TheMightyEthan

I've had a couple times where I've searched for bronze, but then once the lobby fills up the host switches to silver and starts the game.

I think the four currencies is a great way to look at it. I was just talking with my wife the other night about how now I have way more "spending money" than I have time to use it, so for me the value of $M has plummeted while the value of $T and $P has skyrocketed.

I don't think allowing you to skip combat should be put or would work well in every type of games, but some games (like LA Noire) are suited to it. In LA Noire I was interested in the investigations and such, and the action sequences were not very well done, so I was glad I could skip them if I failed 3 times. On the other hand, something like Mass Effect would have to be completely restructured to let you skip combat, so for something like that I think there should just be a piss-easy difficulty (like Mass Effect has, so that's a good example for two reasons).

What FDS said. Also, there's no reason to believe this DLC is any better/more important than the Kasumi/Zaeed DLC from ME2, and those are ENTIRELY skippable.

Obligatory: well that's government "benefits" for you.

Gas prices were over $4 last year. Not that that's a good thing, just sayin.

The EU seems kind of like the Articles of Confederation: broken as hell but perhaps the precursor to a good, working system.

That's just patently false. Social Security, for example, is running a profit. Here's the Wikipedia article on the 2012 US budget: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget#Total_revenues_and_spending Looking at that you can make several arguments. I'd argue that what's killing us is too high defense spending combined with too low taxes on corporations and the wealthy (and I'm probably included in the number that's not being taxed highly enough).

I think the biggest practical problem with trying to determine what the "founding fathers" would have wanted is that it's like trying to determine what Congress wants: they were a diverse group of people who didn't have one singular will, and would disagree on a great many things. Honestly though I think the Constitution is a pretty damn good document, and I don't think it needs to be done away with. Though I'm of the school of thought that when interpreting the provisions of the Constitution, specifically the parts guaranteeing rights and setting out grand principles, rather than focus on what the writers of the Constitution specifically meant or would have thought in a specific situation you should just try to figure out what the core idea they were trying to get at was, and give effect to that idea within a modern context. For a retardedly obvious example, take the freedom of the press: at the time that referred to the literal freedom to disseminate ideas through printing-press produced media, but no one now would honestly argue that it shouldn't also apply to broadcast media or the internet.

But he's on the left so we should all like his hate posts. I'll have you know that I frequently find Duke's attitude in his posts grating and off-putting (no offense Duke), even though I tend to agree with his points. But that's okay, keep on making those generalizations and belittling the opposition, it's not like that's grating or off-putting.

This is something that bugs me a lot about american politics. It'd be nice if people could support their views with an actual argument for why it is better, instead of pointing to the (oh so infallible) founding fathers. I get that you have a short, very recent, history, but should we not look towards the present for solutions, instead of asking ourselves what some people who lived hundreds of years ago would have to say on the subject? That's not just some random quote from one of the founding fathers, that's a quote from the Constitution, the legal document establishing what powers the government has and what rights of the people it cannot infringe upon. It's legally binding and thus very relevant to whether a Supreme Court decision is correct or should be overturned. That said, I agree that people far too often focus on "what the founding fathers would have wanted." It doesn't make any sense to me why America, which is so (understandably) afraid of giving too much power to the government or to any small group of people, wants to shackle itself to the views of a couple dozen people from more than 200 years ago. To use another quote, Thomas Paine said "The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."

Based on what I read on the practice, the Mormon theology is just that baptism by proxy of a dead person gives the spirit of the dead person the option to convert to Mormonism, but doesn't forcibly convert them, they still have the option to reject. Emotionally I agree though, it seems dishonest.

First thing, thanks for the actual response Battra. Now there are two things I would like to respond to: I didn't know you had a uterus. I can understand men being pro-life but not pro-abortion. It just doesn't compute with me. So it's impossible to care about the rights of others if it doesn't directly address your own rights? Why, as a man, can I not support women's rights? Since we seem to like throwing around quotes: "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me." Just because they're not my rights in question doesn't mean I shouldn't care about them. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. *Edit* - Somehow my response to this didn't get saved, so here is a paraphrasing: Yes, the people have that right, but I don't think that should extend to non-human corporations, which is what Citizens United did. If an individual wants to spend their own money then that is absolutely fine, they should absolutely be able to do that. I'm even okay with people being able to set up a Super PAC so they can work together to effectively use that money rather than everyone trying to do it on their own. What I am not okay with is corporations being able to donate to that Super PAC. I also take issue with the idea enshrined in Citizens United that money=speech. That means people with more money get more speech and get to have more influence and that is severely damaging to the very core of our democracy. I understand that to a certain extent it has always been and will always be that way, but that doesn't mean we have to embrace it, we can still try to limit the disproportionality of the wealthy's influence. Finally, I think you might have highlighted the wrong part, as I think there is a much better argument supporting Citizen's United in the "of the press" part, because for a long long time the press has been primarily composed of companies rather than individuals, and the fact that they're not individuals would certainly not make it any less violative of the constitution to limit what they can say.

THERE'S A CTHULHU FIGHT?!

Yeah, I realized that after I posed, that Mal was talking about sitting on the DLC itself, when I just meant they intended to sit on the announcement. Honestly though I don't really get what people are complaining about. My understanding is that this was intended to be CE-exclusive content, and the reason they're releasing it at all is that the CE is sold out everywhere and they want people to be able to get it if they want. If anything you should be happy: the CE costs $20 more than the regular edition, but the DLC only costs $10.

Hey now! We have lots of nukes!

@Battra: Why don't you actually make a meaningful response?

They actually intended to sit on it a little while longer, but it went up on the XBLM early so they didn't have a whole lot of choice.

If I had to hazard a guess as to where Battra and Yant would be, I'd guess somewhere in the purple quadrant.

No, they said they started developing it after ME3 went into certification, not after it went gold. The game doesn't go gold until certification is complete.

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to accuse you of dismissing it because of the speaker or anything, I was just explaining why I hadn't googled it.

Aha! I had no idea who that was either, but didn't especially care (I try to judge statements on their own merits, it doesn't really matter to me who they originally came from). Depending on who you ask it's either completely retarded or Gospel.

I both agree and disagree. I think the government should only tax as much as is necessary to fund its legitimate programs (which includes social programs). However, that said, I think that people with more money are better able to bear the burden of taxes and so should be taxed at a higher rate. I don't think that the government needs to completely even everyone's incomes out or anything like that, but I do think that we have an obligation to ensure that everyone in society is able to live at a certain basic level, which includes adequate food, housing, health care, education, clothing, etc. That doesn't solve the problem of other people who aren't paying enough.

Well I think most of us can agree with that.

I don't see that as having any bearing on the issue. As I said above, those of us who are doing well in our society have a moral obligation to help those who aren't.