ttravis2947

Hey hey hey hey, what the hell man! GTA IV was a buggy piece of shit. LCPDFR was marvelous :)

They should add random street races...

Is it just me or does the woman dispatcher saying "Uhhh...Umm" all the time ever get annoying to you guys?
"Citizens report - an assault on a civilian in uhm...ughhhhh.. a - ummm" God damn it woman spit it out!!
Just sayin' ;)

Yeah, so I guess you should read better. Like, a lot better. And not just take things and put them out of context. I was answering to this guy in particular. His speech, is a speech of hatred. There's nothing but hate, spite and bitterness in what he said. Yes, I think this kind of speech is not needed, and yes, I think this kind of speech can be shoved up their owner's rectum. You want to know how tolerant I am? Check other threads where I answered. Check my other answers. Heck, ask even TheDivineHustle, we argued on countless subjects during the past year, and yet not a single time I lacked of respect or tolerance towards people disagreeing with me. But this guy I answered to is not disagreeing, debating, nor even arguing about something, he is simply discriminating. You think this kind of people is nice, that what they say is worth listening? Good for you. But I have not a single ounce of respect towards people that are there only to spread hateful comments.

The United States is a very, very diverse country with millions of people of different backgrounds, nationalities, and ancestries. With that, there comes a whole lot of issues regarding a whole lot of things. An issue that is "#1 important" to one group might be way down the list for another, different group. The same is true for individuals as well.
So whenever something changes, or a law is passed, or a ruling made: there will be people who say "Finally, the most important problem plaguing our country is resolved" and others who will say "What? Why are we even worrying about this? <insert thing here> is a WAY more important issue and no one is talking about it!"
So yes, back in 1954 there were people who didn't care, and people who cared a lot. That's what you get when you have a nation where policy is driven by public opinion. In an appropriately contradictory way: It's both a good and a bad thing.

No.
It's unconstitutional for the states to deny marriage on the basis of whether or not the two people involved are of the same sex, for two (linked) reasons. First, it's unconstitutional for states to deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. This doesn't always prohibit treating different people differently (for instance, states are allowed to pass a law that treats convicted criminals differently from non-criminals, or treats the poor differently from the rich), but there has to be a legitimate reason to make a distinction (it's not acceptable to make a distinction for the sole purpose of suppressing a minority), and the needed legitimacy depends on the distinction (in general the threshold is very low, but in some cases it rises above that, such as in gender discrimination and racial discrimination). Second, marriage has been considered a "fundamental right" for some time now (since at least when SCOTUS struck down bans on interracial marriage), and the government cannot infringe a fundamental right without meeting very tough standards under the Due Process clause, as to interfere with liberty without good cause is considered to automatically violate due process of law. (No, you would not think the clause means this. It doesn't stand out on a simple reading of the clause. However, it is the law of the land, well-established in US caselaw.)
 
None of those prohibit allowing gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage means that states are not infringing upon a fundamental right, nor making unjustifiable distinctions between people. In fact, the Constitution has now been held to *require* allowing gay marriage, so I'm not sure how it'd be unconstitutional to allow it.
 
First: "Sure, but there are more important things to do right now than protecting the rights of a minority" was literally an argument used against the civil rights movement. It is an absolutely terrible argument, and is the refuge of those who know discrimination is unjustifiable but don't want to confront that fact. To quote MLK:
Second, and this may surprise you, the US government in fact consists of multiple people, and can do more than one thing at a time. Yes, there are other important things (although "protecting the civil rights of minorities" is near the absolute top of the list of "important things for the government to do ASAP"). For instance, it's important to monitor infectious disease. The CDC did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. It's important to keep airports secure. The TSA did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. It's important to keep the borders secure, and keep people flowing over them. CBP did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage. It's important to keep military forces at a state of readiness. The DoD did not stop everything to deal with gay marriage.
Hell, even the Supreme Court (the only body that actually was directly dealing with this instead of doing the other stuff they could have done) didn't stop everything to deal with gay marriage. On June 26, they issued another decision as well, that one striking down a certain enhanced sentencing provision for habitual offenders (for unconstitutional vagueness). The day before, they issued two other decisions, one on the Affordable Care Act and one on the Fair Housing Act. So, first, we cannot both agree that there are more important things for the Supreme Court to handle than gay marriage; this is exactly the kind of thing that they exist to do (particularly because there was a disagreement between federal appeals courts; absent that there's an argument they should focus on cases where there is a split, because if the appeals courts all agree SCOTUS need not bother. But there was a split, so it became definitely their job). Second, the Supreme Court didn't drop everything to handle gay marriage; it was one case among 75-80 (the typical number of cases per year).

Im 99.9% sure that the majority of Americans Support gay marriage and even for the other 40% or so that doesn't the thought of gay and lesbian couples marrying must just keep them up at night? Decreasing their quality of life and overall happiness?
And the nation did not bend over backwards this was a movement like any other that took time and dedication by its supporters. The Supreme court was just doing what it was intended to do. 
I dont really see what the controversy is here you cant leave issues such as Equality up to the states because they have their own interpretation. In then there is another issue if you are married in a state where its legal and you have to move to another state where its not your marriage is essentially null and void. This was the best Outcome possible because now its uniform throughout the nation.
America is behind on alot of things such as marriage equality many other countries have done this years ago. This was not a waste of resources this is what you call "progress" your welcome. 

So allowing people to have the freedom to marry who they want (which is a personal matter) is forcing something on an entire nation? Also, you seem to be fixated on the 10th Amendment. I suggest you read the other parts of the Constitution too, such as Article III which establishes the Supreme Court and says what they can and can't do.
You should also look into the Supreme Court case because there is another amendment you are forgetting, the 14th Amendment which provides provides equal protection and rights to all citizens under the law. The first section in the 14th Amendment even says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". So looking at the 14th Amendment you could say that all the states that denied marriage to same sex couples are depriving them of life and liberty and they are abridging a privilege of certain citizens.

I think denying someone the freedom to marry who they want to marry is unconstitutional.
The 10th Amendment says that what the Supreme Court is doing is constitutional. The Constitution says that the Supreme Court is supposed to review cases and make interpretations on the law. That is exactly what happened. They reviewed the case and decided that the law was unconstitutional.
 
I don't care about pleasing anyone. I care about people having the freedom that our country claims to have. This was an important issue and the only people I ever hear say "lets move on to more important issues" are people that have a problem with gay marriage.

Imagine you're part of that <5%. You meet someone that you fall in love with, but then someone tells you that you two can't be together. That you can't be on their death certificate. That you have limited hospital visitation rights, that you're not equal. But you'd be okay with that, right? Because you're just a minority. And who actually cares about minorities?!?! It's not like people are born lesbian/gay. I mean they could totally just change their sexual orientation if they wanted to.

Giving some people rights and equality is moving backwards? Do you think it was moving backwards to give women more rights and equality? Do you think it was moving backwards to give black people rights and equality? You are free to be homophobic all you want, but you are not free to claim that a whole country went backwards just because YOU disagree with it. Anyone who actually supports human rights and equality will tell this is a great step forwards. And I don't see why anyone would NOT support human rights and equality. In what century are you living in? 18th?

You can just here the conservatives yelling NOOOOO!!!!!!
 
Anyways this is a huge blow to them and now with this out of the way, we can now focus on more important issues like climate change. 

Your Teamspeak3 server is full! :/

I'm just making a copy of my GTA V folder to install LSPDFR in.... 18 minutes remaining... Handy ;)

Has any1 been able to get it/ or play it yet today ? please stand bye after waiting all week is really depressing :'( lol

r...radar?? what!!!!!!!! links..all of the links needed now!!!!! please

has anyone tried running RAGEPluginHook with Mod Manager?

Well, about damn time. So far, tapping shift has only worked in third person. First person was only running and sprinting before v372.
EDIT: Omfg, can they do anything right? I just tested, now you can't tap shift to walk in third person. You have to stop, then move again.

i rarely use a controller..but wooooo im a happy friggin camper right now..except...i have to wait 7 hrs to play :(

yea. also, on your controller you can gently push the right stick forward in fp and you can walk that way.

really!!!!!!??????????

i don't think its a troll. they do this every year or so. but if it is  people will get overly emotional and the forums will be 500 times worse than they are now. 

I'm stuck in waiting limbo, there is no counter, what do I do with my life? There is no guidance!

They're probably releasing it on the time zone that they are located in

thats true. i expected server crashes within the last 2 hours of the countdown. at least we arent dealing with that
 
.......yet