CommanderJohnson

I tried the SIMS....it got really boring and stupid fast. You have to order yourself to use the bathroom? C'mon.

I know what you mean. In the first BC and this one I slammed into the planet on purpose or got into a fighter and attacked myself with shields down just so I could repair stuff and see how many casualties I had, etc.

C'mon, we all know that most teens get M rated games anyway. Not really missing anybody that way....except parts of Resnig that will be attached to walls due to gunfire....so we would be missing various organs of him.....yeah....YEAH!!!!!!

I'm downloading the beta right now. If your having a problem getting to the download screen, put in your password and not the registration code.

Robocop vs Terminator: Robocop gets hit by a few rockets. Rocket plating goes off. Robocop returns fire, Terminator repairs himself. Robocop gets dead. The end Superman vs Batman: Batman wraps one of those throwing things around Superman. Superman flys away, drags Batman along, slamming him against various buildings going faster than a speeding bullet. Pulp left on ground. Superman wins. The end.

Umm, i'd agree that they'd eventually fall, but they have a LONG WAY to fall. Do you know how many SIMCITY games they had? In order for that company to lose money, they'd have to come out with about 30 loser games in a row.

quote:The constitution does not give us the authority to send even one dime of taxpayer money to any other country, for any reason. I'm pretty sure that somewhere in the Constitution it says something about treaties or international agreements. I'm not sure, but it's in there somewhere, and sending the money would LEGALLY be part of it. But I personally believe that the government shouldn't be sending so much of our money to other countries. Let them deal with their own problems unless we are getting something we need out of it. quote: Further, we have no right to make any kind of "preemptive" strike against a country such as Iraq. The equivalent of such a strike is tantamount to the idea in Minority Report - we incarcerate or strike against someone before they have done anything. The same as arresting a man because he "might" sell drugs in the future.There's a line that needs to be crossed. If the police know that someone has a plan or is going to kill their spouse, or the President, or commit a crime, it's against the law and the crime needs to be stopped. You can't tell people that, even though it was highly likely that Iraq was going to use bioweapons on the US, that we shouldn't have pre-emptively attacked Iraq since it wasn't 100%. It's not as simple as stopping someone because they "might sell drugs in the future", it's more like you arrest someone because there was a phone tap and you hear someone say they are planning on selling a bunch of drugs, or killing someone, etc. Our government has information that Iraq is a threat, it's common sense to the people of the US that Iraq is a threat, and since there is no CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION *not* to blow every other country to hell (nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the US can *not* engage in an aggressive war), we should attack Iraq in order to stop the problem which we KNOW is coming before it gets worse and our troops have to worry about nuclear weapons when invading Iraq. quote: Also that we have no right by the constitution to have troops or send aid to Bosnia, Russia, Israel, etc. We might not have a right to, but it makes us look good. In an ideal world we'd only send our troops to areas where we're invading/bombing to hell, and let everyone else fare for themselves. Of course, if we want to stop war (which can then cause instability, bad regime changes, and THEN hurt American interests), we need to send out our troops, however stupid it may be. (I think it should be in small numbers, to few places, just so that no one will take shots at the peacekeppers in fear of US retaliation) quote: If Sadam Hussein sits like he is, we shouldn't bother him. But if he comes up with the testicular fortitude to attack the USA, we should blow him into oblivion. All our foreign policy should revolve around "WE are the USA, we will defend *our* borders, and defend *our* interests. We should bother him because he's going to cause things to get worse. "Leaving him like he is" is what caused 9/11 in the first place. We, as a nation, decided that since it's "unpopular" to attack other countries until we get attacked, we should "leave" the terrorists in Afghanistan as they are. Then we got attacked, and got pissed, now rhetoric such as "leaving him where he is" surfaces. *IRAQ IS GOING TO ATTACK US INTERESTS OR SELL WEAPONS TO DO IT, PROBABLY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION* (arms inspectors denied....AGAIN) Which leads to the next point.... quote: If Sadam sells missles to Iran and Iran attacks us, Sadam is no more liable that a gun store owner who sells a gun to someone who later commits a crime. (oversimplified?) America should perhaps rethink our position, and worry about whats important *here*. If Iraq sells missiles to Iran and Iran attacks us, Iraq probably sold the missiles to begin with in order for them to attack us, thus they would be a little bit more liable. The point is to stop Saddam from doing it to begin with, which means bombing Saddam to hell. I agree that we should worry about what's important HERE, but I also think that the US should stop applying US law to foreign policy. We don't need there not to be "reasonable doubt" before bombing Iraq. Iraq doesn't like the US, Iraq is probably building WMDs, Iraq shoots at our planes, and Iraq's leader brainwashes most of his people. If we bomb Iraq, it sucks for Iraq, but no matter how you look at it, it protects us from a future danger. And when you say we should worry about what's important *HERE* I hope you aren't referring to welfare, since that only makes people lazy and is a stupid socialist attempt to take money from the ones who work for it and give it to those who don't.

RANDOM+EARTH=HEAVEN

BCTC will rock. Take a gun and shoot off various body parts. I hope the FP engine is "Ghoul" like with all that blood and gore....think about all the fun you'd have with moronic officers, ha ha ha ha [ 07-10-2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

I like the idea, SC.

Single player does get boring, i'm on chapter 3 now and I just want to beat the game. Blowing open all of those chests gets tedious. I think it's strength that will make it last is the fact people can build multiplayer mods really easily. [ 07-09-2002, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

I dont have a link to the article cause it was a few months ago on MSNBC, but did you hear about the group that had a petition because they wanted them to rename the Lord of the Rings Movie "The Two Towers" because they claimed it was a "marketing ploy" to get money off of September 11th's destruction of the WTC towers?

Just wondering, but how many of you have successfully carried out a trade blockade against a station? If so, how long did it take?

Yeah, but his stuff usually does work, not like everyone else.... [ 07-08-2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Note on Hate Crimes: Ok, I think murder, rape, torture, and other hideous acts are bad things and people should be thrown in jail until they are rehabilitated (under the current system, life or the death penalty, since the rehabilitation/justice system sucks). Labeling things as "hate crimes" though, is wrong and goes against freedom because your punishing people more because of their personal beliefs. Beliefs should never be punished, only actions based on them. If a bunch of black people decide to take a white male and torture him, saw off his limbs, and then shoot him through the head, they should be charged with whatever logical, basic crimes they committed (torture, murder in the first degree, illegal possession of a firearm, etc). Whatever applies. There should not be specific "hate crime" legislation that says because the black person(s) belief(s) was that all white people should be killed, tortured, etc, they should be punished more. How is THAT crime any worse than a white male doing the same stuff to another white male because the target person was screwing the perpetrator's wife? What matters is the crime, not the belief system or motivation behind it. At the point you start legislating belief systems and motives as bad, your oppressing people's ability (right?) to believe what they want. Side note, sort of off topic on the justice system and rehabilitation of criminals: Currently, the ability/system for rehabilitation for major criminals in the US is a joke. It doesn't work, and there isn't much that says it does. Easiest proof it doesn't work? The US government keeps tabs on sex offenders who are let out of prison to warn people they are living near (if they were rehabilitated, there would be no need for a warning...), then, to top it off, the people who are let out usually get arrested AGAIN anyway. Moral of the story? "Rehabilitation" in it's current form, doesn't work. There should be more life sentences.

That's right! He's going down!

quote:Originally posted by Riga: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: Hold the world hostage. Hijack a space shuttle. Then kill everyone who doesn't join me. How many people fit in a shuttle? That's not an issue, not many people would join me....and they'd have to meet certain criteria to be accepted. (do whatever I say, passive, hail me as a god, etc).

With the number of posts you have to look through, you should be screaming "Remember the Alamo!" And to stay on topic, even though a lack of overproduction may be good, having direct input would just cause every person's smallest suggestion to be heard, and thus inefficiency shows up again because of extra work needed, and then it wouldn't work logisitcally cause whose needs are met first would always be an issue, and with a world with this many people, it'd be impossible to keep everyone happy.

Saw the trailer before MIB 2......now THAT looks like a trek movie! BOOM! BAM! EXPLOSION! PHASER! PEOPLE GETTING KILLED! HA HA HA!! YES! THE SWEET SOUND OF DESTRUCTION!!!!!!

Ok, since I was one of the people who said PC was stupid on the other thread, I better post here. PC *is definitely* stupid. I should be able to say anything I want, and if it offends someone who hears it, they should be able to express their discontent with it, and if I decide to apologize or change the way I talk based on their objection, so be it, but I should be able to have that choice without all of society being immersed in this idea that certain words and phrases are off limit even if it doesn't offend them. What annoys me the most is when people advocate PC *not* because they or any of their friends advocate it, but because it is percieved by the media as the "right" thing to do. The most obvious example of PC gone bad: Black/White 10 years ago, if describing someone, it could be said "that person is black" or "that person is white". It makes sense. If you see someone, the first thing that pops into your head isn't their nationality, or their country of origin, or what "politically correct term" you should use, it's how they look. The person has white skin, or black skin, or whatever other tone, and that's how you describe them. At some point over the past 10 years, "black" and "white" stopped being "acceptable" terms in conversation. Now they have to be replaced with "African American" or "Caucasion". What the hell? Why? Most of my friends that are BLACK don't care if I refer to them as BLACK if i'm describing them. My WHITE friends sure as hell don't care if I say they are WHITE. But for some reason, PC says that you shouldn't refer to people as BLACK OR WHITE. But for some reason the radical PC advocates seem to think it's wrong. I fail to see how, it's a color....it's a descriptive ADJECTIVE. The shirt is blue, the person is black/white. By society and PC advocates supporting the changing of language in order to please a minority, all it is doing is enforcing the gender/race divisions that it claims to get rid of. When I need to think about people specifically as "African-American" or "Caucasion", all it is doing is reminding me that there is some racial based need for me to change my language which sets up even more of a division.

Yeah, not as good as the first, but I liked it.

quote:Originally posted by Kartoffel: quote: The scripting editor allows you to do almost ANYTHING with one of those maps, and mod value is huge. starcraft's map editor already lets you do just anything short of cutscenes in a campaign. True, it is a bit clunky, but nothing some experience cant fix. *sigh* We can only hope that if there will be a starcraft 2, that it won't be such a disappointment. Since Warcraft III is good, i'm just imagining those graphics, that map editor, and that AI in Starcraft....wow that would be awesome. Starcraft 2 would be the greatest....

Hold the world hostage. Hijack a space shuttle. Then kill everyone who doesn't join me. [ 07-08-2002, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Grayfox: quote:Originally posted by Dredd: Who cares about a couple whales? umm thats what the whole plot of the movie was about... because at the time the movie was made, NO ONE gave a crap about the whales. so, trek decided to hop on the ole greenpeace bandwagon and make a pro-"save the whales" movie. I have no problem with saving the whales. I like whales. But that's a plot for a stupid Captain Planet movie. Not Trek. Trek is about phasers and explosions and ships and killing stuff. Not about saving the whales, peace, harmony, and love. Stupid Captain Planet loving hippies wrote the script for that movie and then the same people authorizied it for production. Some people don't deserve to live....

Fireball looks cooler though.