Wrath of Dagon

So the global warming is mostly a threat to animals, is that it? As is noted in my quote above, the Little Ice Age lasted 400 years, the Medieval Warm Period 300 years, not thousands of years. And if you look at the tree ring article I posted earlier, temperature was peaking in a matter of years, not thousands. In fact there was a peak just in the 30's, remember the Dust Bowl? So basically you're just making stuff up at this point.

Anyone who says they're certain about what's going on with the climate is lying http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/04/new-paper-from-markonis-and-koutsoyiannis-shows-orbital-forcings-signal-in-proxy-and-instrumental-records/#more-73752

Bertrand Russell said (better red than dead) while advocating for the unilateral disarmament of the West. The left always wants us to give up our way of life because of some theoretical threat they found (also see "nuclear winter"). Me, I'd rather take my chances.

Why would they be? Romney is center right, nothing to do with libertarians.

Because they feel superior to everyone else and feel like there needs to be a ruling class, namely them. Engineers on the other hand are one of most conservative groups in society, think about that.

Are you really suggesting that climate change is scientific community indulging in environmental bias if not outright conspiracy? Yes, and Climategate proves it. US passed laws which made someone go through every line of code looking for any date references, because that's how they were required to certify the software. 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars were wasted. Meanwhile, some other countries did nothing about Y2K, and guess what, nothing happened. Yes, you can always use a hammer to kill a fly, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Well, there're tree rings too : http://wattsupwithth...s-in-ther-data/ The problem with claiming scientific consensus is that academics are overwhelmingly leftist, and thus can't be trusted on issues touching public policy. They have a huge confirmation bias. Plus I remember the Y2K panic and the alarmism over Kuwait oil fires, and I'm still waiting for Krezack's giant solar flare to destroy civilization.

5 el niño years in the last 10 years where before they'd be 5 every few decades, and never twice in a row. Half truths and junk science typical of the warmists. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119847&page=1

Well, I'm convinced. Of course there has never been a disaster before this global warming thing happened, how could I have been so blind?

That is such bull. They themselves decided to sell out, they've reaped the predictable results. I'm all broke up about their feelings while they swim in swimming pools filled with money.

All he's saying is that people without insurance still get medical care, not that it's necessarily the best solution. Also, the "poor" are covered by Medicaid in every state. Oh nonsense. He doesn't bloody well know what he is saying - as evident by the flip-flopping exposed by his previous quotes in that link. I'd wager a guess that, like Aeroplane windows and air pressure, or income taxes for the poor/elderly/soldiers, Romney doesn't have a clue how emergency rooms work - or how exorbitantly expensive they are. I mean, it's not like he's ever likely to be in one himself given how stinkingly rich he is. Emergency rooms are there, generally, to prevent death and other unforeseen and potentially permanent complications. THEY ARE NOT PROPER MEDICAL CARE. They are NOT preventative! They are there to patch up immediate problems, charge people a fortune (as I understand it goes in the USA), and then send them on their way only to return later BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING HEALTH PROBLEM HASN'T BEEN SOLVED! Talk about a burden on the public health system. Emergency rooms are not health insurance. By implying that they are a viable substitute for people who can't afford health insurance, Romney is yet again showing just how ****ing clueless he is when it comes to the conditions people poorer than him (which, coincidentally, is like 99% of the population) have to live with. But he's also showing how ****ing clueless he is when it comes to basic medicine. Prevention saves the economy and public purse loads of money! It prevents sick days for employers, thus increasing productivity, and it lowers the load that emergency rooms have to deal with by eliminating problems before they grow into larger, worse, more expensive and time-consuming to solve complications. You might take a breather from your rant and notice he was talking about someone having a heart attack, emegency room is where they'd take you if you had insurance or not.

All he's saying is that people without insurance still get medical care, not that it's necessarily the best solution. Also, the "poor" are covered by Medicaid in every state.

Part of the reason the revenues are so low is because of the moronic temporary payroll tax cut that Obama pushed. They love their Social Security, just don't want to pay for it. Also, using a bankrupt country with a shrinking economy as a model for us, the guy who wrote your article has some balls.

Foreign policy - Obama pretty much the same as Bush, except with more apologizing. To be fair Obama would've been unlikely to go into Iraq. Romney - who knows?, probably similar to Bush, but hopefully less naive/idealistic and more competent than either. Domestic/economic - I'm not sure how you differentiate between those two, Obama has gone crazy with the spending compared to Bush. I think Romney understands the problems we're facing and is experienced and pragmatic enough to deal with them without putting his own reelection before the interests of the country. I have to note here that Obama almost made a deal with the Republicans on deficit reduction but backed out at the last moment due to political considerations, apparently mostly because of pressure from the Democrats in the Senate. Security - Bush was doing what he believed would be in the best interests of the US. Obama is about to go through with huge defense cuts which many experts (including his own Secretary of Defense) claim with cripple our military. I have to note that Congressional Republicans are also responsible for this, but at least they are trying to find a solution. Romney has critisized both for the mess they created. Social policy - Both Bush and Romney are fairly moderate on this, Romney more liberal than Bush, Obama more liberal than Romney. Of course being the Republican candidate Romney had to take more conservative positions and hence has been critisized as a flip-flopper and not a true conservative (which is true, he's a pragmatist).

The whole thing, including the murders, was a planned set up to celebrate 9/11. No one ever heard of the video until it was shown on Egyptian TV. The role of our "friend", Saudi Arabia, should also be investigated here. Apparently they're still financing our worst enemies : http://www.theatlant...m-movie/262567/

But there's not a snowflake's chance in hell of them ever making their investment back.

TOR only failed recently, don't know when their options went live.

Bioware purchase + cost of TOR got to be over a billion dollars total! That's has to be the biggest financial disaster in gaming history. No wonder heads have to roll.

Since a lot of people have more debts than they have assets, comparing wealth in this way is pretty meaningless as has been pointed out. The more meaningful question is what the standard of living is, and here I think the average American does quite well by world and even Western standards.

You're using Obama's slanderous propaganda as your evidence? Romney's tax rate is low because his income is mostly capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. Explain to me please how Romney manages to use Bahamas and Monte Carlo to lower his taxes. Simple, they're tax havens. So he puts his money there, earns interest and a few other goodies on it, but doesn't get taxed by the USA because it's technically not a domestic earning, and is taxed at MUCH lower rates (single digit percentiles) by the country that the money currently is located in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven What you don't realize is that US citizen has to pay Federal taxes on all his income, whether it's earned domestically or abroad. The only way he can avoid US taxes is to give up his citizenship (like that Facebook guy) or to hide his foreign accounts, which is what Democrats are trying to imply without any evidence. Of course if he was trying to hide his accounts, he wouldn't have declared them on his tax return, which is how people who made those ads you trust so much found out about them. @Nepenthe : Yes I did mean all sources of income, not an entirely flat tax rate, although a "flatter" tax rate is very desirable IMO.

You're using Obama's slanderous propaganda as your evidence? Romney's tax rate is low because his income is mostly capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. Explain to me please how Romney manages to use Bahamas and Monte Carlo to lower his taxes. No true, the top rate was 28% under Reagan. Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP may be at a historical low (if your history starts afer WW2 or so, remember there used to be no income tax at all). Also a lot of that is because of stupid giveaways like the payroll tax cut. But I agree with you otherwise. Yes, he did make his entire fortune himself. The money he inherited from his father he donated to charity. To be fair he did have a privileged upbringing, so he didn't exactly start on a level playing field. Some Republicans believe in the idiotic idea of making the capital gains rate 0%, Ryan may be one of them. I completely disagree, all income should be taxed equally. The purpose of taxes is to raise revenue, not to punish and reward. But Ryan doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone, he wants to eliminate deductions, which supposedly enable the rich not to pay their fair share.

The point of lower tax rates is to increase economic growth, which also benefits the "poor", while welfare only make them poorer and dependent on government. Lower tax rates in exchange for elimination of deductions were also recommended by the bipartisan deficit reduction commission which Obama himself created. Government revenues would not decrease if everyone shares the tax burden in a more fair way. Government spending has exploded tremendously over the past few years, and any attempt to rein it in is always met with the charge of "hurting the most vulnerable" by those who are trying to protect their own special interests. And really you should make $250 million and run the Olympics before you call Romney " ignorant and dim witted".

Top down economy being capitalism I guess.

I disagree- Bioware has never been about 'artistic integrity' for its own benefit, it's always been about money. They've made hard nosed business decisions like cutting off Interplay and produced utter tripe (NWN OC) without any input from anyone at EA/ EP. Almost everyone in business wants to make money, it's a matter of where you place your priorities, and from following what they said about starting to make "event games" and trying to appeal to a huge audience and similar quotes around the EP purchase, combined with the fact that's when they started to make crap games, I draw the conclusion that that was the breaking point. Also you normally wouldn't sell your company unless your goal is now to cash in. If they really wanted to cash in they'd have quit by now. They'd probably have quit as soon as contractually allowed to do so. On the other point, both KOTOR and Jade Empire were attempts to go with more mass market 'event gaming' types, and they were both well prior to EP. There's pretty much a direct line from the more trad RPGs to them, and to the Mass Effects. It's unfair to push stuff that was clearly decided upon by people at Bioware (like the ME3 ending) onto EA and even things like TOR being an MMO rather than a genuine K3 must have happened at the very least with LucasArts approval even if it weren't suggested by/ a condition imposed by them. EA can be blamed for some stuff like MP in ME3 or Origin (if it floats your boat) but that's comparatively minor. Even DA2's short dev time was at least partly because Bioware took so long to make DAO. Well, I certainly didn't mean to imply it's anyone's fault other than Bio, the owners were the ones wanting to cash in. KOTOR is a very high quality game, regardless of target audience, Jade less so, and after that it's just one naked money grab after another.

I disagree- Bioware has never been about 'artistic integrity' for its own benefit, it's always been about money. They've made hard nosed business decisions like cutting off Interplay and produced utter tripe (NWN OC) without any input from anyone at EA/ EP. Almost everyone in business wants to make money, it's a matter of where you place your priorities, and from following what they said about starting to make "event games" and trying to appeal to a huge audience and similar quotes around the EP purchase, combined with the fact that's when they started to make crap games, I draw the conclusion that that was the breaking point. Also you normally wouldn't sell your company unless your goal is now to cash in.