Mountain West Microbrew: Chit chat and irrelevancy

[bunt_q]

Online only is a huge mistake. My Internet at home isn't reliable enough that I am going to invest in games that rely on it, no matter how badly I want to play them.

[The Dirt]

I played the Sims a lot (which you could export into SimCity 3 or 4)... but all I did was remodel the house. The actual game got pretty ridiculous with my sims constantly shitting themselves and leaving trash everywhere.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Online only is a huge mistake. My Internet at home isn't reliable enough that I am going to invest in games that rely on it, no matter how badly I want to play them.

It's a big mistake when the game is meant to be played solo or has a huge solo component. It was always fun building up huge cities and surrounding them with smaller suburbs to create mega cities. I don't want to rely on Timmy from Washington not randomly bulldozing half his city to enjoy the game.

[Comrade]

Ever play SimTown? One of my aunt's neighbors had that game and we broke into her house one day while she was on vacation to play it.

Wow. That's sad. Breaking into someone's house to play a video game. To be fair, I was like 7.

[Cirrus]

My friend and I would play SimCity 2000 on the display computers at Circuit City. It was pre-loaded. We were sad when the computers with our saved games were sold.

[RyanD]

After spending way too much time stitching photos tonight, I finally reached out to the real world and got pretty excited about this:

Hunger Games: Catching Fire trailer. The new producer seems a little darker which is good given it's a pretty dark series. I also like how the trailer doesn't spoil the major event in the book. I hope they keep the trailers that way.

• Video Link

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This explains a lot.

no,

the picture of you 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 a building explained a lot

[texcolo]

RyanD,

When you where at New Orleans, did you visit Tropical Isle at the corner of Orleans and Bourbon?

My wife, friends and I were sitting on the balcony right at the corner. I think you and your friends were sitting further down the balcony on the Bourbon Street side.

I was just thinking about that... I think we were there on the exact same day, but we might have been there at the exact same time.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by texcolo

RyanD,

When you where at New Orleans, did you visit Tropical Isle at the corner of Orleans and Bourbon?

My wife, friends and I were sitting on the balcony right at the corner. I think you and your friends were sitting further down the balcony on the Bourbon Street side.

I was just thinking about that... I think we were there on the exact same day, but we might have been there at the exact same time.

I did go to that bar when I was there! I would have been the tall dude with a camera. IIRC that would have been February 21st or 22nd..

[wong21fr]

SSP: Missed Connections

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

SSP: Missed Connections

Next up, a Casual Encounters thread?

[Cirrus]

Speaking of craigslist, we've just discovered that the guy who runs this website is my wife's high school boyfriend: http://craigslistslut.com (🞵🞵🞵🞵)

[texcolo]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Speaking of craigslist, we've just discovered that the guy who runs this website is my wife's high school boyfriend: http://craigslistslut.com (🞵🞵🞵🞵)

My sister-in-law's friend is Michelle Shocked's half-sister.

She claims that her sister has never said anything like she did in San Francisco before in her life.

[SLC Projects]

What do you have to say now NRA?

5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25004208&nid=157...r-in-kentucky&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2

You have a right to own a 🞵🞵🞵? Kids have a RIGHT to LIVE!!!

[Cirrus]

Obviously that 5 year old just hasn't had enough practice with safe 🞵🞵🞵 use. If only he had been given more 🞵🞵🞵🞵 sooner, surely he would have been a more responsible toddler.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

What do you have to say now NRA?

5-year-old shoots 2-year-old sister in Kentucky
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=25004208&nid=157...r-in-kentucky&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2

You have a right to own a 🞵🞵🞵? Kids have a RIGHT to LIVE!!!

Kids have a right not to have idiotic irresponsible parents.

Want to take my rifle? (And this was a hunting rifle.) Pass a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. That is your only option. My advice to you - pick your battles. Otherwise, you will die a disappointed man. And so will your grandchildren. You're never getting rid of rifles and handguns. Ever. Nothing will every get you two-thirds of both houses and the states. Just isn't happening. So not worth stressing about. It's a risk that comes with being American... like car accidents.

Normally I would point out that cars kill more people than 🞵🞵🞵🞵 do, so you should stop driving too (less constitutionally protected than 🞵🞵🞵🞵 are)... that usually works with most people. But on the forum, I imagine most people would be okay with taking my car too.

[Cirrus]

That's silly. You more than anyone know that constitutional rights are limited by time, place, and manner restrictions constantly. The second amendment doesn't come with an asterisk that says except felons, we made that a law without amending anything. Clearly getting anything at all through congress is nigh impossible, but that's a separate point.

Tangentially, I think liberals are right to be outraged that we can't pass something like background checks that broad majorities outside of congress support.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Kids have a right not to have idiotic irresponsible parents.

Want to take my rifle? (And this was a hunting rifle.) Pass a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that. That is your only option. My advice to you - pick your battles. Otherwise, you will die a disappointed man. And so will your grandchildren. You're never getting rid of rifles and handguns. Ever. Nothing will every get you two-thirds of both houses and the states. Just isn't happening. So not worth stressing about. It's a risk that comes with being American... like car accidents.

Normally I would point out that cars kill more people than 🞵🞵🞵🞵 do, so you should stop driving too (less constitutionally protected than 🞵🞵🞵🞵 are)... that usually works with most people. But on the forum, I imagine most people would be okay with taking my car too.

Only people don't have their four year olds driving cars. There's something called common sense. Shouldn't a kid at least be potty trained before given a 🞵🞵🞵 too?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

That's silly. You more than anyone know that constitutional rights are limited by time, place, and manner restrictions constantly. The second amendment doesn't come with an asterisk that says except felons, we made that a law without amending anything. Clearly getting anything at all through congress is nigh impossible, but that's a separate point.

Tangentially, I think liberals are right to be outraged that we can't pass something like background checks that broad majorities outside of congress support.

He wasn't talking about background checks, or other permissible restrictions. His post asked, "you think you have a right to a 🞵🞵🞵?" He was going right to the core question ("you think you have a right to free speech?"). And the answer to those questions in unambiguously YES.

Yes, people have a right to be outraged that we can't get background checks through Congress (although, Colorado has managed to do that and more - so rather than complain, work through your states). I do think liberals have to shoulder some responsibility here though. You are never going to see eye to eye with the other side if you cannot accept a different way of life at even the most basic level. Nobody I talk to is arguing the fine details like time, place and manner restrictions. They are saying "you shouldn't have a right to a 🞵🞵🞵...you're stupid for wanting one...but we'll take background checks because it's all we can get for now." Given that, I don't fault the Republicans one bit for not being willing to budge at all, or work with liberals at all, on this issue. Because I don't believe that liberals see gray area here. Liberals would take every restriction they could feasibly get, right up to the point of piling up all 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and burning them Australia-style, if they could get it (they just know they can't). There's no trust on this issue between the two sides, and I think that's probably right - there shouldn't be.

I see liberals acting on 🞵🞵🞵🞵 very much like conservatives act on abortion - they'll chip away wherever they can, but we all know what they really want - to eliminate it/them. (And for every crazy anti-abortion South Dakota we can point to, they can cite a DC or Chicago that actually has at some point attempted to ban 🞵🞵🞵🞵.)

(Not to mention, I don't think background checks would make a lick of difference, so while I would obviously have voted for background checks, I kind of shrug, sigh and move on with my life.)

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I see liberals acting on 🞵🞵🞵🞵 very much like conservatives act on abortion - they'll chip away wherever they can, but we all know what they really want - to eliminate it/them. (And for every crazy anti-abortion South Dakota we can point to, they can cite a DC or Chicago that actually has at some point attempted to ban 🞵🞵🞵🞵.)

Probably a reason why a plurality of Republicans feel that an armed rebellion against the federal government will be necessary in the next fifteen years; any discussion about restrictions leads to the slippery slope argument and an inevitable repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Which is a great fear-based marketing campaign to keep firearm sales brisk.