Wrath of Dagon

That's right, our new paradigm is borrow money like there's no tomorrow.

Almost no one can afford a private security detail following them everywhere, and besides without law enforcement a society can't function, which would affect even the rich. Also I'll point out it's not like we have people dying in the streets because no one will treat them.

The difference between police and universal healthcare is that everyone needs police protection, while UH only benefits those who can't or won't buy their own insurance. What's fascinating to me is that people in other countries care so much about US social programs, while US could care less what anyone else does.

What if you choose to put on your commando outfit and just walk around in it? Is everybody supposed to react appropriately? Seems like a lot of extra work.

That's my point, if they didn't display carried weapons, this issue wouldn't arise. Anyway, there's a bigger issue, if he wears a commando outfit in the middle of the street, that doesn't make sense either.

Anything and everything. That's not an answer at all. I don't see what was wrong with IW's story, characters and setting.

I don't get the new obsession of displaying all the weapons the PC carries. Are they also going to show him carrying all his other equipment in a satchell?

What would you expect them to do better?

Actually our population is as healthy as anyone's, and most health problems are due to overindulgence, not anything else. Other things which play into this, we're bankrupt, we spend more on defense than anyone else by far, 50% of healthcare costs occur in the last few weeks of life, we have a huge non-productive underclass, we have Medicaid which pays for the poor, Medicare pays for the old, VA pays for veterans, and many localities but not all have a very extensive public health system. I believe something like half of the population is already on public healthcare.

DX3 probably won't be as good as IW (most likely a shooter with some RPG leveling) but it might get a better reception since people are now conditioned not to expect the original.

The problem with the US is that we have an extremely corrupt government and a population that always wants to have its cake and eat it too. So although there's definitely a healthcare crisis, I'm very pessimistic that government intervention will improve the situation. You only have to look at the Medicare fraud rate to see that.

It doesn't make it harder, and it doesn't matter that you critisize them. They'll just keep doing what they're doing, no matter what.

The government says now is a good time to take a vacation in Mexico.

I'll buy it if it gets good reviews and the feedback is generally positive. Anyone heard of a demo?

There are strong indications Thief 3 will be announced soon, also Syberia 3 is being worked on, also Beyond Good and Evil 2.

This issue is a lot more complicated than you guys make it out to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...tions_1991-1998 Also I read that the real fear in the US after the anthrax attack was the believe that Iraq had weaponized smallpox, and the US had no defense against it. It was even considered to have the whole country immunized. Also there's evidence that Saddam planned to reconstitute his WMD program when opportunity arose.

So you're saying to a deontologist the ethical choice is not the better choice? Also you're assuming what it is that I'm assuming, and you're wrong. As far as what Kant believed, the quote I used indicates he was a deontologist, but I'm not assuming that either.

Re-read your own post, did I say anything about ethics being objective? So what does your post have to do with what I said? Also I'll point out I said I'm not a deontologist.

The ethical choice is the better choice, isn't it? I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

The Persian king once asked a Spartan traitor just how powerful are the Spartans, are they supermen, say can 1 kill 10 of us? The Spartan said individually they're not that different from any other man, but in a formation with shields interlocked and spears deployed they're almost invincible.

I didn't beat around the bush, I said what I thought. I also didn't know what Consequantialism was, and I don't apply philosophical theories in abstract. I look at the facts and try to see what is right and necessary. As far as "slam dunk", I don't have a link, I know he said it and the context, you can google as well as I can. Edit: I guess I know I'm not a deontologist

Just about every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD's, Saddam wanted everyone to think he had them. But yes, the faulty intelligence on WMD's coincided with the administration theory of remaking the Mid East and provided a convenient excuse, so the two went hand in hand.

That had nothing to do with ESRB since they never saw the original version, and was done at the request of the publisher, Atari.

What's more hideous than blowing up women and children? And once again, what was done was not torture and was not punishment, it was interrogation to obtain information to prevent future attacks and save lives, how convenient that so many of you seem incapable of comprehending that distinction. Edit: Btw, the speculation about Bush and Cheney faking Iraq info is short circuited by the fact that Tenet told Bush that it was a slam-dunk Iraq had WMD's.

Most of the civilians killed were in the course of miltary operations, or trying to undermine enemy morale and industrial output. Yes, see Rape of Nanking.