some lose, but the chance to break even, or even just float just beneath, to come up for air now and again, is orders of magnitude higher than it would be under his policies. Remind me again how he pays for free healthcare, free college, free whatever else he's proposing, on top of all that we have now? and once we see that., how would he keep any business remaining in america if not by seizing them means of production the way so many before him have? The evidence against trump has already failed beyond anything i would need to say against it. Remember that 3 year long investigation following everything they could get their hands on? Tell me how that falling flat, counts as anything other than a resounding failure overall? They spent years, not weeks, not months, years, going over everything they could find, every trail they could follow, and not only did it still flop, they even had to use a debunked report to bolster it as they floated in that sea of abject failure. They had all the same links you seem to want to use, information well beyond that, al the time they could ask for, and they still couldn't do it. Put bernie through that, same rigor, 3 years and several million dollars worth of investigation, and then you can talk to me about who has less compelling information. That's my bad, i meant kamala harris, she's been dead so long i typed warren by accident. tulsi absolutely demolished kamala, and you can note a clear shift in the way they handled her after that during the debates, to save warrens ass. Bernie is already losing to biden, so his mesage is clearly not doing the trick, even on the left, tulsi, checks the woman, non-white, and non socialist boxes of identity politics, she has the support of more people in the center than bernie does, and the main thing preventing her from taking them both by storm is name recognition, which she would have gained had she been allowed to step on the stage where it would have been just the 3 of them. that is ample reason to suspect that she would do better than either one in the polls had she made it to the last staged debate between the two of them. Put tulsi up against biden, who is clearly losing his marbles, and tulsi would have started draining his support from that point on, and had way better odds outside of the left than biden will get in the upcoming election. It's not even a reach, it's just factoring in everything i know at the moment about the three, and estimating how that would play out. When i say "more than likely take every delegate from the time she stepped on stage" it is an exaggeration. akin to saying "X is the greatest thing ever", or "T will destroy J in the election". it's an apt summary, but not a concrete statement. When i say it, i mean that she would take a large number once she starts actually focusing, which she has not been doing since she started that little spat with hillary. either way, she's out now, and sold out to biden, who probably won't even remember her name at this point. So the question is moot. The democrat party (moreso than the republican party) has been stabbing their candidates in the back rather hard as of late. Not that the republicans don't, we both know they can, and do, but if given the choice between the two, republican party was the obvious one of the two. You have seen this several times now, yet somehow still can't believe it?If you want to run on an established, powerful platform, and not get screwed over by said platform, then going by current history, republicans have not been shown this, so much as the democrats have. unless you're saying bernie would have lost in 2016 had hillary not robbed him? Call me what you like, but the results speak for themselves. the GOP laughed at trump, and was very uncertain at the onset, with few people in the upper echelons of the party liking him. They still didn't try to rip him out the way DNC has done with several of their candidates, and it took time for them to get to where they are now, gleefully boasting about being the grim reapers. I would know, i've watched them go from skeptical and reluctant about trump, to being full blown trump supporters (myself developing along the same path). Of course i blame McConnell when he screws up, that doesn't mean i don't still get to congratulate him when he does the right thing. that's called balance, work on it my guy. onto the second response though: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEUxj8b7gQaaCfqDSFD7T5EU4ToM8GgG1 that's a playlist, from veritas themselves, with videos dating back several years. all of which feature retractions, with several having multiple lawsuits in them. That's 148 videos, they claim over 300 retractions, but i didn't see that many. I did see well over 148 BTFO's though. be they frivolous lawsuits against them, or full salvos, they just keep winning. But i doubt that's the full list, so here's their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ProjectVeritas/videos/?ref=page_internal I don't have a facebook, so i have difficulty navigating, but i've seen them listing several retractions in the parts i could see. if you've got a facebook i'd guess you could look even deeper. but there ya go. a playlist and their own page listing retraction #306 near the top. Assuming they have even more than even i thought, then the point is further buffed. Abuse of power? When? They called it abuse of power, but fail to prove how doing the exact thing that a president has the authority to do (whitholding aid pending investigation into corruption) counts as abuse. trump has had Giuliani looking into the corruption in ukraine since 2018, well before election season, then we see the biden video coming out, and we see a request into the context of that corruption. i'm gonna need an actual list of power abuses, not vague ones either. what powers did he use that presidents don't have, or aren't allowed to use in the way trump did? on top of that, ukraine government itself has already come out stating they didn't even know aid was being withheld. If we're claiming abuse of power is a legit claim under that scope, then democrats using the impeachment process itself could be flipped back to them as an abuse of power claim, considering we have ample evidence that they have been seeking any grounds they could do push it forwards since 2016. If trump doing what he has the authority to do is fair game, i can make any number of arguments about how democrats that pushed impeachment were abusing their powers. On top of that? Hunter readily admits he got the position he had on the board because of joe. Top of that? We know that trump has asked to have biden looked into well before biden jumped into the race, destroying the political rival narrative (no, potential future rival is not a good argument, he was not in the race, if we're going by that context, any dem with a half decent reason to run could fall under that umbrella). On top of that? The one republican you got to swap sides (romney) had ties to that very same board that trump wanted investigated. Yeah, abuse is not a cannon they should be trying to point anywhere, because the backlash would rip their whole narrative a new one. As far as obstruction, No. Just no. They literally blocked the republicans from entering over 50 hours worth of interviews, violated speaking rules, and manipulated the narrative several times during said meetings, making it seem as if trump (who had no way of influencing those meetings without the inside democrats directly interfering to make it happen) had been intimidating witnesses as the closed door investigation was underway. That's just one more cannon that would hit them leagues harder than they could ever use it in the same context. their idea of obstruction is about as solid as a paper bottle, and can be discarded just as easily. but best part? https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/09/25/dems-sent-letter-to-ukraine-asking-for-investigation-to-trump-n2553705 yeah, the whole of this impeachment was running on something that (if we're playing by their rules) they themselves ought to be answering for. Pelosi was the only smart one in your party, she knew it was going to be a useless motion that would have zero notable effect. Lo and behold, she was right, impeachment was completely hollow, and only served to add another notch on trumps belt. Too bad she was too worried about losing her footing to put her damn foot down. You want advice on what would have been better? Have congress act on a motion to condemn his actions as a whole instead of a full blown impeachment. They could have seen several dozen republicans switch over in solidarity, saving face, making the isssue less partisan, and damaging his name, while gaining new supporters for taking a rational step instead of blowing the parties own feet off. impeachment would still have been on the table, they wouldn't have blown their load early, and we might have seen a more effective narrative out of it. but no, they fell right into the hole. Well then, can't say i speak for winter on that topic then, seeing as we are clearly coming from two different places. That said, fields pleading was because his attorney was absolute garbage. I have pointed out several times over, just how easily he could have killed vastly more people if this was truly an argument of intent. The dude clearly was not aiming to murder masses of people, and the fact that he barely hospitalized anyone, but a fat chick, in a car that was clearly capable of swiftly reaching speeds capable of killing several dozen people, alongside the evidence from the very peoples mouths, about provoking him as he drove, proves that he got hit by the kangaroo court. His malice came after the fact, not before. the cops testimony was that he was completely shaken, and heavily apologetic, it was only after the magnitude of events settled in, and the long road of bullshit ahead clear, that he became pissed at his fate, as anyone would be, when an accident is framed as a straight up malicious murder. Another lawyer took the case on his blog and showed step by step how shitty his actual lawyer was, proving several times above what would constitute a reasonable defense, just how fields was innocent of malicious intent. He was, at worst (and undeniably), guilty of manslaughter, but not malicious murder. Sit that shit down. Not once have i said he deserves no jail time, only that the time he got was absurd beyond reason under the context. Of course he deserves jailtime, of course he cannot be let off easily, but the current crime, and punishment given, does not fit the scenario, and you seem incapable of seeing that. Up until that point in time, there were no indications that horowitz hadn't been wiretapped, I fell for that one on my own. Point still stands imo that there is really nothing substantive to the trump investigation, but yeah, that's still my bad. The context itself will give you the answer to that one. For the majority of that comment i was discussing the impeachment/ukraine debacle, thus, in that part, While I meant russia investigation documents, the impeachment articles were in my head, and caused me to blink that small bit out. Or at least that's what i'd infer from the comment itself, as you can see that is the only part of my comment that even does anything remotely like that. Look at the comment surrounding the comment and you will notice that the paragraph in question is about the russia investigation, but is preceded by a comment about the ukraine/impeachment debacle. Not sure why that's confusing to you, but that's likely how that went down in my head, going by what i typed. Indeed, the investigation can be found to be warranted, but for 3 years they searched, weeks worth of questions, millions of dollars, several countries spanned, every hole peeped into, and they found nothing to nail the guy. That's as good of a vindication as anybody's gonna get. Nah, california republican officials are a rarer breed. They live in one of the bluest states, and are often as RINO, as democracts in the reddest states are DINO. It's a throwaway point, but a legit one. Assange denied it in 2016, at the time of releasing it, well before this entire debacle came into play. By this point in time (2020), we already know assanges stance on the topic, and rohrabacher attempting to play the "do this and be free" card when we already knew assanges position all the way back in 2016, is even more of a throwaway than him being californian. Asking him to say it again is an irrelevant condition because unless he has stated that his statement means anything else, which he has not, then it could reasonably be assumed to never have changed, to this day. He went through, and decided the person he's reviewing is a grifter, despite pointed evidence to the opposite. Yeah, he's either an idiot or stupidly stubborn. I could pull up any number of videos from tim proving the opposite of what jose claims, that is the point. He goes in and tries to play the "this guy is a dishonest hack" card, despite having dozens of videos from tim that are clearly and enthusiastically encouraging his supporters to get a balanced news diet. Tim already admits his biases, and has been fired on by both sides for not sitting far enough on one side or the other. Far as i can see, jose is yet another one of those people, and yeah, tim screws up at times, but several videos a day, six to seven days a week, is one hell of a track record. calling him an illegitimate source is wrong, regardless of how you feel about him putting away the left side blinders. he's earned his stripes both out in the field, and behind the computer, you don't have to like it, but that much experience deserves at least milquetoast respect. The link there was actually about a recent (or at least recent back then) push, to clean up voter rolls, and an outcry on the left against it for resons such as "it is anti black because they can't DMV", and othr common hits. tim was on of the few people covering the story at the time, and the article itself was pretty good. video's gone though, and i'm not trying to wade back through the internet to find the links into it. considering corona is currently everywhere in the media, that argument is unlikely to have progressed. As i said before. Judge chupp, the person in charge of the case, not only admitted to not reading the documents provided (arguably the largest FUBAR a judge can cause within a case), but was agressive towards both parties because they had to go through the papers to find the arguments that he himself should have read through, adding to the time of the case. Ty should have been better prepped as well, but considering chupp never read the documents presented, you can see how Ty has been annoyed at the outcome, and ready to appeal as many cases as he could. If you truly want to talk mignongia, you will have to wait, because they are already reforming the entirety of the case, and are likely to suffer further delays from the outbreak. Trust me on this one though, they already have ample evidence of interference in the case, tweets proving several times over that their main goal is to ruin the life of the person they are accusing, testimony from conventions that monica has attempted to get them shut down vics appearances, and proof that they are running on the "rules for thee, but not for me" narrative while they violate contracts that they made in advance over this case. This is one you may want to step back on. The fields case was clearly going towards the kangaroo court, we all know he did it, the argument was (and remains) motive. The frame of that was "female dies in car attack of a racist male driver". The narrative was gonna eat him alive before the case ever began, and nobody doubted as much. People came out the woodworks for that one because it was in the early days of the "race card" overclock season. The vic case is a separate beast entirely. We have zero proof of vic doing anything he was accused of, several proven false narratives against him, and several different types of proof that they were out to destroy everything he was working to build up. You don't have to like it, but this case does not end at dismissal, yeah people like marchi got out free, but the biggest targets are still on the board, and those are the main ones he was after.
  15. Once upon a time, there was a person.

    1. Horu Ishayuki

      Horu Ishayuki

      They promised to fix the card maker and never delivered.

  16. To explain in short, if it's shiny it might sell, if it's not, it's probably binder filler. if you wanna find out how valuable they are, i'd say search tcgplayer.com. you can search the rare ones there, and find out the general range of prices. be sure to look up not just the name of the cards, but the set initials that the card comes from as well( usually located right under the image, on the right side), as that can also affect the value, and may be the difference between having a 2.00 card, and a 20.00 card. if you have any other questions you may want to PM the conversation though, since i'm not too sure how mods may feel about value discussions.
  17. Considering how many times this card has been a thorn in the side of konami, i was expecting it to get hit on the list, but a decent errata? Combined with good alternate art? yeah, i can live with this.
  18. So it's basically a crimson blader/ophion-ish effect, but arguably worse at almost every level... I like it!
  19. the makyura errate has effectively made sure that the card will never see play again. while the red eyes errata is a wonderful implementation that i wish had been in place sooner, because that card is way too damn powerful. As for the rest of the hits, to me, it looks like they're trying to walk somewhat in line with the TCG while preparing for the new plays about to hit from the arrival of MR5.
  20. ...USSR breadlines, against the alternative, of which i am assuming you mean the united states, where even our homeless are often obese... This one i had to highlight, it is an example of a comment that is almost fractally wrong. There is literally nowhere in the united states where you will die of hunger faster than people did in the USSR, breadlines or not. Bernie was wrong, regardless of the context you wish to frame it within. Aside from that: What you seem to not realize is that one of them made a name for themselves grandstanding, but has had zero ties to russia outside of real estate development. The other honeymooned in russia shortly after the cold war, near the height of tensions between the two countries, on top of that, the dude has attended several festive occasions hosted by dictators, all the while praising their regimes, and has yet to revoke the vast majority of those socialist/communist endorsements. Seriously, try and find any times bernie condemned the ussr when questioned on it. He squirms out of the question like a mental contortionist. What substance? there is still have nothing on the trump-russia narrative aside from a throwaway line that was literally said in the middle of a rally. What you are attempting to conflate, is a joking action from a known embellisher, to high treason. Your comparison is akin to the time john oliver told donald trump to run for president. The literal best argument you have, is akin to any number of throwaway joke lines that i could point to and say "This guy said X, clearly he meant harm by it". The level of argument against trump is on the same level as the arguments against bernie, the difference is that you swallow one, while choking on the one dedicated to your chosen candidate. In case you didn't get the memo, neither i nor winter gives credence to the "russian agent" argument, for any of the current candidates. We are not saying "russia didn't do X for trump, but they're doing it for bernie/tulsi" we are saying "If you honestly believe Russia did X for trump, then the level of evidence is on par for bernie same as trump, so what is your excuse for excusing one over the other?" You, so far, have used the argument that politicians aren't going after bernie, and as i pointed out, that's a load of bull as an argument. but let me elaborate on it: 1)The media was running solo with the "trump is a russian asset" line as well, until he won, and then they all dogpiled the nothingburger. Bernie? He's running on socialism, the least popular platform of all 3 candidates, all the while getting his ass kicked by a literal dementia patient. Why would they need to dogpile him right now when trump is clearly the bigger target? 2)The DNC had no control over trump, trump ran as a republican, so the DNC cound not slap him out of the race, even though he was a threat to their narrative, the best they could do was get the media to run interference, and trump, thanks to years of old school shitposting, made them his faithful advertisers for free. you want further evidence of that? look at the third "russian agent" tulsi gabbard 3)The DNC is doing to gabbard, what they wish they could have done to trump, she is a legitimate threat to their power, and as such, they are shifting the rules to keep her both down in the polls, and out f the debates, I'm not even a tulsi fan, and i can see that if she were on stage with the heart attack socialist and the dementia puppet, she would more than likely take every delegate from the time she stepped on stage, to the rest of the race. bernies' time is up, that's the only reason why they play fair with him now. Tulsi? she would destroy all of their runners the way she did warren, and so they slapped her off the stage. Get it through your head. Bernie is done, and that is the only reason the politicians are not stomping on his name. tulsi has been quieted, because she ran within the party that has no qualms about throwing her off the stage for speaking the truth about them. When trump ran as a republican, it was because he already knew the democrats' mask was slipping. the right has its' nutjobs, but they at least let you fall on your own merits for the most part, fuck them still for screwing over ron paul.
  21. ...The media was the main force pushing the trump-russia narrative after hillary hyped it. The politicians were just the circle source hype-men. We already saw they didn't even have enough info to push the russia narrative in the first place, if they did, then they would have been able to toss out the steel dossier by the first fisa renewal. So considering politicians clearly didn't have insider information holding up their narrative, where do you think they got their narrative from? They read and watched the media circlejerk it till pure garbage came out. Bernie has ample quotes and relationships backing the narrative that he has russian ties. i give them the same credence as the trump quotes, for the same reasons, and the only reason they aren't going harder on tulsi is because she is politically a nonentity. False narratives? Roxas, please explain to me how bernie supporting communist actions, honeymooning in communist regimes, and refusing to condemn such regimes until, and occasionally even after, they collapsed, (remember venezuela, the castro literacy, or the breadlines comments?) is in any way not as good of an argument as anything they used against trump? Different behaviors alright. Bet money you'd swallow just about anything spit out about trump, but bernie is clearly either untouchable, or requires double the level of accusations for you. not a single person on the trump campaign was hit with a single thing on the 2016 election. they dealt with russia at other times, for other reasons. nothing about the 2016 election counted as anything you could call interference. clinton has money from china and ukraine relating to her campaign, a vastly higher level of interaction than literally anything on the 2016 trump election. considering bernie became a millionaire around the same time, and held less of a grudge towards hillary than trump, even though trump at least played the game fair (especially relating to the bernie V. hillary portion, and exponentially in comparison to the DNC regarding anything bernie). gets the noggin joggin man.
  22. End result will determine that. They are demanding to see the unredacted report, they are asking for nothing more, and less. We have already gotten the redacted report, exactly how much traction do you really think those last few bits are gonna get you when nobody who has seen the unredacted version has changed their stance on the russia narrative regardless of them being for, or against it prior? Doesn't matter who demands it either, we have already seen that the dnc absolutely weaponizes the "russia" narrative as often as possible. Unless you are going to give all of the Russia accusations the same weight, please stop pretending this one in particular holds any. They throw these allegations at every single candidate that has threatened their hold over the past 4 years, bernie, tulsi, trump, ect. Do you want to argue the other ones are just as valid, and deserve a 4 year, hundred thousand dollar, taxpayer funded investigation? We have been here before, this trip will be no different imo.
  23. We are slowly getting more cards to recur generic banished cards. and that's a good thing. Also, this gives so much good advantage.
  24. To give you a glimpse of the potential, this deck has access to the r4, r6, r8, and r2 toolboxes, alongside being compatible with the plant synchro engines, so long as they avoid using the level 1 for the turn, they have the aromages on their side, the predaplant engine, the rose archetype, and the traptricks. the water support includes dozens of obscure, or well known techs that could buff their potential coverage, like white howling, bahamut/treatoad, absolute zero, and moray of greed. The list goes on. They probably won't be tier 1, but tier 2 is by no means out of their reach, and that's enough to take a couple regionals.
  25. The deck has decent monster effects, incredible spells and traps, and access to two of the best support types in the game, (WATER and plant). If nobody figures out a way to break this deck into the meta, then everything i know about yugioh has been a lie.
×
×
  • Create New...