Malcador

Yeah, Civ 6 there shows your double standard I am still plodding along in WoW, friend and I are doing groups. So damned tedious to heal PUGs, they screw up and stand in fire and I have to work hard to keep them up. Still not liking the Paladin mechanic where I have to stand close to the tank, guess it is just new to me still. Also continuing my genocide of the Aztecs, but it is slower as I can't bring my navy to bear.

Trevor was right, sarcasm is the blight of the age.

Pretty easy to deduce that was a typo. And it is quite common to use that to refer to the card, not just the chip.

Isn't it illegal to sell those? Edit: apparently only if you're serving in the military. Guess you learn something new every day. Didn't think it was, seen videos of people reviewing them and so on. GD, stock other militaries' MREs :D

Can't stock MREs?

Pretty much. Hm...time to burn some identities

Can't really see that doomsday scenario panning out as eventually one of them will realize it's not worth it - not sure either gives a care about Syrians ending up in bags, either. Stein probably should have elaborated on why she feels it could slide into a nuclear war.

Obama is a half-witted fool. We do not want Russia as an enemy right now. This shows how reckless and idiotic the democrats are behaving. Well, not like they haven't had sanctions on them for a year or more, can't see this ruining much. Is just posturing BS, I think.

Hah, people always talk about how politics is a bloodsport in the US but don't really appreciate it until you see it from a different angle.

You mean the players you can literally walk trough, disable global chat for and not see for 90% of the game? Do they ruin your immersion into this action RPG or something? :-P I think it is just having to do anything with scumbags (read : other players)

Because shes "shaken" by sexual boasting but has no problem with her daughters presenting dat ass for mounting? Well sexual boasting is an interesting way to think about really skeezy **** and which is wrong, which is a difference. Role models are to be followed 100% or not? I forget.

Why do you think this comparison works ?

Well I think BLM IS a terrorist group: Oh... wait, you meant Black Lives Matter? Sorry, I was referring to the Bureau of Land Management Dude in the hat is trying too hard.

Haven't established the desk as a no go zone?

Thinking and that subreddit is a funny juxtaposition. Some of those are a bit of nothing. The bashing of Catholics was pretty tame and the every day Americans line seemed to be about using something as corny as that. Nothing all that wrong with ****ing with Netanyahu, in my mind, either. Er..BLM is a domestic TERROR group?

Or the idea that they would like to make money without regards to how it harms others. Probably just the louder sort give that vibe though

That's a negative, Ghost Rider. If 4x have taught me anything, it's that I'm terrible at economy and everyone hates me. I need the help. Better to aim high and work your way down I find. Winning on easy feels empty, anyway Civ 4 goes well as I am beating up Arabs and Aztecs. Pain in the rear as China is a juggernaut now. Need to spawn more SoD.

Always something with family in these movies.

You don't start on the hardest difficulty?!

I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position: "Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed. That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work. Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet. The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more? Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline. You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed heterogeneity is advantageous for social cohesion. I pointed out that the very researcher you cite to support your idiocy believes that the answer doesn't lie in embracing "ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism". As for skipping points, I think it's probably for the better if we don't touch your rant on how Hillary "has no signs of strength, vitality and lucidity", as it is exactly the kind of "feelz before realz" thinking you're keen to decry as irrational when it suits you. There is a reason the halo effect (and its inverse, charmingly named "the horns effect", as I've learned recently) is acknowledged as a form of cognitive bias, not "a reliable method by which we should be selecting our leaders". The part where you ruminate on how "leadership reflects the currents of the masses", while at the same time managing to paint "virtuous" leaders as exemplars without whom society inevitably falls into decline is just utterly incoherent, which is kind of an impressive feat, given that you're practically ripping off Plato and Confucius here, who might have had terrible ideas, but at least managed to phrase those in a not completely self-contradictory fashion. Your third point has a glimmer of rational thought in it (TPP is bad news), but then once again you descend into howling insanity with "certain groups climb the ladder faster due to having better inner cohesion" (gee whiz, and here I thought having wealth and connections was the fast-track to the top, but no, apparently any group with any socio-economic background can just saunter right there if they just have enough inner cohesion!), and then you top it off with...whatever you're trying to get at with the bit about armed uprisings of people who feel the system is rigged against them. At this point, I can't even follow. Oh, you just quoted him without phrasing something of your own? Fair enough. Suffice to say, i am right in my opinion and he is wrong in his opinion and his study ractifies that. You misinterpret what i said about Clinton, it's a symbiotic relationship between leaders and the people who follow them. If society is heading towards further degeneracy and the leaders are, willfully or not, nurturing those bad impulses, it will spiral down and the examples i mentioned manifest in those. Empty platitudes, feel goods, insincerity is not something only observed because of a certain cognitive bias, unless of you think of course that there's no objective values, then we will just end the discussion here. The same way, a society with strong sense of virtues and to uphold them will increase the probability of the next Aurelius to step up, but first it requires someone to change the pendelum into the right direction, and that's where Trump comes into the picture. He is but a mere echo of anything truly great or of any higher principle, but his strength is in his being, which will hopefully pull down the curtain and make sure that apathy will not be the guiding principle of the following generation. There is simply no one else at the moment. As for the last point, different groups of people have strong inner cohesion compared to others and such will help each other accelerate in society through different degrees of nepotism was just one of the manys symptoms from capital being global and labour local. The bolded part is what is important as the ability for companies to have more power than the citizenry in a country was omitted as that goes without saying and i wanted to highlight other issues that goes with it. Pro-tip: if you're failing to understand the point someone is making in the future, you can always ask to clarify. Curious, but what changes are you for that you see coming from Trump? And his strength is inciting enemies to action?

Well, if the U.S. does end up as broken as Brazil, we'll get an American Tropa de Elite 2 (good movie, not sure if Brazil is really THAT ****ed up though). Sure as hell doubt Trump is really going to stop that. Not much strength on show there.

All that talk of hope is annoying. So the thermal exhaust port was an intentional weakness then?

Headline of "Trump Campaign is pulling out of Virginia" makes me think some editor is trying too hard to be witty.

You comparing the crash of the Brazilian economy to the current structures of the US economy? How are they similar if you dont mind sharing? How do you figure that? This has nothing to do with the price of oil or the boom-bust cycle of Wall Street. It has to do with the forces currently moving through society. 1. Hillary and her possible upcoming administration have no signs of strength, vitality or lucidity. They exort blandness, banality, pettiness and deceptiveness. You could see it in how the inner dealings were done against Sanders, you can see it in the empty words and platitudes she use in the debates and the low energy of her supporters. Humans are hierarchical and the the leadership reflects the currents of the masses. If the leadership lack principles higher than themselves to look up upon or work against the current virtues in place, indirectly or directly, only decline can follow in society. 2. There is little interest in curbing the current demographical trend in Hillary's camp. I do not even need to point to history like the empires of old, to make it clear out that no majority is destabilising (just look at Putham's study if you're really interested http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/) as it makes cohesion less probable. If the social cohesion goes for the worse, then so goes the trust in public institutions and corruption will be become a serious issue. 3. There's little interest among Team Hillary in averting trade deals like TPP or H-1B and similar visas, where both effectively undermines the middle class, which in turn will cause income inequality to rise and social mobility to stifle as capital will always be more global compared to labour. This will create further balkanization of socities where certain groups climb the ladder faster than others as they have better inner cohesion than others. This sense of injustice of the system being rigged against ones favour will increase the possibility of social decay and even foster militant uprisings at smaller scales at first. So three different vectors of **** colluding with each other to create an even bigger pile of ****. It will not happen over night, but a slow decline that has been in motion from before and will continue with Hillary. That's why the comparison with Brazil is applicable in terms of societal regression. Interesting, well other than point 1.

How do you figure that?