Democracy Now! have the whole video on their site:
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/5/26

Alternate streaming options here, including MPEG-4 which you can view with VLC, Windows Media Player, etc. (via the 'Open Network Stream'/'Open URL' options, respectively).

People! Pre-rendered cinematics ≠ gameplay. This is the oldest rule in the book.

The gameplay itself may finally turn out to be good, but NEVER use a pretty intro video as your basis for quality predictions. EVER. These things are advertisments!

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^BoneyD:
MaxWilder Can you really blame him for lying though? For starters, it's not the first time a politician has done it (/cough Obama) and there is an incredible incentive for doing so in these sexual cases. I.e. Given that ANY instance of promiscuity, no matter how well you do your job, will result in your permanent expulsion from the field.
I can't say I'd be above lying to cover my own back, if there was even a slim chance that the whole thing will just blow over if I did.

History has shown time after time that liars get treated far worse than those who immediately own up to their mistakes. Especially for cases like this, where there were no laws broken, and he wasn't using his family values as a centerpiece of his political career.
BTW, did I miss Obama being caught in a scandal for lying? I don't remember one.


I found the lie about saying he never promised to deliver single-payer health care, a program that would literally save the lives of many many millions of Americans, far more heinous. That *should* have been a scandal, but wasn't.

Edit: BTW, I agree that he's handled this badly, he'd have come out a helluva lot better if he'd just said balls-out (sorry) "Yes, it was me and I apologise". But it's not like it's the first time a politician has lied and it sure as hell won't be the last. He didn't rape anyone, he didn't even have actual sex with anyone. I seriously don't see why we're giving so much of a shit about the sort of thing that I bet 999,000,000 other guys have done behind their wives back and then not owning up to it when challenged.

@MaxWilder Can you really blame him for lying though? For starters, it's not the first time a politician has done it (/cough Obama) and there is an incredible incentive for doing so in these sexual cases. I.e. Given that ANY instance of promiscuity, no matter how well you do your job, will result in your permanent expulsion from the field.

I can't say I'd be above lying to cover my own back, if there was even a slim chance that the whole thing will just blow over if I did.

They can tell whether or not the driver was texting by bringing up the phone records for that date/time. I assume from the YT poster's message that this was confirmed by police?

What a weak arse, softball interview. How about that these leaks will force governments to act more ethically, since the more reprehensible their activities undertaken in our names, the more likely it is that a conscientious staffer will want to blow the whistle?

There was more in the cables released at the time than simply how much of a dickhead any given head of state is.

The only pointed question she asked was about how ethical it was for Hillary Clinton to order diplomats to gather personal information on foreign dignitaries. For Brzezinski's assertion that this was nothing illegal to go unchallenged is absolutely astounding. Her only concern seemed to be that 'on balance' this would effect diplomatic relations.

The deference to power on displayed here is palpable.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Worst-valantine-s-day-gift-EVER

*viral

Since this topic has been brought to the front page, involving everyone in the debate over the reaction to what is ultimately a rather unspectacular video, I offer my two cents:

The video is unfunny, depicts the striking of a female by a male, presenting it as some sort of a dorm room dare contest.

There is no way to tell whether this 'activity' was truly consensual. Nor is it known whether all parties involved had each been striking each-others groins equally, where the female's (presumably) reduced upper body strength was accounted for. If the latter were the case and it wasn't just an excuse for the males to hit a girl as hard as they could, then it could be said that the female is a willing participant.

I find absolutely no humor in scenarios involving violence against any weaker party by those physically superior. However, the clip is also entirely without any context that might suggest a different dynamic here.

I wasn't there, I don't know the people or their personalities. Thus, I found it impossible to decide where I stood on it, as such I did not vote and then moved on.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Someone should conduct an investigation. Find out watt happened.

hahah! That was brilliant! You have a shockingly powerful pun sense. Ohm my god, I'm lightning so hard it hertz. Oh, the polarity! Put this man in charge! >_>
Okay. That's taking it too far. I think I just grounded that joke.


I bet someone at Oncor is gonna get a kick in the joules over this.

Yet another pretty looking game that has no idea about, or completely skimped on sound quality. Boring, generic music and gunfire sounds clearly engineered in studio, which probably didn't even come from actual firearms. Looks like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 remains the gold-standard for audio in a shooter.

By the way, from the looks of the 'gameplay' on show here, I'd say it's going to be as interactive as this trailer.

I wanted to apologise for the offence caused by my comment, it was unfair to judge people for their own reactions to his death when I still haven't figured out my own. This whole affair has not felt like the celebratory event it seems like it should be and I'm still trying to figure out why.

On the one hand I'm very pleased that he's finally dead and that they did it without destroying half of Pakistan. On the other, the idea that our answer to every problem nowadays is to strike, bomb, kill... it just makes me feel sick. This post someone made on Reddit puts to words better than I can how I feel, but I can recognise that there must be a huge measure of catharsis over Bin Laden's death for the nation that he struck.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I do again apologise.

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.

Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.
Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?
Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

LOL!
The irony of your icon, by the way, is delicious.
You validate everything I say about your own fake outrage by agreeing with my statements and then concluding with your "inside" knowledge of that the orders were "period."
Unless you want to out yourself as someone who was involved in the mission and has first-hand knowledge of what the "orders" were, please, do stfu about what they were "period."
It is exactly that kind of hyperbole that makes your outrage fake.


You call in to question my character by calling me 'fake' and wonder why I might take offence? I don't mind you critisising the points of my arguement, but don't try to suggest that I'm simply doing it to score points on here. I am not a troll and I am always genuine when stating my position. I will concede that I can't know for sure their exact orders and was wrong to claim otherwise, I based my statement on the evidence of recent US actions. I should have used the term "highly likely".

However! You don't get away that easily, please answer my question. Do you think it is okay for someone who has been accused of committing crime to face execution without trial? (Whether or not capturing Bin Laden was even possible in this case)

>> ^ponceleon:

>> ^BoneyD:
I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.
America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".

Please, enough with the fake outrage and generalizing statements.
I'm probably one of those super-libs you are referring to and while I am disappointed in so much revelry over a death, by no means do I feel this was an illogical outcome. This wasn't a sniper hit, this was a fire-fight in which the enemy used a woman as a human shield.
To think they could have "talked it out" is just unrealistic given the situation. Your assertion that the US government had "no intention of having him 'brought to justice'" is poorly supported by FACTS such as Saddam Hussain being brought to justice in the exact way you seem to be implying.
The bottom line is that it wasn't possible given the situation, at least with the information that we have been given so far.


Fake outrage? Excuse me, what gives you the right to label me disengenuous? I'll admit I'm as human as the next guy and not sad at all that this hateful sack of shit is dead. Nor that I think it would have even been possible to take Bin Laden alive, before he topped himself. Do I think that he needed to die? Yes. It's this approval of his killing without due process that is counter to the ideal that we should hold. If we can't, then we should shut up and just be pleased that he is dead.

Bin Laden was responsible for mass murder and did not deserve to breath our air, I wouldn't have been upset if it were the death penalty he faced. But what is the point where you are comfortable with a murderer being denied a trial? When they kill 2? 10? 50? Where is the line where that becomes okay and who makes that decision?

Oh and before we start hearing any more about the rubbish that the SEALs were ordered to capture him first and foremost, I point to the US's recent track record on their use of special forces (see: Task Force 373). Both political parties have both demonstrated that they are perfectly fine with extra-judicial executions, even of their own citizens. The mission was to kill him. Period.

I am really suprised at the supposed super-libs in this thread who are okay with Bin Laden being assassinated, rather than stand trial. It is obvious that apprehension was never the goal of this mission, the US government obviously had no intention of having him 'brought to justice' in a court of law. Likely because it would mean drawning attention to their other embarrasment over those they've held in Guantanamo Bay.

America is supposed to be the shining light on the hill. That no matter what, those who commit crimes would be fairly examined by the evidence and their guilt or innocence decided by the court. All this killing will do is allow Americas detractors to yet again point and say, "Look, they don't even follow their own laws".