BruceVC

Yes I did My advice is before you think how terrible it is living in a first world country you should see how the rest of the world lives. Is it an unreasonable comment from me?

You know my only beef with Skyrim was the unmodded Dragons were a bit too easy. I watched from a mountain top while a group of Bandits in Silent Stones took down a dragon. Why the heck does Skyrim need ME to save it? Then I downloaded the Deadly Dragons mod. Now you need to pack a lunch to fight them. Glad to see DA:I is doing that part right. GD you know I still haven't played Skyrim yet, I have the Legendary Edition which I purchased just after you bought your copy I am really looking forward to playing it with several Mods like Deadly Dragons

And... Smurfs are cute

Yes its called privilege blindness and is not uncommon for people who live in first world countries. You think you have a really bad deal with your governments and social situation, but in fact you don't

You right, I should try to be more civil Hiro can we be friends or at least be more friendly ?

Bruce, you've shown to be dishonest in the WOT forum. And you're all for dishonesty and no integrity which I've shown the entire forum in the gaming thread. You don't need to bring your trolling and dishonesty in this subforum and thread now. So instead of trolling this forum which I've shown that having a high charisma on one or your characters in the game can be beneficial, how about talk about the game? In fact other people have come on and liked or agreed with having one party member with high charisma. Now that is irrefutable evidence and logical analysis. But ignore those people why don't you. You're concerned about me? LMAO. Or are you going to keep on trolling? Because I haven't seen you do anything in this thread other than go on the attack with me. But I guess being a sore loser is part and parcel of being proven wrong on many accounts in the WoT forums. So how about lets talk about the game instead of you trolling this thread. If anyone needs to apologise it's you. So how about that apology Bruce? I doubt I'll get it. Lets get back on topic. I know it's hard for you to do but I know you have it in you. Wow, when I read a response like this I almost want to never comment in another one of your discussions again. All I get is criticism and my head being bitten off But I won't do that to you, I know how much you appreciate my input...you just have a strange way of showing it

This is a very good post. Around the topic of Romance its both erudite and reasonable Welcome to the promancer army...I am going to suggest we make you a major in our grand cause . We need people of your insights

This is a good read about some of the misunderstandings around the what the Mid-Term election results mean

http://www.pcgamer.com/dragon-age-inquisition-hands-on-with-the-first-five-hours/#page-1 This is some good feedback around some real time playing the game....dragons ..dragons seem deadly

you funny

*Chuckles* It's quite humorous seeing you flailing and flip-flopping like a drowning man. The last gasps of air as you try to fling this back onto others before finally drowning. I can picture it now. Grom-wah waving his hand angrily trying to argue the point and then seeing you finally go under. But that's okay Grom-wah, you can still believe what you want. You keep that charisma around 4 and 5 on your characters. Some of us will have a leader with a CHA up to 8 and actually test this in game without the hypoethetical theorycrafting that you're trying to tell us and say our leader doesn't make a difference. hehe, your characters with 4 or 5 charisma. Yeah, great testing. *guffaw* Huh? As I read Gromnir's posts, he never suggested that having more than 1 ranger with CHA>1 was useful. He has been consistent in asserting that the XP effects of CHA are too insignificant to justify investment in the attribute, and that the one thing that makes CHA desirable (at least since the most recent patch changed the rules) is that it dictates the radius of the +2%/Level hit chance boost around a character with the Leadership skill. (FWIW, I agree on both points.) As such, his guess is that a CHA around 4 or 5 is the point where investment in the attribute is cost-justified. (On that point, I don't have enough information to make a judgment. I know that 7 is enough to have a healthy radius; if I built another team, I'd try a lower CHA than that and see how it worked.) Anyhow, the willingness on both your parts to continue baiting one another is tiresome. Gromnir (at least his board personality) is a pugnatious guy and seems to get significant satisfaction out of puncturing what he sees as weak reasoning, and you seem to be oddly defensive about having built your team the "right" way. Neither of you is going to convince the other, so why not just leave it be? So... There's something particularly entertaining about punching a giant robot scorpion until it explodes. I think the best solution is just for Hiro to admit he is wrong and apologize to Gromnir for making him explain his point over and over again? That's what I would do if I was faced with such irrefutable evidence and logical analysis ?

You guys have had it easy when it comes to your access to early technology. Growing up in South Africa and due to Apartheid and sanctions we didn't have any of these early technologies....we had to rely on carrier pigeons and smoke signals to play RPG. Now THAT is hardcore !!!!

Its really a good question, who will you side with? I am leaning towards the Mages but I want to understand the history and motives from both sides before I make my mind up

Would you prefer living in a country with no snow, like South Africa? We have this probably naïve view of how much fun it would be living in a country with snow I can live with the snow. I have done so for 28 years. It's just that I don't like skiing, skating or any other activity involving snow or ice. I have very dry skin so I get rashes very easily and I easily catch a cold. It's how long it is going to stay like this that is depressing. We're looking at another 4-5 month of snow. It's dark when you wake up and dark when you come home from work. Not a very motivating time to be alive. (Last sentence is a joke.) Ros: I did immigrate but I was one year when we came to Sweden. Are you originally from Armenia? I'm not sure if its you or someone else that mentioned that

Yeah you right, it can't be pleasant ?

Would you prefer living in a country with no snow, like South Africa? We have this probably naïve view of how much fun it would be living in a country with snow

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ? But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF. So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ? But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003 By taking military actions against Taliban, Al-Qaida, etc. organisations instead of supporting local law enforcements and keeping open ended authorization for use of military force also means that he keeps his country in warlike state and there is high change that those local law enforcements and governments lose their authority in eyes of their citizens (which can strengthen popularity of those who openly oppose them and USA [and other western countries]). Of course there are compelling reasons why those drone and special force strikes are done (which ineffectiveness and inability of those local authorities are probably most compelling ones). But such military actions come with cost that USA is seen as hostile country by many (outside of USA) and that those military actions aren't accepted by all people in USA and same time some people in USA see them as too lenient, which both weakens Obama's popularity and strengthens his opposition. It is not easy situation to him (as he is too warmongering for at least some of his supporters and he isn't warmongering enough to people in his opposition), but I am not sure if that factored very much towards result of this election, as usually foreign policy don't factor very much in elections in USA. I agree almost completely with what you are saying, the USA only uses drones in Western Pakistan because of the ineffectiveness of the Pakistan authorities in dealing with the Taliban and AQ But I can also sympathize with the Pakistanis because they have probably been the worst victims of Islamic extremists and in many respects they do try to stop there influence but they don't t control the tribal areas that border Afghanistan. These areas are mostly under the control of various clans and the Taliban has much influence in those regions So now the USA doesn't help things with drones because they do undermine the Pakistan military authority but end of the day the USA has to act to protect its troops in Afghanistan by selective targeting of Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership

Bruce, after all the political discussions we've had over the years is it really surprising to you that I would vote against the President and his agenda in any national election? Do you really need me to go over the reasons why... again? But, remember one thing; and If I could tell the Republican leadership anything it would be this: Hating the Democrats is not the same thing as loving the Republicans. They have a golden opportunity here they did nothing to deserve other than be the lesser of two evils. If they use that opportunity to promote smaller, more responsible government, champion personal liberty and freedom, and check Obama's dumber ideas and destructive impulses they can begin rebuilding their brand. In short, they need to listen to the libertarian caucus within their ranks. The they go out and become Democrat-lite, or empower the neo-con factions or the religious right factions or just fall apart due to infighting then they will be gone in two years. I hope they are up to the task but nothing about McConnell and Boehner's history suggests they are. We'll see. Yeah you have always been unequivocal in your position on Obama so I understand your reasons for voting for the Republicans I am also interested to see what transpires now that the Republicans control the House and the Senate and how this will effect the political landscape going forward

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/previews/12536-Dragon-Age-Inquisition-BioWare-RPG-Preview?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all Here is some nice input about this game, I don't think it offers anything to new that we don't already know but it does increase my excitement

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ? But other hand he is also continued drone and special force strikes against alleged terrorist targets and even added their number to Bush administration (although he had more resources to do so as he didn't need to spent so much money in Iraq and Afghanistan) and also one could argue that his negotiation efforts in Ukraine's crisis haven't been aimed towards most peaceful solution and arming rebel/anti-government/new government factions during Arab spring and Syrian war weren't actions that were aimed to establish peace. And he also has done little to abolish AUMF. So he isn't most belligerent president that USA has had, but he also hasn't been most peaceful. Yes I agree that Obama has increased drone strikes and the usage of special forces. But I am not suggesting that the USA doesn't have reason for military intervention in certain places in the world that warrant the usage of tactics like drones, like there deployment in the tribal areas of Western Pakistan where the Taliban plan there attacks against the Western coalition in Afghanistan. Drone strikes are the only reasonable strategy when it comes to this type of situation. For example you can't invade Pakistan to deal with the Taliban and there Al-Qaeda affiliates ? But this is not the same thing as saying Obama is a warmonger as that would imply he is starting wars against governments like Pakistan in order to defeat the Taliban. Using drone is a military strategy and is not the same as a full ground invasion like we saw in Iraq in 2003

Fair enough, we don't know the reality of the lives of all the people in the video But he is taking about economic marginalization of the people making comments and how this effects how they identify with themselves, he is not saying they are marginalized because they can't get women or have girlfriends

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time. I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country A republican? Some republicans didn't want to back the rebels at all. I think you are referring to a neocon. Yeah, they would be even worse than Obama. I have watched numerous interviews from prominent Republicans like John McCain who have said that Obama needs to be forceful and direct in places like Iran and Syria around the military options, I'm not sure if you consider him a Neocon?

The US economy has NOT recovered nicely. The situation on the ground is pretty bad by US standards. Especially here in Michigan; although that's hardly his fault. Also, Obama is a warmonger. I have to wonder what alternate reality you live in when you say Obama has avoided conflicts. Under his leadership the US is just as interventionist as Bush; which is pretty bad. How can you say he is warmonger, seriously. I get other criticisms but not this one. He has got the troops out of Iraq ( and the airstrikes against ISIS aren't the same thing as the invasion of Iraq in 2003) He has set a deadline to pull out of Afghanistan He avoided bombing Iran around there Uranium enrichment He refused to attack Syria without the UN support He has not just sent troops to Iraq to deal with ISIS I think you seem to live in the alternate reality Rather tell me all these examples of his brazen warmongering ?

As I have said before. Our policy in Syria is dumb; we never should have backed the rebels. Our backing rebels in Libya & Syria has really backfired. I hope Washington actually gets it this time. I would love to see if a Republican come to power in America and do anything different to Obama in respect to Syria or ISIS So in other words ignoring the UN security council vote and attacking Syria directly and then somehow putting troops on the ground against ISIS Its so easy to criticize the incumbent president of any country

I'm not sure understand your point, are you disputing the analysis of the professor based on the context of the original video? The first video irrefutably does show the women walking through areas of NY that are not necessarily upmarket and the comments do seem to be from people of a certain less privileged background ?