Aristes

Saints of Eden - Shameless It's a weird sort of rap/pop combo. It's really not bad. The rapper sounds kind of funny, 'cause his accent keeps coming through. He does a good job. I've bought this one already, just because it's kind of catchy and has a bunch of different things happening.

I think folks should be able to kill children in these games, just like tv shows and movies depict murder and books describe grisly scenes of rape and whatnot. However, I fail to see why it's entertaining. Of course, I've virtually never been able to finish a game playing an evil character. I've known folks who like playing evil and they didn't strike me as evil in real life, so go figure. I don't know if it's a good taste question or not, but I think Hurlshot has the right idea. I would just say maybe that I can't understand how it's entertaining. Good taste or not, murdering children in a game just doesn't seem to make much sense. I guess folks just like being able to vent their "eveeeeel" frustrations in a safe setting? Hey, it's better than killing children in real life, so knock yourself out.

One of my crazy friends called from Washington yesterday and talked to me for an hour. He swears that: a) Obama is the most liberal president voted into office of all time. b) That he will immediately socialize medicine. c) That the democrats will confiscate our houses on the grounds that they're fixing the mortgage problem. (haha, that would be my luck, since we don't even have a mortgage anymore and the house is paid off.) d) That Obama will raise taxes on anyone earning more than 60 grand a year. e) That anyone registered Republican will end up in gulags. I told him that I'm willing to listen to him vent, but that he really needs to calm his nerves regarding this business or he'll end up going insane and having a heart attack before he's 40, which is this upcoming year. I also told him to stop telling me that we're going to end up in gulags. I get to be genuinely worried about his mental health when he starts the gulag talk. I'm tempted to fly up there and make sure he's not a danger to himself. His wife voted against Obama also, but she hasn't gone nuts on me. I made the same bet with him regarding the gulags that I did with my liberal friends regarding Bush bringing us into World War 3 before the end of his first terms. "I tell you what, if we end up in World War 3 [or gulags] before the end of Bush's [Obama's] first term, then I'll eat crow and admit I was wrong. If we don't, then I'll never mention it to you again." So far I haven't had to eat crow. I mean, what the hell? Gulags? People go crazy during elections.

Thanks, I found that interesting also. EDIT: I just realized that Krezack's avatar is from the old show Get Smart. My wife loves that show. I don't know why I just noticed it or care, but I thought it was funny. Since ORDER is a government agency, however, I thought I was safe mentioning it in this thread.

I take it you have the same program in Australia?

I certainly wouldn't deny someone the right to marry because someone gloated over the issue. However, I did find Newsome's response irritating. The point I was making about Newsome's public tirade wasn't that I used it as a reason to vote for the measure. I cited it because it was the sort of over the top response that led people to think that striking down prop 22 was just the tip of the iceberg. Folks around here can heap scorn on the slippery slope argument, but they should at least concede that Gavin Newsome is the picture perfect example of why that argument exists. Now, some folks might wonder, how could someone vote against prop 22 and then vote for prop 8. I've explained this before, but I'm actually tempted to create my own thread. Prop 22 was a ballot initiative. I hate ballot initiatives. I vote against them the vast majority of the time. Perhaps the vast vast majority of the time. I think they are expensive boondoggles and the very apperatus the state uses to allow, explain, and put them on the ballot costs money. As J.E. said, the ballot initiative system costs money that the state can ill afford. We hear about state budgets and we think that anything less than a few billion is small time money. Not true. However, we have the ballot initiative. It's the law of the land. ...And, while it was loathsome, it passed by over 60% of the vote. That wasn't just enough to pass California's ridiculous ballot initiative system. Excess of 60% passes in a number of other states as well. It didn't just win. Prop 22 won resoundingly. That's where I am. If the proposition passes with a clear enough majority to have changed the state constitution, then I think the Supreme Court of California should use a higher standard in striking down the law. I'm sure a cool and articulate voice like Enoch can explain why this is a bad idea. I will respectfully disagree in advance and adress any such arguments as they occur. The grounds the Supreme Court used to strike down the law were insuficient in my mind. It was a proper law that the people put in place and the Supreme Court wrongfully removed. Once the people spoke, and with such a disproportionate voice, the Supreme Court should have heeded. Yes, it is a step back for Homosexual rights. However, equating homosexuality to slavery and the plight of colored Americans is insulting to the civil rights cause. It's not that I think homosexual don't deserve such rights. It's that the wrongs inflicted on the homosexual community simply pale compared to the sufferings of black Americans. Not only that, but society always gets the final say. They did this time as well. We've come to see the SCOTUS as the final guarantor of our rights. Howver, being humans, the members of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than any other group. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has been an imperfect guardian at any rate. They have not always stood for the rights of the minority. Nor have they always been successful in preserving minority rights when reviewing the law. The Supreme Court is a vital part of our democracy, and I respect it. Nevertheless, it must be watched just as diligently as either of the other branches. We cannot, because it has become en vogue over the past several decades, put all of our faith in the Supreme Court because it can, as can the other branches, abuse its authority. Anything I've said about the SCOTUS applies even more rigidly to the state Supreme Courts generally and to the California Supreme Court specifically. Before folks go hog wild responding to this post, keep in mind that I'm not the only person who believes the state Supreme Court was wrong. The decision to overturn prop 22 was 4-3. That means the court was closely divided as well. Just because you, or I, or members of the Supreme Court believe that prop 22 was wrong does not mean that there are sufficient grounds to overturn the law. I'm glad that prop 8 passed. Because when homosexuals in California get the right to marry, and they will get the right to marry, it will be because the people have come around to that view. As much as folks might hate me for my vote, the long term outcome of the voters finally deciding to do the right thing will be so much better than the Supreme Court deciding to impose its will by fiat. Now, the war has been fought and lost in regards to the SCOTUS running the show. I generally trust the US Supreme Court and I think it is by and large more restrained. For that reason, although it is not perfect, their decisions do not raise my blood quite so much. ...And we could avoid this issue if we simply ammended the CA state constitution to reform initiatives and to make further ammendments more difficult to secure. Once again, however, don't blame conservatives for the terrible state of the constitution. Progressives were the ones who ushered in these reforms a long time agao and they have not served us well. As far as the DC firearms issue... As long as I've been lurker here, and more recently posting, I've always thought you were fair, Enoch. I just have to wonder why you would quote Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision, which is admittedly moderate, while not citing his previous comments in support of the DC ban in the first place. I have a hard time believing you didn't know about his previous support of the DC ban on the grounds that it was constitutionally fit. As for myself, I am not a fan of firearms. I have used them rarely in my life and have no great love for them now. I have not owned a personal firearm for years. I would oppose any law I thought of as excessive in restricting firearms, but I doubt I could articulate, without resorting to gross exagerations, what would be excessive without seeing the law first. EDIT: Clearly I meant to say "marry" rather than "vote" in the first sentence. As for other minor errors, I'm too lazy to look for them.

I don't think marriage should be protected as a civil right at all. I think everyone who wants to have "married" status should enter a civil union as defined by the state and then religous ceremonies should be conducted seperately. Much like Gorth said earlier.

You're making the bigot charge meaningless by leveling it at everyone who doesn't share you perspective, Krezack. I generally don't get riled at political discussions, but personal attacks aren't political discussions. Of course, looking at the level of your discourse so far, I frankly find most of your statements laughable and reactionary. However, if you'd been reading anything of the conversation, rather than jumping in here and there diminishing exchange, you would have known that I voted against virtually the exact same measure the first time it came up for a vote in California. I have one exact reason for voting for the measure this time. I will gladly vote to allow same sex marriages when it comes to a vote in my state, which is undoubtedly destined for the not so distant future. Now, I suppose I could be lying somewhere along the line, but why say anything at all? If I'm going to lie about either time, why not lie about both? Why lie about what I would vote? Why not simply say I voted against both measures? Or simply be happy that we enjoy a secret ballot in this country and I can vote whatever I damned well please without telling you anything at all? I tell you what, though. Why not help the homosexual cause by calling everyone who engages in the discussion a bigot. That will certainly bring people to your view. At some point, we should really accept that there are alternate views. I'll make this perfectly clear, I'll engage in a discussion, but if my liberal friends are angry with me for switching my vote between last election and this one, I don't care. I don't authorize my vote with anyone before I make it and I don't feel compelled to defend it in the least. I will do the same thing next time I did this time. I'll vote my conscience. If folks can't accept that, they can go to hell. EDIT: I was responding to Krezack when Hurlshot posted.

I actually wrote this long post, but I figure you deserve to get in the last word. I know how it feels to be vexed about these things.

You should be able to update directx by going to the microsoft webpage, ~Di. I had a missing file, so I had to update directx just to play the game.

I agree that the AI sucks.

Okay, Hurlshot, I'm insane. I'm hoping that the personal animosity over the issue dwindles, but I'm not going to regret my personal decision. Even if the issue had been closer, I wouldn't regret it. If I had cast the deciding vote, I wouldn't regret it. You might believe I'm insane, but I had my reasons for making it. ...And, yes, I would go to the house of a married homosexual couple and explain to them why I made my decision. I wouldn't be happy about it, and I sure as hell wouldn't gloat, but I would do it. How about this, I'm always willing to discuss my political beliefs with people, and rarely in a heated or hostile manner, and I have discussed my views with gay friends. Maybe Enoch is right. We might look back in half a century and look at bans on homosexual marriages as the 20th century equivalent of racism. I don't believe that they are the same, but I also don't believe that homosexuals should be denied the right to marry. I'm positive we won't have to wait 50 years before homosexuals are granted the right. At least I'm an equal opportunity offender, having voted against the previous measure, and angering a lot more people since that one passed by a margin in excess of 60%. The way I see it, I made a lot fewer of my friends angry this time around. If folks want to hate me for voting my conscience, then that's their problem. I don't like losing friends, but I've only got my own conscience as guide. I won't lose a moment's sleep over it.

Tough call. At the time or now? I voted for 2, since it provided tons of hours. Probably the most after all is said and done.

How puerile can you... hey, wait. You've got a point! As far as the decade hundred years thingie. I agree with Gorth. It's the setting. Far more jarring to me is the idea that folks living in rivet city never clean any of the crap sitting around. I mean, all that time someone would have cleaned up crap in the hallways if for no other reason than make it easier to walk around in them. Still, do I really care? No. It's part of the setting and not really all that jarring. Like the kid thing. Society would have died off if that's the number of kids they have. Society is in immediately danger of dying off if that's the new birth rate. Still, maybe there are other kids we don't see. Maybe they've got children in hiding. Who cares? The game is tons of fun and I'm convinced that there are more titles to be made for the franchise.

Oh, I was going to take J.E.'s bait on prop 8. Two things stop me from doing so. First of all, it looks like it's going to pass, which would make pretty much any response I made seem like gloating, which I don't want to do. The other thing is, I really think, if it's as close as it looks that there is a chance, going forward, to overturn this. My beef has honestly never been with gay marriage. I just don't care about it. I would go to a gay marriage if invited. I would be best man. I would speak at it. I would support it. I would do anything short of engaging in one, since that would make me a polygamist and I'm more interested in marrying women at any rate. I don't care. I will gladly vote for an initiative that allows gay marriage, which will now require a constitutional ammendment.

I don't see why Lieberman wouldn't caucus with the Democrats unless they do something stupid like punish him for supporting McCain. Since they'll need his vote as part of any coalition to overcome a republican veto, I'm thinking they'll treat him better than they would if they had won a straightout super majority. If Lieberman had run in and won the Democratic primary, I would have voted for him. It's not that he's a super conservative Democrat (sure, okay, independent) but he's more stable than McCain and most of McCain's conservative credentials come from the social rather than fiscal side. In terms of policy, I was hoping that McCain would win, but there are good things about an Obama presidency. While they're mistaken, and often myopic, about US policy and what Obama means to it, our European friends do seem to love the guy. He's not exagerating when he compares himself to JFK. ...And he certainly had a more impressive win. Obama was a protest vote. With Bush's low rating and the economic crisis, McCain didn't have any business getting even as close as he did. Is the fact that the race wasn't a complete blowout a function of racism? I don't know. One thing I really like about Obama is that he is an articulate speaker and he stays cool under pressure. Good attributes. Hell, some folks say all he has is a speech he gave, but I think the ability to share a vision for the future is vital in a president, and McCain was lacking in that regard. He either lacked vision, or lacked the ability to share it with the American public. I'm going to put my conservative friends on notice. No conspiracy theory bullcrap. Don't send me emails about Obama sniffing coke out of a dead hooker's belly button. No ten page forwards, not including the two pages of forward information embedded at the top, proving that Obama has five wives, sells coke on the street, and has personally funded the Iranian nuclear program. No funny pictures of Obama murdering people in downtown DC. If there's no smoking gun, I don't want to hear it. No more Clinton/Bush style insanity. NO MORE. Tell your crap to someone else. I don't want to hear it. If you cannot prove it, don't say it to me. If you can prove it, take it to the FBI.

Hell, more money has gone into the anti 8 warchest from out of state than has for proponents. However, I resent all the outside interests sending money. However, I don't resent it tooooo much in the case of homosexuals because they see this as an epic struggle for equality. While I don't share their view that gay marriage is somehow the equivalent of bi-'racial' marriages, I do have sympathy for their perspective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr...ition_22_(2000) "Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger immediately issued a statement pledging to uphold the ruling, and repeated his pledge to oppose Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment initiative that would override the Court's ruling and again ban same sex marriages by placing the text of Proposition 22 in the State Constitution.[20]" Thanks. I'd forgotten which proposition it was. Anyhow, I voted against it at the time. ...And I was pretty vocal far and wide as to my reasons. Like I said, the 4-3 state supreme court decision really irritated me. I think the supreme court decision, along with Gavin Newsome's response in San Fransisco, really set gay civil rights back. The people aren't that far away from allowing gay marriages. We're closer than when prop 22 passed. Don't harden the people against your plight by wishing for a legal showdown. However, I would be more willing to accept SCOTUS involvement on the issue. I would much rather the scenario play out at the state level because I think it would be better for the gay and lesbian community.

I wouldn't count on it, Leferd. 23% is pretty meaningless, since that's not a straight 23% across the board. You don't know which precincts have reported yet or not. That said, I think there was more support for prop 8 than the polls suggested. I still think it's iffy. The really bad thing about prop 8 is that it's a constitutional ammendment, which is overkill. If the Supreme Court hadn't gone activist on the issue, then it would have remained a law. If prop 8 wins, then it become part of the constitution, which then makes it harder for the law to change. Of course, this is California, so it could change next cycle, but it won't be as easy to change if it had remained a law. If prop 8 passes, then I think you can call and thank the many people who gloated about the Supreme Court decision. Most specifically, folks who didn't want to see the measure pass should resent the hell out of Gavin Newsome. The fact that Newsome managed to flaunt the will of the people is the primary reason I voted for prop 8. In principle, I disagree with the initiative. However, I am more concerned that the California Supreme court be put in its place. I think gay marriage will come. I will welcome the day, but it should not be imposed by the state supreme court intent on placing its heal on the backs of the voters. We shall overcome, but better to overcome by convincing people that it's the best thing for everyone than having the Supreme Court strike down the will of the people. If we eventually vote to allow gay marriage, won't that be a sweeter victory? If prop 8 fails, I'll live with it, as I live with the results of every election. If it fails, put a proposition on the ballot explicitly allowing gay marriage. I promise I'll vote yes. EDIT: The state supreme court would be even more desperate if they tried to strike down a law that is literally part of the constitution. They would have to argue that other laws within the constitution disallow other laws. That will undoubtedly create a constitutional crisis.

Huzzah! Obama has won! We shall overcome! This is a great day for the United States! I'm going to take a moment to wax poetic. I did not vote for him. I do not believe he was the best candidate. I disagree with his policies. ...But 'we shall overcome.' Not only that, but he won decisively. No waiting until tomorrow to know for sure. No angry and embittered recounts. No doubt. Perhaps we really do live in a color blind country. I honestly celebrate Obama. I hope and pray that he will govern wisely and that this marks halcyon days for our nation. I love my country. My country is more important than petty political hatreds that fester in the back of our minds. These hatred urge us to believe baseless rumors about the other candidate and work against the winner of the contest, should he be the 'other guy.' Obama has a variety of policy stances with which I do not agree and against which I will speak. I'm an ol skool American. As pointless as it is, I call and write my legislators. I donate money and have volunteered to serve on phone lists to call people in the community. I don't intend to stop. Nevertheless, we have overcome. Hurray for the United States and God bless Barack Obama! EDIT: and thank you, Steve and the other well wishers.

I voted and I voted nearly all Republican. This is generally true anyhow, as I favor fiscally conservative candidates. On one hand, the Republican party has is no longer the party of responsible spending. On the other hand, the Republican party has become the party of socially conservative policy. I'm not particularly interested in so-called social issues. I'd go so far as to say that I favor legalizing marijuana. My personal feelings aside, abortion is not a policy issue. The government should not care about which adult has consensual sexual relations. In fact, other than the fact that it's a ballot issue in my state, I really don't care about homosexual marriages. Frankly, like J.E., I think we should get rid of the ballot initiative in California and make ammendments to the state constitution much more difficult.

It's only disenfranchisement if she's a democrat. Otherwise, it's just bad luck. I'm heading out to vote in a few. I'm hoping the lines aren't that long. I've rarely had to stand in line for more than 5 minutes to vote, but this could be a first.

We have the ballot initiative. It's the law of the land introduced by progressives, no less. I agree, however. The state constitution and the initiative/referendum system sucks. It's a complete mess. The things we're forced to consider every cycle are just nuts.

Oh, I don't think it's the same issue, but they are clearly related. It

Okay, but to be fair, the guy who wrote "All Quiet On the Western Front" was named Maria. I just kind of assumed that you were a guy. Wait, didn't you just say you're a guy? I'm soooo confused. EDIT: Erich Maria Remarque. Guess his middle name is Maria. Unless that's like a two parter last name. I dunno.