Wrath of Dagon

Oh, OK, let's not discuss things you disagree with. Sorry for my impertinence.

This is pretty important, there are trillions of dollars about to be spent on this nonsense, I don't know why you think it doesn't deserve a thread.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-...ut-climategate/ Yes, I know it's a right wing web site, but they have links you can read for yourself.

What's eye opening is that you think Nuremberg was a witch hunt. And I don't see what False dichotomy has to do with anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

I don't even understand what the hell you're arguing anymore. As far as what Hurlshot meant to say or didn't mean to say, I suggest you leave that question to him, he's just as capable of typing as you are.

What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link.Neat. One of the sources he posted is biased, so clearly all three are biased AND what they are reporting must be FALSE. Uncanny logic. But here, let me dig up a more "respectable" source for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/1...ape-claim-block Mythical myths and innuendo, no doubt. What does it have to do with US soldiers guilty of crimes not being prosecuted as Kikkeli claimed? Also that case was about civil liability, criminal liability can not be replaced by arbitration, it would still be tried by a criminal court with jurisdiction.

The quote actually said SS was the primary perpetrators of the Holocaust, since this was a job specifically given to them. That does not absolve the Wehrmacht of their resposibility, as Hurlshot implied. OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht? Look, if you really want to make this argument, you could argue that the SS was a major arm of the Wehrmacht, and by the end of the war they were pretty much running the show. That might be a better way to go here. I'm not defending or attacking anything here, I'm just stating the difference between a front-line soldier engaged in combat with opposing military forces and the folks who ran death camps. My problem is with your implication that the front line soldier was somehow just an innocent bystander, instead of an active participant.

OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht?

The quote you produced from my link confirm my point exactly, Wehrmacht was responsible for countless war crimes throughout the war. The link also explains somewhere about how enthusiastic the German soldiers were about accepting and carrying out the nazi agenda. The fact that you failed to understand the meaning of Hurlshot's post in the context of his answering my post isn't my problem. Yes, anything you find on Google is irrefutable proof. May be you should try listening to a more objective media.

What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link.

You have any evidence of that? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la...0,2956277.story http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellne...fend_gang_rape/ then there's the can of worms called Blackwater... Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article.

I did not misunderstand Hurlshot, he said "Honestly most historians target the SS as the main perpetrators of war crimes, so I'm not sure where you are going to go with this argument." clearly implying the Wehrmacht was not significantly responsible for war crimes, which is simply not true. You have any evidence of that?

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.