All the fps games are boring, same old stuff with different graphics, just another COD clone, bad voice acting, too many scripted elements, blah, blah, blah

The gameplay in Battlefield 3 is dynamic, squad based and pure awesome. With the addition on multiple vehicle types from quads, to Humvee, to tanks, to helicopters, to JETS(!) it allows the multiplayer game to be fluid with varying strategies to master so that you can deal with a huge array of possible situations and threats. If you want to be really successful in the game you have to communicate with your squad and learn to play as a squad. That alone puts it leagues beyond any COD game. Don't get me wrong I appreciate COD for the frantic action it delivers, but I prefer more of a thinking game than twitch response. Which is also why I dislike Halo games, plus having to hear a Mom yelling for her kid to go to bed or finish his homework.

This game is taking the whole multiplayer aspects of FPS games to a whole new level with massive maps, 64 player games and a focus on team mechanics. No lone gunner running off and getting 500+ kills like in other games.

@ghark - It says it takes place in 2014, so unless you've got a Tardis in your house I think your diatribe is either a little off target, an attempt at trolling, or you were pandering to the liberal sift community. Either way you get a "wag of the finger".

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

Yeah, I knew exactly who you were talking about. I think they both acted like snotty children at one point or another during that debacle and I'm pretty sure I told each of them that at the time.

I don't think consistency is really all that hard, actually. Maybe perfect consistency is unobtainable, but we could certainly do way better than we have when it comes to racial slurs. It would help if the rules would be rewritten and/or clarified when decisions are made. There was a pretty good discussion about improving the rules a while ago and I made some suggestions that several people, including dag, seemed to think would clarify the rules. The rules were never updated, though.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Oh, I didn't mean that you were the butt hurt one. Last time, burdturgler was the one crying left and right. Consistency is hard to get in a human system, and this is certainly a human system. The admins cannot act unless they know about it and you can only assume they will know about it if someone reports it.

I've seen plenty of transgressions of different sorts around here, but I've become more of a live and let live type lately, since I transgress lots in my own way once in a while.

Anyways, happy new years.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I don't feel all that strongly about it, either way, but some consistency would be nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

Oh, I didn't mean that you were the butt hurt one. Last time, burdturgler was the one crying left and right. Consistency is hard to get in a human system, and this is certainly a human system. The admins cannot act unless they know about it and you can only assume they will know about it if someone reports it.

I've seen plenty of transgressions of different sorts around here, but I've become more of a live and let live type lately, since I transgress lots in my own way once in a while.

Anyways, happy new years.
In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I don't feel all that strongly about it, either way, but some consistency would be nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

I don't feel all that strongly about it, either way, but some consistency would be nice.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

Because no one has been all butthurt about it this time. The whole spook thing was bull shit, I think.
>> ^xxovercastxx:

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

How come blankfist was suspended for saying "spook" but GorillaMan has been on a 2-year "nigger" streak with not even a finger wag?

I agree -- Wagging the dog.

Glen Beck gave a time line of this event and it is worth seeing, It was posted here few days ago. It is a good unbiased timeline


<a rel="nofollow" href="

>> ^rebuilder:

https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/there-is-something-to-s
ee-here/
^
Completely correct there. Of all the revelations brought to light lately, we're focusing on Assange as a person and Wikileaks as an organization? Really?


Think they call that wagging the dog.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker

It's not "you're racist", it's "you didn't think". If all you got out of those several paragraphs I wrote was the couple of lines about literacy tests, you missed the point.

Also, don't twist your words. You went on about how responsible home ownership says something about a person...implying it qualifies you as good. Now you're coming back talking about only wanting to DISqualify people. That's the opposite idea. Qualifying people to vote based on some fact can be very arbitrary (property owners, race, gender, etc). Our country has made constant progress away from this way of thinking. Taking away someone's right to vote because they did something society doesn't like is a different issue, and you're confusing the two, IMO.

It's not that what you're saying here is completely whacko to me (like most of the time) it's that IMO it's a bad idea to give government lots of powers to disqualify people from voting. It's WAY too easy for it to be abused, modified in stupid ways, etc. It's a serious slippery slope without all the normal exaggeration the phrase "slippery slope" usually comes with. It's already bad enough that only 50% of people vote in Presidential elections...the dog gets wagged pretty hard as it is. You start taking away more and more voting rights and an ever smaller percentage of the population ends up controlling politics. i.e. the far left and the far right...the crazies. Hideous.

You graduate high school at 18. You can vote at 18. If you want to make civics classes in high school more rigorous and harder to pass, that's cool with me. Much beyond that is getting ugly. Voting needs to be easier, not harder.

Personally, I think ideally everyone should have to take a class like this to graduate high school:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/

Whether or not airport security should be privatized is a fine topic for debate, but the fact of the matter is that we are not part of that debate. If corporations want to privatize American airport security, they will, whether we like it or not, and once they've gotten what they want, airport security will no longer be featured in the news, regardless of how invasive, toxic or ineffective it may be.

This is classic 'tail wagging the dog' stuff here.

The pup isn't wagging its tail . . .

so wait, you're saying that you'd be happier if, say, keith olbermann had a rally and nothing but radical leftists showed up, rather than stewart taking a step back and looking at things in a different light? i guess i forgot that the rally was a left vs right battle.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aw - he took off his clown nose. :yack: Am I supposed to agree with him when he wipes his face-paint long enough to wag his finger at the media he's a part of? If he equally targeted the left and right then he might have had a point. Sadly, he's just another left-wing apologist who uses sarcasm instead of shrillness. He isn't deep enough to be profound, and IMO he isn't brave enough to be an commentator. He's a coward who slaps his clown mask on as armor the second that specifics come up. Otherwise he'd actually have to STAND for something, and that wouldn't much appeal to his audience of self-congratulatory faux-hipsters. Such mealy-mouthed, small-minded twerps find actually taking a position to be distasteful because then it requires them to actually THINK about what they believe in. Rather than go through such a difficult exercise, they are content to point fingers at others who are more intelligent and courageous than themselves and point out THEIR flaws. Natually Stewart appeals to such people, because he reflects their cowardace and smallness.
As far as crowd sizes go? I've seen vids of both the Restoring Honor and Restoring Sanity crowds. They were roughly analogous in size.
So Beck was only 87K but Stewart was 215K...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/10/live-vide
o-stewart-colbert-rally.html
Baloney. Regardless, the stupidity of this argument between the left & right over crowd sizes is ridiculous. Both crowds were huge, and well into the 200,000+ range. Quit arguing over your epeen and just be glad people showed up. One was a 'church meeting' and the other was a Halloween party.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Aw - he took off his clown nose. :yack: Am I supposed to agree with him when he wipes his face-paint long enough to wag his finger at the media he's a part of? If he equally targeted the left and right then he might have had a point. Sadly, he's just another left-wing apologist who uses sarcasm instead of shrillness. He isn't deep enough to be profound, and IMO he isn't brave enough to be an commentator. He's a coward who slaps his clown mask on as armor the second that specifics come up. Otherwise he'd actually have to STAND for something, and that wouldn't much appeal to his audience of self-congratulatory faux-hipsters. Such mealy-mouthed, small-minded twerps find actually taking a position to be distasteful because then it requires them to actually THINK about what they believe in. Rather than go through such a difficult exercise, they are content to point fingers at others who are more intelligent and courageous than themselves and point out THEIR flaws. Natually Stewart appeals to such people, because he reflects their cowardace and smallness.
As far as crowd sizes go? I've seen vids of both the Restoring Honor and Restoring Sanity crowds. They were roughly analogous in size.
So Beck was only 87K but Stewart was 215K...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tvblog/2010/10/live-vide
o-stewart-colbert-rally.html
Baloney. Regardless, the stupidity of this argument between the left & right over crowd sizes is ridiculous. Both crowds were huge, and well into the 200,000+ range. Quit arguing over your epeen and just be glad people showed up. One was a 'church meeting' and the other was a Halloween party.


Yes...I can see how this reasonableness offended you and how you needed to express the opinion that had nothing to do with this speech. Perhaps you'd like to go on refuting the things that he said...wanna do that? Yeah I think it's about to you shut the fuck up.