eodx9000

Nope, or at least not in any manner people think about... the real question that should be asked is how it'll be attacked. May want to check your history better. In the beginning of the American Civil War, most of the north didn't care very much about the issue of slavery, and still maintained prejudices against African Americans for a fairly long time after that. The war, for the most part, was about Succession. A portion of the country deciding to break off and govern itself. While the ideals related to slavery were part of it, it was primarily more about economic concerns as part of industrialization and an unpopular president (or rather political backers) who was initially trying to slowly ween the South from human power towards industrialization as a means of staying ahead of Great Britain in hopes of establishing itself as a global power. Given that, having a substantial portion break off, form its own government, and launch a surprise attack on your capitol while meeting with rival nations tends to be reason enough to change your plans for awhile. The Emancipation Proclamation actually didn't accomplish much when it was made since it had no effect on things in the Confederacy because they were their own governing body at the time. Northern slave owners were able to continue as normal. About the most it did do was secure the route to freedom for any slaves in reclaimed lands, should the Union win, dramatically limiting the likelihood that the South could use them for willing soldiers or support (more than half the population). It was mostly a strategic move, than a political one or one based in humanitarian purposes. The humanitarian purposes were just a side-effect. The stuff they don't tell you in school because it's easier to explain "Slavery is bad". Additionally, we weren't all that interested in fighting in WWII either, even with knowing about the genocide. We were even doing our own share locally as part of the Eugenics movement... A movement which arguably allowed for the great deal of intellectual advancement, reduction of disease, and being more physically attractive/fitness in the 50 years following. They don't talk about that part either. Well we as in the populace, of course not. Americans were not interested in allying themselves with foreign entities and they trusted government even less; they even felt "if they aren't waging war on us, it ain't our problem" - something many view as selfish today. It took an attack to get Americans even remotely interested in WWII - an attack that was and still is considered a provoked attack, Pearl Harbor.

I used to support Anon, until I realized something - they're no different than those they attack, if not worse by directly violating the rights of those they despise. Self-defense is one thing, vigilance is another, but to exact violence for mere political or philosophical reasoning against someone or something is something that needs to be stopped.

I vote for cheesecake.

I'm 28 years old currently.

I like long legs, tall & curvy women. I like pride. I like lust. I like blood. I like tequila. I like Diamondback rattlesnakes. I like Komodo Dragons. I like my Yamaha CM500 stereo headset. I like my new Cyborg RAT7 mouse. I like my new Razer Lycosa Mirror Special Edition keyboard.<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

How dumb can people be to think it's over and that SCOTUS Chief Justice Roberts entirely ruled in favor of the bill? The majority ruling was that it was unconstitutional on the basis of the Commerce clause that the government tried defending it with while ruling it only slightly constitutional on the basis of it imposing a tax. Ergo, he ruled on the definition of Obamacare and that the government is right to implement it - AS A TAX (which I should add is something that, constitutionally speaking anyways, must be started in the House of Representatives, not Senate), not for any other reason, defeating every argument the Obama regime had that it was anything but a tax. With the precedent John Roberts put forward, government will have to think long and hard about being able to force people out of inaction since not everything can be an argument of taxes (and Obamacare really isn't a tax according to Obama). Now it's in the GOP's hands to repeal, but this will not happen because Republicans are also owned by the same elite that own Democrats. Read what I stated, John Roberts pulled a fast one on the federal government that can have lasting effects, IF the people are smart about it of course. The fight is now dependent on a smart populace. Until every single member of Congress has read the bill, there is no credibility in demanding people to read it before commenting on it. Summaries on the other hand are quite useless themselves. There's no reason whatsoever for a transparent government to write a bill anywhere longer than what the average citizen is willing to put up with casually.

Just Cause 2 is pretty much a mission-based sandbox. I didn't care for it myself though. If you have a PS3/360, I'd suggest Red Dead Redemption and Prototype 2. Definitely two of my favorite open-world games.

Couldn't agree more. There's nothing wrong with women being portrayed in a video game based on an identity the author wants to portray her as, whether to appeal sexually or not. There's also nothing wrong with you refusing to buy something over that, but there is a problem when you demand that anyone else do the same because of your perception. It's really just like nudity in a video game and real life - the only people that have a problem with it are those that believe that just because they cannot view a naked body as anything other than sexual that no one else can view a naked body as something non-sexual. But in the case of video games, it's even more ridiculous as video games are first and foremost about the entertainment value. Ultimately, if you really want to see games catering to YOUR perception of how a female should be, then by all means - go for it and develop your own games - and I won't lie, since I am an adult I'm probably going to refuse to support it just like I don't support games that try to take out the violence when it comes to fighting and war. Hell, if you want to make men into sex toys - go for it - that doesn't mean I'll support you or care for your product either. P.S. I also don't support equality, not when it means forcing other people to accept your perception on what 'equality' is or isn't. If there can be equality, it either must be voluntary or die. Edit: so where is the image in the OP's link? I didn't see one. :(