Ok, it just seemed odd in a video responding to Trump's m rated game video. It made sense to me to counter that with a g rated game video with no violence at all. Granted, this is more honest in it's depiction of games in general, but doesn't juxtapose as strongly.

I fully agree with your second point, and I note it's most often the right making the case that the government needs to ban things already restricted for adults only...for the children...abdicating their parental responsibility and adult rights to the same government they say is too big, too powerful, too out of control, and incapable of ever functioning properly. Odd that.

Yes, people should be able to have the same weapons their local police have. If a weapon is too powerful for the public to have, the cops don't need it either. If the shit gets too hot, call in the national guard. As far as spawnflagger saying active military or SWAT owning an AR15, why wouldn't they just train with it and keep it at their department? There's no need for them to own it themselves to be able to use it.

A big part of any overthrow of government is getting the police and military to defect or refuse to fire on the resistance. Peaceful revolutions work much better for this than armed ones, although it seemed to work in Ukraine.

You never know what creative chaos can accomplish.. But i'm pretty certain that there is not a working fusion reactor in someone garage...

About why fusion is not our first priority: Too many too powerful people have invested and profiting from old tech. They are not going to let their grasp just disappear. We wont get working fusion until the one with power are given the absolute rights to use it, period. It will NOT be for us to use for free.

Squirrel Girl is actually pretty badass, she beat Deadpool twice, Dr Doom and beat Wolverine is straight up melee fight.

check her bio and pics on wikipedia, she's actually pretty cool. Deadpool even made it known that Squirrel Girl was too powerful for him

From Cable & Deadpool #30: "Deadpool, having been bested by her twice, considers Squirrel Girl to be one of the major powers of the Marvel Universe, comparing her to Iron Man and Thor"

The biggest problem I see with a Supeman movie is finding a believable villain that can stand up to superman without it looking campy.
Marvel has done a great job redefining the franchise with the look of modern reality. Bat Man is believable because he's just a regular man with gadgets.

With Superman, he's invincible in so many ways. If they ignore half his powers and don't use them when he should be, then it's a hard sell.

So then how do you take a guy with the utmost strength, incredible smarts, who flies, has heat laser and cold breath, Doesn't need oxygen to breath, is impervious to the elements and disease, accelerated healing, kick-ass fighting skills, superhuman speed, X-ray vision, superhuman hearing and vision and an eidetic memory, and create a believable conflict using today's reality?

Other than Kryptonite, he has no other weaknesses. Lex is the one who discovers the weakness. So how do you sell that in a new movie. Once you introduce Kryptonite with today's technologies, the weapons against Superman can mostly make him obsolete in quite a matter of fact way.

So it's either he's too powerful or he's quickly dealt with. So which is it?
Oh and not make it look campy, don't forget that part.

Isn't your character too powerful for this to be fun? Aren't you given the power to teleport for 'free' at the start of the game?

Yes! We are also the most humble! We are the kings and queens of humbility!!!

(Sorry about that.)>> ^jqpublick:

Naah, we'd just spend all our time apologizing for being too powerful.>> ^messenger:
Canada Über Alles!!!

Naah, we'd just spend all our time apologizing for being too powerful.>> ^messenger:

Canada Über Alles!!!

now that trailer has me at least a little bit excited for ME3

I gotta say it though, they really fucked up. ME1 was a hit, it was actually something unique. Then instead of improving on it, they turned ME2 into another chest-high cover shooter and instead of delving deeper into the Reaper Mythos, they distract us with the collectors which was a waste of time and now they're going to play catch up to finish the story

The Reapers are supposed to be this super hyper-advanced threat that has wiped out entire civilizations on multiple occasions, but simply because Shep gathers a big enough fleet that will magically take them down? Bull.

It's the same sad story I've heard countless times. They did it to the Borg. They created this insanely powerful enemy, but then realized, oops, we can't make them too powerful because then how will the good guys win? So then they proceed to dumb em down. They didn't learn their lesson and did the same thing with the Dominion, but that time they literally did do a Deus Ex Machina and had the prophets intervene to knock the Dominion down to a more manageable size. The Clans from Battletech was the same thing. They create a force with unbalanced technology so they have to dumb them down and make them act like idiots to balance it out.

I'm going to play this game and I'm sure im going to enjoy it, but still...it just really honks me off that they dumbed the game and the enemy down and meddled with something that was a hit

What I really wanted was a game similar to the whole Pool of Radiance trilogy back in the day where your characters really did truly continue from game to game and not start over like they do in ME.

Your video, Old Spice Is Too Powerful To Stay In Its Own Commercial, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 61 Badge!

>> ^Peroxide:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.

You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:
You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...
That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!
I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.


Go back and read my arguments again, you claim that I "argue water vapour is the cause of current warming". I never said that. I talked about the percentage of our planet's greenhouse effect that is attributed to 2 gases, CO2 and H2O.

The greenhouse effect is not 'warming' it is not 'cooling', it is just the ability of various gases in the atmosphere to absorb energy and has been happening for millenia and barring absolute catastrophic disaster will continue to do so for millenia. Among the greenhouse gases climatologists estimate 70% of energy absorbed is done by H2O and 30% by CO2.

I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood even the most basic parts of what I've said. Go back and look closer, or if your not comfortable, get your chem prof to look and get him to explain it. My statements are in keeping with established science, most of it comes directly from articles like those in the links you yourself provided, like Mann et al's team(the hockey stick guys).

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Peroxide:
@bcglorf Your argument is the same tired old bullshit. It isn't us, don't feel guilty, and SWEET JESUS don't do anything to stop the industrial engine of economic growth that is spewing the CO2 in the first place.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-ev
idence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-rev
iew-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

Actually, I strongly encourage that we stop burning coal and oil, which would virtually eliminate our CO2 emissions. I am a big proponent of pushing battery research the 10% further it needs to go to replace gas powered cars with electric. I am a big proponent of replacing dirty coal and oil based power plants with clean running brand new nuclear plants. If the future pans out as I hope, the next 20 years will see a dramatic drop in our CO2 emissions.
I do NOT argue for that because the sky is falling and we're all gonna die if we don't. I advocate for it because it would reduce really bad pollutants AND save us a fortune very quickly.
If you feel the need to throw out a few web links instead of addressing my statements of facts, backed by peer reviewed science I think you've forfeited the intellectual and scientific high ground.


You are such a troll! OMG! The links I previously provided reference many more peer reviewed studies than your single study, even though you deleted them from your quote of me, (wonder why...) Here they are again, scroll to the bottom of the second link,
AND TAKE NOTE THAT THE LAST TWO PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE MORE RECENT THAN THE PAPER YOU CITE !!!
"Huber and Knutti 2011 (HR11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange)."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm

BUT most importantly, you employ circular logic in your main argument, my Chem prof. explained:

You argue water vapour is the cause of current warming, so according to your theory,
-there is more water in the atmosphere making it hotter
-why is there more water in the atmosphere?
-because it is hotter.
-why is it hotter?
-uh... because there is more water in the atmosphere? wait a second...

That's called circular reasoning, and your whole argument hinges on it, scientists have considered these potential forcing agents and CO2 is the primary one, it IS humankind's fault, we CAN abate emissions, and people like you are the reason climate change will reach dangerous levels!

I sympathize for you if your guilt complex is too powerful for you to admit that the warming climate's root cause is anthropogenic. I beg you, please stop misleading others, I don't care if you're employed by exxon or a coal power plant, it MY GOD DAMN ATMOSPHERE TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

I hope wikipedia isn't too liberal a source for your liking, wouldn't be surprised if it is though.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election.

For the sake of argument, let's say your basic point is right and uncertainty about government is the only reason that $2 trillion is "parked," and the people who actually control what's done with that money bear zero responsibility for the damage their choices are wreaking on the economy.

Even if I, for the sake of argument only, stipulate all that as true, why does only Obama bear responsibility for that uncertainty? Using your own logic, if Republicans put the well-being of the country before their own ambition, they would restore certainty by a) dropping their suit against the ACA, and b) letting Obama run unopposed in the 2012 election.

Certainly that would restore "certainty" to the markets.

Now, if what you really meant was that the so-called "job creators" are intentionally fucking over the economy in order to a) put pressure on the SCOTUS to rule against the ACA, and b) try to get a Republican into the White House, why is Obama the villain in your story? Clearly if that's the case, then these people formerly known as job creators are actually terrorists who deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>> ^quantumushroom:
It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

Right, if it weren't for the government, corporations would be free to collect their own taxes from people, and make their own laws directly without any need to go through the pretense of democratic process.

You know, Utopia!

Again, even if I accept your basic premise, your logic is still flawed. If I bribe a bank security guard to look the other way while I rob his bank, the right response to that is to say "that bank should be more careful about who it hires" not "the entire practice of banking should be abolished."

Same for you and government -- if you don't like corporations buying influence in our government, you should be trying to find a way to limit their opportunities to do so (like campaign finance reform), or voting for people who are a lot less cozy with business than the people you like to vote for.

As for "make government smaller," that's no solution. All that does is create a power vacuum, one corporations step in to fill themselves. It doesn't level the playing field, it tilts it even more towards the people who already run things now.

If you're interested in getting out from under the thumb of people with too much power, you need to focus your sights on trying to reduce income and wealth disparity, and help try to return us to a more egalitarian society, rather than going out and trying to help the rich and powerful fuck us all over.

In most cases, the racism is incidental. Race has nothing to do with your argument that the "job creators" are being taxed to death and their wealth is being given to people who don't deserve it, and yet you still insist on throwing it in there. I don't judge people for being racist, everyone has issues, some more frustrating then others. But when you focus on things like the "skin in the game" phrase, whatever you're implying (even if it's legitimate) most people are only going to ignore you. (except racists that is)

I suppose I can't expect everyone to know everything His Earness says, I sure don't.

RE: "Skin in the game" But it would be nice if SOMEONE knew OBAMA SAID IT.


Unfortunately, when you include things like that, it distracts people from your main point, which is the bullshit mentioned above about how the job creators are being ruined by the government.

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election. If the Supreme Doofs rule this piece of crap commiecare NO ONE wanted "Constitutional" (P.S., it isn't) expect another economic nosedive.

Time and again the myth has been proven wrong. And on top of that, there are huge companies here in America that pay absolutely no taxes at all.


It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

If it's a "myth", as the left proclaims, then who ARE the job creators? Certainly not government, as a government job is a tax drain. Small businesses, while making up the highest percentage of businesses, can only hire so many employees, and if obamacare passes, you can expect they'll be hiring even fewer.


Corporations that would be providing in some cases billions of dollars are given a free ticket because they own a few lobbyists. Meanwhile, anyone who has ever worked for any corporation can clearly see that the main principal behind corporate success is the elimination of jobs wherever possible. Sure every once in a while a new position is created. Usually it's for the sole purpose of eliminating others. These days it's practically the first rule of business.

If liberals, who make up just over half the population, really feel this way about corporations, then why don't they do something on their own?

I don't know if Jim Sinegal, the CEO of Costco, is a liberal, but Costco pays an almost-living wage to start and he's stated his employees come first over both rapid growth and the whims of stockholders. When Ben and Jerry ran their company, they "used to have a policy that no employee's rate of pay shall exceed seven times that of entry-level employees". I got no problem with that, and obviously it was profitable.

Don't wait for government to make everything "fair". You'll be too poor to notice when it happens.

What seems lost in translation for the left is, the "evil" corporations as well as the little guys have little choice but to ALL have lobbyists pursuing their own interests. Why?

Because government is too large and too powerful.

You can take your pick of which is the greater evil: 'greedy' corporations which can and do fail, or a permanent class/army of government bureaucrats untied to quality performance or market demand, and which has lobbyists to shame even the corporations.

I'd rather take my chances with the market.






>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.
In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.
also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.