213374U

If what the video Valsuem posted checks out this isn't so much the government as corrupt officials utilizing the government to make their fortunes (although to be honest this isn't something new in the US) It seems that the levels of corruption and their blatant disregard for public opinion are beginning to anger people. Whether their fears jump to the irrational; and fear always does, its undeniable that the US government has been growing corrupt for a long time now and the public seem to be beginning to understand what this means. The fact that it was posted by an account called "StormCloudsGathering" should give you some clue as to their biases. As Wals put it, they're among those running around pretending that we're all just about to get stomped. I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Would it be more credible if the account was named "StarsAndStripes4Ever" or something? I'm not passing judgment on the video itself because I'm not informed enough to tell if their bias is actually distorting the *facts*. Is it the presentation or the tone that you feel make it worthless? Vexingly enough, the video has now been taken down. Please note that I'm genuinely interested; I respect your opinion and even if I don't necessarily agree with you on everything (and I'm terribly unqualified to even form an opinion with which agree or disagree in many topics), I value your input—but I think this dismissive attitude is quite close to what you accused Valsuelm of just a few posts ago.

In other news... I was reading up on this, and if the incident with the APCs described is the same, it seems the only player with any actual desire to use force (either to intimidate or outright resolve some of these standoffs) is the Kiev gov't. The army is certainly not big on cracking down on the pro-Russians, and these in turn don't seem to be interested in antagonizing the army directly: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10771420/Ukraines-humiliation-as-protesters-disarm-troops.html So an Ukrainian Army platoon is dispatched to break up a concentration of armed rebels or something along those lines... only to hand them their hardware and go back home in buses, perfectly unharmed. Ukrainian Army morale must be non existent at this point. So again I've been proven wrong and Putin has correctly surmised that he doesn't need to lift a finger for events to play right into his hands—though there's still the (slim) chance that Kiev will yield to demands to federalize the country rather than risk a total breakup or civil war. And just to please those dying to see Russian apologists everywhere, I'm going to let someone else's words do the talking for me:

I would suggest you don't waste your efforts trying so hard to get under my skin, but since that seems to be your sole reason for posting here, such advice is probably wasted. Bonus points for the "insecurities" remark, though that's pretty close to breaking character for you. You must be pretty butthurt that I (and others) unmasked you for the little cuddly, fluffy fascist troll you are to get so close to an actual direct personal attack. But please, try to take what I'm saying constructively. :)

Wow, that's some stamina you have. I couldn't bring myself to go through the planetary chains more than twice per side. As for Scourge, my opinion is the exact opposite, heh. I hated the character concept and integration (the mother****ing Emperor's Wrath? Sure, let him tag along, what could ever go wrong?), but I didn't feel the voice was a problem. Out of place at first, maybe, but not every Sith Lord needs to be Malgus. Some of my favorite Sith characters in TOR are Darth Jadus and Darth Gravus, arguably because of the voice direction too... And Gault was awesome.

Unfortunately, the devs decided to penalize players XP-wise for killing people. Even more so if you kill them from a distance instead of playing the Gray Fox (10XP per kill vs ~50 IIRC). Chances are you will be swimming in upgrade points by the end of the game regardless, but early to middle game, you will feel the difference, especially as a run-and-gun playthrough will necessitate that you invest in dermal armor and stuff, delaying upgrades to hacking, etc. Never thought of that tbh. Come think of it I never used explosives in that game.

Huh? I don't know what you've been reading but definitely not these boards. Maybe try posting your butthurt on RT.ru for effect? DOES NOT COMPUTE

Its better than it looks, you have the director's cut, I take it? I do indeed, any advice without spoiling the story? Remember that a headshot is a lethal takedown. Also, the ability to tear down walls could be said to... pay for itself.

I had to look that up. Another term for my e-lawyer dictionary, I'm sure it'll bring me many glorious victories in threads to come. My thanks.

This got me thinking. The reason why some risky and delicate stuff such as say, flying an airliner, has a great track record of safety is because part of the extensive training includes learning procedures that pilots must adhere to systematically, to minimize the possibility of judgment errors and improvisation. The way I understand it, the idea is to reduce the room for human error as much as possible, within reason. This is basically to account for the fact that people will be people in a situation where it's unacceptable to make preventable mistakes. You work in government. How closely is regulation observed? How is failure to act according to regulation punished? I live in a country with a huge problem of corruption and mismanagement, from the local up to the highest levels of government. The problem is accumulation: the few (high profile) public officials and servants that try to do the jobs they were appointed to as per the job description simply cannot turn the tide of incompetence, corruption, and sloth caused by a majority that is concerned only with getting their paycheck. What is the ability of government to police itself, and how effective is it at that?

If it ever comes to pass that the sacred poem to which both heaven and earth have set their hand, so as to have made me lean for many years, should overcome the cruelty that bars me from the fair sheepfold where I slept as a lamb, an enemy to the wolves that make war on it, with another voice now and other fleece, I shall return a herald of difficult truths. Sire, you who dub yourself TooLeetForYou, have a journey of self-examination before you. It is full of hardships, where your perceived comforts of bombastic digital self-assertion gives way to humility and the ever so menacing contingencies of life and death. Or more succinctly put: You have a real life out there, live it for quite a while, and come back when you have some wisdom and patina to show for yourself. *** No worries, mate. I'm trolling a bit, but there are grains of truth in it as well, and hopefully most of you guys recognize it for what it is. >Implying that there is an end point or arbitrary threshold in the cycle of learning and self discovery and that one has reached it >Poking fun at someone for naming their internet persona "too elite for you" This is what happened when I asked Vegeta to measure the irony: As for the trolling, welcome. Trolling is to WoT what dressing is to salad. Enjoy your stay.

So you were born in 13th century England, then? What's your secret, Pilates? Think for just a second of what you really know about the snubby twats you are lambasting with such gleeful abandon—their life experiences, their backgrounds, their activities and involvements. Whatever mental image you have of "them", you might as well substitute it with a ****ing talking oven, because that's about as close as you are going to get at an accurate depiction. And hey, at least you'll get a chuckle each time you think of "them". P.S. No, really. What's your secret? I think she was trolling them, not 100% sure so don't take my word on it. I blame Bruce, he broke my troll-o-meter with his last few posts.

So you were born in 13th century England, then? What's your secret, Pilates? Think for just a second of what you really know about the snubby twats you are lambasting with such gleeful abandon—their life experiences, their backgrounds, their activities and involvements. Whatever mental image you have of "them", you might as well substitute it with a ****ing talking oven, because that's about as close as you are going to get at an accurate depiction. And hey, at least you'll get a chuckle each time you think of "them". P.S. No, really. What's your secret?

Thanks. So are you saying that Snowden being tried, fairly or not, would actually be healthy for the US as a whole? That's an interesting (and hopeful!) idea, but I'm not sure I believe it. I haven't really followed the Manning case—did his conviction have much impact with the average Joe? Also, I'm curious that you say that charges of treason against Snowden wouldn't really hold in a fair trial. Do you have any precedent you are basing this opinion on? I was under the impression that there is no whistleblower protection under US law. Is there something in the Constitution that could be used to leave him in the clear?

LOL I have very little doubt after this that you are an alt/caricature of someone else. Seriously, good job.

Punishing criminals is a good thing. Revealing criminality is a good thing. What Snowden did was criminal. You work it out, sparky. AFAIK, there is very little room to argue that Snowden couldn't be tried for treason and espionage under US law. Whether he's a criminal or not would depend on the verdict. I have no idea how extenuating or aggravating circumstances (if any) would apply to the case, and maybe Enoch or Gromnir could share their expertise. Now, what happens if exposing criminality is also a criminal offense? I remember reading that, in the intelligence community, analysts and operators often cannot discuss certain matters with their immediate superiors because of how the mindboggling clearances game is set up. This madness reaches the highest levels of the hierarchy, with four-star officers not being allowed to know about the tools their subordinates use. So if you can't discuss stuff with someone whose job is to supervise and coordinate your work... is there any hope of revealing wrongdoing by a state actor without breaking the law? When was the last time Congress uncovered and acted against secret illegal government initiatives? Honest question, btw. They don't have Snowden so they can't try him. But they do have the NSA ringleaders, and nothing has been done about it. What is up with that?

Except that there has been shots fired in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and I would also point out that Germany's invasion in Czech was also quite bloodless, but it was still invasion, as are every occurrence where foreign army goes in country uninvited by its government regardless of do you think that government is legitimate or not, or do you think that country is evil or not, or etc.. And using wrong doings of others as basis of your own wrong doings is just plainly idiotic reasoning, if you want to be the "good guy" I tried to find evidence of violent clashes between Russian and Ukrainian servicemen, and all I could find was this. So maybe you were right, but note that BBC warns that "none of the accounts could be independently confirmed". Do you have more occurrences? And yes, let's go back to 1938 Czechoslovakia for the nth time. WWII is one of my favorite historical topics, not only the war itself but especially the lead-up, including the rise of the nazis and the roles that Britain and France played since the end of WWI. Hitler carved Czechoslovakia up with the acquiescence of Britain and France, but I'm not sure how this historical event or the comparison you are making are relevant or even what exactly you are suggesting, based on retrospect. That France should have immediately declared war on Germany? Remember that, back then, Czechoslovakia was a young country (much younger than Ukraine is today, if you consider it the successor of the Ukrainian SSR), existing only as the result of the border redrawing that followed the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after their WWI defeat. The parts of the old Kingdom of Bohemia that were closer to Germany ("Sudetenland", later) were contested territory because the Czechoslovaks had marched troops to secure them after WWI, but they were populated by ethnic Germans. There was little historical or practical reason for the Allies to resist Hitler's demands on this issue, as there is little historical or practical reason for NATO to respond to the events in Crimea with force today. This is from the purely utilitarian perspective of "let's try and avoid another industrial war in mainland Europe because the last one was a ****ing nightmare to clean up", which is, unfortunately, at odds with the sadly extended view that every historical leading figure that tried to avoid war with the best of intentions and to the best of their ability was a weak-minded Hitler appeaser, and hardliners calling for war were prescient heroes. Remember that those people had, unlike modern armchair historians, lived through WWI, and the hell of Ypres and Verdun was still very much alive in everyone's minds. "But... but, Hitler!" Yeah. What about it? Finally, I'm not using wrongdoings for anything, and that you suggest this shows that you missed the point. You either respect the rule of law, or you don't. Both the referendum in Crimea and the dismissal of Yanukovych were unconstitutional, according to the current version of the Ukrainian Constitution. But you cannot claim that the actions of those you like are lawful and the rest aren't—this is a long-running inconsistency throughout the different iterations of this thread, and it's this inconsistency based on the manichaean "us=good/others=bad" rule of thumb is what I used as a basis to bring up the Iraq war and the Libyan no-fly zone. Indeed, it could be said that BruceVC et al are only consistent at maintaining this inconsistency. But let me be perfectly clear: there are no good guys here because this is power politics. Except in the case of the EU. That is more like fumbling about in the dark while you try to follow a hundred different and conflicting directions. Please, please, point out to us uneducated peons the general legal principle that allows for the dismissal of the HoS outside of the legal procedures outlined to that end in the Constitution or ancillary legislation. "Bailing on the people" is not a reason or motive that you will find anywhere in the Ukrainian Constitution, among other things, because it makes no sense. The ****ing Head of State doesn't "bail" on the people unless the "people" (read: fascist militias) are out for his blood, which is exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a coup. The President does not "lose constitutional legitimacy" at your leisure, he is removed from office after he has been impeached, declared medically incompetent, or dies only. So what are these "higher provisions" you speak of? This is a really, really tired debate, especially because the point was already discussed to death in the other thread(s): No offense 2133 but that's not how I remember the debate you and Tagaziel had. I remember you guys discussed various interesting points for several days and despite the fact Tagaziel proved conclusively that he was right around the fact that Yanukovych wasn't removed from power illegally you refused to acknowledge this But you are right, this has been discussed to death. I would like us to focus on the current destabilization of eastern Ukraine by Russia. Is there any justification for it and what is the realistic outcome to the situation? Do you accept that Russia is playing a major part in the protests and occupation of Ukrainian government buildings? None taken. I couldn't possibly take offense at your creative remembering of how things went down, to wit, both Tagaziel and kgambit bailing on the discussion after failing to bring up any piece of legislation, legal principle, doctrine or papal bull that fit within Ukraine's present legal framework with regards to the procedure used to dismiss Yanukovych. You'd know this if you had actually been following the thread back then or had even bothered to look up the rest of the exchange I posted. Do I accept that Russia is playing a major part? Ah, but regardless of what I answer, you will be quick to change your definition of what a "major part" actually means so you can continue to feel vindicated in your anti-Russian stance. How about you dig up the facts instead of playing the loaded questions game? Yanukovych was neither overthrown nor was the Parliament pressured into impeaching him. Yanukovych committed high treason and while a case can be made that charges should be pressed before the impeachment procedure was pressed, Ukraine was facing a constitutional crisis. It was an emergency measure implemented to ensure that the nation can continue to function. Wow. For someone with a law background, you sure are quick to discard due process and presumption of innocence. Impeachment processes are designed to provide stability and prevent political persecution—even more so in the case of the President, who is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of constitutional order (i.e. the rule of law). Abrogating these principles opens the door to whatever abuses anyone with a sufficient majority wishes to impose, and that is usually considered a bad thing, regardless of the symbol of the majority. I'm not arguing that it was wrong to kick Yanukovych out, I'm arguing that it was unlawful under the then- and current legal frameworks. The constitutional crisis was triggered very much because the President was ousted illegally, after the Feb 21 agreement was signed. You cannot both rebel against the corrupt, oppressive establishment and be perfectly lawful about it. So let's call a spade a spade?

Please, please, point out to us uneducated peons the general legal principle that allows for the dismissal of the HoS outside of the legal procedures outlined to that end in the Constitution or ancillary legislation. "Bailing on the people" is not a reason or motive that you will find anywhere in the Ukrainian Constitution, among other things, because it makes no sense. The ****ing Head of State doesn't "bail" on the people unless the "people" (read: fascist militias) are out for his blood, which is exactly what happened. This is the very definition of a coup. The President does not "lose constitutional legitimacy" at your leisure, he is removed from office after he has been impeached, declared medically incompetent, or dies only. So what are these "higher provisions" you speak of? This is a really, really tired debate, especially because the point was already discussed to death in the other thread(s): The resolution passed by the Rada does not fall within any of the above. There are no other scenarios in which the President's mandate is liable to be interrupted before his term is up. The Rada cannot simply make up new scenarios and majorities where it can lawfully dismiss the President, regardless of the excuses they have come up with post-hoc. Well, of course they are going to justify their actions somehow. That does not change the fact that any actions taken based on reasons outside of those prescribed in the Constitution are unlawful. The Rada is not above the supreme law of the land and they cannot override it, regardless of majorities.

I see your Russian illegal annexation and raise you an unconstitutional presidential ouster and a Crimean secession referendum. And no, "sovereignty" does not mean that a country (or whatever the hell you are applying the word to, maybe you can clarify) can do whatever and everyone else JUST SHUT UP, because governments are only sovereign under a liberal prism if they a) act in the best interests of the people, and b) uphold the rule of law. And they are always sovereign in lieu of the people, the primary source from which sovereignty flows. As for your "question", let me pose a question to you instead. Which do you think is worse, an internal coup and subsequent invasion* by a foreign power or an invasion by a foreign power and subsequent forced government change? *Reminder that there have been no shots fired in the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine. But I guess peeps consider the enforcement of a no-fly zone that results in some NATO members running out of ordnance more reasonable and lawful than a series of non-violent sieges that end with 80% of the defenders defecting to the other side and a referendum. Because the UN says so, and I heard somebody in the UN once won a Nobel Piss Prize.

Well, the comparison is certainly warranted. But I'd argue that, much like suicide, it's not so much how things really are as how people perceive they are. Things here are pretty bad, and have been for a few years now (bad from our coddled, postmodern perspective—1929 Capitol Plaza squatters would surely laugh). Illegal immigrants are interned in overcrowded "immigrant housing centers" that are rather like prisons with poor conditions (there has been at least one case of inmates dying of disease and lack of proper medical care). That doesn't seem to stop African immigrants from trying to jump the border fence en masse every other weekend. Is that really a better prospect than what these people face in their countries, do they even have all the facts before they leave home? I think the idea that "everything is AWESOME in the west" and the fact that it is awesome indeed to go to sleep every night on a full stomach are both factors to be considered when analyzing immigration. But as you say, it's a complex phenomenon.

I think they do it on purpose, sometimes. You know, for the lulz. Exhibit #1:

They just assumed everyone just Ctrl+Y'd their way through the whole trilogy. Or maybe this is in revenge for players chunking Drizzt at every opportunity. Imoen herself suggests this is because the Bhaal essence is simply more concentrated in charname than in her. This is later confirmed by Yaga-Shura in ToB—unsurprisingly, charname has more Bhaal essence than anyone!!1 Regardless, WotC have determined that, to mark their release of 5th ed., the guy who fought Melissan for the right to ascend to godhood and won is just a level 4 fighter. Take that, BG fans! And that's not even the worst part, tbh. I thought charname becoming a duke of Baldur's Gate and the marshall of Flaming Fist was pretty cool, though. Yeah, I actually liked the concept for the first act, with the the attack on the crowd and the result of the assassination attempt being largely irrelevant to what ends up happening. And it's kinda clever that they dug up Viekang. But given the absurd power levels of famous people in the FR setting, it's weird that they chose this particular bit of lore to create an entry-level adventure.

"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless." -Alan Moore On another forum I post on, someone posted this about 30 minutes ago. Bit strange.

What's this? Letting RL get in the way of your online battles? For shame.

Um. The first video shows that a few outnumbered law enforcement officers are unwilling to escalate the situation after confronting an angry crowd in the middle of nowhere. Some seemed willing to talk it down but after the the failed tasering, the crowd isn't exactly receptive. I'm actually impressed that no one was beaten down and arrested. I suppose reinforcements were dispatched shortly after? I chuckled when the guy recording said "I'm recording your brutality". When adrenaline kicks in it's hard to remember that cops are people too. Yeah. Wake me up when they take over the city hall and the local precinct.

I don't think you understand what spurious actually means. But seeing how you can't seem to distinguish between "perpetuate" and "perpetrate", this shouldn't come as a surprise. I wonder if you actually do this sort of thing on purpose, like oby's occasionally mangled grammar. If that's the case, props for the low key trolling. I'll start off by saying that I'm not terribly interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories and don't really follow the latest trends. Regardless, the first four points are circular logic, "this is the truth because it's the officially accepted version and the official version is the true one". The fifth point has some merit, but if you dig a bit into the official 9/11 findings, you can see the conclusions fail to address some relevant issues. Not in my opinion, but in that of people in the know. It's probably not realistic to expect a final report that squashes all possible doubts, but that's not a blank check for sloppiness. The fifth point is, by far, the one that best proves just how uninformed and biased you are. The NSA has openly admitted to colluding with big tech firms to organize a massive, automated illegal surveillance ring. This is not a conspiracy theory, it's a full-fledged, straight up, no-nonsense, billion dollar conspiracy that was exposed only because an insider blew the whistle. Start by reading up on XKEYSCORE and PRISM and go from there. This stuff isn't even secret, it's on the NYT and Wikipedia, for Pete's sake. None of this means that every conspiracy theory out there is to be believed. But it means you should be careful with what sources you choose to trust and that you should be mindful of attempts to dismiss claims or questions solely by virtue of them being labelled "conspiracy theories" regardless of their merit. edit: oh, I just realized that your reference to Assange and Snowden was in relation to 9/11. It was so irrelevant and tangential that I didn't catch it immediately, sorry. So I guess that your point is that since they didn't unconver anything about 9/11, everything that is outside the official reports must be false. Yep, and the Pope not making any mention of the flying spaghetti monster proves that it doesn't exist. True story.