RailWizard wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 10:58:

Sepharo wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 09:14:
Some idiots voluntarily make some awful group/song/dance/drill about Obama and apparently that's his fault too.

Throw a title on the video alluding to this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/give.asp

Bingo-bango "DURR HITLER YOUTH!"

Yeah I realize it's likely 'amatuer'. Still, there is an awful lot(and I do mean a lot) of that kind of fanatical shit out there. No one called Bush the messiah, or any other prez afaik, and all that just because he is black. He won due to racism basically.

I find that both humorous and disturbing.

NKD wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 11:20:
Yeah Zeschuk only popped down to Austin to make sure the women and children got to the lifeboats first. No surprise that he's heading back to the mothership.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 09:14:
Some idiots voluntarily make some awful group/song/dance/drill about Obama and apparently that's his fault too.

Throw a title on the video alluding to this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/give.asp

Bingo-bango "DURR HITLER YOUTH!"

Veterator wrote on Aug 9, 2012, 15:36:
Most CEOs in the US are douches, when are they going to bust in their doors and beat em up some while they seize their assets and holdings? Or the bankers.......

Has to be easier to bust them for douchebaggery and illegal practices when they are in the same country as the people pushing for it.

Dotcom needs to beef up on his white collar crime if he wants to run with the big dogs.

Around the same time they bust in Holder's door or Obama's for "losing guns" to push an anti gun agenda.

Fibrocyte wrote on Aug 10, 2012, 07:45:
Blizzard is not the company it once was, and Diablo-3 - while it did awesome in sales - was a huge disappointment overall. Still, that timeline is damn impressive.

If Titan is a flop or just a mediocre product then I'll likely stop caring about future Blizzard releases.

Fletch wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 17:35:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 15:09:

Again, I don't like Romney any better. But to call Obama anything other than a failure is stretching it. The man can't even get a budget passed, and the 17 or so budgets congress drafted are more than likely at the bottom of Harry Reid's wastebasket.

It's a two way street, Obama and his supporters as much as they preached they would work with the Republicans has done the opposite.

Are you daft? It was just explained to you by two different people. You are absolutely CLUELESS. You can't work with Repugs who have no intention of working with you on anything, and who's primary purpose is to filibuster everything (you can filibuster without a majority, so that's been explained to you now), and then claim Obama didn't do anything come election time. They've even said as much many times. Even when Obama gives in and gives them everything they want (and he often does), they change their minds and block it with filibuster anyway. You've swallowed that ridiculous, neocon cult narrative whole, and now you're here regurgitating bullet points with absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

You are a tool.

Beamer wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 06:45:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 7, 2012, 00:40:

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 23:13:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 22:54:

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 19:44:
If there are more rich liberals than conservatives, doesn't that imply it's smarter to be a liberal?

Hint: wealth has nothing to do with how you feel economic policy should be structured. Just because you make an obscene amount of money doesn't mean you think the system is boned, and just because you think the system is completely asinine and creates incentives to cut jobs instead of create them doesn't mean you can't be wealthy.

Hint: all those 1%ers you guys like to cry about? They're democrats.

Show me one post where I bitch about a guy making $250k. C'mon.
Or stop lumping me in. Not everyone is the political stereotype you painfully are.

Beamer you've gone on more than once about the supposed finite pie and how those are the top are hoarding it. Come on now.

But I don't think it's 1%. I bitch about guys making two million, not two hundred thousand.

And what makes you think the pie isn't finite? Is the US making an infinite amount of money suddenly? Is the middle class actually seeing their salaries increase for the first time in 30 years?

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 23:13:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 22:54:

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 19:44:
If there are more rich liberals than conservatives, doesn't that imply it's smarter to be a liberal?

Hint: wealth has nothing to do with how you feel economic policy should be structured. Just because you make an obscene amount of money doesn't mean you think the system is boned, and just because you think the system is completely asinine and creates incentives to cut jobs instead of create them doesn't mean you can't be wealthy.

Hint: all those 1%ers you guys like to cry about? They're democrats.

Show me one post where I bitch about a guy making $250k. C'mon.
Or stop lumping me in. Not everyone is the political stereotype you painfully are.

PHJF wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 21:18:

Oh, and btw, Obama is a narcissist. He has no interest in accomplishing anything but supplying his narcissistic needs. He only really cares about himself.

So he's a perfect capitalist? Rand would be so proud of us.

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 19:44:
If there are more rich liberals than conservatives, doesn't that imply it's smarter to be a liberal?

Hint: wealth has nothing to do with how you feel economic policy should be structured. Just because you make an obscene amount of money doesn't mean you think the system is boned, and just because you think the system is completely asinine and creates incentives to cut jobs instead of create them doesn't mean you can't be wealthy.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 17:19:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 16:33:

I stopped paying attention when you called Obama a conservative. That Kool Aid must be extra strength.

Ah, yes. Obama the "liberal" who:

- Devised, shepherded, and signed a conservative health care law first proposed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a Republican governor in Mass.
- Ordered the killing, not capture, of OBL
- Ordered the killing of US citizens without due process
- Expanded the drone war, expanding into new countries and vastly increasing their usage
- Expanded the war in Afghanistan
- Renewed the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation reviled by liberals
- Continued and expanded warrantless wiretapping started under Bush
- Initiated an unprecedented campaign against leakers (liberals are for transparency, not against)
- Expanded the war on drugs
- Put Social Security cuts on the table for negotiation as part of deficit reduction
- Extended the Bush tax cuts
- Expanded oil drilling
- Supports nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas fracking, all harmful to the environment

Oh, but he came out in favor of gay marriage, so he's a liberal! (AFTER public acceptance was over 50%)

Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan and Bush I official:

Conservatives will, of course, scoff at the idea of Obama being any sort of conservative, just as liberals scoffed at Nixon being any kind of liberal. But with the benefit of historical hindsight, it’s now obvious that Nixon was indeed a moderate liberal in practice. And with the passage of time, it’s increasingly obvious that Clinton was essentially an Eisenhower Republican. It may take 20 years before Obama’s basic conservatism is widely accepted as well, but it’s a fact.

jdreyer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 16:26:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 13:23:
President Obama is demonstrating his ineptness as a leader of the most powerful nation. Unlike Presidents Reagan and Clinton before him, he has no clue how to work with a Congress that doesn't agree with him. He ran for election claiming to be able to negotiate with anyone; he even claimed to be able to get Iran to the table. He has failed us in horrible ways. Executive orders are his admission that he can't negotiate with anyone for anything.

TLDR: if congress doesn't pass my shit, executive order!

You obviously didn't read the article:

The president urged Congress to pass the Cybersecurity Act, which was offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). The bill would have encouraged private companies and the government to share information about cyber threats and would have required critical infrastructure operators to meet minimum cybersecurity standards.

But Senate Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), worried the bill would burden businesses with unnecessary and ineffective regulations.

The bill's sponsors watered down the regulatory provisions, replacing the security mandates with voluntary incentives, but that wasn't enough to win over Republicans. The bill mustered 52 votes in the Senate, well short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

The bill is proposed, Republicans refuse. Bill's sponsors compromise, Republicans still refuse. Typical Repub intransigence: If Dems want it, refuse no matter what, never compromise. If Obama wants it, refuse. Executive orders are the only way to get things done, unfortunately.

They aren't interested in governing, just blocking whatever the Dems want. Unfortunately, they have enough money that they can use it to convince low info voters that they're doing a good job, it will only get worse with the Citizens United ruling. There's a reason that more education correlates with likelihood to vote Democratic. The government is pretty badly broken at this point, and the Repubs are mostly to blame.

But please go on thinking that the moderately conservative Obama is an evil America-hating Muslim Communist that wants to sell Alaska to the Russians (A lie of course).

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 15:36:

Kobalt wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 15:32:
It's going to be amusing if romney wins and the people that don't understand how congress works nowadays are confused he can't get anything passed either.

Well, he'll have Congress so he'll manage to pass some things, and even if he didn't Democrats are slightly less obnoxious dicks about caring more for the good of the party over the good of the country, so even then he'd be moderately more successful.

A democrat with a republican congress will get nothing done because the congress will throw the entire country in front of a moving train to avoid making that president look good and/or successful.

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 15:03:

Bhruic wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 14:49:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 13:23:
President Obama is demonstrating his ineptness as a leader of the most powerful nation. Unlike Presidents Reagan and Clinton before him, he has no clue how to work with a Congress that doesn't agree with him

Go look up how many times the fillibuster was used during Reagan and Clinton, and how many times it's been used for Obama. You can't "work with Congress" when they've explicitly stated that they are going to actively block every single thing you try and do.

Plenty of bills (this one included) got a majority vote, but not a super-majority (needed to pass a fillibuster).

Exactly.

This is a completely different scene from what Reagan and Clinton dealt with! To point out all of this as being some flaw of the president first and foremost betrays your obvious bias, RollnThundr. He's also a homosexual kenyan spy (black as the ace of spades, he is!) so I guess I could see how easy it is to blame the whole of the nation's problems and the ineptitude of our "leadership" on him.

Romney/Palin 2012!! woo-hoo!

Beamer wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 11:57:

Frijoles wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 11:55:

RollinThundr wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 11:41:
Never could understand why anyone gave a shit about that engine.

Facial animations. Still spectacular after so many years.

Low poly but fantastic texture handling (leading to fantastic textures), great physics, great animations, and amazing eyes.

Yeah, the low poly worlds are starting to look bad, but that engine lasted a very long time with little up-keep due to the textures and animations.

It was a fairly spectacular engine for anyone that wanted to run well on a very wide range of PCs. That's common now, but wasn't back in 2004.

Creston wrote on Aug 6, 2012, 11:24:
Will Source 2 finally get rid of the ridiculous "LOADING" segment every 20 seconds? Seriously, Valve. Just Cause 2 NEVER shows you a loading screen once the game is going, and it's approximately 90,000 times larger than Half Life 2. The Crysis engine never has to load during a level. The Dunia engine never had to load anything once it was going.

Will you please stop grounding your engine technology in 1992, and get somewhat more modern? GTA San Andreas had a better engine than you, and that was on the playstation 2...

Creston

Axis wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 18:18:
Why should I continue? There's only been a couple voices of reason in this entire thread regardless of how they feel about the game.

I have nothing to prove and care less if people buy GW2 in droves. In fact, please do buy GW2! I already wasted my money so we can all be in the same boat together, like family!

Trying to point out it's glaring flaws seems to just rile the easily butthurt trolls, you'd think by some of these rabbid fanny poster boys that GW2 is the holy grail of mmos meets pvp. so please... buy the shit outta GW2 -- you'll glean nothing from anyone who says otherwise.

Dades wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 15:37:
Holy fuck, you got served