Wrath of Dagon

Of course Obsidian cares about profits, any business does. But I don't think profit is their be all and end all.

EA doesn't care about the kind of games Obsidian makes. Their bottom line is profit only, they don't care about creativity or quality.

The video in this article has some more info on Wolfenstein: http://www.vg247.com/2013/05/09/wolfenstein-the-new-order-does-not-have-multiplayer/#more-365139 No cover mechanic

I don't think there was anything unexpected about the outcome of WW2, except some surprisingly dumb decisions by the Germans. And the problem with asymmetric warfare isn't the warfare, it's the political calculations that go into it. Like we try to nation build a country whose culture we know almost nothing about, let alone understand.

I've been predicting Riccitielo's firing for so long I don't know if I even get credit anymore.

This is amazing and if true will change the world, Lockheed-Martin claims they can filter salt out of water : http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-usa-desalination-idUSBRE92C05720130313

It's funny how your information is always more reliable than the UN's. Also the article does present plenty of evidence. And why would Hamas apologize for something that's a huge propaganda coup for them and they're blaming on Israel? Really your logic needs some work.

Hamas got huge mileage out of this, few people will read the retraction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-report-errant-palestinian-rocket-most-likely-killed-gaza-baby-in-november-clash/2013/03/11/b9ecd652-8a58-11e2-a88e-461ffa2e34e4_story.html

I demand New York be returned to its rightful owners, the Dutch!

The problem with healthcare is there is no free market because someone else pays, so the consumer doesn't care about cost. Half the problem could be solved if people were made to pay for their own routine care, but the consumer is now too used to someone else paying, so politically it would never fly. And it still leaves the issue of catastrophic care, because almost no one is able to pay for that on their own. Btw, I never understood this business about not being able to buy across state lines. When I bought my own insurance I got it from some company in Wisconsin, so you can definitely do that. Are they talking about the state not being able to regulate the insurance policies then? Doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Edit: Also we already have a single payer system, it's called Medicare, and it's going broke. So may be the government should fix that problem first before expanding their reach.

I definitely know that. Let me make a clarification: AIPAC's views on the Israeli-Palestine reflect those of the Israeli Right (Likud, mainly). So, I didn't mean to connect them to a Left-Right scale in American politics. I'm sorry if that bit was a little unclear. Nonetheless, in recent history Republicans seem to have been the ones in American politics who are closest to Likud - but you're right, it might have only appeared that way during the recent election due to Netanyahu's support for Romney. So what do you think, WoD? It's my impression that AIPAC's views are held my most Republicans, but incidents like this show that Democrats have another take on the issue. Do you think it's possible to change? I think centrist Democrats are mostly pro-Israel, and certainly most Democrat members of Congress are. But the further to the left you get in the Democratic party, the more anti-Israel they become. The party activists in both parties are more extreme than the party itself, and that's who tends to go to the conventions, so that's what you saw at the Democratic convention (plus they're Obama delegates, another indicator of their left wing tendencies). I don't think most Democrats would've booed God either.

It's ridiculous to call AIPAC right wing. You do know that 2/3 of American Jews vote Democrat, right?

Because you can commit treason without being an enemy combatant. Like being a Confederate spy, to give a historical example. Also there's always a chance you're captured, then they can't just kill you since you're no longer a threat, they'd have to try you first. You are entitled to due process if you're captured, that's what that whole law that Congress passed to try terrorists in military tribunals is all about.

Americans are not entitled to due process once they join the enemy. It's never happened in history, and there's no constitutional basis for it. And do you really think a president will go so rogue that he will start murdering political opponents? Do you think people around him would put up with that? Will the public? Is the Congress not going to impeach? The true threat is not that, the true threat is that they will continue to take away our rights, make formerly law abiding citizens into felons, finally push us so far that some will start to resist, and then military force will be used against them. But Paul's stunt doesn't do anything to prevent that, nor does Holder's reply hold him to anything. More on legal status of enemy combatants here, although I think his Congressional authorization argument is on shaky ground: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/342568/what-rand-paul-misses-andrew-c-mccarthy

Uh, Venezuela is one of the US's largest oil suppliers. I could have been clearer. My understanding is that in spite of being a key source, oil exports fell dramatically due to Chavez' management. ~~ Oil exports fell because Chavez managed the oil enterprise about as well as he managed the rest of the economy, in other words he made a total mess of it, while still managing to buy off his constituents with proceeds from the oil exports. Had nothing to do with his anti-Americanism though, he was perfectly happy to take US dollars.

what a cynical view. Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands. That's a large amount, tell me, has getting disabilities become easier in recent times, or is this rise purely from people who can't get unemployment welfare anymore because their six months are up? (IE fix one and you may fix the other)Actually unemployment benefits right now are extended to almost two years because of the recession. And of course lots of people just stay on unemployment until the benefits run out. As far as disability, I think it's just a function of people having figured out there's a gravy train to ride, and probably the ethics aren't as strong as they used to be. Doesn't help that I'm constantly seeing commercials of lawyers advertising how they can get you disability benefits. The way I read that explained is that you can still care for others, but out of your own feelings, like because you love someone or because you feel good about helping others. Which in reality is what happens anyway. I'll admit though I don't know much about Objectivism.

Do you really, and being a history teacher too, not see the symbolic difference between the White House and the military base? The first thing he cuts is people's access to the symbolic center of their government, not his vacations, not his jetsetting, not his bloated stuff. It's like he's saying the government belongs to me, not to you. I'm the King, and you have no business in my palace. That's not how a leader of a free people acts. Really sometimes the things you say just amaze me. No kidding, and now they are saying he can kill us right here on our own soil.I think Lincoln set that precedent (well, really Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion if I recall my history right). Anyway, don't see anything wrong with killing terrorists, as they're considered enemy combatants. I don't think the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula should get any protection from his citizenship once he took up arms against the country he's technically the citizen of.

Well, they are changing the country even as we speak. In fact that is the Democrat plan for taking over, which I believe will be disastrous. I wonder how the Swedes would feel if they became a minority in their own country.

what a cynical view.Here's one example : http://news.investors.com/business/042012-608418-ssdi-disability-rolls-skyrocket-under-obama.htm?p=full Another would be families living for generations on the government dole, there are also constant reports of massive fraud in the foodstamp program. May be you don't see that so much in the Netherlands.

So you're saying that crime and corruption in Venezuela are actually to his credit? I think it's more an argument he's so incompetent that having an authoritarian dictatorship didn't even deliver one of its usual benefits, but to be fair you really need to move on to the totalitarian dictatorship to get a handle on crime.

Shutting down the White House tours is the ultimate expression of Obama's arrogance and narcissism. White House belongs to the citizens, not to him, he has no right to lock the people out. Why doesn't he cut down on some of his golf vacations if they're so short of money? The risk of investing in gold is also huge, considering it was only about $300 in 2000. Sure, you'll never lose all of your money, but you could lose most of it.

Read the Hamas charter. Did ANC charter say anything similar about Whites? It was a Marxist organization, not a racist or fanatically religious one. You may also want to read about the history of massacres in Palestine before the establishment of Israel. Not much to discuss with you then, since you admit you goal is to destroy Israel. Arabs living in Israel are full citizens, the law doesn't treat them any different. And as a matter of fact there are lots of racial preference laws in the US. No, but you all seem to think alike.

It doesn't work if everyone games the system, like in the US.

Rewarding people for not working and punishing those who do does not lead to prosperity. For proof you can look at places like Detroit, Chicago, and California. The European crisis should also tell you something.

Yes, that's basically what the extremist movements among Palestinian refugees say. Still, as I noted earlier, no genocide took place in Algeria or (more relevant) SA even though those governments were formed by former "terrorists". Do you also question the Irish independence? If Hamas was elected to rule Israel today, we would see a catastrophe. I am fully convinced that if Palestinians are gradually allowed to return to their homes and allowed to vote, we won't see that outcome. I wasn't aware that any French settlers staid in Algeria. In any case you're comparing different situations. It's like predicting the nazis wouldn't exterminate Jews because the communists hadn't. Also you don't have any evidence to back up your prediction. In any case, under your scenario, even if Jews somehow avoided the massacre the state of Israel would certainly cease to exist. Israel isn't going to commit national suicide, no matter how much the global left wants them to.