>> ^krelokk:

>> ^Selektaa:
Team Fortress 2 art style meets Left 4 Dead.

The originality is just mind shattering

And TF2 itself was a rip/homage to the Pixar movie The Incredibles.


"The final rendition sports cartoon style visuals influenced by the art of J. C. Leyendecker, Dean Cornwell and Norman Rockwell[8] and is powered by the Source engine."

>> ^Selektaa:

Team Fortress 2 art style meets Left 4 Dead.

The originality is just mind shattering


And TF2 itself was a rip/homage to the Pixar movie The Incredibles.

Team Fortress 2 art style meets Left 4 Dead.



The originality is just mind shattering

Great minds, etc!

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
You bet, wanted to make up for the lost promote on The Gift. : We both had the same idea with that video today it seems.

In reply to this comment by carneval:
Thanks for the promote, duckman! =)

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
*promote

You bet, wanted to make up for the lost promote on The Gift. We both had the same idea with that video today it seems.

In reply to this comment by carneval:
Thanks for the promote, duckman! =)

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
*promote

Thanks for the promote, duckman! =)

In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
*promote

Well, he is in this video. Check out my related video for a hint.


In reply to this comment by Deano:
Wot no Bill?

>> ^Smugglarn:

I must go to this steak house where they serve bottles of win.
Great indeed.
Indeed, there's nothing like a nice bottle of win to complement a good steak

>> ^Deano:


The thing is no publisher is ever going to market a game that just has multiplayer, even if for many dedicated fans that is what the game is really about.

Really? Ok, off the top of my head and just FPS's...
TF2, BF 1942, Tribes, Monday Night Combat, Left 4 Dead, Quake 3, Counter Strike.
Do I need to go on?

Woah, is that Louis from Left 4 Dead?

I'm sorry about the book-line, I cut it immediately after posting. But I meant Executive as in Judicative + Legislative + Executive, only one level above.

Society agrees on your aforementioned constitution by a legislative process and creates the Executive organ of government to put the constitution into action. By doing so, the executive organ of government is THEN ideally split into this government's Judicative + Legislative + Executive.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?

Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!
Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )
And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.
Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.
My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead",

Me either, which is why that sentence actually reads "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead by those organizations".

By "left for dead" I meant denied necessary treatment because they're unable to pay, just like in the hypothetical question Wolf Blitzer is asking Ron Paul in that clip.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die.

Wait, so you're suggesting that we shouldn't try to handle moral questions with categorical imperatives, but instead should weigh the pro's and cons of a policy to determine whether it's beneficial on the whole?

Have you finally had a utilitarian conversion?



This hypothetical about the dying man who can't pay for life saving treatment is a pivotal question in deciding what the right rules should be with regards to health care. If you want to insist that healthcare be "free market", then you have to play by the rules of the market. If you don't have the money to pay for a blu-ray of Glee, then you don't get a blu-ray of Glee. If you don't have the money to pay for heart surgery, then you don't get heart surgery. It's that simple. Anything else is "socialism".

You can try to handwave that concern about dying people away by saying "surely someone will just donate the money or a doctor will volunteer to do it for free", but I think most people aren't naive enough to think that's going to even put a dent in the kind of body count that sort of system would rack up over time.

So what's the reason why we should even want some absolutist free market in health care? Because it's cheaper? Because it satisfies some ideological fetish? Because some perverse moral philosophy claims it's just?

How many people's lives are those things worth?

>> ^DerHasisttot:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Didn't get hear the end of the answer, I want my vote back! This isn't about talking points, this is about mud slinging
To make the false argument that government = society is so dumb.

Government is the executive of a society.
At 30 seconds RP almost shrugs his shoulders when asked if he'd let him die. Is that not enough?
@ponceleon, what about everything before?


Ohhh there you go throwing around your fancy book learning! I shuuur do wishh I reed me a bouk!

Ad hominem aside, "executive of a society", really? Like government is the boss and we the people are its workers? Really? I think you need to read a nice little book called the constitution. There is a good line in it about "We the People of the United States" implying a very different idea than the fancy books you seem to read! (this is supposed to be a joking around tone, not a snide tone, please take it in that context, been watching redlettermedia all day )

And @NetRunner, I guess you are right, I did kind of miss that point of the cheering, kind of odd for sure. Matches the boos that he later gets.

Though I don't support the logic of "unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead", we can't say that about anything ever. Let us try that logic on a different foot shall we? I don't think we should legalize drugs because of all the new people that will die of drugs. I don't think drugs should be legal unless you can guarantee me that no extra people will die. The problem is we are fist assuming that people should be restricted from drugs, not that more people will die because of more volume of people doing them. More to the point, "if" (and it is a big if, I don't think government mandated healthcare is making more hearts available for transplant, as my grandma) more people died from a lack of healthcare then it should make us, as people, want to help all those whom can't afford to on our own merit, much like the same argument for supporting local drug rehabilitation programs. I have had the opportunity to serve in just such a way, for which I am grateful.

My point is, there is rarely one good answer for a given problem, like health care, but when government is involved, only one answer is given. I would rather local communities figure that out for themselves. Speaking of, I have been toying around with the idea of non-profit healthcare for awhile now, perhaps I should get to know some actuaries and make it happen. Is there already such a thing? Am I ignorant to its existence?

To @GeeSussFreeK, @ponceleon the point wasn't Ron Paul's answer, it was the audience cheering at the idea of letting someone die.

Here's the exchange with Paul's full answer:



He later reiterates his answer on Twitter:

The individual, private charity, families, and faith based orgs should take care of people, not the government.

Personally, I think that's saying the same thing, unless you're going to somehow guarantee that no one will be left for dead by those organizations.

It's mostly just an attempt to shift the blame for the consequences of his policy position onto other people. He wants them to be "free" to make the decision to let people die if they want to, because otherwise people's costs will go up.

How is this justice? Have we been awakened the next day and seen a different world in which kindness and fairness have overwhelmed the natural human instinct to grasp power by any means necessary? Has our lust for war brought us peace? It's just another day, with one less living person.

Saudi wealth, the Red Scare, CIA operations and flawed religious dogma created a high-profile Bogeyman for us to chase for nearly a decade. In the wake we have left thousands dead and injured, nations torn asunder...basically, we've shown just what level of frightened warmongers we apes really are.