Valsuelm

It's a Trap! There is no trap laid for the General. I wouldn't mislead him so. The only traps appearing in this thread so far are the one's folks lay for themselves.

Be it as it may, your intention based on your personal history falls under Poe's law, hence misjudging your position. Regardless, considering the host of disfranchised kids here and the popularity of PC culture, my post is still relevant for the discussion at hand. Not really, on both counts. 'Poe's law' is not applicable to this scenario. You're new to the forum, there's nothing wrong with that. However, opining on things that are unclear to you is an indication of lack of good judgement skills at the very least. Stick around, read, get to know the posters, and have a clue what you're typing before you start typing and you might become one of the few here that post interesting things. Right now it's mostly just vitriolic idiocy based on assumptions you come up with in your head.

And two more for you good General, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ou9rOssPg

General, RT is not near as bad as you think. Many if not most of it's guests are American, and it hardly is just a 'constant negative view of the west'. It does however fairly constantly report stories that fly in the face of many myths you hold dear. Russia is hardly alone in owning media outlets directed at nations other than itself. Many nations dabble in such matters, including the U.S., which has many media outlets for overseas propaganda purposes, and of course the U.K., that nation who supposedly no longer runs the world's largest empire but just so happens to own the world's largest propaganda.... oh sorry, I'll use the PC term you'll be more comfortable with: largest international news network. It's a coincidence I'm sure. The sad truth is that RT, PressTV, and Al Jazeera whom all you have railed against, generally are far more objective in the stories they do cover than any major western mainstream 'news' outlet. Your list of journalists killed doesn't really amount to much. The wiki is as ever incomplete, and many of the deaths listed are the result of war. That said, of course the occasional journalist is snuffed out in Russia because of what they said or what they were investigating, but this also happens in the 'west' as well. You would dismiss such claims as 'conspiracy theory' though. As for how much influence the governments of the 'west' have on media? Well, that varies quite a bit. In the U.S. for example no major network is outright owned by the government, though PBS and NPR get quite a decent chunk of government funding, and government agencies do exert some degree of influence over the mainstream media. In the U.K. there's the BBC, which is owned by the government. Australia also has a 'news' station owned by it's government. In the 'west' however, it often is not so much how much influence the government has on the media but how much influence the puppeteers of the government have on the media, and the answer to that is one helluva lot. So good General, I'm sorry to disappoint but you shot yourself in the foot, confusing it with a Russian foot. It's somewhat understandable, as they do look very much the same these days. I have recommended you watch these before, and it's clear to me you haven't yet, but here again are some of my recommendations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOygpfEl7nE

I don't usually SNL anymore, but a buddy pointed this one out. It's fairly on the mark. It also shows how a much her clout is spent. SNL won't make fun of a candidate in this manner that Lorne and the other execs want to win.

They had buzz, but never a chance. Bachman had buzz like Justin Bieber can grow a beard. Perry had quite a bit more. A legitimate shaggy he was. He fudged one debate bad though and never recovered.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live). As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S.. We have legislation on the books in regards to Libel and Fraud already, which, situationally could apply to memes. The thing about memes in the U.S. though is that it would generally be hard to prove who was responsible for it, one meme alone isn't usually damaging, and the people behind most of them are idiots without much money, so a civil suit is almost never going to be feasible because of these and other factors. Very well said and i agree. In fact there isn´t that much difference in free speech if you compare russia and the west. The whole idea that everyone in the east is oppressed is realy nothing but a propaganda tool, too many people believe Russia today is still like the Soviet Union, well it´s not Also, concerning free speech in the west...i always saw it more like a farce full of double standarts, but before i write another mega post i will just point to this article, which is a decent view on it, in my opinion: http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/10/392456/The-farce-of-Western-free-speech 'Freedom of Speech' in many nations in the west does not now nor has ever really existed. It's a myth that it exists. A decent litmus test is to look up which nations outlaw questioning aspects of the 'Holocaust'. Where you have a nation that will put someone in jail for questioning the 'Holocaust' you will find a nation that will put people in jail for other bits of speech as well. Those nations do not have true 'Freedom of Speech' enshrined in their culture or law. (tip: question anything and everything that any government ever outlaws discussion about). Many nations have adopted anti 'hate speech' laws in recent years, which sometimes encompass questioning the 'holocaust'. ie: Canada In the U.S. it does did exist. It's enshrined in the highest law of the land (which is increasingly ignored or perverted in some manner), and historically has been a fundamental concept in our culture. In modern times though that culture has been under fire and is deteriorating, ie: the subversive cultural Marxist ambiguous concept of 'hate speech' landed here in the States in recent times and laws have been enacted against it, something which is entirely unconstitutional and doesn't bode well at all for the health of the nation. To a large degree though you can get away with saying anything you want in the U.S.. Legally anyways. Just don't violate those unconstitutional ambiguous anti 'hatespeech' laws (which don't exist in every state), and end up before a judge which will put those laws above the constitution. For the most part though, you'll only find yourself violating those laws if you've violated some other law. They're generally just politicized laws designed to subvert the culture, and in practice generally just exacerbate a situation where someone is already getting charged for some other crime. For example: You can say 'i hope you die you mother ****ing *'N' word* all you want. You won't be convicted of a speech crime (at least not yet; you might get arrested by an idiot though). You can't say that very thing though while beating a black person up without being charged with a 'hate' crime in some jurisdictions. Or beat a black person up after having said such a thing where others could hear you. The insanity and evil of such laws, which largely amount to thought policing, is obvious to some but amazingly not to others (or they're just evil). And such things are on the rise. (The road ahead is getting darker as we go.) Laws against libel and fraud exist of course, but generally don't land you in jail (especially in the case of the former) unless you've defrauded some 'official' government sanctioned thing. To a large degree these laws just allow people who have been damaged in a substantial way to seek redress against those who damaged them (if what was said was false). A jury gets to decide either way, most of the time (unless a plea/settlement deal is reached). ie: A recent somewhat famous example of this was Jessie Ventura's successful suit against the estate of Chris Kyle.

He had some points. But, and that is just my 2 cents here, if you want a discussion about this, you should stop the picture spam and make some very clear points Tip: Oby is a troll, and an exceptionally deluded one at that. Don't waste much time in his threads or on his posts. In general he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Occasionally he does make decent points in a round about way, though it's more than likely just by accident, in the manner that a broken clock is right twice a day.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live). As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S.. We have legislation on the books in regards to Libel and Fraud already, which, situationally could apply to memes. The thing about memes though is that it would generally be hard to prove who was responsible for it, one meme alone isn't usually damaging, and the people behind most of them are idiots without much money, so a civil suit is rarely going to be feasible because of these and other factors. So you support this move in Russia ? General, As I've tried to point out to you repeatedly, the world is generally not made up of black and white. I don't support nor condemn this move in Russia as I've not seen the actual legal language myself. In my own nation, where I can read the laws, there are articles misrepresenting those laws all the time. Propaganda is everywhere, arguably even more so in regards to foreign nations. In the case of this situation it certainly is dishonest to say 'The Kremlin declares war on memes', but that headline serves to reinforce a narrative for the brainwashed, so it is used. If I support any law at all I would support one that allows those reasonably damaged by fraud and libel (via meme or any other manner) to seek redress, ie: anti-Libel and anti-Fraud laws.

Emo alert! Yea.... This poster right here is enough to turn me off from this game.

Nope.... Bachman was never as serious a contender as any of the three Republicans that are currently in the race, and she didn't announce her candidacy until June of 2011. At this point last time she was being talked about less than Gingrich (who also hadn't announced yet) was then and Walker is now. Romney did announce by this time last election cycle, he was one of the first to do so. Also, all three current Republican candidates are stronger candidates than the majority of the Republican field from 2012. Paul at least will be in it for the long haul, Cruz likely will as well. Rubio, even though he currently has the best chance, might bow out if the media and the puppet masters of the Republican party decide to back another. Rubio is pretty much just a puppet. The road to the Republican nomination is also going to be much different this time than last time. There's no Ron Paul (Rand is not his father), for the establishment to have to go out of their way to marginalize. To a large degree Romney got the nomination due to sitting back and allowing the other contenders to go after Paul in the debates and media, thereby damaging them (as Paul generally beat up those he debated), but not himself. This time around Cruz and Paul very well may cancel each other out, which would just make the darling of the puppet masters and mainstream media (whoever it is) cruise to victory. This of course assumes that nothing super major happens on the world scene, ie: collapse of the current financial system, another massive 'terrorist' attack, or world war 3. All of which are on the horizon, but unlikely to happen within the next ~18 months.

I must be misunderstanding, are you saying this type of event, which is clamping down on freedom of expression , is common in Western countries? In case it's completely missed you, which it seems to have done, the issue is not merely about 'freedom of expression'. There are other issues at play. Libel and fraud being two of them, both of which are recognized in western law (to varying degrees depending on where you live). As I said before, I can't read Russian so can't get at the finer points of the law, but as it's been represented, there actually may be little wrong with it, and very well might even stand up as a law in the U.S.. We have legislation on the books in regards to Libel and Fraud already, which, situationally could apply to memes. The thing about memes in the U.S. though is that it would generally be hard to prove who was responsible for it, one meme alone isn't usually damaging, and the people behind most of them are idiots without much money, so a civil suit is almost never going to be feasible because of these and other factors.

This is somewhat another issue, though related. It would indeed be nice if there was a grace period of a few minutes (5 or 10 would suffice) before that edit timestamp kicked in. Most of the time I edit it's within the first few minutes of posting and it's done to correct some grammar, I would wager this when and why most edits are ever done by most people. Not a biggie, but a quality of life / forum cleanliness thing.

Right now, the only person who's declared they're running who has a chance of making it into the general election is Clinton. And that's because nobody within the party seems to want to try to take her on for the parties vote. And on the Republican side, Cruz is a Joke, Paul is to radically stupid in his ideals to get much traction (Seriously, the economy wouldn't survive on the gold standard kipper), and Rubio is just a footnote. Although in general somebody like Rubio would probably take the nomination (how many of you knew who the hell Obama was before 2008?) But he'd be completely out classed by the machine that Democrat's have built for presidential elections. Right, and the best the democrats have is an incompetent woman that has gotten by on connections and has royally ****ed up every incident she's been involved in. But let's support Hillary cuz Republicans are evil. I'd trust these hippies more than I trust anyone else who's declared so far. You act as though other people aren't going to become candidates. You'd trust a person who has proven themselves a liar and psychopath many times over to relatively unknowns? Either you don't follow political realities much or you're a whackoloon yourself. I don't think a more obviously corrupt and insane person has ever announced their candidacy for Presidency than Hillary. It certainly has not happened in my lifetime. That anyone supports her at all at this point is a testament to just how out of touch with reality many people are. Also, your reading of the candidates chances is far off. Of the candidates who've entered the field so far, the person with the least likely chance of making it into the general election is Hillary. She more than likely won't even be a major contender for the nomination once the Democratic field has filled up a bit. Her political clout has largely been spent. Even in New York State, with it's giant blind blue voting block down in New York City, and the state that bagged her carpet for her after it was clear her two home states would reject her for office, her political clout is largely spent. The Democratic Party powers that be have largely turned their back on her here, and nationally they're looking for other options. In contrast, Cruz, Paul, and Rubio all have a decent chance of making it to the general election at this point. I'd put Rubio's chances a bit higher than the others for a variety of reasons. In many ways he's an old Rino in a young man's body, spouting the same old crap for the most part, insincerely saying what he needs to to get elected, so he'll be the media's baby (as things currently stand, things very well may change when the field becomes bigger). Cruz and Paul both represent to a degree the more politically astute in the Republican party who likely won't vote for Rubio, or any Rino. Their ideas are a bit deeper than the average moron can handle though so they're relatively easily marginalized. That said, a very significant number of people are actually looking for real change, and they're the only candidates in the field right now talking about it, and very possibly will remain so. Election chances for the current candidates, if the election were honestly tabulated. Chances to win Democratic nomination: Almost anyone else that enters the field > Clinton Chances to win Republican nomination: Rubio > Cruz > Paul > Bush Chances to win Presidency if they have their party's nomination: Paul > Cruz > Rubio > Clinton > Bush Things will change a lot in the coming months though. Whoever the major Democrat contender(s) is/are, is still an unknown (about the only sure thing is that if the Democrats can't field a better candidate than Biden or Clinton (which shouldn't be hard to do) the Republicans are going to win the election). And it's possible some more major Republican contenders may enter the field (right now Walker may enter, which could change the chances of all of the aforementioned, as he'll likely be a strong candidate if he runs).

Said no one who read and understood the books ever, save for some that might just watch the show for the T&A and couldn't care less about the plot.

I see no problem here then - Putin is living in a fantasy world .. I think these shops are a perfect reflection of his personality. Na... they're much more a reflection of the person who made them, as is usually the case with any art. Of all the 'world leaders' out there, Putin is one of the most down to earth. He just cultivates his personality in a manner that some may find amusing, but quite a lot of people fall for. He probably does it better than anyone else on the 'world leader' stage right now. As with any cult of personality, the fantasy world lies with the cult and those focused on it, not necessarily the personality. If you actually think Putin is living in a fantasy world, you would likely be surprised just how many popular personalities put on an act when they walk onto any stage or into any spotlight (or perhaps you're just bamboozled like the General). For the successful, the answer is: Most. Of course many of these folks let it all go to their head (ie: Sean Hannity, Howard Stern), or were nuts to begin with (ie: Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi). I've never seen evidence that Putin's let it go to his head or that he's nuts. All evidence points to very intelligent, pragmatic, down to earth, and ruthless man

I'll just leave this here. Link primary sources, not secondary. http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-little-fighting-game-that-could/1100-4587/ I hope the extra money raised went into staff salaries, because they're not making all that much on that budget.

Is that the first expansion as in, the first part of the expansion they plan to deliver? Or that's the total sum including the second installment as well? The guy doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to something that already exists, hence it's not wise to seek his thoughts about what he thinks in regards to something that doesn't exist yet.

Pretty much this. Party banter? Awesome, bring it on. NPCs orating most of what they're saying? No thank you. A little is good as was done in the IE games. PoE has more than a little, and it's distracting.

Many people obviously don't even understand the situation. If one cannot imagine a legitimate reason why one would edit a post more than an hour later (heck, months later legitimately in some cases), one is either new to the world wide web, has been living under a rock of some sorts in regards to internet forums, or their imagination is broken. The OP pretty much says in short what's probably the primary reason anyone would want to edit a post at a later time. One could peruse over to the Paradox forums (the company Obsidian recently partnered with), and find a great many good examples of posts that legitimately have been edited not just more than an hour later, but many months later, and I'm sure if one looks one could find one from more than a year later. And this is on a forum that I'd say has even more heavy handed misplaced moderating (mostly by Paradox employees upset they are being criticized) than Obsidian's does, though they do not tolerate trolling there near as much as it's tolerated here (they do have a few good moderators). But hey, better to vote against something you don't understand, or to crush another person's freedom because you don't exercise yours for whatever reason yourself. And that said, it seems the hour has been extended. Thanks for that at least. But really, just lift it already.

Unfortunaly yes...a VERY long time. I enjoy the show a lot though, the problem with the show is, it makes me want the new book(s) even more. Damn it, finish it allready He's likely to die first. The latest is he's trying to finish book 6 before the next TV season. So, if we're lucky we might see Winds of Winter next spring. Which puts the final book (if book seven even is the final book), at a conservative 2022 release. GRRM has obviously given up on finishing the books before the TV show beats him to it.

Oh well, i don´t think he really needs that considering his high approval raitings with the population. Also it has nothing to do with him, the backstory on this is here: http://www.vocativ.com/world/russia/the-unusual-case-that-led-to-russias-new-meme-ban/?PageSpeed=noscript If anyone cares, i dont really *shrug* Raining on Bruce's anti Putin parade again are you? That's actually an interesting case, and I don't necessarily see anything wrong with it if applied well. I can't read Russian so I can't check on the finer points of the legal matter. But there certainly are legitimate issues raised.

Ayup. Stock up on food and buy dem guns n ammo. This current insanity isn't going to last forever.

Jack Nicholson voicing a crazed evil axe would be awesome as well.