Wrath of Dagon

Too bad no one ever gave a primer to Obola. I guess they don't teach about the Magna Carta in Indonesia.

I haven't noticed any of that, did you try to make you graphics settings lower? As far as being ineffective in combat, it helps to hide behind your companions sometimes. They can take plenty of punishment. It's probably best to invest in only two skill trees, technomancy and one of the stances. I did the warrior because of the area attack, although that particular ability turned out not that useful. But once you do significant upgrades, you'll be a lot more powerful. I like to upgrade one tree until I get a major ability, then switch to the other one. Edit: Warrior does dodge, may be not like rogue. And if you're too far, you can dodge forward too. One gripe I have is only the rogue can shoot the gun. They should've used the right bumper for the gun, and switch stances from the pause menu.

Completely true. He gives examples. Obola wasn't a community organizer for nothing, it's what they do.

Better stock up on Kleenex for all the crying you're going to do Bruce. I won't predict who'll win, but I'll predict a blow out.

If you've been paying attention, you already know all of this. If not, get informed: https://patriotpost.us/alexander/43755#share

I thought I was stuck in Technomancer, but it turned out there's a location so far down on the global map I didn't see it and assumed it wasn't available yet.

Congress as a whole has nothing to do with it, it's the Senate that confirms nominees. And if Hilzilla wins, Dems are very likely to take the Senate. In fact that's pretty likely regardless. Not to mention it's been a very long time since a Dem president has appointed anyone but an out and out liberal to SC. I believe you're required to have a license to carry a gun in Ohio.

See, there's a perception problem. You perceive her as a Supreme Court Justice, who's supposed to be neutral. She and every liberal judge perceive themselves as Super Legislators, whose word is the Law, whatever it is. But go ahead and vote for Johnson, it'll give those people control over courts for a generation, or more likely forever.

WOD I appreciate your honesty on topics, I just want honesty. I dont get offended and I think you and I have a very good forum relationship? Do you not like the UK and why are you negative about the EU? I don't know why you think I don't like UK, and I think I expressed my views on EU previously. But the short answer is I believe in self-government. Okay but just so I'm clear when you say " self-government " can you go into detail and give examples A government that's controlled by the people it purports to represent. Examples? You got me there, I can't think of any.

Trump may not be the monster that you think: http://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160?utm_content=bufferd928a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

WOD I appreciate your honesty on topics, I just want honesty. I dont get offended and I think you and I have a very good forum relationship? Do you not like the UK and why are you negative about the EU? I don't know why you think I don't like UK, and I think I expressed my views on EU previously. But the short answer is I believe in self-government.

I predict that May will sabotage BREXIT.

Runs fine for me. Do you get an error message or does it just not launch? Just wouldn't start at all. I've had problems with Windows Defender not letting certain programs run, I don't remember if I tried disabling it back then or not. Since it doesn't have Win 10 support listed, I assumed it was a Win 10 problem, but I guess I'll repurchase it at some point and try again. Thanks.

WOD I dont think Trump is racist or even anti-Latino. He is just very driven in his objectives and doesnt care who gets impacted when he follows a certain strategy He decided on a certain strategy to win the Republican nomination, he completely out manouved the Republican established and won but at what cost. Seriously you cannot ignore the following Latinos have been unfairly targeted, a strange risk to take just to pander to some of his supporters Trump never targeted "Latinos", he targeted illegal aliens. What he said it the truth and needed to be said, although he could've been less inflammatory. I've never denied the man has his faults. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/07/05/200k-criminal-aliens-booked-texas-jails-past-5-years-says-dps/ He's right in not apologizing, once the sharks smell blood, they close in for the kill. If we lived in a more responsible and civil society I'd agree with you. He made some off-color remarks in the past, but most men have. Again, I'm not denying he has faults. The first question Kelly asked at the debate wasn't a question at all, but a vicious attack which no one would be in a position to answer, the equivalent of "When did you stop beating your wife?" Someone had clearly charged her with taking out Trump, and Kelly is insufferably self-righteous and smug. Trump was right to react the way he did, but he shouldn't have obsessed with her so much. Then again it's all part of the show. He was attacked as much as he attacked. He's pretty ruthless in going after what he wants, but that's not necessarily all bad in a president. Don't think so, although a couple of occasions he could've handled better.

Thats rich coming from an avid supporter of Trumps numerous comments that were very racially divisive and intentionally stirred contention Trump never called for anyone to be killed, and his comments are misunderstood as racist. He's actually speaking about real threats and not about race. As for Obola, every time there's a controversial police shooting, which will happen inevitably, he pushes the narrative that racist white cops are out to kill blacks, even before the full facts are known.

Anyone had trouble running it on Win 10? I couldn't run it.

And she stated as much unequivocally, "No chance I'll get indicted."

They are not normally an option, but in extreme circumstances.

It's the era of peace and love that Obola's election ushered in. Geez WOD.....pass the razor-blades wont you Thats a gloomy and melancholic view of the current state of the USA It's completely accurate though. It comes from Obola's and the Democrats' cynical promotion and exploitation of racial divisions to keep themselves in power.

find a conviction under the applicable statute. we will wait. compare to such stuff as epa or traffic statutes is not gonna be helpful, or relevant. and for reasons stated by comey multiple times, the attempt to pioneer new legal ground would be a fail in any event. is not an easy burden for a prosecutor to overcome. has never been a gross negligence conviction under the statute. 'ccording to comey, only once since 1917 when the statute were passed has there ever been an attempt to utilize gross negligence as 'posed to actual intent. sure as hell ain't gonna use negligence or, god forbid, strict liability as the ridiculous article linked suggests. keep looking to random sources that appear to support what you wanna believe is not a good way to educate self. nytimes coverage were a bit sketchy, so we will avoid linking https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-set-to-appear-before-congressional-committee-to-answer-questions-on-clinton-investigation/2016/07/07/eb43ec7e-43c1-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_comeyhearing-1pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory HA! Good Fun! Lots of prominent lawyers think she could've been indicted, so they don't agree with you or Comey. So gross negligence standard can be used in lots of other cases, but not under the espionage statue, even though it's explicitly in the statue? Doesn't make sense. And your definition of gross negligence doesn't make sense either, if I leave a manhole cover open and someone falls in and gets killed, I'm not liable? Good to know. Comey bent over backwards to find a way not to indict her, both on gross negligence and intent, since she knowingly exposed top secret info to both her lawyers and her network admins.

It's the era of peace and love that Obola's election ushered in.

Of course he wanted power, but he was also a true believer in communism. And in a way he was a patriot, the kind who cares about the state but not so much the individuals. As far as a chance to convict, as I said before it's whether he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not whether he can win. And if they can't prove it in this case, they can't prove it in any case. Corporate crime has been proved on far flimsier evidence than this. Otherwise we don't have equal justice, as you say. Edit: The Feds have obtained plenty of convictions where there was neither gross negligence nor intent to break the law: http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/06/no-more-accidental-criminals

Don't get me wrong, Stalin was one of the great monsters of history, but I think you mischaracterize him. The person who did the most to win WW2, who confounded Western powers, and made a backwards, poor, illiterate nation into a super-power can not be what you say. She deliberately gave classified info to lawyers who had no security clearance, at least Petraeus mistress had security clearance, it just wasn't high enough. Gross negligence standard does not require intent to break the law, only that the actions be intentional. Comey is playing word games by saying without intent he can't win the case. Assuming Comey isn't corrupt, he choked, it was just too big a step to take and he punted.

Looks like Republicans are ripping Comey a new one: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-james-comey-lied-to-fbi-meadows/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-trey-gowdy-destroys-james-comey-over-intent/ How do you consider criminal charges and ignore possible perjury? This is unbelievable, what a clown. Edit: Hilzilla gave access to classified info to lawyers without security clearance: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/07/hillary-clinton-comey-admits-gave-classified-info-non-cleared-lawyers/ Again, how is this different from what Petraeus did?

Aren't we kind of making a rather bold, dramatic and unneccesary leap to connect dots between Bernie Sanders and Stalin? That's not exactly what I did, but here you go: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-or-out-and-out-stalinistist/