Elerond

In the highly unlikely and indubitably disastrous event that the EU crashes who is going to provide economic stability and prosperity for countries like Czech, who is the alternative ? Mother Russia is not your savior as you well know we lived in economic growth and stability 20 years before joining EU, we will manage to do so after as well, but thanks for your concerns The world has changed and so have ways to ensure economic prosperity Its is much more logical, sustainable and effective to negotiate trade deals if you part of a larger, united block of countries like the EU than to be on your own The EU represents the worlds wealthiest union of countries, I am not sure why you think leaving it would make any realistic economic sense ? well i gave you few examples above how wealthy EU members screw over those less fortunate, but it seems you either ignore posts you don't like or you are not getting it so what more I can present to you? EU is now very similiar to COMECON. I suggest you to read it. Was great fun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon 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. I don't remember about any vote about opening borders by Angela, yet she somehow is now telling its everyone problem, go figure She didn't open any borders and she didn't change any rules about immigration or how EU or Germany treats refugees, she only publicly said that Germany will accept refugees according to their laws, laws which have existed over 60 years.

In the highly unlikely and indubitably disastrous event that the EU crashes who is going to provide economic stability and prosperity for countries like Czech, who is the alternative ? Mother Russia is not your savior as you well know we lived in economic growth and stability 20 years before joining EU, we will manage to do so after as well, but thanks for your concerns The world has changed and so have ways to ensure economic prosperity Its is much more logical, sustainable and effective to negotiate trade deals if you part of a larger, united block of countries like the EU than to be on your own The EU represents the worlds wealthiest union of countries, I am not sure why you think leaving it would make any realistic economic sense ? well i gave you few examples above how wealthy EU members screw over those less fortunate, but it seems you either ignore posts you don't like or you are not getting it so what more I can present to you? EU is now very similiar to COMECON. I suggest you to read it. Was great fun! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comecon 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.

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.

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

Protectionism is great capitalist method when USA does it, but when rich EU countries do it is Marxism

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.

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.

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."

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

It is good that crimes have punishment based on their severity

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.

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.

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.

**** off. It's like 2000 all over again. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Text itself seem to be part of some wellness coach's facebook post about political activism or something like that

So in other words there was no evidence that crime was committed in first place

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.

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.

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.

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 .