Look in the mirror, you might not like what you see.
Sleep well knowing there is a god, truth and objective morality exist, and if we continue to make them priorities, even despite our imperfections we might get a little closer to finding them.
I didn't say you were gay, I said you were a faggot. And you're still acting like one.
You decided to chime in on a discussion to which you were completely irrelevant, took a strong stance, and were definitely on the wrong side. So, if you can turn off your ego for just a moment, you would realize that the correct path forward is to just shut your fucking mouth and let it go.
Please feel free to join in, especially with that username.
You being a massive faggot doesn't exactly improve the community. Language and specificity matter, despite your feminine 'one-size-fits-all' approach. What you say was originally 'divided' has been reconciled, yet here you are still being a divide long after the root cause was corrected.
Old man thinks he's smart because he's old, even if he doesn't know if he's older than the stranger he's yelling at
I really hope your reading skills have atrophied in the last 50 years then, so that during at least one portion of your life you could properly interpret the English language, because you're sure as fuck incapable of doing so nowadays. The guy on whose behalf you're arguing completely agreed with me that his post was ambiguous at best.
We're in fact having a nice conversation now that he clarified his position, while you're still here looking like a fucking retard.
Military voting always favors republicans
Yes, I don't need an up-to-date statistic to believe that at face value. Taking veterans into account, however, is a massive discrepancy. All demographics trend towards Republican as they age.
I don't believe for a second that 50-60% of the population would mobilize with arms in the first place. Furthermore, if shooting did actually start, the military has the obvious attritional advantage in the beginning stages. The militia only wins via prolonged strategic decisions, which is the main reason I brought up the idea of the military actually mobilizing would crush a significant amount of people both physically and mentally very quickly. How many remaining and willing to continue to resist is the real question.
I believe that per capita the NG has as many commie-brainwashed HR 'soldiers' as the USN/USAF. That is a statistic out of my ass, but I have not yet encountered a reason to give me more faith in them.
Lots of people, even in the MAGA party and on this board, are overly feminized and their actions are driven by feelings. They can't handle even witnessing disagreement without having a bad emotional reaction, and can't understand other people disagreeing or having conflict without taking it personally.
From an outsider's perspective, CA has always seemingly defined itself as being 'as close to American as possible but not being American'. I think that has driven its leftism, as, culturally, the US has never been leftist, despite what the fake news would have one believe.
Or maybe I'm just making shit up. Who knows :)
I'd be naive if I believed those statistics you pulled out of your ass, and you'd be naive if you thought that even 10% of the military mobilizing wouldn't immediately crush the will of a huge percentage of people willing to stand up for the cause.
As much as I'd like to be agreeable, I simply cannot affirm your request, as it is unfortunately a leading question. A leading question in such ways as that it not only requires me to presuppose a blatantly false assumption (I have never been a gigantic faggot), it perhaps more importantly leads me to believe that you are a gigantic faggot.
I will pray for the success of your conversion therapy.
I am glad to hear it. I don't envy the battle (that hopefully even happens) canadians face in the future, as I believe it will pale in comparison to the challenges that my country currently faces. I earnestly wish you good luck with that.
I tried to put forth my reply in a way that was neutral towards any concrete religious belief, hence 'god' instead of 'God' (or name of said God) or 'gods'. Although choosing the lower-case, singular 'god' can imply some things to some people, I felt it was the 'most neutral' of the choices.
Part of human imperfection is that we can never really be sure of reality. If the concept of reality is itself real, that implies existence of a higher order entity that constructs the rules and manifests in the world that us lower-order creatures imperfectly interpret.
You're really asking whether there is god or not.
You are incapable of understanding the information I would present. Keep spreading that shit on the chess board.
Someone should instruct you the how to read better. His post, as written, undeniably implies that he thinks the gun control arguments sound 'reasonable' initially.
You are not nearly as smart as you think you are, but by all means, keep trying to 'own' a random stranger on the internet.
a) I said some
b) The amount required to put down a rebellion would be dependent on the amount of people willing to rebel
c) Your post demonstrates you are way more naïve than I am
Let the state without shady dealings cast the first downvote.
Coronavirus, obviously
I purposefully chose not to get into how the path of the URL is factored into site ranking, because I didn't want to explain it to someone who has demonstrated questionable understanding of technical topics.
Yes you are correct, and that is definitely important to point out. Google's public DNS is used quite a bit, either as a backup to one's own ISP if that cannot resolve a domain, or as the primary service. I got a bit carried away with fixating on the notion of 'page structure' being relevant to address resolution and definitely did not give a complete answer.
Since you've clarified, I will believe you that you don't think it sounds reasonable, but your original post as it is written is correctly interpreted as implying you believed it originally sounded reasonable.
Any computer than can network can find any other computer that is networked. How we find them is the question. The extremely vast majority of the digital world is indeed controlled by managed applications such as google, but if someone knew the exact address of a networked computer, they could send network requests to that location - we just have a hard time knowing specific addresses and rely on things like hyperlinks (what search engines provide, regardless of their accuracy/relevance).
He may be on our side, but anyone who thinks any amount of gun control even "sounds reasonable" (his words) needs to be corrected, because they're being dumb, feminine and acting like a cuck.
Websites are hosted on computers with IP addresses. Instead of typing in numbers, we type in 'words', such as 'justice.gov', where a DNS server translates that into the IP address. Everything after the domain is called a path, and defined by the server itself. As far as I know, google only handles the DNS translation for sites hosted on the google cloud, for which they have a fundamental business responsibility to do. They have no effect on the structure of the path whatsoever.
Site ranking is an entirely separate concept from URL structure. I agree that there are a lot of problems with the way they handle this, but I'm not convinced you understand the problems on a technical level. Even though I do agree with your conclusions about them.
Israel was not our friend long before that event. Some say they never were.