This poll shows just how lopsided gamespot's population is. Assuming most people here are American, a majority of Americans (51%) are prolife. Yet some how here this is only around 30% at best. 

Thank you guys for the responses! I think there is no limit to how long you can use a game offline in steam from what I've read, so hopefully thats all good (but you have to log in at least once with steam activated so the game can actually run). Also greenmangaming is AMAZING! Two free games along with $15 cash back and Bioshock Infinite for preordering. THANK YOU for showing me that site!

I am planning on purchasing Bioshock Infinite (I may want to preorder so I'm not sure if I want the premium edition or not). Either way I have been a PS3 gamer exclusively for a long time and now I might be purchasing this game for my PC. I have a few questions in regards to PC play: if I order the PC version in disks will I, after loading the disks up and installing the game, have to have the disks in the disk drive for the game to run? Also if I instead download the game from steam, is the game "mine" as in I can play it anywhere offline, or is steam just licensing the game to me and I don't acutally own it? I know these questions are really simplisitic but its surprising how much you don't know if your not already PC gaming!

Just like the topic title says, I am looking for a laptop that can run most games on medium settings. I have been leaning to the Lenovo Ideapad Y580 ($950, http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/catalog.workflow:item.detail?GroupID=457&Code=59359513&category_id=AC523278A4F13F27A84F5F5622D1AC7A) but I am open to other laptop brands (such as Sager/Clevo on xoticpc.com). Any thoughts? I would prefer an I7 process but i5 will do if the graphics card is good (obviously discrete graphics is what I want). HD screen may or may not be needed and I do not care for SSD (which would be too expensive for this price range anyway).

Really, its our job to convert people. Why are we lagging behind? Theories/flame wars anyone?

Whenever I turn on MSNBC, which I suppose has a left-wing bias, I see constant discussion of race and race issues and hardly any talk of the real economic issues facing the nation. I come on this forum and see people call the RNC racist cause there was mostly white people in it. Yet somehow they forget that some speakers were nonwhite (Rice, Nikki Haley the Indian from SC, etc) and most African Americans vote Democrat (overwhelmingly, 94%). In the Republican party (or at least, in more moderate to conservative circles) there is never a discussion of race. People are assumed equal, and thats it. No special priviliges, no special status, nothing. As an Arab-American I find this far more inclusive that the race-baiters on the Democratic side that always mention how downtrodden one group is or another. If you are downtrodden as a group, pick yourselves up! This doesn't just go for African-Americans, but for any group. The more you talk about race in a political setting, the more of an issue it will be. When we stop discussing race, then we know that equality has been achieved.

I want a decent laptop that is portable, with good battery life, and can play most games (shogun 2, skyrim, etc) on medium setting. I currently have a Macbook pro from 2011 but it has introduced me to the world of PC gaming. Now all I want to do is sell it (hopefully for around $900) and buy a PC laptop. Any ideas? Battery life is particularly important for me (not during gaming, obviously, outside of it) because my Mac has made be accoustomed to hours upon hours of battery life.

Most of the attacks I've seen here are irrelevant to my talking points (aka most attack my character, a poisoning of the well). I am arguing that accepting non-traditional marriage (man and man or woman and woman) changes our fundamental mode of character when we interact with one another. Imagine that you like a girl who enjoys both men and women. Naturally you will have more people to compete with if you want to get that girl. This is not an argument, but an example: our interpersonal relations cannot remain the same when we accept g@y unions.

And forgive me for using the word "scientific" apparently that offends a few people. But in truth there is no proof that this behavior is innate. I work in a neuroscience lab and I have discussed this with the neuroscientist and he says as much. It appears (according to psychologists) that we have "levels" of sexuality ranging from exclusively homosexual to exclusively heterosexual. This implies that, in some part, our sexuality is a product of our environment, a conscious choice, as well as having biological aspects. It is a "nature meets nuture" type of thing. Naturally the more we accept homosexu@lity the more homosexu@ls we will see. I can already see how bisexuality in women is accepted in our media with certain movies I have already mentioned. The true bigots are those who refuse to think why they hold the beliefs they do. Most people support homosexu@lity because it is "love." Well, sorry guys, but "love" is not by itself a valid argument to change our intra-gender relations (not between genders, mind you)

Often when I hear people argue for gay marriage they always say some variation of: "it has nothing to do with you" or "if you don't like big government, why intrude on something personal like marriage?" These are valid arguments but I would say that gay marriage changes the fundamental relations between genders (if it is to be accepted) and thus affects us all indirectly. In the future being really good friends with someone of the same gender can be misconstrued as gay Imagine you go out with some buddies and your gf/mom/whatever worries that you might be cheating on her with a dude. I just can't imagine a society that lives like that. Why? We don't have to oppress homosexuals, but why should we change our definition of marriage for them? Isn't marriage defined from Christianity and Jewish traditions? Why don't they just stick with civil unions? By making them the same as a heterosexual relationship we open up a whole world of problems in the area of relationships and marriage. We know (scientifically) that children raised by a man and a women are most heathy mentally, but we can't prove (scientifically) that homosexuality is innate. Indeed the only result I've seen so far of this movement is a greater acceptance of lesbianism (usually to the pleasure of men) and bisexuality in women in particular (see Black Swan or a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo movies for examples). How is this equality movement any different from a sexual revolution that liberalizes sexual relations?

[QUOTE="PC360Wii"][QUOTE="Super_MooRio"]Religious just like all of our President and current president.Super_MooRio

Of course, President Obama sat in a church for much of his life to win votes... I know you want a President without a moral compass but it will not happen.

Key example : Mitt Romney and Ron Paul... Neither are very religious (Mitt Romney claims he isn't and Ron Paul wants legalization of Heroin so I would assume he is not religious alot) and it shows in their life and actions.

Do you think it is a coincidence that Mitt Romney did all those morally inccorect things and is not very religious?

I believe Ron Paul is actually quite religious, but he has strong libertarian views and believes that people should decide for themselves what they want to do. I am not supporting him or knocking him down, just stating my perception of him.