SixTwoSixFour

I just straight up don't believe that they made it separately- it's far too major, plot wise, to have not been part of the original process. And while Zaeed and Kasumi were quite skippable, this is a goddamn Prothean. The entire series is about the Protheans. This is NOT a minor character, at least in significance.

Hopefully, the publishers will get on it and drop those PSP game prices, but I won't hold my breath.

We should be happy? Son, you crazy. They are taking very major, very plot important content, cutting it out of the game, and now we should be thanking them because they are, by grace and goodwill, letting us pay ten dollars for content that should have been included in the sixty dollar game to begin with? Fuck these guys. I'm not picking ME3 up until it's at least 30 dollars. They can blow me.

An oversimplistic pile of shit and you know it. Entitlements (which I hope to god are not just liberal entitlements, unless you honestly don't believe in taking care of our veterans or people who have chronic, potentially lethal illness) are indeed costing us money. So are conservative tax cuts, the large military budgets you love so much, and military action overseas. And when most of that debt was created by George W Bush, I have very little patience for your unfounded criticism. I didn't. I called our health abysmal. You know, obesity rates, diabetes, things like that. Quite different. I don't really feel like arguing global warming, because that just ends up with us calling each other stupid, but don't be ridiculous here. Even IF global warming is not true, the worth of green energy is obvious- it's renewable. You know the oil you love so much? That's a limited resource. It's gonna run out. And if we don't know how to do effective green energy by then, we're completely fucked. I'm also not a big fan of our current gas prices anyway. All of these issues are much more complex than you make them out to be, and on the budget one your answer is actually flat wrong. So hey.

Our nation is massively in debt. Our Congress is pathetically ineffectual at getting the job done. Our government run programs are horribly inefficient. Our data infrastructure is years behind the rest of the developed world. Our health, as a nation, is abysmal. Our class divide keeps growing (I'm sure you'll contest that one despite the facts), and much of the business that was once ours has disappeared overseas. I don't know what the greatest nation on Earth is, but it sure as shit isn't America. And if it was, that would only be because every other nation is so fucked up that we win by default. We have a LOT of work to do, and we're not doing it. Principles and values need to change with the times. While once upon a time, cultures ran on "an eye for an eye", we now have far more forgiving justice systems, because our society's values have changed. The world never stops turning. Technology and science advance, and that doesn't just make life easier, it changes things. It changes how we act, how we think. The word "stale" comes to kind, because that's what we live in- a stale, stagnated nation. Let's get rolling again. Whether by changing things in ways that I approve of (to the left, mostly) or in ways you do (to the right), all I know is we can't sit still. We can't keep things going the way we are. Trillions of dollars of debt, and what do we have to show for it? We can't keep doing this.

Who gives a crap what their ideals were? They were great guys for their time. Their time was a LONG time ago. Society has evolved, our values have evolved, they do not represent us anymore. You'll note that we changed our minds on the whole slavery thing, for one. What the founding fathers would think should not be germane to modern politics, because life is progress, and you can't progress if you're falling back on ideas more than two hundred years old. Don't do what the founding fathers would have wanted. They lived their lives, and then they died. They don't get to decide policy anymore. They are six feet under. Act on what works TODAY, act on the best ideas of TODAY, quietly respect the founding fathers, and leave it at that. I don't know how an entire nation finds this concept so difficult.

I've got the wifi model and a 16 gig card, thanks to the charity of this forum. I've got Lumines and Hot Shots Golf. My PSN id is just to the left of this post, so feel free to add me.

Well, at least we're not bitter.

Yeah, pretty much.

Quote: “One of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Ohio Saturday. “Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.” Schieffer asked:”You sound like you’re saying the purpose of prenatal care is to cause people to have abortions…I think any number of people would say that’s not the purpose at all.” “The bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortion,” Santorum said. I'm also kind of irritated that a man as hateful as him would accuse our president of killing babies to save money. That's slander, as far as I'm concerned.

What do you get when you mix Rick Santorum and logic? It's a trick question, they're incompatible.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/18/10444238-santorum-says-obama-looks-down-on-disabled-encouraging-more-abortions Santorum says that the only reason to get prenatal testing is to get an abortion, and he thinks abortion is morally wrong, therefore he things prenatal testing is morally wrong.

First off, I appreciate the effort at clarification. I feel like I understand somewhat better where you stand now. However, I do have a few comments. The "clothes of two fibers" thing... I mean, okay, I can agree that it's probably symbolic. Does that matter? As long as people are being killed for the clothes they wear (probably they aren't anymore, but I'm sure it happened back then), does it matter if it was meant symbolically? Whether by symbol or implement, the dead are still dead. They don't much care if it was supposed to be symbolic. Did you mean metaphoric? That it's not supposed to actually have anything to do with clothes at all? I think that part of it is that you are responsible for what you write. There are people out there who will interpret anything how they want to interpret it. The man who killed John Lennon did so because he decided that Catcher in the Rye was telling him to. That's bullshit. That's his mind taking that book, and turning it into what he wanted it to be. That, or his perception was so screwed up that there was just no accounting for it. The Bible is different. The Bible says things like "stone anyone who works on the Sabbath"- and even if it doesn't really mean "stone people", the way it is written is careless, irresponsible writing that could easily be taken literally by those less inquisitive, and then acted upon. When you write something like that, when you write a law that says you have to kill people for failing in some very minor, arbitrary act, the onus is on you to make it clear whether or not it is metaphorical. If there is a debate about it, let alone a centuries-old debate, you have failed, and the blood is at least partially on your hands.

You called yourself a Bible literalist. That means you take the Bible literally. That means that you accept everything in the Bible as being literally true, not a metaphor. That is what the word MEANS. So how can you expect us to understand and appreciate what you believe when you can't even be consistent? You call yourself a literalist, then you talk about how some sections are clearly metaphor. If you are a literalist, if you are truly what you claim to be, then Duke's comments all hold water. Then you should believe that homosexuality is an abomination, that working on the Sabbath is cause for execution, that touching the skin of a pig makes you unclean, etc. This, I think, is the core problem- your lack of consistency. Most of us are going with the idea that you're a literalist, because you said that pretty out-and-out. But a lot of your statements contradict that, and we don't understand what you really believe. It seems to you like we're attacking a position you don't have because you've portrayed yourself as having NUMEROUS different positions. We are attacking one of them, we don't know which one is the real you.

The name is French. Sorry, thought you meant the university itself.

There actually isn't a Notre Dame University in France, Dean. There's Notre Dame de Paris, a cathedral in Paris, but no university. Notre Dame du Lac is an American university, in Notre Dame, Indiana. There are also smaller Notre Dame universities in Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Haiti, Japan, Lebanon, and the Phillipines... just not France.

Protip: "Straw man" doesn't mean "any argument that proves me wrong in any way."

Yeah... you're just flat wrong, sorry. It's French. He pronounces it right.

Personally, I hope there's no "sunshine and lollypops" ending at all. You're fighting an army of thousands of gigantic battleships and their minions that, only three (in-game) years ago, it took the combined might of the Council and Human fleets to take down ONE. And that was with HEAVY LOSSES. So if you can drive off the Reapers without losing any planets, I will be deeply deeply annoyed. This should be a COSTLY battle. People should die, planets should be ravaged, civilizations should never be the same. I'm doing an ME2 playthrough right now on PS3, and I'm seriously considering intentionally having people die during the suicide mission... because to me, it seems pretty dumb to have everyone survive, as I did on my first playthrough. It robs the story of drama, and it just doesn't make sense- in fights like this, people die. That's just how it is, no one is immortal. Besides, I heard that if you lost a lot of people in ME2, in ME3, that affects Shepard's confidence, and how she behaves, and that sounds incredible to me.

Personally, I kind of agree. I don't think that of all religions, Christianity is best suited for controlling people... but that's partially because people don't like being controlled, and tend to rebel against it. Christianity is a religion designed around self-propagation. Spreading itself around, converting as many people as it can. All religions that I know of have it as a goal, but I don't know of any that are so effectively designed to ease the spread of the faith. If Christianity was very controlling, that would slow its spread. Certainly, back when it was all Judaism, it was a pretty strict religion. But it didn't really take off. It did okay. It stayed alive within the community of Israelites and their descendants, but it didn't spread too much further. Christianity was a far more aggressive religion, an evolution of the Jewish faith into something easier to get into, easier to spread. Currently, the leading Republican candidate for POTUS is a Mormon. It remains to be seen if he'll be elected, I personally think he'll lose, but he's certainly doing pretty well.

It's not a matter of want, Johnny. This isn't a state law that can be changed at whim. This is the Bill of Rights. I won't say it's ironclad, there ARE ways to change it, but it's been twenty years since our last Amendment, and only ONE Amendment has ever been modified- the Eighteenth Amendment, Prohibition, which was repealed by the passing of the Twenty-First Amendment. Do I agree that religion should not trump law? Yes. Doesn't really matter, though, because that's what the First Amendment says, and changing an Amendment is very nearly impossible.

In the real world, I would agree, but video games are so predictable, you know? Acts of mercy ALWAYS pay off in games. It's just Gamer Sense.

You get to choose whether you killed or saved Wrex in the PS3 version, as part of that comic. Since it's not a Charm check, there's basically no reason not to save him, so it's a pretty dumb choice, really. The "Kirrr" person is Captain Kirrahe, the Salarian STG commander who helped you in the assault on Saren's base. Sadly, anyone who plays the PS3, he's dead. In ME1 it was possible to save him, and he reappears in ME3 if you do. I really hope that that's true, actually. I saved the Rachni, and I was like "oh boy, and guess who's gonna come to the rescue later against the Reapers." I would really enjoy it if they defied my expectations and made it a bad thing, if it was like "you let loose the bloodthirsty wild killing monsters and thought that was a good idea?"

You caught him back in Red and Blue, though, so you already fought the good fight. I bet you didn't even use a Master Ball, like a boss. I feel like when I caught him, it took around thirty Ultra Balls, but I may be pulling that number out of my ass. Point is, you EARNED him. This is just like transferring the old Mewtwo. ...You DID catch him back and R&B, right?