Elerond

I would guess that reason is same as why she has not hired designer to do her web page. Meaning no money, no voice.

But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that? Yes and no. But western want to depose Gaddafi had little to do with Arab Spring, it just give them opportunity do something that they had wanted to do for long time before that point. And fact that people in Libya wanted to depose Gaddafi give west absolution of responsibility of their actions in Libya. I must admit that I just can't comprehend your reasoning why Arab Spring would anyway remove/lessen responsibility that west has over their actions and decisions.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-rebels-weapons-idUSTRE73B5C220110412 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363780/Libya-US-ask-Saudi-Arabia-supply-weapons-rebels-bid-oust-Gaddafi.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-ask-for-extra-arms-20110721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13966976 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2011/04/a_libya_hypothesis_the_rebels.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebels-cant-win-fox-admits-so-we-need-a-traitor-in-gaddafis-circle-2329677.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330 Libyan rebels may already been fighting against Gaddafi, but their change to win Libyan military was estimated to be non-existent without help from west. Yes but my point being they would have killed Gaddafi even if the West hasn't helped him You believe the West has to take responsibility because they helped the rebels but I'm saying countries and people need to accept there own actions ....Gaddafi was killed by the rebels. I still fail to see how the West is responsible My point was that rebels wouldn't have been able to kill Gaddafi without help from west and people in west need admit consequences of their actions too (they supported, even demanded deposing Gaddafi and his supporters, they give arms to rebels that had ties to Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, they used their superior military strength to destroy Libya's national army, important infrastructure, legal institutions that kept peace in the land, without these actions current situation in Libya would be different and Gaddafi probably would still be alive)

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters Yes but as I mentioned the Libyan rebels were already fighting Gaddafi before the USA sent this assistance, in other words the civil war didn't need the West to sent military equipment for the rebels to fight Gaddafi http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-rebels-weapons-idUSTRE73B5C220110412 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363780/Libya-US-ask-Saudi-Arabia-supply-weapons-rebels-bid-oust-Gaddafi.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8606541/France-supplying-weapons-to-Libyan-rebels.html http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Libya-rebels-ask-for-extra-arms-20110721 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13966976 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/19/libya-rebels-will-receive-25-million-from-us/?page=all http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/worldtonight/2011/04/a_libya_hypothesis_the_rebels.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/libyan-rebels-cant-win-fox-admits-so-we-need-a-traitor-in-gaddafis-circle-2329677.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110330 Libyan rebels may already been fighting against Gaddafi, but their change to win Libyan military was estimated to be non-existent without help from west.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/28/emails-show-clintons-interest-in-arming-libyan-rebels-despite-prohibitions.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/1/hillary-clinton-libya-war-push-armed-benghazi-rebe/?page=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110331 For starters

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved? Sure if that was what supported the Arab Spring you would be right....but the West didn't arm, finance or initially support the Arab Spring. It was an ideological movement created and spread by Muslims who wanted a more equitable society in many countries in the North Africa and the ME who were tired of being ruled by families or dictators for decades But Libya's rebels were armed and supported by west in their effort to depose Gaddafi. Even if rebellion itself was not started by west, said rebellion would have most likely failed without help from west. So it is quite dubious to say that west didn't play part in Gaddafi's death. Let take hypothetical and badly fitting metaphor to give an example that resembles situation distantly. Person has been beaten and otherwise subjugated by thier spouse and then they plan to get revenge against said spouse and ask help from their neighbor who then provides them a gun, and then goes and strikes said spouse unconscious and then leaves said person with a gun to sort things out with their unconscious spouse, who then shoot their spouse. Would you say that neighbor in question is innocent and didn't partake in said murder anyway, because said person was already planning to murder their spouse?

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed? Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved?

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/couple-killed-inglewood-police-shooting-asleep-mayor-butts-369902981.html "Both the man and woman who were mortally wounded during an officer involved shooting were unconscious when Inglewood police first responded to where they were sitting in a car, said Inglewood Mayor James Butts Tuesday in response to questions about the incident. For at least 45 minutes, police attempted "to rouse" them in an effort "to de-escalate the situation," said Butts. It is the first public explanation for what transpired early Sunday morning during the time between the initial call and the shooting. Police previously had stated responding officers saw the woman had a gun, retreated to behind cover, and then gave orders for the couple to exit the vehicle." I am not sure what sort de-escalation techniques lead to shooting two people sleeping in the car, but I would say they don't sound very effective.

I got Bernie (93%), Stein(91%), Hillary (83%), Bloomberg(77%) but when I actually looked what they had answered and what were important for them (according to quiz maker as they don't have actual answers from candidates but they have guessed their stance from their public statements) compared to me, I would say that Bloomberg would be actually closest candidate for me. But it is quite typical that election quizzes and machines don't have algorithms that can sort anything else than black and white options. Also my answers to social political questions kill all possibility that said quiz will ever offer me Republican candidate, as Kasich is closest to me in those questions with 12%, then Carson with 8%, Rubio with 1% and Cruz with 0% and Trump seem not have given answers to those questions. Where Sanders is in 95%, Stein 94%, Clinton 83%, Johnson 77% and Bloomberg 59%

He is possible Libertarian nominee for the election.

There has been about 5000 terrorist incidents in India between 2003-2014 according to Global Terrorism Database and those attacks have took over 5000 lives. In Sri Lanka there has been about 800 terrorist attacks that have took over 1000 lives

Thanks Elerond, I appreciate as usual your studious efforts to find relevant links to make a point But I'm not sure if people are not bothering to read my posts in detail or I'm not explaining my point properly, I did say what I mean by terrorist attacks " This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya " So war ravaged countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dont count and neither does the violence we see committed by Al-Shabaab because they are involved in a civil war for decades. So its interesting but not relevant to tell me "Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years." because I know Muslims represent the majority of victims....because much of the violence and civil wars is in Muslim countries So maybe I need to clarify the question, its not about number of victims but its about attacks from foreigners or domestic people who follow extremism but not in a war ...okay now that sounds complicated Anyway my point still stands but I do think Pakistan may have actually been subjected to more terrorist attacks than the USA ? So countries like India, Thailand, Pakistan, Sri Lankka, Nigeria that also countries that aren't ravaged by war (against terrorists) suffer much more terrorist attacks both in numbers and in fatalities than USA. Which is something that next president of USA should be aware especially when those countries are their allies, important for their big companies.

http://www.cityam.com/228884/global-terrorism-index-2015-mapped-terror-attack-deaths-and-economic-cost-hit-an-all-time-high-as-uk-is-hardest-hit-of-any-eu-country http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbYk2l9w-E

Whats your view on this Elerond? I say Apple is being unreasonable and must abide by the governments wishes...its just one phone. Yes if the request is an automatic backdoor for the Federal government for all Apple devices I would also consider this reasonable but this just takes more time I get a little annoyed when people debate something like " its a privacy issue " when in fact its more important like state security Ok lets look this case bit deeper. It is not just one phone, but every phone everywhere in world that locate countries where Apple can't or has difficult time to back out. Because this is not case where ability to unlock the phone is in hands of US government but that it is in hands of Apple, so any government that has even bit of ability to pressure Apple in way US government does now has then ability force Apple to open phones for them. Like for example China, most of Apple's manufacture plants are there, so how Apple ever can say no to them in opening phones that Chine's government wants to open. Or Russia where Apple would lose million of customers if Russian government put trade embargo over Apple's products and this list goes on and on. As long as Apple don't themselves have way to unlock their phones it is for them much easier to say those other governments that they can't do it, but if USA publicly force them to unlock one phone then every other country knows that they can also force Apple to unlock phones for them. This particular phone in question may or may not have useful information in it and any case it is very unlikely that at this point of time it has any information that can save lives. Because its owner has already done their terrorist act and killed people and died themself. And their possible contacts know that government has that phone and may get its information so they most likely have already burned (figuratively) things that link them to phone's owner and possible things that phone contains. (It is not like phone belonged to someone with deep connection to terrorist organisation and other terrorists) State security is important, but so is security of people's personal security and breaking this particular phone in my opinion does quite little for adding state security, but as precedent it will mean that Apple's phones will not any more protect people's privacy against governments and there is always possibility that technology/method to unlock said phones will leak to criminals and then Apple's phones ability to protect people's privacy against anybody will be highly compromised. Not end the world but quite bad for Apple (as it will hinder their ability to compete in markets that ask more protections for personal privacy) and it isn't good for Apple's customers. So I would say that Apple isn't unreasonable with their concerns. This case don't just effect USA and its federal government, There is quite small change this phone in question has information that US government can't live without and that would save lives of people, best it may identify couple not so important terrorists that USA can't then assassinate with drone strikes. I am not sure if this is way to go to protect State security or people of state. I am not sure if this actually would put more people under risk than it ever can protect people. So at end I will not give my support for it.

Donald Trump demands Apple boycott to force it to unlock phone "US presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple until the tech giant helps unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino killers. Apple has clashed with the Justice Department (DoJ) over a court order forcing the company to help break the encryption on one of its phones. On Friday the DoJ called Apple's refusal a "marketing strategy". Apple said it will not help break into the the phone, citing wider privacy concerns for its users. The phone belonged to one of the two people who opened fire at an office event in San Bernardino, California, last December, killing 14 Speaking at a campaign rally, Mr Trump said: "Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information." On Thursday, a court ordered the tech giant to help break the encryption. The government has called the request narrow and argued it is only focused on this particular iPhone. The DoJ filed another motion in court on Friday after Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, said Apple would continue to refuse the order. A California court has set 22 March for the hearing."

In my knowledge you can't. Best you can do is to use twitter tag to create link to person twitter account like this @BioMarkDarrah, which usually isn't that helpful or needed feature.

Here is study that helps you (collective you) to understand about European hate speech and blasphemy laws and their relation to fundamental right of free speech and how things work in reality. (Although it is 446 pages and full of jargon, so not necessary quickest read) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/536460/IPOL_STU(2015)536460_EN.pdf

...And the bolded part is supposed to make it less appallingly racist... how? No, it was not about the level of racism expressed by him or the newspaper, but rather it was to highlight the absurdity of it all: the guy just applied the same argument to its logical conclusion, but to another target than the native population. He got criminal charges against him for his opinion, while the newspaper did not. As in he might be equal to some, but some are simply more equal to others. A perfect example of an Orwellian society in motion if anything, and they didn't even had to fire a single shot or have the police to bash his skull in. If you have no problem with this, then there's little to discuss really. Although that isn't why he was convicted. Supreme Court said that argument part itself was OK, but because rest of his blog post purposefully left impression for reader that Somalis are what his claim says, so he was purposefully insulting ethnic group in manner that is apt to cause hatred towards said ethnic group and endanger public order. Which of course don't mean that newspaper story wasn't guilty to same although prosecutor general didn't think so, but of course one can always argue that prosecutor general was more politically motivated to go after Halla-aho (who was in that time politician in one of the opposition parties, currently said party is in government) than newspaper with such charge.

I use ignore list (mostly to ignore signatures, but also some people whose posting style/messages just bore me), but you BruceVC aren't on it, I can promise if you had such fears. And I am not sure who got offended by this sentence "In my country people like me help people make the right decision....think about it Elerond wouldnt it be better not having to think about a solution when I can just tell you the right answer.....", as it was targeted to me and didn't offend me, so... I didn't reply to it because I didn't feel that I had anything worth my while to say. And debate before it was just typical reflex debate where somebody in internet said something that I strongly disagree so I need to reply to it (you probably would be surprised how many times I write long posts to answer to something that somebody has said that don't have anything to do with the actual topic here just to delete it before I post it )

Haven't most civilized (read: European) countries have managed to have laws allowing the same for quite some time without imploding and/or descending into orwellian dystopias? Lets take my country for example, make it out as you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussi_Halla-aho As for my opinion about it, my stance is clear: I would say that Wikipedia article gives bit too simplified version about said case. Supreme Court gives rational explanations for their judgement in this case. Although if you think that Freedom of Speech should matter more than other constitutional rights then case may feel like miscarriage of justice. http://finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/kko/kko/2012/20120058 (Finnish and Swedish version only, google translate may give somewhat readable version from Swedish version, if somebody is interested by some miracle)

I don't give a damn about bruised egos. This is the US Supreme Court. This is, bar none, the Single. Most. Important. Thing. that will happen this year. Who wins the election in November is meaningless outside the context of this. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby 5-4 that the government cannot compel a person to violate religious principles DC v. Heller 5-4 that the right to own a firearm is an individual right. And while it can be regulated it can not be eliminated. BSA v. Dale 5-4 that private organizations are allowed to establish their own criteria for membership in their organization. Medellín v. Texas 5-3 +1 The President of the US cannot compel the enforcement of an international treaty that has not been accepted by Congress Dolan v. Tigard 5-4 a property rights case; A municipality cannot force a citizen to pay for things not related to their property as a condition of using their property. Town of Greece v. Galloway 5-4 that it does not violate the 1st amendment if the town of Greece opens it's council sessions with a voluntary prayer. (Marsh v. Chambers 6-3 was the same thing) Oregon v. Mitchell 5-4 The Federal government cannot interfere in State elections All of these the court protected the rights of states or individuals against heavy handed and unconstitutional government action. In every case the "liberals" sided with the government and one more "liberal" would have changed the ruling. Barack Obama will not select a moderate. He despises any check on the power of the State and has publicly mocked the constructionists on the court on more than one occasion. His leading candidate right now seems to be Loretta Lynch who I will remind everyone thinks the 1st Amendment allows the government to prosecute hate speech. What is hate speech you may ask? What ever they say it is. And yet he was also part of Citizens United v FEC, where he helped create the stupid election situation we have now. And I wouldn't argue that Hobby Lobby was defending "individual liberty" given that it was a company who was fighting for the right NOT to have to pay up for standard birth control. As a person, those owners could totally have said "no" but they weren't "a person" when they were acting as the CEO's of their company (and only stopped giving birth control because a squad of christian groups wanted the grounds not to cover it). Just because you can cherry pick your favorite decisions by him, doesn't mean that magically your entire world will come crumbling down when another person who's got a more liberal bent is going to take the bench. And where does this magical sense of "We have to be balanced in favor of conservatism!" come from? Is it just because we've had a conservative court for a long time? Or because the conservative side feels that they're being outpaced by the rapidly changing world around them when they still idealize the Stars and Bars? I can't say about general leanings of judges in SC, but those court decision list above (except one about international treaties) seem to all favor liberalism (individual freedoms). Where conservatism is all about supporting traditional social institutions (of course liberalism and conservatism can drive towards same things when we speak about country that is founded on liberal ideologies). EDIT: Although Hobby Lobby decision is presented bit oddly as it seems to be more about certain companies right to have religious principalities than compelling individuals to break their religious principalities. Which I personally find odd decisions by supreme court as it says fictional entity in certain circumstances can have religious principalities that are more important can laws governing said fictional entities. But what do I know

Microsoft did the same thing with Windows 8 initially. There were a few games that had exclusivity deals with Windows 8 at first. Nothing much became of it and some of the few Win 8 exclusive games eventually wound up getting out of that deal and releasing elsewhere. Microsoft does this every few years where they make a big announcement about how they're getting behind PC gaming again then push one or two games to their latest iteration of Windows as a show of "see we're serious this time" then a couple months down the line they return to the status quo of completely ignoring gaming on PC and concentrating on XBOX. We'll see how this go round pans out. I imagine it will be much the same as every previous go round. The fear of Microsoft trying to ape Apple and lock people into their own version of a walled garden is one of the reasons GabeN and Co. are pushing SteamOS (not particularly quickly or successfully so far, but then, Valve always does things at a snail's pace). As a former Microsoft employee, I guess GabeN is privy to the inner workings of that company, granted that was a long time ago and leadership has changed multiple times since then. Honestly, not too much has seemingly come of Microsoft's supposed push toward a walled garden so far. Only time will tell, I guess. Microsoft also tries to push their Xbox/Universal Apps environment, where PC, Console, Tablet and Phone applications share common code bases and functionalities and user can move freely using same application/game from one device to another (they started this idea with Win 8, but that was hampered by their not so good decision with XAML and how they didn't then support it on all their platforms, etc.) . Quantum Break seem to be one of their show case games that will demo their cross platform technologies, like save game/progression sharing between console and pc version and achievement sharing, cross platform buy feature (when you buy it for console you get it also PC and vice versa and they also show how this is possibly to limit only to preorders) . Quantum Break also will show case DX12. More you look it more you see that MS has decided that Quantum Break will be their demo product for their new technologies so that they can sell them to other companies. So I would guess that tying it to their own store on pc is more byproduct of their other ambitions than their actual desire to compete with Steam, because I don't see Quantum Break as game that one would use if they seriously want to challenge Steam's hegemony, but maybe Remedy is just their only developer with enough PC experience to make the first product and then future they will bring their big guns like Halo series (if so this year E3 should be interesting in terms of MS strategy change).

Dem Nevada: Tie, coin flip win predicted for Clinton Rep Nevada: Trump clear winner South Carolina: Trump and Clinton win with big margin.