• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Angry Fork

Angry Fork

Member
el retorno said:
And its more of the fact that he signed up for it and took a job with the expectation of secrecy
Its not liked he was forced to do what he did (his job)
Click to expand...

Right but what does that have to do with a moral action? Is it wrong for a family member to turn in a rapist due to some irrational loyalty to 'blood' relatives? He agreed to secrecy on the pretense that the US was a force for good in the world, if he eventually found out they weren't it doesn't matter what contract he signed.

If you're upset that he was the one to decide what 'a force for good in the world' means, there isn't anyone who can properly claim the best answer on this because some people are apparently willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security. Would it be any better if Boehner was the one who leaked this? Or Joe Biden? What moral authority or judgment do they have over this guy when they're not the ones doing the actual NSA work?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
el retorno said:
I can't really justify my feelings I guess it based off the fact that I think he hurt a lot of people with the way he did it, there are ways to broach these issues (and politicians have the ability) without leaking. But like I said if it was a person in a position of power (like drake was) or a politician with some accountability and legitimacy I guess I would feel better.

As time goes on though I think we should debate what was revealed even if I don't like how it was. as its an important debate.
Click to expand...
Who did he hurt?
el retorno said:
And its more of the fact that he signed up for it and took a job with the expectation of secrecy
Its not liked he was forced to do what he did (his job)

And I am loyal to my country (unless it was wholesale killing innocent people like the holocaust which its not going to do).
Click to expand...
You think his contract supersede morality and the constitution?
Also, I'm pretty sure all agency swear to protect and uphold the constitution, but I hate such legalistic arguments, those are just tools and procedures designed for a greater cause, when they stop serving it, I don't you have any moral obligation to follow them just because you signed on the dotted line.

And I thing he's extremely loyal to his country and the ideals it was founded on, much more so had he seen such things and kept his mouth shut.
 
F

Frank the Great

Banned
followed

Wife, mom, lawyer, women & kids advocate, FLOAR, FLOTUS, US Senator, SecState, author, dog owner, hair icon, pantsuit aficionado, glass ceiling cracker, TBD.
Click to expand...

dat foreshadowing?

and LOL @ hair icon and pantsuit aficionado.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
18% of primary voters in the state say he would be their first choice for 2016, followed by Jeb Bush at 16%, Chris Christie at 15%, Paul Ryan at 12%, Marco Rubio at 11%, Ted Cruz at 7%, Rick Santorum at 6%, Bobby Jindal at 4%, and Susana Martinez with less than 1%.
Click to expand...

I think Jeb Bush might actually surprise people. He was very popular in Florida and the mud all over the Bush name might be not so bad in a few more years of W hiding from the press.

And Christie is still a big contender (hurr hurr).


Clowns: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Santorum, Jihdahl.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
I still say Rand Paul blows up Perry-style sometime between now and the end of the 2016 primaries. He does all right with prepared remarks but falls to pieces when forced to react to an antagonistic opponent/audience. Check out his old interview with Rachel Maddow or his attempt to reach out to black college students. The establishment doesn't like his foreign policy, and they'll end him.

I agree that Bush is going to be a big player. I think he's the establishment favorite. But Ryan's got a real shot.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Oblivion said:
E.J. Dionne asks a good quesiton: Why are there no libertarian countries?
Click to expand...

Well, if you assume away the abject failure of the sorts of policies libertarians advocate, the mere absence of libertarian societies isn't particularly telling.

Facts aside, the story a libertarian is going to tell will be about how moving policy in a libertarian direction always pays off. Socialism is a bad idea because when we get socialism it becomes tyranny very quickly. Perfect libertarianism has simply never been tried. But we know that more libertarian policy does better than less libertarian policy. So we should try libertarianism.

One might object that, if libertarianism keeps working so well, people would quickly vote in more and more of it. To this the libertarian replies that government is broken and is captured by special interests (big business, welfare queens, etc). People on welfare vote for more welfare because they're greedy; maybe (not all libertarians would agree) it makes people on welfare better off, but it hurts society by much more and will make future generations much worse off. Edit: And of course a core tenet of libertarianism is that libertarians are much smarter than everyone else. Lots of people are just incapable of seeing the obvious ways in which libertarian policies are good for them.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I think there are some that are relatively close to the conception American libertarians have - Estonia particularly. I mean, if Hollande's France counts as socialist then Estonia probably sneaks in as something close to libertarian. Ideological purity of any strain is not really likely to occur anywhere.
 
E

East Lake

Member
el retorno said:
I can't really justify my feelings I guess it based off the fact that I think he hurt a lot of people with the way he did it, there are ways to broach these issues (and politicians have the ability) without leaking. But like I said if it was a person in a position of power (like drake was) or a politician with some accountability and legitimacy I guess I would feel better.

As time goes on though I think we should debate what was revealed even if I don't like how it was. as its an important debate.



And its more of the fact that he signed up for it and took a job with the expectation of secrecy
Its not liked he was forced to do what he did (his job)

And I am loyal to my country (unless it was wholesale killing innocent people like the holocaust which its not going to do).
Click to expand...
Sorta similar to the responses you already got but I don't think in this instance you can be loyal to the country itself with your position. You can favor an agency (NSA) who tries to advance US interests, but what the agency does is not necessarily what is good for the country. If you think about it it might be sort of analogous to saying you wouldn't want the NYPD to be damaged. We need police, and there are great police out there but sometimes they frisk too many black people or cover up their mistakes, and someone needs to be there to break the gang mentality that protects the institution at all costs.

There is a potential for abuse or dishonesty with leaks like omitting key details, exaggerating, or lying. The leaks could have also have a negative effect on the country or something. But sometimes if the agency isn't particularly transparent you need some sort of window into it whether or not the source is a saint.
 
Link

Link

The Autumn Wind
speculawyer said:
I think Jeb Bush might actually surprise people. He was very popular in Florida and the mud all over the Bush name might be not so bad in a few more years of W hiding from the press.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but once all the questions about his brother's Presidency start getting asked, he's either going to have to try to defend those policies, or throw W under the bus. He's not going to look good either way.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Please tell me PoliGAF has some Kingdom Hearts or FFXV fans.

These feels.
Click to expand...
What's up.

KH3 blew me away. Kingdom Hearts is probably my all-time favorite series and finally seeing it rise above PS2-level assets was amazing.

FF13 was kind of a pile of shit but hopefully 15 redeems the series. We'll see.

Definitely throwing my lot in with Sony this gen, though I'm really excited to see if Nintendo can turn it around. We'll find out in an hour I suppose.
 
E

ElectricThunder

Member
Gotchaye said:
Well, if you assume away the abject failure of the sorts of policies libertarians advocate, the mere absence of libertarian societies isn't particularly telling.

Facts aside, the story a libertarian is going to tell will be about how moving policy in a libertarian direction always pays off. Socialism is a bad idea because when we get socialism it becomes tyranny very quickly. Perfect libertarianism has simply never been tried. But we know that more libertarian policy does better than less libertarian policy. So we should try libertarianism.

One might object that, if libertarianism keeps working so well, people would quickly vote in more and more of it. To this the libertarian replies that government is broken and is captured by special interests (big business, welfare queens, etc). People on welfare vote for more welfare because they're greedy; maybe (not all libertarians would agree) it makes people on welfare better off, but it hurts society by much more and will make future generations much worse off. Edit: And of course a core tenet of libertarianism is that libertarians are much smarter than everyone else. Lots of people are just incapable of seeing the obvious ways in which libertarian policies are good for them.
Click to expand...

Generally, it comes down to cowardice---the real world is too complex and fear is just so engrained despite all the "freedom" talk....so the answer is to haughtily distill down everything to a laughable black/white degree with no grey areas to avoid any hard thinking and choices. The individual is never more of a strangely incredibly weak/yet Godly strong than in a Libertarian context---you essentially see the same projections in post-apoc preppers. The Free Market either serves as god or a co-divinity with fundamentalist dogma of either or both stripes ruling the day as they remains reactive, as opposed to proactive, on any happening in the carefully constructed gameboard of the world.

Obviously not all ideas are bad ideas---just because a basic good notion has been adopted loudly by the hardcore Libertarians doesn't reduce it.

Honestly, I think the movement would fare far better if the proverbial well for it wasn't so loaded with piss by would-be Gilded Ager's and other comparable sorts so far gone that for even a moment they think a return to a distant past is actually an acceptable way to handle an oncoming future----rose-tinted lenses and selective vision for certain groups doesn't even begin to describe it.
 
B

Blatz

Member
Dax01 said:
Can I post now? Am I good? B-Dubs says this should be a thread, but I'll post this here for now.
Click to expand...

Wow. This is like one of those articles my right-wing nut-job friends/family send me that sound too outrageous to believe.

But it's not, is it? It's for real. Hopefully we can hold our end of the bargain. I'm not holding my breath.
 
E

el retorno

Member
This editoral from marshall really sums up what I was trying to say earlier.
The bolded being the points that I thought were most relevant

Like the OJ Simpson trial almost twenty years ago, there are some public events which not only divide people but divide you against people you didn’t expect to be divided against. As a Republican you may be used to disagreeing with Democrats and vice versa. But with these other kinds of public events you have the shock of realizing you had very different sets of assumptions or even values than people you were used to agreeing with. I’m not sure of how TPM Readers in general feel about the Snowden story. But there’s no question that a lot of readers are surprised and in many cases angry about what I’ve written on the subject.

That’s fair. It goes with the job. But it’s led me to try to think through what those different assumptions and values are that makes people react to this so differently. I think the key issue is how different people understand their relationship with the state (in this case the US government) and the national political community as a whole and the relationship between the two.

For me the story starts with the Bradley Manning case. This story has been going on for years and though I generally haven’t written much about it, when I have, I’ve made clear that I don’t see Manning as a hero or a whistleblower or really anything positive at all. At best I see him as a young and naive kid who got way in over his head.

When I first heard about the Manning case - or first understood that Manning was the likely source of the Wilileaks trove - I was frankly surprised that anybody saw him as a whistleblower. Perhaps due to the novelty of the Internet we don’t really have a lot of past analogues for the Manning type. We’re used to spies who give secrets to foreign governments, either because of ideology or money. But mass and fairly indiscriminate public disclosure is sort of a new phenomena. In any case, back to the issue at hand. Pretty early I realized that to his supporters Manning was a whistleblower who was being persecuted by the government, almost like a political prisoner or prisoner of conscience.

Again, to me that’s a total nonsequitur.

I’m a journalist. And back when I did national security reporting I tried to get leaks. So I don’t think leaks are always wrong. I think the government and journalists both have legitimate interests that point in very different directions. In fact, leaks are an absolutely critical safety valve against government wrongdoing and/or excessive secrecy. But when someone in government leaks classified information they’re breaking an oath and committing a crime. That’s a big deal. Sometimes though the importance of what’s leaked justifies the act morally if not legally. That is often the case. And that’s one reason that while I think the laws against disclosure should be in place I also think it’s imprudent for the government to try too hard to enforce them. I do not see how you can’t prosecute Snowden since he’s revealed himself publicly. And leaks should sometimes be investigated. But in most cases it’s not worth snooping on journalists to try to find the culprit. The costs outweigh the gains. Because of that, it’s really impossible to say leaks are good or bad in general. It’s also true that people can leak information for petty or even evil reasons but the leak still serves a positive public purpose. Leaks are complicated. I think we know that. And being morally right doesn’t necessarily get you off the hook for committing a crime.

Coming from this perspective, it’s hard to see any justification for what Manning did, which is basically downloading everything he could find and giving it to a foreign national (Assange) with the expectation that he’d just dump it into the public. There were a couple clear cases of wrongdoing revealed in his documents. But the vast majority were fairly mundane diplomatic cables, military records and so forth. What on Earth do you think is going to happen to a soldier who almost literally breaks every rule in the book and dumps the country’s email files for the world to see?

Soldiers get in huge trouble for going AWOL, even though one individual soldier abandoning his post seldom does much damage to a country or an army. This is a far graver insubordination with incalculably more widespread consequences. And yet, again, some people see him as a hero who should be celebrated rather than tried and punished.

My purpose here isn’t to say, what the fuck are these people thinking. I’m trying to think through what is the difference between the prisms we’re looking through that makes us see it so differently.

Here is I think the essential difference and where it comes back to what I referred to before - a basic difference in one’s idea about the state and the larger political community. If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing. Same if you think the conduct of US foreign policy is fundamentally a bad thing. Then opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it. It forces change on any number of levels.

From that perspective, there’s no really no balancing to be done. All disclosure is good. Either from the perspective of transparency in principle or upending something you believe must be radically changed.

On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They’re attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf.

Now, in practice, there are a million shades of grey. You can support your government but see its various shortcomings and even evil things it does. And as I said at the outset, this is where leaks play a critical, though ambiguous role, as a safety valve. But it comes down to this essential thing: is the aim and/or effect of the leak to correct an abuse or simply to blow the whole thing up?

In Manning’s case, it’s always seemed pretty clear to me that the latter was the case.

Let me put my cards on the table. At the end of the day, for all its faults, the US military is the armed force of a political community I identify with and a government I support. I’m not a bystander to it. I’m implicated in what it does and I feel I have a responsibility and a right to a say, albeit just a minuscule one, in what it does. I think a military force requires a substantial amount of secrecy to operate in any reasonable way. So when someone on the inside breaks those rules, I need to see a really, really good reason. And even then I’m not sure that means you get off scott free. It may just mean you did the right thing.

So do I see someone who takes an oath and puts on the uniform and then betrays that oath for no really good reason as a hero? No.

The Snowden case is less clear to me. At least to date, the revelations seem more surgical. And the public definitely has an interest in knowing just how we’re using surveillance technology and how we’re balancing risks versus privacy. The best critique of my whole position that I can think of is that I think debating the way we balance privacy and security is a good thing and I’m saying I’m against what is arguably the best way to trigger one of those debates.

But it’s more than that. Snowden is doing more than triggering a debate. I think it’s clear he’s trying to upend, damage - choose your verb - the US intelligence apparatus and policieis he opposes. The fact that what he’s doing is against the law speaks for itself. I don’t think anyone doubts that narrow point. But he’s not just opening the thing up for debate. He’s taking it upon himself to make certain things no longer possible, or much harder to do. To me that’s a betrayal. I think it’s easy to exaggerate how much damage these disclosures cause. But I don’t buy that there are no consequences. And it goes to the point I was making in an earlier post. Who gets to decide? The totality of the officeholders who’ve been elected democratically - for better or worse - to make these decisions? Or Edward Snowden, some young guy I’ve never heard of before who espouses a political philosophy I don’t agree with and is now seeking refuge abroad for breaking the law?

I don’t have a lot of problem answering that question.

Individual conscience is always critical. But when it comes to taking a stand on conscience it’s not just the thought that counts. You put yourself to the judgment or the present and the future about whether you made the right judgment.

Now does this mean I don’t think any of his leaks should have been published? No, I’m not saying that. I think it’s quite possible some of them should have been. But I’m talking about how I see the guy himself.

Speaking for myself, the kind of balancing I’m describing is critical. But for a lot of people, again, there’s really nothing to balance since transparency is always better or because change is so necessary that spilling the beans has to be a good thing. That just doesn’t fit with my way of looking at these things. That’s why I’m taking this story as it unfolds. And I’m very skeptical of the notion that what Snowden did is awesome just because leaking state secrets is always a heroic act.
Click to expand...

East Lake said:
Sorta similar to the responses you already got but I don't think in this instance you can be loyal to the country itself with your position. You can favor an agency (NSA) who tries to advance US interests, but what the agency does is not necessarily what is good for the country. If you think about it it might be sort of analogous to saying you wouldn't want the NYPD to be damaged. We need police, and there are great police out there but sometimes they frisk too many black people or cover up their mistakes, and someone needs to be there to break the gang mentality that protects the institution at all costs.

There is a potential for abuse or dishonesty with leaks like omitting key details, exaggerating, or lying. The leaks could have also have a negative effect on the country or something. But sometimes if the agency isn't particularly transparent you need some sort of window into it whether or not the source is a saint.
Click to expand...

I guess my point is that I don't feel its a workers position to do this. He felt it was bad for the country. Some agree, others don't. I don't think violating an oath to express his view (which doesn't mirror mine. I don't by the absolutist internet freedom stuff)

Chichikov said:
Who did he hurt?
You think his contract supersede morality and the constitution?
Also, I'm pretty sure all agency swear to protect and uphold the constitution, but I hate such legalistic arguments, those are just tools and procedures designed for a greater cause, when they stop serving it, I don't you have any moral obligation to follow them just because you signed on the dotted line.

And I thing he's extremely loyal to his country and the ideals it was founded on, much more so had he seen such things and kept his mouth shut.
Click to expand...
He hurt everybody in the intellgence community, not only the NSA or this program, who have to deal with the fall out.

See the whole "he's loyal to the ideals" stuff is entirely dependent on your own opinions about those ideals. I don't think he was loyal to the ideals of this country, they didn't flee to france (rival of England at the time).

I mean what ever happened to people if they felt they were doing a service and breaking their own oaths saying
. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Click to expand...
 
C

Chichikov

Member
el retorno said:
He hurt everybody in the intellgence community, not only the NSA or this program, who have to deal with the fall out.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand this argument, if what the NSA is doing is fine, then there's no fallout, if it isn't, surely, you can pin it on the person who brought it to light, right?

el retorno said:
See the whole "he's loyal to the ideals" stuff is entirely dependent on your own opinions about those ideals. I don't think he was loyal to the ideals of this country, they didn't flee to france (rival of England at the time).

I mean what ever happened to people if they felt they were doing a service and breaking their own oaths saying
Click to expand...
What ideals?
For fuck's sake, the NSA is working for us, they are doing it in our name and with our money.
Secrecy is at times a practical necessity, but an ideal that override the greater good?
I honestly don't see it.

Let me ask you this, do you accept that there are some cases that whistleblowing is not only justified but necessary?
(let me know if you want me to illustrate a hypothetical or historical scenario, I'm sure you can come up with something).

If so, ask yourself, would the American public and the US as a whole would be better off if he hadn't leaked that information?
I really failed to see how.

p.s.
Philosophically, an oath is fucking nothing, it's a made up concept designed to instill obedience.
Sometime obedience is useful, I get it, I'm not that dogmatic, and I served in the military for a long ass time so I understand its utility very well, but there's nothing inherently immoral in breaking one.
It's literally just changing your mind, and changing your mind is not a bad thing.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
el retorno said:
lots
Click to expand...

The editorial is a little hard to make sense of.

First, it seems to completely misunderstand perhaps the dominant perspective among people who think Manning and Snowden basically did good. I don't think that "the conduct of US foreign policy is fundamentally a bad thing." How many of the people who vote in US elections think this, would you say? If the US government is in the process of committing a war crime, then of course I oppose that and think that stopping it justifies extreme measures, but the government itself has endorsed the principle that people shouldn't go along with or cover up war crimes out of an obligation to obey orders. The editorial is at odds with the government's stated position if that's the position it's attacking. Beyond that, an affirmative case needs to be made that Snowden's leaks (in particular; Manning has a much stronger defense available in that he shed light on war crimes) actually damaged US foreign policy goals. I have yet to see this case made, and nobody that I've seen defending Snowden actually agrees that our security is meaningfully compromised by his leaks.

Obviously Snowden would like it if people were so upset about PRISM that their elected representatives act to stop the program. It is ridiculous to talk like this is somehow a problematic motivation for leaking something. It seems really dishonest to me to characterize this as trying to "damage" the US intelligence apparatus. That's doing what the Bush administration did - identifying policy disagreement and treason. The point of the leak is to create political pressure on the officeholders that are supposed to decide this stuff! If you want to say that the leak itself did (or at least was intended to) directly damage US intelligence-gathering - if you want to say that the program being public knowledge by itself makes it significantly less effective - you have to make that case. Without that, this is just the claim that the government is justified in keeping secrets from the voters in order to prevent the voters from learning that the government is doing something the voters wouldn't like. You don't get to just say "But I don't buy that there are no consequences" and leave it at that. That's the whole disagreement.

And who is actually saying that, if we have a CIA operative undercover with a terrorist group, the value of transparency justifies immediately publishing their name and picture? This is simply not a mainstream position. If this isn't the position of the people the editorial is arguing with, it's one big straw man. Maybe one could argue that Manning is sympathetic to this view (although, again, he has a much stronger legal defense than Snowden anyway), but where's the indication that this is Snowden's position?

He hurt everybody in the intellgence community, not only the NSA or this program, who have to deal with the fall out.

See the whole "he's loyal to the ideals" stuff is entirely dependent on your own opinions about those ideals. I don't think he was loyal to the ideals of this country, they didn't flee to france (rival of England at the time).
Click to expand...

But this damage is purely political. He made them look bad by telling the country what they were doing. Protecting itself from being thought poorly of by the voters for things it's actually doing is not a legitimate reason for the government to enforce secrecy. You seem to disagree, but you really have to make that case.

And I just don't see what Snowden allowing the government to arrest him would have accomplished. Who benefits from that? How is it a clearer demonstration of seriousness than fleeing abroad? I've said this before, but look at what happened to Manning. You're not obliged to turn yourself over for unjust treatment when you can avoid it without causing any other harm. If you think honor requires it, you have a fucked-up notion of honor and should change your mind.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Please tell me PoliGAF has some Kingdom Hearts or FFXV fans.

These feels.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah, I'm pretty excited. As of lately I'm not the biggest fan of KH because of the unnecessary clusterfuck storyline, but I still do dig 'em when they're good. I'm a huge FF fanboy and even love FFXIII, so XV is a day one for me. I'll buy a PS4 if I have to in order to get it.
 
D

Diablos

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Please tell me PoliGAF has some Kingdom Hearts or FFXV fans.

These feels.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm so excited for XV. I figured Versus would turn into XV. Called it about a year ago. It has taken so long, might as well. Have you seen the gameplay video? Realtime PS4 footage. Better than porn.

Aaron Strife said:
FF13 was kind of a pile of shit but hopefully 15 redeems the series. We'll see.
Click to expand...
XIII had a great battle system but it was never really utilized properly until the coliseum battles in XIII-2. Such a waste. Oh and the OST for XIII transcends game OST's for the most part. Everything else about XIII is a steaming pile of shite.

Also, Nomura is in charge of XV. It's his baby. This dude is a perfectionist. If he can't crank out a good FF no one will. I am confident he will deliver. Despite this project being announced in 2006, it's proving to be worth the wait.
It better be good, I've been hyped for this game since I was 22 and I won't play it until I'm 30 or older. Talk about mindfuck.

Avon Barksdale said:
What happened with Dead Heat Politics?
Click to expand...
iLFFqpZxPbqPs.gif
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
I would like to be excited for XV but I haven't gotten my money's worth from a FF game since IX.

I'm hoping for a Destiny PC release.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
So you guys want to talk about videogames in this thread and you start with Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy?
smFUCKINGh.
You'd think you'll talk about Bioshock Infinite or something.

Fuck it, I'll talk about it -
If Ken Levine thinks he's going to make me feel bad about killing whitey, he doesn't know me at all. Daisy Luther King is the one true hero of the game, and yeah, sometime in order to make an omelette you need to murder some racist kids, or something.
joking aside, that scene really pissed me off
.

p.s.
Kingdom Hearts is the only game I ever felt too embarrassed to play, and I 1000/1000 Bayonetta.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
Chichikov said:
So you guys want to talk about videogames in this thread and you start with Kingdom Hearts and Final Fantasy?
smFUCKINGh.
You'd think you'll talk about Bioshock Infinite or something.

Fuck it, I'll talk about it -
If Ken Levine thinks he's going to make me feel bad about killing whitey, he doesn't know me at all. Daisy Luther King is the one true hero of the game, and yeah, sometime in order to make an omelette you need to murder some racist kids, or something.
joking aside, that scene really pissed me off
.

p.s.
Kingdom Hearts is the only game I ever felt too embarrassed to play, and I 1000/1000 Bayonetta.
Click to expand...

These are games they should be looking the most forward to!

Pics said:
shin_megami_tensei_4_03.jpg

Watch-Dogs-Screenshot.jpg

The-Witcher-3-Wild-Hunt-Debut-Gameplay-Trailer.jpg

gaming-zelda-link-to-the-past-2-screenshot-3.jpg
Click to expand...
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Daddy Biden spittin' fire.


Joe Biden Can't Believe Republicans Listen to 'Two Freshman Senators'

Joe Biden went nearly full Biden at a fundraiser for Democratic Representative Ed Markey tonight, covering everything from gun control to Al Gore to the "two freshman senators" that he just can't believe anyone listens to.
[/B]


Biden's speech, as written up in the pool report by Matthew Viser, referred to the "gigantic chasm" between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He then added:

“I’m not talking about the character or even the quality of the minds of the people I’m going to mention. But the last thing in the world we need now is someone who will go down to the United States Senate and support Ted Cruz, support the new senator from Kentucky -- or the old senator from Kentucky. Think about this,” he said. “Have you ever seen a time when two freshman senators are able to cower the bulk of the Republican Party in the Senate? That is not hyperbole.”

The vice president circled back to Cruz and — this time by name — Rand Paul while speaking about gun control:

"I called 17 senators out, 9 of whom were Republicans,” he added. “Not one of offered an explanation on the merits of why they couldn’t vote for the background check. But almost to a person, they said, ‘I don’t want to take on Ted Cruz. I don’t want to take on Rand Paul. They’ll be in my district.’

“I actually said, ‘Are you kidding? These are two freshman,’” Biden added. “This is a different, party folks."

Of course, Biden isn't the only more seasoned politician who seems to find Cruz's quick rise to prominence a bit baffling. In May, Republican Senator John McCain wasn't a huge fan of him, either. And Senator Harry Reid referred to Cruz as the "very junior Senator from Texas."


Markey is running to fill John Kerry's senate seat against Republican Gabriel Gomez. The special election is later in June. On Markey's chances, Biden was obviously optimistic. But he chose a characteristically strange way to phrase his concerns about the demographic challenges facing Markey in the special election, expressing his worries that without Barack Obama on the ticket, the senate hopeful won't "automatically" get turnout from "those legions of African Americans and Latinos."

Al Gore also spoke at the Markey fundraiser, at length about ... Joe Biden. Which might be because apparently the senate hopeful couldn't make it to his own fundraiser, due to a scheduling conflict with a live debate against his GOP rival. Gore said of his successor as VP, “when Joe talks sometimes people just have to listen."
Click to expand...
 
T

Tamanon

Banned
I understand Biden's point, but not sure it's a great idea so soon after the ascension of President Obama from very Junior Senator of Illinois.
 
G

gcubed

Member
Avon Barksdale said:
U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz is officially throwing her name in the hat for PA Governor.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20130609_Her_hat_s_in_the_ring__Not_a_men_s_size__.html
Click to expand...

Whoever wins the primary wins the Gov, but ...

Schwartz beat incumbent GOP Gov. Tom Corbett by 10 points, 45 percent to 35 percent, in the Quinnipiac University poll released Friday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...schwartz-tom-corbett-92397.html#ixzz2W0dCYCJR
Click to expand...

Its nice to see that corbett has been such a fuck up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Any deals on LG OLED 77" C1 vs C2?
6
672
The Infectious Paradox replied
LTTP: Dead Space 3 (2013) via PS3 Ultra Slim
17
529
WoJ replied
"Gonna be worth tuning into the Xbox Tokyo game show stream next week" says Tom Warren
Rumor 2 3 4
163
7K
Tiago Rodrigues replied
Nintendo sells 77 Million Amibos
48
2K
Kikorin replied
LTTP: Battlefield 4 (PS3) 2013
LTTP
35
930
Kupfer replied
Top Bottom