Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Elerond
-
-
I am sure I don't have to define to you what Marxism is, you can read their manifesto if you didn't but its beside the point. Some of us still remember how real marxism looks like in reality.
but back to EU to give you some, lets say economical example:
and:
edit, incorect link
Protectionism is great capitalist method when USA does it, but when rich EU countries do it is Marxism
well it would be ok if EU country does not do it against other EU members, got it?
Anti-EUism is good thing until it hits home
no idea where you are heading with this? I am pro free trade inside EU as it was originally supposed to be, but some power players just decide that they will instead of customs as it used to be previously pushed subsidities everyone in EU have to pay now.
so instead of polish farmers had to pay customs for their products inside EU but have reasonable options to sell outside of EU now have to pay French farmers cash so they can rule them over while french having still 3 time avarage sallary as poles. Awesome
It is anti-EU mentality which drives protectionism in EU. Poorer countries aren't seen as equal trade partners but parasites that leech on richer countries. Cheap labour and products from those countries is used in political fearmongering to cause people fear for their own future and therefore gain people's support for anti-EU and anti-free trade, anti-foreign labour, and anti-immigration policies. These days even previously pro-EU parties are seen to introduce protectionism in their political agendas, because otherwise they would lose seats.
And ironically it anti-EU mentality is viewed very favourably in EU's poorer countries, like Poland, who are first to suffer from protectionism inside of EU, which increases their anti-EU mentality which then makes anti-EU mentality stronger in richer countries.
-
I am sure I don't have to define to you what Marxism is, you can read their manifesto if you didn't but its beside the point. Some of us still remember how real marxism looks like in reality.
but back to EU to give you some, lets say economical example:
and:
edit, incorect link
Protectionism is great capitalist method when USA does it, but when rich EU countries do it is Marxism
well it would be ok if EU country does not do it against other EU members, got it?
Anti-EUism is good thing until it hits home
-
I am sure I don't have to define to you what Marxism is, you can read their manifesto if you didn't but its beside the point. Some of us still remember how real marxism looks like in reality.
but back to EU to give you some, lets say economical example:
and:
edit, incorect link
Protectionism is great capitalist method when USA does it, but when rich EU countries do it is Marxism
-
1
-
-
Maybe Frenchies should start working, I dunno, more than 35 hours a week for starters.
Why? Isn't that something to strive for? Or do you think the American way is what we should aim for?
Agreed, more hours doesn't mean more productivity
...but on the flip side I used to work for a French company and they treated us non Euros like crap so **** those guys! Pardon my French
That is then better than most French companies as they usually don't like anybody who isn't French especially if they don't speak French.
-
R.I.P. President Bush.
Thank you for your many years of honorable public service, sir.
I have to say that I disagree with classification that Bush senior was honorable in way he concluded his business especially as vice president and as president, but there are and has been worse people.
-
So, the climate change assessment is a dud:
In other news world Russia is preparing to obliterate Ukraine.
Ukraine introduced martial law after latest incident:
The Heartland Institute? The guys who defend whatever they are paid to defend?
They have released some very brilliant studies in past like that tobacco does not cause lung cancer and say things like "smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects."
-
1
-
-
Apparently Ivanka Trump is using her personal e-mail for government business. Prediction: the people howling for Hillary Clinton to be locked up for essentially the same thing will be cool with it. The people who thought Clinton did no wrong will be chanting "lock her up" or something.
Depends on whether she's receiving classified information on it or deleting stuff that needs to be preserved? It wasn't just the receiving emails on her server that was the problem with Hillary, it was why she was doing it that way and what she did with it (and it being unsecure).
Hope Donald actually does nominate Ivanka for ambassador to the UN, the reactions would be a thing to behold.
According to news she has done classified government correspondence through her private email and those emails have not been recorded as law demands. So quite similar to what Hillary did.
By known information neither Hillary's or Ivanka's emails have not been compromised by party who has not given lawful access to said emails.
-
He just wants to be next president
-
1
-
-
It is good that crimes have punishment based on their severity
-
1
-
-
He is clearly idiot or at least he has not though things through.
First nukes are very poor choice of weapons to suppress revolt, as even if they are used to destroy those who rebel against government they will always cause catastrophic damage to civilians and infrastructure in scale which rebelling people most likely never could achieve by themselves. Meaning that it would be just government shooting themself in their own foot.
Second military, especially USA's military has much efficient weapons to use against armed rebellion.
But at end whole scenario is mostly idiotic, because government that starts to persecute people they usually have support of majority of the people which means that usually majority of civilian owned weapons are used to help government to persecute people instead of protecting people from government's persecution. Meaning that second amended more likely protects government from people than people from government.
-
Consideirng much of the media - and this includes right wing ones like Fox - spend a lot of their time mocking and belittling people including their own viewers that makes it even more laughable. The media hasn't been beholden to the people or the truth for a very long time.
It used to be reporter would sniff a story and investgate to find facts and report said facts.
Now, they create a story and only report things that backs up their opinion while eschewing or ignoring facts that don't back them up.
Notice how nobody outside of Fox (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) has talked about Carlson Tucker's family and house being targeted and threatened by never do wells and the ones who do tend to claim he deserved it. And, the one well known 'lefty' who slammed the miscreants was quickly labeled racist, Nazi, and evil. LOLZ
That was in time when people were main source of media's income, this days media gets most of its money from other sources so serving of people also has dropped in their priorities.
Quite lot of journalists get threats daily but such threats aren't news worthy even for their own employers because they aren't millionaires like Tucker. Even here people seemed some years ago be quite supporting against threats against certain journalists who write articles about gamers and gaming industry which they didn't like.
-
Better yet,
Can anyone show some examples of Microsoft dictating, manipulating and forcing change into development of projects? All I can see is a good track record with freedoms in association with independent teams under their funding (none of these have been cancelled, unlike the AAA titles) but thought I'd ask to see what members here know, you know, since some are assuming or are worrying that this will be somehow bad for Obsidian's future. *rolls eyes*
Lionhead Studios and Fable Legends would be the obvious example of a studio and a project completely messed up by Microsoft's interference.
Lionhead Studios had quite lot of freedom until "Black Monday", as they reference day when Molyneux had bad day and ended to order several key people of Lionhead Studios to leave premises of the company. Molyneux later on apologized his outburst and soon left company too founded 22Cans studios, after that Lionheads Studios had lost big sunk of its leadership, which negatively effected all the projects they were doing and at end they never recovered. It was also same time as Don Mattrick was head of Xbox and other gaming related things and he believed in games as service model and such, which he wanted Lionhead Studios new leadership to embrace. But because Lionhead was never done any projects that even resembled games as service model, so it was not very surprising that they had difficult time with Fable Legends and at end they weren't able to overcome those difficulties before MS decided to cancel the project when it was over year in late and wasn't even close to finish line, even Lionhead's staff excepted MS to cancel the project, although for some closing the studio come as surprise.
-
2
-
-
A load of PC ports, some of them a while after they're released on Xbox. That's what Microsoft were doing with the original Xbox. Halo eventually came onto PC as a **** PC port, a game originally developed for PC.
**** off. It's like 2000 all over again.New exclusive games for Xbox.
For MS 'xbox exclusive' just refers to consoles, they've had xbox exclusives on PC before. May mean Windows Store exclusivity or timed exclusivity but I doubt that to be honest. For OEI and InXile there's not much point making either console exclusive just for the sake of it.
May well mean no more Obsidian games for me given the attitude MS has to GOG and DRM free in general, but then I wasn't really expecting Outer Worlds at least to be anywhere other than Steam anyway and that's the only 'known' project.
MS new strategy on gaming front is to get games on all their platforms not only Xbox.
I am personally interested to see what it means in reality that Obsidian and inXile will keep their independency.
Currently MS proclaims different ideology than they had when they released original Xbox, when their vision was eventually move everything gaming related to Xbox, their current direction seems to be one where they focus more on making software platforms, like their upcoming gaming streaming service.
Also these days porting isn't what it was in 2000, as games are mainly made using multiplatform engines and number of compromised that had to do in game design because of hardware limitations has decreased significantly because of massive increase in performance in all platforms.
-
**** off. It's like 2000 all over again.New exclusive games for Xbox.
For MS 'xbox exclusive' just refers to consoles, they've had xbox exclusives on PC before. May mean Windows Store exclusivity or timed exclusivity but I doubt that to be honest. For OEI and InXile there's not much point making either console exclusive just for the sake of it.
May well mean no more Obsidian games for me given the attitude MS has to GOG and DRM free in general, but then I wasn't really expecting Outer Worlds at least to be anywhere other than Steam anyway and that's the only 'known' project.
MS new strategy on gaming front is to get games on all their platforms not only Xbox.
I am personally interested to see what it means in reality that Obsidian and inXile will keep their independency.
-
So much for the "blue wave" I've been hearing so much, ended up being more of a blue pudde. Man ahould not put their faith and hopes into such myths as politics.
Considering that republicans are celebrating couple close victories in deep red states and they lost control over house and government in many states, it is quite big loss considering how they tell how they have only making winning policies, bringing lots and lots of jobs and giving tax breaks to everybody and fixed health care and prevented immigrants invading USA and generally done more than any government before them they seem to have lost quite lot people trust towards them.
-
Good job Mama Merkel, thanks for bringing back Third Reich:
https://www.dw.com/en/germans-increasingly-prejudiced-against-foreigners-muslims/a-46180880
Isn't that more thanks to Merkel's opposition or is logic that Germans have become more prejudiced against foreigner because Merkel has been too accepting of foreigners or that Merkel has actually preached anti-foreign message even though people accuse her to be too accepting of foreigners?
Depends on how you look at it I suppose but lets be clear, no matter your view on it, truth is - if there were not mass immigration to germany - largely supported by Merkel at least at start, there would be hardly anti immigration tendencies, Agree?
It is possible, but anti immigration especially prejudice against foreigners has been on rise all over even in countries which have seen quite little of immigration. So it is difficult to say how much fearmongering against immigrants there would have been without Merkel's decisions, especially when you take in consideration that immigration debate in USA would have most likely still been as fierce as it has been now and that Merkel's policies aren't behind the mass immigration from Africa which is cause behind problems in Southern Europe which is source for lots of the anti-immigration sentiment. Also lots of anti-immigration sentiment behind brexit was caused by Polish workers, also in here Finland big sunk of the anti-immigration sentiment comes from idea that cheap workers from the Estonia and Poland will replace Finnish workers, that sentiment long before refugee crisis and Merkel's decisions. So I would say that Merkel and her decisions are just easy targets for sentiments and developments that would have existed without her.
-
Good job Mama Merkel, thanks for bringing back Third Reich:
https://www.dw.com/en/germans-increasingly-prejudiced-against-foreigners-muslims/a-46180880
Isn't that more thanks to Merkel's opposition or is logic that Germans have become more prejudiced against foreigner because Merkel has been too accepting of foreigners or that Merkel has actually preached anti-foreign message even though people accuse her to be too accepting of foreigners?
-
1
-
-
Text itself seem to be part of some wellness coach's facebook post about political activism or something like that
-
Hillary wasn't guilty by evidence shown as it's impossible to prove that she did it deliberately or with gross incompetence; and one of those is required for conviction. That the potentially criminal act- using a private server, receiving classified information on it and deleting documents that were required to be preserved- was done is however not in dispute, hence there is evidence just not enough to convict. Even Hillary doesn't dispute the basic facts of what happened in her case, she just maintains she doesn't understand technology thus is not criminally liable.
With Kavanaugh however every single thing is in dispute. There is literally no testable supporting evidence- specific times and locations; corroborating witnesses, physical evidence- the only evidence is that several accusations were made.
Trump can't just charge Hillary, that isn't how the system works for good and obvious reasons.
So in other words there was no evidence that crime was committed in first place
-
It was definitely impossible under the circumstances to prove Hillary did it deliberately, but I find it very difficult to believe that someone as concerned with her image as Hillary was not trying to control access to information. In the end it was pretty much the same as having classified material sent to a gmail address (well gmail's security was
probablydefinitely better) which would get peons fired or at minimum lose their clearance.Mostly though private servers are not really something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to set up, and not something a random tech illiterate grannie decides to wipe when convenient.
So in other words there was not enough evidence that she broke the law, it does not matter if law demands idiotically proof of what was person's intention when they did what they did in order to determine what they did was illegal. Until there is proof that person has broken law as it is written they are considered innocent of said crimes.
There were more evidence against Kavanaugh as testimony of accuser is accepted as evidence in courts, but still we didn't see indictments against him.
So in both cases same justice system saw too little evidence that crime had been committed to even take cases to court, and as said justice system says that accused person cannot be presumed to be guilty of crime until it is proven in court of law it means that legally speaking they both are innocent of crimes they are accused of.
It told that people in Trump administration have used their private email servers/services in same way as Clinton, meaning that they have handled official top secret correspondence through them. Of course without actual investigation to subject it is impossible to say if they have done same as Clinton, but in case of Clinton there also was no information about subject before investigation was called, but it is maybe official learned from overly expensive Clinton investigation that such investigation are most likely fruitless, expensive and even if they would bear fruit it would only hurt those who are in power now, so it is just better to be ignorant.
No, there was way more evidence against Hillary since there was literally no doubt she did what she was accused of, the only point in contention was proving it was intentional and hence criminal. The only evidence against Kavanaugh was the accusations themselves. An accusation itself isn't evidence, you cannot use a "would he be accused if he weren't guilty?" argument because that applies whether or not the accusation actually is true, believable or even possible. "Donald Trump was born on the planet Krypton and thus is ineligible to be President", obviously there is evidence for this accusation, otherwise I wouldn't make it...
As for the rest, until it's investigated it's 100% hearsay and as above, an accusation alone is not evidence of anything other than the accusation being made.
In your opinion there was way more evidence against Hillary, but US justice system don't seem to agree with you. Especially considering that person who is currently in charge to brought indictments against people like Hillary was chanting one of the current President favorite chant next him in his campaign rallies, "Lock her up", but still two years in power and only thing that they have done has been to kick out director of FBI who was leading investigation against Hillary because how badly he handled the investigation.
So Hillary is innocent as is Kavanaugh regardless of how credible people think charges against them in court of public opinion were/are. If we go route that it is okay to claim that Hillary was guilty by evidence shown, then it should also be okay to say Kavanaugh (and other people accused of sexual assaults, misbehaviour etc.) are guilty by evidence shown, because we aren't speaking legal level of guilt, but guilt based on opinions of people who have incomplete knowledge about law and evidences.
-
She used a private server to receive classified information and deleted emails that should have been preserved, that is not in dispute. The reason she wasn't charged is because- ludicrously- she had to 'know' what she was doing was illegal for it to be a crime. Practically she almost certainly did know because she isn't a drooling imbecile, but that is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt hence the befuddled grannie defence being accepted and no prosecution being offered. That's a million miles away from being no evidence, balance of evidence says she was absolutely guilty, beyond reasonable doubt says she could not be convicted.
And ironically quite many people in Trump administration also have used private email servers..
Is this the thing you earthlings call whataboutism?
Nah, just kidding, whataboutism accusations are for pathetic wieners who can't argue for faecal matter. However, without any details of private server usage by those people it's impossible to say whether they transgressed any laws or guidelines. A private server is not by itself illegal, using ti to circumvent preservation laws and receive classified material in an insecure way however potentially is. Difference being we know Hillary did both of those.
So in other words there was not enough evidence that she broke the law, it does not matter if law demands idiotically proof of what was person's intention when they did what they did in order to determine what they did was illegal. Until there is proof that person has broken law as it is written they are considered innocent of said crimes.
There were more evidence against Kavanaugh as testimony of accuser is accepted as evidence in courts, but still we didn't see indictments against him.
So in both cases same justice system saw too little evidence that crime had been committed to even take cases to court, and as said justice system says that accused person cannot be presumed to be guilty of crime until it is proven in court of law it means that legally speaking they both are innocent of crimes they are accused of.
It told that people in Trump administration have used their private email servers/services in same way as Clinton, meaning that they have handled official top secret correspondence through them. Of course without actual investigation to subject it is impossible to say if they have done same as Clinton, but in case of Clinton there also was no information about subject before investigation was called, but it is maybe official learned from overly expensive Clinton investigation that such investigation are most likely fruitless, expensive and even if they would bear fruit it would only hurt those who are in power now, so it is just better to be ignorant.
-
That's not really equivalent at all though since, technically, there was a ton of evidence against Hillary and she definitively did what she was accused of in terms of using a private server and deleting emails that should have been preserved. The law was just written in a way that if she claimed to be a tech befuddled old grannie who thought wiping a hard drive involved Kleenex® brand disposable wipes etcetera then she couldn't be convicted. That's not the same as having no evidence.
To be honest though, given the amount of voter suppression I wouldn't be surprised if people wanted a sniff around voter rolls and the like to see if voters of a certain type were 'spontaneously' or 'mysteriously' dropping off them around election time.
(I'm kind of amused because of the apparent rigmarole required to register to vote in the US when the voting machines are ancient, unreliable andor insecure- yet we can register to vote literally on the day of the vote and all we need is a paper ballot which is still the most secure way to do things)
Technically there was only claims of wrong doing, but no evidence was presented that she was actually broken the law. And ironically quite many people in Trump administration also have used private email servers, but with them it does not seem to be such world ending thing as it was with Clinton.
-
Trump is going to issue an Executive Order ending birthright citizenship. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-eyeing-executive-order-to-end-citizenship-for-children-of-noncitizens-born-on-us-soil/2018/10/30/66892050-dc29-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fae9527b7fbe
OK, he cannot f-----g DO that! The US Constitution is clear on this! 14th Amendment first two sentences in section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Prediction: If this goes to the Supreme Court it will get rejected 8 - Kavanaugh.
Prediction #2: All the right wingers who justifiably were angry when Barack Obama wiped is soiled arse with the Constitution with his Executive Orders will be mute.
This executive orders abuse has been going on since FDR but the last two would be tyrants have really hit the gas on it. We need a President who understands what the President is supposed to do. I think Ford was the last one.
It is funny to read arguments in twitter where people are saying that 14th Amendment don't apply to children of "illegal" immigrants because of they and their parents aren't under jurisdiction of USA, so in other words they are claiming that there aren't any illegal immigrants in USA, as those who would fall under that definition aren't subject to US laws and therefore can't break them regardless of what they are doing and therefore they can't immigrate illegally to USA
. -
That is not surprising considering that Turkey is one of the ECHR members. Decision does not mean that defaming Muhammad is illegal in Europe, but that freedom of expression right given in European Convention on Human Rights Article 10 does not prevent governments making laws that forbid blasphemy (which carries prison sentence in some European countries, like Germany, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Greece) and such.
-
1
-
.
The Political Thread - Burlamaqui edition
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
Those things are agreed by most of the less fortunate countries, because otherwise they would not go through EU's tiresome decision bureaucracy.
Most of the EU's rules are accepted unanimously by member countries governments.
Any decision needs 55% (16) of EU countries vote for it, 72% (21) if proposal does not come from Commission and then also those countries need to have 65% (~333 million) of EU population living in them.
Minority of countries can block any decision if there are at least 4 countries who oppose decision and they have at least 35% of EU's population (~180 million) living in them.