THIS SHIT IS THE BANE OF MY EXISTENCE. I'VE BEEN STUCK IN MY HOUSE FOR 4 DAYS. AND IT GAVE ME THE ASS PISS. IT ALSO MADE ME ACCUSE MY LOVED ONES OF BEING INEXCUSABLE TWATS FOR NO REASON. FUCK YOU ARCTIC BLAST. FUCK YOU ICE STORM PISS SHIT. FUCK YOU POORLY EQUIPPED TEXAS.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
^$60? Holy shit. Whatever happened to $50 for a new release? And anything below 8 hours in completely inexcusable. Even 8 hours is a slap in the face. I don't think 14 is asking too much, even 16 for sixty fucking dollars. Take Mass Effect - well over 30 hours. How about Knights of the Old Republic II: My average run-time for that game is over 100 hours. Now THAT'S a game.


I am amazed at Modern Warfare 2, been out forever, yet they still demand $60.

^$60? Holy shit. Whatever happened to $50 for a new release? And anything below 8 hours in completely inexcusable. Even 8 hours is a slap in the face. I don't think 14 is asking too much, even 16 for sixty fucking dollars. Take Mass Effect - well over 30 hours. How about Knights of the Old Republic II: My average run-time for that game is over 100 hours. Now THAT'S a game.

Down 67% dang that's a Ton. Think we could work on something else like say Education for a bit? Also she should be immediately fired for something like that. I'm sorry but that kind of connection is completely inexcusable, and shouldn't be legal in any way.

What makes you think that the Vandalism was done by someone who wasn't on the payroll?

What if the vandals are on the payroll, and the cops ordered to arrest said vandals don't know that there are Agent Provocateurs?

What if, the cops are arresting an Agent Provocateur to protect said Agent's cover?

What if the cops are really doing a righteous and just job by arresting a real vandal?

The evidence is circumstantial. Video footage is not enough to make a decision for, or against something.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^Krupo:
The burning was at King and Queen, in the financial district, south-mid end of downtown.
This was in an unrelated protest area on the north end of downtown - which was designated as the safe "free speech" area.
Toronto has a very large core, we're not talking neighbouring protests here, but an area 4+ subway stops away.

Do you honestly think that the cops would have just picked someone out at random from a peaceful protest and arrested them for no reason just because they're mad? I mean, that could be what happened -- we don't know -- and if it was then this was inexcusable. But just because this happened in another area of the city from the vandalism, doesn't automatically make this unrelated. It is possible for someone to commit a crime in one part of the city and then walk to another.

>> ^Krupo:

The burning was at King and Queen, in the financial district, south-mid end of downtown.
This was in an unrelated protest area on the north end of downtown - which was designated as the safe "free speech" area.
Toronto has a very large core, we're not talking neighbouring protests here, but an area 4+ subway stops away.

Do you honestly think that the cops would have just picked someone out at random from a peaceful protest and arrested them for no reason just because they're mad? I mean, that could be what happened -- we don't know -- and if it was then this was inexcusable. But just because this happened in another area of the city from the vandalism, doesn't automatically make this unrelated. It is possible for someone to commit a crime in one part of the city and then walk to another.

Reporters only seem to care about inflating what ever is the most upsetting or dramatic so they can spin out 24 hours of infotainment.. but completely forget to collect actual facts so they can 'report' the 'news'.

"You might all die in this hurricane - but at least our opinion segment can debate how inexcusable your answer was to the failings of response to the last hurricane. You have died for good TV, that will be some comfort"

>> ^CheshireSmile:

American: lieutenant, British: left tenant
American: a-loo-mi-num, British: a-loo-mi-nee-um
American: plow, British: plough
American: tidbit, British: titbit
American: color, British: colour
American: trunk, British: boot
American: sidewalk, British: ???????????
American: REsearch, British: reSEARCH
American: bernard, British: ???????
answers please


Honestly I think it's just the way any language progresses.... I'm sure a Latin scholar would have a bone to pick with "the Queen's" English. That's not to say the changes make sense mind you, just that they will happen, and to lament them is an exercise in self-frustration.

"I could care less" is pretty inexcusable though; it reminds me if "irregardless". AAARRRGGGG I hate irregardless... without without regard?

Arizona is a Right to Carry state; this could have been much, much worse.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36703

Seems to me that this law puts teeth on the Federal Immigration Laws. I fear sounding like an insensitive prick, but if people are in the country illegally, they are already in violation of a Federal Law; no matter what race, creed or whatever. What does the opposition want, what is their grievance; if they want a free ride then they have to seek repealing of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, and its amendments.
The political doctrine of the "racist" is disgusting. See this; http://www.9500liberty.com/ . The problem is complicated, but racism or violence is not the answer.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration
Federal law.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000994----000-.html
States rights to legislate on immigration.
http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001251----000-.html

"5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S."


"22. Specifies that it is unlawful for a person to do or attempt to do the following if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the U.S. in violation of law:

a) transport or move an alien in Arizona in a means of transportation;

b) conceal, harbor or shield an alien from detection in any place in Arizona, including any building or means of transportation."

Section 5 is vague, section 22 could have an impact that was not intended. Section 5 throws up red flags all over.

EDIT: Watch the video in my comment below. A regular Law Officer should not have the right to Profile people; federal law. I've struck out my original opinion of the bill. This bill is a terrible knee-jerking reaction, and innocents will suffer as a result; and that is inexcusable.

Reviews may be a fun distraction to reinforce the views and opinions you already hold, but they're ultimately pointless when it comes to trying to determine the value of something. Nowadays, people tend to know beforehand if they're going to go see a movie, and in the past it was more effective to ask friends and family, people who's opinion matter and whose tastes in film you know and can make a decision on.

I see professional to semi-professional reviewers as a form of entertainment separate from their supposed role of trying to determine for you if you want to see what they're scrutinizing. It's simply that on just about any given film, two reviewers can look at the same scene and come to two diametrically opposed conclusions, so the actual value of their work is questionable at best. In the end, they tend to make people feel bad about having different opinions on the thing that is reviewed, and that's inexcusable in my mind.

>> ^Raaagh:
>> ^Lodurr:
What kind of activist is he if he never publicly shared his grievances? He's not an activist or a hero, he's a terrorist and a murderer.

Read the manifesto, he did a fair bit of stuff.


I found it hard to not skip around while reading it before, I didn't want to imbibe pure crazy.

So he did get pretty active in 1987 in response to a 1986 tax law, the ramifications of which I still don't quite understand. He spent $5,000 on a letter campaign and seemed to expect quick results from that investment, which proves he was already looney long before his kamikaze flight. But in the years leading up to his attack it sounds like he kept well to himself. In a democratic system, just the act of venting your grievances and exercising your voting rights relieves some of that weight on your conscience.

I don't mind people agreeing with Stack's sentiments or statements--I certainly agree with some--it was his methods that were inexcusable. The fact that I agree with him is pure coincidence, like if I found out he drives the same model car I do.

His real grievance, just like the gym shooter from last year, and the Korean American student a few years ago, was that he felt like a victimized social outcast and couldn't empathize with people. It's normal to feel some pity for these guys, but this case frustrates me because there are already people salvaging political momentum out of an innocent person's charred remains.

Ignorance should always be forgiven and corrected. Willful ignorance and deception is inexcusable though.

*quality

Wow, that was indeed bullshit. The American on the radio should have spoken Spanish. That the liaison with the military was not bilingual is inexcusable.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

But, once again it is in your opinion that they mean to provoke, that is why there is a Judicial system in place, to solve these conundrums. Hence the reason that Philidelphia supreme court protected David Hackbart right to give the bird to a citizen, and a peace officer, because he was expressing his distress with his current situation.
In fact the city gave him 50,000 to settle the matter.
But I think we are arguing two different things, however related. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, which are invariably tied. You cannot have one without the other.


I admit that this is purely my opinion, and you are probably right, judicially this sort of rhetoric needs to be covered by the freedom of speech. If nothing else, then to ensure that people cannot be censored merely for being hot headed or lacking judgement in the heat of the moment.

However, I still feel that relying on emotional offense is an inexcusable element to bring to a discussion.

The problem with the way Carlin, and for that sake Wilders, seeks to offend people while proving his point, is that the point only reaches the people who already agree with him. When you give people on the opposite side of the spectrum, the people you really need to reach, an excuse to get offended, they switch off and ignore the central message entirely. That is immensely counter-productive when trying to spread ideas, and trying to actually make a difference in the world.

In the end, I guess it makes little difference when looking at which ideas flourish across the entire political spectrum, and which do not. Carlins words, and people like Wilders, will continue to be ignored by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum due to their reliance on offending people to convey their message.

My only hope is that the people out there with ideas, which could actually change the world for the better, don't fall into the same trap

And this is why they will survive the coming Zombie Apocalypse.

Well, that and the fact that they're used to people coming back from the dead.

Holy Smokes, I'm simultaneously impressed and NOT impressed. The fact is, if any country can be said to be ready for anything, it's Israel. They're survivors. The desert has made them a hard, yet generous people. What they do to the Palestinians is inexcusable, but the Palestinians are also getting a ton of BAD ADVICE from people who don't mean them well. Everyone loves a proxy, especially a proxy willing to die for your cause, so you don't have to, and perhaps one day the Palestinians will awaken and realize what Israel did, which is that no one, NO ONE is on your side more than you are. The only people you have to be accountable to are yourself, and your children. Be there for them, and they will grow up right.

It's funny--the usual SOP is for the world to hold Israel accountable for its actions, usually using lots and lots of words. Here, the Israelis are holding the world accountable, especially Haiti's large-ish neighbor to the north, by SHOWING them how it's done. They live every day as if tomorrow will be another September 11, 2001. We don't.