Elerond

It is possible Moral objections against genome modification come usually either from religious grounds as genome modification are often seen as thing where humans are playing god, quite similar to issue as why cloning is seen as bad, or from societal grounds where there is fear that genome modifications would be used to pursue goal to achieve ultimate human and kill diversity from the population. Genetic modifications killing diversity and natural ability to adapt to changing conditions isn't necessary unfounded fear as it is something that has observed with genetically modified plants.

What does he plan to do, give the moffs direct command of the outlying sectors? 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. Please, she 100% issued an invitation knowing exactly what it would mean practically. Whether she already had her fall back positions formulated at that time is an open question, it seems more likely she was just plain stupid but maybe she was actively malicious as well, who knows. She may not have changed the rules at that time, but she definitely took and has taken advantage of them to the detriment of just about everyone else in the EU and to her and Germany's benefit. Which is what is the fundamental problem with the EU as it always happens with the EU- Germany collectivises her problems while nationalising everyone else's. Merkel's idiotic invitation results in too many refugees? Collectivise the problem by sending them off to other countries to bail her out. But, too many refugees still arriving? Well they have to stay in Greece and Italy since that's where they landed, why can't those countries take responsibility and follow the rules? German banks lent idiotically to Greece? Bail them out collectively via the European Bank, then make the Greeks pay for it! Plus bonus, tons of leverage against Greece when you want the refugee spigot turned off, after all surely refugees love extended holidays on Greek Islands as much as anyone so it's win win. Euro massively overvalued for Italy, Greece etc? Tough noogies, it's wonderfully undervalued for Germany and that's what is important. That's the fundamental flaw of the EU, and it will never be fixed. Every country from Italy down in importance will be treated as vassals, and any benefits to them from the EU are incidental and not the core aim of the organisation. It's also why Britain is better with a hard Brexit no matter what, there's no chance of EU reform and the laughable 'concessions' they gave Cameron to try and stave off the referendum showed it- and, frankly, those pathetic concessions was likely a contributing factor to the referendum loss for remain. While meant to be a sop to get just enough votes to win they were actually an insult and extraordinarily tone deaf, symptomatic of the EU's technocratic rule from the top mentality. Problems was not caused by her invitation, but existing laws, processes and lack of people to process people who come and lack of infrastructure to handle massive amount of immigrants. Merkel or Germany didn't change any directive, law or policy in Germany or EU. Germany also did quite lot to help Greece, for example by paying Turkey that they prevent refugees leaving from Turkey with boats. They also organized direct line where they transported refugees from Turkey to Germany.

USA's asylum laws are only partially based on UNHCR - The 1951 Refugee Convention and even they seem to have problems to control flow of immigrants coming in. USA also has deportation agreement with the countries where the immigrants are coming in, which makes deporting people easier for them. But it seems that many cases their official try to cut corners and do things that their courts find to be against their laws. Burning cars and rape gangs in western EU are so few compared to general criminality level of eastern EU that western EU needs to take tens of millions of immigrants to achieve those levels. So I would not necessary be so muck about things.

Mass flight from Syrian and Iraq and then from several African countries has showed that European countries refugee laws which are based on UNHCR - The 1951 Refugee Convention (and its extension in 1967) don't work well when there is such mass of people seeking asylum. Which is why many countries made emergency changes on their laws in order to limit amount people coming in. Addition to European refugee laws, we saw that countries weren't really prepared to handle such mass of immigrants coming every day for months, meaning there was no process/procedure that countries officials would follow, which allowed lots of unregistered people enter in EU area where they were able to travel freely thanks to EU's free travel agreements. But eventually countries were able to put processes in place to control those masses, but it lead to new problem in southern Europe, especially in Italy and Greece which are two main countries where people enter in EU, which is that they have now big camps of people whose refugee status need to be determined and other EU countries are reluctant to offer their help in that. UNHCR - The 1951 Refugee Convention (and its extension) gives people right to seek asylum and countries obligation to go through comprehensive process to determine if their situation demands international protection aka asylum. Meaning that even though situation of their home country didn't fulfil criteria of asylum in case of majority of people who come to seek asylum or better life during refugee crisis, our laws forced officials to go through that comprehensive process in case of every one who seek asylum and most of the countries didn't really have enough people who handled asylum applications to handle amount of applications they faced and addition to that in asylum seekers whose applications were rejected had/have right to complain to courts about their rejected application, which means another time consuming process before our laws allow to deport person whose application was rejected. And even after official finally get right to deport person it can be quite problematic as Iraq, Syria and some African countries refuse to take person back as in many cases there are no deportation agreement between European countries and said target countries, which can mean that those people who have given deportation order stay in limbo state where they don't have right to stay in the country where they sought asylum, but officials can't force them go to their home country, which has lead to voluntary return policy where governments pay asylum seekers money if they voluntary go back to their home country. problem is, if you don't 'catch' those people at borders and they lie to you about country of origin, where do you deport them? They don't have papers with them on purpose (not always) Also those laws you mention require those seeking asylum to do so in first secure country. There is plenty of those around the world but we all know why this flood of people is heading to Germany. I am sorry but I don't feel for those people, and worst part is that people will loose feeling even for those who would deserved it. Also paying someone to GTFO where they should not be in first place just encourage such actions also this: Not knowing person's country of origin is also problem if you catch them on border. And even if you know their country of origin deportation can be difficult as their home country can refuse to take them back.

Mass flight from Syrian and Iraq and then from several African countries has showed that European countries refugee laws which are based on UNHCR - The 1951 Refugee Convention (and its extension in 1967) don't work well when there is such mass of people seeking asylum. Which is why many countries made emergency changes on their laws in order to limit amount people coming in. Addition to European refugee laws, we saw that countries weren't really prepared to handle such mass of immigrants coming every day for months, meaning there was no process/procedure that countries officials would follow, which allowed lots of unregistered people enter in EU area where they were able to travel freely thanks to EU's free travel agreements. But eventually countries were able to put processes in place to control those masses, but it lead to new problem in southern Europe, especially in Italy and Greece which are two main countries where people enter in EU, which is that they have now big camps of people whose refugee status need to be determined and other EU countries are reluctant to offer their help in that. UNHCR - The 1951 Refugee Convention (and its extension) gives people right to seek asylum and countries obligation to go through comprehensive process to determine if their situation demands international protection aka asylum. Meaning that even though situation of their home country didn't fulfil criteria of asylum in case of majority of people who come to seek asylum or better life during refugee crisis, our laws forced officials to go through that comprehensive process in case of every one who seek asylum and most of the countries didn't really have enough people who handled asylum applications to handle amount of applications they faced and addition to that in asylum seekers whose applications were rejected had/have right to complain to courts about their rejected application, which means another time consuming process before our laws allow to deport person whose application was rejected. And even after official finally get right to deport person it can be quite problematic as Iraq, Syria and some African countries refuse to take person back as in many cases there are no deportation agreement between European countries and said target countries, which can mean that those people who have given deportation order stay in limbo state where they don't have right to stay in the country where they sought asylum, but officials can't force them go to their home country, which has lead to voluntary return policy where governments pay asylum seekers money if they voluntary go back to their home country.

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