Wrath of Dagon

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/

Why? Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all men of principle.

Unless you played and liked Mars War Logs I wouldn't immediately jump on it. Hmm. I actually did like that game. It was clearly low budget, but it was a bit of a gem, IMO. Technomancer seems like a much bigger game, certainly graphics and level design are improved. But it also seems like they speeded up combat, I barely have time to use any abilities.

If it's a likely win should not be the determining factor. The only criteria should be whether the case can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Btw, we've lost sight of the fact this case should've had an independent counsel, that it didn't is in itself a subversion of the law. The man who is ultimately responsible for prosecuting the criminal is campaigning with her on the day of the announcement! Edit: http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/04/you-owe-them-nothing--not-respect-not-loyalty-not-obedience-n2186865 I actually don't agree with him. The government has all the power. If you don't believe it, try refusing to pay your taxes.

Here are a couple more opinions on "intent": http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/06/andrew-mccarthy-fbi-rewrote-the-statute-to-give-hillary-clinton-a-pass/ http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/05/fmr-ag-mukasey-hillary-violated-felony-standard-of-gross-negligence-others-have-been-prosecuted-for-far-less/

I just popped in but curious about this: is it confirmed there's no need to prove intent to show negligence, or is that something you've surmised? I'm only educated in German law, but the big difference between crimes of negligence is that you don't need to prove intent, only that someone conducted themselves in a manner that was so obviously negligent that they should've known better. (example, driving a car while intoxicated) Wish I were educated enough in US law because I too would be curious to know the circumstances she needs to meet to qualify as "grossly negligent." Gromnir went over that in his previous post, but I'm not sure I entirely understand. To me if you have a usb stick you forgot you put in your pocket and left a secure location with it, then there's no intent and no gross negligence. If you intentionally sent what you know is a top secret email over what you know is an unsecure channel, then there's intent and gross negligence.

I don't even understand why it's necessary to prove intent to show negligence. It's not that she didn't intend to send the e-mail. The negligence was in disregarding that the e-mail was classified. No one's claiming she intended the Russians to get hold of them, only that she didn't take any precautions that they don't.

Instances aren't enough. You need to establish intent, and have the evidence to convince a jury of it beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the FBI has concluded that a smart defense attorney wouldn't have a particularly hard time establishing enough reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction. So long as there's a chance that Clinton set this up for non-classified stuff, but had a few "whoopsies" along the way, a prosecution was doomed to fail. 100 or so bits of classified information in a population in the tens of thousands is bad, but it's not clear-indication-of-intentional-misconduct bad. What you said doesn't make sense. If it's intentional, than it establishes intent, no? How stupid would a jury have to be to believe that she didn't know that as a Secretary of State she would be involved in discussions involving classified material? How stupid would they have to be to believe she simply forgot the top secret emails she sent were going out from her private server over the public internet? Punish the hero, reward the villain: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html

How's setting up an insecure private server to send above top secret emails not an instance of intentional and willful mishandling of classified information?

“For example, seven e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified at the top secret special access program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails about those same matters.” Given that, how anyone objective could reach the conclusion that Comey reached is mind-boggling.

That's right, "extremely careless" is two clicks away from "grossly negligent".

https://twitter.com/VodkaPundit/status/750349611949142016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This happened in the White Water case too, the prosecutors had the indictment against Hilzilla drawn up, but decided she's too famous and admired for any jury to convict her, so never went ahead with the indictment. Here's more on the legal issues: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/05/hmmm-fbi-director-to-meet-press-take-off-camera-questions-at-11/ "On Twitter, there’s been a lot of “the FBI didn’t find a malicious intent” pushback against criticism, but that statute expressly doesn’t require malicious intent for prosecution. It expressly states that “gross negligence” meets the standard for criminal prosecution, and Comey spent most of the presser making the case for gross negligence. And once again, if Comey thinks that this multiple-server e-mail scheme doesn’t rise to the level of prosecution, why is the DoJ prosecuting Kristian Saucier, a sailor who took a few cell-phone photos of his submarine for his own personal mementoes?"