Blodhemn

Ah yeah, the classic "need a conflict for cohesive gameplay" strikes again. Sounds annoying for sure. Dead Island for me then.

Hmm, Dead Island or Dead Rising 2? Which is better?

Next year sometime I bet it will be at 75%. I'll get it then. It doesn't look to be worth the $30 to me.

If it's $2.50 it's worth it for the music alone. The soundtrack is incredible.

Only now playing Bioshock 2. The opening few levels are much better than the latter half of the first game, Fort Frolic being the highlight and then all downhill from there, with the one glaring weakness, besides bad textures, being the idea that you're a Big Daddy but your armor is puny as hell. Fight another Big Daddy, and they kill you in 2 shots max, meanwhile you have to unload on them to take them down. It doesn't really matter as far as difficulty as Vita Chambers revive you without penalty, but it's a near gamebreaking design element from a continuity standpoint. It would make much more sense just to be a normal "human" character while having access to a drill as a weapon if need be. Just another gimmick.

The Witcher 2 is $7.50. I went ahead and got it as it'll probably only reach that low during the winter sale also. So I f'n lied eariler in the thread. Anymore indie games for dirt cheap to recommend? Just Cause 2 is $3.75, for anyone who hasn't played it. The map to that game is insanely huge.

Dishonored is $30. I'm going to wait until that one drops to about $15 before I get it. It just seems like one of those games that were slightly too hyped but still a decent enough game to atleast play once.

Theres a lot more on sale than the featured stuff. I got the Vicky 2 pack for 50% off, tempted to grab the Broken Sword trilogy for $2. Most of their featured ones I'm not caring about, but the hidden gems are nice. Heh, I grabbed the first Broken Sword for $.99. I would never play all 3 games in the pack, so just getting the first one is all I need, plus it seems like the best one anyway.

Seems like one of the weaker sales I've seen or maybe I just have mostly everything I need already. I'll pass on this and come back for the winter classic.

I think, sir, the point that you fail to factor in, is that if you look at how the budgets of the states that are taking more money vs giving it, you'd find that the Federal dollars they're receiving are closing their budget gap. Meanwhile the states that are having the money taken are just widening their deficit that they need to close... somehow. Iowa has a small deficit because of just how much money is being poured into the corn industry. California is losing money because they're taxed, but have so few federal programs that benefit them (and a messed up initiative system that doesn't allow them to adjust how they spend their money... and their property taxes are odd) they end up paying out more, and having to work from their own pocket for things like education. An actual intelligent post. Thanks for that and I agree with this.

This is like a liberal circle jerk in here. @Krezack - you're an idiot. @Parker - Keyword there is "system". The federal system takes everyone's tax dollars and does all kinds of screwed up **** with it, meanwhile leaving infrastructure to rot. So no, I don't see the problem with getting money back that the federal government has wasted. @Hurlshot - I think you deliberately misunderstand what I type. Furthermore, the whole debt/federal dollars pay in/take out ratio also is affected by the type method each state uses with long-term/short-term debt. California owes a ****load more in debt than anyone, but they pay it back quicker. Sure, let's demonize everyone else because they don't have the upfront capital to do that.

So it is okay for the Republican states to parasite off the Democratic States? Why the hell should Alabama get California's money? Those freeloaders should only get what they put in. Show me where the hell I said it's "ok"? And I thought Liberals are supposed to be all about the poor. My mistake.

A lot of those numbers could be broken down to the simple fact that the states on the right have fewer rich people and industry, thus there's less federal taxes to be generated. I don't see the crime in getting federal dollars back since the federal system is a parasite anyway. But some of the so called "conversative" states do need to answer for running a budget into the dirt.

Yeah, if you believe government creates wealth then you would see it that way. You can take several things from it depending on your view. It doesn't remove the fact that more democratic states are higher towards the top in debt despite having more average gdp. Government answer to that is tax more.

Democrat states would be up to their necks in debt like they are now. Although this is 2 years old, graphs like this are cool to look at. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/50-states-and-their-debt.png 14 of the top 20 are straight up Democratic states.

Democrat states would be up to their necks in debt like they are now.

I'm going to assume this is a typo. Precious metals are valued because humanity as placed an arbitrary trading value on them. They are no different than any other thing we arbitrarily assign value to. Second, are you seriously linking the Dow's growth rates with inflation? Do you think the inflation rate of the US during Clinton's years are anywhere close to 200%? You're nitpicking. I don't feel like doing into detail with this ****. Just look at the overall picture from today to a few years ago. Just to simplify what I'm saying - wallstreet keeps getting richer but everyone else isn't. Actually on average, everyone else is losing take home pay. In an era of endless printing and borrowing, doesn't this concern anyone? Isn't it a bit concerning that the average person is taking home less, yet the ones at the top keep getting their piece of the pie?

All those numbers show is how inflated today's curriencies are. Compare the dollar to silver or gold during those times. The only differences you will see is either a more gradual or increased rate of lost value. In 2006, an ounce of silver would buy 4 gallons of gas, today it would buy 11 gallons. That is real worth, not this phony stock market measure. And Obama is mostly continuing the same Bush policies and those before.

Is that corrected for inflation? You do realize that charts like that mean nothing when adjusted. Plus, just wait, there will be another drop soon enough. The same policies are enacted, more or less. There's no other way around it.

Lol@calling them Bush era tax cuts when Obama already reinstated them. As well as the war machine, yes there will be cuts but the military is still going to be huge under Obama. Quit dreaming.

What I want to know is why do people think Obama would be any better for the economy no matter the circumstances, when all he's done is follow in Bush's footsteps.

Maybe the government should stop inflating the dollar to it's death and the lower end earners would have some sort of buying power. The poor is paying for this sheit, yet the party who supposedly cares for the poor more are running them into the dirt.

Trust me, I'd never feel flattered from Euro babble.

It kind of does. I wasn't necessarily treating it as a bad thing, but it does get a bit old.

I'm certainly no Republican, nor do I think in terms of greatness. I'm just speaking some truths here about the region. Europe doesn't really have much say in what's going on in the world anymore.