"That's really odd. I always felt like Fallout 3 did a terrible job at doing justice to the atmosphere of the first two games. I love F3, mind you, it's just that Bethesda don't seem to be able to develop a "dark" atmosphere without really pounding it down. The voice acting and dialogue were some of the biggest hitches for me... Christ, everyone's so goddamned clean and normal.
The music was another big deal. Mark Morgan's soundtrack in F1 did such an excellent job at conveying a desolate, grim, hopeless environment. It was perfect for the game, and F1/F2 are still up there in my top 10. So is Morrowind, though. Maybe I'm just a nostalgic faggot."


When Bethesda said they'd be working on Fallout I thought it was a horrible idea. They're not good with plot and they're not all that great at game mechanics. What Bethesda could do was essentially create a good-looking, detailed world. They did a good job at the Fallout atmosphere, but did better than I ever expected at gameplay. Fallout 3 is fun to play.

For a long time before Fallout 3 came out I always explained that what made Fallout really tick was something that none of you have even mentioned. It was it's wit, it's sarcasm; black humor with pop culture references gone awry. To this day, to my knowledge Fallout 2 is the only game to have ever even touched on the topic of Noam Chomsky. The writers for the original Fallout series was where it was at - they were the one's that made Fallout a more subversive sort of experience that we'll never get again. If you want to talk about Fallout and sum it up in it's atmosphere & music - then you're just barking up a tiny sect of it's tree.

>> ^bobknight33:

The Fed Fucked us.
The Fed is a group of private bankers and not a government entity. They look after themselves not the citizens of America
Let the USA print their own money supply as per the constitution.


Nobody owns the Fed. It's not just "some other private business". It was created in 1913 by law. Their powers are exclusive and granted by congress. In fact, according to most constitutional scholars, the government is not given the power to give powers they don't have to someone else. That would make them all powerful and defeat the purpose of the document. Remember, the constitution is a privilege system. Whatever isn't explicitly granted to the government is implicitly denied. Article I does not say that the government can print money, it says it can coin money. That wording was used at a time when government notes not backed by metal had just blown up in everyone's face. And if the government can't print money, what gives them the authority to create a virtual GSE that can? Somehow, the government got around that article by endowing a bunch of powers it didn't have to a "private" entity, continuing to call it private, and going from there. It doesn't make sense to anyone with a brain, but to a dumbfuck populace, it's plenty complex to achieve subversion. Government have always wanted to spend as much of the people's money as they can without eliciting the resistance of taxation. And inflation is what allows them to do it.

We don't want currency to be counterfeited by its issuer while everyone else has to produce to obtain it. That's the purpose of having 100% gold-backed notes in milligram denominations. The scarcity of gold cannot be reduced like a dollar unit. If the Fed started issuing denominations with extra zeroes, any dollars you hold buy 10% what they did before. They print money, buy government bond debt, and by the time it filters down to you, prices have gone up.

Somehow I feel like Assange is being set-up to be the next international super-villain, a la Osama.

That, or he's already been co-opted and is working to include American anti-Iranian propaganda in leaks.

It'd be foolish to not at least give this some thought as a possibility.

Organizations that can significantly effect change are always the first to be targeted for subversion and infiltration.

this sux before it gets subversive, then i like it

"The comforts and safety that you describe, are exactly the kinds of suburban trapping that give us the illusion that ours is the ideal life. Take away electricity, transport, water service and supermarket food supply and like the majority of suburban dwelling people on this planet, we're up the creek. That's not freedom-it's a thinly veiled dependence on a system that is in the throws of downfall. }

Naturally (no pun intended), I disagree with you on this assessment. A civilized society is far more resilient and able to recover from all types of disasters (man-made and natural) than a nomadic civilization has ever been at any time in history. Do you have any idea of the kind of destructive effort it would take to completely wipe out the power grid, uproot every road that has been paved, root out the entire plumbing network buried underground? The only point that I agree with you on is the far larger dependence upon food that massive (and they are truly massive compared to hunter-gatherers) civilizations have. But as I pointed out in my first post food is now a global industry, so again you are limited to world ending catastrophes when it comes finding enough firepower to bring down modern civilizations.

"As far as freedom to move goes, I think the fact that if you step outside your door and walk into your neighbor's yard without permission, you're considered trespassing, shows how hemmed-in we really are. So long as we are paid customers, we have a right to be somewhere, otherwise we'd better stick to public places, or face the consequences."

Personally, I think that literal direction freedom is a paltry definition of what true freedom really is. I will gladly take the paved road and all those "restrictions" for all the benefits that I get from having that taken space actively and productively contributing to the advancement and well-being of humanity. I will drive around a massive hospital that's blocking me from going "as the crow flies" quicker than a crow can fly.

Every inch of space that is denied to me is in some way indirectly or directly contributing. Can you say that a plain of scrubs and rocks is providing the same amount of benefits to nomads as they walk in whatever direction they want over it? What about cumulatively?

"If you want to know how free you really are, try doing something really outrageous or subversive and see how many people are ready to block you. Try walking 10,000 km across your country, camping out where there's a drinkable water supply, for starters..."

Let me ask you a question then, why did you walk 10,000km in any direction? What was your goal? Did you need food, water, because you could? What tangible benefit have you derived from the endeavor you just undertook?

If you are so "truly" free why can't you walk to the Moon?

The comforts and safety that you describe, are exactly the kinds of suburban trapping that give us the illusion that ours is the ideal life. Take away electricity, transport, water service and supermarket food supply and like the majority of suburban dwelling people on this planet, we're up the creek. That's not freedom-it's a thinly veiled dependence on a system that is in the throws of downfall.

As far as freedom to move goes, I think the fact that if you step outside your door and walk into your neighbour's yard without permission, you're considered trespassing, shows how hemmed-in we really are. So long as we are paid customers, we have a right to be somewhere, otherwise we'd better stick to public places, or face the consequences.

If you want to know how free you really are, try doing something really outrageous or subversive and see how many people are ready to block you. Try walking 10,000 km across your country, camping out where there's a drinkable water supply, for starters...

I admit, I do bash religion, but there is just too much hypocrisy, inconsistency, and lack of reason in it to leave it alone. In the world of science, harsh critique is beneficial. I evaluate my position all the time and I have changed my stance on issues as supporting evidence surfaces. There is where the difference lies. Religion is incapable of functioning in the presence of evidence and reason. It survives in a logic vacuum. It is incapable of simply stating, "we don't know what happens after we die because there is no evidence.". Instead the answer is, "an multi-thousand year old book tell me I go to a magical land, so it is true.". Sorry. Not good enough.

It may not be your personal task to convince me that god exists... tough apparently it is for the hordes of missionaries that fan out across the world, johovas witnesses that buzz around my front door, and the mormons in their white shirts and magical underwear that harass my wife at the house during the day. Add to that churches, and the signs plastered across towns spouting 'truth' without evidence. Apparently they have something to say and are trying to convince me their fairytale sky god is real. If all is in their great god's plan, then apparently the existence of atheists is a part of that plan too? I'd like to hear the logic behind that. Again, the mysterious ways argument doesn't cut it.

You certainly have a right to believe in whatever fashionable religion you happen to be born into through familial tradition. You'd be following islam if you were born in the middle east. You certainly have the right to believe in a magic sky god. Just as I have the right to state that I don't endorse superstitious fairy tales.

Interestingly many think it is taboo to speak up against religion. Well.. to them it is because doing so, as per christianity and islam, for example, is punishable by death. Oh wait. We ignore that part don't we... probably because it is not popular. I guess following god's word per the infallible book isn't all that obligatory, if it isn't convenient of the culturally acceptable norm for the times.

From where I stand, it is the responsibility of the religious to take the stories that they spread and prove their validity. They cannot prove it. Thus why should I confide in it? They are welcome to confide in it if they wish. Just as you are welcome to confide in finding a high paying job by calling 800-HOME-JOB. Sure I could tell you all about how wonderful god or that perfect job it is, but without a paycheck (evidence) in hand, it is just a fantasy/scam.

Yes, some religious individuals do good things. So do many atheists. The point I am making is.. you do not have to be religious to do good. I volunteer and I donate to charities. I get riled up when a religious person takes into assumption that if someone doesn't believe in a magic sky god. They are innately immoral. I would contest that morality has nothing to do with religion. Religion holds no monopoly on charity. It never has. Religion just likes to claim it does because god will not show up at your door and help you through that bout of cancer. This supposed all powerful universal creator is unfortunately sleeping at the wheel or too darn busy making flowers to show his face, noodly appendage, or whatever to help those of us that were supposedly created in his 'image'. Whatever that means.

About muslims vs christians. I don't give muslims a free ride. I don't give christians a free ride either. The only group I may be a bit lenient on are the buddhists. While the foundation of the belief is bunk as is all other religions, the core general philosophy is somewhat honorable. The purists that is. The ultimate in pacifism. We don't see buddhists blowing themselves up, nor do we see them crusading across the and telling everyone they are going to burn in hell if they don't worship a man nailed to a torture symbol.


>> ^quantumushroom:

It's not my task to convince you that God does or does not exist.
There are likely millions of people on this planet that would deny the existence of God even if God appeared before them.
But the militant atheist, who denies that ANY good has come from religion is, IMO, intellectually dishonest, ignorant of history, or both.
In this age, subversives have made it fashionable to bash the world's one billion Catholics while giving the world's 1.5 billion muslims a free pass.

>>

It's not my task to convince you that God does or does not exist.

There are likely millions of people on this planet that would deny the existence of God even if God appeared before them.

But the militant atheist, who denies that ANY good has come from religion is, IMO, intellectually dishonest, ignorant of history, or both.

In this age, subversives have made it fashionable to bash the world's one billion Catholics while giving the world's 1.5 billion muslims a free pass.


>> ^honkeytonk73:

What has God done to eradicate homelessness, disease, suffering, starvation? He could snap his magical fingers and poof it is gone! But.. the more logical answer is.. he has done nothing because he doesn't exist. Or one could say. "He created homelessness, disease, suffering, and starvation." Probably to make some sort of illogical point that we can't quite articulate, because of his "Mysterious ways" or some such bunk. The "mysterious ways" argument essentially translates into "I don't know, nor do I care to find out why because I lack any capacity to reason. Any instinct to question as a result been subdued out of a fear of ending up in some sort of subterranean firey underworld for an eternity... hosted by rather unfriendly horned red-skinned demons that bugger the local denizens. Very much like Catholic priests in a dark sauna with choir boys.

I'm going easy on THE QUEEN.

She's as ridiculous as a guy eating a double cheeseburger leaning over and chastising someone else for putting salad dressing on her salad.

There are so many radical subversive stooges in the ranks of the taxocrats (and DC) it would be a full-time job tracking them all. Fortunately it will be a little easier after November.

I've next to no experience with Macs and OSX, but plenty with networked groups. I have to point out that what service or product you need, depends a great deal on precisely what you mean when you say "access the same files". If you mean "read the same files", then dropbox should work fine. If you intend to have multiple people editing the same file at the same time, you might have problems with that approach (such as overwriting each other's changes). Then you'll want to look at something like a real source control system (think Subversion, Perforce, etc).

I think the conflict lies here

if you are doing what he says , which is to not follow a given moral code that is passed to you from some entity , then you are esentualy uaing avalable data and logic to determin each actoin , so in essence you are doing exactly what sam harris was talking about , which is saying you use the best evidence and logic avalable at anny given piont in time to make a dessisoin.


I dont think sam harris was necaccerly advocating that science "publish" morals that you then follow , you would hope that a socity would be educated and knowlageable to the exstent that its not a case of just doing what scientists tell you , its a case of after reading the scentific data on the subject you would simply come to the same conclusoin , and so would everyone as it would be repeatable as the most logical actoin to take for annyone.


Ethor way anny non moron retard currently operates in that way for the most part , however there are obvouse socail pressuers that have to be wayed into things , if im an indavidual that lives with 5 fundi christains to a degree it might be more productive to conform to soemthing they are doing bassed of supersitoin.

or if u are gay and live in IRAN it would probably best to keep the fact that u see there been no issue in homosexuality secret , given that no productivty would come from you getting hung , u might as well keep it hidden move to another country and then protest from afar , or work within the country subversively changing things.

OK, the fear and darkness are peripheral. >> ^rgroom1:

I'm not trying to be subversive, but I find some inappropriate channel assignments.
nochannel asia wtf kids music livemusic

@dystopianfuturetoday: I'm not trying to be subversive, but I find some inappropriate channel assignments.
*nochannel *asia *wtf *kids *music *livemusic

First of all, let me say thank you for the reasoned arguments. As liberalsift's only "conservatarian" a heavy (voluntary) responsibility weigh on my shoulders. I'll attempt to address the talking points.


Native Americans practiced same-sex coupling. Thousands of years even before that, there's evidence of humans pairing off for mutual protection and cooperation - two prehistoric dudes have a better chance of taking down large game than if they worked alone. Two female cave girls have a better chance of surviving and avoiding being raped by cave dudes than if they were separate.

But what you're describing isn't marriage, and even if there were homosexual acts under these circumstances, it's not something the tribe would recognize. Even the ancient Greek pederasts scoffed at the idea of gay marriage.

Same-sex coupling has existed as long as humans have. Hell, even modern day penguins are known to engage in same-sex coupling.

We shouldn't be looking to the animal kingdom for comparisons, where cannibalism and killing other beasts' offspring is normal.

Before people cite the Book of Matthew, let me remind them that "Man shall not lay with another man..." doesn't refer to homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it when the bible was authored. The line references how we are not to treat men the same way we treat women. And just how were women treated during the days of the bible's authoring? Like cattle - merely objects to be bought, sold, and bartered for. The line speaks that we should not enslave men the way we enslave women. The line speaks to institutionalized misogyny, and has NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

I have never heard this interpretation of Matthew so I remain...neutral.

The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion. It also guarantees us freedom FROM religion. Every law needs a secular reason for existing. "God says it's wrong" isn't, nor will ever be, reason enough for a law. The 14th amendment guarantees equal rights and freedoms, even to people you don't like.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee freedom "from" religion, this deliberate distortion is a 'gift' Progressivism. Equal rights and freedoms have very obvious limitations. You're free to ride a bicycle and you're free to drive a car on the freeway, but you're NOT free to ride your bicycle on the freeway.

The Judicial branch did it's job - protecting the people from themselves. Just because the majority voted for something doesn't mean jack shit. If it's unconstitutional, it won't fly, no matter how big the majority.

A judge made up things for a non-existent "right", similar to how abortion was made legal by non-existent privacy rights. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the ruling was inept and corrupt. There was a time when slavery was considered constitutional, so it's true that things change.

And why is it "Small-Government" types always try to use the government to enforce their religious views? Seems HYPOCRITICAL to me.

Some libertarians vouch for the "privatization of marriage" which means the State doesn't recognize any marriage but can only enforce contracts between (any) people. (Unfortunately?) we don't live in a libertarian society---far from it---and the State (with much thanks to Statists) has its tentacles in all manner of arenas and areas in which it has no business. The main reasons governments evolved was to preserve private property rights and keep enemies outside the gates. Marriage is a legal contract, and since it affects taxation and a slew of other things it is the State's business, for better or worse.

For me, the gay "marriage" debate ended with the arrival of civil unions. If a gay couple has the same legal rights as a married couple, then that is, in essence, the libertarian goal. As Elton John put it: "I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Obviously the 'loudest' gays are not happy with "civil unions", which brings me to my next point: there is indeed something special about the one man/one woman marriage. If there was not, these gay pawns (the latest pawns of Progressive Statist subversives) wouldn't be so adamant. Except for the fundamentalists, no one could care less about people's personal lives....but if you force a majority to recognize something as being on par with what they consider sacrosanct, then it will be received negatively.

I would be personally delighted if some judge ruled---against the will of the people---that all controlled substances drugs be made legal, prostitution be made legal, all excessive federal hurdles to owning firearms be abolished, perhaps the income tax be replaced with something else.......but it's not the way the system works. As a member of society I am as much a "victim" of traditional values as everyone else.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Society is stupid. A large community of people in Germany decided killing Jews was ok (Godwin seekers you can now leave). It's a big reason we don't have a pure democracy: because people are STUPID. They're ignorant, they're fickle, they're quick to react to things they're afraid of and it is just plain stupid put somebody's rights to a vote, if that right isn't violating another person's rights.

Society is indeed stupid, but not all the time, and therefore the accumulated wisdom of centuries of trial and error shouldn't be readily abandoned.

----------------------------------------------------
Well, this is just one sifter's opinions. At present about 70% of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. Perhaps in 10 years only 30% will be opposed and society's values will radically change.

Political Theater aka showbiz for the ugly. Usually taxocrats are low-key and subversive (except when accusing the sun, trees and rocks of racism). The left utilizes their State-Run media, government schools and activist judges to effect radical changes to society no one (sane) would ever vote for outright. November can't get here fast enough.