Sculpture by street artist Isaac Cordal, titled "Politicians Debating Global Warming"

Verlito · 2016-11-22T00:53:56+00:00

To anyone who calls someone stupid because of their view on climate change, but has not read jack shit themselves. It is preachy, I see so many people attack others when I know they don't even have an inkling of an idea how the data they shove in others' faces was even taken.

Verlito · 2016-11-21T19:06:31+00:00

Its so funny all of you are so smart in your own heads, but I guarantee none of you have actually read any of the shit you preach. Not trying to swing any opinions, just hoping some of you realize how uninformed you are when you tell others how stupid they are.

Verlito · 2016-11-17T02:29:18+00:00

Still doesn't pay the debt off "better" and here is why. Say someone has $1000, and he owes $20 to one of his friends. He owes $20 either way. Now you can argue that a lower value dollar is "better" to pay off debt because you have to give up less total value; however, the rest of your money is also worth less. Lets say for instance $1 = 1 loaf of bread. You are paying 20 loaves and left with 980. If $1 gets you 2 loaves of bread you are paying 40 loaves, which seems worse if you don't consider that you have 1960 loaves of bread left over. You only proved that its pays off the debt the same, I said it "isn't going to pay off the debt better".

Verlito · 2016-11-17T01:47:10+00:00

Thank you for pointing that out, because I do think it is something that needs to be addressed. Just to clarify I never said anyone "should be killed." Instead I was pointing out that these deaths are preventable and creating a stigma of cops being murderers detracts from the real issue.

Verlito · 2016-11-17T00:56:42+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there's difference between forcing and defunding?

Verlito · 2016-11-16T23:53:00+00:00

I mean a devalued dollar isn't going to pay off the debt better. If that was true we would simply print money until we were out of debt.

Verlito · 2016-11-16T16:07:19+00:00

I was simply trying to make a point that I feel is under-delivered nowadays: situations like the one covered in this article are why police are trained to use deadly force. Do you think the officers are trained to wait to get shot before they can fire? No. So when people don't comply they put themselves at risk. Officers must make split second decisions; you can go look up police officers getting shot in routine stops. There have been plenty before this incident. I feel it should be a much higher priority to explain these situations from and officer's point of view, but instead we paint them as criminals. There are instances of police brutality and it is truly sad; however, there are plenty of other deaths that could be prevented if someone simply didn't try to resist. I feel it is an important message to deliver given the current public view on these issues. Someone has to stand up and say what the media seemingly refuses to.

Verlito · 2016-11-16T08:04:23+00:00

And this is why people need to realize non-compliance puts themselves in danger. Police officers are shown these videos in training to teach them how to protect their lives. These shooting can be tragic, but the fact is the police are trained to protect themselves. If you ever find yourself in a police encounter just show them your hands, don't resist, and let your lawyer do the fighting for you. If you go reaching into your pockets or do something else stupid you are putting yourself at risk. I am not making excuses for the rare instances of police brutality, but the fact is there would be a Hell of a lot less shootings if people knew how to act in a police encounter.

Verlito · 2016-11-16T07:08:28+00:00

The notion that voting doesn't count based on past results is pretty stupid. All it takes is a well run campaign to flip a state as evidence from this year. I am a firm believer that if you didn't vote you absolutely have zero right to complain. Even if it technically "didn't matter" you are still literally contributing NOTHING. There were plenty of other issues on the ballot you miss as well. Don't defend these pricks. If you do, you might see what happened in Pennsylvania and Michigan happen in your state soon enough.

Verlito · 2016-11-15T20:23:01+00:00

In theory this makes sense, in practice I can see the lack of solo queue supports being a potential issue. I think the reason the made it solo/duo is because that is how the old system worked.

Verlito · 2016-11-15T19:53:25+00:00

We declawed one cat, but she was attacking humans. I played no role in this decision other than being the child who was attacked (still have a couple scars). This is the one situation I feel it is acceptable: when it is a health hazard for children. Have had more cats since then and they have their claws (even though we have had to replace carpet 2 times because of those jokers).

Verlito · 2016-11-14T23:40:44+00:00

Lmao good thing the dems worked to keep HB2 in so they can use it against McCrory. I guess it's worse than literally stealing taxpayer money though right? Wrong. Btw the portion of 540 that is tolled is right where I have lived my whole life, so not only do I have to deal with an outrageously high toll, I also didn't even see the road until I came back from college. Should have been done years before that (inflation raised the cost greatly + lack of federal funding = huge cost that was literally all put on Southern Wake county). The road not being tolled the whole way is a travesty, un-rightfully punishing southern portion of wake county. Keep buying into that left wing propaganda and attacking other people though, it did wonders for you in the presidential election ;)

Btw the toll costs like $4 to drive 12 miles, if you done think that's heavily tolled I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Verlito · 2016-11-14T14:00:03+00:00

Republican governors loot their states and are re-elected

Damn those republican governors! Remember when Mike Easley embezzled money from the highway trust fund in NC and now what was supposed to be an interstate is the heavily tolled state highway NC-540 (also delayed its completion significantly, resulting in the price of the road increasing due to inflation). He was a republican right? /s

Verlito · 2016-11-14T13:45:55+00:00

That sounds eerily familiar to the democrats in NC voting to keep HB2 so they could hang it over Pat McCrory's head during the election cycle this year. Its pretty strange how politicians work, isn't it?

Verlito · 2016-11-14T13:40:08+00:00

Where are you guys getting all these quotes from? All I saw when I clicked the link was "It looks like you are using an ad-blocker! Business Insider is an advertisement supported site and we noticed you have ad-blocking enabled." Plea/se help

Verlito · 2016-11-14T13:01:18+00:00

I know I am most likely talking to a brick wall here, but I feel there are a few points you aren't quite grasping. First off, OP literally asked this to be a civil discussion, which, if you haven't noticed from the onslaught of down votes you are receiving, you are not providing. Second of all, the "greedy" owners you are talking about have not been making a great deal of money (Regi said he legitimately lost money running the team this year). This leads into my third point: in a capitalist system (which LCS pretty much is with how little money riot, the true greedy company, has put into it) there is little motivation to provide a good service without monetary reward. Its basic economics. Fourth, the relegation system has not provided a hyper competitive environment that you (and literally 3/4ths of LoL subreddit) claim it does. Every single year I see some garbage team that gets trashed by everyone. I believe this has a HUGE amount to do with current relegation system. What is happening in reality is the teams with money are buying challenger slots, buying the best challenger players, winning challenger, and then selling the team for profit. Half the new teams enter with a different owner and roster than the team that qualified. The current system has created a top heavy league, where established orgs have much better footing to get better players (with only the rare exception such as IMT actually breaking the mold).

I am not saying you are completely wrong, but franchising is undoubtedly the safest option to protect the owners financially. You know what happens when the owners have more money? The players get more money. The staff gets more money. That creates more competition for those spots. Do you think a player/staff member is going to work harder to secure a $50000/year or a $100000/year salary? Now you can argue that if the challenger scene gets more revenue, then the relegation system would be more fruitful. In an ideal world this should work, but how exactly do you draw money into the challenger scene? LCS viewership is at a plateau, so there aren't exactly millions of potential viewers out there without drawing away from LCS. Riot has proven they aren't exactly willing to give up much of the pie either so I doubt I will see them footing the bill either. I believe all of these factors have lead to the rise of franchising and, unfortunately for many disappointed viewers, I also believe this is the choice that made the most sense. Hopefully I helped you at least understand what led to this decision. I respect your opinion if you still disagree with this, but you really shouldn't be attacking others because their opinion differs from yours, that does not lead to a healthy discussion (believe it or not, when you attack other people's opinions they are less likely to actually listen to yours).

Verlito · 2016-11-14T12:16:40+00:00

Figured I'd give my 2 cents: I think franchising is the safest option to protect both players and the organisation financially. The relegation system in theory should work out well, but in practice it puts owners at a high risk of losing big time on their investment. We saw that happen this year with orgs such as Ember and NRG who shelled out a lot of money to pick up players and to try to compete and then came out empty handed. Ember in particular made a name for itself for providing great wages to their players (even though they were a challenger team) and by the time the ordeal was done the Ember owner came out and said the current system is simply too risky (also said he wouldn't make the investment again). People argue that challenger should be improved upon and I agree to a certain extent; however, in my opinion, there is no guarantee this will solve the current issue. While franchising has historically had its drawbacks, it simply a safer option for owners currently. It sucks that there will be a couple of orgs that get the short end of the stick from this, but the door is not completely shut for them (through purchasing teams with a spot).

TL;DR: Both options have pros and cons, but due to owners losing big money (or in C9's case in summer 2015, nearly losing money) the past couple of years they have elected to demand franchising because it is the safest option for investors.

PS: Before you get on your high horse about greed, keep in mind many of these owners have taken huge financial risks to get LCS where it is today.

Verlito · 2016-11-14T03:52:19+00:00

The solution is simple. Stop queuing up for adc and when people get auto filled to adc 5 man gank them. Once reddit is saturated with auto fill adc -> 5 man ganks riot will announce their plans to fix the problem around season 8-9 (1-2 years after the shitstorm by my calculations).

All jokes aside I stopped playing adc recently and noticed the games were more enjoyable. Nothing is worse than having to rely on a stranger to dictate the pace of the lane for the first 5-10 mins. The only times I enjoy adc anymore are when I can duo/communicate or get matched with someone I synergize well with.

Verlito · 2016-11-10T23:33:19+00:00

You state a lot of good points. The wall (assuming it actually gets built) will still work to some degree. The current fence it very easily penetrable, so much so that we actually employ people to try to convince potential crossers not to cross and the hazards they will face once they cross.

Verlito · 2016-11-10T23:28:16+00:00

That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Verlito · 2016-11-10T21:35:06+00:00

The billions of dollars saved by cutting the Iran nuclear deal will certainly help. I find it ironic because the wall people are complaining about costs significantly less, yet I have heard much more complaints about the wall (which certainly would protect the economy to a certain extent) being a waste if money when I heard very little about the deal (which only helps if Iran would have made a bomb and started a war with us otherwise). Just goes to show the influence the media has over the people.

Verlito · 2016-11-10T21:17:10+00:00

I feel like if he was worried about his own money he might have... You know? Not run for president. Running for office is a huge gamble money wise. The man has made many decisions in his life in order to get wealthy and I am certain running for president was not one of them. I think the publicity stunt angle would be a whole shit load more realistic.

Verlito · 2016-11-10T20:31:55+00:00

Who's to say I didn't think the country wasn't messed up by the Obama regime ;) the DOW has skyrocketed since the announcement

Verlito · 2016-11-10T00:34:13+00:00

made me think of this

Verlito · 2016-11-10T00:22:04+00:00

No. Let me give you an example of a real racist statement: "I hate insert ethnicity people"

Verlito

TROPHY CASE

daily reddit gold goal