Valsuelm

Not to say that the 'drug war' isn't a serious problem, and not to say that it's one that definitely has negatively affected black people to a greater deal than most other groups, but it is not a racially motivated 'war'. And I'd still file the justifications of that war under propaganda. The propaganda has been so prolific and effective over the years that I'd not label the 'drug war' a progressive cause as almost all segments society have thought it was a good thing at one point in time or another (a great many still do to various degrees). At the top the 'drug war' is about money, and trillions of dollars of it, and the 'progressives' et al are generally just useful idiots puppeteered by the technocrats (note that some 'progressives' could accurately be called technocrats too, but most aren't smart enough to be) and/or those at the top, in this issue and many others. [Note: the 'progressives' tend to be the most useful of idiots in this issue and many others] There are people who have gotten disgustingly rich on this 'war'. It's definitely the most lucrative 'war' in recorded history. This is kind of an advanced history and world affairs subject and is not easily discussed on a forum such as this as the truth of the matter is complex and never directly discussed in the media (sometimes it is peripherally though, ie: the recent film 'Kill the Messenger' touches on a segment of the truth). Some here I imagine already know that it's no coincidence that Rockefeller was behind some of the most draconian drug laws out there, others will say 'huh?' or not even know of the Rockefeller of which I speak. The more ignorant and brainwashed will knee jerk and call me a 'conspiracy theorist'. Anyways... the drug war is an issue, in fact I'd say it's one of the biggest issues out there and it's directly linked to the other super big issues out there (ie: banking, wars, imperialism), but it is not a race issue. Blacks are collateral damage in this issue, as they are in the immigration issue, but they are not primary or even secondary targets. In general they almost never are, other than as a tool to propagate further division and racial tensions amongst the ignorant. The evil folks running this show don't give a crap whether you're white, black, or any other color. It's just useful for them in the sense it's one more way they can divide and conquer.

Now there's an ignorant statement. First, your statement is irrelevant to what's going on in Ferguson. Something that has absolutely nothing to do with bettering things for the black person, nor is the situation in Ferguson truly a racial issue of any kind. Second, there were no great riots in the 70s that lead to anything. Third, neither the BS perpetrated by FEMA and other government agencies in New Orleans (I assume you refer to after Katrina) nor the absolute BS surrounding Dormer had anything to do with race. A crapton of white people got sh*t on as well by FEMA et al, and Dormer could have been white, purple, or any other color and the same thing would have gone down. Both are problems for sure, but neither had anything to do with race. Fourth, looting, pillaging, senseless violence, etc by some of those in Ferguson right now is never going to accomplish anything good. Not once in US history has it. And Finally, having lived in the US for some decades now, including during the 70s, I can say that without a doubt the perception of racism and division all around in this nation and by many of those from abroad is far worse now than it's ever been in my lifetime. There is one reason for that, and that's the propaganda you hear on the 'news', in media all over, and from some politicians, such as our current President. It's the result of ignorance of facts and an appetite for propaganda that would obfuscate reality such as you display amongst much of the population.

Ive never played the franchise. Im just trying to prevent senseless accidents while also totally grooving on drone technology. If I could figure out a way for the drone to also take DNA samples I think we would have a real winner on our hands. Gosh I hope you're joking... Im not going to lie. When I become president the skies will be darkened with drones. Or did you mean ME 3? Evil. I'll be shooting them down, and working towards your overthrow.

Ive never played the franchise. Im just trying to prevent senseless accidents while also totally grooving on drone technology. If I could figure out a way for the drone to also take DNA samples I think we would have a real winner on our hands. Gosh I hope you're joking...

Another example of insanity: Juxtapose the situation we're discussing that occurred in Cleveland with the situation that happened in Ferguson, MO. In this Cleveland case you clearly have a situation where the cop should be charged at the very least with manslaughter, and there's no rioting or copious amounts of national news attention. In the Ferguson case, you actually have a case where the cop justifiably shot the kid (assuming the information about the kid assaulting him is correct, and from all I've seen it looks to be legit), and there's copious amounts of national news attention, riots, death threads, assaults on innocents, extreme racism, insanity, etc. Why does one think this is so? From my perspective Ferguson looks to be a manufactured story, like so many others that get so much attention. The next chapter of the Ferguson saga will likely start later today with the announcement of the grand jury decision to indict or not.

There's nothing common about 'common sense'. That said, I generally agree with your sentiment. However, I'd say that the insane society is already here, and a great many people already do live in fear of everyone else. For a little evidence to this in just this matter reference all the people who would justify shooting the kid, the guy who called 911 in the first place, or the cop who immediately escalated the situation by telling the kid to put his hands in the air (the police department themselves said the kid was not confrontational, but they themselves were), the fact that one of the cops shot and killed the kid, and last but not least the yet to be determined for certain but very likely lack of charges against the cop who killed the kid as that's par for the course in situations such as these (and Cleveland has a history of police corruption and a lack of prosecuting murder and other crimes committed by the police).

For well over the first 100 years of the history of the U.S., they did not receive special treatment. By and large though they are above the law now, as the result of near 100 years of propaganda in the media (especially the last 50 years), and corruption.

That is an interesting story and relatively pertinent but Europe also hasn't the degree of mass shootings, or easy access to firearms, that the USA has had. So the USA police are understandably under different pressures and will react differently No. You're an unwitting victim of a great deal of propaganda. So is the idiot who called 911 in the first place, and likely the police officer as well. There are many police officers that would have handled the situation correctly. A manner that would never have made the news, and would have seen the kid home for dinner rather than in a morgue. There are many people who wouldn't have called the police at all and taken care of the situation themselves. Such are the people who should be police officers, if we are to have them. People who would shoot the kid (or adult if he was an adult) in a situation like this, or someone who would justify it are exactly the kind of people a rational intelligent free person does not want on the police.

Amazing soundtrack. Blizzard really did well with the quests, atmosphere, and music in Warlords of Draenor. My favorite is probably the song played during the climax of one of the first quests you do with Yrel and part of the Auchindoun instance. I've been trying to find the song but to no avail. Considering WoD has a mixture of over 9 hours of BC music and an as yet to be determined amount (but at least a few hours) of new WoD music, it's not going to be an easy task. But I got sucked in with that song and those game moments like I haven't in a very long time. If I find it, I'll be posting it here. Until then, some oldies but goodies:

There is a gargantuan world of difference. While one's imagination should serve, yours is failing you. If you've ever had a loaded gun pointed at you, you'd appreciate that super big difference between that, and someone displaying or reaching for a gun. I've been around the latter more times than I can count, the former just once, and the difference between the two cannot be overstated. Nevertheless, the policeman interviewed stated that there were no threats nor any confrontational manner about the boy (an unusual thing for a police department to say, as usually they cover things up as best they can).

A taser would have been overkill too... And yes, in general the police are here to oppress and steal... errrr raise revenue.

He didn't point it at the cops....

Spoken like a happy serf. I signed no contract. No such contract exists, even for the people who believe in such a thing. The concept of the 'social contract' is a myth generally perpetrated by those who look to self-justify the force they would use or have others use upon those who would not participate in their imagined world (often a wannabe utopia), and/or by those who would subjugate their fellow man, or by those content or even happy with their serfdom and prefer that their overlords squash any attempt by others to break or ignore the bonds that would be placed up on them. There are many fundamental rights that are inherent in your very existence, whether you acknowledge that or not is within you. Whether you would stand up for yourself and your rights or not is within you. Regardless of that, this thread is about the mid term election results in the USA. A nation that was founded on the idea and concept that government does not grant rights and that rights are inherent in the individual. 'None but ourselves can free our mind'.

My main issues with religious freedom are the following: They grant special rights to people depending on whether they believe in something, rights should be for everyone, if there is a draft (something I'd disapprove strongly of, and refuse to acknowledge), whether you're affected by it shouldn't depend at all on your beliefs. Government acknowledges that certain religions are realer than others, there's no reason random religion A should be considered real where as random religion B should be considered a crazy cult by the government. I've yet to see any real scientific examination as to the chance of religion A being correct vs religion B vs religion C, all of them could potentially be correct, but there's been no examination, it's discriminatory for government to take a stance on what is and isn't a potential god. Government then proceeds to interpret each religion and decide which freedoms which religions want, when that should clearly be the duty of either the individual worshiper or the central human figure if the religion has one, there's no legitimate basis for claiming life is objectively holier for an Amish guy than a catholic guy, or hell, even an atheist like me. Finally government goes on to give tax exempt statuses to whatever the hell they consider churches, if government takes a percentage of all income for anyone else, why shouldn't government take a percentage of all income from churches? Being a member of a church is basically like a gym membership, you pay a fee and then you get to use the services they provide. Essentially freedom of religion is government making arbitrary decisions about what it considers religions, then making arbitrary decisions about what people within those religions want, giving certain clubs tax exemption which I feel is unfair, and then finally, declaring that people are above certain laws provided they believe in certain things, it's not whether you believe contraception is wrong, it's whether you're a catholic or willing to pretend you're a catholic, it's not about whether you think it's amoral to kill another man, it's about whether you're [insert random small religions that strategically wouldn't make up a considerable percentage of our army anyway], I feel this is wrong. There are better ways to go by protecting individual freedom than this. The first amendment already protects your right to free speech, so you can pray to whoever you want. But when it comes to whether the healthcare your company provides should provide contraception, the law should either give everyone a right to opt out, or give no one a right to opt out, it's just plain unfair to give people different rights than other people based on what they believe in, you can't possibly believe that's fair? I don't know what nation you live in, so what I'm about to say may not apply where you live. In the U.S. it is thus: They do not grant special rights, as I mentioned above: Not only that but at a fundamental level the U.S. Constitution an the majority of those who crafted it recognized that government doesn't grant rights. Rights are inherent in the individual, God given (or pick your favorite deity or whatever). You get them simply because you exist. The U.S. Constitution was designed, and pretty well to make sure that the Federal government doesn't infringe upon those rights. Much of the U.S. Constitution is ignored these days, or interpreted in a massively warped way (ie: the Commerce Claus as has already been mentioned in this thread) to justify various power overreaches and infringes upon individual liberty. The vast majority of what the Federal government does these days is unconstitutional. You have a problem that others are not suffering as much as you are under oppressive law X, and are making the mistake that so many others do in that you want to see them suffer as you do rather than work to get rid of oppressive law X. This line of thinking gives us more infringement upon people's rights, not less.

Not really. In the U.S. it's pretty straightforward. The Federal government isn't allowed to make any laws in regards to religions. As things are these days it's a pretty good litmus test that if a law is bumping up against religious groups it's probably a bad law that infringes upon the freedom of others.

I miss when MTV was this fun. The first video of the year award went to: MJ had a lot of great songs and videos, but this was always my favorite video by his: BTW: Sledgehammer is to this day the video that won the most awards, and the most played video of all time on MTV. Land of Confusion probably would have won most of those awards had it been released in any other year than the same year Sledgehammer came out. 1987 might have been the best year in the history of music videos.

Another amazing song by the above's ex-bandmates, another groundbreaking video, and lyrics that are as relevant today as they were then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pkVLqSaahk

Amazing song, groundbreaking video.

That's true, but it's still a violation of property rights. At any rate; some one who would actually exercise that right would likely go broke anyway so... Oh well. I know it's unlikely to convince you, but American legal precedent has clearly rejected this view. It took over 140 years before legal precedent that so blatantly disregards the words and intentions behind the Constitution such as that became the norm, and to do it the decisions that set that precedent ignored most of the previous 140 years of precedent. The giant hole in freedom as well as justification for pretty much limitless expansive Federal powers that's been created through the commerce clause in the 20th century is a good example (and a somewhat infamous one amongst those familiar with U.S. law) to cite in how the U.S. seriously lost it's way on the liberty road, and found it on the feudalistic/socialist/technocratic/fascist Oligarch run highway for serfs. It is never something to hold in high regard if you at all value freedom or the ideals that this nation was founded on.

There should be absolutely no licensing fees or licenses period. This nation shifted into high gear on the going to sh*t road when we started having to get licenses for everything and anything. In a free nation the government doesn't give you permission to open business X, and it generally doesn't even know what you do for a living. One of the reasons the U.S. economy is perpetually in shambles and so many people live in poverty is that government has so many roadblocks in place, most of which have a monetary cost to them, to keep a person from starting a business. Detroit, upstate New York, and the rest of the rust belt are great examples of this. Your home state is starting to become one as well (following almost exactly in the footsteps of my home state), as company after company are fleeing Cali for states (or even other nations) with less roadblocks.

When you run a business, you are subject to non-discrimination laws. Religious organizations can get around this, but I fail to see how a for profit business deserves a free pass here. Would it be fair for your local bar to only serve white people? Non discrimination laws are bull**** and discriminatory themselves. People and businesses discriminate all the time, and they always will despite the utopianist idea in the minds of some that they won't. You cannot get more fundamental than the right of association. Denying someone that right is evil. Forcing someone to adhere to a certain behavior they fundamentally are opposed to is evil. In regards to the example of a local bar serving only white people. This happens all the time in practice, and it happens all the time that some bars only serve blacks, or gays, or lesbians, or wealthy people, or people who wear certain clothes, or people who have a certain amount of money, or people who live in a certain neighborhood, or people with a certain level of cleanliness, etc. People can, will, and do come up with reasons to deny people service all the time. Most people generally don't want to go where they aren't welcome either so it's almost never an issue. Step outside of pop culture and visit the real world and you'd see this. There are consequences for such discrimination, some would say they are good, some would say they are bad, smarter and more realistic folks would say they are situational and dependent on one's point of view. Discrimination is definitely not a black and white (and I don't mean skin color here) issue. To throw a few similar examples back at you, would it be fair to deny a brother and sister a marriage license ? Would it be fair to deny a man who wants to marry a thirteen year old a marriage license? Would it be fair to deny a person who is swearing up a storm service at business X? Would it be fair to deny a pedophile service at business X? Would it be fair to deny 'pick any behavior out there' service at business X. Some would say no to all, and on some philosophical ground I'd agree, but a great many won't, and there's nothing wrong with that. In the real world discrimination is normal, and ok. People do it all the time whether they admit it to themselves or not. That discrimination and 'judging' has become a pejorative of sorts is part of the brainwashing perpetrated on people through the media and 'education' in order to keep them from thinking for themselves. A mind that doesn't discriminate or judge is a mind that isn't capable of higher or even medium levels of human intellect. The Constitution guarantees legal equal protection and rights under the law, it does not guarantee that one is treated equally everywhere they go. On a realistic level it cannot do that (no law can), and trying to twist it to mean that it does do that is pie in the sky utopian lalalalaland thinking at best, but evil really when you get down to it as at the end of the day some people are still deciding what is acceptable or not and forcing their view with the force of government guns upon others. To sum it up. Your line of thinking gives us the thought police, and empowers them with the ability to confiscate property. The thought police are more evil than any thought there ever was.

It's definitely not a libertarian victory, except perhaps if you're a Reason magazine type libertarian. A real libertarian victory would have been the abolishment of marriage licenses and government getting out of the marriage business entirely. Neither Kansas nor South Carolina wanted same sex marriage. Federal Judicial overreach, and one heck of a stretch of a misinterpretation of the Constitution is what gave Bruce his happy day. The propaganda is overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage these days, and one really has to try to ignore the overt anti-religious sentiment behind it as well as the 'conform or die' sentiment (doubt it? go read some of the comments in Bruce's most recent linked article, or reference what Guard Dog mentions in regards to the lawsuits). Whether one is for or against it, one should be wary of some of the ways it's becoming the law of the land, especially when Federal Judges are overruling voter and state legislative wishes, and on what many (who are both for and against gay marriage) would say is shaky ground. The end does not justify the means in this case, and most of the people cheering these decisions are ignorant of the legal implications. This subject doesn't really belong here though, unless we want to start listing things where what the voters wanted was ignored or overturned. That could fill many many threads.

But now you do. And that's exactly what a spoiler is.

It's nice to see shots from the game, however I almost think too much was shown. Either way, there was nothing spectacular about this trailer. Paradox better do better. If they don't do something as good as their Crusader Kings 2 promotions, which are really the only good promotions I've ever seen them do, I'm going to say that Obsidian never should have partnered with them. Most of the stuff we've been shown comes from the backer beta. The only new things are maybe the dragons, the plant creatures and the Gilded Vale. Pretty little, if you ask me. And I specifically didn't sign up for the backer beta as I didn't want to see that much of the game before it was released..... Didn't think I'd have to avoid watching trailers, but I guess I do.