Wrath of Dagon

Because we won? You should try it some time.

I have to think you don't know much about WW2 history. Yes, you must be right. Other than the degree in history and the few classes on World War 2 I took in college, I have little knowledge on the subject. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes Notice the references to Wehrmacht, or follow specific links. Wonderful. And here is a link to the Allied war crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_cr...ng_World_War_II I'm really not getting your point here. My point is that your attempt to absolve Wehrmacht from responsibilty for war crimes is invalid.

I have to think you don't know much about WW2 history. Yes, you must be right. Other than the degree in history and the few classes on World War 2 I took in college, I have little knowledge on the subject. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes Notice the references to Wehrmacht, or follow specific links.

Are you on drugs? Not really, they both fought for the nazis, the SS was just a bit more enthusiastic.

Since we're now getting games ~3 months apart, I wonder how long a dry spell is going to follow ME2. AFAIK, nothing else apart from TOR has been announced. That leaves Edmonton and Montreal completely unaccounted for (apart from the comments on DAO2, but I kind of doubt it's going to be the next one out). Actually I wouldn't be surprised if DA2 was the next one out, Bio put a lot of effort into the DA universe, I suspect a follow up to it to be the next release after TOR. But there was a comment by a Bio dev that is working on DA DLC, that his previous assignment was on an action RPG that was cancelled(my guess JE2). So either that was deemed unprofitable or EA has said use the IP's you've created for now. Which does make sense, they have the ME IP that is popular, which in two months time, is going to get it's second entry. Then you've got DA which they have just released, which seem to have also done well. Personally I'd be surprised if we seen anything not ME/DA/TOR related coming from Bio for the next few years. Bioware site still shows a "new next gen game" on their website. That seems to be the one they started at about the same time as ME1. There's no reason for them to say anything before ME2 comes out, as that would only intefere with that publicity, but I expect we'll hear something afterwards. Unless of course that's the action RPG which got cancelled, but I think they were working on at least two unannounced games before.

One of the American generals, may be Sherman, went to observe the Franco-Prussian war and told the Germans they were being far too gentle with the French, and the rest is history.

Vista is a lonely bastard child. I'd definitely say go with 7. Should be pretty easy to network 2 PC's, I'm not sure why you had problems with XP. Don't think you need a server either.

Whenever I play a game with partial VO, I'm astonished at how much more real the characters with VO seem. Not to mention the jarring nature of the transition.

That is why there's an amendment process, which works and has been used a number of times. And I believe your quote is from Lenin, not Stalin btw.

The reason it's the most controversial clause is precisely because the Feds used it to illegally seize power. There's nothing unclear about "interstate commerce". There's nothing unclear about "powers not specifically delegated to Congress are reserved for the people and the states". Antonin Scalia believes in the concept called Stare Decisis, settled law should not be revisited unless extraordinary circumstances compel it. The Supreme Court is not about to throw out the entire structure of the Federal government and plunge the country into complete chaos. Thus the only arguments are around the edges of what the Supreme Court has already settled (incorrectly) the Commerce Clause to mean.

Yeah, it sounds like two broad statements that are in conflict with each other and need to be arbitrated. That's what SCOTUS did, just as SCOTUS ruled against the state (well, D.C.) and for individual constitutional rights when it overturned the D.C. handgun ban. If these were self-evident implications, SCOTUS wouldn't be called upon to arbitrate them. I think people lose sight of the fact that these cases are escalated up through lower courts before they reach SCOTUS. Judicial activist commandos didn't halo jump into District of Kansas courts to "make up" Brown v. Board of Education (for example). The Commerce clause is not a broad provision, nor is it contradictory in any way. It's very clearly a statement giving the Feds the power to regulate interstate commerce, and nothing else. As I said before, it is simply used by an expansionist government as a fig leaf to regulate anything and everything that touches interstate commerce, no matter how ephemerally. The court did push that back slightly in a gun case, but it wasn't the DC case, which was about the 2nd Amendment.

Well, it's not religion, but keep guessing.

I'm not sharing because I don't think if I was honest it would end well, but I'll concede from your point of view my reasons would not be valid.

No, let's go there. If you're going to openly support discrimination you should at least try to say why you're doing so. Heh, you can't make me answer. Edit: What makes you think I'm upper class or white?

Let's not go there, as I said it's not going to result in anything positive.

It's not threatening, it's not something we want to show approval of.

I thought I explained why it's important, in fact you quoted it. If it's not the best one, it can be amended. But it's said we're a nation of laws, not men. That is what protects us from tyranny. Who in the world doesn't have freedom? I'd say about 4/5 of the world, that's who.

Yes. I kind of see where you want to take this, but I'm not sure it's going to result in anything positive.

A common culture means something, laws reflect that culture, I'm not a libertarian.

I support discrimination against some groups, like bigamists for example.

Nah, still not really accurate. How about "A Supreme Court which claims to adhere to the Constitution, while giving lectures about how judges in reality set policy". But we're rather far off topic, I agree the unelected bureaucrats running the EU is a really, really bad idea.

No, I really have no idea when you're being tongue in cheek and when you're serious, sorry.

Our Supreme Court does not adhere to the Constitution, but I agree we're better off than the EU.

What makes you think I'm against the Texas amendment?