You have a good point, but your example also illustrates another interesting point. Making things for players does not add money to the game world since you acquire resources instead of gold, therefore any profit is an exchange, not a net gain to the economy. Granted in most games player made items are not as good as something you could find in the world, or if better, far harder/expensive to make. Anyways, this is also true when you buy any item or resource, however the problem is that the funds you used were generated from an infinite supply of money. Now, when you think about it in relation to our real economy, which is based on value we assign a piece of paper and the supply is carefully regulated, the comparisons kinda start falling apart. It can be simplified to a supply problem, but the solution would not be so simple.
Karma is a myth perpetrated by those who need divine justice but refuse to believe in god(s), it is equally ludicrous. On a time line approaching infinity all actions and counter-actions approach equilibrium, unfortunately the avg. human life span is but a finite time line.
Tad insulting now aren't we. I find it amusing that you ignore context, and then try to blame me for ignoring context on the next line.
Let's see, your first comment appears to be a long insult with no actual thoughts behind it. Guess I can skip that one.
If you spent ten seconds thinking about what you said you could have easily come up with a dozen examples demonstrating the totally lack of any sanity whatsoever to that completely idiotic statement.
You could have actually read some of the other posts explaining at a third grade level (the highest you could possibly hope to understand given your demonstrated lack of anything approaching an ability to think rationally.) how exactly you're wrong.
But for a really really simple example of how stupid what you said is, think about this.
I don't uphold drug laws, nor support them in any form. According to you, Einstein, that means that those laws do not apply to me and therefore I can go smoke a joint in front of the police station with no fear?
Pretty fucking stupid, right? Well that was exactly what you said.
Your example is flawed since you are in fact a US citizen, therefore by maintaining a citizenship of this country you are bound by it's laws which have been put into place by the citizens of this country to protect the citizens of this country. It's unfortunate if they were put into place before you were born/cared since you apparently do not agree with them, but alas they are currently law. You can overturn them if you get enough support though, it's a guaranteed legal process, which by the way you are entitled to as a US Citizen not only on issues you would like changed/added, but if you are accused of breaking a law. Since the US happens to hold Jurisdiction over this area, if you are an illegal alien they will hold you to their laws, nothing I said negates that. I will concede that I should probably have also added "or within it's territorial boundaries", since that is the point of this whole conversation. I was assuming you were following the topic which was how our laws apply outside the US.
So you take one part of a sentence out of context, obviously fail to read the rest and then expect to be treated as anything but the lying fool you've *proven* yourself to be?
"We the People" are the ones *establishing* the Constitution. That isn't a list of the people to whom it applies, nor could a sane person with any intelligence possibly make a mistake like that. You lied about something really obvious there, Sparky. In fact what you lied about was the rest of the sentence you quoted. That's really really stupid to lie about something that obvious.
This one is actually your best argument, but you present it as fact instead of interpretation. You are at a base level correct, "We the People" is the group writing the document. But according to your previous comment against me, it would mean that it does not apply to us since we, in the present, did not write it. Since it most obviously does apply to us, your remarks really make any sense, you stated contradictory ideas. Now it could be argued that the Bill of Rights is not restricted to citizens since it never explicitly says so. It often interchanges "the people" with "a person", which is open to interpretation and some others have been discussing.
Again, you really shouldn't speak in public when you're as stupid as you continually prove yourself to be.
The constitution applies to our government. Therefore it holds where our government has jurisdiction. It applies to people in this country.
Do you see how actually reading the words and knowing what they means helps you make simple basic logical connections like that?
You could learn to do that if you actually tried. But it certainly seems like you're happy to be known as a liar and a fool. You couldn't have posted anything that obviously retarded otherwise, now could you?
This one I don't get, you said exactly what I was implyin
Yes, well since it is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to quote some old guy, it is logical to conclude that it is in fact binding on us since we are in essence and practicality the government. And that it applies to those who make up it's body. Or at least if we believe the idea of democracy anyways. The dictate/not dictate thing is an old argument, and I agree in principle, but once more that does not change the fact that it is invoked not only against the government but against individuals or collections of individuals, therefore it is in fact inhibiting (albeit usually positively for the people) to the individual.
Btw, I never claimed US laws supersede local foreign laws. We have differing state laws that do no apply in every state, why would it be different in foreign states? The only things guaranteed across all states are those guaranteed by the constitution. Since those outlying foreign states are not members of the United States, why would the federal government apply to them?
And I see what you're indicating with that, but that would be far more dangerous since ignoring local laws, regardless of whether you are technically bound by them, would mean you are also not guaranteed anything by them. Which is funny that you brought it up because that is exactly what this whole conversation is about: our laws not applying to people outside or not of our country. Which is what my posts were defending, which as I understand, is how it currently is.
No Godwin since we are actually discussing the correct topic now. Since my last post I have watched several videos and finally with sound (was at work before). I still come to the same conclusion, he was out of line by a long shot and quite possibly dangerous not knowing anything else about him. I believe he had no reason to act as he did, but as your amusing Rosa Parks comment prods, it will be up to others to decide that, mainly the judge. Now if we/student still disagree with that verdict he can go to endless appeals. The thing here is that there is a process and the process will be followed, we must have faith in that, if we do not then there is no point to any of our deliberations except to indicate that we should be looking into which other country we would like to live in or buying an Idiots Guide to Revolutions.
As for people standing aside, well, what do you want them to do? They do not know his agenda, while they may base level feel bad for him, why should they risk themselves for his stupidity? Helping him would do him nor you any good in this case. It would have made things far worse most likely. Also, for those engaged in trying to control this crazy kid, "shut up" indicates I'm busy and don't wanna/need listen to you right now. As an interesting note you implicitly added 'or we destroy your life too.', no offense but to me that betrays a certain level of guilt or paranoia. Also this all happened within the span of 1 min 30-odd secs. I do not think they had time/inclination to discuss things. They had to respond to what was in front of them, not what might or could be.
What was in front of them was a guy who was getting progressively angry and eventually yelling and overriding the person he was supposed to be speaking too. When they requested for him to knock it off he looked at them and basically said fuck off. When they decided he was acting unreasonable they tried to remove him before he did something stupid or dangerous, and thus the rest we have discussed at great length.
Well, the problem I guess is that money does not leave the economy at a rate proportional to it coming in. There is no limiting factor on currency, you can always just get more, and if all you do is buy and sell from players, then the money never leaves the economy. That itself is not so much a problem if it was not for the infinite incoming money supply. What you are implying as a solution would be akin in theory to government bonds, reducing the money supply to counter inflation. And I agree it could work, but it would require a level of micromanagement most large scale games do not have at the moment. It also doesn't help that in games with multiple servers you also have multiple economies. I think EVE will have the best indication in the near future of how well regulation will work since I believe they are working on it right now, plus they only have 1 server.
Money sinks are really just band-aids on the problem then. It might be possible to "fix" the economies with money sinks, but it would require a rather elaborate system without too much emphasis on any one thing to insure maximum fun while at the same time fairness. That would probably be harder to do then just regulating the economy.
I will concede the point, you are correct in your explanation of his statement. Though would it not require the US to interfere outside it's boundaries if it was petitioned from a non-US citizen? Assuming it applied to everyone as the OP applies.
While thats a nice principle and I agree, in principle, you missed some important points. The constitution only applies to US citizens because it is only upheld by US Citizens. Not to mention that first part "We the People of the United States..." indicates we are only talking about citizens and people (legal aliens) of the US. Now if everyone in the world agreed and became US citizens/people then we wouldn't have any problems now would we. Also, if you want to assume your point correct, then the Constitution applies to everyone, therefore we should be able to enforce it for everyone, otherwise we are in fact a mockery of your point and we really only mean ourselves after all. I'm sure you can see the problem some people might have with this idea.
That aside your theory about natural rights, while once more I agree, is sadly for us all, flawed. I hold no illusion that rights are not insured and protected by the government. They might not "grant" them, but they do make sure those rights are observed. Which does include against individuals, because believe it or not, individuals can take them away from you. While thats generally a state/local level problem, the federal level does regulate to insure that the state does not break any laws itself, so it does in fact have a hand in the case of an individual, albeit somewhat indirectly. Besides, if the government was not there, and did not have the power/force to insure rights, what would prevent an individual from doing whatever they dam well please against other people? Nothing. I believe the last time that happened on a large scale Rome fell and the "Dark" Ages began.
To put it frankly, natural rights are a man-made delusion based entirely on belief. They exist because man says so and man enforces them because man believes in them; at least some men anyways. They're a nice delusion, and I like them, don't get me wrong, but a delusion none the less. If you want to argue that inherent rights inherently exist as a mechanism that is part of the natural world, you mind as well claim they are put forth and enforced by God, your argument would have more credibility.
If I recall correctly it starts with "We the People of the United States...", which, to me anyways, indicates that the only people bound by it are those who happen to be citizens of the United States. Notice how people is capitalized to indicate an emphasis on a specific group. Your comment would also mean that all our federal laws apply elsewhere in the world and therefore we should go about enforcing them to insure "rights" for everyone. I think that's a lovely idea, but I have a strange feeling not too many other countries will agree with us on that.
And for future reference that's how all legal documents are, they define a term early on then use it throughout the rest of the document. On it's own it usually has little meaning, but within the context it is usually and sometimes amusingly quite elaborate.
Well here's the thing, while an economy professor will most definitely project a very nice model and maybe come up with some interesting things the rest of us would not find, in 99% of the game economies out there it's the same basic problem, too much dam money. There's just not enough money sinks. Maybe if a game added significant taxes they could fix an economy, but ummm yea thats not fun, so you need to find enough "rewarding" money sinks, and to my knowledge no one has really done it.
I'll let the main argument go since it requires more then what the videos have shown and eyewitness "reports" may not be reliable at the moment.
I do not disagree about the KGB thing, I know it's true. However you must remember that we are talking about either a system with no checks, or a system that is entirely corrupt. While I agree it's a slippery slope scenario, almost everything is if you think about it, in this specific case you are also assuming that the Judge will find him guilty of "disagreeing". My guess is he will probably get off with a slap on the wrist for resisting arrest or disturbing the peace, whichever happens to be lesser, and some community service. Now, if this sort of thing starts happening and the judges streamline the process and the appeals system is removed, then I think you have a valid point and if it was, I would take up your call to arms.
Actually I have, and I was drunk as hell at the time and I still managed to not act like an idiot. When an officer tells you to do something that is not hazardous to your health, such as arresting you or escorting you from the premise, you do it. You do not fight them regardless of whether you think you are right, you do what they say and cooperate, the moment you fight them you define yourself as a threat, they cannot take chances. It sucks but unfortunately if you are acting irrational the odds of having a discussion concerning your actions are slim to none. If they mishandle you, you get to have them fired or worse, send them to jail depending on what they did. Especially if you have many witnesses.
What you are referencing with your Nazi/KGB reference (btw Godwin's Law, you lose) is when you are picked up and disposed of with no questions, trials, process, etc... I think we can all agree that this is not the case here.
I am amused that such a large portion of people automatically hate cops either for no reason, or because cops somewhere acted irresponsible. I by no stretch of reason claim all cops are good or that no cop has acted wrongly, but in most places and situations it's your own fault if something happens to you, and if they acted wrongly you do have legal recourse. This case was his own fault, if he would have cooperated and went along with the cops he would have been escorted out and he would now be granted credibility to his statements. Instead he fought them. Unfortunately you cannot make exceptions when you do not know a person's motivation. For a group of people touting free-speech and rights, you seem to dispose of due process and civil discourse.
I admit I could not watch a whole match depending on length and interest, but usually they do some impressive things that are cool to see. Highlight reels is where it's at. Just think of it like some other sport you can't watch. For example I love hockey, can watch football, but I am almost physically pained to sit through a baseball game.
The problem is he went from being erratic but still civil, to being frantic and out of control. At that point no one present would know what his agenda is or if he was a danger to anyone at the forum. So they first attempted to remove him from the premise. Instead of allowing himself to be removed and making a show of being "quieted" he choose to fight the officers present. If you notice he even walks on his own for a bit then tries to rush past the officers again, which is an immediate danger sign, implying that he is trying to get to something/someone for specific reason. There was several minutes, starting at the podium, of him struggling with the officers before they elected to use a taser as a last resort since he would not cooperate.
This was not about a democratic discussion or freedom, he sounded like an angry zealot from his manner and actions, not a man looking for rational discourse.
I agree wholeheartedly, and that was my reasoning to grab a PS3 before a 360. At the moment anything I want to play is either cross-platform or a PS3 exclusive, so it was the better choice. As a multimedia center I think the PS3 is also a better choice inherently. I am eying to grab a 360, but I'm waiting for more then the two exclusive titles I'd like to play, which if you are interested are Mass Effect and Fable 2. As for a Wii, the only games I wanna play are the traditional party/multiplayer games, and since I know several people with a Wii, my bases are covered.
Slashdot Mirror
Separate incidents (by almost 5 months), one of which did not end with a 6 on 1 beating until the victim was unconscious.
They're down in Jena trying to relate two separate incidents so they can let criminals go free.
You have a good point, but your example also illustrates another interesting point. Making things for players does not add money to the game world since you acquire resources instead of gold, therefore any profit is an exchange, not a net gain to the economy. Granted in most games player made items are not as good as something you could find in the world, or if better, far harder/expensive to make. Anyways, this is also true when you buy any item or resource, however the problem is that the funds you used were generated from an infinite supply of money. Now, when you think about it in relation to our real economy, which is based on value we assign a piece of paper and the supply is carefully regulated, the comparisons kinda start falling apart. It can be simplified to a supply problem, but the solution would not be so simple.
Of course, not theres no precedent. It's not like they made toys for R movies or...oh wait they apparently did. Ummm...back to you Bob.
Karma is a myth perpetrated by those who need divine justice but refuse to believe in god(s), it is equally ludicrous. On a time line approaching infinity all actions and counter-actions approach equilibrium, unfortunately the avg. human life span is but a finite time line.
Let's see, your first comment appears to be a long insult with no actual thoughts behind it. Guess I can skip that one.
If you spent ten seconds thinking about what you said you could have easily come up with a dozen examples demonstrating the totally lack of any sanity whatsoever to that completely idiotic statement. You could have actually read some of the other posts explaining at a third grade level (the highest you could possibly hope to understand given your demonstrated lack of anything approaching an ability to think rationally.) how exactly you're wrong. But for a really really simple example of how stupid what you said is, think about this. I don't uphold drug laws, nor support them in any form. According to you, Einstein, that means that those laws do not apply to me and therefore I can go smoke a joint in front of the police station with no fear? Pretty fucking stupid, right? Well that was exactly what you said.
Your example is flawed since you are in fact a US citizen, therefore by maintaining a citizenship of this country you are bound by it's laws which have been put into place by the citizens of this country to protect the citizens of this country. It's unfortunate if they were put into place before you were born/cared since you apparently do not agree with them, but alas they are currently law. You can overturn them if you get enough support though, it's a guaranteed legal process, which by the way you are entitled to as a US Citizen not only on issues you would like changed/added, but if you are accused of breaking a law. Since the US happens to hold Jurisdiction over this area, if you are an illegal alien they will hold you to their laws, nothing I said negates that. I will concede that I should probably have also added "or within it's territorial boundaries", since that is the point of this whole conversation. I was assuming you were following the topic which was how our laws apply outside the US.
So you take one part of a sentence out of context, obviously fail to read the rest and then expect to be treated as anything but the lying fool you've *proven* yourself to be? "We the People" are the ones *establishing* the Constitution. That isn't a list of the people to whom it applies, nor could a sane person with any intelligence possibly make a mistake like that. You lied about something really obvious there, Sparky. In fact what you lied about was the rest of the sentence you quoted. That's really really stupid to lie about something that obvious.
This one is actually your best argument, but you present it as fact instead of interpretation. You are at a base level correct, "We the People" is the group writing the document. But according to your previous comment against me, it would mean that it does not apply to us since we, in the present, did not write it. Since it most obviously does apply to us, your remarks really make any sense, you stated contradictory ideas. Now it could be argued that the Bill of Rights is not restricted to citizens since it never explicitly says so. It often interchanges "the people" with "a person", which is open to interpretation and some others have been discussing.
Again, you really shouldn't speak in public when you're as stupid as you continually prove yourself to be. The constitution applies to our government. Therefore it holds where our government has jurisdiction. It applies to people in this country. Do you see how actually reading the words and knowing what they means helps you make simple basic logical connections like that? You could learn to do that if you actually tried. But it certainly seems like you're happy to be known as a liar and a fool. You couldn't have posted anything that obviously retarded otherwise, now could you?
This one I don't get, you said exactly what I was implyin
Yes, well since it is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to quote some old guy, it is logical to conclude that it is in fact binding on us since we are in essence and practicality the government. And that it applies to those who make up it's body. Or at least if we believe the idea of democracy anyways. The dictate/not dictate thing is an old argument, and I agree in principle, but once more that does not change the fact that it is invoked not only against the government but against individuals or collections of individuals, therefore it is in fact inhibiting (albeit usually positively for the people) to the individual.
Btw, I never claimed US laws supersede local foreign laws. We have differing state laws that do no apply in every state, why would it be different in foreign states? The only things guaranteed across all states are those guaranteed by the constitution. Since those outlying foreign states are not members of the United States, why would the federal government apply to them?
And I see what you're indicating with that, but that would be far more dangerous since ignoring local laws, regardless of whether you are technically bound by them, would mean you are also not guaranteed anything by them. Which is funny that you brought it up because that is exactly what this whole conversation is about: our laws not applying to people outside or not of our country. Which is what my posts were defending, which as I understand, is how it currently is.
No Godwin since we are actually discussing the correct topic now. Since my last post I have watched several videos and finally with sound (was at work before). I still come to the same conclusion, he was out of line by a long shot and quite possibly dangerous not knowing anything else about him. I believe he had no reason to act as he did, but as your amusing Rosa Parks comment prods, it will be up to others to decide that, mainly the judge. Now if we/student still disagree with that verdict he can go to endless appeals. The thing here is that there is a process and the process will be followed, we must have faith in that, if we do not then there is no point to any of our deliberations except to indicate that we should be looking into which other country we would like to live in or buying an Idiots Guide to Revolutions.
As for people standing aside, well, what do you want them to do? They do not know his agenda, while they may base level feel bad for him, why should they risk themselves for his stupidity? Helping him would do him nor you any good in this case. It would have made things far worse most likely. Also, for those engaged in trying to control this crazy kid, "shut up" indicates I'm busy and don't wanna/need listen to you right now. As an interesting note you implicitly added 'or we destroy your life too.', no offense but to me that betrays a certain level of guilt or paranoia. Also this all happened within the span of 1 min 30-odd secs. I do not think they had time/inclination to discuss things. They had to respond to what was in front of them, not what might or could be.
What was in front of them was a guy who was getting progressively angry and eventually yelling and overriding the person he was supposed to be speaking too. When they requested for him to knock it off he looked at them and basically said fuck off. When they decided he was acting unreasonable they tried to remove him before he did something stupid or dangerous, and thus the rest we have discussed at great length.
Well, the problem I guess is that money does not leave the economy at a rate proportional to it coming in. There is no limiting factor on currency, you can always just get more, and if all you do is buy and sell from players, then the money never leaves the economy. That itself is not so much a problem if it was not for the infinite incoming money supply. What you are implying as a solution would be akin in theory to government bonds, reducing the money supply to counter inflation. And I agree it could work, but it would require a level of micromanagement most large scale games do not have at the moment. It also doesn't help that in games with multiple servers you also have multiple economies. I think EVE will have the best indication in the near future of how well regulation will work since I believe they are working on it right now, plus they only have 1 server.
Money sinks are really just band-aids on the problem then. It might be possible to "fix" the economies with money sinks, but it would require a rather elaborate system without too much emphasis on any one thing to insure maximum fun while at the same time fairness. That would probably be harder to do then just regulating the economy.
I will concede the point, you are correct in your explanation of his statement. Though would it not require the US to interfere outside it's boundaries if it was petitioned from a non-US citizen? Assuming it applied to everyone as the OP applies.
While thats a nice principle and I agree, in principle, you missed some important points. The constitution only applies to US citizens because it is only upheld by US Citizens. Not to mention that first part "We the People of the United States..." indicates we are only talking about citizens and people (legal aliens) of the US. Now if everyone in the world agreed and became US citizens/people then we wouldn't have any problems now would we. Also, if you want to assume your point correct, then the Constitution applies to everyone, therefore we should be able to enforce it for everyone, otherwise we are in fact a mockery of your point and we really only mean ourselves after all. I'm sure you can see the problem some people might have with this idea.
That aside your theory about natural rights, while once more I agree, is sadly for us all, flawed. I hold no illusion that rights are not insured and protected by the government. They might not "grant" them, but they do make sure those rights are observed. Which does include against individuals, because believe it or not, individuals can take them away from you. While thats generally a state/local level problem, the federal level does regulate to insure that the state does not break any laws itself, so it does in fact have a hand in the case of an individual, albeit somewhat indirectly. Besides, if the government was not there, and did not have the power/force to insure rights, what would prevent an individual from doing whatever they dam well please against other people? Nothing. I believe the last time that happened on a large scale Rome fell and the "Dark" Ages began.
To put it frankly, natural rights are a man-made delusion based entirely on belief. They exist because man says so and man enforces them because man believes in them; at least some men anyways. They're a nice delusion, and I like them, don't get me wrong, but a delusion none the less. If you want to argue that inherent rights inherently exist as a mechanism that is part of the natural world, you mind as well claim they are put forth and enforced by God, your argument would have more credibility.
If I recall correctly it starts with "We the People of the United States...", which, to me anyways, indicates that the only people bound by it are those who happen to be citizens of the United States. Notice how people is capitalized to indicate an emphasis on a specific group. Your comment would also mean that all our federal laws apply elsewhere in the world and therefore we should go about enforcing them to insure "rights" for everyone. I think that's a lovely idea, but I have a strange feeling not too many other countries will agree with us on that.
And for future reference that's how all legal documents are, they define a term early on then use it throughout the rest of the document. On it's own it usually has little meaning, but within the context it is usually and sometimes amusingly quite elaborate.
Well here's the thing, while an economy professor will most definitely project a very nice model and maybe come up with some interesting things the rest of us would not find, in 99% of the game economies out there it's the same basic problem, too much dam money. There's just not enough money sinks. Maybe if a game added significant taxes they could fix an economy, but ummm yea thats not fun, so you need to find enough "rewarding" money sinks, and to my knowledge no one has really done it.
While still annoying, it looks like that 10ft USB cable now has a purpose.
I'll let the main argument go since it requires more then what the videos have shown and eyewitness "reports" may not be reliable at the moment.
I do not disagree about the KGB thing, I know it's true. However you must remember that we are talking about either a system with no checks, or a system that is entirely corrupt. While I agree it's a slippery slope scenario, almost everything is if you think about it, in this specific case you are also assuming that the Judge will find him guilty of "disagreeing". My guess is he will probably get off with a slap on the wrist for resisting arrest or disturbing the peace, whichever happens to be lesser, and some community service. Now, if this sort of thing starts happening and the judges streamline the process and the appeals system is removed, then I think you have a valid point and if it was, I would take up your call to arms.
Actually I have, and I was drunk as hell at the time and I still managed to not act like an idiot. When an officer tells you to do something that is not hazardous to your health, such as arresting you or escorting you from the premise, you do it. You do not fight them regardless of whether you think you are right, you do what they say and cooperate, the moment you fight them you define yourself as a threat, they cannot take chances. It sucks but unfortunately if you are acting irrational the odds of having a discussion concerning your actions are slim to none. If they mishandle you, you get to have them fired or worse, send them to jail depending on what they did. Especially if you have many witnesses.
What you are referencing with your Nazi/KGB reference (btw Godwin's Law, you lose) is when you are picked up and disposed of with no questions, trials, process, etc... I think we can all agree that this is not the case here.
I am amused that such a large portion of people automatically hate cops either for no reason, or because cops somewhere acted irresponsible. I by no stretch of reason claim all cops are good or that no cop has acted wrongly, but in most places and situations it's your own fault if something happens to you, and if they acted wrongly you do have legal recourse. This case was his own fault, if he would have cooperated and went along with the cops he would have been escorted out and he would now be granted credibility to his statements. Instead he fought them. Unfortunately you cannot make exceptions when you do not know a person's motivation. For a group of people touting free-speech and rights, you seem to dispose of due process and civil discourse.
I admit I could not watch a whole match depending on length and interest, but usually they do some impressive things that are cool to see. Highlight reels is where it's at. Just think of it like some other sport you can't watch. For example I love hockey, can watch football, but I am almost physically pained to sit through a baseball game.
Valid point.
The problem is he went from being erratic but still civil, to being frantic and out of control. At that point no one present would know what his agenda is or if he was a danger to anyone at the forum. So they first attempted to remove him from the premise. Instead of allowing himself to be removed and making a show of being "quieted" he choose to fight the officers present. If you notice he even walks on his own for a bit then tries to rush past the officers again, which is an immediate danger sign, implying that he is trying to get to something/someone for specific reason. There was several minutes, starting at the podium, of him struggling with the officers before they elected to use a taser as a last resort since he would not cooperate.
This was not about a democratic discussion or freedom, he sounded like an angry zealot from his manner and actions, not a man looking for rational discourse.
Gamers: 32 Stuck Up Lawmakers: 0
While I agree in principle, there is a very large difference in wanting a new government and being willing to kill/die to bring it about.
Doesn't really need any other reason, been the same one for years.
...to not buy an ipod, or any other apple product.
Hows that stick feel? Does it itch or leave splinters?
I agree wholeheartedly, and that was my reasoning to grab a PS3 before a 360. At the moment anything I want to play is either cross-platform or a PS3 exclusive, so it was the better choice. As a multimedia center I think the PS3 is also a better choice inherently. I am eying to grab a 360, but I'm waiting for more then the two exclusive titles I'd like to play, which if you are interested are Mass Effect and Fable 2. As for a Wii, the only games I wanna play are the traditional party/multiplayer games, and since I know several people with a Wii, my bases are covered.