kumquatq3

Fixed <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ZING!

I agree. We are talking about Microsofts IE case and EA

....your dead to me now

I can find lots of people who disagree

I vote eldar!!!

I always wanted to pick this up, but bad controls drive me batty. Exactly why I can't finish Grim Fadango

The laws are there. They, according to the judges, broke them Customers do want them. They don't want JUST them. Then they are insults, but insults can be facts Me? I think you are mixing me up with someone else The only joy I got from that was that the underdog responded to EAs "End Game" tough guy tactics, which came about due to Take Two putting out a rival product at cheaper prices. Both are HORRIBLE of the consumer and I would squash both if I could.

I agree, their not a monopoly, but they still suck the creativity out of things and pump out subpar games. They also go about their buisness in a way that isn't a positive for the consumer (NFL rights). and the goverment "breaks up" a monopoly. Not rob them. Every example of this I can think of has been a positive in the long run for the consumer. MS having to make the IE browser less than mandatory may very well have kept the door open for things like Firefox

does chess count?

The Faders - No sleep tonight damn phone commercials with their catchy songs I can't get out of my head

Because I'll figure out what the sufficent level of cowbell for a avatar is....and TRIPLE it!

Axis & Allies and Risk 2010 mainly. Not above Stratego or Monopoly.

Only the overt military operation is (sometimes!) frowned upon, and only if the government mismanages the spread of information so that the media gets a whiff. The US is very much in the business of conquering other nations through its economic dominance and puppet government policies. Don't believe me? Think about who's really in charge in the US. Why does the US pursue an aggressive foreign policy at all, and why does it push for democracy in certain countries but not others? What are the benefits of fighting a war in Iraq? Clearly it's not so that we can make the world a better place, but it's also not just for the sake of "oil" or of "getting revenge". Who put Saddam in charge, who expected him to become a lapdog of the US, and who miscalculated that and must now go back once again to depose the rebellious general? Others have more eloquently outlined the imperialism of the US, but it's not until we juxtapose it with that of a far more overt power player, in this case China, that we understand the differences of policies and why the US does what it does. Simply put, it's a matter of national image. China will need to work very hard to dispel its oppressive system image in the eyes of nations, but the US can simply be let off by the excuse of a dumb president catering to conservative values. When the next election rolls around and the US happens upon a "better" candidate, all will be forgotten and forgiven. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Meaning you frown apon it..................POINT PROVEN

or prince of persia

Yea....thats kinda of frowned apon nowadays.

HK's last British governor was appointed by the Queen. Ruled till 1997. Very unpopular in HK I might add. The current governor, however, was voted in by the HK people. (Not that popular either these days.) The first direct presidential elections were in 1996, yes. But since 1946 Taiwan has been becoming more and more democratic (and doing alot of this by freeign up those things that help democracmy: Freedom of the press, etc) They also fear what happens when they start flying the flags. China could be upset down the line if the see the idea of democracy spreading to the mainland. What of the press freedoms they currently enjoy. Alot of "what if's" I think he specifically supports the "status quo". I HIGHLY doubt he said he supports the "'one-China-policy". Could be wrong, but would be shocked. They didn't want to endanger the "transfer of power" from the British. That, and America. And that "peaceful approach" is about as peaceful as Taiwan offered China. So you can't say they didn't try.

Just to be clear:

Your correct, I should have been clear, but I want to point out: "One DEMOCRATIC China", menaing unless China becomes a democracy, they won't join. Hence the "status quo", but status quo means there are thousands apon thousands of missles pointed at them. The people want democracy, via the status quo or via changes in the mainland or independece. Why do they have a strong military tho? .......got it? Yep, it's American arms. America (via trade and other routes) has done more than a little bit to help them as well. Doesn't mean we own them. They have had democracy for what, 20+ years? It's obvious they want to keep it. Whatever their past.

LINK

Taiwan already has all those things that you have listed, minus the flags. And no one has to "grant" it to them. None of that is the issue tho. The issue is independence, which the election of Chen Shui-bian indicates, is the popular stance in Taiwan. Lets face facts, do you think that China would have not invaded yet if it wasn't for the US military?

dum dumdumdum dum dumdum dummmmm

Did not. Good find. they may be taking this "numbers" thing too far

EA is where good series (minus sports) go to die

thats riiiiiidiculous. I assume the player is the smaller black smear in the foreground and not the big black smears in the back.

The game was rigged. Rigged I tell's ya. We'll see you in the Super Bowl I'm 8 for 13 (three of my loses were by 3 points or less, damn you Miami) all I need now is a Denver upset