Elerond

People have just understood bible's message wrong and god actually looks like sahelanthropus tchadensis, not homo sapiens

I find using ones privileges (member majority power in society, rich, healthy, full functional body, etc.) or handicaps (member of minority power in society, poor, sick, functional issues in body, etc.) as reason why their arguments don't or shouldn't count as very bad form of argumentation, although I concede that such have influence on how one sees and interprets issues. Reasonable arguments from one point of view, may look from another point view very unreasonable arguments. Which is why this kind arguments can be very unproductive and hostile. There sadly isn't easy answer how to solve such issues, as such bromides like "look things from other person perspective" are much easier to say than actually embraced.

Heavy crushing and lances weapons weren't solution against plate armors. Maces, War hammers, axes, etc. were upgraded so that they got better in penetrating plate armors by adding spikes and other things in them. But these weapons were mainly used by people that wore also plate armors, because their lack of reach made them poor weapons for rank and file troops, which is why they mainly used spears, pikes, halberds and pollaxes as their main weapons and swords/daggers as side arms. There is really no relation between weapon type bonuses in PoE and how those weapons work in real life. Weapon type bonuses are there for gameplay reason not because weapons try to be realistic. Also barbarians' carnage is really planed to be soul powered ability that barbarian class only has access, which is why it isn't depended on which weapon barbarian uses. Although changes to PoE's lore have made this bit obscure thing, to give barbarian less magic powered feeling. But really reason why carnage is same for all the weapons is to make sure that players option to choose weapons for their barbarians isn't restricted by disadvantages caused by game mechanics (of course some could say that current system still puts some weapons in disadvantageous position because of better carnage + weapon type bonus combination effects). Also carnage is same to all weapons because it is easier to implement single factor that determines size of carnage area than system with multiple factors that effect how large carnage area is.

Yeah its interesting, we all seem to have the same general view of Trump " ha ha...its Trump. Look at the silly things he says...he has NO chance" Yet his support makes me wonder if we all aren't missing something. Anyway it is early in the GOP presidential race so I am sure he will implode on his own It's his inhabitation to speak his mind that brings him support, especially in polls when other candidates try to be somewhat careful with what they say, currently he eats support from Ted Crush, Chris Cristine, and Rand Paul who have previously been those candidates who have seen most politically incorrect. Also Jeb Bush has lost his support in polls, but that is probably more because it took so long from him to decide that he will run and he has been very conservative in giving any statements of anything. Contrarians, which is role that Trump seems to play, always find their support, but usually they can't persuade majority of population to change their opinions of things, which is usually needed if one wants to be president, in parliament/congress/senate/etc. elections contrarians usually have easier time to become elected.

1. second change revives character whose endurance has gone to zero back to action with small amount of endurance 2. Those are OK for start and later on you can upgrade fine to exceptional and add one of the slaying enchantments to it. 3. hard to say. I am not sure what you actually want to do. Formations can help when you want to get party members in positions that you want them. 4. There is not really any really good info about expansion yet.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game. we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error. have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game? as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious. good move by obsidian. HA! Good Fun! If that was the goal, a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save would've served. This doesn't maintain the integrity of PoE as a roleplaying game, it undermines it. Roleplaying games are about choices made, including the development of the character(s). There's no reason it should be exempt and the game allow you to yo-yo your character any more than the game should allow you to take back decisions made as part of the storyline or in quests. From that picture it is difficult to say how many times player can respec/retrain one character. True, but from it's placement I think it's fair to say that it's "in-universe". Once or twice or prohbiatively expensive doesn't really matter at that point. In that respect I don't see it to be any different from ability to hire and change companions in every inn or from ability to control stronghold from anywhere in the world, or unlimited stash, etc.. Meaning that it is just gameplay function that helps players life not something that is tied to be part of world of Eora. In my opinion such UI button is much better implementation than for example respec amulets in DA:I or respec potion in Witcher 3, or any other in-game world version of respect that we have seen in multitude of the games.

given the depth and breadth o' changes that is arriving with 2.0, this is a welcome improvement that maintains the integrity o' poe as a role-play game. we will not need have our player concept invalidated 'cause o' developer whim or error. have us need restart to maintain role-play or gameplay continuity, regardless o' the fact that we invested +40 hours into the game? as between burdening the developers so that they need add a respec feature, or burdening the player who has invested tens of hours into the game, am thinking the choice is obvious. good move by obsidian. HA! Good Fun! If that was the goal, a one-time respec upon loading a pre-2.0 save would've served. This doesn't maintain the integrity of PoE as a roleplaying game, it undermines it. Roleplaying games are about choices made, including the development of the character(s). There's no reason it should be exempt and the game allow you to yo-yo your character any more than the game should allow you to take back decisions made as part of the storyline or in quests. From that picture it is difficult to say how many times player can respec/retrain one character.

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people. Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No? The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund. Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties). It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners. You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak. Funds are created directly by banks or with bank support in the background as a creditor, which again makes them the owner of the funds. There is no such things as "not owned by anyone" that should be clear, someone somewhere owns that. Even if its the bonds or the dept directly. I mean seriously if that would be true i could get a credit that is owmed by noone..give me a million...no ones own it..nope..someone owns my ass then I understand what you say, yes a devaluation has always negative sides. No question there. But in the end it helps not only to hinder or mild a crisis but it also gives the power to your national bank and with that to your country. Your country has done that very often and it helped. What do you do know? nothing, you are bound to the euro and the eurozone. You can´t decide, you as your country. You are ****ed. You are a good canditate to be the next greece, has austeriy helped you? Has the EU law helped you? Has the Euro helped you? No. It hasnt. Just like here, for everything you gained (your expansion out of your crisis) you had to pay...now comes the end. Example, the Fin export went up, but as soon as the euro went up dozens of companies had to close and thousands lost their job. Well, it was the same here. Devaluting your currency is NOT austerity, this doesnt even come close, and i that means i don´t know a thing, than so be it. I think i have a very clear view. Funds aren't created to work as creditor, but instance that handles somebody elses money. Creditors are instances that give people, corporations and goverments loans. Banks have usually both and if they aren't pure finnancical banks they also offer possiblity to deposit money which their creditor side usually then loans forward partially (because these days bank usually aren't allowed to loan full amount). In case of Greece's privatization fund there is created new institution (which funded by EU and itself) that should not have ties to banks and governments, which only purpose is to find buyers for the assets that Greece government decides to sell and then they control money that is get from those trades so that 25 billion goes to fund Greece's banks, 12.5 billion is put to pay their debts and 12.5 billion will be invested in Greece. Of course it is possibility that some bank will bought those assets that are put on sale, but most probably buyers will be international mega corporations (which some own banks) and richer citizens and corporations of Greece. And until point where assets are sold they are owned by Greece's state and Greece goverment is able to take them off from sale and put something else to be sold instead. So Greece don't relinquish any their assets before they get paid, but they can't change where money goes as it is already decided, except in case of surplus (they get more than 50 billion). It is much more important (for general public) to have stable currency than be able to control it fully. There is always other means to balance your economy and it also works as incentive for goverments actually do financically solid decisions as they can't just but everything to shoulders of others when they mess up. Devaluating a currency is austerity method, it is extreme method for government to cut their spendings by cutting value of their debt and this cut is heavilly paid by people of state because value of their money drops. In my opinon goverment should always use much more controlled methods of austerity where it is much easier to predict consequences of choosen actions. In devaluating it is always blind strike in darkness and then hope for the best, because there is always so much unforseen consequences.

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people. Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No? The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund. Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties). It gets sold over some ways and it will end there. A bank is also owend by a person This is no secret nor are the owners. You....seem very naive, despite the fact that Finland went thru that? What do think will happen? In the past Finladn woudl devaluted its currencfy and went back up in the market...now...well if you think that this situation is good. Then good luck. Because austertity never worked, and it also didn´t work for Finland. This time however will be differend. But then, good luck with that billions on loses with Russian trade thanks to the EU Funds aren't banks. They are corporations that handle financial matters for somebody else, like for example buy and sell stocks for people. Many banks have funds that they use to offer such services for their customers, but in this case we speak about new independent (not owned by anybody) fund that will handle selling of those assets. Devaluating currency is very over valued method to solve economical problems of state. Of course it is nice for state that has lot of income in other currencies to say that their own currency is now only tenth of its previous value in those other currencies and then pay loans that they have taken in their own currency off, nice and easy. But it isn't nice and easy for citizen of state, because such measure means that they lose quite lot money which can often be destatating amount. For example it was November when Finnish goverment decided to devalue Finnish mark, which meant that thousads of businesses had just ordered stuff that they planed to sell in Christmas markets and most of those companies had all their monetary assets in Finnish marks, which meant that overnight value of their orders had rised to tenfold in Finnish marks, meaning that most of them didn't have money to pay their orders, which lead flood of bankruptcies. Also banks that had loaned money to goverment and who had bussiness in abroad found themselves in situation where they didn't have money to give people which lead their bankruptcies, which mean that hundreds of thousands Finns lose their savings. This cause massive rise of suicades in Finland. So in my opinion stability of euro even with all it problems is much better for general population of Finland than give back ability to control our currency to our government. And if you think that devaluting currency isn't very extremely form of austerity then I think you don't know what you speak.

Eveything has a good and a bad site. There is no reason to point out the obvious. BUT I disagree with the privitasation, we are talking about Greece biggest income here sold to bankers, as long as the ports etc are in goverment property they decide what goes in/out how it gets taxed etc. Now they won´t they are forced to completley sell out how is that not clear? How can anyone support this? Privatatzion is one thing, but ****ing forcing everything including the life line (in/export) and the islands for bankers..i mean seriously...think people. Or..has anyone seen a good side on this despite "may/possible/fantasy". No? The Fin minister was clearly against it. But then, FInland can´t take much more cant it? :> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/15/finland-boom-election-recession-oulu-miracle-timber-nokia It is not sold to bankers, but their privatisation is given to independent fund which have strict specifications where money from the privatization should go (demands to found such fund shows how deep the distrust is between debitors [mainly Germany] and Greece government), but Greece still is owner of those assets until said independent fund has found buyer for those assets. Also it will be Greece itself that decides what of their public assets they will sell, but as their ports, postal service, islands and electric grid have highest value on private sector and weakest profitably in public sector, it is natural that they are the suggested assets to be privatisated. Where for example I havenät seen suggestions of privatizing very profitable Hellenic Petroleum anywhere, even though it alone would worth that 50 billion euros that set to be size of that privatisation fund. Finnish ministers don't know what they think about privatisation, but Finland has gone through heavier privatisation of public assets than what is now (and previously) demanded from Greece (given that estimated values for Greece assets are even close to their real value), and our ministers still plan to do more privatisation especially in medical and eldery care sectors. Also Finland itself is currenlt going through heavy austerity methods, because of decrease in our economy in recent years (which is also lead situation where two thrid of our goverment is controlled by EU and euro critical parties).

Private and public ownerships have their own good and bad sides. But privatisation of public owned assets like ports, electric grid, postal service, don't mean that state will lose money, but it can mean that those sectors will hire less people, cut services in non-profitable areas, increased service costs. But monetary flow from those services to state usually increases signifigantly, because state don't anymore need to spent money to run those services, they just get money part of their sales, salaries, and other monetary transactions. So in monetary sense privatisation is nearly always better for the state, but that don't mean that all effects caused by privatisation is better for the state.

Do you have some valid links that suggest the Greeks are the hardest working in Europe ? I find that extremely hard to believe....I would have to see the context as well If the Greeks were that hard working they wouldn't be in the situation they in In statistics they have most clocked workhours, but that don't necessary mean that they are most productive with their hours. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17155304 Also it should be noted that all the numbers in statistics in this subject comes from national statistics and surveys, and that there isn't some common methods or standards in how this are or should be done.

And where do you think they got their data from? The calculation of the size and development of the shadow economy is done with the MIMIC (Multiple Indica-tors and Multiple Courses) estimation procedure. Using the MIMIC estimation procedure one gets only relative values and one needs other methods like the currency demand approach or the income discrepancy method, to calibrate the MIMIC values into absolute ones. For a detailed explanation of these calculation methods see Friedrich Schneider, editor, Handbook on the Shadow Economy, Cheltenham (UK): Edward Elgar Publishing Com-pany, 2011, and Friedrich Schneider and Colin C. Williams, 2013, The Shadow Economy, The Institute of Economic Affairs, IEA, London, 2013. The calculated values for 2014 are projections for some countries, for 2015 they are projections for all coun-tries, based on the forecasts of the official figures (GDP, unemployment, etc.) of these countries.

Estimated shadow economy sizes for OECD countries from 2003 to 2015 http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Schneider/files/publications/2015/ShadEcEurope31.pdf

Ready yourself to read quite lot text, lower space, need to control multiple characters at same time. Basics are similar, create character, try to find best equipment that supports your build, kill monsters (although game focuses more on quest than killing enemies).

Steam http://store.steampowered.com EDIT: You need to activate the key in you steam client to add it your collection. [Games->Activate product in Steam] EDIT2: If you want to give feedback about Paradox store, I would recomend to use their forums, because then it is much more probable that somebody who actually works with Paradox store reads your feedback.

There are more. The Company which bundles it for the mac appstore and now new the region exclusive South Korea firm (which sells steam keys). Steam key sellers aren't digital distributors (because it is Steam that distributes the game, not the key seller), but it seems that Mac Appstore (and it is Appstore that distributes the game, not the company that put it in there) is also digital distributor for the game's mac version.

Then they could all be elves, or dwarves etc and so forth. I pick human because in appearance humans predominate (by far), but either way they function as a single species not many, they don't have different inherent natures in areas or approaches to things (they function, live, socialize, have families, houses and craft and think and have the same beliefs and traditions) as the predominate humans in game. They have no to little discernible ancestral differences with the humans. There is nothing which marks them out as a seperate species, they functionally aren't, there is just pkayer race species with tge sub-class in the orlans. And with even a single race/species I woukd hope there woukd be diversity in beliefs and worldviews but with the aopereance if different species it becomes more noticeable. Everyone has and shares the same essential worldview (with just shades of variation within that). While different abilities is nice that can be achieved with a single race/species from different lands (for example Elder Scrolls ganes different types of human or different types if elves have quite different bonus abilities). It doesn't require other species, just different areas and cultures in fantasy world, which again leaves me feeling the races are just purely cosmetic there for the player creator, and because they are in tge IE games but not even having the admittedly at times superficial reality and substance they even had there. They are just like masks thown on a few humans in the game to keep the masquerade going but have no reality (even superficial) in the world that there really is largely one player species with sub-species in the orlans. It just seems so pointless and a waste when if you wanted just cultures of a single species you coukd focused on that and made that more in depth, diverse and interesting, or developed interesting races, as it is I just see the races as meaningless with no substances who are there for the creator creator. What you describe is cultural assimilation (people who live generations together will eventually merge their cultures to one new culture), but if you actually read PoE's lore you will find that every race has different ancentsty (actually multiple different ancestries as races in different regions don't actually share that much same ancestry). And there are quite lot of things that points that races come from different species, like for example fact that they can't reproduce with other races, and if you look you will see that this fact has impact in how societies in Eora work. Also different cultures have different beliefs and in different cultures different races are the predominant race.Freepalantine of Dyrwood area where most of the game happens is predominantly populated by humans and second elves, because it is mainly populated by settlers from Aedyran Empire, which is mainly nation of meadow folk and wood elves. Second area where player gets in the game is Eir Glanfath territory where wood elves are predominat population seconded by wild orlans and thrided by heart orlans. Vallian Republics would be south from Free Palentine, but PC path never goes there, but it would be society where predominant race is ocean folk seconded by mountain dwarves. The Great Kingdom of Rauatai for example is described to be quite different of any of societies that you find in Dyrwood area, and their predominant race is coastal aumaua. And every single one of previously mentioned cultures have different dynamic between races (although only cultures in Dyrwood area are fleshed out fully, where other cultures have only general description how they work).

I like PoE's approach towards races and cultures, because it opens way to much larger variation of cultures and societies, than the classical fantasy style to tying race and culture together, as now we can see multitude of different cultures that have different approach and customs to handle their mixed race populations. Where PoE lacks in this aspect is that it sets only in Dyrwood area, which is newish colonial frontier area that really lets us to see two different cultures, even if one is mix of multiple different cultures that are evolved to new culture. Although game offers us climpses to other cultures in the wolrd, but those climpses come really through singular sources, which means that we really don't get to know those cultures that well. Which is why I hope to see sequel to PoE that set in some other area/s with different culture/s so that we can see differently build mixed race societies.

Paradox store sells Steam keys. There is three different digital distibutors for the game Steam, GOG.com and Origin, which all in my knowledge take about similar slice of selling price to them. It is difficult to say what is key stores' cut, but I would guess that amount of selling price that Obsidian gets isn't higher (probably less) than what they get from purchaces that are done directly from distributors' own stores.

Official have now over decade hunted and closed down servers which content they find objectionable even though in most cases said content has been legal in countries where servers located. Although governments have tried their best to make officials job easier when it comes such closures.

That is true to only some extent, although taking some care when selecting where you put or where you rent your server you can get much more leeway (because you get more time to move your before it is taken down). Of course most people will never say/publish/write/etc. such things that get official try to take it down with every legal and sometimes illegal means.

Racism is societal issue, which makes it quite complex topic. In simple it is that people discriminate and/or persecute somebody because of their perceived "race". But it becomes much more complex and harder perceived issue when you take account history of society and systematic issues that history causes. So for example minority group of people that has had lesser rights than other members of society and have been persecuted by other members of society in past and still some of majority population see them as outsiders or members of society's unproductive members like for example The Finnish Kale (Finnish Romani people), such groups of people often have quite lot people that fester resentment towards members of majority population, because of history and their own experiences with some members of majority population whose acts have proven to them that their prejudices towards majority population are justified. Such prejudices can be called racism, but it is quite different level and born from different place than prejudices of people on other side of this equation. And because of this difference between these two prejudices societies that try to amend their past sins commit sometimes something that sometimes is called positive-racism, which simply put means that members of minority groups, that have in past been (in current view of society) treated in manner that is unjustifiable and wrong, sometimes get preferential treatment, which can for example occur in such that their racial motived crimes towards majority population aren't called hate crimes or crimes against them are more probably be called hate crimes. These are systematical problems, but are they systematical racism towards majority population or just different form of systematical racism towards minority population caused by society trying to atone its past sins?

Yes, but the laws coming from the EU are not made by elected personal. If they conflict with the rulings of your country, you still have to bow to them because EU´s constitution overrules that of the nations. Not to mention the pressure they use. Examples, blocking south-stream effectly costing our country millions if not more and many jobs, or trying to pressure Hungary into a different energy market despite their contracts with Rosatom. Or overruling our exceptional good laws on animal protection, throwing us back years in that field. Laws coming from EU are made by European Parliament, which is elected by citizens of member states of EU and Council of Ministers (which is formed from members of National Governments of member states of EU, National Governments are elected by National Parliaments which are elected by citizens of individual states which parliament they are). European Commission, which is elected by European Parliament, proposes laws to European Parliament and Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers have ability to stop any law they don't like (of course this don't mean that majority of EU's member states can't decide something that minority object, but that is realities of democratic decision making [there is also blocking minority system where at least four member states with 35% of EU's population can block legislation approved by majority vote {55% of member states and at least representing 65% of total population, or 72% of member states and covering at least 65% of total population if they aren't acting on proposal from European Commission}]). EDIT: And it probably should be pointed that anything that comes from EU is not really law before National Parliaments have adjusted them and approved them, although if member state don't change their laws according to what is agreed, then European Commission can start action to resolve situation if this don't lead agreement then European Commission will start infringement procedure which is at end resolved by European Union's Court of Justice (Of course member state can decide to leave union if they find it decision to be too much against their self interests). In other words, it's basically the bureaucracy that decides everything, and individual votes have no actual say in how it all runs. One could say same about nearly every democratic system that there is.

Yes, but the laws coming from the EU are not made by elected personal. If they conflict with the rulings of your country, you still have to bow to them because EU´s constitution overrules that of the nations. Not to mention the pressure they use. Examples, blocking south-stream effectly costing our country millions if not more and many jobs, or trying to pressure Hungary into a different energy market despite their contracts with Rosatom. Or overruling our exceptional good laws on animal protection, throwing us back years in that field. Laws coming from EU are made by European Parliament, which is elected by citizens of member states of EU and Council of Ministers (which is formed from members of National Governments of member states of EU, National Governments are elected by National Parliaments which are elected by citizens of individual states which parliament they are). European Commission, which is elected by European Parliament, proposes laws to European Parliament and Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers have ability to stop any law they don't like (of course this don't mean that majority of EU's member states can't decide something that minority object, but that is realities of democratic decision making [there is also blocking minority system where at least four member states with 35% of EU's population can block legislation approved by majority vote {55% of member states and at least representing 65% of total population, or 72% of member states and covering at least 65% of total population if they aren't acting on proposal from European Commission}]). EDIT: And it probably should be pointed that anything that comes from EU is not really law before National Parliaments have adjusted them and approved them, although if member state don't change their laws according to what is agreed, then European Commission can start action to resolve situation if this don't lead agreement then European Commission will start infringement procedure which is at end resolved by European Union's Court of Justice (Of course member state can decide to leave union if they find it decision to be too much against their self interests).