@Nethlem: I would direct you to Pascal's Wager before making religious commentary. But besides that, how is banning all gun ownership an appropriate response to gun violence? Switzerland and Israel have some of the highest per capita gun ownership but the lowest rates of domestic gun violence. The problem is when people who have no business having a gun (say a mentally unstable individual) who obtains a gun illegally (say his mom's personal gun locker) and uses it to shoot other individuals. The aforementioned nations seem to suggest that greater gun ownership discourages violence with guns. But besides that, the United States has is terribly hypocritical when it comes to firearms. It is OK for the United States government (as per Mr. Obama's orders) to sell untraceable guns to drug cartels so said drugs can be used against border patrolmen, but a person within America who uses a gun against American citizens is unacceptable? I understand this was a tragedy, but a country that willfully breeds violence is going to suffer violence.
kidkarolus's forum posts
I am a proud political agnostic. I really have no preference for either political party because neither really reflect my personal views. I feel very strongly that the environment should be protected and that women have every right to decide whether or not to have a child. Further, I could care less who marries who, homosexual or otherwise. That said, I detest the evolution of the American Nanny State, and feel that the government should leave me to my own devices. Unless my behavior threatens to harm another individual, the government has no business telling me what behavior is appropriate or not. In this way, I am sympathetic to J.S. Mill's belief on what liberty is. It strikes me that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he assessed: "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government".
This leads me to the point of this post and my lengthy primer; these games both display a lack of subtly that is important when making political decisions (likely intentionally so). Playing these games will not threaten one's political views because both offer simple caricatures of the actual political parties, intentionally emphasizing the humorous events that shake out of the political process.
On a more cynical note, it make functionally zero difference who is elected to the office of president for two reasons:
1) Neither party likely to be elected differs significantly from the other on most important matters, but instead adopt "fence post issues" to garner support (see Hotelling's Law for more details on why this occurs).
2) Even if the two parties did differ fundamentally from one another (which they do not), the president has very little power in the domestic sphere; domestic policy is, by in large, determined by congress (which the framers of the Constitution intentionally created as slow and unresponsive).
being a sniper is hard... the next patch SHOULD fix this, along with several dozen other glitches and bugs. That said, I have made several attempts to play silent and concluded that the heavy weapons approach is much easier.
From what I understand, Steam intends to use platform dominance to bludgeon 30% out of DLC. EA wants DLC to remain highly profitable, hence the difficulty. This seems to be a lot less about Origin (contrary to some opinions) and a lot more about margins.