Valsuelm

Actually, there is oil in these nations. Here's one article talking about it. There are more out there. I know you like to think otherwise, but the U.S. doesn't send thousands of troops anywhere just out of the kindness of it's heart. Oil or not, something more than Ebola was up with the ~3000 troops sent to Liberia.

Gosh, I hope not. Especially when you're rocking that avatar.

Perhaps. The characters in the books in general are a little more dynamic and fleshed out than they are in the TV show (as is usually the case with a book vs. movie/TV). So some characters like Tyrion might seem darker, while others who seem more 'bad' in the show, might seem a little lighter in the book. As I'm sure you figured out in the show, Tyrion is a very pragmatic and intelligent character that does what he has to do to survive. Slight possible spoiler below for anyone who hasn't read the books and has only seen the show:

'Moderate', 'Radical', 'Extremist', 'Centrist', "Leftist', etc are subjective terms that usually don't mean too much save to those that use them. And those that use them usually have an agenda against whomever they are labeling and/or a very polarized view of the world largely dictated by someone else's agenda (who started the labeling). Also, people who use them often have different ideas as to what they are. A 'moderate' or 'centrist' is usually someone the author/speaker wants you to like or at least think isn't that bad, whereas 'Extremists', 'Radicals', 'Far-Right', or 'Far-Left' are generally someone the author/speaker doesn't want you to like, heck they often don't even want you to consider what those people they are labeling even has to say (they'd usually prefer you just think they are unreasonable people or even nuts so you just dismiss everything they say before giving whatever is said consideration). For the most part whenever I see 'moderate' attached to the word 'Muslim' in the media it generally just means someone that has no connection to an official 'terrorist group' or doesn't support anything that official 'terrorists' have done. Those people would be called 'Radicals' or 'Extremists'. Basically don't be on the 'Terrorists' team or cheer for them and you'll be considered a moderate. Oh, and don't throw rocks at people for committing crime X that isn't perceived to be a crime in some places. Throwing rocks at people makes you a 'radical' too it seems in the eyes of those who like to label a lot. But again, it's subjective, and usually just amounts to name calling rather than actually being informative in any way.

Out of the 45 it missed some Muslims that condemned the attacks, such as the leader of Hezbollah. Media Matters though..... the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, and even Hustler is generally more tasteful and less full of bitterness and division than they. Hell, they might even be worse than Sean Hannity. And the site quoting them seems to be nothing more than an 'I hate Republicans' website. You regularly read tripe such as that article or was it linked from a more reputable source? The list of 45 was useful but it's found in a pile of dung.

The only ways I'd say they are worse than the series is that you don't actually get to see Emilia Clarke in the nude when reading the books, the awesome show opener isn't in the books, and Djawadi's music isn't in the books. In pretty much every way other than that they are better, even as well done as the show is. So strap yourself in for some good reading.

Oo Did you read all the books? A smaller role he did not play. Like most of the other characters, he's in almost every scene the show has him in and then some in the books.

I think you are confusing the Geneva Convention with the ICC. The U.S. ratified and signed the former, it is not a part of the latter. And as much as I'm for basic human and legal rights for all, I do not think the U.S. should be a part of the ICC. It generally just oversees political agendas and witchhunts, and I'm 1000% against governmental bodies that are considered by some to be above nations.

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this? And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly? What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil. Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases. They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place. Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to. Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil. Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing. I thought that the Guantanamo cases were human rights violations not the Geneva convention. AFIK the Geneva is only for countries that have signed the treaty, you're only covered if your nation is part of it. The popular argument to try and legally justify the Guantanamo situation legally here in the states is the aforementioned 'enemy combatant' status, and how people designated as 'enemy combatants' are magically exempted from basic legal and human rights. It's a technicality one can point to in the 3rd Geneva convention already linked, but as Zoraptor mentions if you're not covered under the 3rd treaty you are under the 4th. Generally speaking the idea of human rights finds it's foundation in the ideals of natural law which contains one of central concepts that the U.S. was founded on. That being that everyone has basic fundamental rights bestowed upon them by their creator (be it God, Jobu, the accident of the atom, or the All Powerful Flying Spaghetti Monster). You get them from just being you, no matter who you are, where you live, what color your skin is, what you think, what you've done, no matter what. If you're human you got em. Various treaties and organizations claim to respect those basic human rights (though some interestingly ignore some aspects of them). The U.S. has the respecting of those rights central in it's Constitution, as well as various laws written since. So not only is the U.S. breaking the Geneva convention with what it's done in Guantanamo, the people behind it's also breaking numerous laws here, and breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution (if they took it, which everyone in the military and most (if not all) in national political roles do. There are few if any things more diametrically opposed to the fundamentals of what the U.S. is supposed to be than what has been done in Guantanamo Bay.

Enemy combatants still have rights. I trust you know this? And yeah, it's always a good idea to start allowing the man to decide whose rights can be waived and under which circumstances. Because that has never led to bad things in the past. It's not like they try and do it under the table already, so what harm could it possibly do if it was done openly? What a dreadful world you must live in, where man is so violent that he must be prevented by governments from doing evil. Actually I don't think terrorist actually have rights under the Geneva convention as they don't have a nation and breach the convention in many cases. They do. Thought it's arguable those rights are recognized under one of the other Geneva treaties. That they don't is a misconception believed by many that was perpetrated by the very people who wanted to deny 'enemy combatants' of their rights in the first place. Before 'terrorists' were blamed for most of the evil events in the world, 'anarchists' were. If there's a group of people or ideology out there who truly don't have a nation, it is anarchists. And at the time of the Geneva convention anarchists were the more common boogymen of the day. No nation I'm aware of ever tried to deny an anarchist(s) charged with some evil deed(s) their basic human or legal rights by classifying them as some imagined sect of people that are somehow magically outside the realm of the basics that everyone else is privy to. Anyways, who is to say so and so doesn't have a nation they are fighting for? Why should that even matter? No matter who it is, and no matter what they are charged with they should be given a jury trial within a reasonable timeframe, and then acquitted or sentenced accordingly. To do otherwise is evil. Regardless, at the end of the day it's not uncommon for many nations (including the U.S.) violate the Geneva convention on many levels other than what happens in Guantanamo Bay. Like many other things of it's nature (like the ICC) it's rules are generally only applied to nations and people on the non-western side conflict X. It's a do as I say not as I do kind of thing.

The movie was great. How close does the plot follow the movie? Is it a complete revision, or a continuation of the story?

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it. I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective. The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind. You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion. The attackers were not directly insulted nor were they confronted by the paper. They decided that no one is allowed to draw their prophet or insult their ideology. When some one did; they meant to silence them with violence. A more accurate analogy would be if Joe decided to hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob wrote in a paper that FDR was a jerk. Then Joe declared that if anyone publishes anything that insults FDR he will hit them with a shovel. What matters in a court of law? That Bob wrote the paper? That Bob told Joe to go F himself? Or that Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel? We'd be in the court of law because Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel, whatever his reasons were. Be they because Bob said or wrote something, or because Bob happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because Joe just didn't like the way Bob looked, or because Bob snookered Joe's wife. Whatever Bob did, of paramount import is that Joe hit him in the head with a shovel. And Joe would be charged with hitting Bob in the head with a shovel, not with abridging Bob's right to write, say, look however he pleases, or screw whoever. To use the latter as an example, if Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob had been screwing Joe's wife, is that an assault of Bob's basic right to screw anyone he wanted that was willing? Yea.. philosophically you could argue that, but it's not something you'd hear in a court of law. Motives matter of course. In a trial with any of the examples above Joe's motives (theorized or admitted) would be presented to a jury. They might even influence a jury's decision, or a judge's sentence. But they are generally not (with a few horrific recent exceptions in U.S. law such as the laws against 'hate speech'), nor should they ever be illegal themselves. To make them so is to start thought policing, and I hope you can appreciate the insane slippery subjective slope that is. And for the record, I agree with Bob. FDR was a jerk!

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it. I call BS on this. The ideal of freedom of speech is that people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise. It's plainly obvious that the attack was motivated by a desire to intimidate French society into not displaying anything they find offensive. That's just as much an assault on free speech as any government anti-speech law; although not as effective. The ideal and right to 'Freedom of Speech' is not so "people can express their views without fear of violent retribution; from the government or otherwise.' Replace the word 'violent' with 'any', and get rid of the 'or otherwise' and then you've got it right. This isn't a matter of opinion either, it's a matter of fact. Go read your nation's Constitution at bit more closely than you already have. And it's your nation's 1st Amendment that is the gold standard worldwide and the one that served as an inspiration for many other nations to adopt (or pretend to adopt) the ideal of free speech. It's never been about being able to say anything without consequence of any kind (violent or otherwise) from those around you, that would be absolutely ludicrous. To think that would mean to believe that words are nothing more than wind. Words are often more than wind, and they often have consequences, be they good, neutral, bad, or some combination thereof, for either he/she who utters them, those who hear/read them, or both. You will not find many (if any) lawyers arguing that Joe attacked Bob's freedom of speech when Joe hit Bob in the head with a shovel because Bob told Joe to go F himself. It is not legally applicable, and it's really a ridiculous assertion to make outside of philosophical discussion.

While I'm not going to say what I think, you'd have better said: 'Please tell me you think it's JFK. I fully believe what my government and the mainstream media told me in regards to all of the mentioned incidents and I've not looked into any of them much because to do so would possibly challenge those beliefs. There might be something to the idea they lied about what happened with J.F.K though, but I've not looked into it yet.'

Food for thought:

Actually it isn't about war. None of the killers were motivated by France's foreign policy. They were simply offended by the cartoon and decided that the penalty of offending them should be death. France could be the most peaceful country in all human history and the killers would have been the same. They still would have been offended, they still would have been Islamic radicals, and they still would have gunned down the satirists. You know what will actually help? Addressing the issue rather than deflecting it by changing the subject. Freedom of speech was attacked the these radicals; NOT France's (or the west's if you prefer) foreign policy. Charlie Hebdo's second incarnation came about in large part because of the first Gulf War. From day one it was an anti Muslim pro war in the Middle East propaganda magazine. There is no way that France's foreign policy did not serve as a motivation for the attackers on some level, albeit perhaps an indirect one. These were absolutely not attacks on free speech, any more than a guy who punches someone in the face who insulted his mother is an attack on free speech, or the black guy who beats up a white guy for calling him the 'N word' is an attack on free speech. And if we want to start arguing free speech issues in France, there are better places to start, such as the movement to crush certain types of speech in regards to this incident, or abolishing the laws on the books in France that limit free speech. The ideal of Freedom of Speech is the right to say anything without interference from one's government, it is not the right to say anything without consequence from non governmental people or entities around you. And not only did the French government not hinder Charlie Hebdo's expression, it directly supported it.

Nothing wrong with being skeptical. I myself start skeptically looking at pretty much everything, when I begin looking at something. And I would agree you should generally do your best to not inflict your view point (whatever it is) upon your students. I don't know what era of history you teach, but whatever it is, I do hope you mention the dubious aspects of things like the incident that gave us the phrase 'Remember the Maine!', the Lusitania, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident, for those things that would be pertinent to the era of history you teach. If you want to stop being lumped in with the brainwashees on this forum, please refrain from making comments like this: This adds nothing positive to the conversation, and legitimizes some of the even less positive things that are mentioned in this forum. That said, of the four things you mention, one of them is definitely not as was told (and usually is told) to us in the mainstream media and by our government officials (most of them anyways). I'm as sure of that as I'm sure I have two legs, as the evidence is overwhelming. All four things however, are worth looking into a great deal, because even if at the end of the day you're not convinced there was a 'conspiracy' (for the record: I am not in regards to all four) you'll still learn a great deal that is not commonly known. And that's all I'll say on this as to say more really opens up a can of worms of sorts that has little to do with the subject at hand, and this forum is not very conducive for intelligent discussions on these subjects (in part due to comments like yours above).

Not really. The vast majority of people 'buy into conspiracy theories'. There are few people out there so skeptical as to not believe anything, or so stupid as to not think conspiracies happen. There are many though that have been brainwashed to not realize what it is they are even thinking, and that they've been conditioned to not think. You happen to be one of the people who use 'conspiracy theory' as a pejorative. As a student of history you should know better. The entire purpose of 'conspiracy theory' being a pejorative is to marginalize points of view, and stymie questioning and lines of thought that might be contrary to the official narrative as given by government(s) and mainstream media, whatever that may be. Nevermind that what the official narrative is might be a conspiracy theory itself. Nevermind that most people on planet earth have participated in a conspiracy of some sort at some point in their lives. Many of us a great many. Though I suppose this is less true for the growing number of anti-socials out there (as one needs more than just oneself to conspire). If you want to debate and offer other possibilities in regards to 'conspiracy theory' X that's ever brought up, go for it. Do it on the merits of the evidence and those ideas. To dismiss evidence or a possibility out of hand as a 'conspiracy theory' because it doesn't jive with what you think already happened or is possible is foolish at best. I'm not calling people who don't necessarily 'believe in' (it's not a matter of faith for most people) X brainwashed, I'm calling the people who would dismiss X as 'crazy', a 'conspiracy theory', or whatever out of hand before they even consider the evidence brainwashed. They have been conditioned to reject alternative viewpoints and evidence that might contradict their world view out of hand. Sorry Vals but somethings I can just dismiss without the need to have a debate, I'm fortunate like that. I know when something is nonsense We all think we can do that, and to some degree or another most can. However some are far better at it than others. From what I've seen on this forum however, your 'bull**** meter' as I usually refer to it, doesn't function all that well. I've seen you dismiss a number of things out of hand without ever looking at the evidence, and you yum up a good chunk of the bull**** that mainstream media or politican X splurts out. That you'd even have to ask: Why who does profit from this ? And please don't say that the USA is behind the rise of Islamic extremism so they can money from it ... tells me you are not paying attention or thinking things through all that much. Anyone with even smidgeon of knowledge of world politik should be able to theorize a number of folks and entities who could profit from this. It's actually pretty obvious at this point that some people are profiting from this (note this doesn't mean they actually perpetrated it).

The people who would take part in such a coverup definitely do not fall under the 'most people' banner. Most people would not partake in such a thing. But there are plenty of people out there world wide who would, and also know how to keep their mouths shut. In the modern age of social media it's hard for many (especially those who participate in social media) to understand and appreciate those who can keep their mouths shut and why they might do it, about anything. Vanity and 'look at me' is a huge aspect of things like Facebook, Twitter, et al. So for people who are constantly wearing it all on their sleeve it's hard to imagine how some never roll up their sleeves. There are plenty of people who don't though, and when anyone is looking to hire someone for a job they look to hire people with certain qualifications, whatever they are. Whatever you want in a prospective employee is out there somewhere. All that said, there's plenty of examples in history of people successfully keeping their mouth shut about X. As a student of history you should know this. Anyone who has ever looked at anything that's been declassified should know this as well.

Not really. The vast majority of people 'buy into conspiracy theories'. There are few people out there so skeptical as to not believe anything, or so stupid as to not think conspiracies happen. There are many though that have been brainwashed to not realize what it is they are even thinking, and that they've been conditioned to not think. You happen to be one of the people who use 'conspiracy theory' as a pejorative. As a student of history you should know better. The entire purpose of 'conspiracy theory' being a pejorative is to marginalize points of view, and stymie questioning and lines of thought that might be contrary to the official narrative as given by government(s) and mainstream media, whatever that may be. Nevermind that what the official narrative is might be a conspiracy theory itself. Nevermind that most people on planet earth have participated in a conspiracy of some sort at some point in their lives. Many of us a great many. Though I suppose this is less true for the growing number of anti-socials out there (as one needs more than just oneself to conspire). If you want to debate and offer other possibilities in regards to 'conspiracy theory' X that's ever brought up, go for it. Do it on the merits of the evidence and those ideas. To dismiss evidence or a possibility out of hand as a 'conspiracy theory' because it doesn't jive with what you think already happened or is possible is foolish at best. I'm not calling people who don't necessarily 'believe in' (it's not a matter of faith for most people) X brainwashed, I'm calling the people who would dismiss X as 'crazy', a 'conspiracy theory', or whatever out of hand before they even consider the evidence brainwashed. They have been conditioned to reject alternative viewpoints and evidence that might contradict their world view out of hand.

The Drop 7/10

But if he is using Steam then his games would be working? He is saying his games aren't working? Well, I assumed he meant how a great many games come out full of bugs these days or with serious fundamental design flaws and are really only good (in many people's eyes anyways) after they are modded (if they are ever even good; but modders try). Some games on Steam are very hard to mod or hard to get a mod to work on (ie: most people I know who played Civ4 (I used to play a lot of Civ4 MP) could never get mods to work with that game if it was installed as a Steam game).

Your first mistake is you're playing games on Steam. A platform that has a number of issues, DRM and modding being just two of them. And yes, it's a platform with lots of people who don't see the problems you do so you might feel alone if that's where you're mostly hanging out (most that perceive the problem are not playing games on Steam). But no, you are not even remotely alone as lots of people have stopped buying most modern games. There's a neverending supply of young people though that come up and buy them however, so the game companies aren't missing those that quit too much. Most game companies are too stupid to realize the largely untapped market of gamers who have pretty much given up on most modern games out there. The Project Eternity kickstarter tapped into a part of it. But anyways.. if you quit. Go for it. Video games aren't exactly the best use of one's time most of the time. We all could usually be doing something more productive with our lives than playing video games.

They made a really bad choice when they picked an engine if they picked an engine that limits them in a way they can't populate a city to the density we saw in BG1 or BG2. That said, I very much doubt the engine is an issue.

LOL Yea... it's totally unreasonable to dislike some folks because they attack and bomb where you live over a period of years. Totally!