Tornado

SSMB Moderator
  • Content count

    16915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About Tornado

  • Rank
    Sister Sonic
  • Birthday 03/03/90

Profile Information

  • Interests
    (•_•)
    ( •_•)>⌐■-■
    (⌐■_■)
  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    United States
  • Location
    Lyons, New York

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    TenchiFreak5
  • Steam
    TenchiFreak5
  • YouTube
    TenchiFreak5
  • Website URL
    http://www.aselabs.com
  • XBL
    TenchiFreak5
  • PSN
    TenchiFreak5

Recent Profile Visitors

57850 profile views
  1. It was a franchise reboot that Sega got cold feet on actually going through with long before the first game came out. It's surprising, and almost certainly more due to the success of the show than anything, that it has survived as long as it has.
  2. Mitt Romney, a considerably more charismatic, moderate and mature (and handsome) Presidential candidate than Ted Cruz ever could have been, held his own press conference about six months ago warning Americans about Donald Trump, and urging them to take into account what he saw as a snake. He made an impassioned speech that I mostly ignored when I was watching it while waiting for my car to be serviced, but caught a few parts of it and it rang pretty true. All that actually accomplished in the end was that it incensed people to throw more support behind The Donald, since how dare a failed Presidential candidate dictate what people feel about the current election cycle. Mark my words: All that Ted Cruz accomplished with this is make him look like a sore loser. Bernie supporters may hate Hilary enough to vote Republican, but the alternative to voting for Donald is voting for... Hilary. And no former Ted Cruz supporter is going to do that.
  3. And people do have the right to seek higher education. The entire point of higher education is that it is supposed to offer you a competitive advantage over people who didn't get it. College debt wouldn't be much of an issue if people could go to college for a few years, come out and find a job to justify going to college in the first place; but what instead if happening is that people are going to college, coming out and finding that the jobs available are the same menial shit they could have gotten if they didn't bother. Free college isn't going to make that last part better. Giving free rides at colleges isn't going to make your typical job market currently flooded with Millennials, who had it pounded into their head that a college education is something they need, any more easy to actually get employed in. Giving free rides at colleges isn't going to get any more people into skilled trades, which have spent most of the time those millennials were growing up being presented as "lesser" work. Giving free rides at colleges aren't going to make farmers or factory workers or foodservice workers more apt to make six figure salaries. Giving free rides at colleges isn't going to make it so people dramatically overeducated don't end up in "undesirable" jobs. Giving free rides at colleges isn't going to keep the people who don't belong in colleges out of colleges. I daresay, even, that giving free rides at colleges isn't going to make things any more fair when people get into the workplace either.
  4. Not everyone does need a college education, nor is everyone fit for getting one; so defining it as a right on the basis of "it could determine whether they are successful or not" is a pretty willowy reason to throw the word "right" at it. It's also not wrong, though. Look in any area with a community college but without a metropolitan infrastructure surrounding it. Hundreds of kids every semester with Associates degrees pour into job markets that now are starting to look at Bachelor's degrees to filter through them instead; and all an associates degree does is give you a leg up over a kid who scraped a GED when you're both looking at a McJob.
  5. It's a shame the new Powerpuff Girls sucks so bad. The intro is really cool, and new Buttercup sounds pretty much like just like Revy. It should have been an easy sell.

  6. My issue with waterboarding mostly lies in the assumption that information gained from doing it will be correct; or, more pressingly, that there exists some scenario where it is the necessary course of action rather than an option.
  7. Not to sound like a dick, but do either of you have any experience with the sort of stuff Donald Trump did before he decided to run for President?
  8. I think this needs to be gone over in a bit more detail, because this was mentioned in brief and alluded to on the first page but I think it has been glossed over a bit: You never aren't allowed to protest moderator action. You never aren't allowed to go to Chris or Carbo with concerns about something a moderator has done, even if it isn't to you and even if it isn't actual moderation. You never aren't given a chance to explain yourself if you feel whatever you did was justified. That remains true for all moderation action. Bans, status privilege revocation, strikes, temp bans, PM disabling, whatever. Most importantly, and I cannot emphasize this enough: Unless you are a spambot or posting porn or whatever, you never will be banned on the spot with no discussion. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple bans that were performed due to behavior of the exact sort of thing the Zero Tolerance thread was talking about. The moderators who were available to comment discussed the situation. The moderators who were available to comment came to a unanimous decision. The decision, based on member history admittedly, but also due to the severity of thing done, was to ban. Other moderators came to find out about the circumstances that led to the ban later, be it later in the day or week or whatever. Those other moderators offered their own insight. That insight led to further investigation into the matter. Ban was ultimately rescinded, and apologies were made. There are people on the moderation staff with dramatically different takes on a lot of member behavior and the appropriateness of it, so it is not a simple thing to have someone be banned and have it stick.
  9. Where does that Sally avatar come from? Did you make it? 

  10. Picked up LA Noire Complete (finally! Should have gotten it during the winter sale instead of Max Payne 3), Sniper Elite 3 and Besieged. I'm good for now.
  11. At least it wasn't Hayden Christiansen.
  12. The most likely answer is because DX is the version that they already had running on a modular codebase, so that is the one that is the easiest to spread around to other consoles and tweak.
  13. It is not. This specific stupid one may be, but traditionally the reason Californian secession has come up as a talking point is because California's state government has tried to overstep its legal boundary over what are traditionally "liberal" issues.
  14. An example of what? Why you don't mess with the badasses who run... a voluntary trade union? You think actively and obviously punitive trade actions imposed by a trade union against a country that democratically elected to leave said trade union, whether it was a good decision for them to leave or not, is going to quell dissent within the countries that remain? What threat can the EU imply will take place that the French people can take seriously when a (certainly unlikely but who knows if possible) French leave vote would doom any actual power the EU has to make decisions, if not the EU completely? If the Netherlands puts leaving the EU to a referendum (like has already been floated since Brexit succeeded) for seemingly the same radical nationalistic and immigration-based reasoning the UK seems to have left over, you think the EU being overtly aggressive to the UK with the threat left unsaid is going to make those groups in that country back off? Which hurts the EU just the same, and it specifically hurts the countries that do most of the heavy lifting to make the EU function because they are some of the closest trading partners with the UK. The EU can play hardball with the UK, but the EU is still a collection of individual countries with individual desires attempting to work together. The US = EU comparison is a good one insofar as how the laws regarding interstate trade and travel and taxation and the like are handled; but it is a bad one in regards to the amount of power the individual countries hold over influencing EU policy versus what individual states can over US policy. You need look no further than the crazy amount of special dispensation that the UK got as an EU member state for not following EU regulations as proof of that. California is one of the few states that can survive wholly on its own and is absolutely vital as a part of the United States as a whole, but California isn't allowed to opt out of using the dollar. California isn't allowed to grant federal emissions waivers for cars built there. California isn't allowed to use a different measurement system on their roads. California isn't allowed to make up their own product labeling laws. Hell, that's what makes the whole thing actually passing so bizarre, since the UK seemed to have more control over things that benefited them personally as an EU member than any other EU country got out of it. And France will be one of the individual countries most hurt by the EU purposely trying to screw the UK over to make a point. And regardless of, again, whether or not the UK "needs" the EU more than the EU "needs" the UK, they still do need to work together if they want to minimize the amount of damage the Brexit causes to both of them. Because most of the EU countries don't have nearly the economic power that Britain has, will continue to have, and in fact leveraged repeatedly throughout their entire tenure as an EU member. The UK isn't the US. The UK isn't China. The UK also isn't Greece. The UK also isn't Serbia. So long as Germany and France and Italy remain in the EU, many of the other countries will happily benefit from their hugely more powerful individual economies helping them out and fall in line with whatever is put forth by EU leadership. You think the countries that get far more out of the Union than they could get out of it are going to suddenly put on big boy pants and make demands because the UK wants a favorable trade agreement without the drawbacks that are causing a lot of dissent in the EU anyway? Particularly when the drawbacks don't seem to be as big flashpoints in those countries anyway? Germany and France and Italy and Spain probably aren't going to use this as a rallying cry to get the kind of special deal that the UK is going to want, not the least of which being because the UK probably aren't going to get it even though they might have when they were EU members; but the EU as a whole can not afford to just crush the UK under their heel as punishment for leaving. What happens with Scotland and Northern Ireland will affect things greatly for the UK going forward, but let's not pretend that the EU hasn't just functionally lost something like 20% of its economic "value" and taken a huge international confidence hit at the same time that the UK's economy is taking a beating. Let's not pretend that the EU's popularity among its remaining influential member states is so beyond reproach that they can afford to slap the UK around a bit as an implicit warning. The EU has to navigate this without treating the UK like a shitheel, even if they want to and even if their position is stronger than the UK's.
  15. So the EU plays hardball. Tells the UK to fuck off when they attempt to negotiate trade. You think that doesn't hurt the EU as well? The world's 5th or 6th largest economy pulls out of your trade alliance, and you decide to act like they are an unperson? Whether or not the UK made a poor decision in leaving the UK, and whether or not the EU has the upper hand in trade negotiations, the EU isn't so unaffected by the UK pulling out that they can just pretend they don't have to come to the table at all. How does the EU actively punishing the UK, to the detriment of remaining EU members, look to the Netherlands, which may very well be next in line to leave? How does that look to France; of which the UK is one of its most valuable individual trading partners, is one of the remaining major individual EU economies, and has its own loud anti-EU sentiment they are trying to control? I don't think it's likely that the Netherlands or France will follow the UK, but I also don't think its a possibility the EU can just pretend isn't there since I also didn't think it was likely that the UK would follow through on it. Says who? Again, the EU probably doesn't "need" the UK as much as the UK may "need" the EU, but neither is better off stonewalling each other entirely because both are weaker now that the UK has left. And the countries whose remaining presence is actually important to the EU, your Frances and Germanys and (to a lesser extent) Spains? The EU is ultimately a collective bargaining group, acting on behalf of the entirety of its members. But let's be real here: the likes of Greece and Cyprus and whatever former Soviet satellite puppet country they decide to admit next can likely go fuck themselves in terms of voicing that they have no benefits gained from a UK trade deal if it means that the big countries that actually support the EU get what they need the most out of a trade agreement with the world's 5th/6th largest economy; and those individual important countries are also the ones that will be hurt the most by blocking all attempts at trade reconciliation with the world's 5th/6th largest economy since they are (generally) the closest physically and the most closely intertwined. The UK isn't the US or China in terms of bargaining power, but it also isn't as if the UK is going to turn into Ethiopia from this.