Humodour

Just remember: McCain lost the election because he wasn't right-wing enough. Palin 2012!

In light of countless years of having to put up with these kind of posts from you, Volourn, I now petition the powers that be to hire xkcd to install a version of the YouTube virus but for the forums:

Well, it's a short game, but I wouldn't necessarily call it shallow. It is continually introducing new concepts and building on them, so it rarely feels like you're solving the same puzzle over and over again. And the art and music is top-notch. There's a free demo. If you enjoy it, the rest of the game is well worth the $20. OK, you guys (plus the wikipedia entry) have sold it. I'll try and find it in a store some time.

Actually, I'm very inclined to agree with Josh Sawyer's assessment of primary politics. Which is to say: you're clueless.

I don't live in America, but have European blood in me, so I'll answer: I think such people are very uninformed if they feel that progressive taxes or universal healthcare are socialism. If anything, dear old President Bush has made more steps towards socialism than any Democrat President I've heard of. I doubt such people have a clue what the terms 'proletariat' or 'means of production' mean. There are certain things people over here will not stand for, and those are: significantly weakening social welfare, significantly weakening healthcare, significantly weakening unions. John Howard tried the last one and he was promptly ejected from office. A reality check for those hardcore Republicans/Libertarians reading this post: Obama is not a leftie. He's centre-right on both social and economic issues. Perhaps you Republicans only see Obama as a leftie because you are so very far to the right.

We get to kill neo-conservatives? I'm totally buying this game.

You've made 3 different accounts now for the sole purpose of advertising that site. Why? Spam site promotion, surely? Maybe. On a quick glance, though, it looks like a genuine UFO fansite. I guess he thought we looked like a gullible lot.

Giving KKK a measure of legitimacy is never a good thing.

Don't be a tool. He's not a celebrity, he's a great author. We are sad because a human life is lost, but it is noteworthy because he can no longer give his intellectual gifts to the world.

I know there's unlimited ammo, and I don't care. Let's not get into that here. But will there at least be reloading? If I empty my clip into a grunt, will I the pleasure of reloading? What about recoil?

Awesome. Wait, 'allowing'? So is it just to make us feel fuzzy for not 'killing' pixels, or are there actual in-game rewards/consequences/repercussions (at least to the level DX had)?

Awesome.

I heard about this. I'd like to play it one day. It's seems pretty shallow, though... like Tetris.

FO1 and FO2 were good games.

You've made 3 different accounts now for the sole purpose of advertising that site. Why?

Nah, he is just getting ready for the next election. PALIN 2012!

You make over $200,000 a year? Really? Oh I guarantee that bar will be a LOT lower when the time comes. You can probably stop with the propaganda now; the election is over.

Man... Asimov, Pratchett, now Crichton.

So if you didn't vote for Obama because you didn't want him assassinated, you are a scumbag? No you're just an idiot. *badum tchh* I take it you have the same program in Australia? Heh, probably. I saw it on DVD in a friend's dorm room, though.

So if you didn't vote for Obama because you didn't want him assassinated, you are a scumbag? Gotta love people who see in black and white.

I certainly wouldn't deny someone the right to marry because someone gloated over the issue. However, I did find Newsome's response irritating. The point I was making about Newsome's public tirade wasn't that I used it as a reason to vote for the measure. I cited it because it was the sort of over the top response that led people to think that striking down prop 22 was just the tip of the iceberg. Folks around here can heap scorn on the slippery slope argument, but they should at least concede that Gavin Newsome is the picture perfect example of why that argument exists. Now, some folks might wonder, how could someone vote against prop 22 and then vote for prop 8. I've explained this before, but I'm actually tempted to create my own thread. Prop 22 was a ballot initiative. I hate ballot initiatives. I vote against them the vast majority of the time. Perhaps the vast vast majority of the time. I think they are expensive boondoggles and the very apperatus the state uses to allow, explain, and put them on the ballot costs money. As J.E. said, the ballot initiative system costs money that the state can ill afford. We hear about state budgets and we think that anything less than a few billion is small time money. Not true. However, we have the ballot initiative. It's the law of the land. ...And, while it was loathsome, it passed by over 60% of the vote. That wasn't just enough to pass California's ridiculous ballot initiative system. Excess of 60% passes in a number of other states as well. It didn't just win. Prop 22 won resoundingly. That's where I am. If the proposition passes with a clear enough majority to have changed the state constitution, then I think the Supreme Court of California should use a higher standard in striking down the law. I'm sure a cool and articulate voice like Enoch can explain why this is a bad idea. I will respectfully disagree in advance and adress any such arguments as they occur. The grounds the Supreme Court used to strike down the law were insuficient in my mind. It was a proper law that the people put in place and the Supreme Court wrongfully removed. Once the people spoke, and with such a disproportionate voice, the Supreme Court should have heeded. Yes, it is a step back for Homosexual rights. However, equating homosexuality to slavery and the plight of colored Americans is insulting to the civil rights cause. It's not that I think homosexual don't deserve such rights. It's that the wrongs inflicted on the homosexual community simply pale compared to the sufferings of black Americans. Not only that, but society always gets the final say. They did this time as well. We've come to see the SCOTUS as the final guarantor of our rights. Howver, being humans, the members of the Supreme Court are no more infallible than any other group. Not only that, but the Supreme Court has been an imperfect guardian at any rate. They have not always stood for the rights of the minority. Nor have they always been successful in preserving minority rights when reviewing the law. The Supreme Court is a vital part of our democracy, and I respect it. Nevertheless, it must be watched just as diligently as either of the other branches. We cannot, because it has become en vogue over the past several decades, put all of our faith in the Supreme Court because it can, as can the other branches, abuse its authority. Anything I've said about the SCOTUS applies even more rigidly to the state Supreme Courts generally and to the California Supreme Court specifically. Before folks go hog wild responding to this post, keep in mind that I'm not the only person who believes the state Supreme Court was wrong. The decision to overturn prop 22 was 4-3. That means the court was closely divided as well. Just because you, or I, or members of the Supreme Court believe that prop 22 was wrong does not mean that there are sufficient grounds to overturn the law. I'm glad that prop 8 passed. Because when homosexuals in California get the right to marry, and they will get the right to marry, it will be because the people have come around to that view. As much as folks might hate me for my vote, the long term outcome of the voters finally deciding to do the right thing will be so much better than the Supreme Court deciding to impose its will by fiat. Now, the war has been fought and lost in regards to the SCOTUS running the show. I generally trust the US Supreme Court and I think it is by and large more restrained. For that reason, although it is not perfect, their decisions do not raise my blood quite so much. ...And we could avoid this issue if we simply ammended the CA state constitution to reform initiatives and to make further ammendments more difficult to secure. Once again, however, don't blame conservatives for the terrible state of the constitution. Progressives were the ones who ushered in these reforms a long time agao and they have not served us well. As far as the DC firearms issue... As long as I've been lurker here, and more recently posting, I've always thought you were fair, Enoch. I just have to wonder why you would quote Obama's reaction to the Supreme Court decision, which is admittedly moderate, while not citing his previous comments in support of the DC ban in the first place. I have a hard time believing you didn't know about his previous support of the DC ban on the grounds that it was constitutionally fit. As for myself, I am not a fan of firearms. I have used them rarely in my life and have no great love for them now. I have not owned a personal firearm for years. I would oppose any law I thought of as excessive in restricting firearms, but I doubt I could articulate, without resorting to gross exagerations, what would be excessive without seeing the law first. EDIT: Clearly I meant to say "marry" rather than "vote" in the first sentence. As for other minor errors, I'm too lazy to look for them. Man, what the hell? I was totally waiting for I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror. If anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought man forget it yo homes to Bel-Air.

Well luckily I didn't make that claim. Nor did I claim otherwise there. I am arguing against the claim that blacks only supported Obama because he was black. That is false; they supported him because he was a Democrat. Black Republicans don't do anywhere near as well. Blacks didn't vote for Obama in the primaries until he won Iowa (I believe they mostly supported Hillary). Why? Because Iowa proved white people would vote for Obama. That kind of discredits your theory. The 6% who voted for Obama mostly cited historic reasons, not superiority issues, so I think calling them "scumbags" is a bit rich. Likewise, some said they wouldn't vote for Obama because they feared he would be assassinated. And yet others simply didn't feel comfortable with a black man as president - they didn't hate blacks. Calling even those people scumbags is a bit ludicrous.

This forum needs to implement 'edit periods' where we can edit our post up to 2 or 5 minutes after posting without the stupid edited message coming up. But tha man is keeping us down, because they (the mods) don't get the post edited message. Rar. ****ing typos and whatnot.

You make over $200,000 a year? Really?

Yeah, that's the nature of American "catch-all" parties. In other democracies, people often vote for single-issue parties, with the expectation that its members will compromise with other parties in order to achieve their goals on their one big issue. In America, we force the voters to do the compromising, which probably produces stabler political systems but also leads to more voter disaffection and cynicism. Are there any plans to move to a proper proportional representation system? Or at least preferential voting or something?