Lurker > Panthera

I hate to bring up a previous endless debate but I honestly wouldn't read much into that "Republicans say cancel the election" poll regardless of the accuracy of the polling process (which is probably as close to accurate as they ever are, ie decent enough to be a ball park figure). Really outlandish ideas that will never happen aren't going to be met with serious consideration in a poll. If you polled people on the idea of the Supreme Court declaring Trump wouldn't be allowed to run for re-election because they don't like him you'd probably get 50%+ support from Democrats and it wouldn't mean Democrats actually want to have the Supreme Court be the only ones that get a vote, just that they hate Trump.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

Miz vs Ziggler's ladder was better than Title vs Career

That being said Miz might be a good answer for this-- mostly because I'm not sure Title vs Career was great or not. It's either 1 or 2 with him.

His Falls Count Anywhere match with Morrison is definitely another potential one for him
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

cjsdowg posted...

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I wonder what would happen if a Cafe has a voluntary 'Black Tax' or a 'Woman Tax'. That would turn the world upside down. But because it's a 'Man Tax', it's acceptable to all the sexist people out there.

Since black people make less then white people even white woman how would that work ?

Perfectly

You tax white people, so you piss them off, the tax includes white women so it looks sexist, but it's called the "black tax" because it's about the disadvantages black people face so people who don't look into it think it's targeted at black people. Perfect storm of controversy.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

The whole Ambrose/Rollins reunion tease angle is increasingly making me feel like I'm watching some sort of peculiar love story.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Kineth posted...

Stop right there. If you mean a pocket passer, that's a specific type of NFL QB. A mobile QB or a running QB is still a fucking NFL QB. Why segregate them. If you're gonna say that he is shitty, just say he's shitty.

Still this is a fucking dead horse of an argument.

Kaep is only a decent option in an offense that NFL teams rarely use. This isn't exactly a shocking claim.

He's not shitty *if* he fits the system the team plays, then he's decent. In a conventional NFL offense that doesn't rely on QB mobility way more often than not, he's been okay at times but mostly not.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Again, the problem with Kaep is that he's only decent in a specific type of offense that few teams want to actually play. Cutler isn't exactly special but he's at least a guy that you know you can plug into basically any offense and get something that at least vaguely resembles an NFL QB. I don't doubt that Kaepernick would be more interesting to teams without the political element, but it's hardly the only issue with him. He's a terrible choice outside of an offensive system that most teams aren't going to use. The racial/political aspect is more something that convinces teams not to take a gamble they already weren't very keen on than it is the primary reason they don't want him.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

hyperpowder posted...

Like you dont like getting paid minimum wage? Go get a Pharm Tech certification and make 15 bucks an hour

That's becoming minimum wage in some places <_<
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Probably one of the several times I've had a muscle cramp/spasm that's basically a charley horse, except in the calf instead of the thigh and from my experience way more painful. About twenty seconds or so when I can't even focus on anything other than holding my leg and swearing, and leaves me barely able to put weight on that leg for the rest of the day. Always happens right when I wake up too, which I guess is nice for letting me get wide awake right away but is not the most pleasant thing to start the day with.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Instead, your toy will have power over you.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Doe posted...

Vortex_of_Hope posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

Esrac posted...

Devil Survivor has one kind of like that.

Instead of seeking your destiny as of of the kings of Bel, go with Yuzu's request to to run away from the lockdown and go home. It doesn't go well, but you can make it better if you do a request just right.

Overclocked lets you unfuck your fuck up after a lot of work but the base game is just "Your cowardice doomed Tokyo"

To be fair you can choose to break out earlier with Honda too but that instantly ends everything.

Do you guys recommend this game? it sounds cool

I'll be another guy recommending Devil Survivor, it's great

And is also the game I came into this topic to mention
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

I wouldn't be or want to be but I guess I'd want to be caught watching of my co-workers having an orgy in the back office just so I can take comfort in not being the only weird pervert around.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Satan
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

We said "Well, maybe we'll have a decent dark match." And our dark match was Enzo coming back down to try and fight Cass, with Big Show holding Cass while Enzo beats him up in a way that was totally unconvincing. Big Show then choke slammed Cass and Enzo pinned him. Show counted the pin. It was underwhelming.

Enzo Amore is the hardest face to cheer for imaginable
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

MegaButterfree posted...

Panthera posted...

The fact that they can be wrapped around your body as the women pulls you closer and closer to you and you feel the moment of excitement as you finally experience what it's like to be with a woman only to have your hopes dashed as she slits your throat and steals your wallet

Joke's on her, I'm broke & now she's going to prison for murder. Ha!

And so your life ends, your fleeting dreams of grandeur dashed by a single lustful, foolish decision. And for what? In the end, your life only went far enough to derail the aspirations of another. Sentenced to life in prison for her desperate ploy to earn what she needed to pay the rent, her existence will be bleak misery. Will you, from your perch in the afterlife, look down upon her with pity? Scorn? Arousal? Perhaps none can say...
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

The fact that they can be wrapped around your body as the women pulls you closer and closer to you and you feel the moment of excitement as you finally experience what it's like to be with a woman only to have your hopes dashed as she slits your throat and steals your wallet
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

CeraSeptem posted...

Everyone thought I was crazy because I said Bray wasn't any good years ago.

Who's crazy now?!

You.

And probably also Lopen.

And definitely me.

And maybe Jakyl.

I still think Bray is good, it's pretty much all booking that makes me sick of seeing him.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

On the flip side, if anyone has to have beaten Styles to be a credible threat to build to beating Styles, then you either have an extremely linear route to take to get to the point where you can beat Styles, or Styles has been beaten by enough that beating him has no real value.

I mean if Owens is considered to be on the level of Styles, why is Styles the one to build up to to beat in the first place, and why do you need to beat Styles if you've already beaten Owens.

Basically if you try to make everyone a star no one is is what I'm getting at. I'd rather have predictable booking than 'unpredictable' booking (which usually ends up predictable amusingly enough by reading the ebb and flow of the storyline) where everyone can beat everyone and the wins don't matter.

I don't think someone has to beat Styles to be able to beat Styles. I think it seems like an ass pull if someone beats Styles without having beaten guys who were at least close to Styles unless the guy took a Strowman style path of squashing everything in sight for a while.

I don't know, I just find it funny that your solution to the WWE's lack of starpower that they created in large part due to refusing for years to let anyone other than Cena (and Orton and Batista to a lesser extent) look like a top guy is to make sure that only Cena and a couple others get to look like top guys.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

I've lived in Canada most of my life and never seen bagged milk. I'm pretty sure it's only a thing in the east.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Solioxrz362 posted...

I'm pretty sure at the start of that segment, Corey Graves basically said "I don't really know why Bray wants to fight Finn but maybe we'll find out!"

Pretty much the perfect summary of Bray Wyatt since...actually every single moment of him on the main roster except the Shield feud and maybe parts of the Orton story. Even the WWE doesn't know what he's supposedly doing at any given moment.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

A beautiful paradise full of highly attractive people who all conveniently know your exact preferences and are nice enough to only approach you if they know you'll like them. It's the greatest place on Earth, or beneath Earth or whatever the right term is. And you can get there as long as you go into a crowded shopping mall at noon and yell "I REALLY LOVE WELL DONE STEAK AND SHORTCHANGING PROSTITUTES!" five times.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

Styles > Dude > Owens and Dude > Styles > Owens are two valid inequalities

Beating Owens doesn't say a guy can beat Styles. Nor should it. It does make you consider that dude can beat Styles though.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point - I don't think someone looks like a legit threat to a top guy unless they beat someone that is a legit threat to a top guy. The formula you're proposing just doesn't really click for me because while I might still like certain surprise wins over big names, a lot of the time I'll just be scratching my head about it.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Solioxrz362 posted...

Guys

I have one thing to say about all of this

Jinder Mahal.

is not a star

He will prove us ignorant Americans (and Canadians) wrong and establish a new form of stardom. He will do it for his people, and for his hero, The Great Khali.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

That is literally what you are proposing Lopen. You specified that a guy like Owens should be clearly below a guy like Styles. If he isn't a legit threat to Styles (which he isn't if he's clearly beneath him), how does beating him actually push anyone to the level of Styles?
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

So to get this straight, if Kevin Owens can't beat any given wrestler on the roster at any time he's useless for building anyone.

Yeah, no. That's not how it has ever worked.

What was that about hyperbolic statements?

Because you said that guys like Owens should be clearly below guys like Styles. That certainly sounds like you don't think Owens should look like a genuine threat to Styles.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Suprak the Stud posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jeff Flake coming out with something a little stronger than "deep concerns":

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/31/my-party-is-in-denial-about-donald-trump-215442

Has he voted against anything Trump has pushed? I like the sentiment, but Flake is an example of the very thing he's arguing against in this article.

In fairness, he's admitting he's been part of the problem. If he goes right back to not opposing any Trump dumbfuckery then he should be mocked, but I feel politicians fail at life often enough that it's worth giving him the benefit of the doubt for at least realizing he could do better.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/892147656319004672

No chaos!

Maybe the food was really good today
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Damn that sucks. Hope it turns out okay
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Denver probably hangs out in the 8-10 win range again and fall just short of the playoffs, much as I'd like to say otherwise. The Raiders actually being good now really doesn't help things, at least my dad gets to be happy since they're his team
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

If Owens doesn't look legit against Styles, then Owens is useless for making anyone look legit (beating him means nothing because it doesn't require you to be good to do it). If the entire non-main event scene isn't legit, then there's no one for newer guys to actually feud with to establish themselves. You're basically just perpetuating the Bray Wyatt filler zone by making sure that only Cena and Reigns (Styles and Nakamura or whatever but we all know how Vince rolls) are legit and the Wyatts of the world just meaninglessly faff about with one another because they aren't good enough to actually build anyone up to the Cena/Reigns level.

And if the top guys just lose randomly to dudes that have never achieved anything to make it feel right, then at BEST you just swapped one top guy for another rather than adding to the count.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

To clarify: In your own words, guys like Reigns and Rollins who have had high profile feuds against big names in the company about as much as humanly possible without serious repetition, have not been treated as relevant and are permanently damaged and simply can't matter enough to be main eventers. John Cena doesn't even really qualify by your standards as you describe them, he's spent so much time feuding with midcarders (and almost never main events PPVs anymore) that any relevance he had is gone. Hell, LESNAR barely qualifies thanks to the Ambrose and Joe feuds dragging him down. Unless you think relevance is a thing that can't be lost once attained, but given that you're not advocating for Universal Champion Triple H vs WWE Champion Big Show I feel that can be safely ruled out.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

Well you're criticizing my idea based on hyperbolic statements rather than any sort of justification based on reality, since this is actually how stars have been made in the past, so I don't know when the rational conversation actually started here.

The hyperbolic statement of pointing out that if there are only a few guys that are presented as top guys and everyone else is clearly not worthy (you specifically feel that the non-big deals should be booked as obviously well below the big deals), there is no way to keep anyone out of the mediocre zone for long enough to keep them from seeming mediocre? Bringing up the past isn't even all that relevant because people's way of getting into wrestling has clearly changed over the years, but even as late as the 90s stars weren't made by essentially saying that everyone who has at any point not been booked strongly is permanently ruined.

The key part of your idea that I disagree with is that your criteria of who is "damaged" and not main event worthy is far too broad and when I try to think of how to book things the way you want, I realize that I have about one year of storylines before I run out of relevant things to do and have to make a choice with the big names: Either rehash the same feuds or stick them in the midcard so long it inevitably makes them not feel big anymore. And I also don't see how I can ever build a new star when anyone that hasn't already done it is damaged goods, and to keep the non-big deals where they belong I have to ensure that there's no upper mid card credibility that could be used to push anyone to a higher level.

But no I'm a deranged Seth Rollins fanboy being as deliberately stupid as possible.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

Yeah, except for the eras when Wrestling was actually on the rise.

Just because current day WWE is failing at it doesn't mean the 80s and 90s weren't succeeding. Not sure why you're white knighting the WWE, here.

I'm criticizing your idea, not blindly worshiping the WWE. Not sure why you've completely given up on rational conversation and decided to just invent weird things to accuse people of but hey, have fun.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Lopen posted...

You are, seemingly intentionally because you apparently think Seth Rollins is in fact a big deal, missing the major point.

When did I mention Rollins or my opinion of him? How did you get to the fantasy land you're in?

Lopen posted...

After that point, you can have him face Kevin Owens and Seth Rollins and whoever else. But not before, otherwise he just falls into the rank and file, as has been the trap time and time again in the past 15 years for everyone that isn't named Cena.

By your definition he will fall into the rank and file no matter what because there literally are not enough "big" names to feud with for him to not spend so much time on mundane stuff that he will inevitably begin to fit in, and your criteria for what makes someone a big deal is strict enough that it's impossible to create enough to fix that problem.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Except if AJ does anything other than squash the non top guys he's ruined, and if he does then there's no one to ever actually progress to his level so you're not really creating stars so much as making a few guys look like the least shitty parts of the shitshow.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

I don't see how your model works out at all long term Lopen. Your idea of what defines someone as a "big deal" and how easy it is for that label to disappear pretty much ensures that it's impossible for anyone to get the treatment you want. If AJ Styles got the booking you want, he would have feuded with Orton at some point and be on Lesnar right now and then after Summerslam he wouldn't be a big deal because there's literally no one else.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

The Deadpool posted...

So what's innacurate about saying you wish you could prevent her from talking to other guys but won't because it isn't feasible?

Literally everything
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

The Deadpool posted...

WaterLink posted...

The Deadpool posted...

WaterLink posted...

Because communication is pretty necessary in everyday life and sex isn't?

So you wish you could make your girl not ever meet another man because you're afraid she might like him better than you... But you don't do that because it's not feasible?

Did I get that right?

No, now you're not even trying

Then what does it matter than communication is necessary?

Because wanting someone not to do something that is essential for anything resembling an ordinary life is obviously a hell of a lot more controlling than wanting someone not to do something that is not remotely necessary in any way?
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

The Deadpool posted...

Getting warmer.

Breaking a commitment would be a problem. If you both agree to be exclusive, and she breaks that agreement, that's a breach of trust. That's a problem. Dump her for that shit.

The problem with cheating isn't the sex, it's the breach of trust.

But why do you need that promise of exclusivity? What do you gain by making yourselves exclusive? What's the advantage to having that promise?

You lose the ability to sleep with whoever you want in exchange for gaining... What exactly?

Sexually exclusive relationships are basically a symbol of the actual commitment - the other person isn't just telling you they want you more than anyone else, they are actually behaving in a way that only makes sense if they do. And you are doing the same. It's not the only way people can be committed to each other but I really don't know how you can not get that without being willfully disinterested, monogamy isn't exactly a fringe lifestyle whose workings you've never heard of before.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Hockey is nowhere near as punishing on your body as football; the latter has high impact collisions required for half the players on the field (the linemen) on every single play. There's a reason one has 82 games and the other has 16. The NFL owners wouldn't content themselves with a 16 game schedule when they could expand that to even 30 and make extra billions, they don't because it isn't realistic. Hell, Thursday night games already tend to be kind of lame because the lack of time off after Sunday means the teams are either less practiced or haven't recovered fully.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

3rd_Best_Master posted...

It's still an extreme reaction from his part. You'd think people who've been in a relationship for 5 years are comfortable enough to discuss their sex lives without one of the other people going nuclear and cutting ties based off of just one question. Dude probably wanted to end it for a while though.

It's possible he did, yes. But the counterpart to you bringing up how long they've been together is...well, they've been together that long. Her own account of events, which obviously is probably biased in her favour even if only subconsciously, makes repeated reference to her knowing in advance that this wasn't something he was going to like. I think it's every bit as likely that this wasn't exactly the first time she broached the subject, and the previous times were probably pretty clear on how he felt about it.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

scar the 1 posted...

So is the reasoning the same with other fantasies? What if I ask my gf to consider anal or letting me spank her? Should she just break up with me, because how can she trust me to not keep trying to put my dick in someone's ass?

It should really go without saying that for the majority of people, asking about doing something sexual with them that you haven't done before is VASTLY less unexpected and unusual than asking about having sex with other people.

And if you had reason to know she was strongly opposed to it, she would have good reason to break up with you for making a point of asking her about it. The girl in this story repeatedly draws attention to knowing her boyfriend is not the type to be into unconventional sexual relationships, referring to him as very traditional and so on more than once. It's not like she didn't know this wasn't the kind of thing he would ever be comfortable with.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

ChromaticAngel posted...

A hippo cannot maintain charging momentum while running over people. It'll slow down and the large amount of people it didn't trample will tackle the fuck out of it.

Yeah that's the best bet for humanity actually, not climbing on it or trying to beat it at red rover, just die in enough numbers for it to lose its footing. If it slows down and some people can gouge at its eyes enough to limit its vision, team human probably pulls it off by out waiting it if nothing else. The humans have a good shot of winning, but it's not due to actually being able to leverage their numbers for any sort of coherent offensive attack, it's just the logistical difficulties of a hippo actually killing one hundred people in a presumably relatively small space.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

The charging hippo won't be hitting 100 or even 10 humans simultaneously, it will be hitting at most two or three at once, and each human lacks the balance/strength to stay on their feet when a hippo rams them. It's very hard for a crowd of people to really leverage their size advantage against the hippo in that kind of scenario, it ends up just being the hippo running over a few people at a time with the best the people can do being to trip it with their broken bodies.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Porn cameramen seem to think that they need to validate their existence by tricking you into thinking their job is insanely hard. All the terrible camera angles are actually a guy just trying to make it seem more impressive when he manages to actually get something good on screen
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

ChromaticAngel posted...

There is literally 100 people.

Like I don't think you get what that means.

This isn't like a Kung fu movie where we attack the hippo 3 people at a time.

There's a limit to how many people can effectively contribute without getting in each others way. The size of the hippo means that's a bigger number than it is against a person, but even so, you can't exactly have twenty people all trying to climb on its back simultaneously, everyone will just push each other out of the way.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Naked is simultaneously the most fragile and the most durable. Dude gets crippling injuries from stubbing his toe, but on the other hand he shrugs them off like they're nothing.

Solidus is pretty clearly the shittiest given that he needs some fancy Iron Man suit set up to do anything and even still couldn't beat Raiden
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

CirocObama posted...

I'd do performance enhancing drugs with her if you know what I mean.

Eugenie bouchard is the hottest tennis player though






She even went to a basketball game with a fan.

It's too bad Bouchard's play fell off a cliff pretty much as soon as it looked like she was getting really good.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

How are you getting ten people simultaneously onto the back of an animal that stands like six feet tall, can run far faster than a person over short distances, is aggressively territorial and thus not likely to just stand still while you climb onto it, and strong enough that if it swings its head around or runs into you, you're out of the fight? How are you holding on when it doesn't exactly have handles up there? Like I can see the scenario of how the humans win but it's actually getting there that's hard to picture. This is a big, very powerful animal we're talking about, you have to get a bunch of people on top of it all at once *and* have them hold on long enough to drag it down for this to work.
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny

Next week on Raw, Brock Lesnar probably doesn't show up

Next week on Smackdown, Baron Corbin's dick kicking tactics determine who gets to challenge The Great Khali and the Singh Brothers (featuring their manager, Jinder Mahal) in a 3 on 1 handicap match for the WWE title
---

We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny