KalVsWade

He fucking rocked in a serious role in King of New York, and was great in another super-serious role in True Romance. I'm totally for it. Ain't like they fucked up the casting prior to this.

Name violations are common and can result in forced gamertag changes and banning depending. I am pretty sure the above will not fly either. I can talk with someone in the safety team to confirm. Cheating on Xbox is theoretically possible through some real arcane ways - things like using separate machines to intercept network traffic. But no one really does that.

Chris Conte rule part 2 - if Nathan Peterman is associated with your team in any way everything you've done is suspect. https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2022/5/11/23067443/chicago-bears-sign-qb-nathan-peterman-las-vegas-raiders-buffalo-bills-justin-fields-practice-squad

I assumed he was using it to insult, like calling someone a nazi.

jUsT cHaNGe tHE mESsagin

I really liked season 3, but I hadn't been invested in all in the first 2 seasons. I thought they did a great version of a new take on a cyberpunk world.

They're probably talking about shit like the metaverse or nfts or some other crap.

Oh they had 6 Wink

I'm glad that I was wrong and it looks like Putin is not at least immediately pushing to escalate, though he's still talking pretty provocatively about NATO.

Probably because the switch has space for like 2 games and is frequently played offline as a mobile thing. Also, Nintendo may not care that much. That said, you should in general be able to play games offline if your machine is set as your home console. That's sort of the design. If that's not working for some reason hit me up.

The reason it doesn't allow you to do that is imagine someone doing the following- Downloads 500 games to an Xbox Never logs back in on that xbox Gets another xbox and does it again Its a major piracy vector.

And it still was a mistake! Better to have shitty nukes that you can threaten with than give them away to your nuke-armed neighbor who can invade you with no direct help coming. Even dirty bombs are better than nothing when dealing with the threat of reciprocity and deterrence.

Interesting read on Ukraine's rise to military skill - and how Ukraine forces were the ones teaching others and not the other way around - by one of the people tasked to help them. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/09/ukraine-military-2014-russia-us-training/

As I said, a better statement is that prior behaviors are not nearly as predictive as they were. I wouldn't say they can't be predictive, only that they're not as good. And yes, McConnell in 2017 where he is trying to make Trump behave like a normal republican because he is worried about political ramifications is not predictive of how McConnell will behave in 2025 with a vindictive Trump empowered by an illiberal government and a court that does not care about the law. McConnell is adaptable and stands for nothing but power - why wouldn't his behavior change? As to the courts allowing Trump to stay in power - please don't say something shouldn't be worried about when it was mitigated successfully. It almost happened; my mistake was assuming more competence. Fortunately they're setting up for a much more successful and competent run in 2025.

I remember also how folks said there was nothing to worry about with respect to peaceful transitions of power. A better statement is that prior behaviors are not nearly as predictive as they were before, and guidelines like whether something was popular or legal are not actually the surefire rails they had been. You're welcome to use evidence, but we are also welcome to point out that evidence has very flawed prediction powers, and if your evidence relies on the basis of "the republican party is a normal functioning party in a normal democratic system" that evidence will have some holes.

If states want to sue based on Amazon flaunting the laws of that state, it can happen sooner. The bill Rubio proposes won't go anywhere until 2025, but the threat is clearly articulated and is likely to either get pushed by courts or be chilling enough that the companies quietly stop offering it. As to popular voting issues - as we have seen, people don't tend to vote on issues. They vote by party, then by emotion, and then by economy, and not a ton else. But more importantly Republicans have spent the last 2 years, largely unimpeded, putting in rules and regulations and personnel that allow them to largely bypass the popular will. The nice thing about selecting who can vote for you is that it makes it much easier to discount people who won't, and the nice thing about ensuring the counters of votes are in your pocket is that you can simply not count those illegitimate votes - where an illegitimate vote is rightly defined as going to a non republican candidate.

I think you're missing the point. The people who decide whether something are legal are entirely acting with no actual care about the laws, only about the results. If they think it is a good idea to stop companies from doing this sort of thing, they'll find a reason to stop it. Heck, you may not even need a law passed; you may simply get SCOTUS to say that it is illegal for a company to directly facilitate the lawbreaking of states that company is in. Any number of bullshit reasons can be given. The reasons don't fucking matter any more. It's all just power and whether or not they want to do it.

Sorry, which branch of government would be deciding that it is a breach?

Rubio introducing bill to block companies from providing employees with benefits to go out of state and get abortions

I believe they're shown holding the stranges cloak when the illuminati are executing that one.

In honor of mother's day laws are now being proposed to prevent women leaving states unless they have a negative pregnancy test But yes, please do keep fine mist man engaged

As someone who is on call for live site issues pertaining to xbox - this isn't fun

Random drunk people on this thread: Republicans are not going to make all abortion illegal everywhere, that's ridiculous Actual most powerful republican: yep that's exactly what we will do as soon as we get power

Sorry, was this also the same source saying 'Russia is never going to invade Ukraine because they'll never be able to take it with the forces they have' energy? So I think you're wrong, but I think you're interestingly wrong on several fronts: - I don't believe Russia believes NATO will put boots on the ground over attacking supply lines and intel, especially if they're ranged missile attacks. Russia still sees the West as very much cowardly with respect to antagonizing Russia; if the West wasn't going to escalate massively after clear war crimes and clear attempts at a cultural genocide, they weren't gonna do much more in other cases too. - I don't believe that NATO will put boots on the ground any time soon, but especially not for something like this. They may start doing something like a No-Fly zone at best, but more likely they'll do some tit-for-tat targeting of Russian areas with massive ample warning to Russians to get their shit out of there like they did with Syria. - I don't think you understand the war drum beating and messaging coming from Russia; this is the same misunderstanding that led a lot of folks to think that Russia wouldn't be invading Ukraine despite them saying 'we're gonna invade Ukraine'. Russian media and politicians are talking about going to actual war against the West. Not Donbas, not Ukraine, the West. They're talking about putting their entire economy on a war footing. They're talking about doing a major conscription. They view NATO arming and intel of Ukraine as the West effectively joining the war.

Another reason you might see more of the 'full war' announcement is that it will allow Russia to start blaming some of the hardships of the economy on that as well as offer more control.