BruceVC

I went back to gym today after not going for 18 days, I was in London for the last 10 days and I had a break for a week. I do an hour of cardio and I thought I would be horribly unfit but I found my cardio went surprisingly well, I was able to everything I normally do except for running at the same speed on the treadmill. But that's understandable One reason for my unexpected fitness I assume was the fact we did loads of walking in London, we went for at least 3 x 10-14 km walks. But I never thought walking was a good cardio workout because its not very physically strenuous?

Leaving aside your slightly pathetic attempts to sound foreign by leaving out prepositions, I have to ask if you have ever actually met any kurds. Or is this more meandering racism at work? Don't take the bait Walsie, this is what Oby wants

Am I the only one who finds this type of perspective hard to believe? The lack of effectiveness to implement proper immigration reform or control is really about the Democrats staying in power? Ok lets look at it this way. Suppose the right agrees to complete and total amnesty with full residency rights for all illegals living and working in the US right now with the following caveat: They will not be allowed to vote. Do you think the left would support that? No, because that is all this is about. The rest is just window dressing. Good question, and I don't know the answer to that? I suppose the argument would be if you say someone is a citizen in your country then its a basic human right to be allowed to vote in any Democracy. So the argument from any Democrat would be based around that logic?

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons Welll oorah thumping aside they probably should confront them with troops. Best way of solving the problem. Well other than arming the Kurds and others and then hoping they don't take those guns on some other adventure. But the USA aren't in a position to just send in ground troops, there are major political and logistical concerns that have to be addressed first. And the airstrike was used to prevent the massacre of the Yazidis which would have happened in a day or 2. So even though ground troops may make more sense the airstrike was the quickest option to slowdown ISIS

Its not really an RPG but the Call of Juarez are good games set in the Wild West, I played Bound in Blood and it was fun

I don't think Agiel is seriously suggesting the USA should send ground troops to fight ISIS. He is just saying one of the reasons they don't is not because they are scared to face ISIS. An aerial bombardment just makes more strategic sense for a number of reasons

It *looks* cool, but I am pretty sure it wouldn't be anything like how I'd imagine it right now. I am getting kind of a Trapped Dead vibe too, and that game was really bad. A Wild West RPG would be awesome. Sadly there isn't any around, except for maybe Fallout and New Vegas. Red Dead Redemption? I haven't played it because it never came to PC but I heard its excellent?

If that was a valid reason to not include Romance we would never see Romance in any RPG , because the definition of "in-depth " is very subjective. So imagine if Obsidians criteria around whether they should include Romance was based on non-Romance interaction being "in-depth"...who would decide this? Obsidian themselves? The fans? Maybe the funders of PoE but the point being you would never get consensus So realistically Obsidian needs to decide and if that's the case then it makes no difference if we feel that we should have more in-depth normal party interaction before Romance because Romance will just be a feature they include as normal party relationships, albeit optional

Honestly, I don't bother reading 90 % of what he says. There is no point as his comments are just such uninformed propaganda

Quo Est Demonstrandum (sp?), colonialist rule is better than democracy Semi serious, semi joking. I admire your optimism Bruce, but I don't always share it. My money is on Entropy who always win out in the end. Yeah, I'm not suggestion that Colonialism was better in any than the new governments in Africa that followed, you can't really make that comparison because the governmental systems are so different. But I am reading a really informative book at the moment called the State of Africa by Martin Meredith which clearly articulates how many of the new governments in Africa in the 1960's basically rejected the institutions of Democracy and the principles of economics and tried to follow there own, basically dictatorial processes, methods to sustain and grow there own economies. And this lead to an utter collapse of there countries on all levels that included political, social and financial So just to reiterate, liberal democracies do work and are able to transform and uplift a country positively

While it may not be their initial thought when choosing one way or the other, do you want to tell me those illegal immigrants once given american passports will vote for the republicans? Well I wouldn't expect anyone to vote for the Republicans so I'm not the right person to ask that question to

This proves nothing aside from the fact that Orbán is an insane asswipe. Which was already widely known by everyone living in Hungary, thank you very much. Glad you commented on this, I find it hard to believe that the majority of Hungarian think Putin offers the way to economic salvation

I also thought BG2 was the superior game compared to the others in your list. But it wasn't just the Romance that made it that way for me, it was the story and events that unfolded But can I make a suggestion, its good to see someone who wants Romance but go to the beginning of this thread and read all the suggestions around Romance implementations. I know this thread is long but there are some really good ideas about the way forward around Romance in RPG. Then you will understand why people have an issue with "Bioware romance "

My point was more to highlight the fact that Stun was being sarcastic and in fact obviously doesn't think its a good idea. And of course niche games don't have to have Romance, but as we have discussed numerous times the majority of people want some form of Romance. They just don't want Bioware Romance. Even on this thread there are many people who say "we want Romance but only if its realistic" Maybe its time for another poll? Because if the vast majority of people have a view that says " we don't want Romance in any form or shape "( like Stun and Baba) I'll accept that and won't push for it in PoE 2. But I am confident this won't be outcome based on past polls

This is actually a terrific idea. If I was Obsidian, I'd demand a AAA budget in exchange for the implementations of Romances. Say... $50M-100M. Wow that's a steep goal, how much would you pledge towards a Romance objective Stun?

No doubt there is group of active and vociferous people on these forums who are utterly opposed to Romance on any level, buts that fine. Don't let them dishearten you. We still discuss and make suggestions for Romance in PoE 2 But we also have to realistic, you can't ask for Romance at the expense of the story. In other words a RPG with Romance but a bad story wouldn't be worth playing because Romance is just part of the party interaction and the actual story is something which defines your whole RPG experience

Yeah, no need to worry. I am also of the opinion that DA:I is going to offer us a very entertaining RPG experience

Am I the only one who finds this type of perspective hard to believe? The lack of effectiveness to implement proper immigration reform or control is really about the Democrats staying in power?

DA:I has Romance in it, I'll sell it to you no problem.... I'll probably play DA:I first and then PoE because I think PoE is only going to released in 2015. Then W2, no rush to play that game

Yes I know that type of heart condition, its where your heart beats at an erratic rhythm. Glad your mom is okay

http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html Absolutely not, liberal democracies offer there citizens the best quality of life and based on various indexes have the happiest citizens. They are not going anywhere and will continue to be the best way that less developed countries can transform there economies That link about the Hungarian president rejecting democracy just shows how little he knows, if its even true. He says the main reason for doing this is because of the 2008 financial crisis. This had nothing to do with liberal Democracies but was a more a failure of regulation of financial systems. That quote you posted also isn't applicable, for example lets say a real issue with liberal democracies was an example where people voted for a political party that said "no to tax". If the constitution of the country didn't protect the country from this type of dangerous economic step then the economy of the country would collapse. We have seen this throughout Africa where after colonialism new governments came to power and implemented there own version of economic reforms which were tantamount to economic collapse

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme. Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes. You are not seriously suggesting that if Syrian war had ended in 3 months. like Libya, ISIS would still be existence in its same form? ISIS gained in strength and structure as more and more foreign fighters came to Syria with there own brand of Islamic fundamentalism. ISIS didn't exist in Syria until at least a year into the conflict, if you disagree with me post some links to prove your point? Technically you're right since the name change to ISIS wasn't announced until April 2013 but functionally you're wrong. The expansion of ISI (the precursor to ISIS) occurred as early as December 2011 when it established the Nusra front in Syria (less than a year after the civil war started). Non-Syrian jihadists began joining ISI/ISIS almost immediately. The details: According to various sources, the Syrian civil war either started on 20 March 2011 in Daraa, after security forces opened fire on the protesting crowd or April 25, when the Syrian Army initiated wide scale attacks in multiple towns resulting in 1000+ deaths. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered northern Iraq, and in October, 2002, he formally joined Al Qaeda to create Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (Al Qaeda in Iraq – AQI). On June 7, 2006, Zarqawi was killed by an American airstrike. He was replaced by Abu Ayub al-Masri, an Egyptian. A few months later, in October 2006, al-Masri united several groups, most notably al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Mujahedeen Shura Council in Iraq, and Jund al-Sahhaba [soldiers of the Prophet’s Companions] and on October 13, declared the formation of Dawlat al-'Iraq al-Islamiyya (Islamic State of Iraq—ISI). On Oct. 15, 2006 he named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi its leader. ISI took Baquba, Iraq, as its capital and swore allegiance to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi as the group’s emir. Al-Nusra front (also the Nusra front or Jabhat al Nusra) was formed in Syria in December 2011 when emir Baghadi sent operative Abu Muhammad al-Julian to Syria. The group officially announced its creation on 23 January 2012. That's clearly less than a year after the Civil war started but not by a lot. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi played a key role in establishing Jabhat al-Nusra. But he considered Abu Mohammed al-Golani, Nusra’s leader, to be his subordinate with a duty to obey him. So Baghdadi announced the dissolution of Jabhat al-Nusra and the integration of its members into ISI, with the new organization being called the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham. Golani refused the order, but ISIS appeared on the scene with strength anyway. ISIS quickly announced its areas of operations publicly and took control of wide areas without facing much resistance, benefitting from the Jabhat al-Nusra fighters who defected to ISIS. Some estimates suggest that about 65% of Jabhat al-Nusra elements quickly declared their allegiance to ISIS. Most of those were non-Syrian jihadists. In April 2013, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced AQI’s operations in Syria and the group’s name change to ISIS; he reiterated the claim that AQI/ISI created the Al Nusra Front in Syria. Al-Baghdadi further stated that the two groups were on the verge of merging. Al-Julani agreed that AQI/ISI had aided al-Nusra from the beginning, but rejected the merger and renewed his pledge of allegiance to Al Qaeda commander Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri disputed this claim as well and officially annulled the merger, dictating that ISIS should limit its operations to Iraq. On June 29, 2014, ISIS again changed its name to simply the “Islamic State" or IS. Loyalty to al-Qaeda may be the common denominator between ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. ISIS has been under al-Qaeda’s banner since ISI was founded and inspired by the approach of Zarqawi, and from the jihadist doctrine stipulating “the loyalty of the branch is from the loyalty of the main [organization].” Therefore, ISIS’s loyalty is to al-Qaeda as long as [iSIS’s] emir Baghdadi “didn’t invalidate the allegiance” in an open manner. It should be noted that Baghdadi had refused to implement the decision of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri to dissolve ISIS while maintaining Jabhat al-Nusra and ISI intact. http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/1 http://web.stanford.edu/group/mappingmilitants/cgi-bin/groups/view/493 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ar/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html#ixzz39w0GZag4 PS: I'll take my shots at Obama in another post. This is a good post and I appreciate the way you always provide technical details around your perspective, but it doesn't fundamentally change my point that the Syrian conflict is the main reason ISIS exists in its current form and structure I'll respond properly tomorrow, I just landed from the UK and I am busy doing some other things before work tomorrow

Oooh. I love a good counter-factual. As you know, GD, I share a many of your libertarian values, albeit from a different cultural tradition. Nonetheless, I utterly understand where you are coming from and am [broadly] sympathetic. The biggest problem with libertarianism, as someone attracted to it, is it's Utopianism. All utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous, as they offer easy solutions to intractable problems. I'd throw some Hobbes into my libertarianism, some gnarly realism that went against the grain. For me, this means that America has an unenviable but inevitable role to play in preserving liberty beyond it's shores. It's a bitter pill, but one best swallowed. 2003. GW Bush leaves Iraq alone. What happens next? Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt? I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for. The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power. I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant. If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good. "Wow so the problems in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I ever heard one" really? is a common criticism and it is gaining much popularity. US influence in the region has been waning for years. obama's handling (non-handling) o' the syria situation were making him look weak and impotent, but recent problems in libya, israel and iraq has all called obama leadership into question. libya were touted as the big success, until recently. now it is looking to some folks like just another example o' obama fail. kerry gets no respect amongst the palestinians or israelis, so the egyptians, who is outspoken enemies o' the muslim brotherhood, gets called into to mediate 'tween israel and hamas? wtf? am not even needing to bring up recent arguments o' obama fail regarding isis/is in iraq. ​am not saying all the criticism is fair, but that you ain't heard obama being blamed is shocking. Presidents typical get disproportionate blame. the notion that media sources outside the US is going easy on obama is striking us as a bit odd. HA! Good Fun! How exactly is Obama looking weak by his actions in the ME? Lets break this down, he didn't listen to the Israelis and decided not to bomb Iran, we now have Iran coming to the negotiation table not through military threat or action but through sanctions and the economic impact that were hurting there economy . He didn't not to ignore the US security council veto and act unilaterally in Syria, because the USA would have had to act alone in Syria because after the chemical attacks even the British parliament voted on no military action. This just makes sense as after Iraq you can't seriously think the USA is going to go against the UN security council unless there interests are really threatened.,...and in Syria it is a terrible war but the USA is not really impacted by this. And once again the Libya regime change was handled correctly, its the new Libyan governments responsibility to manage there government. The USA cannot be expected to do this unless you suggest they try to do it like they did it Iraq and we know how that ended up No USA president has ever resolved the issues between the Israel and Palestinians, so if this makes him weak then so are all previous USA presidents So tell me what you would do differently if you were the president and you could order military action based on the political and historical reality of the ME? I find it strange that people think the definition of the USA being weak is not using military force to resolve every possible crisis, this is not weak to me but prudent and what is to be expected after Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm not saying you are saying this Gromnir, but this is a criticism that is often levelled at Obama..for example " you decided not to attack Iran"...this makes us look weak. Despite the fact the crisis over Iran has been reduced through sanctions and not military intervention

Volo,I know you talking about others when you say they are losers. I know you don't think I'm a loser....right Volo

. What happens next? Gadaffi remains in power. North Korea puffs outs it's chest, as does Iran, and now has nukes with a far-extended range. The Arab spring happens anyway, but ISIS analogues take over Egypt? I dunno. The world is a mess now, but given the realities of the Middle East and the thirty-year war within Islam (i.e. Shia versus Sunni) it was going to be a mess anyway. Sometimes having the mess that suits you best is the most you can hope for. The biggest mistake George W Bush made was paving the way for Obama. He is completely unsuited to the challenges your country faces. He is a sunny-skies president in stormy times. Like most leftists, he hasn't a clue what to do when there's no tax money to foist on client voters, and views foreign affairs as a distraction from consolidating party political power. I look at it like this - whatever space the America vacates leaves room for either (a) Islamists (b) Russians or (c ) The Chinese. Furthermore, your southern borders are hostile, and will become increasingly so as Latin America eyes you ever-more warily. As for A,B & C, as a Briton, there are not people I wish to see in the ascendant. If Europe falls, the West falls. America is the bulwark of Western values. We're in this together, this strange, fractured post-Cold War. So I understand why Isolationist values might appeal, but in the long-term they will do America little good. Wow so the problems in the ME are all Obamas fault, that's a new spin if I ever heard one GD is right is some ways, if America hadn't gone into Iraq Saddam Hussein would still be in power and would still be suppressing brutally any sectarian violence within his county. The Arab spring would still have happened and therefore the Syrian conflict would still have happened. But ISIS would never be as powerful as it is now as the original ISIS fighters, who would have still flocked to Syria anyway to fight Assad, wouldn't have been able to align themselves with the disenfranchised tribal Sunni's in Iraq., So in that case there is no doubt the invasion of Iraq has lead to the formation of ISIS in its current structure But I don't blame the USA for the situation because if Al-Maliki had incorporated the Sunnis into his new government ISIS would also not be in the same position. So I guess it depends on who you want to blame? I feel countries need to take control of there own destinies and Iraq was given that chance in 2011, you can't blame the USA for Iraq mismanagement of there new political system?