Mighty-Lu-Bu's forum posts

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#1 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -

I mean, AMD has finally caught up to Intel with Ryzen Gen 2.

The Ryzen 2700x easily outperforms the i7 7700k:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3647vs3958

Furthermore, it actually trades blows with Intel's i7 8700k:

http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3937vs3958

I think upgrading from my current Ryzen 1700x to the Ryzen 2700x is completely justified, however, I am going to hold off for the 2800x which will be the real king. I have always been a big AMD fan and the fact that they actually managed to make up so much ground with Ryzen gen 2 is actually astounding. Now if only they can figure out their graphics cards :p

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#2 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:

They shouldn't touch social security. Employers and employees pay into that. It's not the governments to spend.

And don't we pay into Medicare as well?

Yes we do, but we need to realize that social security is not going to be around forever. It has literally been going bankrupt and none of us will ever see that money so the question remains: why are we still paying into it? I mean why do we have to pay into medicade also?

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#3 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@LJS9502_basic said:
@zaryia said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

A fetus is a not a baby.

And that line of responsibility makes no sense, red states are the dependents and spenders.

A fetus is in fact a baby but I get that it's easier to say it's not and have that disconnect.

Saying that it isn't a baby is what gives them justification for abortion, but it isn't really all that justified is it? Regardless of what you call it, baby, fetus whatever, you are still killing a life. For once I think that we might actually agree one something...

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#4 Edited by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@zaryia said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

A fetus is a not a baby.

And that line of responsibility makes no sense, red states are the dependents and spenders.

See this is where I have serious, serious issues. Organizations like Planned Parenthood like to push the narrative that having an abortion is no big deal. Watch a late term abortion where the fetus, which is a baby at this point, is dismembered, then get back to me. Even if you don't acknowledge that it is a baby or a life, it is still a potential baby or life.

I find it ridiculous that women get the green light to kill life simply based on their convenience. Oh its inconvenient to have a baby, its ok I will just have an abortion. There is no justification for killing someone unless your own life is in jeopardy. No one has the right to kill anyone simply because of either inconvenience or the level of burden someone is. Example, if I am walking down the street and suddenly I encounter a homeless man sleeping on the sidewalk who is blocking my path, I have no moral right to kill them.

Gotta love the brainwashed liberals who actually justify the killing of an unborn child, and they call conservatives radicals? Please.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#5 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@zaryia said:

Not exactly surprising with all this anti-abortion rhetoric, on top of GOP serial sex offenders (allegedly) like Trump and Moore being such big figures. And those wife beaters who were part of the WH staff.

Oh call us crazy simply because we think that that its morally wrong to kill a baby... I know liberals don't understand what individual responsibility is, but you don't get to kill things simply because of inconvenience.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#6 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@zaryia said:

@mighty-lu-bu: You might want to reread those links.

He's repealing Obama policies. Meaning Obama did things.....

Then that is something that I don't agree with. You do know that all conservatives are not in favor of Trump right? I support him simply because he is our president, but just because he was the Republican elected president doesn't mean I have to be in favor of everything that he does. I don't agree with a lot of what Trump does, but I also don't think he is akin to Hitler like some people on the left believe. My issue with Trump is that I don't think he is even a true conservative even though he has passed some of the most conservative legislation in decades.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#7 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -

I have about 1300+ hours with Skyrim (both unmodded and modded) and I have about 45 hours with the Witcher 3 (just starting playing it a couple weeks ago). A fully modded Skyrim is better than the Witcher 3 since Skyrim benefits from a MUCH larger modding community. That being said, I do believe that the base game of the Witcher III to be better than the base game of Skryim, but not by leaps and bounds.

Skyrim offers more flexibility in terms of how you build your character and the magic system in Skyrim is vastly superior to that of the Witcher III. In addition, Skyrim offers much more variety in terms of combat styles than the Witcher III because in Skyrim there are more weapons and more spells. On the other hand, the Witcher III offers a much more personalized story, but it is rather subjective if the story is better than Skyrim's or not- remember, the Elder scrolls series has over 25+ years of lore to draw from, but the Witcher series has plenty of lore to drawn from as well. I also think that the Witcher's sword combat system is superior to Skyrim's combat system, but Skyrim's magic combat system is vastly superior to that of the Witcher III.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with either, but it really depends what you are looking for. The Skyrim community has the largest modding community in all of gaming so you can really customize the experience- if you don't like something about Skryim then you can change it and the Witcher III does not have this ability. I would give the edge to Skyrim, even though the Witcher III is still a fantastic game in its own right. However, since we are talking about PS4 and not PC, I would have to give the edge to the Witcher 3 if this is the case, but on PC, due to a huge amount of mods that are available, Skyrim wins hands down.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#8 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@horgen said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: But if Obama did nothing, Trump should not have anything to do in order to undo every change Obama made.

I'm not following the logic- how is that my fault? How is it the fault of Republicans? None of us wanted Donald Trump as the president, but it was certainly better than the alternative who is still touring around the world playing the blame game in regards to why she lost the election. At this point, she has blamed everyone except herself.

I am highly conservative and I think we need to take certain measures at protecting our environment and our planet, but at the same time I do not the federal government to have more power. The federal government sucks at everything.

And suddenly Hillary is in the discussion. Amazing. I didn't see that one coming. You really blew my mind there.

The federal government can set some common minimum laws for what is required regarding pollution and cleaning it before it leaves the powerplant/factory etc. Where that line should go, I don't know and don't want to discuss.

You said Obama did nothing. Then Trump should not have to do anything to reverse what Obama did. If A did nothing, then B shouldn't have to do anything to undo what A did. The Clean Power Plan is being withdrawn.

I must ask though. Did you expect the environment to improve drastically while Obama was president? You know climate change is kinda a slow process.

If Trump is making worse than that is something that I don't support.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#9 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@n64dd said:
@mighty-lu-bu said:
@theone86 said:
@n64dd said:
@theone86 said:

This is textbook pitting the masses against each other, only here it applies to ethnicity rather than economic status. "My people are struggling to come to terms with a bad system, so let's get mad at the people who are more successful coming to terms with that system. Let's not get angry with the system itself." Just FYI, when some liberals say they want to do away with borders entirely this sort of imbalance is exactly the sort of thing they take issue with. Just get rid of the verification process and you won't have a system that punishes people who follow the rules, the logic goes. But oh no, every time a liberal floats that idea they're going to destroy society as we know it!

I'll also repeat what I said before because it bears repeating: we're discussing how to enforce the law, not whether or not it should be enforced. Saying that the federal government should be able to conscript local law enforcement to enforce immigration because illegal immigrants are breaking the law is a bit like saying mall cops should be able to break into your car because they saw a pipe while they were on their lunch break across town from the mall.

How is it a good thing?:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

Illegal immigrants pay money to move here as well. As previously stated, many overstayed their visas, meaning they paid to go through the visa process in the first place. Not to mention illegally crossing the border is expensive, with families often giving up most of their possessions to the people getting them across. They're self-sufficient, too.

We don't pay to keep immigrants here, they pay plenty in taxes:

http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/04/16/undocumented-immigrants-pay-taxes/

As for housing costs, immigrants are hard-working too. Do you know why many immigrants move here? Because they can find a job that pays better than what they would have made in their native country. They're supporting several industries, but they're not entitled to a share of the returns from that economic activity? If they're working, then why aren't native-born Americans driving up housing resources? What about all the native-born Americans who aren't working but are living in those areas? And what about the poor policy decisions that have led to a lack of affordable housing? What about wages that haven't kept pace with housing costs? Immigrants are on the receiving end of that too, in fact they're often the first ones pushed out of an area when it becomes unaffordable to live there. But yeah, let's just ignore all the long-standing problems with U.S.housing policy and blame it on immigrants.

Loading Video...

When you're done with your insane ranting on socialist utopia, can you address what I've asked you a few times?

What about the health aspect illegals bring to the country due to not being vaccinated?

You have never asked me this question, but I'll answer it anyway: vaccinate them. Give the entire country universal healthcare that covers vaccinations, and when they come here their vaccinations are covered.

And by the way, I'm not ranting on any socialist utopia. Ignoring the fact that open borders have next to nothing to do with socialism, I never even said I supported open borders. I'm open to less universal solutions to immigration, I'm just pointing out to sonicare that open borders address his biggest complaint, which is that people who follow the rules are subjected to a restrictive, lengthy, and expensive process that doesn't seem to serve much purpose beyond punishing them for following the rules. Like I said, though, as soon as I even mention open borders the resident Republican mouthpiece starts in with the red-baiting, but liberals are the ones supposedly ruining our immigration system.

Anyone who says "give the entire county universal healthcare" is ranting about a socialist utopia.

Bring me a solution that doesn't cost billions of dollars and then we can discuss, but if you keep living in the land of make believe, then we cannot have a rational conversation.

It's a lost cause to be honest.

Totally lost cause- I have had better political discussions with my dog.

Leftist solutions are usually the easiest solutions, but if only they worked. What do we do with all the illegals in the country? Give them citizenship! I mean seriously, what kind of idiotic thinking is this? What are kids learning in school these days? Apparently just a lot of nonsense.

Avatar image for mighty-lu-bu
#10 Posted by Mighty-Lu-Bu (2970 posts) -
@horgen said:

@mighty-lu-bu: But if Obama did nothing, Trump should not have anything to do in order to undo every change Obama made.

I'm not following the logic- how is that my fault? How is it the fault of Republicans? None of us wanted Donald Trump as the president, but it was certainly better than the alternative who is still touring around the world playing the blame game in regards to why she lost the election. At this point, she has blamed everyone except herself.

I am highly conservative and I think we need to take certain measures at protecting our environment and our planet, but at the same time I do not the federal government to have more power. The federal government sucks at everything.