Elerond

Those violent anime lovers again harassing good people

Actually rangers have had animal companion from the first time Obsidian actually defined the class. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/732064 Before that update only thing they have told about rangers (at least in KS updates) is that rangers are most likely better in ranged combat than fighters. Picture they use for Sagani was first shown in KS update #3, where they explained basic concepts for the things they had planned. That picture most likely lead creation of Sagani as companion as people liked very non traditional fantasy style of dwarf (they didn't yet even had boreal dwarf locked as subrace) from boreal region of the world (that didn't yet have name). https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/310512 Although I think you are right that Sagani's character isn't based on Binabik and his wolf

I am pretty sure that lead designer would have any problems to accept your canonical gods. As he is big cat lover.

It was Sanders supporters and other leftists disrupting Trump's rallies, I've never seen any Trump supporters trying to disrupt Sanders rallies. As far as cancelling, it was the right call, there was a near riot inside as it was, and apparently they were planning to rush the stage if Trump showed up. Sure, there are elements of people disrupting some of Trumps rally's But aren't people allowed to do that...freedom of speech and the US Constitution ? Trump seems to be big supporter of political incorrectness and direct action, so I am not sure if he should be angry for those supporters that just take his word and act instead being politically correct

If you want to split hairs, it was SS that cancelled the event. That CNN article said that it was Trump's campaign that canceled the event not secret service (which I think you are referring with SS). "Some 300 officers were on hand for crowd control, according to Escalante (Chicago Interim Police Superintendent John Escalante). The Trump campaign didn't consult with authorities before calling the event off, he said" http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/index.html

2:00 in Finland EDIT: Wrong time as I forgot that US moves to daylight saving before Tuesday.

Trump cancelling his rally gives bit premeditated feeling. As he is purposefully used rhetoric that is known to bring protesters and as soon as there is bit bigger protest his campaign cancels the event, even though official deny recommending such and claim that everything was under control, which brings even more media coverage to him and obscures disagreements against what he has been saying behind claims how he is silenced. So to me it seem like obvious tactical move that seem still somewhat work for him at least in media .

Final Score: SENSIBLE Your capacity for evil is minimal, and you seem like a rational, reasonable sort. That’s good! As long as it doesn’t get you killed... What kind result is that? And I even picked quite evil choices .

Ahtisaari naturally made the threat on NATO instruction being no more than another pawn in the process. Milosevic, like most politicians, had a history of failing to follow through and understood very little of warfare and foreign policy. On the other hand, at the time and in his position, with absolutely no one to counterbalance NATO (specifically Russia) - the threat could easily be interpreted as genuine. Weighting the potential of hundreds of thousands of casualties with the possibility that its all a bluff is a decision that few men would find easy to make. Frankly, he had little reason to give up otherwise. The army was intact, the damage to the infrastructure was already done. NATO was in a position that they had to invade to realize their goals - something that was not acceptable in Washington. So this threat was a last ditch attempt to maximize the effectiveness of the bombing. And he caved in. One thing that I find strange in Ljubisa Ristic claim that Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic is that said threat happened in meeting where he was to present the NATO/Russian proposition for Milosevic. So anything presented there was result of negotiations between NATO and Russia, although Ahtisaari was mediator in those negotiations. And of course Ahtisaari is cold war era politician who is willing to use hardball tactics to get results.

I find it bit strange that threats of carpet bombing by Ahtisaari would had made Milosevic give up. As Ahtisaari didn't any power to back up such threats and Milosevic would had now that. But maybe he forwarded NATO's threat hard to say, what happens in such closed door negotiations.

So be established rules of this thread and its previous incarnations Trump is communist (as it was established that anybody that in any form saw anything that Soviets did as good thing is communist). So there are now two communists, traitor, religious fanatic and sleazy pretty boy and one who nobody cares running for president. I would say it don't look that good for future

Age of consent in South Africa is 16. People under 16 but over 12 if their age difference is less than 2 years can have sex with each other without getting charge for statutory rape. People under 12 are strictly of limit of any sexual activity even such extent that masturbation would be illegal if it wasn't fact that people under 12 can't be charged for crime. So main effect is that 12-14 year olds can't have sex with people under 12 even if age difference is less than 2 years. I Googled this information, so I probably will not be here anymore in tomorrow :(

Oh my sweet summer child... Not saying that violence is a good solution but just that it is a solution. I do not consider violence, in and of itself, as evil. It is just another tool in the tool box. A really blunt instrument but still just a tool. What problem does violence not solve? From global hunger and over-population to global warming, from shoplifting to insurrection, they can all be solved through the application of violence. Only violence can bring about peace during a war, while having a ceasefire almost always results in further conflict or at least extending the conflict. How the hell would you use violence to solve global warming? As global warming is caused according to experts by humans producing too much carbon dioxide, so simple solution is to bombard most of the humanity and their devices of the planet and then planet will be capable to solve global warming by itself and if it is not then at least global warming will not cause mass starvation.

"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.