Moonlight Graham

Exactly.

I miss the glory days of PC gaming. I used to play consoles when I was younger, NES and SNES, but then I got into the PC around the time of Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Tie Fighter, X-Com and all those awesome games from the 90's that followed. I never had a Playstation 1 because PC games were better IMO, except for sports games in some cases. Then PS2/Xbox came out and PC gaming became too expensive to keep up with all the graphics cards etc. you then had to buy. As someone just mentioned PC gaming is not what it was because most major games now are console ports or MMO's. I still like strategy games and simulations on PC though. I thought PC gaming from the 90's was the best era ever for gaming because you had so many different kinds of games from all genres, tons of great FPS, strategy, racing, RPG's, simulation games etc. For consoles now you get mostly FPS/shooters and other action/adventure games with the rare RPG thrown in, & cash-in sequels every year with no innovation.

Exactly Kimmy. The rich have their place in the economy by creating innovating business and investing capital. However, the economy is mainly fueled by consumption of the majority, not the consumption of the rich (who also keep their money locked in bank account much more so than the poor/middle-class). Henry Ford knew this, and even though he could pump out a lot of cars off the assembly line, he saw that most of his workers couldn't afford these cars and therefore Ford's profits weren't reaching their potential. So Henry raised his workers' wages so that they could afford the cars they produced, and Ford's profits and sales increased and employment at Ford increased thus general wealth increased for all. This principle is called Fordism. If you want to create more wealth/GDP, and you want to decrease unemployment, why not redistribute more money to the poor/middle classes, via wages or whatever means? This would mean a higher standard of living for them, meaning they are buying/consuming more, meaning more jobs are created to meet this demand, meaning the rich very likely benefit from this too in the end. It's like a circle of spending/consumption by the middle/lower class majority and profits for the rich, then redistribution of some wealth back to the middle/lower classes and then they spend/consume more etc. and the cycle perpetuates.

Since the creation of the UN it's been agreed by all states that you can't annex territory from another. The end of WWII also saw the creation of the modern human rights era, and marked the end of colonialism as countries began preparing nations for independence. Israel shouln't have to pick up and leave, but they shouldn't be building settlements either. What they've tried to do over the last 50 years is akin to colonialism, and it's BS. Not to say the Palestinians are angels either. Just because other countries annexed & colonized others throughout history doesn't make it right. Split the territory 50/50 and be done with it.

there's a bit more than that: My link But really, who do expect them to have speak? Bring JFK back from the dead? They've got Eva Longoria speaking, hopefully not behind a podium!

Oh jesus gimme a break. Here we go again. Why don't they say "The US is a great country?", or "the US is one of the greatest countries in human history" etc.? Why are they compelled to say "we're the best ever!". I'm sorry, Canadians & Canadian politicians don't do the "we are best country in the world!" thing at the same rate as Americans. Not even close. Nothing at all wrong with "U-S-A!" chants, but when it comes after "We're the greatest country in human history!" rants by politicians its lame. And there's a difference between loving your country, and believing your superior to every other country now and of all times. I do love the US, for many reasons, but many Americans, especially on the hyper-patriot right, are a bit arrogant about their country. A lot of American friends I have who are a bit more liberal can be a bit self-critical too though and admit both positives and faults, so it's all good, i'm trying not to generalize. What can I say, I don't really like wacko right-wingers, in Canada or the US, and watching that dang GOP convention just drove me nuts I guess LOL. An anti-intellegence rodeo it seemed like. People cheering Condi Rice for pete's sake! I feel bad for US conservatives with a brain who have to put up with that embarassment of a party. *rant #2 over*

the post i quoted just reminded me of how I felt last night watching Romney say the US was the best country in the history of human civilization.

I'm pretty sure that was specificly in terms of economic stability since the recession. But the world was watching. I agree. Per capita, no freaking way. ie: When is the last time you've heard the chant "Ca-na-da! Ca-na-da!". Not as often as "USA! USA! I don't think people resent the power status as they do what the US does with that power. ie: If the US had twice the miltary it does now, but never used it, there would be less resentment. Not that any other state with the US's power wouldn't also be resented. Would they be more or less resentment who knows? It depends on what they'd do.

What does having a parliament have anything to do with it? Parliament governments must keep the confidence of the legislature, and the executive (PM) in a parliamentary system comes from the parliamentary legislature itself. Therefore the stakes are much higher in a parliament legistlature than from a legislature in a presidential system of government where the legislature and executive are not fused. Therefore, I would it think that more than 2 parties would be easier to maintain in a presidential system than a parliamentary system.

Prove it! What proof do you have that "God hates homosexual acts"? Oh wait, some guy wrote in a book a few millenia ago that some guy claimed that God claimed that he didn't like homosexuality...how credible! The REALLY REALLY stupid thing is the credibility that people give to the Bible. It's just a book, there isn't anything "holy" about it! People wrote it, not God. God had NOTHING to do with the creation and editing of the Bible. You can say God did, but you have ZERO evidence to back that up...other than what i written in the Bible. The Bible is just a freaking book. Author: a lot of long-dead dudes, none of them God or "divine" or "prophets". Some of the stuff in there is good advice, some of it garbage. Take it on the whole as the authority of one's life and morality without even questioning it is freaking stupid. Anyone who does that quite frankly is an idiot in the literal sense of the word. Human progress has been pushed back centuries because of the way many people give far too much authority to that book and to their religious authorities (who are only fallible humans like the rest of us with no more authority on matters of "God" than anyone else). People who take a stance on ie: whether gays should marry or not just because of what it says in an old book written by humans who still thought the earth was flat are fucking morons!!! I'm sorry but it's true.

Honestly I thought it was funny. I didn't think the chair thing was that weird, he was making a joke out of it. I also don't think an 80 y/o man gives a rip about his reputation.

Here's the kind of thing that pisses me off about the US, and I'm sure it's the same for others around the world: Americans, especially politicians (including several speakers at the Republican Convention this week, including Romney), frequently say something along the lines of "The US is the best country in the world!" amid huge cheers (Romney even said the US was the greatest country in human history last night). Really?...Well FUCK YOU! Most people in most other countries, including Canadians, don't go around saying "we're the best! we're better than all of you!". I've said something like "We're one of the greatest countries in the world!" because it's true, but I don't see Canada as much better than say Denmark or Norway or Germany etc. There's a reason why people think many Americans are arrogant: because they are. Saying "you're the best in the world"...with the rest of the world watching, goes beyond confidence to arrogance. My grandfather was in the Canadian military, and was stationed in Washington DC, therefore my mom grew up for a number of years living there. She said a big difference between Canadian and US schools was that the Americans drill it into the children's heads that they ARE the best, through history and whatnot, and eventually you start to believe it. There is definitely something good to be said of having confidence and pride in your countries, but like wtf?

The US has the worst economic inequality of all OECD countries, that's probably a major reason for poor socioeconomic mobilty in the US. Countries like Chad, Vietnam, Syria, Tanzania rank better in economic equality than the US according to World Bank gini coefficient stats: My link

It is being politically engaged. Liars or not, you should listen to what candidates have to say, especially in the biggest speeches of their careers and in the presidential 2012 election thus far...in the very least to hold them accountable for what they say.

No, but if you're going to vote for a presidential ticket you should probably take a few minutes to listen to what these guys have to say even if it's bologna, especially if it's a guy new to most people. I don't see people skipping watching something garbage on tv (yet important) for something even more garabge as something endearing for Americans or any country for that matter. Hopefully the "Toddler & Tiaras" demographics stays home on voting day.

Totally agree. Along with God of War 1 & 2, Shadow of Colossus was my favorite game on PS2. It was like a beautiful puzzle game, but the puzzles were insanely huge monsters. Much more innovate that ICO, which went more with the stereotypical "pull the switch/lever, move the crate" puzzles.

I don't think Ryan has consistent ideas. He's a Christian and an Ayn Rand lover. 2 completely incompantible ideologogies. Why would you call Ryan more intelligent? Besides Romney kicking ass in the business world, he... Meanwhile Ryan created a budget plan that doesn't even add up properly on the balance sheet. He is a much better speaker than Romney though, but talk is cheap, most especially in politics.

yes, and i think he was talking about this back in 2011 also, maybe even before. i glanced an article about it from last december 2011. odd how there hasn't been a huge fuss in the media it.

From an article: Even gay couple adoption? Pretty wild. Conservatives are all for getting government out of their living when it comes to taxes, but certainly not social issues.

I honestly just think Romney's stance is pure hot-air to show that he is conservative to the conservative base. There's no way this will ever turn into any ammendment/law, since several others in the past have tried to put this in front of congress with no success. So Romney can get someone to put the bill/ammendment forward & be able to say he tried, but it's just symbolic really since nothing will come from it. Kind of smart politically actually, unless it ends up costing him more votes of moderates going to Obama than him than the benefits of gaining conservative support. Romney is a moderate and not a radical conservative like many GOP's, which is why I like him (edit: compared to other GOP's lol). It's too bad he has to sell himself out in a national election and take stances he probably wouldn't do otherwise just to the support of the wa-hoos on the right.

That's true, i guess it's more a matter of campaign donations and volunteering etc. than actual votes.

Xbox 360

You been listening to Lowell Green on CFRA today? lol

I feel bad for the men who are abused, both physically and emotionally/verbaly, by their female significant others. Of course I also feel bad for the women in the reverse, but little attention is paid to the male victims in comparision, and men are often ashamed to seek help in these kinds of circumstances because of embarrassment & stigma. They just "take it like a man". And it can be ignored by authorities & counsellors etc. because they won't often don't see female-on-male abuse as seriously as male-on-female abuse.