Elerond

"Lets take money from the rich" "And the give it to poor" "Who will use it to pay services" "Which are owned by rich" "And then rich will be again rich" "And cycle starts from beginning" "It's simple economy baby" EDIT: Okay I am bad in lyric writing

The truth of the matter is that deflecting blows needs extreme skill and you can get that only by repeating boring fight stand practices until you can't stand them anymore, and characters with highest resolve are ones that highest ability to tolerate such soul sucking workouts. And characters with super high resolve can just will enemy blows away with their teeth.

RPGs to me mean games where you have control over your character's story, personality, and actions which are more or less constrained by overall story and rule system of the game.

I am not sure if it's good thing that they loved it as it probably means that we will see more furries in future

From reactions of that audience I am not sure that people really care about following laws or that authoritarian government is bad thing

We're hurtling towards a point where our entire civilization as we know it is going to collapse in a few decades. I get it, you're not concerned, you'll be dead by then, but could you please not mischaracterize the irresponsibility that is probably going to cost thousands, if not millions of lives in the future as "disagreeing with the Federal Government"? For the purposes of discussion I wll take no position on veracity of climate change being caused by humans. We are talking solely about facing criminal charges for publicly stating the Federal Governments position is wrong. If it is, or isn't is irrelevant. They are discussing criminal charges for a contrary opinion. What do YOU think the penalty for that should be? Life in prision? Death? If our civilization is going to collapse it will happen far sooner from the hubris of a government that so believes itself infallible as to enforce the notion at gunpoint than from carbon emissions. If things that are told in media are true, then case seems to be that Federal Government has been asked to investigate possibility of if fossil-fuel companies have practiced similar doctoring of scientific evidence and false marketing as which tobacco industry was convicted in 90s. So charges would not be for disagreeing with federal government but knowingly deceived public about something that is or could be harmful for them.

It maybe because Clinton's social media staff messed up This is from @avalonbakery's instagram: "To be clear: Hillary was at Avalon yesterday, where this photo was taken. The controversy erupted around an interaction at a brother business in Detroit, with a different photo mis-identified by the Clinton Campaign (by mistake) as Avalon. It was their employee who asked it to be taken down, not ours. Hillary was welcome at Avalon , as are all the customers who have graced our doors since 1997. We hope that Bernie visits us too! And we ask that all the interactions on our site stay respectful to each other and all involved. We are happy to feel all of the passion in MI that led to the largest primary voter turnout in Michigan's history!" https://www.instagram.com/p/BCsq1lNpKyK/?taken-by=avalonbakery So Jill M. Wilson maybe would been more warmer towards Clinton if her staff had not advertised another company with her picture.

I'm not seeing any change there? I don't either but file systems shows that those folders have been edited today.

I would say that changes in Soundtrack, Documentary and Concepts directories are most important in this patch

There generally isn't any geographical or political terminology in regards to a 'southern belt' (I'm assuming you typoed the 'p'). Occasionally the somewhat arbitrary term 'sunbelt' is used, though just about never politically, as it really has no meaning politically. It barely has much of a meaning geographically. It's pretty much just a 'weather channel' and tourist thing. Depending on which arbitrary definition you use of the 'sunbelt', perhaps half of the U.S. population lives within it, though definitely not most. The 'bible belt' is a bit more widely used. Politically it has some meaning, though increasingly less in recent decades. No matter which arbitrary definition you use for the 'bible belt', it doesn't come close to having even half of the U.S. population., let alone a majority of it. Sun belt was the one that I was referring to. As people from those states seem to overwhelmingly support Clinton both in polls and even more in primaries themselves.

It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming. It could go either way, imo. Realize the majority of the voting thusfar has been in the south, so Clinton's lead is more or less partially due to that. As the elections head north, it's not unfounded to picture Bernie gaining on her in delegates. Personally, I'd love to see that. If for nothing else, I'd love to see it as a means of highlighting just how flawed and warped the superdelegate system currently is. There are still 2761 delegates to be allocated (not counting super delegates). From these delegates over 1300 come from states that are polled to overwhelmingly voting for Clinton. Let say Clinton gets only 60% delegates in those states (which would be victory for Sanders according to polls) so about 790 when you add her current 748 we get bit about 1540 delegates and Sanders delegate count would be then about 1070. And then there are only about 1400 delegates to be allocated. From which Sanders needs about 940 (about 67%) to get majority of the delegates. Michigan showed that polls can be wrong quite lot but even they would need to be even more wrong that Sanders would win. Which is of course possible as campaign is still ongoing and lots of things can happen. But currently it looks like that Clinton will take the nomination.

It is highly unlikely that Sanders will win majority of voted delegates or even popular vote. Southern pelt just have most of the population and Clinton's support there seems to be overwhelming.

No we know how it works. We just like to laugh at stuff. From your media I would say that even your "socialist" president candidate don't seem to understand how it works. Or more accurately americans have their own idea of socialism that they fear or want. For socialism manifestations that you can find from other countries, people's understanding seem to be very academic, meaning that they have grasp of principalities and theory how things should work, but actual understanding how those existing socialistic economies work is thing that seems to elude most of the people seem that speak about subject. Although I must say that most of the people that live under socialistic economies have hard time to understand how their economies work. Of course nobody can fault people not understanding how those economies work as they quite cleverly hide and obtuse their systems that keep them running. But anyway I don't think this thread is best place to actually go in detail how for example Nordic socialistic economy systems work and why some of our politician are just idiots (this is quite important part actually when we speak economic systems in specific countries like for example Finland).

I would say that americans don't seem to understand how socialism works. Biggest illusion in socialism is that it would take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't.

Not directly related to presidential election, but it seems that GOP establishment wants to ensure that democrats win senate (Tammy Duckworth is combat veteran who lost both her legs in combat and above tweet is part of NRSC's campaign to support for republican senator Mark Kirk [not so surprisingly tweet was deleted minutes after posting it but too late to prevent any damage that it will do])

Sorry there has been calibration error in our space-time-continuum changer, which prevented bimbos in showers.

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992 What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty And you say that you are firm believer of EU I kid, but it is treaty that created EU.

They vote option that other party didn't propose regardless of what the proposition was. That is at least the feeling that I get from the news. EDIT: So you could say that difference is that Dems isn't GOP and GOP isn't Dems. There is no consistency no clear agenda, no nothing. They just oppose each other for sake of opposing each other. That isn't democracy really it is just plain stupidity IMO. Of course news don't usually cover the small decision that really control how country works but those big "newsworthy" debates that usually mean quite little in long run. But things like TPP get quite little notice and get bipartisan support. So there is clear consensus which direction US is going and then there is the war between parties for show. But really I can't tell clear difference between Dems and GOP, because I can't find clear consensus what those parties try to accomplish. Their leadership say things but that isn't matched by what their members say and what kind propositions and politics those parties drive. In many cases it seems that Republicans and Democrats from one state are closer to each other in politics than they are their party members from state from other side of US. Often I get feeling that even parties in EU parliament have more consistent view of things than republicans and democrats. So my final answer to this question is

But luckily in democratic systems the purpose isn't to find best person to run the country, but to get people to find consensus which direction country should go (for better or worse don't really matter as long as there is direction).

Victor is my second name and C is my surname (von) Carstein I presume.

This is a pretty common Western misconception, because in Buddhism, gods (devas) are generally acknowledged to exist but not actually worshipped. You can't even get through the Buddha's backstory without bumping into Brahma, the Hindu creator. The crucial point is that gods are seen not as a wholly different class of being, but rather as having a better spot on the wheel of karma (see: death and rebirth) despite not having escaped it. Of course, Buddhists of many schools do pray to the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Arhats more-or-less as if they were gods, so this is all a bit esoteric. In Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, the difference gets even more arcane, for complicated syncretic cultural reasons that I won't get into. Suffice it to say that not only does Buddhism have gods, it has lots of gods, who are unusual by Western standards mostly in that they had nothing to do with the world's creation. What's interesting is that this attribute is actually also the most unusual thing about Eora's gods (by Western, post-classical standards); what it shares with Buddhism is not a lack of gods - it's the principle of gods as created beings who are not themselves creators. This isn't a novel idea - to Buddhism or PoE - but most of us are used to the Platonic notion of "god as unmoving mover," so we interpret "created artificially" and "god" as mutually exclusive. It says even more about our own concepts of divinity than it does about the setting's that we imagine Thaos' secret as being such a big deal. A lot of cultures, historical and extent, would see no problems. Within Buddhist religions there are differing stances of Buddhism being nontheistic. Although Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity No God, no Brahma can be found, Creator of Samsara’s round; Empty phenomena roll on, Subject to cause and condition. - Visuddhimagga, XIX. Buddhist devas aren't really gods: "This being so, a deva is not a God in the usual sense, and the word is apt to be misleading through its association with Western theism. If modern man could enter into the spirit of ancient Greek thought and understand the attitude of, say, Socrates towards the Greek gods he would come closer to the Buddhist view of the devas. The likeness is not perfect, for the devas, unlike the Greek deities, are not immortal; but they resemble them in being neither omnipotent nor omniscient. They are not creators of the world, but are themselves subject to the law of causality in much the same way that the Greek gods were subject to ananke, the higher law of necessity. They exhibit many of the weaknesses of human beings, and often less than their wisdom. Their present relatively happy circumstances, as well as such power as they possess, are the result of previous merit acquired as human beings. They are in fact simply beings of another order of existence, in some ways superior to men but in others at a disadvantage. But before going further into their nature it is necessary to distinguish between (1) samutti devas (“by convention”), (2) upapatti devas (“through rebirth”) and (3) visuddhi devas (“by their purity”). The first class are human beings of high worldly status; kings; ministers and the like. The second are beings living in the deva-lokas, or higher spheres, while the third and greatest are human beings who have attained the final degree of self-liberation, and so are known as devas by purification while yet alive. These are the Supreme Buddhas, Silent Buddhas (Pacceka Buddhas) and arahats." Source: http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh180-p.html Same as book form in google books https://books.google.fi/books?id=ECTrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=Visuddhimagga,+XIX&source=bl&ots=U4MUx2tQSU&sig=5tCLBBQ2Z3GLV46Gjs8lYyH_9Pw&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit9sze5q_LAhVkDJoKHWvTClMQ6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=Visuddhimagga%2C%20XIX&f=false

You seem very determined to force these established concepts in to your own imagined version. First you butchered the idea of Atheism, now you're butchering Christianity, "it's not a belief system but a category of multiple belief systems." I don't care to change your mind about anything. By all means, think what you like. There is no singular belief system that falls under term Christianity, there are over 21000 different Christian religions in world and they have quite lot differences between them. And they don't even always agree with core tenets of Christian faith(s). If we look definition of atheism from other sources we find that people use definitions like this "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

You are wrong according to Atheists.org: https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism So I repeat: Christianity is a belief system; Atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is term that is used to categorize people don't believe in god/gods or in other words people that lack of belief in gods. But that don't mean that those people that don't have belief systems or life philosophies that guide them. So atheism and Christianity as terms aren't comparable as they describe absolute different things. And if we are accurate then Christianity isn't actually belief system but category term for multiple belief systems that are based at least somewhat in same source materials.

Christianity is a belief system, Atheism is a lack of belief. No atheism is term that is used about people that don't believe in god or gods. So if I say that term ahinduim means lack of belief in Hindu gods, then all people that said term applies will become lazy because of their lack of belief in certain thing.

"It's a cute safety net, and an elaborate way to sell "laziness" under the guise of "lack of belief."" So Christians are lazy because they don't believe in Hindu gods (in other words they have lack of belief in Hindu gods)?