SixTwoSixFour

I think I'm gonna call him R-Money from now on. I really like that. Obama is not an amazing president, but it's amazing to me that people can say he's done nothing given the laundry list of shit he's taken taken of. He's expanded Pell grants and hate crime legislation, he's boosted private sector spaceflight programs (beat you to it, Gingrich), he's signed financial reform law, he's cut prescription drug costs for medicare recipients (like me) by 50%, he's extended benefits to same-sex federal employees, he created more private sector jobs in 2010 than Bush did in his entire two terms, he's led the White House to be more open to the public, he's gotten rid of the financial aid "gag rule" limiting aid based on whether or not organizations support abortion, given the FDA full power over tobacco regulation (FINALLY), signed another START treaty to prevent nuclear war, provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with an additional $1.4 billion to treat our veterans right. I could keep going. You may not like him as a president, but to say that he hasn't been working hard is just dishonest.

You say that like it's unthinkable. I feel that Obama's done a solid, not perfect, job, and I'm quite content to re-elect him. I know some others here will disagree, but thinking that you're willing to give Obama another four years isn't a bizarre thought by any means.

Just to get people to start using Origin. The problem is, people have no motivation to install Origin in the first place... because it's a shit product. But if you are forced to install it to play a game you're really excited about, then while you're playing, they'll show you some popups about other products on Origin... and maybe you'll bite. It's like how Half-Life 2 required Steam. Did it really need that tech to run? No. They wanted to get you to install Steam, so that they could sell you other stuff. And honestly, a lot of people were pissed about it back then too.

The "why" isn't about benefits for the consumer- the switch to Origin doesn't benefit us, period. It's about EA trying to get its foot in the door with digital distribution, at the cost of screwing its paying customers. They don't give a shit about what we want, they're betting that if we have no other option, we'll suck it up and use their awful service.

Well, but legally, Sweden isn't totally subservient to Europe. They're caving based on a treaty, and it seems like it's none of Europe's business. This is a Swedish issue, and the European civil liberty whatever people can fuck off. It seems weird to me that a full-fledged nation, not just a state, isn't allowed to enforce its own laws. Kinda conjures the question of why they even have those laws if they'll just get overruled by the looming European courts.

See, now I can't figure out what to get ME3 on. I got 2 on PC and 360. I can't get 3 on 360, because I sold my 360 because I hate it and never use it. I can't get it on PC because fuck me if I'm gonna put up with Origin and its bullshit. And if I get it on PS3 then I won't have a save to import! Ideas, gang? And please, don't just tell me to suck it up XD Edit: Oh, amazon has ME2 for PS3 for 20 bucks... how dumb would it be to buy this game three times...?

This is mostly correct. Hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, so long as it is not targeted at a specific individual or individual. You can say (and I apologize for saying it, it's just an example) "all gay people should be killed." You CANNOT say "my gay neighbor Frank should be killed." In Sweden, the law prohibits publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect based on skin color, race, regional or ethnical origin, faith or sexual orientation. It does nothing to regulate statements made in private, or anything considered relevant to a debate. The UK's appear similar to the US's, but with more severe penalties. Basically, you cannot say hateful things targeted at a specific person, or you'll pay. Addendum: The case Yant refers to is a man named Åke Green, and his conviction was overturned. The Supreme Court (of Sweden) declared that his Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion provided by the European Convention on Human Rights were superior to the Swedish law. So basically, they overturned it because if they hadn't, it would have gone on to some bigger, European rights court, which would have overturned it. Which is a weird case to me, but hey. Addendum Side Note: The "four years," however, is complete nonsense. He was going to serve one month before the ruling was overturned.

You said "PP pays more for administration than Komen." This was, in a raw numbers as well as a percentage perspective, bullshit. I pointed this out. Don't blow your top at me that you didn't check your own sources. It's possible I'm reading this stuff wrong. I mean, it looks straightforward to me, but this is not my field. If it is, by chance, your field, maybe you could explain how I'm wrong rather than just insulting me. As far as the "methodology", that's not relevant, because I didn't use their converted "scores." I used straight budget numbers and percentages.

Well at least according to Charity navigator PP is actually worse then Komen when it comes to administration fees. http://www.charityna...mary&orgid=4509 http://www.charityna...mary&orgid=4338 Check it again. Planned Parenthood: Administrative Costs 9.6% ($7,688,063) Komen: Administrative Costs 11.8% ($37,629,831) So perhaps you looked at those backwards. Interestingly, Komen appears to be running a deficit while PP has a decent excess. Maybe something to do with spending thirty seven and a half million on clerk work...?

Yep, what villains. Killing babies left and right.

As an aside, it seems like if you were able to adopt more children out of foster care and into homes it would cost the state less money not more. It seems like reform would actually lower the costs of foster care. That's kind of a knee jerk reaction but I could be wrong. Well, I think it would be necessary to spend more money making sure that foster parents are qualified and properly motivated to take care of the kids- there are foster parents who simply do it for the money, and abuse (majorly or minorly) their foster children. It's an unfortunate truth, and it's hard to avoid. It would take more careful, and more expensive, monitoring of foster families. In addition, making it properly worth people's time financially would help attract more middle class as opposed to lower class homes. In ways, it would cost less money, but in a lot of other ways it would cost more. It is, of course, a complicated issue I don't expect to solve on this forum particularly.

I will attest to the insta kills. It's the cinematic melee attacks, they either kill you outright or take away so much health and then leave you helpless that they might as well.

I think it prevented reproduction. It's hard to imagine how an energy field could prevent sex, you know? It's just a form of physical interaction.

Alternate plan: Sterilize everyone, with hormone treatments to reduce or eliminate sexual desire, and the only method of reproduction to be expensive genetic engineering.

Fix? Doubtful. But simple math tells you that if there were fewer mouths to feed, there would be more food per person. I think there are many mistakes that you are making here. One, you're underestimating the financial and time burden that a baby represents. Even a baby that you love dearly costs a lot of money and a lot of work to raise. You are making the parent's life significantly, measurably harder, and this is undeniable. To add this burden to someone who doesn't even want a child is cruel, and ultimately stupid, because they will likely not take good care of the child. I've known people who didn't want to be parents, and ended up being good mothers/fathers, but they are the minority. Usually, when you don't want a child, you don't love a child, you in fact would like to not have that child be born, you tend to be a very bad parent, and your child suffers a great deal because of it. It feels like much of the time pro-lifers consider the act of birth so sacred that it must be carried out even if it means a lifetime of misery for everyone involved, which is pretty disgusting to me. I'm for as little suffering for as few people as possible, no arbitrary religious restrictions or superstitions getting in the way of that. I want children to be raised by people who want them. And again, you point to the foster system, and again I say "it's a nice dream but it doesn't work". If you want to argue foster reform, if you want to put the tax money that's necessary to try and fix the adoption system, and safe surrendering, and all that, that's wonderful. Right now, you (and by you I mean the pro-life right) are spending a lot of money to take a mother's right to an abortion away, without fixing any of the dozens of problems that that causes. It seems deeply irresponsible to me for you guys to push this so hard, without working on the support structures that would be necessary were you to actually succeed.

It's wonderful that you know people who want to adopt. No sarcasm, that's a really great thing. The reality is, they can't adopt. Fees, regulations, the process, the adoption system is busted. So it's great that there are people that are willing, but until there's a way for that desire and willingness to produce something, it's just a nice sentiment and nothing more. We're dealing with the real world, and in the real world, there are far too many kids unadopted, there are far too many foster kids being mistreated, and it's just a goddamn mess. It's not prejudicial to say that throwing more people into a broken system is irresponsible.

Even more interesting, how people are so adamant in preventing the abortion of a non-person so that it can become a member of the foster care system. Not just not giving a shit, but actually working to ensure that they spend their lives in that broken system.

Man, I'm an asexual and that sounds completely unreasonable to me. Sex is part of human life, it just is. People are built to want sex, people are built to have sex, and to just say "don't ever have sex" is a stupid, impractical, head-in-the-clouds solution.

Ah, my mistake. My research didn't indicate one way or the other for the pill, so I guessed, like a bad scientist. For Plan B, however, I am certain that you can obtain it without a prescription if you are over 18.

As I am aware... Condoms and diaphragms are available without a prescription. Hormonal contraception ("the pill") and emergency contraception (Plan B or the "morning after" pill) is available without a prescription to those over 18, and with a prescription to those under. Intrauterine devices require a minor medical procedure to place, so that would require a doctor visit. There's also the gender-specific sterilization surgeries, and of course the various behavioral methods.

"US Politics Started by Duke of Pwn, Nov 06, 2011" Look what you did.

That's not exactly true because we have baby moses laws here in Texas anyway. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Have the baby and give it up if you don't want it. Also, with the exception of rape, people aren't making women get pregnant, they're becoming pregnant by choice. Women already have a choice to not have a baby without abortion. Just because something is a possible consequence does not therefore mean a person is choosing that consequence. If I take a medicine for my blood pressure that has a rare side effect of death, that's not suicide. If a person has sex with a condom and gets pregnant, as can happen, that doesn't mean that they are choosing to be pregnant. And the Baby Moses laws seem like a hell of a thing to rely on given our current state of adoption and foster homes. Maybe once those are fixed, that could work, but right now you're signing these kids up for a life of misery.

That seems pretty silly to me. It's kinda tough, but it's nowhere NEAR as tough as Dark/Demon's Souls. I feel like Far Cry 2 was a pretty interesting game that ultimately wasn't varied enough. The formula gets too repetitive after a bit, and you get tired of it. The core systems are very interesting, however. The gun upkeep is underused, but fun, the health system is quite good, the missions are fairly fun... it does a lot right. I just wish it had kept things fresh throughout.

The second HIB that I can't bring myself to give a crap about. It's pretty remarkable, really. Such a solid concept, and yet twice they've managed to not interest me.