Humodour

After the election, 75% of Americans support Obama's presidency: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMUMOO...XXvcp5SVyFO7xXg Meanwhile, Rasmussen shows 70% of Republicans think Sarah Palin was a good choice and would make a good president. God help us. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...n_helped_mccain Edit: Oh, and Obama ended up splitting Nebraska's electoral votes, winning the Omaha district. For a pretty much final total of 365 electoral votes.

I'd pronounce it 'reh-kill'/'wreck-ill', like Jekyll in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Or perhaps I'd pronounce it 'ree-kill' like 'regal'. Actually yeah, 'ree-kill' (a short ee sound) sounds more appropriate. I've never seen or heard such a name before, though. But hey, it depends on your target audience. Australian English has about 27 vowels while the average American dialect only has 9 to 12 vowells.

The thing is, the Republicans can't keep campaigning on a theme of neoconservatism (war, war, WAR!!!) or social authoritarianism (gay is a sin durrh). If the Republicans want to re-invent themselves to be remotely successful in era of globalisation and immigration, they're going to have to start campaigning on a platform social centrism and social welfare made efficient by the free market. The trouble is, unlike most other countries (where the other party is actually centre-left), the Democrats already occupy that centre-right or 'Third Way' niche. Which leaves the GOP in a particular bind, since it can only campaign on issues of ideological fundamentalism (which doesn't work too well, though I'm sure you'll disagree). Getting rid of moderate Republicans is absolutely ludicrous. You can't get rid of people like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, or Susan Collins and then expect to suddenly win those heavily Democratic seats (Maine and Pennsylvania) with far-right conservatives. The only reason those seats are Republican in the first place is precisely because those Senators are moderates.

lol. The GOP's plans to get out of the massive hole they've dug themselves involve purging moderate Republicans in an era where youth are increasingly centrist, and heavily Democrat-leaning minorities (Hispanics, Asians, and African-Americans) continue to outpace whites in terms of population growth. These guys are amazing. I truly look forward to seeing what the GOP has to 'offer' in 2012.

Man, you guys get worked up about this.

Cheers guys! Keep it coming. Also, mention any old FPS's as well if you could. Like Heretic 2, NOLF1, Giants: Citizen Kabuto, Descent 3. Why? Because I need some games that run on Ubuntu through WINE, and old games are more likely to run.

According to the GOP leaders, McCain was too moderate, and he lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Anybody else see a problem with that idea?

It's a tough dilemma. You need to raise taxes to solve the debt problem, but you need to cut taxes because you're in a recession. I think Obama's 95% plan is actually one of the best (not perfect) solutions. In other news, Fox News (of all people) tears Sarah Palin apart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc

I've heard others describe it as you have, but overall I'd say Starwars's assessment is the most prevalent one (of people who have actually played the game). It pushes it to the bottom of my "games to buy list", which is meaningful when there are plenty of super important games on that list already, such as STALKER and MotB. If I have an inbuilt disposition towards not spending money on games I'm not sure I'll appreciate, sue me.

Florida is hardly evidence of "too much momentum" since all the other state elections before that had mixed results, and it seems to give far too much credit to the power of one state to influence the dozens of others involved in Super Tuesday: just look at polling in the Super Tuesday states before the Florida election result to see what I mean (the states McCain was winning, he won; the states he was losing, he lost). McCain won because he was the most moderate GOP member. It's not because of the winner-takes-all system (which one might expect to give a result more in line with what you claim; plurality voting is polarising) but because the states with the highest number of delegates were the more Democratic states which had a fondness for McCain as a 'maverick' and somewhat moderate Republican. But that's a phenomenon rooted into the Primary Elections (both Democrat and Republican) and is not unique to McCain. You'd possibly have an easier time arguing that the Democratic primaries were polarising because of the existence of superdelegates, but even then I think that's largely offset by the fact that it's proportional representation instead of winner-takes-all. Edit: Bloody typos.

Thing is, the game is an excellent improvement upon Bethesdas Elder Scrolls series, not on the Fallouts. As a stand-alone game I'm liking it more than I thought I would but as a Fallout sequel I think it's pretty bad, with many older plot elements/factions forced into this game to try and tie them together (which was pretty much what I expected before the game came out as well). I would never blindly recommend it to someone wanting a similar experience to Fallout 1 or 2, which I think is a shame considering it's a sequel. But I would heartily recommend it to someone wanting a good Post-Apocalyptic Elder Scrolls-ish experience. Cheers, that's basically the information I was looking for.

Somebody is stupid alright, but I'm not sure it's the rest of your country in this case. Being 'black' is as much a culture as it is a skin colour, because biracial people suffered and suffer the same injustices, racism, and segregation as 'pureblood' black people. And for the record, mulattos are definitely considered 'black' by that culture.

Yeah, I'm sure you have an intricate understanding of American politics from Australia. Well, your understanding of socialism is confused and you misunderstand the way in which the Primary Elections are demographically unbalanced (they are, but because of state sizes and scheduling issues, not "radical activists"). For instance, your claim that McCain won because Romney and Huckabee split the extremist demographic is false. McCain won 32 states and 47% of the popular vote. Huckabee and Romney combined won only 19 states and 42% of the popular vote. McCain won about 1,300 delegates while Mitt and Mike combined won only about 550 delegates. That's because Romney withdrew once it became obvious the he couldn't win. You obviously don't understand how American primaries work, once a candidate wins a few early states his momentum becomes insurmountable. Had Hillary not won New Hampshire, she would be finished right there. Please don't argue about things you know nothing about. Errr. No. Please have a look at the Super Tuesday results (Romney withdrew after that). It's quite clear that McCain's momentum was independent of Romney and Huckabee stealing eachother's voter demographic (even taking into consideration the silly winner-takes-all system the GOP uses, it's evident McCain was comfortably ahead since he often won majority pluralities).

****, wrong forum.

So I've sort of been out of touch with gaming for a good few years now (since about 2004). I think I've mostly kept up to date on the latest RPGs, but the rest not so much. Please list all the half-decent FPS's you've played in the last 5-8 years, including the year they were released. I'm especially interested in games released in the 2001 to 2006 period. 2001: Red Faction Return to Castle Wolfenstein Aliens Versus Predator 2 Max Payne 1 Halo 1 2002: Jedi Knight 2 No One Lives Forever 2 2003: Jedi Academy Max Payne 2 2004: Bloodlines Half-Life 2 Halo 2 2005: Quake 4 2006: Half-Life 2: Episode 1 2007: Half-Life 2: Episode 2 What did I miss?

Yeah, I'm sure you have an intricate understanding of American politics from Australia. Well, your understanding of socialism is confused and you misunderstand the way in which the Primary Elections are demographically unbalanced (they are, but because of state sizes and scheduling issues, not "radical activists"). For instance, your claim that McCain won because Romney and Huckabee split the extremist demographic is false. McCain won 32 states and 47% of the popular vote. Huckabee and Romney combined won only 19 states and 42% of the popular vote. McCain won about 1,300 delegates while Mitt and Mike combined won only about 550 delegates. Lieberman wasn't a Republican, but was McCain's first choice for VP. He would've done better with Democrats and independents (but probably still lost: low base enthusiasm -> low base turnout).

lol thread

Yeah I thought that sounded wrong since I only remember getting off two targeted shots per round in Reno.

Play Deus Ex and No One Lives Forever and then tell me you can't stand the spy genre.

By level 9 you have: Critical chance: 33% (8 luck, Haymaker, Finesse) Better Criticals perk 3 AP targeted shots (Bonus HTH Attacks perk) High accuracy eye shots (because there's no range penalty unlike with guns) So you're doing 3 eye attacks per round to stationary targets. Each eye attack you do has a high probability of: blinding them, knocking them out, making them lose a turn, instant death, double/triple/quadruple damage. Not to mention that eye attacks have an even higher critical chance, so it's actually more than a 33% chance of critical (probably about 50% or 60%). I know that when I went to Reno at about level 9 and fought in the boxing ring, half the guys died instantly, and the other half fell over defenceless and blinded. It was a treasured moment, especially since my endurance was 4 and my strength was 5. Add in some Bonus Move perks (and Action Boy for laughs) and you're good to go. Slayer, on the other hand, is like level 24 or something.

I played Fallout 2 first, so it holds a special place. But in terms of atmosphere, storyline, and uniqueness, Fallout 1 is the definite winner. Trivia: Melee in Fallout 2 (and 1?) is amazingly easy, because eye hots have a high probability of instant kills, and groin shots have a high probability of knocking them flat. So all you gotta do is get close enough without being pumped full of holes.

*shrug* I've heard plenty of conflicting information on that point. I'm inclined to side with the hardcore Fallout fanboys not because I particularly like their fundamentalism, but because I share a similar 'reverence' for the original Fallout universe. It's not that. Some of my favourite RPGs are shooters. I disagree with the move to 3D in Fallout's particular case (because you lose the turn-based aspect), but it's a minor gripe. Unless you're saying that the game is a shooter more than an RPG. That would be cause for me to worry. Bad sequels pervert the atmosphere and feel of the original that you've got stored away in your head. It's similar to how after you watch a movie of a book (good or bad), whenever you read those books from then on, you think of the characters the way the movie portrayed them instead of your original abstractions (Harry Potter comes to mind). Which devs? MCA and co? Micro Fort

I am personally loathe to touch Fallout 3. There are plenty of good games out there for me to try, if that's all Fallout 3 is... but it's not worthy perverting my memories of the Fallout universe to do so. I've got Fallout: Tactics for that.

You're a traitor to your own party. It's people like you that are tearing this country apart; pandering to the liberal media elites. Vote for the Palin-Romney ticket in 2012!