Wrath of Dagon

Revenue is all of the money they received, not counting expenses. Once you subtract expenses, you get the profit or loss.

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=381903 I think EA is still turning a profit, actually. Can anyone explain all this stuff? If that's turning a profit, I wonder what losing money looks like. The recession didn't affect games all that much, it's EA's strategy that's crashing and burning.

Have you been reading what's happening to EA? They've been losing 100's of millions per quarter, and laying off like crazy.

Well, we're talking about EA here. Might actually sell less, ME1 came out before Christmas, early year release is kind of risky.

We're always thinking of you guys as socialists. It's a conservative outfit, so they consider marginal rates the most problematic as it discourages enterpreneurship (the point of diminishing returns). And they do consider the overall tax revenue as percentage of GDP. Government freedom - I'm not sure where you see that. You mean government spending? That should be included, whether the spending is justified or not, it hurts our economy, defense spending does too, even if it's necessary.

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx Go figure.

Agree completely. Of course if Bioware made it, it would be indistinguishable from Dragon Age.

Technically that's a quintet since Krogan have four testicles.

The only limits to political speech the Supreme Court has recognized is when there's an immediate incitement to violence/injury. Such as you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Thank God this isn't Europe yet.

This ruling regards for-profit corporations, don't change the subject. What are you doing on an evil corporation's forum anyway? I may have to report you to the Commissariat comrade.

Political organizations in the US are also corporations. What you're talking about are "Evil Corporations". A corporation is not an economic entity btw, it's a legal entity, it could very well be a non-profit, or even, heaven forbid, leftist!

Or listening to boring stories about their childhoods.

I agree, but nothing done in the US so far has fixed the problem in the least, it only keeps gettting worse. And freedom of speech is not an excuse, it's a fundamental right. As an individual you can speak till you're blue in the face, no one will listen to you. The only way to make yourself heard is organize with other like minded individuals and make the politicians pay attention to you. This is what this ruling is about.

I've looked over his quotes and I'm not seeing anything that says "I hate the US" He clearly has major issues with the way the government is run, particularly foreign policy. But you aren't a fan of our current president and you have been very vocal about that, and no one has accused you of anti-Americanism. Critisizing the President when you disagree with him isn't the same as constantly siding with our enemies, especially the scum bags he's been siding with. And a lot of them aren't even on trial, like the Iranians, so why's he defending them? Edit: I agree media is often biased and doesn't tell the full story, but they rarely lie outright, and when they do they usually get caught. The key is to get multiple sources, and take everything with a grain of salt.

That was about as amusing as the game itself.

A Hamlet RPG would totally work. It's all about choices, right?

If you look at the statements he makes while assisting those people, you'll see he's not doing it for justice, but out of a burning hatred for the US.

He seems to have become quite a bit more radicalized since then. But I suppose he's great to anyone who hates the US. From Michelle Malkin:

OK, first of all, this ruling does not mean that corporations can give unlimited money to candidates. What it does mean is that they themselves can run ads on any subject, including supporting or opposing a candidate. They can not coordinate with a campaign either, so theoretically they could do more harm than good. Under McCain-Feingold, perfectly legitimate organizations like the NRA or NARAL couldn't run adds 60 days before the election for or against a candidate, in other words you have the right of free speech, except when it actually matters. Also McCain-Feingold did nothing to decrease the influence of special interests, if anything it increased it, since the harder it is to collect money, the more influence the lobbyists have, and their influence has only been increasing in spite and because all of the laws.

He's part of the loony left. From your link:

Since his Al got gored. Political freedom means freedom to organize, not just an individual right of free speech. Thus organizations have the same right of free speech that individuals do. There's no rule that you can't overturn a bad precedent, the decision was strictly constitutional and thus not judicial activism. And Enoch, do you actually know there was a Supreme Court ruling that corporations had no right of free speech? I don't think I've ever heard of such a ruling. There were rulings against unlimited political contributions, but those still stand. Edit: Never mind, I see the OP article says there were.

Are you addressing me or the guy who wrote the article? The reviewer.

I've seen a lot of attack ads by third parties that ended with "call this candidate about this issue" thus making it technically an issue ad, not an endorsement ad. The law has been evaded anyway, and now at least it's back to being constitutional.

NATO was supposed to be an alliance of countries against the Soviet Union, Australia wasn't directly threatened. And Ramsey Clark is respectable?

Yes, I know it's a big surprise, but we have free speech in this country.