Calax

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya? Mr. Obama is the commander in chief of the U.S. Military, not Mr. McCain. McCain can warmonger all he wants, and does, but Obama calls the shots. interesting /= tricky. Please do not misquote me. I refer to a number of different things involving a number of different countries when I say 'interesting diplomacy'. It's interesting because those pushing for overt military intervention in Syria (the Obama administration indeed was doing this and there are numerous articles as well as videos proving this that you've apparently not watched/read or just ignore (though it was pretty hard to ignore Kerry)) were thwarted, and that doesn't happen too often these last couple decades. Ukraine/Crimea marks the second major diplomatic setback to Anglo-American hegemony in the last couple years, Syria the first. Russia and Putin had a hand in both, moreso in the second of course. There was no popular uprising in Libya. It was a coup sponsored by some members of NATO (the US being one), and only succeeded due to military intervention by some of those members. The U.N. sanctioning something does not make it legal or right. Really, you have to ignore a lot of things to not think Obama got us involved in Libya or realize that his administration was pushing to go into Syria as well. And whether or not France was involved (and they were) has nothing to do with Obama committing U.S. forces to the invasion of a nation. Nor does what some republicans such as McCain bliabbling about have anything to do with the actual action of committing to military force. Nevermind that Obama committing military in the invasion of another nation without congress's explicit authorization is unconstitutional, though he is not the first president to overstep those bounds he did overstep them, and yea that is impeachable if congress was going to actually do it's job (something it doesn't do too often for better and worse). Half of what you wrote is incoherent by the way. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's due to those ****** you stuck in there. Try not to swear so much. I get really ticked off when you give vague generalities and then just blindly ignore the truth and context in order to promote your personal narrative. Your entire argument strategy appears to be either "Well the founders didn't intend it that way! Read [insert founder text here] and see for yourself!" which is utterly asinine as the meanings and discussions found within those texts are STILL debated by PhD's, to somehow suggest that they're the magical word of God, unassailable by any man, and will always have the same meaning no matter who reads them, would be to throw out half the point of the Supreme Court and ignore the fact that, wa-hay! the USA has advanced technologically at an astounding pace and the assumption that we need certain things may be outdated. In this instance Obama was pretty obviously reluctant to actually send in troops to Syria (which we haven't done) and it's his administration that found a way for us to not actually openly attack them (like he said he would if the use of chemical weapons was found). And in Libya, DESPITE BEING OPENLY AND DELIBERATELY ATTACKED he still hasn't put boots on the ground despite having the political backing to do it pretty easily. Instead he enforced a UN no-fly zone which you may not view as "right" but it certainly is Legal. And yet you are still using both of these situations to say "Well that thar Obama Feller is certainly one heck of a warmonger". If he were actually the Warmonger you think he is, we'd be seeing our army on the ground in Libya to "restore order" and we'd be bombing the crap out of the Syrians claiming to support the rebels. All he's been doing is attempting to survive politically in the face of a republican party (and media apparatus) that is screaming bloody murder to go in and shoot somebody.

Gonna stop ya right there kiddo. If anything the republicans in congress wanted us to get into Syria, NOT the President. You didn't see Obama standing there next to two known terrorists and saying "we should support these guys" (That was McCain btw) and the "tricky diplomacy" you cite is one for the Chemical weapons that Obama was slow to act on in the first place (their use anyway). And Libya he didn't start. That was the consulate being attacked and then a popular uprising against Quaddaffi's regime. It WAS NOT some sort of inside job/false flag op to get us to go scrambling into Libya, and at best all we've done is impose a no-fly zone over the area (which G. H.W. Bush didn't have happen over Iraq after 1991's war which led to Saddams control of the region continuing.... I **** you not), and Skippy? that no-fly zone was UN santioned. Also right now Libya has 0 control as a nation because of the uprising in 2011 and is a bit of a lawless spot. Now HOW THE **** did you think that Obama was a warmongering yahoo that wanted to go to Syria and had us "fighting a war" in Libya?

You don't remember the troop surge? Look at this: He increased troop levels twice during his presidency. According to military reports, about 38,000 total U.S. personnel are in country which means current troop deployments are still higher than when he took office. Huh, didn't know that. It's still balanced out by the fact that he ended Iraq IMO, but that does count as "widening the war".

Given this is a forum about games, I'm surprised we don't have a more active "let's all hang out and play games together" thread. Or it could just be me being the a-social person I am and not seeing it.... Anyway... I figured we should maybe try to play something as a crew, Maybe titanfall to start given people seem to be into that. Anywho, my Origin ID and Steam ID are both Calaxprimal. I'm usually on most afternoons/nights being a very bored son of a gun. Per Humanoids Request I'm in CST.

Can I just ask, what has Obama actually used executive orders to do that's outside his mandate as president? I'm serious, because as far as I can tell, you've all gone nuts because he said that he will try to govern without congress because Congress won't get it's head out of it's collective ass.

Sounds about right. And today I lost all hope.. .Not sure why, just don't have that much hope to have I guess.

HOLY crap this NC/ISU game is good. Tied to the final seconds.

Tonight we shall see if my school can beat NC.

we bit o TitanFall and beat Second Son (which was much shorter than I expected and annoyingly didn't mention any of the events of the first two games by name.

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition. Huh? How can they block a law? Appointments for the organizations that would carry out the laws. The Consumer Protection Bureau was set up in the aftermath of 2008's collapse but most of it's provisions were neutered or not implemented as congress systematically defunded it and refused to allow appointment of it's director, thus they aren't allowing the law to be enforced. Hell the entire schtick about Obamacare is a perfect example, IT IS LAW, and has been declared constitutional, and yet there have been constant fights by the congress and governors to ignore or circumvent the law in the same way Obama has decided to go around a congress that (almost literally) does nothing. Congress has that power though, the law said it wouldn't be in effect until Congress confirms someone, so they simply refused to confirm, which is their Constitutional power, and the Constitution trumps any other law. Same with funding, they are never under obligation to fund anything that hasn't already been funded, another Constitutional power. It's perfectly legitimate to fight a law by any legal means, but not if you're the one charged with enforcing it. The governors have not ignored Obamacare, they acted strictly legally with discretion given to them by the law and the courts, so either you're not well informed here or purposely misleading. Obama does not have the right to go around Congress, only Congress has the power to change or repeal laws. Executive Orders are constitutional To Blatantly steal from Wikipedia: If he feels his use of executive power to go around the Congress is in "taking care of the law", then it's up to a judiciary to overturn it, and you better just buckle in for the ride, because he's using the legal powers that are given to him to ensure that America (a nation that hasn't had a budget for quite a while because of the idiocy of congress) continues to progress rather than stay stagnant. Or would you prefer to be Japan Circa 1869? Oh and I like this bit from later on in that article So yeah, Executive Orders are totally legal, and Congress can't veto them, only the court system can.

Second Son. I can't help but feel the game is to... loose? They're attempting to add variety by giving you the new powers but realistically it feels like all the new powers do is just reskin old powers (with slightly different effects). When Cole was our protagonist he only had the zapping powers and things worked really well because when all else failed, basic zapping was always an option. Now the game is so eager for you to swap powers that you can legit run out of power for any of your powersets, and you change by draining the powerset (So you get smoke powers from a smoke cloud and neon from neon signs). It just feels like it's punishing me in a longer fight (of which there can be many because this game starts to throw enemies at you like my cat throws himself at carpets). Add to that the fact the characters aren't as well written as before (one in particular going from Enemy, to friend who's got a nickname for you in less than a mission... then screws you off camera), and I think Sucker Punch needs to do better. Overall it's an above average game for the previous generation, but time will tell if it's good enough for this gen.

Iowa state stands at 81 above NC Central's 63

My school won Big XII and is slated by most to be in the Final Four!

Titanfall... it's fun but I think that it'd be better with a 32 man limit instead of what, 12?

I actually went and looked that up. It appears to be a non-porn edition of a porn game. So expect "Ride to Hell, Retribution" levels of stupid.

Vals, you confuse me. Nothing Obama has actually done is cause for impeachment. He may be captain "blow you up with automated killers" but he still hasn't flat out widened any war. If he had we'd be in Pakistan right now trying to figure out how we're going to get out. Bruce is entirely correct about the banks. Although that was Bush who established the bailing them out. The follow up was to mired in politics to actually do what was necessary. The girl in the video is a bit delusional, but part of that is because media coverage during the run for 2012 was that everything in 2008 (the election year, not the year Obama actually had any presidential power) was slowly but surely shifted to Obama's presidency. And, to be fair, you haven't actually refuted anything that Bruce mentioned, Just said that he's not american and should totally read these documents that are related to the foundation of America. If you're gonna say that there's something "fundamentally wrong" with what he's saying POINT IT OUT AND PROVE IT! Don't just sit in the land of generalities and nationalistic superiority, because South Africas constitution is FAR more open and protects things far better than our own by virtue of having been written within the last Century.

Best known for responding to massive posts with just :darque: Started an Alpha Protocol game.

First these laws are not Federal, second things like hanging for rustling have probably already been ruled unconstitutional. It's true laws can become obsolete if the prosecutors don't charge anybody for a long enough time, because then defendant can claim selective prosecution. But you still can't legally announce you'll simply ignore the law. And the laws Obama is ignoring are quite current and relevant, and he's simply overruling them for his own ideological and political reasons. And yes, a ruler who's not bound by law is a tyrant, that's pretty much the definition. Huh? How can they block a law? Appointments for the organizations that would carry out the laws. The Consumer Protection Bureau was set up in the aftermath of 2008's collapse but most of it's provisions were neutered or not implemented as congress systematically defunded it and refused to allow appointment of it's director, thus they aren't allowing the law to be enforced. Hell the entire schtick about Obamacare is a perfect example, IT IS LAW, and has been declared constitutional, and yet there have been constant fights by the congress and governors to ignore or circumvent the law in the same way Obama has decided to go around a congress that (almost literally) does nothing.

It's really easy to hate somebody when you're willing to see things from a perspective that's created to make you dislike them. Especially a second term president (in these media-run days). And before anyone jumps on my for my track record of disliking bush. I disliked him since I was in High School (IE he was elected the first time), and even if I don't really follow some of Obama's decisions I think McCain would have made a worse president. Also, it should be pointed out that while we may be disappointed in Obama, it's not like things would have overall gone in a significantly different direction if one of his two competitors was in charge. Maybe Gay Marriage wouldn't have been protected by the government (Romney's church was what pushed through the Prop 8 in California), and maybe Don't Ask Don't Tell wouldn't have been repealed (McCain came out against it), but ultimately a lot of the same stuff would have happened.

Right now I'm playing a bit of Mount and Blade, Witcher 2, Last of Us, and a few others but none that seriously while I wait for Second Son on Friday.

Thinking of that myself. Best of luck. Thanks. It's never an easy decision, but I felt so good when I finally decided. I'm in my late 20's and have come up with many excuses as to why I should not go back and study. Looking at those excuses objectively, it dawned on me, that they are merely excuses. A close friend's wife, is now a boss at some company and she resumed her studies at 30+ with three kids. There is also another thing I have in mind if I don't get accepted to any of the Universities I apply to later in the month. That "thing" will have to wait for now. Worst case scenario is that i crawl back to my employer (not very likely unless welfare is the only option). ........... I've never stopped studying and I'm in my late 20's.

HA! No. After all, we have laws on the books that technically an unmarried couple cannot check into a hotel as married for a 1 bed situation, and that you can be hanged for stealing cows, and that if you're found between double beds with a member of the opposite sex, you're liable to be tossed in prison. And you're telling me that if a president doesn't enforce these laws he's automatically a tyrant? I mean right now Congress is blocking more laws being enforced than the president is.

Calling to get my car hauled off.

City of Heroes! I miss that game.... Depending on your flavor of choice you could give Trek: Online a shot.

I'd be in (if I still have it installed, may have removed it for the Elder Scrolls Beta I thought I was able to get into before my power supply screamed and died in terror) for a 3 man crew to play something.