Barihawk

I am kind of interested in trying out Monster Hunter 3 since CAD is going on and on about it. I finally hooked up my Wii to the HDTV and unlocked 480p resolution, and the games look a whole lot better.

I really wish they would include reduced stat versions of all the armor to release into the real world, this was a prime opportunity to update combat across the board but they passed it up. Either way, the skill is more fun than the rest of the game.

What about the Korean War? If I am not mistaken, the United Nations won that one.

This sounds like more of a "I lost the election fairly so I am going to take it by force" kind of revolution to me. I mean, if stablizing the nation while securing your financial future is an offense worthy of revolution, every American needs to grab their shotgun and head to the US Capitol building. The protestors seem to be acting far worse than the "despotic government" and the opposition leader is supporting the mob violence.

The only thing shocking about that is the fact that it's probably not true. When headlines on the front page of that website say "we democrats" vs "them [republicans]," the validity falls somewhat in question. People in media will do just about anything to get attention, ratings, or hits. In one of the above little /b/ images people are posted for lulz, it shows a bloody camera listed as a "abandoned machine gun." Presumably the camera belonged to a journalist killed by American troops. The image is obviously fake and staged, and the blood is likely nothing more than red paint (guess what, blood is a darkish red that approaches black when spilt). Journalists around the world love to set up fake photos with actors/actresses or photoshop images in order to prevoke emotional response. It's been done for decades. There is no true media outlet. It doesn't exist as even an AP wire was concieved by someone voicing their opinions on a subject. Reality sucks and doesn't sell. This is apparently headline news but if an African dictator orders his guns to fire on villages because of their racial heritage, nobody cares. But if American chopper pilots are idiots? Oh hell, that's news! A precocious looking white girl gets kidnapped and raped we spend WEEKS on the news ignoring nigh all else in order to cover it, but the same situation happens hundreds of times daily in America alone, much less the rest of the world. All Journalists care about is getting attention and milking it. If the truth really had a website, it would probably be on Geocities and struggling at that.

Since everyone thought my previous post was great, here's something even more related to the topic: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1803025 It's a roadmap to this and every other political/religious discussion on TIF. Ever.

I don't think it's very fair for any of us to judge these guys. Hindsight is 20/20 so we can look back on anything with an air superiority that we "knew better" and throw around words like "obviously that's a" or "cruel." The fact is, most if not all of us have never been in a real combat situation and the closest we've come to it is a climactic battle scene in MW2. The reason people here are comparing war to videogames is because that's their only experience of it, asides from a few bytes on the news. Guess what, soldiers in Iraq are stressed. They are stressed because every last person and their dog is a potential aggressor. We are fighting an enemy that will strap a bomb to a kid and remote-detonate it. Where women conceal AK's and grenades under their clothing on the guise that their privacy will be respected. Is that a camera or an RPG? Do most of you even know what an anti-air weapon looks like if it isn't an RPG-7? Not all are long tubes, and many have tripods. Or maybe it was a camera and truly was a mistake. Is that van carrying do-gooders or reinforcements? What weapons could they have stored in it? Perhaps radio equipment to notify the enemy of our position. Perhaps nuns who want to be humanitarians. As for the cruel jokes? Dealing with stress. Many people try to deal with stress by macabre humor. Have you ever cracked an uneasy joke at a funeral? Made a sarcastic remark about something that is bothering you? I've seen many of you do the exact same and yet you judge these guys who are surrounded by death and the prospect that at any moment they will be dead. Why is there so many instances of PTSD in modern wars compared to WW2? Not entirely because of "they know what they are doing is wrong" but because back in WW2/Korea, you generally had a good idea of who the bad guys were. In modern warfare, it can be anyone from an armed commando to a dog with dynamite strapped on. The other major difference between modern warfare and WW2. We aren't carpet bombing anyone. We are going out of our way to minimize civilian casualties (of which there WILL be in war) yet our enemy shows no such respect and TARGETS civilians along with military personel. All the laser sights and thermal cameras in the world will not tell you who is truly friend or foe. If they made a real videogame based on modern warfare, people wouldn't play it because you'd die too often and there wouldn't be a savegame to revert back to.

I remember the days when we only had updates once a month and nobody complained, ever. There is absolutely so much in this game that you can do to pass the time. Also remember that not everyone is maxed out and a few months ago during the high-level bonanza, plenty of people were complaining that there was nothing for low/mid levelled players.

I think this has the same chance of happening as the "complete ban on all CO(2) emmissions my propery manager tells me about when I deliver my check. It's not going to happen. It's some congressman flexing his political muscle for some e-peen. The United States in generally is for net neutrality and free exchange as long as it doesn't violate laws. Firefox, Opera, and Chrome are all unique projects based on open licensure and distributed for free by the will of their creators. They can not be sold legally, ever.

Well why do you think we should use genetics to improve our lives? If you ask me, the problems that humans face aren't genetic ones, they are problems of society, ones that can't be fixed by genetics. In addition to this, having a bunch of idiots who's ancestors could afford to have their genes manipulated and are therefore resistant against disease/etc would only add to those social problems. The sheer thought that your genes were better than others led to centuries of slavery, warfare, and genocide. Imagine if you actually were. There's a reason that selective breeding/genetic manipulation of the genome is portrayed as VILLAINY in fiction. Dr Moreau, Moonrake, Khan Noonien Singh...even if the genetically enhanced humans kept in line, others would cause strife on the fear of them.

Someone (a liberal no less) did have that same reservation. How can we afford it when we spend so much already. And not all of it benign. The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually giving aide and relief to nations around the world suffering from disasters, droughts, wars, etc. Which is a kindness that in the light of disasters like Katrina or 9/11 has never been repaid, even by larger nations that we've been assisting for decades. We are hemhoragging money and I was appalled by the mentality of the liberal majority to spend as much as they can before the upcoming elections, then back off to the President's suggestion that we go easy on the budget for a few years. But as stated, we have no idea how this is going to pan out until it does. Will millions rush to hospitals to claim and overwhelm the program? Or not?

The thing that gets me is if the man haunts every image of invertedsmile.jpg or whatever, why isn't his face in the first picture?

Here's the thing though. According to that very link if you refuse to have health insurance, you will be levied via tax. And if you refuse to pay that tax, you can be jailed. Therefore it's essentially a fine for not using insurance. I think thats more like "If you don't pay tax you go to jail thing", which is well..the law. Err, which is exactly I said. The problem is that the tax is levied on those who choose to not use insurance. And believe it or not, some people prefer NOT to use insurance and instead are good at managing their money when it comes to health spending. They will use clinics whenever possible to avoid hospital fees, only use the emergency room when necessary, and let their doctors know that they are private-payers and to double check before assigning x-rays or labs. The vast majority of Americans, however, are those who hear their children coughing and go straight to the ER.

Here's the thing though. According to that very link if you refuse to have health insurance, you will be levied via tax. And if you refuse to pay that tax, you can be jailed. Therefore it's essentially a fine for not using insurance.

Which is why you only take it for intended use when you need it, and according to the instructions (which state that after a few days of use, you need to speak with a doctor before continuing).

That made me laugh because of my rank :lol: I've never smoked or done drugs and certainly don't plan to. I don't need to impair my judgement or get high to have a good time tyvm :P That's my philosphy on life, too. Which is shocking since the most common reasoning I hear for getting smashed on alcohol/drugs is that it "loosens me up." I rarely drink alcohol and I only really do it for the taste of the drink itself. If you have problems being social, getting smashed and losing control over yourself is certainly an "Excellent" way of making impressions.

Main reason for this update? Flexibility in the combat engine. Your combat skills will have more of an impact on the damage you deal since instead of dealing 18 you can deal 18X damage depending on your level, making the levels themselves more rewarding.

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational. The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true. It's essentially nothing more than a pissing match, with the stakes being who can say "I told you so." Both sides of the argument (read: intelligent sides of the argument, not the less educated bigots...on both sides) have enough common ground where unless you specifically bring up the origins of man there is little to no disagreement.

Haha, just saying. Everyone is taught from a young age that alcohol is bad, but they still abuse it like idiots in those years anyways.

N_Odie, I am pleased and impressed by the quality of your post.

While evilbible.com takes it's passages out of the Bible, it often deliberately takes them out of context and without regard for the theme of that passage or surrounding verses. It's also again worth saying that four THOUSAND years of history between Leviticus and the current day make for differences in opinion regarding slavery. Those attitudes have changed in the past millenia, and Christianity has changed to reflect the status quo. Modern Christianity, no doubt, is abhorrent to slavery (and has been for several hundred years).

Oh Jesus, reading that reminded me of when I graded undergrad papers in grad school. I could be Carl Sagan and I'd still give that a C- for effort. It's not entirely wrong, nor is it right. It's something someone made with passion, but that passion has interfered and damaged their credibility. Speaking of which, it's a shame that both Bush's and Obama's education plans overemphasize mathematics and science, but almost completely ignore other disciplines. In this particular scenario we see that the language arts and formation of argument from historical sources that an English or History class should endow (when in actual practice they merely convey spelling and Jeopardy answers) are slack. Dude, magekllr. I see a lot of "friends" or "professors" or "experts" in your posts. Can we see some of you? Again, it was never intended for the United States to be a Christian nation. Only one that exemplified the ideals put forth by Christ. People on both sides just did not seem to get this. There is a difference between having a core set of beliefs than acting on them. Does someone need to be Christian to be Christlike? No. Ask (or read) Ghandi.

Any law not given by God but given by a nation was acceptable. The Bible does not have any stance on slavery, and it was the norm of the day. However, Christians have always been anti-slave considered in the early Church, many Christians would be captured by Romans and sold into slavery or forced to fight in arenas. The most vocal abolitionists throughout the past 250 years have been Christians and a Christian movement actually succeeded in abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire (see the film, Amazing Grace. The song was written in commemoration of the event).

What the hell? Homosexuality has been around for just about all time, and many times in history it was considered perfectly fine (if not encouraged) in mainstream culture to practice it. Many influential people had homosexual relationships. Napoleon when he invaded Africa had a feminine looking boy travel with him because it was "too dangerous for a woman." It's most certainly not "new" or a "trend." The only real danger of homosexual parents is that you lose the balance of masculine-feminine influence on the child that is fairly precarious to begin with. This is crucial during the first decade or so of life when a child is constructing the world around them and also crucial in the second decade as they build an identity. Gay parents can get this right, homosexual parents have most definitely gotten it wrong over the years. Gender confusion is key here. If the kid wants to be gay, they can, but they need to fully realize if they are male or female to fit into society properly. Again, this problem can happen regardless of who your parents are because mommy or daddy didn't spend enough time with you and the other parent overcompensated. It happens. There is a slightly higher risk of it happening in a same-sex marriage. The child should spend time with a grandparent of the opposite sex to account for that, however. As for the US being a Christian nation. It was a nation built for all religions (or lack thereof) but created with Christian ideals. Leaders should fall back on their values when making decisions, but not force them on everyone else. It's a good concept, but people have and will screw it up.

Granted they are not affiliated with the universal Church, nor does the Church want them to be. As a learned Christian I have so much bone to pick with that group. Someone really should challenge them because their rights are not protected by the First. Let's also remember that extremism in religion is like a bell curve. The numbers at the extremes are the lowest. It's a crime to compare the whole to it's smallest parts. The thing is, the more moderate religious groups are led by principles that have them do good for others and not seek the public eye for it. These extremists preach hatred and are very vocal, so they are what people see. It's very unfortunate.