Namutree

It's because some of our higher learning institutions aren't about expanding people's minds, but indoctrinating them.

True, but the democrats were always worthless populists with no convictions. Once upon a time the republicans weren't a populist party; which is why seeing them in the miserable state they've chosen for themselves is quite frustrating. I guess it depends on what is meant by 'intellectual' really. When I think intellectual, I mean some one who is educated. Most journalists are fairly educated; so I feel it's fair to call them intellectuals. Doesn't mean they're intelligent or have critical thinking skills though. EDIT: I better make this more relevant to ISIS. I'm also making it less insulting. It's annoying me how some 'conservatives' are trying to tie people's fear of ISIS into issues that are totally unrelated. Although it's also a tad amusing to see people who actually would believe for even a second that ISIS is trying to sneak into the US through the border.

Back in my Halo 2 days it's how I played. I was never quite as good as my friends at fighting when we played local multi-player, but I still managed to win since I was a crafty strategist. I would wait somewhere in the middle of the map for one of my friends to start fighting the other. Once a battle broke out I would jump in and steal the kills. Good times.

RANT TIME!!! It's not surprising considering that the republican party abandoned it's successful capitalist foundation to court stupid, agrarian, unprincipled, and somewhat pro-treason bunch of Judeau-Christian zealots more interested in religious indoctrination than ideological consistency. How can anyone be shocked that intellectuals fled the republicans when they ceased to be the party of reason to become the party of stupid. They're the kind of morons who throw the word socialist at Obama like an insult; only to ignore that the previous republican president actively tried to preserve social security by making it solvent. Doin' a real good job of fighting socialism when during the 'Obama-Care' debate you complain money'll be taken away from medicare. Don't worry though folks because the country is going the same way as the journalist for unsurprising reasons. Nixon's version of the republican party is the Thief 4 of political parties. Like Thief 4 it suffers from a lack of an identity and being a mish-mash of incompatible ideas. Are they capitalists? Hell no. The drug war, gay marriage, social security, and various other positions they take show they haven't the slightest respect for property. Are they the party of small government? If you only listen to their speeches sure, but the illusion of a small-government appeal fails the moment you give even a slight glance at their policy. 1: Hilariously huge military when we're running massive deficits. Any attempts to reign in the financially irresponsible military spending is completely opposed by party leadership. See, their plan to keep America safe is to bankrupt the country while at the same time draw all the heat from the worlds villains by getting involved in everything. 2: Build an extremely expensive wall at the Mexican border. Good to know that the "party of small government" want to waste billions of dollars building and maintaining a wall that won't work, and if it did work would be an economic disaster. Not to mention would give the government a great degree of control over who can leave and when. One of the little details people forget is that the wall could do more than keep Mexicans OUT; it could keep Americans IN. I could go on, but then this post would be waaay too long. The republicans lose with journalist because few smart people would want to be associated with the republicans, and the few who do; do so grudgingly.

Not at all. It would be a case of incompetence; not murder. Failing to save some one is not murder. If you have the ability to save someone an intentionally choose not to, than yes it is murder. Btw, the deputy who was hospitalized yesterday was tested and is OK. A) You incorrectly assume the government is competent enough to consistently handle things correctly. They're not. They're idiots, not murderers. B) Murder isn't not saving people. It's only murder is YOU are the cause of their death, and you killed them deliberately. Unless the government gave them ebola; the government didn't kill them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

He meant "so that the public doesn't learn the truth". I'd believe Judicial Watch over the Feds any day, the Feds have been caught lying again and again, speaking of mainstream sources the Washington Post discovered another White House cover up just today. But I'll concede the facts about ISIS are in dispute at this point. Hunter's source has already admitted that people who were apprehended only "might" have been ISIS. Nothing is in dispute. Hunter heard a rumor and decided to state it as fact; quite irresponsibly. The department of homeland security went ahead and let people know the rumor was BS; not that they should have even been needed to clarify since the idea that ISIS would sneak into the country through the Mexican border is stupid.

While I agree with the sentiment, I am enjoying the irony of this statement. Call it a slow wit, but the irony seems to escape me. Edgar Allan Poe :Cant's huge grin icon: He doesn't want gritty like strangekitty, but he thinks Poe is rather moody and dark himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Allan_Poe (sorry, Grom, but wiki *does* have its uses.) Beg pardon for talking for you, frag. Edit: blame the ouzo x2 Oh. I get it now. I can't believe I missed that.

While I agree with the sentiment, I am enjoying the irony of this statement. Call it a slow wit, but the irony seems to escape me.

Not at all. It would be a case of incompetence; not murder. Failing to save some one is not murder.

Except it isn't true. http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/politics/jeh-johnson-duncan-hunter-isis/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

Impressive.

As long as spells like stoneskin or ghost-armor aren't in the game. Those spells wreck balance.

Exactly. This is why only buffs like stoneskin bother me.

This isn't Diablo. Yes it is meant to be that way. Poe isn't meant to be a moody and dark experience.

So a pre-buff spell you can cast before entering combat that could last for an encounter would be okay? But not after you rest. Can't see Sawyer going for that. I know Sawyer wouldn't go for that, but I think it would be fine.

I didn't mention 24hr pre-buffs. PrimeJunta has a problem with long duration buffs. Also, define short and long. PrimeJunta and yourself are okay with short pre-buffs. How short? And when does it become long? What if it's 1 second after you define what is short? Does it then become long? I'm not being sarcastic because battles can be all of 10-15 seconds in some cases. So that extra 1 second could make a difference. That's why I'm finding it funny because you can change a spell's duration in PoE from short to long. I'd like to know what the time frame for a short buff is. Hard to say exactly. For me it's a problem if the buff can last long enough that you can rest and it'll still be active. As long as the duration isn't that extreme I don't consider it a problem.

I've never once talked about 24hr pre-buffs. Not sure why you think I am. Because you mentioned long duration pre-buffs.

In poe you cant make any buff go on for 24hrs like stoneskin does in the IE games. So the threat of abuse isn't really there.

That's actually pretty funny.

Wow.

Well you should be concerned because he pushes the boundaries of what NATO is suppose to protect and Russia is a much more dangerous military threat than any Islamic extremist group Russia's not going to attack NATO. They're jerks; not crazy. I'm not worried about jerks; I'm worried about lunatics.

Putin is hardly anything to be concerned about. Most of the issues the west has with Russia comes from us not minding our own business. In a world where Islamist ideology is a thing; I'm hardly concerned with a secular leader like Putin.

I have an idea on this. Maybe there could be monster hunting npc's who (for a price) will tell you about a given monster. Not only would you have to find a guy for each monster, but you'd need to pay him/her money to teach you about them.

True, except for one problem. This isn't a story focused game. It's a combat/exploration focused game. The story is the cherry on a sundae; it's sweet, but it's hardly the focus. It would be cool if every encounter were special, but there's a problem. Either the encounters would need to be much more rare, or Obsidian would need a lot more funding & time to develop the game.

One reason is if you have someone who wants both combat xp and quest xp like the IE games, they'll vote for both. if you have someone who votes for quest xp and not combat xp, they'll vote for quest xp. So quest xp will always get a vote in those circumstances and be higher. It's no surprise quest xp has a lot of votes because it's catering to the combat xp people too. I'm not comparing it to quest-xp. I expected quest-xp to be high. I just didn't expect combat to be so low. Everything except lock-picking is beating it. I guess combat-xp is really unpopular on the forum.