Calax

Ok, militairly Nobunaga is Overpowered. His unique ability is that the japanese soldiers still have the attacking and defensive power as if they were full strength, even if they're at 1/503943151.

AAAAANNNNDDD it's decrypting on steam... slowly

Well, in america it's better for snow white to impale her finger and then watch it horrifically bleed all over the room splattering everything with gore, than to prick it.

Same way real armies have it, several units in formation with firepower that jumps over the frontliners.

Went to fencing this evening, seems like a fun group... but OW my muscles hurt!

Dunno. How do you deal with tyranny of the judiciary? By changing things so that the judiciary doesn't have a leg to stand on because what they declared wrong is no longer that way? I mean in your definition, the president has the ability to be a tyrant by vetoing stuff.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/vie...1923-Innovation >.>

They might be able to get the amendment amended... in 40 years, after the current set of voters have left. Also it should be noted that while the one judge did state that it was overturned, that hasn't had any effect yet pending appeal/review. So basically your "refutation" was an extreme simplification of the fact, and it takes more than just the one thing that you're bitching about to change things given the appeals process. Which was my point, one judge does not have the power to "legislate".

no, we don't need just one, but at the very minimum of 5 on the SCOTUS. I love how people are griping about this when it's nearly a necessary thing in this society to prevent mob rule, that generates things like slavery, racially discriminatory legislation, sexual discrimination, gerrymandering... Yelling "THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN" and walking off saying that the mob is always right is idiotic. If a person is unable to stand by their personal convictions when they're doing their job, they don't deserve to have that job. The judge you seem to hate prevented what was basically sexual discrimination in his personal view, which should be protected as an equality issue. If he hadn't there was practically 0 chance of repealing said action because of the stupid ease of forcing something into the Cali constitution, and the fact that the Mormon Church lied in a publicity/smear campaign to get prop 8 through. It's the Judiciaries place to go through and decide if something is viable constitutionally, even if it's a state constitutional amendment, it still has to be within the bounds of the federal constitution, and the bill of rights. If you're going to bitch and moan about "tramping over the publics will" go do it at the congress.

and yet the concerns of 5% of the population trumping the other 95% doesn't?

Pairs of rooms share bathrooms.

You were correct right up to this point. As we can see by the example being played out in California, a judge does in fact have to power to completely ignore the legal state constitution and issue a ruling (re-allowing homosexual marriage) based on nothing more than his feelings on the matter.w his personal feelings about the fact that it was a matter of equality, and even then it was appealed so it's moved up the ladder.

The shower? I kinda did.

http://kotaku.com/5642986/global-agenda-wo...ght-apb-players If ya played APB you get 30% off Global Agenda (who had a silly ass marketing strategy as seen and .

Ok, so over the weekend I noticed while taking a shower that some of the caulking had decided to fail and one of the walls was falling in. I put in a maintence request and they came today while I was in class... And they left a note saying "We're going to call a contractor and have to replace your shower" >.> That's gonna be a bit weird.

It takes a lot for something to be "legislated" by the courts (assuming you want to call it that). Given there first has to be a plantiff who feels he's been slighted, and then it has to be determined that that was in fact a constitutional issue, and then they have to fight it out all the way to supreme court, and then the court has to decide to hear it. It's not just "HEY ANTON! I bet ya 2 cases of beer we can't make people walk on their hands for 15 seconds a day because it's "constitutionally required"!" "YOU'RE ON CLARENCE!"

From a member of 2k, here's whats wrong with video games You ready? Are you sure? Ok, I warned you!

Well, I think that's part of the draw to WoW, at least early on. You can spend an hour or two online and feel like you just did something. It's addictive, I'll let ya know that much >.<

Did some l4d2 with Rosj and some of his friends. Overall they're good players but we had some trouble because they hadn't played the map before (The Passing) and in the finale they were unsure what to do so would freeze up and hold up to kill hordes rather than keep moving (no offense Ros). I admit to being part of the problem because I tended to move WAYYYY to fast because I'm so used to playing vs with a crew of guys for whom Expert is "normal" anymore.

Wow. This sentence really proves some people take a random piece of old legislation too seriously. This sounds like something Obama would say. The Constitution is a bit more than a 'random piece of old legislation'. It certainly is for most Americans anyway (the ones that aren't ruining the country anyway). Ok, Obama wouldn't be calling it a "random piece of old legislation". Among other reasons, doing so is political suicide by ANYONE. BUT! That does not mean that the Constitution isn't wrong, or that it is some sacred thing that should be adhered to so strictly that there is 0 wiggle room. ANY rule if adhered to religiously and to the letter perfectly will become the most uptight and ultimately useless thing on the planet because it will invite ways for people to abuse it. Hell, one of the articles in the main body of the constitution deals specifically with the purchase and sale of slaves! And before anyone suggests "Lets amend that sucker!" these are the last five amendments # Twenty-third Amendment (1961): Grants presidential electors to the District of Columbia. (Full text) # Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964): Prohibits the federal government and the states from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification for voting for federal officials. (Full text) # Twenty-fifth Amendment (1967): Changes details of presidential succession, provides for temporary removal of president, and provides for replacement of the vice president. (Full text) # Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971): Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen of age 18 or greater to vote on account of their age. (Full text) # Twenty-seventh Amendment (1992): Limits congressional pay raises. (Full text) The first two I don't know like anything about, but 25 was in direct response to JFK's death, 26 was due to Vietnam having 18 year old men going to war when they couldn't even vote, and 27... I think that had been sitting around since the bill of rights days and only got under way due to a grad student. So basically, people only amend the constitution when the issue is extremely pressing and current. Asking for a full string of amendments to make it a bit more up-to-date is going to be like asking young earth creationists to read an evolutionary biology text book and ace a series of exams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNNG6czdxW8...feature=related and watch parts 2 and 3. my favorite line is "I didn't hit her! I did not! I Did Not Hit her! oh hai mark!" had to switch the vids because that one has the parts about the sex which makes more sense with some tof the jokes (including "making love to your navel")

Uh, The guys who made Champions online were aiming for a ballpark of 20k subscribers I think because at that point it would be determined they could do a Villian game and be successful at it.

I'm not saying it will happen but it certainly CAN happen. And right off the top of my head I can think of dozens of modern exampes where individual rights are trampled in other countries without so much as a pause. Now, think this through for a moment. Suppose we were to call a Contitutional Convention today, what do you think the probable outcome of that would be? Heck Calax, if you and I were the only delegates to attend do you think that with our poltical differences we could come up with a new constitution we could both live with? I've been trading posts with you for years now and I think well of you but personal amicability does not ensure political compromise. Now take you and I out of the mix and add hundreds of strangers, many of whom are suspicious of each other for no reason other than that there politics ARE different. And do you think that the original framers didn't go through the same thing on a smaller level? Of course, it also helped that they weren't beholden to the popular vote and particular interest groups on everything. And they were all of basically the same socio-economic level. If we were to make a pool of framers who fit within the same profile of the originals we'd get a significantly different document today, and if we did it with the congress in it's 20th century incarnations, it'd flounder for years until finally it's passed with only 1/3rd of what was proposed in there and of that the president throws a line-item veto in that chops it in half again(GW was infamous for that), or a signing statement that makes it a hollow thing. Of course, the silly thing about all this is that if we were to go through a social upheaval like a revolution, we'd be able to push one out pretty quick that was fairly inclusive. See:South Africa Not at all. You are making the same assumption that a strong central government is needed for our national idenetity. I do not believe that would be the case at all. Our national identity does not come from some joint fealty to Washington, but from our shared history, culture, language, values, etc. But with the national cohesion being minimal between each state, particularly in terms of laws on different things, slowly the states would drift apart and get their own cultures. I mean hell, even now politicians refer to different areas as the "real" america, and the south has it's own culture when compared to the north east, mid west, west coast, and south west. Not to mention Hawaii and Alaska. We'd be linked in the same way that people link themselves to Christianity. Patriotism/nationalism probably wouldn't exist as much except under attack from the outside, because the laws governing each different state would mean that slowly the states would have different cultures that were constantly diverging. Utah would be TOTALLY mormon from top to bottom (to hell with the establishment clause in that state), Texas would be a pile of gun happy cow boys etc (apologies for massive generalization). Hell even now states have almost gone to war with each other over such petty things like bridges. Can you imagine a friggin holy war between Utah and those not of the true faith and who support gay marriage?

You know, I don't think that the Canuks, brits, swiss, swedes, or anyone else with socialized medicen has "surrendered the freedom and dignity that is their birthright". Seriously if you're thinking that the suggestion that the Constitution needs to be rebuilt, or considered a living document that can be shifted to suit the times, means that we're going to end up in a hideous place for a government to be, I kindly ask you to step off your horse. There are many governments that aren't based around your sacred document and yet are still fully operational, and in even better positions than ours. Like I said, if we adhered to what you think the Feds should be, we'd give up the identity of a cohesive group and be identified more by our states than by being part of the US. It'd be like the EU mixed with NATO.