Valsuelm

I can't say what Leferd's point, but most likely we will see next decade full of movies that try to mimic Hunger Games, New Star Wars also current comic book movie trend most likely will continue. So if you aren't fan of those type of movies then you probably will not enjoy most of the big movies coming in next decade (although there is always hope for trend changer, but Hollywood isn't known to taking big risks). Hollywood hasn't made a great movie in over ten years as far as I'm concerned. The last time I walked out of a theater saying 'Wow, that was an amazing movie' was after watching 'V for Vendetta' in 2005, which itself was a surprise to a degree as at that point it'd been some years since I saw a great film come out of Hollywood. There's been a few good movies (ie: Idiocracy (which Hollywood panned) and No Country for Old Men), and many decent ones, but nothing truly great. I am not alone in this observation, many movie stars themselves have even commented similar. Kevin Spacey and Billy Bob Thorton come to mind. I generally agree with Drowsey's sentiment above, except I part with him on the idea that 'Star Wars' is purely for kids. While it may be primarily aimed at kids (especially after ESB, and I'd argue that after ESB Lucas lost his way to a degree in part because he started aiming his movies primarily at kids), there's some good storytelling for adults as well (at least in the Lucas helmed films, the Abrams venture is pure dung imo). Perhaps that's by accident, and a result of the movies taking inspiration from some of the greats in storytelling, but it's still the case. ie: In preparation for Episode 7, I watched the original trilogy for the first time since they were in the theaters in the late 90s (and the first time unadulterated since '91-'92 via the Harmy editions (very highly recommended)), and very much enjoyed the movies on their own as an adult, no nostalgia involved. In fact I had forgotten to a degree just how good those movies are, in particular the first two, and realized just how much RoTJ (still a good movie) falls short compared to the first two (something I didn't realize all that much as a kid watching it for the first time in the theater). I think most of the best stories out there can be enjoyed by all ages to some degree. This is especially true of classics like from the Brothers Grimm, Orwell, Baum, and even Tolkien and Lewis (many other authors could also be named). All wrote tales a child could enjoy, some specifically aimed primarily at children, but with some very adult themes interlaced. In the case of the latter three this is lost on many, in particular in light of the movies, but very adult themes are indeed contained in those books. Lewis, somewhat famously amongst those well versed in literature, has even written about this.

Play on at least 'hard'. If you're a veteran of IE games you'll find that difficulty setting a bit easier than BG1. In general, the modern day's 'hard' is yesterday's 'easy'. Game companies have really dumbed down the standard play experience for the most part in the last decade (there are exceptions, but Obsidian isn't one of them). I also recommend bumping the level of XP needed to level. This thread discusses how to do that. I'm personally playing my first full playthrough with a 40% increase on hard. My party is level 5-6 in Act 2 and I've not hit anything I'd say is actually hard yet (some fights were moderately challenging).

I'd settle for just "open this week, come by 8AM to 8PM" (or 10AM to 6PM if you want it to be 8 hours...or maybe 12AM to 8PM would be better, to make sure everyone's off work by then). (e): Some states do do it this way (or at least close to)...but not enough. Yea... I'm cool with that.

This all depends on how you organize your vote. Note also that I was talking specifically about voting by non-secret ballot in parliaments. It's impossible to fake votes in elections by non-secret ballot where only a few hundred people participate. Impossible? No. Very unlikely, yes. This is especially rich coming from an American. The US has lower voter turnout than any other country I know of. What do you say about the countries which have 80-90% voter turnout? Has their democracy been destroyed by too many uninformed voters participating? The answer is no. This really depends on the nation we're talking about, though in many cases I would argue yes, as well as say that some really don't have much of a democracy to begin with (most nations, including the U.S. are less of a democracy than many believe (a fact that is becoming abundantly clear to many who didn't realize it before this election)). Low voter turnout in the U.S. is for a variety of reasons, #1 though is probably just how disenfranchised a great many voters are. Not everyone believes in voting for the lesser of two evils, and a great many people have felt unrepresented for a long time. #2 is probably just how many people really just don't pay attention and/or really don't care. You cannot make people care, and compulsory voting for the populace at large is evil. #1 very well could be #2 and vice versa. Besides, don't you think that if more people would participate, that politicians would be more eager to reach out to - and inform - more people? Absolutely not. Not on the national level in the U.S. anyways. There's a few reasons for this, but #1 is certainly the sheer number of people each elected person (be it house or senate (senators used to represent the States prior to the 17th amendment (one of the worst amendments we have by far)) is representing. Which has allowed for congressmen and Senators to largely ignore large swaths of the population they are supposed to be representing. [Though it affects everyone to a degree at the national level, this is a perennial and somewhat especially true situation in some places like California and New York (Californians probably have it the worst though as their state government has the same # of senators as they did in the mid 19th century, despite having by far the largest population growth in the nation).] Repealing the 17th amendment and ratifying what was originally meant to be the 1st amendment (capping the # people each congressman represented), something that isn't like to happen soon, would go a very long way to changing this at the national level. You do realize that it is far easier to fake absentee mail-in votes than it is to fake votes which are certified by cryptographic protocols? No, it isn't, not by a long shot. Also, the number of absentee ballots in any given election is generally quite low. So even if every single one of them was subjected to fraud, there'd still be much less potential fraud an election overall vs an election where a majority if not all of the voters were voting electronically. On top that, if fraud is suspected, finding it and proving it happened will be oodles easier in almost every imaginable case when a physical copy of a vote exists vs when one does not exist. Comments inline.

There's a bit more than just inertia involved.Two big reasons off the top of my head: a) 'Remote voting' allows for many more opportunities for fraud than in person voting does. b) 'Remote voting' makes it easy for the otherwise uninformed/uncaring voter too lazy to get off their couch to influence things. Voting should not be as easy and convenient as pressing a button on your TV remote or sending a text from your phone (as some have suggested it should be). A lot of people, myself definitely among them, do not want attention span of a rabbit couch potato voters, who will only take time out of their Kardasian marathon or Snapchat sessions to vote if they don't need to spend more than a few seconds to do it. Whatever one's political leanings, if one isn't invested in them enough to spend a little time to physically get to the polls or arrange for an absentee ballot, one should not be voting. Time consuming though it may be (and it really isn't all that time consuming in most cases), the best form of voting for a variety of reasons is in person and on paper ballots, with the option for absentee mail ins for those who really can't make it to the polls on election day. New technology is not always better.

Even some mainstream Republican leaning talking heads are beginning to talk about the reality of election things, just how fed up people are, and the very real possibility of armed revolution down the road: https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10154153972106336/ http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/what-trump-has-wrought/ Of course, they're mostly only talking about it from a Republican point of view, but whole lotta 'Independents' and a great many Sanders supporters share much of the same sentiment.

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true. Vals you have to start learning to trust institutions like the CIA, end of the day they have your best interests at heart You dont need to know anything about them to respect the hard work they do Bruce, the CIA has my best interests at heart as much as Ebola or a Great White Shark does.

Well that's a relief. If a CIA director says it, it must be true.

If you let stupid or crazy people set you don't even know set you off, you're going to be 'set off' quite often in life as stupid and/or crazy people make up the majority of the population. Also, drugs #)@( people up, bad. I'd wager a lot that the guy in that video has been on some for quite some time (unless he's actually a very talented actor filming something, which I doubt). My experienced guess would be Ritalin or similar. Also, most of reddit isn't much better than 4chan, and that's mostly adolescent sewage. The whole thing is not worth getting upset about. Really.

Overall, that's not possible. At least for a few decades. It already has busted for a lot of people, myself included (for me, the series ended with dancing Ewoks, and Luke looking over to a smiling Obi-Wan, Yoda, and an old Anakin on Endor). But there's no shortage of fanbois and gals out there who will slobber up anything and everything Star Wars. It's a franchise that arguably has the largest fan base in the world. Busting the franchise for all those people would be hard to do even if you tried. The profit margin may go down (I'd wager a lot it will) from J.J. Abrams movie, but it will still be there for a very long time to come.

Oby is a girl...surly not, he posts pictures of girls ? You're so closed minded Bruce. Falling for typical bigoted stereotypes. Just because Oby posts pictures of girls doesn't mean Oby isn't a girl, or imagines himself to be one 'trapped' in a man's body.

Boston Globe's front page covered in propagandic BS. Yes, I know, this isn't anything new. This time however, they're actually admitting it's BS.

Don't be lazy, and don't waste our time. Read a thread before you comment or get out of it please. Vals why you being so nasty....I have a headache, if you had a headache I would explain the general points? Bruce, nasty is not having respect for and wasting other people's time. If you have a headache, drink some water and go lie down. Come to the forum when you're capable of dealing with it, to the best of your abilities.

Don't be lazy, and don't waste our time. Read a thread before you comment or get out of it please.

Source? They are called Sore Loser Laws (they apply equally to both parties not just Republicans). 45 states have them; Arizona, Delaware, New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia do not. To clarify things, it doesn't apply to states that did not hold a presidential primary or in a large number of states with existing precedents that clearly establish that they do NOT apply to presidential elections. There are two states where it might matter: Texas and South Dakota and that's even assuming that one of the candidates who doesn't secure his nomination has the stones to declare and run as an independent. Thanks. I was actually unaware of the proliferation of such laws. Though, they are not surprising. Sad that Ron Paul didn't make a lot of noise about them last election go around (sad that he didn't do a number of things). Ah well. Here's a decent article summing up just some of what's wrong with such laws: http://www.rangevoting.org/BallAccess.html There are very few issues that I say this: A Constitutional Amendment to prohibit such laws is needed. The party system is corrupt as #uck, and the choke hold that the two major parties have on this nation is indeed ultimately going to prove fatal to it. Will we ever get such an amendment? Sadly, very doubtful.

Yeah ,,,,I did notice that on another article but to be fair we shouldn't just assume he is wrong or biased but you raise a very good point....its actually seems like a real and valid criticism unless he means illegal citizens who wouldn't have ID ? The entire piece is a bunch of propagandic bunk predicated on a many assumptions and a few big lies. The first paragraph holds dishonesty and it goes on from there. Also, Brookings, and most other 'think tanks', are rarely if ever a good source for much of anything, especially on economics. Such 'non *cough* *choke* -profit' institutions have agendas which tend to line up nicely with their source(s) of income, errr patrons.

In what way? Is Dystopia the right word to describe my views I looked the word up as I wasnt sure of its exact meaning an imaginary place where everything is as bad as it can beI dont think things are bad in the EU at all...I believe this is just a level of social transformation but the EU will persevere Sorry Volo but there is no middle ground here, if you dont support the sustainability of the EU in some form then you dont support the West Nothing wrong with that...but then maybe you should find common ground with Zora or Oby? I know the ME is always looking for good friends To answer your question above would take many pages, and honestly, I do not think you'd understand it. You might think you did, but you would choose to ignore a great deal of what I said as it is my experience that you do such when faced with things that fly in the face of what you believe. You are too deep and comfortably uncomfortable in the box given to you. However, to put a complex subject with a great many facets extremely simply, I will comment on what you said to Volo and say that not only is there no middle ground, supporting 'the sustainability of the EU', is in actuality ultimately supporting the destruction of much of 'the west' (Europe) insofar as it's culture, the higher standards of living, and the relative freedom it enjoys compared to the rest of the world. The exact opposite of what you think, and the exact opposite of how it is advertised to average Joe/Jane human. Very evil people are behind the E.U., and their goals are not as advertised, nor are do they have Joe/Jane European's best interests in mind. Here are the directions to a water hole, where one can find something to chew as well: A fundamental piece of the puzzle is in what Mr. Magniloquent is saying in this thread. When what he says there is elementary to you (it's really not rocket science, as I stated in that thread), and you grasp the consequences of it, then you will be a number of crucial steps down the path to understanding why I say what I say above. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and sometimes that road looks quite pretty. Especially when the well dressed puppet pied pipers leading the day, sing a song about heaven along the way.

Is this some new bad meme? Attributing quotes to Abe that he obviously never said?

Yup. Posted in jest. Mods, please delete if you delete the quoted.

Cute girl. I wouldn't cast stones, living in England, as there's certainly no shortage of wussies over there, including the afeared of Trump kind. Trumpphobia seems to be a thing.

Evil is almost always advertised nicely.

Source?

I find you adorable in how tightly you stick to the extreme right's story. "Hillary is a criminal!" Cried the right, "where's the charges?" asked everyone else. "The wall will work!" cried the right, "But how will it be paid for and what laws will we have to suspend to build it?" asked everyone else "The election is rigged!" Cried the right, "Ok, then how is Trump the GOP frontrunner, and Sanders still in range to take the election from Hillary?" asked everyone else. You can rationalize a lot of things, but I sincerely doubt that Hillary being a "criminal" will every come to pass. And for a constitutionalist, you seem to ignore "Innocent until Proven Guilty" being a tenant of the Constitution (as established in Coffin v United States), and just blithely run around declaring guilt without evidence (beyond the rhetoric that has been spouted by those on the right since they realized Hillary was the presumptive nominee in last May) Calling Hillary criminal is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. Saying elections are rigged is not exclusively the purview of 'the right'. 'Far', 'moderate', or 'close'. In fact, people on both sides of your polarized world do both, especially in regards to the latter. 'Criminal' has more meanings than just those in regards to illegality. Insofar as those particular meanings go however, being a criminal is not reliant on being convicted in a court of law that one is such, in fact the most successful criminals usually never even see a court of law. So technically then, we're all criminals no? It's illegal to go past the speed limit, but we do it. Thus we're criminals. Your attitude that somehow she's guilty of something that nobody has indited her for, or provided concrete proof beyond "yeah, this thing is something that happened" with vague projections from the conservatives as to the illegality of it all. From the rumblings we're hearing, the reason for anything she may have done is because, the State Department as an apparatus failed at it's job of supporting it's boss. Respectfully, you're the one who needs to wake up a bit. You act like Sanders hasn't caused any waves politically in this campaign and that everything is rigged for Hillary. And yet over the course of her campaign she's been forced to skew much further left than she'd want to try to keep the demographics that she was winning, while Sander's has done nothing but gain momentum. Meanwhile the republican side wishes it was Rigged because every person I talk to when the subject does come up, is ashamed to be affiliated with the Donald. The reason I turn you into a stereotype (which to a degree you are) is because you slavishly adhere to the NRA and general republican talking points in a way that makes it incredibly easy. If you ever really vocalized a political opinion beyond "Red good, blue bad, guns good!" we might be getting somewhere, but as it stands you've yet to get away with the easily stereotyped talking points found on Fox News and in WoD's posting history. You want to be taken seriously? Fine, provide credible evidence to 9/11 being an inside job, or Benghazi being Clinton's "Fault, or that she's a criminal who's committed treason. Back up your talk with more than just a talking points memo or somebody else saying something. Find the in context quote, do some work. And before you ask, I do, just when I actually want to be serious about a topic with somebody who has something to say. You're delusional kid. Most of what you say above is straight out of lala land. The most simple to refute is I am no fan of the NRA, very rarely watch FoxNews, and have never in my entire life said 'Red Good'. I'm not sure if I've ever even mentioned the NRA on this forum,, but I've stated many a time (even recently) my stance to at least some degree on the other two. Also, if 'every person [you] talk to when the subject does come up, is ashamed to be affiliated with the Donald.', you obviously haven't spoken to too many people, as folks who are proud to be affiliated with him are pretty common. In regards to the rest, I'm not going to waste my time. You clearly won't drink if you're lead to water.

Oversimplification, and myth. Europe is very relevant in the world. Saying otherwise is foolish.