Oerwinde

Lets try this again. I have not read the Fantastic Four comic in years, but he sure does not resemble the Doom I remember. At least the way he was depicted from FF #1 - 300. I am not questioning the actors ability, he just is not Victor Von Doom. I think the problem was with the writing rather than the actor. And still being a normal, though powerful, human, he didn't have delusions of godhood yet. Now that he has powers and is ruler of Latveria, I think in the 2nd film we'll see the more traditional overly dramatic "All fear DOOM" Doom. We also need to see more of his scientist side too. The only guy smarter than him is sposed to be Reed, or maybe Tony Stark, so hopefully they'll show that too.

Didn't like any of the other zelda games, so I doubt I'd like that one either.

That's just because you don't have a Wii to play with. If I had a Wii I'd be spending all my time playing Mario RPG, since thats the only game for it so far that interests me.

Weird Al has been doing it for years. He used Eminem interview footage to make it seem like he was saying he though Brad Pitt was cute and wanted to date him. Thats funny.

I have not read the Fantastic Four comic in years, but he sure does not resemble the Doom I remember. The fact that he went up with the FF and had his armor form from his skin is terrible, there is not a single reason they had to change his origin. We weren't talking about the changes to the character, most of which I believe were based off the Ultimate Fantastic Four Doom, we were talking about him being miscast. Julian McMahon was one of the highlights of the film and made an awesome Doom. Apparently in the sequel its a year or two later and Doom has recovered from being all fused together in the first film and has risen up and become the ruler of Latveria. He see's Silver Surfer's awesome powers and feels the only person who should have that kind of power is him. Sounds like they're getting back to the root of the character.

I've heard somewhere that the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment was actually "Thou Shalt Not Murder" or whatever. Which are in fact different. If its Murder, then killing people in war is a-ok from a religious standpoint, while killing for fun or whatever is not.

I've been playing my PS2 a lot. Have like 9 games I need to finish.

Domestic: $154,696,080 46.9% + Foreign: $175,424,795 53.1% = Worldwide: $330,120,875 Production Budget: $100 million Terrible movie, it did make money however. I thought The Thing and Human Torch were alright but the rest were miscast and the story, if you call it that was horrendous. Doom wasn't miscast. He was awesome. I personally thought the film looked worse than it was. So when I saw it I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed it quite a bit. Torch while not having the look, had the character down so well you could overlook it. Alba was definitely miscast though.

At least it isn't Tara Reid. And the teaser is awesome. The trailer for the first film made it look terrible. This one looks awesome.

Ever heard of spoiler tags? Unless you are exacting revenge upon me in which case: Touch

So... no recurring character died. Unless they count Sylar's death and ressurrection.

Yeah, I learned my lesson when it comes to checking reviews. I figured the reader reviews would have given me a better idea though, but most of them raved more than the official IGN one did. How anyone can actually rave about that game baffles me. I just ordered Breath of Fire 2 and Final Fantasy VI for the GBA to tide me over until the price comes down on Mario Kart, Partners in Time, and FF III. Those were my two favorites for the SNES, and spending 50 bucks on a portable game just doesn't seem right to me.

So this dyslexic man walks into a bra...

I think of all the major religions Buddhism makes the most sense. I'm secular humanist myself.

The problem with the multiplayer is it requires multiple people to have a copy of the game. And I wouldn't wish this game on anyone else. I emailed square for my money back and they told me to bitch to nintendo. Nintendo told me tough ****, should have rented it first. My problem was that it was a highly rated game. I went to IGN, who gave it an 8, while the reader reviews raved about how great it was. Multiple people gave it 10/10. I should have paid more attention to the guy who gave it a 0.5.

Ok, I have a question, explain being an athiest hindu. I don't know much about hinduism, but from my understanding its a polytheist religion. How can you be an athiest and a polytheist at the same time?

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/25/table9.html How's that. 36.3%

Why? Why wouldn't it? The people leading my country don't share the same values as the majority of its inhabitants. Thats not a good thing. Yeah, they tend to be split down the middle now that theres only one conservative party. The NDP tend to have most of their support on the BC coast, while the Bloc has dominated quebec until recently.

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either. It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How many viable politcal factions does Canada have? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Theres the Liberals, they're the moderates, the Conservatives, they're the right, and the NDP, the democratic socialists. Theres also the Bloc Quebecois, which is only in quebec, but is a major force there. They're a semi-separatist party that has many policy similarities with the NDP and Liberals, but just get votes because they don't give a crap about anything but Quebec and the rest of Canada can go **** themselves and I guess thats the mindset in Quebec.

Uh, that doesn't mean they voted left. And it's not unusual either. It is exceptionally rare for a party to have a majority fo the vote. The Liberal majorities recently haven't been much better, often receiving around 40% of the vote. In the 2004 Election, the Liberal Party received approximately 37% of the popular vote. In 2000, the Liberal Party only received 40.8% of the popular vote, and in 1997, they received 38% of the votes. Were you up in arms because of these results? What are these reasonable outcomes? And does it make sense to spend the money just because we have it? Kalfear asked specifically about theft. Your examples do not indicate anything about theft. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was saying that the electoral system needed reform and thought it was crap that a party getting 40% of the vote could have a majority government. Liberal, Conservative, NDP, I don't care. If a party gets 40% of the vote, they should get 40% of the seats. I also make the mistake of referring to parties by their social position as their whole party position. Which would make all but the Conservatives left of center in my eyes. I keep forgetting that that isn't how it actually works when I make those statements. It would be more accurate to say 63% of Canadians voted for a socially left of center party, and we're being represented by a socially right of center party on the world stage, and that bothers me. I think it makes sense to spend it. At least some of it. Paying down debt is important, but when we have a 13 billion dollar surplus, it doesn't make sense to me to make cuts to social programs, and you'd think they could afford to give the health care system a billion or two. I don't mind paying high taxes as long as I'm getting something for it. And I said they were corrupt, that doesn't necessarily mean theft. They're hypocrites. They call others corrupt for doing something and claim to be the ones to stomp out that corruption, then do it themselves.

Hence the minority. That way if their crap sucks so bad it can be blocked by the other parties. Also, with a 13 billion dollar surplus, I'm sure they could afford some of the more reasonable items. I would never want them with a majority. They do their best work when they hold the balance of power, such as right now, and back in the liberal minority. If they held power in a minority government, they could propose their social programs, and the other parties could force limits on them to make it affordable. They bitch and moan about Liberals trying to bribe other party members with cabinet positions and on the first day of the new parliament they bribe a Liberal with a cabinet position and appoint an unelected friend of the party to a cabinet position. After repeatedly complaining about the Liberals having large 6-8 billion dollar surpluses and over taxing Canadians, the first thing they do when they come into power is repeal various tax reforms for low income canadians and cut several social programs resulting in a 13 billion dollar surplus. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/ 36.27% of the vote. Meaning 63.73% of Canadians didn't vote for the ruling party.

I have a recommendation: Don't touch Children of Mana. Dear god that was an awful game. Its a shame that "This game is awful" is not a valid excuse to return a game so I ended up wasting 35 bucks.

I'd just love to see the NDP get a minority government. The Conservatives are just as corrupt as the Liberals except that they also have outdated social policies. I also think our electoral system is in desperate need of reform. 65% of canadians voted for a left leaning party in the last election, and our government was formed by the right. I'd like to see a proportional representative system.

Yes they have the right to defend themselves. It doesn't matter who they are. They could be nazi pedophile terrorists who work in the marketing department of microsoft, they still have the right to defend themselves. Should they be wiped out? Sure, but that doesn't mean they have to sit and take it.

I bet you're canadian. The canadians have always been too clingy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Most Canadians that claim to want to join the US are often ridiculed by their peers. Canadians are quite patriotic(I hate that term, it was coined to describe a group of people who hated their country), but outside of international hockey we're not as gung ho about it. Anyway, the deal with the Arar thing is, he was I believe a Syrian born Canadian citizen, he went to the US on vacation, and the US deported him to Syria where he was tortured before finally being released back to Canadian custody. The US deported him to Syria based on info from the Canadian government that pointed at him having terrorist ties. This turned out to be totally false so he blames Canada for the US being morons and deporting him to the wrong country.