A True Kaniggit

Members
  • Content count

    1,188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About A True Kaniggit

  • Rank
    Not So Grand Strategist
  • Birthday 02/20/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Louisiana, USA
  • Interests
    Penguin Stuff. Like, you know. Fishing. Trying to stay warm. Swimming is fun sometimes I guess. Do penguins drink and gamble?

Recent Profile Visitors

3,876 profile views
  1. It happened once. Why wouldn't it happen again?
  2. Yep, you're right. I actually was remembering it wrong.
  3. Ha. I actually had to look up this word. Learn something new everyday, right? But about the rest of your post. In your reply to Karaddin you state you'll vote for any candidate that can win whether they be far left, left, or center left. Great, any leftist candidate has your vote as long as they will win. If more people held that view we would've won in 2016. That's one vote for us. But in 2016 a great many voters showed by staying home that just beating the Republicans wasn't enough for them. They aren't willing to go out and vote for a candidate whose sole draw is "they are further left than the Republican". Do you really think another "just left of center candidate" is going to bring these people out in 2020?
  4. Yo.
  5. Yeah, it's weird. It's like they think that by having Democrat candidates lean towards the center they will be able to lure slightly right of center Republicans into voting Democrat. Newsflash: That doesn't work! The centrist Republicans are gonna, guess what? Vote Republican! So why not put forward a Democrat far enough to the left to bring out the people who have already shown that they'd rather sit at home rather than vote for the centrist candidate? Relying on people to come out and vote for your guy just because they're "not as bad as the other candidate" is not a winning strategy.
  6. Finally went to see it this weekend, and I was super disappointed after hearing so many good reviews about the movie. So I'm just going to go ahead and tell you all how I believe themovie should have went down. The second faction of humans was completely unnecessary. So they need to be erased from the story completely. You do this by having the beginning battle be exactly the same. The first change comes when the Colonel raids the ape settlement. Instead of him and 4 guys he brings his whole army. During the raid he thinks he kills Caesar (Caesar falls off the waterfall) and the Colonel captures all the apes then and there. Caesar washes up on shore and finds the only escapees are him and his rescue squad. They decide to track the Colonel and free their people. The movie is now the same up until they get to the Colonels fort. (In this version there is no other human faction, it's just the Colonel and his troops) Same general idea, they scout around the fort and find the secret tunnels. However, in the tunnels the apes also find a weapons cache (It's already been established the base was a weapons depot). The enslaved apes stage an armed revolt and we actually get a final battle to the War for the Planet of the Apes. During the battle Caesar sacrifices himself by detonating the fuel supply (no it's not by the wall, that was just stupid) thus causing the avalanche. The remaining apes survive by climbing the trees. We don't have to deal with Caesar somehow traveling for over a month with a mortal wound that coincidentally kills him on the day they reach their destination (even though it was no longer necessary for them to leave their forest home considering all the human forces had just been annihilated. Edit: That's not to say there wasn't some entertainment during the movie. I went to one of those theaters where you get to pick your own assigned seat. Apparently two people had sneaked in without paying for tickets and were forced to move twice when the people who actually paid for said seats arrived.
  7. At least they seem to have fixed the problem they introduced in Hardhome. I'f I'm remembering correctly the Other's sword shattered when it hit Jon's Valerian Steel Weapon. That no longer seems to be the case.
  8. Yeah, I got bored with using the Fruit Loops box and did something similarly stupid. I didn't try to look directly at the sun, but I did get a look at the eclipse by glancing at its reflection in a pool. Edit: And in the quest for important information that hasn't been revealed yet, I'd like to know what cereal box KiDisaster used to make his device.
  9. My sister and I made one of those as well. Seems to work alright. We're not in the direct path of the eclipse, but there's not a single cloud in the sky here.
  10. No. The cockroaches will be hunting us.
  11. I just hope everyone is aware of the true threat in the upcoming days. With the lessening of protection from Great Light and Warmth Bringer, vampire activity is sure to be at an all time high. I still have yet to put all of my countermeasures in place. Please let there be enough time.
  12. I've also seen articles titled "3 killed in Charlottesville". They're counting the two officers that were killed in the helicopter crash without distinguishing them from the actual murder.
  13. 1) Yes to both. You've caused someone else to commit violence. You say "x person needs to be killed" to a crowd, and someone in that crowd goes and attempts to kill that person, you've incited violence. 2) Sorry you think people are complete idiots. WWII ended in 1945. It is now 2017. Go find the person who claims to be a Nazi because they like ill-fitting clothing.
  14. What do you consider incitement to violence? I'll make this as simple as possible. 1) A person gets up on a platform and says, "Yes, I believe Jews/non-whites/homosexuals/(any other of the myriad of people who are not me) need to be killed". So this would count as incitement to violence, correct? And as such would not be protected under free speech laws. 2) A person gets ups on a platform and says, "I am a Nazi. I think what us Nazi's believe is correct. I'm going to try and recruit you to become a Nazi". You don't consider what person number 2 says as incitement to violence? Because I do. The term "Nazi" has been around for a long time. A person who claims to be a Nazi knows full well the endgame of that ideology.
  15. Probably not. But we're not talking about everyone who marched that day are we? Nope, we are discussing the individuals who claim to be part of an ideology that desires the extermination of people they consider "sub-human".