Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by baff

Oh. and he was innocent.

He was carrying a gun, they found it next to him after he was shot, that means he's not innocent, he had no license and the gun was modified.

"Ballistics tests on weapon found with dead man in Tottenham indicate firearm had been changed to use live ammunition"

The police officer shot him because he feared for his life he said, turns out he was right.

They also said De Menzies had a backpack full of explosives.

I'm not inclined to take their word for it at all. sorry.

 

I would add though that this is the first I have heard of any gun being produced as evidence. Should it turn out to be the truth as it may well turn out to do, I will re-appraise my conclusions at that time.

What I won't be doing is giving the police the benefit of the doubt. Their track record hasn't earnt it.

What would convince you that the "truth" is he was carrying an unlicensed gun?

I'm sure the Iranians could handle it. Their police use guns not sticks. And they have quite a bit of experience handling riots.

2009–2010 Iranian election protests

This is their equipment:

Equipment

• Heckler & Koch MP5
• SIG Sauer P220

Originally posted by baff

 

You thought you were the master race but it turns out the niggers are just as smart as you are. Oh noes! (They are much funnier too).

 

 

 

Since you're not actually quoting someone else that used the "N" word, it's just you using this word to describe Iranians.

I think it's offensive.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by xpowderx

Imagine that! I thought this was the joke of the week. Couldnt believe it when I heard it. But it s for real! Here is a excerpt from the story.

"Commander of the Basij (volunteer forces) in Iran Mohammad Reza Naghdi said on Thursday that the Ashura and al-Zahar battalions are ready to be dispatched to London as peace keeping forces to help restore calm to the troubled cosmopolitan city."

The story is here:http://www.news.az/articles/iran/42338

What do you think about the proposed "peacekeeping" mission the Iranians want to endure?

I think what goes around comes around. Every time they have riots we all gloat. It's no surprise that when we have them, they do too.

 

 

 I haven't heard from Hugo Chavez yet which is disappointing. He's usually a funny guy.

 

 

I cringe when my own government comes out with statements like this to other countries, I'm embarassed by it. So I appreciate the ironic humour when they return the compliments. Iranians are pretty funny. They thoroughly enjoy winding us up as much as they can and it's it's not like we haven't been begging to be taken down a notch, preaching at them the way we have been for so long... from up here on our high high horses.

 Chavez has cancer. I think it's pretty serious.

Originally posted by Chilliesauce

 

hehe, you problem is that you pay more attention to others gameplay than your own. Just like that old lady in my neighbourhood who like to peep into other peoples lives and complain all day long that their way of living is wrong. Is it really affecting her life? nope. But it is in her nature she just likes to be a drama queen.

So nope nothing what others do is really affecting you in D3 uness you  let them. 

This is not correct unless you are on a separate server. 

Everything in the game affects you, including other players.

Unless the game mechanics prevent it.

In this case, the game mechanics don't prevent it.

Originally posted by Scalebane

does it really matter which side has more racists lol.

Of course it matters. There is a contest to see which side is the most racists, and both sides want to win.

Originally posted by frodus

40% of all the jobs created in the US was created in Texas this yr....which Perry rules over i might add.

Sorry, can't vote for him. to Christian conservative for me.

I"m throwing him in the trash with Michelle Bachman.

give me fiscal conservatives, not social conxervatives.

I"m not interested in gay bashing, a war on a woman's right to choose, drugs wars, and crap like that.

CBS can do whatever they want. It's an entertainment company that gets paid by advertisers based on ratings. What do I care what their agenda is?

But the basic premise is that corporations are hoarding money that could be used to stimulate the economy.

Well, duh. That's because they aren't run by retarded monkeys.

They have no idea what the current government is going to do that's going to push the market place one way or another, or how government is going to regulate them or cost them money.

The government is determining winners nd losers in the market place. Subsidies for ethanol, cash for clunkers, bail outs for some banks, not others.

Are you going to be a recipient of this government welfare, or is your competition going to get the benefit of this spending? You don't know.

What new regulation are they going to enact that's going to cost you billions? Are they going back to Cap and Tax?

What are you going to pay for giving employees insurance?

Who knows? Companies make products and services, they aren't doctors and insurance agencies.

What's the new "tax on the rich" going to be? Will you be able to afford it and keep the company going?

Nobody is going to spend money if they don't know the answers to those questions.

The best strategy is to hang on to the money until you find out what the hell government is going to do to you next.

Originally posted by spizz

I dont think you can say that the Iran is a true democracy, it is still an authoritarian state alone due to the theocratic/ religious elements.

But the Iran is still a relatively constant factor in this region in comparison to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and the other states currently in riots or war.

Nobody did care about Saudi Arabia, Egypt or other Islamic nations when it comes to elections/democracy and to summon their ambassadors, but this did happen with the ambassodor of the Iran. I agree with melmoth that some kind of demonizing is happening in the media, some points are justified but some probably exorbitant - not to mention, neglecting other nations in their neighbourhood with far worse situations when it comes to human rights or democratic elements. I did read about one example that  has issues and was big in the news, i.e. about the slogan "wipe out Israel from the map", it was a misstranslation by the western media. Iran besides Venezuela, excluding Libya and the Iraq is gone,  is one of the last big "Oil Empires" with nationalised ressources.

Its hard to believe that the Iran would actually use nuklear weapons for an offensive war since this would be suicide, I still think that nuclear weapons is the best insurance to assure that nobody attacks yourself, just for detterence. Not saying that some of their political and religious attitude isnt quiete irretating.

No country reacts to anohter diplomatically based on one issue alone.

The relationship between nations is determined by many factors.

The US nor any country, is going to condemn human rights violations of other nations based soley on that issue.

They will take things into consideration such as their political system, the access of the citizens to information, the history of the nation, whether it's improving or getting worse, and it's political agenda.

Human rights, like any other issue, is not considered in a vacuum.

The US is not going to condemn the UK, a close ally with democratic political sytems in place,  if it violates some human rights, the same way it will condemn Iran. This is natural, and to be expected.

It would be stupid to act towards the UK the exact same way the US acts toward Iran, over the same issue. The relationship between the nations is not the same, and the agenda of the UK and Iran are not the same.

OMG! You're treating Iran differently than the UK!

Well, duh. One is a country that supports liberal democracy, and the other supports a Totalitarian regime and Theocracy.

Of course they are not treated the same.

Saudia Arabia provides help and resources to the US to combat radical Islamic terrorism.

Iran sends money and weapons to Islamic terrorists to kill US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

OF COURSE those nations are not treated the same, nor should they be. 

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-minn-gov-tim-pawlenty-ends-white-house-124623539.html

One of the first ones to bite the dust.

Originally posted by Teala

The "End Game" should start the moment you start playing.  

You could do that. you could havea  game where you log on and start raiding.

But I think players prefer to work up to that and get to know their characters first.

Originally posted by Mannish

Guild Wars 2 is for the people who are wanting something different in the mmo genre while Star Wars is for people who are satisfied with all the WoW Clones we have been getting over the years. Which side are you on?

Don't know.

I've learned that the feature list doesn't tell you whether the game is fun or not. you only find out after it's released.

Beta can be a good indication, but the general public is even better.

If the masses say it sucks, usually it sucks.

If the masses say it's fun, it might be fun, might not be.

So have to wait on release.

"Different", or "Clone", it's gotta be fun.

I'd play a fun clone over a crappy "different" game for sure.

Darkfall is very different. I don't want to play it.

We complain, but if they aren't like that we won't vote for them.

Meh, it's just clothes. People said the same thing about Elvis.

Just means you're old, or think like an old person.

The end draws nigh?

This will be happening a thousand years from now. The only difference is, you wont' be here.

I know, it's easier to think the world revolves around you, and if you won't be here the whole world will explode, but yea, probably not gonna happen.

BUt if you makes you feel better, you can hoard yoru supplies for Y2K or whatever the next apocalypse is.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by baff

 

They are both equally "democratic" in their own ways. I certainly would not choose to describe America or Iran as tyranny's. they aren't. They are republics.

 

This is an indication of either ignorance, or a desire to obfuscate.

Iran is not a democracy in any way.

Candidates cannot run for election unless they are chosen by Mullahs. The Mullahs are not elected, they are appointed.

There is no opposition party.

 

 There are plenty of opposition parties.

All of them opposed to you.

 

I don't think you even understand what a democracy is.

The muslims in Iran, they are more enlightened than you.

 

 

To be a democracy, you do not need to be liberal.

Iran is not a liberal democracy, it is a conservative democracy.

 

Democracies come in many different flavours and forms. Democracy doesn't define you as either left or right wing. It allows you to make that choice for yourself.

 

So yes, I can grasp your concept of liberal democracy. But I have no intrest in it. Why would I? 

I'm not a liberal and neither are you.

 

As I understand, "liberal democracy" = I want to suck another man's cock in public and not be arrested.

Or just an another pathetic excuse to kill niggers.

The Mullahs make the choices in Iran.

It sounds to me you are simply completely ignorant of how the political system in Iran works.

Learn about how the political system in Iran works. Start with teh Assembly of Experts, and go from there.

Once you understand how Irans political system works, you can intelligently discuss it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

I don't thnk you're racial slurs or homosexual jibes are relevant to the issue of how Iran is governed.

As far as I know public sex is not condoned in any liberal democracy, homosexual or heterosexual.

You can certainly post links if that is your claim.

Personally I find your use of the N word offensive, but this is an unmoderated forum.

My definition of a liberal democracy would be the UK. But perhaps that's how you feel about your country.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by SoulSurfer

On paper, theocracy works great, it's just we need Gods help because that supreme power has to run it, not man.  I'm just waiting for God to show up and start running the show.  The government would be perfect and flawless.  

 I'm assuming you are referring to a Christian theocracy in this case.  I'm a Christian and I am steadfastly against a Christian theocracy.  Not because I'm against Christianity, on the contrary, I accept the Bible as truth.  But because it's just another thing that government would screw up.  Government screws up just about everything it sticks its claws into.  The question I would ask is, what form of worship of God would the government make us abide by?

When I was in college, I attended a Baptist church.  It was extremely conservative.  Members were expected to attend services clean shaven, neatly groomed and wearing a jacket and tie.  Women were expeceted to wear dresses.  Listening to rock & roll was considered a sin and even listening to Christian music set to anything louder than an organ was considered wrong.

Now I go to a church where wearing shorts and sandals is commonplace, many of the members have tattoos and body piercings and the music is set to drums and electric guitars.  Despite all that, the doctrine of the church is rock solid.

There's a difference between cultural Christianity and doctrinal Christianity.  Would the government enforce one without the other or both?  Remember back in the Middle Ages, most of the countries in Europe were considered theocracies.  But the monarchy dictated how its citizens would worship God.  Well who were the ones who fled Europe first and came to America.  Christians.  They didn't like being told by the monarch how they should worship God.

But I understand completely where you are coming from.  Our culture is sinking fast morally.  It is losing its sense of right and wrong.  If we continue down this path, chaos will reign.  Corruption is already rampant in government and a return to Christian values would do wonders.  But it has to be admininstered on a personal level, not by the government.

I will go off the rails and agree with you here, to a degree ...

The First Amendment exists not just to protect government from religion, but also religion from government.

However, the "Christian values" that would prevent corruption are the same "values" as many other non-Christian societies. "Do unto others" is not an exclusively Christian ideal.

 

However, it is not a Muslim concept.

The Muslim concept is society should not be allowed to draw a cartoon of Muhammed.

It is not, well if we don't allow people to draw Muhammed, what will they stop us from drawing? Perhaps it's better if we all let each other draw whatever we wish? (Freedom of speech).

No, the concept is society is better if we decide what you can draw. It's more of a "control others" than "do unto others" belief system.

Dude, nobody mentioned Muslims until you brought them up. You really fucking hate Muslims, don't you?

You act as if every single Muslim in the world believes the exact same things, which, of course, is just as wrongheaded as saying every single Christian in the world believes the exact same things.

 

I believe your need to twist my statments to fit your own agenda is a result of your prejudice.

If I want to say I hate Muslims, I will simply post that.

The only one I see posting anyting about "hating Muslims" is you.

If that's your agenda, don't hide behind me to make those sorts of statements.

 

Deflection failed.

Your actions speak louder than your deflections.

 

The truth is not deflection.

If you post a quote proving your statment, then do so.

If you can't, then obviously you're the one doing the deflection.

 

False.  So many falsehoods in your statements.  But, that's a typical MO for you.

Blue = Deflection

Your post history = your actions.  Your actions speak louder than this deflection.

case = closed.

 

And, your edit will not be recognized as it is nothing more than gibberish used to obfuscate the facts.

 

Translation:

 I found statements from myself twisting uyour words and sayng you hate Muslims, but I didn't actually find anything from you I could quote about "hating Muslims".

I found statements from baff claiming you hate Muslims, but I didn't actually find any statements from you I could quote to show you hate Muslims.

I want to claim you "hate Muslims" but I can only do it by twisting your statements to misinterpret them.

I can't actually find a quote of you stating you hate Muslims.

But I can find LOTS of quotes of myself CLAIMING you hate Muslims..

Wow... you suck at translations.  Because that is WAY different than what my actual message was (which was plain as day).  You need to stop before you make yourself look even more foolish with your inability to translate.

 

 

If you want to talk about "hating Muslims" then that's your agenda, not mine.  Deflection failed.

Dont hide behind me to make  statements about "hating Muslims".  Your post history proves kobie right.

If you want to prove I "hate Muslims" then by all means, post some quotes.  Yet, I get ridiculed for posting historical quotes from powder.

Look at my post count.  I know... you spam a lot.

In all those posts, you can't find ONE quote that backs up yoru statement that I hate Muslims?  The culmulative of your post history is good enough.  We know what you post.  We know how you post.  We know the message that you shove at us on an almost daily basis.  I actually have a life.  A life that I need to live rather than search through over 12,000 posts (in almost 3 years... rough avg of 4k posts a year... that's more than my total and I've been here over 2 years longer than you.  Spam master Ihmotepp.)

NOT ONE QUOTE?

Not one quote to back up your libel that I hate Muslims?

NOT ONE?

I think we both know exactly what happened.

You went and looked for a quote.

And this is what you found.

me saying, Al Qaeda blowing up civilians is wrong.

And you posting, "why do you hate ALL MUSLIMS?"

And what you remembered is Ihmotepp hates Muslims, I remember that thread!

But then you found out the only one stating anything about hating Muslims,  was YOU.

That I didn't say anything about hating Muslims at all, and you just remember your own claims that I hate Muslims.

But when you go read the actual threads, there isn't anything inthere about me hating Muslims.

I will write Hamas is harming Palestinians.

And you reply "Why do you hate ALL MUSLIMS?"

And you remember the part about "hating Muslims" but you forgot YOU are the one that wrote it, NOT ME.

Originally posted by Vato26

Originally posted by kobie173

Originally posted by Hekket

Gotta get one candidate that every republican and conservative agree upon and focus all votes on that one person to get Obama out of office.

Perry and Bachman...which one...  *scratches chin*

Obama will win in 2012.

Exactly.

Bachman wlil lose because of her extreme Christian Conservative stance on wanting to inflict the Bible on everyone's lives.  Too many non-Christians or moderate Christians to want that insanity.

Perry will lose because it will be easy to point out his hipocrisy and his Christian Conservative extremist leanings.

Either way... the Republicans are fielding another dud with those two.

 

What would make the dud into a bomb of epic fail is if Perry won and had Bachman as his VP.  ... Obama, despite me not voting for him unless he pulls something great out of his hat before 2012, would win in another landslide.

I wouldn't phrase it this way exactly, but I agree.

No religious fantatics for President of the US.

We need someone that will be concerned with the economy, not outlawing abortion adn gay marriage.

Originally posted by xpowderx

Liberals, Democrats, Obama Zombies! Cringe and Fear! We of the Tea Party have declared War on you!

Uh, no.

We're all Americans, liberal, moderate, conservative, black, white, hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Athiest, etc.

We have disagreements on policy, which is a good thing in a democracy.

Nobody needs to declare war on anybody.

Originally posted by Valua

Guild Wars 2 has no healer or tanks, Star Wars does. Because of this, and obviously the different classes/spells/animations etc, both games will play very, very differently. 

 

I usually play a healer or a tank.

Originally posted by robert4818

First, instances should be used where, immersion wise, it makes sense.  Instances should be used in spots where it would be immersion breaking to find lots of players running around at the same time.  For example.  If your game has an all-powerful evil necromancer, who is feared throughout the land, his castle should not have 3 + groups of adventurers running through it at any one time.  If hes so powerful, so feared, why in the world are people able to simply wander through his home at will?  In this case, instancing his castle makes sense.  

I disagree. I find it more immersion breaking that there's a bunch of necromancers in different instances. Multiple groups trying to kill the necromancer do not break my immersion.

To each their own.