BruceVC

Multiple patches to improve the game and increase stability doesn't bother me at all as I haven't even played PoE yet so when I do I think many issues people have raised will be resolved

A pity, I was hoping for a BG3 announcement

Yeah...that's good in theory...but not so much in practice when getting along with others is pretty much required for your time to be constructive. Yeah, I'd go one step further and say that it's not even that good in theory, let me explain (pedantic **** mode ON). If you don't give a **** what others say, there is no point in posting or saying anything, ever — just thinking or writing in a journal would accomplish the same result and is more convenient. And if you only care about what others say if they agree with you, that is also pointless, as they already agree with you and reinforcing the same point accomplishes nothing, much like yelling inside an empty cave. It makes no sense to care only about what others say if they agree with you after you convince them, because you can *not* know before listening to their reaction if they agree. So this leaves only two possibilities: either you don't care what people think and only speak because you love the sound of your own voice, or you speak in order to elicit a reaction, whatever that may be, so you do in fact care about what others say. If only because, barring physical demonstrations, you need to listen to their reaction to know that your message has been received at all, and is intelligible. Speaking up and not giving a **** about what other people say is about as sensible as a deaf person that cannot read lips and doesn't know sign language trying to have a conversation. (no, I don't really have anything useful to add to the legal debate) This is an interesting post and raises the question " why do we engage in debates on the Internet " ? I participate in debates to give people a different perspective and to sometimes correct a spurious view someone may have. I also like to learn new things about topics and that also happens sometimes when people give there views

But European liars don't talk all truth as usual. Here follows a gem from the original report: http://www.cepa.org//sites/default/files/styles/medium/Baltic%20Sea%20Security%20Report-%20(2).compressed.pdf Offensive military capabilities can be better coordinated too. America has allowed Finland and Poland to buy the AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), a stealth airlaunched weapon that has the capability to strike hundreds of kilometers inside Russia. This has a powerful deterrent effect. Translation for dummies: "Yes, we're deploying missiles, that cannot be intercepted, aimed at Moscow, a city of 12 millions and the 6th largest city in the world. You Ruskies have nothing to worry about." Considering the accuracy of the defensive NATO bombings of the residential neighborhoods of Belgrade, me thinks I better be living somewhere beyond the Ural mountains, just in case of a sudden reveal of the massive human rights violations in Russia or something else like that. Your logic as usual makes no sense There will never be a conventional war between Russia and the West due to the risk of mutually assured destruction due to the nuclear weapons. Even during the Cold War when the West and the USSR really didn't like each other there wasn't a " normal war " so what we are ultimately talking about in the worst case scenario will be proxy wars, like we are seeing in Ukraine and a war of economic attrition. Sanctions will increase against Russia and Russia will in turn implement its own counter-sanctions But the war of sanctions Russia can never win because the West is the greater economic power and Russia has fundamentally weakened itself economically by its reliance on oil and natural gas as it main revenue stream to maintain its economy. And since the oil price has dropped Russia has unintentionally put itself at a disadvantage in its ability to sustain itself in this war of economic attrition And the worst thing about all this tension is that it is unnecessary. We want Russia to be part of the global community, we want the Russian economy to grow. We respect Russia but Putins ideals of restoring the Russian empire and his general objective of Russian hegemony in certain areas cannot be condoned or accepted. The main reason for this is that the days of the USSR are over and previous members of the USSR are now independent and sovereign states. So despite the fact that many Russian people feel that Crimea and parts of Ukraine should be part of it this is just not a legal option. And this is not something that the legitimate government in Ukraine want themselves. The sooner Putin realizes this the better for Russia and the Russian people so we can all get back to a world that has less conflict and antagonism

Nice, I'll watch it. I thought that clip was very evocative, insightful and well acted...just the type of movie I enjoy

Remind me again what are the objectives of the big 5 families and who they are ?. I assume the Bush and Clintons are two? /?? That's good video, where is that from ?

Remind me again what are the objectives of the big 5 families and who they are ?. I assume the Bush and Clintons are two?

Okay fair enough, I see the context

Ignorance can be very humorous ...I know I shouldn't laugh at peoples stupidity but sometimes I can't help it

...I always forget that I'm not supposed to talk in political topics so I don't make myself look like a bigot and make everyone hate me. Shoot. Oh well. The trick is to not give a **** what others say. Respecting an opinion goes both ways. You are not a bigot by sticking to your opinion, no matter if i, or anyone else disagree/agree´s with you. Your opinion is as worthy as anyone else. Oh yes that's great advice, just post exactly what you feel without consideration for peoples feelings or an inkling of diplomacy ....is that how you are in RL? Barti let me give you better input, get into the habit of only saying on a forum what you are prepared to say to people to there faces. That way you will find you will very seldom say anything really offensive

Yeah, my grandpa is a crazy (becoming actually literally a little crazy at this point: dementia runs in the family) Christian fundamentalist and I tell you, every few months I see him, the "gays" are the bloody end of the world and the root of all evil in our nation according to him. I'm dreading a family bonfire in a few nights... Barti do we want me to speak to your Grandpa and explain to him that Gay people are not that bad, he should listen to me as I am South African and lived through the end of Apartheid?

Yes...legislation...I'm glad we are in agreement for once, Bruce: I, too, think it should be up to our elected legislators - not a very few judicial appointees - to legislate and revise our laws. Yes...legislation...I'm glad we are in agreement for once, Bruce: I, too, think it should be up to our elected legislators - not a very few judicial appointees - to legislate and revise our laws. And for some reason Barti my darling you seem to be another person who is ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans support same sex marriage nowadays. So all the judicial appointees are doing is implementing the will of the majority of the American people You would have a stronger argument if the polls were against same-sex marriage like they were a few years ago

Well this is the first time you have made some points that I agree with, the main one being " if a same sex couple can give this kind of love and care to child out there who needs it, then so be it. " And also you are correct in your view that having a straight married couple as parents doesn't necessarily mean that the children will be raised in a happy and healthy environment for a variety of reasons

Yes and considering the fact the majority of American people now support same-sex marriage a vote would produce the same result, as you can see from the links I posted. The second one being a comprehensive one that actually covers several polls

Who do you guys typically vote for ? This applies to any Canadian citizens like Volo, Malc and Oerwinde

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process Read the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Roberts I'll really make it easy for you, here's a link to the complete court opinion including the majority opinion, the case precedents, and all three dissenting opinions from Roberts, Scalia and Thomas http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2111845-14-556-3204.html#document/p1 Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process you can read J. Robert's dissent if you wish. like it or not, the question that came before the Court is not a new one. marriage is a right, but the legal definition o' marriage has been established and settled for a long time and currently more than half o' States in the US do not recognize same-sex marriage. it is o' course, perfectly reasonable that as society changes, the People may change such definitions, but that is the role of legislators and not Justices. "The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become. "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer." the Justices of the Court decided that their will and wisdom were greater than that o' The People. perhaps the wisdom o' 5 Justices is more admirable than that o' the people o' the United States of America, but the Constitution does not grant the Court the power to subvert the will o' the people in a case such as this. there were no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage before today. 5 Justices thought that there should be such a right so now there is such a right. the process were subverted. I understand both of you have a very good understanding of the American legal system. I have very little practical knowledge or how something like the Supreme Court should interpret decisions apart from what I read or see on channels like CNN and there assessment But I think I understand Gromnirs objection, you are saying that basically the 5 judges who voted in favor of this law are speaking on behalf of the American public and possibly are undermining what the American public really want. I have two points in response The majority of Americans now support same sex marriage http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-53-of-americans-support-same-sex-marriage/ ( 53 % support it and 39 % are opposed http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm I can produce other links but they all say the same thing, most Americans support same-sex marriage. How is this subverting the will of the American people if they are in favor of it? Just because certain intransigent states and there legislators refuse to accept this it doesn't mean this is what the American people want 2. In the states where there laws refuse to accept same sex marriage how would you suggest this change gets implemented without the decision of a body like the Supreme Court, do you think people will just wake up one day and decide to do the right thing? Sometimes legislation is needed to enforce change ...history tells us this in other examples of discrimination....because surly you guys agree that not allowing same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination?

Can you explain why this is not a good law? Please go into details if required around the failure of process

" Marketing operations " Nonek please, we agreed you would keep the hyperbole and grandstanding to a minimum in order to encourage reasonable debate ?

Well done for posting this monumental political and social development This is a really positive step for true equality and recognition in the eyes of the law for same-couples in the USA Another reason why this is important for me personally is I often get into debates about the appalling rise of homophobia in some African countries and one of the spurious counter-arguments some people use who try to defend this homophobia in Africa is points like " but even in America they don't allow gay marriage in some states, so if America can discriminate why can't Africa " This argument now becomes moot

Interesting perspective, I never thought about it like that in regards to the lack of patriotism I see from some Canadian forum members

That cartoon made me laugh....the reality is I live in a country where that really happens sometimes ...you guys don't really Last week South Africa allowed Omar Al-Bashir, the current dictator of Sudan, to leave our country during an AU conference despite the fact he is on the wanted list of the ICC (International Criminal Court ) and we are signatories of the Rome Statute which meant we should have arrested him. The issue is our courts said he needs to be detained but he still managed to slip out the country There is a real accusation that the government still doesn't understand what its responsibilities are in regard to being committed to being aligned to organisations like the ICC

I am of the opinion that Canada should just become part of the great and noble USA ....you guys do share a border and you are very influenced by the USA so what have you got to lose...think of the superior military you will gain ? No way. Canada was settled by the people who wanted nothing to do with the US or were chased out by the Patriots. Then we confederated as a country because we were afraid of being absorbed into the US in the aftermath of the civil war. Our history has been one big eff you to being American, not going to stop now. Plus we would have to abandon the monarchy and become a republic. Imagine, a greasy self serving politician as our head of state instead of the classy wonderful Queen we have. But you personally, if you could vote to get Canada to join the USA would you support it ? I know this will never happen, I am just interested in your view. So weigh up the overall benefits from the possibly misplaced patriotism. Because my experience has been most of you Canadians don't seem that patriotic...for example Malc and Volo don't even support your country in sport....so you may as well just become part of the USA if you don't really care about things like national identity ?

I'm at the airport now and will be boarding the plane in about 20 minutes, I am excited about my trip to the coast...I can't wait to see my family and hit the sea

So there is another angle to Obamacare, the reality is it part of his legacy If you are a supporter of his, like me, and everything he has done for the USA then of course you want it to succeed. I understand the majority of Americans on these forums don't seem to like Obama too much but I think history will definitely regard him favorably Another important point is I know the Republicans have promised to repeal Obamacare if they come to power in 2016...but these wins in the Constitutional Court just ensure that Obamacare becomes more trenchant and harder for the Republicans to repeal. What alternative would they offer for the millions of Americans now benefiting from Obamacare if they want to get rid of it?