Valsuelm

Why do you care about Howard Dean? He's entirely inconsequential. Also, he was chairman of the DNC. A prerequisite of being chair of either the RNC or DNC is that you are an unprincipled #*@!. To be clear: Dean has no principles to go against. Edit: Dean's greatest contribution to American politics, and probably what's going on in his head much of the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DeanScream.ogg

Is there such a thing? I've only come across a few self professed South Africans in my life, only one of which spends a lot of time commenting on American politics, let alone is a supporter of the most vetted, proven criminal, and obviously evil candidate in modern U.S. History.

Your cognitive dissonance and hardcore ignorance is showing. Evidence of censorship on this very forum is linked on this very page below, and that is by no means an isolated incident of censorship in the land of Obsidian in my experience. On the wider scale that I was referring to (I was not limiting my observation to this particular forum), there are cases of various forms of censorship, in particular in schools, that make national news almost every day. If you look into the Foundation for Individual Rights in Higher Education ,or even the ACLU (they are less consistent in fighting censorship, but they do often fight it) you can find an in recent times ever increasing number of censorship cases, often (though certainly not always) driven by sentiments the SJW crowd holds dear. Much more could be said, but given your usual immature ignorant response, I think it's likely a waste on you.

Not really. While culturally marxist folks and their deluded zombie followers (a.k.a. SJWs) have existed for quite some time, it's only been in the last decade or so that they finally achieved such great numbers. When I was in college back in the 90s, you could still tell such idiots (who were very much in the minority even at the overall liberal school I went to) what to go do with themselves. Nowadays saying such things are generally banned from all sorts of places (especially internet forums; which historically were far more free) as 'offensive speech'. People in general used to have more backbone, as well had a much greater aversion to censorship and appreciation for the First Amendment. People in general also used to be more social in a real sense. It's the anti-social nature of 'social media' that has lead to much of the insanity now plaguing us methinks. That's a complex thing to explain to someone who doesn't intuitively get it. [And you're not like to intuitively get it if you aren't old enough to have been around before the 'eternal september' and experienced first hand how the internet, cell phones, etc have changed the culture over the years; and/or appreciate just what's lost in communicating via text vs face to face]. Even when I was touring colleges in the early/mid 00s SJWs hadn't yet taken over (save for Harvard in my experience (that place being infested much sooner than most other places from what I've seen (holy *(#@$ at the nutjobs I met there); which stands to reason as much of higher academia has tried to emulate Harvard for better or worse for a long time now)). It's somewhat ironic that some (most SJWs certainly) are actually deluded to think the stifling of speech we now have is 'progress'. It was actually the immature and vapid puppet Rubio that brought the subject up, not Trump. The whole thing lends a little credence to the probably untrue accusations that he's been in some gay porn, him being interested in Trump's wee wee that is.

...and now for something completely different:

Julie's videos are generally laced with a degree of tongue in cheek sarcasm, and this one isn't one of the exceptions. She's not very myopic, she's actually more astute than most. Her satire wasn't blaming SJWs for the state of the Republican party though, get yer facts straight. I can see where someone not familiar with her work can miss the satiric aspect of this video though; you are forgiven. As for the vitriol in the Republican race, I'd say it's been relatively tame albeit more entertaining than most previous elections, so far. That's likely to change if Trump actually get nominated. Also, most of the vitriol that we have seen is coming from outside of the Republican party, albeit aimed at it (and in particular Trump), and it's really par for the course for the vitriolic (and often untruthful) slander to be slung when any establishment outsider begins to gain traction. The Democratic party debates? Yawn. Hillary is incapable, and Sanders plays softball with her (unfortunately, as he's capable of more). Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have good debates insofar as actual debating goes, however occasionally there's an entertainment factor (which is really all they're meant for as it's all essentially a circus show). I'd love to see actual debates. Can't say I've seen one in my lifetime, other than through reading transcripts of some from the era before TV. Prior to that era, and especially prior to the era of radio, politicians were generally much more interesting and substantive to listen to.

Thanks for your response peko. My bad. I realize the game caps you at 120k (or lower if you don't have the expansion(s)). As well as that one generally reaches this cap well before the game ends. I should have clarified better. My question is more directed at anyone who has used an xp cap remover (is there one out there?), or changed the rate at which you level via the IE mod or a hex editor so that you hit the level cap above 120k XP. In other words, I'd like to know how much XP there is to be had in the game, which can best be answered by Obsidian themselves or by someone who has played all the way through (completionist style) without hitting an XP cap. It would be awesome if someone from Obsidian could supply the answer.

I dedicate this thread to BruceVC. The man that came to mind when I saw this video.

I'm curious as to how much XP people have earned throughout the course of the game. If you've finished the game, and in particular if you're a completionist (attempted to do everything you could in the game), please post your XP total for your main character. [Also please note anything worth noting that may have affected the XP total, such as if you played a large portion of the game without a full party]

The pertinent question is, just how much XP do we end the game with? Can some completionists post their end game total XP? If we get a number of end game XP values, we can determine an optimal XP nerf via hex editing. Edit: This question is actually worthy of a new thread methinks. Made.

And fortunately so Sure, if you're into mass ignorance...

I stumbled upon this the other day, while looking for 'Happy Birthday' videos to send to a friend. Not what I was looking for, not what I expected, but damn, it's good. Studio version w/ lyrics: Live version in Germany w/ Tatu: Few songs have ever brought tears to my eyes. This one did. A message lost on so many people...

It is indeed a failure on Obsidian's part when there are people (I'm one of them) who will not buy their product unless a third party mod, which for the most part provides basic options/features/improvements that should be in the game anyways, is updated for it. In other words, we shouldn't even need the IE Mod. What it does should already be in the game. Especially at this point.

You seem to like to imagine things that were not said, or are not there, as well as to argue these imagined things just to argue and save some kind of imagined face. Alas, I am reminded of why I stopped coming here.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression. And yet the current GOP call themselves the party of Lincoln. And it's not like Bush Jr was any better about paying attention to the Constitution given that he sent American citizens to Gitmo to torture them for information about AlQueda and others. And yet you don't even seem to understand it yourself. You treat it as some sort of sacred text that shall never be changed because that's how it was, and how your founders created it. Never minding the fact that it was created with notes about how slaves counted for voting. And I'm not sure how you think Freedom of Religion is being misused, it's there to prevent the government from saying "We're Chrisitans, so hang up your stars and crecent moons, you're worshipping the cross or going to jail!" Ultimately American student's don't study the Constitution because it doesn't really effect them day to day. The laws that do effect them are taught to them before they're six as part of standard socialization. After all, I don't think a 12th grader is going to argue their constitutional rights in front of a judge.. that's why we have lawyers. And most of the time those who think they are "properly educated" (as in they read what they wanted to) are usually just involved in the groupthink of their community. Ignoring the fact "Right to Bare Arms" didn't exactly have RPG's or Cannons in mind. 'And yet', again, irrelevant. What some of the GOP advertises themselves is as relevant as what snake oil X salesman says his concoction can do, and just about as sincere. The reality is that modern GOP has less in common with the Republican Party of Linoln's time than the Democratic Party of the same era did. At the national level, both parties are corrupt to the core. The words that come out of their mouths, in particular the mouths of the party 'leadership' and the RNC/DNC are less sincere or factual than the average proverbial used car salesman's. As for the rest of what you say: more irrelevant to what I was saying nonsense.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression. That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done. Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios) You're talking about a country where random Joe doesn't even know all 51 states. 50. And the general populace is generally no smarter or better informed anywhere else in modern times either.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression. That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done. Is it actually possible to graduate from school in USA without getting passing grade from course about constitution? (Not any way relating in topic, but I am just curios) Yes. It's safe to say that most people have never read it, even though it's not exactly a long read. Hence the not these days uncommon 'this isn't constitutional' claims from various sides of debates, where the it's clear that those saying it have never read the document. Even fewer have read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers, or other historical documents, which give a pretty clear indication of what was intended in the U.S. Constitution (some aspects of it have been thoroughly corrupted or ignored over the years; most famously (but not only) the 'commerce clause'). A school might discuss certain aspects of it, ie: most people have an idea of the protection of free speech in the 1st amendment, but at the same time a large chunk of those people totally misunderstand the 'freedom of religion' aspect of the same amendment. One could chalk this up to their lack of reading comprehension, or their lack reading, period. Reading the U.S. Constitution isn't even required in most law schools (one would think your average lawyer should be familiar with the supreme law of the land, but a great many are not). Nor is it required for most if not all of the various public officials and military personal who swear to uphold it. Most of these folks don't even know what exactly it is they are upholding. The sad truth is that the vast majority of those who have died 'defending it' have never even read it. This is no small reason why we're quite far down the road to hell, and very far from the free republic we are supposed to be.

Well, US was in the Civil War at the time. Also I'm not sure how something that happened 150 years ago is relevant now. It isn't relevant. Nor was Abraham Lincoln an 'arch-conservative', especially by the standards of the day. Nor was his suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional if you're in the camp that the war he lead on the south was against a rebellion, and not an act of aggression. That said, in modern times, very few politicians at the national level respect and appreciate the U.S. Constitution, and it's likely that almost as few have even read it. Something that most of even the worst politicians at the national level in the 19th century had, and had done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbVryoXafw