BruceVC

I notice no one has suggested some sort of Romance\SJW RPG Basically the underlying narrative would be about a character who wants to Romance every possible NPC in the game but at the same have to support numerous SJW causes ....we throw in a large amount of white male guilt and the game would be very exciting Who is with me !!!

Only if you want to ruin it. Would pictures of really cute guys be acceptable....or still inappropriate

So... Netherlands has a population of 31,05? I might consider moving there if that's the case. I hate crowds. What I don't understand is why you say it's a joke, considering that turnout was over the 30% required by law to be binding. Doesn't that mean it's rather the referendum law that it's a joke then? What happens if the turnout doesn't reach the minimum threshold, the gov't can do whatever, or do they have to repeat it over and over? Regardless, how come most people you know didn't even know there was a referendum to begin with? I went back and read the article and its not binding this vote but the Dutch government may have to reconsider the deal which it already signed with Ukraine The 30 % threshold just means the vote is recognized ...but not binding I must say I misunderstood the article the first time I read it

Yes I am a mind reader....we have discussed this and I'm sure you agreed ?

Volo lets find some common ground here? I would agree that society generally takes the side of a women when she says " I have been raped " ....but thats not the same thing as the legal system finding the person automatically guilty ? Question for you, why do you think people like me tend to believe a women when she says " I've been raped " ?

No But the fact you don't give a " flying hoot " is because its not a big deal and this is credible because you are Dutch citizen If there was serious vote for the Netherlands to leave the EU I'm sure you would give a " flying hoot "

Good points raised TN, its important when we debate these events that the actual citizens of the countries comment as I would consider your views credible

Geez...I'm playing W3 now and its amazing Its hard to think of a Fallout 4 being even better than that ?

Discuss. Good work for posting a credible link Oby The Netherlands didn't back stab anyone as only 32 % of the Dutch people voted and then only 3/5 of those voters rejected the deal So that means only 20 % of the Dutch were against this Ukrainian deal , this would be a perfectly normal number of citizens in any EU country that would be considered " anti-EU " ( I'm rounding numbers up or down marginally for convenience ) Gert Wilders never ceases with the theatrics " Geert Wilders, who leads the anti-EU and anti-Islam Freedom Party, said the result was the "beginning of the end for the EU". This entire vote does not reflect anything that we dont know ....people are unhappy with the EU. For me they dont represent the majority of EU citizens

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/?p=1794586 It was a rule put in place in 2012 in order to **** with Ron Paul and make it look like the party was united behind Mitt Romney. Now it is the other way around and the party thinks that it is open season against Trump. How can you be familiar with the rule yet not familiar with it's history? Look up it's history, and that should tell you all you need to know. Okay thanks Meshugger, I understand the history now Vals lets try to have a debate without being dismissive, I accept I have been dismissive in the past but one of the problems with our debates is we seem to talk past each other or we end up debating the person and not point ....both are not necessary So for example my whole question was not about the history of the Rule 40 (b) but rather how applicable nowadays it is to Trump and him winning the candidacy? And it appears to be relevant ..end of the day I want Trump to get the Republican candidacy because I believe Hilary will have an easier time beating Trump than Cruz

Guys within the Republican voting system people are now discussing the Rule 40 (b) which is defined as " Rule 40(b), which requires a presidential candidate to win eight states to qualify for the nomination" So I'm confused, if only Trump has won 8 states how can he not be the Republican candidate....assuming no one else wins 8 states which doesn't seem to be the overall trend despite Cruz's success in places like Iowa and Wisconsin ?

I finally got around to playing Witcher 3 and the best way to describe the game is .....epic !! I'm loving it, I am exploring the various areas and I am thoroughly enjoying the open world aspect of the game. It took me 20 hours before I killed the first Griffon endboss. I also travel off the normal path when I travel to a destination...which leads to some interesting encounters causing me to have to run for my life...my 4th level Witcher ran into a 12th level bear for example I never use the Fast Travel signposts...well I have once or twice but I prefer just getting on Roach and seeing what the world offers when I go from one destination to another. I have also removed some of the automatic Map features that make finding things like " Places of Interest " obvious , this also makes the exploration more exciting What a game, well done CDPR...I cant wait to carry on playing today

Malc !!! How could you, there is just no end to your depravities

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story. "Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else. "The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else "The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else. You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May) Val's doesn't need proof " Hilary is a criminal " is good enough for him because he believes it and you must remember Vals has insight that no one else has A person like Hilary is the exception to the rule " innocent until proven guilty "... Has Val ever expressed any support for the wall? He has defended the concept and theory of building the Trump wall by giving historical precedence by saying things like "The Chinese built the Great Wall " , " The Israeli's built there wall " But he is a difficult person to understand because my initial view would be " he is saying the Trump Wall should be built " but he will probably say " no I was just debating if the wall can be built not should the Wall be built " So I'm unclear if he actually supports the building, not the forum theoretical discussion around the logistics, of the Trump Wall?

If it weren't for the trees on the screenshot I'd have to look twice to realize it isn't UO. Damn. Now I want to play UO again. She's evvviiillll... just no. She's a single class cleric, so... no, just no. Guys .." love is blind " But also she was a valuable addition in combat, I had a Druid and her they both provided a useful Healing\Combat Magic role

BG2 ( TOB) was the most entertaining and superlative RPG I have ever played and Viconia she was so .....beautiful, I loved her

The entire video I find offensive, he clearly has an issue with Transgender community and he refers to them as " somethings "

No that just doesn't look right...but the similarity is striking

Ask this guy He skipped leg day. I think he goofed and did his leg exercises with his chest. THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S DONE CAP!

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/06/panama-papers-reveal-offshore-secrets-china-red-nobility-big-business Huge links to the families of the Chinese elite....

Is Bruce from a family of bankers? That would actually make oodles of sense. He even has a family member in prison for some sort of Wall Street scandal. No not Wall Street scandal, inside trading. But his actions were condemned unequivocally by all, no one made excuses. You can work in the financial sector and be ethical and not break the law But yes Vals many members of my family are involved in the financial sector but that has got nothing to do with my real concern about this suggestion to break-up the banks or implement restructuring in the financial sector in the USA You ask what has not been implemented before from Trump or Sanders....many things they suggest are radical and never been implemented before..in fact conventional wisdom is vociferously against most of these idea....lets see Sanders : Restructuring of the financial sector in the USA : Never been done before Wrong, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation Sanders : Extreme taxing of the wealthiest Americans : Never been done before Wrong, scroll down to 1948 and look at the tax rate http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf Trump : We will bulld a wall between the USA and Mexico : Never been done before Wrong, the chinese great wall was built Trump : We will deport all 11 million illegal, mostly Latino's, citizens : Never been done before Wrong, it was done in already in the 50's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback Trump : We block all Muslims coming to the USA: Never been done before Wrong, the immigration act of 1924 effectively banned all immigration from Africa and Asia until 1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 I can on and on if you want but I think you get my point I can already forsee an "But that's not exactly what i meant"-answer. Sorry Meshugger but I just can't have a serious debate with someone who uses a justification that " because the Chinese built a wall over 2000 years ago this is somehow relevant in the year 2016 to the political and social dynamics the US grapples with " No offense but you either trolling or woefully ignorant, either way I wont engage in this level of intellectual discourse. We can debate other topics but not this one

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong. Calling me a 3 rd grader is rich coming from you Vals, you the guy who believe 9/11 was committed by the USA to itself And you call me uninformed Yes Bruce, you are generally uninformed about near everything you ever talk about, as for the most part all you ever do is parrot the talking points of propaganda source X. Being able to parrot something, talking point or thought process given to you, is not being informed. Also, cognitive dissonance, the natural result of swallowing the diet of pure B.S. you yum up so often, is not a positive asset. I easily spent over ~200 hours researching 9/11 some years back, watching footage, interviews, documentaries directly/indirectly related to the event, reading all sorts of stuff, and re-watching much of what I'd already seen. I even had the opportunity to speak with people who were in the buildings as well as that were in the military responding to the event that day (I've lived very close to a military installation that was directly involved in that event). I've spent much more than that ~200 hours contemplating all that I took in. The truth in regards to that event is a very ugly and hard pill to swallow. It is a pill that most people will not want to swallow, and many will ignore is even there. The truth is also quite complex. It is not as simple as '9/11 was committed by the USA to itself'. This is not something I wish to discuss with you, as frankly it would be a waste of my time. You are probably the most close minded person and one of the least truly informed people on this forum (at least of the folks who post here regularly). Ironically, and even somewhat tragically for yourself, you believe the opposite. You have my sincere pity. No Vals 9/11 is actually not that hard to understand, the attack on the US is well documented and understood by most people....outside of conspiracy theorists like yourself And despite the fact Al-Qaeda has admitted committing 9/11 people like you dismiss the facts because " you know something no one else knows " But I have also no interest in discussing 9/11 with you, I find your views equally as exasperating as you find mine You should stick to things that you really are an expert on Vals like your views on the US Constitution....you really understand the US Constitution hey Vals, you similar to Gromnir when it comes to the Constitution, well informed and insightful. Oh wait....you not really

As far as I know (and I welcome correction on this point), there's no such thing as an illegal citizen in the US. Naturalized citizens would have to be denaturalized to be deportable and citizens by birth can only renounce their citizenship, not be denaturalized. Legally at least (I know they're are cases where the courts have due to judicial error deported people). You are pretty much correct. Put simply, they aren't 'illegal citizens', they are illegal aliens. It's one of many things Bruce has wrong. He's often like a 3rd grader who hasn't been paying attention to the math teacher telling an astrophysicist how to go about their calculations, then having the audacity to double down when the astrophysicist nicely explains why he's wrong. Calling me a 3 rd grader is rich coming from you Vals, you the guy who believe 9/11 was committed by the USA to itself And you call me uninformed

When were the big banks in the USA broken up? Shady did you read this link I posted http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2016/04/04-four-questions-to-ask-before-breaking-up-banks-klein?utm_campaign=Brookings+Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=28095032&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_eaSQSi7KF2_PHOJtPRh_mm68CJ3x6M1IEQ9QWWb83Fvo_c453O_hhUBJIWTl5CQk_LHX0RmsCj_b8ZkeHQzTjqPit8w&_hsmi=28095032

For me the women is obviously more sexualized and objectified ..sorry but thats just how the two images look to me?