Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,260,201
u can join the armed forces
u can support the faction that represents u
for instance i think fugees should stay in mx and get asylum there, we lack space for em
u can go to yr border with a firearm
what a silly question.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,260,202
@previous (D)
Nobody here is prepared to do any of these things at the moment, except support the faction that represents u argue over who has the best team on an obscure online bulletin board.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,260,214
@previous (C)
I didn't ask whether there's a point in doing anything; the original question was quite specific in its subject matter. If you genuinely wish to discuss the subject, begin by stating whether you think there is a point (or benefit) to arguing over national security on this particular board. Then explain the reasons for your answer.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,260,239
@1,260,215 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U) > No no no no no, DON'T separate the "that" and the "will". It's "That'll be all", not "That will be all".
You are only partially correct.
In this context, "that'll" is a contraction of "that shall", not "that will". "Shall" is a stronger auxiliary verb than "will". "Will" implies you're hoping it will be the case, but "shall" indicates certainty about the future.
You name it. Everybody here objects to something. Many people here claim their home nation and/or way of life is under attack from various combinations of the alleged threats listed above. Nobody here is willing to do anything about said threats other than engage in pointless arguments on an obscure online BBS. As stated above by Anon C, a complete and utter waste of time.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 57 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,260,350
@1,260,320 (A)
interesting points
I write to govt reps, am in an anti noise campaign, and want to run for office
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
agre, worse now that repubs stopped local laws and nade it shittier here
law and order party my foot, they stand for nothing i guess.
> You name it. Everybody here objects to something. Many people here claim their home nation and/or way of life is under attack from various combinations of the alleged threats listed above. Nobody here is willing to do anything about said threats other than engage in pointless arguments on an obscure online BBS. As stated above by Anon C, a complete and utter waste of time.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 41 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,260,433
@previous (K)
The first is a statement of fact. The second is a clarification to this inquiry by dw.
I have answered your question. Please answer mine: what is the point of arguing over matters of national security when literally no one here will do anything to defend their home country at this time?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,260,459
@1,260,448 (M)
Perhaps and perhaps not. However, all of that is irrelevant to the original question.
What is the point in arguing over matters of national security on this board when literally no one here will do anything to defend their home country at this time?
Anonymous M replied with this 2 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,260,467
@previous (A)
Well when you explained what you meant by defend, you listed multiple things that contradict themselves if they're all being defended against what is being defended? Your whole premise seems to be apathy because of lack of ability to change "anything"