Elerond

Here is background check in conversation before White March expansion, which could have added some new ones. Aristocrat: 8 Artist: 4 Clergyman: 7 (4 unique) Colonist: 9 Dissident: 6 Drifter: 4 Explorer: 9 Hunter: 10 Laborer: 8 Mercenary: 8 Merchant: 11 Mystic: 5 Philosopher: 11 Raider: 11 Scholar: 13 Scientist: 6 Slave: 7

Depends on background, some have quite lot conversation options and some have just couple.

That is quite supremacist article, which quite well reflects current change in political climate. In my opinion article is half assed and even dangerously bad failure of journalism. But everybody is for their own.

Yep, that was the point. Esp. in context, with his earlier posts, it was "simplified" to the point of being wrong. "Our atmosphere consists of CO2" is also "simplified". It contains CO2 which even plays an important role, but... you get the idea. And I would still dispute that Western intervention in any meaningful sense caused the uprising against Assad. Popular unrest in the Arab states - usually against dictators supported by the West - is nothing new. Even in Syria, slaughtering the populace for rebelling is a good Assad family tradition. In 2011, after Ben Ali surprised everyone by chickening out of Tunisia, and the reform movement in Egypt gained ground, people in other Arab states followed suit. What the West did until that point, apart from supporting a few human rights organisations, was basically just existing, with the clear message "we're rich and democratic and you can, too!" The Arab peoples rose against their leaders *in spite* of Western meddling like the Iraq war, or the support of Israel.Things like sanctions and a few attempts at supporting the opposition mostly came after Assad started shooting people and torturing children. Sure, the situation now is a lot worse. But I'm not convinced that we should therefore just let dictators do their stuff because there might be even bigger idiots around (and I'm not even talking about military intervention, just sanctions and things like that). And I certainly disagree with the line of thought that because our feeble attempts at punishing Assad contributed to preventing him from crushing the rebellion, we're somehow "responsible" for the situation in Syria, and the refugees (yay, topic! ) My point was that you said that claim was completely which is as wrong statement itself Western interventions didn't cause uprising against al-Assad, but they caused that first time to over three decades Syrian rebels had actually power to challenge tyrannic regime of al-Assad's family, and that ISIL/ISIS could gather enough support in Iraq to become force that need to be recognized. This are factors that have heavily influenced things that have driven things to become current refugee crises. By feeble attempts to punish Assad's regime you mean cutting tens of billions from Syria's GDP and nearly cutting all their support lines from neighboring countries. Economical sanctions from "West" are quite devastating even such self depend countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea, for Syria that actually needs to trade to work they were much more devastating, not because they cut their supply lines completely, but because they made everything so much more expensive. There is reason why Assad was so ready to give up their chemical weapons even though there actually was quite small risk that anybody would invade them. Because such losses in their economy al-Assad's regime has not had been able to equip their soldiers or buy ammunition to their heavy weaponry to such point that ISIL/ISIS have start to become better equipped than their soldiers. And I have not argued that West actions in ME weren't justified I have only pointed out that they have now consequences in form of several crises, which most dominant (factored by how much they have direct effect towards West) are current refugee crises. I have also argued that we can't just claim that those crises are caused by ME and we have some sort high horse position where we are just benevolent helpers who selflessly give their riches for poor people who have caused all that misery by themselves.

As western "aggressions and interventions" were partial cause that lead in current situation, meaning that what ktchong wrote was not complete nonsense but too simply put as there is other factors like interventions from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, governance history of Syria, history of Saddam's regime in Iraq, divination of Muslim faith, history of minority groups in the region, and so on and so forth. Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas. I'm not sure why you are still disputing the reality of what caused the Civil War in Syria? It was not caused by Russia or the West. There was only one factor that caused it....the Arab Spring I can't explain this anymore as I'm going for dinner now I must say that I am quite loss how you can put Arab Spring as major/sole reason of anything that is happened in ME, because it just references series of uprisings that were caused by multiple different things. But anyway you have convinced me that actually South Africa is the real reason behind of all these crises

As western "aggressions and interventions" were partial cause that lead in current situation, meaning that what ktchong wrote was not complete nonsense but too simply put as there is other factors like interventions from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, governance history of Syria, history of Saddam's regime in Iraq, divination of Muslim faith, history of minority groups in the region, and so on and so forth. Syria works as example how even minor intervention can cause unstable situation to explode much worse crisis, meaning that US supporting Syrian rebel groups together from sanctions from quite lot of nations lead in situation where Syrian government could not prevent ISIL/ISIS to take over large parts of the Syria under their control and when those some of rebel groups that US supported sundered to Al-Qaida it meant that there are now two terrorist groups in Syria that control large areas.

First of all, though, it's dead wrong. And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess. Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand. Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions. I'm sorry to disagree with you again but I fail to see how the US, EU and NATO are responsible for Syria. This civil war was caused by the Arab Spring I'm happy to read any links you can find. You see this is an important because if you right then I woulds say the West needs to take some refugees but once again why should they if they had nothing to do with it ? The ME surly needs to "Anti-Western" is just a term I use to describe people who basically dislike the West, don't trust the West or tend to blame the West for things its not responsible for. There will always be people on every forum who dislike the USA or the UK..its normal but I just like to know why When you give weapons to rebels that fight against Syrian government and put said government under trade embargo, and threaten everybody that helps said government with trade embargo, and when you have destabilize neighboring country with decade of war and leave it under governance of government that don't have control over whole country and who also could be said to persecute some of country's population you create environment that explodes easily to civil war and let criminal elements take control over things, which leads to situation where said country becomes unattractive and even dangerous for its basic citizens. Here is some links that give one picture how actions from US, EU and NATO have cause destabilization in ME and therefore are partial cause of current crises. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sanctions-on-syria http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/syria.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/crisis-iraq-was-rise-isil-surp-2014122592114375688.html http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/earlier-intervention-could-have-prevented-the-rise-of-isil-turkish-pm-tells-cnn.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86036&NewsCatID=338 Yes but none of those links dispute what I have been saying from the beginning The war was started due to the Arab Spring and how some Syrians wanted more political freedom....its not that hard to believe And yes this means the West did not start the war but they did provide aid as I acknowledged in the beginning Arab Spring would not happened or it would happened differently without western interventions in ME and North Africa. Western interventions in Syria has made it impossible for al-Assad's regime to take back their control over Syria Iraq's war and how west influenced Iraq's new government lead and made possible that ISIL born and is as powerful as it is These things have had sever effects that have contributed to current refugee crises, which is what I said in first place when I said that western actions have been partial cause behind refugee crises and there are no singular reason for them, but it is undeniable if you actually look things that western actions have contributed current crises.

First of all, though, it's dead wrong. And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess. Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand. Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions. I'm sorry to disagree with you again but I fail to see how the US, EU and NATO are responsible for Syria. This civil war was caused by the Arab Spring I'm happy to read any links you can find. You see this is an important because if you right then I woulds say the West needs to take some refugees but once again why should they if they had nothing to do with it ? The ME surly needs to "Anti-Western" is just a term I use to describe people who basically dislike the West, don't trust the West or tend to blame the West for things its not responsible for. There will always be people on every forum who dislike the USA or the UK..its normal but I just like to know why When you give weapons to rebels that fight against Syrian government and put said government under trade embargo, and threaten everybody that helps said government with trade embargo, and when you have destabilize neighboring country with decade of war and leave it under governance of government that don't have control over whole country and who also could be said to persecute some of country's population you create environment that explodes easily to civil war and let criminal elements take control over things, which leads to situation where said country becomes unattractive and even dangerous for its basic citizens. Here is some links that give one picture how actions from US, EU and NATO have cause destabilization in ME and therefore are partial cause of current crises. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11203825/Syrian-rebels-armed-and-trained-by-US-surrender-to-al-Qaeda.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/covert-cia-mission-to-arm-syrian-rebels-goes-awry-1422329582 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sanctions-on-syria http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/syria.aspx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/12/crisis-iraq-was-rise-isil-surp-2014122592114375688.html http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/earlier-intervention-could-have-prevented-the-rise-of-isil-turkish-pm-tells-cnn.aspx?pageID=238&nID=86036&NewsCatID=338

First of all, though, it's dead wrong. And after that, when asking why it's being said anyway, being "anti-West" usually is a good guess. Denying that aggression and interventions from US, EU and NATO don't have any role in current refugee crisis is just as much denying reality as saying that there is no climate change, especially such where humans play part. Of course like every complex issue there is no single cause behind them and no singular point of time that could be pointed out to be the start, but still denying it happening is just dishonest and putting one's head in sand. Also claims of "anti-West" are usually most dishonest because there are no singular West and people from the "West" that are critical towards so called actions of "West" aren't usually any way "anti-West", but people that don't agree at least with all actions that their leadership has decided to do, which as itself is very "West"-like mindset and way to think, because it is "Western way" to question and criticize actions by our governments. I would go even so far that people that yell "anti-West" when people criticize actions of our governments are more "anti-West" than those who criticize those actions.

First all the ME countries must do there part then the West can get involved , the Syrians are Muslims FFS so it would be great to actually see the Muslim world take responsibility. But no as usual its always the West who has to make the real effort. Yet it will still get criticized and attacked and accused of Colonialism It is actually Muslim majority countries that currently do most for the Syria crises and West actually does quite little. As currently Muslim majority countries give most aid for Syrian, they do most of the air strikes against ISIL, they take most of the refugees and they take most of the economical hits that said crises cause. But currently everybody look after their own interest instead actually trying to find real solutions to the crises and probably hoping that crises fill burn themselves out without need of much of actual effort, but currently it seems that those hopes will not come true anytime soon and especially so that those crises don't create new crises closer to home. I don't like disagreeing with you because we often agree on almost all SJ issues, you are a very reasonable liberal whose opinion is actually shaped on his real life experiences so I can always understand where you coming from. But I need to correct a few things about your view on this matter as I want you on my side and when I'm finished I'm sure you will agree So statistically of course some ME countries that border Syria have taken in Syrians, Turkey has 2.1 million Syrians. But here is the problem, all Syrian refugees are not integrated but kept in Refugee Camps....they are safe, have meager supplies and have some services but they can't work in the outside world or travel freely. They just stay in the camps, its not a very nice life This would be considered inhumane in Western countries and not be allowed. I didn't want to mention this before because it is shameful that the Syrians are literally seen as outsiders and NO effort in these ME countries is made to integrate them. When the West integrates refugees it properly integrates them. They get housing, benefits and citizenship. So please don't think for a second when we talk about " accepting Syrian refugees" this means the same effort and intergration for the West and ME Now the aid point, people say " the Saudi give aid to Syria" ( and this applies to all countries ) but lets break this down. The Saudis do give aid to the free Syrian army fighting in Syria, they are the main ones shipping weapons and they are very involved in the war as one of the main backers of forces opposed to Assad. I dont have an issue with this, its good that the Saudis are getting more hands on in the ME and not expecting the West to do it. But these refugees are coming out from ISIS territories. If anything the Saudis should feel responsible for this. Why cant they take in tens of thousands of Syrians, I have worked in Saudi Arabia for 3 months and trust me that country has loads of space and empty desert where they could build refugee camps Yes I agree that there is a cost to maintaining these "camps " but guess what ...do you know how much aid these ME countries have been given by the international community? The EU has given 3.9 Billion Euro alone ...don't think for a second these ME countries don't accept aid. So I'm not sure where this economic issue is ? So in summary the ME has done very little meaningful effort for the Syrians ....and there are countries that even refuse to house any Syrians. We need to get to a point where the ME must take responsibility for its own social issues ...the West can't carry the load because it creates a constant cycle of lack of responsibility And Im tired of it because despite all this compromise the West is still resented and blamed I think your wrong mental image how majority of Syrian refugees are accommodate in EU, because they are in camps that would look similar to those in ME if there were same number of people, because currently there are no concrete plans how those people should be accommodated. Especially in Hungary and Greece's isles refugees are in quite bad conditions, which is at least one reason why they try to continue their flight towards northern Europe where they think things are better, but that is not necessary true, as refugees are mainly put in refugee centers that are currently over crowded and for example in Finland quite lot of refugees has to sleep in broom closets and similar small spaces. Which has lead to situation where private citizens offer to take refugees to live in their houses until government get their head straight with this situation and can organize more refugee centers (as I am quite sure that more refugee centers will be the solution that they come up in month or two when EU's decision of refugee divination finalizes ) So refugee camps in Turkey , Lebanon and Jordan aren't actually that much inhumane that places where we put Syrian refugees here, but we only need to deal with couple thousand and they need to deal with millions, which is absolutely more difficult problem especially for Lebanon where number of refugees is about fifth of whole population, meaning that economical and infrastructural burden they cause is absolutely massive, especially when you compare it to that fact that, EU which has over 500 million citizen and is one of the world riches area with very good infrastructure that is capable to support much higher population, has taken less refugees and people here start to claim that we don't have money to support them. To sum my point, we should not belittle efforts that Turkey, Jordan and especially Lebanon have put to help Syrian refugees and we should not give too much credit for EU doing good job with them, as EU currently really do about minimum what is demanded from them by The 1951 Refugee Convention, and quite lot of our leaders would like to find way to do less. And USA's efforts to help Syrian refugees has currently been nearly nonexistent as nation. 3.9 Billion (it is about how much Finland gives aid to domestic agriculture) is quite marginal sum for EU countries collectively is quite small numbers as their collective GDP is more than 15 000 billion euros, and there is currently plans (and some cases there already has been cuts) to cut from development aid. Meaning that we really don't really financially burden us really by giving money to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan so that they would handle Syrian refugees.

First all the ME countries must do there part then the West can get involved , the Syrians are Muslims FFS so it would be great to actually see the Muslim world take responsibility. But no as usual its always the West who has to make the real effort. Yet it will still get criticized and attacked and accused of Colonialism It is actually Muslim majority countries that currently do most for the Syria crises and West actually does quite little. As currently Muslim majority countries give most aid for Syrian, they do most of the air strikes against ISIL, they take most of the refugees and they take most of the economical hits that said crises cause. But currently everybody look after their own interest instead actually trying to find real solutions to the crises and probably hoping that crises fill burn themselves out without need of much of actual effort, but currently it seems that those hopes will not come true anytime soon and especially so that those crises don't create new crises closer to home.

Oh yes, the US invaded Iraq because Amerians wanted to sprinkle fairy dust on Iraqis, bring Jesus to them, give them Christmas presents and Easter eggs and Disneyland, yadda yadda yadda. Talk about denial and the white savior/superiority complex. Sure because a Democracy and having a free society is a bad idea right ...where do you live again North Korea? If USA's goal was to implement a democratic system in Iraq they failed quite miserably in their efforts. Because they failed, for example, to ensure Iraq's government has control over the land, remove power from local militant leaders, ensure democratic right for entire Iraq's population, not just for Shias, they failed to secure Iraq's boarders after they demolished secure forces from Saddam's regime. And quite lot of other mistakes that were made during invasion in Iraq. And this don't take account it how strange and undemocratic it is for outside power to push democratic system in country where there is no clear demand for such. But anyway because of lot of things there is civil war in Iraq which results will determine what kind country (countries) it will become and what kind of governance they will have. Currently free society and democracy don't seem to be the winning side.

Europeans fled in other European countries and USA during WW2. Nearly 100k Finns (although they were mostly children) fled to Sweden and thousands fled in USA (before they become enemy state) to get safe from Russians and after WW2 tens of thousands migrated to Sweden and USA to get better life. When people decide to flee their homes they usually flee, if they are able, towards something that they see better than what they had instead of something that they feel to be worse.

Yes, it has been especially confusing that Finnish press has given this story so much of their time.

But Amentep what would happen if she was found to be stealing? Court could give her punishment according to law, but she would not lose her position as county clerk without impeachment procedure or until her time in office runs out and she isn't elected back. In my knowledge it is same for all elected officials in Kentucky and many other states in US (Also lots of other countries have similar protections for elected officials).

Not necessarily, sorry to rain on your parade. We've absorbed close to 7 million immigrants, and despite the unemployment rates and economic crisis, far-right parties are still niche at best, without parliamentary representation or significant street support. Propaganda and hate-mongering are a bigger factor in the rise of extreme political movements than anything else, provided that people at large have their basic needs covered. And by the time they don't, you have bigger problems anyway. Oh, you mean over a 30 year period where most are from EU and Latin america, leaving about 750k from Marocco? And most in an orderly fashion? Yeah, exactly the same thing. https://www.facebook.com/LordChips/videos/10153011938595863/?fref=nf ^Shared over 6 million times. This is big. It is watched over 6 million times shared only 265900 times. So it is quite far behind your typical facebook cat video

In Syria's case it is difficult thing to decide which side one should fight if they want to protect their country, as country is currently ruled by Bashar al-Assad, who is considered by western nations to be dictator who is willing to use chemical weapons against civilian population. Other options are several militant opposition groups that are mostly considered being terrorist by western countries and who aren't offering anything bettern than al-Assad's regime. And then there is ISIL that is considered to be new Nazis by western countries and one of the worst terrorist organizations that world has seen, that preaches extremely radical Islam and is willing to do very horrendous things to those that opposite them and even those that support them in some cases if they break their extremists rules. In case of Iraq things are bit muddier, although Iraq has currently government made of shia muslims, who don't seem to have ability to control their country and who look dis-favorably Iraq's sunni muslim minority (that was in power during Saddam Hussein's era), which has created inner conflict that is helped ISIL take control over large parts of Iraq. Kurdi populations are oppressed in nearly every country they live in, although they seem to be people that are most willing to fight, probably because they see this crisis as opportunity to create new country for Kurdis. Libya is currently absolute mess where nobody really has control over the country which has created in many place very lawless environment and power vacuum where one has hard time to determine who they should support to power. Somalia has been in bad shape for long time now and current crisis in Middle East and north Africa has only made things worse. Although from western stand point there is government that has western support, but there are parts in Somalia where that government don't have any control over things, as they are controlled by extremists islamic groups. Meaning that it can be difficult to choose side in war where every side fights against your interests and world views.

This case seem so straightforward, but still it seems to cause so much dramatic statements from every side of issue One, County Clerk refuses to fulfill her obligations for her office and prevents her subordinates to fulfill their obligations to their offices, because of her personal convictions. Two, said County Clerk refuses to resign from her office Three, Kentucky's legislature's next regular session will be in January, which would be next time when they can rise impeachment procedure against said Clerk as Kentucky's governor has no plans to call special session for such matter. Four, Said Clerk refused to follow order from court to do their duty So it seem to me to be quite normal that said Clerk was held for contempt of court regardless of why she refused to do her duty and follow order from the court to do so. Meaning that is quite normal case of failure to do their duty by official, that turned additional round of fight about equal marriage in media, as articles about that subject has been good click collectors in the past few years.

Nonsense, the Palestinians living in West Bank / Gaza / Lebanon are not Israeli citizens, and simply stamping your foot and declaring them so because it fits your argument is a pretty childish thing to do. As long as Israel and most of world's other countries says that those areas where they live belongs in Israel, they are citizens of Israel regardless what government of Israel and other claim.

Military campaigns against its own citizens. Isolating its own citizens to areas that are walled off from rest of country, because they belong in minority and discriminatingly bombing said citizen because they live and move in areas where they (Israel's government) say criminals(terrorists) have said to keep their strongholds. Actively denying full rights of their citizens because they belong in minority that follow different religion than majority of the population. Denying right to vote from their citizens, because they belong in minority.

Soon™ strategy is something that has worked very well for Blizzard. It is vacation season and Obsidian don't have dedicate community manager(s) for PoE and this expansion isn't anymore part of their KS, but more traditionally published product. Which means that they probably will mostly give information about it through press releases (which they already did quite much with PoE itself).

Not much of a surprise really. I don't see why she even bothered writing a letter about it. It's not like her pro-Israel stance is some kinda mystery. It's one of the few topics where I agree with her. Why do you guys have a problem with it? I don't have a problem with Israel myself (don't know nearly enough about the Israeli-Palestinian situation to have an opinion on it). That is the problem. Currently there is just one country Israel but people treat it like there are two countries and that Palestinians are something else than full citizens of Israel, which has lead in situation where there are in arguably two countries inside one, but one of these countries don't really have any say what is going to happen for them. And when you add historic animosity between these two populations you get current cold war situation which looks like that it isn't solvable without very extreme actions that will change significantly dynamics between these two populations.

Nonsense, there is no causal link between overnutrition/wastefulness in the 1st world, and starvation in the 3rd world. If 1stworlders were more frugal with food, the consequence would not be more food on the tables in Africa, it would be more money left in the pockets of the 1stworders for other things (and less food getting produced in the first place). Hunger in the 3rd world is a consequence of: lack of infrastructure and technology which would be needed to produce enough food locally (irrigation etc.) lack of infrastructure which would be needed to live off non-local food (roads & transportation, supermarkets, non-corrupt authorities) lack of protection against natural disasters civil war and displacement governments that fail to protect property rights, and prevent the poor from having access to the market economy the success of the 1st world eco movement in banning and/or sabotaging GMO enhanced crops that could dramatically increase the productivity of poor farmers Although I never claimed that there is such causation, point behind my post was more to say that things like this is not done because there would not otherwise be enough food for human population and this kind additional food production happens mostly in countries that already produce so much food that it cause problems for them. Also one sad fact is that third world countries aren't only places where people suffer from malnutrition. Meaning that lack of food production or too much population aren't reasons why these whales were made to food. If we want to name reasons behind this act there seem to be three main reasons; tradition, economical, and culinary. Which are reasons which people should weight in when they ponder morality of this act, not need to produce food to feed people suffering from hunger, as it is very unlikely that this act actually cause any food to go for such people.

Although currently there is much more food produced for people in world than whole human population would needs with large margin, but still we have over billion people that suffer from malnutrition and countries that suffer from consequences of overnutrition and problems caused by wasted food.

I think you pick poor choice of example as Pallegina is godlike, who all are infertile