I bought BF3 and love the game, have lots of fun playing it, except for often stacked teams which basically means when I spawn in a server there is a 50/50 chance I will spawn and get immediately killed.
My experience with Origin though, make me never want to buy a game from them again, suffice to say, I refuse to buy ME3 unless I see it on Steam.

I would say its more like this: there is a robber in your home, we all know there is a robber, that robber may or may not have a gun, many scientists have shown evidence that robber has a gun, some people have stated he does not have a gun. (We all know we are putting more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.) Generally we shouldn't ignore the robber and do nothing about him whether or not he has a gun, he is still robbing us of something, and if he does or does not have a gun we should still treat him as dangerous.

OWS: We want the "rich" (anyone who makes more than we do) to pay more taxes so the government can give us free stuff! Only evil people are rich (except for the rich politicians and other rich political players on *our* side...that's *different*!)! And if we don't get what we demand despite being a voting minority, we'll use violence (*this* is what democracy looks like!!!1!!one) to achieve our goals.

TEA Party: We want government to stop taxing us so much and wasting so much of the taxes they take from us, and to actually start obeying the laws and the limitations on government power that's in the Constitution.

You were saying something about irrationality and destructive rabble-rousing? I must have missed the TEA Party riots, arrests, violence & assaults, drug dealing/use, rapes, property destruction, and the massive clean-ups needed like that which occur/occurred at OWS protests.

Strat

Let me teach you a few things you seem to not understand.

The Tea Party Protest is aimed at Government adherence to the Constitution, opposition to excessive taxation, reduce government spending and waste, while the Occupy movement are about Wealth inequality and Corporate influence of government, basically corruption and the increased handle that large businesses have on our government(source:wikipedia). The mean age range of the Tea Party Protest is much higher than the Occupy Protests(Just look at pictures of people from both protests). First you should understand the Age Crime Curve, which is a basic curve showing crime rates of certain age groups and displaying that age increases the crime rate decreases, not excusing the actions just saying they are more likely via statistics. Secondly you should understand the media's perception and bias of both movements, while originally the media didn't side with the Tea Party Movement, after a few politicians jumped on the bandwagon the media started being very supportive until the dirt started getting kicked up about this, but actually the Tea Party generally was supported by the bigger picture. While the Occupy Movement was against everything the majority of corporations wanted, some specific things that the Occupy movement wanted were a repeal on the ruling that money was freedom of speech, specifically because lack of money is lack of speech. The Occupy movement also drew a hard line on the fact that that the income gap has grown in leaps in and bounds due to the circle-jerk method of deciding CEO pay. I.e you increase my pay, I increase yours, and then we deduct excessive pay from our taxes making the people pay for it. Also at hand is the 15% flat tax on income gained via investment, while anyone who makes money vie exchange of hours can be taxed up to 35%. So basically what the Occupy movement stood for was very contrary to what the majority of corporations stood for, why should they want less power in the government. So then you get to the good part, the modern media is all owned by large corporations, and are backing them. Also due to regulation and licensing it is very difficult(read, impossible) for a start-up television company to get going without some heavy handed backing. Thus the media market is- wait, what was I talking about again?

Anyway point is both movements have negative and positive sides, and your perspective of them is rather skewed and actually feels more like a troll than a real point.

But the profits margins you can create by merely adding the illusion of luxury and decadence are immense.

Some people don't have that knee-jerk avoid trouble response. When I was growing up getting caught in a lie was always worse than telling the truth and taking my punishment. So I developed an averse reaction to lying. That isn't to say that sometimes I won't leave out important information or say something that isn't a half-truth. Generally though I live my life honestly, and just try and accept things as they are and fix them in the future. Over E-mail I have a longer period of time over which to figure out how to say something while omitting truths that will lead a person to the decision or conclusion I want them to reach.

So what you're saying is that jobs are a product that have a greater demand than there is supply to meet demand.

In other news the United States claims it is still the land of the free.

If I was forced to play FIFA 09 I would be so bored I would eat just to relieve my sense of boredom.

There has to have been divine intervention at some point, how else could people this stupid have not been weeded out of our societies yet?

We have Uverse here and honestly I don't use up 250GB a month worth of bandwidth, the problem occurs because my roommates do. 250GB a month may be perfectly normal for one person but when you have a lot of people living in the same apt trying to save money this way, this is going to become absurd, and I know if we start getting charged extra for going over the cap per a month, even if I suggest switching to another company it likely won't happen because of my roommates stubbornly not wanting to switch cable TV providers. In my case I can't vote with my money, but if I lived by myself I would switch right now.

People played the first Starcraft because it was fun. People played it because it was also a sport.

I play Starcraft 2 from time to time, but not nearly as much as I played the first Starcraft, and mostly because I don't have a lot of fun playing the multiplayer. From the article it looks like they built SC2 to cater directly to the sport play. If it wasn't for the single player, I would think twice before buying future games from Blizzard. Don't want to spend money on something I won't have fun with, but the single player aspect of SC2 was fun, just not sure it was worth the amount I spent. Might wait a while for the price to go down or consider other options when the next expansion comes out.

I would disagree it matches many of the definitions of Faith. Let us bring in the actual definition here.

faith[feyth]
–noun
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.Christian Theology . the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

1. Confidence or trust that science will "Deliver".
2. Let us hope some scientists had this at sometime or else we wouldn't have many of the discoveries today. This is also most likely the definition he was referring to.
3. Obviously not the definition we are looking for.
4. This could be applied to the concept of ethics within science but not really relevant.
5-8. Again not what we are looking for in this context.

It seems to me that you didn't know the definition of Faith. It only needs one definition of Faith to fit the context in order for the word to be used. Just because the word is so tied in with religion you get into a big huff, and must put down religion in your post. Let the masses have their opium.

I'm sorry, you seem to think the US Government has a limited amount of money, this is a very flawed concept.

Before replying in this thread you must have at least taken a Microeconomics or a Macroeconomics university level course.

I wish!

Laws aren't made in court, in US, they are interpreted. The difference is very subtle and often judges do make laws inadvertently.