Goldenboy_Prime

@The_Lunact_And_Manic said:

@Goldenboy_Prime: Lol, don't worry, there's probably other places to buy it, I only use that crap as a last of the last of the last of the last of the freaking last resort..

Hahaha I know I figured that's why you put the line through it.

So are they going to abolish selective services or are women going to be incorporated? I mean, we are doing this for equality right? Nothing says equal like the potential to be drafted... or not drafted.

There are easier ways to kill yourself than attempting to nuke the US....

@ssejllenrad said:

Nukes are insignificant next to the power of taekwondo. Kiaiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!

Hapkido FTW

Internet Explorer: How Windows users download other web browsers.

@JohnnyGat said:

chimichangas

I like taquitos!

@The_Lunact_And_Manic said:

@deadpoolrules said:

Deadpool series were canceled in Brazil.They say that "the comicbook series ain't returning the money we spend on it."WHY?????????

OH F***, it sucks to be in Brazil...now how the hell I'm going to read Deadpool?

Piratebay, here I come.

Couldn't you check comixology first? But do what you gotta do.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

I dont like feminism.

I feel it is ultimately pointless,close minded and hypocritical.

I am for all equality for both men and women, therefore I do not subscribe to any form of feminism,since men are treated just as unfairly because of their gender as women are.

Call me misogynistic if you really want but that does make what I say any less true and relevant.

I was about to follow you then I realized the button read, UnFollow.

I personally love when words like bigot, misogynist, racist, et al are used. People often use those words to describe virtually anything they don't like. Which strips the actual meaning from the word, making it little more than a petty insult that nobody takes seriously. But yes egalitarianism, in so far as it can be realistically implemented, is a great thing.

@akbogert said:

@Goldenboy_Prime said:

@SmoothJammin said:

U guys out there wouldn't do the same? They're like hs sweethearts.. he might have gone on and gotten married but that doesn't mean the feelings(sexual tension in this case)cease to exist between an old flame. Well played, dick..

Of course not... Um you're engaged to be married, you're not suppose to go around sleeping with other women at that point.

Yeah...seriously, I'm a little horrified by the suggestion that this is even remotely a cool or commendable thing. So, what, Dick used Barbara to relieve his "sexual tension"? He treated her like an object rather than a person with feelings attached? How is that "well played?"

No, it wasn't rape, but consider: Had he told her about the engagement when he arrived, would she have consented to having sex with him? Definitely not? Okay then. It's rape-ish.

Well played. I'm honestly nonplussed.

The easiest way to play this is by putting yourself in either Kori's or Gordon's position. Not matter how you slice it Richard's character takes a huge hit and I wouldn't consider him the most trustworthy anymore guy either. Which is sad because he's my second favorite comic book character. But hey it's the old continuity so it's all good as of Nu52, where he and Gordon have never hooked up, iirc.

@mrdecepticonleader said:

@boschePG said:

@Goldenboy_Prime said:

I'm not even 100% certain that Jesus even existed, as he doesn't have the best historical record keeping. He could have existed, and all his feats are CIS/PIS that his followers later gave him to fulfill a prophecy. Or he is as real as Hercules. I think he was an apotheosized rabbi.

If I may drop in this

The Bible, believe it or not is an historic book. How they validate the accuracy of historic books is they look how old it is and how many copies of it were in circulation. In which the Bible passes. We have all these witnesses that get the Bible that are written in the book so unless you are saying all these witnesses (and its in the hundread of thousands) all hallucinated, then you may have a point

There are plenty of things in the bible did not happen, therefore it is not a historic document.

And that is not how they validate historic accuracy of texts at all.They look at the evidence,to see if there is any for any of the events it chronicles and in a lot of cases such as the nativity history actually disproves that in a number of ways.

And what you actually believe what happened in genesis to be an accurate account of how we came to be? In Noah's Ark? All of that?

Uh huh. I mean if Frank Miller got millions of more copies of 300 in circulation it doesn't make it a historical document just because Xerxes, who is a historical figure, appears in it. What about Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter? It has historical figures in fictitious circumstances. Does anyone believe that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, then told his parents he did it because he couldn't tell a lie? There is no historical account of that actually happening that way, but many Americans know the story.

@boschePG said:

@Goldenboy_Prime said:

I'm not even 100% certain that Jesus even existed, as he doesn't have the best historical record keeping. He could have existed, and all his feats are CIS/PIS that his followers later gave him to fulfill a prophecy. Or he is as real as Hercules. I think he was an apotheosized rabbi.

If I may drop in this

The Bible, believe it or not is an historic book. How they validate the accuracy of historic books is they look how old it is and how many copies of it were in circulation. In which the Bible passes. We have all these witnesses that get the Bible that are written in the book so unless you are saying all these witnesses (and its in the hundread of thousands) all hallucinated, then you may have a point

No just because some of the characters that are featured in the bible actually existed doesn't mean the bible is a legitimate historical source. I mean stuff like that happens all the time in the ancient myths. I'm pretty sure that's not how they decipher historical accuracy, I feel like they would hold it up to other historical records that are, for the lack of a better term, verified.

Most of the new testament was written well after Jesus died (assuming he existed), Paul never even met the guy, not to mention the canon that the church incorporated isn't even all that was written on the character. We don't have all these witnesses to verify Jesus existence, just biblical accounts which obviously cannot be used to verify themselves. There is only one none biblical account I'm aware of and some people think it's fraudulent and others think it was just writing down what had been told to the guy who wrote it. So he, Jesus, has maybe one historical record, that may be fraudulent.

@SmoothJammin said:

U guys out there wouldn't do the same? They're like hs sweethearts.. he might have gone on and gotten married but that doesn't mean the feelings(sexual tension in this case)cease to exist between an old flame. Well played, dick..

Of course not... Um you're engaged to be married, you're not suppose to go around sleeping with other women at that point.