Orogun01

I know, I know. Still it sort bothers me a bit considering how eager the founding fathers were to annex nearby territory and how that spirit carried on for quite a bit. It's like they had named their country after their expectations. On the other hand US citizen could just go by what people in the rest of the world call them: ****

How do you know that less than 10 % of the people who responded are not from America? Do you know a poll was run on these forums to see where people lived and the majority of people who responded are not from America. Could you maybe refer to the US as Hillbilly-Yankee land? I was always bothered by how they usurped the term used for the entire continent.

When my aesthetics teacher told in class "Facts are not truth, they are just facts" it took me a few seconds to wrap my head around that. Facts are things that can be verified but are open to interpretation and people's biases. People often use facts to support their crazy beliefs, at the same time you have to wonder about the bias of the people publishing those facts.

Anyone else feels like playing "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego"? Snowden was last seen in a car that had flags that were red, white and blue.

Al Gore made the Internet, therefore the Internet is American and everyone in it its an American. Your argument is invalid

This is actually something I touch on in my research -- what makes a critic a "professional" or even a "paid" reviewer? If some guy writes game reviews on his blog, and uses the ad revenue to pay his bills, I'd say he's probably a "professional" or least popular enough to where he is considered to knowledgeable. Is he a "professional" critic or a just user-reviewer who got lucky? These are sticky questions with no easy answers, and the lines get blurrier every day. Did you reach a consensus on what criteria a professional reviewer must have? At its most semantic interpretation it would exclude users and bloggers since its not their profession to critique. Personally I believe journalism in general has taken a hit, probably because "casualization" and i'm using that term to refer to news in general not just video games.

It's a bird, it's a plane, its communist pro-russian troll coming to save the proletariat

After a weird Monday and Tuesday I was just told this night that it had actually been a Friday and Saturday; which explains a lot.

Judging by the colors on their new logo I'd say Bioware is making Brokeback Mountain: The Game.

Waiting for the pornographic Japanese Octopus.

Apparently the will of the nations is like an angry woman who snaps over the tiny thing that fills her cup to the limit. At any rate good to see people with the cojones to riot for an actual noteworthy cause, not just cause gays want to marry.

1. Debates online are not time controlled. Therefore you get people wandering in half way through 2. Debates online are never summarised for people joining late, or anyone losing track of the thread 3. Debates online do not typically control membership by credibility 4. WHY AM I NOT IN THE PUB? Because debates on a pub often degenerate into physical confrontations? Which has redefined the term "sore winner" into it's most literal iteration.

Bought this game, love this game.

I'm going to need to see your nerd card and check the expiration date. Also: Solo shot first

Meh

This is a bad time for comics, sad really because with all these comic themed movies coming out they should have had a resurgence. Instead both Marvel and DC have gone down the rudder.

Yeah it's a slow start and it doesn't ever get to be like the X files but all in all it becomes a nice show. Maybe it's one of those you get into after a while and on an unrelated note, have I told you how much I love your avatars?

Well, as long as it isn't the development teams; those poor folk have it hard enough already working for EA.

The first few episodes were atrocious, it had good potential which luckily didn't go to waste. Once every character found their place in the dynamics of the group it significantly improved. I do feel like Walter carries most of the show sometimes.

Would had been even better if you said that they were "Kaned & Lynched"

Darn good read

I am far more concerned about that actually. From what I understand since Obama has been in office every prominent conservative pundit has been audited multiple times. And everyone knows they were going all out to stop or even prosecute conservative PACs while rubber stamping liberal ones. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/conservative-activist-green-name-gets-irs-stamp-approval-193457897.html He is turning the IRS into his own secret police. Now they are even training tax agents with automatic weapons. What the hell is going on here? Who are they planning on fighting? I have an idea. http://nation.foxnews.com/business/2010/03/22/irs-hiring-thousands-armed-tax-agents-enforce-obamacare http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/06/12/Rep-Jeff-Duncam-Questions-IRS-Training-With-Automatic-Rifles-Video http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/breaking-obama-irs-agents-seen-training-with-ar15s/ GD, were they actually IRS? OR from the Treasury and people assumed they were IRS? Because technically Treasury also runs the Secret Service. No, the IRS has been training with automatic weapons ever since they let Wesley Snipes out. He's coming to get them.

The system is legal, so the point is moot. The logic "if something ends up where it shouldn't" is bizarre. There is no guarantee that a surgeon won't accidentally sew up a scalpel in your abdomen. There is no guarantee that a policeman won't confuse you for a suspect and detain you. There's no guarantee that you won't get ran over by a car next time you cross the road. See the pattern? So if the government makes a crime to be legal when committed by them is it not a crime? How did we go from grilling Nixon until he spewed this jewel: "Well, when the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." to allowing the President to call out a hit on US citizens using a drone? But you're right it is not illegal as it's the government who ultimately decides what is law, it is downright tyrannical as it imposes its will upon the people.

As far as we know they have been doing their jobs without spying on US citizens on a massive scale. Its their job to come up with legal ways to find intelligence, if they can't come up with an alternative because they are incapable of it then I've no reason to believe that they are capable of proper handling the entirety of the US internet information. Plus what guarantee there is that info won't find it's way into other hands for purposes that have nothing to do with National Security?

Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act? Which is as effective as calling fisticuffs on a fight with Mike Tyson.