Lurker > spanky1

.

^ That's my tagging period.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I've got one that nobody ever mentions but it seems to happen to me all the time and it pisses me off.

Sometimes, there are situations where a car is pulled off to the side of the road, or parked on a right side parking spot, or simply pulled over in a parking lot, like maybe in front of a walmart or something, or just randomly in a parking lot, but basically, any possible situation where a car is pulled over to the right, sitting, not moving, this is totally 100% fine and okay.

But!

This is what happens to me: I'm passing around them, as I should be doing. And then BAM! They just start moving. They just hit the gas without looking behind them or around them. They start moving right when I'm passing them, so that creates a dangerous, awkward situation.

If you're pulled over, you have to assume people are going around you! Don't just start moving whenever you feel like it!
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

OrangeWizard posted...

spanky1 posted...

Something has gone horribly wrong when a symbol of life is held in higher regard than life itself. I can't fathom a loving god who would believe that.

According to the Bible, it's not just a symbol. It literally is.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Jehovah's Witness organization does. I'm out.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

We talked a lot about blood in this topic but I also just wanted to briefly mention another issue I see as pretty big.

Case Study No. 29 of the Australian Royal Commission.

Some JWs know what it is, some JWs have never heard of it, and some JWs learned about it, and are now not JWs anymore.

An actual member of the JW Governing Body (7 old men in New York who are the leaders of the organization) sat on stand and testified, just FYI.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2016-11/report-into-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witness-organisations-releas

The Royal Commission’s Report of Case Study No. 29 - The response of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Australia Ltd to allegations of child sexual abuse, was released today.

The report follows a public hearing held in Sydney in July and August 2015 which examined the experience of two survivors of child sexual abuse within the Jehovah’s Witness organisation, as well as the systems, policies and procedures in place within the organisation for raising, responding to and preventing child sexual abuse.

The Royal Commission heard from two survivor witnesses, 12 institutional witnesses and an expert engaged by the Jehovah’s Witness organisation who gave evidence about the organisation’s policies, procedures and practices.

It also examined evidence from case files held by the organisation which recorded allegations, reports or complaints of child sexual abuse by 1,006 members of the organisation.

The Royal Commission found children are not adequately protected from the risk of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation and does not believe the organisation responds adequately to allegations of child sexual abuse.

From the evidence presented, the Royal Commission considers the Jehovah’s Witness organisation relies on outdated policies and practices to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse which were not subject to ongoing and continuous review. Included in these was the organisation’s retention and continued application of policies such as the two-witness rule in cases of child sexual abuse which, the Royal Commission considered, showed a serious lack of understanding of the nature of child sexual abuse. It noted the rule, which the Jehovah’s Witness organisation relies on, and applies inflexibly even in the context of child sexual abuse, was devised more than 2,000 years ago.

The Royal Commission found the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’s internal disciplinary system for addressing complaints of child sexual abuse was not child or survivor focused. Survivors are offered little or no choice in how their complaint is addressed, sanctions are weak with little regard to the risk of the perpetrator re-offending.

Finally, the Royal Commission considered the organisation’s general practice of not reporting serious instances of child sexual abuse to policy or authorities, demonstrated a serious failure on its part to provide for the safety and protection of children.

Read the full report.

---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Oh and just FYI, here's the official explanation on the jw.org website for why they abstain from blood:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-blood-transfusion/

So yeah, it boils down to two things, kind of:

1. There are direct commands in the Bible to not eat blood.

2. Blood is viewed as sacred to God, which somehow means you can't use it for things (and I will personally add that it is apparently more sacred to him than actual literal life, which I simply can't understand.)

The Bible commands that we not ingest blood. So we should not accept whole blood or its primary components in any form, whether offered as food or as a transfusion. Note the following scriptures:

Genesis 9:4. God allowed Noah and his family to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood but commanded them not to eat the blood. God told Noah: “"Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat."” This command applies to all mankind from that time on because all are descendants of Noah.

Leviticus 17:14. “"You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."” God viewed the soul, or life, as being in the blood and belonging to him. Although this law was given only to the nation of Israel, it shows how seriously God viewed the law against eating blood.

Acts 15:20. “"Abstain . . . from blood."” God gave Christians the same command that he had given to Noah. History shows that early Christians refused to consume whole blood or even to use it for medical reasons.

Why does God command us to abstain from blood?

There are sound medical reasons to avoid blood transfusions. More important, though, God commands that we abstain from blood because what it represents is sacred to him.—Leviticus 17:11; Colossians 1:20.

---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

OrangeWizard posted...

smoliske posted...

Therein lies the idiocy. Interpretation by man.

As opposed to...what, divine revelation?

Consuming a substance means you are eating or drinking said substance.

It goes slightly deeper than that. It's not only about physical consumption. The whole doctrine does not hang upon one single word. It's the whole consideration of what blood is, and how it is treated, that brings us to this conclusion.

Blood is treated as something sacred in the scriptures, and it only had a limited number of uses. Blood was seen as life, and life belongs to Jehovah. In one account, some soldiers risked their lives, without being asked, to fetch water for their thirsty leader. Upon receiving it, he poured the water on the ground, regarding it as the blood of the men who risked their lives for it. Life, that is to say, blood itself, should not be used, risked, so carelessly.

Any use of blood contrary to what was explicitly approved was forbidden. This is not an explicitly approved use, and therefore, it is forbidden.

If, for example, there were a decoration, dye, or paint, made or derived from blood, Jehovah's Witnesses would steer clear of it. If there was a technology fueled by it, we would not use it.

And are you not also giving your own "interpretation by man", when you disagree with us?

Something has gone horribly wrong when a symbol of life is held in higher regard than life itself. I can't fathom a loving god who would believe that.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

And if you want some more explanation from the horse's mouth, here are some direct quotes from JW publications:

"As Christian witnesses of Jehovah, her parents, Darrell and Rhoda Labrenz, correctly viewed blood transfusion as a violation of God's law and thus opposed it. They were concerned about their baby's eternal welfare, for everlasting life is the prospect only of those adhering to God's laws." Yearbook 1975 p.224

"But suppose one's wife or child were near death. Giving blood, no matter who the loved one might be, would still constitute a violation of God's law. Just because one is near death, this does not give one liberty to break God's commands. When one is near death is no time to tamper with or violate the law of God, but a time to draw as near as possible to God by remaining faithful. Everlasting life is the reward for faithfulness. How foolish it would be to gamble away the prospect of life eternal for the very uncertain promise of a cure by blood transfusion!" Watchtower 1970 Apr 15 p.249

"What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Or course, the Christian would not want to die... Would a Christian break God's law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: "Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it." (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God's law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life." What Does The Bible Really Teach (2005) pp.130-131
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

MysticMismagius posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

MysticMismagius posted...

"You don't understand"

THEN EXPLAIN IT.

I would like to be assured that my words do not fall upon closed ears that think they already understand.

I don't understand. I never claimed I did. It just bothers me when people say "I'm not explaining it because you don't/wouldn't understand" before even trying to explain what we obviously don't understand.

The explanation I provided is the best you're going to get, I think. You have to understand they really truly one hundred percent do believe they're doing the best thing. Here's a cover of one of their publications:



Know what all those kids have in common? They all died from refusing blood transfusions. The article inside considers them heroes and examples of a good JW.



It's something that you can intellectually understand, but won't ever truly understand.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

thanosibe posted...

spanky1 posted...

Foppe posted...

spanky1 posted...

Foppe posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

Foppe posted...

So you timetravel when you die?

In the sense that you are aware of nothing for the duration of the time which you are dead, yes.

Wait, as long as you are dead?
So we dont get access to heaven when we die, we have to stay dead for hundreds or thousands of years before we get into heaven?
What messed up religion is this?

It's a pretty simple setup, I think you're overthinking it.

Basically, Armaggedon is gonna come within about 50 years or so from now.

How can you be so sure of that?
They predicted it to happen in 1798, 1799, 1844, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1932, 1940s, 1951, 1975, 1986 and before 2000.
Heeey, 1878 was when the sealing of the 144K was supposed to happen, which means no more access to heaven for later people. This was moved to 1881, 1910, 1914, 1925, 1931 and finally 1935. Now it is admitted as unknown.

Actually, the current understanding is the "overlapping generations" rule. People that were alive when the generation of 1914 were alive will see Armageddon. It's kinda complicated. :\ So anyway, about 50 years, give or take, that means. Edit: to clarify, like, my grandma was alive in 1914, and I was alive when my grand ma was still alive, so the end will come before people around my age die out.

And when I was in the religion the generation of 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon came. I was told it was near when I was young. It could happen any day. Now I'm 40, married with two kids of my own when I wasn't sure I'd even graduate high school before the end. So yes it will keep changing as time keeps going on. This is one of the major things that I could not agree with. If there is a god and Jesus second coming, it will be as the bible itself literally says, to no knowledge of man.

Definitely, that was a big nail in the coffin for me as well. I'm not sure how they extended "the generation of 1914" into two generations, but it happened.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

MysticMismagius posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

unpleasant_milk posted...

If the child can be saved quite easily, then denying that life saving treatment makes the death needless.

That isn't an assumption. That's a fact.

And that keeps you from understanding

"You don't understand"

THEN EXPLAIN IT.

I know we just had the whole "don't mansplaine a religion" talk, but hell I was one of them so it's not mansplaining when I do it. :P

There is a law in the old testament to not consume the blood of an animal. You'd have to first drain the animal of all blood after killing it before you eat it. This law was later made still in effect after Paul (was it Paul? One of them, I forget which one), wrote letters to other congregations in books that are included in the new testament, to keep obstaining from blood. So it's viewed as a direct commend from god, still. The JWs believe transfusions count as consuming the blood, so if a person, even a child, took a transfusion, he would lose everlasting life on earth. So to OrangeWizard here, it wouldn't be a needless death at all. Quite the opposite, it would HAVE to happen, because he would want his child to attain everlasting life in a paradise. It would be hard, but it would be an act of love and devotion to his god, and an act that would ensure the life and happiness of his theoretical child.

That's the explaination, with no spin, no criticism, no bias.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Foppe posted...

spanky1 posted...

Foppe posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

Foppe posted...

So you timetravel when you die?

In the sense that you are aware of nothing for the duration of the time which you are dead, yes.

Wait, as long as you are dead?
So we dont get access to heaven when we die, we have to stay dead for hundreds or thousands of years before we get into heaven?
What messed up religion is this?

It's a pretty simple setup, I think you're overthinking it.

Basically, Armaggedon is gonna come within about 50 years or so from now.

How can you be so sure of that?
They predicted it to happen in 1798, 1799, 1844, 1873, 1874, 1878, 1910, 1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1932, 1940s, 1951, 1975, 1986 and before 2000.
Heeey, 1878 was when the sealing of the 144K was supposed to happen, which means no more access to heaven for later people. This was moved to 1881, 1910, 1914, 1925, 1931 and finally 1935. Now it is admitted as unknown.

Actually, the current understanding is the "overlapping generations" rule. People that were alive when the generation of 1914 were alive will see Armageddon. It's kinda complicated. :\ So anyway, about 50 years, give or take, that means. Edit: to clarify, like, my grandma was alive in 1914, and I was alive when my grand ma was still alive, so the end will come before people around my age die out.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I think we all understand, even the harshest critics of the JWs, that they refuse blood transactions on the grounds that they will later be able to enjoy a future reward from god, because they view it as a commandment from god. I mean, it's obviously an act of sacrifice on their part, according to their interpretation of the bible.

unpleasant_milk here is just frustrated at the fact that you believe this, OrangeWizard.

Kind of like how we all know that parents who refuse vaccinations are doing that because they sincerely believe that's what's best for their children. And then the rest of the population is frustrated at that because we don't agree with the facts.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

It's kinda funny the Seventh Day Adventists are brought up in this topic. They share an origin with the JWs with the whole millerites and great disappointment stuff that happened way back in the 1800s. Bunch of different religions shot off from that.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Dustin1280 posted...

I had no idea jehova's witnesses had similar practices to scientology...

That is very scary...

When it comes to ex members they're nowhere near as bad as scientoligists. Scientologists are on a whole other level, with the harassment and whatnot. With JWs, it's just a little shunning is all.

JWs are worse in other ways, though, such as the blood doctrine.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

OrangeWizard posted...

spanky1 posted...

I just see people asking him questions, not telling him how his religion is supposed to work.

I've only been asked two questions iirc. Have I missed any?

My point is I don't really see people telling you how your religion is supposed to work in this topic. The only time people are interacting with you in this topic is when they're asking you a question. (Oh and I did ask how hold you were, btw)
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Zanzenburger posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

People would rather talk about me, than to me

The weirdest part about the topic is the posters telling you how your religion is supposed to work.

It's like the religion equivalent to a man "mansplaining" womanhood to a woman.

I just see people asking him questions, not telling him how his religion is supposed to work.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

thanosibe posted...

spanky1 posted...

Well then there you go. You were never disfellowshipped, so your family and friends in the organization aren't required to shun you.

And if you were disfellowshipped, and your parents happened to continue talking to you and having a close relationship with you, they could be counseled by the elders, and if they continued to do so after that, your dad could lose his position as an elder, and if they still continued to do so and didn't stop, they could eventually be disfellowshipped themselves and then they would be shunned by all their JW friends. You do realize that, right?

You're what they call a fader. It's the healthiest way to leave the organization. Not everyone is as lucky as you, or has it as easy as you.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, I realize all that, and no I never said everyone had the exact same experience if they left the religion. That still is a person's decision to make, to stay or leave or whatever. And with that decision comes the consequences thereof. You don't get to choose how other's live their lives either. If I did something I know would have disfellowshipped me, then I live with that decision. How do I bear ill will if my family choose to abide by the letter of the religion for the sake of what they believe is their eternal life? I'm not advocating it's a good practice but I am also not going to absolve my involvement in the situation when I knew from the get go what the consequences would have been. Just like anyone in the religion knows.

My point is an explanation of why people would be triggered by JWs.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Zanzenburger posted...

lol, hearing people talk about Jehova's Witnesses reminds me of how people talk about Seventh Day Adventists, which is the religion I was born and raised in. People also fear it and call it a cult, just because it has more "rules" than your average religion. Yet SDA's is not only the fastest growing religion in the United States (google it), but members of SDA's, on average, live 10 years longer than the typical American due to its health-based doctrine.

My point? Fearing religions and labeling them a certain way only serves to close your mind as much as those religions you claim to criticize. Actually talk to members of the religions rather than just make assumptions based on some article you read by a dissenter.

I don't even know where to begin here.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Well then there you go. You were never disfellowshipped, so your family and friends in the organization aren't required to shun you.

And if you were disfellowshipped, and your parents happened to continue talking to you and having a close relationship with you, they could be counseled by the elders, and if they continued to do so after that, your dad could lose his position as an elder, and if they still continued to do so and didn't stop, they could eventually be disfellowshipped themselves and then they would be shunned by all their JW friends. You do realize that, right?

You're what they call a fader. It's the healthiest way to leave the organization. Not everyone is as lucky as you, or has it as easy as you.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

thanosibe posted...

spanky1 posted...

thanosibe posted...

Holy shit JW's really trigger CE.

I mean I was born into it I've be out for almost 20 years now and have healthy relationships with my folks and sister and brother in law. I have no animosity towards what my parents did. And I hope my children will forgive my mistakes as an adult too.

Edit: I may have discarded the religion. But the life I grew up around and the friends I had, and memories I have are all worth it. Religion is only as important as an individual makes it. When I realized I was just going through the motions as I reached my 20's I realized if I don't believe this is the truth than why stick with it?

Are your parents and sister and brother in law all in the religion?

Yes my folks for sure. My father is an elder (probably equivalent to a priest/father?) himself and my mother has been a pioneer (full time door to door service) since I was a teenager.

Not sure how often my sister and brother in law go to meetings and stuff, but I know they still go to some degree.

Were you 1)baptized and then 2)disfellowshipped?
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

thanosibe posted...

Holy shit JW's really trigger CE.

I mean I was born into it I've be out for almost 20 years now and have healthy relationships with my folks and sister and brother in law. I have no animosity towards what my parents did. And I hope my children will forgive my mistakes as an adult too.

Edit: I may have discarded the religion. But the life I grew up around and the friends I had, and memories I have are all worth it. Religion is only as important as an individual makes it. When I realized I was just going through the motions as I reached my 20's I realized if I don't believe this is the truth than why stick with it?

Are your parents and sister and brother in law all in the religion?
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Foppe posted...

OrangeWizard posted...

Foppe posted...

So you timetravel when you die?

In the sense that you are aware of nothing for the duration of the time which you are dead, yes.

Wait, as long as you are dead?
So we dont get access to heaven when we die, we have to stay dead for hundreds or thousands of years before we get into heaven?
What messed up religion is this?

It's a pretty simple setup, I think you're overthinking it.

Basically, Armaggedon is gonna come within about 50 years or so from now. At that point, all the good people who died in all of history who are worthy of living forever (mostly JWs), will be resurrected on a paradise earth and live forever. Like the Bible says, dead is "like being asleep". We just go to sleep upon death, and then wake up in the new world.

Meanwhile, you have the 144K gang. Whenever one of those dies at any point in time, they're brought to heaven to rule alongside Jesus. Fun fact: my grandma is one of them. She watches me when I masturbate.

Oh, and the 144K number from Revelations is apparently a literal number, even though every single other fucking thing in that book is a metephor, even everything else in the sentence that the number 144K appears in. How did they decide that this number is actually literal and not symbolic? What do you call it when you cross an elephant with a rhino? Elephino.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I was born a JW and grew up in the religion. I could write a book on this group. It's a pretty fascinating organization in that it comes off as so incredibly boring, nice, and mundane, but is actually quite sinister and dangerous (and to people with the attitude of "aren't they all?": no. Groups like JWs, Mormons, Scientologists are objectively more dangerous than more mainstream religions, (except I'm not touching Islam here)).

I gotta say it's pretty interesting to see a fully-in JW on this board. How old are you, @OrangeWizard?

To answer the OP's question, yes, most members are just born into it. However! There's an issue nobody has brought up yet. While it is true that new members converted by actual door to door studies probably have some serious issues in their lives going on, you have to also take into account the teaching tactics of the people conducting these studies.

There's a certain strategy that certain groups use to get members to join.

They don't lay all the important info on the study at once. On first meeting, they're not going to tell a study that they'll have to cut off contact with unbelieving family members. They don't tell them they won't be able to go to family holidays like Thanksgiving, Christmas, birthdays anymore, when they first start studying. They don't tell them that if they join, and then decide to leave, then they'll be shunned by any active JW member, including family members. They don't tell them that they'll have to watch their child die from lack of blood transfusion in the off chance that they need the procedure. They don't tell them about the "two witness" rule, which requires there to be two eye witnesses to a sin for the congregation leaders to believe the sin happened, which results in a breeding ground for pedophile sexual abuse, since there are never ever two eye witnesses when sexual abuse happens to a child. They won't tell the study how their word is the only truth, but that truth changes from decade to decade, and if you believed what JWs believed 50 years ago you'd probably be considered an apostate of some kind. I could go on but you get the idea.

Basically, they hide the more unsavory parts of their organization, and then, through repetitive study, they reel in the convert, and they gradually learn these things over time, but it's too late then, and their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they ignore it. And thus, a new convert is born.

Know who practices tactics like this? Cults.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

hollow_shrine posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

ClockworkHare posted...

The aesthetic of the man bun is in direct correlation to how physically attractive the guy is to begin with.

I don't agree. I think it depends on if you have the right hair. Colin Farrell is a good looking guy, but that man bun is not working for him.

You're absolutely right.



Burn it with fire.

I believe there's a discussion of top knot vs man bun to be had. A top knot is basically a shitty man bun. Shorter, half hearted, not as good looking. I believe Colin Farrell has a top knot, while someone like Khal Drogo has a man bun.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I certainly hope so.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

You know what.

The man bun sure does get a lot of hate it seems like.

But you know what.

Most guys I've seen it on look pretty damn hot and masculine.

And it seems like most straight women seem to actually like them.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Excuse me, your balls are showing.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Nier Automata.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

The many extreme porn ones.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Either cancer or a horrific car crash involving lots of blood, dismemberment, fire, and a fully awake self that feels and experiences every nightmarish and painful second of the experience.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

What's her name? 8)
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

What about all the cops that were just standing there watching and not intervening?

Will they lose their jobs too?
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

The doctor is my favorite so far. She's very dominant. :3
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

She's always been half Indian half white.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I'm tying to think of movies that go against the trope I pointed out.

Like, even in stuff like Guardians of the Galaxy, which is all about fun and upbeat adventure, the female character is probably the most serious one!

You got the bride in Kill Bill, who is pretty serious, but also pretty interesting still.

You've got the Charlies Angles I guess, but those movies are awful. :(

I guess superhero movies would be the closest to what I'm looking for, even though I'm not a big fan of those. Like I guess Black Widow meets the criteria. Wonder Woman is great though.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

You know what, this is kinda random but I just now thought of it and I wanna take this moment to point that Lost Legacy made realize just how shitty so many movie action heroines really are. They're so freakin' serious and devoid of character all the time! Chloe is awesome. She's wise-cracking and funny and shit, and has actual character. It seems like when you get a lady action star in movies and hollywood and stuff, they're always so dead serious and hard and stuff. I mean think of them. Selene from Underworld. Resident Evil lady. Furiosa and other various Charlize Theron characters. It's like an unwritten rule that a female action lead has to be super hardcore and serious all the time.

You never get characters like Chloe in movies. :(
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Hellblade! I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned in here yet. When you die, it's really just your crazy mind going crazy cause you be a crazy bitch.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Lost Legacy is about 7 hours long.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

There's a lot of different styles of rapping out there, some of it is actually good, a lot of it is pretty bad. This style right here, even not considering who this is, is the absolute worst style imo. Slow ass low effort rapping.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I know this topic is bait, but just wanted to point out that Houston is liberal and probably did not help elect Cruz.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Did you know Diary Queen doesn't even have butterscotch? Why would you not carry one of the tastiest things you can put on ice cream. And no, caramel isn't the same as butterscotch.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gamestop-claims-its-expensive-switch-snes-classic-/1100-6453029/

So basically, this company is taking items that are limited in supply, super hot ticket items, and they're bundling them with a bunch of crap that nobody wants, so that they can sell for a higher price, knowing these bundles will sell because people want the core item so much, and then saying, with a straight face, they're doing it because "it's more convenient" to the customer.

Holy fucking shit. Completely ethically bankrupt imo.

inb4 you fucking god damn nerds start saying the classic SNES is stupid because you can just emulate it and miss the god damn point.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

How are terriers of some kind not on the list? And what about dachshunds?
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Yep! I like it.

Sansa Stark has one of these.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I've seen several comments like this.

The insane thing is Houston is literally liberal.

They're literally happy that a liberal city that literally didn't vote for Trump is literally being destroyed.

Just wow.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

I'll be honest I legit enjoyed a LOT of movies named in this topic.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

InstaReturns posted...

Ike put us out of power for two weeks, hopefully there isn't a repeat of that

My number 1 fear. I live in the spring/woodlands area. Power goes out here very easy, and was out for a long time for Ike. I don't know if I could take going that long without power.

ESPECIALLY if the water gets shut off.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

Lady in the Water made me angry.
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

This is the wildling I was talking about:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3866850/mediaviewer/rm1728443392

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2171898/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t19

She had such a great voice too. :3
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg

HashBrownAgain posted...

Arya
Missandei
Brienne (in real life)

joke post, right?

My picks are:

Dorn sister with the short hair "bad pussy".
Cersei, because psycho women with absolute power get me off.
The one wildling that was only in one episode, Hardhome, who was killed by the little kid zombies. She was absolutely stunning and I wished she became an actual character. :(
---

http://i.imgur.com/DCjoiZ0.jpg