Brother label printers and p-touch printers in stock at great prices delivered to your door. Find all Brother p-touch tapes and brother labels in stock too.
“If she doesn’t think her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick, how about the sexual assaults claimed by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Christy Zercher, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Sandra Allen James, as well as a half-dozen other women?” Trump Wins “Disavowal” Game, Then Super Tuesday | Human Events – jamesbbkk
“If she doesn’t think her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick, how about the sexual assaults claimed by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Christy Zercher, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Sandra Allen James, as well as a half-dozen other women?” Trump Wins “Disavowal” Game, Then Super Tuesday | Human Events
If she doesn’t think her husband raped Juanita Broaddrick, how about the sexual assaults claimed by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Christy Zercher, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Sandra Allen James, as well as a half-dozen other women?
Previous Post: “Also, David Duke has never been accused of rape. Hillary’s most prominent supporter has. Will she be asked to disavow Bill Clinton?” Trump Wins “Disavowal” Game, Then Super Tuesday | Human Events
Next Post: “But never, ever, ever will Democrats be asked to “disavow” the lunatics who support them. The ritualistic demand for “disavowals” is a game played exclusively with Republicans.” Trump Wins “Disavowal” Game, Then Super Tuesday | Human Events
I have heard from people twice my age that this is the most politically divided the United States has ever been in their lifetime. I believe it. There are probably lots of reasons for this outside of actual issues. Media outlets like CNN and Fox and social media push the envelope in an unprecedented way. Whatever the reason, this nation is divided. Yet division is one thing. In a free nation, division, or I should say difference is welcome and necessary. Intense animosity for the opponent, is altogether another. The beauty of this country is that you are free to disagree with any one of my views and not be imprisoned or executed for it. The tragedy of this country is that you are also free to call me a bigot, narrow-minded, or hateful for disagreeing with your view. That’s where we find ourselves today.
In the Church, however, the story is quite different. Jesus brings a diverse multitude of people into his new people, a new nation. Not a geopolitical nation with physical borders. But a spiritual nation united over time and despite any differences in skin color, language, nationality, and yes, even political opinion. In the Church, Jesus unites what was divided. In the Church, Jesus creates a community of love, grace, and humility.
When Jesus was on the earth, he chose twelve men to follow him around and learn from him. Every one of those men (including Judas who betrayed him) are unique and integral to the gospel story. But two men whom Jesus chose especially stand out in light of our current political climate: Matthew and Simon (not Peter).
Matthew, a Jew, was a tax collector (Matt. 10:3), a Roman government employee. An IRS collection agent, if you will. But a corrupt one. Tax collectors not only demanded you give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but that you also give to Matthew what is Matthew’s. He stole from people. Tax collectors were hated by the general Jewish population.
Simon, also a Jew, was called “the Zealot” (Matt. 10:4)—a fanatical, anti-Rome activist. He was perhaps a violent protestor, militantly opposed to big government. Zealots concealed and carried. They snarled at centurions and were always ready for a brawl. The freedom of Judea was worth it.
Jesus didn’t accidentally include these two extreme political opposites in his discipleship group. He knew what he was doing. Jesus knew that in his new community, starting with this small band, he would display for the world that allegiance to him and his mission superseded and overshadowed all other allegiances and missions, political or otherwise.
In the community of Jesus, tax collectors and zealots come together in miraculous unity. Only God could do this. Here, tax collectors and zealots learn to appreciate each other’s views, experiences, and passions. Here, they seek to do each other good, not evil. Here, they fight for each other, not against each other. Here, they humble themselves and build each other up. Here, they learn that if you love father or mother or Red or Blue more than him, you are not worthy of him (see Matt. 10:39).
So the Matthews and the Simons are united, but not uniform, of course—they don’t agree on every single issue. Matthew might keep his job and pension. Simon might keep his sword (with a permit, of course). However, their views will, by God’s grace over time, be put in perspective and become balanced. Christ’s glory, not political ideology, becomes supreme. The spread of the gospel becomes their joint venture. Their views are put in check to Jesus’ word and where there is error in one or both views, repentance and conforming to Jesus is required. Where Jesus is silent, there is room for respectful debate, gracious compromise, and the pursuit of just practice for the common good.
The world sees this and shakes its head in disbelief. But this is the way of Jesus. He simultaneously offends and comforts the conservatives and the liberals, calling them to himself. It’s as if he’s saying, Where is your ultimate allegiance? Who is your true love? I am your king. Come find in me what you have always been looking for.
15 August 2016 15 August 2016 schannepj Musingsbehind the scenes, chat loops, decision loops, funnel, game mechanics, gamebooks, rpg, snes, under the hood	
Time for a behind the scenes look at gamebook mechanics. I’m going to reveal some of the methods to my madness and perhaps answer a question or two. Follow me, if you will, under the hood.
A: Good for you. Also, that’s not a question. But seriously? I give you the power to explore the multiverse, to leap across parallel universes during the zombie apocalypse, and you use it to replay two decisions back-to-back on an endless loop? Real cool…
The above is taken from the INFECTED FAQs and represents a complaint I hear each time I release a new Click Your Poison book. Someone thinks they found an “error” because you can walk into the same room and have the same exact conversation multiple times.
“What gives? She keeps saying the same response each time I click the talk button! I found an error!”
Game designers have run into this since the very beginning. When Mario goes down a pipe, the room inside looks the same whether it’s his first or fiftieth journey. Those of us who grew up with SNES RPGs just accepted this as a limitation of the system, and really it’s no different in an interactive book.
It can seem odd, for sure, but it’s the only way to not have my page counts approach infinity while still giving you freedom of movement.
I would rather give you the option to, say, explore a hotel in whatever order you choose, knowing that in these separate rooms you might learn something new, but not something that would change the outcome of the conversation you’ll have the next room over. Once you’ve finished your conversations, you’re free to move on.
Theoretically, you could make this your personal Hotel California and spend the rest of your life here. But why would you?
All roads lead to Rome, especially when you’re reading interactive fiction about Roman conquests. The point here, is that these books are still stories, and though they have 50-100 ways of ending, you have to get there somehow.
Funnels are where disparate storylines rejoin, giving you multiple ways to get from point A to point B. This was especially important in PATHOGENS, where the characters needed to end up just like you meet them in INFECTED. Sims has to meet Cooper. How that happens can occur multiple ways, but the outcome must be the same.
I get that this can seem like you don’t have much choice in the story. So I try to make things unique where I can. A certain character needs to die? Fine. But let’s make the ways in which it can happen fun and interesting.
All roads might lead to Rome, but those roads can be yellow-brick, a winding maze, or fraught with thieving brigands. You pick which path to take.
Thanks for reading! What do YOU think? Fun to see under the hood? Let down after seeing the man behind the curtain? Or just disgusted by my constant use of mixed metaphors?
Russian ships equipped with the advanced sea-launched Kalibr cruise missile will now be perpetually present in the Mediterranean Sea as part of Moscow’s naval operations connected to the mission in Syria. This is according to Admiral Aleksandr Vitko, the commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet (BSF) (RIA Novosti, February 19).
Russia’s growing presence in the Mediterranean dates back to 2013—i.e., well before the annexation of Crimea or Moscow’s intervention in Syria—with the decision to create a permanent Mediterranean Squadron out of the BSF forces (RIA Novosti, March 11, 2013; see EDM, March 7, 2013). Since then, Russia has steadily augmented both that squadron’s capability and that of its navy in general, including the BSF. This overall strengthening of the navy in critical areas like the Mediterranean is a general principle of Russian defense policy. For example, in the Pacific, one can observe not just the increase in conventional and nuclear naval capabilities, but also a level of activities that approaches that of the Cold War (Sputnik News, April 16, 2015). This steady expansion of capabilities pertains to both surface vessels and to submarines, the latter of which particularly raise concerns in the United States.
In February 2014, just prior to the invasion of Ukraine, Russia announced its intention to strengthen the Mediterranean Squadron by adding stealthy Varshavyanka-class submarines. The stated purpose of those deployments was to “thwart any threat to Russia’s borders or security” (RIA Novosti, February 20, 2014). Given the mission and the situation in the theater at that time, this explanation could only mean thwarting “threats” from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Accordingly, since then, Moscow has built what Admiral Mark Ferguson, the commander-in-chief of NATO’s Allied Joint Force command, calls an “Arc of Steel,” which includes advanced air defenses, cruise missiles, new platforms, space, cyber and “hybrid warfare” systems, as well as submarines (Defense.gov, October 6, 2015). Notably, Russia has signed agreements with Cyprus about entering its waters and using its territory as a base. And Moscow also seeks similar access to Egyptian and Libyan ports (Russia-direct.org, March 4, 2015).
More recently, Russia has announced that its Kirov-class battle cruisers, the Pyotr Velikii and the Admiral Nakhimov, will receive hypersonic anti-ship 3M22 Zircon missiles as well as longer-range land-attack Kalibr cruise missiles, upgraded air defenses, and a naval variant of the S-400 anti-air missile by 2022 (The National Interest, February 19). And these are not the only ships receiving these capabilities. As noted above, Moscow also revealed last month that Buryan-M small missile corvettes equipped with the Kalibr cruise missile will be permanently deployed in the Mediterranean. The sea-launched Kalibr, which Russia fired in combat for the first time last October (see EDM, October 8, 2015), can penetrate complex air defenses and hit targets at supersonic speed from some 2,000 kilometers away. The Buryan-M cruise missile–armed corvettes will reportedly be tasked with supporting Russian anti-terrorist operations in Syria (RIA Novosti, February 19, 25; RT, February 20).
What can be concluded from these and similar announcements pertaining to Russian forces in the wider Mediterranean region? It is already well known that Moscow operates four naval and air bases in Syria and has been given free rein by the Syrian authorities to enlarge and upgrade the naval base at Tartus. Moreover, Russian ground forces, though their exact number is not known, are operating in Syria, along with naval and air forces (see EDM, October 6, 2015; October 22, 2015; November 10, 2015). Thus, Moscow has constructed the foundation—if not something more—for a long-term presence of combined-arms forces. And these units and command structure, while based in Syria, possess formidable capabilities, especially when added to Russian forces already present in the Caucasus and Black Sea, to strike throughout the Middle East and put NATO member Turkey in a vise.
Furthermore, it is also clear that Moscow wants to have regular access to, if not permanent bases throughout the Middle East, as the Soviet Union’s Mediterranean Eskadra did in its heyday, in 1967–1971, when it had a base in Alexandria as well as in Syria. Thus, a major mission of the Russian Navy in the Middle East and the Mediterranean is power projection and the use of the fleet on behalf of state interests. More crudely stated, Russia is building a capability for permanent gunboat diplomacy missions in the region; indeed, it has already deployed its fleet for that purpose in 2011, to deter Turkish threats to Cyprus (see EDM, December 12, 2011).
Finally, and in line with the evidence presented above, it also seems quite clear that while Russia’s new Mediterranean Squadron will have major missions in the Middle East and off the coast of the Levant, it is primarily configured to keep NATO forces out of the region. In effect, given the construction of anti-air and anti-ship missile systems, air defenses at air bases, as well as shore-based artillery, Moscow is unmistakably building anti-access, area denial (A2/AD) capabilities in Syria that will be used to keep the North Atlantic Alliance at bay and outside of firing range of Russian assets. Presumably, over the long term, Moscow will seek to expand its military influence beyond the Eastern Mediterranean, perhaps in the direction of the Aegean Sea or even further westwards to deny NATO forces access there as well. This would emulate the classic pattern of Moscow’s sea-denial capabilities and missions familiar to students of Soviet naval practice and literature.
If Russia is successful in this endeavor, it would represent a strong challenge to the US and its regional and NATO allies in the Mediterranean—not least Israel and Turkey—as well as to the Balkans, and the Caucasus. Thus, an irresolute and reticent US posture in Syria and the Middle East could give rise, in tandem with intensifying Russian defense programs, to a much more far-reaching strategic transformation to the entire region.