Wrath of Dagon

That article confirms that Holder was involved up to his eyeballs, not just being inattentive as he claims. I think something that unconscienable should disqualify him from being AG. Gonzalez was hounded out for firing people he didn't like, this guy is guilty of deriliction of duty having helped a criminal and a fugitive get off scot-free. I hope this is all brought out during his confirmation hearing, and Republicans vote against him, although I'm not sure a filibuster would be appropriate, even if they have the votes. Note that I had a favorable impression of Holder while he was in Clinton's administration, until the Rich business came up.

It's the energy that gets transferred that does the damage. So a bullet that tumbles inside the body will do a lot more damage than a bullet that passes clean through, other things being equal.

Actually damage is proportional to energy, which is proportional to velocity squared. So a pistol of the same caliber would never do more damage than a rifle, not in this universe. Not that pistols usually use the same caliber ammo anyway. Aah, this reminds me of the endless discussions on Mass Effect forum about the damage from rail gun micro ammo back in the day.

I thought it was stated the ammo was the same. Isn't up to you which ammo you load?

Why? It's good advice, that's what I normally do.

Holder was more involved than he lets on. He's the one who recommended the lawyer (Quinn) to represent Rich, although supposedly he didn't know who the lawyer was for. He also advised Quinn to take the case up directly with the White House. Sure smells like influence peddling.

For the same reason clothes give you bonuses.

Shorting means borrowing something, like a stock, then selling it immediately and hoping it'll drop in price by the time you have to return it. Try googling the terms you don't understand. Great article, really exposes the Washington attitude of "lets kick the can down the road, until is snowballs into a huge crisis". Also blindly following ideology without applying common sense. I remember ten years back there was a lot of discussion on the danger of derivatives, but nothing was done about it. And of course everyone knew there was a housing bubble, but again everyone made too much money to care.

No game will ever make complete sense, no use obsessing over minor details. I think I assumed in IW that you had to give up your weapons to enter the bar.

Actually it all started under Clinton: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081119...rg/ad0ijcjt1p6k Obama will bring change all right, we're going to have the power grid of a 3rd world country because of his assault on energy suppliers.

Pretty much a done deal I think. I don't know why no one ever appoints an actual diplomat as a Secretary of State, but whatever.

No, ME sucks. Never noticed any popup in Gears, certainly nothing as horrendous as ME. Anyway, can't install since my disk is full and you still have to have the DVD in drive anyway.

What I'm talking about is a new law that's about to be passed, which has to do with elections on whether a workplace will be represented by a union or not. Before it was a secret ballot vote by all the employees, under Federal supervision. Under the new law union representation will only require a majority of employees to sign union cards, without having an election at all. In addition, a provision for binding arbitration means the government can set wages and working conditions in the newly unionized workplace.

Reagan fired the air traffic controllers for striking illegally, because you can't strike against the government in the US. And I'm not talking about banning unions, I'm talking about keeping union elections fair thus keeping them from vastly expanding their death grip on the economy.

If your employer doesn't listen to you, go find another employer. Someone who doesn't pay market wages won't stay in business long.

That's ridiculous, it's historically proven that only capitalism creates wealth and improves living standards. As taks said, this crisis is not the failure of capitalism, it's a failure of government policies and government ineptitude. Anyone who thinks we have a free economy with the government gobbling up 1/3 of gross domestic product is fooling themselves. As for unions, the fundemental problem with them is they're anti-market. You should be paid because your skills are in demand, not because you coerced the employer. Card check makes this far worse because it gets rid of the secret ballot for union representation. Open ballot was used in Soviet elections, for good reason. This is a favorite tactic of the left, if you can't win a fair election, change the rules in your favor.

If card check and binding arbitration passes, which it will unless Republicans have enough votes to filibuster, the government will be telling just about every business how to run it. If that's not socialism, I don't know what is. Also one of the leaders of the American Socialist party said a long time ago, paraphrasing, "The American people will never accept socialism, but they will accept it in pieces, under the guise of liberalism."

Checkpoints are bad enough, but what about checkpoints you can't even save? *cough* Ubisoft *cough*

By numbers, factory assembled games, which is 99% of them.

All that means is that younger voters respond better to charisma, idealism and vague world changing promises than older and wiser voters. There hasn't been any great idealogical shift yet, perhaps there will be one if Obama does extremely well or if this turns into a great depression. Reagan almost lost to Carter lolz, then he won 49 states, then Bush was losing to Dukakis in the polls but managed to destroy him in the campaign and win, then losing to Clinton. You can't read too much into any one election, they all depend on conditions on the ground. As far as purging moderates, that's typical Republican grumbling after every loss, I don't think it means much.

Sounds like a really good book, I need to get it next time I buy books, thanks.

And yet it's the place to be.

Well, I agreed with most of your statement. And obviously if they voted for Obama, they preferred Obama, for whatever reason. The rest of my comment I added for myself, not really commenting on what you said, and I take it we disagree on that, so I'm back to not being amazed, everything's right with the world again.

For once to my amazement I agree with Volourn. The only reasons Republicans lost was because everyone hates Bush and the economy tanked. Also I don't remember Clinton ever cutting taxes.

In general it's the extension of governmental control in every sphere of our lives. A couple of examples: Card check - doing away with secret vote for union representation elections and instead replacing it with a signed card, thus making voter intimidation possible. This passed the House last year but was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. The Fairness doctrine - requiring balanced viewpoints to be expressed on the radio, which makes right wing talk radio no longer commercially viable since its audience will tune out as soon as a liberal comes on. The left claims they're for democracy, free speech, and the constitution, but their deeds prove otherwise.