Message from @pokemon_fetish

Discord ID: 611453595887468594


2019-08-15 06:09:01 UTC  

Race warski

2019-08-15 06:09:14 UTC  

ha

2019-08-15 06:09:21 UTC  

Andy "We Need to Start a Race" Warski

2019-08-15 06:09:30 UTC  

The best part of this male supremacy track

2019-08-15 06:09:41 UTC  

Imagining Warski doing the vocals to that song

2019-08-15 06:09:50 UTC  

dudes

2019-08-15 06:09:51 UTC  

👌 😂

2019-08-15 06:09:53 UTC  

here's a timecode

2019-08-15 06:09:58 UTC  

this part is fucking brilliant

2019-08-15 06:11:06 UTC  

this shit makes me actually feel guilty of being white

2019-08-15 06:12:10 UTC  

sorry

2019-08-15 06:12:14 UTC  

for last link

2019-08-15 06:12:35 UTC  

For some reason I thought you weee black lol @pokemon_fetish

2019-08-15 06:12:58 UTC  

I'll take it

2019-08-15 06:13:16 UTC  

Oh Ken Ashcorp

2019-08-15 06:13:19 UTC  

I like his hora hora song

2019-08-15 06:14:50 UTC  

Sam Hyde

2019-08-15 06:16:05 UTC  

I'M THE MUTHAFUCKEN STRAIGHTEST SHOTA

2019-08-15 06:58:17 UTC  

ha

2019-08-15 06:59:05 UTC  

sorry

2019-08-15 07:01:27 UTC  
2019-08-15 07:04:23 UTC  

lol

2019-08-15 07:04:39 UTC  

🙂

2019-08-15 07:06:35 UTC  

We wuuz KANGZ

2019-08-15 08:46:59 UTC  

@uncephalized freaked me the fuck out earlier this evening; There is a monumentally exploitable exemption in Daetslov that I fear will be abused no end. I challenged him to name it, and he said *"Contientious Objector."*
I decided I'd better check into this myself; I *could* have missed something.
*"Contentious Objector: Any person who applies for exemption as a contentious objector, having established probable likelihood based on third party sworn affidavit, may receive an exemption."*
That is a bit on the broad side, but it didn't strike me as particularly exploitable- At least, not for money. The chaplain has to face his own mirror, so to lie about something like this for money would take one **HELL** of a jaded person.
Others who *could* potentially submit such sworn statements, and bear in mind lying on a sworn statement makes it *under oath,* wouldn't generally have the werewithal to withstand scrutiny.
While it may well need revision, I'm now relatively confident that the sort who would lie in a sworn statement would lie in most any other situation; They'd even lie and claim the applicant is mentally unstable or *"a general dumbass"* (C and D) if that's what it took.

2019-08-15 15:54:22 UTC  

...
¿What about it?

2019-08-15 16:03:54 UTC  

@Mandatory Carry I think what actually freaked you out was the possibility that I *did* read your bill and *still disagree with it*.

2019-08-15 16:10:03 UTC  

@pokemon_fetish HOLY SHIT how many tabs does that guy have open! seriously, his poor RAM.

2019-08-15 16:30:21 UTC  

pounding the world, like a battering ram

2019-08-15 17:10:17 UTC  

@uncephalized, no, a, you really didn't, and b, yes, it did; "¿A second exploit? ... Don't start on him, skid, he might be onto something..."*

2019-08-15 17:17:09 UTC  

A second exploit? NAY I SAY!

2019-08-15 18:11:04 UTC  

Almost, yes. But most people won't commit felonies for lulz.

2019-08-15 18:20:29 UTC  

But Mandy is different. You know your name here is 3 girl names?
Manda Tory Carrie