Wrath of Dagon

Federal judges are not subject to democratic controls except by impeachment. That is why they have to restrain themselves from making law instead of honestly interpreting it. In modern history they haven't restrained themselves, which is why we have tyranny of the judiciary in this country. Edit: A tyrant is defined as an illegitimate ruler, look it up.

Actually it was the US Supreme Court, Florida Supreme court was trying to install Al Gore.

Government without consent of the governed is tyranny, there's no hyperbole here. Hyperbole As has already been explained to you by Enoch, the constitution does not assign direct democratic control of all parts of government to the people. That doesn't make it tyrannical. Are you even paying attention? I don't know that myself? And where did he explain that to me, and why would he have to explain it? It's like you're reading some other discussion, we're not talking about direct democracy, we're talking about an illegitimate power grab by the judiciary. Btw, to paraphrase Sonia Sotomayor: "Of course judges make policy. Oops, I wasn't supposed to say that"

Government without consent of the governed is tyranny, there's no hyperbole here.

I'd say he desperately needs help, sheer conviction alone is not always enough to convince other people (though it happens). Since, apart from said conviction, I'm not seeing the claimed connections between the dots. Also, to add the requisite entropy expected of my posts, SCOTUS always makes me think of scrotums. The pictures don't help. But is that guy Scalia quotable or what! May be living in your lefty paradise, you just don't have any concept of the US constitutional system.

I think they're just trying to de-emphasize the Al Qaeda threat now that Bin Laden is dead. May be there's also a more nefarious reason there, I wouldn't put anything past this bunch.

You only need as much complexity as impacts gameplay. In the case of ammo, the guns still all work exactly the same whether they each had their own ammo or universal. In fact IW had one of the most interesting collection of guns I've seen. As for other gameplay, universal ammo actually enhances RPG aspects of scarcity and choice, as I said before.

I don't think Alan Wake was even supposed to be survival horror. The T rating should've been a tip off there. It was supposed to be like a Stephen King novel in game form.

So now you're reading the minds of judges? How is it possible to figure out whether a particular outcome is "purposely misinterpreting" as opposed to merely mistakenly misinterpreting, or applying an interpretation that, although it may not agree with the one the reader favors, is nonetheless a reasonable alternative, given available information? You can study history and context, and you can read the tortured logic and the sophistry of the decisions to come to the conclusion. When judges choose to disregard democratically inacted law (which includes the Constitution, the supreme law of the land) they're being tyrants. I'm not sure I follow you. Of course Congress is limited to the enumerated powers. But those powers are broadly stated-- Congress is explicitly granted the power to raise an Army and a Navy, but they don't need a constitutional amendment in order to fund the Air Force. And two of those enumerated powers include regulating commerce and spending public money for the general welfare of the nation. The details of what is and isn't included within the scope of those terms are far from clear. The air force is implied, since obviously they meant to authorize armed forces, but there was no concept of an air force at that time, there's nothing fundamentally different about the air force. Even so I wish they would've passed an amendment, simply because not doing so becomes an excuse to make a complete mockery of the concept of the Constitution, as you just demonstrated. There is no authority to spend public money for general welfare, there's only authority to tax for the general welfare (meaning not their own, or their friends', or a particular state). They can only spend money on things explicitly stated in the Constitution, as 10th amendment amply reaffirms. The Commerce clause was meant to only regulate commerce, like states trying to impose tariffs on each other, or trying to somehow prevent importation of goods from other states. To say they can legislate on anything that has anything whatsoever to do with commerce makes the concept of enumerated powers completely meaningless, and government can suddenly do whatever it wants, when we know from history the founders meant to severely restrict the power of the federal government, as Madison reaffirms in his veto. It's like WTO claiming they get to run the US because whatever US does always impacts world trade in some way. Edit: What hyperbole? Do you actually have a point to make?

The problem with ammo in most shooters is that it's supposed to be a scarce resource, but if you run out all you have to do is switch to another weapon, so there's almost no penalty. With universal ammo, if you run out you really run out, so you have to manage it efficiently, like you should in an RPG. Moreover, the developer doesn't dictate to you which weapon to use by dropping ammo predominantly for that weapon. It's completely up to you to decide what to use in any situation, but the catch is the more powerful weapons use a lot more ammo, so you really have to make a choice commesurate with the threat you're facing, but again it's entirely up to you.

It's tyrannical whenever it purposely misnterprets the laws to suit its political agenda instead of honestly trying to get to the meaning, no matter on which side it comes out as a result. There's no ambiguity in the example you cite, taxation is allowed only for general welfare, not for someone's particular welfare, but whatever the congress does is still limited to the enumerated powers. This is a very blatant example of purposeful misinterpretation of the original meaning.

I liked the universal ammo and wish they'd put it into DX:HR. The internet would melt down from rage. It was a good idea, for some reason almost no one sees the advantages.

I don't like gross games, so it was good for me. Edit: AW also comes with a bunch of great songs as extras, including Space Oddity.

Fine, if things need to change (and the article states that Madison saw the need for the law he vetoed), then amend the Constitution, that's what that procedure is there for. It's a question of the rule of law vs tyranny of the judiciary.

An interesting article on American constitutional issues some of which we discussed here before : http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm...ndment-of-doom/ Madison would know, since he pretty much wrote the Constitution.

I remember SE saying that they wanted an action RPG on consoles to start with, but I can't find the exact quote. Here's some info on that though: http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/1017...-siege-iii.html

Action combat was an SE requirement, not up to Obsidian, no?

It was all for Mideast oil, everyone knows that

RPG's are so passe : http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/bioware-rpg...relevant/083510

Doesn't EPA do that? Edit: And FDA, as far as pesticides in food.

Your government at work: http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/08...923ea3919e.html Why do we need the Department of Agriculture again? For food stamps?

Would be nice to have a couple more hubs. The endgame arrived a little abruptly.

Buy lots of EMPs and disable whatever you have to. Of course you'll miss out on a lot of stuff, but oh well. The mini-games are the worst part of Alpha Protocol, you have to try to enjoy the game in spite of them.

They could suspend inflation indexing for 10 years to gradually raise taxes for everyone, but the best thing for the economy is tax reform along the lines the Deficit Reduction Commission proposed.

It would be better if they called the game something else, to avoid all the butthurt. Then again, publishers want a recognizable name, and SE wanted to do something with their IP, so here we are.