Bester

One year less to live, congratulations.

See, there's a gigantic difference between what all of us normal people mean by "rape" and what Swedes mean by "rape". I believe the exact charge is called "sex by surprise", not rape. You wanna know what it is? Here's what happened. Assange arrived in Sweden for a seminar and arranged to stay at an apartment belonging to the event organizer, who is now the primary complainant. According to the police report, she and Assange had consensual sex and at some point, the condom broke. She got very upset about it. The two were seen the next day at the seminar and nothing appeared amiss. Now, another woman, a photographer, went to the seminar as well and ended up having dinner with Assange. Then she went home and he went back to the event organizer chick's appartment. Two days later, the photographer chick invited him to her apartment. She paid for the train ticket to get him there. She complained to the police that during the train ride, he paid more attention to his computer rather than to her, and by the time they got to her apartment, the passion and excitement had disappeared. They however ended up having sex nonetheless few times and apparently Assange either took off his condom at some point or it slipped off. Anyway, according to the woman, she sort of protested when she saw that there was no condom, but he didn't do anything about it. Anyway, two weeks later both women went to the police and filed a joint complaint. Why two weeks later? Was he supposed to call, but never did? In Sweden they have a very wide range definition of sexual assault and rape. I think this would be another example of the Swedish man being totally emasculated by the evermore female dominant Swedish society. They claim in Sweden that consensual sex becomes non-consensual when the man is no longer using a condom. It's obviously not for me to say whether this law is even remotely rational (it's not), but how do you even prove such a thing? The problem is that in Sweden you don't require proofs. The man is assumed to have committed the crime, there is little to no presumption of innocence in sexual assault cases in Swedish law practice and Swedish feminists have been demanding a complete and official abolition of presumption of innocence lately, which is practically what they have now anyway. I mean do we really want to extradite people to countries that shit on presumption of innocence, one of our best inventions of all times? And do we want to extradite people to a country of batshit crazy feminists? For all we know, those women might have gotten pissed at Assange because they found out he'd been sleeping with both of them, which is absolutely not a crime. Or the condom might have indeed broken for the first chick and slipped for the second. But we'll never know because there is no proof. Which apparently is not a problem to filing charges of rape and denying bail to Assange. Can sex be rape if it's consensual? Semen touching the woman during consensual sex is a mere accident, a natural thing to expect sometimes, or a serious crime? Is Assange guilty?

You...! You.... I'LL JUST LOL!

Is that a euphemism for fat women of all age and race?

Let's see... Bioware has been corrupted by their gay/lesbian issues and their attempts to sell their products to the largest video games consumer group in America, which they found in the face of Generation Y/Generation Me: the almost-pubescent 14 year olds with an attention deficiency disorder, and their older counterparts with an especially low IQ and a pronounced distaste for serious video games, "cause games are for nerds brah!" And on the other hand we have CD Projekt, that isn't even a video game studio, since it's primarily made up of Poles. This group of highly exceptional plumbers have been making "video game" products based on low-fantasy books, and when I saw low-fantasy, I actually mean so low that it's standing one foot in a kids' fairy tale and another foot in a drugstore paperback. When Witcher (as a "book") came out, fantasy was mainly reserved for younger audiences. Combine it with the fact that Conan was already getting old and there was no Martin yet, Witcher found a warm place in the hearts of 16 year old geeks who've never been with a girl, but their hero Witcher was constantly dipping his 5th member into women left and right. It was literary fantasy porn in the world where internet didn't exist yet. Now, the question is - can you make a good rpg based on a setting from an erotica dime novel? Seems not. So here we are at a crossroads, which one would I choose if I had to choose one?. Tough question, indeed. I think I'd flip a coin. Then I'd wait for actual RPGs like W2 and PoE.

I will seriously buy that ****ing console just to play Bloodborne and then never touch it again. God damn exclusives.

I already said this, but let me repeat it. The franchise had a genius writer from 1993 or something. It was epic, an organic mix of sci-fi and fantasy. And then after HoMM4 they decided to completely wipe the entire history and lore, commissioned some no-name Russian company to write a new lore, and those guys didn't even know the original one, so they came up with some unrelated pathetic shit. And now you're going to play a game based on that pathetic attempt at a lore. Have fun, but count me out.

Civilians, please. There are already dash cams in police cars and yet it didn't prevent Robert Leone being beaten to a pulp. Last I checked, it was like that: [they then attempted to cover it up by killing him in prison on the day of his arrest by beating him AGAIN and not calling an ambulance for 2 hours, but he survived, I can't find the correct quote] I love how US cops always add "assault of police officer" and "resisting arrest" if they don't like the guy. Basically he was beaten to near-death and went to prison for 2 and a half years for a fender bender and not stopping when he was asked to by the cops. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the cops didn't even get a slap on the hand for what they did. In Europe the guy would get a big fine for not stopping and some hours of social labor (or what's it called) and lose his permit. And the cops would go to prison for 2-3 years for doing that. Prison for TWO AND A HALF YEARS FOR THE POOR GUY??? My god. This is exactly why I fear going to America. Anecdotally, in Britain the guy would get scolded by the judge, then they'd drink a cop of tea and he'd go home. Same thing for the cops. Nobody serves time in Britain no matter what they do. If they like go on a killing spree and rob a few banks, they get maybe 2... maybe 3 years max.

Most of us look critically at the US regularly here, but your gross generalizations are incredibly ignorant, so you'll have a hard time finding people who agree. Maybe Oby will show up and fight the good fight with you. I wouldn't look for Americans to agree with me that their cops are abusive and their court system is flawed, because I don't expect them to. I'm merely offering my perspective, to which Americans are very hostile, and I think it's because of their so called patriotism getting in the way of rational thinking. Their cops are much more trigger happy when compared to Europe's cops and they kill people more often without reason than in Europe? They are and they do. Their laws allow them to search anal cavities and humiliate people? They do. Their crime rates are 5 times European's? They are. Their court system is flawed? All court systems are flawed, but America's system is particularly flawed indeed. Any arguments that this isn't the case would've already been posted if they existed, but you can't really make arguments against facts. And even though these are facts, I still don't expect Americans to concede, because I've noticed they can't take criticism from foreigners. Now, that Oby comparison was... exotic! The boy that cried Oby... Do you really really wanna wake Oby in me, DO YOU WANNA??? WELL THAT'S FINE WITH ME, LET'S DO IT!!

Yeah, yeah, you're all very patriotic in there, I get it. Adore your country and be unable to criticize it or admit its shortcomings, therefore be unable to make it better. Good job, american fanatical patriotism.

Plus, the US law system in general... I don't want to talk a lot about it, but here's the major difference. In civilized countries, the investigator first looks for solid, irrefutable proofs, questions twice or thee times all witnesses, cross-examines their statements, talks to the suspect, checks out his story and his version of events, then confronts him again, then checks his new version, documents all these things. THEN, when it's 100% solid, it goes to court. In the US, the investigation per say happens during court. For me, it's just disconcerting. Roughly, it means they just grab some guy and they've got their suspect. Quite obvious, why this is wrong: - oftentimes people who didn't do anything fall under suspicion and have to be judged... they have to get a lawyer, they have to be in actual prison if they can't pay bail, their hair goes gray especially if they didn't do anything. If there was proper investigation like in civilized countries, it wouldn't have to happen. - the price of lawyers? Wages in Europe are very different from America's, so I just wouldn't be able to find myself a good lawyer and this may result in me going to prison for nothing if I'm charged with anything. - when the proper investigation is happening DURING COURT, it means some refuting evidence just won't be found because of court time frames What the hell? - the prosecutor isn't interested in fairness of trial, he's interested in using all legal techniques (which aren't always fair to the suspect) to make the guy serve time. Sometimes, the prosecutor manages to dismiss refuting evidence on a technicality and make the guy serve time. The chase for stats has no place in a civilized court of law. The reverse, where the guy can go free on a technicality has no place in a court system EITHER. - in situations when the guy didn't do it, but there is some weak evidence against him and he's got no alibi, it is sometimes better for the poor guy to settle and serve less time than if he's found guilty. The whole "settle and serve less" forces a lot of people to break down psychologically and admit to things they didn't do. - not to mention the costs of all the unnecessary court hearings because there was no proper investigation And if all that is not enough, the crime rate in the US is 5 times European's. The racism and the reverse racism in some states is very pronounced if my understanding is correct, and I could very well find myself victim of BOTH. (being white, but not being a white american) I just don't want to go there.

It might sound funny to you because you've lived there your whole life. But it's the same thing with ghettos, for instance. Some people just avoid ghettos because they consider them more dangerous than the places they've grown accustomed to. But if you ask a ghetto dweller, he'll just laugh into your face because he's lived there all his life, for example. Same principle.

There's a difference in general treatment and then there's a difference in laws that allow US cops to literally search your anal cavity for drugs on "suspicion" (ie his eye was twitching). Also, there are laws that allow US cops to shoot people on suspicion that the person might be carrying a weapon or be otherwise dangerous, which they seem to use excessively. (remember the video where the guy stumbled on his seat belt when exiting the car and the cops decided this was an aggression and emptied their guns into him?) Also they can taze anyone they want (children, pregnant women, etc), and my wife doesn't speak English as fluently as I do, she might get tazed because she didn't get what the cop was ordering her. Here's a video demonstrating the difference between European police and US cops. Basically, I want none of that treatment and I don't want to risk my or my wife's life out of touristic curiosity. I realize the chances aren't HIGH, but even low chances (like 3-5%) are unacceptable for me. I don't gamble with my well-being. Countries with high crime rate against tourists and police brutality are off my "to visit" list.

So, Jarmusch... Remember Dead Man, Ghost Dog, Coffee and Cigarettes? That stuff always went over my head. But then Broken Flows - that was a pleasurable experience, because it was more for the general public, less art-house, less of a cinematography experiment and more of an actual movie. It's the same thing for his new film. You might enjoy it if you're like me in that regard. To better explain this film, it's like there are two kinds of movies. Films that are made to be entertaining, but fail and end up being boring. And then there are films that were conceived and intended to be boring, and in that boredom you're supposed take pleasure, maybe lose yourself in thoughts, enjoy the aesthetics and the music? That's his new film. Plus, there's Loki (Hiddleston), as much of him as you ever dared to want. And by the way, did you know that Tom could dance? I'm a big fangirl of his, as you might've guessed.

Am never traveling to the US, decided that a long time ago. The reason is US cops.

I wonder what happens in the heads of people who think that eastern ukranians don't have the right to go their separate way solely because it's unconstitutional. Poroshenko all but wiped his ass with constitution by shelling cities, and Maidan protesters wiped their collective ass with constitution by overthrowing the legitimate government. Constitution times are long gone in there, now just listen to people's needs and avoid bloodshed, simple, no? Not for everyone, apparently. And who in their right mind says that constitution trumps common sense in THESE kinds of situations? It's like saying in some countries divorce is unconstitutional, so let's kill those women who try to escape their abusive husbands. Those two groups of people are clearly not made to live in the same country, they're diametrically opposed. Easterners want to be left alone, but are prepared to defend themselves, while westerners are prepared to just go east and kill people for the idea of "one country, one nation". Are you serious? What the **** is UN doing about it? Why isn't Poroshenko forced to order an immediate cease fire? Instead Russia gets sanctions. What the **** is going on? What's wrong with people? It rises my blood pressure, I'll take a short break from this thread...

Nice change of subject. People are dying - hey, let's talk about something else, like how much Putin stole. >L0L Because non Russian speaking Ukranians in Ukraine aren't human right? Right. Because they're not being killed. If they were the ones who were getting slaughtered, I would've advocated protection for them instead. I think you would too. But in this case, you prefer not to.

I don't know what to contribute other than women are shallow and spendthrift egoists. I hope I helped.

If Russia decided to protect russian speaking ukrainians in Ukraine, there would've been no deaths going on right now. Instead: Czechs - didn't bomb cities VS. Ukrainians - bombs cities with civilians Germans - invade VS. Russians - do not invade >then you are blind. Surely you won't mind taking a look at a few pictures and videos of civilians blown up to pieces, a woman without her legs calling to her daughter before dying for no reason other than she voted on a referendum that the so-called civilized nations didn't even bother recognizing? I'm going to PM it to you, please don't turn blind eye, since you're the one who's seeing things exactly for what they are, yeah? There is a humanitarian catastrophe going on, and you somehow find balls to justify it? Please look at the material I'm sending you, maybe you're a bit detached from reality, but seeing those dead people shredded on the asphalt because they've decided not to accept the illegal overthrowing of the government will wake you up a bit.

This thread was in desperate need for an out of place hitler reference. Poroshenko is ordering air strikes and shellings of eastern cities, then this guy barges in and says "putin = hitler LOL". Very thoughtful. I find that when people compare everything to hitler, it is often an indicator of poor history knowledge, which leads to situation where people can't compare a conflict or a person to anything, but the large outlines of ww2 (hitler) because ww2 is all they know in the first place. You know Panama '89? This is what should've happened, except Putin decided not to intervene for some reason.

So this is what Obsidian is has come to now, browser games...

I don't know why that is, I will need to research it further or see what others say. Are we saying men are better than women at chess as they have a genetic intellectual advantage? If that's what you think then you must say so, I would rather people were completely honest on this thread, there is no judgement. I know plenty of men who do believe that Well, do you deny that on average men are smarter than women? Looking at this picture, does it not come to mind that throughout history men had to be inventive and only the strongest and the most cunning survived, while a woman's role in society was to cook and reproduce, thus giving modern women an evolutionary-based disadvantage in strength and intellect?

What do you think of the fact that in chess, the most genius women in the world can hardly achieve 2600 ELO rating, while men easily achieve 2800 and beyond?

Bruce, as a man who doesn't understand feminazism, I have for now 2 questions that I'd like you to answer without you wriggling like a snake on a cooking pan, can we agree to that?