Peaker

Hey there, you guys might have noticed that I haven't been around much, either on the forums or in game. The reason for that is because I just moved to Ottawa in order to study at U of Ottawa and I arrived last week. I have to say it's quite hectic, but here are my observations thus far: 1. Beer is really expensive. 2. I had no idea what a beer store was (We usually buy our beer in cornerstores), but I quite like the concept! 3. Something something about beer. 4. Wow, a lot of people speak French, it's awesome. 5. Smokes is delicious, they make great poutine. 6. I discovered Shwarma and it's delicious. 7. Ontarians (Students at least!) seem to be lightweights when it comes to drinking, but they more than make up for it with enthusiasm. 8. The city is beautiful, it looks a lot like Quebec City with the copper roofs and the architecture. Very compact though. 9. I love my classes!

I play regular space marines since they cannibalized my army with the new inquisition codex (No more radical inquisitors, no more allies etc...) and I prefer to use them at mid range as well, but for me mid range is bolter range . The 5th edition Space Marine honor guard is simply ridiculous though. For close combat I have always enjoyed chaos though, I even fielded Abaddon the Despoiler once or twice.

I never played with or against Space Wolves, but won't you have a problem with the short range of your special weapons in your regular tac squads? Unless you want to focus on close combat (Which i'm told SW excel at). Also, if that is the case, did you think about Wulfen? I also would drop the melta bombs on your Heavies, they'll never be in range to use them, and any vehicle getting close to them against 4 missile launchers is pretty excellent. Overall, you seem to have an excellent anti vehicle capability, but I'm more worried about your anti personnel capability. Maybe try to sneak a power weapon in there? Maybe a heavy bolter in your Long Fangs? Overall it seems sound for 1000 points.

Possibly the most moronic thing I've ever read in the politics section. Did you take off your tin foil helmet to write that? LOL! Of course, the judges have absolutely no impact on who gets convicted or not. And those who pull strings to get said judges appointed have absolutely no influence on the decisions of those judges. Of course, it could easily be said that calling something moronic without offering a shred of argument or logic is pretty idiotic as well, so I think I'll spare myself the pain of writing a detailed explanation pertaining to political science that you won't read anyway. As for your points O'Gara, I will address them each in turn, though some of them are of course a question of personal beliefs and preferences: Again, as I quickly mentioned above, the judges are appointed by individuals, and there is a very real influence game that is played in the appointment of judges, especially on the Supreme Court. It's the same thing in Canada, judges that were appointed using political capital from a certain party or individual tend to favor said entities, and those same parties and entities get money for their campaign from corporations as well as rich and influent people. The relation is quite easy to make. While I have nothing against the people who enlist for the sake of their country (I am joining my country's military myself), the security and wellbeing of a nation depends on more than the soldiers beneath it's standards. However I am certain you did not mean to disparage the other organizations responsible for the continued well being we enjoy on the North American continent. On the contrary, examining past events (Especially wars) and their effect on the current political climate is pretty much the basis of any meaningful politico-historical analysis. The "Coalition" you speak of counted a vast number of small nations that have very little weight in NATO, and only three countries contributed troops to the actual invasion (The UK, the US and Australia). Canada didn't participate, nor did France. In fact there was no evidence of Saddam planning any hostile action against the United States, or of a build up of WMDs. While Saddam was a pretty horrid dictator, and I don't miss him one bit, I hope no one here is under the illusion that ridding the world of a dangerous dictator is the reason the Iraq war happened. The US supported murderous juntas, dictators and regimes throughout the entire 20th century, and still does. I didn't see the Coalition of the Willing spearhead an invasion of Saudi Arabia, or of Bahrein. They backed Mubarak until he was thrown out by the pissed off populace. Torturing people does that. My issue with that line of thought is basically: Where do you draw the line? How much freedom are you ready to sacrifice in order to have peace of mind? It's remarkably similar to the gun issue, which is why I advocate something of a middle ground. What is definitely wrong however is intelligence services doing those things off the radar, without any accountability except to themselves, which is why I approve of what Snowden and Manning did. If they had released tactical information, or things that had endangered operatives in the field, then I would definitely say that they have committed treason. Again, I think it's rather hypocritical that exposing illegal practices inside the US government is judged worthy of a prison term, but that starting an illegitimate war that ended up costing thousands of American, Canadians, English etc... lives is not even worth a prosecution. That's probably because the US doesn't recognize the international tribunal though.

Treason has everything to do with corporate greed, because the people deciding what treason is are the same people that protect America's corporate paradise, and believe me, they primarily act in their own interest. And OGara, if the Congress and Senate are so efficient at pursuing breaches of ethics, how come nobody was ever punished for starting a war in Iraq under false pretences? There were no WMDs after all, nor any evidence of there being any in the first place, when the decision to invade yet another country was taken. How come congress doesn't talk about the CIA training deaths squads in Argentina? Do you believe that congressmen and senators alike were unaware of what happened in Guantanamo? Even though it happened over multiple administrations, both republicans and democrats? What about the outsourcing of torture to Egypt, or other less "righteous" countries? You ask us to trust the government channels, but what has the government done to earn that trust?

The problem is that the military-industrial complex is so pervasive in America. Say he had gone the Congress route. A committee would have convened, discussed the matter to death for 3 years and nothing would have happened. I see it all the time here in Canada, when they "expose" corruption in the public services. The fact is, we need whistle-blowers, because our governments don't tell us the truth, and when we catch them in a lie, they don't do anything. I'm not going to say Manning was a "hero" for what he did, but I will say he did what he had to do, because when a people has no control over their foreign policy or the acceptable level of surveillance they want in their own country, there's something wrong with democracy. If this guy gets 35 years, I would love to see those responsible for the 2008 crash held accountable as well, instead of bailing them out with billions of taxpayer money. I would love white collar crime to be prosecuted more aggressively, because while it might not be as sensational as leaked information, the loss of jobs and ressources for the Average american worker does end up claiming lives through poor health and poverty. I would also like it if our governments didn't constantly start wars under false pretexts, and those responsible for lying to us were prosecuted. That, and more, should be the priority, over a single whistleblower. But hey, I guess it doesn't make good press.

I'm rereading A Dance with Dragons by George RR Martin (AKA "Game of Thrones"). ...And I'm lagging and procrastinating my way through War and Peace.

There's great theories going around on the Breaking Bad Subreddit. After the last episode, I think Jesse might rat on Walt, or maybe he'll involuntarily give something to Hank. I dunno.

Latest episode was great, but I'd put Gus Fring's death above the Hank vs Walt scene. Still, I can't wait to see the rest of the season. "Say my name."

I'm not that much into the "comic and romantic" type of anime, but I read Fruit Basket a while ago, and it was decent, very girly though. My personal favourites are geared towards adults, mostly: Neon Genesis Evangelion (The original series, movies and the remakes that are currently being made.) Black Lagoon Berserk (You will have to read the mangas after the series end though, since it's hardly the end of the story.) Ghost in the Shell (The movies, but the anime series is pretty good too) Akira I do have a weakness for Miyazaki movies though, and I do admit to having enjoyed Full Metal Alchemist. However I wasn't that taken by Cowboy Beebop, perhaps because I watched it not long after I watched Black Lagoon and it didn't hit me as much. It felt way less gritty. EDIT: Ah yeah, Monster is pretty darn awesome too.

Our nations (And this is more prevalent in the US than in Canada, but it still happens here) have some accountability problems. Whistle-blowers like this shouldn't be necessary for our privacy and rights to be respected. The CIA almost operates as a separate government of it's own, as the numerous coups and operations during the time of the Cold War and the recent Arab conflicts have shown us. I understand that obviously classified information is classified for a reason, but we need to remember what happens when we stop demanding accountability from our leaders. (Hint: People die.)

Granted, but given that this would be incredibly retarded, the universe considers it a paradox and erases you and Small from existence. I wish I had poutine right now.

Granted, your spirit is digitalized as an AI which is responsible for running a military complex. You silently observe as mankind destroys itself in a nuclear war and you end up completely alone, unable to feel anything or to talk to anyone. You slowly become mad, but you cannot even self destruct as that would require a human to activate the sequence. I wish I could survive the upcoming zombie apocalypse.

(That was pretty good) Granted, except that you fail to take into account quantum physics, your meddling therefore reshapes the entire evolution path of humanity according to the new laws. Enjoy your new life as an Amoeba. I wish that the royal baby would crawl back into it's mother's womb.

Granted, except it's now Zombie Jessica Alba. She's missing an arm and smells suspiciously like yogurt left outside on a sunny day. I wish that I could prove God doesn't exist.

EDIT: Granted, except eventually you think about what would happen if you vaporized everyone on the planet. Enjoy your lonely lonely life as the last human on earth until you finally die miserable in a pile of your own feces. I wish I could learn all the secrets of the universe.

Granted, you now compete in the Special Olympics. I wish I had a time machine.

Hahaha. No Small, our beer has the strongest Alcohol percentage in general, moreso than Britain and the US. Hell, the Budweiser they send up to Canada has like 1% more alcohol content than the one they sell in the US. And that's because we're real men.

How do you delete Sealed Slots? I'm not sure you can, they seem tied to your account. Either way, you get 2 for free and if you want a few more, they aren't that expensive.

You mean exactly like alcohol already does? (Pot actually is much less damaging to your system than booze and tobacco if you keep your consommation reasonable)

Apparently you weren't very clear on that Peaker, my perception of your posts says otherwise. Let me clarify with appropriate bolded text. Also Morton, gangsta rap is a produce of the culture most black people are forced to live in. I do not think it is however a significant cause of ethnic criminality, more like a symptom. The cycle goes (Roughly) like this: 1. Ethnic minorities live (a lot more) in poverty, leading to fewer opportunities, and amongst the leftover opportunities, some are closed to them by virtue of their race. 2. Money thus become one of the few possible way to climb the social ladder, which is difficult to acquire because of 1. 3. A part of those who don't have opportunities turn to crime in order to acquire 2. 4. A part of those who commit crime are judged by tribunals, which have a negative bias towards their ethnicity, leading to further ghettoization and higher conviction rates, as well as harsher sentences. 5. Black Criminals make up a higher part of the prison population, perpetuating number 1, which in turn perpetuates the whole cycle. And voilà. We have to remember that violent criminality is primarily a result of poverty, however due to the way black and hispanic persons are portrayed by the medias (Think about how many times there was a report about a crime commited by a black man on news channels, despite it being completely inconsequential) and the general racist bias inherent in the current American culture (Though Canada definitely isn't perfect either), juries, judges and law enforcement are more likely to profile or treat a black person differently, and it's a kind of treatment that perpetuates the whole cycle, and allows white people to keep their privilege. Not every issue is about race, but racism affects most issues by virtue of being systemic. I hope that wasn't too academic, but I'm certain I can find a few good ressources on White privilege and systemic racism if anyone is interested.

Morton: Are you legit denying that there's racism in tribunals? Like, for real? Wow. After looking into the case myself, it's true the CBS was somewhat slanted towards the mother, however it doesn't change the core of the argument. Lehman: The link you posted doesn't work for me, but I've never been a fan of Ayn Rand or her supporters. Also, I criticized the fact that he had a gun in the first place, not that he used it. If people have access to firearms readily, they will more readily use them, as this example shows. I've been in street scuffles my share of times, and I never thought about pulling a gun on someone, because here people don't carry guns in the street. Arrevici: It would be nice if you actually read what I said instead of calling me out on my "naivety" and my "preposterousness". I didn't say it happened all the time, I said that being white in a tribunal gives you an advantage over being black, which is a problem. The advantage isn't tangible, it's not something you can touch, but it does affect your chances, as conviction rates for minorities show.

Show me at which point I said that Zimmerman was guilty? I agree that the verdict rendered was the correct one, however it doesn't make it any less true that a black man or a visible Hispanic would have been more likely to have been convicted in the same circumstances, the article I posted above is an example of that. He might identify as Hispanic, but he's very definitively white and that carries a certain privilege in the American courtroom, and that's definitely an issue worth discussing and addressing. However I will agree that there was a gross exaggeration by the media, that said, when you're president, you're expected to comment on issues which have national coverage, not to mention it does tie in with the democrat agenda towards gun control (Which I support). If Zimmerman didn't carry a gun with him, this whole mess wouldn't have happened and the kid would still be alive, he might have had a few more bruises, but there were witnesses on site and the police was called.

Ahem, i'm sorry, but there is definitely a racial bias in law enforcement and in tribunals in the US. That's something you can't deny or brush over, do you think that it's a coincidence that 60% of the prison population in the US is Hispanic or Black, despite those two groups comprising 30% of the total population of the US? Case in point: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574331...-warning-shots/ If you don't think tribunals hold a racial bias, then you're delusional Arevicci. Now Borsht, the way I see it, Obama commented on an issue that made national coverage which ties in with his gun control agenda, something every politician does. I don't see how discussing something that's considered an important matter by much of the nation "idiotic". Sure the case itself isn't that much different or extraordinary, but that's the way the media works. Certainly you can criticize how our mass medias behave overall, but being president, you kinda have to play the game.