Wrath of Dagon

Just another symptom of corporate "by the numbers" game design.

It's derived by judging ideological bias, but that is highly influenced by the judge's ideological bias. Although the chart seems fairly reasonable as far as I know.

Tell that to the Swiss.

So in Dragonfall you go to a location and murder all the guards who weren't bothering anyone until you broke in. Then the game asks you to make a moral decision whether someone should live or die.

So the military is 'unready' and you want to throw another 54 billion dollars at it, but our schools are 'nasty and dangerous' and so you want to take money away from them. Okey dokey. Can I get a voucher for sending money to a private security company? These guys get the job done: There are private schools, but no private military yet. Many people though hire private security when the police aren't doing enough. Private military might not be a bad idea, there was a story in some African country about 100 mercenaries doing more good than 15000 UN "peace keepers".

Is this true ? How many are we talking about and was the slowdown due to people being deported? I think it's just theoretical at this point. Do you actually buy that? I wouldn't say it if I didn't. I was just pointing out that the situation isn't as unreasonable as it was portrayed in the ad. If you mean about the schools, then yes, many schools are nasty and dangerous. I understand it's more complex than just "it's all the schools' fault". Edit: lol, we need some spikes on that wall: http://www.breitbart.com/border/2017/03/04/mexican-politician-climbed-border-fence-call-trumps-wall/

If the public parks are nasty and dangerous then it makes sense to demand your tax money back so you can go to a nice private park, no? Edit: Hilarious: https://twitter.com/conncarroll/status/838180293936807937

Actually it's the responsibility of the judiciary to strike down any law that violates the Constitution, minority or not. Also it's not RPS since the other two branches can not legally override the judiciary.

It's funny, the Storm Trooper discussion made me want to post an article I read a while back, but I couldn't find it with any search terms I tried. Then the next day I see another one of them. Turns out this guy writes a bunch of them. https://angrystaffofficer.com/2015/12/14/a-day-in-the-life-of-an-imperial-staff-officer/

That's actually not the primary purpose, it's one of the purposes. The primary purpose is to interpret the law in an objective and impartial manner (lol)

Heh, Robespierre. Democracy isn't really compatible with the government being able to declare anyone an enemy of the people and cutting his head off.

The San Bernadino shooting was committed by an American citizen and his wife, what sort of scrutiny do you suggest that will prevent that? http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170 The wife was admitted in spite of terrorist links. This is primarily about illegal immigration, not terrorism, no? Btw, do you believe that foreign criminals should not be deported? The administration is working very hard to tie the two together. I think foreign criminals deserve the rights of due process, and I tend to side with the police chiefs on this specific scenario. As for the wife, I think you are giving the government a tremendous amount of power over the rights of an American citizen. Does he not have the right to marry who he wants and have her live in his country? How long do you plan on denying her entry based on those links? How many real families are you willing to break up in order to prevent one of these situations from happening again? Well, OK then, let's let foreigners with terrorist links in, we wouldn't want to keep terrorist families apart. I just wish you guys would secede already and stop putting the rest of us at risk. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/03/san-franciscos-withdrawal-from-national-terror-intelligence-network-hikes-risks-officials-say.html And why do criminals who have no right to be here in the first place have due process rights not be deported?

Set aside the fact that he didn't answer the question asked-- that's perfectly normal. (And even appropriate-- a law enforcement official-to-be probably shouldn't be making comments on specific cases like that.) Instead of answering, though, he voluntarily made a declarative statement, under oath, asserting a fact that is very very close to demonstrably untrue. (Sessons acknowledges that he did talk with the Russian ambassador, but argues that he wasn't lying because he did so in his capacity as a Senator, rather than as somebody involved in the Trump campaign.) I'm going to repeat that-- he volunteered an answer to a question that he was not asked, and did so arguably untruthfully. The first rule of any sworn testimony situation is that you do not volunteer information that you were not asked unless you really really want it on the record and are 100% certain that it is 100% true. Even if all the Russia stuff amounts to nothing, in my book, he should resign immediately because any lawyer dumb enough to make that mistake has no business running the U.S. Department of Justice. It's clear from the context that he meant he didn't speak to the Russians on behalf of the campaign, not that he's never met a Russian in his life. As far as volunteering information, he wasn't on trial, but I guess he forgot he's surrounded by enemies, who like nothing better than to assassinate someone's character. Don't think Pence was required to have a security clearance as governor of Indiana. Plus AOL email is still a hell of a lot more secure than Hillary's private server.

The San Bernadino shooting was committed by an American citizen and his wife, what sort of scrutiny do you suggest that will prevent that? http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170 The wife was admitted in spite of terrorist links. This is primarily about illegal immigration, not terrorism, no? Btw, do you believe that foreign criminals should not be deported?

I think it's equivalent to a junk yard, I don't think they're supposed to actually get parts from there, except as a last resort.

No, I'm not saying we haven't done enough, but you can't just say we've done enough and stop. We have to keep taking measures, because they haven't stopped trying to attack us. I don't think anyone is arguing to stop the measures that are already in place right now. The Trump administration is not simply maintaining measures, it is aggressively ramping them up. Where is the justification for that? You'd have to be more specific about which measures you think they're ramping up for me to answer that. If you're talking about the travel ban, it's only a temporary measure until they can improve scrutiny of visitors, which isn't sufficient as we saw in the San Bernardino attack.

No, I'm not saying we haven't done enough, but you can't just say we've done enough and stop. We have to keep taking measures, because they haven't stopped trying to attack us.

Did you not notice I'm answering your question in two parts? Did you not notice I answered your first question before you even asked it? You answered it while I was answering your first post, and it has nothing to do with what I said above. So you do nothing and just wait for it to happen again? We've done a ton already. So we just quit now and forget about it?

I guess you can always question their claims but for what it's worth: http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/10/defense-leaders-agree-us-military-readiness-is-at-a-dangerous-low http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/wiped-out-air-force-losing-pilots-and-planes-to-cuts-scrounging-for-spare-parts.html

Did you not notice I'm answering your question in two parts?

See this is fear talking. How much power are you willing to give our government to protect us from the next 9/11? How much of your tax dollars should be going to that? How effective is all this really going to be at stopping the next 9/11? So you do nothing and just wait for it to happen again? What is your specific proposal for improving military readiness without spending more? What is the evidence that the diplomatic budget contributes anything to lasting peace? Do you think Russia or Iran or China or North Korea can be persuaded of anything just by talking nice to them? lol "Iron Curtain" you really have no idea about that at all.

Huh? Where's that from? So 9/11 was minuscule to you? What if they get hold of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons? As far as military spending, do you realize the atrocious state of readiness the military is in? Pretty sure that's working age people. Of course there are a lot of stay-at-home mothers in that number also.

I don't think Milo was that important to "the movement". It's going to live or die by what Trump and Republicans in Congress do.

The speech was good but what do you think are the problems he should be attending to first? He is looking at reforming Obamacare, tax cuts for the middle class, he wants to rebuild the military and destroy ISIS amongst other things Those are actually the problems that need addressing. The issue is the Republican ideologues in Congress which will not agree to anything sensible. On Obamacare, they want to simply get rid of it, regardless of people who can't afford medical insurance. On tax cuts, Republicans including Trump, want a huge tax cut and at the same time increased military spending. In addition Trump wants a 1 trillion infrastructure plan, government paid family leave, and assorted other spending increases. All this while we already have a budget deficit that's projected to grow without bound, and a huge amount of unfunded future liabilities. Meanwhile, no one is even talking about bringing medical costs under control, which is the main driver of the budget problems.

Speech apparently well received, but from the reports I read no indication of a pragmatic approach we need to start dealing with the many problems of this country.