Namutree

It won't because it isn't going to happen. So don't worry about it. Some politicians are dumb enough to suggest it in brief moments of stupidity, but none of them are insane enough to try something like that. The absolute harshest gun control there could ever be in the US would be a ban on purchasing new guns, but they wouldn't try to take the petty arms people already have.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?) I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher. It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more. On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite. In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened. I read catcher in the rye in high school and thought it was garbage. You know what else is trash? The Burn Journals and The Perks of being a Wallflower. I had to look up both those books. They were published after I was in High School. I am now going to guess that your age range is 19-22. I'm 24.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?) I read it in middle school, and then again as a middle school teacher. It was a vastly different book the second time, and I appreciated it much more. On the other hand, Catcher and the Rye was a bit of the opposite. In High School I read it and was enthralled and fascinated, as an adult I read it and was saddened. I read catcher in the rye in high school and thought it was garbage. You know what else is trash? The Burn Journals and The Perks of being a Wallflower.

We are doing more than airstrikes. Are they as huge an endeavor as the Iraq/Afghan invasion? No, but our involvement is still very expensive and self-defeating; just like the last wars. Lets also not forget that he expanded the Afghan war. So yeah, he's like Bush 2. Yet once again its under Obama that the vast majority of American troops will be leaving Afghanistan end of 2016/2017 ?...still no praise for Obama? http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-afghanistan-usa-obama-idUSKBN0MK2F820150324 So, because the war took longer to end than it was supposed to thanks to Obama I'm supposed to praise him for his letting the war end at all? By that logic Obama could stab a guy and you'd be saying he deserves praise because Obama didn't kill him.

You'll need to be more specific if you want to know what will happen in a given country. For the US though, we'll save a huge amount of money assuming we reduce our defense budget to reflect our more conservative defense strategy.

Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they? Come on, lets be serious. You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)? They are not the same thing at all? We are doing more than airstrikes. Are they as huge an endeavor as the Iraq/Afghan invasion? No, but our involvement is still very expensive and self-defeating; just like the last wars. Lets also not forget that he expanded the Afghan war. So yeah, he's like Bush 2.

You really shouldn't.

and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama not take some credit and recognition for this ? Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they?

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ? Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call.

I did so and it was unpleasant.

This is another case of a solution in search of a problem. That's a lot of work to do something that would likely make the game worse.

Unless Bill is her VP and he plans on assassinating her on day 1 of being president, I don't think so. He may or may not be morally bankrupt, but at least he was a decent president. Considering that he helped escalate hostility between the US and Iraq, expanded the insane self-destructive drug war, lied to the country about his affair, and signed DOMA into law; no, he was a terrible president whose popularity is a testament to how poorly people judge politicians. Personally I'm hoping for Rand Paul. He's far from perfect, but I can't be too picky or else I won't even be voting.

So you're calling something like Masks of the Betrayer pitiful? I actually never played that one. Maybe I'm just sour towards such expansions due to TOB.

We already know what kind of expansion we're getting; it'll be a "Tales of the Sword Coast" style expansion. Which is a good thing. TOB style expansions are usually just pitiful pseudo sequels.

I found the cipher to be pretty boring to play personally.

Perhaps. But still don't see any logical reason for 3 completely different types of magic casting. 1 preferred. 2 ok I will live with it. 3 I can see how first timers and cRPG newbies are completely lost. Having 3 magic systems doesn't make the game better, more fun, or more challenging then developers have to ask why are we using 3 systems? Having 3 does make the better and more fun. It allows people to pick the casting system they prefer. Some people don't like the way the wizard works; some people don't like the way the cipher works. No problem though; the cipher or druid is their for those who don't enjoy the wizard, and the wizard and druid is their for those who don't enjoy the cipher. Everyone wins. That's the great thing about different classes in general, different play styles for different tastes.

Or they could just leave it alone and let people pick the spell casting class that best reflects the style of play they prefer. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

You know because some fights are obviously easy. If I see a couple of small spiders I know the battle doesn't warrant the use of any per-rest spells (or at least not any high level ones). Though resource management isn't just about whether or not you use your spells, but whether or not you use them well. One well placed fan of flames can basically end a lot of the game's early fights for example. You gotta ensure maximum spell efficiency or else you'll be making a lot trips back to the inn which would be tedious. You can always rest at the inn in Gilded Vale for free.

I don't think he was calling for censorship of the people insulting Islam as much as questioning their judgement.

You mean, like the mod that lets you bang your sister? http://imoen.blindmonkey.org/ That mod sucks.

Camping supplies mattered to me once. Don't want to spoil that part of the game, but suffice to say I was in a dungeon, I took a nasty fall and had to fight my way back (since I couldn't go back the way I came). I only had two camping supplies (I was playing on hard), and I didn't know how many fights would be in my way back or how dangerous those fights would be. So yes, camping supplies matter a little. To help make them matter more though I suggest the expansion have a dangerous dungeon that you can't leave until you finish it. Meaning you CAN'T go back to an inn. You'd have to manage your resources carefully. As long as the player was made aware that the dungeon couldn't be exited until completion it wouldn't be a problem.

I would assume that without the right equipment they would also lack certain feelings. So if someone is incapable of having sex they can't have love? Have you ever heard of a eunuch being in love? Yes, I have known disabled people who were "in love" but there again we have a specific narrow usage of the world love. Were they straight up born without reproductive organs? I guess that's true. Romantic love and familial bonds should really use different words rather than share the word "love". Moving the goalposts... you asked if people had heard of eunuchs being in love and now add in "But they must be born it!" when people responded in the positive. Many eunuchs were made eunuchs before puberty, effectively preventing them from developing into men and yet they still could have sexual desires for others (which seems to be what you really mean when you say love, not love itself), close enough? Close enough.

I would assume that without the right equipment they would also lack certain feelings. So if someone is incapable of having sex they can't have love? Have you ever heard of a eunuch being in love? Yes, I have known disabled people who were "in love" but there again we have a specific narrow usage of the world love. Were they straight up born without reproductive organs? I guess that's true. Romantic love and familial bonds should really use different words rather than share the word "love".

The Game Design of Starcraft 2: Designing an E-Sport by Dustin Browder, lead designer/game director of Starcraft 2. Blizz was very clearly focused on making SC2 e-sports viable, which doesn't necessarily include LAN support - else Leage of Legends wouldn't be one of the highest paying games on record (which btw both Starcrafts also are, concurrently). Then they suck at designing an eSport. It should have had lan support.

I would assume that without the right equipment they would also lack certain feelings. So if someone is incapable of having sex they can't have love? Have you ever heard of a eunuch being in love?