bmdrocks21

Literally only a big robot. All you did was escort it.

A courier can do what he likes. You have a set path yet people still rarely stay on track about the main quest instead do side quest. It is the same problem with Fallout 4. Why are you helping settlements/ people in Megaton when you should be looking for your father? 

Sure a courier could find the man that shot him but do they really want to? There isn't really a choice for the Fallout 3 character since the only real hurdles to progression of finding your father is of course main quests but not side quests. Players chose to do the side quests instead of focusing on finding their father.

Old World Blues for the all round content.

Dead Money for something new and I liked the Begin Again song. 

Honest Hearts for Joshua Graham and the two guns. Everything else was meh.

Lonesome Road for the finale as if I even cared about this barely mentioned story in the first place and I was for sure bored out of my mind listening to Ulysses

Bmd is a sane person

Nah, they can't even find Ukraine on a map.

They are so afraid of them it is making them say batshit crazy stuff. 

It's drastically different from China's one child policy.  You can still have kids, you just need to pay for a reversal vastectomy every time you want a kid.  You claim that it would result in a loss of life.  If anything, my policy prevents life from being killed since it prevents unintended pregnancies, and therefore abortions.

Given that it provides freedom for the unborn by preventing them from existing and therefore, preventing their deaths, I'd say it's libertarian.  It also liberates the woman from unintended pregnancy once implemented.  It frees people up to do sex without the fear of unwanted pregnancy.

To those that participate in sinking themselves to the nuts into (a) man's dirty shit-pipe, it is, I assume,  the most "natural" thing in the world.

So, what if you substitute "man's" to "woman's"?

I don't have the statistics and quite frankly it's none of my business but isn't that what 80% of heterosexual men do?

Then why single out homosexuals in particular?

No.

Pete is getting me interested but i think you should be sharp left against the right. The right has always been sharp right... i want to see how sharp left does. 

In the world in which they formed a monopoly and then cooperated with domestic surveillance programs to use that property to invade the privacy of users against their will.

It would be missing a big part of the picture to say "banks are part of the market" and therefore equate deliberations by banks as equivalent to purchasing decisions subject to the normal supply and demand fluctuations which would occur in other markets. Sure, even states are "part of the market" in a sense, but their decisions are not subject to market forces in the same way as an independent private firm or individual. The position of banks in the market is largely determined by state intervention.

Insurance companies are "part of the market" too, but would you argue that their incentives to maximise profits are well aligned with the best interests of their customers?

It is ironic that you don't see these as related: you resent those who would take welfare, yet you defend the same system that produces welfare dependency in the first place. In other words, you defend the majority of jobs being reduced to rote tasks under the employment of some supposed genius CEO - jobs that are easily automated or replaced subject to the judgments of management. You say in the same paragraph that they should "do those things for themselves" yet also imply that the jobs don't exist for them to "climb" into.

It's not just that they hypnotise people into randomly buying their product. Rather, they invest heavily into data harvesting which allows them to precisely target users and gain an edge which is almost impossible for the competition to overcome. They then share this information with whatever government agencies request it.

If you were to argue that differences in wealth should be only proportionally as wide as differences in measures of competence such as IQ, this gap would be orders of magnitude smaller than the gap between today's elite and the majority of ordinary people. Even the highest IQ genius is not 125 billion times more competent and capable of discerning innovative, good ideas, than the average person.

If a company like Microsoft has cooperated with mass surveillance or any privacy breach of their customers, then some means may be needed that go beyond taxation. For something like Faceboook, legislation could force them to make their code fully open source, and their copyright ownership could be revoked. Also, to make the internet more equitable overall, peering connections could be made illegal for any firm connected in any way to the state.

It is a question what we trust more: the judgment of some individual, or the free market. An individual investor naturally has a bias against risk: a very different, innovative idea might have a higher potential payoff, but it is a riskier investment than a derivative, predictable idea. They also have a bias against any company which would directly compete with their own company, or those they are affiliated with.

First, it is a misconception to claim that, simply because someone's bad outcomes follow from their decisions, then we should not try to improve their condition. Much of the time, people under worse conditions will also make worse decisions. If you are deep in debt, you live in a bad neighbourhood, and so on, you will be more likely to be depressed, which will make you more likely to waste money, and so on. People's decisions are conditioned by their circumstances.

Second, the current economy is hardly characterised by an abundance of innovative entrepeneurship. The "cheaper" products and services (Facebook, Google etc) are often "free" on the surface, but are really paid for by the data they harvest, which allows them to funnel customers into a narrow range of products and services and solidify their monopolies.

IQ is generally only a useful measure of someone's ability to succeed in following pre-established (and culturally conditioned) rulesets, but does not very accurately predict innovation, creativity and entrepeneurship. For instance, an IQ test might establish how well someone will perform when hired to work for someone else at a conventional job, but it is not at all established to predict their ability to run their own business or work independently as an entrepeneur.

Because beyond mere survival, most of people's needs and wants are based on their ability to meaningfully contribute to and influence the society they live within. Maybe you had an idea for a tech product, but Microsoft has so much leverage in that industry that they can price you out of the market, even though their product is less innovative. So instead you need to get a job sweeping the floors of a building owned by Microsoft. Maybe you can still provide your needs and some wants, and maybe your life is even more stable and comfortable than it would have been as an entrepeneur, but your life would be much less meaningful.

Guess you are not for freedom. You are for rules which infringe on what people do. 

Link to the dictionary?

This is about rights and you deny it? You have rules which bound people's freedom but you make that exception as if freedom is when these people can't do these things.

What is your definition of fabrication? 

How are you going to know who has and who doesn’t have an “assault” weapon.

Then it is not actually about freedom only about rights.

the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

No it doesn't. This is basically you adding in 1+1=2 means God exists. There is no link to freedom and protecting rights because they are antithetical to one another. Protection is a restriction. You are stopping people from doing something and maybe even restricting the very person who is being protected allowed to do. 

What do you mean by exist and do have a better representation of the next option you gave or is that the best you can do?

Murder laws stop killers engaging in their freedom.

Rape laws stop rapists engaging in their freedom.

Theft laws stop thieves engaging in their freedom.

Need I go on?

I was speaking about freedom. Can you define it?

I'll take about rights as well, I require evidence of where these rights come from or it is conjecture. 

I don't care about the 2020 election. I want to see Berny supporters destroy the DNC.

Has any major updates happened or has very little changed between Bush to Trump?

If you want to say that generally males are more dominant and intimidating than women which can allow them certain privileges or leeway, I would agree with that, however a dominant personality is not exclusive to males and some women (not many) can also be physically intimidating.

How does it work?

Are you saying Europe can still be as diplomatic as they are now without the US?

Is this supposed to be how it works or what you would hope it to be?

Without a military diplomacy can't occur because other countries won't take you seriously. Saying diplomacy isn't reliant on the US is not true, without the US military the diplomacy of other countries would be based on how much military power they have on their own. 

The 2018 men’s World Cup’s global audience was massive: 3.572 billion including out-of-home and streaming viewers.

The 2019 Women’s World Cup global audience exceeded 1 billion, FIFA estimates.

actually, it very strongly reinforces that idea. A bunch of liars were able to convince stupid people to do a very stupid thing. Governments all over the world have learned that asking the country if they want to do stupid thing is a horrible plan. 

Iran has created a wall of countries that support them