#11:
He has no real power in North Korea, and his status is purely ceremonial.

(When a dictature starts to spout surreal crackpot rethoric out of nowhere, this is almost always the product of behind-the-throne factions fighting it off.)

Your link missed an important bit, and showed me ALL the TES factions, then I realized that it should point here:
http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Factions_%28Online%29

Anyhow, I bet you're correct and the 3-way faceoff was between:
Aldmeri Dominion (SW corner of map)
Daggerfall Covenant (NW corner)
Ebonhart Pact (NE corner)

...Presumably to allow for PvP control zones, etc. Interesting, thanks.

Still, the MMO nature will make it difficult or impossible to include many if not most of the key things that I enjoy in a TES game, so I still think that this is a long shot for me personally.

@MilkmanDan Here's the factions http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Factions_(Online)

You don't need high speed internet either, technically (I do, but I am a robot). Technically, you don't need a lot of things, it is all pretty much arbitrary when you talk in those terms. When you make people have to sign up for certain rights via some sort of process, it is the beginning of a real erosion of rights. I'll even meet people half way to say if you want to be in public areas with a gun, some kind of permit is needed like cars...I don't like it, but Ill give you that. But as long as I am not using it to commit crimes, your right to restrict my behavior is over...period. It might be that freedom comes with a hefty prices of dead people, innocent people, innocent people that we could of protected with ever increasing restrictions of social liberties. I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, lower murder rates than even some European countries of pretty good order. But they live in a totalitarian dictatorship, and I am not trying to make a scarecrow argument about totalitarian dictatorships and whatnot, what I am trying to say is people dying isn't the only important metric when talking about rights to do things.


It might be true that more people will die with lacks gun laws, it might be true that more people die because of lacks drug lacks, lots of things might be true about how freedom serves to make economics weak, countries less secure, more prone to internal strife and faction, it might be true that the seeds of freedom and the ability to self regulate cause harms that extend beyond ones self. Even so, I still don't think a better framework exists for conducting ourselves that doesn't cripple and stifle people who have done no wrong. If the price for a drunk driver is abolition, the price of a murder disarmament, the price of wreck less driving horse drawn carriage, then we have failed to address the underlying problem and snub out freedoms ability to creatively deal with complex social challenges via the creative process of problem solving.

I think history has shown that any attempts to snub out action instead of guide it fail miserably. Gun control starts and ends with people, not laws, I suggest we start there. Starting neighborhood gun responsibility programs, safety education for youths, ect...whatever, I don't know, I can't pretend to know what is the best way to address the complex issue of gun control for every community, the point is that is their bag, it can be done without force given the context of the USA. Not every country has that luxury, children roaming the streets with AK-47s is not a real problem in this country, nor would it be if gun control laws were more lacks. We do have problems, I don't want there to be any mistake about that, but I don't think the solution is wholesale elimination of thing that only CAN be dangerous, I mean, anything can be dangerous, ask the folks in Oklahoma about ammonia nitrate...you don't even need a licence to buy that stuff.

Point is, the world is dangerous, and I think freedom allows for a certain amount of that danger to exist. It is the price we pay. We should look to the unwritten code that manages us, the code of culture and community.

"The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace."

Pericles' Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War

Maybe we'll see a little War of Kings as this pile of inbreds splits into competing factions vying for control of the WBC empire.

That could make for some great TV. Time to send Louis Theroux back for a third visit.

Hey, it's a member of the Red Faction!

It's interesting to hear them talk about the duty of teachers, parents and society to help foster diversity, fairness, cooperation, kindness and acceptance of others in kids. It doesn't seem coincidental that conservative politics specifically target academia, social democracy, science, the cultural arts, public institutions, social welfare programs, healthcare, "collectivism" and even parents in the case of one bizzarre anarcho-capitalist faction.

They see cognitive development as an enemy.

For the most part, I don't get worked up over (or involved in) this subject due to the below 2 paragraphs.

If an ethicist historian mediator came up with the most reasonable coexistence plan while gaining as much respectable balance between the opposing views, I doubt the fighting would stop. Another reason or another enemy would be identified immediately or shortly after by one or all parties.

Unfortunately there is a lack of coexistence, as turning to violence is accepted as the means to a solution too quickly for rational discourse to occur or even maintain stability for a long enough term to allow such reasonable positions focused towards permanent/fair resolutions to be taken.. and given that there are usually multiple factions on any side, it only takes one to kick it all off again.

@messenger Gorilla Warfare (in conversations) is a hard thing to prevent/combat when your opponent practices it so consistently. Good luck.

Perhaps you've never studied the history of the region, but the reason I haven't addressed your questions is because I reject the central premise, which is the notion of a distinct "Palestinian" people. There is no such thing as a Palestinian people. There never has been any people in history going by that name, or demanding a country of their own. There is no Palestinian culture, artifacts..nothing The fact is, there is no actual difference between Palestinians, Jordanians, and Syrians. Before I go into it, you can hear it straight from the horses mouth:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

Zuheir Mohsen leader of the Syria-controlled as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.

James Dorsey, "Wij zijn alleen Palestijn om politieke reden", Trouw, 31 March 1977.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen

They aren't struggling for "independence", they are waging all out war against the Jews. The "Palestinians" have been offered their own state many, many times, with the initial deal being something like 80 percent of the entire country. They rejected it and vowed to exterminate the Jews. They are not interested in negotiating because they want to wipe any Jewish presence in the region off of the map. They're also being funded and supplied by Arab nations all over the Middle East for this purpose. Why? Because Muslims are raised to hate Jews and this stems from the Qur'an. It probably goes back to when the Jews rejected Muhammad as a prophet.

Please research the history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZY8m0cm1oY&feature=related

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Joe was great. He gives me great confidence that the Obama administration is trying its best, even if it doesn't always succeed.


How can you cheer this bullshit? They're different factions of the same ruling party that only works for the rich and not us? Are you really stupid rich are you're just not telling us? I thought you were cool man.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It's important to be rooted in idealism, but without pragmatism (and all of the qualities that go with it - cooperation, negotiation and compromise) there is no way reconcile your own idealism with the conflicting idealism of other factions.
If you want to create a healthcare system in a political climate dominated by business, you are going to have to make a few caveats to business. It's a foot in the door. Then, a few miles down the road you can renegotiate for something better. Same goes for foreign policy. While the use of new drone technology is troubling, it is an improvement over ground invasions, deploying troops and building bases in places they are unwelcome.
Democracy is a balancing act.

I understand what you're saying, and for the most part I'm forced to agree. But, saying the healthcare reform had a few caveats to business is like saying, "Lizzy Borden had a few issues with her parents."

The things that bother me most about Obama are the way his civil rights promises have been mostly ignored. He made no visible attempt to block the amnesty for telecom companies, indeed he voted for it. No investigation of torture and who ordered it. Increased use of the state secrets defense. In most ways as far as civil rights goes, he took the Bush line and doubled down.

I'm thankful (in some sad way) that it truly doesn't matter if I vote in this election...Kansas won't go for a Democrat for at least another 20 years or more (we'll need at least one more generation to die off, and maybe two or three). They sure aren't going to go for a somewhat-right-of-center black man.

It's important to be rooted in idealism, but without pragmatism (and all of the qualities that go with it - cooperation, negotiation and compromise) there is no way reconcile your own idealism with the conflicting idealism of other factions.

If you want to create a healthcare system in a political climate dominated by business, you are going to have to make a few caveats to business. It's a foot in the door. Then, a few miles down the road you can renegotiate for something better. Same goes for foreign policy. While the use of new drone technology is troubling, it is an improvement over ground invasions, deploying troops and building bases in places they are unwelcome.

Democracy is a balancing act.

Biblical fact checking is as important as political fact checking. You would be surprised to know that contentious views about abortion are not conveyed in scripture. What the Bible says about abortion has never been included in the debate. If Christians don't know scriptural truth, arguments over abortion will continue to worsen and persist while the message of God’s love and salvation is set aside. The following article is based on scriptural facts about abortion not religious faction and fiction.

How scripture defuses the abortion debate - [url redacted]

Biblical fact checking is as important as political fact checking. You would be surprised to know that contentious views about abortion are not conveyed in scripture. What the Bible says about abortion has never been included in the debate. If Christians don't know scriptural truth, arguments over abortion will continue to worsen and persist while the message of God’s love and salvation is set aside. The following article is based on scriptural facts about abortion not religious faction and fiction.

How scripture defuses the abortion debate - [url redacted]

This is all good fodder for discussion, but it is clear from the dishonest way in which this video was put together that the Kochs are more interested in creating a political hit piece than fostering any kind of discussion.

They claim Obama signed an executive order to kill American citizens, but they provide no context and erroneously use the plural (citizens) when in actuality it's just one guy. I'm not sure if it could have been avoided. I'm not sure how many lives it saved, if any. I'm not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing. In context, it exists in a very debatable grey area. But we see no attempt to understand any of this in this sanctimonious sermon.

As far as NDAA, it was not a bill designed to indefinitely detain prisoners, it was, (is) an annual military budget bill. John McCain attached a rider to the 2012 NDAA that allows for indefinite detention, for reasons I don't understand, because indefinite detention was already permissible under other existing clauses. Obama asked for it to be removed, but no action was taken, and it was voted in with a veto proof majority.

As to why the court case was appealed, I don't know. It might have something to do with Obama's executive order to shut down Guantanemo and provide trials for the prisoners. Congress vetoed the order by prohibiting funds to try the prisoners, leaving them in a kind of limbo. Does this clause give him more time to shut down Gitmo and give trials to the prisoners under a new and improved congress? I don't know. The point is that while it might be fun for the Koch's to drop some provocative soundbites, they do it in a superficial way that does little to further the conversation. If you want depth, read Chris Hedges, who has written some great stuff on the subject.

You could say that Reason is being superficial on purpose to mirror the Jackson video, but none of the videos they produce ever approach any level of depth.

Beyond all that, right wing libertarianism is not a viable alternative to a consensus guy like Obama or even a complete disaster like Romney. They are at the bottom of the barrel as far as our choices go. Their backwards and luddite view of economics disqualifies them from serious consideration from anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Obama has kept his promises of ending combat in Iraq, getting us a healthcare system and signing an executive order to shut down gitmo (even if congress stopped him from doing it). I'd love to elect Noam Chomsky as President, but that's not going to happen, and he probably wouldn't get much done if somehow he were miraculously elected. There are many factions in this country pushing and pulling, and frankly, I can't remember a time when regular citizens had more pull. Change is slow in a democracy.