quidproquo

Think that's a stretch in the grand view, but I'll grant the technicality. If we're keeping points, that is. If we are, you'd better keep them because I'm notoriously bad at such things.

Literally did not happen. Might be I read too much into his statement? Still seems to tie Clinton to the Republicans far as I see.

Which is supposed to be relevant... how? Seems about as relevant as Pidesco's screed. Course, I didn't make it on the "gets to decide what's relevant committee," so I'm just speaking as a concerned citizen. Personally, I think Chippy should keep up the good fight. Then again, I think everyone on all sides should keep up the good fight. Why not? Politics, like race relations and religion, is the best in forum fodder. Unless someone figures out a way crawl through the internets and assault someone else, safe place to spar. Far as Pidesco blaming Republicans for Hillary Clinton, was splendid. Literally made me chuckle to see it.

In a democracy, the ends don't justify the means. The means are the ends because democracy without laws is mob rule. Whatever ends you seek, if you destroy the framework of your government to do it, then the end is either chaos or a strongman.

Thought of a shorter less lecture-y response: Because life is so boring elsewhere, it's more fun to complain bout the American president.

Meh, she subsists entirely on the blood of virgins, and collapses whenever they can't find some fresh one. Getting harder and harder to find em fresh, apparently. Same stuff you hear from many. Get money out of the system. The smart people should get together and follow some specific agenda. Stuff like that. I admire Powell, but I think the generalizations in his emails fall short of a workable agenda. At least what I've read so far. Still think the Americans should vote for him over Trump or Hillary. That way they can have a Republican who's really a Democrat so everyone is happy.

It's come to this. Colin Powell's gossip about the candidates in personal emails hacked by some unknown source. If it's news, no matter unseemly the source, it's news. This stuff ain't even news. I like Powell, but his views are naïve. They come from years of service to his country not of the political variety.

I'll read it from pillar to post, BruceVC.

And here I thought we were bonding through our disagreement. Saying that it is not exactly the issue you present it to be is not the same as saying it's not any issue at all. Guess your point is I can't talk about a charge leveled against me because I've never faced it. Which amounts to telling me to shut up and agree you because you speak with authority. But I kith that this is an issue where you long for the final say. Have your final say and I'll let my comments stand as they are for other people to judge. Around here, I imagine I'm in the minority and so might be pilloried for my views. That's all good, mate. I encourage you to keep talking. Man of my word, I'll leave your next response unanswered. And what exactly happens if we stop crying about it? Absolutely nothing. ...But hearing one more lecture from people about the evils of racism will have the same effect. Anyone who believes that racism can be rectified in society is misguided.

First thing: I sometimes make strongly opinionated posts, but I try my best not to take things personally. I've been exceptionally lucky in many way. For example, the old lady and I recently decided to purchase a new car. I work on my own cars and we keep them for a long time. we have one from the 90s (which we will NEVER sell) and had one from 2003. I wanted at least one car I didn't have to work on all the time, so we got a nice four door sedan. My father in law paid cash for it. That's probably not entirely common and some folks might think I'm lucky for that. Father in law buys a lot of things for us. The bad things in my life? They're... personal. Reckon some of you lads would think they were tragic, but I never tell even my closest friends about the really terrible things in my life. I typically don't want to think about them. None of them had to do with race. I spose I'll own to aluminumoxide that I haven't experienced racism. Only fair between us mates to come out with the truth. I've lived in countries where my skin color was the minority. I've lived in a country where my religion was the minority. In my own country, I am technically a minority, which is just stupid. What I'm trying to explain to you lads is that the charge of racism pursued with all results in candidates like Trump. When people say that none of your thoughts or opinions matter because you've never experienced (insert whatever here), they close off debate and that causes a lot of resentment. Being too free with anti-racism rhetoric results in an increase in racism. As a matter of fact, BruceVC, I have a dear friend who lived in South Africa for a time during apartheid also. She's English originally, but has lived in a variety of countries. My aim isn't to trivialize racism. My point is that it's not some magical force, no matter how terrible it is. When I hear some people who have never faced some of the outright ugliness I have in my life tell me about a time they went into the store and someone followed them, I smile politely. I am determined not to be angry with people on this issue. I have worked tremendously to help some people who are not the same race as me. I didn't do that because they were a minority and I felt bad. I didn't do it because I had racial guilt. I did this because they were my friends. Imagine if one of you lot knocked at my door in the middle of the night, I would try to help you. As long as I was assured of the old lady's safety first, of course.

Spoken like someone who's never really experienced racism personally. How the hell would you know at all what I've experienced? Course, I'm not going to compete for a place in the victimhood hierarchy, so if you want to make assumptions, all good.

There's casual raiding guilds, you know? With flex mode it's easy to just have a team of 10 core raiders and have like 20 people who join whenever they want. I mean, you might not do great but it's there. Yeah, it's great because I can take lengthy hiatuses these days and not have to wonder whether everything will collapse while I'm gone. I play less than half the amount I used to at WoW's peak but having had taken breaks of 1 year (second half of WoD) and 2.5 years (the end of Cataclysm and the entirety of Pandas) I can resubscribe anytime and the core of my old guild - one I had co-founded back in 2007 - will still be there. Good to know. Also, that's my experience. I stopped after completing about half of the raids in... firelands? Something like that. I haven't played since. You lads are a bad influence. I swore off WoW and now I'm tempted to try my hand at healing again. Druid healing is probably all weird now.

I used to play this super hero game called, I think, city of heroes. Then they had city of villains. Hugely entertaining, but then I went to WoW and only had time for one online game. Then had no time. As to TrueNeutral, I agree, but it's still such a timesink to play. Loved my experiences, tho. Brilliant! I still remember the first time we defeated the Lich King. Actually pretty good cut scene also.

Harpy a real pain, as is the satyr or whatever you call it. The one that requires dexterity. Invariably ends up being Kyra draws the bastard. I still hate the enchanter more because she always depletes your hand at least somewhat. Villain I hate most'd be the bloke who resets on a 1 or 2. Normally not a problem, but I've had him roll a 1 or 2 like four or five times and that makes the easy battle quite hard.

Used to have a bow, simple recurve one many years ago. Also had a hand crossbow. The bow could do some damage, but not a lot of pull weight. The hand crossbow was little more than a toy. I've played around with compound bows, but they're far too expensive for a humble chap like myself. Use a gun to kill deer and the money I'd spend on a good bow I'll put into a fancy new smoker that I'll use to make venison. Bear hunting with a bow sound great until you realize that so many bear hunters simply wait in a redoubt for a bear to come to a baited area. I don't begrudge hunters, especially since some areas of the world encourage hunting for population control. Had a friend in the American Midwest who would get a population control license. That was a while ago. Don't know if you can still get one, but killing off deer was essentially a public service. What all this has to do with the American election escapes me, but I would love to hunt again. The old lady hates hunting for any reason and pointing out that someone kills the meat she enjoys so much in meals only results in an overnight stay at the couch hotel.

Resist the dark side! Go with Eve instead!

Would only return to WoW in order to raid. No time to raid ergo no time to WoW. Still miss raiding, especially the Lich King and the one right after that, but it wasn't a hobby. It was an occupation.

Didn't watch the whole thing, but it was interesting. Fellow went medieval on the interviewer with a broadsword made of words. Racism is horrible, but the unfounded accusation of racism is just as bad. Silences legitimate debate. Reinforces distrust. Hurts minorities as a group. People complain about Brexit. British Brexit voters are given the Trump treatment. They're either doddering old geezers who don't know their head from their arseholes or they're truly vile racist pigs who want to oppress minorities. It can't be something as simple as wanting to maintain control of your own land. Why should Europe have more control over Britain than the UK has over the larger realm? Why is it racist to determine one's own national identity, structure, and organization. Then, people make absolutely mad proclamations. If the EU seeks to punish Britain, they will be punishing themselves at the same time. It is the tendency of Brussels power brokers, bureaucrats, and apparatchiks to overstep their bounds and seek ever increasing control of member nations that led to Brexit, something far more important to the citizenry as I reckon than the color of someone else's skin. Not saying Brexit is good. Merely saying that it means more than the dismissively arrogant people make it out to be and considerably less at the same time. Attacking Brexit voters did manage to subdue the movement, but it mostly just moved support out of sight. The Donald might not win this election, but the same tactics that failed to subdue Brexit might not suffice against Trump. Don't personally think that the polls are wrong, per se, but do believe that he does have some amount of support more than the polls suggest. Not by a lot and it would be foolish for someone to read too much into "hidden Trump supporters," but some of his support has been driven underground. Same thing happened with the Commonwealth of Virginia when they elected Wilder. Polls had him much higher than the vote reflected. He won, but with surprisingly smaller margin. Can debate why, but as I reckon it's undoubtedly the historic nature of the first black governor of the Commonwealth. People were reluctant to say they were against him because they undoubtedly, and from the looks of the coverage, reasonably assumed that they would be branded racist for no other reason. Rooting out racism at this point causes more unhappiness all around than racism itself. Government should protect the rights of all citizens. That should be it. The accusation has become sufficiently toxic that the population is developing an immunity to it. Like Catholic ex communication, the racist charge will become meaningless, even in cases where real racism exists. How does that serve society? tl;dr Gave away the secret that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Surprised at the results so far, m'self. Trump isn't losing by as much as I would expect. Johnson is tied with Clinton. Course, self reporting polls on the webs ain't exactly most reliable, but it's interesting all things considered. Don't say anything about the American electorate, but does say something about us. I'd tell you for whom I voted, but I didn't vote in the poll. If I had to vote for anyone, it would probably be Johnson, reckon. Would rather have Trump than Clinton, but that's because I see him more as a comical figure and see her as more diabolical. Her VP would be a better pick than her. Course, Pence would be a better pick as president than Trump, so there it is.

Been deer and rabbit hunting myself, but I like the taste of well prepared deer and rabbit. I would never kill an animal just to say I did, tho. Killing a leopard pretty despicable if done for no other reason than to hoist its body for a view. None of this matters. Being a big game hunter is not a reason to vote for or against someone. Rationally, should look at policies and personal qualities that relate to the position the candidate seeks. Course, if Trump or Hillary broke laws in the hunt or were excessive in their hunting. Depopulated an area, or some such. Then it makes sense to factor in that personally dislike. Going on a big game hunt several years ago doesn't seem particularly disqualifying. Sons going on one makes it a complete non-issue.

There are so many non-issues in this election it's truly remarkable. Having seen interviews with Trumps sons, I would pick either one of them over either Hillary or The Donald. I'd take my cue from the Chicagoistas and vote twice for Ivanka Trump, if it were up to me. Trumps big game hunting sons aren't running, so no one can vote for them. Their father is running and there are far more relevant reasons to despise him if that's your wont. It's like attacking Hillary Clinton because of Abadin's wanker husband.

Ken this thoroughly, but I would also say that someone could watch, read, listen to that testimony and draw conclusions from it and, even more, a the same person should also know that forensic science has advanced in a way to minimize such methods of desception. I'm *not* saying these things don't happen. What I'm saying is that, for the purpose of policy, these things should be taken with a grain of salt, as most things should, but that for the voter's purpose, these things might be still part of the deliberation. This is not equivocating. One is akin to a trial while the other is more like whether you trust you buddy to handle your finances. Conspiracies might exist, and if you think this guy over here isn't on the up and up, don't vote for him. However, a higher standard should be set for affirmatively saying that something is an actual conspiracy. Then again, might be that it's too just a bit too early in the morning for me. Need some coffee.

yeah, you can take a brutal mission choosing where you start either spread or tight around your cart, but random and you're just asking for a bruising. Even if you win, you get people knocked out with possible permanent injuries or death.

Can't remember a game that has pissed me off so thoroughly as Mordheim. Rat bastards. Even though I have won all but one mission, it's irritating as hell. I've decided to do what that one bloke said about not taking missions where I can't keep my people together. Great fun anyway.

This is the crux of the problem, mate. It's not that Conspiracy Theorists (or CSes as you call them) are completely counterfactual. It's the shortcut they take. For example, I kith you and I don't agree about HRC. However, before the video of her losing muscle tone and literally being lifted into a van, I would have said that conspiracy theories about serious conditions and 4the whatnot were not founded. I still don't for the exact reason that you state. That she's been less than forthcoming about her health is not in question, but specifics about her health are not known. She might be in perfect health considering her known history and age. The problem that people should have about her isn't her health. It could all be explained rationally given the evidence. Point isn't to poke at you over the health issue. It's to agree with you that conspiracy theories are simply no way to conduct public affairs. If people want to vote against HRC because she's dishonest about her health or against The Donald because of his taxes, that's fair. Those are areas in which they've engaged in political double speech or outright deception (take the choice). Voters can and *should* vote with their minds, hearts, and guts so to speak a word. However, beyond the gutinstinctometer of the voter there is what we call truth, and that requires more than torturing facts to point to a desired outcome. Aw hell, I've been reading the walls of the loo too much lately. I don't know anything and so cannot give advice.