Plano Skywalker

it actually makes sense. BioWare has been focusing on the console/action RPG market of late anyway. A larger company, with improved economies of scale, can crank out alot more of that than an independent company. it's all about duplicating what works and making more money.

exactly...that was the main reason we advanced to the U.N. but the politicos in the U.S. (on both sides of the aisle) pointed also to the nastiness of the regime and the need for regime change....and how this was really an ongoing war (the No Fly Zone was still in effect and coalition planes were frequently fired upon).

yeah, they would have preferred to get Clinton on a whole host of other things: Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, etc but they just couldn't connect enough dots to make it work (and, in some cases, it was actually Hillary who was more involved). So they ended up with a cheesy perjury trap.

it's really hard for an American to get a work visa for an EU country. the employer, essentially, has to prove that they looked really hard and just could not find *anyone* else in the EU who wanted to do the job. so unless you have some arcane skill that would put you in that position, it is all but impossible to make such a move and actually work in an EU country.

yeah, kinda....same thing with Arnold the Governator....if he were Speaker of the House and both the President and VP died at the same time, we would have a scenario that the Constitution does not normally allow.....a foreign-born President.

not sure about VP but he could definitely serve as a member of the House or Senate or as an executive minister of some kind. it rarely happens, but it has happened....John Quincy Adams served in the House as an ex-President.

if you are referring to Mark Warner from the great state of Virginia, I would agree that he is, by far, the Dems best chance at capturing the White House in 08. whether the centrist Warner can actually get the nomination is another matter.

only the House of Representatives can impeach someone....if impeachment passes the House, then the Senate tries the case. It takes 2/3 of Senators to "convict" the one impeached. Should such a conviction occur, the one who was impeached is immediately removed from office. even though we normally think of a President being impeached, the fact is that any member of the federal executive or judical branch can be impeached. the stunt that Harry Reid pulled is nothing more than making a case to the American people that the Democrats are no where near ready for prime time. by suggesting that the war was fought under false pretenses, Reid is, ironically, suggesting that Hillary Clinton should not be president....Hillary has been one of the most hawkish, pro-war politicans and had access to the same intelligence as Bush.

don't get me wrong....the story is not *as* good as in games like the KOTORs but the main story is interesting enough and the side quests and class-specific quests are well done. and this game is only the first chapter....everyone is a human in this chapter of GW. chances are there will be non-human PCs in future chapters....also, there is the lack of roguish PCs....I suspect they will make it into future chapters.

the Force as the storyline? gee, that sounds familiar. indeed, it is the shortcut device from hell. we may see it in K3 in order to wrap up what we are in now. however, going forward, that will not do.

I agree that the games would be much better if you did not HAVE to be a jedi. However, as long as they call it "Knights of the Old Republic" I think the primary protagonist and primary antagonist will be lightsaber-wielding Force users. So then, the question is whether we can play as someone other than the primary protagonist. That is one avenue that I think has been woefully underexplored in the cRPG and I really wouldn't mind that being explored in these games. But the ability to choose to play a Jedi is pretty much a must, I think.

the preliminary answer is "yes"....as long as he doesn't trip up in the hearings. however, he is a solid conservative. one of the main problems with nominees of late is that the Democrats (the minority party) cannot block the nominees with a straight up or down vote and so they torpedoed recent judicial nominees by threatening to "fillibuster" the nomination by using the Senate rules of unlimited debate. the so-called "nuclear option" that has been talked about is for the majority to change the rules of the Senate so that unlimited debate only applies for legislation, not nominees. the real question is whether the Dems will invoke the fillibuster and, if they do, whether the majority will change the rules of the Senate in this regard.

One of the points that the FAQ on that site makes is that most larger countries with democratic elections have a bicameral system. The FAQ points out that the British Prime Minister's Office amounts to an elected dictatorship. But, then again, such a system allows one to "get things done". The American system is not as streamlined but, perhaps, a little more transparent.

speaking of Lord's Reform (yeah, I know, this thread has been hijacked) this is a really good link: http://www.electthelords.org.uk/ if these guys are right, it looks like some elected element in Lords will become a reality this term. the real fight will be over how much muscle to give this more "legitimate" body.

if anyone is looking for an MMORPG that is story-focused and that you can pretty much play solo (with AI-controlled hechmen) if you want, then Guild Wars is probably what you are looking at.

I wouldn't have minded Daschle as much if he were a senator from Taxachussettes or some such place. But it was just such a disconnect for someone like him to be from a state like SD. And, indeed, the disconnect ultimately cost him. I thought a conservative was a liberal who has been mugged. "

As far as I can recall, the issues of slavery and/or the 3/5 compromise were not in play between Tom Daschle and John Thune. Nice red herring though.

pretty much....though there are some "battleground states" in which Senate seats are usually in play. But if you are a Republican senator from Utah, for instance, you would actually be more vulnerable from a primary challenge than in a general election.... term limits were not built into the U.S. constitution but they could be built in to a newly-written one if that sort of thing were an issue.

we may find out as early as Monday who the nominee is. the talking heads are pretty much convinced it will be a well-respected Federal Appeals Court judge with a clear judicial philosophy. the list is said to be down to about 2 names.

Tom Daschle was an absolute disgrace. Coming from a state that was redder than Jupiter and blasting everything that those folk stood for. Using his power as party leader in the Senate to buy votes with pork. They got fed up and they gave Tom what was long overdue.

so what? why can't a country that is geographically the size of Western Europe have that kind of diversity? there are many who think way too much policy has been hijacked by the feds, especially by the Supreme Court. the Court should show more respect for our Federal system than they recently have. I don't want a "conservative" activist anymore than a liberal activist. I want a textualist in the tradition of Antonin Scalia. And that is what Bush has promised to appoint. Textualism, in the case of U.S. constitutional law, is really all about devolution and states' rights.

Well, in the U.S., the Senators serve for fixed 6-year terms. That provides a certain amount of insulation from the whim of the moment. So would 8-year or 10-year terms. I believe the Tories are officially on record as being for a Second Chamber that is 80% elected, 20% appointed (presumably bishops and other life peers). I think the main thing is to have the Second Chamber's terms be of a fixed duration and straddled so that the goverment cannot call an "all or nothing" kind of election and coattail in a bunch of cronies on the whim of the moment. Longer terms and an election cycle that is out of sync with the lower house.

I remember The Economist's reaction to the Law Lords ruling in the Pinochet extradition case. They essentially said "what are these hippies smoking?" I think the Law Lords are very much out of touch and too concerned about pleasing the U.N., the E.U. and other supranational bodies. Truely, there should be a certain amount of insulation from the ebb and flow of partisan politics. But I think the case could be made that the Law Lords are a little too insulated. With regard to legislation, what is the purpose of having a lower house? To serve as the primary vehicle of public policy. What is the purpose of having an upper house? To block the will of the people when the people are wrong. That's right...representative, constitutional government is not the same as democracy. Democracy is a protection racket in a coat and tie. Constitutional government is based on the rule of law with democratic elements being used as accountability. There is a big difference between the two. Ultimately, this is not my fight as I do not reside in Britain. But I have done a more than casual research into the subject. The underpinning "problem" here is that the British constitution is really an oral one rather than a written one. It is a hodgepodge of medieval documents, statutes, Anglican doctrines, court rulings, treaties and the like. Some like it that way but, apparently, many of Blair's constituents would like a more concrete, written constitution (one that obviously would incorporate many of the same things as the oral constitution). However, I think the main thing that scares people about a written constitution is what it might do to the Monarchy....a whole other can of worms. =============================== this article is a bit outdated but it highlights the power of Lords over legislation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in...s/rebellion.stm Bills Killed by Lords (in its legislative capacity): Conservative Govt 1992-93: 19 1993-94: 16 1994-95: 7 1995-96: 10 1996-97: 10 Labour Govt 1997-98: 39 1998-99: 31 1999-2000: 36 2000-01: 2 2001-02: 11 Figures correct as of 14.12.2001

well, that is part of the problem: it is not a fish nor is it a foul...it is something in between. truely, it is the Law Lords that have the most power in that they are the highest court of appeal. with regard to legislation, it is true that Lords can only delay legislation. however, the Parliament Act is rarely invoked (even by leftist governments) so, in practice, these unelected officials do have the ability to block most of what they don't like.

I must say that I see Blair's motivations as suspect but I like the overall idea of either making the Second Chamber more relevant or making it little more than a standing advisory committee. What cannot stand is the mess it is now...a hodgepodge of hereditary privilege and lifetime patronage with the ultimate power over the judiciary. It seems the main problem with making it more relevant, accountable, etc is that the Second Chamber would then have "too much legitimacy" to not give it a more prominent role in legislation and/or a judicial confirmation process. The British system is now only nominally bicameral. A more "legitimate" Second Chamber would, essentially, turn the British system into more of a "true" bicameral system. It would be a radical change. I personally think Britain could use an elected (yet somewhat detached) Second Chamber that could block any non-financial bill. Just think, you guys wouldn't have had that horrid anti-fox hunting bill if you had a bicameral system.