Icewolf

In the books isn't Tommen like six? He originally is effectively a non-character. But then there are a lot of changes.

So today Max Verstappen became the youngest ever Formula 1 Grand Prix winner at the Spanish Grand Prix, holding of former World Champion Riakkenon in the closing laps after the two favourites, Rosberg and Hamilton in the Mercedes ran into each other on lap 1. This makes him the youngest winner since Sebastion Vettel won in Italy in 2008 aged 22. It also makes him the youngest driver to ever even lead a Formula 1 race, and aged 18, means he beat Vettel's already impressive record by 3 years. Wow. This guy started is fantastic. First race in a Red Bull and he wins, holding off world class racers and not putting a foot wrong. Ok he was helped by the two fastest cars hitting each other and going out, but even so, this is something special.

Firstly, Trump doesn't believe in the constitution one bit. There is one thing that underwrites the constitution without it it means nothing. It is more important than any "amendment" of bill of rights. It is Rule of Law. And Trump doesn't believe in the Rule of Law-we have seen that during his campaign. From day 1 when he wanted to start freezing assets without trial, to declaring he would force generals to obey orders he lacked the legal power to give. If a government doesn't respect rule of law then all of the rest of it is just paper that you can use to start the inevitable bonfire. Also Trump has declared himself anti-freedom of speech with his statement he wants to turn parts of the internet off (which isn't technically feasible, but the sentiment is concerning). So it all looks great for the constitution if Trump wins. Secondly America is not the most valuable thing ever. At this point in time it is the world's largest economy, but in the grand sweep of history I will take the design of the World Wide Web, done in an office at CERN, as the most valuable thing ever.

Only just started playing BF4 on my PS4. Tbh I miss the days of Battlefield on the PC (1942, 2 and 2142) where you could play just battles, without any storyline. However it seems ok. Battlefield 1 looks awesome. On the other hand, Battlefront looked awesome and this is EA.

There have yet to be any walkers rising south of the wall. When the ancients built the wall to keep out the walkers, they presumably also put some form of magic into it so that it can also act as a barrier to the power of the walkers, which would also explain why he hasn't risen. With Theon and events at the pike, they are finally coming back to something that seemed (until now) to have been missed out from the books. There is a very interesting artifact that may or may not be about to emerge (those that have read the books will know exactly what I mean) that could well shape a large part of the rest of the series, so I am quite excited about that story, and interested to see how it plays out.

The comparison to an ebola patient doesn't hold up. No one is saying that his deprivation of liberty is a breach of his human rights. However if someone was medically quarantined, and then was subject to sleep deprivation, and prevented from having any form of human interaction then that would be a breach of their rights. Your comment about choice also doesn't justify an overall stance that a certain class of people should be removed from the protection of the law. Yes individuals have a choice of what action they commit, but at the same time the decision to make that criminal is not the individuals. Yes in the case of Brevik it was fairly clear that his action was a choice and he knew the consequence. But the argument that someone should know the consequence of a crime has been used in the past to justify the brutal detaining of homosexuals. If a state outlawed homosexuality, and then imprisoned homosexuals and subjected them to sleep deprivation, would you consider the argument that they had a choice and knew what the consequence was as sufficient grounds to consider that acceptable? This is what I mean by you must have a rock hard moral justification to deprive a class of people of something as fundamental as the right not to be tortured, because every argument I have seen to date about creating an exemption can be used, without too much modification, to justify some of the most horrifying acts in human history.

Do you believe in fundamental human rights? If you answer is yes, then there is no question that this case is the right decision. If you don't believe in fundamental human rights you had better have a cast iron moral perspective that means you not only know where the line is, but can back it up with sufficient reasoning to stop others crossing it. Referring to Jews is not Hyperbole, it s a deliberate reference as to why we have these rights. This is where it all began. The European Convention on Human Rights was written in the late 40s with the express aim of preventing another holocaust by introducing the concepts of universal human rights. By strictly enforcing these rights you stop states moving down the slope from smashing windows, to burning homes, to building ghettos, to building work camps, to then building death camps. Because as soon as you step away from universal human rights you have a lot of moveable lines, that can inch further and further and further away from what we want the world to be.

I definitely agree with the judgement here. Firstly, I don't think the size and space he lives in is relevant to the points in the case. Denial of interaction with other humans (which is known to have a severe impact on mental health over long periods), and sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation being specifically recognised as a form of torture. So definitely this meets the test of a prohibition on torture and cruel treatment. Now, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits such activity under Article 3 of the convention. There is no opt out. And just in case anyone thinks this is just those silly liberal Europeans, this is also the position of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the Convention against torture, and in some cases, the Refugee Convention. All of these have global applicability. When it comes to rights like these I really dislike the idea of an opt out just because someone is a criminal, or because of XYZ. These are all lines drawn by the state, and primarily the state is who these rights are designed to protect you against. I also especially feel that it is important for us as a society to not stoop to the level of violating peoples rights because we think they are somehow undeserving of them. "All Humans have rights apart from those that don't" is an argument that can be applied to serious criminals, or not so serious criminals, or those that are committing crimes that society later realises shouldn't be crimes (like the treatment of homosexuals in the past), or because they are black, or Jewish, or whatever reason is convenient to separate into the "deserving of rights" and the "not deserving of rights." The final issue here is the one of who imposed this penalty. Judges imposed a prison sentence. Public officials imposed the isolation and sleep deprivation. Judges are subject to scrutiny and appeals procedure in a way that the prison officials are not. I am not comfortable with the idea that a faceless bureaucrat gets given the power to determine that an individual is not deserving of these rights, and can be given treatment that degrades their mental health.

Thanks for the advice, that is all very helpful.

To make a few clarifications; 1) This is a criminal offense, not civil as some posters have indicated 2) The decision Merkel has made is to allow the Prosecutor to make the decision. Effectively the Chancellor can block prosecution, but cannot force it. This is a power that apparently the Chancellor's office did not even know that they had until this issue arose, so outdated and unknown about is this law. 3) Just because the Prosecutor is allowed to investigate does not mean that there will be a trial or a conviction. Now personally I would love to see two fingers to Erdogan, and Merkel to reject this. However I cannot for definite say that in her shoes I would have acted differently. Yes there is a defense of free speech on the one hand, but on the other hand because of the diplomatic consequences the Chancellor's decisions has an impact on many people's lives. Given the choice between letting a prosecutor investigate on one hand, and abandoning the hard negotiated deal to stop the deaths in the Agean and give Europe a chance to screen those arriving to claim Asylum, which do you choose? If you choose wrong people die. Many many people die.

And obey your constitution which; 1. Allows them to change the law, which could include banning the death penalty at Federal Level and; 2. Not to inflict cruel or unusual punishment, which your proposal would, and lethal injection probably does as well.

Historically, do you have on example of a candidate winning the Presidency after starting out in April with a -30% favorability rating?

I just gave you the numbers. Clinton is far less hated than Cruz or Trump.

So you think it's meaningless that the two front runners for the Republican nomination are effectively competing to be the least popular nominee in history?

He doesn't need a majority, the election is not tomorrow, Congress will be fine, and this is the first I have ever heard of Trump being massively unpopular with wide people... How does he do with skinny people? This is what I mean about you being a little pretentious... I should say a lot pretentious. According to you, we are all just wasting our time over here... the Republican won't win in November, because nobody likes them. I live in the USA, and I don't know what will happen. What I do know is we will take care of it ourselves. We really need an election that is all about what is important, and not about sex, God, and drugs. In a liberals perfect world, we would be bankrupt, a country on welfare, and the entire world on fire... but that's okay because everyone can marry everyone, the Catholics are paying for their abortions, and they can spark up a doob anytime they want. Wow... where do I sign up? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html There is not a single poll since mid March that calls it any closer than a 6% Clinton lead. The average is 10.5%. Trump has not been close since 1st January and has nosedived since 1st March. For a comparison, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html There is not a single poll that shows Kasich would lose to Clinton. The average is a 6.6% lead, almost the mirror image of a Trump matchup. Against Clinton, Kasich is 17% (or nearly 1 in 5 voters switching) ahead of Trump. Now for popularity. Trump Favourability http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html -35%. 64.5% of the population have an unfavorable view of him, compared to 29% having a favorable view. If he were to be nominated, this would make him the least popular nominee ever. Clinton Favourbility http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html -14%. 54% unfavourable vs 40% favourable. Not good, but a hell of a lot better than Trump. Kasich Favorability, the most popular of the lot http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/kasich_favorableunfavorable-4260.html#! +14%, 42% favorable, 30% unfavorable. Of course that leaves the biggest lot of undecideds of the three people compared above, so isn't a direct comparison as he has 70% giving a view compered to ~95%. His good score is mostly come from a lack of negativity, and is within margin of error of Clinton on the number of people with a favorable view. Now for the Cruz Numbers http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/cruz_favorableunfavorable-3887.html -21% better than Trump but still worse than Clinton. 32% favorable and 53.4% unfavorable, which also means 15% not giving a view. But unlike with kasich who has a good favorable number Cruz's favorable number is only 3% above Trump. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html Now the matchup does show a much closer race than the others. However since he started being talked about as having a real chance of beating Trump, he has fallen. Could be random variation, or could be that as he gets more focus people like him less. Bearing in mind that no one that has had to work with him likes him, some of that may be feeding into the electorate. Now none of these numbers for a moment should be taken as saying that Clinton is a good candidate. She isn't, and I have said that before. She is a mediocre candidate that after 8 years of democrat rule should make it easy for the Republicans. However, somehow, the Republicans have decided to have a nasty scrappy fight between a relatively bad candidate and a frankly godawful candidate. This is why the betting markets are betting on Clinton http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149 Clinton at 2/5 compared to Trump at 6/1. Or Clinton with a 72% chance of being President, Trump with a 12%. Cruz actually slightly behind Sanders at 11/1 compared to 10/1 for sanders. (For a comparison, Obama's job approval is currently +8%, making him 42% more popular than the leading republican candidate).

I think Trump is a million miles away from being a libertarian or tea party candidate.

Trump is getting a plurality of votes not a majority. If he ran against Clinton tomorrow he would lose in a crushing landslide and probably also hand congress to the Democrats as well. He is massively unpopular with the wider American people. Cruz is not quite that bad. He is not an utterly toxic potential nominee like Trump but he is hardly a good candidate. He would also lose to Clinton if the election was tomorrow, but not by such a large margin. His ability to be elected however depends on an increasingly liberal (meaning pro individual liberty on matters such as marriage abortion and srugs) country wanting a hardline Christian as president.

Why would kasich join a losing ticket? Cruz is barely more electable than Trump.

Trump looked bad on abortion because there is no way a person running for politics in the US can not be aware that question was coming and should have a prepared answer and have actually thought about policy in that area. And with Wisconsin heavily Cruz I am off to invest in popcorn shares for the convention.

So I picked up a copy of battlefront for my new PS4. I remember the old battlefront 2 being a good game with a strong story, so was shocked that not only was the single player total boring crap but that the game play overall seemed worse than the game I remember playing. Anyone recommend if it is worth trying the multiplayer or if I should just return it.

So I take it the outcome is now known. Both Trump and Cruz will run and all that matters is which is third party.

How do you get from "we have disenfranchised people" to mainstream white kid is as likely to become a terrorist? And I fully agree that they don't see themselves as European. The question is what are we going to do about that? Somehow I don't think that executions and torture are a good way of uniting communities.

Human smuggling was not invented by ISIS or only developed in this time. If there were no refugees they would have come a different way. Still point stands that these are European citizens.

Not one single refugee arriving in Europe has taken part in a terrorist attack. Not one. All those taking part have been EU Citizens. So by all means throw all the refugees into the sea and watch them die. Won't solve a damn thing, can potentially kill tens of thousands and sow seeds of hatred that will last generations, but sure, it will make a few right wing tabloid rags feel better for a day or two.

I think the focus on ISIS as the cause of this is not 100% the right thing. Yes they need to be taken out, but there needs to be something else as well. Firstly, I don't think blaming a religion is sensible or even rationale. This is not the first wave of religiously inspired terrorist attacks in Europe, and it won't be the last. Anyone remember the IRA? Are we going to argue that Catholicism is a religion that promotes terror? The attacks in Norway in 2011 (possibly the inspiration for later lone wolf attacks) by Breivik were carried out by a self-declared Heathen-does this mean that Heathenry is a terrorist religion? Secondly, although there is an ISIS brand on it, this is home grown terrorism. Belgium has some shitty neighborhoods that are full of disenfranchised people, as does Paris. All the attacks are carried out by people who have been in Europe a long time. These are not recent immigrants from Syria coming to Europe to commit terror. These are citizens of European countries turning their guns on their fellow citizens. To me, that is less about what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan (although obviously impacted on by it), but is in part what have we got so wrong in building our society that there are sufficient numbers of young people who detest it that they want to go out and try and destroy it. This is not justifying terrorism. This is not saying that what they are doing is correct. However, if you go in guns blazing, building walls of fear and throwing everything you can with torture and execution, you won't win. You will kill a few terrorists, but you won't solve the deeper problems. It is like treating cancer by cutting out one or two cells each week but not bothering with the chemo or radiotherapy needed to make a real difference.