Meshugger

As i said, leave Venezuela be. If she wants to trade, then trade. If Venezuela nationalizes all banks and coorperations, then most likely, the trade will be hindered or halted completely. Subsequently, Venezuela will collapse under its own system, but the world will continue its support by open trade. After all, no pure socialist country (a social democracy is a whole different matter) will prevail in the long run, because Chavez has forgotten a simple truth: People like to own things.

Berlusconi is populism personified.

Because this won't happen, because Venezuela is not an authoritarian regime that the US government can twist around on its debt. What are they going to do? Make the government have free elections? It already does. Also, this didn't work in China, because the US has become reliant on the Chinese, rather than the other way around (which is how effective trade control is achieved). They can let it be and have normal trade relations. Not that difficult really. If it chooses to isolate itself, then do not bother. Quite simple, actually. None of those examples have anything to with the free market. Hint: look at Britain under Thatcher.

Why can't we just let Venezuela fail as a socialist nation and then welcome her with open arms when she has reached maturity again? Look what a mess Cuba is, you should've continued to trade with her like you trade with China and the problem would've solved itself. That's a heavy statement. If people are still divided into classes, then the society in question is not free enough for the individual excel according to his own sense of happiness. To paraphrase Friedman: "Every country that has opened its economy has enjoyed greater wealth than a generation ago, there is simply no better system than the free market". Mind you, i of course support the idea of a social safety net, which is not in the reign of a free economy.

I also saw a pimple on his face. I'm not goona buy the game now. Geez, did someone put sand in your schnaaschnaa this morning? I was actually slightly positive about it. Maybe you should understand on how Scandinavian culture works, nothing is ever awesome, ever. If something does not suck enough or is considered ok, it is 'good' from central european standards, and Dragon Age-thisisthenewsh*t-awesome from north american standards

Ah, check back with you guys later then.

Fall guys never exist in a totalitarian state? Anyway, you seem to be implying here that acts of genocide are somehow better if they're performed "democratically." How does that make the least bit of sense? As the old quote goes, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Trickle-down economics is a disgusting and terrible theory that has hurt the lower class in America. It is a vicious attack on their sovereignty, and on their ability to survive and protect their children, with the sole purpose of lining the rich's pockets. Americans in the bottom 7/10th in 1992 were making less money than they were in 1979. How does that work? Trickle-down economics is how. PS: Clinton? Come the **** on. A completely politicized attack is equivalent actual risk of justice? Name a president who was ever actually arrested for actual ****ing crimes. (Hint: You can't.) The crimes of US presidents are excused and pushed under the rug. How is historical revisionism better than considering an act a "necessary evil"? Both attempt to excuse terror and violence, just in different ways. 1. It has nothing to do with genocide being greater under a democratic state. The point was that democratic states minimizes the suffering of the individual compared to any other political system or process in the long run. 2. Reagan himself admitted that trickle-down didn't work as he hoped it would've done, he later raised taxes in his second term. Bush Sr., his successor, even called it "Voodoo"-economics. Point being, democratic states can elect statesmen that have different approach to problems according to the wishes of the people. 3. Interesting, what is an actual risk of justice? Presidents can only stand in front of a court for committing treason or high treason against its country. Clintons possible trial was that it could be interpretted that he lied under oath, and thus committed treason. However, it simply failed since the taxpayers thought that it was silly and stupid to spend millions of dollars of their money on a oval office blowjob. Again, the ultimate decision came from the people, not the politbeauro. 4. Pushed under a rug? How could i then even know about it in the first run? Maybe you are mixing the glamourised imagery that the media portrays from the historybooks actually found in schools everywhere. Revisionism is more like saying that the were no jews in the gaschambers in Hitlers germany. Quality of life for the citizens, free speech, free press, freedom of thought and free elections makes it possible for each individual to experience, and act on their life according to their relativistic views. In a totalitarian state, the citizens are molded into a big mass where no one is different from one another. Information is broadcasted only through the allowed channels. Freedom of thought is unheard of. Sounds like sameness to me, which doesn't exactly correlate with relativism. Also, one of the reasons on why the Soviet fell was that there was no such thing a cost of logistics. The objective truth was that logistics will always have a price, but in their relativism, they simply denied reality.

In the graphical department, it looks like that they've had to scale things down a bit. I cannot exactly point out what it is, but the overall picture seems to have been toned down. The body-animation, cameraangles and general cinematography still seem to be top notch, but the detective's facial animation needs some work. His eyes are not focused, he blinks too little and the lack of animation of certain facial muscles makes his face look more "vaxed" than before. I really liked the developers vision though, hopefully they will deliver on those accounts.

So, what do we actually know about NV's gameplay?

'Lo and behold, another one like me. I have Fallout 1 & 2 and Tactics, and i haven't even tried or seen anyone play Fallout 3. I just don't have that interest, and i have moved on to other stuff instead. This thread was misleading, i thought that it was about the original Fallout having a special edition coming out Anyhoo, Fallout: New Vegas doesn't interest me either, unless they do some radical changes in the design.

I would like to add that Cheney and Rumsfeld formed a separate committee in the Pentagon that would handle and interpret the data that CIA provided about Iraq. So the process of data was done accordingly: CIA-->Pentagon-->Committee-->Cheney/Rumsfeld-->Bush. Something tells me that the big picture got a little bit distorted a long the way. Take into consideration that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld weren't exactly pro-Saddam even before 9/11, and that Tenet seemed to act more of a sense of duty than a sense of integrity. With the personal biases of the tops of the administration, i think that i get a pretty good picture of what happened.

I would like to add, that the leaders in their own eyes, did what they thought was just, which fits to the moral relavistic POW. The problem comes when they try to impose their rightoussness upon others. In one system, it is possible for the victims to seek justice for the leaders wrongdoings. In an other, there is no such thing. I recommend reading Adam Smith's "The wealth of nations". He describes it better than anyone.

Yes, because when a democratic society, when its leaders engage in suppression of dissent, support for vile regimes and neo-colonialism, it is much more acceptable that when it happens in a totalitarian one, right? Wrong. These were not outliers. Name me a United States President, and I will tell you his crimes. Ronald Reagan? Afghanistan, the Mujahideen; Iran-Contra; supporting the terrorist Contras against the democratically-elected Sandinistas; "trickle down economics;" "Ronald Reagan speaks out against socialized medicine." George Washington passively sat by while innocent dissenters were lynched, he used the militia to put down protestors (and, of course, Indian Removal). Andrew Jackson overrode the Supreme Court, slaughtered thousands of American Indians with his Trail of Tears, and put the abolitionist cause back by a decade. It is the natural course of American "democracy" (which of course never considers the opinions of its imperialized, terrorized targets) to slaughter civilians, to murder children, to torture her supposed enemies, and to suppress dissent. From her birth till her death, she shall continue these things. You completely missed my point. In a democratic state, the leaders are accountable to check-and-balances(look at the possible trial of Clinton) and foremost, they are gone after their mandate period. Even still, the democratic process makes it possible for population to change the level of authority of their leader. That's why you cannot even start to compare Lenin to Reagan in any form. No one is denying the Iran-contra debacle under the Reagan administration (his trickle-down economics was the reason he was elected in a democratic process, whether you agree with it or not, it shouldn't even be in the same spot as genocide) Afterall, several people under his administration were put to court and found guilty, this would've been impossible in an totalitarian state. The cases of Washington and Jackson are well documented and these acts are not celebrated in any way, even or seen as a good and sound decision by anyone. However, the atrocities of Stalin and Lenin were considered as necessary evil or completely forgiven by supporters (namely marxist-leninists and stalinists), and ofcourse they were never accounted for their decisions by any court or referendum, since it was not even possible due to the system that they installed themselves.

Manly

%100 percent effective as well! Why do you trust your government to decide whether its citizens should live or not? It is the very same people that you usually don't even trust to handle your taxes. Suddenly they have the authority to end your life as you know it? Government? Since when are they pulling jury duty? The are instantiating the very laws that makes it possible for them to murder citizens through their institutions. That has nothing to do with it and you know it.

because that's what people do? taks At least i think the current administration is guilty of this.

Perhaps the same could be said... of all leaders? Shall I speak of Woodrow Wilson's reign of terror, his brutal suppression of anti-war elements, and his entrance into a pointless, brutal colonialist ****-waving contest? Shall I talk, instead, of FDR's decision to put ethnic Japanese in camps? Andrew Jackson's institution of the gag rule, silencing opposition to slavery? Or perhaps of Jimmy Carter's funding of Indonesian suppression in East Timor? Ronald Reagan's entire presidency? Not really, unless you fail at numbers and in understanding the difference in accountability for abuse of power in a open society with democratic institutions, compared to a totalitarian one, where atrocities like these were instutionalized.

Lenin was a far cry from being a nice chap, like any of the communist fools that followed him. He was just overshadowed by Hitler and Stalin. I do not think that any really denies that the communist revolution brought the Soviet into the space age either. But he certainly wasn't a 'great' man, unless you hate the individual and secretly wishes for a totalitarian state to rule your ass.

%100 percent effective as well! Why do you trust your government to decide whether its citizens should live or not? It is the very same people that you usually don't even trust to handle your taxes. Suddenly they have the authority to end your life as you know it?

"What is this? Community service?"

Too bad all the alien species in ME were such prudes. I find it funny that even if they were evolved in worlds that were in galaxies that were billions of lightyears from earth, and have a completely different genetical structure than humankind, they still had the same sort of clothing and code of conduct as your everyday puritan evangelican. Can't someone break this cycle? I want decandence goddammit, mating orgies and everything that comes with it. And not in a DA-fashion of "Hur-hur, bewbs! BEEEEEWBS!", i want it as natural occurance without any fanservice or juvenile tendencies.

That pretty much settles it.

The series that he did in the 90's was the best thing about Moore (I haven't seen Roger and Me though). I remember one episode when guy was denied payment from his insurance company, for reasons that i now have forgot, to treat his disease. This disease, if left untreated would certainly be fatal for the patient. Of course this guy didn't have the money either to pay out of his own pocket. Anyhoo, at first Mr. Moore tried to talk to the insurance company and actually got an interview where the PR-guy from the company, who kindly said that they weren't denying treatment to their client, just payment, due to reasons that he didn't want to answer directly. Even after trying to convince that client didn't have the several hundreds of thousands, or up to a million dollars of spare cash, the company didn't budge. The comment was "The decision, as it stands now, is not revokable". Ok, swell then, the guy was more or less dead within a year anyway. The next day, the guy returned to the insurance companys HQ and started to give invitations to his own funeral to anyone he met, with Moore in the asking sarcastic questions about what kind of flowers they are going to give and what speeches they were going to have. Promptly, the insurance company changed their decision and the guy could have his operation and corresponding rehabilitation. I think that Moore started to get head over heels when he tried to investigate matters that were more abstract that the usual avarage guy being screwed by the government or the corporations.

I know, the latest firm that i got hired to didn't really look at my grades, and i really enjoy working there. But i still find it kinda funny that my grades were so similar Anyhoo, are there any more upcoming books about the man, featuring his memos and dialogues with his staff? I have the same fascination with Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan and Kennedy.