Oblarg

The first step is "sin taxes" to try to discourage you from buying things. Then come outright banning. You might remember a little ting from the past called Prohibition? Even you should be able to see the obvious prallells to the way they treat tobacco, fast food, and alchocol now. Yes these things are all bad for you but so what? Try this article: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail...-responsibility The line should be drawn when the behavior (smoking, for instance) is harmful to those around you. I don't think a reasonable person would argue that purely self-harming activities should be illegal. Big government does not necessarily mean bad government, which is a distinction you seem to ignore - a small government can have stupid policies, too. Government will never be perfect. That is no reason to make it smaller.

I don't get it. If I am opposed to Keynsian top down control economics (and I am) how does that make me automatically in favor on unfettered lassiez-faire capitalisim? Especially after I just posted such nice things about the Glass-Stengal act. It is not all of one or the other. It is more of one or the other. I am in favor of something you g******d liberals seem to be coming to hate (or at least vigorously oppose): Freedom. I know the US prospers best when it's citizens are able to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, economic as well as social. That does not mean we dispose of social saftey nets, or even reasonable government controls. Believing that obviously makes me an enemy and an object of ridicule to Obama and his ilk but as we will see in November, there are a hell of a lot of people like me who are more than a little sick of Obama and his "fundamental transformation" of America. Freedom is a term that is thrown around a lot and never really defined, especially in context. Typical. Obfuscating the obvious when you have no argument. How's this for a definition, living your life with a minimum amount of government interefernce? No Big Brother ordering you to buy health insurance or face jail time. No Big Brother helping itself to 35-50% of what you EARN. No Big Brother sabatoging your investments, telling what kind of car you can drive, telling you you cannot smoke or drink or eat what you please if you choose to. How about not having the government issuing instructions to the police to watch out for 'domestic terrorists" like returning veterans and people with Gadsen Flag sitckers on their cars. How about not worrying the government will seize your home and sell it to someone else because they could earn more tax revenue on it that way? Need I go on? Oh wow, u mad bro. In all seriousness, you seem to completely miss the point of government. There is no group of big bad evil men conspiring to take everything you produce for themselves. But even past that, that is a thoroughly terrible definition of freedom, unless you truly believe the epitome of free society is anarchy. If so, is freedom truly an unconditionally good thing? No. You absolutely shun the idea of placing the well-being of the collect above the well-being of the individual. You define freedom as just that - the ability to place yourself above the collective. I would argue that not only is that a terribly skewed definition of "freedom," but an undesirable one. You mention smoking - assuming there is ample evidence that smoking in public places is harmful to others, should you be able to smoke in public places? Certainly not if the public decides against it. That is why we have democracy, is it not? Your idea of "freedom" is directly contrary to the essence of a stable society.

I don't get it. If I am opposed to Keynsian top down control economics (and I am) how does that make me automatically in favor on unfettered lassiez-faire capitalisim? Especially after I just posted such nice things about the Glass-Stengal act. It is not all of one or the other. It is more of one or the other. I am in favor of something you g******d liberals seem to be coming to hate (or at least vigorously oppose): Freedom. I know the US prospers best when it's citizens are able to enjoy the maximum amount of freedom, economic as well as social. That does not mean we dispose of social saftey nets, or even reasonable government controls. Believing that obviously makes me an enemy and an object of ridicule to Obama and his ilk but as we will see in November, there are a hell of a lot of people like me who are more than a little sick of Obama and his "fundamental transformation" of America. Freedom is a term that is thrown around a lot and never really defined, especially in context.

Unfortunately, those "undeniable" truths aren't so undeniable. Oh, and I think we've all seen plenty of "great signs" at Tea Party rallies. I also think, much to Guard Dog's displeasure (and most of our relief), we won't be seeing the Tea Party dismantling our government any time soon. The idea of unrestrained capitalism is absurd - you need a safety net. Success in a capitalist system, as much as Tea Party members might like to deny it, is not purely based on contribution to society or even on merit.

Easily the best of post-reunion Agent Steel. So, I've been getting back into Agent Steel recently, and I must say while I still do love the 80s material my opinion of the later stuff has risen greatly (with the exception of Alienigma, which is still pretty mediocre). Order of the Illuminati is easily one of the best speed metal albums I've heard, and Bruce Hall, while he's no John Cyriis, does a fantastic job. I wish I could find a picture of them being abducted by aliens...or something. This one isn't goofy enough. Bernie Versailles does look absolutely hilarious, though.

This is a very valid point that is often ignored.

These guys also happen to be my favorite band. Let me see if I can find that picture where Roy Khan is wearing a skirt... Hah, here it is: They sure do make awesome music, though.

Transcendence is in every way as progressive as When Dream and Day Unite. Anyway, is what you get when you put the best guitarist, bassist, and drummer of the past two decades together in one band.

I'd say that if anything Fates Warning just picked up from where Queensryche left. And I disagree with your opinion on Dream Theater before Kevin Moore left but meh, that's just your opinion. The fact is, probably a lot of people wouldn't even know about Fates Warning if it wasn't for Dream Theater. The fact that they started sucking after Moore left has nothing to do with that. Fates Warning put out The Spectre Within and Awaken the Guardian, both of which were at least as "progressive" than any of Dream Theater's early albums, in '85 and '86. That's pretty much pioneering the genre - Queensryche did put out The Warning back when Fates Warning also put out their debut, but neither of those albums did more than really touching on progressive influences, whereas Fates Warning's second and third albums really fully incorporated them, something 'Ryche didn't do until Rage for Order and Operation: Mindcrime. And hell, even Crimson Glory had their debut out in '86. The fact is, Fates' second and third albums really broke new ground - nothing sounded like them when they were released, yet several years later there were a number of bands pursuing a similar style. It's a common misconception that they only started making "progressive metal" with No Exit - rather, they only started dropping their USPM roots with No Exit (probably facilitated by the departure of Arch and Zimmerman), but their work really didn't get any more notably progressive. What Dream Theater did was take that framework, tone down the riffs and place a ton more influence on synthesizers and technical segments. The result was a vastly more accessible form of music that also allowed people to say "Wow, those guys are good at playing their instruments!," which is why Dream Theater is so successful. Add to that the major decline in American heavy metal at the onset of the 90s (even Fates took a turn for prog rock with Parallels and Inside Out), and you can get an idea of why a lot of the mid to late 80's progressive metal is relatively unknown.

If you want some pure ass-kicking JP-ish metal, you can't go wrong with .

Unfortunately the term has come to mean "watered-down power metal riffs with whiny vocals and lots of technical solos and drum fills," but originally it referred to heavy metal that incorporated compositional complexity of progressive rock (E.G. nonstandard song structures and complex time signatures). The term is fairly ambiguous, though, and gets thrown around a lot more than it should. Also, because it refers to composition rather than style, it's not that useful in describing a band's music unless paired with some other subgenre, like progressive power metal or progressive thrash metal. Also, it is often used interchangeably with the term "technical," even though the two aren't necessarily synonymous. Here are some prime examples of progressive metal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkKmz9vtFY8

Oh come on, that's just bull****. As much as they sucked in the last 5 years or so, they are basically the band responsible for Progressive Metal to have expanded in the first place. Clearly you're searching for something else in music, and I can understand that, but try not to forget the fact that they've had a huge influence. Plus, in my opinion, Image & Words and Awake are some pretty freaking good albums. I agree on Mike Portnoy being overrated though. Fates Warning pioneered progressive metal, not Dream Theater. Dream Theater commercialized it. I do not deny that they've had a huge influence. That doesn't change the fact that they're a mediocre band. They were a reasonably good (not great) band before Kevin Moore left. They've been pretty bad since.

He's the Scorcher...in the sky!

Tell us how you really feel. I have no words to describe how utterly inane that original post was.

...

So, Mike Portnoy left Dream Theater. Mediocre prog metal band loses overrated drummer. Really, I don't get why everyone is up in arms about this. I saw DT open live for Iron Maiden a few months ago, and they're really not that good.

Why do you need the game? Itunes + guitar = play along to music. The game could/should check you are in tune. Plus you can play along with your mates who don't play instruments. I have a tuner for that. It's very hard to play out of tune on a fretted instrument (how does one bend unintentionally?). The second point is reasonable, but even then you could just have a guitar amp and play along with your friends on rock band and achieve the same thing.

Digital dictator! What a ****ing superb song.

Why do you need the game? Itunes + guitar = play along to music.

I can say that I honestly enjoyed ME2. It was a reasonably good game. I sure as hell enjoyed it more than Dragon Age, which for a "true RPG" was pretty ****ing awful. Now, for what was wrong with it: I can also say that I enjoyed ME1 a lot more, and that ME3 better have more of a plot than ME2. Also, I do hope they move away from the "dark, edgy" art direction, because all it really does is make the game look like someone dumped a bucket of black paint over everything. ME1s art direction worked so well for the setting - ME2's atmosphere simply can't compare. The RPG elements should have been streamlined and fixed, not removed entirely. The game plays like an inferior Gears of War (with a color scheme to match!). The biotics went from feeling awesome to feeling utterly lame - Yes, they were rather absurdly powerful in ME1, but I'd rather that than have them be as completely underwhelming as they were in ME2. Hell, I loved tossing five enemies in front of me backwards into a wall and watching them crumble into a heap on the ground. Give me that back. And planet scanning is worse than the ****ing Mako. Please, Bioware, in ME3, do not base the end-game reactivity on something as ****ing banal and tedious as planet scanning. Thanks. P.S. - Ammo is tedium and it ****ed up the lore. Better to get rid of it in ME3 and forget it ever happened.

Forget rock band. Buy a guitar. i already have 2 guitars playing Rock Band/Guitar Hero is nothing like playing an actual guitar though No, but playing an actual guitar is both more fun and more satisfying.

Forget rock band. Buy a guitar.

>Implying that implying is restricted to /b/. /mu/ is pretty clogged with >implying, as well.

I think Johnny is growing on me, too. There's something charming about how glaringly out of place he is, regardless of context.

ME was a perfectly fine game. Engaging plot, passable combat, fantastic setting. The characters, however, were dull and 1-dimensional (with the possible exception of Saren), and the RPG mechanics were clunky and poorly implemented (wonky inventory, LOADS of duplicate items, not enough visible impact on performance, stupid dialogue choices). Still, I enjoyed it. ME2 had notably better characters, some of whom had backstories I was actually interested in. The dialogue was improved, with the exception of the main character's lines which were still pretty godawful. Unfortunately, ME2 suffers from an incredibly shoddy plot which is left in complete shambles by the end of the game. There was also a fairly bad change in art direction, going from smooth and slick, bloom-filled, wondrous sci-fi to dark and drab with a serious lack of colors, which severely cramped the great feel first game's setting had. BioWare also threw out most of the RPG mechanics rather than fixing them, resulting in Gears of War-in-space gameplay which I don't particularly care for. Oh, and the biotics went from feeling badass to feeling completely ****ing irrelevant (almost every character has biotics for seemingly no reason, and the powers themselves were toned way down and lacked the visceral feel that they had in the first game). In fact, abilities in general sort of turned into a "shoot a colored missile at target," and the global cooldown sucked. Overall, I'd say ME1 is the better game by far.