12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

We're polar opposites lol

You just now noticed?

Anyway, been playing Sins to relieve my frustration of not figruring out the DA missing Alistair bug. I definitely like the Advent best. They are like evil space hippies with serious 'roid rage. Still searching for where my screenshots went, because I snapped some epic ones of past glorious planet annihilations, but have nothing to share!

[Costin_Razvan]

Skadi: I am curios to know what the American viewpoint is in regards to Libya atm.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Skadi: I am curios to know what the American viewpoint is in regards to Libya atm.

At the moment?

Wary. After Iraq and Afghanistan, people are starting to return to older semi-isolationist attitudes. Obama gave a speech last night, making it clear that regime change and ground troops would not be involved. I think it was meant to ease the public that we would not be getting involved in a third war. But very few people, as far as Joe Q public, seem to support further involvement, and a number of people are even against bombing runs. This is largely because even bombing runs cost alot of money, and Americans are already upset at the amount of money Obama has been spending on various things. The economy is still below average right now, and people elected Obama in the hopes he would keep us out of further engagements, get us out of the ones we are currently in, and fix the economy.

As far as Ghadafi and the whole rebellion, it's hard to say. Contrary to some observations, your average American really has little interest in "spreading freedom", and most don't think it's really any of our business. Americans traditionally, and at our core, are generally isolationist. The opinion has normally been, if they aren't bothering us, we do not bother them. About the only time this attitude changes is when we feel like we're being directly threatened, even when it is untrue. When you look at the history of our involvement in international conflicts, and to what degree the public were in support of each conflict, it's easy to see the pattern. I'd imagine Americans are sympathetic to the rebels, since most everyone hates Ghadafi. But that sympathy does not extend to sending our military in to "liberate" them.

Of course, the actual real threat is not important, only that a threat is percieved. To get Americans to accept that a real and direct threat exists, there either needs to be a direct attack or threat of an immediate attack, or the media must convince them. Of course, Washington often goes on ahead with things regardless of whether or not the public approves, and they are often pretty detatched from public realities. But the public in general, no. Personally, i do not think Obama really wants to get involved either, but is sending in air strikes to appease the Republican dominated congress and keep the hawks in Washington semi-appeased.

[Giggles_Manically]

OH... great.
Its a Canadian General who is in charge of the new Nato mission in Libya as of Wednesday.
Great.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

OH... great.
Its a Canadian General who is in charge of the new Nato mission in Libya as of Wednesday.
Great.

The Canadians are in charge? Damn, we're f*cked, lol! :P

Just kidding. Well, mostly. Poor Canada. It really is a strange world when the US puts Canada in charge of bombing an oil rich Middle eastern country.

[Morwen Eledhwen]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Skadi: I am curios to know what the American viewpoint is in regards to Libya atm.

At the moment?

Wary. After Iraq and Afghanistan, people are starting to return to older semi-isolationist attitudes. Obama gave a speech last night, making it clear that regime change and ground troops would not be involved. I think it was meant to ease the public that we would not be getting involved in a third war. But very few people, as far as Joe Q public, seem to support further involvement, and a number of people are even against bombing runs. This is largely because even bombing runs cost alot of money, and Americans are already upset at the amount of money Obama has been spending on various things. The economy is still below average right now, and people elected Obama in the hopes he would keep us out of further engagements, get us out of the ones we are currently in, and fix the economy.

As far as Ghadafi and the whole rebellion, it's hard to say. Contrary to some observations, your average American really has little interest in "spreading freedom", and most don't think it's really any of our business. Americans traditionally, and at our core, are generally isolationist. The opinion has normally been, if they aren't bothering us, we do not bother them. About the only time this attitude changes is when we feel like we're being directly threatened, even when it is untrue. When you look at the history of our involvement in international conflicts, and to what degree the public were in support of each conflict, it's easy to see the pattern. I'd imagine Americans are sympathetic to the rebels, since most everyone hates Ghadafi. But that sympathy does not extend to sending our military in to "liberate" them.

Of course, the actual real threat is not important, only that a threat is percieved. To get Americans to accept that a real and direct threat exists, there either needs to be a direct attack or threat of an immediate attack, or the media must convince them. Of course, Washington often goes on ahead with things regardless of whether or not the public approves, and they are often pretty detatched from public realities. But the public in general, no. Personally, i do not think Obama really wants to get involved either, but is sending in air strikes to appease the Republican dominated congress and keep the hawks in Washington semi-appeased.

I think you pretty much hit it there in re American attitudes, Skadi. Well said.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...


I think you pretty much hit it there in re American attitudes, Skadi. Well said.

The worst thing is, our government is dangerously out of touch with the realities and attitudes of the people they rule. This is one of the most dangerous things in any system of govornance, democratic or otherwise, is for the leadership to be on a different planet from the one the rest of us live in. Its crap like that which causes the collapse of empires from within.

And a good example is the attitude and public declaration from the far right: "damn the country, Obama must fail at all costs." It is that type of mentality that has been destroying us from within for decades. Politicians not giving a sh*t about the welfare and health of the nation, only their own narrow, short term and selfish goals and ambitions. This sort of political pettieness is not unique to us, nor is it anything new in general, but that does not make it any less sickening. Sadly, though, it explains alot, in terms of foreign and domestic policy.  <_<

[Giggles_Manically]

The main issue you see in Canada is that parties only look out for SPECIFIC groups of people or areas, not the whole country.

[CalJones]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I played New Vegas 4 times before I sold it to a friend.

Nothing says "how you doin?" like a Gauss Rifle round upside the head.

I discovered the Anti-Material rifle last playthrough. I knew I was onto something when I one shot killed a deathclaw. <3
Also, Mr House reminds me of KoP.

[Giggles_Manically]

CalJones wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

I played New Vegas 4 times before I sold it to a friend.

Nothing says "how you doin?" like a Gauss Rifle round upside the head.

I discovered the Anti-Material rifle last playthrough. I knew I was onto something when I one shot killed a deathclaw. <3
Also, Mr House reminds me of KoP.

I saw that too.

I just cant put down my Gauss Rifle no matter how hard I try though. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

The main issue you see in Canada is that parties only look out for SPECIFIC groups of people or areas, not the whole country.

We have similar problems in the US. Lobbyists and the like aren't limited to coorporate/financial interests-many lobby groups in Washington are dedicated to the interests of specific groups of people, such as racially oriented special interest groups, or lobby groups for senior citizens, ect. The Democrats generally favor these over the economic groups, whwere as Republicans tend to be favored more by the lobbys for industry and money. In my opinion, either is just as bad as the other, in terms of being detrimental to national interests.

But yeah, in general, no one in Washington is thinking about the country in general, nor is anyone thinking long term. In fact, the last administration that showed anything resembling a long term plan was the reagan administration, and that was a single issue long term plan: the end of communism and the cold war. But in my opinion, the last president who seemed remotely geared toward actually giving a sh*t about the country and the real interests of the nation was Eisenhower, and to a different extent, Kennedy. And honestly, in the near future, I don't see this trend changing. We will continue to elect self centered, short sighted morons because neither the Dummiecrats nor the Republi-tards are interested in changing course, and the third parties, such as the Green party or Libertarian party, have enough clout or money to get elected.

[Giggles_Manically]

I feel... right.... natural even.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

It's the power of Loghain in your avi that does it. Though that particular picture, he looks undead, like Loghain the revnant.

[Giggles_Manically]

I already got a nasty PM for doing it.

People eh?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Haters gonna hate.

[Giggles_Manically]

Indeed.

[Addai]

Everything you write in the forum just got 100% more badass!

[KnightofPhoenix]

CalJones wrote...

Also, Mr House reminds me of KoP.

Lol what? Who's he?

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CalJones wrote...

Also, Mr House reminds me of KoP.

Lol what? Who's he?

Shadowy overlord of the Mojave Wasteland.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Interesting. What does he do if he is kept alive?

[Addai]

You get his robot army to help beat back the NCR and the Legion from Hoover Dam. I liked the game, but the end was very, very anti-climactic.

[KnightofPhoenix]

What's his plans and is there an epilogue or something telling us what he does after the game?

[Addai]

Can't tell you that, I only completed one pt and that was an NCR game.

[Costin_Razvan]

He apparently takes complete control over New Vegas and makes it a strong state.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

ok, question:

Been browsing the DA2 forums most of yesterday and last night, and I have a wonder. I remember in all the hype leading up to DA2, the developers yammering away about this and that, they claimed that Hawke was going to be the most important person in Thedas.

Well, the game's out, its been played, yet I'm missing something here. Why exactly is Hawke the most important person in Thedas? He doesn't really start the mage/templar war, it's Anders who technically is the catalyst for everything. Hawke seems to be a bystander. Hawke might play an important role in Kirkwall as Champion, but as far as Thedas goes...what exactly is it that makes him, say, more earth shattering than the Warden?

Or is it another case of hype not matching the game?