Misagon referenced a game with that name, and then linked to a Wikipedia article on the technique. Which are two separate things. I've never heard of the game, but if I said that there was an OS named Windows and linked to the Wikipedia page on glass panes, would you reply that windows have been around since, y'know ancient times and stuff and that it was perfectly okay to name your OS that?
Rather than dismissing what he said so flippantly, it might behoove you to see if there was such a game and what legal liabilities might exist for creating one of the same name. If it's an old enough game, in a completely different genre, there might be no issues. But, IANAL, I don't think I am, and I couldn't be. You probably couldn't either. Asking for a half a million dollars and then dismissing a potential legal hurdle isn't smart.

Well, there's no smoke in an electronic cigarette. So who is using the "creative definition," the people saying they aren't smoking or you?

Well, the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to enforce marijuana laws at all. That's why they had to pass an amendment to enforce alcohol prohibition at the federal level. Aside from preventing the sale of marijuana across state lines, the federal government has no constitutional authority to enforce the laws that Obama is saying he will be lenient on. Seems to me this is one of the few times that he actually does understand the restrictions on his power.

They'll be trying to get porn, but Instead of pretending to get fucked, they'll be fucked for real.

Granny Smith actually uses her patents in actual products. That's a far cry from companies like Lodsys that buy patents and then sue people based on overly broad interpretations of already overly broad patents. Big companies go after competitors all the time, and I'm not saying its right, but they keyword is "competitor" not "anyone I can make a buck off of because, not having any actual products or business model, I have no competitors"

False. Bush's Patriot act expired in 2011. Obama signed the extension. Anything that happens under the Patriot act now is Obama's fault, not Bush's. If it is company policy to beat employees who do wrong, and a new boss takes over and keeps beating people who do wrong, do you blame the old boss, or the new boss when the new boss beats you?

Items are priced for what the market will stand, but when is the last time you chose your doctor based on price?

I guess that's fair enough. But I don't think they really need Amazon's help getting noticed if companies like Microsoft and Sega are on the job.

The first five games I see when I go there are from Microsoft, Sega, and Warner Brothers. If that is who us indies are competing with for space in Amazon's indie store, I'm not sure what they are calling it indie.

All but 11,000 of those gun related deaths were from suicide, so the number of innocent victims are much closer to drunk driving than it you are presenting.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Many of the remaining deaths were at the hands of repeat offenders, meaning that meaningful prison reforms to lower our recidivism rate would be more effective than gun control. For example, in Illinois, from 1990-2000, 42% of homicides were at the hands of people with at least one felony conviction.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201308

Also, gun related deaths are down 49% since 1993, so I'm no sure why you are using that to exonerate drunk driving, but condemn firearms.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

This, despite there being more firearms in the country since that time.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

You can't liberate people by forcing, or coercing them, into thinking the same way that you do. People who buy closed systems do so of their own free will, for reasons that might be more important to them they are to you. They do it in spite of reasons that may be more important to you than they are to them. True liberty is about respecting the choices of others, and allowing everyone access to a variety of options so that they may choose which is most suitable for them. If you want people to choose your option, make it as attractive to them as the options presented by the people you oppose. Don't blame others for presenting options that you disagree with.

Your citation is here: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/coalitions/choice
The fact that you even needed a citation for that doesn't speak well about how much you now about the candidate you are talking about. Remember, the OP said GARY JOHNSON is not a third party. There are some pro-life libertarians. I am not talking about them.

Gary Johnson IS for gay marriage. So are many other libertarian candidates. Marriage is a contract. Government should not be in the business of telling people who they can and cannot enter into a contract with. Your claims that Ron Paul only wants government out of marriage for tax breaks needs a citation. Ron Paul doesn't want ANY income tax, so it seems a bit strange that he'd be pushing a position just to increase someone's tax burden.

Yes Ron Paul is anti-war. You are again distorting both Ron's views, and the libertarian party's views with no citation. The same with your claim that everything is a fiscal issue. Personal liberty is a HUGE part of the libertarian platform, as the other reply to your comment has mentioned.

How many pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-religion in government, anti-war Republicans do you know? Libertarians may be to the right of Republicans on fiscal issues, but they are to the left of Democrats on social issues. Even Cenk Uygur, as progressive as he is, remarked how much further left Johnson was on many issues than most Democrats. There are some libertarian leaning Republicans, but the RNC showed us all exactly what the GOP thinks of that faction of their membership.

It seems that more people know what Paul Ryan's classmates thought of him than know who Libertarian VP candidate Jim Gray is, or Libertarian POTUS candidate Gary Johnson. Regardless of your views on Libertarians, it has to be considered an atrocity that the public isn't informed on all of the candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning the election. To me, that's a bigger concern about the media than what insignificant details they are squabbling over.